"Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln" Topic

"The astonishing thing about this paper on Abraham Lincoln is that it is needed at all or is considered controversial. In my opinion, one does not have to be a scholar to ferret out obscure and suppressed facets of history to see Abraham Lincoln as he was.

My views on this subject are not unusual. They are those of the overwhelming majority of Southerners both immediately before, during and for decades after the War between the States. My views were also shared by many in the North and the West. Only the passage of time and the studious cultivation of the myth of Abraham Lincoln, coupled with his timely death (timely in the sense of being providential for his place in history) have caused Abraham Lincoln to be raised to the level of a sacred cow in American history.

Nevertheless, even contemporary events show that the place and role of Abraham Lincoln in American history are a subject which is very sensitive to the Establishment. When Professor M.E. Bradford of the University of Dallas was nominated by President Reagan to head the National Endowment for the Humanities, a storm of abuse and controversy exploded. Professor Bradford's sin was that he had the effrontery to criticize Abraham Lincoln. The New York Times launched the attack, followed by a host of other establishment liberal spokesmen and institutions and joined by so-called "neo-conservatives" such as George Will. Mr. Will excoriated Professor Bradford as "the nostalgic Confederate remnant of the Conservative movement" and made it clear that neo-conservatives have no use for any criticism of Abraham Lincoln. /1 Obviously, Professor Bradford touched a raw and sensitive nerve when he criticized a president who has been dead for over 120 years. One wonders after the lapse of so many years why this matter is such a vital, important and sensitive one…"
Full text here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Tango, you really need to check your sources.

…He successfully defeated the South. The labors of the South for its freedom were all in vain. Seventy-five percent of the white male population of military age served in the Southern armies but could not overcome the disparity in numbers of the North's mercenaries. The cherished dream of Southern independence was not to be. Lincoln should be seen as an example of the amazing inability of Americans to assess their history objectively because while some things may be little known, certainly everyone has heard of General Sherman's March to the Sea. We cannot exonerate Abraham Lincoln from this atrocity. Yet somehow the question is never even asked by Americans-if Lincoln was so wonderful and magnanimous and kind and good, why did the March to the Sea take place?

Lincoln's bad because he won?

Lincoln's fault that the south seceded and had to be beaten back into the Union? What a crock.

Lincoln's fault that the south fired FIRST and started seceding before he took office too.

Now there is a LOT about Lincoln that actual research uncovers that paints him in a less than saintly light – he would drop you quicker then you can spit if political expediency required it for example.

The labors of the South for its freedom were all in vain.

"For its freedom"? Oooookay.

Professor Bradford's sin was that he had the effrontery to criticize Abraham Lincoln.

Even within the Republican party, people objected to Bradford for more than just his criticism of Lincoln.

Lincoln was not a saint but let's be clear on this – he was the elected President of the US, he effectively dealt with a problem that previous presidents had been dodging for years and he did so with the goal of a united and strong nation

Not a bad track record

You have to love full objective articles…

the North's mercenaries

Oh, I never knew that the Union army hired mercenaries. I always thought that they were either regular troops or were raised by the states in response to federal decrees. I'll have to totally rethink my entire perspective of the Union army then. [Sarcasism mode now disengaged).

Jim

Criticism is one thing. This is……….

DM

'Crap', I think the word you are looking for is 'crap'.

It was the South that started the forced conscription laws It was slavery that the South wanted to keep that was the cause of the WAR. NOT freedom!

Yup and yup to the last two comments.

Where (and why) are you finding this crap, Armand? Please stop!

Damn Yankees

> Damn Yankees

Why bring up Baseball?

He likes pinstripes?

Not only is this worthless but, again, what does this have to do with war gaming? This is not a share you interests or what you just read site. It is not even a bring up little interesting things about history site. It is to be about war gaming. Certain members should remember this isn't their face book account.

In point of fact, even though I really dislike this "myth" dung that Tango keeps posting this site is categorically NOT just about wargaming. That's why we have boards about books, movies, TV, Utter Drivel, and lots of other stuff that is often not wargames related at all.

"Certain members" should remember that they aren't the editor and have no control over what is actually posted…

Nazrat,

True, you are right. So then let's please have people post books, movies, news ect on those sites.

Also, perhaps I was trying to get the editor's attention on what some of us do see as a problem.

I think people pretty much tend to post things on the appropriate forums, this one included. It is the ACW Media Board and this is about a book…

Very few of us… better… (smile)

There would be much more in the near past… and you can find them now in Frothers… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Nazrat,

Again, you are correct. My apology for going off as I did. I have become frustrated by the numerous and often unnecessary postings of a member. I picked the wrong one to get ticked with. I will say no more and let this go. Life is too short.

Fair enough! Have a wonderful day.

"For example, Lincoln indicated that he was in favor of Negro suffrage in Louisiana, which would have placed the white Louisianans in a politically untenable position."

Which means the whites would have been outvoted. Horrors!! This is the usual neo-Confederate twaddle. The slaveholders started the war, and they started it over slavery. In 1861 they were quite willing to say so. In 1865 when the South was in ruins and 250,000 of her young men were dead, they worked to convert it into a noble struggle for abstract states rights.