Lincoln's role in history

[barking_iguana]

I got in a discussion in Facebook messages, where a friend explained why he didn't think much of Lincoln. You can read that for context if you want. Basically, he says Lincoln didn't fight the war over slavery and in any case, it would have been better in the long run to have let the south go.

Bertin Lefkovic: I think that Lincoln was overrated. He fought the civil war to preserve the Union, which in my opinion, should not have been preserved, not to end slavery, which was an afterthought. In fact, I think that war could have been avoided altogether by allowing the South to secede and negotiating a settlement at Fort Sumter instead of allowing it to spark an all-out war.

Yes, slavery would have ended later, but it would have been ended by the slaves revolting and making the practice far too dangerous and expensive, empowering African-Americans instead of simply emancipating them. African-American history as a whole would have been dramatically different as they would have been a force to be reckoned with from day one that would have demanded their rights far more forcefully and taken them if necessary.

Even if slavery didn't end for another twenty to thirty years, I think that African-Americans would have achieved the progress that they have if not moreso in a fraction of the time that they have, because they never would have depended on the kindness and openmindedness of white society to give them their rights at the pace in which they were comfortable. So as far as I am concerned, Lincoln can kiss my ass.

Here's my response (Yeah, it could use editing, but I'll quote it as I wrote it in a hurry.):

Dvd Avins: Lincoln like a good lawyer, always asked for support of his positions based on as undemanding common assumptions as possible. He was strongly anti-slavery but was not an abolitionist as that term was understood at the time, recognizing that (until the war) it was not a politically tenable position. He would indeed have put off the final resolution of slavery for a generation to avoid the war, but only if he could limit slavery's expansion into new states so as to give the anti-slavery the upper hand in the future. Had slavery not been an issue and the south still wanted to secede for other reasons and was willing to fight over it, Lincoln would have been unable to raise an army to stop them and probably wouldn't have cared enough to do so even if he could. His entire maneuvering from the beginning of secession during Buchanan's lame duck time until For Sumter was to ensure that the south would be seen as the aggressor in a war he new was inevitable, but pretended not to know it.

I too think that had slavery ended by other means within a generation or two it might have been better than the destruction the war wrought. And it is one likely scenario that it would have ended as you said. But 20 to 30 years is as optimistic as plausibility allows and the kind of power you imagine the freemen wielding strains the edge of that credibility, IMO. The history of African-Americans would certainly have been different, but it could as easily have led to most of them being intentionally worked to death in camps to remove them as a threat as it could to legal equality. Memories of taking the land from the Indians was still vivid in the Gulf states and doing whatever they needed to to maintain control was not beyond their moral or physical capacity.

Unfortunately, the effect of the most visionary of Lincoln's positions never had a chance to be put into effect. The victorious north was divided between those who wanted to leave southern society as intact as possible and those who wanted to inflict as much pain as possible on White southerners while upending that society.In his last months, Lincoln was eloquently charting a third course of transforming the society, while inflicting as little pain as could be, rather than as much. As the victorious leader, rather good political tactician, and outstanding speechwriter, he had the capacity to pull it off. IMO, the single most destructive character in southern history is John Wilkes Booth.

Comments

[chemoelectric.livejournal.com]

Actually, thanks to Ron Paul, we know that Lincoln’s plan all along was to impose central banking, and the South’s defeat is why we have had all these problems over all these years: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-made-south-was-right-civil-war-speech-with-confederate-flag/

Though some absurdly claim that the Civil War was about the South’s desperation to keep black people under their bootheels: http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/number-40-fall-2011/getting-civil-war-right

[cinema-babe.livejournal.com]

Interesting.....

I'm not sure I agree 100% but I really want to mull this over a bit. Your points are well made.

[unclejam.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how it follows that slavery would end. While I don't buy theories that it would have somehow been exported or that the CSA would have somehow overtaken the North like some alternate history movie someone made once, I'm not really sure like -- that they could not have found other ways to make their primary property, that is to say, human beings, pay, once the cotton growing lands got thin on the vine.

I certainly don't see any reason why Southern whites would have given blacks any political power whatsoever, beyond, possibly, maybe, if there were multiple massive bloody slave riots directly attributable to a specific element of handling their "property," they might, maybe, have determined it was more trouble than it was worth to maintain that element. But then again they might have just killed every slave involved.

As for the spark at Fort Sumter, the South shot first, and also shot last. There is a certain unifying themeliness, at least, to the two situations; in both cases, hot blooded Southern men, striking for what they considered to be the cause of freedom, caused enormous suffering and little gain for everyone involved.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

With increasing mechanization, keeping enslaved humans became unprofitable. It ended everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere by the early years of the 20th Century more for that reason than from external pressure. It became less common before it became illegal. Maybe vehemence bred of history would have delayed that in the CSA for another 40 years, but I don't see slavery going on forever.

Legal rights in an integrated society would have been very unlikely, I think. But more substantial, functioning self-run reservations than were afforded the Indians is not something I'd bet against.

[unclejam.livejournal.com]

I thought that that reasoning was holding true until they came up with the cotton gin.

While it is certainly putting the cart before the horse, I am dubious that they would not have sought out, with great energy, ways to make their alleged property continue to pay off at least a little bit.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

The cotton gin made slavery much more profitable for a while. Combine harvesters would have put a thorough end to that. There comes a point when it's just not worth feeding them and keeping them in good enough condition that they'll work rather than rebel or just die.