Abraham Lincoln: The Man Behind The Myths

In reading through Abraham Lincoln: the Man Behind the Myths, I have seen my views on Lincoln pretty drastically changed. Prior to this novel, I took the very common stance of Abraham Lincoln being one of the greatest presidents we have ever had. Now, I wouldn’t say I am nearly as passionate about Lincoln as any of the authors mentioned are, and therefore I believe myself to be rather blind to the mythology built around Lincoln. However, despite this blindness, I will say that my eyes have been opened to who I believe Lincoln is as well as what my perception of him has to do with what I’m told. Oates does indeed have biases similar to the very authors he puts down, however, Oates seems to be trying to reach a more realistic realization.
One

of the very first problems behind mythology that Oates tells us is that “In truth, Lincoln may have been one of the two or three most unpopular living Presidents in American history. Assassination, though, chastened his legion of critics and brought them swiftly into the ranks of the glorifiers.” (17). A lot can be said about how myths turn into reality, however, one of the easiest way to turn even the most mediocre man into one beloved is death. This has been proven time and time over again in the cases of JFK, Kurt Cobain, Vincent van Gogh, etc. I suppose it is a part of human nature to make something more important and influential after it is gone. This illusion of grandeur can be easily represented by Sandburg’s famous “Man of the People” viewpoint of Lincoln. Sandburg was not after the truth, but rather after a role model and hero who could exemplify the American ideal. Sandburg’s biography is littered with what an upstanding man Lincoln is, how loyal, intelligent, and loved he is- how much better Reconstruction and the world itself could have been if Lincoln had only lived. Sandburg sets the bar high, fortunately he puts Lincoln on a pedestal tall enough to reach it.
On the contrary as everyone knows, every action must have an equal and opposite reaction. So, of course if there are Lincoln worshippers then there must always be Lincoln haters. This is where the idea of the “Arch Villain” myth comes in. This was mostly prevalent on the Confederate side as obviously the man had destroyed them and forced them back into the Union. He was the reason behind an unnecessary war in their eyes. In fact the with the passing of the Emancipation Proclamation, “Jefferson Davis considered the proclamation ‘the most execrable measure recorded in the history of guilty man,’ and rebels everywhere vowed to fight all the harder against the monster who had issued it.” (18). Many men simply flew hate speech in all directions, calling him shabby, cowardly, a fraud. The problem was not simply limited to the South. One Edward Lee Masters “portrayed Lincoln as an undersexed, “slick” and dastardly demagogue who could have avoided war, but instead crushed the South into submission, in the process obliterating state rights, destroying “the principles of free government,” and clearing the way for industrial monopolies and rampant corruption.” (20) Despite such hate, this “Arch Villain” has yet to overturn the mammoth myth it opposes, so naturally, there must be another counter-myth, one known as “White Chief and Honky”. This one presents Lincoln as a bigot out of all things. This counter-myth plays on both ends of the spectrum as it alienates abolitionists but rallies those for slavery. In this way, this myth saw Lincoln as both a villain, but also liked, which is an interesting take. These three ideas simply wrestle with each other.
Here Oates masterfully uses dichotomy- or rather trichotomy- and contrast as a way to enhance his own ideas of Lincoln.

In displaying these very powerfully extreme ideals of Lincoln, Oates can present his middle ground philosophy in a way that makes it look like the most reasonable option over the other two more radical ideals. In showing off other people’s ideals while subtly inferring they are incorrect, Oates is setting up his ideals impeccably for us to eat them up. Another method I found effective was the use of relatable feelings to portray Lincoln the way he wanted by playing on our pathos, especially in the section “A Matter of Profound Wonder”. In this section Oates focuses very directly on the more psychological side of Lincoln. He speaks of Lincoln’s shame surrounding his upbringing and his intense depression. Oates describes him, saying, “Even with marriage and a family, Lincoln remained a moody, melancholy man, given to long introspections about things like death and mortality. In truth, death was a lifelong obsession with him.” (45-46) and then leading on to recounting how Lincoln used politics and money to measure worth and to get out of his own head. This was a very potent way to bring Lincoln down to size- emotions humanize. I am sure we can all relate to Lincoln in some way on a shame or depression or feeling of inadequacy. A myth knows no

weaknesses.
Overall I believe Oates perfectly describes how I feel about his work, declaring, “Plenty of Lincoln scholars have questioned the man, exposed his shortcomings, without denying his essential idealism and humanity.” (20). This is what I believe Oates has done perfectly here- show Lincoln as a man- the man behind the myth if you will- yet it is clear his opinion toward him is still overarchingly positive. We are shown the greats of Lincoln- from his skills in poetry and prose to his role in changing America- to the sides to Lincoln we rarely see- his crippling depression and hypochondria- but despite the bad side, the good still overcomes, the bad only serves to level. In terms of myself, Oates has planted his ideals and I now see Lincoln as a man, a man who was great, but still only a man.