--- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Responses interleaved below.
>
> --- new.morning wrote:
> >
> > Many TMers, most Ru residents of FF -- past and present - are or have
> > been, at times, effected by myths and the lack of critical
thinking. ...
>
> Guilty as charged.
>
> >Lincoln is esteemed highly -- yet he plunged the
> > nation into a war of aggression
>
> I believe this point of view ^ is non-standard among
> Civil War buffs. I've seen a variant of it expressed by
> a Southern die-hard in a letter to the editor of Civil
> War Times magazine,
It sounds "southern" perhaps, but I am a northerner, whose great
grand-father fought for the Union. What I was trying to convey is that
the South was not going to invade and overtake the North. The North's
security or "homeland" was not at issue.
> but that's it. The letter-writer
> held that Lincoln conducted a war of aggression
> against a sovereign nation, the Confederate States
> of America.
>
> > and extensively suspended civil liberties in conducting
> > the war.
>
> Not disputed by anyone.
>
> > It was a war of aggression against an idea. (Not
> > slavery
>
> How so? I thought it was a conflict between two
> very different cultures a different thing from an
> attack upon an idea.
See Lincoln posts from yesterday.
>
> > This most bloody war could have been avoided, peacefully.
>
> I have never, ever encountered such an idea. The
> prevailing thinking among people in the know is
> that the war was inevitable. You are indeed challenging
> accepted thought here, new morning.
I may be challenging myth, but not well research and reasoned POV's
that the war was not inevitable. For heaven sake, Horace Greely, one
of the most forecful voices of the era, advocated peaceful secession.
Again, see Lincoln posts. I am open to changing my view, but based on
my research, it seems it could have easily been avoided.
> > Thus, in the FFL spirit of challenging deep unexamined assumptions,
> > the iconic and mythical stature of Lincoln in our institutions, hearts
> > and minds deserves challenging and critical analysis.
>
> I thought your post highlighted the way widely
> held opinions differ from those of people in the
> know. For people in the know - historians and
> Civil War buffs recognize the cultural conflicts
> of the North and South, and admit that the end
> of slavery was a side-effect of a larger struggle.
>
> The moral of the story, then, is to recognize that
> popular myths ("Lincoln fought to free the slaves")
> may be rife with fictions.
Yes. Thats where I started my research. However, that lead to a
quesion that has plagued me since I parroted a professors POV back to
him on an Am History final years ago to get a good grade, "WHY was the
war fought if not to free the slaves?" The standard answer, to
preserve the Union, seemed hollow then, and increasingly empty now.
Reseach confirmed this. If anything it was economic.
And it could have been avoided by peaceful secession. And that, some
argue convincingly, would have accelerated the demise of slavery. The
North would no longer been bound to return run-away slaves. Slaves in
the border states would have jumped north quickly. Southern slaves
would have in large numbers over time. Plus, it would have allowed the
North to promote economic boycotts of the South by all nations who had
reputiated slavery (e.g. Britian 1837).
Or the war could have been avoided by buying all slaves from
slaveholders -- which Britian did. Far cheaper than the War and aftermath.
Respond to Lincoln post after you have read it -- and book cite summaries.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
