Without Fear or Favour: Abe Lincoln’s First Stand for Public Integrity

 Public Trust Over Personal Gain

Concept inspired by Abraham Lincoln’s
June 1836 letter to Colonel Robert Allen.
(Image generated by Microsoft Copilot)

In June 1836, fresh off his first election to the Illinois General Assembly, 27-year-old Abraham Lincoln heard around town that Colonel Robert Allen claimed to possess damaging information about Lincoln and fellow candidate N.W. Edwards—but promised not to reveal it out of personal regard.

Lincoln immediately sat down and wrote a letter to Allen regarding this so-called "protection". Lincoln's reply is a stunning document. Not of political maneuvering, but of moral courage.

“...favour to me would be injustice to the public, and therefore I must beg your pardon for declining it.”

Lincoln doesn't flinch. He doesn't negotiate. He invites the truth, even if it sinks him.

Principle Over Protection

Lincoln writes:

“if I have since done any thing, either by design or misadventure, which if known, would subject me to a forfeiture of that confidence, he that knows of that thing, and conceals it, is a traitor to his country's interest.”

What modern politician says that? He’s declaring that concealing facts - even for friendship - is a betrayal of the people he represents. That public trust outranks personal gain. And then, with the same clarity he’d later wield in presidential addresses, he adds:

“I do hope that, on more mature reflection, you will view the public interest as a paramount consideration, and, therefore, determine to let the worst come.”

Integrity here isn’t just a trait—it’s a choice, actively made in real time.

Why It Still Matters

In an era of spin, silence, and selective outrage, Lincoln’s response remains radical. He doesn’t beg for damaging information to stay hidden—he begs for honesty to take precedence.

Even at 27, Lincoln spoke with the same candor, honor, and principled resolve that would define him as one of America’s most enduring leaders. The echoes began early—and they never faded.

This was another anecdote about Abe Lincoln, Storyteller.

Mac

📚 Works Cited

[1] Lincoln, Abraham. "Letter to Robert Allen, June 21, 1836". Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Edited by Roy P. Basler et al., vol. 1, University of Michigan Digital Library, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3.. Accessed 19 July 2025.

Here's Lincoln's letter to Allen in its entirety:

To Robert Allen

Dear Col. New Salem, June 21. 1836

I am told that during my absence last week, you passed through this place, and stated publicly, that you were in possession of a fact or facts, which, if known to the public, would entirely destroy the prospects of N. W. Edwards to section and myself at the ensuing election; but that, through favour to us, you should forbear to divulge them.

No one has needed favours more than I, and generally, few have been less unwilling to accept them; but in this case, favour to me, would be injustice to the public, and therefore I must beg your pardon for declining it. That I once had the confidence of the people of Sangamon, is sufficiently evident, and if I have since done any thing, either by design or misadventure, which if known, would subject me to a forfeiture of that confidence, he that knows of that thing, and conceals it, is a traitor to his country's interest.

I find myself wholly unable to form any conjecture of what fact or facts, real or supposed, you spoke; but my opinion of your veracity, will not permit me, for a moment, to doubt, that you at least believed what you said.

I am flattered with the personal regard you manifested for me, but I do hope that, on more mature reflection, you will view the public interest as a paramount consideration, and, therefore, determine to let the worst come.

I here assure you, that the candid statement of facts, on your part, however low it may sink me, shall never break the tie of personal friendship between us.

I wish an answer to this, and you are at liberty to publish both if you choose. 

Very Respectfully, A. LINCOLN.

[Despite Lincoln's encouragement, there is no record of any reply.]

Abraham Lincoln's "Niagara Fragment" Was Yosemite’s Salvation

President Lincoln Laid the Groundwork for Our National Parks

Sunrise at Yosemite
(Photo from We Dream of Travel)

The sight of Niagara Falls in 1848 touched Abraham Lincoln’s soul. It was a moment of awe etched with revelation. The fragment of his musings about Niagara that he left among his papers whispered reverence.

Yosemite - a place Lincoln never saw - reflected his awe of Niagara. The signature he placed on the Yosemite Grant in 1864 was influenced by that visit to the falls. Although Niagara was personal, Yosemite was his desire to share his experience with generations of future Americans. Together - Niagara and Yosemite - trace the true, nuanced silhouette of a man whom others saw as simple and pragmatic.

📜 Niagara : The Fragment Lincoln Left Behind

In 1848, after visiting Niagara Falls, Lincoln penned a rare poetic meditation:

“Niagara is strong, and fresh to-day as ten thousand years ago... Never dried, never froze, never slept, never rested.”

He imagined ancient beasts marveling at its thunder and stood humbled before its permanence. This wasn’t stump speech or courtroom rhetoric — it was awe. Timeless. Personal.

Lincoln’s surroundings before his trip to Niagara were utilitarian — flat fields, frontier towns, muddy rivers - big and small. Then he meets a geological poem at Niagara and experiences not just awe, but scale. He connects the majesty of nature to the majesty of time. That’s not policy — it’s philosophy. 

And yet, when Herndon later asked Lincoln what impressed him most, the reply was drier than dust:

“Where in the world did all that water come from?”

Herndon dismissed it as mere pragmatism. 

“He had no eye for the magnificence and grandeur of the scene... heedless of beauty or awe, followed irresistibly back to the first cause.”

But that's not so. Maybe it was just Lincoln’s humor — a camouflage for a mind ablaze with the wonder that he rarely revealed aloud. Lincoln's musings on that fragment of paper saw beneath the spectacle of roaring water, into the sweep of time itself.

🌲 Yosemite: From Fragment to Foresight

Fast forward to June 30, 1864. Amid war’s smoke and blood, Lincoln signed the Yosemite Grant — giving Yo-Semite Valley and Mariposa Grove to California for public protection. He never saw the land. Never touched its soil.

Introduced by Senator John Conness, the bill protected the primeval wilderness not for profit, but posterity. It was the first act of its kind — a moral decision rooted in conserving, not exploiting. [*]

And in that moment, Lincoln may have seen what few around him could: the need to preserve natural beauty for generations to come - even as a fragmented nation burned.

🌊 Niagara in His Soul, 🌲 Yosemite in His Signature

Lincoln didn’t dream up the Yosemite Grant. That honor belongs to Senator Conness, driven by the urgency to protect natural marvels from commodification. But Lincoln’s willingness to sign something that no president had ever been signed before — that’s where the Niagara fragment becomes incandescent. 

The man, who marveled silently at the timeless and ceaseless waters of Niagara, understood—even in 1864’s chaos—that untouched grandeur is more than scenery. It's a national memory; proof of what it used to be.

So when Conness approached him, Lincoln didn’t just nod. He recognized. He endorsed. He enshrined.

Niagara stirred his soul; Yosemite stirred his conscience. One he wrote about with poetic awe. The other he preserved for others with quiet power.

Together, they reveal a man of intellect and evolution—growing, absorbing, transforming. A mind that balanced geometry with splendor. A heart that beat for humanity, nature, and permanence.

A man who kept this country together so future generations could enjoy its splendor—both national and natural.

From the Past, Clarity

This post is more than history. It’s reclamation. Years ago, I wrote about Lincoln and Niagara — a lone reflection on mist, motion, and awe. That article stayed with me: the wonder Lincoln expressed that day, and what it revealed about the man.

I didn’t see it then—not fully. But years later, I recognize how that fragment foreshadowed the foresight in his Yosemite signature.

Just as Lincoln let formative moments and quiet reflections shape nation-defining decisions, I’ve come to understand how minor threads of the past can carry the seeds of vision and  understanding yet to come.

With new clarity comes deeper foresight, and a more intentional path forward.

What we each discovered is simple, but profound: the past doesn’t just define the present—it illuminates the future.

Lincoln didn’t invent preservation. He gave it legitimacy. In the wilderness he never saw, he saw what mattered most.

This was another anecdote about Abe Lincoln, Storyteller.

Mac

[*] FYI:  Yosemite is home to waterfalls, giant Sequoias, glaciers and more within its 1,200 square miles - an area larger than the state of Rhode Island. Yosemite hosts 3.7 million visitors annually. Lincoln saw the future through the lens from his past

📚 Works Cited

[1] Library of Congress. "Today in History - June 30. Library of Congress, 30 June 2023. Retrieved July 21, 2025.

The Famous Lincoln Speech That Nearly Vanished

His First Inaugural Address and Its Perilous Journey

President-elect Abraham Lincoln's farewell to Springfield.
(Print by Lloyd Ostendorf)

In the four long months between Abraham Lincoln’s election in November 1860 and his inauguration in March 1861, the Union teetered on the edge of disintegration. Southern states were "leaving" the Union, militias were forming, and rumors of war loomed large. Lincoln, besieged by office seekers and cabinet hopefuls, withdrew into the back room of his brother-in-law’s Springfield store—a dusty sanctuary where history was quietly made.

🖋 Drafted in Solitude, Forged in History

Inside C. M. Smith’s store (Smith was married to Mary Todd Lincoln’s sister), Lincoln drew from four trusted references:

~ Henry Clay’s 1850 speech on compromise

~ Daniel Webster’s reply to Hayne

~ Andrew Jackson’s proclamation against nullification

~ The U.S. Constitution

The gravity of his first address as president-elect required nothing less than clarity, conviction, and careful secrecy. [6]

John G. Nicolay later recalled how the Illinois State Journal’s publisher, working with a single typesetter, locked himself away to produce just a handful of copies. These were secreted into Lincoln’s “gripsack”—a briefcase entrusted to his eldest son, Robert Todd Lincoln, for the journey to Washington. [1]

But the challenges had just begun.

🚂 A Gripsack Misplaced, History at Risk

On February 11, 1861, Lincoln departed Springfield’s depot under solemn skies, uttering words heavy with foreboding:

“I now leave... with a task before me greater than that which rested upon [George] Washington.” [6]

As the train wound its way through eleven days of whistle-stops, train changes, and receptions, tension flared—not just from political unrest, but from a personal crisis. Somewhere on the journey (sources disagree whether it was in Indianapolis, IN or in Harrisburg, PA), Robert misplaced the gripsack. Whether surrendered to a waiter, dropped among hotel luggage, or left behind a clerk’s counter, the result was the same: Lincoln’s inaugural address—the only draft in existence—had vanished!

Ben Perley Poore [2] and Ward Lamon’s accounts [3] capture Lincoln’s response—searching frantically, rifling through carpetbags, and sardonically lamenting to Lamon:

“Lamon, I guess I have lost my certificate of moral character.”[3]

Eventually, the precious satchel was recovered. Lincoln, never one to hold a grudge, handed the bag back to Robert with a wry smile: “There, Bob, see if you can't take better care of it this time.” [4]

Decades later, Robert Lincoln still remembered the incident:

"...and you may be sure I was true to the trust he placed in me. Why, I hardly let that precious gripsack get out of my sight during my waking hours all the rest of the long roundabout journey to Washington." [5]

✍️ Final Edits, Historic Impact

Upon arrival in Washington, Lincoln allowed only a few trusted figures—among them, William H. Seward—to read the address. Seward’s advice helped temper the speech’s tone, especially the famous closing:

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection…” [6]

Though the inaugural aimed to soothe Southern fears, it could not forestall the inevitable. Just weeks later—on April 12, 1861—Confederate cannons fired on Fort Sumter, and the Civil War began.

🌟 Reflection

Lincoln’s inaugural wasn’t just crafted in solitude—it was almost lost in chaos. That briefcase may not have held military strategy or proclamations of war, but it cradled something just as vital: the principles of unity and empathy that Lincoln hoped could still save the Union.

History may hinge on grand speeches—but sometimes, it’s the quiet recovery of a lost satchel that saves the soul of a nation.

This was another anecdote about Abe Lincoln, Storyteller.

Mac

📚 Works Cited

[1] Burlingame, Michael. (1996) An Oral History of Abraham Lincoln: John G. Nicolay’s Interviews and Essays. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

[2] Poore, Benjamin Perley, editor. (1865) The Conspiracy Trial for the Murder of the President. Vol. 2. J.E. Tilton and Co.. Internet Archive, archive.org/details/conspiracytrialf02poor.. Accessed 15 Feb. 2025.

[3] Lamon, Ward Hill. (1911) Recollections of Abraham Lincoln, 1847–1865. Edited by Dorothy Lamon, The Editor. Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/item/11009937/.. Accessed 15 Feb. 2025.

[4] Zimmerman, Fritz. “The True Story of Robert Lincoln Losing the Inaugural Address.” Fun Facts and Biography of Abraham Lincoln, 31 Mar. 2012. Accessed February 15, 2025.

[5] Zimmerman, Fritz. "The True Story of Robert Lincoln Losing the Inaugural Address". Fun Facts and Biography of Abraham Lincoln. Includes Lincoln's Famous Quotes - March 31, 2012. Accessed February  15, 2025.

[6] "Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address." Abraham Lincoln’s Classroom: The Lehrman Institute Presents. Accessed February 15, 2025.

Young Lincoln's Warning: How to Safeguard Democracy

 

Trump’s actions are following the scenario – almost perfectly – that Abraham Lincoln laid out in his 1838 Lyceum Address – “The Preservation of Our Political Institutions”. Yet, no one seems to remember or reference it. Please read it and publish it. Here’s a snyopsis and how it ties into what’s going on now:

Abraham Lincoln’s Lyceum Address, delivered on January 27, 1838, to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, was titled “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.” In this speech, a 28-year-old Lincoln reflected on the threats to America’s democratic institutions. He warned that the greatest danger to the United States would not come from foreign powers but from within—through lawlessness, mob violence, and the rise of ambitious individuals who might exploit chaos to undermine the rule of law. Lincoln emphasized the importance of adhering to the Constitution and making the rule of law the “political religion” of the nation. He also cautioned against the erosion of civic virtue and the potential for tyranny to emerge if citizens failed to uphold democratic principles.

In 2025, Lincoln’s warnings resonate strongly. The challenges he identified—mob violence, disregard for the rule of law, and the rise of demagoguery—remain relevant in a world grappling with political polarization, misinformation, and threats to democratic norms. His call for unity, reason, and respect for institutions serves as a timeless reminder of the vigilance required to preserve democracy. As we approach the 250th anniversary of the United States, Lincoln’s insights encourage reflection on how to safeguard the principles of freedom and equality in an era of rapid change and uncertainty.

Here’s something VERY EERIE also – it’s almost prescient!

Lincoln’s Lyceum Address includes a line where he warns about the potential rise of a figure who could “trample on the rights of the people” and “tower above all.” He describes such a person as someone who might seek to “trump our Washington,” meaning to surpass or overshadow the legacy of George Washington, but in a way that could threaten the nation’s democratic foundation.

Food for thought – especially since the Republicans like to brag that they are the “Party of Lincoln”. Please take this seriously.

Mac

Abraham Lincoln’s Famous Address Almost Wasn't

The Speech That Nearly Vanished

Lincoln's Farewell to Springfield
(Sketch by Lloyd Ostendorf)

In the four long months between Abraham Lincoln’s election in November 1860 and his inauguration in March 1861, the Union teetered on the edge of disintegration. Southern states were "leaving" the Union, their citizens were mobilizing , militias were forming, and rumors of war loomed large. Lincoln, besieged by office seekers and cabinet hopefuls, withdrew into the back room of his brother-in-law’s Springfield store—a dusty sanctuary where history was quietly made.

🖋 Drafted in Solitude, Forged in History

Inside C. M. Smith’s store (Smith was married to Mary Todd Lincoln’s sister), Lincoln drew from four trusted references:

~ Henry Clay’s 1850 speech on compromise

~ Daniel Webster’s reply to Hayne

~ Andrew Jackson’s proclamation against nullification

~ The U.S. Constitution

The gravity of his first address as president-elect required nothing less than clarity, conviction—and careful secrecy.

John G. Nicolay later recalled how the Illinois State Journal’s publisher, working with a single typesetter, locked himself away to produce just a handful of copies. These were secreted into Lincoln’s “gripsack”—a briefcase entrusted to his eldest son, Robert Todd Lincoln, for the journey to Washington. [2]

But the challenges weren't over.

🚂 A Gripsack Misplaced, History at Risk

On February 11, 1861, Lincoln departed Springfield’s depot under solemn skies, uttering words heavy with foreboding:

“I now leave... with a task before me greater than that which rested upon [George] Washington.” [1]

As the train wound its way through eleven days of whistlestops, train changes, and receptions, tension flared—not just from political unrest, but from a personal crisis. Somewhere during the journey (sources differ on whether it was in Indianapolis or in Harrisburg), Robert misplaced the gripsack. Whether surrendered to a waiter, dropped among hotel luggage, or left behind a clerk’s counter, the result was the same: Lincoln’s inaugural address - the only draft in existence - had vanished!

Nicolay described the moment:

“A look of stupefaction passed over the countenance of Mr. Lincoln, and visions of that Inaugural in all the next morning’s newspapers floated through his imagination." [2]

Ben Perley Poore and Ward Lamon’s accounts capture Lincoln’s response—searching frantically, rifling through carpetbags, and sardonically lamenting to Lamon:

“Lamon, I guess I have lost my certificate of moral character.” [4]

Eventually, the precious satchel was recovered. Lincoln, never one to hold a grudge, handed the bag back to Robert with a wry smile: “There, Bob, see if you can't take better care of it this time." [5]

 Robert Lincoln, remembering the incident many years later, said:

"...and you may be sure I was true to the trust he placed in me. Why, I hardly let that precious gripsack get out of my sight during my waking hours all the rest of the long roundabout journey to Washington." [5]

✍️ Final Edits, Historic Impact

Upon arrival in Washington, Lincoln allowed only a few trusted figures—among them, William H. Seward—to read the address. Seward’s advice helped temper the speech’s tone, especially the famous closing:

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection…” [6]

Though the inaugural aimed to soothe Southern fears, it could not forestall the inevitable. Just weeks later—on April 12, 1861—the Confederates opened fired on Fort Sumter, and the Civil War began.

🌟 Reflection

Lincoln’s inaugural wasn’t just crafted in solitude—it was almost lost in chaos. That briefcase may not have held military strategy or proclamations of war, but it cradled something just as vital: the principles of unity and empathy that Lincoln hoped could still save the Union.

History may hinge on grand speeches—but sometimes, it’s just the quiet recovery of a lost satchel that saves the soul of a nation.

This is another anecdote about Abe Lincoln, Storyteller.

Mac

Works Cited

[1] Lincoln, Abraham. First Inaugural Address. 4 Mar. 1861. Abraham Lincoln Online, www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm.. Accessed 15 Feb. 2025.

[2] Burlingame, Michael, editor ( ) An Oral History of Abraham Lincoln, John G. Nicolay’s Interviews and Essays (“Some Incidents in Lincoln’s Journey from Springfield to Washington”), pp. 108-110.

[3] Poore, Benjamin Perley, editor. (1865) The Conspiracy Trial for the Murder of the President. Vol. 2, J.E. Tilton and Co. Internet Archive, archive.org/details/conspiracytrialf02poor.. Accessed 15 Feb. 2025.

[4] Lamon, Ward Hill. (1911) Recollections of Abraham Lincoln, 1847–1865. Edited by Dorothy Lamon, The Editor, Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/item/11009937/.. Accessed 15 Feb. 2025.

[5] Zimmerman, Fritz. “The True Story of Robert Lincoln Losing the Inaugural Address.” Fun Facts and Biography of Abraham Lincoln, 31 Mar. 2012. Accessed 15 Feb. 2025.

[6] "Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address." Abraham Lincoln’s Classroom: The Lehrman Institute Presents. Accessed 15 Feb. 2025.

A negotiated peace? President Lincoln's reply at Gettysburg

People sometimes wonder why the Civil War was ever allowed to happen, and why it dragged on for four, long, bloody years. 

In fact, Scott Jennings - a CNN political consultant - suggested in 2024 that the American Civil War could have been avoided if the politicians had just bothered to sit down and negotiate.

I think that politicians could have negotiated an end to slavery without the bloodshed. Maybe they could have settled it and gotten the South to agree – Lots of politicians did try to settle it, and never got compromises and punted. And then obviously we had the Civil War for the very obvious reason of eradicating slavery.

No, that was NOT the reason we had the Civil War. That's the fallacy.

Here's the real story.

First, let's start with a premise: Abraham Lincoln abhorred slavery. 

About that issue, he made no apologies. However, Lincoln was also a pragmatist. He knew that slavery was a “hot button” issue for southerners because it involved their livelihood – their ability to make big money with labor-intensive crops like cotton, tobacco, rice, and indigo.

So, from the get-go, Lincoln ran on a political platform of appeasement / compromise – NOT to eliminate slavery where it already existed – but to PREVENT THE SPREAD OF SLAVERY to any new states being admitted. He made that loud and clear during his run for the U.S. Senate in 1858 – which he lost to fellow Illinoisian Stephen Douglas – and during his run for the presidency two years later.

He promised the South that he would leave slavery alone where it currently existed to die “a natural death.”

I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself . . . to let the slavery of the other states alone; while, on the other hand, I hold it to be equally clear, that we should never knowingly lend ourselves directly or indirectly, to prevent that slavery from dying a natural death [by finding] new places for it to live in, when it can no longer exist in the old.[1]

By the election of 1860, the country was in constant turmoil over the issue of slavery and the right of the new states to decide whether they wanted it or not. The voters understood that the next president would determine the future of our country. And lucky for all, there were four candidates for the job that year:

1. Abraham Lincoln of Illinois was the candidate of the recently formed Republican Party that was an “antislavery or antislavery expansion” party.
2. The Democratic Party split into two wings: The Northern Democrats’ candidate was Senator Stephen A. Douglas – also of Illinois – who wanted a “popular sovereignty policy” (let the people of the territory decide whether they want slavery or not).
3. The Southern Democrats picked the current Vice President, John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, whose campaign was based on the demand for federal legislation and intervention to protect slavery and to allow the expansion of slavery.
4. Last – but not least – Senator John Bell of Tennessee was the candidate of the new third party, the Constitutional Union Party. This was the party of former Whigs [the party replaced by the Republicans] and other moderates who rallied to support staying together as a country and keeping the current Constitution without doing anything about slavery.

Lincoln captured less than 40 percent of the popular vote, but he won a majority in the electoral college (180 electoral votes) by dominating in the Northern states, plus Oregon and California to become president.

When the results were final, and BEFORE Lincoln was ever inaugurated, Southern states began leaving the Union (a slang term for the United States) and setting up their own country – the Confederate States of America.

Still hoping to prevent this split, President-elect Lincoln left Illinois for Washington several weeks early, to do a “whistle-stop” train tour of the Northern states. He had two reasons for this – 1. To let the people of the North see and hear him since TVs, radios, and computers didn’t exist back then, and 2. He also wanted to keep telling the South NOT to leave the Union and reassure them that he would NOT touch slavery where it existed at that time.

Even as late as his inaugural address in March of 1861, Lincoln promised: 

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that [because] of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension . . . I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.[2]

But as Lincoln reassured them, he also drew a line in the sand:

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one – ‘to preserve, protect and defend’ it.

I am loathe to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.[2]

Despite all of Lincoln’s pleadings, promises, and offers to compromise, the South refused to bargain. It was caught up in the heady experience of essentially “flipping off” rules, laws, and traditions, as well as forming local military units with cool names like the Continental Guards and Crescent City Rifles – each with their own style uniforms – and doing marching drills to thrill the ladies.

In the end, the South wanted separation and the right to expand slavery – regardless of Lincoln’s offers. So on April 12, 1861, they bombarded a federal military post called Fort Sumter, situated in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. It surrendered the next day.

At that point, Lincoln had no recourse, so he “took off the gloves” and went to war. His reason? To save the Union – NOT to free the slaves.

After two years of watching a revolving door of incompetent generals command the Army of the Potomac in losing battles, Lincoln and the North finally hit a stretch of wins – BIG wins! A key Confederate stronghold at Vicksburg, Mississippi fell after a forty-six-day-siege, opening the entire Mississippi River to Union control, and Lee’s second invasion of the North was stopped in a three-day battle at “a place where all roads meet” – Gettysburg, PA.

At this point, the South began to see the handwriting on the wall, so the Confederate government made an “official” overture to Lincoln to hold peace talks. However, this offer to negotiate was NOT on an offer to reunite the Union; it was only to end the fighting. Both sides would continue as separate nations, and of course, slavery and the slave trade would continue - unabated.

President Abraham Lincoln took some time to think about it. After his decision was made, Lincoln – who accepted almost no public speaking invitations once he became president – accepted the offer to give “a few appropriate remarks” after the main speaker, Edward Everett, at the dedication ceremonies for the new National Cemetery at Gettysburg on November 19, 1863.

This simple, cemetery-dedication speech – the shortest speech Lincoln ever gave – grabbed the attention of the entire world. Ranked as one of the greatest speeches of all time, memorized by countless students over more than 150 years, and extensively quoted by scholars and writers in just about every field, this magnificent address is actually just a reply to the Confederate States’ offer of “peace without reunion“ and the continuation of slavery. [The highlighted part below is his answer - and his reasons.]

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.[3]

Remember, Lincoln wanted to end slavery because he abhored it in the first place, but he was willing to endure it where it already existed - IF the South remained in the Union. But when the South said “screw you” and left – violently, Lincoln saw it as an opportunity to right a grievous wrong. As he said in this dedication speech – 

“. . . this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom” [both the end of slavery and the reunification of the country] “and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

In sum, Abraham Lincoln DID attempt to settle the war – BEFORE it even started. And Lincoln WAS open to peace offers during the war, IF the South came back into the Union. But it was the South's greed, racism, and intractability that prevented any possibility of a “settlement”. 

Then Jennings gave his opinion of the entire topic: 

“I mean, look, it’s sort of irrelevant, historical meandering . . it’s sort of esoteric or irrelevant historical kicking around what could have been, might have been, should have been, but . . . it’s not a conversation I think is useful.”

Yes, that 'historical meandering', as he calls it, is relevant. Look at the inaccuracies Jennings espoused. They can't be corrected if no one sees the past as relevant to the present. And the lessons of the past, can't be learned if the past is ignored or - worse yet - falsified and covered-up. 

Remember, the past is a prologue to the future because humanity's traits - love, hate, greed, sharing, morality, immorality, grift, honesty - never change - and haven't since caveman days. And in 2025, this very same thinking from 1861 – a growing disregard for the laws and traditions of our country – is now threatening to end “that government of the people, by the people, for the people” again.

To save it, we, the people, “must be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us” to prevent that from happening.

Lincoln - a man who gave his life for his principles - expects no less.

This is another lesson about our future from Abe Lincoln, Storyteller.

Mac

Works Cited

[1] “Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 1 [1824-Aug. 28, 1848].” In the digital collection Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/lincoln1. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed October 19, 2024.

[2] “Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 4 [Mar. 5, 1860-Oct. 24, 1861].” In the digital collection Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/lincoln4. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed October 19, 2024.

[3] Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 7 [Nov. 5, 1863-Sept. 12, 1864].” In the digital collection Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/lincoln7. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed October 19, 2024.

'two and two do NOT make four' - Abe Lincoln and The Art of Debate

 

Millions of viewers watched the 2024 Presidential Debate in June. It was a very poor showing by both people who are running for the Office of the President of the United States. The Republican candidate lied throughout the debate, and the Democratic debater spoke vaguely and appeared lost and confused.

A post about the "art" of debating in the words of one of the most famous Republicans in American history (and a debater himself), Abraham Lincoln, might provide an intriguing retrospective. Although the subject of Lincoln's speech was the expansion of slavery, tucked into the nooks and crannies of it were nuggets of debate strategy, style and warnings.

On Monday, October 16, 1854, then-U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) addressed a large audience at Peoria, Illinois. When he finished, he was cheered; and the band in attendance played a vigorous tune. The crowd then began to call for Abraham Lincoln, who - as Sen. Douglas announced - would answer him.

Lincoln - a practicing, successful attorney in Springfield, Illinois at the time - took the stand and opened with his customary wry humor. While poking fun of himself, Lincoln also revealed a crafty debate strategy - allowing his opponent [Douglas] to speak last:

The Judge has already informed you that he is to have an hour to reply to me. I [don't doubt] you have been a little surprised to learn that I have consented . . .if the Judge was entirely done, you democrats would leave, and not hear me; but by giving him the close, I felt confident you would stay for the fun of hearing him skin me.[1]

As a speaker's strategy, Lincoln regarded the use of disparaging remarks about his opponents as a distraction from the actual subject of the debate.

I wish further to say, that I do not propose to question the patriotism, or to assail the motives of any man, or class of men; but rather to strictly confine myself to the naked merits of the question.[1]

Lincoln also pointed out that when a debater is vague or unclear about any point or position in his argument, it works against him as a candidate:

I wish to MAKE and to KEEP the distinction . . . so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one, successfully misrepresent me.

But when candidates lie about facts or history, it's a denial of reality:

. . . the Judge's desperate assumption that the Compromises of [1850] had no connection with one another; that Illinois came into the Union as a slave state, and some other similar ones. This is no other than a bold denial of the history of the country. 

In Abraham Lincoln's view, to deny, lie, or misrepresent the factual history of anything by one candidate was to undermine the purpose of a debate in the first place. It destroyed the premise or the assumption of truth that served as the starting point for further reasoning and arguments by the other candidate.

If we do not know that the Compromises of '50 were dependent on each other; if we do not know that Illinois came into the Union as a free state---we do not know any thing. If we do not know these things, we do not know that we ever had a revolutionary war, or such a chief as Washington. To deny these things is to deny our national axioms and it puts an end to all argument. 

Lincoln then gave an very brilliant and succinct example that really resonates in today's political climate:

If a man will stand up and assert, and repeat, and re-assert, that two and two do NOT make four, I know nothing in the power of argument that can stop him.

Lincoln said that if such a candidate stood before him:

I can answer [him] so long as he sticks to the premises; but when he flies from them, I can not work an argument into the consistency of a . . . gag, and actually close his mouth with it. In such a case I can only [leave] him to the [voters].

To create a false picture based on lies, half-truths, and misrepresentation - i.e. rampant crime, failing economy, climate change is a hoax - leaves voters in ignorance of the truth with which to make a fair, rational decision at the ballot box. To Lincoln, political practices like these were a danger to the citizens themselves, to a representative democracy and to our country.

As it turns out, he was right.

Six years later, the South seceded, and the Union was broken asunder.

What will happen this time?

This was another anecdote about Abe Lincoln, Storyteller.

Mac

Works Cited

1. Lincoln, Abraham. Speech at Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 2. pp. 248,283.

JUMP TO SECTION 

Lincoln's Eel Story: Wit and Wisdom in the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas Debates

 

Spreading false information or creating misinformation in a political campaign is nothing new. Abraham Lincoln faced the same issues during his time. However, Lincoln had a keen understanding of human nature. He often countered such tactics with biting ridicule thinly disguised as a witty anecdote and or a famous quote to make the perpetrators appear foolish to the voters.

This practice is evident during his fifth debate with Stephen Douglas in their famous "Great Debates" for a U.S. Senate seat in 1858. 

That day in Galesburg, Illinois, Senator Douglas spoke first. At one point in his presentation, Douglas, in an attempt to falsely portray Lincoln as an "extreme abolitionist", read a set of resolutions supposedly passed four years previously in 1854 by a convention held in Springfield against the admission of Nebraska as a slave state. These so-called "resolutions" were published in a Springfield newspaper a few days after the convention.

When it was Lincoln's turn to respond, Lincoln agreed that the resolutions read by Douglas were, indeed, the same ones published back in October 1854. But then Lincoln charged that the resolutions were not the ones actually passed by the Anti-Nebraska convention [*] at that time, and that Douglas - along with the editor of the newspaper, Charles Lanphier and another man named Thomas Harris - were part of this "forgery".

Lincoln was scrupulously honest - an unusual virtue for a politician then (or now). So rather than just blatantly accuse Douglas of writing this fake news and leave it at that, Lincoln actually built a "case" for his charge.  

The idea that it was done by mistake, is absurd. The article . . . contains part of the real proceedings of that Springfield Convention, showing that the writer of the article had the real proceedings before him, and purposely threw out the genuine resolutions passed by the Convention, and fraudulently substituted the others . . . The main object of that forgery at that time was to beat [Richard] Yates and elect Harris to Congress, and that object was known to be exceedingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time. [1]

Lincoln then accused the men of using the forgery more than once, but in doing so, he made them the butt of a memorable joke: 

"The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion, both Harris and Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to put it to new uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband was brought home with his clothing full of eels [a delicacy at the time], said when they asked her, 

"What is to be done with him?" 

"Take the eels and set him out again." 

So Harris and Douglas have shown a disposition to take the 'eels' out of that stale fraud by which they gained Harris' election [to Congress], and 'set' the fraud again - more than once. 

Lincoln then concluded his "case" to the audience with this wry adaptation of Mark Antony's speech in Shakespeare's play, Julius Caesar: 

"But meanwhile the three are agreed that each is 'a most honorable man'.'' 

Lincoln labeled the use of lies and false information as fraud and forgery, explaining how such tactics are used to mislead and manipulate people. However, it was his clever tale, laced with an obvious Shakespearean quote, that not only entertained the audience but also underscored the character of candidates who sacrifice the importance of truth and integrity in public discourse.

No wonder Douglas hated to hear Lincoln tell a story.

This was another tale from Abe Lincoln, storyteller.

Mac

Works Cited

[*] Just as a historical FYI: The "Anti-Nebraska" convention held in Springfield in 1854 was one of many locally organized "anti-Nebraska" meetings across the United States. Supporters included members from the many political factions at the time - Free Soil Party, Conscience Whigs, and anti-slavery-extension Democrats. These diverse political views converged on the single issue of opposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Act - narrowly passed by Congress and signed into law by President Franklin Pierce - opened the Kansas and Nebraska Territories to slavery and future admission as slave states if the people living in those territories voted for slave clause to be added to their state constitution. By its enactment the new law nullified the prohibition of slavery in any territory north of  36° 30′ latitude, set by the Missouri Compromise of 1850.

It was from these conventions in 1854 that the Republican Party finally emerged.

[1] Basler, Roy P., et al. (1954) "Fifth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas, at Galesburg, Illinois - October 7, 1858". Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. v.3: p.229.