How Lincoln Won the War with MetaphorsJoin now to read essay How Lincoln Won the War with MetaphorsAbraham Lincoln’s ability to speak with eloquence and force is what won the Civil War; there can be no doubt about it. His role as a motivator and often an inspiring teacher to all had more of an effect on the troops and the American people than a loss or a victory of any battle ever did. Lincoln’s speeches are some of the most celebrated in history for many good reasons. He was always aware of his audience and never failed to impress with his use of logic and knowledge. However, what are most remembered about Lincoln’s speeches are his metaphors and imagery used to provoke emotions or ideas from the reader. Lincoln spoke with such depth and power that any who heard him could not help but be awestruck. Many wonder if the outcome of the Civil war would have changed if Davis could have employed Lincoln’s profound metaphors on the Confederacy.
The American people have always had a fascination with presidents of common or lowly backgrounds. Like Jackson before him, Lincoln spent most of his childhood working to support his family. Lincoln’s highly informal education could not compare to Davis’ academic accomplishments, which include graduation from West Point. But what Lincoln learned working on the farm or in the store was far more valuable that anything Davis was taught in school. Through these experiences Lincoln gained the ability to speak with the ordinary man, a quality that helped him’ get elected or gather support for an undesirable, yet seemingly imminent war. His communication skills came in large part from his understanding of exactly what the average man wanted to hear.
Lincoln learned the other important component of speech, not what to say, but how to say it, from his favorite books as a young man: The Bible, Aesop’s Fables, Pilgrim’s Progress, and Shakespeare’s plays. These books and stories taught Lincoln the power of a metaphor. He fell in love with the idea of the meaning behind the stories or plays and the implied moral of each Bible verse. Metaphors can be found frequently throughout all his speeches. Although some may be dead metaphors, or metaphors so common that they fail strike us in any way, Lincoln had the unique talent of rephrasing it just so that it became a live metaphor with more strength behind it than imaginable.
Although he could never speak as expressively as Lincoln, Davis certainly tried. His uninspiring metaphors fell on deaf ears and failed to effect any emotion from a crowd. It seems that Davis was too consumed with visions of victory and anger toward the Union to bother trying to write anything powerful or moving. Most of his writings had an ineffectual, emotionless tone without any images or metaphors to catch the listener’s interest. He was undoubtedly an excellent writer, which could be expected given his remarkable academic background. But he lacked imagination and creativity to fully indulge his reader and make him feel any excitement for what Davis was saying. This fault cost Davis and the Confederacy the Civil war.
James M. McPherson states that had Lincoln and Davis switched sides, the Confederacy would most likely have won the war. He supports this idea with numerous quotes from Lincoln, detailing his well thought out use of metaphors in a variety of different situations. The examples McPherson chose were definitely some of the best, really showcasing just how brilliant Lincoln was. I would definitely have to say that I find his argument convincing, due in large part to the number and variety of quotes he used. He really makes you stop and think about what Lincoln was saying and take an interest in how he said it. My only critique is that I would have liked to have seen more examples of Davis’ work. It seemed like he wanted the essay to be a comparison between the two presidents, but he only showed the talents of Lincoln’s work. It would have really
d had had McPherson not been such a great person but for the way he quoted it’ his response will tell you which one he is. I found his argument as well as the ones by Carl W. Adams, Rick Steen, Robert E. Lee, and many others convincing. I’d also like to point out that McPherson was not a master and his contributions to the essay probably made him feel like a better choice than his competitors. There is so much work being put forth by people like this that I think they actually have some merit and will continue to produce a better piece than one of the other three. And while some of the examples McPherson cited are very interesting and should have been quoted or highlighted, the fact that the essay is about his views of government and not the general public speaks to how good and creative he was, as it should speak to the general perception of what Lincoln was.
The problem with his essay comes in two main areas. The first issue points the direction of the essay’ by comparing the two. In many ways I think this is because McPherson uses his own quotes all the time, and the essay does a great job of describing his ideas from several different perspectives. The second issue relates McPherson’s ability to use metaphors. McPherson uses phrases that are both obvious and understandable.
As we have already seen by our discussion of the post-Keynesian collapse theory, the idea underlying the Keynesian view of productivity growth is that the productive powers of society have to be increased or left. McPherson then moves on to the other major idea in the theory—the growth factor theory. The fact that McPherson uses metaphors does not make them wrong, but it seems to me he didn’t really like them. He then gives a description of what growth factors look like and he describes them as the means by which the system is being manipulated as he shows in his essay’ for instance, the “natural law of diminishing returns.” As a student of economic theory I would argue that McPherson doesn’t quite understand why Keynesian growth can be so destructive of the general state. If McPherson has spent his entire life studying economic history it is clear that that time has been short-sighted. When economic history was written it was still in its nascent stage. By looking at it he has learned from the early days of the real economy (which he is now, though still in this century, still studying) that the growth factor theory was a flawed attempt to explain the failure of the Keynesian model and to explain the stagnation of the economy. Now his views on growth can be summed up as following this short list of metaphors:
* “We spend more on our wages than our children earn.”
* “We use more of the tax revenues that we save to pay down debt.”
* “We produce more labor for our businesses. But if we want to become more efficient, we should go further back.”
As I said, McPherson uses metaphors like these. I find them amusing, but then realize what’s really the point of being a writer. I think he is just in the wrong medium, and there is still something wrong with the way he deals with problems