Happy Birthday, Abraham Lincoln

[CitadelGrad]

How can you say that about a president that was responsible for more death than Truman, LBJ, George W. Bush, and any other POTUS in US history. And all for the second-most unjustified war the US government was ever involved in. He was a POS and wasn't a leader.

Sure, Abe Lincoln, all by himself, brought about the Civil War.

As for justification, hey, that's been answered for more than 100 years now - it was to hold the US together as a single nation. Secession was never a clear right of the states and the war settled the question once and for all.

You could have written a shorter response: Might makes right.

[GannonFan]

Really? So in your opinion secession was a clear and absolute right of the states? Wow, considering the contemporaries of the day, from the Constitution in 1787 all the way up to the Civil War couldn't agree on a clear and absolute answer to that question, then I guess the only reason we had the Civil War was because you were born too late to interject your clarity and stop it?

Wow, a little testy today aren't we GF? Calm down Nancy, opinions are like *******, we all have one. That is my opinion, and there's quite a few others that share it. So, (going by your post) I guess it's your opinion that Lincoln had the right to invade the South and wage a war against the South over the lack of clarity of the question? If only you had been born early enough to explain that to the CSA.

But, to answer your question: 1) yes, my opinion is it was a clear and absolute right of the states, and 2) yes it is a shame I wasn't there to interject my clarity and stop it--I could have saved the country without as much bloodshed as your hero.

Nah, not testy, but I do like arguing history.

As for your opinion, hey, anyone can have one, but what do you base it on? Where in the Constitution does it deal with secession? Heck, secession at the time of the Constitution came up as a topic and many people (Patrick Henry for one) argued that if they signed it they would be abdicating their right to secession.

And I separate, as others have as well, between "secession" and "revolution". I don't think anything did, or could for that matter, eliminate the ability to revolt. That was and is today a right well outside any form of government to legislate. Secession is more of a gentleman's agreement to end a partnership. Considering the differences between the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation, it was clear that we moved much more towards a more permanent union (i.e. no seccession) than what existed under the former Articles. But to say that it was clear beyond a shadow of a doubt one way or the other is almost naive.

If the South wanted to revolt, hey, that was clearly up to them as anybody can try to revolt. However, you can't on one hand revolt and then be shocked that whom you are revolting from takes steps to forcibly stop the revolt. There are very few revolts that haven't resulted in violence in history, and this was no different.

[CitadelGrad]

Abe Lincoln sent the bluecoats to Jefferson City, MO to prevent the democratically-elected and legitimate government of Missouri from convening to vote on secession. When the legitimate government was forced to flee to Arkansas for the duration of the war, Lincoln installed his own government in the state capitol. Lincoln wasn't a tyrant at all, was he?

Of course, that just glosses over all the other details of what transpired in Missouri during that time and also assumes the question of legitimacy favors the legislature you apparently favor. However, Missouri was murky then and even with the benefit of hindsight from today it's still murky now. I seem to remember the seccessionist government calling the earlier formed government "vacant" and appointed their own officers - not very democratic on their part either.

Both sides had their faults in Missouri - to call the situation so clear that you can definitively say one side was legitimate and the other side wasn't is pretty cavalier towards the facts. And really, the main point that came out from the War was that it settled the question of whether a state could simply remove itself from the Union if it so desired. The war decided that they can't.

Having grown up in Missouri, I'm reasonably certain that I know a little more about its history than you do.

[GannonFan]

Sure, Abe Lincoln, all by himself, brought about the Civil War.

As for justification, hey, that's been answered for more than 100 years now - it was to hold the US together as a single nation. Secession was never a clear right of the states and the war settled the question once and for all.

You could have written a shorter response: Might makes right.

Wow, you're just getting that message? Welcome to human history, enjoy your stay!

[OL FU]

I looked out my window from the 19th floor of the Landmark building and Ol' Marse Robert isn't smiling today.









Of course he is probably freezing his granite balls off

[GannonFan]

Honest Abe.

Hmm....my mom got me a really nice framed print of Lincoln as a young lawyer. Its the painting that sits over the mantel in the White House dining room (see below). Perfect for my office, but I'm too lazy to bring it on the bus.



Now I can't wait to here from all you "historians" how Abe was really a big douchebag.

He was a total douchebag and committed the same mistakes and blunders that Bush repeated. I'm glad the USA is together, but he was not a person to be honored. Look to his speeches and actions as president. He was not a good person. Must've been the sphyllis.

To be fair, the situation Lincoln found himself in was far, far graver than anything Bush was faced with. Dissolution of the very nation he was President of versus being targetted by a small group of terrorists are not the same things. Hard to make any legit comparisions between the two.

But you can't ignore the outcome of what Lincoln brought about - a more committed and tied together nation and the abolition of human bondage. Not bad for a politician over basically one term in office.

[GannonFan]

Of course, that just glosses over all the other details of what transpired in Missouri during that time and also assumes the question of legitimacy favors the legislature you apparently favor. However, Missouri was murky then and even with the benefit of hindsight from today it's still murky now. I seem to remember the seccessionist government calling the earlier formed government "vacant" and appointed their own officers - not very democratic on their part either.

Both sides had their faults in Missouri - to call the situation so clear that you can definitively say one side was legitimate and the other side wasn't is pretty cavalier towards the facts. And really, the main point that came out from the War was that it settled the question of whether a state could simply remove itself from the Union if it so desired. The war decided that they can't.

Having grown up in Missouri, I'm reasonably certain that I know a little more about its history than you do.

Well then, why do you persist in making up the history? There were two governments, both considered themselves legit, and both were on very questionable grounds, even with the hindsight of history. Just because I grew up in Delaware and Pennsylvania doesn't mean that I can just pronounce some opinion on their histories and disregard the very valid criticism of whatever I happen to pronounce, especially if the historical record doesn't support whatever I happen to say, just because I happened to live there.

[OL FU]

He was a total douchebag and committed the same mistakes and blunders that Bush repeated. I'm glad the USA is together, but he was not a person to be honored. Look to his speeches and actions as president. He was not a good person. Must've been the sphyllis.

To be fair, the situation Lincoln found himself in was far, far graver than anything Bush was faced with. Dissolution of the very nation he was President of versus being targetted by a small group of terrorists are not the same things. Hard to make any legit comparisions between the two.

But you can't ignore the outcome of what Lincoln brought about - a more committed and tied together nation and the abolition of human bondage. Not bad for a politician over basically one term in office.

Along with 100 years of dire poverty and Jim Crow in the south

Now Admittedly the South didn't do much to help itself. But the north was more than happy to turn its eyes from the results of the war just like the south was willing to wallow in its defeat.

If the war's purpose had been to end slavery it would have been a valiant and justifiable cause. Unfortunately, that wasn't the purpose. And the result was a large portion of the country mired in poverty and a different form of slavery.

[CitadelGrad]

Having grown up in Missouri, I'm reasonably certain that I know a little more about its history than you do.

Well then, why do you persist in making up the history? There were two governments, both considered themselves legit, and both were on very questionable grounds, even with the hindsight of history. Just because I grew up in Delaware and Pennsylvania doesn't mean that I can just pronounce some opinion on their histories and disregard the very valid criticism of whatever I happen to pronounce, especially if the historical record doesn't support whatever I happen to say, just because I happened to live there.

One government was democratically elected and one wasn't. That settles the issue of legitimacy for me.

By the way, I do know more about Missouri history by virtue of having grown up here. The public schools here require the teaching of Missouri history. I was educated in those schools and completed those history courses.

[Ibanez]

Sure, Abe Lincoln, all by himself, brought about the Civil War.

As for justification, hey, that's been answered for more than 100 years now - it was to hold the US together as a single nation. Secession was never a clear right of the states and the war settled the question once and for all.

Because Lincoln could have done absolutely nothing to stop the war? And slavery could not have possibly been ended without violence even though many human rights movements succeeded without it?

And it's easier to argue the legality of the secession than it is to argue the legality of jailing reporters who criticizing you, stomping over the sovereign authority of Missouri and Maryland, and suspending Habeas Corpus.

Some of you cannot seperate the truth from myth. The South had a right to secede from the Union. It is a Union of States. The issue was great, no doubt and there should've been concessions on both sides. When the South attempted to have peace conferences, Lincoln should have listened.Lincoln should have taken the advice of his counsel and not send the Star of the West. Slavery, a horrible sin, was declining due to technology. In fact, the only civilization to fight over keeping slavery is the CSA. Now, everytime Lincoln's horrible acts are brought up, apologists use the slavery, civil war bullshit excuse to negate the fact that Lincoln overstepped his boundaries, started a war by provoking the South, jailed the opposition in the territory he controlled, kept slavery in the terrirtory he had control over, killed many people during the NYC race riots, actively tried to get blacks to get out the USA. If you want the facts, you can read the newspapers butI suggest you read his speeches Before and during the Civil War. You cannot and should not ignore the history just because of one good thing. The facts, the CSA would suck..SUCK TO LIVE IN. A confederacy is not a good. Slavery is evil. The slave holding population was about 1% of the entire Southern Population and most southerners could care less, especially those in the mountains. States that voluntarily enter a union have the right to leave. You have to be realistic and NOT EMOTIONAL when viewing this war and the leaders. The war did not become a war over slavery (for the North) until they were about 2 years into a war they were losing. The economical impact of having the North(the powerful section of the USA) seperated from the duty free raw materials of the South was astounding! Bush committed the same exact sins as Lincoln and yet he's called a horrible tyrant. There is too much hypocrisy. Lincoln was smart for the way chose his cabinet and he was eloquent but the way he went about getting the South to re enter the Union was not the diplomatic way. For all of you that stress diplomacy over war, you judge Lincoln differently. The Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves in the North. In fact, he was criticized WORLDWIDE for this act.

The original proclamation has no...legal justification, except as a military measure." "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free. "

Secretary of State William Seward

"You and we are different races," We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races . . . . This physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both" and "affords a reason at least why we should be separated . . . . It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated."

President Lincoln to a group of Black men invited to the White House and were summarily asked to leave.

This afternoon the President of the United States gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House. They were introduced by the Rev. J. Mitchell, Commissioner of Emigration. E. M. Thomas, the Chairman, remarked that they were there by invitation to hear what the Executive had to say to them. Having all been seated, the President, after a few preliminary observations, informed them that a sum of money had been appropriated by Congress, and placed at his disposition for the purpose of aiding the colonization in some country of the people, or a portion of them, of African descent, thereby making it his duty, as it had for a long time been his inclination, to favor that cause; and why, he asked, 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 is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. You here are freemen I suppose.

Yea, he wanted them freed and then off the continent. Great moral leader.

http://www.learner.org/workshops/primar ... dress.html

I'm sure you have some spin on his intentions of getting the blacks out of America. But if you want to ignore the facts and deny it, go ahead. But do not patronize or call out those like me that love thier country in spite of it's faults and it's failing and it's poor leaders. And I don't need anyone to reply trying to refut, you will not change my mind. I have read his speeches and writings. His actions and words tell me the truth.

Pwns, i'm not calling you out. I just quoted you when I started writing.

[Ibanez]

He was a total douchebag and committed the same mistakes and blunders that Bush repeated. I'm glad the USA is together, but he was not a person to be honored. Look to his speeches and actions as president. He was not a good person. Must've been the sphyllis.

To be fair, the situation Lincoln found himself in was far, far graver than anything Bush was faced with. Dissolution of the very nation he was President of versus being targetted by a small group of terrorists are not the same things. Hard to make any legit comparisions between the two.

But you can't ignore the outcome of what Lincoln brought about - a more committed and tied together nation and the abolition of human bondage. Not bad for a politician over basically one term in office.

That absolves him of his sins?! Listen, I've stated before many times that I am happy the USA is together and the CSA would've been a horrible government to live under. That does not negate the fact that Lincoln was a tyrant. It's not the issue of the War, it's the issue that he's glorified for Keeping the country together and that absolves him of his sins.

[GannonFan]

Well then, why do you persist in making up the history? There were two governments, both considered themselves legit, and both were on very questionable grounds, even with the hindsight of history. Just because I grew up in Delaware and Pennsylvania doesn't mean that I can just pronounce some opinion on their histories and disregard the very valid criticism of whatever I happen to pronounce, especially if the historical record doesn't support whatever I happen to say, just because I happened to live there.

One government was democratically elected and one wasn't. That settles the issue of legitimacy for me.

By the way, I do know more about Missouri history by virtue of having grown up here. The public schools here require the teaching of Missouri history. I was educated in those schools and completed those history courses.

Of course, you then disregard the idea of whether that legislature could even legitimately vote for secession, especially in light of the fact that the very same legislature said that they couldn't in fact do so (which they reversed course and did so several months later when the Convention set up to decide that voted against secession). Seems like you're picking and choosing when things are legitimate and when they're not based upon the outcome.

[CitadelGrad]

You're entitled to your opinions but you aren't entitled to your own facts. Do you even know how the Convention was formed? Do you know when it was formed and by whom? Apparently you don't.

[ASUMountaineer]

Wow, a little testy today aren't we GF? Calm down Nancy, opinions are like *******, we all have one. That is my opinion, and there's quite a few others that share it. So, (going by your post) I guess it's your opinion that Lincoln had the right to invade the South and wage a war against the South over the lack of clarity of the question? If only you had been born early enough to explain that to the CSA.

But, to answer your question: 1) yes, my opinion is it was a clear and absolute right of the states, and 2) yes it is a shame I wasn't there to interject my clarity and stop it--I could have saved the country without as much bloodshed as your hero.

Nah, not testy, but I do like arguing history.

As for your opinion, hey, anyone can have one, but what do you base it on? Where in the Constitution does it deal with secession? Heck, secession at the time of the Constitution came up as a topic and many people (Patrick Henry for one) argued that if they signed it they would be abdicating their right to secession.

And I separate, as others have as well, between "secession" and "revolution". I don't think anything did, or could for that matter, eliminate the ability to revolt. That was and is today a right well outside any form of government to legislate. Secession is more of a gentleman's agreement to end a partnership. Considering the differences between the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation, it was clear that we moved much more towards a more permanent union (i.e. no seccession) than what existed under the former Articles. But to say that it was clear beyond a shadow of a doubt one way or the other is almost naive.

If the South wanted to revolt, hey, that was clearly up to them as anybody can try to revolt. However, you can't on one hand revolt and then be shocked that whom you are revolting from takes steps to forcibly stop the revolt. There are very few revolts that haven't resulted in violence in history, and this was no different.

The Articles of Confederation were intended to enact a "permanent union," yet it was dissolved in favor of the Constitution (permanence lost). You said this, but it just shows that the permanence of the Consitution was still in question before the Civil War. Prior to the war, there were questions about a state's right to secede from the union, but it appeared a right to secede was generally accepted. In my understanding there were even many unionists who agreed that a state had the right to secede. What does that mean? Not much nowadays, but it is food for though.

We can disagree on opinions, and both can probably find sources that support both ideas. Nevertheless, in truth, we'll just have to agree to disagree on what the original intent was (or the understanding at that time pre-1860). No where, in the Constitution does it explicitly state that a state can secede from the union and, no where does it explicitly state that a state cannot secede from the union.

What we probably can agree on: After the Civil War, steps were taken to try and prevent a state from ever seceding again. Including the Texas v. White decision from 1869 that pretty much put an end to a state's possibility to unilaterally secede from the union. As you mentioned above, through revolt a state can "secede." This was decided after the war (and because of the war).

It is still my belief that, based on the original intent of the Constitution a state is soveriegn (and could secede), a state had to agree to become part of the union, and it could leave the union. The 10th Amendment is one of my favorites, and I'm a big states' rights guy (imagine that ).

Post-Civil War, I agree with you...a state probably has no "right" or ability to secede without mutual consent.

My bad for typing such a long post...I feel like T-man.

[GannonFan]

Some of you cannot seperate the truth from myth. The South had a right to secede from the Union. It is a Union of States.

And again, where was this "right" codified? The Founders couldn't agree whether such a right existed, so all of a sudden more than 200 years after the Constitution was written some guys on a football message board can say "it existed" and magically 200 years of debate just poof away like magic? Talk about not being able to separate truth from myth.

The issue was great, no doubt and there should've been concessions on both sides. When the South attempted to have peace conferences, Lincoln should have listened.Lincoln should have taken the advice of his counsel and not send the Star of the West. Slavery, a horrible sin, was declining due to technology. In fact, the only civilization to fight over keeping slavery is the CSA. Now, everytime Lincoln's horrible acts are brought up, apologists use the slavery, civil war bullshit excuse to negate the fact that Lincoln overstepped his boundaries, started a war by provoking the South, jailed the opposition in the territory he controlled, kept slavery in the terrirtory he had control over, killed many people during the NYC race riots, actively tried to get blacks to get out the USA. If you want the facts, you can read the newspapers butI suggest you read his speeches Before and during the Civil War. You cannot and should not ignore the history just because of one good thing. The facts, the CSA would suck..SUCK TO LIVE IN. A confederacy is not a good. Slavery is evil. The slave holding population was about 1% of the entire Southern Population and most southerners could care less, especially those in the mountains. States that voluntarily enter a union have the right to leave. You have to be realistic and NOT EMOTIONAL when viewing this war and the leaders. The war did not become a war over slavery (for the North) until they were about 2 years into a war they were losing. The economical impact of having the North(the powerful section of the USA) seperated from the duty free raw materials of the South was astounding! Bush committed the same exact sins as Lincoln and yet he's called a horrible tyrant. There is too much hypocrisy. Lincoln was smart for the way chose his cabinet and he was eloquent but the way he went about getting the South to re enter the Union was not the diplomatic way. For all of you that stress diplomacy over war, you judge Lincoln differently. The Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves in the North. In fact, he was criticized WORLDWIDE for this act.



I'm sure you have some spin on his intentions of getting the blacks out of America. But if you want to ignore the facts and deny it, go ahead. But do not patronize or call out those like me that love thier country in spite of it's faults and it's failing and it's poor leaders. And I don't need anyone to reply trying to refut, you will not change my mind. I have read his speeches and writings. His actions and words tell me the truth.

Of course Lincoln, viewed through the lens of 150 years of history, appears to be a racist lout to those of us today. There are very few historical figures who don't come across as anachronistic using today's morals and values. Washington owned slaves - should we cease any and all admiration of him because of this? Viewing people from the past through the lens of the present day is always going to be problematic.

But as for Lincoln's "diplomacy" what exactly could he have done to diplomatically bring the South back into the Union, eliminate the idea of secession being legal, and bringing about the abolition of slavery? Considering that none of the 15 previous Presidents were able to do those things (well, the last two since the only President to preside over seceeding states was Buchanan, although Jackson did threaten force to keep a state from doing it), it seems like you are vastly overrating the ability of diplomacy.

[GannonFan]

You're entitled to your opinions but you aren't entitled to your own facts. Do you even know how the Convention was formed? Do you know when it was formed and by whom? Apparently you don't.

The state Assembly called the convention into existence and established it be done via an election. They also established than any call for secession had to also be approved by the voters afterwards. Those elected officials met as a Convention and they voted 98-1 against seceeding.

Do you object?

[OL FU]

Of course Lincoln, viewed through the lens of 150 years of history, appears to be a racist lout to those of us today. There are very few historical figures who don't come across as anachronistic using today's morals and values.

Sounds like the argument a lot of people use when arguing the side of the south


We southerners are a stubborn bunch.

[Ibanez]

Some of you cannot seperate the truth from myth. The South had a right to secede from the Union. It is a Union of States.

And again, where was this "right" codified? The Founders couldn't agree whether such a right existed, so all of a sudden more than 200 years after the Constitution was written some guys on a football message board can say "it existed" and magically 200 years of debate just poof away like magic? Talk about not being able to separate truth from myth.

The issue was great, no doubt and there should've been concessions on both sides. When the South attempted to have peace conferences, Lincoln should have listened.Lincoln should have taken the advice of his counsel and not send the Star of the West. Slavery, a horrible sin, was declining due to technology. In fact, the only civilization to fight over keeping slavery is the CSA. Now, everytime Lincoln's horrible acts are brought up, apologists use the slavery, civil war bullshit excuse to negate the fact that Lincoln overstepped his boundaries, started a war by provoking the South, jailed the opposition in the territory he controlled, kept slavery in the terrirtory he had control over, killed many people during the NYC race riots, actively tried to get blacks to get out the USA. If you want the facts, you can read the newspapers butI suggest you read his speeches Before and during the Civil War. You cannot and should not ignore the history just because of one good thing. The facts, the CSA would suck..SUCK TO LIVE IN. A confederacy is not a good. Slavery is evil. The slave holding population was about 1% of the entire Southern Population and most southerners could care less, especially those in the mountains. States that voluntarily enter a union have the right to leave. You have to be realistic and NOT EMOTIONAL when viewing this war and the leaders. The war did not become a war over slavery (for the North) until they were about 2 years into a war they were losing. The economical impact of having the North(the powerful section of the USA) seperated from the duty free raw materials of the South was astounding! Bush committed the same exact sins as Lincoln and yet he's called a horrible tyrant. There is too much hypocrisy. Lincoln was smart for the way chose his cabinet and he was eloquent but the way he went about getting the South to re enter the Union was not the diplomatic way. For all of you that stress diplomacy over war, you judge Lincoln differently. The Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves in the North. In fact, he was criticized WORLDWIDE for this act.



I'm sure you have some spin on his intentions of getting the blacks out of America. But if you want to ignore the facts and deny it, go ahead. But do not patronize or call out those like me that love thier country in spite of it's faults and it's failing and it's poor leaders. And I don't need anyone to reply trying to refut, you will not change my mind. I have read his speeches and writings. His actions and words tell me the truth.

Of course Lincoln, viewed through the lens of 150 years of history, appears to be a racist lout to those of us today. There are very few historical figures who don't come across as anachronistic using today's morals and values. Washington owned slaves - should we cease any and all admiration of him because of this? Viewing people from the past through the lens of the present day is always going to be problematic.

But as for Lincoln's "diplomacy" what exactly could he have done to diplomatically bring the South back into the Union, eliminate the idea of secession being legal, and bringing about the abolition of slavery? Considering that none of the 15 previous Presidents were able to do those things (well, the last two since the only President to preside over seceeding states was Buchanan, although Jackson did threaten force to keep a state from doing it), it seems like you are vastly overrating the ability of diplomacy.

When Southern states had issues, Buchanan(that gay POS) should've acted. When Lincoln came in he should have not rejected the CSA attempts at peace. Get them to the table and talk it out. We are a union of states and no state should impose it's will upon another. No person should impose his will upon anotherSeems to me that it was never an option for him. And why did it take Lincoln until 1865 to attend a peace conference? In 1861, right before Virginia seceded, Former President Tyler called for and led a Peace Conference. Where was the US Gov't? Nowhere. The US Congress tried to avoid war. In the end, both sides failed, it was all or nothing.

[GannonFan]

To be fair, the situation Lincoln found himself in was far, far graver than anything Bush was faced with. Dissolution of the very nation he was President of versus being targetted by a small group of terrorists are not the same things. Hard to make any legit comparisions between the two.

But you can't ignore the outcome of what Lincoln brought about - a more committed and tied together nation and the abolition of human bondage. Not bad for a politician over basically one term in office.

Along with 100 years of dire poverty and Jim Crow in the south

Now Admittedly the South didn't do much to help itself. But the north was more than happy to turn its eyes from the results of the war just like the south was willing to wallow in its defeat.

If the war's purpose had been to end slavery it would have been a valiant and justifiable cause. Unfortunately, that wasn't the purpose. And the result was a large portion of the country mired in poverty and a different form of slavery.

I'm certainly not pretending that the war didn't have horrible consequences - between the horrific battlefield casualties and, as you say, the century of ruin afterwards, the war was a truly awful thing to occur. But as you say, the North and the South were extremely complicit in both why the war happened, the conduct of the war, and the resulting recovery from the war.

But as for the original purpose, even though slavery was not the stated cause by either side, it certainly became a huge cause and there's no doubt that without the presence of slavery that we probably never would've had the war in the first place. All the great issues of the early United States ultimately had to deal with slavery, one way or the other. Just because it wasn't the stated purpose at the onset of the war doesn't change the fact that without slavery we probably don't have a war.

[Ibanez]

Of course Lincoln, viewed through the lens of 150 years of history, appears to be a racist lout to those of us today. There are very few historical figures who don't come across as anachronistic using today's morals and values.

Sounds like the argument a lot of people use when arguing the side of the south


We southerners are a stubborn bunch.

I try not to impose modern morals on the past, but when your opposition does, you are forced to. I believe that every state has the right to leave the Union. Is it funny that many of the northern states felt the same in 1861? Hell, NYC tried to leave.

[Ibanez]

I'm not trying to argue the war. Just his Legacy. Shit, you think people will say Bush was great and give him a monument? Why not, he's very similiar to Lincoln.

[Ibanez]

One last thing, you can't have a peace conference (like the one in 1861) when the people you are at odds with don't show up! That was the South's fault. Maybe the Republicans (similar to modern day Democrates) should have listened to the Copperheads. Who knows?! I, for one, and proud to be a South Carolinian and an American and am glad to live in the United States.

[GannonFan]

When Southern states had issues, Buchanan(that gay POS) should've acted. When Lincoln came in he should have not rejected the CSA attempts at peace. Get them to the table and talk it out. We are a union of states and no state should impose it's will upon another. No person should impose his will upon anotherSeems to me that it was never an option for him. And why did it take Lincoln until 1865 to attend a peace conference? In 1861, right before Virginia seceded, Former President Tyler called for and led a Peace Conference. Where was the US Gov't? Nowhere. The US Congress tried to avoid war. In the end, both sides failed, it was all or nothing.

The table was set by the time Lincoln assumed power. Buchanan let the states walk, and even if Buchanan had acted differently, those states were leaving nonetheless. But once the table was set, peace was going to be some version of a fractured Union, no matter what diplomacy took place. The South was never going to say they didn't have the right to seceed, and the concept of a fractured Union was never going to be palatable to Lincoln and the North. Sure people could've talked more, but the same questions had been talked and debated since the first day of the Constitutional Convention and they hadn't been answered yet. Once the states actually left, the die had basically been cast. I would fault Lincoln more if they left under his watch, but he came in after things had been set in motion. Try calling it secession all you want, but it was a revolution and revolutions are always violent.

As for states imposing wills upon other states, well, the only real will imposed out of all of this was that you can't just up and leave. It was never clear one way or the other before then and it was clear afterwards.

[Ibanez]

When Southern states had issues, Buchanan(that gay POS) should've acted. When Lincoln came in he should have not rejected the CSA attempts at peace. Get them to the table and talk it out. We are a union of states and no state should impose it's will upon another. No person should impose his will upon anotherSeems to me that it was never an option for him. And why did it take Lincoln until 1865 to attend a peace conference? In 1861, right before Virginia seceded, Former President Tyler called for and led a Peace Conference. Where was the US Gov't? Nowhere. The US Congress tried to avoid war. In the end, both sides failed, it was all or nothing.

The table was set by the time Lincoln assumed power. Buchanan let the states walk, and even if Buchanan had acted differently, those states were leaving nonetheless. But once the table was set, peace was going to be some version of a fractured Union, no matter what diplomacy took place. The South was never going to say they didn't have the right to seceed, and the concept of a fractured Union was never going to be palatable to Lincoln and the North. Sure people could've talked more, but the same questions had been talked and debated since the first day of the Constitutional Convention and they hadn't been answered yet. Once the states actually left, the die had basically been cast. I would fault Lincoln more if they left under his watch, but he came in after things had been set in motion. Try calling it secession all you want, but it was a revolution and revolutions are always violent.

As for states imposing wills upon other states, well, the only real will imposed out of all of this was that you can't just up and leave. It was never clear one way or the other before then and it was clear afterwards.

Of course it was a revolution! The were revolting against a Government they percieved as being at odds with the laws of the land. Lincoln had a small window of oppurtunity and should never have provoked the South. Buchanan should have manned up and been a President. Luckily,LUCKILY, Andrew Johnson was from Tenneessee, and therefore the punishment served was lighter than it could have been.

But, it's his legacy I have an issue with. Praise him for keeping the union together, but don't discount his racism and hatred.

[OL FU]

Along with 100 years of dire poverty and Jim Crow in the south

Now Admittedly the South didn't do much to help itself. But the north was more than happy to turn its eyes from the results of the war just like the south was willing to wallow in its defeat.

If the war's purpose had been to end slavery it would have been a valiant and justifiable cause. Unfortunately, that wasn't the purpose. And the result was a large portion of the country mired in poverty and a different form of slavery.

I'm certainly not pretending that the war didn't have horrible consequences - between the horrific battlefield casualties and, as you say, the century of ruin afterwards, the war was a truly awful thing to occur. But as you say, the North and the South were extremely complicit in both why the war happened, the conduct of the war, and the resulting recovery from the war.

But as for the original purpose, even though slavery was not the stated cause by either side, it certainly became a huge cause and there's no doubt that without the presence of slavery that we probably never would've had the war in the first place. All the great issues of the early United States ultimately had to deal with slavery, one way or the other. Just because it wasn't the stated purpose at the onset of the war doesn't change the fact that without slavery we probably don't have a war.

If anyone has any doubts as to why the states seceded, they need to read some of the secession documents. South Carolina's makes it clear. They may have mentioned other reasons but the heart of the issue was the right to own other human beings. Believe me, I have no affection (other than in a Gone with the Wind kind of way, in other words the highly fictionalized version of the antebellum south) for the old south. If I wouldn't get arrested, I would climb up the flag pole and take the damn battle flag off the state house grounds myself.

There is always questions on whether wars should be fought. We have certainly fought wars for less reasons than this one. While time has proved the war ultimately beneficial, I think it shouldn't simply be assumed that this war was justified because the north won and 100 years later the civil rights movement finally appropriately decided the issue.

On the other hand, it was 150 years ago. What's done is done.