Replies

GW is holding non-citizens in indefinite detention without charges, not Americans. He has not lied. He has not shown himself to be a hypocrite. He has not started shutting down newspapers. Again, he has not arrested American citizens just to arrest them; charges are being filed against those who are actually citizens. He has not forced people to work for slave labor. Explain to me how there is a correlation at all, as Lincoln did all these evil things.

Let me be honest with you, friend. My first response was not to you but to a reply to your comment in which you called Lincoln a bastard. I was taken aback that anyone would do that. When you came back to me with the charges regarding things that Lincoln did during the time when our country was torn apart, and I commented to you to the effect do you think that Reagan and George W. Bush are bastards also, I was trying to establish whether your position was one of contempt for modern day conservatives as well or just contempt for Lincoln.

Being brutally honest with you and with myself I really cannot debate Lincolns actions during the 1860s, so I'm just going to have to leave it at that. As a result of a number of posts here on this thread (some directed at me, and some not), it is apparent to me that my detailed knowledge of those particular issues you bring up is lacking, and I'll have to chalk this up as a lesson in humility I guess.

I hope this is honest enough for you and any others that have posted to this thread, especially those that have posted directly to me. Thanks to all of you for your input and consideration.

Last, so as to make this a debate in which I might actually learn something meaningful, if anyone can point me to a brief summary of the actual actions Lincoln took that you have described, I would appreciate it.

You were right to be shocked. Lincoln was no saint. He made mistakes. He had to deal with changing circumstances and the public opinion of his day. But calling him a "bastard" would be a bolt out of the blue, if one were a newcomer to FR.

Imagine if the states that voted for Gore decided that they wanted out of the union to form their own country. Imagine that they started firing on US bases, and that there was real uncertainty and fighting in the states where the vote had been close. Would anyone expect that Bush wouldn't fight back? Wouldn't it be a dereliction of duty and a violation of his oath of office if he didn't.

One might suggest that the conflict could be resolved peacefully. Perhaps it should, but once they fire on our army, all bets are off. Maybe Lincoln should have made peace, but the consequences of doing so would have been very bad indeed. Even if one wanted to let the rebel states go, where would you draw the line? How to keep the rest of the country from fragmenting into hostile units? What would one do about the Unionists in the rebellious states? How to tell those who lost relatives in the war that their sacrifices were in vein? I wouldn't have wanted to be alive at that time and faced with the horrors of war and the terrible decisions people had to make, but in retrospect, we are fortunate not to be fragmented into hostile states.

What motivates the hatred of Lincoln today is a utopian passion. Some believe that without Lincoln we would be radically freer today than we are. It's more likely that we'd have different masters.

How someone can argue that "state sovereignty" or "Southern nationalism" equals individual freedom beggars the imagination. Sovereignty is sovereignty, and nationalism is nationalism. The same sort of temptations and dangers of power exist under "state sovereignty" as they do today. One bad consequence of power might be avoided, but another would arise in its place. Such is the nature of power at any level that, if left unchecked, it threatens liberties.

Our Confederate utopians ignore the militarism, centralization, statism, racism, and imperialism of the Confederate leadership. The Confederate leaders too were men of their times, no more immune from the ideas of the day than those they fought against.

With a better political leadership, the South could have kept Lincoln from office or refrained from passing ordinances of secession and used their political influence for peace, or won their independence peacefully. At every stage Southern leaders chose the wrong path, largely under the influence of their arrogance as masters and their desire to preserve slavery.

One could respect them and still see them as they were. Most neo-Confederates don't want to. They want to see the secessionist leaders as purely good. Therefore, they have to see Lincoln as purely and uniquely evil.

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.

Good for you if you want to find out more about the war. Just make sure you consider all sides, before making up your mind.