Replies

X's post was chock full of emotion. Emotion, unfortunately does not hold sway in a court of law. The problem is that both sides thought they were right. I make no claim to the sanctity of southern leaders, what I condemn is the actions of Lincoln. Yes, maybe the South could have done things differently, but so could Lincoln. Instead of suspending the writ of Habeas corpus, and ordering justices and editors jailed, closing newspapers etc, he could have stayed within the Constitution, and denied the South reasons to detest his actions.

X questions whether Bush would attempt to hold the Union together, that firing on the military demands justice and retribution. I simply ask you to look backward over the past 8 years, and see that President X42 allowed attacks to occur without any penalty whatsoever. And if the Confederacy's actions were wrong, and so reprehensible, why then was Davis or Lee, or any of the millions that fought against the Union never tried and convicted for treason?

"They want to see the secessionist leaders as purely good. Therefore, they have to see Lincoln as purely and uniquely evil."

I disagree. I have never held that Lincoln was evil, while holding Davis et al as saints.

"The latter-day Confederates have to have the villain Lincoln to blame for all that has happened since, so they leave out parts of the historical record that don't fit the picture they want to create."

Au contraire, I fully rely on the words of Lincoln himself. He lied repeatedly as to the course of action he would undertake, he countermanded his generals proclamations while executing his own. He attempted to free slaves in a foreign country/seceding states (either way, it was still illegal), while not freeing the slaves in the North.

"[W]e denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as the gravest of crimes."
Abraham Lincoln, 1st Inaugural Address, 4 Mar 1861

Three states retained (explicitly) the right to secede, if they chose to exercise that right. And the other 10 agreed to those terms. Lincoln himself held that the states had a right to secede, and later held that they also had the right to do so by force. The South seceded, and was content to coexist peacefully. The South did not invade the North, nor did it attempt to overthrow the government of the Union.

How many men died in the fighting at Ft. Sumpter? NONE. But due to the actions of Lincoln, about 620,000 men, black and white, Northern and Southern, free and slave died needlessly. Does Lincoln's actions justify those deaths, or does it regulate them to the ash-heap of history, as revisionists would deem fitting? I honor the memory of those that fought for honor, integrity and justice. Regardless of which side they fought for, they deserve more than to be spit upon.

What it boils down to is your view of federalism. And first and foremost to the federalist position is denying the right of secession. What powers are retained by the states in Amendment X? Are they listed or enumerated? No, they are everything that is not granted to the federal government. But if you hold that the federal government is supreme and has unlimited powers, regardless of the Constitution, then Lincoln is your man. Congratulations, you should appreciate the behemouth that we have today.

On the other hand, if you desire freedom from a federal government that robs it's citizens blind, and freedom from a federal government that unconstitutionally and unmercifully denies your rights, if you believe that politicians are accountable to the people, and that the President is not above the Constitution, then the South was right, and Lincoln was not the man for you.

Take your pick.