The people of the South should have abolished slavery.
Lincoln did NOT start the Civil War or fight the Civil War for the purpose of abolishing slavery. He fought the Civil War to suppress the right of secession, which is a natural right whose existence is affirmed in the Declaration.
So, Arthur, just so I finally get it into my thick skull: it would was wrong for Lincoln to attempt to avoid a Civil War, thinking that if we just contained slavery, instead of allowing slavery into the territories, we would eventually find a way to peacefully end it? Because he didn’t, on day 1, issue the Emancipation Proclamation and commence an all-out war, he’s morally repugnant?
And, Henry Clay he must be in the category of morally repugnant since he too advocated a peaceful resolution of the thorny issue of slavery, seeking compromise, thinking that eventually we would obtain a peaceful resolution. It’s either embrace war or embrace slavery. And, Britain. If slavery was wrong and needed to be abolished, it was wrong to offer compensation to slave-owners?
And, Ronald Reagan, believing that a strong U.S., with a vibrant economy, would so outpace communism that they could never keep up with us and would collapse if they tried to do so. If communism was a bad thing, we should have made war against it. On the other hand, you must really admire George W. Bush. Didn’t Bush show us how is the way to deal with evil?
Lincoln didn’t start the Civil War at all. South Carolina did. At that time, Lincoln offered the command of Union forces to General Lee, thinking this would contain the rebellion to the states of the deep south. But, Lee declined, considering himself more a Virginian than an American. Yet, Lee’s acceptance of the commission might have kept Virginia in the Union.
Even when Virginia and other border states joined with the confederacy, Lincoln laid out the possibility of restoring the status quo antebellum. (This did not sit well with the abolitionists of the North.) But, as the war demanded the sacrifices that it deed, merely maintaining the union and trusting that eventually there would be a peaceful resolution of slavery was no longer sufficient.
It was after the tide had swung that the South send emissaries to Lincoln to a truce and the restoration of the status quo antebellum. So, your heroes showed that they, like Lincoln, were wishy-washy and morally repugnant. Men of expediency. Not men of principle. But, it was too late for any restoration of the status quo antebellum.
BTW If the South had ended slavery, not only would Lincoln have been unable to sustain a war effort, it [the South] might have been supported by Britain, France and other members of the Holy Alliance. They had their reasons to fear a unified U.S. stretching from coast to coast, but were repulsed by slavery. That the Confederacy didn’t free the slaves reveals their purpose.