So, why would people denigrate Lincoln while lionizing Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee? Even a cursory examination of neo-Confederate sites answers that question.
Those of you who began reading my commentary before I had my own blog or who have been reading Mac-a-ro-nies from its inception already know I honed my blog teeth on the neo-Confederate movement. Readers who came along later have probably noticed I mention that pathetic band of Neandertals from time to time. It appears I need to return to writing about it often. A blogger sympathetic to the neo-Confederate movement has been promoting claims that President Abraham Lincoln was a despot and that the Emancipation Proclamation was meaningless.
…
Article comments
26 - Mac Diva
I don't understand your perspective, Ash. The neo-Confederates are a very powerful and harmful group, as revealed during the Trent Lott debacle. Why should we let discussion of them die instead of educating the population about them?
Robbed gets it. Partial quotes from Lincoln early in the conflict not withstanding, the Civil War was mainly about slavery. Sweeping that truth under the rug is unacceptable. People like Barger and other neo-Confederates are not remotely innocent in their desire to mangle history. They believe that misrepresenting what happened 150 years ago will help them accomplish their reactionary goals now and in the future. Their argument: If there was never any race problem except for the meddling of "damned Yankees," then the whole civil rights movement and its current supporters are bogus. This is some deadly Kool-Aid. Don't drink it.
My next neo-Confederate entry will get to the core of the "not about slavery" claim. I will also dissemble the other book Barger is relying on and its publisher, a neo-Confederate small press.
Will all due respect to Eric, just about everything his friend Barger is saying is pure neo-Confederate boilerplate. It will be easy to refute by primary documents, i.e., those presented by the participants in the secession and the Civil War itself. It is not clear to me how Barger convinced anyone here he knows anything, despite his numerous posts. His remarks on just about everything are as shallow as a soap dish.
I had intended to spend most of this week discussing the Portland 7 terrorism case on Mac-a-ro-nies. But, I believe negating neo-Confederate influence is just as important.
27 - Natalie Davis
I hope you get to the Portland Seven soon. That is an interesting case: If Patrice Lumumba Ford & co. can face charges for conspiring to wage war on the US, Dubya Bush and his fellow terrorists should face charges for what they did to Iraq and Afghanistan. Bill "Slick" Clinton should face charges for what he did to the Sudan... And on and on...
28 - Al Barger
You seem to think that not liking Lincoln somehow means hating black folk. Actually, I'm saying that LINCOLN didn't give a rat's ass about a black man. That's part of why I consider him bad. Again, look at that famous Greely letter.
29 - Mac Diva
You're wasting your time, Barger. The Greely quote, another staple of neo-Confederate sites, is taken out of context and divorced from the historical record. Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether More or Less Honest Abe would have invited Oprah to dinner. Because of him, the slaves were freed and several generations later Oprah can dine with just about anyone she wants. Lincoln led the Union to victory in the Civil War, freeing the slaves in the process. That is what matters.
30 - Al Barger
Miss Diva, you start to make a reasonable argument there in the last sentence. I don't know that I agree with it, but there might be at least a halfway defensible position there.
I don't see how the Lincoln quote was at all out of context, but let's just settle that problem by including the entire text of his letter to Greely:
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable [sic] in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln
31 - Mac Diva
Lincoln was a trial lawyer. He is simply making alternative arguments:
1) I would leave the status quo alone if that were possible, and
2) That is not possible, so I will save the Union by fighting to end slavery.
At that point in his career, he is subordinating emancipation to what he perceives as the greater cause of saving the Union. He may have believed what he is saying, but it is also a diplomatic argument. States with a lot of Confederate sympathizers, such as Maryland, would have been amenable to it. He needed to keep those states from bolting.
32 - Eric Olsen
I would say MD's statement here pretty much sums up my position on the matter:
it doesn't matter whether More or Less Honest Abe would have invited Oprah to dinner. Because of him, the slaves were freed and several generations later Oprah can dine with just about anyone she wants. Lincoln led the Union to victory in the Civil War, freeing the slaves in the process. That is what matters.