[195]
of the loyal people.1 Historians and biographers have hesitated to reveal the state of opinion concerning him, but historical verity loses by the suppression.
He was thought to be wanting in the style, in the gravity of manner and conversation, which are becoming in the chief of a nation.
His habit of interrupting the consideration of grave matters with stories was attributed to levity, and offended sober-minded men who sought him on public business.
A man of ‘infinite jest,’ the underlying seriousness of his nature was not readily observed.
But the criticism did not stop here.
He was felt to be too easy-going, to be disposed to give too much time to trifles; to be unbusinesslike in his methods, slow and hesitating where vigorous action was required;2 and the objection in general was, that in capacity and temperament he was inadequate to the responsibilities of the head of a nation at such a momentous period.
This estimate was honestly held by many clear-headed and patriotic men; nor can their sincerity be questioned, although the final judgment of mankind is that of all men he was the best fitted for the high place which he filled during the Civil War. This also is to be said,—that whatever those who came near him thought, the popular instinct was with him; and plain men—the masses of the people—did not admit the limitations apparent to those who were present at the seat of government.
Indeed, the very qualities and ways which repelled public men brought the President near to the people.
His retention of Montgomery Blair,3 and particularly of Seward, in his Cabinet, weakened his position with that large body of loyal men who insisted on a direct and aggressive policy against slavery; and finally his treatment of reconstruction brought him into collision not only with radical leaders, but with wise and conservative men, who believed that it was a subject which belonged to Congress, and could not be safely intrusted to the exclusive discretion of the Executive.
In January, 1864, there was a conference in Washington of
1 Lieber to General Halleck, Sept. 1, 1864, in Lieber's ‘Life and Letters,’ pp. 350, 351.
2 Wilkinson in the Senate, March 10, 1864; Congressional Globe, p. 1027.
3 He removed Blair, September 23, yielding to the pressure. （Nicolay and Hay's ‘Life of Lincoln,’ vol. IX. pp. 339-342.) A resolution of the Republican national convention was intended to call for a change in his case as well as Seward's. (New York Independent, June 20.) The President, in January, 1865, informed William Claflin, who had in 1864, as an active member of the Republican national committee, come into intimate relations with him, of his purpose to make a change in the office of Secretary of State during the coming summer. Governor Claflin, some years afterwards, gave an account of this conversation with Mr. Lincoln at a dinner of the Massachusetts Club in Boston.
Cambridge, MA. Press of John Wilson and Son. 1877.
Tufts University provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.