Re: Civil War arguments
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is some incriminating evidence as to Lincoln's true motives.
[ QUOTE ]
"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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
You cannot seriously be suggesting that the topical meaning here reveals Lincoln's true motives. Lincoln was the most gifted orater of his time, and maybe the most gifted orater in American History. His motives are QUITE unclear in an open letter... that is a letter to Horace Greely sent to a bunch of newspapers. Read the Lincoln Douglas debates.... He says some things that would make most of us blush...but then again he was running for President and had to campaign in Slave States too, which is why Lincoln's message varries a lot based on his audience. But to think that emancipation of all slaves in America was not high up on Lincoln's list is just absurd....According to that argument, the South must have just made a big blunder in seceding... the leaders must have been the stupidest people on the planet.... "You mean you wouldn't have made us give up slavery... We just wasted over 300 thousand of our most fit men...Woops...I'm sorry...my bad...yeah, really fealing guilty about that one" Not all that plausible IMHO, especailly coming from the party whose whole rease to be was to end slavery.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's high up there, but clearly the "paramount" objective of the struggle was to "preserve the union." If anyone believes that the death of 600,000 men is worth this goal, please give me an explanation as to why.
Also, if people are going to use the slavery issue, I would like people to defend their "two wrongs make a right" stance. That is, that it is justifiable for the US Government to enslave everyone (conscription) in order to prevent the slavery of others.
Finally, if anyone believes that the South wasn't justified in their succession, just look at what happened. The southerners were bound by a contract (the Constitution) that they didn't sign. By virtue of that, I don't see how anyone can actually bind them to it. If 3 people are on an island and one wants to escape, do the other two have the right to prevent him because they won a majority vote? Do they have the right to kill him when he makes his attempt? All because their grandparents signed an agreement stating that no man is allowed to escape from the island without the consent of the majority?
|