[talaniman]

Conquerors conquer for their own glory, and any excuse will do, because they can. This excuse of how benevolent they are is just that an excuse. Fact is ruthless domination for profit or gain is the bottom line. Dress it up all you want but the nature of man always comes out for good or bad.

[tomder55]

.Now, Churchill, he is another of history's complicated characters, and not entirely clean: When he was Minister Of War in WWI, he purposely made false statements about the Lusitania being loaded with weapons and war materials knowing that there were American citizens aboard and knowing that the Germans would clue their U-Boats in on the information to sink the ship...his whole purpose was to drag the U.S. into "The Great War"...and, it worked.

yes I admire hm as Brits leader of UK WWII .He was the right man at the right place at the right time . But the rest of his history is far less admirable .The famine was real and engineered by Churchill . The harvest was above average and could've easily fed the population .Instead he diverted the harvest to use in the Middle East where it was not needed for the war effort. He blamed the Indians for the famine saying they breed like rabbits .

[Vacuum7]

tomder55 and Talaniman: I think it is safe to say that the "GREAT MEN" of history, with the exception of Jesus Christ, were all paradoxs of virtue, effectively living, walking contradictions of who we think they are or, even, the characters that our history books have portrayed them to be all this time. Churchill was an example...Kennedy is another: A heroic figure that had trouble keeping his britches pulled up....Franco, whom we were taught was an evil dictator, was a dictator BUT also a man who kept Spain free of communist tyranny....Nixon is shown to be "a crook" in history but he got the U.S. out of Vietnam....there are many more examples like this but the evidence shows none of these "Great Men" were entirely with a darker side.

[tomder55]

yes . FDR had internment camps that Congress approved of and SCOTUS validated .Both Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson violated habeus corpus and threw opponents in jail .

[paraclete]

The "Great Men" are all despots, consumed by purpose and not caring about suffering. They would all lose whole populations if it suited their purpose. Churchill was only great because he rallied a nation, Lincoln only freed the slaves for political advantage, Stalin killed millions, FDR would let Europe rot but for pearl harbour. History is full of these "Great men", despots all

[Vacuum7]

tomder55: However, WE NEED HEROES! Everyone does in this world! I am not for tearing down every single person in history just to show evenhandedness or "because its truth"....My Daddy, the GREATEST MAN I have ever known, had proclivities but they matter not to me, he was still great and will always be great TO ME!

Looking at historical figures through the prism of today's lenses is ALWAYS going to be a risk...and it is entirely unfair, to tell you the truth.

Paraclete: I will defend Lincoln: He freed the Slaves, true, but as a byproduct of saving the nation: The United States would have never been the United States had Lincoln not sought to bring the Southern State back into the Union....If the Union/North had not won the Civil War, the United States wouldn't have existed and certainly would not have been as great a force for good as it has become through history since that time.

[jlisenbe]

I think you guys are confusing powerful men with great men. Churchill, FDR, and Lincoln could probably be referred to as "great". Stalin? Nope. Powerful, but not great.

[tomder55]

Lincoln only freed the slaves for political advantage,

That is just not true . The whole purpose of the Republican party origins was to advance emancipation . He was personally morally opposed to slavery . But as the chief law enforcer of the land he had the enforce the constitution . So he could not do it immediately upon inauguration . He could not declare them free . The Emancipation Proclamation was of questionable constitutionality . He took advantage of war powers to declare slaves in rebellious states free . That only became a permanent state when the constitution was changed with the 13th amendment . Presidents do not unilaterally make law .

[jlisenbe]

Lincoln and others proposed a Constitutional amendment that would have perpetually established slavery in the states which then had it but would not have allowed it in new states. They did this in the hopes of avoiding secession. Lincoln was on record that he would abide slavery in order to preserve the union.

[paraclete]

as I said a despot

[jlisenbe]

A despot would have imposed his will. Lincoln, not being a despot, could not do that.

[Vacuum7]

The true answer to the age old question: Why was the Civil War fought? It wasn't fought to free slave, it was fought to reunify the Southern States back into the Union. Today's history books teach "revisionist history" and its a damned shame.

[talaniman]

The civil war was fought over slave policy and what new states would be able to do about slavery. It was open to negotiation until the south attacked a union fort.

[tomder55]

it all went back to slavery . Why did the southern states secede ? Because Lincoln and the Republicans supported abolition is one reason . The bigger reason was that the Dredd Scott decision broke the Missouri compromise . Instead of having a hard border for free and slave stated now every new state being admitted could be contested . That is why the Kansas territory was so violently contested .

[Vacuum7]

Talaniman & tomder55: O.K., the "distilled" reason for the Civil War would be Slavery, that's the "root cause"...I honestly never thought about in those terms but that is WHY the Southern States broke away...I was wrong!....and the North wouldn't let that status of separate Southern States stand: I have always attributed the War to that, breakaway Southern States, as being the solitary reason for the execution of War. Above all of these reasons, it comes down to control and unification, I don't believe there was a "NOBLE" reason of freeing Slaves as much as it was that the Southern States could govern themselves and enforce their own rules and have their own privileges, having Slaves being nestled amongst those rights...the Union was determined to enforce administer equal laws and rights to all states.

[jlisenbe]

Lincoln would have tolerated slavery in the existing southern states if that would have held the Union together.

[Vacuum7]

jlisenbe: You said it much better than I did: crisply and to the point!

[tomder55]

yes there was a lot of tolerating slavery between 1782 and 1861 . The framers wrote in a grace period that would last until after they were gone because they knew that intolerable institution was enough to break apart the nation.

In exchange for a 20 year ban on any restrictions on the slave trade, southern delegates agreed to remove a clause restricting the national government's power to enact laws requiring goods to be shipped on American vessels (benefiting northeastern shipbuilders and sailors). The same day this agreement was reached, the convention also adopted the fugitive slave clause, requiring the return of runaway slaves to their owners. Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison claimed the constitution was "a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell"? If the Constitution temporarily strengthened slavery, it also created a central government powerful enough to eventually abolish the institution.

As far as the state's "power " to secede ;I think Grant summed it up best in his memoirs(the absolute best history of the war) . This chapter of the best summation of the civil war by itself is worth the price of the purchase .


http://www.historyofwar.org/sources/...hapter16d.html

Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution.Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship—on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror—must be the result.

[paraclete]

Lincoln would have tolerated slavery in the existing southern states if that would have held the Union together.

Lincoln was a racist, he wanted to deport all negros back to Africa, ending slavery was a political convenience

[tomder55]

no he wasn't. But he did consider what would happen once slavery ended ,and like many in the country ,his views evolved over time . It is very 20-20 hind sight to apply 21st century values to 19th century reality .

Lincoln said during the Civil War that he had always seen slavery as unjust. He said he couldn't remember when he didn't think that way ; and there's no reason to doubt the accuracy or sincerity of that statement.

But he did not know what would happen once the slaves were freed . So one of the options he considered early in his time was to encourage them to colonize Liberia . By the time of the emancipation proclamation he had rejected that idea.

read 'The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. 'by historian Eric Foner for more on this subject