A Critique of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Speech

Doris Kearns Goodwin

On Tuesday night, February 7, I attended a speech by Doris Kearns Goodwin at Aurora University. Doris Kearns Goodwin authored the book “Team of Rivals” about Lincoln and has written on Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Goodwin’s book “Team of Rivals” has greatly influenced President Obama in his political thought and is currently being made into a movie. 

I expected that the speech would be yet another boring academic speech by a dreary intellectual who only wanted to sell more of their latest book. Although Goodwin did sell her books at the event I was pleasantly surprised to find out that the speech was extremely interesting. Goodwin was able to effectively engage her audience with amusing and hilarious anecdotes about past presidents. More than finding it just amusing I walked away from the speech with a greater intellectual understanding of history and a better person for it.

A Promo Picture for the new movie based on "Team of Rivals." Here is Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln.

One thing that struck me about the speech was her description of Lincoln and his spiritual beliefs. At a very young age Lincoln lost his mother and this incident affected his outlook on life. On his mother’s deathbed she told Lincoln that she would never see him again, even in the afterlife. This pessimistic view of the afterlife affected Lincoln and he struggled to find meaning in what his mother described as a meaningless world. Goodwin recounted that Lincoln eventually believed that by making a mark on history he could live long after he was gone in the memories of others. This belief led Lincoln to try to become a great figure who would be remembered for ages to come, something that he succeeded in brilliantly. The idea that if someone makes a mark on history they can live long past they have died is greatly appealing for a agnostic like myself. This thought makes me want to strive to do great things and be remembered for something in my life.

Another aspect of Goodwin’s speech that I found appealing was her emphasis on historical narrative. Goodwin talked abut the importance of being able to write well as a historian. Her advice on trying to forget how a historical event ends was very useful in that it allows the writer to tell of an event in an exciting way since they do not know how it will end.

Overall the speech by Goodwin was one of the most entertaining and intellectually enlightening speeches I have ever attended and I greatly look forward to reading and critiquing "Team of Rivals."

The Importance of Martial Law During the Civil War

The Battle of Gettysburg

During the Civil War there were many instances where martial law was used to maintain order by Union forces. Martial law is where the military takes over for local government in administrating justice and order. After the fall of Fort Sumter Lincoln instituted martial law in order to prevent the spread of chaos across the country. It is important to note that the forms of martial law differed across the country during the Civil War.

At the start of the Civil War there was a great fear, with much justification, of Confederate saboteurs and spies. Southern sympathizers brought upon riots, saboteurs destroyed bridges, and Southern sympathizers restricted the movement of Union forces. With the institution of martial law in the North, along with the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, Lincoln was able to hold the Union together. In the North it was primarily draft dodgers and army deserters who were incarcerated under martial law, and not dissidents.

The institution of martial law by Union forces in Southern states differed from the North’s institution of it in that it was much harsher. As Union forces captured Southern areas and cities such as New Orleans there was a great need for order. The residents of areas like New Orleans were understandably upset at having their city captured by the enemy and used different forms of disobedience against the Union troops. After the fall of New Orleans in May of 1862 Union troops were routinely spit upon by Southern women and treated horribly. General Butler responded to this with harsh measures that demanded that the citizens of New Orleans treated Union soldiers with respect. One of these measures was the execution of a dissident who tore down an American flag. Another measure was General Butler’s proclamation that women not treating Union troops with respect were to be treated as prostitutes. In the South there were many more arrests than in the North due to the fear that Union forces felt for their own lives.

The actions of a Confederate saboteur

I personally believe that the implementation of martial law was largely justified. The Constitution does allow for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, one aspect of the martial implemented, in cases of national crisis and rebellion. Seeing as the Civil War was one of our countries most trying and dangerous times it was fitting that martial law was used to maintain order. Daniel Farber makes the point that it was ridiculous for the Sheriff of Gettysburg to respond to the march of Confederate forces on the area when he had no means to do so. With the implementation of martial law, the military was allowed to take over the local duties and keep the peace. In fact many cities, such as Philadelphia, requested for the government to institute martial law, due to their fear from Confederate forces near their areas.

New Orleans during the Civil War

Although I do agree that the implementation of martial law was necessary during the Civil War, I do not agree with the more recent violations of civil liberties by the U.S. government. These violations can be seen in the passing of the NDAA and the response to the events after 9-11 by the government. My reasoning for this condemnation is that although terrorism is a serious issue, it is not grave enough to justify the restriction of civil liberties. 

The times of the Civil War were critical for the country. Washington D.C. was very near Southern territory and there was a chance that if it was captured the Union would lose the War. In comparison to the Civil War, terrorism does not pose the threat of destroying the U.S. government and is less justifiable in the restriction civil liberties. 

The Aftermath of the Fort Sumter Attack

The attack on Fort Sumter was a monumental event that marked the start of the American Civil War. On April 14, 1861 Major Anderson of the Union surrendered Fort Sumter to the Southern forces who had bombarded the fort for days. Prior to the attack which was the first battle between Union and Confederate forces Lincoln had sent supplies and men to the fort on April 4.

Lincoln knew full well that there was a strong possibility of armed conflict erupting at the fort but proceeded anyway, without the consent of Congress. After the attack the North was furious with what they viewed as treason.

The north was not in an ideal situation following the attack with many of their soldiers away on the frontier and few rifles and warships ready for battle. After the battle Lincoln called for the formation of a militia and implemented a naval blockade of the southern states on April 19. He called for a special session of Congress for July 4. By delaying the special congressional session Lincoln was able to quickly and efficiently mobilize a militia while maintaining a firm grasp on war strategy.

 

There was great fear that Washington DC might be vulnerable to attack so Lincoln enlisted more men, censored mail and the press, and bought and armed steamships for the possible defense of the capital. In his July 4 address to Congress Lincoln maintained that the South acted with reckless aggression in their attack against Fort Sumter, maintaining that Fort Sumter was not in any position to attack. Lincoln aggressively wielded executive power following the attack on Fort Sumter, so much so that he quarreled with Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Taney over matters of Executive authority and the wartime powers. Lincoln eventually won these quarrels and maintained a strong grasp on executive power for the remainder of the war. One of the reasons I think that Lincoln sent supplies and men to Fort Sumter was to maintain some semblence of Union power. It was very smart of Lincoln not to be the one who initiated the conflict. With the South striking first Lincoln was able to use their reckless aggression as a just cause to go to war in the name of restoring the Union. 

Obama, Lincoln, and the National Defense Authorization Act

Lincoln has long been seen as a historic defender of the constitution and the union among the populace. Few choose to remember the sacrifices Lincoln made to preserve the union. These sacrifices included instituting martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. It is still unknown if Lincoln’s violations of the constitution were truly necessary to preserve the Union. 

America has found itself in a similar, though far less perilous, situation since the terrorist attacks of 9-11. President Obama recently found himself in a situation where he must choose between restricting the constitution in the name of security or not. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 gives the American government the power to detain suspected enemies of the state without trial, an action eerily similar to those of Lincoln. 

Although the actions of Obama are not very different from his predecessor, what is different is the reverence Obama has for Lincoln. Some have criticized Obama for agreeing to pass a bill whose unclear wording could lead to the unjust incarceration of people vaguely defined as “allies of Al Qaeda.” On December 31, 2011 Obama passed the National Defense Authorization Act, even though the bill allows for  the continued use of overseas detention centers for suspected enemies of America. Although the situations differ vastly between Obama and Lincoln, what is important to note is the similar ways they chose to solve the problems facing the country.