Were Lincoln and FDR REALLY that bad?

Status
Not open for further replies.

priv8ter

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,003
Location
Poulsbo, Wa
Now, growing up in the North in the 80's, I was taught that the American Civil War was fought over slavery. And Abe Lincoln was the good guy, who held the Union together through sheer will-power.

But, now 20 years later, I see that he is not so universally loved.

I guess I always knew that he wasn't loved by all, but I thought it was folks who lived down-south, who couldn't accept that they lost a war 150 years ago that hated him.

But, as I get more invovled in the politcal side of gun ownership, and other individual rights, I no longer see Lincoln as an out-and-out hero. I can concede that to win the Civil War, he made the Federal Government stronger than I believe the Founding Fathers wanted it to be. He paved the way for some of the things that FDR later made worse.

And...in these same history books, there was nothing but praise heaped on FDR, for dragging us out the Great Depression, and then getting us through WWII victouriously. Nothing was mentioned about him fostering the 'Nanny State' we now have.

That being said...

Don't you folks think the world is probably a better place for the decisions these two gentleman made? During a recent post about the worst presidents, I saw these two names come up again and again.

I just think that given the world situation at the time, that they went the only way they could. I can't think of any man(that I would want) sitting in the Oval Office that would have let the Union fall apart back in the 1860's. As for FDR
s efforts to get us out of the Depression...it's too bad the things he did didn't have a built in Sunset like the AWB, and the Patriot Act.

greg
 
Last edited:
Don't you folks think the world is probably a better place for the decisions these two gentleman made?


No, I don't. America would have been much better off without both of them.


I came from a similar background to yours - raised on "Abe was a GREAT and WONDERFUL man who abolished slavery!!" And similar tripe about FDR. But the more I studied, the worse they looked. Giving up on Lincoln was very hard for me, as I hate racism with a purple passion. But the facts were too much for me to get around.

Let's take them one at a time:

First of all, I don't doubt the sincerity of Lincoln in the least. I don't think he was an evil man who wanted to damage America. Quite the contrary. But he did. Badly. And I don't think he helped the slavery issue over the long term, either. I think we'd have LESS of a racial problem in America if slavery hadn't been ended in blood. Look at England - they had slavery as bad as we did. They were the BROKERS, for the most part. But they ended slavery peacefully, and they don't have the huge racial problem that we do. Same for most of Europe. Human beings being what they are, there certainly IS racism everywhere, but they don't have it like we have it. Trace out the story of the Reconstruction era, and all the way through to the civil rights movement - I think you'll see what I mean.

And the damage done to the Constitution is immeasurable. Without Lincoln, I don't think we'd have had FDR.



So, speaking of FDR, I don't have time to write all the bad there is to write. He did more than any other single man to move America towards a police state. We'd be much better off with a depression than with the nanny state that is his legacy. Was he an evil man who wanted to damage America? YES, though I don't think he'd put it in those words. He was following a globalist agenda, just like Bill Clinton and Daddy Bush, and like most of GW's advisors. FDR wanted to move America towards socialism and globalism, and he made a LOT of progress. That means he made a lot of progress toward ending your freedom and mine, and our children's and grandchildren's freedom. Defending FDR on the basis of getting us out of the Depression is to take up the Clinton mantra, "It's the economy, stupid."

There are a lot of things more important than the economy.
 
Quartus said,
But they ended slavery peacefully, and they don't have the huge racial problem that we do. Same for most of Europe. Human beings being what they are, there certainly IS racism everywhere, but they don't have it like we have it.

Please, make no assumptions about the US level of racial problems. The US in many places has much larger numbers of "minority races."

One of the things I hate is comparisons with crime in Canada. If you compare Canada to the state of New Hampshire, with a similar minority percentage, they don't look so good, unlike comparisons to large US cities with racial "minority" majorities! Cross reference East Cleveland, Ohio.

The UK has many racial problems, we just don't see them amplified by the radical left media on the 6 o'clock news in this country.

Geoff
Who was shocked by the blatant racism in europe, my leftwing Democrat teachers had lied.
 
Quartus wrote much of what I was intending to....

So a short answer to the original question:

************************************************************
"Don't you folks think the world is probably a better place for the decisions these two gentleman made?"
************************************************************

NO!
 
But, now 20 years later, I see that he is ot so universally loved.
Only if you ask Southern people who are still fighting the war 150 years after they lost it .

and they don't have the huge racial problem that we do.

They also have not had the racial diversity we have until quite recently; they are in fact having a huge racial problem, mainly dealing with recent immigrant minorities rather than home-grown minority populations.
 
Nearly every country in the world abolished slavery without a war, even Brasil which had a much more horrific slavery system, and far more slaves than the US. Haiti also ended slavery in a war, a slave rebellion, and look how that place ended up, with a lot of help from the US.

Slavery was only one issue in the Civil War. It was a crucial issue for a minority of teh people, north and south, but it was far from the only issue. Remember that Lincoln took his dear sweet time abolishing slavery, even after the war was well along.

As for FDR, I believe the growing consensus of economists is that FDR's economic policies greatly prolonged and deepened the depression, though they were very popular at the time. He was right about the threat of the Axis, though, when the great majority was wrong. Sort of like GB?
 
My Great-grandfather fought with the 61st Pennsylvania and like many I grew up thinking the War was about slavery. It wasn't, at least for the money people who decide if wars are fought or not. Slavery was used as a propaganda tool to motivate the decent people who were rightly horrified by slavery. It is hard to get people motivated to die to make other's rich.


Let's put myths to rest
May 4, 2003 1:08 am
BALTIMORE--There is a good reason why the Lincoln legend has taken on such mythical proportions: Much of what Americans think they know about Abraham Lincoln is in fact a myth. Let's consider a few of the more prominent ones.
Myth #1: Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. Ending slavery and racial injustice is not why the North invaded. As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it"

Congress announced to the world on July 22, 1861, that the purpose of the war was not "interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states" (i.e., slavery), but to preserve the Union "with the rights of the several states unimpaired." At the time of Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) only the seven states of the deep South had seceded. There were more slaves in the Union than out of it, and Lincoln had no plans to free any of them.

The North invaded to regain lost federal tax revenue by keeping the Union intact by force of arms. In his First Inaugural Lincoln promised to invade any state that failed to collect "the duties and imposts," and he kept his promise. On April 19, 1861, the reason Lincoln gave for his naval blockade of the Southern ports was that "the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed" in the states that had seceded.

Myth #2: Lincoln's war saved the Union. The war may have saved the Union geographically, but it destroyed it philosophically by destroying its voluntary nature. In the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, the states described themselves as "free and independent." They delegated certain powers to the federal government they had created as their agent but retained sovereignty for themselves.

This was widely understood in the North as well as the South in 1861. As the Brooklyn Daily Eagle editorialized on Nov. 13, 1860, the Union "depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone." The New York Journal of Commerce concurred, writing on Jan. 12, 1861, that a coerced Union changes the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves." The majority of Northern newspapers agreed.

Myth #3: Lincoln championed equality and natural rights. His words and, more important, his actions, repudiate this myth. "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races," he announced in his Aug. 21, 1858, debate with Stephen Douglas. "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." And, "Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals."

In Springfield, Ill., on July 17, 1858, Lincoln said, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." On Sept. 18, 1858, in Charleston, Ill., he said: "I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes."

Lincoln supported the Illinois Constitution, which prohibited the emigration of black people into the state, and he also supported the Illinois Black Codes, which deprived the small number of free blacks in the state any semblance of citizenship. He strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled Northern states to capture runaway slaves and return them to their owners. In his First Inaugural he pledged his support of a proposed constitutional amendment that had just passed the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives that would have prohibited the federal government from ever having the power "to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In his First Inaugural Lincoln advocated making this amendment "express and irrevocable."

Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of "colonization" or shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti--anywhere but here. "I cannot make it better known than it already is," he stated in a Dec. 1, 1862, Message to Congress, "that I strongly favor colonization." To Lincoln, blacks could be "equal," but not in the United States.

Myth #4: Lincoln was a defender of the Constitution. Quite the contrary: Generations of historians have labeled Lincoln a "dictator." "Dictatorship played a decisive role in the North's successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms," wrote Clinton Rossiter in "Constitutional Dictatorship." And, "Lincoln's amazing disregard for the Constitution was considered by nobody as legal."

James G. Randall documented Lincoln's assault on the Constitution in "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln." Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had the military arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including dozens of newspaper editors and owners. Some 300 newspapers were shut down and all telegraph communication was censored. Northern elections were rigged; Democratic voters were intimidated by federal soldiers; hundreds of New York City draft protesters were gunned down by federal troops; West Virginia was unconstitutionally carved out of Virginia; and the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, was deported. Duly elected members of the Maryland legislature were imprisoned, as was the mayor of Baltimore and Congressman Henry May. The border states were systematically disarmed in violation of the Second Amendment and private property was confiscated. Lincoln's apologists say he had "to destroy the Constitution in order to save it."

Myth #5: Lincoln was a "great humanitarian" who had "malice toward none." This is inconsistent with the fact that Lincoln micromanaged the waging of war on civilians, including the burning of entire towns populated only by civilians; massive looting and plundering; rape; and the execution of civilians (See Mark Grimsley, "The Hard Hand of War"). Pro-Lincoln historian Lee Kennett wrote in "Marching Through Georgia" that, had the Confederates somehow won, they would have been justified in "stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command" as war criminals.

Myth #6: War was necessary to end slavery. During the 19th century, dozens of countries, including the British and Spanish empires, ended slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation. Among such countries were Argentina, Colombia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish colonies, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. (Lincoln did propose compensated emancipation for the border states, but coupled his proposal with deportation of any freed slaves. He failed to see it through, however). Only in America was war associated with emancipation.

In sum, the power of the state ultimately rests upon a series of myths about the alleged munificence of our rulers. Nothing serves this purpose better than the Lincoln myth. This should be kept in mind by all who visit the new Lincoln statue in Richmond.

THOMAS DILORENZO is the author of "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War" and a professor of economics at Loyola College in Baltimore.
 
Well stated, longrifleman. The Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression ;) ) was not fought over slavery. Only a very small percentage of the population could afford slaves. As stated above, slavery was the rallying cry to get the public in the north to support the war. What Lincoln and the Civil War accoomplished was cause the beginning of the end of states' rights. That current history books teach that the war was fought to free slaves is revisionist history.

FDR's administration was the beginning of socialism in the US.

That said, both presidents did good and bad, as with any administration. Had Lincoln lived, the South would not have suffered as badly through so called reconstruction as it did.

The CSA and the American Indian nations are the only nations the US has defeated and not poured astronomical amounts of tax revenue in to rebuild.
 
Please, make no assumptions about the US level of racial problems. The US in many places has much larger numbers of "minority races."


I'm not making any assumptions. I've been there. I've seen it. Europe has more problems now than they did 20 years ago, and that is because of (surprise) 3rd world immigrants, not descendents of black slaves.



Only if you ask Southern people who are still fighting the war 150 years after they lost it .

Or people who, like me, were fed and bought the Hero Lincoln most of their life until they began to study it for themself.

Oh, BTW, I was born in Canada and lived until last fall in "Northern" states. I'm not exactly your typical "The South will rise again! Take off yor hat when you hear 'Dixie', boy! " southerner.
 
More

The assault on freedom that our current govt is engaged in traces from the attitude of Lincoln etal. One of the main reasons for civilian disarmament is to prevent the possibility of a repeat of the War of Seccession. (there's the gun related stuff)



Genesis of the Civil War
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

The historical event that looms largest in American public consciousness is the Civil War. One-hundred thirty-nine years after the first shot was fired, its genesis is still fiercely debated and its symbols heralded and protested. And no wonder: the event transformed the American regime from a federalist system based on freedom to a centralized state that circumscribed liberty in the name of public order. The cataclysmic event massacred a generation of young men, burned and looted the Southern states, set a precedent for executive dictatorship, and transformed the American military from a citizen-based defense corps into a global military power that can’t resist intervention.

And yet, if you listen to the media on the subject, you might think that the entire issue of the Civil War comes down to race and slavery. If you favor Confederate symbols, it means you are a white person unsympathetic to the plight of blacks in America. If you favor abolishing Confederate History Month and taking down the flag, you are an enlightened thinker willing to bury the past so we can look forward to a bright future under progressive leadership. The debate rarely goes beyond these simplistic slogans.

And yet this take on the event is wildly ahistorical. It takes Northern war propaganda at face value without considering that the South had solid legal, moral, and economic reasons for secession which had nothing to do with slavery. Even the name "Civil War" is misleading, since the war wasn’t about two sides fighting to run the central government as in the English or Roman civil wars. The South attempted a peaceful secession from federal control, an ambition no different from the original American plea for independence from Britain.

But why would the South want to secede? If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing their production through public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South’s trading relations with other parts of the world.

In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North’s early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the "tariff of abomination." Thirty year later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to a slave status, with the federal government as its master.

But why 1860? Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery, but he did pledge to "collect the duties and imposts": he was the leading advocate of the tariff and public works policy, which is why his election prompted the South to secede. In pro-Lincoln newspapers, the phrase "free trade" was invoked as the equivalent of industrial suicide. Why fire on Ft. Sumter? It was a customs house, and when the North attempted to strengthen it, the South knew that its purpose was to collect taxes, as newspapers and politicians said at the time.

To gain an understanding of the Southern mission, look no further than the Confederate Constitution. It is a duplicate of the original Constitution, with several improvements. It guarantees free trade, restricts legislative power in crucial ways, abolishes public works, and attempts to rein in the executive. No, it didn’t abolish slavery but neither did the original Constitution (in fact, the original protected property rights in slaves).

Before the war, Lincoln himself had pledged to leave slavery intact, to enforce the fugitive slaves laws, and to support an amendment that would forever guarantee slavery where it then existed. Neither did he lift a finger to repeal the anti-Negro laws that besotted all Northern states, Illinois in particular. Recall that the underground railroad ended, not in New York or Boston-since dropping off blacks in those states would have been restricted-but in Canada! The Confederate Constitution did, however, make possible the gradual elimination of slavery, a process that would have been made easier had the North not so severely restricted the movements of former slaves.

Now, you won’t read this version of events in any conventional history text, particularly not those approved for use in public high schools. You are not likely to hear about it in the college classroom either, where the single issue of slavery overwhelms any critical thinking. Again and again we are told what Polybius called "an idle, unprofitable tale" instead of the truth, and we are expected to swallow it uncritically. So where can you go to discover that the conventional story is sheer nonsense?

The last ten years have brought us a flurry of great books that look beneath the surface. There is John Denson’s The Costs of War (1998), Jeffrey Rodgers Hummel’s Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men (1996), David Gordon’s Secession, State, and Liberty (1998), Marshall de Rosa’s The Confederate Constitution (1991), or, from a more popular standpoint, James and Walter Kennedy’s Was Jefferson Davis Right? (1998).

But if we were to recommend one work-based on originality, brevity, depth, and sheer rhetorical power-it would be Charles Adams’s time bomb of a book, When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession (Rowman & Littlefield, 2000). In a mere 242 pages, he shows that almost everything we thought we knew about the war between the states is wrong.

Adams believes that both Northern and Southern leaders were lying when they invoked slavery as a reason for secession and for the war. Northerners were seeking a moral pretext for an aggressive war, while Southern leaders were seeking a threat more concrete than the Northern tariff to justify a drive to political independence. This was rhetoric designed for mass consumption . Adams amasses an amazing amount of evidence-including remarkable editorial cartoons and political speeches-to support his thesis that the war was really about government revenue.

Consider this little tidbit from the pro-Lincoln New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861 edition:

"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.

"What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?"

This is not an isolated case. British newspapers, whether favoring the North or South, said the same thing: the feds invaded the South to collect revenue. Indeed, when Karl Marx said the following, he was merely stating what everyone who followed events closely knew: "The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."

Marx was only wrong on one point: the war was about principle at one level. It was about the principle of self-determination and the right not to be taxed to support an alien regime. Another way of putting this is that the war was about freedom, and the South was on the same side as the original American revolutionaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting, isn’t it, that today, those who favor banning Confederate symbols and continue to demonize an entire people’s history also tend to be partisans of the federal government in all its present political struggles?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not much has changed in 139 years. Adams’s book goes a long way toward telling the truth about this event, for anyone who cares to look at the facts.

May 11, 2000

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. He also edits a daily news site, LewRockwell.com.



Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page
 
Oh, no, not the revisionist rubbish yet again. The Civil War was about slavery. The South made that quite clear. Go to the museums in the South. Proudly hanging on their walls are their petitions against the North. These petitions state that slavery in the reason for the South's treason.

The politicians of the South state that it was slavery. The only people who do not believe that the South's motivation for its treason was slavery are modern apologists who believe in the rubbish of revisionist history and The Cause.:rolleyes:
 
Now, growing up in the North in the 80's, I was taught that the American Civil War was fought over slavery. And Abe Lincoln was the good guy, who held the Union together through sheer will-power.

You are going to get lots of opinions on this subject, as well as that of FDR. The only way to get a complete understanding is to start reading some books, both pro and con, and reach your own conclusion. There is an old adage that the winner gets to write the history, so it may take a great deal of research to get to the real truth. Believe it or not, but people that write books are just as biased as the rest of us and some will only provide the information that supports their view of the topic.
 
El Tejon, for this revisionism to be rubbish, the cites of Lincoln's own words and the commentaries from the various newspapers of the times: 1. Had to have never been said or written; or, 2. Had to have been lies to confuse the public.

Either Lincoln said what was cited, or he didn't. Those newspapers editors either wrote what was cited, or they didn't.

Or, all these referenced writers of historical analysis were lying or fantasically inept and confused.

Would you care to tell us how it could be different than what I've said?

:), Art
 
Art, this moral equivalence stuff is just too much. "Well, um, Lincoln was a meanie, boohoohoo.":rolleyes: They sound like criminal defendants, e.g. somebody somewhere else did something wrong, why punish me--boohoohoo.

Again, what I object to is any attempt (now over a 100 years old) of the revisionists to rationalize the treason of the South. The South committed treason to hold onto slavery. Without Southern desire for slavery, there would not have been a Civil War.
 
Were Lincoln and FDR REALLY that bad?

My take and $0.02...

Depends.

Remember that the actions of our forefathers was the first modern(?) experiment in a Republican form of government, not fully supported by everyone living in the colonies, but, because WE won our War of Independence, they had to come up with SOME form of government acceptable to THOSE WHO VOTED at the time. Not women, not native indians, not black slaves or indentured servants but free, white landowning men for the most part.

Kinda sets the stage for future dissention doesn't it? Ya got yer Easterners living nicely in the cities with industry, ya got yer southerners, some on plantations, others pulling plows, and yer pioneers heading out west to get the hell away from everyone else, just wanting freedom and a chance to live out their lives. Immigrants coming in from all over the world...

What man in his right mind would WANT the country to be divided and torn apart on his watch as President? Great way to go down in history. Got to keep it together at all costs. Forget the Constitution when needed, Save the experiment, the Republic.

Both times, wise men discussed each side, every side, of the issues, with the meltdown of this nation staring them in the face... then acted as best they saw fit. Both President's in question ended up leading our nation in horrific wars which ensued. Not blaming them, anyone else could and would have been in the same spot, the economy and following wars would have still resulted.

Right or wrong? What would or could you have done differently if elected in 1860? Can't use today's mindset, it wasn't around back then. Can you imagine running for office back then and stating that women, blacks, chinese, indians, etc should all be welcomed into the voting electorate? Or that children should be in school, not out working? Everyone should have the same rights? You'd have been branded the worst kind of moron or enemy to all that we know and stand for as AMERICANS at the time. Liberal, Commie, Socialist, Conservative, whatever, you'd be considered plumb crazy, the Devil's spawn.

Right or wrong, good or bad, they both did what they had to do and here we are today, still relatively free to discuss it.

Is this country better for it?

Depends. Which side of the fence are you on? Does the grass look greener on the other side? It's still got to be mown.

One thing's for sure. Our Federal Gov't really grew as a result, each time gaining more power than our Constitution has authorized with State's and THE PEOPLE'S rights weakening to become impotent and nigh-on non-existant.
 
Lincoln was a dictator. Our first coup d'tat (sp, I'm not french)

Regardless of slavery, when a guy suspends habeous corpus, he needs to be impeached. Trouble was, in those days, if you complained, they locked you up. Lincoln imprisoned about 38,000 civilians (mostly northern newspaper editors and owners) for complaining.

don't argue with me, read Lorenzo's "The Real Lincoln". google it if you don't know about it.

He (Lincoln) had a state legislater deported for speaking out against Lincoln's despotic rule.

He should be proud, real proud

I read somewhere that they called him "Honest Abe" for the same reason that they always called the biggest guy in the class, "Tiny".

Lincoln is partly responsible for 9-11. He invented the concept of "Total War". Prior to Sherman's "March to the sea" and the other guy that burned the Shenandoah Valley, I can't remember his name right now) making war on civilians and non-combatants was bad.. Yes, we have Lincoln to thank for that too.

FDR was a fascist. Strange how us Americans at the time knuckled under to all the govt. programs, especially during WWII to fight the fascists when we were ruled by one at the time.
 
Wow

Thanks for all the replies so far. I guess what I see is not if the USA would be a better place, but the world at large.

I mean, what I see, if the CSA won, is not a USA and CSA, but the continuing fracturing off the Union. I see a North America occupied not by 3 countries, but 19-20 smaller countries.

Or, even worse, say Lincoln hadn't pushed it. The South stays, and slavery dies on it's own. Then, in 1944, instead of the 1st US Army Divisin storming the beaches, you have the 9th Virginia Rifle Regiment, and the 14th Rhode Island Artillery Corps storming the beaches.

Of course, you could also say without USA involvment in WWI, maybe Hitler never would have come to power, and then WWII wouldn't have happened.

All I know is, Harry Turtledove is much better at the alternate history game then I am.

I guess I prefer to see them like Baba Louie...not as good or bad, but men who did the best they could given the situations they found themselves in.

greg
 
I posted the info I did to get the discussion started as much as for any other reason. The main reason we are still arguing this is that BOTH sides were right and BOTH sides were wrong. That is why it is difficult to change anyone's mind.

When you base an argument on facts that are proven inaccurate at best and intentional lies at worst it destroys any credability of the true facts that are presented. This happens on both sides of this issue. The hard part is to recognise what is true and to discard long held beliefs that were based on the inaccurate info we ALL learned as kids.

Were there racists in the old south? Of course. Were the arguments even they made about the Union being a voluntary association correct? Yes. If anyone thinks they weren't make your case but to claim that the argument is invalid because the people making it are bad people is a major lapse of logic. But, that lapse of logic is common on many issues.

El Tejon, the treason argument is a post war construct. Before this most people considered themselves citizens of their state first, not US citizens first. That is a revisionst spin put out after the war to justify the bloodshed. Please do a little research into why Jeff Davis wasn't tried for treason after the war. I'm short on time (going to a wedding) so can't dig it up myself.
Everybody feel free to jump in.
 
Was FDR that bad?

In a word, yes. With one speech he introduced in America a memetic shift away from individual liberty and responsibility towards one of collective "liberty."

Go read FDR's Four Freedoms Speech and do a compare and contrast with the freedoms and liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Ask yourself how FDR's freedoms can be instituted without coercive state-based force and redistribution of wealth.
 
El Tajon,

OK, the south seceeded (sp?) because of slavery... But the North went to war to preserve the union, not to free the slaves.

The revisionists are the ones who insist that Lincoln went to war to free the slaves.

Richardson.
 
Abraham Lincoln didn't go to war to fight slavery. He did it to preserve the Union. He personally found slavery abhorent but also (based on some things he said and wrote) apparently considered black people inferior to whites. He was a more complex man than either the two-dimensional hero version or the two-dimensional villain version indicate.
The South did go to war, in large measure, over slavery. Mike Irwin has several times posted documents here that clearly indicated their leaders were very much concerned with maintaining the institution of slavery. The average Confederate soldier probably did consider himself as fighting for his state, but that wouldn't be the first time fine men with good motives had been used by leaders with different (and not-as-good) motives.
 
Post in response to Cropcirclewalker.

By an astonishing coincidence, I'm finishing my history degree right now; my capstone paper is an analysis of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.

In no particular order...No, Lincoln didn't order Clement Valandigham arrested. Major General Ambrose Burnside ordered his arrest...Lincoln commuted his sentence from death to deportation.

Lincoln was in no way a dictator. He was entirely prepared to, and expected to step down if he was not re-elected. Get Basler's collection of Lincoln's papers (or read Gienapp's "This Fiery Trial") and read up on August '64. Among other things, he made his cabinet officers swear to support his successor to the best of their respective abilities. What dictator respects an election?

The accusation that he started total was is absurd. If you want to read more on it, get Grimsley's "Hard hand of War". Long story short, when the war started Union forces were under explicit orders to avoid any damage to civvy property. As war progressed this changed to permit foraging, then to a deliberate destruction OF PROPERTY. Yes, they burned fields. They didn't salt the earth, poison wells, or slaughter villages. Read the old testament.
 
"The only people who do not believe that the South's motivation for its treason was slavery are modern apologists who believe in the rubbish of revisionist history and The Cause"

Sigh. You really need to get out more.

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.