MovieChat Forums > The Civil War (1990) Discussion > How do Southern Americans, and non-Ameri...

How do Southern Americans, and non-Americans view Lincoln?

posted 17 years ago by Hdny42
32 replies | jump to latest

Growing up in New York, I honestly thought all Americans held Abraham Lincoln in reverence. He's on the five-dollar-bill and the penny, he's on Mount Rushmore, and there is the famous Lincoln Monument in Washington D.C. In most lists of the "greatest U.S. Presidents," he is at the top and is number one in most cases.

However, I never took into account that people in other parts of the country could have different opinions on him (obviously I know people in different parts of the world may look at him differently, or not consider him at all). During his lifetime, Lincoln was not really loved by many. In the North he was frequently seen as too radical or too conservative (depending on which group was considering him), and the south despised him as well. Even some in the North who sided with the war had doubts about Lincoln due to the suspension during the war of the writ of Habeas Corpus, and the Emancipation Proclamation, while treasured now as a historical document, was not beloved then. Many feared that Lincoln could be a tyrant and was usurping too much power. (That one fact is interesting to me in that the President most often picked as 2nd all-time to Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was also feared by some as tyrannical.)

Obviously it is a generalization for me to ask if there is one uniform view from either people who do not live in America, or Southerners, and I would hope to get more than one view. Also, I would think that Lincoln had LONG AGO become a President who was nationally respected and admired rather than one only fondly remembered by different regions of the country. After-all, no matter someone's view of states rights, or what the war was truly fought over, I find it hard to believe that someone could argue that slavery should have not been touched by Lincoln, and should have been allowed to continue its existence.

So if any would not mind sharing their thoughts on Lincoln, I'd be interested to read them. I also might even expect that people who don't live in America may A.) Not be on this board, or B.) Not really have any thoughts on Lincoln at all. However, it is my belief that he is a President equally revered all over this country, and that if people in other parts of the world think of American History and great American Leaders, he is right at the top of the list.

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

[–] starburst4945 16 years ago

Born and raised in Louisiana, and I think he's the greatest President we've had so far...it seems to me that his first and foremost goal was to preserve the Union, and he just used whatever tools he could to do that. Then again, I'm no "The South Will Rise Again" Confederate fan, either, so my opinion may not be of much help for you.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] roller_ape 16 years ago

You pose a good question, but you may want to try another site. >Civil War Interactive discussion board< is a good site.You'll get better reception and much more of a discussion. Good luck.

[–] bng_crosby 15 years ago

I have lived in the South all my life and I have mostly revered Lincoln. There was a point when I wasn't too sure. It was when I learned that he signed an amendment to the Constitution that said, "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," which would have upheld the states rights to slavery. It never happened but it did bother me. That would have been the 13th amendment.

He changed. At times it bothers me but I usually think of the good over the bad. I am not the typical southerner though. And neither are the people who spout the filth you hear at times. Most are like you.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ChickNLittle 15 years ago

You will find a small but vocal minority of Americans, primarily but not exclusively southern, who have allowed themselves to be convinced that Lincoln was some sort of bloodthirsty tyrant who started the war just for the fun of it. Asshats like "NoahBody" are prime examples of this. Generally they get these sorts of ideas off of Aryan websites. They simply can't accept that their beloved South of "Gone With The Wind" never existed, that what did exist was built on the backs of human slaves, and that the war was wholly a futile, but bloody attempt by the South to continue the institution of slavery. You see, slavery was, and is, such a repugnant institution that they are incapable of admitting to themselves that their precious ancestors practiced it. Over and over you will hear them bleat: "My great grandpappy didn't own any slaves!" (You'll quickly notice that it's always SOMEONE ELSE'S ancestor who owned them. In fact, just once I'd like one of those stupid hicks to admit that their great grandpappy DID own them.) It kind of reminds me of modern German, Japanese, and Italian citizens who claim that because there were a few isolated incidents where American or British soldiers shot prisoners, that somehow cancels out the millions of POW's and civilians that were murdered by the Axis. In short, these types unfortunately do exist, but at least we can be comfortable in the knowledge that they are a small minority in the USA--and widely considered to be buffoons.

[–] Hdny42 15 years ago

You bring up a good point when you mention how, after a terrible thing in history happens, those who either did it or are the descendants of those who did it do everything they can to distance themselves from it. For instance, I have known many people who either were alive in Germany during WWII, or had relatives who were there, and all of them are quick to point out how no one they loved or knew were Nazis (in fact, some present non-verifiable evidence that their relatives helped to resist the Nazis). Some proudly mention their forefather's brave deeds while fighting in the Wehrmacht, but point out how they were not in the SS and neither witnesses nor knew about the death camps and the Final Solution. In other words, we apparently had an entire Nazi Germany where 99% of the population was completely innocent and ignorant of all the atrocities committed during the Holocaust. Wasn't it said in the movie "Judgment at Nuremberg" that apparently it must have been radical Eskimos who came in and were the Nazis, as evidently (when the citizenry was asked) no Germans were involved.

To be honest, I hadn't noticed as much of that going on today the south, save in the revisionism that was the "Lost Cause Mythology," which I thought died out 50-odd years ago. That allowed people to hear about how General Sherman was a monster (though he didn't kill innocents), but the deeds of Bloody Bill Quantril and William Anderson were nowhere to be found or heard of. A great book that tears into the subject of the Lost Cause is "This Mighty Scourge" by the great James McPherson. It is especially good at showing how there was a unified movement in the south to make certain that their children were educated of only the southern view of the war, its causes, and its results. Even some of those heavily involved in Secession, like Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens who had written prior to the war about how slavery was the primary cause, were quick to change their tunes after the war when they realized that such an argument didn't make the cause of the Confederacy look so noble.

This works in another way as well, when millions of people will claim to have been at a historic event that they could not have possibly been at. Even in sporting events, one example I know of is when New York Yankee Roger Maris hit his 61st home run in 1961 to break Babe Ruth's record (set in 1927) of 60 in a single season. The game was the regular season finale and did not matter as the Yanks had already won the Pennant (and would go on to win the World Series) so the stands were sparsely populated with fans. However until the day he died Roger Maris was always approached by people who were at the game, and eventually enough people claimed to be there that they would have filled Yankee Stadium 10-times over, let alone not be able to half-way fill it once as it was that day. Perhaps the extra fans who were at the game should be put to the task of finding the 25 or so bad seeds that brought Nazi Germany about and orchestrated the horrors (because obviously, there were no more than that, and could have been less!), and they could also investigate how the South fought to maintain a system despite the fact that there were no slave-owners, and no slaves, just happy workers who joyously toiled for free.

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

[–] NoahBody 15 years ago

You clearly have no grasp on history, the slave trade, or Lincoln and his constitutional abuses. But hey, you got to troll with the race-card, so you should be as happy as a pig in $#!+

[–] NoahBody 14 years ago

ChickNLittle

You will find a small but vocal minority of Americans, primarily but not exclusively southern, who have allowed themselves to be convinced that Lincoln was some sort of bloodthirsty tyrant who started the war just for the fun of it.

It's really a shame idiots like ChickNLittle are not forced to defend their cowardly and incorrect statements.

Emancipation Proclamation Lincoln carefully worded the document to apply only to the rebel Southern states, which were not under Union control at the time, thus resulting in an Emancipation Proclamation that did not in itself free a single slave.

Oct. 13, 1858 While debating Judge Stephen A. Douglas Lincoln states, "I agree with Judge Douglas that he [a black] is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color — perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments.

Quote by A.L - Speech delivered in 1858 in Charleston, Ill.:
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way 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.”

During the summer of 1862, Lincoln was working feverishly to ship all those slaves he was about to free out of the United States. So taken was he with the concept of colonization that he invited five black men to the White House and offered them funding to found a black republic in Panama, for the slaves he was about to free. Earlier, he had advocated that the slaves be freed and shipped to Liberia or Haiti. And just one month before the Emancipation became the law of the land, in his Annual Message to Congress on Dec. 1, 1862, Lincoln proposed a constitutional amendment that would “appropriate money, and otherwise provide, for colonizing free colored persons with their own consent, at any place or places without the United States.”

A.L. supported the pre-Civil War "Black Laws," which stripped African Americans of their basic rights in his native Illinois, as well as the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled the return to their masters of those who had escaped to free soil in the North.

21 August 1858 First Debate with Stephen Douglas
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

**Lincoln later quoted himself and repeated this statement in his first Inaugural Address (4 March 1861)**

September 18, 1858 -- Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate
----- I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of n____s, nor 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 ever 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 will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with n_____s.

August 22 1862
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

[–] ChickNLittle 14 years ago

It's even more of a shame that Aryan Asshats like "NoahBody" so frequently go unchallenged when they cut-and-paste their White Supremacist propaganda. Did you find those out-of-context quotes on the internet while getting a tatoo on your peepee from your Aryan Brotherhood cellmate?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hdny42 14 years ago

Most of your quotes, as I'm SURE you are aware (as it was quite obviously your point) are taken out of context to make Lincoln look bad. For instance in the last one you left off how he said IMMEDIATELY after what you wrote, that "If I could save it with freeing every slave, I would do it, and if I could save the Union by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do that also." I'm certain that a person can, with careful cutting and pasting of quotes, make a figure from history (or someone currently living) stand for whatever one desires to make them stand for. One can make David Duke a lover of equality, George W. Bush a practitioner (as he was a believer, but never put it into actual practice) of small government and less spending, or Martin Luther King a racist. Whatever one wants to misrepresent, one can do. But don't expect to be taken seriously if you do it.

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

[–] whygohome725 15 years ago

I'm a Pennsylvanian...

Strictly from a Constitutional standpoint, I think the measures in which Lincoln went to preserve the Union were reprehensible. He broke too many rules to mention. The Civil War did not need to be fought. To end the slavery, he could've bought all the slaves and freed them, rather than just issuing a decree that pissed off an entire region. Regardless, hindsight is 20/20, but I think Lincoln is held in way too high of a regard.

[–] Hdny42 15 years ago

The whole idea of the Civil War not needing to be fought is revisionist nonsense. The diaries of Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens show that they were willing to fight to keep slavery alive. After the secession, it was indeed the south that opened fire at Fort Sumter, and when President Lincoln called upon the north for troops, it led to the secession of Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee. After the secession of 11-states from the Union, what would you have had Lincoln do? At that point, how could he EVER get the south to agree to have compensated emancipation. Lincoln in fact offered compensated emancipation to Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri (the four slave states that remained in the Union), but they would not have it. It was due to those states that Lincoln was not able to make the war about slavery (it was first about saving the United States) until September of 1862, when he first announced the Emancipation Proclamation, and OFFICIALLY until January of 1863, when the Proclamation became law.

After wars are fought there will always be people who look at everything that happened and decide a better way could have been attained, but that is revisionism of the worst kind. People like Pat Buchanan look at World War II and say it did not have to be fought, for I suppose he believes (as did Neville Chamberlain, to his lasting shame)that it was possible to appease Adolf Hitler into not fighting? Or that the United States at the LEAST could somehow have sat on the sidelines while Germany and Japan carved up the world between themselves? Say that Nazi Germany would have been utterly defeated by the Soviet Union (and there is a possibility that, though they would have kicked them out of the USSR, that they'd just have left Western Europe to Germany), how would the United States have benefited from having an entire European continent dominated by the USSR? We're lucky as it is that the Cold War somehow did not flare into a hot one, the chances of that happening would have been far less, I believe, if the USSR did not see the USA as an equal power, as indeed we would NOT be, if we did not fight World War II.

Enough about WWII, however, and back to the Civil War. There are those who believe that no war should ever be fought, and they apply that logic backwards to the past and force it to fit to every war. After the secession of the south, how could there have been a United States of America without the Civil War? Or would you have had two separate nations exist side-by-side in North America, one founded upon slavery and the other not. Do you not think there would eventually be conflict between those two nations anyway? And how long would you have felt it would be OK for the south to hold human beings as farm equipment? 20-years more? 50? I'd like to know how much, for you are obviously not Black, nor have you ever thought of what it must have been like to be a slave where even a day less of bondage would be worth fighting and possibly dying for; it is the coward who says, "rather than risking anything at all, I would suffer decades more of servitude," and the fool who is free but believes others should have to endure it.

I do not mean to come off as offensive, though my words are indeed heated, for it seems to me naive to the max to believe that somehow there could have remained a single United States of America without the Civil War. Remember that Abraham Lincoln not only did not speak of emancipation in his First Inaugural, nor did he plan on it. All he and the moderate branch of Republicans to which he belonged wanted was to stop the SPREAD of slavery; it was southern fear and hysteria that led to secession, and even then it was they who fired those first shots at Fort Sumter. I am not naive, I know that by writing his letter to Jefferson Davis and saying that there would only be an attempt made to resupply the fort, he was putting everything in Davis's hands. Yet at the same time, the South Carolina troops could have decided not to fire, and to wait; yet they were confident of their new "nation," and its ability to defeat the United States in war.

In closing I have a few final questions for those who either believe the war could (or should) not have been fought, or that the secession of the south had to do with "States Rights," and not with slavery. Why, if states rights was the big issue in question, did the Confederacy adopt a constitution that was almost identical to that of the USA except that it guaranteed slavery's protection? Why did those who claimed only to believe in states rights and who claimed to long to rid themselves of a union of states so quickly enter into another super-national entity? In examining the idea of states rights, is it not ironic that the south cared nothing for them until they lost control of the federal government that they held from the inception of the nation until Lincoln's election? Indeed, they almost always held both the Presidency and the Supreme Court in the first 80-years of the existence of the USA, and they also dominated the Senate. The larger population of the north gave them an edge in the House of Representatives, which the south was willing to live with. It was the expansion of the country and the fact that most of the new states would be (if left up to the people who lived in them) free states that started to frighten the south, for they understood that they would lose the Senate as well, and then all Congress would be gone to them; also, the increasing population made it more and more likely that Presidents would come (as Lincoln did) from free states as well. They claimed states rights, but it seems odd and is no coincidence in my opinion that they left when it was clear that the federal government was no longer theirs (For those who claimed states rights, they certainly believed that the federal government should stringently enforce the laws they liked, like the Fugitive Slave law).

I again apologize for the crude and heated tone of this post and say that I do not intend to be offensive or nasty. I know that people have different opinions and I strongly believe in debate. I think that everyone has a right to their own opinion and that goes for Pacifists just as for war hawks, yet I believe that taking the idea of Pacifism of that there could be no just war and applying it to wars from the past is a fruitless and vain enterprise. What happened already happened, and to look at one turn or another and wonder what might have been might be interesting, but it serves no true purpose and in this case leaves one with no clear answer. We will never know what would have happened if the south took Lincoln at his word that he would not end slavery and remained in the country. How long would it have taken for slavery to end? Would there eventually have been a great war anyway, only the outcome would be different and today there would be two nations where today there is one, or perhaps there would be no USA at all. While we'll never know the answers, I have no problem with the questions themselves, I just feel it is wrong to judge Abraham Lincoln and to blame him for the Civil War when it was not begun by him and (for all we know) could not have gone down in any other way. Even as it was, though slavery ended in 1865 full equality was not brought to the south for another CENTURY at least, that simple fact alone leaves me feeling that the south wasn't going to let slavery gradually die out: it had to be forced out by law. In 1861 when Fort Sumter was first fired on, our Declaration of Independence held that "All Men were created equal," but it did not truly mean it. Today it not only means it, but could be replaced with "All Human beings were created equal," and still be accurate for how we view things. That is a legacy of the Civil War, and had it not been fought who knows where we would be today? I don't know, but something tells me that I would not be able to recognize the nation(s) that would currently exist if no war had been fought.

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

[–] thoth-ibis 15 years ago

"Why, if states rights was the big issue in question, did the Confederacy adopt a constitution that was almost identical to that of the USA "
It wasn't the US Constitution that they took issue with, it was those who IGNORED it that caused concern.

"Why did those who claimed only to believe in states rights and who claimed to long to rid themselves of a union of states so quickly enter into another super-national entity?"
The CSA was a suppose to be a republic like the founders intended the USA. This US republic had been compromised.
"In examining the idea of states rights, is it not ironic that the south cared nothing for them until they lost control of the federal government that they held from the inception of the nation until Lincoln's election?"
that's nonsense. The South's leaders valued states rights at all times.

Those who hate the South never change.

nullo facere opinari omnia in serium convertere. vitae ad eundem modum jocari

[–] Hdny42 15 years ago

First of all, I know that Lincoln was a moderate Republican, who until relatively late (compared to most Abolitionists) even believed in returning the freed slaves to Africa somehow. He realized that freeing the slaves was the best way to wage the war, from winning the total support of the Abolitionists Senators who were doubting him to insuring (especially after Antietam) that Britain (and so France) would never recognize the Confederacy.

As for the south seceding, again look to the diaries of those who agitated the most for secession: it was slavery! You say it wasn't the U.S. Constitution they took issue with? They left the Union, and said they had a right to be "Free and Sovereign States," but then entered into a NEW Union with a Constitution IDENTICAL to the U.S. one except for slavery...How could it NOT have been about slavery when you consider that? Their making a constitution was a great way to see what it was that they left for...they could have changed everything, but in reality the only MAJOR difference besides in term limits for different positions was in the federal protection of slavery...they claimed not to want any Federal encroachment, then formed a new federal entity that mirrored the other they claimed to detest, and differed it in only one key way that they CLAIMED had nothing to do with their reason for leaving.

Remember that Lincoln (as you point out, a pragmatist) said MANY times before he was elected and even after it (but before his inauguration), but after the states had begun to secede, that his intent was only to limit slavery in the territories, but not to end it in the South. By the time he was inaugurated, 7 states had already formed a new federal unit differing only from his own in federal protection of slavery. So obviously, their fear over slavery's eradication was such that they fled at the THOUGHT that Lincoln would end it no matter what he said...that was because they had a smaller population than the North, so once the North added the Presidency to the House and even the Senate (which had long balanced power because it is not population based), so they knew they'd never again have any power in the federal government in terms of making slavery permanent...just fear of its demise caused them to leave a government all the states had entered into forever.

Also, how did the South care for States Rights in their vigorous pursuit of the Fugitive Slave Act? When Massachusetts and other Northern States would protest that since they had outlawed slavery, any escaped slave there would be free, the South was quick to ENFORCE A FEDERAL LAW they had passed just for that occasion. They believed in Federal authority over State Authority (and vice versa) when it suited their interests.

As for Lincoln starting the war, I will admit that by sending Jefferson Davis the letter that said he would be attempting to replenish the fort and intended no attack, he was protecting himself in case there was war, and giving "proof" to historians that the South had started it. However, that said the South took the bait, and DID attack. He set up that situation, but they did NOT have to fire, but they did...they resisted Federal Authority and then used force to take the fort. No one died in the battle (one troop died when a celebratory canon fire went awry), but that changes nothing.

To claim Lincoln should have done nothing is the kind of revisionism of which you say I am guilty. So he had no Federal Power to call up troops from states still in the Union? He was supposed to just sit there and allow them to do that? Let the Union be cut in two, and the "new country" taking by force federal property? His response was merely to call up troops, and contrary to what you believe it did not show Lincoln's intent was warlike, it showed where the true loyalties of Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee (which all joined the Confederacy), and Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware (all of which remained in the Union, though Missouri was basically a civil war WITHIN a Civil War, and Tennessee was close to that at times, too).

States which held that Lincoln had NO right to call-up troops proved they would question the authority of the federal government at some point anyway now that the others had left...if Lincoln had done nothing and let it go, how could ANY State respect the Federal authority? But southern revisionists hold he should have done nothing, he should have left the CSA as a separate nation and the two nations (who knows how many there would be though, now?) would co-exist peacefully forever, AND the South would (one day of own accord of course!...even though the same area needed to be forced to stop such open discrimination and to integrate even a CENTURY later) end slavery eventually...probably pretty soon!

The whole Lost Cause is revisionism, but those who espouse it are always the first to call it out.

Abraham Lincoln was nowhere NEAR perfect (and I would never contend such a thing), and he definitely suspended the Writ of Habeas corpus and other things the Liberals of his time (and CERTAINLY now) think were hideous. But I am not one of those people, I am someone who believes that in such a war where you could not tell one side from the other, where spying was rampant, Lincoln was entitled to all the powers his office holds under the Constitution. I understand that such a thing (again, so say the Liberals) can lead to a dangerous precedent of people (George W. Bush, for instance?) making BROAD GENERALIZATIONS of when they are "Defending the Constitution," and so take advantage of powers they have, and sort of create new ones to expand their authority. Yet, I believe the Civil War WAS a time to make bold calls, and that Lincoln was NOT using his position merely to grab power, and was actually doing his best to save the Union. I doubt he thought, "I'm setting legal precedents regarding Presidential power...my successors are gonna love me for this"

Neither Lincoln nor the men we consider great during his era (Lee, Grant, and even Douglass, whom you are not fond of), nor the Founding Fathers nor any other people through history up until today, were perfect. I do NOT judge them (at least I try not to) by our standards today. I do not hold Lee or our Founding Fathers in contempt for having slaves, even though I find slavery grotesque, because they were living in that time and place, and did what everyone then did. They held views that were usually also held during their times. Lincoln's view of being able to return the slaves to Africa is almost laughable now for the impossibility of it, but it was a SERIOUSLY held "answer" to a SERIOUS problem (Slavery) for a long time. Yet by the time Lincoln was President it was already held as terribly outdated and ridiculous by the ardent Abolitionists, like Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury and eventual Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Salmon P. Chase.

I am a Jewish American, and I do not hold it TERRIBLY against people like Teddy Roosevelt and those who came for a while after him, that they most likely held at LEAST SORT of antisemitic views (along with racism and also, much of the time, anti immigrant, and even anti Catholic). Yet by FDR's time those who held views that STRONGLY antisemitic were already rare and considered detrimental (think of Joseph P. Kennedy, whom FDR considered a joke, and who never could have been President not due to his Catholicism, but due to the fact that his antisemitism led him to show PRO-NAZI sentiment throughout the 1930s and even up until the attack at Pearl Harbor). So even judged in the contents of his own time, Kennedy was an antisemite and was thought poorly of for it. JFK even needed to answer questions for his father's failings when he ran for every office he ever held (though less-so his brothers as time went on).

Abraham Lincoln seems to be (in the eyes of some) someone who basically held progressive 2009 views in the 1860s. SOME even see him as a person who holds WHATEVER views or thoughts they themselves happen to hold, no matter how much they differ in reality. I do not hold him or any of them to be things they weren't, nor do I sit in judgment of things they did back then in the same way I would if they were to do them today: I try to view them in the context of the time in which they lived. If I've failed in that, I apologize.

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

[–] thoth-ibis 15 years ago

No offense intended there,Heathnyy5.
Sounds like you enjoy history and read a lot.
Obviously two people shouldn't be expected to agree on everything, which is a good thing actually. Consensus isn't always for the best.
How can we all today reach a consensus on Lincoln or Lee when we Americans can't reach a consensus on Barack Obama or George W. Bush? The human mind creates a complicated world. Why did the US invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Americans can't agree on that, and quit honestly can't even give educated answers on underlying causes of today's issues either.

nullo facere opinari omnia in serium convertere. vitae ad eundem modum jocari

[–] thoth-ibis 15 years ago

To answer some points...
...Many feel now and have felt in the past that slavery was protected by the US Constitution up until the 13th Amendment. The Confederate Constitution simply put things in clearer words.
...The Fugitive Slave Act was considered consistent with states rights in that it respected the right of return. If a slave crossed the Ohio River from Kentucky into Indiana, this return policy protected Kentucky's "right".
...I don't advocate that Lincoln should have done nothing. I find the possibilities to be ambiguous and worth pondering from differing angles.
... Lost cause is a myth? No more so than the slavery only myth. I think these slavery only proponents usually have a political agenda. Only a Marxist would view slavery a worse "sin" than war. Eric Foner for example appears to be a Marxist and he gets prominent attention on the History Channel. Foner's father was black-listed for his alleged involvement in the Communist party. James McPherson's political views have also tarnished his objectivity.
Many proclaim "moonlight & magnolias" a fabrication of the the "lost cause" myth. All I can say to that is they should visit some antebellum homes. The Southern aristocracy were in fact well educated, well traveled, and in fact rather erudite. It should be noted that most whites were more or less peasants,
but this upper crust did live in "moonlight & magnolias".
....As for why wars are fought, I'm of the opinion that there are paradigms in which all wars throughout human history are fought. The slavery argument violates those parameters. Wars are waged over selfish ambitions such as hegemony or to gain access to natural resourses, or with the South's case, to defend against an enemy. The union invaded the South and beat it into submission, meaning the South was usually playing defense. Since the union invaded the South, they needed a "noble cause" for the ages. Slavery was an all too convenient just cause. Nobody's government fights war in order to end slavery or "end evil", or spread freedom, or give others democracy. Case in point is that few Americans believe the government when it claimed that it invaded Iraq in order to end evil and spread freedom/democracy. That's right George Bush played the slavery card!
.... South Carolina left the union for the same reason in 1861 that they left the union with Great Britain during the American revolution. The wanted home rule. Many considered there states as their country. In the English language the word "state" is a synonym for country.
...yes they did mention slavery in articles of succession. But what they feared was the RADICAL element in the North, & not all who favored abolition. Considering that many radicals hailed John Brown as a martyr, can we really blame Southern fears? Not all abolitionist were terrorist like Brown.
In 1861 many Southern leaders feared that radicals were about to take over the US government and would use slavery as a wedge to destroy the South. In hindsight those fears were perhaps inadvertently vindicated.
....An interesting footnote...most radical abolitionist came from all white areas and seemed to prefer it that way. They claimed to care so deeply about the black man, but didn't have any desire to share their world with him. It appears that most anti-slavery sentiment in the North centered on economic reasons (they steal our jobs), and not moral principle. At first all the colonies had slavery. In the South slavery benefited the economy so they kept it and in the North slavery hurt the white man, so they abolished it for these economic reasons....morality had little to do with anything.
Jewish Americans no doubt often feel the sting of prejudice and discrimination. The same is true of Southerners. It's shocking just how ignorant some people can be towards states that they can't even find on a map!

nullo facere opinari omnia in serium convertere. vitae ad eundem modum jocari

[–] NoahBody 14 years ago

After the secession of 11-states from the Union, what would you have had Lincoln do? At that point, how could he EVER get the south to agree to have compensated emancipation.

L wasn't working towards emancipation. There are numerous quotes by him stating he was not.

[–] Jim_James 12 years ago

To end the slavery, he could've bought all the slaves and freed them, rather than just issuing a decree that pissed off an entire region.

Nothing wrong with that plan...

I can't sing it strong enough

[–] thoth-ibis 15 years ago

I suppose one might say I have a complex opinion of a complex man. First I think not too highly of those college professors in the 21th century who sit in air conditioned ivy towers and second guess men long since dead. Lincoln, like Davis, Lee or Grant lived in the real world and faced with often contradictory dilemmas...catch 22 if you wish. Lincoln's modern day admirers and detractors are afforded the opportunity to live in their own ideal worlds. Like Lee, Davis, or Grant, Lincoln wasn't afforded such luxury. That why I take issue with the documentary attempting to place Fredrick Douglas on equal billing with Lincoln and others who were in the ball game. Like most of the left's hero's, Douglas never had a "real" job. Lincoln sure did ! It's easy to be a back seat driver and much tougher to drive in rush hour traffic, so to speak in metaphor.
That said...
1) Lincoln was not nearly the radical abolitionist that many have made him to be. He favored a gradual pragmatic solution...compensation to owners through democratic means. Perhaps many in South left Union in haste?
2) He was NOT an egalitarian, nor was racial equality in fashion in his day. The Emancipation Proclamation was largely a war strategy.
3) Fort Sumter was more or less bloodless. The South didn't completely start the war there. When Lincoln called for the muster of federal troops he likely assumed much the blame for causing the war by vindicating those who left the union over fears of federal bullying.
4) leftist historians love to recall the "terrorism" in the South during reconstruction. The Union army under Lincoln's watch instigated "terrorism" against the South during the war. If the burning of Southern cities isn't terror nothing qualifies.
5) the federal government asserted powers that would have offended most of the Founding Fathers. Lincoln silenced individuals who dissented with his government.
The Copperheads were oppressed, newspapers were closed, and even the Chief Justice was threatened with imprisonment.
6) succession would have been a natural solution to the slavery debate. That way all the existing USA would be slavery free. There might have been relatively minor skirmishes out West over territory between the the US and CSA, but no Gettysburg. Lincoln's war aim was reunification not slavery. Meaning slavery couldn't have been THE cause. THE cause most likely can best be described as powers of the federal versus powers of the states( Hamilton versus Jefferson).
7) Lincoln's reconciliation tone is largely admired by Southerners....."with malice towards none and charity for all". If he had lived many feel that reconstruction would have been less painful. Many historians wish to paint reconstruction as a noble attempt for civil rights. Nonsense!.... ask native Americans about the Republican party's "civil rights" record during the 1800's.

nullo facere opinari omnia in serium convertere. vitae ad eundem modum jocari

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hdny42 14 years ago

While you said things that at times made sense, you were entirely wrong about Frederick Douglass, who DID in fact have many "real" jobs. Mostly he published newspapers (and published his own famous autobiography as well), but he also served as the president of a bank and was an ambassador. To claim he did not have a "real" job or that "most heroes of the left" do not is an Ad hominem attack, and if you ever desire to be taken seriously in critiques of Douglass, Lincoln, or ANYONE, it would be best to refrain from them.

Afterall, what REAL jobs did George W. Bush, hero to the right, have before he was Governor of Texas (and later President)? Did he get a single one of them based on his own merits and not on those of his father? The Right's greatest hero, Ronald Reagan, made his name by being a B-movie actor and later a spokesman. I'm sure that by your own vague definitions, those are "real" jobs, but such a statement about what jobs are "real" and which are not is arbitrary and I'm sure you'd argue that all these heroes of the right were great men while you'd cast aspersions against those admired by the left.

Don't let your politics influence the points you try to claim as "facts", otherwise no one will ever take you seriously.

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

[–] kammm 13 years ago

Uh not to poison your world with reality but Reagan was a governor of the largest state in the Union for eight years before his Presidency. Uh...kind of a "real" job.

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 2 years ago

I'd have just let the South go repealed the Fugitive Slave Act and awaited developments. I.doubt if an.independent Confederacy would have lasted that long.

[–] lostto 14 years ago

Poet Walt Whitman wrote in 1888 about the prairie president: “Abraham Lincoln seems to me the grandest figure yet, on all the crowded canvas of the Nineteenth Century.” His legacy and reputation would spread to even the most remote corners of the world in a short time. Famous Russian writer Leo Tolstoy tells of visiting a remote tribe in the North Caucasus Mountains. The chief asked Tolstoy to tell them of famous men of history. For hours he told tales of Alexander, Caesar, Fredrick, and others. The tribal chief said, “Yes but you have not told us anything about the greatest ruler of the world. He was a hero. He spoke with a voice of thunder; he laughed like the sunrise and his deeds were strong as the rock…. His name was Lincoln and he lived in America.”

and...

Visiting Leo Tolstoi in Yasnaya with the intention of getting him to write an article on Lincoln, I unfortunately found him not well enough to yield to my request. However, he was willing to give me his opinion of the great American statesman, and this is what he told me:

“Of all the great national heroes and statesmen of history Lincoln is the only real giant. Alexander, Frederick the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, Gladstone and even Washington stand in greatness of character, in depth of feeling and in a certain moral power far behind Lincoln. Lincoln was a man of whom a nation has a right to be proud; he was a Christ in miniature, a saint of humanity, whose name will live thousands of years in the legends of future generations. We are still too near to his greatness, and so can hardly appreciate his divine power; but after a few centuries more our posterity will find him considerably bigger than we do. His genius is still too strong and too powerful for the common understanding, just as the sun is too hot when its light beams directly on us.” . . . Read the full story—free! (PDF)

link: http://storyoftheweek.loa.org/2010/02/tolstoi-holds-lincoln-worlds-greatest.html

[–] NoahBody 13 years ago

lostto

Poet Walt Whitman wrote

I'm not sure you want to use an old man who was boffing boys as your source for who is a good man "christ" like or "saintly".