The critics of Lincoln in this meandering discussion have tried to get a
lot of mileage out of charges that he was a cynical, power-hungry
"politician" who trampled on the Constitution and pursued policies that
took an immense toll in lost lives, destroyed property, and violated
principles. His defenders do not depict him as a saint, but as a great
leader who managed in the most adverse of circumstances to help the nation
extend the scope and meaning of freedom.

Why do the critics get so edgy when defenders mention the flaws of other
politicians and policies? Part of the case *for* Lincoln's greatness rests
on an appreciation of what the nation might have experienced had other,
less able politicians been making decisions in his place. Despite some
flaws and mistakes, his defenders argue, he was a lot better than the
alternatives. Implicitly at least, the critics must believe that someone
else and some other policies would have served the nation better. So I
would ask: Who else? What policies?

Douglas Deal
Professor of History (on leave 2002-2003)
State University of New York at Oswego
Oswego, NY 13126
[log in to unmask]

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html