Looking back on the whole bloody mess, I truly believe that it was completely pointless EXCEPT as a maneuver to obliterate southern independence.

Joined
Mar 15, 2018
I was taught to believe that Abraham Lincoln was a great national hero and that he was a tireless opponent of slavery, but now after all of the books that I’ve been reading about the subject I’ve reached an altogether different conclusion and have come to see Lincoln in an altogether different light, not as a national hero but rather as a ruthless tyrant who employed dishonest subterfuge in the service of a nefarious goal that is totally at odds with everything that I was taught to believe.

Is there anyone else who feels the same way ?
 

Jamieva

Captain
Forum Host
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Location
Midlothian, VA
I was taught to believe that Abraham Lincoln was a great national hero and that he was a tireless opponent of slavery, but now after all of the books that I’ve been reading about the subject I’ve reached an altogether different conclusion and have come to see Lincoln in an altogether different light, not as a national hero but rather as a ruthless tyrant who employed dishonest subterfuge in the service of a nefarious goal that is totally at odds with everything that I was taught to believe.

Is there anyone else who feels the same way ?

I think you have swung to far the other way in your opinion of him. Just curious what books influenced you the most about Lincoln?
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I was taught to believe that Abraham Lincoln was a great national hero and that he was a tireless opponent of slavery, but now after all of the books that I’ve been reading about the subject I’ve reached an altogether different conclusion and have come to see Lincoln in an altogether different light, not as a national hero but rather as a ruthless tyrant who employed dishonest subterfuge in the service of a nefarious goal that is totally at odds with everything that I was taught to believe.

Is there anyone else who feels the same way ?
@NewYorkConfederate ,

Nope, totally disagree with your above view.

As you, I once believed the Civil War was not over slavery, but was about "States Rights." After 30 years of study, research, and reading later, I have come to my present belief that the Civil War was about the slaveholding South wanting to defend, protect, and even expand slavery at the expense of the rest of the people of the United States.

My advice to you: bring a lunch.

It's going to be very hard to swim upstream against the rushing current of over 153 years of recorded US history.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Obliterating southern independence, that is the suppression of rebellion and preservation of the Union, was a good reason. And I think most of us understand that was Lincoln's primary goal, no great surprise there.

Nor is it a surprise that the man who saved the nation is a, you know, national hero.
First of all it wasn’t a rebellion even if it was defined as such by Lincoln and Halleck and Sherman et al. It was a legal secession from the union that was voted on by the southern states in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Secondly, Lincoln didn’t save the Union, he destroyed the Union in the name of saving it.
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
I grew up believing Lincoln had horns on his head. Nobody mentioned a tail come to think of it. And did terrible things.
If not for him our experiment in democracy would have ended then.

@NewYorkConfederate try another book maybe ? I was greatly influenced by Team of Rivals -Doris Kearns Goodwin.
One book, like one eye, doesn't allow for perspective. My Confederate ancestors weren't too keen on Abe.

The positions were written by a confederate veteran and thereby are very old now. I used to believe that stuff too. Even referred to him as Adolph Lincoln. If you want to hate Lincoln, hate Lincoln. I like learning new stuff at the risk of changing my views and opinions. However, I still can't get over Sherman...
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
I grew up believing Lincoln had horns on his head. Nobody mentioned a tail come to think of it. And did terrible things.
If not for him our experiment in democracy would have ended then.

@NewYorkConfederate try another book maybe ? I was greatly influenced by Team of Rivals -Doris Kearns Goodwin.
One book, like one eye, doesn't allow for perspective. My Confederate ancestors weren't too keen on Abe.

The positions were written by a confederate veteran and thereby are very old now. I used to believe that stuff too. Even referred to him as Adolph Lincoln. If you want to hate Lincoln, hate Lincoln. I like learning new stuff at the risk of changing my views and opinions. However, I still can't get over Sherman...
The thoughts of a confederate veteran hold a great deal of weight and are more “legit” than a contemporary view because they were formulated by someone who was actually there.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
@NewYorkConfederate ,

Nope, totally disagree with your above view.

As you, I once believed the Civil War was not over slavery, but was about "States Rights." After 30 years of study, research, and reading later, I have come to my present belief that the Civil War was about the slaveholding South wanting to defend, protect, and even expand slavery at the expense of the rest of the people of the United States.

My advice to you: bring a lunch.

It's going to be very hard to swim upstream against the rushing current of over 153 years of recorded US history.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
In a way you are correct because the war at least in part actually WAS about slavery, it just wasn’t about slavery in the sense that you’re meaning to convey. It wasn’t a case of “shining knights in blue” descending on the south with the intention of freeing the slaves. It was more like a military invasion that was carried out with not-so-noble intentions, but the invaders finally decided after much consternation that it would be a good idea if they’d latch onto the issue of “slavery” as a convenient justification for their actions.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
The south was ransacked and burned to the ground but surprisingly a great deal of documentation was able to survive.

Or to put it another way the vast majority of the South was not burnt to the ground. There was a considerable amount of ransacking but most of that was by Confederates, authorised by their state or federal government or not, looking to find resources to continue the war.

Wars to suppress rebellions were commonplace in the 19th century. You might want to compare and contrast the measures taken by Lincoln with those of the Russians against Poland at the same time.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
The south was ransacked and burned to the ground but surprisingly a great deal of documentation was able to survive.
Try reading a bit about how revolts where usually suppressed in Europe during this period.
(Paris in 1848 or 1871 would be a good place to start. Or if you want some relevance to the civil war, "germany" in 1848... a lot of "rebels" fled to the UJS when that revolt failed)

Usually, captured rebels was placed up against a wall and shot.

The south got of very very easy.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
The thoughts of a confederate veteran hold a great deal of weight and are more “legit” than a contemporary view because they were formulated by someone who was actually there.
Or to put it another way the vast majority of the South was not burnt to the ground. There was a considerable amount of ransacking but most of that was by Confederates, authorised by their state or federal government or not, looking to find resources to continue the war.

Wars to suppress rebellions were commonplace in the 19th century. You might want to compare and contrast the measures taken by Lincoln



There was only one northern town that was put to the torch by the Confederate Army, at least to the best of my knowledge, and that was the town of Chambersberg (sp?) Pennsylvania. The affair was carried out in retaliation for numerous acts of depredation that were committed against the state of Virginia at the hands of generals George A. Custer and David Hunter. General Early sent General McCausland into Chambersberg with an ultimatum - either pay “x” amount of dollars or suffer the consequences. The town’s leadership didn’t take the threat seriously and they refused to pay McCausland and so the town was put to the torch. General John Hunt Morgan made forays into Ohio from Kentucky but I don’t think that he ever burned down any northern villages.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
I would suggest you start out by taking a highschool class in history. And learn basic source criticism.
You know learn how some sources are not objective but subjective...

Because reading any books will be a total waste of your time, when you don't have the basic theoretical knowledge needed to study history.
In other words you want me to accept the official “Yankee” version of history which is basically a fraud and a coverup. Well good luck with that because I’m not buying it.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
In other words you want me to accept the official “Yankee” version of history which is basically a fraud and a coverup. Well good luck with that because I’m not buying it.

I think you are rather proving his point. You have not addressed his remarks but tellingly have talked as if he was saying something else.

Any honest view of the American Civil War, indeed of most wars, is going to be nuanced and saints are thin on the ground. What he is saying is that just because one paradigm on the narrative is incorrect does not mean the opposite one is true. The truth may not lie in the middle but you first need to learn how to study the sources and frame your arguments in your own mind if nothing else before you can come to any kind of reasoned conclusion. Otherwise you are left with kneejerk emotionalism which makes for poor history.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Try reading a bit about how revolts where usually suppressed in Europe during this period.
(Paris in 1848 or 1871 would be a good place to start. Or if you want some relevance to the civil war, "germany" in 1848... a lot of "rebels" fled to the UJS when that revolt failed)

Usually, captured rebels was placed up against a wall and shot.

The south got of very very easy.
I’ve read first-hand accounts of the sacking and burning of Columbia, South Carolina.

The south suffered tremendously at the hands of Lincoln and Grant and Sherman and Sheridan, et al. and their policy of “total war.”

The southern states did nothing to deserve that kind of treatment.
 
Top