Dishonest Abe Lincoln

[The Lurker Below]

My response to Lurker was to argue that, however ignorant American are about history in general (and they are), THAT is the one lesson that has been hammered home enough so that a majority of them actually remember it.

I would also add that I think there should be several OTHER lessons about the founding and our history that are worthy of strong attention -- some for good and some for ill -- that don't stay with our little learners throughout their lives.

Admittedly I know very little about not much, but having spent the past 20 years teaching 'Murican History to 7th and 8th graders I must respectfully disagree with the hammering anything history in public schools. In my state we don't even have a state test for history anymore. In many districts history has become an every other day elective, similar to art (not saying anything bad about art). In my experience, if you can't make it rhyme, they forget about it before the beginning of the next school year.

Of course YMMV. I suppose in your place and time they didn't cover state history in 4th grade, civics in 6th, World in 7th, U.S. in 8th, and government in 9th. I suppose their focus was the ACW and an obsession over slavery.

Coin some catchy phrase about the battle flag equals slavery, and sell that to public educators, and it might become as well known as 1492. Until then, I can only share my observations that my hill-country red-neck cousins could care less about skin color, are pretty damn sure the "gob'ment" is coming for them, and the rebellion remains the standard for instances of 'Muricans standing up to the Feds.

[Papewaio]

I believe he is referring to the "Commonwealth of Australia" and not to Australia's role as part of the British Commonwealth.

Correct it applies to the Commonwealth of Australia.

For the Common Wealth of Nations nee British ;) Countries leave/ get kicked out all the time and not all of them have the Queen as Head of State, in fact the majority don't & not all of them are former members of the British Empire either.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Admittedly I know very little about not much, but having spent the past 20 years teaching 'Murican History to 7th and 8th graders I must respectfully disagree with the hammering anything history in public schools. In my state we don't even have a state test for history anymore. In many districts history has become an every other day elective, similar to art (not saying anything bad about art). In my experience, if you can't make it rhyme, they forget about it before the beginning of the next school year.

Of course YMMV. I suppose in your place and time they didn't cover state history in 4th grade, civics in 6th, World in 7th, U.S. in 8th, and government in 9th. I suppose their focus was the ACW and an obsession over slavery.

Coin some catchy phrase about the battle flag equals slavery, and sell that to public educators, and it might become as well known as 1492. Until then, I can only share my observations that my hill-country red-neck cousins could care less about skin color, are pretty damn sure the "gob'ment" is coming for them, and the rebellion remains the standard for instances of 'Muricans standing up to the Feds.

Neither the Commonwealth of Virginia nor the State of Florida have punted history that thoroughly. Perhaps my perception is colored by that experience.

For me I had nuns through grade six in NJ and it was social studies and not very organized. after that in VA 7th was government and basic American history; 8th nothing; 9th generic world; 10th usa; 12th government. All of the teachers were liberals, all brought up slavery -- even in world history -- and the one female teacher was a bela Abzug fan in addition to hammering the slavery issue. She would preach the virtue of the federal government as the great equalizer and I would roll my eyes -- this was during Reagan's first term.

[Fisherking]

On the topic, most arguments are based on emotional appeal and popular perception.

People seldom attack the facts but try to color anyone finding fault with Lincoln as racist.
The discussion is Lincoln, not slavery.

This is one of those missing history lessons. It is known, but not taught. People speaking out against the man get colored as racist because it conflicts with the popular, excepted, government view of how we are to patriotically see the man.

Lincoln was an unapologetic white supremacist who held blacks in contempt. His opposition to the expansion of slavery was more about the spread of blacks to other parts of the country than opposition to slavery as an institution. He had an extreme dislike for abolitionists and wanted blacks deported back to Africa or to South America, anywhere at all as long as they were gone.


What he said:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
by: Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President
Source: Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)

"The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union."

-This resolution was passed unanimously by Congress on July 23, 1861.

The above quote contradicts the quote below where Lincoln says the negroe race is the reason for the Civil War:

“See our present condition—the country engaged in war! Our White men cutting one another’s throats! And then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another. “Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated.” [bold face mine]

— Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862, from COLLECTED WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Vol 5, page 371.
the purpose of the meeting was to get the black leaders to take part in his colonization plan. Wisely, they didn't.

Lincoln did not care about freeing the slaves! He incorrectly believed there was another reason that threatened the Union:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, 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 so that"

Letter to Horace Greeley
-Lincoln, (Voices of America, p.138).

It is my purpose to colonize persons of African descent, with their consent, upon this continent or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the government existing there.

He later said, in discussing the options of colonizing them with segregated areas of Texas, Mississippi, and South Carolina:
If we turn 200,000 armed Negroes in the South, among their former owners, from whom we have taken their arms, it will inevitably lead to a race war. It cannot be done. The Negroes must be gotten rid of.

Ben Butler responded to this by saying: “Why not send them to Panama to dig the canal?”
Lincoln was delighted with this suggestion, and asked Butler to consult Seward at once.
Only a few days later, John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln and one of his conspirators wounded Seward.
From: The Real Lincoln by, Thomas DiLorenzo

The Emancipation Proclamation freed no one!

It excluded everything under government control, even occupied areas of the South.

It only freed slaves beyond government ‘s ability to free.

Lincoln never endorsed the 13th Amendment. He wanted it left to the states to control. Something else convent to overlooked.


Even Colonization was a crony capitalist scheme. A Republican business man went to Panama. Subsidized with government money, he bought a huge tract of land where blacks were to mine coal and plant cotton and sugar cane. The coal was to be bought by the US Navy at half the cost on the world market. As colonization didn’t take place, after Lincoln’s death, the government was out the money but the business interests had the land.
Little to nothing has been said regarding the other charges of abuse of power or government subsidies of favored businesses.

Does this mean that all of you find these practices justified because they ended slavery as an institution, or just that you don’t care?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He later said, in discussing the options of colonizing them with segregated areas of Texas, Mississippi, and South Carolina:
If we turn 200,000 armed Negroes in the South, among their former owners, from whom we have taken their arms, it will inevitably lead to a race war. It cannot be done. The Negroes must be gotten rid of.

Ben Butler responded to this by saying: “Why not send them to Panama to dig the canal?”
Lincoln was delighted with this suggestion, and asked Butler to consult Seward at once.
Only a few days later, John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln and one of his conspirators wounded Seward.
From: The Real Lincoln by, Thomas DiLorenzo

How much of this was his sense of "white supremacy" and how much of this was his sense that leaving the negroes in the South at all would inevitably degenerate into an apartheid state....as it ultimately did.

It is clear that that conversation suggests that Lincoln, even after praising the efforts of black soldiers during the war, was not of the belief that the races could live together in true equality. That is a powerful point, but does not necessarily speak to the idea that he thought one race superior to another. There were no "multicultural" societies in the 1860s that Lincoln could look to for hope. He probably felt that colonization -- with blacks in control of and for themselves -- was the only real chance for equality. I do not know what was in his mind on the issue -- and Lincolns letters and statements were always made within the context of a culture that largely did not view races to be equal. Whether he moved past that or not, Lincoln was certainly a product of that very same culture and an astute politician who did not pick fights he didn't think he had at least a chance to win.

This is not to say that Lincoln wasn't made a secular saint following his death -- he was. Moreover, it is easy to see that Douglass and others may have been more enamored of a dead "greatest president ever" whose image served their goals than they ever were of the living, breathing practical politician.

I have no idea what we would have learned if Lincoln himself, as have most presidents, been given the chance to reflect on his presidency and write his own memoirs with an eye towards history. We do not know what he wanted to be his legacy on the issue.

Nor do we know if his leadership might have made some colonization scheme work. It is a certainty that Johnson -- who Booth gifted with the post -- did not have the political clout to effect a benign reconstruction or to force through funds for a canal project or anything else. He barely held onto the office when he even tried going in that direction.

[Fisherking]

How much of this was his sense of "white supremacy" and how much of this was his sense that leaving the negroes in the South at all would inevitably degenerate into an apartheid state....as it ultimately did.

It is clear that that conversation suggests that Lincoln, even after praising the efforts of black soldiers during the war, was not of the belief that the races could live together in true equality. That is a powerful point, but does not necessarily speak to the idea that he thought one race superior to another. There were no "multicultural" societies in the 1860s that Lincoln could look to for hope. He probably felt that colonization -- with blacks in control of and for themselves -- was the only real chance for equality. I do not know what was in his mind on the issue -- and Lincolns letters and statements were always made within the context of a culture that largely did not view races to be equal. Whether he moved past that or not, Lincoln was certainly a product of that very same culture and an astute politician who did not pick fights he didn't think he had at least a chance to win.

This is not to say that Lincoln wasn't made a secular saint following his death -- he was. Moreover, it is easy to see that Douglass and others may have been more enamored of a dead "greatest president ever" whose image served their goals than they ever were of the living, breathing practical politician.

I have no idea what we would have learned if Lincoln himself, as have most presidents, been given the chance to reflect on his presidency and write his own memoirs with an eye towards history. We do not know what he wanted to be his legacy on the issue.

Nor do we know if his leadership might have made some colonization scheme work. It is a certainty that Johnson -- who Booth gifted with the post -- did not have the political clout to effect a benign reconstruction or to force through funds for a canal project or anything else. He barely held onto the office when he even tried going in that direction.

This is all interesting stuff and I would love to dive into it but it is more ugly history also and should be saved for a different thread.

Lets stick to what Lincoln did do and leave the hypocrisies of other politicians for another day.

On the issue of race, at the time, it has been widely recognized that the average slave had more liberties in society in the south than did the average freed man in the north.

Colonization was a bad plan from the start. Blacks didn’t want to go to Africa and the very few who did take advantage of the projects mostly died. They were basically marooned on a distant shore.

Johnson simply saw the wrong in what the radical Republicans wanted to do. The office of the presidency had never before Lincoln enjoyed wide powers. He was pretty much reduced to the powers granted the office by the constitution.

Lincoln held dictatorial powers. He was head of the ruling party and he knew few would dare oppose him. Besides that he had a loyal army at his command. It was not just the south under military occupation. There were troops everywhere.



@The Lurker Below
I would give you some catchy rimes but if you used them those of The Church of Lincoln, Christ and Savior would burn you as a heretic.

[Pannonian]

This is not to say that Lincoln wasn't made a secular saint following his death -- he was. Moreover, it is easy to see that Douglass and others may have been more enamored of a dead "greatest president ever" whose image served their goals than they ever were of the living, breathing practical politician.

The Gettysburg address might have something to do with his legacy as a secular saint.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Gettysburg address might have something to do with his legacy as a secular saint.

Fair point, and it is such public pronouncements as that, plus the tone of his second inaugural, that leave me uncertain as to how much credence to give the "just another politician and racist like others of his times" revisionism that fisherking is bringing into the discussion.

American reaction the Gettysburg address was mixed -- with editors panning it or praising it according to their editorial stance, if they were anti-Lincoln before, the speech did not move them. Persons in attendance were pleased with its eloquence and style, but rather surprised by its brevity.

When I read his words, I hear pain and a man consumed with sorrow and duty. It is hard for me to dismiss that aspect of Lincoln, even as I deplore his creation of the modern "imperial" presidency as he prosecuted the war.

[Fisherking]

Ever read H.L. Mencken’s essay on Lincoln?

He touched on the Gettysburg Address at the end, but here is an examination of the speech as a whole, with Mencken’s comments at the beginning.

http://www.dcdave.com/article5/081122.htm

Lincoln made a great study of rhetoric. His library contained The Works of Shakespeare, The Bible (in which he did not believe), and a large number on the use of rhetoric.

[Pannonian]

Ever read H.L. Mencken’s essay on Lincoln?

He touched on the Gettysburg Address at the end, but here is an examination of the speech as a whole, with Mencken’s comments at the beginning.

http://www.dcdave.com/article5/081122.htm

Lincoln made a great study of rhetoric. His library contained The Works of Shakespeare, The Bible (in which he did not believe), and a large number on the use of rhetoric.

So? The British exemplar of public speaking, Winston S Churchill, similarly studied rhetoric. There are any number of quotes attributed to him about how he was willing to lie, distort, do whatever was needed to persuade his audience, and he openly stated his intention to dictate history to be favourable to him. But no-one doubts his belief in the wider cause. Over here, we expect our leaders to be liars, scoundrels, and generally not very nice people. But we also expect them to have deeper convictions to guide their mastery of trickery. In Churchill's case, there is his leadership when things looked hopeless, and to me personally, the incident where Stalin proposed the mass execution of German officers, and Churchill's apoplectic reaction to this outrage.

Never expect your leaders to be perfect. But for a war leader in a democracy when things look bleak, it's hard to beat Churchill. And for a leader leading a western democracy to aspire to greater ideals, it's hard to beat Lincoln. If you want a leader to be paradigmatically perfect, you won't get anything done, and that is no leader at all.

[Fisherking]

So? The British exemplar of public speaking, Winston S Churchill, similarly studied rhetoric. There are any number of quotes attributed to him about how he was willing to lie, distort, do whatever was needed to persuade his audience, and he openly stated his intention to dictate history to be favourable to him. But no-one doubts his belief in the wider cause. Over here, we expect our leaders to be liars, scoundrels, and generally not very nice people. But we also expect them to have deeper convictions to guide their mastery of trickery. In Churchill's case, there is his leadership when things looked hopeless, and to me personally, the incident where Stalin proposed the mass execution of German officers, and Churchill's apoplectic reaction to this outrage.

Never expect your leaders to be perfect. But for a war leader in a democracy when things look bleak, it's hard to beat Churchill. And for a leader leading a western democracy to aspire to greater ideals, it's hard to beat Lincoln. If you want a leader to be paradigmatically perfect, you won't get anything done, and that is no leader at all.

I prefer politicians to be shown as they are/were. I most strenuously object to those who are deified or presented to us as plaster saints.

I may not be surprised to find them liars and scoundrels but I expect better and will not tolerate it in a public representative.

My problem with Lincoln is his abuses of power and perversion of the government and the constitution. Especially so in that it resulted in so much bloodshed.

Not slavery nor abolition nor tariffs, just establishing a dictatorial rule and the crushing of limited government.

[The Lurker Below]

I prefer politicians to be shown as they are/were. I most strenuously object to those who are deified or presented to us as plaster saints.

I may not be surprised to find them liars and scoundrels but I expect better and will not tolerate it in a public representative.

My problem with Lincoln is his abuses of power and perversion of the government and the constitution. Especially so in that it resulted in so much bloodshed.

Not slavery nor abolition nor tariffs, just establishing a dictatorial rule and the crushing of limited government.

If you want period politicians with indisputable honor in public service look no further than Jefferson Davis. Then remember where his values guided him and how well that honorable service worked out for his country. Perhaps a nation is better served by scoundrels?

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/listin...-2687647023449

[Fisherking]

I never thought of Davis as honorable, to tell you the truth. I saw him as a bone headed control freak who held grudges against not only his enemies, but friends and acquaintances of enemies as well.

[The Lurker Below]

Understandable. Being chosen to lead the rebellion, he was hated in the north. Failing to lead the rebellion led to hatred from the South. EVERYBODY that wrote about the man in his time was certain to point out any and all possible faults he may have had. To be honest the referenced source treats him in the best possible manner, skipping over most faults. But if you look at the entirety of his career, you see that the guy was not well suited to be a politician, due to his honesty and loyalty. He made friends with everybody as a Senator in Washington. During his time as Secretary of War his best friend was William Seward, staunch abolitionist. Several abolitionist leaders, including Horace Greeley, signed his bond papers to release him after the war. Had your subject here, Father Abraham (/wink), managed to get to Washington, he probably would have made friends with him too.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I never thought of Davis as honorable, to tell you the truth. I saw him as a bone headed control freak who held grudges against not only his enemies, but friends and acquaintances of enemies as well.

The way I read it he was ALL of those things...humans are rarely simple.

[Fisherking]

The way I read it he was ALL of those things...humans are rarely simple.

So was Lincoln but we treat him as the martyred messiah of Democracy, which he never was.
The opposition to his flagrant falsehoods as propaganda was stiffened by draconian measures and a secret police put together by Seward.

It is a century and a half since this happened. Surely long past time to examine the man and not the myth.

So, back to Lincoln and why he could not allow the south to secede.

The argument that has been most made is the Lincoln personally felt a duty to pass on to his successor a Union just as strong as the one he received. But he received only a partial union to begin with.

If you examine the Republican Party Platform you can see why the southern states seceded if you understand the feelings of the day. It was anti-secession and anti-nullification. The Republicans needed a strong federal government to carry out their plans and that would have run roughshod over the rights of all of the states. The three things they wanted most were; Protectionist Tariffs, Internal Improvements, and a National Bank. The non enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act

These were provisions only favored by the wealthy elite. All but Massachusetts had state constitutions which forbid public funding of internal improvement and most states had nullified high tariffs and the National Bank in the past for a great number of reasons.

Internal improvements seems the most harmless of the lot but the one with the most opposition. This is because all of the states had suffered serious financial losses backing such plans. It was seen as corporate welfare. Public money being spent in the interest of businesses and direct government subsidies to companies or individuals. Quite often the business men just skipped with the money.

Also 80% of revenue came from the southern states and the intended recipients of government subsidies were all in the north. The plan just could not work unless the southern states were forced back into the union.

The Federal Government was about broke and the economy as a whole was on the verge of a breakdown.

Good enough reason for a war?

[Fisherking]

Saint of democracy? That's not really accurate. He's seen as the destroyer of slavery, and that is true. An implementer of the just and necessary war. Nobody is surprised or upset about the darker sides of how it was conducted, and its not much of an argument against his legacy.

I fear you are thinking with your emotions rather than with you head.

He wanted an amendment that made slavery untouchable and no state could refuse to return slaves.

This fit his political agenda which stopped slavery form expanding because he didn’t want blacks free to mix with whites.

When he made the Emancipation Proclamation it was a military tactic and a PR move but it freed not one slave.

When the now 13th Amendment was offered he refused to offer his support and would have preferred to leave it in the hands of the states.

He wanted black people deported.

He did as little to affect the institution of slavery as he could and did not end it.

It is the same as if Hitler, who started a war had ended Communism by conquering Russia.

The war was not necessary. It was to accomplish a political goal. Not freeing the slaves but forming a federal government that was the arbiter of its own powers.




“People are easy to fool, just almost impossible to convince that they have been fooled.” don’t know who said it but it is true.

[Fisherking]

You say a lot of "because" or "he wanted" and "it was a conspiracy to empower the federal government" (okay I paraphrased that one) in there, confusing your opinion with historical fact or political decision-making processes. Everybody knows there was a lot of shady conduct around the civil war. Hell, Sherman's March was calculated brutality approved of by Lincoln. Half the generals in charge of the union Army were fired, demoted, or ridiculed by Lincoln for their lack of bloodlust and initiative. I don't know what school system you went to, or even when you went to school, but these things aren't glossed over. Everybody with an education knows it wasn't roses and peaches. The South had to be destroyed, and its a good thing Lincoln was around to make sure it was done right.

The fact that you think a little black spot here, or a little "gotcha!" fact there is enough to de-justify the entire war speaks more to your biases than anything else.

Lincoln’s administration was now more of a conspiracy than many other administrations. He was a political party boss and knew how to get his way. We are not taught about that or that he was a lobbyist and corporate lawyer. He lived a life of privilege and traveled about the country (as corporate lawyer and Illinois Legislator) in a private rail car with an entourage of railroad executives.

The death figures for the war have recently been revised upward. I have not looked into them but accepted estimates are in the range of 800,000 killed and around 1.5 million total casualties from a total population of about 35 million. It also destroyed nearly half of the nations wealth, and that is not by freeing the slaves.

Every other country managed to end slavery without a war. It is not a badge of honor that we didn’t.
Some have argued that the way our slaves were freed, more than anything else, has lead to the long racial divide in the US. Certainly the UK and Brazil don’t have the problem to this extent.

There are a great many problems with the view that the ends justified the means.

Because of the war the fundamental limits of the federal government was altered. It was changed from the limited government the founders gave us into an all powerful central government with only the limits it set its self. And that continues to be the case.

Lincoln and the government suppressed all basic freedom, violated all of the bill of rights, slaughtered civilians, robbed, pillaged, and raped, conducted war against the civilian population, tortured its own citizens, established concentration camps, used forced deportation, and started the systematic genocide of Native Americans.

Here you tell me that those are a little black spot here and there! What constitutes a major one?

Given 19th century recourses I wonder if Hitler or Stalin could have done better. They had the benefit of Lincoln’s blueprint in their own work. Hitler even wrote of Lincoln in Mein Kaumpf, and Sherman’s words are replayed in “The Final Solution”.

Obviously you seem to believe that southerners were some subhuman abomination deserving of total eradication, and that the ends are justified.

Perhaps you should share why they were all so evil as to deserve death?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He ended up living a life of privilege. His early career is more prosaic -- though admittedly the "Honest Abe the Rail Splitter" has a lot of political image making in it. Maybe not quite as fabricated as Washington's cherry tree, but towards that end of the scale.

It is saddening that we went to war to end slavery when so many other nations managed to avoid that.

I concur with you on the limitations of the federal government.

I believe that Lincoln may have handled emancipation following the war better -- whatever his personal thoughts on race relations -- than did Johnson and Grant. Booth ended that option. Lincoln seemed to be seeking some way of avoiding an apartheid South, and may have had the clout to put some better answer in place before granting amnesty to all the Southerner. Grant just let amnesty and apartheid happen without even a murmur.

And Hitler wrote specifically of Lincoln in order to tap into his "secular saint" image -- the image you have already decried above. He really only used it as an example that federal sovereignty superseded any provincial sovereignty -- and Lincoln wasn't the first to voice that line of argument in the USA or anywhere else.

I think the Southerners were continuing, by-and-large, an institution which, in their heart of hearts they knew to be wrong. The fear of Nat Turner and the Slave Revolt in Haiti was a constant backdrop to Southern thinking -- but it is not paralleled in the North by deep-seated fears that the workers were going to revolt and kill all the factory owners (not that there were not excesses in industry -- there were; and companies opposed unionism, sometimes violently). Such fears existed in the South because slavery runs counter to basic human desire. I also think that they were idiotic to allow themselves to be goaded into seceding when they did and to firing the first shot of the war in addition. They somehow thought that England and/or France would side with a slave-holding nation and provide the outside help needed to repeat the American Revolution. England wouldn't have minded a weakened USA, but any support for a slaving state was anathema. France was interested in Mexico and wasn't willing to really push hard for that, much less support the South. And without outside intervention, they had to win every battle every time with dwindling resources -- and such things only happen in alternate history novels.

[Fisherking]

I think that the reconstruction proposed by Lincoln for the Southern States was the best course. Whether he would have done that is only speculation, as he was often compassionate in words but not in deeds.

Johnson’s program was much the same, but you can see what the Radical Republican Clique thought of that.

As to the Jim Crow laws that dominated the south for nearly a century, I doubt that Lincoln would have made any difference unless he had deported all or most of the blacks to other locations. Laws as repressive or more so were already on the books in the north even before the war.

The civil rights of blacks was quickly forgotten after the war by all but a very few.

Those who did work for equal right are mostly forgotten or had their reputations ruined. In some cases it was coved up. J.O. Shelby and Forrest come to mind. Confederate Generals who stood up for black right after the war and are looked upon with distaste and loathing today because they served the south and therefore the side of slavery.

[Pannonian]

I think that the reconstruction proposed by Lincoln for the Southern States was the best course. Whether he would have done that is only speculation, as he was often compassionate in words but not in deeds.

You expect compassion during war? The US is a nation that prides itself on being founded on ideals that it's fought and won a war for. Along those lines, it has always fought for freedom against tyranny, on the side of good against the side of evil. The American nature of war is that it is on the side of righteousness, and the other side is wrong and must be subdued. You don't show compassion against evil. You fight until you prevail. The point about your Civil War is that both sides thought they were on the side of good, with the other side being evil. This isn't such a problem for countries that accept compromise as part of being, but in the US, where lack of compromise is seen as a virtue, this isn't possible. See your posts about how Lincoln's study of rhetoric means he is tainted for an example of this. You show compassion after you've won, when you're showing it as a mark of your superior moral virtue and the reason why you won.

[Fisherking]

Evil was the slave-owning society itself. You've hinted that southern slaves were somehow better off than northern freed-men, but that's a blatant lie. The system of slavery at work in the south was a truly heinous system that corrupted the morals of the slave-owners as much as anyone else. The majority of poor southern whites had nothing to do with it, but neither did they have anything to do with stopping it. I again point out the abolitionist movement, long a factor in the North! Long a factor in the border states! Utterly opposed throughout the South, by rich slave-owners for obvious reasons, and by poor whites for less obvious but equally invalid reasons (Dem northerners is tellin' us what to do! Even though they're right...we should fight!). As far as an actual nation-state can be evil, the South was evil.

I'm not saying the North was some ideal society! The system of indentured servitude that most poor people of all colors had to deal with in the North was pretty bad, and it is that very specific brand of passionless northern capitalism that has since taken over the entire world. It would be hard to look on with any kind of sympathy if it wasn't for the fact that the South was founded on straight up slavery, and the Confederacy was founded on the idea that no government can correct your wrong-doings, no matter how many millions you are oppressing. That's the sort of international narrative peddled by nations like China, and Russia. A bankrupt attitude towards governance.

Sherman said it best, anyway. If the people of the south were tired of dying and suffering, all they had to do was end the war.

That view is shear madness. It is the moralistic, Calvinistic, New England Yankee view which has nothing to do with reality. It is Secular Puritanism.

This is the view that the roughly 316,000 slave owners were corrupting and polluting the morals of the nation and the sin could only be expunged by a massive bloodletting. Of course not all of those slave owners were white men. There were also women, free blacks, some Indians, and many Hispanic Unionists (who owned Indian captive slaves or their descendants).

This is the mind set that elevated mass murders to religious sanctity. John Brown was call the new Jesus for his murders, not of slave owners but those suspected of having pro slave sympathies. He was captured at Harper’s Ferry trying to start a race war and southern authorities were criticized for hanging him.

Sherman may have been a homicidal maniac, raciest, and perpetrator of genocide but he was not alone. War against civilians was the rule rather than the exception, he just carried it even further. He murdered civilians as acts of reprisal for military actions, looted and burned homes as well as whole towns and cities who offered no military resistance, even hung slaves and on at least one occasion drove hundreds of them (freed slaves, or contrabands) into flooding rivers where most drowned. And then he was set loose on the American Indians. He recognized himself as a war criminal but dismissed it as only the losers suffer that fate.

His legacy lives on to this day. It is ok to bomb cities, starve populations, murder noncombatants so long as you profess you do it in the name of freedom and liberty.

No, the south was not founded on slavery. That was what could be called an unconstitutional court ruling about a hundred years earlier. And who brought them over? It was not until the end of the importation of slaves that New England had a problem with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony...%28colonist%29

It is a sick idea.
A Disease in the Public Mind:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0306821265/...preview%3Dtrue

About the book:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/...-65-bloodbath/

You expect compassion during war? The US is a nation that prides itself on being founded on ideals that it's fought and won a war for. Along those lines, it has always fought for freedom against tyranny, on the side of good against the side of evil. The American nature of war is that it is on the side of righteousness, and the other side is wrong and must be subdued. You don't show compassion against evil. You fight until you prevail. The point about your Civil War is that both sides thought they were on the side of good, with the other side being evil. This isn't such a problem for countries that accept compromise as part of being, but in the US, where lack of compromise is seen as a virtue, this isn't possible. See your posts about how Lincoln's study of rhetoric means he is tainted for an example of this. You show compassion after you've won, when you're showing it as a mark of your superior moral virtue and the reason why you won.

Excellent sarcasm!

I assume you meant it as such.

There were a great many efforts as compromise and peace in the months after the Republican election victory. It was a failure because Lincoln would have none of it. This is seen as his virtue.

It still brings tyranny to other lands in the name of freedom and liberty.

And huge profits for war industry.

[Pannonian]

Excellent sarcasm!

I assume you meant it as such.

There were a great many efforts as compromise and peace in the months after the Republican election victory. It was a failure because Lincoln would have none of it. This is seen as his virtue.

It still brings tyranny to other lands in the name of freedom and liberty.

And huge profits for war industry.

The American way is to see compromise as a fault, as it is self-evident that one's own side is the good side, with the corollary that the other side is the evil side. England, since its re-unification and centralisation under the Tudors, has had the same tendency relative to mainland Europe, probably due to the same geographical isolation that America enjoys, but the US takes it up another notch, aided by its founding war myths against the British. In your case, you're seeing your own side (the Confederacy) as the side of freedom, while the Union represents tyranny. Northerners saw the struggle in the same terms, but with the sides reversed. Same old Americanisms, same old dualisms. The Bonnie Blue Flag and The Battle Cry of Freedom especially make me laugh.

"We are a band of brothers and native to the soil
Fighting for our Liberty, With treasure, blood and toil
And when our rights were threatened, the cry rose near and far
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star!"

"Yes we'll rally round the flag, boys, we'll rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom,
We will rally from the hillside, we'll gather from the plain,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!"

When you fundamentally see conflict in these terms, what compromise is there to make?

[Fisherking]

The American way is to see compromise as a fault, as it is self-evident that one's own side is the good side, with the corollary that the other side is the evil side. England, since its re-unification and centralisation under the Tudors, has had the same tendency relative to mainland Europe, probably due to the same geographical isolation that America enjoys, but the US takes it up another notch, aided by its founding war myths against the British. In your case, you're seeing your own side (the Confederacy) as the side of freedom, while the Union represents tyranny. Northerners saw the struggle in the same terms, but with the sides reversed. Same old Americanisms, same old dualisms. The Bonnie Blue Flag and The Battle Cry of Freedom especially make me laugh.

"We are a band of brothers and native to the soil
Fighting for our Liberty, With treasure, blood and toil
And when our rights were threatened, the cry rose near and far
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star!"

"Yes we'll rally round the flag, boys, we'll rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom,
We will rally from the hillside, we'll gather from the plain,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!"

When you fundamentally see conflict in these terms, what compromise is there to make?

Last time I checked there was no Confederacy. My criticism is a criticism of the US government and its official history.

The split between the British and the American Colonies was over minor differences made large. It appears to me that the US attempt at limited government was a failour of some magnitude and had they remained would have ended up much like Canada, with a much less warlike outlook on the rest of the world, after fighting a few more wars for the sake of empire.

It could very well be that our shared heritage has brought shared flaws in our moral makeup.

One may tolerate those and except them as inevitable or speak against them and try to see our false logic in how it effects us today.

I know my government can be wrong. It can be tyrannical. We have in the past made a good cause from the bad. We are just as susceptible to propaganda as anyone else. Your county has suffered from it as much as any.

And the lyrics to the song Bonny Blue Flag were written by an Irish immigrant taken from a Victorian Irish commercial toon. I always thought he was writing for more than one audience.

Root, who wrote Rally round the flag also wrote some 35 war songs, made a lot of money and gained a lot of honor for his songs, but never saw fit to enlist himself. It was quite popular in England as well.

The melody was from Lincoln’s campaign song. He was from Boston but later moved to Chicago before the war.