Replies

The real problem is that Lincoln's status as an icon has been built up by a partial falsification and distortion of the historical record by cadre of neo-Marxist historians who worshipped his egalitarian persona rather than his actual accomplishments.

History is written by the victors. There's not much more to it than that. Jefferson Davis was among the first to attempt to re-write history and sanitize the south's position. Naturally he attempted to suppress the slavery aspect and trumpet the state's rights basis. In the process he had to essentially deny reality of what had been written in all the ordinances of secession, and all the preceeding history of slave/free state maneuvering for power.

In the end, though, the south didn't have a legal case, didn't have a moral case, and didn't have the military might to sustain their confederation of slave owning states. The war ended rightly, with the defeat of slavery and the slave holders.

"History is written by the victors...."

In the short term that is true but after 100 years or so it becomes easier to get closer to the truth after the sectarian passions have abated. We don't now evaluate Napoleon based exclusively upon Wellington's memoirs nor should we. Any historian should avail themselves of materials from "the other side of the hill" as they become available.

"In the end, though, the south didn't have a legal case, didn't have a moral case, and didn't have the military might to sustain their confederation of slave owning states...."

The North's superior industrial base and raw numbers eventually did the South in but as to the legal and moral case it depends, as they say, on whose ox is being gored.

The North's legal case is astonishingly thin being based on the then novel legal theory of a pre-existing Union creating sovereign states. It is important to remember that in 1860 Slavery was not illegal and state right of secssion was the more well established legal principle. I think it is very informative that Nothern authorities refused to allow Jefferson Davis to defend himself based upon the theory of the sovereign State's right to secede after the war. If Davis had been given his day in court before a reasonably impartial magistrate I think he might have won.

The moral case is more complicated. Is Lincoln's repeated infringement of Constutional liberties (suspension of habeus corpus, summary imprisonment of political critics, supression of critical press outlets, the ordering of attacks against unarmed civilian populations) justified by by the eradication of the evil of Slavery? I would say not simply because the peaceful alternatives such as compensated emmancipation had not even been attempted before the onset of the War.

The progessivist, neo-marxist fog is starting to disapate around Lincoln's wartime conduct and it is not a pretty picture.