No sacred cow too sacred, I see.

Wow, Barger gets it right. There is nothing sacred about "Honest" Abe. Never was. A quick read of the EP shows that Americans must be a largely illiterate or irrational group of humans.

Johnny Carson used to have a bit he'd do if a joke ever fell flat because it was too raw. "Too soon. You have to wait to joke about some things. Lincoln jokes? Still too soon..."

Personally, I think Sacred Cow makes Tasty Hamburgers. Al is absolutely right about Lincoln's personal feelings and the impact of the Proclamation. And there were lots of "causes" of the war, as with any war. It's as wrong to say "the Civil War was about slavery" as it is to say "no one was motivated to fight because of slavery."

Makes one wonder what historians will make of WMDs or "the Price of Oil"

If Lincoln believed he could win the war, then the EP was not meaningless at all. The counterview to Al's is that he did what he could get away with.

I have a few other questions: didn't the Confederacy NEED to be subjugated? Would anyone be better off now if the South had gone its own way - certainly the slaves wouldn't have been. There might be slaves there STILL.

Isn't it a contradiction to say Lincoln needed a new reason to inspire the North and that reason had to be moral, and then say the very moral reason he came up with did the opposite? Which is it? Why do the EP at all if it was only going to inspire draft riots?

I think this whole reading of Lincoln is very strained and in a niggardly spirit.

oooooaaawwww! Eric said "niggardly"...I'm telling amazon!

Sometimes "niggardly" is exactly the right word.

Damn it! I take no responsibility for my ignorance. (well maybe a little bit.) Do you know how they present this to kids in schools? I always thought lincoln was a hero, from the early days of doing school lessons on a shovel with coal pieces, to freeing the slaves. Nobody ever told me any of this stuff. I graduated from High School in 1997 and never heard about any of this in my AP history class.

I did learn later, but it is no wonder Americans can be so ignorant. The spin machine is in full force in the United States.

I was always under the impression that the slave issue came to the fore because the north was losing. Due to draft riots and the rich avoiding the draft the north needed troops. The South would have probably won the war had Lincoln and his government not used other means to gather men. The north would take Irish immigrants off to the boat and send them to the front to fight. Freedom was offered to slaves if they fought. The south had a reason to fight... they felt they were defending thmselves, but the people of the north had little idea of what they were fighting for. I am not saying that the outcome was not for the better, just that it was not as simple as american history 101 tells us it was. Hell, the south was able to elect a president before the north got into the war. We're talking about a time when news could take months to reach another state.

Okay, well, this is very colorful - no pun intended.

The Emancipation Proclamation started the process, but it wasn't what actually finished the job.

However, if you really want to closely look at the entire situation, it was a case of economics - supply and demand - that ended the perceived need for slavery, eventually, and the North's desire to industrialize the South.

The social demand to end slavery in the South contributed, and the North was happy to help.

Of course, all that aside, I still think Lincoln was a great president, and I think our nation was stupid to institute slavery in the first place. we still deal with it's horrible overtones in today's world, as well as the other horrible overtones of racial and sexual discrimination.

It would be nice if we could just treat everyone as equals, at least for today, the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream Speech."

Now, if we can keep it up tomorrow and the days after, our actions will speak even more highly of us.

Then perhaps we can all say of ourselves that we are truly Fair & Balanced as a society - pun intended.

Cheers.

Hmm. Not sure if the Confederacy needed to be subjugated or even if it effectively was, at least more than temporarily. Given the post-reconstruction accommodation between the south and the north that effectively put off legal equality for 3+ generations, it's hard to call the result optimal for anyone.

And there are any number of alternate histories that delve into the implications of Southern victory. I'd personally expect something more like Rhodesia than an unchanging ante-bellum Dixie.

Lincoln deserves a lot of credit for preserving the Union, which has turned out to be on the whole a good thing, I think. Radical Republicans and Abolitionists should get more of the credit for freeing the slaves.

While it's unfair to judge Lincoln without considering the zeitgeist of the times, Lincoln the man and politician who made choices is much more interesting than Lincoln the sacrosanct mythological creature used as an element in moral tales to instruct the young.

which is of course true of any figure enshrined in the history books, but I find the pendulum swing in the other direction just as incomplete and more than a little distasteful in its gleeful iconoclasm for iconoclasm's sake. Heroes needn't be perfect to be recognized as heroes - none are.

Comment 2: Hey Nat, It's 'and irrational' not or...

So you're looking for a Fair and Balanced approach, Eric? It's both easy and impossible to find, really. Abe the flawless hero really doesn't exist outside of school texts, which are, as Craig mentioned, the lowest common denominator of nuanced subtelty. Reductio ad absurdum. I tend to blame the fine people of my home state (Texas) for much of this, but as Frances FitzGerald shows in America Revised, textbook history has a long and shady past.

But one of the other lessons that is hard to remember to apply is that every author wrote for some reason, had certain experiences that influenced his life, and had biases that can come out even in something as simple as printing a table of data based on what data was selected. We know that Croft and Olsen and Barger and Flemming don't write in a vacuum or from a pedestal on high proclaiming eternal verities, it's useful to consider the same about anyone's writings about any topic of controversy, such as Lincoln.

Howard Zinn is refreshing in his explicit advocacy of some positions over others, but even Charles and Mary Beard's Basic History of the United States (the cornerstone textbook of US history for much of the 20th century) has the authors' interpretations interspersed. It would be less valuable without them.

I just checked my 60 year old copy of Beard and it's instructive to see how my father was taught about the Civil War. It's a relatively balanced Lincoln who was less Radical than his Repub challenger Stanton. Lincoln was considered a moderate, "a trimmer" by Abolitionists and "dangerous" and "untrustworthy" by Democrats.

The Beards are more positive about the EP, btw, which makes sense, since quite a bit of the received wisdom that Al is opposing comes from them. Like Magna Carta, it didn't really do much for the people but it laid the ground for future developments that did have direct impact. It's hard to argue that the EP wasn't instrumental in the timing of the passage of the 13th amendment. But it's hard to argue that the Radical Republicans in congress wouldn't have passed some version of it anyway.

Oh, and Eric, you'd understand this if you had a working knowledge of Plato. ;)

Note that it's a work of fiction, but one should read "Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove, which addresses what would happen if the South had won the war.

Actually a handfull of slaves in Union occupied areas of the Carolina Coast were freed when the EP became effective.

Yes, fair and balanced from Plato on - I seek a history the equivalent of the spinning plates routine on my beloved Ed Sullivan Show.

Well, there is no Fair and Balanced and there is no Tin Woodsman and there is no Santa Claus!!
Maybe someday you can go to Detroit.
--apologies to Shel Silverstein...

My ex-boss used to use that spinning plates example to explain how he managed. His advice to us was "don't be the plate that needs attention."

But history, like Fox News, is never Fair and Balanced, the reader needs to have enough depth of knowledge to see the spin, find the balancing corrections, and, like the plate-spinner, apply them him(or her)self and make the balancing act work. Anyone who self-applies the label "Fair and Balanced" will get exactly the response deserved, acceptance only by those who agree with the speaker's biases.

I always read, listen or watch with a level and a compass.

It's absurd to argue that slavery was not the main reason for Southern seccession. Why else would they secede? People don't do things like that unless they have a real blood and guts issue to rally round.

As for Northerners not willing to die for blacks, true, but it was the so-called Slave Power (the plantation oligarchy that was making a play for Western lands), not slavery itself that Northerners feared. Northerners saw themselves defending their way of life against what they regarded as a kind of rural fascism.

Although one should concede that by the 1860s, slavery was becoming an embarrassment to the civilized world, and the U.S. was feeling the pressure. Only Brazil was later to free its slaves, if I recall correctly.

mike,

Can you site sources? While slavery was an issue in the conflict, many sources that I consider credible (i.e. "not absurd") do not consider it the main reason for secession. I know it is frequently taught that way, but it is work bringing a level and a compass to the texts.

Given, for example, Lincoln's reassurances to the south between his election and his inauguration that he had no power to and no intention of eliminating slavery in the existing states, there was no immediate threat. The Republicans had in fact chosen a moderate from their ranks because they didn't want to lose due to an anti-slavery candidate.

I think you're on the right track with the question of Northern and Southern interests in competition for control of western economic wealth, but I don't think that that really applied to the Northern soldiers, but rather to the Northern monied class.

Hmm. Does this mean we have to declare ourselves to be marxist historians, decide that the Civil War was a contest between competing economic interests for newly available resources and that "Slavery" was a differentiating factor between these two classes but not the cause of the the conflict?

I don't like marxist historical theory, but the reason that it survived the split with marxist political theory is that it's always worth looking at the macroeconomics of historical situations when you're trying to determine root causes.

By fudging the slavery issue, and giving the South disproportionate political power through the Electoral College and other means, the Constitution virtually assured the country would come to blows, politically or militarily, over the issue.

Many Northerners like Lincoln may have wanted to accomodate slavery, but the logic--or illogic--of events overtook them. Economic and political interests play a vital role in history, but contrary to reductionist theories, things do not always unfold because of underlying "root causes."

My favorite illustration of this truism comes from Jason Epstein of New York Review fame, who once pointed out that Hitler's flatulence problem could have derailed Nazism. If Hitler had let out a big one during a key meeting in his political rise, his ambitions could have been thwarted. And the laws of history would have marched on without him.

Natalie, the 'book' Al Barger (apparently a member of the racist and secessionist Sons of Confederate Veterans) cited is a Bible of the neo-Confederate movement. It was dismissed as pure claptrap by real historians and Di Lorenzo can't even get a hearing at their conferences. (Even the Washington Times dissed it.) Lincoln was insensitive by today's standards, but he was not someone who wanted to continue slavery into perpetuity because "God ordained it," as the Southern 'heroes' Al worships were. The effort to 'revise' Lincoln is part of the neo-Confederate strategy to turn back the clock.

Most of the people on this thread are falling for Barger's manipulation because you are too damned lazy to do any research yourselves. Get a clue, huh? Heck, I've known about Di Lorenzo's so-called book since it came out and the neo-Confederate movement for a decade. Considering that, like their representative, Barger, the neo-Confederates are whereever racism rears its head, they aren't hard to learn about.

Still hanging with your crew, eh, Eric? (Bur you didn't know Barger is a neo-Confederate, right?)

Italics off!

Croft, I did not mean to include you in the general statement about laziness above. You obviously have read the most important evidence about the reasons for the Civil War -- the proclamations of the states seceding. As at least the two of us know, they all say slavery is the main reason they are seceding, i.e., interference with their property and 'way of life.' It seems doubtful that the Southerners would lie about themselves. So, once again, the revisionists are lying their arses off.

As for the North, reading the ignorance on this thread, you would think the abolitionists never existed. John Brown must be turning over in his grave. Nor did most Northerners repent their hatred of slavery after the war. Just visit the monuments to their role in ending it to learn more about that. Were they perfect? No. But, they were miles ahead of their Southern counterparts morally.

The claim the South would have ended slavery anyway ala Turtledove and company? B.S. If apartheid could continue in South Africa and Rhodesia well into our life times, slavery could have continued in a Confederate States of America. The economics would not have mattered anymore than they have in the Southern U.S. now. White supremacists care more about maintaining their supremacy more than anything else. If an oligarchy could remain comparatively wealthy and control the turf, that would have been good enough for them.

No wonder Barger has taken over Blogcritics. He knows he can toy with the people here.

Well, let me say that Al is not a racist. A blabbering fool half the time, maybe, but not a racist. He wrote a nice paen to John Brown a while back, so let's cut him some slack. I suspect he's never read the Dilorenzo book. For once, ignorance may be bliss.

Thanks for your kind words Mr Larkin. I have, however, read the Dilorenzo book. I have not seen any of his factual claims disputed.

Now it may be possible that there are other facts he doesn't take into account, and there are certainly different ways of spinning them. Reality in such a big historical sweep of events tends to be more complicated than can be explained in a paragraph or two on a website. There may be some legitimate counterarguments. Fair enough.

Again, the main factual point here is that the Emancipation Proclamation by design did not free any slaves. It got lost a bit in the shuffle here, but Mr. Wolf up in #16 made an interesting counterclaim that there actually were a "handful" of slaves freed by the EP. Really? Tell us more.

Ms Diva, if you'd mellow out on the slander, you might have something significant to contribute. I have in fact gone out of my way a bit to actively be nice to you since you've been here.

Indeed, as you may note from the "Happy Hate Crimes" post, even after you lost your mind on me, still I specifically dug this Lincoln post up to put here for the purpose of giving you a place to comment on it.

Indeed, your comment about the secession proclamations of the southern states above sounds like something I'd be interested in hearing more about. It might be that this would provide contrary evidence to a big chunk of my minority viewpoint on the war.

Two problems, though. One is that you are obviously prone to JUST FRICKIN' GO OFF FOR NO FRICKIN' REASON, which will tend to make others not want to play with you.

The other problem is credibility. I'm not saying this just to be crappy, but I know not to believe factually in the verity of what comes out of your mouth. You whip up evil mean stories about me among others that have no basis in fact. You make claims that you have to know have no basis. After a very few rounds of dishonesty, no one can believe you even when you are telling the truth.

If you have specific evidentiary documents that you'd like to refer us to vis a vis the secession statements of confederate states, feel free to share.

Al: Texas Ordinance of Secession. It ain't pretty. If Texas had had any sense, we'd've listened to Sam Houston and let the South hang. But we didn't.

mike,

I have to say that while you say "things do not always unfold because of underlying 'root causes'", I believe that it is a tautology that "things do always unfold because of underlying 'root causes'".

There is a long-running debate in historiography about the relative importance of institutional forces vs. individual actors. I tend to take a middle path, with an inclination to veer towards institutional forces. I think individual actors can influence the course of events, including the timing, but that without the underlying institutional forces, they could not do so.

The truism you refer to from Epstien seems to me to be an unfalsifiable assertion, and therefore incapable of being true or false. I find it unsatisfactory as a theory because it seems to suggest that no Hitler would have meant no National Socialism in Germany. I don't think that that deals adequately with the other individuals involved or with the rise of analogous fascist states in Italy and Spain, just to mention two near neighbors.

Mac,

I am willing to believe that a government would lie in their case for war and the justifications therefore. A historian of 130 years from now might be mistaken into thinking that Weapons of Mass Destruction were the cause of the current conflict and not a pretext.

In fact, the Texas Ordinance of Secession really does sex up the case for secession by overstating both the threat of Northern action against the slaveholders and the importance of slavery to the people of Texas.

Slavery was a huge issue, and a polarizing issue and an issue that reduced the fundamental conflict of two oligarchies over economics to something that people would fight for.

The other point I want to bring up about the EP was that Lincoln was a politician and timed the EP to be announced with news of a major Northern victory at Antietam. That makes sense. You don't land on the deck of the USS Emancipation Proclamation without a victory to show that you have a hope of enforcing your will.