[DentsRun]

One thing I've never understood is why so many people who grew up in the north (as I did) always thought that Abraham Lincoln was a great president "because he held the union together." It always seemed to me that if a state voluntarily joined the union it ought to be able to voluntarily leave the union too, no questions asked.

I mean, what is the moral justification for keeping the southern states in the union against their will? I asked a teacher that once and she said that Lincoln's successful prosecution of the civil war allowed us to remain a big strong nation rather than two small weak ones. I don't disagree but that's hardly a moral argument. More recently I was arguing with a former friend on the same issue. His answer was that at the time of the American revolution the ability of democracy to survive was not established. So to prove a point, forcing states to stay in a union against their will was justified.

And that brings up my final point. What's so great about democracy in the first place? It's still tyranny of the majority. Might makes right. Domination of the numerous over the few. It's one thing to agree with Winston Churchill that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest. It's another to pretend that all democracies are shining cities on a hill.

[FormerLib]

I believe you've touched on the reason why so much of the current teaching on the Civil War portrays it as only being about slavery. When opposing something such as that, you've already got all of the moral justification that you need. That the explanation is not 100% accurate doesn't trouble most education school grads.

[Aurelius]

I believe I am in 100% agreement with you. As to why people believe what they do. I think Abraham Lincoln has been sanctified and democracy as a form of government made holy in most of the American people's minds. This is a result, I believe, of a deliberate effort. People so-affected, even if they have capacity for analytical thought, don't bring it to bear on these topics. In Lincoln's case I think this apotheosis, as it has been called, was seen as a necessity precisely to try to prevent the people from thinking seriously about the murderous and destructive war that he had brought about. Ignoring civilian deaths it cost the life of roughly one man in every 25. And everything possible had to be done to see that as few people as possible seriously asked themselves the question: was the preservation of the Union worth this, let alone, would it have been right to do it forcibly even if it could have been done with much less loss of life and destruction of property?

[WhiskeyPapa]

I mean, what is the moral justification for keeping the southern states in the union against their will?

"And this issue embraces more than the fact of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man, the question, whether a constitutional republic, or a democracy--a government of the people, by the same people--can or cannot, maintain its territorial integtrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question, whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration, accroding to organic law, in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily, without any pretense, break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: "Is there in all republics, this inherent, and fatal weakness?" "Must a government, of neccessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existance?"

A. Lincoln, 7/4/61

Walt

[RipSawyer]

"And that brings up my final point. What's so great about democracy in the first place? It's still tyranny of the majority. Might makes right. Domination of the numerous over the few. It's one thing to agree with Winston Churchill that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest. It's another to pretend that all democracies are shining cities on a hill."

The main point you have left out is that this nation was founded as a Republic, which is a very different thing than a Democracy. The term Democracy came into use when the first world war was referred to as the war to defend Democracy and since that time language has been corrupted to the point that hardly one person in a hundred knows the difference. A true Democracy is possibly the worst form of government bar none. Note that the pledge of allegiance to the flag has never contained the words "and to the Democracy for which it stands".