[stainlessbanner]

Good essay - the author clearly points out the changing views of Lincoln on secession and slavery. IMO, he was a politician that changed his views based on supporters (business men, political foes/allies, and public view) - no different than today's politicians. Clearly his goal was to save the union at ANY cost....including total warfare.

[humbletheFiend]

Clearly his goal was to save the union at ANY cost....including total warfare.

It was more than just his "goal" to preserve the Union; it was his duty.

[Free the USA]

Thanks for the ping a very good and balanced analysis.

[Paul Ross]

It should also be pointed out that Lerone Bennett is a shameless, unrepentant communist agitator, and just plain vile in his venoumous vituperation against anything noble in American history. He is sickening. And his scholarship is partisan, and notably less than 'balanced' or fair. His attempts to refute a panel of Lincoln scholars in Chicago in front of a black audience was a disaster for his credibility. He was pretty thoroughly debunked. And yet this character and his worthless propagandistic book are listed as if credible by this article, rather than outside-the-pale defamation which was par for the course during Lincoln's presidency. The South as well as the North was ripped with passionate controversy. And Lincoln, standing in the middle, got it from both sides.

[Paul Ross]

It should also be pointed out that Lerone Bennett is a shameless, unrepentant communist agitator, and just plain vile in his venoumous vituperation against anything noble in American history. He is sickening. And his scholarship is partisan, and notably less than 'balanced' or fair. His attempts to refute a panel of Lincoln scholars in Chicago in front of a black audience was a disaster for his credibility. He was pretty thoroughly debunked. And yet this character and his worthless propagandistic book are listed as if credible by this article, rather than outside-the-pale defamation which was par for the course during Lincoln's presidency. The South as well as the North was ripped with passionate controversy. And Lincoln, standing in the middle, got it from both sides.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

good article thanks for the ping

[aomagrat]

IMO, he was a politician that changed his views based on supporters (business men, political foes/allies, and public view) - no different than today's politicians.

Yep! Fly a kite, see which way the wind blows it, then run in that direction.

[one2many]

The country's most renowned early supreme court justice, John Marshall, took the Hamiltonian line, favoring judicial as against legislative supremacy, as in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Precisely why the Confederate Constitution reined in the shysters.

Contrary to the impressions created by what has to be considered as more a myth or legend than historical reality, Lincoln comes off as a pragmatic, shrewd, but fundamentally not really principled politician.

Precisely. He was the Bill Clinton of his era; reviled by many (who later recanted for political expediency after the monster's death).

Isn't it time, also, to abandon the tactic, deployed, sadly, even by Professor Jaffa, of dismissing Lincoln critics as apologists for slavery, thus sparing oneself the trouble of coping with damning evidence?

The writer shouldn't hold his breath; this is the ONLY trump card the disinformationists hold and they will not give it up willingly and honestly.