Billy Yank v. Johnny Reb

Juxtaposing the Leadership Qualities 
of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis

Throughout the brief history of the United States, there is perhaps no greater story than that of the Civil War. Out of all of the wars fought under the banner of the red, white, and blue, this was the most gruesome. Never had the nation seen so much destruction or bloodshed before or since. The Civil War became, in many respects, the ultimate divide in how the American experiment was to be played out.  Did freedom apply to "all men" as the Declaration of Independence suggested? And how were the roles of local, state and federal powers to play out in this grand American republic?

Emerging from the smoke of warfare were two unique men, whose differing viewpoints were but a representation of the opinions and beliefs of the masses they led. President Abraham Lincoln of the United States and President Jefferson Davis of the Confederate States, took center stage in this epic conflict that forever changed the course of history. While both Lincoln and Davis shared many attributes that made them powerful leaders, they also had obvious differences when it came to their "style" of governing.  Lincoln was a negotiator and a delegator, while Davis was an uncompromising micro-manager.  Regardless of their differences, both men saw themselves as the embodiment of what the United States was ultimately destined to become.

At the onset of succession, both Lincoln and Davis jockeyed for position in their respective nations. Jefferson Davis conducted himself as the true leader of a new nation. As Historian William Cooper points out in his fantastic biography, Jefferson Davis: American, Davis hosted an open house at the Confederate White House, and was inaugurated as President of the newly founded Confederate States of America on the grounds of the Virginia capital. This ceremony gave a sense of legitimacy and prestige to the new nation. To add to the luster of the occasion, Davis was inaugurated on the birthday of George Washington, and underneath a giant statue of that very man who embodied the revolutionary ideas that the Confederacy deeply embraced. During his inaugural address, Davis made numerous remarks that personified the South’s revolutionary ideals. “We hope to perpetuate the viewpoints of our revolutionary fathers,” Davis continued by stating, “To show ourselves worthy of the inheritance bequeathed to us by the Patriots of the revolution, we must emulate the heroic devotion which made reverse to them by the crucible in which their patriotism was defined” (Cooper 401). Davis worked hard to ensure that the Generals under his command, and the public at large understood that the crisis at hand was much more than a simple civil war, but that it was in reality a war of independence. Davis reiterated the comments of his inaugural address on numerous occasions throughout his time in office.

To undermine the Union’s efforts, Davis also embarked on a crusade to expose what he believed was a tyrannical government. Davis said, “Humanity shudders at the appalling atrocities which are being daily multiplied under the sanction of those who have obtained temporary possession of power in the United States” (Cooper 438). President Davis also labored unceasingly in labeling the Union leaders and soldiers as men without a conscious, that enjoyed plundering, murdering, and defiling the Southern way of life. This would prove effective in swaying the public’s opinion of the Union soldiers. Jefferson Davis also employed this argument in defending slavery. He argued many times that the Union was determined to enslave the Confederacy, and eliminate the institution that the South greatly depended on. Davis stated, “Fellow citizens, no alternative is left you but victory or subjugation, slavery and the utter ruin of yourselves, your families and your country” (Cooper 481). Even when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Davis attacked it head on by claiming, “Cannot we, who have been raised with our Negroes and know how to command them, make them more efficient than the Yankees can?” (Cooper 555).

Perhaps the most important and effective thing President Davis did to boost morale and public opinion was the fact that he was visible to the soldiers and to the general public. Davis embarked on several train trips throughout the infant nation, and he gave countless speeches at virtually every stop. As simple an act as this was, it greatly motivated and rejuvenated the public’s view of their cause. Davis understood the importance of portraying confidence and determination to the public he led. At every stop, Davis worked tirelessly as he encouraged his Generals, motivated troops, and called for new volunteers. Up until the end of the war, Jefferson Davis was greeted at nearly every stop with enthusiastic cheers and applause. It was not until the end of the war when Davis was received with a lethargic salute from an exhausted and demoralized army, and was asked to leave by the general public, so that they would not appear loyal to their leader when the Union Army arrived.

To the North, Abraham Lincoln labored equally as hard to persuade the public he lead. Before his inauguration, Lincoln took advantage of the long train ride from Springfield to Washington. At virtually every city along the path, Lincoln’s train would make a stop so the people would be able too see and hear the awkwardly looking man they elected president. Lincoln would give brief speeches to the masses from the back of the train and then continue on the journey to the capital. By doing this, Lincoln was able to personally spread his message to the massive crowds that would gather to hear him.

After he took office in the early part of 1861, Lincoln was bombarded with vital decisions that required immediate action. State after state had left from the Union, and war was on the horizon. People began to look to their new leader in hopes that he would be able to avert the oncoming crisis. Lincoln knew that the public was not fully prepared to go to war with the South. Over the years the Southerners had threatened succession many times. Many in the public believed this was just another one of the many Southern threats, and that the states would eventually return on their own. The morning after his inauguration however, Lincoln faced a truly difficult dilemma with Fort Sumter. The soldiers, stationed at the fort, were in desperate need of supplies and additional troops. Lincoln knew that if he sent more soldiers that the South would view his action as hostile. After debating with his cabinet, Lincoln decided to send a ship carrying provisions only to aid the fort. The South still viewed this action as hostile, and immediately seized the fort. The war had begun. The attack of Fort Sumter proved very beneficial because the public saw this as an unprovoked and deliberate attack on the Union. Lincoln now had the backing of the masses that he needed to wage a war.

At the beginning of the war, most saw it as a simple conflict that would be resolved in a matter of weeks. As the war waged on, many viewed Lincoln as incompetent. Most of the Border States wanted nothing to do with the Lincoln administration, and often accused him of being a tyrant. As Historian David Donald points out in his fantastic biography, Lincoln, the President tried desperately to convince the people that this war was not a war for Southern independence, but that it was “an insurrection of combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings” (Donald 302). Lincoln never recognized the Southern States as a Confederacy. He viewed them as simply a rebellion, and made sure he convinced others of that fact as well.

The issue of slavery also crept its way into the public arena. Debates were constant on the issue. In this area, Lincoln was a master at understanding the public’s readiness for emancipation. Lincoln knew that he had vowed to fight slavery in both his presidential campaigns and inaugural address. The public expected their president to act. Many of his closest allies urged him to act quickly in freeing the slaves. Lincoln however, understood that it would require baby steps to correctly emancipate the slaves. At first, Lincoln recommended colonizing slaves, and even offered compensation for slave holders. Many hailed this proposal “as a master-piece of practical wisdom and sound policy” (Donald 347). In reality, this proposal did little to actually free slaves. It was not until January 1, 1863 when slavery was finally delivered a fatal blow. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation made all slaves throughout the entire nation forever free. Newspaper writers declared it “the greatest proclamation ever issued by man” (Donald 377). Lincoln’s proclamation was hailed by most Northerners as truly magnificent. Lincoln eventually declared it the crowning achievement of his administration.

With emancipation official, Lincoln worked hard to sway public opinion in his favor. He set out on a mission to write numerous public letters to persuade the public to elect him for a second term. Due to the fact that Lincoln had delivered on his promise of emancipation, and that the war had taken a turn for the better, Lincoln was easily re-elected to a second term in 1864. He would spend the next year preparing the nation for eventual reconstruction, and bringing about a quick end to the bloody conflict.

When it came to political leadership, Davis and Lincoln could not be more opposite. While Abraham Lincoln was more delegating, Jefferson Davis was more micro-managing. He constantly wanted to be informed about everything occurring on the battlefields, as well as everything happening in political, and social arenas. Even though Davis made the majority of the decisions, he did not decide on them quickly. He was the type of person who consulted with everyone at his disposal before he chose a course of action, which meant that quick decisions were highly unlikely. Many of the Generals in the field seemed to have a problem with Davis’s style of management. General Joseph Johnston would intentionally leave President Davis and his advisers in the dark when it came to Johnston’s military plans. This of course made a control-driven person like Davis upset.

Along with the Generals, many cabinet members within the Davis Administration disliked the President’s management style. One of those members was Secretary Randolph of the War Department, who found Davis to be somewhat of a control freak. When Randolph attempted to send orders to General Holmes in Arkansas to cross the Mississippi river, Davis rebuked him stating that any movement of significance or any decision of importance had to go directly through him. As a result, Secretary Randolph resigned from his position stating, “Conceiving that I can no longer be useful in the War Department, I hereby resign my commission as Secretary of War” (Cooper 446). Davis tended to justify his need for constant control by claiming that he wanted those under him to give input on a particular discussion, but that he needed to be the decision maker.

The only exception in Davis’ mind was Robert E. Lee, in whom the President had invested complete and total trust. Lee did not receive the same amount of coaching and criticism that others leaders had received. This was most likely due to the fact that both Lee and Davis shared the same motivations and viewpoints in terms of military strategy. In the President’s mind, General Lee had done more than enough to win everlasting trust from his administration. Even after Lee’s defeat at Gettysburg, the President supported his General by stating, “To ask me to substitute you by some one in my judgment more fit to command…is to demand an impossibility” (Cooper 487). There is little doubt that the President viewed Lee in a different light than he viewed others. Davis felt as though he had struck gold with Lee, while he found nothing but apathy and discontent from many of his other leaders.

Another part of Davis’s political agenda was addressing the issue of conscription. The Davis Administration faced the complex task of keeping armies supplied with soldiers, so that they could keep up with the Union’s massive numbers. Original enlistments had only been for one year, and that time would not be enough. To remedy the problem, Davis ordered conscriptions of all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 35. Those already enlisted would have their terms extended to three years. Eventually, many soldiers began complaining that they were needed back home to take care of their plantations and slaves. Davis’s answer to this was to create the “Twenty Negro Law,” which stated that if a soldier had twenty or more slaves, they were exempt from service. Many argued that this action turned the war into a poor man’s war, since only a rich person could have twenty or more slaves. Davis however held to his guns, praising the men who were defending the noble cause of independence.

In contrast, President Lincoln was much more patient and delegating of a leader. From the start of his first term, President Lincoln strived to diversify his cabinet, which consisted of just as many democrats as republicans. Lincoln tried very hard to find specific individuals that he felt would be best suited for the department they were assigned. Constructing his cabinet in this fashion brought on a lot of disputation, and argument among the cabinet members, but it also helped to bring all issues to the table. President Lincoln needed the diversity if he was to succeed as president, and he did everything he could to win support on both sides of the political spectrum.

For the most part, Lincoln was a very forgiving and accepting leader. Many times he would be ridiculed by a General or cabinet member, but would not retaliate in any way. Lincoln also allowed those under him to make decisions they felt best. In contrast to Jefferson Davis, Lincoln was good at delegating tasks, and then letting those he trusted do their assigned jobs. This was especially true with his Secretary of State William Seward, and with many of his Generals. Lincoln fully trusted Seward with the administration’s foreign policy. When it came to his Generals, Lincoln would show as much support as he could, and would try not to mix military and politics. There were many instances when the military would view Lincoln as incompetent. Among the biggest Lincoln haters was General George McCellan. McCellan’s view of the President was very harsh at times. He felt that Lincoln was asking for the impossible. He often stated, “The President is an idiot” and “Isn’t he a rare bird” (Donald 319). To this Lincoln would show continued support for the men he had chosen.

Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus is another important example of his political leadership abilities. At the beginning of the war, Lincoln took the initiative by arresting anyone who appeared to have ties with the Confederacy. While many ridiculed the President for acting unconstitutionally, Lincoln held his ground and argued that it was within his power to suspend Habeas Corpus. In the first nine months of the war, Lincoln arrested 864 people who were believed to be a threat to the Union. While many opponents viewed this act as unnecessary, Lincoln believed that he was acting prudently, and that it was absolutely necessary at that time.

Despite their different management styles, both Lincoln and Davis exhibited incredible leadership qualities that earned them the respect of their nations. While both of them suffered as a result of their imperfections, they were able to both overcome the unique obstacles that stood in their way. As a result, they accomplished a great deal. Lincoln’s ability to be trusting, and Davis’s ability to weigh all options, made each of them unique and charismatic leaders of their respective nations.

Foreign policy was a surprisingly important issue to both presidents. Both Lincoln and Davis worked very hard to push their agendas and beliefs to the other nations that had American interests. Jefferson Davis viewed his foreign agenda as one that tried to win the support of both Britain and France. Davis sent ambassadors to both nations, hoping that they could persuade both nations to offer military aid in their cause. Davis knew that his bargaining chip would be the cotton that the South produced. Both Great Britain and France depended greatly on the product, and did not want to loose the commodity. Davis also believed that the presence of the Union naval blockade would convince both nations that the only way to secure cotton was to join in the fight.

Unfortunately for Davis, both Great Britain and France would not support their war efforts. The fact that the Confederacy was a nation that protected slavery greatly hindered their efforts. Great Britain and France simply could not ally themselves with a country that claimed to be fighting for its independence, but oppressed an entire race of people. After exhausting all avenues, Davis eventually abandoned any and all hopes of receiving foreign aid. It was not until 1864 that Davis, seeing his nation and cause in grave danger, decided to sacrifice the institution of slavery in hopes that Europe would finally help. Regrettably for Davis it would be too little too late.

As for Lincoln, he too faced many problems in terms of foreign relations. For the most part, Lincoln would defer all foreign matters to his Secretary of State William Seward, who seemed to do a great job. There were however, a few situations that required Lincoln’s intervention. Among these was the Trent Affair, when two ambassadors of the Confederacy were seized by a Union blockade. Both ambassadors happened to be on a British ship when seized, and when news of this reached England they became enraged. The British government argued that the capture of Confederate ambassadors onboard a British vessel was a direct violation of international law. In response, Great Britain threatened to resort to war if both Confederate ambassadors were not released and permitted to travel to England. Upon hearing this, the Lincoln Administration began shifting into damage control mode. Secretary Seward recognized the gravity of the situation, and immediately recommended releasing the ambassadors at once. While this was a hard pill to swallow, Seward’s idea proved to be the right one. The proposition of fighting the British and the rebel Southerner’s at the same time was a virtual impossibility for the North.

The problems between Great Britain and France would continue for Lincoln. The Union blockade of Confederate exports was a source of great agitation for the European powers, which depended greatly on the Confederate cotton. Lincoln however would not budge. He also maintained his policy of deferring to Seward on foreign affairs. Seward’s ability to negotiate with other nations kept most of the major problems from escalating. The big break for the Lincoln Administration came when the Russian Czar offered assistance by sending numerous fleets to support the Union. The Russian’s presence served as a large deterrent to both France and Britain.

It is clear that both Lincoln and Davis faced difficulties in persuading other nations to come to their aid. While Davis battled to gain British and French support, Lincoln was trying to keep them away. In the end, slavery seems to have been the main deterrent. Both Britain and France simply could not give aid to a country that supported slavery. This obvious factor was greatly magnified when Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, which virtually guaranteed that the Confederates would receive no foreign aid.

Presidents Lincoln and Davis will forever be remembered for different reasons. Lincoln has become immortalized as the man who preserved the Union and freed the slaves, while Davis is viewed as the rebel leader of a lost cause. These stereotypes may offer a generalization of both men, but they do not tell the whole truth. The fact remains that both Lincoln and Davis were very effective leaders. Both men gained their public’s support, they both struggled through war difficulties with stubborn Generals, and both dealt with tragedy and defeat. Lincoln’s ability to defer major decisions to his subordinates exhibits his trusting character that made him a great leader. Davis’s personality as a micro-manager may have angered some under his authority, but allowed him the luxury to analyze all major decisions. Both men struggled when it came to foreign relations and economics, but eventually it would be Lincoln who would emerge victorious in both arenas. Lincoln and Davis also exhibited a deep interest in the men they had in the field, and did everything they could to assist in their efforts. In reality, Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis have each left a legacy, whether good or bad, that will forever endure as part of our heritage as a nation.

Seven Score and Ten Years Ago...

On this day, 150 years ago, President Abraham Lincoln delivered a two-minute speech that would go down in history as arguably the greatest speech in American presidential history.

The Gettysburg Address, which wasn't even meant to be the primary speech of the day (the Honorable Edward Everett had prepared a two-hour discourse to commemorate the occasion), has been rightfully praised as a landmark moment in the already stellar legacy that was Lincoln's presidency.  Even 150 years later, the words of his short speech stir our deepest emotions of patriotism and respect for those who give "their last full measure of devotion" in the service of their country.

Below are the words to the Gettysburg Address.  Take a couple of minutes today to reflect on them.  As you will see for yourself, there is only one major flaw in the speech. Lincoln stated that, "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here."

He couldn't have been more wrong.

---------------------

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 battlefield of that war.  We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who gave their lives that this nation might live.  It is altogether fitting and proper that we 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 we can never forget what they did here.  It is fur us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have this 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 their 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 the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

And for your listening and viewing pleasure:

Lincoln's Life Was Actually Saved by Booth...

...But It's Not What You Think.

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln is an event that will forever be etched into the hearts of generations of Americans.  His death not only marked the end to the legacy of a living legend, but also sparked one of the largest manhunts in American history, instantly making his assassin, John Wilkes Booth, the most infamous fugitive this country has ever seen.  

But not long before his fateful rendezvous with Lincoln at Ford Theater, Booth had actually saved Lincoln's life.  Yes, as crazy as it is to believe, Booth saved Lincoln from certain disaster.

Though it's not the Booth you're thinking of...or the Lincoln for that matter.  

During the winter months of 1864, Robert Todd Lincoln, the eldest son of then President Lincoln, was boarding a train in Jersey City, New Jersey bound for Washington.  It was dark, conditions were cold and the train was extraordinarily crowded.  In his own words, Robert Lincoln recalled what happened next as follows:

The incident occurred while a group of passengers were late at night purchasing their sleeping car places from the conductor who stood on the station platform at the entrance of the car. The platform was about the height of the car floor, and there was of course a narrow space between the platform and the car body. There was some crowding, and I happened to be pressed by it against the car body while waiting my turn. In this situation the train began to move, and by the motion I was twisted off my feet, and had dropped somewhat, with feet downward, into the open space, and was personally helpless, when my coat collar was vigorously seized and I was quickly pulled up and out to a secure footing on the platform. Upon turning to thank my rescuer I saw it was Edwin Booth, whose face was of course well known to me, and I expressed my gratitude to him, and in doing so, called him by name.

Edwin Booth, brother of the notorious John Wilkes Booth, had been in the right place at the right time, rescuing the doomed Robert Lincoln from an untimely and ugly demise.  Like his infamous brother, Edwin was one of the most well-known and respected Shakespearean actors of the 19th century.  In fact, Edwin had been praised for his portrayal of Hamlet by President Lincoln, who was a self-proclaimed connoisseur of Shakespeare. It must have been quite the experience for young Robert Lincoln to be rescued by the Brad Pitt of his day!

Less than a year later, Edwin's brother took the life of the president, forever altering his family's fate from that of noteworthy actors to cold-blooded killers.  Edwin, who didn't know at the time that he had saved the life of President Lincoln's son, received notification from Robert Lincoln himself, thanking him for his good deed on that fateful day.  It is said that Edwin regularly pondered the incident, allowing to comfort him in the wake of his brother's horrific act.

Robert Lincoln went on to have a successful political career, eventually climbing the ranks to become Secretary of War (Defense) under Presidents Garfield and Arthur.  Edwin Booth went on to continue his career as an actor, becoming one of the most influential Shakespearean actors in American history.

Booth saves Lincoln, Booth kills Lincoln.

One of the many ironies of history I suppose.

Dumb and Dumber: Glenn Beck and David Barton's Latest Lunacy (Glenn Beck Check, Part VIII)

America's Favorite Pseudo-Historians
Make Asses of Themselves...AGAIN!

My two favorite goofballs (Tweedle Dee and Tweedle DUMB) have managed to once again open their mouths and insert both feet.  Yes, the always comical dynamic duo that is Glenn Beck and David Barton, the gift that just keeps on giving, have added another smash single to their already "stellar" greatest hits album. But instead of tackling the legacy of our nation's Founding Fathers (a topic they just can't seem to ever get right no matter how hard they try), their target this time was none other than Honest Abe Lincoln.  Take a look:



This is absolutely PRICELESS!  David "The Brain" Barton actually admits to writing a review for a movie he never saw!  Are you kidding me!?! Well, Mr. Barton, with that sort of litmus test let's just pass blind judgement on whatever we don't like.  What a buffoon!

But let us not get distracted and focus on Mr. Barton's bogus depiction of the passage of the 13th Amendment.  Mr. Barton states that "there wasn't the wheeling, dealing kind of back room deals" and that the passage of the amendment was a "slam dunk, big time." 

Ugh! I don't even know where to begin!  It's almost as if these two idiots go against EVERYTHING that those in the know (in whatever field of expertise) have to say.  Evolutionists point to fossils, carbon dating, etc. to claim that the world is billions of years old, these two quote Deuteronomy to say that is wrong.  Climatologists overwhelmingly declare that the Earth's climate is changing, these two call it a progressive hoax to subjugate us all.  Historians assert very obvious truths about our nation's founding, these two say that the exact opposite is true and that evil, socialist, progressive, fascist scary people are destroying our nation's heritage.  In short, these nut-jobs have absolutely no clue what they are talking about!

But I digress.  Mr. Barton's portrayal of the passage of the 13th Amendment couldn't be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is there was a great amount of back door "wheeling and dealing" taking place.  Not only does Mr. Barton (and Beck) demonstrate his ignorance for how a Congressional Amendment is brought to pass, but he is apparently unaware that there was a plethora of drama surrounding the passage of the 13th Amendment.

First off, prior the the commencement of the Civil War, Congress (which consisted of northern and southern representation at that point) had already passed a 13th Amendment (in Feb., 1861) which "guaranteed the legality and perpetuity of slavery in the slave states."  This was the latest in what had been a series of congressional bills that had sought to protect slavery for literally decades, and appease the Southern leadership (yet somehow the Civil War wasn't about slavery...yeah, right!).  With the onset of the Civil War, the states were unable to ratify the newly-created 13th Amendment (a requirement for any Constitutional amendment), and thus it never became law. 

With the obvious division of the nation brought on by war, northern abolitionists saw an opportunity to eradicate the "peculiar institution" once and for all.  In December of 1863, Representative James Ashley of Ohio proposed a bill to support "A Constitutional Amendment for the Abolition of Slavery." For the most part, Ashley's petition fell on deaf ears (and eventually contributed to his failure to be reelected), but it did get the ball rolling.  Other congressmen, including Lyman Trumball and Charles Sumner, would propose similar measures before Congress.

But there was still a great amount of tension (even without the Southern delegates) in Congress over the issue of slavery.  It wasn't until President Abraham Lincoln decided to include the passage of a Constitutional amendment on slavery as a part of his 1864 reelection that the matter started gaining steam.  It took Lincoln and his supporters a full year to garner enough support for the measure.  In fact, a number of deals were made to appease reluctant Republican voters and to sway the 4 needed Democrat votes in the House in order to secure the passage of the 13th Amendment.  If the passage of the 13th Amendment was the "slam dunk" that Barton thinks it was, why did Lincoln and his supporters feel the need to make it the principal issue of their reelection campaign, especially when they already had passed the Emancipation Proclamation the year before?  Why were abolitionist leaders, including prominent Black leaders like Frederick Douglass, campaigning so vigorously for this amendment if it was such an obvious "slam dunk?"

In addition to this, Mr. Barton's apparently doesn't realize that constitutional amendments have to be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, so the 119-56 vote in the House was anything but a "slam dunk."  Heck, Barton's ignorance is so great that he states for all to hear that the amendment had "an 80 percent vote."  Uh...not quite, sir.  The measure barely passed the House with 68% support (just barely making the 2/3 cut), while the combined House and Senate support was 70% (the Senate voted 38-6 in favor).  Again, this reveals the woeful ignorance that both Beck and Barton have when it comes to the Constitution; a document they claim to "revere."

Barton's failure to accurately describe the history surrounding the 13th Amendment, along with his obvious illiteracy of Constitutional practices, just proves how untrustworthy the man is when it comes to American history.  David Barton is not a historian.  Let me say that again: David Barton is NOT a historian.  He's an activist for a radical agenda, nothing more.  Much like Howard Zinn was to the left, David Barton is a errand boy for the right.  What he writes isn't history, pure and simple. 

But let's not let good ol' Glenn off the hook here either.  Beck, who is always more than eager to suck up whatever ilk Barton spews at him, actually states at the beginning of this video that he found Spielberg's "Lincoln" film to be "a remarkable movie."  But after hearing Barton's one-minute "rebuttal," Beck stated that he "wished he had un-seen that movie."  Amazing...simply amazing. This clown, who claims to be a voice of "truth," does a complete 180 in a single minute. 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, reveals just how simple-minded Glenn Beck truly is!

For anyone left (and I know there are very few and the numbers continue to decline) who still grant these two buffoons any level of credence I hope you will now see just how misplaced your trust really is. Please, will somebody save these two from themselves!  Glenn Beck, who has fancied himself as the next Thomas Paine and then as the next George Washington (until he realized that both men would probably have hated his stupid guts), really does need to hurry up and complete his Utopian community so that he can just go away, drink the crazy Kool-Aid with all of his crazy followers, and never bother us again.  How can anyone still buy into all of this blatant bullshit???

Meanwhile, Beck's sidekick, Pseudo-historian David Barton Extraordinaire, needs to face reality.  David, you're not a historian, not even close.  Everything from your foolish assertion that half of the signers of the DoI were ministers, to your indescribably stupid "Black Robe Regiment" argument, not to mention the fact that your Thomas Jefferson book was so horrific that not only was it recalled by your publisher, but even the most conservative of supporters called your work "a joke," prove that you don't know history. Mr. Barton, I think you need to join your pal Glenn at his heavenly new compound and just leave us all alone. 

And for those of you thinking about joining Beck and Barton in "Independence, USA," consider this: Once upon a time, not that long ago, another leader decided to create a Utopian paradise for his followers where they could separate themselves from the evil, "progressive" world and teach one another according to their own values and beliefs.  Click here to see how things worked out for them. 

God and the Presidential Inauguration

When it comes to pomp and circumstance in the United States, there are few ceremonies that can surpass the one we call the Presidential Inauguration.  The peaceful transfer of power from one executive head to the other is a matter of national pride for most Americans and serves to highlight what is best about American democracy.

In light of President Obama's swearing in last week, I thought it might be fun to review the Inaugural ceremonies (particularly the Inaugural Addresses) of presidents past, and see what sort of similarities and differences might exist.  After all, a president's Inauguration has, traditionally, served as a "coming attractions" of sorts for what a president hopes to achieve.  Studying these ceremonies can help us to understand what each of the 44 American Presidencies held to be most dear.

Right out of the gate, the first thing I noticed when reviewing Presidential Inaugurations is the emphasis that each President placed on God, albeit in different ways.  From Washington to Obama, no Inaugural Address omits invoking some sort of special reference to deity.  But as I stated, the manner in which the particular invocation is made is quite different, and reveals a great deal about the President's (and society's) view of  God and his relationship to the American republic.

From George Washington's first Inaugural Address we see his typical flavor of Providential neutrality, in which his "god talk" could apply to virtually any creed in any era. He stated:

It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency (my emphasis).

Washington's first successors followed suit in invoking a generic providential figure instead of a specific deity as the divine overseer of the infant American republic.  John Adams petitioned the "Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty" to bless America, while James Madison asked for the blessings of "that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations."  Even the Great Thomas Jefferson, who has been erroneously claimed as one of their own by the modern atheists, made reference in his now infamous Inaugural Address ("We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists") when he petitioned the "Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe" to "lead our councils to what is best."  And, somewhat surprisingly, even Andrew Jackson, the "President of the People" only went so far as to invoke the blessings of "Providence" and the "Almighty Being" to assist him in his Presidential endeavors.  

It is safe to say that America's first eight presidents (with a possible exception for John Q. Adams who briefly paraphrased Psalms 127 when he stated "except the Lord keep the city the watchman waketh but in vain"), intentionally invoked a warm, generic providence as being the source of America's blessings as opposed to any specifically defined god from any particular creed.  

It wasn't until 1841 and the Inauguration of William Henry Harrison that a president paid homage to a specific god:

I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness (My emphasis). 

But even after this precedent, many subsequent presidents returned to the standard of thanking, "that Divine Being who has watched over and protected our beloved country from its infancy" (James K. Polk) and "Divine" or "Kind Providence" (Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce).

A specific reference to Christianity isn't made again until 1861 when the Legendary Abraham Lincoln, while facing what would become America's greatest crisis, proudly declared that "Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty."  Lincoln would again reference the Christian God in his Second Inaugural Address, but would do so with less confidence that this God was on their side:

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered—that of neither has been answered fully.

Lincoln went on to quote several Bible passages including, "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!" (Matthew 18:7) and "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether" (Psalms 19:9). In so doing, Abraham Lincoln became the first president to make dramatic, substantial and blatant references to the Christian God in his Inaugural Address.  

Those presidents who followed Lincoln would invoke both the general divine providence of Washington, Jefferson, etc. (to include Presidents Grant, Hayes, B. Harrison, Cleveland, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, Taft, Hoover, FDR, L. Johnson and Clinton), while others paid homage to the Christian God of W.H. Harrison and Abraham Lincoln (including Garfield, Harding, Coolidge, Truman, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G.H. Bush, G.W. Bush and Obama), depending on their own individual feelings and beliefs.  Eisenhower went far enough to lead the nation in prayer as his first act of his presidency:



Regardless of which deity served to be the ultimate source of blessings and providential protection, the fact remains that ALL American presidents have, as a component of their Inaugural "coming attractions" petitioned the heavens as a source for further prosperity and as an object of communal gratitude.  The name of this god has taken on many different shapes and colors (everything from Divine Creator, Almighty Providence, to Jesus Christ himself) but the point is that a god of some kind is beseeched to go before us all, as the avant garde of American society.  This reminds me a great deal of Benjamin Franklin's admonition for a "public religion" as being the glue that would bind the American republic.  In this regard, the American experiment has worked wonders and continues to amaze even to this day.

The "Humanity" of George Albert Smith

Every couple of years or so, the Curriculum Committee for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) presents to the general membership of the church a new study manual to be used in various church classes. For the past two years the church has used "Gospel Principles" as its official study manual. Before that, the church spent two years on "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith." And in 2012, the church has produced "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: George Albert Smith" as the official text for this year's study.

I'll be honest, spending the last two years on "Gospel Principles" was a bit of a personal drag. I just couldn't get into it. With that said, I am VERY excited about this year's manual. George Albert Smith has been my favorite church president for as long as I can remember. Ever since my youth, George Albert Smith has stood out to me. I recall learning about his personal creed and hearing stories of how he helped to bring the church into modernity in a number of ways. For example, G.A. Smith was a passionate supporter of the Boy Scout's program, and helped to integrate it into the Young Men's program of the church (he was awarded the Silver Buffalo in 1934, which is the highest honor in the Boy Scout's program). Smith was also a major history buff and helped to organize the Utah Pioneer Trail and Landmarks Association, was elected six times as vice-president of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, and dedicated the "This is the Place" monument and the centennial celebration of the Mormon Pioneer's arrival into the Salt Lake Valley. In addition, G.A. Smith was an ardent supporter of Teddy Roosevelt's "progressivism" (a fact that I am sure makes Glenn Beck sick to his stomach) and was a vocal advocate for the blind (he helped to push forward the first ever braille Book of Mormon in 1935). G.A. Smith was also the first president of the church to not practice polygamy. All of these facts and accomplishments helped G.A. Smith to lead the Mormon church into the world of modernity.

And though I greatly admire G.A. Smith for all of these (and other) accomplishments, this is not what makes him my favorite church president. What I admire so much about G.A. Smith was his "humanity." Don't get me wrong, I recognize that all church presidents have/had their human side as well. However, G.A. Smith, for whatever reason, seems more "human" and "approachable" than the others. After all, G.A. Smith wore his emotions out on his sleeves for everyone to see. He was an incredibly sensitive man who internalized the world and the struggles that people faced. He took it personally when he encountered individuals who were hurting or suffering, and did all that he could to assist those in need. He was a staunch supporter of the Church Welfare program and did more to advance it than perhaps any other church authority. For example, at the conclusion of WWII, G.A. Smith initiated one of the largest relief efforts in church history. A massive surplus of food, equipment and other relief supplies were made ready and available for the destitute people of Europe who had been left in ruins. When U.S. President Harry S. Truman finally called on the church for assistance, he was astonished to discover that the church was already prepared. All that was needed was to know when and where to ship the goods. Even in the aftermath of war, G.A. Smith understood the worth of every human soul. As he stated:

Let us extend kindness and consideration to all who need it, not forgetting those who are bereft; and in our time of rejoicing for peace, let us not forget those who have given their loved ones as part of the price of peace.

Not only did G.A. Smith preach tolerance and love for those of different (once enemy) nations, but he taught tolerance and acceptance of every member of the human race. G.A. Smith vehemently opposed racial prejudice and vocally denounced the KKK. He made efforts to reconcile bitter rival nations by reintroducing missionary work into parts of Europe and by reconciling church members of those nations. As he stated at the conclusion of WWII:

The best evidence of gratitude at this time is to do all we can to bring happiness to this sad world, for we are all our Father’s children, and we are all under the obligation of making this world a happier place for our having lived in it.

In short, George Albert Smith loved and empathized with humanity. He believed in the goodness of all people. It therefore comes as no surprise that the majority of the lessons in this year's G.A. Smith manual center on topics like "Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself", "The Power of Kindness", and "Of You it is Required to Forgive." After all, these were the fundamental themes of his personal life creed:

I would be a friend to the friendless and find joy in ministering to the needs of the poor.

I would visit the sick and afflicted and inspire in them a desire for faith to be healed.

I would teach the truth to the understanding and blessing of all mankind.

I would seek out the erring one and try to win him back to a righteous and a happy life.

I would not seek to force people to live up to my ideals but rather love them into doing the thing that is right.

I would live with the masses and help to solve their problems that their earth life may be happy.

I would avoid the publicity of high positions and discourage the flattery of thoughtless friends.

I would not knowingly wound the feelings of any, not even one who may have wronged me, but would seek to do him good and make him my friend.

I would overcome the tendency to selfishness and jealousy and rejoice in the successes of all the children of my Heavenly Father.

I would not be an enemy to any living soul.

But for a man who could empathize so well with the plight of humanity, George Albert Smith wasn't without his struggles. Aside from the many physical ailments that effected him throughout his life (vision problems, stomach ailments, and lupus erythematosus which eventually caused his death), G.A. Smith was also plagued by ailments of the psyche. As the good folks at the By Common Consent blog point out, George Albert Smith was a deeply emotionally afflicted man. We can say with almost absolute certainty that G.A. Smith suffered from some sort of chronic depression and anxiety disorder. There were multiple times in his life when he was rendered incapacitated by overwhelming feelings of inadequacy, guilt and sadness. His responsibilities as a church apostle often exacerbated his condition, as he found it very difficult to deal with the problems of those he encountered. As he confided to a local state president:

[Even] when things are normal my nerves are not very strong
and when I see other people in sorrow and depressed I am easily affected.

Even members of George Albert Smith's family could tell that something was wrong. As BYU Professor Mary Jane Woodger points out:

George Albert’s “good work ethic” exposed him to additional pressures because of an apparent “personality style that lent itself to hypersensitivity,” manifest in a preoccupation with “what he ate along with a lot of pressure he seems to have felt to measure up to other’s expectations.”

[...]

Grandchild George Albert Smith V suggests that his grandfather struggled with depression, feeling incompetent, and being overwhelmed. There were times when “he just could not pull it all together.” Another granddaughter, Shauna Lucy Stewart Larsen, who lived in George Albert’s home for twelve years as a child, remembers
that “when there was great, tremendous stress, mostly [of] an emotional kind, it took its toll and he would literally have to go to bed for several days.”

As someone who has personally struggled with bouts of depression and anxiety I can empathize with G.A. Smith's feelings. Depression and anxiety are real struggles that can render an otherwise normal and successful person completely vacant. It is a real struggle that you don't simply "pray away" or "get over." Unfortunately, too many people (even today) don't understand this fact, and in G.A. Smith's day there was even less tolerance for such conditions. As Professor Mary Jane Woodger notes, G.A. Smith's uncle, Heber J. Sears, demonstrated the ignorance of his day when he addressed his nephew's bout with depression:

For Heaven’s sake George -- side step or step backward not forward. Cheat the asylum of a victim. Dump your responsibility for a while before the hearse dumps your bones.

And though I am sure that Mr. Sears was only trying to be helpful, this type of "cowboy up" response is typical of many who don't suffer from or understand the realities of depression. This is especially true of times past when psychology was either non-existent or still in its infancy. I have blogged before about the "melancholy" nature of Meriwether Lewis (which in reality was probably bipolar disorder) and how it eventually drove him to suicide. And most people are aware of Abraham Lincoln's deep struggles with depression. These problems are nothing new to humanity, we just happen to recognize them now.

The fact of the matter is that humans are complex creatures who are, as a result of genetic, environmental and other factors, often susceptible to a wide variety of physical and mental struggles. Yes, even prophets (who are only humans) fall victim to such things, and why should any of us assume differently? Nobody seems to make a big deal of a church president who suffers the infirmities of age, sickness or injury. Why would mental illness make any kind of difference?

The real beauty of the life of George Albert Smith is the fact that he overcame these ailments and insecurities to change the world for the better. I think that the best example of George Albert Smith's "humanity" and goodness can be found in his handling of the "Third Conventionist" controversy. Most Mormon members are probably unfamiliar with this controversy, since it took place in the 1930s. The Third Convention controversy was a case in which a number of Mexican Mormons essentially chose to break off from the church and establish their own autonomy. The Mexican Constitution of 1917 had created a strict separation of church and state and isolated Mexican Mormons from church leaders in Salt lake city. In consequence, many Mexican members, led by District President Abel Páez, requested that the church call only full-blooded Mexican citizens to positions of authority within the country. When rebuffed by the church, these members elected to break away and created the "Third Convention", which held meetings, carried out missionary work and many other regular church functions without church approval.

Needless to say, this upset a large number of church authorities, not to mention many loyal Mexican Mormons. Many within the "Third Convention" were excommunicated in the wake of the escalating tensions between Salt Lake City and Mexico. Church leadership scoffed at the blatant apostasy that was taking place right under their noses. President George Albert Smith, however, had a different opinion. After making a trip to Mexico (the first church president to do so) President Smith met with "Third Convention" leaders and listened to their complaints. No judgements were passed, no fingers were pointed. As had become G.A. Smith's style he simply showed love and empathy for the people. In the end, President Smith reversed the excommunications and most of the Third Convention's followers were welcomed back as brothers and sisters of the church. Sure, President Smith was more than justified to spew out fire and brimstone rhetoric and to rebuke the Third Convention members for their betrayal of the faith. President Smith could have declared the Third Convention a heresy and made them an example to the church of the consequences of apostasy. Heck, President Smith could have avoided the trip to Mexico altogether, kept the excommunications in place, and simply ignored the situation. All of those courses of action would have been justifiable. Only one problem: they weren't what Jesus Christ would do, and President Smith knew it. Today Mexico is the second largest nation in terms of Mormon population. Would such be the case had G.A. Smith blown off the concerns of the Third Convention and other Mexican members in their time of need?

George Albert Smith is my favorite church president for one basic reason: he loved humanity. It didn't matter if they were good or bad, kind or mean, believers or non-believers. All humanity has worth and G.A. Smith knew it. His example is a lesson to every single member who feels the need to rebuke others. Whether it be a member who has "fallen away", a person with a disability or an individual in the depths of depression, George Albert Smith's example shows us the correct code of conduct to all humanity. I for one look forward to this year's curriculum on the life and teachings of a fantastic man, example and prophet.

-------------------
Another way that George Albert Smith helped to modernize the church was via television and media. He was actually the first church president to broadcast his messages on television. I enjoyed this one because it not only shows G.A. Smith's joyous personality but also reveals how he was essentially a "bridge" between old school and modern Mormon preaching. President Smith's boisterous demeanor and use of hand gestures was common of 19th century preachers (including Mormons). You can tell in this video that G.A. Smith was clearly influenced by that style, but was also trying to also change the mold. This is good stuff. Enjoy:

What is Cinco de Mayo? And Why Should Americans Give a Care?

A Brief History of Cinco de Mayo and its
Important Role in American History

Happy Cinco de Mayo everyone!

With the recent controversy over immigration, this year's Cinco de Mayo celebrations have been obscured by political, social and racial tensions, all which have created a climate of animosity between two nations that actually share more in common than they realize. Now, it's not my intent today to weigh in on the current immigration issue. I know that both sides of this issue feel passionate about their views and believe they are justified in their respective protests. With that said, I ask that you check your politics at the door. This post isn't political in nature but instead focuses on the forgotten history of this day...a day that even Americans should be thankful for.

For whatever reason, most people think Cinco de Mayo is the Mexican independence day. Not so. Mexican independence day is actually celebrated on September 16th (this year will be the 200th anniversary of Mexican independence). Cinco de Mayo is a commemoration of an important battle that impacted both Mexico and the United States.

On the morning of May 5, 1862, while the United States was embroiled in its greatest crisis (the Civil War) Mexican forces under the command of General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín soundly defeated a French invasion in what became known as the Battle of Puebla. This unlikely victory not only shocked the invading French, but it also sent sound waves to the North. American leaders (better put Union leaders) were overjoyed at the news that the Mexican Army had defeated the French. After all, the French had been unofficially favoring the Confederacy, hoping that a Southern victory would help to cripple the United States. In fact, President Abraham Lincoln was so concerned with the impending French invasion of Mexico that he granted permission to several hundred Union soldiers to join up with the Mexican military. Many Union leaders sincerely believed that America's future depended on a Mexican victory. It was no mystery that French Emperor Napoleon III, who detested the United States, hoped that the invasion, occupation and eventual domination of Mexico might serve to better supply the Confederacy and once again give France a legitimate presence in the Western Hemisphere.

It seems that Mexico, however, did not get that memo. The French invasion was forced to retreat with their tails between their legs, humiliated and soundly beaten by the "inferior" Mexicans. Their quest for conquest died a sudden death as did their desire to provide aid to the Southern Confederacy. This shift in momentum came at a perfect time for the Struggling United States. It is no mystery that the early part of 1862 was not a high mark for the Union. Robert E. Lee was on a roll, the South was still strong and the Union was in desperate need of a turn of fortune. Cinco de Mayo (or perhaps better put, the Battle of Puebla) gave them at least a small turn of that fortune. This shift in momentum was later coupled with the Union victory at Gettysburg (just 2 months after 5 de Mayo). Without the coveted French aid, Confederate forces eventually succumbed to the obvious superiority of the Union's resources and manpower.

Now, I'm not suggesting that those brave 4,000 Mexican soldiers (and the few hundred Americans who accompanied them at the Battle of Puebla) saved the United States. Nobody knows what would have happened had the French won on that day. Perhaps they would have been able to strengthen the Confederacy enough to give the Union a longer fight. Perhaps not. Nobody knows. But those points miss the main point: Cinco de Mayo matters to the United States. If Americans are able to embrace and accept the Irish St. Patrick's Day holiday, surely we have enough room to accept and embrace Cinco de Mayo. After all, it had a legitimate impact on our history. At a time when our nation was saturated with nothing but crisis, our southern neighbors gave us a hand. I think that calls for a day of celebration!

Everyone raise your Coronas and Tamales! Viva Mexico y Los Estados Unidos! Feliz Cinco de Mayo a Todos!

Did Abraham Lincoln Meet Joseph Smith?

This has been a topic of intense debate for decades now. And though the evidence available is circumstantial at best, I think it's still an interesting question.

Contrary to popular belief, Abraham Lincoln's personal religious beliefs were anything but orthodox. The man never officially joined a church during his life and rarely if ever openly supported any major religion. With that said, this should not automatically insinuate that Lincoln was a man without faith.

In a recent email from a friend of mine was a link to an interesting piece regarding Joseph Smith and Abraham Lincoln. And while these two men share very little in common, I was struck by some of their similarities. As most of you know, Smith was himself a bit of a religious rogue, who never joined any one church. Instead, Smith founded his own religion, which as my fellow American Creation co-blogger, Jon Rowe has pointed out on numerous occasions, can be compared to the religion of many of the key Founding Fathers. This comparison is not made in the sense that the founders shared the same beliefs as Mormons (though there are a few similarities with a select few founders) but from the fact that both Mormons and many founders are/were seen as "heretics," due to the fact that they are not followers of traditional orthodox Christianity. In this respect, the same can be said of Lincoln, who in the following article (you an access it by clicking here) may have met the Mormon prophet on more than one occasion. If so, did Lincoln develop an interest (albeit a very loose one) in Mormonism? From his writings, Lincoln was quite kind to the "Mormon plight." In fact, one of the last books he read before being killed was The Book of Mormon. Could Lincoln have developed a sympathy for a religion that was as unorthodox as the 16th President himself?

In any case, I hope you will enjoy the article!