WALKING THE BAPTIST PATH

With some basic Christian experiences in high school, I entered the University of Oklahoma in 1968 as an agnostic. I did not believe in God but felt that if God could be “proved” to me I would entertain the idea of becoming a Christian. Despite decent grades in my first semester of college I felt unease about my existence at all on this planet. I thought about transferring to a smaller school but came to realize that was not going to help my condition. I returned for my second semester still unsure about my place in this world. My short-term confusion led to my long-term joy.

One day in late February, I returned to my dorm room after class. My roommate was talking with two strangers. I did not interrupt as I did not want to be rude. Yet I listened and soon discovered they were discussing God and Jesus and a thing called salvation. Sensing that I was curious the two strangers drew me into the conversation. And soon I was invited to a place they called “the ranch.” I accepted their invitation.

Of course, I did not want to become involved in a “cult” or something like that. But because of what the strangers said, I had what can be described being akin to John Wesley’s heart being “strangely warmed” when he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior when meeting with members of the Moravian sect. I felt the invitation to “the ranch” to be authentic or at the very least, a nice weekend getaway.

By the way, the strangers were students who were active in the university-wide Baptist Student Union (BSU). I was one of several invitees going with about an equal number of active BSUers. Friday night was spent in introductions. Then Saturday, March 14, 1969, arrived. When I awoke that morning, I was not a Christian and when I slept that night in my dorm room I was.

“The ranch” was really a rustic retreat center with a house and some land in south- central Oklahoma. Despite its remoteness it was the perfect place for God to work in me. We paired up- each invitee with a veteran BSUer. My new buddy was a guy named Mike King, a senior at OU. Mike opened the Bible to the Book of James in the Christian New Testament. We would read some passages and discuss, then some more reading and discussion. After about an hour, Mike asked me if I desired the kind of life described in James. I said yes and we prayed. I invited Christ into my life as Lord and Savior. No drums, no bugles- just a new life with a new beginning.

It was only natural that I attend church worship the next day. That is when God revealed something BIG to me. I sat in the pews of First Baptist Church in Norman, Oklahoma. The pastor in his sermon declared not only that Jesus is the Son of God but He is God. WOW! That spiritual insight was like a light bulb being turned on in my head. I had known about the ‘sonship” part since my Methodist days, but that Sunday was the first time I comprehended the “is God” part. Now I knew that I would need to take Jesus seriously.

After a couple of Sundays attending the Norman church I heard about another congregation- First Southern Baptist Church of Del City, about 25 miles from campus. And the church provided bus services for both Sunday mornings and Sunday evenings (remember, this was 1969). I think that the first time I rode the bus on a Sunday evening I spotted a beautiful female student with a friendly smile and spunky attitude. I immediately thought, “I am going to marry her!” (And we did on January 15, 1971!) Our wedding ceremony occurred in the Del City church, Karen’s home church after her parents and she moved from Oklahoma City.

Karen has been a follower of Christ since her childhood. Her faith is wholesome and winsome, consistent and constant. I have always admired that about her for that. My faith journey has been more uneven. I attribute our differences to her coming to faith as a child as compared to my coming to faith as a college student. We decided to seek out another church home not too long after our marriage because we lived in Norman and also to establish our independence as a couple. We thought we had found a church in Norman to lay down spiritual roots but we when we saw church deacons smoking on the entrance steps to the building and then discovering our new pastor felt he lacked the power to cease that activity, we returned to Del City.

Being a Christ-follower, husband, and student took almost all of my time for the next two years. Graduation in December 1972 brought some new challenges. I wanted to teach secondary social studies or attend law school. These two options did not open up, so I worked as a salesman for about six months. I became bored with business, so I enlisted in the Army with a bonus to become a field artilleryman and rapid advance to sergeant.

Our first duty station was Fort Riley, Kansas. We lived in nearby Junction City with our apartment overlooking Interstate 70 in the extreme southern part of the city. We joined First Southern Baptist Church where we found a friendly group of junior enlisted soldiers and their wives much like ourselves. The highlight of our tour was the birth of our daughter at the fort’s hospital in June 1974.

My new orders directed me to report to Babenhausen, Germany in August 1975. Since this was a three-year tour, I extended my enlistment to a grand total of five years in order for Karen and our daughter to join me at government expense. We found an English-language Baptist church in nearby Aschaffenburg and became very active there. Pastor Charles Truitt, his wife Virginia, and their son were very welcoming to us.

Three years overseas in military service may seem like a long time to some, however the time for us flew by. In between my Army duties and completing my master’s degree from Boston University Karen and I became parents again with the birth of our son at the Army hospital in Frankfurt in December 1976. In the church I was ordained first to the diaconate and then to the ministry to serve as interim pastor after Pastor Truitt and Pastor Luke, his successor, had left. As our time in Germany was concluding, I was beginning to feel God’s call to fulltime ministry.

I considered initially two seminaries- the International Baptist Theological Seminary in Switzerland and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth. I finally decided to enroll in Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Missouri. It was a small school with easy access to Oklahoma. In June 1978 Karen and I, along with our two small children, left Germany and I was discharged from the Army at Fort Dix, New Jersey several days later.

Our church in Kansas City was typical SBC- traditional worship, traditional preaching, traditional music, traditional ministries, friendly people, and seemingly uncaring pastor. When I requested some financial assistance when we were in a tight situation, I felt like he just blew me off. I did some supply preaching on some Sundays in small churches in Missouri and Kansas. One church deacon told me that they were searching for a pastor whose wife played the piano; Karen and I chuckled about this for years since she did not play the piano.

I graduated with a Master of Religious Education degree in May 1980 and the following August became a fulltime staff minister in my first church. For the next 13 years we served four churches. Despite the many friends we had in these congregations, these experiences were so stressful and humiliating that I almost left the Church altogether.

We were despondent when we left the fourth church in August 1993, and I knew my days doing fulltime ministry were over even though I received my Doctor of Ministry degree from Midwestern Seminary. We decided not to move. When the pastors from Holmeswood Baptist Church, two colleagues and friends of mine, learned of our situation they insisted that Karen and I join Holmeswood for healing. We did and it worked out. Twice I filled interim staff positions at the church. And our daughter was married at Holmeswood with me as one of the officiants in the ceremony.

 

 

 

 

 

In the meantime, I also worked as a consultant, writer, bookseller, substitute teacher, and did some odd jobs. Our finances hit rock bottom and slowly we worked out of it especially when I was hired as a fulltime secondary social studies teacher and Karen took over our finances.  In 1998, I became the parttime Director of Christian Education at Saint Peter’s Episcopal Church while still retaining my Holmeswood membership. A few years later when I became a school administrator. Karen remained at Holmeswood so she and I would often worship at a Methodist church on Saturday evening. In time, Saint Peter’s found an Episcopalian for my position, and I returned to Holmeswood for my Sundays. Eventually, I became the parttime Adult Educator there working with a new pastor.  I resigned in 2010 when I was hired as an elementary school principal.

We began attending a Christian Reformed congregation with our daughter and her family. When they decided to attend a SBC church closer to their home, Karen and I followed. All of us joined the same Sunday.

Karen and I are now both retired and still attend Lenexa Baptist Church we joined in 2011. It is a large congregation, perhaps the largest Southern Baptist church in the Kansas-Nebraska Convention of Southern Baptists. It offers-

·       Insightful biblical preaching that appeals both to head and heart

·       Joyous music with a mixture of traditional hymns and contemporary songs

·       A wide variety of Adult Sunday School classes based on ages, life choices, and learning styles (Karen attends a lecture class and I attend a discussion-oriented class)

·       A winter basketball league for children with upwards of 600 children playing or cheering with scores of adult volunteers

·       Warm pastoral care from ordained leaders and lay leaders alike

·       Mission activities that include feeding the hungry; new church start-ups; reviving older churches; direct involvement in Haiti, Peru, and Nicaragua; and national and global mission trips

I owe this (my) church with being the major reason why I (and Karen) remain Southern Baptists- it “talks the talk” and “walks the walk.” Of course, this church as well as the entire SBC, are not perfect. But neither am I.

I am a Baptist out of conviction for the authority of the Scriptures, priesthood of the believer, evangelism and missions, and local church autonomy. But, in the end, does being a Baptist necessarily make one acceptable to God? Of course, not!

I am a Southern Baptist because that is the particular faith tradition that led me to Christ as my Lord and Savior, and then nurtured me in my faith. Does being a SBC Baptist necessarily make me a superior Baptist? Again, no! But as an old story tells it – I am going to dance with the one who brung me (to the dance).

To extend the analogy, other dances are also occurring in the big dance hall- folks dancing like myself to similar tunes played by a heavenly band- all types of Baptists, Methodists, Mennonites, Brethren, Anglicans, Lutherans, Disciples, Assemblies, and all the rest who stake their destinies with a Palestinian Jew who was killed on a cross and was raised from the dead by God, thus believing in the deity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God who resides in the Trinity with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as a co-equal member, and also the Bible, both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian New Testament, offers us a reliable witness to God at work in our world as creator and sustainer, and as such the Scriptures are our guide to faith and practice.

In the end, all Christ-followers are resident aliens passing through our temporary homelands on this planet to ultimately our heavenly home. On this journey I will primarily walk the Baptist path and hum the Southern Baptist tunes.

 

 

 

 

  

WHAT IF NEW YORK HAD VOTED NO?

The hot summer of 1776 grew more heated for the Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia. Congress was initially keen on voting for independence from Great Britain for the 13 colonies hugging the eastern coastline of North America. But the fervent  hopes for independence were being dashed by a quirt of parliamentary procedure.

To approve independence Congress had to be unanimous in its vote. Each colony had one vote, so all 13 colonies were need to vote in the affirmative. The problem was New York- its delegation had not received instructions on how to vote. The vote on July 2 was 12-0 in favor of independence with New York abstaining. John Hancock, the president of Congress, ruled that an abstaining vote must be ruled in the negative, Despite intense pressure on New York’s delegation and its political masters in New York, the votes on July 4, July 10, and August 1 were as identical as the first. Congress was exhausted.

Later in August, Congress was informed by General Washington of the Continental Army that Great Britain has sent the largest overseas army in the history of the world was now in New York harbor. The sails of the warships were seen to the horizon and the troops were landing on Staten Island preparing for attack against the colonial defenders. Moreover, the joint commanders of this huge force, the brothers General William Howe and Admiral Richard Howe, had also been designated by His Majesty’s government as peace commissioners to seek an honorable end of hostilities for both sides.

Congress, unable to secure independence for its constituents, was open to negotiations. After three days od debate, John Dickinson introduced a motion for Congress to enter into peace talks with the brothers Howe. After the motion’s unanimous approval, Congress appointed Dickinson, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and General Washington as its own peace commissioners.

The peace conference began on September 1 on Ellis Island. Joining the Howe brothers as British commissioners were General Cornwallis, General Clinton, and Edmund Burke, Member of Parliament. After opening introductions, the conference went straight to business. The initial talking points for each side were as follows:

Great Britain-

1.     Each colony was to give its full allegiance to the British Crown.

2.     Each colony was to obey and enforce without hesitation laws passed by Parliament.

3.     His Majesty’s Government will be in charge of Indian policy.

4.     Any colony or resident not during so after January 1, 1777, would be considered in a state of treason against the Crown and will receive the lawful punishment for the same.

Congress-

1.     Full and unconditional pardons for all persons who has threatened or attacked British official, soldiers, or policies to date.

2.     Each colony will select its own representative assembly, executive, and judges in the manner it deems best.

3.     Each colony will send two representatives as full voting members of Parliament selected in the manner the colony deems best.

4.     The Congress will continue as a legitimate body to represent the common interests of the colonies and will make lawful decisions accordingly.

Despite the bloodshed of the previous year at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill, the peace conference went surprisingly well. The real debate was over Indian policy. Britain was concerned about constant warfare between the natives and the colonials calling for the regular army to intervene. And Congress was concerned about the rights of Americans to move westward unhindered.

The conference concluded after three weeks with the following points:

·       British points # 1, 2, and 4, and Congress’s point #1 were adopted permanently.

·       The other points were adopted to be amended as needed by a “Framework for Governing the American Colonies” to take effect no longer than January 1, 1787.

·       Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin will be appointed to the committee to draft the framework.

·       Burke, the British colonial secretary, and one other person will name as the review committee for the frameworks.

·       To allow amble time for Parliament and Congress to each approve the peace agreement, the Continental Army and the British Expeditionary Force will remain in place until January 1, 1777. (However, for practical reasons, both armies dwindled in size until the designated date,)

The colonial committee finished the framework draft on March 31, 1777, and immediately sent several copies to London for the parliamentary review committee. A dozen changes were made and sent back with the colonial committee receiving the changes on May 28. These changes were approved the colonial committee and sent to Congress for its approval. After a week’s debate Congress passed the framework with one amendment and forwarded it to Parliament for its approval. Parliament approved without amendment on August 21, 1777, to be implemented on January 1, 1778.

The document entitled “The Framework for the Governance of the American Colonies” had the following major features:

Introduction

1.     Declaration of Intent between Parliament and the Continental Congress

2.     Acceptance of the Peace Agreement of January 1, 1777

3.     This framework does not include the governance of Canada

Main Section

4.     Each American colony will be redesignated as a “crown state”

5.     Each crown state will select its own assembly, executive, and judges

6.     Each crown state will send two full voting members to Parliament

7.     The “Confederation of Crown States” will have a Confederation Congress for common interests such as trade and frontier defense

8.     Each crown stae will send three delegates to Congress with each crown state having one vote

9.     Congress will select its own president who will have appointment powers for all department heads and judges enabled by the Congress

Declaration of Rights

10. Speech

11. Press

12. Assembly

13. Religion

14. Firearms

15. Due Process

Timeline of History

1778- Confederation of Crown States established with its capital in Philadelphia

1804- New Orleans seized by Royal Navy and Louisiana ceded to Britain by France

1806- Acts of Parliament and Confederation Congress declare Louisiana to be “Territory for all Native Tribes” for 99 years

1809- Slave trade abolished in British Empire

1826- Slavery abolished in British Empire

1827- South Carolina and Georgia rebelled over slave issue

1830- Rebellion crushed by British and Crown States forces; Governors Calhoun and Crawford convicted of insurrection, and imprisoned in Tower of London for 15 years

1850- British and Crown States forces seize Texas and California

1860- Acts of Parliament and Confederation Congress created the United States of America as sovereign nation within the British Commonwealth (along with Canada as its own nation)

1861- Queen Victoria and Prince Albert visited Philadelphia; July 1 declared as Commonwealth Day throughout USA

1875- USA purchased Alaska from Russia

1890- USA seized Hawaii

1899- USA seized Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and Philippines from Spain

1905- Grand Expansion on August 21 as Cuba, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, Philippines and seven states carved out of the old Louisiana Territory admitted to USA

1914- Great War begins in Europe; arrived of two million soldiers from USA and Canada in 1915 prove decisive on battlefield as Berlin is captured on November 1’ Russia moves from war to revolution as Reds are defeated; Commonwealth forces defeated National Socialists in Munich to prevent Nazi takeover of Germany

1942- Japan attacked Commonwealth bases in Hawaii, Wake Island, Guam, Philippines, Hong Kong, and Singapore

1944- Commonwealth forces defeated Japanese Navy in the decisive Naval Battle of the Central Pacific; Japan under total blockade

1946- Japan surrendered to Commonwealth and Allied nations

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

WE NEED A GARDEN OF HEROES

During the last year of his first-term presidency Donald Trump advocated for a Garden of Heroes to commemorate Americans who helped make this country great. Since the president encouraged folks to nominate candidates for the Garden of Heroes I submitted the following names:

·       Jim Thorpe- Sac and Fox Nation: college football All-American and Olympic champion; considered the greatest athlete of the first half of the twentieth century

·       Lieutenant Commander John Waldron- Lakota Nation: naval aviator who died leading his squadron against the Japanese fleet at the Battle of Midway

·       General Ely Parker- Seneca Nation: civil engineer who served on staff of General Grant during Civil War; later appointed by President Grant to be commissioner of Indian affairs

·       General Clarence Tinker- Osage Nation: army pilot who died at sea while leading his bomber unit against the Japanese fleet at the Battle of Midway

·       Sequoyah- Cherokee Nation: polymath who completed the Cherokee Syllabary which permitted the Cherokees to be able to read and write their language

·       Geronimo- Apache Nation: tribal leader and medicine man who had a large portion of the US Army pursuing him and his followers before his surrender

·       Sitting Bull- Lakota Nation: tribal leader and holy man who led his people to resist US government policies towards indigenous peoples

·       Crazy Horse- Lakota Nation: tribal war leader who resisted the US government

As you can see all my nominations are Native Americans. While not personally Native American, I appreciate their contributions to American history and culture and desired to see an ample number of worthy Native Americans represented in the Garden. Unfortunately, President has ended the Garden of Heroes project. Whether or not the Garden of Heroes is realized, who would you nominate?

 

 

WHERE IS WINSTON CHURCHILL WHEN WE NEED HIM?

 Of course, the title question is nonsensical. Winston Churchill the man has been dead for nearly six decades. What we need today in American leadership is the spirit of Winston Churchill. Two events stand out.

Churchill became prime minister of Great Britain in May 1940 on the same day Nazi Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. Per the British Army’s war plans, a large expeditionary force was sent across the English Channel to defend the British allies from conquest by the Germans. Unfortunately, the Netherlands was quickly overwhelmed and Belgium was teetering on surrender. So, it was the French army and the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) left to hold on. But they were no match for the rapid onslaught of the Germans.

Soon the BEF and the French forces in the north were in full retreat And by chance of geography they were headed for the small French channel port of Dunkirk near the Belgian border. With their backs to the sea, hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers would either be captured or killed unless they were rescued. Churchill thus ordered Operation Dynamo into operation. Dynamo had three components- 1) sea rescue by naval ships, fishing boats, private yachts, and any other motorized craft which could hold soldiers for the channel crossing back to Britain, 2) air cover was minimal due to Churchill’s desire to save the bulk of the Royal Air Force fighters- the Spitfires and the Hurricanes- for the coming air defense of the British Isles (the Battle of Britain), and Royal Navy Captain William Tennent was dispatched to Dunkirk with a team of 120 officers and sailors to organize the evacuation.

I have shared Tennant’s story in an earlier essay. But it worth noting again that when Tennant inquired about the expectations for him and his team, he was told they would very fortunate to rescue 30,000 soldiers off the beaches at Dunkirk. In the end, 330,000 soldiers were evacuated- 11 times the expected number for Tennant’s team.

When the Germans realized that the bulk of the BEF had been safely returned to Britain, they turned their attention to the rest of France. Within weeks the French surrendered and signed an armistice with Germany and its ally Italy. The status of the French fleet harbored in French North Africa now became a concern for Churchill. If the Germans took possession of the French warships the entire Mediterranean theatre of operations would be endangered as well as the Suez Canal.

Churchill ordered a naval task force- Force H- to Oran, Algeria and after negotiations broke down on July 3, 1940, Force H fired upon the French ships sinking one battleship, damaging five other warships, and killing over 1200 French sailors. That battle along with several other actions against French ships enabled the Royal Navy to keep supply lines open to Malta, Egypt, the Suez, and ultimately to India. Churchill’s resolve to keep French warships away from the Germans impressed the world that Britain was serious in its fight against the Nazis, especially President Franklin Roosevelt ot the United States. Soon Britain was receiving emotional and material support from the Americans.

Fast forward 81 years to Kabul, Afghanistan. What did we see and hear?

·       Monday, August 16- We saw images of the chaos at the airport. Afghans clinging to US aircraft as they were taking off with several persons falling to their deaths, No Dunkirk here.

·       Tuesday, August 17- We heard official reports that the Taliban now possessed millions of dollars’ worth of US military equipment and weapons. No Force H here.

·       Wednesday, August 18- We heard continued reports that the US government can not guarantee the safety and security of thousands of American civilians remaining in Afghanistan. No resolve here.

I ask once again, “Where is Winston Churchill when we need him?”

 

 

 

 

 

CHURCHILL'S DILEMMA

 Winston Churchill is one of my favorite leaders. He was 65 years of age when the King appointed him to be prime minister of Great Britain, an age when most men are considering retirement, not a promotion. For Churchill, being the leader of his beloved nation was the accumulation of his destiny that he had held since he was a boy.

The purpose of this essay is not to examine his leadership qualities and weaknesses; the eager and curious reader can find these in numerous (almost too numerous in that the authors of contemporary Churchill biographies feel the need to explain why yet another book on this man is being published). Rather, my purpose here is to dive into an action he took early in his premiership that shines a light on his leadership thought and character.

Far too many so-called leaders view their leadership as primarily one of position to focus on themselves. Real leaders are active from their positions and authority to do what is best for their people with the focus on action. Churchill’s focus in World War II was to defeat Nazi Germany whom he considered to be a threat to Western Civilization. Having named himself defense minister in addition to being prime minister the epicenter of the British war effort, for better or for worse, on this man. He delegated domestic policies to other cabinet ministers.

Our story begins on May 10, 1940. On the day Churchill is promoted to Prime Minister from First Lord of the Admiralty (the ministerial head of the Royal Navy) to replace Neville Chamberlain, Nazi Germany invaded France, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Denmark. The Belgians, Dutch, and Danes quickly fell to the Nazi onslaught and the French army and the supporting large British Expeditionary Force (BEF) were stunned by the rapid Nazi advance into France. The allied retreat was in full swing and by late May they were centered on Dunkirk surrounded by the sea on one side and the Nazis on the other three. Churchill ordered an evacuation expecting limited success. But between May 26 and June 3 a flotilla of Royal Navy warships and private yachts, trawlers, and fishing boats of all sizes rescued about 330,000 British and French soldiers in a massively successful Naval operation.  There was another successful, yet lesser-known sea evacuation several weeks later further south. But Churchill warned his people that wars are not won by evacuations.

As the war continued in France, the renowed elan (fighting spirit) of the French army and civilian morale were waning. Churchill personally flew to France several times to visit French leaders urging them to continue the fight. He even proposed a stunning union of Britain and France to fight as one nation against Nazi Germany. From these meetings Churchill sensed that France was done for and was not surprised by the French surrender on June 22 Britain was now alone.

The Nazis divided France into two sections- the fully occupied north and a pro-Nazi puppet government led by French collaborators headquartered in the city of Vichy, commonly known as Vichy France. While the Vichy administered French overseas colonies in Africa, Asia, the Pacific, and the Caribbean, Nazi ideology and policies reigned. Now came Churchill’s dilemma and how he dealt with this dilemma could determine the outcome of the British war effort against Nazi tyranny.

The French fleet, nominally under Vichy control, was anchored at the naval base of Mers-el-Kebir near the city of Oran, Algeria in North Africa. The squadron there consisted of two battleships, two battle cruisers, and perhaps a dozen support ships. If these ships fell under Nazi control, then the Mediterranean Sea would eventuality fall under Nazi and Italian control, endangering British bases at Gibraltar and Malta, and more importantly, cut off Egypt and the Suez Canal, and make supplying India nearly impossible.

Churchill ordered Admiral James Somerville to assemble Task Force H to sail to Oran to conduct what Churchill later wrote of as “…a hateful decision, the most unnatural and painful in which I have ever been concerned.” For if the French ships did not join the Royal Navy or did not sail to the United States or a French colonial territory for the duration of the war, or were not scuttled in the harbor, Task Force H had the authority to attack the French ships to disable them to keep them from possible Nazi control.

Task Force H arrived at Oran on the morning of July 3. After eight hours of negotiations proved futile, the British ships commenced their attack. Within ten minutes, three of the French capital ships were sunk or beached and 1,250 French sailors were killed.

What are we to make of Churchill’s decision? While some commentators lamented this attack as betrayal of a former ally, most concurred with Churchill that the action, while distasteful, was necessary to win the war. Even more important, a watchful President Roosevelt in the United States now knew that Churchill was serious about winning and that he, Roosevelt, could begin aiding Britain in small ways at first and then with increasing larger assistance until December 1941, when there was a full-blown alliance between the United States and Great Britain to defeat Nazi Germany and thus save Western Civilization.

As a leader of whatever organization that you lead, you will most probably not be called upon or feel the necessity of sinking ships and killing former allies. But deep in your heart of hearts, do you have the ability to make often personally painful decisions to assist your organization to stay focused on its mission?

MYTHS ABOUT LINCOLN

 Abraham Lincoln was undoubtedly one of our greatest presidents. His face is sculptured on Mount Rushmore and is printed on our five dollar bills. Lincoln’s birthday was celebrated annually on February 9 until merged with Washington’s birthday in the same month to formed Presidents’ Day.  I have published an essay on his blog that also appeared in my first book that Lincoln was the last in the line of our Revolutionary Founders in that the Civil War essentially completed the work that began in 1776 (and still needs finetuning even to this day).

The lives of great persons inevitably produce myths surrounding these lives and Lincoln was no exception. Even though myths are grounded in some truths about these persons and can be used to help motivate their descendants like us to accomplish great things, nevertheless myths are usually harmful to the extent that they cloud the complexity of the historical record and violate the NCM theory of history- that history is in fact nuanced, contradictory, and messy, In this essay I will list and briefly describe several myths surrounding Lincoln so that we can gain a deeper understanding of his life and influence on us today.

 

MYTH # 1- Lincoln was defeated for re-election to Congress after one term.  

One major blinding fault of the Founders was that although they perceived human passions and ambitions which resulted in a check-and-balances  government, they did not foresee the rise of organized political factions or parties. Jefferson and Madison founded the Democratic-Republican Party (later morphed into the Democratic Party) and Washington and Hamilton founded the Federalist Party. He Federalists disappeared after the War of 1812 and after a few decades the Whig Party emerged. Lincoln was originally a Whig.

In Illinois, candidates for the US House of Representatives were nominated by district conventions. In the 1840s Lincoln and several other Whigs made an informal agreement in which each of them would serve one term- 1847-1849 was going to be Lincoln’s time of serving in Congress. But as the election of 1846 approached, the then-serving congressman gave signals that he wanted to be elected to a second term.  Lincoln had to appeal to their agreement to secure the nomination for himself. He was elected despite his opponent publicly questioned his religious faith convictions.

In his two years in Washington Lincoln met fellow congressman John Quincy Adams, the only former president elected to the House, As the son of John Adams and the defending attorney of the Amadeus case before the Supreme Court, Adams was the connection to the Founders and Lincoln serving as one of the pall bearers at Adams’s funeral sealed that connection for Lincoln symbolically. In addition, Lincoln attacked President Polk for the conduct of the Mexican American War. Folks back in Illinois were very proud of their militia units fighting in Mexico so some considered Lincoln’s criticisms to be near treasonous.

Despite his feelings that the war was unjust, Lincoln knew that another Whig was due his turn to serve, He lobbied for appointment as Commissioner of the Public Land Office when he left Congress but the position was offered to another. Lincoln left Washington disappointed not for being defeated for re-election but for being denied appointment to an executive position.

This myth is widely used by success gurus and life coaches to help motivate us to look past our own defeats to find success in the future as Lincoln did. While their attempts are admirable, the means do not fit the facts. A more honest and historical approach would be this- Lincoln knew that he had only one term in office and he had to decide how to be effective, either by the popular way by supporting President Polk and the the war effort or by the conscientious way by criticizing the President and the war because he thought the war was an imperialistic overreach by the US and therefore, unjust. By deciding on the latter approach we gain entry into Lincoln’s character.

 

MYTH #2- Lincoln was a “blue collar” lawyer before entering the White House.

Lincoln was perhaps the most unschooledpPresident as compared to the other 44 men who had held the office. The demands of the family farm together with the family poverty and the isolation of the frontier kept Lincoln away from the schoolhouse most of his youth. I have personally visited his birth site and can attest to the isolation and ruggedness of the Kentucky frontier and I can imagine Indiana, where the family moved, was the same. Only did Illinois, where Lincoln moved as a young man, offer him the wide open prairie.

Despite being unschooled, Lincoln was not unlearned. In fact, Lincoln is perhaps one of the most educated of our presidents. He was a supreme learner. He regularly read the Bible, Shakespeare, and Euclid’s Geometry as well as other books he borrowed to read on breaks during his farm labors. He also read newspapers, including Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune which featured for a time as a European correspondent Karl Marx, later co-author of The Communist Manifesto. During the Civil War, Lincoln taught himself military tactics, so as to become an active commander-in-chief and on par (or even more effective than) Jefferson Davis, his Confederate counterpart, who had graduated from West Point and served as US Secretary of War.

Lincoln was also largely self-taught in law. In the days before law schools became the normal entry into the profession, a prospective barrister would find a practicing attorney to serve as his mentor and serve under him for a few years, observing the mentor in action and reading law books before generally departing on their own. This Lincoln did in Springfield, Illinois and once “graduated” he formed a law partnership with William Herndon who also became a close friend and confidant.

In Illinois at the time, lower state courts were circuit courts; this meant that judges and attorneys would travel from town to town during the circuit season. Lincoln would travel with the courts to build a reputation and a clientele. He defended farmers, merchants, and other working class yeomen before the courts. He developed his legal reasoning and oratorical skills as well as his story-telling ability which appealed to his clientele.

When his congressional term expired and when his desire for appointment as the land commissioner was vanquished. Lincoln decided on a change in his legal practice which would sustain him on the national stage- he became a railroad and corporate attorney. Lincoln represented the Illinois Central Railroad in several cases and when Cyrus McCormick sued John Manny for patent infringement, Lincoln was enlisted for the Manny defense team. However, the other lawyers on the team did not think highly of Lincoln and his role was reduced to the point that Lincoln felt he was a mere spectator. He returned to Springfield humiliated; nevertheless, he continued to work rebuilding his reputation to the point that in 1858 he was the Republican nominee for the US Senate. [In a turn of irony Edwin Stanton was one of his fellow attorneys in the McCormick v. Manny case who had “roughly handled” him, went to become US attorney general on the disasterous Buchanan administration. In 1862, Lincoln chose him to be secretary of war. Stanton served Lincoln until the president’s death. ]

 

MYTH #3- Lincoln was a racist.

Back in the day, when I was a high school social studies teacher, I got engaged in a spirited discussion with a student who said Lincoln owned slaves and was therefore a racist. I told the student that Lincoln did not own slaves. When the student persisted, I asked him for his evidence. “I saw it on television,” he confidently told me.

Obviously, my student was wrong about Lincoln owning slaves. As a matter of fact, Lincoln detested slavery. As a young man, Lincoln boated down the Mississippi as part of a work party and visited New Orleans. The sight of slave markets revolted him to his core.He eventually articulated his belief that people had the right to enjoy the fruit of their labors earned by their sweat from work.

But a more nuanced approach to my discussion with the student could lead me to agree with him that Lincoln may have been a racist but only in today’s context but not in Lincoln’s day. Although Lincoln did not personally support slavery, he may not have thought the races were equal. For example, he once supported the colonization efforts of sending freed slaves back to Africa. That endeavor had some success with freemen creating the nation of Liberia with the capital city named Monrovia after President Monroe, himself a slaveowner,

Why Lincoln did not formally identify with the abolitionist movement is a complex question. Although his adopted home state of Illinois was a free state, it wa still influenced by the slave states of Kentucky to the south and Missouri to the west. And no one desiring career advancement through Illinois politics before the war wanted to be seen as a “radical” on the issue of racial equality, a charge brought by Stephen Douglas against Lincoln in their famous debates for the US Senate election in 1858.

Yet, I believe Lincoln did have the growth in his moral compass to see equality of peoples regardless of race. After all, Frederick Douglass, an abolitionist and former slave, believed that he did.

 

MYTH #4- Lincoln violated the Constitution.

Of course, Confederates and Copperheads, their Northern sympathizers, considered Lincoln to be a tyrant responsible for the war. Lincoln considered the Federal Union to be firm and worth fighting for while Jefferson Davis and his ilk likened the Union to be a free association in which states could enter and leave as they so desired. In the movie Gettysburg, Confederate General Pickett in a campfire colloquy to his fellow officers could therefore liken the Union to membership in a gentlemen’s club.

Yet, many Americans believe Lincoln did violate the Constitution went it came to habeas corpus (Latin for “you shall have the body (in court)). It means that if a person is arrested, law enforcement must produce the prisoner before a judge and justified the detention of the prisoner. This legal principle came to us from English law and was considered so vital to liberty that that our Founders placed it in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2) without waiting for the Bill of Rights to be adopted.

Lincoln did indeed suspend Habeas Corpus but many do not realize that the Constitution permits this action to be taken in cases of rebellion or invasion, Federal courts have ruled that this can also mean if public safety is in danger. Three other presidents have also suspended habeas corpus- Grant, FDR, and Bush 43. In Lincoln’s case, it was the question of whether Congress should determine if suspension is in order (since habeas corpus appears in Article 1) or the president as commander-in-chief can act solo in suspending this vital protection.

Throughout the war, Lincoln had to proceed cautiously and slowly in constitutional matters because of the Supreme Court. Several years before Lincoln became president in 1861 the court led by Chief Justice Roger Taney has ruled in the infamous Dred Scott decision against the freedom of a slave taken to the North by the master. Taney was a slaveholder and some of the associate justices held Southern sympathies, so Lincoln had to insure all his actions passed constitutional scrutiny from the Supreme Court if the war was to be fought effectively and successfully.

 

MYTH #5- Lincoln freed the slaves.

When the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo became popular in the United States many Americans mistakenly thought the Fifth of May was the celebration of Mexico’s Independence Day, which is really September 16. On May 5, 1862, Mexican forces defeated the French Foreign Legion in the Battle of Puebla. France had taken advantage of the United States in its Civil War to violate the Monroe Doctrine by invading Mexico in an attempt to enlarge the French Empire. The Mexican victory at Puebla did not mark the end of French rule, it was just a setback. The French end became clear in 1865 when the United States, fresh from its victorious war against the Southern Confederacy, began to reinsert itself against France and its violation of the Monroe Doctrine.

About the same time, another mistaken reason for a holiday occurred, this time in the United States. On June 19, 1865, US General Gordon Granger announced to the slaves of Galveston,, Texas they were now freed under the terms of the Emancipation Proclamation. “Juneteenth” is now celebrated as the end of slavery in the US,  finally becoming a Federal holiday in 2021. But the facts behind this event are more nuanced than the popular perception.

On January 1, 1863, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, an executive order issued under the president’s war powers as commander-in-chief. As such, only those slaves in areas of Confederate control were freed and slaves under Federal control like New Orleans and slaves in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware remained in captivity. This can lead one to speculate that General Granger exceeded his authority to free the slaves in Galveston since the city was under Federal control when he arrived, but I digress. The Proclamation was limited for two reasons- the Supreme Court (see MYTH #4) and the fact Lincoln had correctly perceived that the war must have a moral dimension to keep European powers such as Britain from entering the war or actively supporting the Confederacy.

Thus, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the United States albeit it set the general tone for the Federal conduct of the war in the final 30 months of combat. The Thirteenth Amendment ratified in December, 1865  and implemented in January, 1866 finally put to rest the notion that the United States could remain a “house divided” on the issue of slavery.

 

MYTH #6- Lincoln rose above politics.

Lincoln’s assassination was an emotional gut check for many Americans. His death, for many mourners,  practically deified him as “Father Abraham” among the angels. Perhaps that haliography is appropriate for our Last Founder, but perhaps not. Lincoln was as much as a political animal as our other presidents.

For example, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were the primary creators of the Democratic-Republican opposition to the Federalists under the leadership of George Washington, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton. Madison had been an early speechwriter for President Washington while a congressman and secretly turned against him. Jefferson, recalled from France to serve as our first secretary of state, hired a clerk for the Department of State not to  deal with diplomatic matters, but to be the editor of a political newspaper which attacked Washington and other Federalists. Jefferson also tried to sway the evidence against Aaron Burr, his own vice president, in Burr’s trial for treason.

Without going into too much detail for this essay, I urge the reader to watch Steven Spielberg’s movie Lincoln. The film depicts the President fighting for passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in the House of Representatives bribing congressmen with patronage jobs and lying to Congress whether his administration was having talks with  Confederate peace commissioners. If the events depicted in the movie are even close to what really happened without too much literary license, then Lincoln was a master politician.

 

Abraham Lincoln duly remains as one of our greatest presidents. He was indeed our last Founder as he had both the personal purpose and the political power to begin to end slavery in the United States and pave the way for civil rights for all Americans. We have much to complete in that regard but what we do accomplish now and in the future rests upon his shoulders.