Posted on 08/27/2018 11:20:25 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Human beings (and Americans are no exception) like their heroes and villains easily identifiable and the explanation of historical events simple. As such, both Republicans and Democrats have built easily digestible historical narratives regarding American political history since the Civil War. Peculiarly, there seems to be a debate about who gets to own the legacy of Abraham Lincoln.
On the left, the meandering and incoherent narrative goes like this. Lincoln and his mighty Union army launched a war against the racist, slave-holding Confederacy to rid America of the abominable institution of slavery and make equal citizens of the former slaves. Therefore, modern Democrats own his legacy of greatness, because Republicans "switched" to become Democrats at some undefined time before FDR's New Deal when all those big-government, socially conscious, expansive, and redistributive federal laws were visited upon all the states. Then, somehow, they switched back at some undefined time after LBJ's Great Society and the creation of the welfare state.
On the right, it goes like this. Lincoln and his mighty Union armies launched a war against the racist, slave-holding Confederacy to rid America of the abominable institution of slavery and make equal citizens of the former slaves. Because Lincoln was a Republican, modern Republicans own Lincoln's legacy of greatness. Dinesh D'Souza currently has a new book, movie, and massive campaign underway to prove to Americans that this is the case, suggesting that Trump is a modern avatar of Lincoln or some such.
Both arguments might fit nicely into simple talking points, but neither is the least bit accurate.
The foundation of both narratives – that Lincoln launched his war against the Confederacy to destroy the institution of slavery in order to make equal American citizens of the freed slaves – is never questioned, because doing so is political heresy.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
But did he launch the invasion of the South in order to destroy the institution of slavery and institute equal rights among the emancipated slaves? Everything about Lincoln’s legacy should hinge upon the answer to that question, since freeing the slaves was ostensibly the impetus for the Civil War, and particularly since Lincoln’s armies invaded the South long before the Emancipation Proclamation.
History suggests that he did not.
“Is never questioned”
The causes of the war have been and are still questioned. What planet has the author been on?
Because the propaganda to justify that war was successful.
Lincoln launched that war against the South, not to do anything about slavery, but to make certain that the Southern states could not trade directly with Europe, because allowing that would financially wreck his "Deep State" "Crony Capitalist" backers in New York.
The war was economic in nature, but was successfully re-labeled as a war against slavery.
These revelations have shock value only on the clueless.
It is questioned by those of us who have noticed the problems and inconsistencies inherent in the "official" narrative of the war, but it is not questioned at all by the vast bulk of the public, for whom the propaganda to color it as a moral war, was successful.
It was not a moral war. It was a very immoral war, and it was initiated over money, not slavery.
It those two aren't the least bit accurate then this one:
"If Lincoln did not wage his war in order to free the slaves and make them equals, as history makes fairly clear he did not, then the other questions and problems about Lincoln's legacy are relevant, including his suspension of habeas corpus, his jailing of fourteen thousand political dissidents, the greatest suppression of the free press in our nation's history by shutting down 300 newspapers (think of that in the context of our times!), the institution of America's first ever federal income tax, and the first compulsory American military draft."
and this one:
"We now live in a world where statues of great men, like Robert E. Lee, are being torn down on the predication of nothing more than "he fought for slavery." He, and his father, Light Horse Harry Lee, fought and won many battles to establish and preserve these United States of America. It was with a heavy heart that Robert E. Lee refused to take up arms against his family and neighbors in Virginia, eventually choosing to fight for the Confederacy against what he perceived to be an overbearing federal leviathan that would trample the Southern states' right to self-determination."
are no more accurate than the first two. So what was the purpose of the article to begin with?
Speaking of the least bit accurate...
Please consider what should be our priorities for the next months:
In 2016, Donald Trump stepped into the breach to preserve what was left of our American Heritage. When he boldly rejected the "politically correct" mantra that was stifling honest debate throughout the West, we rallied to his banner with a sense of elation. Yet we did not until 2018, really appreciate how truly late was the hour--how truly great the personal peril to this wise, brave & good man; nor how great the potential benefit to all of us, were he to succeed; how great the disaster to our children & grandchildren, were he to fail.
Simply put, Donald Trump stands between our losing or retaining what still remains, in our potential future, of what the immortal Washington won at Yorktown.
Yet, again, almost none of us realized how compromised we already were, two years ago. This is a sobering moment as one considers the challenge immediately before us. We dare not fail to put our best foot forward.
Trump may be our last real hope for a recognizable America.
Would it be inaccurate to say that had there been no Civil War, we would not have the United States of America today?
He launched the invasion to prevent their leaving the Union, even going so far as to drive Virginia from the Union by trying to force them to be the heavies.
It is possible, but nobody can say for sure. The U.S. as we know it is the product of an infinite number of influences and actions on the part of business and the government over the past 240 years. The Civil War was only one. A large one, but only one.
The southern states were doing economic war against the slaves. The southern slaves were trying to leave. The northern states were waging economic war against the southern states. The southern states wanted to leave the Union. When the slaves tried escape, they were captured and sent back. When the southern states tried to leave, the Union states chased after them and sent them back to the Union Order. With air conditioning the southern states are now an acceptable place to live.
People like D’Souza want to have it both ways. His knowledge of American history is lacking greatly. Lincoln was a big govt leftist. We are fighting against his legacy of Washington controlling everything including the money. Lincoln was fighting for the govt to give money to big business. He was not a right winger. He, if anything close to the right would be a rino. The Trump right should not want the country to be like Lincoln wanted it.
Yah, well, the GOP’s abandonment of its Lincolnsonian heritage is exactly what bought it its current constant smackdowns regarding racism, media, academia, youth culture and social media. Once the GOP rids itself of its Wall St. bankster closet Nazis, we’ll have a chance, but for now, we’re fighting on our heels in the larger cultural conflict. Had there been no Trump, we would have been toast within 2 years.
Democrats are and always have been the party of slavery and the KKK.
“Would it be inaccurate to say that had there been no Civil War, we would not have the United States of America today?”
Depends on whether the federal government of the time had adhered to the ideals behind the founding and left the South alone. Look what we’ve got now...8 years of nightmare under Obama almost ruined us and missing Hillary by a hair which would have finished the job. Nice legacy.
RE: Depends on whether the federal government of the time had adhered to the ideals behind the founding and left the South alone
Well, if the Federal government allowed the South to secede, of course we would not have a United States ( as we know it today ).
We would have a United Northern States and maybe, who knows? A Confederate States of America...
I would also surmise that we would probably have something like a continent like Europe, consisting of independent countries big and small.
As for Slavery ... it was a dying institution anyway and would go the way it did with the South American and Caribbean countries, albeit, it would have taken longer to die out in the South.
Lincoln did not want to risk losing the South’s Tariffs. He didn’t give a damn about the slaves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.