[bigunreal]

On the contrary, I spent decades reading the "other side"; i.e., the mainstream view of Lincoln and the Civil War. Until a few years ago, Lincoln was one of my favorite historical figures; a genuine personal hero of mine. The problem anyone faces, in today's hyper-p.c. climate, is that opposing Lincoln, or defending the southern states' right to secede, is synonymous to most people with supporting slavery.

I shouldn't have to state the obvious, but I am not now, nor have I ever been, a supporter of slavery. I do now, however, see the events of 1861-1865 in an entirely different perspective. I think Lincoln was wrong, morally and constitutionally, in almost every position he took during his term of office. I think the Confederates had every right to secede; we fought for our independence for the exact same principle (right of self-government; consent of the governed).

I think the historical record, and not just wishful political party thinking, reveals that Lincoln was the first "big government" president. He certainly enhanced the imperial powers of the oval office, and presidents such as Wilson, FDR, Johnson and Clinton benefited greatly from the precedents he set. A conservative who expressed admiration for Lincoln could only do so out of historical ignorance.

Lincoln left us many lofty phrases. The problem is that his actions were not quite as poetic and stirring. I've read your posts on this subject, and know this is an area of specialty for you. You state your position well, but I think you're competely wrong. I don't think we're going to change each other's views. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Non-Sequitur]

I think the historical record, and not just wishful political party thinking, reveals that Lincoln was the first "big government" president.

Y'all keep calling him that but Lincoln never interjected the government into society the way Jefferson Davis did. Would you call him the "bigger government" president?

He certainly enhanced the imperial powers of the oval office, and presidents such as Wilson, FDR, Johnson and Clinton benefited greatly from the precedents he set

How, exactly, did he do that? What precedents are you speaking of?

[WhiskeyPapa]

I think the historical record, and not just wishful political party thinking, reveals that Lincoln was the first "big government" president.

He was the first president forced to use the power in the Constitution, that's all.

There is very little difference between what Washington, Madison, Jackson and Lincoln thought about the nature of the Union.

"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdrasw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a state, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst. (sic) their bretheren of other States, not to expose them, to the dangers of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtrude it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them!"

-- James Madison

The secessionists were dishonorable bums.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

I shouldn't have to state the obvious, but I am not now, nor have I ever been, a supporter of slavery.

I never feel that I have to make that statement.

The war came because the slave power feared the government was not and would not in the future help them enough in getting their bread from the sweat of other men's faces. Take that for a starting point.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

On the contrary, I spent decades reading the "other side"; i.e., the mainstream view of Lincoln and the Civil War. Until a few years ago, Lincoln was one of my favorite historical figures; a genuine personal hero of mine. The problem anyone faces, in today's hyper-p.c. climate, is that opposing Lincoln, or defending the southern states' right to secede, is synonymous to most people with supporting slavery.

As Lincoln was a lifelong opponent of slavery, that would be a reasonable supposition.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Lincoln left us many lofty phrases. The problem is that his actions were not quite as poetic and stirring.

But they were. Shortly after he was asked in August, 1864 to step aside as the 1864 Republican nominee for president, this happened:

"He said, according to Donald, "But now, if he followed their advice, he would have to do without the help of nearly 200,000 black men in the service of the Union. In that case 'we would be compelled to abandon the war in 3 weeks.' Practical considerations aside, there was the moral issue. How could anybody propose 'to return to slavery the black warriors of Port Hudson and Olustee to their masters to conciliate the South?' "I should be damned in time and eternity for so doing,' he told his visitors (Gov. Randall, and Judge Mills, both from Wisconsin). "The world will know that I keep my faith to friends and enemies, come what will.'"

Lincoln would be hero if he'd never done anything else.

And what about this:

"But there were limits to what Lincoln would do to secure a second term.

He did not even consider canceling or postponing the election. Even had that been constitutionally possible, "the election was a necessity." "We can not have free government without elections," he explained; "and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us." He did not postpone the September draft call, even though Republican politicians from all across the North entreated him to do so. Because Indiana failed to permit its soldiers to vote in the field, he was entirely willing to furlough Sherman's regiments so that they could go home and vote in the October state elections -but he made a point of telling Sherman, "They need not remain for the Presidential election, but may return to you at once."

Though it was clear that the election was going to be a very close one, Lincoln did not try to increase the Republican electoral vote by rushing the admission of new states like Colorado and Nebraska, both of which would surely have voted for his reelection. On October 31, in accordance with an act of Congress, he did proclaim Nevada a state, but he showed little interest in the legislation admitting the new state. Despite the suspicion of both Democrats and Radicals, he made no effort to force the readmission of Louisiana, Tennessee, and other Southern states, partially reconstructed but still under military control, so that they could cast their electoral votes for him. He reminded a delegation from Tennessee that it was the Congress, not the Chief Executive, that had the power to decide whether a state's electoral votes were to be counted and announced firmly, “Except it be to give protection against violence, I decline to interfere in any way with the presidential election.”

"Lincoln", pp. 539-40 by David H. Donald

Lincoln was a great and good man -- he is the perfect American hero -- especially today.

I don't know how you missed it. Walt