http://carnageandculture.blogspot.com/2007/02/clyde-wilson-lincoln-fable-part-iii.html
According to Just War Theory, which in general rests upon assumptions that war should not be a tool of politics but be defensive action, damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain, and all other means of response must be shown to be inadequate. Does the surrender of Fort Sumter justify Lincoln’s call for troops to invade the South under this perspective? When vast opportunities for negotiation and peaceful settlement were available and underway and had the support of large numbers of influential citizens in every part of the country? Just War theory requires that war not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be fought and have a reasonable prospect of success. Does the vast destruction of life and property and constitutional freedoms justify Lincoln’s war under this view? The prospects for success? Success was acheived only by a previously inconceivable vastness of mobilization, casualties, and debt, and, even so, was long in doubt. Let’s not even mention Lincoln’s violations of Just War theory in systematically terrorizing the noncombatant population of the South.
And then, we have the Great Emancipator. He took a raft trip down to New Orleans as a young man and had his eyes opened to slavery, which he vowed to strike against. There is no evidence for this Road-to-Damascus experience. What we do know is that Lincoln shared in the property of his wife’s slaveholding family and on at least two occasions was counsel for slaveholders seeking return of runaways. It seems clear that he used the N-word all his life and that he was a white supremacist like all other Midwesterners of the time (and later). The only options he offered to emancipated blacks were to be sent out of the country or to “root hog or die,” in any case to stay out of the North. In answer to these facts, the apologists have imagined a Lincoln who wanted racial equality but had to adjust his public words in order to advance a recalcitrant people as far as they were able along the path of righteousness. Or else, we are told, he mysteriously “evolved” into an egalitarian, perhaps using the same magic by which the Supreme Court “evolves” the Constitution................
Hey ohioan, here’s your opportunity to impress us with your intellectual consistency.
Read through these posts - at 26 it’s not that taxing - and then share with NKP_Vet the same concerns about slandering other people’s heroes, by indulging in nasty banter, and distracting others from the campaign to replace Obama.
Do you condemn or condone NKP_Vets statements that Lincoln was just another white supremacist? That he was simply a lying, two-bit railroad lawyer? that he holds primary responsibility for 750K American lives? That he conducted “mass genocide” on the south?
Do you agree with the following statement: “The only thing tragic about his assassination, is that it did not occur four and half years and 750,000 deaths sooner.”
Bonus point: Are these comments less egregious than being happy that lee is dead; equal in egregiousness to being happy that lee is dead; or more egregious than being happy that lee is dead?
Thanks