Posted on 09/24/2012 11:57:08 AM PDT by iowamark
Countless school children have been taught that Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator. Others have been taught — and many have concluded — that the Emancipation Proclamation, which Abraham Lincoln announced on Sept. 22, 1862, has been overemphasized, that it was inefficacious, a sham, that Lincoln’s motivations were somehow unworthy, that slavery was ended by other ways and means, and that slavery was on the way out in any case.
The truth is that Lincoln’s proclamation was an exercise in risk, a huge gamble by a leader who sought to be — and who became — America’s great liberator.
Since before his election in 1860, Lincoln and his fellow Republicans had vowed to keep slavery from spreading. The leaders of the slave states refused to go along. When Lincoln was elected and his party took control of Congress, the leaders of most of the slave states turned to secession rather than allow the existing bloc of slave states to be outnumbered.
The Union, divided from the Confederacy, was also divided itself. Many Democrats who fought to stop secession blamed Republicans for pushing the slave states over the brink; some were open supporters of slavery. And if the Democrats were to capture control of Congress in the mid-term elections of November 1862, there was no telling what the consequences might be for the Republicans’ anti-slavery policies.
The Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t always part of the plan. Republicans, Lincoln included, tried push their anti-slavery program by measured degrees, since they feared a white supremacist backlash. That was what made Lincoln’s decision to issue an emancipation edict, and to do it before the mid-term congressional elections of 1862, so extraordinarily risky...
After Lee’s invasion of Maryland was stopped in the battle of Antietam on Sept. 17, Lincoln made up his mind to go ahead...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
The NY Times has been running a great history essay series: Disunion, on the 150th anniversary of the Civil War.
like lyndon johnson he got everybody killed for nothing
They are preparing us for the Second American Civil War. If Obama is a great leader, if he is a risk taker, if he is like Lincoln, then Obama will move swiftly and quell the uppity whities as soon as they say “He won?? Again?? This is rigged!!!”
Ah, no he didn’t. Jeff Davis and his Dixiecrats are responsible for the deaths of 660,000 Americans.
Absolutely. If those Confederates had simply not invaded Maryland, we never would have needed to slap them down.
It’s best not to reason with Lost Causers and apologists for the Slaveholder’s Rebellion. If you really want to make them mad ask them if they’re mad slavery isn’t still legal.
If the North had not called up troops in Virginia for use in South Carolina, there was hope of working something out. Of course, before that, South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter when the Union would not leave. And before that, an Abolitionist fired on Virginians and Virginia militia.
Lincoln’s gamble worked; Lee’s foolish gamble on the third day of the battle did not. Victors write the history books.
bump
The Federal Government declared war on the South, invaded their homeland, murdered their wives and children, and burnt down their cities. I suppose you are a Holocaust denier also. Same thing.
Reason? There was nothing reasonable about that statement. Or yours for that matter.
Four of my GG-grandfathers fought for the Confederacy- none owned slaves (only about 5% of the southern population owned slaves). Virginia, my native state, voted against secession on April 4, 1861 and did not vote for secession until Lincoln called for troops to invade the South.
The Legacy of Lincoln is still with us. Much of the problems we are now facing with out of Control Federal government began in Ernest under Lincoln. Who made the Federal government supreme over us all? Lincoln.
We haven't ended slavery, we've just changed masters and added more slaves.
Lincoln gambled the states would acquiesce by sending troops and funds to support his war; he was wrong.
Aren't you forgetting that whole 'attack on Fort Sumter' thing?
Lincoln’s gamble worked; Lee’s foolish gamble on the third day of the battle did not. Victors write the history books.
Depends on what you mean by "worked". It had *A* result. Not sure I would call it a success. I grew up thinking Lincoln was a great President, and that he deserved a place of Honor in our National history, but as I learned more and more about the events which resulted in the civil war, I began to have less and less respect for the man.
Lincoln was the first to create and use the power of the almighty state, and the nation has never been the same. Yes, he accomplished a great good as a result of using this power, but he established the precedent for a lot more subsequent abuse of this power.
Woodrow Wilson merely built on Lincoln's established principles.
“The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War” written by Thomas DiLorenzo in 2002.
An alternate point of view.....
your mileage may vary
Here is a response to the Klan from an actual historian:
http://www.amazon.com/Vindicating-Lincoln-Defending-Politics-President/dp/B007K5FYIG
What you say comes down to the last line of my post: Victors write the history books. It could be argued that if Lee had not fought the third day at Gettysburg, the South would have had time to finish implementing the changes they were working on. 300,000 Black soldiers, trained and fighting for the promise of land and equality would have changed things. Once the war began, whether Slavery was the prime mover or not, Slavery was finished. With the historical result, we moved considerably toward Federalism.
I would attack someone who wouldn't leave my property too. But the truth is that the action was provoked by U.S. President James Buchanan and then Lincoln attempting to add more guns and resupply the fort. Also remember that not a single soldier died in the battles.
If Lincoln had withdrawn from Sumter and not launched headlong into a war there wouldn't have been 660,000 deaths. All the casualties and the later abuses of power fall squarely on Lincoln's shoulders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.