Abraham Lincoln was a great man, but not exactly a unifying figure

Every time Lincoln comes up in political conversation as a symbol of healing or unity, I am struck by the way people seem to think he was the guy who just happened to be in charge when the Civil War broke out, and somehow pulled everyone back together.

The Civil War started because Lincoln was elected. His election was the precipitating event. Upon confirming that the election results were final, South Carolina declared, “the Union now subsisting between South Carolina and other states under the name of the ‘United States of America’ is hereby dissolved.”

He was the only third party candidate ever elected President and got a hair under 40% of the popular vote. But that's pretty impressive when you consider he wasn't on the ballot in 8 states. (He did very well in he States he ran in.)

Everyone in America knew when they cast their ballots in 1860 that a vote for Lincoln was a vote for civil war, or at the very least, the dissolution of the Union. There was no surprise to it. The south had already announced that if Lincoln was in, they were out. The voters of the north, to their eternal credit, did not knuckle under to that threat.

His election was a GREAT event in American history... but not what you'd call a unifying event. He had to sneak into Washington in disguise for his 1861 inauguration.

He was great man in a great cause, and a hero of mine. The Confederacy was a really bad outfit. Their plan was that after forcing the Union to sue for peace they would conquer Mexico and reintroduce slavery there. (American emigrants, the "anglos," had earlier "liberated" Texas from Mexico in the 1830s in large part because Mexico had outlawed slavery in 1929, and a land without slavery was an affront to white dignity.)

Lincoln was not a divisive man, by any means. He was a great compromiser, to the chagrin of absolutists on all sides. And, had he lived, he would have been a great conciliator with the defeated south.

But as a political figure... as a symbol, he's a really, really, really odd example of a "uniter."

Yes, he's a hero of mine, too.

A vote for Lincoln was a vote for the Constitution.

And he upheld the Constitution.

...Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, raised taxes and a blockade without Congressional authority, and kept the media under-wraps. He was not "uphold" the Constitution as many believe.

As an expedient, he suspended Habeas Corpus only in border jurisdictions where it was being abused to let rebels go. He went to Congress as soon as he could and asked them to vote on it - which they did, and they approved it.

As to the rest - I don't know of anything specific that was found to be unconstitutional. Can you cite specifics?

I guess you could call copperhead Democrats "rebels" to Lincoln. Look up the little ol' story of Clement Vallandigham.

You know, I knew it would turn to this. Just because I live in the south, I "must" have an hereditary bias against Lincoln. But the truth is, I'm giving you facts and you give me this bullshit. Your ignorance to think I actually support the Confederacy or their agenda sickens me. YOU'RE the one living in the 1860's. Piss off.

After years of reading code, it becomes completely intelligible, no matter what the language is.

His biggest flouting of the Constitution was pushing for WV's acceptance into the Union, probably.

Does this include a number of Maryland legislaters that were arrested by the army and detained with out charge. He did go to Congress finally, after the Taney court overtured a detention without charge. The Court reminded Abe that only the Congress, not the President can suspend the writ. Lincoln
considered arresting Chief Justice Taney for a short time, even signed an arrest warrent for him.

Which, by my calculations, is a long way from the border, but very close to the nation's capitol. Too close for comfort, considering that Maryland was allied with the rebellion.

As per Article I, Section 9:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Sounds to me like Mr. Lincoln was following the Constitution to the letter when he suspended habeus corpus, but I understand that the Bushie Sub-Media and Lie Laundry has for many years been laundering this particular odious Big Lie to make their precious Bushenfuhrer appear to be less remarkable a tyrant than he actually is.

And you fell for it. When all you had to do was pick up the Constitution and read the thing.

You know, nothing is more damning than a person who accuses others of being ill-informed, while being staggeringly ill-informed themselves.

Ahem.

Anyone with even a smattering of history on the matter knows who and what Taney was....

Even if one agrees wholly with the Taney decision as cited on this John Bircher website, the bottom line is that Lincoln attempted to follow the Constitution in difficult times so far beyond anything we could imagine, a time of open rebellion.

I have often said that if Bushler had followed the Constitutional remedy for a disputed Presidential Election, that is throwing it into the House of Representatives for a vote, I would not have become so alarmed at the Coup of 2000.

The very fact that the Bushies never once and for a single minute considered following the Constitiution, but went directly to Ed Luttwak's Coup D'Etat manual ("use the parts of the government you control to extend your control to the other parts") tipped their hand as liars and tyrants from the very first.

This was the opposite of Lincoln, who tried to work withing the Constitution from the very start, however he stretched it.

Was Lincoln a perfect Constituionalist? Hell no, but he tried to preserve it and everything in his writings and speeches suggest he would have restored in fully once the rebellion was over.

And THAT makes all the difference, especially compared to the context of the Modern Bushies, who have done nothing but tried to decimate, subvert and go around the Constitution from the very first.

I hate to go all Biblical, but I am reminded of Matthew 7:15-20 which warned us of this very thing and explained the difference between a Lincoln and a Bushler.

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

You honestly believe that the suspension of Habeas Corpus and the extent it was carried out was actually constitutional? If you can't abide by a Supreme Court ruling or by your own morales, then I give up. No point arguing with a brick wall.

That is my view, and that of historians unconcerned with fables about the ante-bellum South.

Taney made that decesion because he was slavery man, and hoped by it to thwart or at least severely hamper Federal suppression of the treasonous rebellion of the slave-owners he had been hand in glove with his whole career as a judge.

"I will fight the secesh till Hell freezes over, then fight on the ice!"

"If we ain't fightin' fer slavery, I'd like ta know what in Hell we're fightin' for!"

That is, Lincoln was within his authority to have Milligan et al arrested extraordinarily, and even detained without due process, but that sentence could not be passed by a military tribunal so long as there was still a functioning judicial apparatus. So, yes, he could (and did) detain citizens as circumstances required, but he ended up going farther than the deemed within the bounds of the Constitution.

Not something I've made a study of, so I will not comment on the nuance of it, but you are certainly correct
__________

ARTICLE 1, Section 9. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
__________

2. Under the constitution of the United States, congress is the only power which can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/suspension.htm
__________

Suspension during the Civil War and Reconstruction

On April 27, 1861, habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession.

In 1864, Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War. In Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866), the Supreme Court of the United States decided that it was unconstitutional for the President to try to convict citizens before military tribunals when civil courts were functioning. The trial of civilians by military tribunals is allowed only if civilian courts are closed. This was one of the key Supreme Court cases of the American Civil War that dealt with wartime civil liberties and martial law.

In the early 1870s, President Ulysses S.Grant suspended habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the Ku Klux Klan under the 1870 Force Act and 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Suspension_during_the_Civil_War_and_Reconstruction

Lincoln's testing and stretching of Constitutional limits may have resulted in making it stronger by encouraging people to defend it more fiercely and forcing Congress and the Supremes to clarify and codify it's meaning and, further, to add amendments to clarify the sticky points and plug the holes.

There is a distinct absence of honorable men and women surrounding and associated with the current administration.

Dumbya, the WPE, is no Lincoln.

I was going to post that, then I realized it wasn't in Article Two, executive powers. The Wikipedia article on Section Two says that the SCOTUS has ruled that only Congress can do that.

*snaps fingers*

Translator!

...you know what I meant :P Replace 'was' with 'did'.

"...Cases of Rebellion"

What were the Southern soldiers called again? :shrug:

Ignorance is bliss?

For instance, on this page they say that the 8th Amendment is 100% dead because it has been "Expanded by liberals well beyond its intended meaning, which has resulted in codling (sic) criminals."

I think it's funny that they confuse "codling" with "coddling." :rofl:

...The page I sent you was an historical fact.

But hey, you knew that.

As soon as the civil war was won, Lincoln had General Sherman set out to eradicate the plains Indians. What a guy that Lincoln was, "liberating" those injuns.

He supported the interests of Big Business -- at any and all costs. In modern times, he is personified by George W. Bush.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2256066#2263423

What other topic would you see fit to enlighten us about? Healthcare, perhaps? Or the Iraq war?

Just because many people need enlightenment is no sign I can provide it. Especially at the prices I charge for my opinions -- which come free. Enlightenment requires education -- which requires study. And lessons cost extra. Wanna sign up ?

However, my curiosity is perked as to why Lincoln reminded you of evolution ? Just because his political cohorts referred to him as "Honest Ape", is no sign he was the missing link.

The Thirteenth Amendment
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Certainly his victory gave the idiots in South Carolina the opportunity they were praying for to make mischief and force the hands of other southern states.

As much as I have studied the Civil War and the events that led up to it, I really can't see how the war could have been avoided. South Carolina just kept pushing the envelope and which is why General Sherman could barely restrain his troops when they finally crossed into that state for waging such a violent revenge upon it.

Like you, Lincoln is a hero to me also. I've read so many bios on him that it is a soup in my noodle now.

I guess you could say that his saving the union was the uniting, but your point that he was hardly a political uniter is well taken.

I love this man and would loved to have known him.

tariffs and economic development, the Civil War was entirely about slavery, because every other issue in dispute was negotiable, and--absent slavery--would have been settled.

(The cause of the Civil War is one of those questions that a small child has a better chance of answering correctly than a college student.)

You are right to recognize that I meant no implication that Lincoln himself played much of a role in splitting the country. As you say, it was baked in the cake well before 1860. And God knows Lincoln investigated every possible form of compromise on slavery. C'est la vie.

(I was moved to write this because I heard someone say that Lincoln had brought the country together, and was left to wonder what the heck they're teaching these days.)

I grew up, on and off, in the South and heard the mantra that the war was "economic" "agrarian vs industrial" and blah, blah, blah, but the undeniable fact was exactly as you put it: the Civil War was entirely about slavery.

I get nearly emotional when I hear the "other" reasons because while there may be a kernel of truth, those that seem to always push those arguments have their own agenda and, sadly, it almost always deals with unresolved issues with race.

The holocaust against African-Americans, as with the Native Americans, should never, ever be allowed to be glossed over. As a gay white man, I can tell you from the bottom of my heart that I have learned more from African-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans and Asian-Americans about how to keep one's sense of grace and dignity when systemic injustice comes. They have been my heroes and made me a better man.

As a footnote, when I was 17 I wound up living on the streets being cast out of my christian, republican family's home. Who took me in? Who let me sit at their tables and share their meals? The poor. And the glorious people of color who made a pigment-challenged kid from Texas feel he belonged. My partner of 34 years is Latino and saved me from my anger.

Abraham Lincoln only grows in my heart and mind every year as one of the most admirable men to have ever lived. Ben Franklin, Dr. King, Frederick Douglass are a few more of my absolute heroes.

the predictable pillow-chewing rancor here in the run-up to primary season.

Not to hijack the discussion, but you have the fixins here for a really good OP. What you've said here is very moving.

Thanks for your kind words.

black people. It is amazing to see the difference in a textbook from 1905 versus 1925... night and day. By the 1920s the gracious living and chivalry of the Confederacy were our Camelot. People blame D. W. Griffith for BIRTH OF A NATION without realizing how very mainstream it was at the time.

I think the national peak of lynchings was in the 1920s, and most victims were white. Lynching had taken on an air of chivalry by association with the Invisible Empire of the Klan, and people in areas with no black population took it up.

And, given GONE WITH THE WIND in 1939, there's no telling how popular our nations "lost golden age" would have gotten if WWII hadn't come along.

The saddest comment on where some of those folks were at is the Confederates who fled to Brazil because it was the last country in the world where black slavery hadn't been abolished yet. They could have fled anywhere in the world...

PS: Thanks for your biographical sharing. I was born in the Deeeeeep south, and have a lot of early memories that seem to be dreams today... things I cannot believe I saw first-hand.

I think the national peak of lynchings was in the 1920s, and most victims were white.

I've always been fascinated that the phenomenon of lynching as primarily white-on-white violence never seems to get discussed.

One is without any government involvement. Somebody does something or is rumored to have done something and a bunch of people grab him and hang him spontaneously, or the Klan would show up at his house at night and grab him and hang him.

The other kind is a protest against the rule of law itself, where a mob breaks into the police station to lynch a suspect being held before trial. It is directed against the victim, and equally against the state.

There was a vogue for a while of mobs breaking into police stations and even killing cops in the process, just to grab a suspect and hang him before he got a chance at a trial. And this was at a time when people convicted of murder, rape and kidnapping were going to get executed! None of this life in prison stuff. So the mobs' problem was with the orderly exercise of justice.

There was a rash of these things in California and the governor spoke approvingly of the mobs who were injuring cops and murdering people... the Lou Dobbs of his time, I guess.

Thinking back, when I said the majority were white, I probably should have said "non-black." A lot of those incidents probably included Mexicans and Chinese. Though, of course, a lot of southern incidents involved white "interloppers." The famous Mary Phagin case is intriguing because the system convicted an innocent northern Jew for the rape-murder of a white girl, even though the actual assailant was black. So they let the black man go to convict the Jew who symbolized economic disadvantage versus the north... race hate is very complicated.

on this board. (err, ok, maybe later) As a daughter of the Deep South, whose history I am alternately proud & ashamed of, it is refreshing to see said history cast in a more cerebral, than emotional, light. Good job all.

Discussions of race in this country still remain a touch subject. Just as they were in 1865. A large number of Americans still do not believe that the freed slaves should become fully absorbed into our society. Still probably the only issues left unsettled from the Civil War. JMO.

I urge people to read that book.

Puts everything into context.

The museum tries and does an amazing attempt at this man's life and times.

and because of a few stupid doctors, his martyrdom covered up a wealth of things we wouldn't think of as exactly heroic.

Meh, the people here in the US would far rather accept the myths of our constant greatness rather than face the facts.

accept the myths rather than face the facts that is. We need Heroes. And since so few people come out clean in the end we tend to gloss over their un-pleasantries.

without heroes, we're all just mortals, right? Maybe it would be good for us to treat everyone else as fallible.

If Columbus' men thought the world was flat they were the last European sailors to think so! The globe from the Santa Maria is in a museum, after all.

But that myth is quite popular.

Lincoln worked as a lawyer before being elected POTUS.

And probably would have come out well in the "who would you want to have a beer with" poll.

People who listed to the Lincoln-Douglas debates on the radio thought Douglas won.

He was preceded by an inept douchebag who let the South break away and wouldn't do a thing about it. Even the outgoing VP would've let the CSA break away without a fight if he was elected President.

It took over 120 years for a pair of morons to even top those two.

enemy is:

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarch, more insolent than autocracy and more selfish than a bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at the rear is my greatest foe." Abraham Lincoln

- more than in ANY other war in the history of our nation and it was fought on our own soil. Sorry, I can't share your sentiment that Lincoln was a great man or president. I recommend the book "Lincoln - The Road To War" by Frank Van Der Linden for a view of Lincoln sans the legend and lore that is backed with source info and data.

1 Amer.Civil War 1861–1865 625,000
2 World War II 1941–1945 405,399
3 World War I 1917–1918 116,516
4 Vietnam War 1964–1973 58,151
5 Korean War 1950–1953 36,516
6 American Revolutionary War 1775–1783 25,000
7 War of 1812 1812–1815 20,000
8 Mexican-American War 1846–1848 13,283
9 Philippine War 1898–1902 4,196
10 Iraq War 2003–present 3,888

I strongly disagree with your points, but its well worth discussing.

Abraham Lincoln is not considered a third party candidate. By 1860, the Republican Party was strong. Third party candidates are typically longhosts. The GOP was not a long shot party at all in 1860.

There are plenty of causes for the Civil War. Lincoln' election was a precipitating event, but was not one of those causes. As several have said, the die was cast by the time election day rolled around. The north had a choice: cave in or watch the country torn apart. They made the courageous choice and risked everything. (Contrast that with our party today.)

Lincoln was absolutely a uniter. When asked what to do when when we defeat the rebels, Lincoln replied "Let them up easy." And he certainly would have. He insisted on it. When Jefferson Davis was finally captured, he said the same. He was asked if he had anything to do with Lincoln's assassination. And Jefferson pointed out that at the moment, Lincoln was the best friend the south had. Very true.

He had wonderfully conciliatory instincts and was, himself, a compromise figure on slavery... he was not a strong proponent of emancipation compared with many others in his party.

But as an historical figure or symbol, rather than in terms of his personal inclinations, he is more symbolic of putting principle ahead of unity. (He was not the strongest proponent of his party's ideals, but he was their candidate, and his party was certainly not a unifying force.)

Had he lived he would have done a much better job of post-war reconciliation than what happened, but since he died, it's not part of his career record.

(It's like the question of whether Bill Clinton was polarizing. He was one of the most conciliatory and compromising Presidents we have had, but the historical record shows him as polarizing, even if he didn't intend that result.)

The effect of his actions have left a lot of people bitter. So yeah, that's about as polarizing as you can get.

On the other hand, you can't have unity with people who will not even consider compromise. The best you can do is reply in kind and hope to find a middle ground when the dust settles. Appeasement is not a path to unity. Its a path to continued appeasement. And as hard as Lincoln tried, the south was unwilling to yield even an inch. The war was terrible and led to great disunity. But considering the position of the southern leaders, I don't see how Lincoln could have avoided the war without caving in to all of the souths demands.

Verdict: yeah, you are right.

The OP says that "The Civil War started because Lincoln was elected. I prefer to believe that the Civil War started when Lincoln was elected.

You don't want to know what a thoraxic surgeon does before a coronary heart by-pass. But after all the blood-letting and after the marvelous, life-extending cardiology, the body becomes whole again, and the life-giving blood flows freely once more.

The divisions brought about by Lincoln were surgical incisions needed to expose the diseased heart of the nation. And after that nation saving arterial reconstruction he asked all to help him bind up the nation's wounds.

Read that Gettysburg Address before talking about Abraham Lincoln and you will always be reminded of his unifying greatness. What a blogger he would have made. Alas, he was the first and the last great Republican.

The growth of the modern Right Wing is due almost entirely to the festering material that was re-absorbed between 1880-1930, during the great sentimental Confederate renaissance, and anti-black backlash.

It's a damn shame.

I apologize once again for the confusion between precipitating event versus cause in the OP.

Lincoln did not cause the Civil War, but his election was the precipitating event. Just as Pearl Harbor did not cause WWII. (Or attacking Fort Sumter causing the Civil War, for that matter.) It was simply the point of no return in a long-running process leading up to war.

the OP's interpretation of our history:

"The Confederacy was a really bad outfit. Their plan was that after forcing the Union to sue for peace they would conquer Mexico and reintroduce slavery there. (American emigrants, the "anglos," had earlier "liberated" Texas from Mexico in the 1830s in large part because Mexico had outlawed slavery in 1929, and a land without slavery was an affront to white dignity.)"

May I interject that Texas was a neutral state, not choosing sides in the Civil War until it was almost over? And even then, there was a great deal of division between our statesmen as to which side we should support.

Secondly, the root cause of the TX Revolution in 1835 was not slavery or even religion (both of these did play minor roles). But the #1 reason for the rebellion was Santa Ana throwing out the Mexican constitution of 1824 and declaring himself dictator.

I would also like to remind the OP that many Mexicans and Tejanos fought on the side of Texas. Do you honestly believe they would have drawn muskets against their own country if they believed the Texians intended to return them to slavery? Hell, no - they fought for freedom! (In the mind of most Tejanos, they were fighting against an oppressive and out-of-control ruler. They called Santa Ana "the little Napoleon.")

Back then, Americans were a rather fiesty and stubborn lot. They didn't like dictators or tyrants, and refused to live under that kind of rule. Even if it meant fighting against losing odds: the rebels who died at the Alamo could have surrendered, knowing well how outnumbered they were. Just as the Confederates knew the Union would likely crush them in the end and yet continued to fight for four long years.

Right or wrong, the point is they were willing to fight and die for what they believed, rather than accept what they considered to be unacceptable encroachments on their rights and personal freedoms (which included the right to own slaves or ban the practice on a state-by-state basis.) They believed these matters should be decided on a local basis, with input from the people...not dictated to them from a central power in Washington or Mexico City.

I'm not saying either side was right or wrong here. I'm just telling you what these people believed. We were indeed a very different nation then. And there is no way to judge history from a modern point of view. We can't apply our current moral code to those times. Had we lived back then, it's safe to say we might have had different opinions about issues of federal power vs. states' rights, or dictatorship vs. what was then commonly known as "Republicanism."

You see, even THAT word had a different meaning way back when. They were not necessarily referring to the Republican party, but rather the Republican form of government which our "Republic" was founded upon.

We were the second to last large western nation to outlaw slavery. (Brazil was the last) We were an international moral pariah on slavery at the time, not merely with hind sight.

The British had everything to gain diplomatically and economically by siding with the Confederacy, but did not solely because of the moral issue of slavery. British mill-workers thrust into abject poverty by the loss of cotton to mill held rallies to encourage the Union to persevere. (A touching thing.)

If my description of Texan history is simplistic, I apologize. My point was more about the Confederacy's concept of reclaiming non-slave Mexican territory for the cause of slavery, and that there was a predicate for it. (I know Texas was essentially a neutral in th Civil War itself, and that Texans were not among the key planners of the Confederate cause.)

...not the least of which is the unfortunate alliance between the South and Britain. Of course Britain had other motivations, shall we say, for wanting to assist in the destruction of the American union. Less than 100 years after we kicked their teabag tails out of the colonies, they may have had a thirst for reclamation. Ya think?

And speaking of reclamation: after Texas won its' independence from Mexico at the battle of San Jacinto in 1836, Santa Ana apparently didn't get the memo (also known as the Treaty of Velasco). His thirst for reclamation drove him to continue nagging us with incursions into our territory, attempted invasions, and border skirmishes, all resulting in the Mexican War of 1845.

As for the issue of slavery, historical records show that public opinion was already largely against the enslavement of other human beings well before the civil war. Many Southerners found the practice unsavory and inhumane and slavery most likely would have been abolished on a state-by-state basis over the next 15-20 years had matters been allowed to take their own course.

The very reason the Southern states chose to secede was not over slavery itself, but rather over the principle of states' rights to decide these matters for themselves.

On the other hand, many Northerners owned slaves. Which is indeed the irony of the moral argument which was used to win the war.

So it's not exactly a "black-and-white" issue, if you'll pardon the analogy. History never is strictly black and white. Shades of gray.

It seems to have been left out of a few school books.

but these facts are in Texas textbooks and are still often discussed and debated amongst historians here in the Lone Star state.

An excellent book for further exploration of the cause of the TX Revolution is "A Line In The Sand: The Alamo In Blood and Memory" by Randy roberts and James S. Olsen.

Also, check out the chapter on Sam Houston in John F. Kennedy's "Profiles In Courage" for more info on his struggle to convince Texas to support the Union in the American Civil War.

Unfortunately, however, I don't think Kennedy's "Profiles In Courage" is required reading in most public schools history and civics classes. (Although it should be, IMHO.)

in So Cal and what I got was yes, slavery was debated in the 1860 election. But that the secession was as much a result of the prior administration's failure to deal with the issues. I just don't recall it ever stated in the texts that Lincoln's election would kick it off immediately. I may be showing my ignorance admittedly.

While it is true that Lincoln winning in 1860 was not how the civil war was started, it had a good deal to do with why it started.

5 more months would elapse between the election and the first shots being fired in April `61...but everybody knew it was coming. It was just a matter of where and when.

The beginning of secession and the outbreak of hostilities were separated by months, so I shouldn't have said the "Civil War" began with Lincoln's election... I should have said the dissolution of the Union began with Lincoln's election.

I sloppily think of the two as interchangeable.

cause of the war in his 2nd Inaugural speech shown below.

"At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention, and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it--all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes.

Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

...if only these words could have been delivered before Sherman's march to the sea, instead of afterwards.

Had the Union soldiers shown malice toward none and a little more charity for all on that march of devastation, much of the postwar anti-Yankee sentiment amongst Southerners could have been avoided.

It's not just that the South was pissed because they lost. Frankly, they were weary of war and wanted it to end, too. Lincoln's great speech, as well as his trip to Richmond in 1865, were attempts to re-unify a nation that was ready to stop the fighting. Had he lived to preside over Reconstruction, perhaps he could have healed the divide.

The real problem was that Southerners could not forget the way Union soldiers had burned their cities, ransacked and devastated their farms, and the way their unprotected, noncombatant wives and children were treated in this extreme act of violence and domination. The black slaves in Sherman-occupied Southern cities were not always treated so well by Union soldiers, either - which is one of the reasons why quite a few southern blacks did not exactly rush to join the Union army, even though they were promised freedom if they would.

Bear in mind that for many Southern blacks, the plantation owner's family was the only family they had ever known. They usually had the same last name as their owner and considered themselves a part of the extended family. If their owners treated them well (not every Southern slave owner was a whip-wielding maniac. This is a caricature.), and they had never lived as educated freemen, they quite naturally felt a sense of loyalty to their owner as most people would feel towards their father. With the men of the house gone away to fight, oftentimes the black males were the only men around to protect the women and children left at home. So when the Union soldiers came through on Sherman's march, committing outrages against their owners' family and property, oftentimes the slaves felt the insult as one against their very own family.

Given that consideration, is it any wonder that many blacks chose to remain with their "extended families" on the plantation even after the war when they were free to go? True, some were too impoverished or afraid to leave...others stayed because they were just loyal to the people whom they had always considered to be their family. They honestly couldn't imagine themselves being anywhere else but the place they knew as home....or rather, what was left of it after the war.