But the differences are far more important than the similarities. On the personal level, Lincoln had none of Bush's obstinacy and egotism. He scorned yes men, and surrounded himself with Cabinet officials better known than he was, refusing to purge even those actively working against his own political interests. He had no personal vanity at all (when a political opponent accused him of being "two-faced," Lincoln responded, "If I had two faces, would I be wearing this one?"). The historical imagination rebels at the very idea of his swaggering around in the cavalry equivalent of Bush's flight suit. He was always ready to sit down with his adversaries, favored compromise whenever possible and never held a grudge. "With malice toward none, with charity toward all" was for Lincoln more than a rhetorical flourish; it was the key to his greatness.
Most important, Lincoln was a lawyer. It is hard to find any sign that Lincoln thought himself above the law. He had none of Bush's scorn for procedures and rights. He used executive authority in an emergency -- and always dutifully reported to Congress and asked for its ratification as soon as a new session began. He restricted civil liberties temporarily, and without enthusiasm -- he once compared his suspension of habeas corpus to the drugs doctors give to induce vomiting. Unlike this administrationwhich will not ask for legal authority even when it knows it will receive it -- Lincoln never did anything to prove a point. He didn't have an authoritarian bone in his lanky body. His objective was victory for the Union, not power for himself.
George W. Bush is Lincoln the way Dan Quayle is Jack Kennedy. Bush does, however, stack up quite nicely against Andrew Johnson, one of the least successful presidents in our history. That's because, even though Bush has most of Johnson's flaws, he runs almost no risk of being impeached by his own party.
Johnson was another untutored figure from the frontier. Personally, he and Bush are goober peas in a pod: stubborn, arrogant, intolerant of anything but complete support, convinced that compromise is weakness and criticism is treason. Like Bush, Johnson relied on a few sycophants; like Bush, Johnson would scarcely meet with, much less compromise with, his critics. Once in 1865, when the Radical Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts pleaded with Johnson to change his Reconstruction policy, the president responded by spitting tobacco juice in Sumner's silk hat. Johnson had his own struggle with alcohol -- during his vice-presidential inaugural address in 1865, he was falling-down drunk. He was rigid, angry, resentful, impulsive and grandiose. He liked to compare himself to Jesus and once publicly denied that he was Judas Iscariot. Johnson even had a party-hearty offspring problem: His son Robert was so frequently dissolute and drunk in the White House that the president considered sending him abroad on a convenient diplomatic mission.
Like Bush, Johnson early in his term had military power, political popularity and an opportunity at greatness; like Bush, he threw it away in pursuit of vengeance, personal vindication and a narrow, extreme political agenda. If Bush is hoping that future historians will paint a different portrait of him than contemporary reports, he should consider that history has not been kind to Andrew Johnson.
It would have been nice if Johnson had been more like Lincoln. It would be even nicer if Bush would try to emulate him. It's a bit late, however. Bush has already made one of the most important mistakes that Lincoln avoided. The story is right there on pages 177 through 180 of Carwardine's "Lincoln." If only Bush had read it sooner!
Early in the war, an overzealous American commander halted a British ship on the high seas and arrested two Confederate envoys on their way to London. The act was hugely popular with the American public, which felt about England the way Bill O'Reilly feels about France -- but it threatened to bring Britain into our Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. Lincoln at first felt defiant, but when he calculated the odds, he meekly released the captives and paid compensation to the Crown. It was inglorious, but, as Carwardine notes, "Lincoln had navigated past the greatest point of danger: 'two wars on his hands at a time.'" Lincoln won the war that came upon him, but he never chose it.
About the writer
Garrett Epps teaches constitutional law at the University of Oregon. A former reporter for the Washington Post, his new book is "Democracy Reborn: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Fight for Equal Rights in Post-Civil War America."
Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)
Salon Directory (browse by topic)
