Replies

What unites the right-wing and left-wing attacks on Lincoln, of course, is that they deny that Lincoln respected the law and that he was concerned with the welfare of all. The right-wing school -- made up largely of Southerners and some libertarians -- holds that Lincoln was a self-serving tyrant who rode roughshod over civil liberties, such as the right to habeas corpus. Lincoln is also accused of greatly expanding the size of the federal government. Some libertarians even charge -- and this is not intended as a compliment -- that Lincoln was the true founder of the welfare state. His right-wing critics say that despite his show of humility, Lincoln was a megalomaniacal man who was willing to destroy half the country to serve his Caesarian ambitions.

Well, I agree that he ran roughshod over civil liberties, expanded the government, bent the Constitution, encroached on areas that were not the purview of the Federal government. He was a revolutionary. But I cannot ascribe to him the meanness of purpose that most of his critics attempt to paste on him today. In this, I believe that his character can withstand the assaults, at least to those of reasonable mind. The Southern-partisan criticism of Lincoln started as a device to point out the ridiculousness of the modern Northern purist tactic of judging Confederate leaders by modern politically correct standards by applying those standards to Lincoln. A bit of a joke and turning the tables to point out that the tactic itself was nonsense. Unfortunately, the less wise amongst pro-Southern folks starting believing their own joke. So now we have pro-Southerners ignorantly judging Lincoln by modern politically correct standards and Northern purists (and potstirrers) judging Confederates by modern politically correct standards....and all thinking they are brilliant. Both sides now have so much invested in the tactic that they no longer care to think about it rationally. In fact, these historical figures should be judged within the context of their own times and the moral frameworks within which they were formed and operated. There is much to admire about Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, there is much to admire about Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. All of them are merit criticism of varying sorts. But this business of judging them as politically incorrect monsters depending on your affiliation is not rational.

I agree to a point, but it's not quite as evenly split as you seem to be saying. (If I'm wrong there I apologize for misinterpreting your excellent post.) It's not as if everyone in Lincoln's time thought slavery was just fine and that one had to be a radical to hold the view similar to the current one. Slavery was not an acceptable establishment to many, or even most--including many southerners. So it's not as if by saying slavery was an evil that should be abolished in the nineteenth century one is being a revisionist, when in fact many believed that at the time. It's those who say the war was not about slavery who are doing the revizin'.