[Abraham Lincoln, Congressman-elect from Illinois. Three-quarter length portrait, seated, facing front] (LOC)

Comments and faves

1. ★

   Dean Stevens, Mr. Hepe, Michael Rajzman, gazeteer, and 145 other people added this photo to their favorites.

2. 

   Cassies grandma (47 months ago | reply)

   They always say Lincoln was a homely man. I would say he was quite handsome here.

   Can you see the seeds of greatness here?

3. 

   internetincomebox (47 months ago | reply)

   I think this is a very nice picture of president Abraham Lincoln. He looks great in this picture. We must thank
   Shepherd, Nicholas H., the photographer for taking this picture of the president.

   The picture of the president is a great memory of a great man!

4. 

   idswart (47 months ago | reply)

   Lincoln was a tyrant.

5. 

   striatic (47 months ago | reply)

   idswart, lincoln probably was a tyrant. wikipedia outlines the most basic aspects of this, saying he:

   "suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money before Congress appropriated it, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial."

   Lincoln violated the rule of law, the constitution, the human rights of thousands - to a much greater extent than any president that came before him.

   the very troubling thing is that out of this tyranny, and perhaps even because of this tyranny, the even greater tyranny of slavery was ended. when we look at Lincoln we see an incredibly complicated figure who challenges our ideas of what is just and what is right from many different directions.

   it does depend somewhat on your definition of tyranny though. Lincoln never declared himself emperor or king or president-for-life, which is usually what people think of when they think of tyrants. this is why even though Lincoln violated the constitution and trampled on rights throughout the course of the civil war, it is difficult to put him in the same class as Napoleon or Mao.

6. 

   idswart (47 months ago | reply)

   I agree with most of what you had to say, but I believe that the original Constitutional Republic built by our founding fathers ceased to be after the end of the War Between the States.

7. 

   ISO1977 (47 months ago | reply)

   this picture looks least like the Lincoln memorialized in later representations. i guess this is who you would have seen in a court room or legal library, before politics.

8. 

   James Jordan (47 months ago | reply)

   Everything is in tack sharp focus except his left hand. Nervous tick?

9. 

   zingpix (47 months ago | reply)

   It has been theorized that perhaps Lincoln had Marfan syndrome.

10. 

    Biggin Mon (47 months ago | reply)

    Tyrant is being much too kind.

11. 

    vivsirena ( *On & Off* ) (47 months ago | reply)

    He looks very handsome in this photograph~& Very regal~

12. 

    jeandiva (47 months ago | reply)

    Tyrant? No. Lincoln was a man of his time. He was not perfect. We need to understand that he was president of a people about 150 years ago, and what that really means. Not apologize for it, but understand that we've made progress that was unimaginable by the people of that time.

    He has survived in our national consciousness because of the conflicts we continue to find in ourselves, as much as because of the man he was,

13. 

    Raiden_Fangirl (47 months ago | reply)

    The Raconteurs took this picture for their single cover of "Many Shades of Black"

14. 

    striatic (47 months ago | reply)

    "We need to understand that he was president of a people about 150 years ago, and what that really means."

    none of his predecessors did anything remotely close to what Lincoln did in terms of suspending human rights.

    it's an easy argument to say "he was a man of his times", but if you actually look at the presidents who came before him, the other men of his times, they weren't doing what he did. A foreign power invaded the mainland united states in the war of 1812, and you didn't see a nationwide suspension of habeus corpus for that.

    immediately after the war the supreme court ruled that Lincoln's actions had been unconstitutional, that it wasn't constitutional to suspend habeus corpus in areas where courts were still functioning - which is what Lincoln did. so it isn't like the "men of his times" in the legal world thought what Lincoln did was normal or just. his actions were deemed unconstitutional by his contemporaries.

    none of this diminishes what Lincoln accomplished for the cause of freedom, but it prompts difficult questions about the nature of freedom and how it is secured. these questions shouldn't be dismissed because of some glib notion that people in the "olden days" didn't know any better.

15. 

    ComputerHotline (47 months ago | reply)

    Your photo is uploaded here :
    commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shepherd,_Nic holas_H_-_Th...

    --
    Seen on your photo stream. (?)

16. 

    Biggin Mon (47 months ago | reply)

    Tell that to the 650,000 Americans he slaughtered...how's that for human rights? How about jailing and deporting even Congressman who were opposed to the war? Sherman's march to the sea ring any bells? I'd prefer to see him post JWB!

17. 

    NuNu ツ (47 months ago | reply)

    Lincoln, Wow My fav President. Sadly his life was cut short.

18. 

    jeandiva (47 months ago | reply)

    I find what happened with our own modern illegal wars to be much more reprehensible than anything Lincoln did. I don't have the same expectation that people of "olden days" should be held to the same standards (or the same lack of standards) as we SHOULD have now. Sometimes governments and leaders do bad things out of ignorance. We no longer have that excuse IMO. I would certainly hope that in 150 years we will have evolved beyond where we are now in terms of justice and rights. Just as we should have evolved beyond those living 150 years ago. 150 years of discussion and change is not meaningless.

19. 

    Kurt Modler (47 months ago | reply)

    Hi, I'm an admin for a group called La Belle Epoque ca.1890 - ca.1914 incl. ArtDeco and ArtNouveau, and we'd love to have this added to the group!

20. 

    Tom Fori (47 months ago | reply)

    Atheists rule!

21. 

    www.stickerklub.com [deleted] (47 months ago | reply)

    the wastecoat is real nice

22. 

    James Riley Photography (47 months ago | reply)

    Great collection

23. 

    THROUGH_HAWAIIAN_EYES (47 months ago | reply)

    Great man who had a vision.

24. 

    jtay1739 (47 months ago | reply)

    OMG tyrant, not at all, he had to do what he had to do in order to expose the confederate, and the fact that they didn't want to abolish slavery, I mean if you do your history home work you would see why he did what he did, in my opinion it doesn't matter what law a man breaks as long as its for a positive thing. Did you know that democrats were for slavery and not against it, and basically the republicans freed the slaves

25. 

    zosxavius (47 months ago | reply)

    so that's what a daguerreotype looks like....

    they are as beautiful as they say.....

26. 

    Whiskeygonebad (47 months ago | reply)

    His hand blurry? A nervous tick? People: this process required one to hold still for sometimes over 2 minutes. Oftentimes the eyes look funny because of blinking but averaged out over a longer exposure the effect is lessened. The subject for this type of an early photograph has a brace behind it's head to fix it still.
    Also: Please stop with all of your 2009 P.C. mush-brained comments. Stop tagging the picture itself also.

27. 

    twotadpoles (47 months ago | reply)

    wow, he's almost unrecogniseable from the way he's been immortalised with the famous hat and beard...

28. 

    William Allen, Image Historian (47 months ago | reply)

    The image is the frontispiece of Lincoln, Abraham. Lincoln on Democracy. Rev. ed. New York: Fordham University Press, 2004.

    This is a revision of an earlier edition

29. 

    c. mitzinger (47 months ago | reply)

    Klasse!

30. 

    Randy Haddock (47 months ago | reply)

    Amazing!

31. 

    Stieglitzz65 (47 months ago | reply)

    He looks a little bit like Cary Grant in this photo.

32. 

    Chicago Wedding Photographer, Wes Craft (47 months ago | reply)

    The 'add note' feature isn't intended for sticking flaming debate tags regarding the politics of lincoln all over the photo.

33. 

    ELCore (47 months ago | reply)

    Ditto Wes Craft. Only one comment, as of now, is actually about the photograph.

34. 

    chriswho (47 months ago | reply)

    I'm not sure how or why, but his hand seems way too large for the size of his head in this photo...
    Other than that, very nice.

35. 

    gibbermagash (47 months ago | reply)

    How the hell do you get rid of those dam little white box outlines?

36. 

    xtrarant (47 months ago | reply)

    as gibbermagash said, is there any way to get rid of those damn box outlines for the notes? LoC shoudl turn off the ability to leave nots on its pictures as everyone and their brother feels the need to pepper pictures with them and ruin looking at them.

37. 

    pschwens (47 months ago | reply)

    You can change who can add notes to pictures here:

    www.flickr.com/account/prefs/photoprivacy/?fr om=privacy

38. 

    striatic (47 months ago | reply)

    "is there any way to get rid of those damn box outlines for the notes?"

    just wait a few seconds after the page starts loading and they'll disappear, so long as you don't hover over them first.

    you can also click part of the photo that doesn't have a note, and then click off the photo, and the notes will vanish.

    notes can be very useful on other photos for identifying individuals in group portraits, for example.

39. 

    jrcohen (47 months ago | reply)

    will you please at least move the boxes off him and onto the side of the photo? that way we can still read the notes without having them be annoying.
    thanks.

40. 

    ISO1977 (47 months ago | reply)

    perhaps the thinking goes something like this:
    i have an opinion and access to the internet, therefore you are obligated to hear my opinion.

41. 

    jeandiva (47 months ago | reply)

    we all have the right to express our opinions, and the equal right to turn down the volume individually should we so choose. obviously Lincoln continues to generate dialogue about many issues!

    Being cranky about lines on the photo, or people expressing their opinions that you happen to disagree with is futile. There is an easy method to avoid the lines. Thanks striatic! Click on all sizes if you want to avoid both opinions and lines. But you'll be missing out sometimes...

42. 

    madjer33 (46 months ago | reply)

    Of course the image is flipped. Daguerreotypes are direct positive images, there is no negative. You see what the lens sees, the image is reversed and upside down. Look at the image on the ground glass of a view camera and you will see what the daguerreotype saw. Sometimes this was corrected with the use of a prism or mirror, but more often not.

43. 

    Maxwell Dubler (46 months ago | reply)

    Abe was bangin' when he was young. I'd hit it.

44. 

    Peterkm (46 months ago | reply)

    ver ycool
    

45. 

    mesmerical (46 months ago | reply)

    "None of his predecessors did anything remotely close to what Lincoln did in terms of suspending human rights."

    None of his predecessors were dealing with a civil war. The idea of business as usual, in a time when a major chunk of the country was trying to secede, violating the Union? Ridiculous.

    Funny how people can't understand that in times of war, normal "rights" are removed. It's man against man, trying to take your LIFE -- how's that for a right removed? It's not a civilized thing, war. It totally abrogates the social contract and the most fundamental moral codes. This idea that there's an honorable way to conduct wars is asinine and shameful. It's what allows us to calmly enter into them in the first place, what allows us to be genuinely surprised that the whole endeavor isn't a neatly conducted game ... that makes it possible for anyone to be shocked that "civilians" are often put in harm's way. What? Is the horrid intent of war not clear? Does anyone think the human damage can really be contained to the poor pawns in uniform? Or that doing so would make the killing in any sense more morally just? Jesus help us, people are stupid. There are times when war is called for. But if you believe that, and enter into it, don't have on blinders.

    By the way, the Union wasn't fighting to end slavery. The Union was fighting because those who wanted to preserve and spread the right to enslave, wanted to secede. The Union wanted the vast wealth of the natural resources in the south. They wanted to keep the contiguous land mass united. They couched it in terms of slavery, at times, because those were the terms by which secession was made. Yes, 18 months into the War, an emancipation proclamation was floated -- but emancipation would never have been a reason for war, on its own. Well, not from the Union offensive stance.

46. 

    striatic (46 months ago | reply)

    "None of his predecessors were dealing with a civil war. The idea of business as usual, in a time when a major chunk of the country was trying to secede, violating the Union? Ridiculous."

    In the war of 1812, foreign troops attacked and occupied Washington DC, setting the white house and Capitol on fire. The war wasn't on as large a scale as the civil war, but the idea that Lincoln was alone in facing an existential threat to the Union is unfounded. The revolutionary war itself was an existential threat to nationhood itself, and the people who fought it wrote the very provisions that Lincoln flaunted.

    "The idea of business as usual, in a time when a major chunk of the country was trying to secede, violating the Union? Ridiculous."

    nobody is talking about "business as usual". martial law and the suspension of habeus corpus happens often in times of war, when the mechanisms of civil justice are often unavailable. If there's no functioning judiciary in an area of conflict, such chaos is inevitable and cruder methods of maintaining order are understandable.

    Lincoln's issue was that he suspended habeus corpus in areas with functional courts, well within union territory. he essentially short circuited a functional judicial system.

    was this necessary? i'm not sure. maybe. but it was certainly a power grab and set a precedent for a consolidation of executive power that continues to this day.

47. 

    mesmerical (46 months ago | reply)

    I said none of his predecessors faced a *civil* war.

    As for his tactics re the judicial system -- the thrust of my comment was meant to say, if killing is okay, why should other rights be safe? To pretend any other kinds of rights should be carefully handled, if the right to life is being systematically taken away, is a philosophically absurd notion. That we can both have a designated time of killing those with whom we do not agree, and parade about like idiots, keeping to the letter of all other man-made laws -- that's what allows such brutality to happen, the idea that when we're engaging in the absolute antithesis of our reason for being (sustenance of life) by killing each other, we can still be "civilized" and orderly. Putting war in a context like that -- even expecting it -- means one is not possibly grasping how very wrong it is to kill, as if the killing is less of a transgression than imprisonment or loss of privacy, or even torture.

    And again, I don't think all war is wrong. But understand that it is utterly anti-social, anti-life, anti-civility. To expect otherwise is to be naive, and disappointed. Just because during some wars we *have* maintained levels of continuity of our governmental systems, and maintained the everyday workings of the social contract, doesn't impress me as good. It impresses me as sick, that we were able to compartmentalize a very animalistic way of settling differences. Again -- a way sometimes necessary, but not to be confused with business as usual.

48. 

    striatic (46 months ago | reply)

    "ALL is "fair" in war. If killing is okay, nothing is safe."

    but that has no bearing on how you treat you own citizens in times of war. in war, the other side is the enemy, not your own people. if you have traitors in your midst, that can be established fairly, by a functioning judiciary.

    another more modern example, britain survived imminent invasion and mass bombing without suspending habeus corpus in WWII.

49. 

    mesmerical (46 months ago | reply)

    We weren't invaded. It was in our midst, it was our own people, and not on clear-cut lines. Within the same households, both north and south, there was division. It would have been chaos to try to take the time to figure out who was or was not a traitor, by the long process of the law. You do your best with information at hand, when quick decisions must be made -- just as I'm sure there were men with guns on fields, unable to tell for sure who was the enemy. But you can't just stand there, and wait to figure it out. Again, being in the midst of a war isn't a good place to be.

    It seems to me we've turned war into a codified, acceptable means of conflict resolution, by giving it rules and regulations in and of itself, and in seeking to continue all non-wartime rules and regulations just as they are in peacetime. We make it seem as if "war" is just part of the bigger picture, something that stands by itself, that shouldn't upset the normal fabric of life. I don't think that makes sense, morally or practically.

    As a last point, since I come off sounding totally anti-war -- I'll reiterate that at times, I think it's called for. But that if it is, it should be understood, nothing and no one is safe. And again, they oughtn't be. If it's okay for anyone to die, than it should be reason enough for everyone to die -- it should only be done for reasons of survival in the first place, where your military and people would die anyway, if you didn't engage (i.e. your most basic resources are imminently threatened, your lives are directly threatened).

50. 

    striatic (46 months ago | reply)

    "We weren't invaded. It was in our midst, it was our own people, and not on clear-cut lines. Within the same households, both north and south, there was division."

    same with the revolutionary war, which was fought by the people who wrote the constitution that Lincoln flaunted.

    "It seems to me we've turned war into a codified, acceptable means of conflict resolution, by giving it rules and regulations in and of itself, and in seeking to continue all non-wartime rules and regulations just as they are in peacetime."

    that's because the law protects human rights, which we should endeavour to protect at all times, especially in wartime. it isn't about turning war into an acceptable means of conflict resolution, it's about understanding that rights are inalienable, not privileges to be whisked away simply because there's a war on.

51. 

    PopKulture (46 months ago | reply)

    To think that human rights exist somehow a priori, that they persist in a vacuum, or that they shall endure without a host nation is terminally naive.

    They are merely ideals, and not at all immutable, given form or verse simply by those in concert willing to make difficult choices to, above all else, protect themselves from material harm.

Want to format your comment?