homechex

Hum.. I am totally confused. Abraham Lincoln, one of our most popular and idolized presidents waged war on his own people. (The Civil war was the most costly war, in terms of loss of life, in our history). It seems rather ironic to me that Saddam Huessein is portrayed as an evil person and Lincoln as a great person. I am not justifying what Saddam did to his own people when they tried to gain independence from Iraq. I�m just amazed at how differently the two are portrayed. Granted, Saddam used poison gas against his people. Lincoln didn�t use gas, but the people are no less dead. The US government also waged war on civilians at Kent State, Ruby Ridge and Waco with out anyone being removed from office. Not saying anyone is right, wrong or justified, just some random thoughts knocking around in my head. Guess it boils down to who wins the battle. Bush is a hero, (to some) even though no WMD have been found. The only thing that matters is the fact that he won the battle in a decisive manner. No matter that it was a third rate army the US was fighting.
Other thoughts, and another parallel to the Kurds and the Shiites
I wonder just how far a state, say California would get if they said tomorrow that they no longer wanted to be a part of the United States. How long do you suppose it would take Bush to send in the troops and for the cruise missiles to rain on Sacramento?

Cicero

If you cannot tell the difference between a dictator, and a man who tried to keep his nation from balkanizing, then you are in need of a new hat...don't forget the tinfoil.

Joe6Pack

Hmmmmm. Lets see, one of the persons you mentioned went to war to liberate his countrymen, and the other was an oppressor who slaughtered his subjects without remorse. Now which one was the bad guy?

GaryP

I think if you look into it, Lincoln only took up the cause of Abolisionists because he felt it would further his cause of keeping the Union together.

The Proclamation of Emancipation was not issued till Jan., 1863 and it only applied to the states which were in rebellion. Therefore, at the time it was issued, it had no practical affect.

PopeInTheWoods

I have looked into it, and disagree with your conclusion. There was a big ugly thread on this recently, so I'll just summarize my points. Lincoln's views on slavery and abolition were complex and evolving. He was strongly morally opposed to slavery, but couldn't think of a way to eliminate it without tearing the country apart. He (along with 99+ percent of the white population, including many abolitionists) believed that whites were naturally superior to blacks, and could never live together in total economic and political equality. But he was consistently on the record (from the Lincoln-Douglas debates and prior) against slavery, particularly against its spread.
Lincoln lacked the authority to ban slavery in the Union states.

Andy

homechex

I didn�t think you got my point. I realize that what Saddam did he did without remorse. And yes I realize that Lincoln freed the slaves and it was the right thing to do. My point is that I don�t for a minute believe that Bush would hesitate to do the same things that Saddam did and do it without remorse. I believe that he is one of the most dangerous men this world has ever known.

GaryP

Andy--

I think I'll have to agree to disagree.

I think Lincoln was the greatest president we've ever had who did what he had to do to keep the Union viable.

But I think that is exactly the point, i.e., the preservation of the Union was PRIMARY. I agree that he was very likely anti-slavery, but if he needed to he would have repressed that ideal to keep our country unified.


He said;

"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.

From;

http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html

And I don't understand your quote above.

Why did he lack the power?

John Hancock

The War Twix the States was economic. Industries in the north wished to captivate the suppliers of raw materials by denial of overseas market access. "Capitalism with the gloves off."

Martin

Gurdur

Because he wasn't a dictator.

It wasn't until he finally got a pro-Abolitionist consenus among the Union states and in Congress that he was able to abolish slavery; he was completely unable to do it in 1861, or anyone else beforehand.

And that wasn't even the issue, muchly, till late in the day; the Fugitive Slave Law that the South wanted to have power over every single other (non-slavery state) was one of the main issues to push the South into finally declaring independence and war.

GaryP

But he did so many other things that were dictator-like.

Like suspending habeus corpus.

If this were truly a priority , why didn't he just do it?

Probably because if he did, Kentucky, Delaware and Maryland would also have seceded.