On the Moral Standing of Abraham Lincoln
By: Joshua P. R. John
Tags: Philosophy, Joshua Pr John, Morality, Politics, Tik Tok

So last night, I made a 50-second TikTok video claiming that Abraham Lincoln is not a morally exceptional hero worth worshipping. In context, I was commenting on a tweet made by conservative Missouri state representative Tony Lovasco’s claim that in light of the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee in Virginia, we should not forget President Lincoln’s failures and remove his statues as well.

As mentioned in my video, while Lovasco’s purposes for criticizing Lincoln are likely very different from my own, both of us can agree on the conclusion that Honest Abe wasn’t as great of a guy as common opinion holds. While the state rep claims Lincoln was “reprehensible” for employing conscription policy and suspending habeas corpus, I claimed Lincoln wasn’t that cool because contrary to the popular liberal opinion of Lincoln being the morally great leader that saved America from an evil history of slavery, he actually used and viewed slaves as a means to an end, rather than valuing them as worthy human lives.

Therefore, as one might expect, my video received some mixed reception. A decent amount seemed to agree to the sentiment, adding more reasons to dislike America’s most popular president. These commenters claimed that Lincoln proved to be one of the worst presidents regarding policies closely affecting indigenous populations, some having been relocated to reservations and dozens of others being condemned to the death penalty under his administration. Other valid criticisms arose of Lincoln self-describing himself as someone who believes in white supremacy in extremely explicit language in which he claims he has never been in favor of bringing about the social and political equality of whites and blacks, citing “physical differences” between them that will forever prohibit them from living together in harmony.

On the other hand, more boring comments included accusations that I was defending the confederacy or that I and the rest of the political “left” would only be satisfied when the rest of the statues, libraries, and all of history, for that matter, is burned to the ground. These criticisms, I believe, are satirical in nature and can be addressed at a later point, if need be. However, other more interesting allegations claim I’m guilty of trying to “cancel” figures from the past or hold them to impossibly high modern standards. This critique of progressives is not new and has existed in centrist/right-leaning cultural discourse for years. It was not long ago that in the debate over whether or not statues of Robert E. Lee and confederates should stand, they claimed the progressive, overly sensitive, and chronically online snowflakes of this era were trying to erase history and achieve political success via optical political correctness.

Most individuals from American political venues, Dems and Republicans alike, seem rather in favor of keeping statues of Lincoln up. Perhaps this isn’t surprising at all as Abraham Lincoln is widely taught and therefore viewed by the public as a heroic figure from America’s past who fought off the evil, racist Southerners, and defeated slavery in America once and for all. According to this liberal narrative, Lincoln was intelligent, honest, well spoken, and martyred for his cause. Therefore, it can be easily demonstrated that many approve of Lincoln’s legacy, while others begrudgingly must stick by the sentiment of needing to preserve landmarks of American history in spite of their political hatred of him.

All of this is to establish that the vast majority of those involved in contemporary American politics would disagree with the position that Lincoln was not a morally terrific hero. However, the question remains: am I, as someone who is critical of Lincoln, trying to “cancel” him and erase history?

I would argue: No.

First among all things, I never took a position in my video on whether or not Lincoln’s statues should stand despite many people assuming I did so. I did, however, strongly imply through a few replies to comments and within the video itself, that very few, if any, political figures in American history are worth worshipping or honoring as moral superiors.

Slavery was an institution that was rightfully destroyed. This is something almost universally agreed upon. That being said, I invite all who are interested to look deeper, and ask, with what intention was slavery destroyed? Was slavery fought over for the purpose of achieving egalitarian goals of equity among all men, including and especially the black slaves suffering under white supremacist masters? Or, rather, was it to fulfill the goal of preserving the Union by using slavery as a means to an end? One need not look further than Lincoln’s own response to this question to find the answer.

I would argue that as morally imperfect human beings that follow generations of other arguably morally worse human beings, putting politicians, political leaders, or anyone else for that matter on a pedestal as a hero is unnecessary and ahistorical. Contrary to how we paint them in our history books, American leaders were not and never will be superheroes fighting off villains that reared their ugly heads during their respective administrations.

Bush was not an American guardian in response to 9/11, slave-owning Washington was not a benevolent god fighting off the redcoats in The Revolutionary War, and Lincoln, last but not least, who believed in the supremacy of whites over black people, hung dozens and relocated hundreds of indigenous peoples, and announced to all that he prioritized the stability of the Union over freeing slaves was not a morally exceptional president.