Replies

I think you have a valid point as to the original thirteen colonies. They had existence as soverign states prior to adoption of the Consitution. However, the other states are "products" of the United States and as such owe their existence to the United States.
The proposition that we as modern day Americans would be better off if the South won or Lincoln let them go is moot because Lincoln did what he did.
I think a good deal of the debate on Lincoln is healthy...especially the extension of power of the federal government.
However, I think people who despise Lincoln should examine who precipatated the crisis. Lincoln won the election under the constitution. The northern states had compromised repeatedly to preserve the union. It was the southern states that having lost an election took up arms to void the results.
Finally, I think people who admire Lincoln are suspicious of the motives of people who hate Lincoln. Slavery must be rejected and vilified. Lincoln while not alive for the 13th -15th amendments certainly can be seen as the person most responsible for the end of slavery. The failure to give credit to Lincoln for this acheivement leads to (perhaps) a (mis)understanding that the critic is a racist.

Again, the assertion is that whatever power is not specifically delegated to the federal government lays with the states and the people therein. The fact remains that even though territories were purchased or claimed, the people decided to form a state. If you have proof that the union was owed some special allegiance or rights from the states that were not involved in our initial founding but came after, please cite it. You must first _assume_ that rights aren't inherent in the people, and that the federal government has some special delegated or assumed powers for you to make such a claim. Which goes back to one of my previous statements, "Does one want an intentionally weakened federal government with power resting primarily in the hands of the states and the people therein, or does one want a powerful centralized federal government with weakened checks and balances against oppression?...".

The proposition that we would have been better off without the abuses of power by Lincoln is not a moot point. We are currently living under the affects that his abuses have had, and currently are having on our government and society today.

The act of secession was not in response to Lincoln being elected but his refusal to seek a peaceful resolution or compromise to the issues (which happened to involve more than just slavery). Jackson was willing to compromise and secession wasn't needed, Lincoln was unwilling and so forced the Southern States to secede.

Finally, the assumptions of Lincoln's supporters concerning those who hate his many abuses of power are merely that, assumptions. The voiced slurs have in no way been civil or logical, but have been either an inane attempt to avoid a logical debate or to delegitimize and dehumanize opposing arguments and people. When has any critic of Lincoln here made implied or overt comments that supported slavery?

Am I supposed to ignore the ENORMOUS costs that came from Lincolns actions? Over 600,000 dead, more than all our other wars combined through Vietnam? Implicit change to our governmental form, incredible economic destruction, "total war" specifically waged on the innocent citizenry of the south, abuses of rights in the North, constitutional abuses, etc etc? So that was the preferred and higher moral solution to the issue of slavery, which basically all Lincoln supporters propose as the single reason for the civil war??

Although I am completely against slavery, I am not sorry that I fail to support such a war and Lincolns many abuses of power.