Tide Fans Opinions about Abraham Lincoln

[Bama Reb]

You seem to be suggesting that the 78% of the confederacy who were not slaveholders were wronged by the union forces. If that is not what you mean, please clarify.

Ahem... 100-28=72.

But carry on....

 

[Tidewater]

You seem to be suggesting that the 78% of the confederacy who were not slaveholders were wronged by the union forces. If that is not what you mean, please clarify.

Yes (well, actually the 72% that were not slaveholders) were victims of Federal policy by having their elected state governments overthrown and replaced by appointed military governments, and, in many case, by having their homes and livestock destroyed, and in many cases having their sons, brothers, fathers killed or maimed.
Assuming the "it was all about slavery alone" interpretation is correct, these families were not guilty of the crime, yet they suffered the punishment. Hence the broad brush comment.

You then wrote, "Unless all of the confederate forces came from that 28%, this distinction seems to be more than just a little specious." A comment I find difficult to understand.

 

[jthomas666]

Yes (well, actually the 72% that were not slaveholders) were victims of Federal policy by having their elected state governments overthrown and replaced by appointed military governments, and, in many case, by having their homes and livestock destroyed, and in many cases having their sons, brothers, fathers killed or maimed.
Assuming the "it was all about slavery alone" interpretation is correct, these families were not guilty of the crime, yet they suffered the punishment. Hence the broad brush comment.

You then wrote, "Unless all of the confederate forces came from that 28%, this distinction seems to be more than just a little specious." A comment I find difficult to understand.

Perhaps the problem is that you are framing the issue poorly. The ravages of war occurred not as a direct result of slaveowning, but as a result of rebelling against the federal govt. Members of the confederacy who were not slaveowners participated in the rebellion; hence, your distinction seems specious. And your point regarding forced conscription is noted, but again, unless every non-slaveowner confederate combatant was an unwilling conscript, does that really matter in any respect other than the simple fact that war is hell?

Regarding the initial Lincoln question--I don't think anyone has ever denied that Lincoln violated constitutional rights in waging the civil war--there's no question that he suspended habeas corpus. What I find bizarre is the contention expressed by some in this thread that Lincoln's transgression somehow destroyed the perfection of the constitution, or the ideals that it embodies. The Constitution, like the nation, is a product of man, and therefor by nature flawed.

btw, sorry about the math goof. You spend a day deciphering programming notes, you get a little punchy.

 

[Tidewater]

Perhaps the problem is that you are framing the issue poorly. The ravages of war occurred not as a direct result of slaveowning, but as a result of rebelling against the federal govt. Members of the confederacy who were not slaveowners participated in the rebellion; hence, your distinction seems specious. And your point regarding forced conscription is noted, but again, unless every non-slaveowner confederate combatant was an unwilling conscript, does that really matter in any respect other than the simple fact that war is hell?

Regarding the initial Lincoln question--I don't think anyone has ever denied that Lincoln violated constitutional rights in waging the civil war--there's no question that he suspended habeas corpus. What I find bizarre is the contention expressed by some in this thread that Lincoln's transgression somehow destroyed the perfection of the constitution, or the ideals that it embodies. The Constitution, like the nation, is a product of man, and therefor by nature flawed.

btw, sorry about the math goof. You spend a day deciphering programming notes, you get a little punchy.

Okay, now I understand what you were saying.
No, I don't think what President Lincoln did "destroyed" the Constitution. He did violate it, and with impunity. And, now, when Presidents decide to implement dodgy policies (like warrantless wire taps to cite a recent example), they cite President Lincoln's example as justification, as if citing Lincoln excuses all misdeeds.
As for the point of my post (the broad brush comment), civilians who participated in no way in the fighting also had their homes destroyed, in some cases were killed themselves, and in all cases had their elected governments overthrown and replaced by appointed military governments (despite the Constitution's guarantees of a republican form of government). And yes, this was a result of being in a war, and war is, well, unpleasant, but if President Lincoln had done to ethical and constitutional thing and let the disgruntled states go in peace, as they tried to do, the war would not have happened at all, nor would the death and damage caused by it. And the death and damage was foreseeable when he undertook actions he believed would lead to war.
I don't think Lincoln was satan himself, but, in assessing the man's legacy, it is important to consider the bad with the good, and not simply engage in uncritical hero worship that denies any wrongs he committed (not saying you are one of the hero-worshippers).

 

[Tidewater]

It's just a simple fact; Lincoln saved the Union. You can argue about whether that is a good thing or not, but frankly anyone who says the world and the United States are not better off because of how the war turned out has no credibility with me. I love the South, and I would have fought for the Confederacy, but facts are facts.

Here is something else to consider.
The subsequent history of the US and the South is not exactly uniformly positive. In fact, the next century of race relations was given a certain impetus in a not so favorable direction by the events of the war and Reconstruction. White southern anger at the war and Federal policies during Reconstruction was eventually vented on southern black people, who suffered terribly as a result for a century.
If the President had not gone to war to prevent the withdrawal of the Deep South, that subsequent history might have been different, and the outcome might have been much more favorable.
This is not just me musing, people at the time wrote about this.
In August 1860, one southern newspaper editor wrote this [The Republicans] "have taught the Northern people that the Federal Government have no limitations but the will of a majority in Congress; and consequently, that that majority is responsible for the continuance of slavery. [The North will continue to] regard us as sinners and itself as responsible for our sins, and therefore charged with the holy mission of desolating our homes with fire and sword."
So secession of the slave states (or a portion of them), would help remove the sense of responsibility some northerners felt, and thus, the reason for the moral denunciations, violent antislavery attacks and meddling southerners resented so much. It is not inconceivable that, absent this outside interference, southerners would have done what other states did about slavery, gradual emancipation of slaves born after a certain date (this is what Cuba did in the 1880s). In time, the seceded states might have realized that the cause which had led to the separation was no longer in existence, and have sought to return to the fold, but in this case, without all the racial rancor that actual events brought about.

 

[jthomas666]

Okay, now I understand what you were saying.
No, I don't think what President Lincoln did "destroyed" the Constitution. He did violate it, and with impunity. And, now, when Presidents decide to implement dodgy policies (like warrantless wire taps to cite a recent example), they cite President Lincoln's example as justification, as if citing Lincoln excuses all misdeeds.
As for the point of my post (the broad brush comment), civilians who participated in no way in the fighting also had their homes destroyed, in some cases were killed themselves, and in all cases had their elected governments overthrown and replaced by appointed military governments (despite the Constitution's guarantees of a republican form of government). And yes, this was a result of being in a war, and war is, well, unpleasant, but if President Lincoln had done to ethical and constitutional thing and let the disgruntled states go in peace, as they tried to do, the war would not have happened at all, nor would the death and damage caused by it. And the death and damage was foreseeable when he undertook actions he believed would lead to war.
I don't think Lincoln was satan himself, but, in assessing the man's legacy, it is important to consider the bad with the good, and not simply engage in uncritical hero worship that denies any wrongs he committed (not saying you are one of the hero-worshippers).

fair enough.