Free Republic

I'll agree that from the perspective of liberal historians, that yes slavery is what made it a "Good War".

But for me, now that I'm far removed from the influence of liberal history textbooks, I can safely say that the Civil War was a necessary war to preserve the Union, plain and simple. The abolition of slavery was a wonderful side effect. Slavery would have been abolished in due course anyway. The Civil War forced the issue by first forcing the issue of whether a state had the right to secede from the Union. Lincoln settled that question and no state has dared to try again since. If they try, they'll have to deal with far worse than Sherman.

Alright, I'll answer it for you. No, abolishing slavery was not worth the horror.

But I reiterate that slavery had nothing to do with Lincoln's decision to pursue war. It had everything to do with preserving the Union. Slavery was the South's reason for secession, to be sure, but it was not Lincoln's cause in 1861 or 1862 was not ending slavery, rather his cause was to preserve the Union. Ending slavery became the cause later in the war when Lincoln deemed it necessary to win the war and to ensure that the preservation of the Union would not be for naught as the preservation of slavery was likely to cause yet another fracture. By 1863, it was too late to go back to the status quo of 1860.

Indeed, Lincoln knew the Emancipation Proclamation was worthless and on very flimsy Constitutional ground so he lobbied aggressively behind the scenes for the 13th Amendment to end the issue once and for all. His proclamation was only valid during the war and was among his many emergency actions (such as suspending haebus corpus in Maryland) that were on very shaky legal ground.

Modern day revisionists who say the Civil War was completely about slavery do a grave injustice to Lincoln by ignoring his many writings and speeches about the paramount need to preserve the Union at all costs. Then again, liberal historians are all too eager to make heroes out of Lincoln and Eisenhower for the wrong reasons while ignoring their principled stand on the Constitution and rule of law. To liberal historians, the ends always justify the means. Lincoln was a useful idiot in their mind. Read his opinion and speeches on the Dred Scott case and then do a Google search comparing Dred Scott to Roe v. Wade. Many of Lincoln's arguments translate very well to our modern day runaway activist Supreme Court.

So I wouldn't worry too much what the liberal historians have to say...

I didn’t say that they didn’t agree on anything. I said that they weren’t of one mind on everything. Saying that they didn’t agree on everything does not mean that they didn’t agree on anything. This is how everything turns into an excluded middle argument on the Internet.

Very good and correct.

ping

“(which indeed happened, but not because of Lincoln)”

By which I mean not because of Lincoln’s nefarious schemes, though Lincoln the martyred hero had a lot to do with it.

“So, according to you, the Union didn’t pursue the war as hard as they could have.”

They could have pursued it much better, which is the important thing, not necessarily harder. They did pursue it hard enough in many cases, namely during the March to the Sea and in the Shenandoah Valley. Sherman came up with this bold idea that one need not bother with armies, who can shoot back, when you can fight old ladies and railroad tracks.

“Jimmy Carter’s question is completely wrong and I’m quite certain that Jimmy Carter is an idiot.”

Yes, but he’s not the only one to ask it.

“Lincoln never believed that ending slavery justified the Civil War, but he did believe that preserving the Union was his utmost priority or else they would be no country to govern, let alone preserve.”

I don’t know if that’s true. In the beginning, yes, but from my reading of the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural, that’s not how it ended up. It could be that he prefigured that all the horrors could not possibly be justified by banal hosannas to Union. That people needed to feel that a higher cause was there all along.

Anyway, I’d like to clarify that it was not Lincoln’s judgement nor the judgement of anyone else of the time that I was concerned with in my post. I was concerned with those—a majority I’d say—moderns who view slavery as the Civil War’s justificaition. That slavery is what made it a Good War, as opposed to Vietnam or the War of 1812. It is that question, whether abolishing slavery justified the horror, that I seek to answer.

“And yet Davis and his government declare martial law in parts of the country hundreds of miles away from any Union forces. Using invasion as an excuse doesn’t hold water”

I hardly need to remind you where Lincoln declared martial law, arrested dissenters, and suspended habeas corpus. It was in that region we call the North. You can argue much of what Jeff Davis did was unecessary, as I do with Lincoln (and Davis, for that matter). Just because their actions were unecessary does not mean they had nothing to do with the war.

We know Lincoln’s rationale: he wanted the border states to stay in the fold. But he also did things like go after an Ohio (far enough from the South) Congressman for criticizing the income tax. I don’t know what declarations of martial law on the South’s side you’re refering to, but I’m sure there was a rationale.

In any case, I highly doubt the Confederates would have gone around declaring martial law with no war, unless they found a John Brown or two and freaked out.

“Using invasion as an excuse doesn’t hold water.”

There are people (wackos) who think it was an excuse on Lincoln’s part to go after Democrats and establish a Republican monopoly in Washington (which indeed happened, but not because of Lincoln). I think they, and you, should put themselves, and yourselves, in others’ mindsets. With Lincoln, the sacred Union was at stake. For Davis, the Confederacy in its infancy and the grand old Southern tradition was at stake. These were existential threats. Much more so on the South’s part, but for the North it would have been the end of the U.S. as it always has been. It wasn’t an excuse, as if Davis got into office and said to himself, “Good, now let’s see what we can get away with.”

“And why are those valid reasons to ignore the constitution and the rule of law?”

That old standby “national security,” under whose banner much stretching of the law has been done. There was one act namely the executive suspension of habeas corpus that was undoubtedly unconstitutional. There were also a myriad of actions that would I’m sure would be illegal had there not been a threat to the Union: governing non-rebel citizens through martial law in non-rebel territory; imprisoning and at least in one case deporting non-rebel citizens without due process; imprisoning and confiscating the property of newspapers who were not necessarily seditious but merely disagreed; censoring telegraphs; interfering in elections in non-rebel areas; and, lastly, allowing war to be deliberately waged on civilians, which if nothing else was contrary to military law.

Now, I consider much of this to have been illegal in any case, but since there was a war on, and wars are special, and the heavy-handedness didn’t extend outside the Reconstruction, I somewhat sympathize it. I’d love for you to tell me how it was legal, and if it wasn’t how you justify it while condemning the Confederacy (outside of saying the South started it and the South was worse).

“If your constitution requires a supreme court and you don’t establish one, or if it prohibits protective tariffs and you enact one, then it doesn’t take much interpretation to conclude that the constitution as a whole holds little importance to you.”

Need we enumerate the many ways in which, even in Lincoln’s time, the U.S. Constitution has been violated? And that was without facing an existential crisis.

“War is hell.”

There is an argument to be made for unrestricted warfare, in that it is the best way to make people not start wars. See nuclear weapons, for instance. However, we have this pretence that war operates according to laws. And in any case, if Lincoln’s job was to create hell to win, why didn’t the Confederates have the similar recourse to extra-legal options? Because they started it, I guess. Or because whatever slaveholders do is corrupt.

- William Tecumseh Sherman

How would a pro football team with 11 players on the field do up against an opposing team that had 22 players. The North had roughly twice as many troops as the South. I saw you skipped that. Who was resupplying the South?. I guess the North didn’t blockade the few ports in the South. Where were most of the factories in the US located?

So, according to you, the Union didn’t pursue the war as hard as they could have. Wonder why. You are very amusing.

Good day ;0)

I don't agree. I think Jimmy Carter's question is completely wrong and I'm quite certain that Jimmy Carter is an idiot.

The Civil War was triggered by the question of slavery, but escalated to war because Lincoln viewed secession to be an illegal act that could only be remedied by confronting the rebellion and defeating it. The South knew that it would have to fight for its independence, just as the colonies had.

Slavery was the trigger, but the Union was the real principle at stake. Should any state be allowed to peacefully secede for any grievance? That was the real question. Lincoln made clear his answer to that question.

As someone who grew up in the South, I've struggled a lot with the question myself. Maybe Lincoln should have let the South go. But if he did, what precedent would that have set for the remaining states? Did you know that New England states had threatened secession over the war of 1812? What about today? What states would threaten secession over any number of issues (take Texas governor Rick Perry, for example). Hell, my home state of Louisiana probably would have seceded long ago just to keep all the offshore oil royalties. If secession is easy, then any state would be highly tempted to peacefully go its own way.

So in the end, I think Lincoln made the right decision. Rebellion can not be tolerated and if the people of a state wish to form a new government, they must do it the same way the colonies did... by violently overthrowing the current one or defeating it in order to secede.

Lincoln never believed that ending slavery justified the Civil War, but he did believe that preserving the Union was his utmost priority or else they would be no country to govern, let alone preserve.

I strong recommend reading Lincoln by David Herbert Donald. Great book and very comprehensive look at the man and his way of thinking.

Wow...

Ya know, I was prepared for a number of responses, but not that one.

You feel flattered by what I posted do you?

Run along now to Stormfront my angel-food cupcake. I’ll not upset your delicate “heritage” mythology any longer.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Sherman and his psychotic "visions," like some militant precursor of Hieronymus Bosch.

Perhaps he can tell one from the other now.

And yet Davis and his government declare martial law in parts of the country hundreds of miles away from any Union forces. Using invasion as an excuse doesn't hold water.

And why are those valid reasons to ignore the constitution and the rule of law?

Any controversial Constitutional interpretation is opinion, I suppose.

If your constitution requires a supreme court and you don't establish one, or if it prohibits protective tariffs and you enact one, then it doesn't take much interpretation to conclude that the constitution as a whole holds little importance to you.

I think what Lincoln did in terms of silencing the Peace Democrats and what he allowed to happen with Sherman and Sheridan were unnecessary and unconscionable.

War is hell.

Don’t discuss or even attempt to discuss an issue related to the War of Northern Aggression to whomever Non-Sequitur
happens to be....this person jumps into these types of discussion to proudly displace his arrogance and stupidity...now “he” is the perfect picture of a scalawag, sinc “he” has said “he” is born in the South. His relentless tirades and argumentative nature will just end up irritating you...like a chigger....

They speak for themselves.

You’ll have to do better than that to justify your original premise.

Read Washington's Farewell address: "Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes."

As for Madison, his dismissal of the concept of unilateral secession or secession without the consent of states is well documented.