Quote:
Originally Posted by August
I find it ironic that you can slam Lincoln for not doing what he didn't have a chance to do before he was assassinated yet accuse him of not bringing about a gentle reconciliation as if that was a realistic possibility.
|
I'm not entriely sure that qualifies as irony, but if you don't believe that peaceful reconciliation was a possibility then you likely won't believe anything I say to try to change your mind.
[quote-August]Bottom line here is that Lincoln kept the Union together and in doing so ended slavery in our country. That alone makes him one of the greatest US presidents ever in my book.[/QUOTE]
The ends justify the means? I expect a little more from our nation's highest office, especially when it comes to resolving matters of state. We're both conservatives, albeit of different grains, but as such I would think you would handily percieve Lincoln's moral folly in immediately resorting to military force to control a rebellious populace. To put it another way, if B.O. responded to a popular upheaval concerning states' rights with military force, I'd expect to see you on the same side as me, not siding with the Feds for the sole purpose of preserving what they consider to be the union. Admittedly, I'm not including an affront to human dignity like slavery in the case because I can't think of a comparable example, but I think I've provided ample evidence that slavery wasn't exactly high on the union's list of priorities, anyway.
If nothing else, you can't make a case for the number of Union lives simply thrown away in a grinding war of attrition. Lincoln endorsed Grant, who was also known as "The Butcher" by his own troops for his willingness to simply throw them into a meat grinder. He was like a Zhukov of the 19th century. I think Lincoln's defense of Grant alone speaks volumes about what kind of leader he was.