Replies

You would also have to admit that part of the problem was with the radical abolitionists as well. And by radical I mean William Lloyd Garrison's denunciation and burning of the Constitution and the terrorist actions of John Brown.

I think Brown's actions pushed more moderate southerners over the edge to the secession camp. I can not see Virginia seceding had it not been for Brown's raid.

I've always thought that from a purely technical sense the Southern secession and American rebellion from Britain to be the same...technically. What I mean is might makes right, it's a revolution if you win and a rebellion if you lose. I think the South's leaders wasted secession for stupid reasons, to please the radical slaveowners.

In fact Lincoln's election was not a takeover of the south as the south held 50% of the Senate's power and controlled the judiciary. The south could have kept slavery going simply by blocking Lincoln and filibustering.

Real blame needs to go to Buchanan for doing nothing in Dec 1861. Had he acted immediately as Andrew Jackson had against South Carolina in the 1830's the crisis could have been averted.

Lincoln also fails horribly in his miscalculation of the upper south's intentions. Seward rebuffed a Virginia peace delegation and ignored warnings in regards to Ft. Sumpter. So with the Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas pullout after Sumpter the CSA doubled in size, manpower and strength.

The real failure of the South's independence movement are threefold...

1) lack of political talent....no Jefferson inspired Declaration, no Franklin diplomacy...squabbling governors and a weak ineffective president (Davis)
2) no foreign recognition....Gladstone's British govt might have been in 1862 had CSS Trent been sank and not seized with diplomats.
3) changing times...the British fail to hold the American interior in 1775-1781 but with rail and engineering technology the Union and hold and seize interior ground away from traditional supply lines.

Since the south failed on these three points we'll have no way of ever knowing if their cause would have reformed, nationalized and ended slavery...(would Lee have been another G.Washington?) much as how the USA prevented anarchy and reigned in its idealistic extremism through the constitution in 1787.

I hold out that it was possible (read Emory Thomas: The Confederate Nation for a scholarly not neo-confed take on this).

While I know I would have found myself opposing him in 1861, I think Lincoln did what he had to in his position, was a poetic writer and personally honorable.

Am I alone thinking it well to honor a Lincoln and a Lee? Well I'm the guy who likes both Jefferson and Hamilton. go figure.

Good analysis. I salute you.

While Lincoln may have misread the upper south's intentions, I think Lincoln saw war as inevitable, but according to his inaugural address, he wasn't going to fire the first shot. He lured the confederates into that at Ft. Sumter.

Am I alone thinking it well to honor a Lincoln and a Lee?

Not at all. I consider Lincoln our greatest president, and Lee as one of the greatest generals, greatest leaders, greatests example of character and honor, greatest Virginian, and one of the greatest Ameicans ever. I find great inspiration in both men.