Jacob Tasma
Dr. Gleaves Whitney
December 19, 2012
The President of the United States: A Complicated Narrative
Throughout its existence, a narrative has been created for the United States. This
narrative, the narrative of progress and liberty, explains to the masses where they have been,
where they are, and where they are going. Throughout the years these narratives are built up until
they become “the whole truth” and are rarely challenged, especially not in schools. In The
Political Use of Narratives, Richard A. Pride points out that, “At issue politically, then and now,
is which stories to advance, contest, and accept as “true,” because what the majority of citizens
believes becomes legitimatized through unchallenged repetition and is confirmed by public
policy.”1 These narratives come to define the Nation, increase nationalism, and concoct how
history is viewed. This is the case with the Presidents of the United States. Conventional wisdom
and teaching create these narratives about the leaders and once created are rarely challenged.
However, as in almost every situation of life, there is always more to the story.
The 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, is one of the three greatest
leaders the Nation has ever had. Conventional wisdom has created the narrative of him as a
Union-Saving, Slavery-Ending, and Economically-Modern President. All of these things are true.
Abraham Lincoln survived perhaps the toughest times a human can endure. From his mother
dying when he was nine, to his new mother (his sister) dying in her twenties, to his terrible
relationship with his father, to his first love Ann Rutledge dying, to having three sons die, and so
1
Richard Pride, The Political Use of Narratives (University of Illinois Press, 2002), 9.
on, Lincoln learned how to be a survivor. The fact that he made it to the White House is
remarkable in itself. Once he arrived in the Office of the President he was immediately thrust
into a decision that would change the United States forever. He had to choose whether to force
the Southern States back into the Union or just let them have independence. Instead of allowing
the Union to collapse around him, Lincoln made the hardest decision a president can make,
sending men into a war. Of course, Lincoln was politically gifted enough to make sure the
Confederacy took the offensive and therefore attacked the United States at Fort Sumter on April
12th, 1861. It would become America’s most costly war as four years saw 620,000 people vanish
from the Earth. In the end the Union was still intact and the United States would grow to be
stronger than ever. President Lincoln was strong enough to persevere and in fact save what so
many had previously died to build. When it comes to slavery, Lincoln time and time again struck
crucial blows to the chains of oppression. While he may have fit in with the common racism of
the day, Lincoln was never in favor of slavery. Traveling on a flatboat into New Orleans and
seeing slaves firsthand he knew it was an evil that needed to be stopped. This is why he made
attempts to end slavery when he saw opportunities. This led to the Emancipation Proclamation,
the Freedmen’s Bureau, and the Thirteenth Amendment. By freeing slaves in conquered
territory starting in 1863 and trying to provide for them with the Freedmen’s Bureau, Lincoln
was making progress towards a forever free United States. Then, in 1865, by doing what needed
to be done (using patronage in exchange for votes) Lincoln was able to get passed in the House
of Representatives the Thirteenth Amendment. It stated, “Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”2 With this
“13th Amendment”, United States Constitution, The Library of Congress, accessed December 15, 2012,
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Constitution.html.
2
legislation Abraham Lincoln destroyed the institution of slavery and then lost his life to that
cause, all in a three-month span. When it comes to being economically modern, President
Lincoln clearly saw the future that the United States could have. Lincoln was not afraid of
getting the Federal Government involved in the economy. This is shown by the creation of the
Federal income tax, creating a national currency with the National Banking Act, signing the
protective Morrill Tariff, and giving Federal Governmental support to the building of the First
Transcontinental Railroad. Abraham Lincoln was a visionary who was never afraid to do what
needed to be done to not only preserve the Union but make it better. As John Adams once felt
anxiety during the Revolutionary War and wrote, "We have not men fit for the times”3, we as a
Nation were blessed to have a man in the White House, Abraham Lincoln, who was so fit for
his.4
While conventional wisdom tells us that Abraham Lincoln saved the Union and made it
better, he is also one of the three worst leaders that the Nation has ever had. The narrative that is
not told about Lincoln is that he was a Constitution-Crushing, Nation-Forcing, and HamiltonianWhig Tyrant. When he took the oath of office and promised to “faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States"5, Lincoln was swearing to abide by the Constitution. He then
took office and immediately broke his promise by going to war to force the Southern States to be
in the Union. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that any State has to stay a part of the
United States. This decision to overstep his authority would lead to the deaths of 620,000 men.
He disregarded the Constitution once again when he arrested over 14,000 citizens throughout the
3
David McCullough, John Adams (Simon & Schuster, 2001), 23.
Jean H. Baker, “Abraham Lincoln”, in Brinkley, Alan and Davis Dyer, ed., The American Presidency (Houghton Mifflin
Company, 2004), 173-187.
5 “Presidential Oaths of Office”, The Library of Congress, accessed December 15, 2012,
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html.
4
war for being disloyal to the Republican viewpoints and suspended Habeas Corpus. Shutting
down newspapers simply for publishing articles critical of the President is a clear violation of
freedom of speech. The Ohio Congressmen Clement L. Vallandigham learned not to speak up
against the President when he asked for European intervention and called the President “King
Lincoln” and was deported to the South.6 Many politicians on both sides became critical of
Lincoln throughout the war for the unconstitutional methods he used to win. By trying to save
the Nation Lincoln was actually putting the principles of the Nation at risk. When it comes to
slavery, Lincoln used it as a political chip to hurt the Confederacy. By stating in September of
1862 that if the Confederate States did not stop fighting and return to the Union then he would
abolish slavery at the start of the next year, he was clearly using it as a way to scare the South
into submission. The Emancipation Proclamation was a way to help the Union win the war by
taking away the southern labor force and giving the Union a manual labor force. If Lincoln could
have won the war without taking away the slaves then he would have. This is why writing to
Horace Greeley in August of 1862, Lincoln wrote, “If I could save the Union without freeing any
slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could
save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”7 Lincoln makes it clear
that he wanted to win the war and ending slavery was a political maneuver. He may have got
passed the Thirteenth Amendment but at what cost? The corruption of United States politics, by
selling patronage for votes, has and had everlasting consequences. Abraham Lincoln also used
economics to act as a tyrant. By introducing the Federal income tax, signing the National
Banking Act, and supporting the railroad companies, Lincoln increased the power of the Federal
6
Michael Fellman, Leslie J. Gordon, and Daniel E. Sutherland, This Terrible War: The Civil War and Its Aftermath (Pearson,
2008), 210-211.
7 Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862 in Hansen, Harry, The Civil War: A History (New American Library,
1961), 275.
Government and made the United States more Hamiltonian than ever. This in turn hurt many of
the poor white and poor black citizens from the social class that Lincoln used to be a part of. It
can be argued that Abraham Lincoln was right for the times but if another leader in another
country used the same tactics, American’s would call him a tyrant. This is why the people of the
Confederacy saw Lincoln as King George III and saw Republicans as the “Tories of the North”.
President Lincoln made it clear that he was right, the Constitution was wrong, and everyone had
better do what he says.8
The 3rd President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, is one of the three greatest
leaders in the history of the Nation. Conventional wisdom has created the narrative of him as a
Constitution-Preserving, Aristocracy-Containing, and Liberty-Enhancing President. All three of
these are true. Thomas Jefferson grew up much different than Abraham Lincoln. He was born
into a wealthy slave owning family in Virginia. His first memory actually was of riding
horseback in the arms of a slave. By the time he was thirty he had amassed over 14,000 acres and
he estimated that he owned over six-hundred slaves in his life.9 Also unlike Lincoln, Jefferson
had access to tutors and a great education. Becoming a lawyer and writing against the acts of the
British it was easy for Jefferson to be thrust into the fight for independence. After that war was
over, Washington completed two terms, and Jefferson narrowly lost the election of 1796 to John
Adam’s, Jefferson vowed to bring the Presidency back to the common man. This is what he
believed to have happened in winning the election of 1800 which he would reference as the
“Revolution of 1800”. As President he made sure to return the country to a strict interpretation of
the Constitution, unlike the policies of his adversary Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists. He
feared that a loose interpretation of the Constitution was leading to too strong of a Federal
Baker, “Abraham Lincoln”, The American Presidency, 173-187.
Fellman, Gordon, and Sutherland, This Terrible War, 202.
9 Natalie S. Bober, Thomas Jefferson: Draftsman of a Nation (University of Virginia Press, 2007), 9.
8
government, these fears being supported by the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts of his
predecessor. This is why he took the steps to restore the Constitution and dismantle the wrongful
policies of the previous administrations. This is why he removed support from the National
Bank, decreased the military, and crippled the Federal taxation system. He tried as much as
possible to always follow exactly the powers authorized by the Constitution and return the
Nation to what was intended, a Nation of virtuous “little republics”. 10 To do this, Jefferson knew
he also had to contain the push for an American aristocracy. Serving under Washington and as
Adam’s vice-president, Jefferson witnessed the elegant social life that had developed around the
new social elite. Jefferson saw firsthand that the principles of 1776 were being abandoned in
favor of a British-like government. Seeing himself as the common man, this was his greatest
fear. This is why as President he did not encourage this social life, this aristocracy, and even
answered the door of the White House himself many times. President Jefferson also encouraged
the growth of liberty throughout his administration and his life. He felt that man could always
better oneself with the right help. This is why he believed greatly in higher education and created
West Point and his beloved University of Virginia. He also greatly believed in religious freedom
and wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which with the University of Virginia he
chose to be one his tombstone. By the end of his Presidency, Jefferson was able to leave the
White House more in line with the principles of the United States than when he inherited it.11
While conventional wisdom tells us that Thomas Jefferson preserved the Constitution and
enhanced liberty, he is also one of the three worst leaders in the history of the United States. He
is truly a Constitution-Destroying, Aristocracy-Maintaining, and Liberty-Withholding Hypocrite.
Thomas Jefferson may have promised to bring back a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but
10
Peter S. Onuf and Leonard J. Sadosky, Jeffersonian America (Blackwell Publishers Inc., 2002).
Joyce Appleby, “Thomas Jefferson”, in Brinkley, Alan and Davis Dyer, ed., The American Presidency (Houghton Mifflin
Company, 2004), 33-47.
11
he did the opposite. He made it clear that the only things he would hold to the Constitution were
policies of his opponents while his own wishes he would use a loose interpretation of the
Constitution. This is shown with Jefferson’s insistence on the Federal Government not
increasing funds for a Navy until he became President when he led the United States into the
First Barbary War. He did exactly what he had criticized his opponents for doing and increased
the United States military. He then once again loosely interpreted the Constitution when he
completed the Louisiana Purchase without Constitutional authority to extend the U.S. territory. If
he really wanted to preserve the Constitution then he would have gotten an Amendment passed
and not listened to James Madison who told him to not waste the opportunity. Jefferson clearly
made himself a hypocrite in this situation. He did this again with the Embargo of 1807. Not only
was this a financial disaster for the common man he had promised to represent but it also
increased the power of the Federal Government, something he had promised not to do. His goal
to rid the United States of the new elite class and return the Presidency to the common man also
showed Jefferson as a hypocrite. Monticello had over one-hundred and twenty slaves at a given
time and Jefferson was a wealthy planter. He himself was the aristocrat that he claimed to hate.
When it comes to the idea that he enhanced liberty, he is once again seen as a hypocrite. He
consistently said that slavery was a bad thing for the United States but he did nothing about it
and the only time his slaves were allowed off of Monticello was when they were sold following
his death. Thomas Jefferson was a man of equality, but only for those he saw in his own social
class. He may have been in favor of education but it was for the brightest students of the United
States and not for the common man that voted for him. When Jefferson left the White House the
principles that he hoped to represent had become distorted by his contradictions and the common
man was worse off than before. 12
12
Appleby, “Thomas Jefferson”, The American Presidency, 33-47.
The 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt is one of the three greatest
leaders in the history of the Nation. Conventional wisdom has created the narrative of him as a
Conservationist-Leader, a Progressive-Thinker, and a War-Avoider. All of these things are true.
It is unlikely to find a president who appreciated nature more than Theodore Roosevelt. This
stemmed from his days as a cowboy in the Badlands of the Dakota Territory. Here he learned the
greatest lessons nature has to offer, including how to survive, how to be self-sufficient, and
patience. Once he became President this led him to want to protect nature and thus created many
nature reserves including Pelican Island in Florida, Crater Lake National Park in Oregon, and
withdrew millions of acres of Federal land from ever being developed in the West. His response
to industrialization, such as these nature reserves, set precedent for future leaders to protect the
land. When it comes to thinking progressively Roosevelt excelled. This not only is shown by his
conservation but by the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 and the Pure Food and Drug Act. After
Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle was published people were sickened by the poor quality of the meat
they were eating. After investigating himself, Roosevelt agreed and decided the Federal
Government needed to step in. This is also true of the Pure Food and Drug Act which made it
illegal to mislabel what was in food or drugs. President Roosevelt also showed his progressivism
when it came to big business. His attempts to curb the power of large corporations led him to be
called the “trust-buster”. He championed the idea that powerful businesses could no longer act
without the supervision and restraint of the Federal Government. Through his antitrust policies
he was able to increase the authority of the Federal Government and allow it to remain the power
of the United States. As a man who had a clear appreciation for war, President Roosevelt had
reason to pursue conflict for the United States. However, he chose not to. Instead he actually
earned the Nobel Peace Prize in 1905 due to his efforts in mediating the negotiations to end the
Russo-Japanese War and also mediated the dispute between France and Germany in 1906,
preventing a war. This shows that he was willing to do what was best for everyone and not just
what he felt was an important part of a man’s life. President Theodore Roosevelt embodied
everything that the United States needed in a president and will forever be seen as one of the
Nation’s best leaders.13
While conventional wisdom has created the narrative of Theodore Roosevelt as a
progressive war preventer, the truth is he is one of the three worst leaders in the history of the
Nation. The truth is he was a Power-Hungry, Conservative-Individualist, and a Conflict-Starter.
President Roosevelt increased the power of the Federal Government in the world of business and
environment because he wanted his administration to be in control. He increased the authority of
the President like never before and crossed the line and invaded the free market system. His
precedents led to the Federal Government being so involved in big business that we are still
today paying the price for tying the government to those corporations. Due to his policies, it
became essential that those businesses could not fail leading to the bailouts of the 20th century
and of the last few years. He built the coercive power of the President to an unprecedented level.
His attempt to run for a third term in 1912 also shows his consistent need of power. When it
comes to the idea that he was a progressive, this is simply not true in most cases. Roosevelt spent
more time preaching from the “bully pulpit” than he did actually changing anything. He was as
conservative as most of his day, believing that women should do their duty as wife and mother,
believing in the inferiority of the African-American race, believing that people should exceed or
fail on their own, and agreeing with segregation. He believed in individualism and therefore
limited social reform. It seems that unless the policy granted the Federal Government more
Michael McGerr, “Theodore Roosevelt, in Brinkley, Alan and Davis Dyer, ed., The American Presidency (Houghton Mifflin
Company, 2004), 268-283.
13
power over a business, such as in the meat industry, then he limited his involvement. He may
have won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1905 but he was not a peaceful man. In fact, he supported a
Panamanian revolt against Colombia in 1903 so that the United States could get the rights to a
ten-mile section of land and create the Panama Canal. This was clear colonialism, conflict
starting, and power achieving. Also, by reforming the Army and increasing the size of the Navy,
President Roosevelt made it clear that the United States was ready for conflict. This is why the
term big stick diplomacy, or gunboat diplomacy, is accredited to the Roosevelt administration.
President Roosevelt brought America into a 20th century of conflict by introducing the ideas of
building up the forces to show superiority and using that influence to affect world politics. In the
end, Theodore Roosevelt left the Presidency primed for future power hunger and future conflicts
thus making the United States more dangerous to the world than ever.14
In conclusion, the truth is that every man who leads as President of the United States is
not completely great or completely flawed. Every man that has been the leader of the Nation is a
human being and makes positive and negative decisions. In many cases it is possible to see that
the best leaders are the ones who are conflicted. These are the ones who make a decision based
on the situation and not simply based on the principles that they feel are correct. By doing this,
they are able to do what they feel is best for the citizens of their country at the specific time.
Depending on perspective, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and Theodore Roosevelt, are
three of the best leaders and three of the worst leaders of the United States. The lesson of
narratives will always be that it is beneficial t to look behind the curtain of certainty and find
truth. Even if it is contradictory to conventional wisdom it does not mean it makes what one has
learned false, it just makes history complicated, which is what life has and will always be.
14
McGerr, “Theodore Roosevelt”, The American Presidency, 268-283.
Works Cited
Bober, Natalie S. Thomas Jefferson: Draftsman of a Nation, University of Virginia Press, 2007.
Brinkley, Alan, and Davis Dyer. The American Presidency, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.
Fellman, Michael, Gordon, Leslie J., and Daniel E. Sutherland. This Terrible War: The Civil War
and Its Aftermath, Pearson, 2008.
Hansen, Harry. The Civil War: A History, New American Library, 1961.
Library of Congress. The United States Constitution, accessed December 15, 2012.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Constitution.html.
Library of Congress. “Presidential Oaths of Office”, accessed December 15, 2012,
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html.
McCullough, David. John Adams, Simon & Schuster, 2001.
Onuf, Peter S., and Leonard J. Sadosky. Jeffersonian America, Blackwell Publishers Inc., 2002.
Pride, Richard. The Political Use of Narratives, University of Illinois Press, 2002.