Replies

From my own modern perspective I don’t like some things Lincoln did, even for his noble purpose. First income tax, military draft, suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

The civil war was the worst period in our nation’s history. Terrible means were used to achieve good ends.

But I’m sure glad the vile Confederates lost. They weren’t concerned with “State’s rights” as some claim. They wanted the federal government to force Northern states to return escaped slaves after all!!! The new GOP Congress passed a constitutional amendment that would have prevented the abolition of slavery by the federal government. Not good enough for them, they were concerned about not only keeping but spreading slavery to the new states and they didn’t give much of a damn how people in those new states may have felt.

Ron Paul thinks the federal government should have just bought and freed all the slaves. Ha! That Ron Paul. Conventional wisdom is that war was inevitable.

Anyhow as usual I digress. What I wanted to tell you is how ridiculous it is to compare Lincoln to our horrible 20th and 21st Century socialist Presidents. Our first truly terrible President was Woodrow Wilson.

If I had to pick a “worst President” candidate from Lincoln’s period it would have been his immediate predecessor the do nothing Buchanan.

“From my own modern perspective I don’t like some things Lincoln did, even for his noble purpose. First income tax, military draft, suspended the writ of habeas corpus.”

Yes, but to “fix” the country today, those same things, and much more will need to be done.

“Terrible means were used to achieve good ends.”

That’s where we're headed.

“If I had to pick a “worst President”...it would have been his immediate predecessor the do nothing Buchanan.”

Homo?

From my own modern perspective I don’t like some things Lincoln did, even for his noble purpose. Terrible means were used to achieve good ends.

Don't you like how all totalitarians have noble purposes! I assume you think the noble purpose was to end slavery. But Lincoln kept that "purpose" a secret, didn't he. The idea the the WBTS was a war to end slavery was a post hoc justification as was the notion that slavery was the worst of all human conditions.

In fact there wasn't slavery only in the Southern Colonies, but pretty much all over the Western World in the 18th century. We were the only ones who ended it by killing the slave owners. Everywhere else it just died out with the rise of capitalism because slavery ddn't make economic sense.

They wanted the federal government to force Northern states to return escaped slaves after all!!!

Well gee, isn't that what the Northern States agreed to do? From Article IV of the United States Constitution:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

The new GOP Congress passed a constitutional amendment that would have prevented the abolition of slavery by the federal government. Not good enough for them, they were concerned about not only keeping but spreading slavery to the new states and they didn’t give much of a damn how people in those new states may have felt.

Actually I think they wanted the people in new States to be able to decide for themselves.

What I wanted to tell you is how ridiculous it is to compare Lincoln to our horrible 20th and 21st Century socialist Presidents. Our first truly terrible President was Woodrow Wilson.

I know you think it is ridiculous. But that is because you suffer from a government education. Read Charles Adams' When in the Course of Human Events or at least read the first user review at the Amazon link I've included. Read Fremantle's Three Months in the Southern States. He was there. He wasn't a Southerner. But somehow government schools never assign this book, I think, because the picture Fremantle paints is so different from the one the winning side wanted you to have.

I stand by my assertion that Lincoln is the one who dismantled the Government of Jefferson and Madison. In response to this one Ivy Civil War Professor's reaction was, "Well, he had help." That's not much of a defense.

ML/NJ

The civil war was the worst period in our nation’s history. Terrible means were used to achieve good ends.

In my humble opinion, everyone gets off track when we start to discuss how horrible the South was. Slavery was indeed an abomination, but the real issues are:

Did Lincoln have the constitutional right to force the Southern states to remain part of the union?
Should he have fought the war to keep these states in the union?

I think the answer to both is no.

First, any reading of the Constitution provides no authority for the federal government (which up to that time was viewed as an agent of the states) provides no authority for such an action.

Second, what would have happened if Lincoln just let the Southern states secede? How long would have slavery lasted? Would the South continued as a nation, or would some (if not many) rejoined the union over time? My guess is that the Southern economy was brittle and within a generation or two, modern technology would have made slavery obsolete. Also, some of the border states were in a position to go either way and given time to make a rational decision would have opted to remain in (or rejoin) the union.