Re: [TalkAntietam] Burnside Bridge Photo
- TRL --
Actually there's not a great deal of passion...it's just a matter of history
and we've all read different sources and we all have different opinions.
That;s part of the joy of studying history. There are so many things
(especailly when it comes to examining the human heart) that we can never
know -- we can only guess.
As to Lincoln and slavery -- I'll stick by my guns. He was never an
"abolishonist" like Chase and Wade and that lot. He was, in fact, by modern
standards, a racist. He was a 19th century man, with attitudes that were
very progressive for the time, but he was nowhere near the crusader many
want him to be. I still admire him above all other US Presidents. What he
did -- whatever he did -- his first concern was for the good of the
nation -- for the preservation of the Union -- for the future of democracy.
The majority rules -- and the minority MUST comply. Otherwise democracy as
a grand experiment is doomed. That's the weight he carried and it had
little to do with slavery. That's all. It's just history.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Burnside Bridge Photo
> Clearly, there was a great deal of passion over the slavery issue. I fail
> how the mere issuance of a proclamation would diffuse that passion. The EP
> itself could not have changed anyone's opinion. I can't think of a single
> controverial question in which, say, the Supreme Court issued a definitve
> ruling and the losing side simply gave up and agreed the other side was
> after all. The EP was only a statement of the mood which had already taken
> in the North, had already made it clash with the South for several
> already elected Lincoln, and had already provoked the war.
> Yes, Lincoln was for gradual abolution of slaves. He was, on the other
> quite firm in the immediate sessation of the creation of new slave states,
> not allowing slaves into the territories. Up to Jan 1 1863 he was willing
> leave slavery alone in the existing slave states. This stand alone was
> to provoke war with the North. There simply was no room for compromise.
> sides could not function together. They might cease their hostilities, but
> would use this time to prepare for the next outbreak. One of them could
> Quoting richard@...:
> > We agree to disagree. The abolishonists were powerful and vocal and few
> > far between. Lincoln was concerned that the EP would spark a mutiny in
> > Union army -- that soldiers and officers would throw down their arms and
> > home as a result. Understand that I am not talking about what was true,
> > about what powerful people BELIEVED might be true. JL Chamberlain was a
> > rare exception to the rule. My research shows opposition to the EP in
> > Union army to be almost universal. Even in the likes of the Harvard
> > Regiment. Until the EP (and even only a matter of weeks before)
> > public position was "you can keep your slaves." Ref: First inaugural
> > address and the famous letter to Horace Greeley, dated early September,
> > 1862. Even when he said "a house divided against itself cannot stand"
> > didn't advocate the total and immediate abolishment of the practice.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <tlivesey@...>
> > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Burnside Bridge Photo
> > >
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> Yahoo! Groups Links