The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 5 of 12)

br> Bristol, Vermont /p> p> NOT WEEPING FOR ABE br> Re: Shawn Macomber's The Vain Assassin : /p>

Take a moment and put the revered Lincoln in the precise situation in another country prior to creating his war (and it was undeniably his). One should also bear in mind that the invasion was begun to return the former states to the Union, not to end slavery. In another country, historians would point out the Confederate States had the right to secede and simply wanted to go in peace.

Lincoln's tyranny, jailing anyone who publicly disagreed, suspending Habeas Corpus completely, and allowing the rich to buy their way out of the draft would be viewed for that which it was. Of course the "Emancipation Proclamation," which may have freed no slaves, was a perfect metaphor for Mr. Lincoln's "principles."

One can make a case that Mr. Lincoln started the war to satisfy his Northern industrialist backers who feared losing the captive providers of cotton and other raw materials and wanted high protective tariffs. This disgraceful war cost 600,000 lives and the South did not recover until the 1950s, not to mention the freed slaves who were arguably left in worse shape than before the war. Prior to the destruction of the south, at least the economy was decent.

Had Lincoln not seen the benefit of war, the slaves would have been freed within a generation, or possibly two, into a thriving economy. That would not serve Lincoln's purposes however...

p>The next time you hear about the importance of supporting "breakaway republics," think about the much maligned Confederacy. br> -- Bruce Karlson

topics:
Education, Trade, Bill Clinton, Mainstream Media, Business, Islam, Environment, Global Warming, Law, Iraq, Iran, NATO, North Korea, Immigration, Nuclear Weapons