Posted on 11/22/2001 6:21:25 AM PST by rebel
Nathan Bedford Forrest
|
November 19, 1863 Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
|
||
| It is Thursday afternoon on a cold and overcast day as Mr. Abraham Lincoln rises to deliver a short speech which will later be called "The Gettysburg Address". A large crowd has gathered to witness the dedication of a cemetery in lower Pennsylvania near Gettysburg. It is an impressive occasion with several dignitaries from Washington D.C. including the President of the United States of American (US). The cemetery is a new one created for the soldiers of the U.S. who died in a great and momentous battle here last July. The U.S. is at war with the Confederate States of America (CSA). They had previously been united in a union with the states of the CSA, but when that union proved to be disadvantageous to the rights and well fare of the people in certain Southern states they instructed their state governments to secede from it and to form another. This new union became the CSA. Mr. Lincoln, the president of the old union fearing the loss of revenue due to the loss of these former members plunged the Southeastern North American continent into the bloodiest war in history in an effort to force these former states back into the old union. The main speaker is a famous orator and prominent politician from Massachusetts by the name of Edward Everett. Mr. Everett has spoken for two hours and enjoyed a thunderous applause. Mr. Lincoln is not on the program as a speaker, but is invited to say a few words because he is the president of the U.S. Lincoln has jotted down a few words on the train ride to this small town in case he is asked to speak. He will speak for a very few minutes and utter 300 words in all. There will be a faint applause as he returns to his seat yet his speech will be preserved with reverence for generations and be elevated to the status of holy scripture. This short speech will be filled with lies and strange logic. The New York World will speak of "Lincoln's gross ignorance" when discussing the address. The Chicago Times (a paper which Lincoln will later close) will call it a perversion of history, and other newspapers will refer to it as "the silly remarks of the President". Lincoln will make several historical errors which will later become "gospel" in the government schools of the US in less than 50 years. The “address” will express Lincoln’s political thought and redefine the cause of the War. It will become one of the most potent examples of propaganda for the promotion of an egalitarian socialist global empire ever devised. Some of its errors will be, . . . 1. He will date the forming of the United States government from the Declaration of Independence in 1776 instead of the Constitution of 1787. He will also try to make the "declaration" the philosophical foundation for the government, instead of the Constitution. 2. He will call the war a "civil war" instead of a war of independence. 3. He will call the war a struggle for the US existence. However the U.S. would not cease to exist when the South won independence any more than great Briton ceased to exist when the 13 colonies won independence. The U.S. was not in danger of dying. It was the CSA that was in danger of dying and was fighting for it existence. 4. He will say that this war is for the preservation of "government of the people", while denying the authority of the "government of the people" to the South 5. The overall teaching of his speech will be that Union soldiers died at the Battle of Gettysburg for the cause of self determination, when actually the Union soldiers fought against self determination of the people of the CSA. Jim Schoolfield |
So you had your confederate butt kicked by a mad man?
Yes slavery did exist, but it existed on both sides. Abolitionists were limited to Boston plutocrats, whose fortunes were probably founded in part on the slave trade, German anababtists, and Quakers. The abolitionist fire-brands reigned a steady stream of condemnation from their pulpits, but provided no feasible alternative to the practice, or realistic transfer of the cash-poor, seasonal economy of the South to the wage system of the industrialized north. And oh yes, the factories of the North, manned by subsistence wage-earners, do not appear substantially superior to the conditions of the African slaves, especially when you consider that agriculltural work was regulated by a growing season.
It's to Lincoln's credit that he did understand those difficulties and attempted to put some in practice; the firebrands undermined him.
Claiming the war was about slavery perpetuates a lie, and demonizes a hell of a lot of good-- I mean very good-- people. Libeling the south does not make the north look any better. But the main problem is that it overlooks the certain result of chopping this nation apart in the face of Europe's imperial ambitions.
I would have said,"Well, the declaration says that the legtimacy of government comes from the consent of the governed and the vast majority of the south no longer consents to this union. So they have the right to "institute new government" that suits them better. If they think they can do it let them have a go. I recognize the acts of secession and wish you success. We will stand ready to aid in any way we can and look forward to the future. Sincerely, Ole Abe"
This is an interesting take on it all. The only problem is, as I see it, Lincoln thought it was his duty to preserve the Union. It fact, I think he had a vision that went beyond the Union as it existed prior to the attack on Fort Sumpter. For example, Lincoln thought a situation with California sitting three thousand miles away could not long continue without a better form of communication and exchange (i.e. railroads) being constructed.
No part of his vision called for the eleven seceded states existing as a separate country. This is an historical fact. As an aside, I have always sympathized with the attitudes of southerners in those days, at least with some southerners and to some extent. The great people of that era did what they did with the clear understanding that they were in the right. They gave it their all. Some won and some lost. We spend untold amounts of time second guessing that.
I prefer the attitudes of such giants as R. E. Lee or Joe Johnston. Theirs seemed to be that after giving 110% and finding it wasn't enough, the best thing is to try and pick up the pieces. James Longstreet thought losing was an abomination, but the Northerners weren't his enemy. The fact is, U.S. Grant may have been Longstreet's closest friend. None of these people could see the sense to fighting the war for another 136 years.
I guess in our society, Southerners (at heart) are supposed to depise Lincoln and Northerners (at heart) are supposed to despise Jefferson Davis. (Actually, Lee has to be despised by Northerners as a substitute pariah because most people these days don't know who Davis was.) I can't work up that kind of vitriol. I think Lincoln did what her had to do as he saw his duty. I have always found Davis to be an incredibly rock-willed and strong character.
Those that thought the preservation of the nation wasn't worth either the death or the attack on "rights" didn't win the election in 1860 or 1864. If they had, if McClellan had beat Lincoln in 1864, those that disagreed with Lincoln's vision may have had their way.
I always think those of us who like or dislike some historical figure really have an argument with fellow citizens of today. For myself, if there can be some way to preserve what I consider to be the "American" culture, then I think the preservation of the union is a worth while goal. Under those circumstances, for roughly 100 years after his death, I would argue that Lincoln was proved right.
If our "culture" can't be preserved, then I guess the dissolution of the Union is in order.
I have never thought the problem was "Lincoln." I don't think he could behave any different than he did. I have always thought the problem was and is that every time some rights are surrendered in any "emergency," you never get them all back after the "emergency" is over. We have had at least 3 or 4 emergencies since 1860. It's the loss of rights that are never recovered that make the current assault on the continuation of our "culture."
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.