 |
It’s always useful to remember how low expectations were for Abraham Lincoln when he took office. Even his ostensible allies sometimes described him as a rube, a hayseed out of his depth in troubled times. As for his political enemies, the editors at Harper’s Weekly*, a publication that had shilled for Stephen Douglas during the 1860 campaign, printed the above cartoon (click here for a larger image) on this day in 1861. Less than a week before Lincoln’s inauguration, the artist, John McLenan, depicted the president-elect, apparently drunk, joking with cronies as a funeral procession for the Constitution and Union passed by in the background.
* The editors at Harper’s maintained a Unionist stance throughout the war. And by the end of the conflict, the publication had become aggressively pro-Lincoln.
26 comments
March 2, 2009 at 1:31 pm
ekogan
Even his ostensible allies sometimes described him as a rube, a hayseed out of his depth in troubled times.
Maybe if the southerners shared that opinion they wouldn’t have seceded. And why does succeed have two c’s and secede only one?
March 2, 2009 at 1:43 pm
grackle
succeed- from sub- near+ cedere to go
secede- from sed- or se- apart + cedere to go
I guess they didn’t watch the U-tube videos of the Lincoln Douglas debates.
March 2, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Hemlock
I worship Lincoln on both personal and intellectual grounds. I obsessed over him in elementary and high school. A Berkeley undergraduate education tempered the apotheosis a bit (see that portrait of Lincoln and Washington), but I still aim to read every biography that comes out.
For all the critical appraisals that have been given Lincoln over the years–the racism, his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, his moderate plans for Reconstruction, etc.–he was still a master of political behavior (micro and macro distributions of socioeconomic power). I think Lincoln intended many constituents and advisors to underestimate him–for burrowing reasons, eh? Whether or not this makes one “great” depends on the appraiser.
On intellectual grounds, I admire how he his parables and concise speechs seem at first glance to be short but affective prose. But for specialists on the Gettysburg Address, for example, Lincoln is a master of a republican theory of politics. That address (example) transformed a theory of history and politics that set the stage for constitutional principles and fiscal policy in the postwar era. Pundits criticized the speech immediately–then realized several years later how complex a thinker he was. Complexity is not synonymous with length.
Lincoln is also fascinating on intellectual grounds because the Republican racist free labor ideology–yes, antislavery, but also racist–did not reflect his motivations. He had to get those northern urban votes. Rhetoric and reality personified.
March 2, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Bloix
I don’t believe this cartoon dates from March 1861 – I think it must be from April or later, perhaps June or July, after Lincoln became president.
Here’s why: the caption, with the reference to “Merryman,” is a pun on the case of Ex Parte Merryman, a judicial decision overturning Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus. John Merryman was a prominent resident of Baltimore, a southern sympathizer, and a cavalry lieutenant in the Maryland state militia. In April 1861, on orders of the governor, he destroyed bridges north of Baltimore to prevent troops from Pennsylvania from reaching the city. (Most Marylanders were in favor of secession and only the presence of federal troops prevented the state from seceding.)
Lincoln, had unilaterally ordered that his military commander in Maryland could suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and Merryman was arrested and held in a military prison without trial. Merryman promptly obtained a writ of habeas corpus, but the prison commander refused to honor it. In June, US Chief Justice Roger Taney, sitting alone as a circuit judge, ruled that Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional. Lincoln ignored the ruling and kept Merryman imprisoned.
So the reference to Merryman and the funeral procession for the Constitution appear to be a commentary on Lincoln’s decision to detain John Merryman in the face of a judicial determination that doing so violated his constitutional right to habeas corpus. That reference would have made no sense any earlier than April and most likely not until June.
March 2, 2009 at 3:37 pm
kid bitzer
very interesting, bloix.
but if ari got the date right, then i think we have to reach a different conclusion:
lincoln set out to arrest someone named “merryman”, as payback for this cartoon!
yes! it’s clear!
and don’t you try to deny it, with your pc logic and your jungle music, you spawn of eastern bankers, you!
March 2, 2009 at 4:25 pm
jazzbumpa
Note: the caption says, “The President Elect.” It must be from before Lincoln’s inauguration date of March 4, 1861.
March 2, 2009 at 4:36 pm
urbino
Maybe I’m wrong, but I take the “MERRYMAN” of the caption as not a proper noun, but a common one — i.e., “merry-maker,” referring to his drunken state.
March 2, 2009 at 4:36 pm
kid bitzer
the oed s.v. “merryman” does list “jester, buffoon” as its second sense, with citations from 1838 and 1858.
so the use of this word as a common noun (and a derogatory one) would be less striking to the ears of that day.
March 2, 2009 at 4:39 pm
urbino
Well, there you go, then.
March 2, 2009 at 4:41 pm
eric
I’m pretty sure Ari got the date right.
March 2, 2009 at 4:44 pm
andrew
You historians and your documentation.
(By the way, is the Weekly subscription only? I found Harper’s Monthly at the Making of America collection.)
March 2, 2009 at 4:46 pm
kid bitzer
also, my 4:36 was *totally* earlier than urbino’s 4:36.
stop crouching my vermin, dood!
March 2, 2009 at 4:48 pm
eric
is the Weekly subscription only?
I think so.
March 2, 2009 at 4:48 pm
ari
I subcontract all of my documentation to eric. It’s obvious why.
March 2, 2009 at 4:50 pm
ari
That said, bloix, I promise you a post on Merryman when the time is right.
March 2, 2009 at 4:58 pm
andrew
(Also, I didn’t check that other thread all day and just now saw the turn it took. Wow. Feel free to delete this comment if you don’t want any spillover to this thread.)
March 2, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Bloix
Well. kid bitzer’s supposition must be correct.
(Obviously, “merryman” is used to mean merry-maker, but it seemed to me that it must have been intended as a pun. Clearly not.)
March 2, 2009 at 5:54 pm
kid bitzer
it’s not just a “supposition”, bloix. it’s a fact. a proven fact.
i read it on a blog, i tell you! a history blog, written by respectable historians!
this very blog, in fact– this very page!
what more documentation do you need?
March 2, 2009 at 9:10 pm
urbino
Actually, you and your crouched vermin read it written by me, who am neither respectable nor a historian.
I subcontract all of my documentation to eric. It’s obvious why.
You don’t have to pay FICA tax on him because he’s in the country illegally?
March 3, 2009 at 3:36 am
kid bitzer
i took bloix’s reference to my “supposition” to be a reference to my payback theory of lincoln’s arrest of merryman, which no one will blame on you.
you know, subcontracting history-work to the illegals is going to hurt us, sure.
but tapping the labor market overseas is not my real nightmare here. why have people like me write south asian history, when it can be written in south asia? it’s probably inevitable, given how the barriers to transportation have fallen.
what i really worry about is the opening of the time portals, after which the writing of history will be subcontracted to people in the labor markets of long ago.
i mean, it’s a double or triple whammy. my tome on tudor mercantilism is rendered redundant by some 16th century scribbler who has better access to sources, *and* is willing to work for 16th century wages. i can’t compete with that.
i’m telling you, this is worse than anything tom friedman has envisioned. once time is flat, we’ll all be history.
March 3, 2009 at 4:05 am
rea
Is it just my overactive imagination, or does the cartoonist seem to have studied Daumier? Those faces, those hats . . .
March 3, 2009 at 5:58 am
rea
my tome on tudor mercantilism is rendered redundant by some 16th century scribbler who has better access to sources, *and* is willing to work for 16th century wages.
Everybody knows that people who live through history don’t understand it. All those contemprary sources are just a distraction. Wait until most of the evidence disappears, and it all becomes clear.
March 3, 2009 at 6:17 am
kid bitzer
yeah, i’ve never liked evidence. i don’t think a piece of evidence has ever, even once, helped me to make my case.
basically, evidence just acts as a constraint on interpretation–an intolerable constraint!
March 3, 2009 at 7:02 am
JPool
my tome on tudor mercantilism is rendered redundant by some 16th century scribbler who has better access to sources, *and* is willing to work for 16th century wages. i can’t compete with that.
Our only hope in this area is that, as with call centers, enough of the market will be willing to pay a premium for history written with a present(ist) accent. All that funny Tudor-talk you have to cut through is annoying when all you want to do is get some damn history of mercantilism. And they keep you on hold forever.
March 3, 2009 at 11:41 am
URK
“once time is flat, we’ll all be history.”
Teh Funny! I want this on a shirt!
March 3, 2009 at 12:48 pm
kid bitzer
thanks, urk. it makes me very happy to hear you say that.