Great post Amy.

Thanks -- I found this fascinating (and upsetting).

You may also want to glance at What Lincoln Killed - EPISODE I - Directors Edition [Box set].

Mike Church did a pretty good job of putting that together.

Historical accounts are interesting and the politics of the day was probably quite messy (and with the benefit of hindsight could probably have been handled with better success), but it is difficult to muster much sympathy for individuals who contend their right to secede has been violated when those very same people feel it is perfectly acceptable to own another human being.

I believe the phrase "cry me a river" is an appropriate to such a person.

Not entirely true, there was at least one death at Fort Sumter, a soldier killed when his cannon exploded.

His views on slavery are pretty well known, and while he did not like the institution, his objective was never its destruction, not because he was completely indifferent, but because he did not consider it a politically viable fight, and he believed forcing the issue would cause the secession that eventually happened anyway.

True he underestimated the desire of blacks to remain in the union, but that is an easy mistake to make under the circumstances.

As far as the rest of what is said above, true enough. But making the Emancipation proclamation political is not exactly a big deal.

Of course it was political, it gave the union the "moral high ground" if you will. Even though it only freed slaves in the rebellious territories.

Further, it only makes sense to release such a proclamation after a victory, when it seems like you are progressing, as opposed to after a series of serious defeats, when it would smack of desparation.

Lincoln was a canny politician, and while he should be remembered as a great man of will, and be remembered for some of the good that happened under his administration, we also cannot forget that for him, the ends justified the means, and yes, he violated the constitution at virtually every turn, for which he cannot be forgiven.

There are lessons to be learned here, amongst them that there will always be men aplenty that will be complicit in his actions, he may have ordered actions, but others carried them out.

" people feel it is perfectly acceptable to own another human being."

Like the slave owners in the North, for example.

I too have become weary of and frustrated with the attempt to smear slavery over any mention of States Rights.

In my opinion, Lincoln was wrong where John Brown was right. Supporting a slave rebellion to achieve freedom for others has more moral credibility than subjugating those that seek to live their lives on their own.

The Emancipation Proclomation did not free the slaves. It merely provided a fig leaf for placing the blame on the Confederacy after the fact. The Emancipation only adressed the slaves within the Confedrate States and did nothing to free the slaves in the few Union States that still held people in bondage. That came somewhat later. But while I'm not sure, I think those states were on their way to abandoning slavery anyways.

To rebut one comment here..."but it is difficult to muster much sympathy for individuals who contend their right to secede has been violated when those very same people feel it is perfectly acceptable to own another human being." Does this same standard apply to the American Revolution? Is our entire nation's claim to freedom and self determination somehow not worthy or valid because of an institution that was generally, but not universally, supported some 237 years ago? If your standard is to be applied equally, do you still support and swear allegience to the Crown? If the United States can accomplish some good in its infancy while journeying down the road toward abandoning an evil practice, why can this not also apply to the Confederate States?

In my eyes, bondage to the Fed is no better than bondage to the slave owner.

Outstanding post.

Got into it a year or so ago when I heard someone idolizing Lincoln. "Dude was a tyrant!" (My response - which was met with an open mouthed, look of disgust.).

Course it was inflammatory. I'll do better next time. I promise.

But I can't help but feel a tremendous amount of frustration with my fellow citizen - because I see a very widespread and irresponsible lack of proper due diligence or questioning of the public narrative when it comes to our own history.

The person who i had this conversation with was in fact a public school teacher. No idea what I was talking about. And judging by the look on her face assumed I was a card carrying member of some local white supremicist group. Her reaction was that foul. Propaganda runs deep - especially on this subject. There is a reason the US Government went through the trouble and expense of placing Lincoln's mug on Rushmore.

Be sure to check out the book: When in the Course of Human Events. arguing the case for Southern Secession, for more info on this topic.

The trouble with this theory is that the confederates themselves cited slavery as a reason for leaving the union. See South Carolina's Declaration of Secession: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Lincoln did the best he could, but secession forced his hand. No democratic republic can function if parts of the union leave when faced with election results they don't like. Ironically, had the southern states stayed a part of the country, they likely could have more effectively opposed anti-slavery measures.

Lincoln can't be judged solely on his rhetoric. Had he spoken as bluntly as William Lloyd Garrison, he would never have been elected to anything. Lincoln spoke carefully, hedging his words. He usually would criticize abolitionists, but would then condemn pro-slavery politicians far more harshly. He pursued policies that he knew would free the slaves, but he knew that saying so would set back the cause.

Many of today's neo-confederates seem upset that Lincoln wasn't a beautiful loser. Lincoln, like any politician in any democracy, couldn't get too far away from popular opinion in his rhetoric. Judge him by his deeds: he was the great liberator.

the South's Proclamation that slavery was the reason for secession was a political ploy To unite the South under one cause. Economic reasons aren't going to illicit patriotic emotions necessary to compel young men to spill their own blood.

"slavery is not because of the rebellion... Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the southern heart', and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced... Mister Calhoun, after finding that the south could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, so what did slavery as the better subject for agitation.". The North American Review (Boston, October 1862)

Also, what do you define as a democratic republic? Last time I checked the US was a Constitutional Republic ( or was suppose to be anyways... But perhaps that confusion is part of our problem...half of us want a crown to bow down to and think they can make up stuff- like history to justify it...).

This topic is close to my heart, because I do Civil War living history programs, portraying a Union cavalryman (from California!).
Read about the Nullification Crisis and Andrew Jackson's Force Bill of 1833: South Carolinans felt they were being taxed to death-- in fact at a rate four times higher than Northerners.
Revenues from the Port of Charleston were a major source of federal income, and South Carolina decided those monies should be hers, and Uncle Sam could get lost. South Carolina threatened to secede and raise an army to protect its position. Jackson called this an act of insurrection bordering on treason, and promised to raise an army four times bigger, to put the southrons back in their place.
Jackson sent a small fleet of Navy ships to Charleston, ordered to collect the duties, and later wrote his Force Bill, legalizing what he was already doing.
1833: By the time South Carolina backed down, it was clear that the issue would not be settled until there was a separate Southern Confederacy, in which slavery would play an integral part.
No doubt Lincoln had a copy of jackson's Force Bill in front of him thirty years later, when the firing began on Fort Sumter.

The civil war was about states rights vs the power of the federal gov't. Slavery was but one right that the south thought that the federal gov't was going to take from them. The emancipation proclamation was a way to militarize the southern slaves, and keep France from joining the south as they had the colonists against England during the revolution.

As Lincoln wrote: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Jefe - it must have really perplexed the hell out of the Brits, watching the US government's outrage and opposition directed at the South for asserting their right of state sovereignty/succession due to of all things ...taxes.

Since of course, this is what lead to the creation of our nation via the American Revolution, the only successful rebellion against the British Crown.

In fact, it was Massachusetts (not SC) that threatened to secede FOUR times (the second of which was supported by Jefferson - who was known for his Anti-Federalist tendencies). These were for state debts, the Louisiana Purchase, war of 1812 and annexation of Texas. Yet about one hundred years later this became heresy when asserted by the Southern states and the use of force to start a war and rape, murder and kill a minority group who wished to withdraw from the oppressive US Government was patriotic.

Go figure.

Remember: Lee surrendered, I didn't. ;-)

Kids, Gore Vidal is not a respected historian.

He's more like an idiot.

This is some seriously infantile shit.

"This is some seriously infantile shit."

Do you have any non-infantile shit with which to refute it?

Not sure it's worthwhile. When people are so eager to believe in Gore Vidal, it doesn't much matter.

I am shocked to find myself in agreement with Crid! Gore Vidal has no standing as an historian and harbors a virulent hatred of the U.S. He wouldn't know truth if it bit him on the ass.

To wit:

Humility is not a modern virtue.

(Psst-- There was more than one gunman at the 
Grassy Knoll!  And Roosevelt knew!  The landings
were faked, and 9/11 was an inside job!)

Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers Says:

"Like the slave owners in the North, for example."

I'm not sure what your point here is Gog.

I can't muster much sympathy for anyone who feels it they should be able to deprive another human being of their personal liberty by making them property.

That right is a more fundamental one than any collective right to secede from the union. When someone violates such a fundamental right of another person, their complaints about comparatively minor slights regarding their objectively less critical rights are going to fall upon deaf ears.

This is true no matter where the person comes from.

I suppose if the southern slave owners were really convinced that the right to secede was more important than the right to personal liberty they could have tried to secede under the proviso that they switch places with their slaves once the secession took place. At least then they would have been putting their money where their mouth was. However we both know that would never happen because personal freedom is far more important than the right to secede.

There seem to be reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue as to the "real" reason the South wanted to secede, but I can't help but wonder: would they have wanted out of the Union had slavery been abolished, or phased out, or rendered uneconomical, prior to the War?

My understanding has always been that while slavery wasn't the sole reason for secession, it was always the *deciding* reason.

Oh, come on. Gore Vidal was a left wing polemicist and nobody should take him seriously as a historian.

"Not sure it's worthwhile. When people are so eager to believe in Gore Vidal, it doesn't much matter."

I don't know much about Vidal or his views. His presence in this debate is only incidental in my view.

One should not that he is, a presumption on my part, only ONE source attributed in the post.

Even if your opinion of him is accurate, I wouldn't know, hanging an entire position on the reputation of only ONE of its proponents is foolish.

The basis of any coherant discussion is debating the merits of the idea, not who is presenting it at the moment.

You may be right and Vidal may be a first class asshat crackpot. But he is just one voice. Kind of like dismissing dicussion of rent gouging solely on the presence of Jimmy McMillan ala "The rent is too damn high" nutjob.

Name me one other country that required a Civil War to end slavery?

1.__________
2.__________
3.__________
4.__________
5.__________
6.__________

It's the economy stupid. As someone mentioned above, slavery was already ending by the time the Civil War came around. They had acquired California (not a slave state) and New Mexico had something like 26 slave holders with like, one slave.

I don't care as much about Gore as I care about the white washing of history through this period.

Seriously, what President who was basically responsible for the deaths of almost a million of it's own citizens (justified or not) gets his mug planted on Rushmore. Really?

I realize hindsight is 20/20 but come one - maybe everyone should have a bit of humility. This man was no savior.

People also tend to lump all blacks into the slavery category too. There were tons of blacks by that point who had purchased or given freedom and settled as freemen in the South and were successful business owners and in some cases slave owners.

You can read about that from that wacky, tin-foil-hat crazy economist Walter Williams in his book Race and Economics.

"I'm not sure what your point here is Gog."

Agreed.

> Ugh.

Teenage.

> Feel free to dispute anything he said by
> supporting your points instead of attacking
> him for his politics.

It's more fun to watch you pretend, without basis, that he's a respected researcher. How many books about Lincoln have you read? Springfield is a 7½ hour drive from Detroit... Ever stop in to see some manuscripts, legal briefs or other autographs?

"Ugh."

Amerz, pop literature, like pop psychology, is disregarded by pros for some very good reasons.

They understand it can be a lot of fun.

It's more fun to watch you pretend, without basis, that he's a respected researcher. -- Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 12, 2013 6:17 PM

I still don't see a single thing that supports your points.

Please pony up some evidence, facts or even a real statement that supports your side.

Thank you for playing. You can leave the stage now.

> Please pony up some evidence, facts or
> even a real statement that supports
> your side.

I know, right?

You guys are horny, absolutely tumescent, to get into a fight with somebody about this. You've been given some best-seller superpowers, hardback-style(!), and you're jus' creaming for a chance to deploy them.

In view of the fire Mr. Vidal has rashly called down upon his head from those quarters I refrain from adding further to his troubles and from unnecessarily exacerbating what he himself describes as “my disturbing presence on the American scene.”

I'm not a historian; but one of the dearest women in my life is, and she told me GV was full of shit 30 years ago. (Wuzzit 30? OK, 28, says Wiki.) Since then I've not read a word of his in passing (reviews, interviews, etc.) to encourage further review. (But they say the mini-series was just darling! This was on the TV! Color!)

Vidal's a media dork, he's Oliver Stone without popcorn, he's Gaga without a meat blouse. He thrills illiterates and the naive by giving them the impression that they've been clued into secret truths. They get to be suspicious and illuminated all at once, like Scientology without the e-meter. (I remember working with a youngish producer in the early 90's describing the power of Stone's JFK: "It's not that everything in there is true... But it makes ya think." This was followed by a solemn moment of silence; intense, closed-lip big-brown eye-contact; and even a little bit of the tilt. Poignant! I was new to the company and needed the work... So with superhuman self-control, I didn't spit-take my coffee all over the desk.)

(Also, she had a honkin' rack. She seemed... accessible.)

Anyway, he's like that.

And I don't like you —or even loathe Vidal— enough to give you the pathetic little hand job you're looking for.

But it's a big internet! Your new squabbling playmate is out there somewhere, just itching for a week-long exchange of stupidities!... I justknow he is!

Veritas, Bitches! Carry on! Remember the handshake!... It's described on the back flap of the dust cover, right under the author photo!

And yet in spite of all your self congratulatory masturbation as text, you offer not one thing to refute the idea that Lincoln was a tyrant and not a hero.

Bravo sir! I haven't seen that kind of point dodging since Orion or WTF got slapped around last.

But really, who gives a shit about this Vidal guy besides you Crid? What does this character have to do with the price of tea in China?

Do you think that Obama is right to go on a gun grabbing spree just because Alex Jones opposes it? DISCLAIMER: I only use Alex Jones as an example because he is as close as I can get to discounting everything put forth by someone based solely on the source. But even a broken clock, or in this case Alex Jones, can be right every once in a blue moon. That is if you don't think the moon is an object faked by NASA just so they can justify the studio they had their "moon landing" in.

We were having a discussion about a viewpoint and you come in throwing shit around like the infant you accuse others of being, if they seem to think of Lincoln in less than stellar terms.

Thou dost project too much.

I'm not a historian; but one of the dearest women in my life is, and she told me GV was full of shit 30 years ago. (Wuzzit 30? OK, 28, says Wiki.) Since then I've not read a word of his in passing (reviews, interviews, etc.) to encourage further review. (But they say the mini-series was just darling! This was on the TV! Color!) -- Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 12, 2013 9:14 PM

You have now defended your objection to Gore Vidal. You still have not defended the objection to "Lincoln wasn't a tyrant."

That would be an on-topic post.

Thank you for playing. You can leave the stage now.

Read Gore Vidal! It's crazy important!!!! On-topic! No point-dodging! Because you loves the history! Gore Vidal

Someone once described John Tesh & Yanni as "Music for people who don't like music."

(But big girls used to love it.)

Azenogoth,

There is no reason for you to whine and complain about Crid dodging points and focusing upon the individual making an argument versus the argument itself here when in previous conversations you thought that strategy was perfectly fine... provided of course that you agreed with his ultimate perspective.

That is the danger with supporting illogical methods of reasoning... eventually they come back to bite you on the ass.

Crid is using the same method of argument he always uses, if you enjoy it when you are on the same side of the fence don't throw a fit when you end up on different sides.

Enjoy.

Right.

I think wanting to argue about history because you've read a Gore Vidal novel is pathetic.

But if you can find a willing partner, by all means... You guys go sick with that, and God Bless.

Sue!

Sorry I missed this thread when it was happening.

I would like to challenge the assumption that slavery was dying in the south before the civil war that a few seem to be selling here. I've read differently. Follows is a link with bullet points about a book called Time On The Cross (by what I would call the respected economist Robert Fogel) highlighting that it was not dying at all. It was doing just swell.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/fogel.htm

Easy to find on Amazon as well.

A bit more easily digestible info concerning slave demographics and values.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us

Also has some interesting words about manumission and other things. Really brutal stuff I think.

More brutal numbers showing that slavery by census measure was growing in the south. Maryland and Virginia being the exceptions. But they marginally dropped and my guess would be the majority of the decrease in the 1860 census were sold off to other states, not manumitted.

Forgot the link to my above comment. Apologies.

http://thomaslegion.net/totalslaveslaverypopulationinunitedstates17901860bystate.html