Thesis: Although Socrates would agree with Lincoln's motives for preserving the Union, he would not believe his means to do so were just. Obviously this relates the Republic to CW history.
Topic Sentences from supporting paragraphs. When you read each paragraph, you'll see that the body of each paragraph clearly relates to or supports the topic sentence, rather like the topic sentences all together relate to and support the thesis!
1. Lincoln believed
that the existing Federal government was the unity that would hold the
nation together through trials yet unseen. This
is about Lincoln's motives - clearly related to the thesis!
2. Plato would have
viewed the Confederate States of America as a constant civil war in and
of itself. It would be better
to say "Socrates" instead of "Plato"; but this explains Socrates' views,
which is most appropriate in the light of what the thesis is about.
3. At this point
Lincoln and Plato would have both openly advocated declaring war upon the
C.S.A. This is about the
Socrates-Lincoln agreement, which the thesis mentions.
4. The President's military and domestic policies
were inhumane and unconstitutional at best. This
is about Lincoln's means - which have to be elaborated on to support the
thesis.
5. Ironically, Lincoln's
most "unjust" means to save the Union and all it stood for were his single
handed battle on the 1st Amendment. More
about Lincoln's means - a major component of the thesis.
6. Despite the blatant
polarization that we see between Plato and Lincoln on methods of civil
war, Plato would still proclaim Lincoln's cause and soul just. Concluding
paragraph - pretty much restates, emphasizes, and drives home the main
thesis idea.
Overall. This paper, with five supporting paragraphs plus concluding paragraph, is a little more elaborately organized than a short paper needs to be, and it has unusually many footnotes. Sometimes (depending on exactly what the thesis is) as few as two supporting paragraphs would be enough, although then they would need to be much longer paragraphs.
Lincoln believed that a system of government divided among itself was doomed for collapse; "a house divided cannot stand." This philosophy earliest roots are evident in Plato's masterpiece, The Republic. Socrates states that perfection, which he refers to as justice, in a governed body is harmony among all classes of people-"The rebellious part is by nature…the whole of vice."1 In order for the United States to survive as a nation, the government had to remain Federal. The southern establishment had to be brought back into the Union, or it had to be destroyed.2Although Socrates would agree with Lincoln's motives for preserving the Union, he would not believe his means to do so were just.
Lincoln believed that the existing Federal government was the unity that would hold the nation together through trials yet unseen. "Isn't to produce justice [perfection] to establish…a natural relation of control, one by the other?"3 Southern statesmen would surely have disagreed with Plato on this point, stating that justice is upholding the rights of individual states, which to them represented the individual person. The growing power of a centralized government threatened thier concept of idividual freedoms. This argument may have had some validity to an America just emerging from revolution against a tyrannical government. The truth of the matter was however, that the United States Federal Government, analogous to Socrates' guardian class, had the sole purpose of providing welfare and security to all citizens regardless of geographic location. Plato said, "the action that destroys…harmony is unjust, the belief that oversees it [is] ignorance."4 The southern grievance was based on illusions, and in no way merited secession from the Union.
Plato would have viewed the Confederate States of America as a constant civil war in and of itself.5 It had the auxiliary and moneymaking classes of his Kalipolis, but it lacked a guardian class (federal government) to make decisions and guide the governed body as a whole.6 This would lead to turmoil among the existing classes, which would in turn produce, as civil war does, injustice, licentiousness, and cowardice among the countries' citizens.7 President Lincoln knew, and Plato would have agreed, that to preserve the sanctity of America, Unionism must be the law of the land.8 Sectionalism was imperfection at its' very roots.
At this point Lincoln and Plato would have both openly advocated declaring war upon the C.S.A. Plato would have fought the war with the attitude in mind that both sides will "one day be reconciled…and won't always be at war."9 Lincoln on the other hand wanted to win the war in "the shortest way under the Constitution."10 even if it meant laying waste to the entire southern civilization. War among civil factions, Plato believed, is only moderation among friends, continued only to "the point at which those who caused it are forced to pay the penalty by those who were its innocent victims."11 As Civil War Historian Mark Grimsley concludes, Lincoln, backed by military leaders such as General William T. Sherman and General Sheridan, began to see the war as a cleansing of impurity, hidden behind a rhetoric of practicality.12
The President's military and domestic policies were inhumane and unconstitutional at best. Abroad the Union strategists were ordered to wage war on unarmed populations, basing their orders on the new Lieber's Code of War. "War is not carried on by arms alone. It is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed…" it said. "The citizen or native of a hostile country is thus an enemy, subjected to the hardships of the war." "The more vigorously wars are pursued the better it is for humanity."13 Such doctrines led Union Armies to destroy crops, steal supplies, burn entire towns, and bring the horrors of war to the average southerner's doorstep.14 Plato, on the other hand, went so far as to make it a law in his city to "neither ravage the country nor burn the houses" in time of war, even against barbarians!15 Thus, we see that in America, a secessionist was treated lower than a barbarian was in ancient Greece; they were treated as an evil thought that needed to be erased.
Ironically, Lincoln's most "unjust" means to save the Union and all it stood for were his single handed battle on the 1st Amendment. Any US citizen speaking out against the government at the time was thrown in jail without trail. Habeas Corpus was lifted, and individuals could be jailed without reason. Newspapers that spoke against Lincoln policies were subject to vandalism by Federally appointed agents. Lincoln himself dismissed judges when they recognized his unconstitutionality.16 He in affect became "democracy's tyrant". He preserved freedom by destroying it.
Despite the blatant polarization that we see between Plato and Lincoln on methods of civil war, Plato would still proclaim Lincoln's cause and soul just. His motive was to keep unity and freedom among all classes. His means were some of the most cruel in American history. This is a strange paradox for the one who is revered as our greatest President, but this definition of an individual is precisely what Plato claim's as the truly just person. "Though he does no injustice he has the greatest reputation for it, so that his justice may be tested full strength and not diluted by wrong-doing, who is simple and noble and who, as Aeschylus says, doesn't want to be believed to be good but to be so."17
End Notes
1. Plato, The Republic. in Classics of Moral and Political Theory, 2nd ed., ed. Michael L. Morgan (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1992), 443d.
2. The Civil War, Episode 3, "Forever Free," prod. and dir. Ken Burns, 90 min., KET, 1959, Broadcast.
8. Samuel Chase, "Samuel P. Chase to Abraham Lincoln, September 1862," Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconstruction, 2nd ed., ed. Michael Perman (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998), 158-159.
10. Abraham Lincoln, "Lincoln Explains His 'Paramount Object' of Saving the Union, August 1862," in Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconsrtuction, 2nd ed., ed. Michael Perman (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998), 158.
12. Mark Grimsley, Gestures of Mercy, Pillars of Fire, in Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconsrtuction, 2nd ed., ed. Michael Perman (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998), 118-119.
13. William Sherman, "General William T. Sherman Explains How the War Has Changed, September 1864," in Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconsrtuction, 2nd ed., ed. Michael Perman (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998), 101.
14. The Civil War, Episode 8, "War is Hell"
16. The Civil War, Episode 2, "A Very Bloody Affair"
Bibliography
Chase, Samuel. "Samuel P. Chase to Abraham Lincoln, September 1862,"
in Major
Problems in the Civil War and
Reconstruction, 2nd ed., edited by Michael Perman.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998.
Grimsley, Mark. Gestures of Mercy, Pillars of Fire, in Major Problems in the Civil
War and Reconsrtuction, 2nd ed., edited by Michael Perman. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1998.
Lincoln, Abraham. "Lincoln Explains His 'Paramount Object' of Saving the Union, August
1862," in Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconsrtuction, 2nd ed., edited by
Michael Perman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998.
Plato, The Republic. In Classics of Moral and Political Theory, 2nd ed., edited by Michael
L. Morgan. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1996.
Sherman, William. "General William T. Sherman Explains How the War Has Changed,
September 1864," in Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconsrtuction, 2nd ed.,
edited by Michael Perman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998.
The Civil War. Produced and Directed by Ken Burns. 13hr. 30min.
KET, 1990. Broadcast.