Posted on 02/21/2005 7:58:12 AM PST by truth49
Each February, many people—particularly conservatives and Republicans—celebrate the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. In our public schools and through our popular culture, we are taught to admire and praise the “Defender of the Union,” “Lover of Liberty,” and “Great Emancipator.” Many teachers even refer to him by his congressional campaign moniker: Honest Abe.
As a black person and a conservative Republican, I am expected to sing the praises of Mr. Lincoln the loudest, but my love of liberty and history simply won’t permit it.
Many believe the civil war was fought because Lincoln refused to compromise his principles and insisted upon doing what was right. This view is the result of the intentionally perpetuated myth that the Civil War was about slavery. Lincoln, however, was more than willing to compromise on that issue, especially in the early days of the war prior to reelection.
I will say it until my brown face turns blue: the Civil War was not fought over the issue of slavery. In an August 22, 1862, letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln wrote: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”
Lincoln's views on slavery changed from time to time, but his views on race were consistent. Lincoln was clearly a white supremist, a separatist and a proponent of the "back to Africa" moment in its first manifestation. Lincoln made this point clear from the beginning of his political career. In one letter he stated:
(Excerpt) Read more at effwa.org ...
And your point is?
wastin' yer time, big fella. are you man enough to pick on someone who can defend himself?
Hey guys, isn't there a whole group of FReepers who like to debate the Civil War stuff? I couldn't remember who they are...any help would be appreciated.
PM
That the Civil War was not fought over slavery, which many Freepers realize. And that AL did not hold the beliefs that we have come to associate with him. That's not to say that he was bad. He grew in the office. But this article gives evidence that our text book's accounting of the Civil War is not correct. This is a good article.
All of what you said, as you said, most FReepers already know. And are you and truth49 the same person? Just wondering why you answered a question put to the original poster...
Article raised interesting points worthy of consideration. Imagine what would happen if Bush invoked the same actions today in response to another 9/11, etc.
Because it's a public forum.
And as you said, read in its entirety, it is a good article. But in order to adequately discuss Lincoln, the Civil War, attitudes toward race and slavery in the 1800's, etc., would require an entire semester devoted to such study and a level of sophistication among our school teachers that doesn't exist. Sigh.
This quote is displayed prominently on the wall at the Lincoln Memorial in DC. I couldn't believe it when I went there and actually read it.......
In 1848, in Congress, Lincoln espoused that it was a right for all men to "shake off the existing government and form a new one". So much for "Honest Abe"...
9/11 is not comparable to anything that happens in 1861 as on 9/11 it was muslim terrorists attacking us.
Good article.
The South was Right.
Now, let the fun begin.
They'll find this thread in due course. Those idjits live for the opportunity to trash Lincoln.
As for me, there are too many secessionists and segregationists on this website already. I stay away from Lincoln and immigration threads.
Huzzah! to that comment.
I love to debate Civil War stuff, but for the most part the article is accurate. Pres. Lincoln was the consumate poker player, and those who claim to be able to divine his deepest intentions are better than those who were alive at the time and had a chance to ask him.
The only point of contention I have with the article, and it is a minor one is where the author claims "It is hard to justify Lincoln’s actions in the South, where his generals (under his micro-managing leadership) targeted the civilian population whenever possible."
At the point in the war where Gen. Sherman was let loose on the south to destroy their will to make war, Pres. Lincoln had pretty much relinquished control over military matters to Gen. Grant's judgement in which he placed the utmost trust. This was not true of his previous commanders whom Lincoln unsuccessfully tried to push and prod to get results from. Once he had found a leader who would press the war unrelentingly Lincoln mostly let him do as he saw fit.
This is pro-cofederacy illiterate crap.
The point is that our raisning of Abraham Lincon to a god-like status is a LIE. He wasn't interested one bit in invididual liberty & freeing the slaves: all he wanted to do was increase his political power, & didn't wanna see the Union (which he held sacred, unlike the Founding Fathers) break up under HIS watch.
I suggest you read "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. You should also go to lewrockwell.com & read their columns about him under their "King Lincoln" link.
Sic semper tyrannis!
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.