Replies

My background is that of a southern man born and raised on the myth of the Noble Cause. It always fascinated me. Only after some years of study did it become evident that the South had been given a whitewash by the media (Birth of a Nation and Gone With the Wind being the most egregious examples) and that there was NOTHING noble about the cause. It was tyranny pure and simple.

Your research into the NY riots is incomplete. You should be aware that 1) the rioters were DEMOCRATS and friends of the South, 2) NYC was against the war from the beginning till the end, 3) the attack on the orphange did not result in any deaths through no fault of the rioters, 4) Republican homes and persons were attacked as well, 5) they were finally quelled (after RAT refusal) by Union forces fresh off the field at Gettysburg. These were the work of Fifth Columnists in league with the South.

As far as popularity goes, the Revolutionary War was just as unpopular as only about a third of the population supported it. But what does popularity have to do with protection of the Union which was under attack? It is also true that the South had a draft and that the war was not popular there either as the desertion figures show. However, I doubt your figure that 94% of those drafted hid out. I am sure some did but nothing close to 15 out of 16.

There should be some editors locked up today. I certainly have no problem with jailing treasonous editors or Congressmen in a time of war. Though "excommunication" was a bit beyond Lincoln's powers. I have no problem with ANY of Lincoln's actions defending this nation. God put him in place as leader at exactly the right time.

You missed just about every pertinent point in this debate, foremost of which is that the NORTH supported slavery. Four Northern states were slave states. Additionally, virtually all the states supported returning escaped slaves to their owners (I think Lincoln even stood up for this but I'll have to check). Secondly, the North attacked the South at Ft. Sumpter and "jumpstarted" the war (even by Lincoln's own admission!). As for your desire to lock up any editors today, no matter how liberal or nutty, I most certainly oppose you on that. You and Lincoln would probably have gotten along just fine though:

With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.

Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm