I don't see Obama's name
I was hoping someone would point out Obama's hypocrisy.
Obama pretends he is following in the footsteps of the Great Emancipator, but, in reality, Obama prefers the "compromise" route. (I wish I could think of a title for Obama that is an antonym for "emancipator." )
In 1861, Obama would have said, "If the South wants Fort Sumter, let them keep it. We don't want to get into a "dumb" civil war."
Obama is no modern day Moses who would go "way down to Baghdad-land" to free millions of Shi'ites.
To Obama's way of thinking Iraqis (especially Shi'ites) could just smile and submit to being slaughtered and raped and attacked by dogs.
Obama says, in effect, "Why get rid of a monstrous dictator who threatens his own people as well as the rest of the world?"
I think it should be apparent that Obama does not have ancestors who were enslaved, raped, and attacked by dogs. He appears to be totally insensitive to the plight of people whose lives are controlled by a monster like Saddam, Uday, or Qusay.
I sat and listened to his "coming out" speech yesterday and was flabberghasted.
Here's a nobody up and pontificating to be the next president and every day I think...NAH...America is surely smarter than this, right? Then I look at those vapid supporters all cheering Obama like he's Christ come again.
Tell me....nah...America's not that stupid, right?
One disagreement. Lincoln was a compromiser as President, at least so far as slavery was concerned, until well into the War. He didn't offer to let the South keep Fort Sumter, but he did offer to let the South keep slavery, so long as Slavery was not allowed to spread to any new territories. The South knew that if their "institutions" and economic approach didn't spread into new territories then Northern industrial practices would spread there instead, further adding to the power of the North and weakening their own power, thus dooming their "peculiar institutions" and eventually ending their way of life.
Except when forced Lincoln was a gradualist. He believed in holding what he could hold and gaining what he could gain short of forcing a show down. His hand was weak unless he went to the all out warfare that he knew would cost us so much in both blood and treasure. He was desperate to avoid that warfare if he could, even if it meant leaving the slaves in the South alone (at least officially). His fight was at the margins and to keep the Union together, trusting in his understanding of economic reality and human nature to make the changes he wanted without a war, eventually.
I happen to think that he was willing to go too far in backing off as I detest the very notion of slavery. Therefore I don't disagree with your characterization of Obama and his view of the current situation. What's amazing, given your spot on analysis, is how few people who do have ancestors who were slaves see the analogy as you express it.
I say all of the above as a proud son of the South. Though my direct ancestors never owned slaves I know that relatives did and were made wealthy by that horrible practice. My own namesake, my grandfather, was Sheriff of a county in southern Mississippi during the depression... for one term. That's because of one thing, he "had no truck with the Klan." He wouldn't let them operate openly while he was sheriff. They voted him out next election. I never knew him as he died before I was born, but I'm proud to bear his name, and also proud of the things about my region of the country that are good and honorable. But I'm not blind to the past.
Of course, I could tell you about my direct knowledge of race issues in the North....