People tend to think of Lincoln as a benevolent, low key father figure
who was out to save the world. They've been fed the myth of him being
a poor child who grew up in a one room log cabin reading books to
better himself by firelight. And while the log cabin part and
firelight might have been true keep in mind that was the norm for back
then.
The truth is that in todays world we'd have said he was a hard core
lobbyist. (think James May in politics) He was one of the highest
paid trial lawyers in America at that time with his own axe to grind
and he was in the pocketbook of big northern factories and the
railroad industry (the economic element mentioned earlier) and was a
political insider in northern big business circles. Think of him more
as a Clinton than a Jesus type figure.
He married for political influence and married into an affluent ,
slave-owning Kentucky family. Whatever was expedient and good for
him. Getting rid of states rights and going to a strong Federal govt
garnered power for him and his cronies, who cared what the rest of the
nation thought.
The more you read and the more you know the more you realize that
without Lincoln we may never have had the Civil War. He single
handedly did more damage to this great nation than any president
before or since. But winners write the history books and spin the media.
On Sep 24, 2009, at 11:14 PM, Jason C wrote:
You have it backwards, secession would have kept the peace.
Slavery would have imploded on its own as it did elsewhere in the
world. The North and South would likely have reunited.
And, it would have been cheaper for Lincoln to purchase the slaves
and set them free, than to wage war (which killed over 500,000).
You keep buying into the idea of empire - and that a nation has to
stay large and powerful in order to protect its citizens. Consider
Switzerland, which Hitler couldn't touch...
--- On Thu, 9/24/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: NMC Several Founders owned slaves - why the succession
was wrong
To: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, September 24, 2009, 7:39 PM
The succession of the southern states was predictable based upon the
belief that individual states were very much like independent
countries, and at the time of the nation's founding, that was the
perception.
Lincoln was right regarding the importance of keeping the nation's
states together, because quite frankly, the USA probably would not
exist had the south succeeded in succession.
Indeed, the military might of the North and South would not likely
be directed toward common enemies, as the alliances arising from
successful southern succession would be in stark contrast to those
forged with the north. Would we ever see peace in North America?
Perhaps, but not until we'd suffered several more wars, some of
which would have been introduced by rival European nations.
Jerry aka LGO
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Miatapower mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower
_______________________________________________
Miatapower mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower
_______________________________________________
Miatapower mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower
