Quote of the Day: Abraham Lincoln and his Religiosity

 

Lincoln grew into an intensely religious man, although we rarely hear him described in those terms nowadays. His religious faith became fundamental to his thinking and decision-making during the Civil War; we rarely hear that either. When he assumed the enormous burden of the presidency with war approaching, his faith grew deeper. When his beloved young son Willie died in early 1862, it deepened again—and seemed to continue growing deeper until his death. In the end Lincoln should almost certainly be remembered as the most important religious figure America has ever produced. I don’t mean he was a theologian. But Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah weren’t theologians either.

– David Gelernter, The Fourth Great Western Religion

In the beginning of his book, David Gelernter asks what it means to “believe” in America. He believes that the Puritans used their religion to plant the seeds for faith-based ideals such as liberty, equality and democratic governance.

More than ever, the performance of Abraham Lincoln has come up for criticism. In terms of actions he made that defied federal law, he believed that the times demanded these decisions. He was also a deeply religious man, enduring many losses both personal and political, and although people have questioned his Christianity (because he was not a regular church-goer), he relied on his faith and especially the Old Testament to guide him.

How well do we live our faiths, even when we embrace them? How often are we called to compromise our ideals? How well do we resist those pressures?

Published in Religion & Philosophy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 43 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    It was his responsibility to keep the United in the States

    No it wasn’t.  This is the myth of “preserving the union. He took an oath to preserve the constitution, not the union. 

    • #31
  2. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Vectorman (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    In the case of the Maryland legislature, In September 1861 Lincoln ordered the arrest of some, not all, of its members at a session called to consider secession. Lincoln’s view was that he was not going to sit by and risk Maryland seceding and cutting off all lines of supply to the American capital and bringing the Confederate frontier to the Mason Dixon line. You can argue with his actions, and some historians do, but it was business, not personal.

    It was patently illegal and unamerican. The war hadn’t even started, I believe. Also, you don’t explain how he jailed newspaper editors during the war. Very little of his behavior was Christian.

    The First Battle of Fort Sumter began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery fired on the Union garrison. These were the first shots of the [Civil] war…

    Lincoln shouldn’t have purposely provoked them by sending a ship to reinforce them. He got what he wanted. He wanted a war. 

    • #32
  3. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    I remember listening to a lecture on Lincoln where the lecturer made a great deal about Lincoln’s irreligiosity based on Lincoln having done impressions of his preacher when he was young.

    Imagine that. An adolescent mocking an authority figure. First time it had ever happened, I’ll bet.

    As a young man, Lincoln was celebrated for his wit; he’d send people roaring over his stories and he did it with a light heart. I suspect his making fun of others reminded people to not take themselves too seriously as well.

    Perci & Susan,

    I don’t care much for psychoanalytic history especially the kind that claims it knows all about someone due to their childhood. However, sometimes radically different childhoods do shape personality and can help if you are trying honestly to understand someone.

    Lincoln’s father was probably highly intelligent but a very troubled guy. He was completely irreligious at first and would get into “land disputes” meaning claims over property in the new wilderness territories that he had moved his small family into. Because of these disputes which he often lost legally, he moved the family farther and farther west. Each time he had to clear the land and put up a one-room cabin. A very young Abe was using the ax to do the clearing. He was also using the ax to cut enough firewood to last through an Illinois winter in their tiny cabin. Although on the frontier a close by small church was a great blessing as the communal help offered could be a lifesaver, Thomas Lincoln would have nothing to do with it. Then one winter his wife got the “milk sickness”. I don’t know the particulars but the disease could be fatal. Thomas Lincoln left on foot to get the doctor who was a few days walk away. Abe was 9 and his younger sister was 7. Their mother died in front of them alone in the one-room cabin.

    After this event, Thomas Lincoln did change. He developed a relationship with the nearby church. The Reverand arranged a mailorder bride for him. The new wife of Thomas came with a wagon load of pots & pans, clothes, and books, one of which was a Bible. His new mother taught him to read using the Bible. Abraham Lincoln forever after referred to her as his “Angel Mother” as she most certainly must have appeared to him at the time.

    Lincoln very rarely referred to his father but he did not leave Washington to attend his father’s funeral. I think that everyone must remember that it was Horace Greely that said: “Go West Young Man”. Greely was a highly paid newspaperman in New York living in a hotel room at the time. The West he was telling people to go to was no picnic.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #33
  4. Kevin Schulte Member
    Kevin Schulte
    @KevinSchulte

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    It was his responsibility to keep the United in the States

    No it wasn’t. This is the myth of “preserving the union. He took an oath to preserve the constitution, not the union.

    I ask again.

    Should we have let the South secede ? 

    Should we of let them be a slave nation on our boarder ?

    • #34
  5. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    It was his responsibility to keep the United in the States

    No it wasn’t. This is the myth of “preserving the union. He took an oath to preserve the constitution, not the union.

    I ask again.

    Should we have let the South secede ?

     

    Absolutely.  Self determination is the fundamental premise of our revolution  

    Should we of let them be a slave nation on our boarder ?

    No, but it took four years and 600,000 dead to marginally free the slaves. Who’s to say that secession and economic isolation wouldn’t have been at least as effective?

     

    • #35
  6. Kevin Schulte Member
    Kevin Schulte
    @KevinSchulte

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    It was his responsibility to keep the United in the States

    No it wasn’t. This is the myth of “preserving the union. He took an oath to preserve the constitution, not the union.

    I ask again.

    Should we have let the South secede ?

     

    Absolutely. Self determination is the fundamental premise of our revolution

    Should we of let them be a slave nation on our boarder ?

    No, but it took four years and 600,000 dead to marginally free the slaves. Who’s to say that secession and economic isolation wouldn’t have been at least as effective?

     

    Thank you. Now I understand fully your position.

    • #36
  7. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    I don’t care much for psychoanalytic history especially the kind that claims it knows all about someone due to their childhood. However, sometimes radically different childhoods do shape personality and can help if you are trying honestly to understand someone.

    Thanks, Jim. I read one book on his early years. He hated the outdoor work he was forced to do, but he did it because it needed to be done. The “rail splitter” title was not one he embraced, because his life was difficult and he wanted to end up as far away from it as he could. But I think it gave him a kind of resilience that pushed him through his darkest times.

    • #37
  8. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    I don’t care much for psychoanalytic history especially the kind that claims it knows all about someone due to their childhood. However, sometimes radically different childhoods do shape personality and can help if you are trying honestly to understand someone.

    Thanks, Jim. I read one book on his early years. He hated the outdoor work he was forced to do, but he did it because it needed to be done. The “rail splitter” title was not one he embraced, because his life was difficult and he wanted to end up as far away from it as he could. But I think it gave him a kind of resilience that pushed him through his darkest times.

    Susan,

    I’m glad you mentioned the “Rail Splitter” title. Rail splitting was a specialty job done to make split rail fences. These were favorite’s of rich farmers. Abe did this job after he left home for Springfield to make extra money. Clearing land and chopping firewood in the quantity you’d need for winter in your one-room cabin is a whole different story especially at age 9 or less.

    This isn’t the kind of romantic nonsense that was promulgated by Carl Sandburg and the like. America was neither the paradise of a magic frontier nor the hell of a racist slave society. We need to do better than this to understand ourselves. America deserves better.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #38
  9. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    Then one winter his wife got the “milk sickness”. I don’t know the particulars but the disease could be fatal. Thomas Lincoln left on foot to get the doctor who was a few days walk away. Abe was 9 and his younger sister was 7. Their mother died in front of them alone in the one-room cabin.

    Milk sickness is caused by livestock feeding on the white snakeroot plant and humans subsequently consuming the dairy products of the animals or the animals themselves. A woman doctor (Anna Pierce Hobbs Bixby) made the connection based on information she got from a Shawnee medicine woman. The plant grows along the Ohio River and its tributaries, mainly in forests. Early settlers allowed their cattle to graze in the forests mainly because there wasn’t much choice, but as conditions became more settled, cattle were pastured in a more regular way. Milk sickness was frequently fatal.

    White snakeroot hasn’t been eradicated. Cattle don’t like it much and won’t eat it unless there’s nothing else available.

    • #39
  10. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Percival (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    Then one winter his wife got the “milk sickness”. I don’t know the particulars but the disease could be fatal. Thomas Lincoln left on foot to get the doctor who was a few days walk away. Abe was 9 and his younger sister was 7. Their mother died in front of them alone in the one-room cabin.

    Milk sickness is caused by livestock feeding on the white snakeroot plant and humans subsequently consuming the dairy products of the animals or the animals themselves. A woman doctor (Anna Pierce Hobbs Bixby) made the connection based on information she got from a Shawnee medicine woman. The plant grows along the Ohio River and its tributaries, mainly in forests. Early settlers allowed their cattle to graze in the forests mainly because there wasn’t much choice, but as conditions became more settled, cattle were pastured in a more regular way. Milk sickness was frequently fatal.

    White snakeroot hasn’t been eradicated. Cattle don’t like it much and won’t eat it unless there’s nothing else available.

    Perci,

    Thanks for the update.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #40
  11. Vectorman Inactive
    Vectorman
    @Vectorman

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Vectorman (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    In the case of the Maryland legislature, In September 1861 Lincoln ordered the arrest of some, not all, of its members at a session called to consider secession. Lincoln’s view was that he was not going to sit by and risk Maryland seceding and cutting off all lines of supply to the American capital and bringing the Confederate frontier to the Mason Dixon line. You can argue with his actions, and some historians do, but it was business, not personal.

    It was patently illegal and unamerican. The war hadn’t even started, I believe. Also, you don’t explain how he jailed newspaper editors during the war. Very little of his behavior was Christian.

    The First Battle of Fort Sumter began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery fired on the Union garrison. These were the first shots of the [Civil] war…

    Lincoln shouldn’t have purposely provoked them by sending a ship to reinforce them. He got what he wanted. He wanted a war.

    Please read my bold comments above. In September 1861, Lincoln ordered the arrest of the Maryland legislature. The Civil War effectively started on April 12, 1861. September 1861 is after April 1861. You were incorrect to state that the war hadn’t even started, regardless of the statement “I believe.” I went to Wiki to prove my point. Maybe you should look up facts if you have any such questions. 

    • #41
  12. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Vectorman (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Vectorman (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    In the case of the Maryland legislature, In September 1861 Lincoln ordered the arrest of some, not all, of its members at a session called to consider secession. Lincoln’s view was that he was not going to sit by and risk Maryland seceding and cutting off all lines of supply to the American capital and bringing the Confederate frontier to the Mason Dixon line. You can argue with his actions, and some historians do, but it was business, not personal.

    It was patently illegal and unamerican. The war hadn’t even started, I believe. Also, you don’t explain how he jailed newspaper editors during the war. Very little of his behavior was Christian.

    The First Battle of Fort Sumter began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery fired on the Union garrison. These were the first shots of the [Civil] war…

    Lincoln shouldn’t have purposely provoked them by sending a ship to reinforce them. He got what he wanted. He wanted a war.

    Please read my bold comments above. In September 1861, Lincoln ordered the arrest of the Maryland legislature. The Civil War effectively started on April 12, 1861. September 1861 is after April 1861. You were incorrect to state that the war hadn’t even started, regardless of the statement “I believe.” I went to Wiki to prove my point. Maybe you should look up facts if you have any such questions.

    Petty point considering the charge is that he jailed the entire state legislature when they hadn’t voted to secede and he did it without any due process.

    That’s like saying “but Jeffery Dahmer didn’t use any spices when he ate people.

    • #42
  13. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    The Maryland secession debates occurred over several months.  On February 18-19, 1861 a convention met to consider secession and voted against it.  This was before Fort Sumter.  After Virginia’s secession in May, the Maryland Governor called the Assembly back and it considered secession again, ended up voting down the proposals but decided that the state would remain neutral in the conflict and bar passage of Union troops (though because Union troops effectively controlled the transport routes already this never happened, though one clash occurred earlier on April 19 in Baltimore leaving 4 soldiers and 12 civilians dead).   The Assembly then adjourned and agreed to meet on September 17 to reevaluate circumstances and possibly reconsider secession.  This meeting never occurred because Lincoln ordered the arrest of several of the legislators considered supporters of secession. I’ve tried to find out how long they were in custody but only found a reference to one, considered the ringleader, who was held for five months and then released.

    • #43
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.