Posted on 02/21/2005 7:58:12 AM PST by truth49
Each February, many people—particularly conservatives and Republicans—celebrate the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. In our public schools and through our popular culture, we are taught to admire and praise the “Defender of the Union,” “Lover of Liberty,” and “Great Emancipator.” Many teachers even refer to him by his congressional campaign moniker: Honest Abe.
As a black person and a conservative Republican, I am expected to sing the praises of Mr. Lincoln the loudest, but my love of liberty and history simply won’t permit it.
Many believe the civil war was fought because Lincoln refused to compromise his principles and insisted upon doing what was right. This view is the result of the intentionally perpetuated myth that the Civil War was about slavery. Lincoln, however, was more than willing to compromise on that issue, especially in the early days of the war prior to reelection.
I will say it until my brown face turns blue: the Civil War was not fought over the issue of slavery. In an August 22, 1862, letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln wrote: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”
Lincoln's views on slavery changed from time to time, but his views on race were consistent. Lincoln was clearly a white supremist, a separatist and a proponent of the "back to Africa" moment in its first manifestation. Lincoln made this point clear from the beginning of his political career. In one letter he stated:
(Excerpt) Read more at effwa.org ...
And your point is?
wastin' yer time, big fella. are you man enough to pick on someone who can defend himself?
Hey guys, isn't there a whole group of FReepers who like to debate the Civil War stuff? I couldn't remember who they are...any help would be appreciated.
PM
That the Civil War was not fought over slavery, which many Freepers realize. And that AL did not hold the beliefs that we have come to associate with him. That's not to say that he was bad. He grew in the office. But this article gives evidence that our text book's accounting of the Civil War is not correct. This is a good article.
All of what you said, as you said, most FReepers already know. And are you and truth49 the same person? Just wondering why you answered a question put to the original poster...
Article raised interesting points worthy of consideration. Imagine what would happen if Bush invoked the same actions today in response to another 9/11, etc.
Because it's a public forum.
And as you said, read in its entirety, it is a good article. But in order to adequately discuss Lincoln, the Civil War, attitudes toward race and slavery in the 1800's, etc., would require an entire semester devoted to such study and a level of sophistication among our school teachers that doesn't exist. Sigh.
This quote is displayed prominently on the wall at the Lincoln Memorial in DC. I couldn't believe it when I went there and actually read it.......
In 1848, in Congress, Lincoln espoused that it was a right for all men to "shake off the existing government and form a new one". So much for "Honest Abe"...
9/11 is not comparable to anything that happens in 1861 as on 9/11 it was muslim terrorists attacking us.
Good article.
The South was Right.
Now, let the fun begin.
They'll find this thread in due course. Those idjits live for the opportunity to trash Lincoln.
As for me, there are too many secessionists and segregationists on this website already. I stay away from Lincoln and immigration threads.
Huzzah! to that comment.
I love to debate Civil War stuff, but for the most part the article is accurate. Pres. Lincoln was the consumate poker player, and those who claim to be able to divine his deepest intentions are better than those who were alive at the time and had a chance to ask him.
The only point of contention I have with the article, and it is a minor one is where the author claims "It is hard to justify Lincoln’s actions in the South, where his generals (under his micro-managing leadership) targeted the civilian population whenever possible."
At the point in the war where Gen. Sherman was let loose on the south to destroy their will to make war, Pres. Lincoln had pretty much relinquished control over military matters to Gen. Grant's judgement in which he placed the utmost trust. This was not true of his previous commanders whom Lincoln unsuccessfully tried to push and prod to get results from. Once he had found a leader who would press the war unrelentingly Lincoln mostly let him do as he saw fit.
This is pro-cofederacy illiterate crap.
The point is that our raisning of Abraham Lincon to a god-like status is a LIE. He wasn't interested one bit in invididual liberty & freeing the slaves: all he wanted to do was increase his political power, & didn't wanna see the Union (which he held sacred, unlike the Founding Fathers) break up under HIS watch.
I suggest you read "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. You should also go to lewrockwell.com & read their columns about him under their "King Lincoln" link.
Sic semper tyrannis!
People who decry this should take a look at the films of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sometimes Generals do what they think will end a war soonest.
And just WHO is illiterate??
The legal foundation for the Civil War was highly questionable. Why can't States peacefully secede from a voluntary Union?
The practice of slavery is/was/will-always-be morally repugnant. Better to have allowed the South their independence and then declared War on it for Crimes against humantiy.
The reasons Wars begin and the reasons that they continue to be fought are not always the same. Just look at Iraq. Noble cause, but the original reasons for invasion are different than our goals there now.
bump
Wouldn't you be happier at Democrats Underground or Antiwar.com?
Calling LaureleeBraswell...
Being a Texan, I agree The War of Northern Agression was not fought over slavery --- at least from the political standpoint.
BUT I will say that much of the populace of the North --- and many a common Yankee Soldier --- went along with the war --- and died bravely on the battlefield --- to end the sin that was slavery.
IMHO, the wrongful, illegal, and immoral war and attack of the North against the South was God's punishment against the South for permitting the sin of slavery to prosper.
For all the outcries over PC education found on FR, people around here are surprisingly thinned skinned when it comes to any controversial discussion of a president on whom our public schools have conferred veritable sainthood.
Lincoln often strikes me as the third rail of historical debate.
But take a bottle of Lysol and wear flip-flops if you do.
Who was it that fired the first shots? Oh yes, an evil Lincoln trick. ;-)
More lifting selected quotes out of context to fit a pre-concieved ideology with absolutely no attempt to understand the context. In fact, they have no ability to understand because they are historical illiterates.
He was elected President of the United States, not head of a civil rights movement. He did his job.
A supreme irony of U.S. history is that for most of the 19th century there was the one political party that stood for limited government, states' rights, the free market and low taxes was...the Democrats!
Oh, for an hour of Andrew Jackson!
The South's ability to fight was based not on manufacturing but on the plantation system. Thus the plantations were burned along with the railroads - to cut off supplies to Sourthern military. Sherman ended that war the quickest way possible.
I have read DiLorenzo's piece of distortion and it is not history in any sense of the word. It is a political diatribe designed only to force fit the past into his warped Libertarian ideology. Reading DiLorenzo or anything on the Rockwell site to find the "Real Lincoln" would be the same as reading Michael Moore to discover the "Real" George Bush.
bump
At least, that's what I got out of it.
Thank you, I trust you will be true to your word and make that the last time.
lewrockwell.com? LOL.
As a gun-toting, bible-thumbing, knuckle-dragging, proud NRA member and twice voter for "W". I take exception to the suggestion that I would be more at home at DU.
The war was fought over slavery. Look at every single Article of Secession written by the Southern States. The South was morally wrong to engage in Slavery. The North was legally wrong for declaring the South in rebellion.
Hold on. I know I've got my tiny violin around here somewhere. Your heart-rending tale of woe deserves no less.
I agree with all you say. Well put. I was responding to the common image of A Lincoln fighting this war over slavery. It's just not accurate history. But I agree with you that it was a major contributing cause. Just not usually in the way it is portrayed. It was a very complex cause with deep roots. But I also agree that it was God's punishment. Slavery has existed since the beginning of time almost, but it never degenerated to the point that we saw it in America. It really is the shame in our history. We ARE a great moral nation, but we've been far from perfect. What makes us different is that we are constantly striving to improve and then we move on.
Well, I'm not great @ arguing back & forth, but I DO agree w/ those who sipport the Southern Cause & the Confederate flag.
The phrase "Civil War" is a misnomer--America never fought a civil war. A civil war is one in which 2 or more opposing factions are fighting for control for the SAME government (which is what we may see in Lebanon or Iraq). Back in 1861, the southern states didn't wanna get control of Washington, DC...they wanted to establish THEIR OWN nation, & break away from the Union, which the Union's (& our) Declaration of Independence said they have a God-given right to do. They had already set up thei own representative government, written their own constitution (which was an improvement on the 1787 Philadelphia Constitution), their national flag, etc. etc.
The Confederates even added to their Constitution a clause that IMMEDIATELY halted the importation of slaves....so those who say that the South fought the war in order to keep slavery going as an institution either don't know the facts, or are flat-out liars. They Confederate states had just as much of a right to self-government in 1861 that the colonlies had in 1776...or that the blue states who hate President Bush do today (let the blue states secede, I say: it'll make things better for the rest of us!).
While we're at it, wasn't Martin Luther King Jr. a Marxist? Bastard.
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.