Throughout history, societies elevate some of their political figure to a prominence above the other leaders of their group or nation. These figure become public icons to that group. Some of the popular icons include Che Guevara, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and Vladimir Lenin. Each of thes 'popular' icons has socialist associations attached to them and their accomplishments. Although such icons may vary depending on where one lives, each society or group has its own version of the icon. In Italy it is Giuseppe Garibaldi, who united the independent Italian States by force. In the island nation of St. Kitts it is Robert Bradshaw, in Mexico it is Jose Morelos who with his cohorts took land from its rightful owners and redistribute it to others loyal to him. In nations such as England, the streets are filled with statues of their icons along with their heroes.

Icons differ from heroes, in that they are the images seen in popular culture. Icons are also kept alive based on the ideology they represent, rather than their actual accomplishments. Although you do not see statues of English kings in the United States, one does see statues of Lincoln in London (at Parliament Square) and Edinburgh , Scotland (Calton Cemetery). Both of these statues are life-size, with Lincoln standing. Travellers are often surprised to see his statue in those locations. Lincoln statues are popular in Washington D.C., Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Iowa.The most popular Lincoln Statue is the one at the Lincoln memorial (also called "The Lincoln Temple"), which has an oversized Abraham Lincoln seated on a throne in a Zeus like pose. The throne contains fasces adorning each side. (Fasces were a Roman symbol of power, consisting of birch rods bound together with a red leather cord. It conveys the double message of strength through unity and of the imperial power of the State. The fasces was also the symbol chosen by the fascismo of Italy in the 20th century. The fascismo were the political party of Benito Mussolini. The symbol was emblazoned on the Italian tanks and airplanes used to attack allied troops. This same symbol was also on United States coins for many years.) The inscription inside the Lincoln memorial behind the seated figure portrayed as a diety even refers to it being a temple. (“In this temple, as in the hearts of the people for whom he saved the Union, the memory of Abraham Lincoln is enshrined forever.) The structure itself is styled after a Greek temple.The symbolism of the Lincoln Memorial (temple) is in itself a statement of the god-like status he has been given.

Typically, icons are easily recognized by the people living in that community. You can identify the cultural icon by noticing which images are seen on the coins, t-shirts, or posters in the area your are visiting.The icon figures take on the role of symbollising that culture and society.

Exploring the issue of what makes a good man requires courage, especially with Abraham Lincoln. Depending on what your definition of a ‘good man’ is Lincoln may or may not fit. Those who knew him reported that he often cursed and used vulgar language. Although his picture is often in the government schools, if we applied the standards applied to movie ratings, children would not be allowed to hear his everyday conversations. To me that is odd, to lift someone up for admiration, yet we would wash out our children’s mouths for talking like he did. Even Lincoln supporters acknowledge his off-color language which was deemed “not appropriate for the parlor”, yet the same apologist claim that he was not vulgar, but rather hated vulgarity. They excuse his language, claiming that it was due to early life experiences on the frontier. Such was not the case with President Jefferson Davis, who spent time in the army, on the frontier and on farms, yet there are not such claims made concerning his language.

Although the sobriquet “Honest Abe” is used in referring to him, his actual behavior was far different from the myths surrounding him. In his first inaugural address, he promised he would not interfere with slavery, yet his great legacy, the Emancipation Proclamation is also evidence of one of his great lies. Although the press ridicules former President George Herbert Walker Bush for his “read my lips” comment, the same press will praise Lincoln for his lies.

Despite his talk about freedom "for the people", he intentionally allowed and ordered his generals to wage war on civilians—blacks included. He imprisoned thousands of persons without trial thousands in Northern jails. He also allowed people to be executed who refused to take a loyalty oath. His 'freedom' included shutting down hundreds of newspapers which expressed opposition to his policies. His crackdowm on 'freedom of the press' (aka the 1st amendment of the Constitution) included incarcerating editors and owners. He suspended the Bill of Rights, and the writ of habeas corpus yet is portrayed as the 'defender of the Constitution.

Lincoln's double standard is also evident in his support of ‘black codes in Illinois which forbade blacks from serving on juries, making contracts or even running for office. Despite his position of seeing himself superior, he is regarded as the 'Great Liberator'. Yes, he wanted to free the blacks, although his intention was to send those freed slaves to either Central America or Africa. He opposed the efforts to educate and prepare them for equal citizenship status.

His actions created an acceptance of 'moral relativism'. It was acceptable to do wrong, to lie, to attack civilians, and to violate the very laws you are sworn to uphold when you are doing so for 'the greater good'.His legacy of moral relativism remains with us to this day as politicians often govern outside the Constitution, but rationalize their actions since they were for the 'good of the whole'.

"Abe Lincoln was no saint, and his war was not a righteous crusade for freedom and government of the people."-Professor Clyde Wilson

When this icon phenomena is considered from a cultural perspective, it takes on a new meaning. Throughout history, societies have had totems or statues that represent the values that are important to that culture. These statues or totems were made by the members of the culture and are an expression of that culture. For example, if a tribe wants to convey that they are brave, they may choose as their totem, the bear. Although outwardly, it looks like they are worshipping and admiring the bear, in reality they are worshipping the quality of bravery that the tribe sees itself as possessing.

When the icons of a society are recognized as its totems, they reveal what the society actually values. Outwardly the society may say they are only paying homage to that historic figure, but the reality is that they are admiring a quality which that figure represents.

In examining Abraham Lincoln as a totem, what does it say about American culture? He was not attractive. As an icon, he is seen as an embodiment of pragmatism. He did what he needed to do. As a politician, he was a pragmatist. Even now Lincoln is revered by the atheists, transcendentalists and Christians. To the Christians he is viewed as one of theirs due to the wording in some of his letters and speeches. Others have been led to believe he was a 'good man' because they were taught that in schools rather than take an honest look at what he did or use critical thinking to actually evaluate him. To the atheists, he is seen as one of their heroes for his stand in opposition to Christianity. To the transcendentalists, he is seen as one of theirs due to his associations with the transcendentalist thinker, Theodore Parker.

Lincoln is idealized by many groups becasue as a politician, he knew what people wanted to hear. They had 'itching ears' and Lincoln told them what they wanted to hear. The idealization of him by such varied groups raises some concerns. Do athiests, transcendenalists and Christians have that much in common for him to be seen as a hero by each? Are these groups aware of what the man Lincoln accomplished? Is it possible that the speeches of Lincoln and his trickery still work 140+ years later? It befuddles me how one politician can be claimed and revered by such a diverse group. Could it be that each group reads into the man their own ideas and philosophies?

The simple but unpleasant truth is ‘he won’. Since society often operates under the assumptions that “Right side always wins”, and “If you lost, you must have done something wrong or be wrong” they are left with the conclusion that since he won, he must have been in the right. With such thinking, pragmatism is further justified. It creates at atmosphere that getting a task done is more important that “how” you get it done or what rules you had to break to get it done.

Lincoln is the icon of pragmatism and moral relativism. Rather than examine the right or wrong of his actions, he is assumed to be ‘in the right’ since he won. When the end is seen as the main point that people are judged by rather than how they treated people or what laws they broke in the process, moral relativism is at work. Although Niccolo Machiavelli was chastised for his "end justifies the means" doctrine, when people like Lincoln live by such guidelines, they are hailed as icons to modern society.

Since the American mindset loves winners, he has been elevated to icon status. His image is in classrooms, on coins and is easily recognized. In many ways it is a worship of winning. In such a mindset, winning is everything. How a person one does not matter. Lincoln is the hero of moral relativism. Since many people in modern society do not want to live their lives according to moral absolutes, men like Lincoln are ideal heros to lift up. With heroes like Lincoln, people do not have to "do what is right". Instead, what they have to do is have good intentions, or their actions will help the larger number of people. Winning becomes EVERYTHING!  Society seems to condone and tolerate wrongdoings as long as their side wins. Winning somehow makes it right.

Besides this aspect of winning, his dying in office made him a martyr figure. Martyrs are often used to project the dreams and hopes of ‘what could have been’. Anyone who has come into a family as a step-parent after one of the parents died is familiar with how those who died are often given a ‘sainthood’ status. Since the departed is no longer there, many feelings, hopes and fantasies are built up around them. Step-parents in such situations know how hard it is to compete with a parent that no longer exists.

Since Lincoln is an icon of pragmatism, those who dare to impinge his honor are seen as ‘sore losers’ and ‘unenlightened’. His stature means that the South will often be portrayed as the ‘bad guys’. Since they lost, they are equated with having been ‘in the wrong’. Hollywood often stereotypes bad guys with Southerners. If not being bad guys, they are portrayed as being ‘ignorant’ and ‘backward’ in their views. The viewpoint of “those Southerners must be ignorant because they do not recognize the magnificence of Abraham Lincoln” is often heard in academic circles that discuss Lincoln. Pragmatism and winning are cultural values that are held in high regard in the United States, even if it means telling lies, and hurting people. Lincoln is a man of double standards, which perhaps reflects those who admire him and consider him one of the best presidents.

In order to continue promoting the values of centralized government, pragmatism and winning, icons are set up and promoted in order to implant those values. Lincoln’s writings and the writings of his biographers have done a great deal to promote the myth of Lincoln. It was not by accident that the author whose books did the most to promote Lincoln as an icon was none other than the socialist Carl Sandburg. Lincoln made a point of approving many socialist persons to key positions in the army. During his lifetime, Lincoln received letters of congratulations from Karl Marx himself for the progress he made in changing the government of the United States.

That pragmatism means that what those icons desired and what they achieved is more important than how they did or who they hurt along the way. Cultures do not take kindly to those questioning their icons, since it represents the values of the culture itself.

It was Abraham Lincoln who claimed to discover the power of “war powers” in the Constitution. He said that between the lines he found powers given to the president that other executives had not found. His discovery allowed him to operate ‘outside’ the Constitution due to the circumstances the States were in. Since he was President and it was war time, he was allowed to take liberties not given him in that document. Although there are many in America who speak harshly of President George W. Bush for his exercising “war powers”, few speak out against Lincoln for doing the same thing. He was the one that started the ‘war powers’ mentality. 

Lincoln ordered the arrest of the legislature in Maryland. His justification was to ‘keep that state from secession’. On top of arresting elected officials, he also established martial law, and suspended the Constitutional right of ‘habeus corpus’. His administration also violated the Constitution when he approved the creation of the State of West Virginia out of the State of Virginia. The creation of one State out of another was expressly forbidden in the document. How an executive that blatantly violated the laws set forth in the Constitution, which is the legal foundation of the Union can be seen as ‘saving the Union’ is beyond me. If he did not abide by the law, yet he is seen as ‘saving the Union’, what did he save? 

Lincoln did not save the Union that existed before 1860, where the power of the States countered the power of the nation. He changed the system of government to where the national policies had more power than that of the States. His policies changed the whole nature of the Union. It was altered to a highly centralized form of government. He also changed the finances of the Union. Prior to his administration, there was no income tax. The nation was financed by a national tariff. By shifting the finances, he made it possible for the nation to have a standing army of such a size that never existed before. By changing the system of government and finance, he maintained the façade of the Union, which fooled the common man into thinking that the nation as it was, had been ‘saved’. What was once a voluntary Union was now made mandatory. The Union was not preserved in its operation. It was transformed into something totally different from what existed before. He solidified the independent minded States into a corporate whole. He also changed the emphasis of this government from one focused on preserving liberty to focusing on preserving ‘equality’.

The modern definition of a war criminal consists of when individuals violate the rules of war set down by the Geneva Convention. When a leader intentionally violates these agreements, he or she is termed a “war criminal”. In Lincoln’s mind, he was not a war criminal, since the ‘war powers’ he found allowed him to do what he needed to do in war time. Under his leadership the United States did not approve the Geneva Convention rules passed in 1864 (The United States did not approve them until 1882). By not approving the rules, Lincoln’s military forces could do as they pleased. The reluctance of the United States to approve the treaty also allowed the Confederate Navy to sink merchant ships with impunity.

He allowed and authorized his Generals (Sherman, Sheridan et al) to conduct looting, murder, and mistreatment of civilians in the south. The eyewitness accounts from the Shenandoah Valley, New Orleans and Sherman’s “march to the sea” are filled with the atrocities his administration allowed. Among these were rape, murder, pillage, desecration of graves and desecration of churches. He also authorized ethnic cleansing by removing whole populations at times. His soldiers often used Southerners as “human shields” in a manner similar to Hamas presently does in Gaza. Since Lincoln considered the South 'in rebellion', rather than as a sovereign nation that the United States was at war with, he believed he did not have to follow the normal rules of war. Since the forces of the industrialized Northern States won, they operated under “Victor’s Rights” which allowed them as victors to selectively ignore or minimize violations of law.

Lincoln’s lackadaisical approach to prisoners of war led to thousands dying that could have been exchanged. The horrors of Andersonville (Georgia), Camp Douglas (Illinois), Elmira (New York), Point Lookout and Fort Jefferson prison camps could have been avoided had Lincoln continued with prisoner exchanges. He even allowed General Ulyses S. Grant to completely stop the prisoner exchanges in spite of the fact that returned prisoners played little part in the conduct of the war.