Who isn't? When we recognize that Lincoln's opponents were even more deeply flawed men with an even more deeply flawed ideology, he doesn't look so bad.
He was not, as many claim, such an advocate of abolition, and only resorted to emancipation when the Union became desparate to defeat the Confederacy.
As opposed to whom? Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, who were just dying to free all the slaves? Lincoln didn't have the authority to free all the slaves, so he took the first step and encouraged Congress and the states to finish up.
And then he only freed the slaves in Confederate States where the Union Army had already invaded and conquered.
Actually not. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in areas still in rebellion. Areas under Federal control, like the parishes in Southern Louisiana were exempted.
But the EP was a sign that slavery was on its way out and would be gone if the Union won the war. That was more than slaves had gotten from any other administration.
Lincoln’s great legacy is seen in an ever-growing, all powerful central, federal government in Washington DC, not the states.
So is George Washington's. So is the Founding Fathers. But, really, the great growth of the federal government had to wait for the 20th century progressives and the New Deal.
In short, Lincoln “freed the slaves” by “enslaving [all] free men.”
Again, as opposed to whom? Do you really think anyone would have been freer in the Confederacy?
Remember, that Davis's government did pretty much what Lincoln's did with respect to civil liberties. What was done wasn't a result of some Lincolnian ideology. It had to do with winning the war.
And all the restrictions Southern states imposed on free speech where slavery was concerned didn't indicate a happy future for liberty in an independent South.
No, Lincoln wasn’t the devil as some Southern Partisan’s might charge, but he was far from the virtuous, apolitical idealist he is often portrayed as in popular history and culture...
Okay, fair enough. Lincoln wasn't by any means perfet. He was a politician, like others who make a living in politics. But you have to judge him in comparison to those others. Judged by some ideal standard, everyone fails.
#1
I SAID: He was not, as many claim, such an advocate of abolition, and only resorted to emancipation when the Union became desparate to defeat the Confederacy.
YOU SAID: As opposed to whom? Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, who were just dying to free all the slaves?
_____
As a matter of fact, Robert E. Lee was a LONG TIME advocate of abolition. He personally freed ALL his slaves in 1838, long before the War Between the States. Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, was pro-slavery, and he and Lee were clearly at odds on this issue on a long term basis. Lee, however, chose to serve in the Confederate Army NOT BECAUSE HE SUPPORTED SLAVERY, but because he supported the Constitution, which made the STATES SOVEREIGN, not Washington, DC. He could not, therefore fight against Virginia. No one denies slavery was the fatal flaw of the Confederacy — but the outcome of that war created an even greater flaw in the fabric of our nation, which is coming to fruition only now...
_____________________________________________________
#2
YOU SAID: The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in areas still in rebellion. Areas under Federal control, like the parishes in Southern Louisiana were exempted... But the EP was a sign that slavery was on its way out and would be gone if the Union won the war.
_____
This is true. Lincoln’s “freeing the slaves” ONLY applied to places in the Union or under Union control. So, the slaves were freed in the areas STILL in rebellion against Washington DC. In other words, NOT ONE SLAVE WAS ACTUALLY FREED. The reality is, Lincoln was hoping the slaves in those areas would rise up in rebellion against their Confederate Masters — which never happened. That slavery was on its way out was an already foregone conclusion by almost ALL in the States. It had been outlawed in England in the 1830’s due to Wilberforce’ tireless crusade, which took a generation. It had become economically infeasible in many areas of the South already. Given time, attrition and economic realities would have ended slavery. But that would not have achieved the ends desired by those in the North and in Washington, DC. Slavery served as a convenient pretext to force the ascent of Federal power over the States, to subvert the Constitution and to “enslave” all free men to the whims, policies and purse strings of Union politicians. They achieved their goal — and again, we are only now seeing the logical end of the usurpation of their ill-gotten powers.
_____________________________________________________
#3
I SAID: Lincoln’s great legacy is seen in an ever-growing, all powerful central, federal government in Washington DC, not the states.
YOU SAID: So is George Washington’s. So is the Founding Fathers. But, really, the great growth of the federal government had to wait for the 20th century progressives and the New Deal.
_____
Here, you’re dead wrong. George Washington and the Founders designed a federal government that was firmly checked and limited by not only 3 separate branches, but by ALL the individual State governments. For the most part, these checks and balances worked — UNTIL the War Between the States (WBTS). It was THEN that the Feds gained clear power by brute force over the several states that this vision of the Founders was destroyed.
You are right to this extent, it was not until the advent of the Progressives and FDR’s New Deal that we see Federal power exerted to extremes consistently. But that was not for lack of trying. The Radical Republicans wanted Reconstruction to be the “model” of this new type of Federal control — but some of the Union states, AND President Andrew Johnson, were having none of it. Johnson was even almost impeached because of it. And the citizens of the Southern States were having NONE of it. In 1876, after over 11 years of military rule, Washington dictates and massive white voter disenfranchisement, they Feds had to back off. Some of the Southern States managed to elect their own governments again, and were threatening another insurrection (read about the “Red Shirt Rebellion” for example). Despite the use of pitting the races against each other, they still failed to achieve their goals — at that moment. But the animosity they used between the races STILL serves their purposes today!
______________________________________________________
#4
I SAID: In short, Lincoln “freed the slaves” by “enslaving [all] free men.”
YOU SAID: Again, as opposed to whom? Do you really think anyone would have been freer in the Confederacy?
_____
As I said earlier, as opposed to the vision and Constitution of our Founders. What Lincoln’s war produced was a muted, largely hollow, gutted Constitution that Washington revises, ignores or “reinterprets” at their whim — something they largely COULD NOT DO before the WBTS. That’s just ONE reason we need the States to reassert the Tenth Amendment NOW — it’s the only way to RESTORE the Republic.
You ask if I really think anyone in the Confederacy would have been “freer”? We shall never know for a certainty — but I am quite willing and comfortable in saying YES. Yes, indeed!