Honor's Voice, A Tale of Self-Identity and Ethical Choices Part 4

In the third section of Douglas Wilson's Honor’s Voice, Lincoln's relationships with women are discussed. From the young age of seven until he was an adult, he was "unattracted" to girls. His grandmother is quoted as saying that Lincoln "was not very fond of girls..." (Wilson 110). Although others identified Lincoln as being a young man without a particular liking towards women, Lincoln didn't let it phase him. In fact, the main reason Lincoln lacked a strong liking for women was because with them, he couldn't display his social talents. Wilson writes about Lincoln saying, "He had...the inclination and ability to take center stage in social situations...but girls did not compete with boys in athletic contests, and most of his stories would probably not have been considered suitable for a mixed audience" (Wilson 114). By no means was it that Lincoln plainly disliked them or that was afraid of girls, he just liked the spotlight more.

Lincoln did, however, fall in love with a women by the name of Ann Rutledge. The two became lovers, she a tavernkeepers daughter and he a boarder. While Ms. Rutledge was in love with Lincoln, she was publicly engaged to a man named John McNeil. A neighbor who lived near the Rutledge farm recalled Lincoln's presence at the farm saying, "Mr. L. came over to see me & them every day or two. I did not know of any engagement or tender passages between Mr L & Miss R at the time" (129). The fact that Ann was already engaged to Mr. McNeil most likely allowed the neighbor to not suspect anything. Once she Ann died in 1834 though, the neighbor was very aware of the fact that there had been something between Lincoln and Miss Rutledge. According to Wilson, "his extraordinary emotions...accurately reflect what local residents came to believe and to remember about the aftermath of Ann's death, some of whom used words like 'crazy' and 'insanity' to describe Lincoln's condition" (Wilson 132). Lincoln took her death quite seriously, but he would move on. He would always find himself in the middle of social gatherings, but his love to do that never took him away from establishing deep relationships with others, even women.

Honor's Voice, A Tale of Self-Identity and Ethical Choices Part 3

In the fourth section of Honor's Voice, Wilson writes about Abraham Lincoln's journey into politics. Surprisingly, his physical build and athletic ability greatly helped him: "He could lift weights that were beyond the capacity of others; he could throw heavy objects, such as cannonballs, farther than his fellows...These were feats that were much admired by the men who constituted the electorate in Sangamon Country" (Wilson 141). Although these things probably helped him, he couldn't have become a leader without intellect, something he did not lack. Lincoln was able to ascend into a position in the state legislature. Before Lincoln had been elected to represent Sangamon County in the state legislature, he had begun to align himself with views contrary to those held by people living in the community. Wilson alludes to this: "Lincoln's back-country neighbors...were almost entirely Jackson men, but the young Lincoln, reportedly following Jones' example, resisted. He began to line up with the anti-Jackson forces and soon pronounced himself a follower of Henry Clay" (Wilson 150). Even though Lincoln didn't hold the same views as the community he lived in, he was still elected which means his community had some kind of faith in him.

Once he had served through one session, he became a leader in the legislature; he was recognized as the leader of the Whigs in the House. In his second session, he was two-faced in a way. On one side, he has been accused of logrolling which is essentially doing a favor for someone in exchange for another favor. In Lincoln's case, he was looking to make sure Springfield would be deemed capital of Illinois: "...Lincoln may have voted for and helped to put over patently bad or otherwise inadvisable measures, purely for the sake of securing the state capital for Springfield" (Wilson 163). Even if Lincoln went on to do great things, what he could have possibly done here is inadmissible. The measures Wilson talks about, but does not elaborate on, could have hurt individuals in the community they were passed for. There is nothing remotely right about what Lincoln did. On the other side of Lincoln's two faces, for the first time we see his anti-slavery views. Lincoln is seen with a colleague protesting on the house floor. The protest is described as "two lonely voices crying out in the wilderness against the evils of slavery" (Wilson 175). With Wilson's description, it is clear that although most people in Illinois were in agreement of slavery's evils, they were not going to stand up against it. Lincoln personally stood up against when others wouldn't.

Traitor or Whistle Blower?

In the film "On the Waterfront" the idea of being a traitor or a whistle blower is one of the foremost issues. In the film there are those at the head of the mob, those working for the mob and those looking to break the mob. Those looking to break the mob, namely the court and the priest, would generally refer to an individual as an informant on criminal activity. With the information given by informants, the court would have enough evidence to indict Johnny Friendly and thus end the practices of the mob. The priest would never look at someone as a stool pigeon and in this case, being an informant would be the right thing to do. On the other hand, figures of the mob like Johnny Friendly would refer to an individual as a stool pigeon. If one, as leader, were to see activity threatning to one's practice, the expected response would be negative. Those working under the mob outwardly show the same opinion as the leaders, but inwardly believe what is 'right.'

The issue of determining whether or not someone is being a tattle tale versus speaking out against improper behavior is sometimes difficult to determine. In my opinion, an individual is a tattle tale if they tattle for issues of little significance, if they tattle selfishly, or if they tattle to blatantly harm someone. One should speak out against improper behavior if what they define as improper behavior is harmful to someone or something. Everyone has their beliefs and anyone can define something as improper behavior, but speaking out against improper behavior can only be done by those who are strong. With that strength, one can diminish improper behavior

Society vs. Family

In the play "All My Sons," several characters act depending on whether it benefits their family or society. This is clearly seen in both Joe Keller and his son, Chris Keller. While Joe acts based on the needs of his family, Chris believes the needs of society should come first. In the midst of an emotional discussion between Kate and Joe, Kate argues that Joe had no excuse for not owning up to creating cracked cylinder heads. When Kate tells Joe that Chris believed there was something bigger than family, Joe responds, "Nothing is bigger...There's nothing he could do that I wouldn't forgive, because he's my son, because I'm his father and he's my son" (Miller 77). Its obvious that Joe Keller believed family was more important than society. He justifies the crime which caused the death of many men with the fact that he did it for his son; he did it so Chris would have a future. On the other hand, when Chris learns of what his father did, he is appalled, showing he believes the needs of society prevail over the needs of the family: "Is that as far as your mind can see, the business?...What the hell do you mean, you did it for me? Don't you have a country? Don't you live in the world? What the hell are you? You're not even an animal, no animal kills his own, what are you?" (Miller 70). Chris' opinion is very strong as he implies that if you act against the needs of society (in an extreme case), you're worse than an animal. He is disgusted at the fact that his father says he acted in his son's interest. After all, Chris is only one person in the entire society which is much more important.

The needs of the society should generally be put first, although there are occasions in which the needs of family must be put first. In a society that can generate happiness and one that has not forced an individual to be a part of it, individuals should always address the needs of the society before the needs of family. It is that society that provides the individual everything he or she has, besides giving life. The society sustains an individual's life much more so than a family can do; a family can provide happiness and joy, yes, but a family cannot keep someone alive without the tools the society has provided. If a society provides for the individual, the individual ought to provide for the society. If a society's values were 'wrong,' and if those values could cause harm to one's family, then the needs of the family would be more important than the needs of the society. But this would be rare as a society wouldn't want a value-set that would be harmful to the people it consists of. Although 'wrong' values may be the most harmful thing of all, it is not harmful in the sense that people would lack well being, something more important than values.