Anyone else here a Lincoln critic?

[Euclidean]

I think your choice of topics indicates that your true hobby is shitstirring.

Haha.  Hey, I went with this and not the gun related topics at least.

But all that aside, people need to know the truth, that they've been revering a fictional character in American history.

That is true of virtually every revered figure in the history of any country.

That's true, but honestly there is so much undeserved reverence for Lincoln than any other President in the Public's Eye than anyone else, debunking "Honest" Abe is a good place to start.

[Mabs2]

Well, I'm not a expert on the Civil War by any means, but it seemed to me like the government was oppressing rights of the southern (Or all?) states and when the south began fighting back he used the slavery thing as a way to gain favor from the people.  Slavery was just a side issue, from what I can tell.
Is this about right?

[Len Budney]

Assuming that preserving the Union was a good thing and most would agree that it was...

Count me in the minority. I'm indifferent whether the South should have seceded or not, but it was absolutely their right. Forcing them to remain in the Union against their will destroyed the fundamental concept of the United Nations of America. So much so, that people don't even remember that "state" means "nation." Today, it's a synonym for "province."

--Len.

[Euclidean]

It's a bit subject to interpretation.  If you look at some of the texts of the time, you can find statements to the effect of the Confederacy established itself in order to preserve slavery.  Some people have taken that to mean that it was all about slavery.

However I feel if you look at the prevailing economic differences of the time between the economies of the North and South and some of the actual issues (and political tensions), you can put those remarks into context and realize those people were truly trying to preserve their way of life and political ideology, and thought that the government had no business telling them otherwise.  While I cannot condone slavery, the desire to not be subject to tyranny is very sympathetic to me.

And honestly, if you look at it in the context of the times, it's not like the North had anything to be proud of either.  Ever see Gangs of New York?  They had just as much racial discrimination and a huge underclass of laborers who really didn't have rights either.  At least when slaves got too old to work, they were still fed and housed instead of just left on the streets.

Slaves were an economic investment to those people, so the beatings and whatnot that have become our popular conception of slavery in the US were relatively rare (but they did happen!).  I'm not saying it was right or okay or that these people weren't abused and exploited, just that the picture we have of the situation is often skewed because people in general, not just black people, lived very poorly back then.  There were plenty of white people in similar conditions who were only better off because they couldn't be sold or separated from their families, etc.  Granted that's a meaningful improvement to your situation, but their quality of life was comparable.

But I feel import and export policies, economic policies which favored one part of the country over another, and the federal question were what it was really about.  The fact slavery ended was only incidental.  Lincoln was scum but he was a very shrewd man.  He knew the best way to immediately bolster his career and support while squashing his enemies was to free the slaves.  He didn't care about doing it because it was right, he did it because it was good for Lincoln.

I honestly feel if it hadn't happened then, it would have happened sooner than later anyway.  Just as today, the libertarians of Lincoln's time were a small and derided but vocal minority who persisted in their efforts.  The public opinion, the stance of the average person, was slowly shifting more and more that way any how.  If nothing else technology would have made slavery pointless at some point in time, and it would have ended then.  I do feel however that since it happened that way, it set us well ahead all at once.

Honestly though, if I had to pick a side that I was more sympathetic to, it would be the South, and not because I think they were the "good" guys, but because they were doing something that's as American as you can get.  I keep a rebel flag around as a concrete reminder of their devotion to what they believed in, you have to admire that.  I also believe they saw the writing on the wall for what the US government would become.  But if they had won, there's no guarantee things would be any better and in fact they could even be considerably worse.

[Len Budney]

Slavery was just a side issue, from what I can tell. Is this about right?

In the big picture, yes. But it's also worth bearing in mind that there were people in the North and South who thought the war was about slavery. Folks who argue what the war was "really" about are overlooking the reality that war is a mighty confusing business, and ultimately many people don't really know the real reasons for the war. That and the fact that the "real" reasons are themselves complicated.

The Iraq war is a prime example. I supported it, and Bush, until sometime in 2004. I firmly believed that Saddam was a threat, listened daily to right-wingers on the radio like Rush and Jim Quinn, and swallowed the bad intelligence on WMDs. There were other reasons floating around, like the fact that Saddam was just plain a bad man, and that he supported the Palestinians, etc., but none of those would have been enough by themselves without a direct threat to the US, and that was WMDs plus the allegation that Saddam was involved in 9/11. When Bush tried to say, after the fact, that it was never really about WMDs in the first place, it was a kick in the teeth to many conservatives who supported the invasion, but wouldn't have without the WMD and 9/11 arguments. Conservatives who oppose the Iraq war probably wouldn't be so ticked today if Bush hadn't reversed himself so obviously and expected us to be retarded (or Orwellian) enough to swallow it.

So what's the "real" reason for the Iraq invasion? Who the hell knows? It can't be any of the sound-bytes people claim. It wasn't really about WMDs, nor oil, nor terrorism, nor Israel. All of those things probably played a role. We'll probably never know what else was going through Bush's head, though. Does he think he's hastening Armageddon? I thought maybe, back when I thought Bush was in fact an evangelical Christian, but now I have doubts on both points. Is he trying to redeem his father's legacy? I dunno. Is he just overdosed on testosterone? Beats me. His reasons are complex; they aren't the same as Cheney's reasons; and they aren't the same as the reasons they sell publicly.

Same thing with the Civil war, I'd say.

--Len.

[richyoung]

another one is to point out how Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarized on his dissertation

How does that fit in?

Lincoln is famous and revered because he won a big war.  That is how American politics work-you win a big war, you are a hero. 

This also happened to be the war that flatly ended institutional slavery in the entire United States; I believe that would be another reason why Lincoln is so revered.

You can make a lot of policy and character flaws, and still be revered, if you won a big war and ended slavery. 

The war neither ended slavery, nor could it.  A Constitutional ammendmant, passed and approved at a time the South was without any representation, did that.  Read much history?

[Scout26]

That's true, but honestly there is so much undeserved reverence for Lincoln than any other President in the Public's Eye than anyone else

Don't forget JFK.  Getting assassinated is a pretty good move when it comes to earning undesrved reverence.

[De Selby]

another one is to point out how Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarized on his dissertation

How does that fit in?

Lincoln is famous and revered because he won a big war.  That is how American politics work-you win a big war, you are a hero. 

This also happened to be the war that flatly ended institutional slavery in the entire United States; I believe that would be another reason why Lincoln is so revered.

You can make a lot of policy and character flaws, and still be revered, if you won a big war and ended slavery. 

The war neither ended slavery, nor could it.  A Constitutional ammendmant, passed and approved at a time the South was without any representation, did that.  Read much history?

Yes, I have-that constitutional amendment was possible because of the war.  You've got both elements right there in your post-if the war hadn't ended effective (it existed in name) southern representation and imposed Federal rule, the amendment would not have been passed.  So yes, the war most certainly did bring about the end of slavery.

Maybe it would have happened anyway, maybe not.  But there is little serious dispute that the war resulted in the end of slavery (legal slavery, anyway) in the USA.

[richyoung]

So you admit that without this unrepresentative representation, the ammendment would not have passed?  Shouldn't that make it null and void?

[De Selby]

So you admit that without this unrepresentative representation, the ammendment would not have passed?  Shouldn't that make it null and void?

No-it ended slavery.  That's part of the reason why people revere the President who won the war.

[Len Budney]

No-it ended slavery.  That's part of the reason why people revere the President who won the war.

Nuking all the slave states would have ended it too. As would lynching every last slave. If what you say is true, it's an especially retarded example of the end justifying the means.

--Len.

[Euclidean]

That is an interesting facet of it.  While I actually think the 14th Amendment in particular was a good idea, it might have never come about if not for the events of the Civil War.  I do know that Lincoln used his clout and popularity to shove the 13th Amendment through a lame duck US Congress.

The fact that the Confederate states had to ratify those amendments in order to repatriate after the war was a sneaky way to make sure that they couldn't be challenged later.

But the 16th Amendment is even more suspect than either of them, and it's still here to stay.  It's not right, but as courts have ruled you can't challenge an amendment based on the fact it wasn't legally ratified, there's no recourse until we repeal the amendment in question.

[De Selby]

No-it ended slavery.  That's part of the reason why people revere the President who won the war.

Nuking all the slave states would have ended it too. As would lynching every last slave. If what you say is true, it's an especially retarded example of the end justifying the means.

--Len.

I sypmathize with your analysis-you're right to point out that ends-to-means is what it is, but it is nonetheless true of American politics that this sort of thinking reigns.  Look at all the celebration and memorial threads for the guy who dropped the first atomic weapon in Japan.  

What I am saying is that Lincoln doesn't get the war criminal treatment because he won the war, and he ended slavery.  Ending slavery is no doubt a good thing-and I support continued observance of the 13th amendment, which is what I was voicing in that last post.

I do not support revering war criminals or using the double standard of "if we do it, it's good, because we're right, and if they do it, it's evil".  Unfortunately, this type of thinking is a rule in American politics, and that is why Lincoln has such great historical stature.  And if you try to argue that with most people, outside of the places victimized most by the war, you will find yourself talking to a solid wall of denial---"But but, we were fighting for freedom!" (which was true) and "they did x y and z to their people!" (also true).  

[Euclidean]

And if you try to argue that with most people, outside of the places victimized most by the war, you will find yourself talking to a solid wall of denial---"But but, we were fighting for freedom!" (which was true) and "they did x y and z to their people!" (also true).

Ah but I can turn right around and use the same argument in support of the other side, FWIW.

[Len Budney]

Ah but I can turn right around and use the same argument in support of the other side, FWIW.

Sounds like all three of us are on the same page. Shootinstudent is only pointing out what people will say, without endorsing it. You and I are each pointing out what it's nonsense on stilts.

--Len.

[De Selby]

And if you try to argue that with most people, outside of the places victimized most by the war, you will find yourself talking to a solid wall of denial---"But but, we were fighting for freedom!" (which was true) and "they did x y and z to their people!" (also true).

Ah but I can turn right around and use the same argument in support of the other side, FWIW.

That's exactly what I'm agreeing with-the problem is that this obvious fact is worthless in terms of American politics.  As long as the we are winning, it doesn't matter what "we" do, because we're right and they're not.  Understanding that is the key to understanding why Lincoln is so important, and why any attempt to shoot down his reputation will fall on deaf ears.  

[Perd Hapley]

Lincoln's completely inconsistent and non comittal attitude towards ending slavery and racist beliefs 

I don't know how you're going to approach this, but I hope you won't confuse the issues.  People had plenty of reasons for opposing slavery that had nothing to do with racial equality or caring about Black people.  Even if one is concerned about the welfare of Blacks or slaves, that doesn't imply a belief in racial equality.  A racist person might wish the "lower races" to be happy and comfortable, just as he might wish the same for his dog.  Indeed, even many Northern Abolitionists were quite racist.  This doesn't make them hypocrites; it just means they were nicer than the other racists. 

Villify Lincoln and prepare to be called a racist.  Libs find that to be thier easiest defense against reason or truth. 

I don't think so.  Pointing out the skeletons in the closets of our national heroes is a popular past-time on the political left.  Lincoln's racism is no secret.  If this is being presented in a college course, many will have heard of it in their history courses. 

Slavery was just a side issue, from what I can tell.

Slavery was not the ONLY issue.  I won't even say it was the most important issue, although that case could be made.  But it was certainly not a side issue, no matter how cynical Lincoln might have been.  If you read the primary sources, slavery was one of the most important political issues of the pre-war era.  On BOTH sides of the Mason-Dixon Line.  Skim through the Lincoln-Douglas debates some time. 

[Len Budney]

If you read the primary sources, slavery was one of the most important political issues of the pre-war era.  On BOTH sides of the Mason-Dixon Line.  Skim through the Lincoln-Douglas debates some time. 

Absolutely! In fact Lincoln was big in favor of the Missouri compromise, arguing in one speech that slavery takes jobs away from white folks. (Reminiscent of arguments against Mexicans today, but I digress...) He also shared a common Northern complaint about the 3/5ths rule, because it gave slave states extra congressmen.

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

Thanks, Len.  The last time I said things like that, I was brow-beaten for thinking the war was all about slavery.  Uh-oh, I hear CAnnoneer coming this way.  My brow is starting to ache.   

[CAnnoneer]

I was brow-beaten for thinking the war was all about slavery...  My brow is starting to ache.   

Good. You deserved it both then and now.

[Len Budney]

I was brow-beaten for thinking the war was all about slavery...  My brow is starting to ache.   

Good. You deserved it both then and now.

Bah. He didn't say it was all about slavery. It's good to put that myth to bed, but not at the expense of promoting new myths, like one that slavery had nothing to do with it.

--Len.

[Hugh Damright]

I don't think that this false view of Lincoln stands alone, I think it is part of a much larger false view, a false view of the Constitution and of the Bible ... I'm reminded of South Carolina's Declaration of Secession:

"all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief."

Once a people have created a false view of government and false religious beliefs, I reckon it only makes sense that they would create a false figure to represent a political leader and a spiritual leader.

[Kyle]

Just thought I'd mention

The political activism group on campus who I am a leader of has plans to;

Hold an essay contest to give out a John Wilkes Booth Memorial scholarship- only white males will be considered.

And, to make shirts that have the name of our organization on the front and on the back "Don't blame me, I voted for Breckinridge!"

[Perd Hapley]

"Don't blame me, I voted for Breckinridge!"

  

[richyoung]

One way that slavery WAS a causus belli is the failure of non-slave states to abide by the Constitution.  By law, they were obligated to return escaped slaves, just as the South was obligated to return escaped indentured servants to the North.  What was actually happening is that the North not only failed to return escaped slaves, but actually aided and abetted the whole process - "underground railroad", etc.   To the Sotuh, that menat that the Constitution was already dissolved, due to failure of some of the parties involved (states) to conform to its demands.