Replies

Well, it's either about slavery or it's not.

Didn't you just say a few posts ago that Lincoln's (and the Union's) purpose was not to get rid of slavery, but to preserve the Union?

I appreciate your civil efforts to reconcile the justness of the two conflicts, but I'm not seeing that we're getting anywhere. It seems to me that you've now come back to the "we really don't like what you're doing" argument, which rather seems to trump the concept self-government, eh? I think it comes back to my original post: the two can only be reconciled if you just take a deep breath and admit that might makes right.

The original purpose of Lincoln and most Unionists was to preserve the Union. By a couple of years into the war this had changed, and the abolition of slavery had become a non-negotiable war aim for almost all Unionists.

Throughout the war, for all except a very few far-seeing southerners, notably including R.E. Lee, the protection of slavery was a non-negotiable war aim. Just weeks before Richmond fell the Confederate Congress was still balking at emancipation even of Confederate black soldiers .

As far as "might makes right" goes, how about this: Those who choose to pick up the sword to settle political isues may regret it. Christ said that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Might does not always make right, but neither is the winner in war always in the wrong.

On what basis other than "might makes right" can slavery possibly be justified?