Dec
6
2011

Lincoln on Leadership: Saying No to the Mob

An article by Matt

While driving back from my Thanksgiving vacation I found myself listening to President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman, by William Lee Miller. I was only able to hear a few chapters of the audio book, but the chapters that I did hear have had me thinking pretty hard. Today and tomorrow I want to walk through Lincoln’s leadership in the Sioux Uprising and in dealing with the Union Army as it transitioned from a professional army into a volunteer army.

The Sioux Uprising, or Dakota War of 1862, began in late summer of 1862. Sioux Indians, upset by treaty violations and other grievances, lashed out against settlers. By the end of the year, the conflict ended with the surrender of most of the Dakota bands of the Sioux Nation.

At the end of the conflict 303 indians were convicted of murder or rape, and sentenced to be executed. Lincoln, upon hearing about the convictions, requested the records of the trial and began to review each of them. Finding many of the “trials” lasted no longer than five minutes and were nothing more than a blood thirsty mob seeking vengeance, Lincoln commuted all but 39 of the sentences.

While Lincoln researched the trials he was encouraged by Republican Party leadership to let all 303 indians hang, otherwise people would take their frustrations out on the Republican Party at the next election. In the end, the Republican party took a beating in Minnesota causing Senator Alexander Ramsey to point out to Lincoln that more hangings would have resulted in a better showing for the party.

Lincoln’s response tells us much about the man: “I could not afford to hang men for votes.”

In the church world there are times when we are called to make tough decisions. As pastors, we find ourselves in a unique position where our continued employment is dependent upon our congregations overall satisfaction with our job performance (depending on church polity this is more or less true). At the same time we are called by our God, who called us into the pastorate, to shepherd our congregations and lead them to a deeper understanding of Him who called us. When these two realities are in direct opposition of one another, which one do you follow?

When the Holy Spirit calls in one direction and the mob calls in another, who wins?

http://www.facebook.com/RobertFBarnes Robert Barnes

I quibble with your hagiographic story line about Pres. Lincoln–he once again over-reached his authority and took from the states their fundamental sovereignty. And it only took him 39 dead Indians to make his point about how decent a man he was.

However, your overall point is haunting. I love being a Presbyterian in these situations because in a congregational church, or a church with a group of trustees who actually have all the power, or a variety of other church government systems that do not look like Acts 15/graded courts, a minister is stuck. If he tells the truth about certain topics (racism, for instance) in certain parts of the country/world, he will be fired or managing a church split.

As a Presbyterian, we have other ways of handling the situation that tend to avert disaster, at least sometimes. See the story of
Tullian Tchividjian told in Jesus + Nothing= Everything for an example of how the Presbyterian form of government worked in a horribly difficult situation.

To summarize: Boo Lincoln, Yay Acts 15/Presbyterians. And hurrah for Matt, of course.

http://www.churchthought.com Matt Steen

Hurrah for Matt indeed!

Actually the trials were by military tribunal, so technically Lincoln was within his right as Commander in Chief to step in on this one… but what if he wasn’t?
Would it be OK for him to allow the hangings to go on if he knew that the trials were a sham? Especially since he has the power to stop it?
Maybe a better question is this: Did Eisenhower overstep his authority when he had the 101st Airborne escort the Little Rock Nine to school?

http://www.facebook.com/RobertFBarnes Robert Barnes

I have the power to stop sin. I can burn down an abortion clinic in Orlando (this is not a threat) or run over a policeman who is crooked (this is not a threat). But it would be wrong for me to do it.

Babies will die because I didn’t burn it down. Money will be stolen. But I’m limited in my options due to the law of God and civil law.

Concerning Eisenhower, the 1957 Civil Rights Act gave him some grounds. The goals of the CRA (going into 1964 and 1965) were fine, but this hamfisted application trampled on states rights. The relative minor problem of government troops being called into this situation (a violation of Posse Comitatus Act) is hardly worth mentioning.

And it’s all Lincoln’s fault.

http://www.churchthought.com Matt Steen

Your power is slightly different than the power that the President of the United States has. That is kind of an apples to oranges comparison.

That said, what is your take on Bonhofer?