File:Abraham Lincoln; a history (1890) (14739747096).jpg

Identifier: abrahamlincolnhi03nicol (find matches)
Title: Abraham Lincoln; a history
Year: 1890 (1890s)
Authors: Nicolay, John G. (John George), 1832-1901 Hay, John, 1838-1905
Subjects: Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865 United States -- History Civil War, 1861-1865
Publisher: New York : The Century Co.
Contributing Library: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Digitizing Sponsor: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
farm; if the tall Illi-nois pioneer had studied trigonometry at WestPoint, and the pale Mississippi student had steereda flat-boat to New Orleans, education might havemodified but would not have essentially changedeither. Lincoln would never have become a po-htical dogmatist, an apostle of slavery, a leader ofrebellion; Davis could never have become thechampion of universal humanity, the author of adecree of emancipation, the martyr to liberty.Their natures were antipodal, and it is perhaps bycontemplating the contrast that the character ofDavis may be best understood. His dominant mental traits were subtlety andwill. His nature was one of reserve and pride.His biographers give us no glimpse of his privatelife. They show us little sympathy of companion-ship, or sunshine of genial humor. Houston isreported to have said of him that he was as am-bitious as Lucifer and as cold as a lizard. Hisfancy lived in a world of masters and slaves. Hiseducation taught him nothing but the law of sub-
Text Appearing After Image:
JOHN TYLEK. THE MONTGOMERY CONFEDERACY 209 ordination and the authority of command. A chap. xiii.Democrat by party name, he was an aristocrat infeeling and practice. He was a type of the highestSouthern culture and most exclusive Southerncaste. In political theory he was a sophist, andnot a logician. With him, consent of the gov-erned in a State was truth; consent of the gov-erned in a Territory was error. Rebellion in aState must be obeyed; rebellion in a Territory must be crushed. Constitutional forms in Kan-sas in the interest of slavery were sacred law; con-stitutional forms in the Union in the interest offreedom were flagrant usurpation. A majority ina State was enthroned freedom; a majority in thenation was insufferable despotism. But even hiscentral dogma became pliant before considerationsof self-interest. In his own State, a majority ofseven thousand against Quitman in September hetreated as a dangerous political heresy to be over-thrown by his personal championship. A majori

Note About Images