Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1902-12-08
LEE AND LINCOLN EQUALLY GREAT.

YN your issue of November LIST, Rev.
Sam Jones writes of Lincoln in char
acteristic style.
The writer likes Mr.. Jones and reads
nearly all you publish from him. but Mr..
Jones is not up to his standard. If not
funny, and his article on Lincoln IS
funny.
The writer had regarded Mr.. Lincoln
as a great man, but upon reading TINS
article. as Bartow's sage would say, he
began to cogitate. Presumptively, Mr..
Jones endorses what his 'couftly old
lawyer said of the rail splitter.
To Mr.. Jones interrogatoTies he an
swered in substance: Mr.. Lincoln was
not a great lawyer; he was not an able
advocate; he didn't earn large fees; ne
was not a gifted orator; as such, or as
advocate. he did not compare Win
Douglas; he didn't drink; he didn't
smoke; he didn't chew; he didn't snin
SNUFF; (the wonder is that he ate); he
didn't use cuss words; he didn't say damn
it. or think damn it, ever; like the father
of his country. he never violated the
ninth of the decalogue; unlike him, he
used the axe instead of the little hatch
ct; he didn't wear fine clothes; he knew
nothing of the curriculum OF schools; ne
WOulQn stay at nOntCs AC W09 ~ $500
liant; he was not cheerful; he was not
firm; he never felt justihable in defend
ing a bau cause, or a client he knew to
be guilty; he was not unlike a good moth
er. yielding to her children against her
Judgment; and everyone comedies that ne
was not handsome.
The question then arises, what was he,
or what did he do or say, or upon what
meat did he feed that he grew so great?
nQfnRpnaTian nudge
reply: he was big hearted; he was OF the
common people; honest, grateful, sym
pathetic, of sterling Integrity; loved MS
fellowman, and had power of logic and
illustration all of which is true, and i'm
portant in the makeup of greatness.
But, surely in this catalogue many
characteristics of true greatness are
omitted; and, If he was deficient as cat
alogued by Mr.. Jones. upon the authority
of the cheerful old judge of IS summers,
then Mr.. Lincoln was not as big a man
as some of us thought.
The writer believes, however, Mr..
Jones must have misunderstood the wit
ness; or else in his old age. dotage and
second childhood, the witness, like those
who intimate the emancipation knew not
his father was prejudiced.
To say that Mr.. Lincoln was not great
orator displays ignorance; that he did not
compare favorably with Mr.. Douglas is
to pervert facts, as demonstrated by the
celebrated debates of 1858 between these
two giants of their day, and leaders OF
their respective parties.
Much depends on the 'courtly judges"
conception of oratory. Some misconceive
elocution for oratory; but it is vastly dit-
ferent The elocutionist says what he
thinks others thought; the orator ex-
presses his own thoughts-the difference
is between what is said and felt. In the
one case the brain and heart act con-
jointly, in the other, the brain alone.
The Gettysburg grafton furnishes con-
elusive evidence of gift in the art of ora
tory. This speech viii live and be read
when the Anglo Saxon becomes a dead
language, and Webster's reply to Hayne
ceases to attract attention; and Mr.. Doug
las name lost in the mist of ages.
One naturally suspects that our cru
dite friend Jones had never read these
wondrOus words. or the first or second
inaugural of the 10th president, else he
would not have sought occasion to quiz
the ex-judge about his ability as an ora
tor, being as Mr.. Jones is, himself an ora
tor.
1t is understood that there are three
methods of enforcing opinion by orators,
journalists and writer's generally. First
comes those who cite and rely largely, II
not entirely, upon authority.
Second, are those of a higher order
intellectually, who outline the facts of
given case, apply well known and fixed
principles to these facts; and by logical
process, cause the reader or nearer to
come to the conclusion desired.
Third and high above all, intellectual
ly, are those writers and speakers, who,
by a simple or argumentative statement
of their propositions, carry conviction to
the minds Of others who reason solely by
the manner and style of statement.
To this latter class Mr.. Lincoln indu-
bitably belonged; and, tested by this rule,
he was beyond cavil, writer, as we'll as
an orator, of the highest rank.
Now. IL your numerous and thoughtful
readers doubt this last assertion, let
them be kind enough to peruse Mr.. Lin
coins most noted public utterances, if
they haven't already, and be convinced.
The fact is we are struck with amaze
ment upon reading them. How one with
as little opportunity for education in ear
ly life, or the study of language even,
and who, like he, struggled with poverty,
and a multitude of other embarrassments
and hindranees of every nature, in youth
and through middle life. could have be-
come capacitated for such master utter
ances, causes wonder and establishment,
except upon the suggestion of inspira-
ton.
Again, by authority. Mr.. Jones asserts
Mr.. Lincolns lack of firmness. 1t is
feared that his colloquist confounds this
with obstinacy. Obstinacy is one thing,
and f1rmness is quite another To be OBJ
stinate is to be egotistic; to be firm is
heroic. Mr.. Lincoln was not obstinate,
but firmness was a predominant charac-
teristic.
On momentous occasions, when matters