Lincoln: Tyrant, Hypocrite or Consumate Statesman? (Dinesh defends our 2d Greatest Prez)

thehistorynet. ^ | Feb 12, 05 | D'Souza

[Arkinsaw]

But it looks like you're playing a slippery game.

I'm really not trying to play any game. My concerns would be allayed if the popular mind had a more holistic understanding of the whole event. Unfortunately, your average Joe doesn't have that understanding and generally wasn't provided it by our educational system. Those without that understanding will generally absorb the quick soundbite.

When a historian goes on a television show and makes the soundbite statement he generally means what you and I mean, knowing the complexity of the event. That is not necessarily the perception the general public gains from his words, not knowing that complexity.

In a normal environment that would not necessarily mean that much to me. But we are in an environment where activists are attempting to deepen the divide for modern political purposes, for fundraising, and for getting attention. We see this in efforts to alter the interpretation of battlefield parks that previously concentrated on the battle that took place there. We see it iin efforts to erase the Confederate battle flag even as a historical symbol at memorials or cemeteries and in a historical context. Even the Sons of Union Veterans decry this because they have an understanding of the complexities involved.

The offhand statements by historians regarding causation is not necessarily providing the public with the necessary information that they require to adequately judge what they are being told by activists who are trying to sway them to a modern political view. This has been true in regard to the NAACP for years and increasingly true for activists on the other side in recent years who have gotten caught up in the tit-for-tat. Historians should be aware that a one-liner can result in cardboard cutout history in the public mind.

Essentially, the game I am playing is to advocate a much more in depth presentation of the event in our educational system to arm the public with a better understanding of the complexities so that they can better judge the current "yes it is" - "no it isn't" argument.

I am also advocating that Southern partisans, of whom I am one, stop playing that game and stop digging through the historical record for factoids to fling. When the public has a real awareness of the complexities they are much less likely to be swayed by simplistic pronouncements about it by modern pot-stirrers. Fighting factoids with factoids is a loser's game and makes you just another pot-stirrer.

If you change the environment there can actually be rational discussion of how we mark the Civil War as a common cultural event and within its historical context without regard to modern political correctness or agendas. We can provide a full understanding of the tragedy of slavery without prohibiting the display of battle flags. Its not a zero-sum game here.

The guys who actually fought this war on both sides and shot at each other ended up with more common sense about it in their later years than we have 150 years later. Thats just crazy.


"Peace at the End of the Civil War", Capitol Rotunda, Washington, D.C.

[NMC EXP]

Thanks for the clarification.

[libertarianben]

I like stirring the pot sometimes. It's fun. It makes people have to answer why they believe something other than being sheep. This debate could go on forever with no side winning. I just wish we could end the North=good + righteous, South=evil + racist thing. We should really look at what happen at the war and not just accept what the government history tell us. Remember the winners of war write the history. I done debating and feel much better now.

[Bigun]

If you change the environment there can actually be rational discussion of how we mark the Civil War as a common cultural event and within its historical context without regard to modern political correctness or agendas. We can provide a full understanding of the tragedy of slavery without prohibiting the display of battle flags. Its not a zero-sum game here.

That seems a perfectly reasonable proposal to me.

[djreece]

Perhaps you need to reread my post. I did not say the South wanted to take over the North. (I really appreciate the insult to my intelligence.) I said that if we go down the road of "What Ifs" and the South had seceded, that given the history, proximity and economic realities, one outcome may have been that the countries would have unified again with the South in control, meaning slavery would have been written into the Constitution as it was in the Confederate constitution.

I agree that the "War between the States" would be a more accurate term. I used the term "Civil War" because that is the most common term, not as a political statement. I don't devote my life to refighting the battles of 150 years ago.

As I said, for many decades those who opposed slavery thought it would die of its own accord. In additon, there is clear historical evidence that the abolitionist movement worked to awaken the public conscience in a new way in the decades leading to the "War between the States." A number of factors brought the issue to the point of no return, sparking the war.

[squirt-gun]

Re # 56 I am FAR from "Hillbilly" as you put it. I have a Masters in US and Texas History, and a bachelors in World History, so I am quite educated..

If you are educated as you proclaim, I think you will understand that I didn't accuse you personally of being a "hiilbilly"......Please re-read my post.... N'est Pas?

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

Here is an interesting side note. There are thousands of Civil War reenactors who dedicate themselves to portraying those men of both sides who fought. It is interesting to note there are usually far more reenacting Confederates than Federals and often Confederate units are asked to change uniforms for the reenactments to balance the sides.

Apparently these modern Confederate reenactors are making a statement other than a longing for a return to slavery.

The centralized power of the federal government today is NOT what was agreed to by the original states. Today's overpowering federal government was brought to us by Abraham Lincoln.

[pawdoggie]

And to educate you just a little: "Sic Semper Tyrannis" (Thus be it ever to TYRANTS) is the state motto of Virginia.......... To educate you a little, I know the state motto of Virginia; neither you nor Booth (Maryland) are Virginians, so you weren't merely quoting your state's motto (and we all know how keen you are on your state and its rights). At first I thought you might just be clowning around with your "Lincoln is a tyrant who got what was coming to him" rant. Now I can see that you are serious.

I've travelled extensively in Europe, and I've met families there who lost members of their immediate family to American and Allied bombing. They don't hold a grudge like that you claim to hold against Lincoln for depredations he never personally visited upon your "relatives" a century and a half ago. What you try to use as justification for your attitude is an excuse, not an explanation. It is certainly unChristian (unless you are a "Christian Identity/Aryan Nation" type), and irrational. You need immediate professional counseling. You're right when you say that I don't know your parents, and shouldn't comment on how they raised you. I will say with conviction, however, that if (notice the conditional tense) your parents raised you to believe that Lincoln should have been killed in 1860 in order to preserve the old slave-holding South, then you were sired by Satan and hatched by Vulture.

[Rabble]

". And ultimately it was because of Lincoln that slavery came to an end. That is why the right wing can never forgive him."

This is a typical Liberal tactic, Playing the race card. You're saying that because Lincoln brought slavery to an end that anyone that Opposes him or his tactics are racist. Perhaps you are the actual racist here for stating such a falsehood!

[Rabble]

CorrectionThe comments in post# 109 are directed towards Disesh D'Souza, NOT Churchillbuff! Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[TexConfederate1861]

I know how this is going to sound, but try to understand this in the spirit it is meant: Most slaves were treated well, and rather than see thousands of Americans killing each other on the battlefield,rather than seeing the government of the states destroyed, and all of the heartache that came with it, rather than see racial divides and hatred, YES, I would rather slavery had continued for a longer period of time. I believe it would have ended within twenty years, because of changing economic conditions.

[TexConfederate1861]

Circumstances were different during the Revolution against England.....

[TexConfederate1861]

Well, I have to respectfully disagree. If it was YOUR property that was being lost, your way of life, your economic disaster, if YOU were a slaveowning Southerner, you might have felt differently about the situation.

The Confederate Constitution prohibited the importation of slaves, so I believe it would have died out. The war wasn't over slavery anyhow, as much as other factors.

[cyborg]

Well okay. I think we have to agree to disagree. I don't think you are understanding what I'm trying to say so forget it.

[Mulder]

Lincoln argued that the South had no right to secede

Well, Jefferson would disagree. Freedom of political association is an absolute Right that Free men and women possess.

My own contention is that Lincoln was a monster. The more I read of him, the more my opinion is confirmed.

[Mulder]

Became fantastic lawyer

Who whored himself out to the highest bidder, which was often the railroad companies. (He did offer to represent the state of Illinois in a case against the railroad companies, but only if they paid him the same amount the company would).

I don't know who was the greater, Washingtom (coming from wealth) or Lincoln (coming from essential poverty)

No-brainer. Washington. (Although he had his faults too). At least 600,000 Americans didn't die because of his foolishness.

America was so fortunate to have him.

600,000 dead Americans would probably disagree.

[TexConfederate1861]

OK...you seem to enjoy insulting me, so I will try to explain this one more time:

I am DEAD serious, when I state the following: If Lincoln had been shot in 1861, I believe the South & North would have worked out their differences, and slavery would have ended peacefully, though later on. I am dead serious of all I accuse Lincoln of in regards to being a tyrant.

Don't patronise me or insult my intelligence with your petty little Yankee ad hominem attacks. My parents taught me not to believe everything that is in history books, especially when those books were written by the winning side......I have an aunt who survived the bombing of Trieste by the British and let me tell you, she holds one hell of a grudge. I am very much a Christian, (mainstream), and have no desire for a "slaveholding" South, as you call it. I can love my country, and STILL deplore the acts of a tyrant. If you can't understand that, then it is indeed YOU that need help. And as for assasinations, our own Federal Government has been known to employ that remedy from time to time, so don't give me the hogwash about it being immoral. Open your eyes, and look at the truth. You won't find it in a textbook.

[Mulder]

So you still believe the civil war was about slavery?

Well, the victors *do* get to write history, so that is why Lincoln is worshipped, instead of the better man, Lee.

The real irony is that while all Americans applaud the "freeing of the slaves" after the Civil War; most Americans live in slavery today. A different form, but still slavery, similar to how Huxley put it:

“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude”.

[Mulder]

Lincoln would not have had to defend the Union and the Constituation against the attack.

The South didn't want to "take over" the Union. They simply wanted to be left alone.

But Lincoln himself regretted with blood-laced sweat that Thomas Jefferson didn't take care of the immoral slave issue at the start

Jefferson tried to, but failed unfortunately.

[yankhater]

Tex,

You're right in hinting how the slavery issue itself shouldn't wash away everything the United States government did in response to secession.

We could plausibly argue that slavery would have ended much sooner had the British won the War of American Independence. It would of had to have ended sooner or later if the Confederate States been victorious. Hard to say when. Most likely by the 1880's if you look at Brazil and Cuba doing same.

On the other hand would the slavery issue have eventually pitted the upper South versus the deep South? I could see that too. By the end of 1864-65 the Virginians and North Carolinian urban moderates had eliminated the fire-eating planters in government. The Deep South states resented the Richmond government and Virginia control of the Army/tactics.
So we could make the counter argument that secession would of had to stop somewhere.

Basically the way I've come to see it after many arguments in my day...

1) radical pro slavery and radical abolitionists created a political crisis in the mid 19th century
2) that crisis resolved around the issue of slavery
3) no one had the solution so secession became a crisis
4) the secession crisis caused the war
5) moderates both north and south had to make a hard choice
6) these moderates tended to be more loyal to their cause, more steadfast, and heroic than the radicals were
7) terrible tragedy that so many died
8) fascinating battles and tactics, great geniuses
9) slavery ended which had to happen, but some of the union's tactics resulted in longstanding hatred of blacks and resentment.
10) reconstruction was mishandled and caused more problems than the war itself.
11) although Lincoln was not perfect his assasination made things 100 x worse for the south, he would have been more lenient
12) let both yanks and rebs have their respective heroes and not refight the war.

YH