Posted on 02/05/2005 6:30:51 PM PST by quidnunc
The key to understanding Lincoln's Philosophy of Statesmanship is that he always sought the meeting point between what was right in theory and what could be achieved in practice.
Most Americans including most historians regard Abraham Lincoln as the nation's greatest president. But in recent years powerful movements have gathered, both on the political right and the left, to condemn Lincoln as a flawed and even wicked man.
For both camps, the debunking of Lincoln usually begins with an exposé of the "Lincoln myth," which is well described in William Lee Miller's 2002 book Lincoln's Virtues: An Ethical Biography. How odd it is, Miller writes, that an "unschooled" politician "from the raw frontier villages of Illinois and Indiana" could become such a great president. "He was the myth made real," Miller writes, "rising from an actual Kentucky cabin made of actual Kentucky logs all the way to the actual White House."
Lincoln's critics have done us all a service by showing that the actual author of the myth is Abraham Lincoln himself. It was Lincoln who, over the years, carefully crafted the public image of himself as Log Cabin Lincoln, Honest Abe and the rest of it. Asked to describe his early life, Lincoln answered, "the short and simple annals of the poor," referring to Thomas Gray's poem "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard." Lincoln disclaimed great aspirations for himself, noting that if people did not vote for him, he would return to obscurity, for he was, after all, used to disappointments.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at historynet.com ...
If Lincoln had withdrawn U.S. troops from that fort, he would have caved into blackmail and should have been impeached for dereliction of Presidental duties.
Individuals or mobs of citizens from any state never have a right to attack U.S. troops, never mind attack a United States military instillation.
Such actions are treason, sedition, and if such actions were undertaken today, it would naturally be termed a terrorist attack, plus being swiftly dealt with. Think about the same incident in 2005.
I fault President James Buchanan when he refused to act when a federal supply ship was attacked in Charleston Harbor in January 1861. Buchanan non-action set in motion the attack on Fort Sumter. Once again how would President Bush react if either whacked out leftists or Islamic thugs attacked any U.S. ship?
Are you aware Congress was not in session when Ft. Sumter was attacked & Lincoln took the required legal steps he knew were necessary to preserve the Union, because inaction, as demonstrated by President Buchanan, would have promoted further attacks by mobs of South Carolina, radical secessionists.
The fact is this: You can't compare actions of a group of states, to terrorist actions. The Confederacy seceded through what most people at the time felt were legal means.
They sent commissioners to NEGOTIATE a transfer of federal property. They were snubbed. Lincoln chose to initiate the actions that followed. The South had no choice BUT to fire on the fort, and force the troops out, or their sovereignety as a nation would have been a sham........
Lincoln was quite aware of the actions that would take place. He knew that when Southrons fired on the old flag, it would inflame passions. He was a consommate politician.
So did Davis. And he fired anyway.
Nonsense. The commissioners were sent to "for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between that government and the Confederate States of America, and for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith." Nothing specific about NEGOTIATING a transfer, just a vague offer to settle questions of disagreement. Since the south had already seized, or planned to seize, all the federal property in the rebellious states what incentive was there for them to pay for it?
I am not so sure Davis thought so.
The incentive is in Jefferson Davis's Inaugaral Speech....
The South wanted to leave peacefully, and to be left ALONE.
LIncoln chose war. Not the South, their honor would allow them no other recourse.
He was wrong, and Toombs was right.
Sorry but that makes no sense at all. The south didn't choose way, but their honor would allow for nothing but war????
I realize to you Northern types, "honor" isn't a valid concept.
I will explain: Lincoln snubbed their offer of peace, therefore, they were bound by their code of honor, to reduce the fort, or be looked upon as cowards. Even the method of negotiating the surrender of the Ft. was done in an honorable manner. They were notified that unless the Ft. was surrendered by a particular time, they would begin bombardment.
Of all the "it was all Lincoln's fault" arguements I've heard that has to be the most ridiculous.
Look:
I get tired of having to lead you by the nose. As I said, you don't have a clue about honor. Everything that doesn't fit in your little Yankee Box is "ridiculous". Wake up and smell the grits. How can I explain a concept that 99% of you and the rest of the "Brigade" can't even comprehend?
I have a problem with a concept of 'honor' that calls for war as the first solution. But you go right ahead and keep trying to explain it.
So then, you don't believe honor calls for war?
Trying to explain Honor to you would be like trying to teach algebra to a 2 year old. Impossible. Honor is something a man is BORN with. And you seem to be sadly lacking.
Not as the first resort, no.
It wasn't a first resort. The South had tried to negotiate.
The delegation was sent to Washington "for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between that government and the Confederate States of America, and for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith." That's not negotiation, that's an ultimatum. Accept the legitimacy of the southern rebellion, period. Vague offer to settle 'disagreements' aside, unless Lincoln was willing to accept southren independence then there was nothing to talk about. Had everything been on the table, including reunification, then you might have a point but laying down a 'take it or leave it' proposition, and then using that as an excuse to claim wounded honor and start a war is nonsense.
Sounds like negotiation to me. Southern Independence was a fact. Not a point of negotiation.
Obviously hardly anyone agreed.
I'm with you.
Thank you.
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.