I haven't seen the movie, "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer" but I plan to. In the mean time, I'll keep to my version of what has been called "fantastical" history. I believe the Civil War could have been averted, Slavery could have been abolished, and America could probably control most of Mexico if it had not been for one Abraham Lincoln.
Let me interject into what will sound like a sweeping condemnation of a man beloved by millions. He was a brilliant individual with a canny sense of who to trust and how to manipulate people's desires to achieve his goals. He had a strong moral fiber rivaled only by his propensity for mischief. Or, so say the historians. Please do not assume I believe I could do better, this is silly-talk. I do not criticize the NFL QB because I am a world-class athlete but because certain expectations are natural when millions of dollars of both payroll and economic impact are invested in his execution. Such is the same, lesser to greater, with our Presidents. They are in the most important position our country has, they are expected to be excellent, anything less is deserving of critique and in some cases ridicule. This is not disrespecting the office, in fact its directly the opposite.
Back to the vitriol. The country, crica 1850, was divided. Certain economic and social features lead to this widening gap and the solutions were growing scarce. Henry Clay sacrificed any Presidential dreams he might have had to maintain the uneasy balance the legislature had established. The south, controlled by "Democrats," was devoted to slave-ownership, state's rights, Jeffersonianism and their elitist traditions. Two of those are good things, I'll let you guess. The north was divided itself between various warring factions and in 1854 the Republicans were born. They were created to defeat Slavery and in an extremely bloody and costly fashion, they did. Their rapid growth to power (Lincoln in 1860) is quite remarkable. However, this brand new political party, built on the moral high-ground of abolitionism, shows its true colors as soon as it hits the national stage. In the famous 1860 race, Southern Democrat John Breckinridge (later, moderately successful Confederate General) faced off against Lincoln, but the central states went to 3rd and 4th party candidates. In particular, Bell for the Constitutional Union Party, stole 39 electoral college votes and left Lincoln with a large majority. The southern Democrats, who also lost Missouri to the party traitor Stephen Douglas, prepared for nullification and/or secession. Lincoln prepared to ignore them and abolish slavery. War happened.
How then can you not blame Abraham Lincoln? Sure, the secessionists all voted to leave democratically, so they are to blame. But they didn't start a war, they just asked to leave. Sure, the slave owners who refused to compromise are to blame, but they wanted Lincoln to work with them, something he felt morally obligated not to do. Some historians suggest the actual events leading up to Ft Sumter are somewhat trivial. War was coming, it had been coming for 50 years. I disagree. Yes, the cultures of the North and South had drifted apart. Yes, Kansas was a bloody mess when it applied for Statehood. Yes, wackos like John Brown were stirring up trouble. But war? Today, a solid percentage, I'd guess probably 42%, of the American people are against abortion. We knew, before the election, that Barack Obama was going to repeal Bush's Abortion Bill. Abortion is as horrible a moral affront as any government-endorsed action any country has ever had. I for one, was not interested in starting a war over it. Lincoln would be. Pshaw! You say in disgust! He hated the war! Sure, but he didn't hate it enough to prevent it. He wanted to push his agenda, however noble, regardless of the consequences.
I believe this is kinda boring so I'll wrap up. I was recently introduced to a blog by a Pastor/blogger named Doug Wilson. I highly recommend it, he's a genius. He proposed in his book that in order to change a society, in order to fix a society's ills, you must gradually educate and "save" the populace. (Obviously, you aren't saving anybody, "save" means witness to, get into church, assimilate into the saints). He rejects the notion that a war for a just cause is a just war. His primary example? The Civil War.
Next time, Just War Theory. What it is, why I like it and why it doesn't null this post.
Braves back on track! We don' beat "Strasburger" twice now! :)
No comments:
Post a Comment