Dishonest Abe Lincoln

[Fisherking]

Who still believes what you were taught in school about this man?

He was a corrupt politician, a racist, and his treason brought about a war that killed or maimed 1.5 million people and destroyed half the wealth of the country. But his political party was the dominant one in American politics for more than 40 years.

He was one of Hitler’s heroes and he used examples form America’s handling of the Indians in dealing with the Jewish Problem…

[Fisherking]

I sure hope not.

You want to hit on TR or WW?

[Fisherking]

LOL, typical reaction. It must be a southern plot to trash the memory of Father Abraham, Saint of Democracy.

Lincoln was much hated in his lifetime and that was in the north. He funded crony capitalists during the war. When he selected the eastern terminus of the Transcontinental Railroad it just happened to be in a town where he had extensive real-estate holdings. He bankrupt the state of Illinois with his internal improvements legislation, what today we would call corporate welfare.

His law career was as a railroad lobbyist. His intended version of the 13th amendment was to make slavery ever protected from the Federal Government. Only circumstances and political opportunism changed that. http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2013/02/...richard-albert


GH, you in particular would favor little of what the man stood for. Most of what you hear of him is pure propaganda. Why would you think the first Republican President would be any different from the rest?

[The Lurker Below]

Who still believes what you were taught in school about this man?

He was a corrupt politician, a racist, and his treason brought about a war that killed or maimed 1.5 million people and destroyed half the wealth of the country. But his political party was the dominant one in American politics for more than 40 years.

He was one of Hitler’s heroes and he used examples form America’s handling of the Indians in dealing with the Jewish Problem…

Lincoln the man prior to presidency would have been a hero to today's Republican Party. Born in a log cabin, mostly self taught, and a millionaire by age 40 via a successful corporate law practice.

Hmm. During the Minnesota uprising Lincoln pardoned nearly 60 of the 100 that were scheduled to hang. Was that the styling Hitler copied?

Don't forget the Catholics. They wanted him dead too.

[Fisherking]

He pardoned the Indians in the interest of international politics. He thought such a mass hanging would inflame the British and the French.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have had mixed feelings about him for some time.

I do not think him any more of a racist than were many (most?) in his time. I do believe he came to view slavery as an evil that had to be ended -- and that this change of heart was not solely due to the abolitionists being a big bloc within the nascent Republican Party. It is a certainty that -- prior to the secession -- he favored slavery withering on the vine or being reduced by "buying them out." Liberia and other efforts suggest that while opposing slavery, he was not necessarily of a mind to create a truly blended society.

He was a very practical politician, on many levels, and he did indeed have an eye towards "P.R." that any modern pol would understand...and probably emulate. Did this mean he was a political whore with no convictions whatsoever? I do not think so. But he could be, and was, a very hard nosed political leader who used a soft style to make it more palatable. He certainly cut deals with the political machines, turned a blind eye to the first real military industrial complex, sanctioned the brutal suppression of the New York draft riots, and any number of other political moves....all in the name of accomplishing his paramount goal of preserving the union. To achieve this 'end,' he justified a number of less than palatable 'means.'


It is hard to say what Lincoln would have done without the secession. With secession a fact, he was cold-blooded enough to recognize that civil war must follow and that he could put some of the onus on the Confederacy by re-supplying Sumpter. Had their been no secession, but instead an effort for some new Great Compromise, we may have seen a very different leader emerge. Once committed to ending the secession and restoring the USA to the status of a single political entity, which Lincoln took as an absolute goal, most of the rest of his decisions all flowed from this single centerpoint.

My grief with him mostly centers on his trampling of the Constitution in the process of saving the Union. His actions regarding individual rights etc. make the Patriot Act look a bit tame. Moreover, by denying any mechanism whereby one of the constituent states could withdraw from the Union -- which is by the way never addressed in the Constitution as either permissible or forbidden, in is simply un-discussed -- Lincoln established the framework for federal ascendency over the constituent states without which the great federal government expansions under Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Johnson could never have occurred. In many ways, he ended the United States of America and replaced it with a singular.

[Fisherking]

My main objection is that we have deified the man as a martyr and he didn’t save the Union but fundamentally changed it.

His views on slavery are hard to pin down because they changed depending on who and where he was speaking. He wrote the Corwin Amendment and had Seward and Corwin introduce it in Congress, I understand. Later, he refused to play a part in the passage of the other 13th amendment even when urged to do so.

He was first and foremost a freesoiler. He never opposed the exclusionary laws of Illinois which required blacks to post a $1000 bond before being allowed into the state and strict laws regarding their assembly and activities. He also always favored colonization of blacks out of the country.

I am lead to understand that he was a very astute PR man who even Bill Clinton could have learned form. During his term in Congress he gave one address that certainly sounded as though he supported secession.
In a speech in 1848 on the Mexican War, Abraham Lincoln said, "...Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.“
Secession and nullification were remedies for the states published in constitutional law texts at the time. It was a view seldom questions except by large business interests who might have to pay duties if states left the union. Remember that Lincoln was a strong protectionist favoring high tariffs, one of the few views he never altered.
The war its self was completely avoidable. Secession was a right of the states. It is important to remember that the exact duties of the federal government are laid out in the constitution. It imposed limits. The 10th amendment makes clear that the states retain all other rights.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Lincoln‘s misreading was deliberate. The use of We the people was another falsehood. It was a shorthand and was originally a list of all the states.

The greatest lie however, is not Lincoln‘s. It is that of historians. In the 1960 revisionists decided to make the war about slavery from its outset. It was deliberate and political.
Slavery was much more secure within the union than out of it. Without the fugitive slave laws, slaves would be free just crossing to the north, not all the way to Canada. This is why most abolitionists favored it and a number of planters, especially in the upper south, opposed it. In his inaugural address he assured slave states that slavery was secure and he supported the amendment to make it so forever. The threat of troops was over the Moral Tariff, should they nullify or remain outside the union.

[Montmorency]

Regardless of what one thinks of Lincoln the man, he was indisputably one of the greatest statesmen of all time.

As for the whole "war not over slavery" canard, I suggest one read this.

[Fisherking]

Regardless of what one thinks of Lincoln the man, he was indisputably one of the greatest statesmen of all time.

As for the whole "war not over slavery" canard, I suggest one read this.

Actually, I would suggest you look at the facts rather than reexamining the propaganda.
States rights were the vehicle by which the states felt the right to secede but they were also a means to resist the federal government, to include slavery and unfair taxes. It was fundamental to the Principals of ‘98.

Slavery was an important part of the southern states secession but so was federal overreach in the form of the Morrill Tariff. Lincoln’s reason for going to war, however, was to keep the south in the union because his tariff was useless without them. Some 80% of tariff revenues came from southern ports.

While ending slavery was the one good thing that happened it could have been achieved at much less cost and without the loss of blood and vast treasure.

Lincoln was a great man. Great in the same sense as many tyrants are great.

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”
Lord Acton

Lincoln was no statesman. A statesman builds consensus. Even his friends called him a dictator and said it was a political strength of his. He imposed his will on the nation and his interpretation on the constitution. He silenced his opposition with force and rewarded supporters with position and privilege.
His political actions were always those which favored his party and his section of the country, and not the nation as a whole.

None of these things are hidden. It is merely the interpretation and the selection of those writing “official history” that place him on a high pedestal.

His position in American History should be much more like that of Napoleon in French History.

Many may glorify it but ultimately it was not to the good of the nation. He brought us from republic to empire.

[Montmorency]

Slavery was an important part of the southern states secession but so was federal overreach in the form of the Morrill Tariff.

Let's not pretend tariff-setting, a well-protected Constitutional federal power, is "overreach". Or was the Tariff of 1857 not overreach?" Just a matter of which rich men benefit, geographically-speaking.

Once again, it comes down to economic issues - nothing to do with political ideals of "states' rights".

You would do well to note that the passage of the Morrill Bill would not have been possible until at least 1862 had the Southern states not begun to secede.

His political actions were always those which favored his party and his section of the country, and not the nation as a whole.

No one is obliged to favor their enemy in war. Namely...

While ending slavery was the one good thing that happened it could have been achieved at much less cost and without the loss of blood and vast treasure.

It's the Southern planters and politicians who must shoulder that burden, for their anachronistic avarice. Lincoln did almost everything right in a difficult situation that he could never have prevented.


As for "propaganda", why yes, it is indeed propaganda - Southern propaganda. The Confederate State Constitutions and other documents listing causes for secession are just that, and that is why they must figure largely in historiography of the Secession movement. Otherwise, it's the politically-motivated path called "making up to suit ideology".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The tragedy of Lincoln's assassination is that he was not given the opportunity to set the tone of the Reconstruction. Rhetorically, at least, his second inaugural suggests that he favored a relatively benign reconstruction. Having been elected as a liberal Republican (oh how the times have changed!) and having prosecuted the war to its conclusion, he may have had the political clout to bring about a less exploitative and more culturally sensitive reconstruction and thereby put race relations on a different and more positive track. Sadly, thanks to a self-important egotist actor, we will never know.

Certainly Johnson, tainted with the label of "Democrat," was unable to effect a benign reconstruction and the Grant administration that followed was -- whatever Grant may have hoped for -- rife with corruption. Moreover, by failing to really enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the South was allowed to reform itself under the control of superficially "reconstructed" Southern Democrats and create an apartheid South.

[Beskar]

Having been elected as a liberal Republican (oh how the times have changed!)

This is what is interesting with American politics, as a modern audience would expect the Democrats to abolish slavery whilst the Republicans would be fighting tooth'n'nail to keep it/reinstate it.

[Ironside]

While ending slavery was the one good thing that happened it could have been achieved at much less cost and without the loss of blood and vast treasure.

Good luck with that. It would be only a few times harder than introducing universal healthcare in the US today.

And since it would be one of the core issues that caused the confederate secession, it would last for decades after it stopped make any sense.

[Fisherking]

Let's not pretend tariff-setting, a well-protected Constitutional federal power, is "overreach". Or was the Tariff of 1857 not overreach?" Just a matter of which rich men benefit, geographically-speaking.

Once again, it comes down to economic issues - nothing to do with political ideals of "states' rights".

You would do well to note that the passage of the Morrill Bill would not have been possible until at least 1862 had the Southern states not begun to secede.

Tariffs are legal but the tariff was protectionist and benefited only one segment of the population. The manufacturers. States could see this as unconstitutional under the general welfare clause.

Tariffs effect all commodity producers much more than manufacturing. Farm products are subject to market values and can’t artificially raise prices to cover costs.

Lincoln was elected on the promises of protective tariffs, so they knew ahead of time what would happen.

One more time, Lincoln assured the south that slavery was secure and proposed and amendment to make it unconstitutional to outlaw it. Lincoln's Corwin amendment would have made institutionalized slavery impervious to the constitutional amendment procedures and immune to abolition or interference by Congress.
However, his threat of force and invasion to assure the collection of the tariff caused three other states to secede and Missouri to attempt it.
The invasion of a state by the federal government is its self unconstitutional:

The Constitution of the United States lists only one thing as treason. Article III Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Please note that States is plural and making war on them.
The States were the sovereign and the Federal Government only had the powers delegated it by the states. States were also expressly forbidden from warring with one another.

No one is obliged to favor their enemy in war. Namely...

Benefiting the wealthy at the expense of everyone else is not at all the same.

It's the Southern planters and politicians who must shoulder that burden, for their anachronistic avarice. Lincoln did almost everything right in a difficult situation that he could never have prevented.


As for "propaganda", why yes, it is indeed propaganda - Southern propaganda. The Confederate State Constitutions and other documents listing causes for secession are just that, and that is why they must figure largely in historiography of the Secession movement. Otherwise, it's the politically-motivated path called "making up to suit ideology".

The south seceded over emotionalism. Not that we ever see that used in politics.
Their two recognized reasons:

1. Emotional--the North wants to establish black rule in the South. Their goal is not equality, but the reversal of roles for the races.
2. Economic--the policies of a Republican president--protective tariffs, free homesteads in the west, etc.--will prevent the South from prospering.
This didn’t help the planters or the south at large.

Did you not get that slavery was not secure outside the union. Slaves need only cross into union states to be free and not to Canada. Why would slaves be returned to a different country? It would have ended the return of fugitive slaves and made it difficult to maintain. That is why most abolitionists favored secession of the north before the war and welcomed the secession of the south.

It was only the moneyed interests that favored their return to the union, because of a loss of markets.
The idea of perpetual union was what they came up with to support that position.

Politics and propaganda.

[Montmorency]

States could see this as unconstitutional under the general welfare clause.

1857, again?

Lincoln was elected on the promises of protective tariffs, so they knew ahead of time what would happen.

They controlled the Senate, and really could have, you know, engaged with the electoral process and fought over the issue in the legislature. The passage of the bill was hardly guaranteed, at least not in the near-future.

One more time, Lincoln assured the south that slavery was secure and proposed and amendment to make it unconstitutional to outlaw it. Lincoln's Corwin amendment would have made institutionalized slavery impervious to the constitutional amendment procedures and immune to abolition or interference by Congress.

This as well was a post-secession measure, and a desperate one at that. It just goes to show that Lincoln was prepared to go a long way to preserve the Union - but the South took the hard path. At any rate, even had it worked and the South returned to the Union, Lincoln would have been well-justified in anticipating a future amendment that would repeal or override the Corwin.

The invasion of a state by the federal government is its self unconstitutional

I wouldn't pursue this route if I were you, as the Federal gov't has every right to station its standing forces in any appropriate military facility as it pleases. It's no invasion if the troops are sitting in base. Also note the that Posse Comitatus Act was not yet in existence. Also, could you explain why it should be impossible to interpret secession without mutual consent as "rebellion"?

Their two recognized reasons:

1. Emotional--the North wants to establish black rule in the South. Their goal is not equality, but the reversal of roles for the races.
2. Economic--the policies of a Republican president--protective tariffs, free homesteads in the west, etc.--will prevent the South from prospering.
This didn’t help the planters or the south at large.

More states explicitly recognized the preservation of slavery as an instigating factor than the tariffs, which were only mentioned in three (Southern) state constitutions.

But so, you do acknowledge that causes for secession were substantially over economics.

This didn't help the planters or the south at large.

If the West and the North prosper but the South stagnates under its archaic economic institutions, then the only option is to leave the Union with its many tangible protections and benefits? An independent South would still suffer economically as compared to the (unified) North and West. At any rate, the people making the decisions were the rich slavemasters, who looked to their own benefit, not the entire (white) population's.

Did you not get that slavery was not secure outside the union.

Slavery was not secure either way. Even in 1860, it was very clear which way the winds were blowing, unless one was blinded by delusional greed. The Southern politicians/slavelords made their gamble and it failed. Simple as that.

That is why most abolitionists favored secession of the north before the war and welcomed the secession of the south.

It was only the moneyed interests that favored their return to the union, because of a loss of markets.

You've been blowing a fringe of a fringe out of proportion. This movement was about as serious as the "Tri-Insula" movement.

[Fisherking]

I will try to address most of this, hopefully to your satisfaction.

1 &2
Whether there were other remedies than secession, I don’t doubt. It was not rally going to improve the situation.

But they did.

3
No, not entirely. I don’t know when Lincoln wrote the amendment but it got to Washington well ahead of him. It was passed and went to the states the day of the inauguration. Also, the amendment was written so that it was immune to amendment. The text is here: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
4
Read the address, he specifically threatened force to collect the tax and hold the two forts. All other officers had seen fit to relinquish them due to secession, and even when federal ships were fired upon Pres. Buckhannon refused to go to war. The federal government was seen as an agent of the states. When their association was terminated by the states, federal rights were terminated, just like firing an other agent, the property in use reverts to the owner (the states). There need be no consent to fire a worker, which is what it was in legal principal.

5
The upper south stayed in the union hopping all would blow over and their slaves would be safe. It was more for threatening force against the states that the others went out. To prevent Maryland from holding a convention Lincoln declared martial law and had all he could find arrested along with anyone in office suspected of having secessionist leanings. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote a writ of habeas corpus for one of them. It was ignored, habeas corpus was suspended by Lincoln and he wrote a warrant of arrest for the Justice. Federal courts were closed and many judges put under house arrest or prevented from going to work. In other words, the judicial branch was neutralized.

6
The south was far more focused on international trade and had most of the ports. Slave owners were only about 10% of the population. Most people were not about to fight to save it but the tariff brought support from the general population who made up the majority of the voters.

7
It was on its way out. Most knew and excepted that it was ending. They didn’t think ending it all at once was a good idea but the handwriting was on the wall.

8
I just wanted you to understand the strongest anti-slavery position on what was happening. The fact is the vast majority understood they could secede and were just fine with it. Few newspapers were even anti-secession. Part of the reason Lincoln had to shut down over 300 of them an jail editors and owners. Most of the others didn’t need to be made an example of to change their tack. Somewhere between 16,000 and 30,000 northerners were locked up. It was openly said that the only place there was free speech was inside Ft. Lafayette.
Did you know that the governor of Pennsylvania proposed secession in sympathy with Virginia, or that the Mayor of New York in Dec 1860 tried to build support for secession to maintain their southern trade? That is why when martial law was declared it extended to Philadelphia. Remember that Lincoln won with 36% IIRC, of the vote in a 4 way race, so he did not have anything like huge public backing.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Slavery in the South, whether legal or not, would not have persisted long past the turn of the 20th even if "The Cause" had prevailed. Follow the money.

As with Brazil and the other "late" slavers, the economics of slavery simply didn't work after the introduction of the internal combustion engine. ICE tractors and the like were simply too efficient and the marginal cost too low for too many tasks -- even in market agro environments. Slavery rapidly becomes economically unviable. Moreover, the infrastructure for an ICE economy requires at least a smattering of education among a much higher percentage of the work force, again making the planation economy difficult to maintain and inefficient.

[The Lurker Below]

Not sure how the third party comment adds to your already fine points, but you might want to delete that part. The Whig party collapsed shortly after beating they took in Nov 1852. In 1856 Fremont the Republican received significantly more electoral votes than any Democrats did in 1860. Republicans 1860 = mainstream, and that would have been the case regardless who they ran. The Democrats were falling apart that election cycle regardless who the Republicans ran. Lincoln didn't make the Republican Party or turn them into a powerhouse. Seward chose Lincoln to be president because Seward knew that most Washington insiders considered Seward to be a mealy worm.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In 1856 it was a 3rd party. By 1860 the Whigs were such a hollow concept that THEY were the third party in that election. Arguably, because of the gross split among Democrats in 1860, you could suggest they were the 4th.

The Republicans were well aware of the split between Southern and Northern Democrats in that year. While I believe that many, maybe most, hoped that yet another grand compromise could be effected and secession averted, all movers and shakers were well aware of the split and that it put the Republicans as odds on favorites in the electoral college. That is part of the reason the nomination contest was so fierce with Seward and Chase as well as Lincoln in contention.

Once South Carolina seceded, Lincoln was more or less obligated to oppose the secession. He correctly evaluated that it could not be done short of bloodshed, so when the opportunity arose, he made sure that the South fired the first actual shot. He did not want another Lexington.

As to my assessment of slavery, I was not attempting to assert that the ACW was somehow "unjust," simply that slavery was on the way out in the not-too-distant future regardless of the South's success on the battlefield.

EDIT

The Constitution is mute on the issue of secession, though it clearly spells out how a new state might accede to that status. While I do believe that the Constitution was meant to be a voluntary association -- though nudging Rhode Island in was a bit pushy -- South Carolina seceded by unilateral decision.

I would suggest that if a state can join the union as a new state with the consent of 2/3 or the extant states, then dissolving their bonds with that union with the same consent should also be possible. Lincoln did not take that stance.

Had he, South Carolina and those who follower her lead would still not have qualified as a legitimate secession. That being the case, the Declaration of Independence clearly spells things out. Those seceding may have the human right "to alter or abolish" the existing government, but the Declaration cannot discount that Government's willingness to defend itself and resist alteration -- hence the need to pledge life, fortune, and sacred honor -- the only currency accepted at that level of exchange.

The South made that pledge and fell short in their efforts.

[The Lurker Below]

I wonder if the spirit of the south lives on simply because a bunch of trolls see how much it irritates you?

While I absolutely agree with you re: the reason for secession, I think you are wrong about the current use of the rebel flag as a symbol of racism. I believe for the majority of users today it stands for a symbol of dissent with the current government in Washington. We aren't a country of passionate historians. Average blokes do not care why the South seceded.

[Fisherking]

On the constitutional side, as I said, powers not given to the federal government were retained by the states. Three states ratified the constitution with the express condition that they could later secede. They were welcomed in. Texas also reserved the right to leave the Union. The 2/3rds rule is on the say of the states just as a club may require a vote to admit a new member but not have a say if someone wishes to quit.

Slavery is a highly emotional issue, though at least at the outbreak of war ending slavery was not the objective.

Now, ask your self, had it been the 7 northeastern states which had seceded to desassonate themselves from slavery, would the federal government be justified in attacking them and forcing them to return?

[Ironside]

Slavery in the South, whether legal or not, would not have persisted long past the turn of the 20th even if "The Cause" had prevailed. Follow the money.

As with Brazil and the other "late" slavers, the economics of slavery simply didn't work after the introduction of the internal combustion engine. ICE tractors and the like were simply too efficient and the marginal cost too low for too many tasks -- even in market agro environments. Slavery rapidly becomes economically unviable. Moreover, the infrastructure for an ICE economy requires at least a smattering of education among a much higher percentage of the work force, again making the planation economy difficult to maintain and inefficient.

The problem would be the rich in power. Basically, economical changes are met with two main reactions, changing or digging in. The plantation owners in the south were very much of the digging in type.

Those digging in will eventually lose of course, but not until they've lost everything. And that can be very devastating.

Include "our grandfathers seceeded over this" and you'll get a massive political dig in.

Basically, the South would have a broken economy, political unrest and the rights of black people would very much depend on the outcome of that unrest. If the "old ways" faction would win, blacks would still be pushed as close to slavery as possible.

[Fisherking]

It was not the objective in 1861, but it was the fuel pumping through the veins of the war machine. Without the almost universal distaste for the South among military-age men in the North in 1861, there would have been no war. Without nearly a hundred years of "To slave state or not to slave state?" there would have been no universal distaste.


Depends who wins. When you stop arguing with words, and start arguing with sticks, its bruises that determine right from wrong--not prose or logic.

Remember the draft? Because Lincoln couldn’t get enough volunteers. Draft riots were much more wide spread than New York city also. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and across New York state and draft resistance in the New England states too. When the Emancipation Proclamation was issued there was a desertion crisis in the Union Army.

They thought that it had fundamentally altered the purpose of the war. They were willing to fight for the Union but not for black slaves.


Also, it is not southern revisionism. You can call it revisionism because it reexamines the historical facts.

It is a reexamination of Lincoln and his role as president.

Slavery was wrong but he did not go to war to free anyone.

He unilaterally decided that the states were subordinate to federal will, what the constitution was written to prevent.

He threatened and carried out an invasion of stats, which according to the constitution is treason.

He suspended habeas corpus without the consent of Congress, a power only delegated to them by the constitution.

He used it to suppress the widespread opposition to his law breaking and jailed tens of thousands of northerners.

He voided judicial orders and closed courts and had judges arrested.

As near as I can tell he violated every one of the 10 amendments of the bill of rights.

He condoned the torture of citizens accused of southern sympathies. These were northerners.

He ordered union troops stationed at polling places to influence elections.

This is only a partial list. It is nothing new to historians, however, they give him a pass because in the end, the slaves were freed. Even though that was not his goal.

That is why I asked the question, would you feel the same if it had been another part of the country.

Instead, you state, It depends on who won. Well consider the outcome the same. The Union won.

Are they the acts of a humanitarian and believer in the constitution or the rule of law?

The war resulted in over a million casualties. Around 650,000 military dead, total war against the civilian populations, the razing of cities, and the deportation of civilians. It set the example for future wars and made it all expectable.

People may see all this as fact but don’t speak out because they would be thought to favor slavery or the lost southern cause. It is neither. Slavery was wicked and wrong and there is no glory in its defense.

Do good intentions justify the subjugation and murder of you opponents. Do they justify violence, destruction, and mayhem?

He is used as an example to history. But in practice it has always been a negative force rather than for good.

Crony capitalism ,military tribunals convicting civilians , torture of prisoners, suspension of right, spying on the public, and even the camps for Japanese Americans during WWII are a part of Lincoln’s legacy.

Why should these be revered?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...While I absolutely agree with you re: the reason for secession, I think you are wrong about the current use of the rebel flag as a symbol of racism. I believe for the majority of users today it stands for a symbol of dissent with the current government in Washington. We aren't a country of passionate historians. Average blokes do not care why the South seceded.

I disagree, at least in part. The current program of US public school education teaches rather little in the way of history -- a subject many of its students loathe anyway -- but the one theme that is hammered home almost literally ad nauseum from 3rd grade through high school is that slavery was evil and that the South had to be defeated to finally end slavery. They get most of the details wrong, the students rarely remember the particulars and have almost no sense of context, but that single theme is hammered home almost as though no other history aside from the revolution itself mattered -- and even the revolution is taught as having been incomplete in that it did not immediately live up to the "all men are created equal" and did not immediately anathematize slavery.

No other issue of history is so thoroughly drummed into their heads. The Confederate battle flag -- it isn't even the flag of the Confederacy but they seldom remember that -- has been taught as THE symbol of racism for most of the time since they were furled at Appamatox.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Its an accurate thing to hammer into their heads. The 3/5's compromise, the 20-year-plan.. slavery should have been over by 1800, and the South is the only reason it wasn't.

And its not that the rebel battle flag is taught to be the symbol of racism, its that it is consistently used by racists that makes it racist. Not just racists, but revisionists. Who say "It ain't racist!" with a knowing smile, cuz you know.. they're racists. Do you see any Germans named Adolf sporting a certain stache? Are there any parties flying the swastika flag in Germany, claiming its a symbol of political ideals and not racist genocide? The same principle applies. Those who fly the rebel flag do it in the face of common sense and common history, as a dare to the rest of us. They have a first amendment right to do so, and I have a first amendment right to call them ignorant racists, at best.

I am not denying either of your points: the slavery issue should have been addressed and the process to end it begun immediately AND that flag has become a symbol of racism -- whatever Southern revisionists claim or believe in their "heart of hearts." These ARE important historical issues and must and should be key points in the curriculum.

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I agree with all that. There are a ton of lessons that aren't taught or retained. If more was understood about the circumstances of the war, no reasonable person would fly a rebel flag without assuming a little responsibility for the assumptions people will make about why you're flying it.

Amen. Freedom of Speech is not freedom from the consequences of that speech -- only freedom from government curtailment thereof.

[Papewaio]

The Australian Constitution takes into account the American Civil War lessons and makes it illegal to succeed once part of the Commonwealth.

This is to stop any vacillating and the issues caused with states threats to leave.

It doesn't stop WA from constantly threatening to do so.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...It doesn't stop WA from constantly threatening to do so.

Perth the thought.

[Pannonian]

The Australian Constitution takes into account the American Civil War lessons and makes it illegal to succeed once part of the Commonwealth.

Was this part aimed at keeping the Commonwealth states in a permanent state of vassalage? If a country with many resources wants to succeed in its own right, would it have to secede from the Commonwealth first?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Was this part aimed at keeping the Commonwealth states in a permanent state of vassalage? If a country with many resources wants to succeed in its own right, would it have to secede from the Commonwealth first?

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