Please note my biases... From what I understand (and my cousin can correct me) had the South won the War of Succession 1861-1865 my family would not have lost a plantation we owned in the South. My Mother's family has deep southern roots and one of my favourite memories of my mother is the accent she slipped into when she was tired. When that happened she talked like theese.
I studied History at one of America's most truly conservative colleges (Hillsdale College). They still accept no Federal funds whatsoever so as to stay free of government interference. Founded in 1844 by the Free-will Baptists, during the War of Succession it was an abolitionist institution. 
William WIlberforce is one of my political heroes. I am as anti-slavery as one can be.
Having acknowledged my biases, let me state for the record that one of America's most revered Presidents is proof that history is written by the victors. Not only did Abraham Lincoln shred the Constitution to support his ideas, paving the way for every president since to do the same, he did so at the cost of 100's of thousands of lives.
Along with Andrew Jackson, Teddy, and Franklin Roosevelt, Lincoln, more than our other presidents, made it legally possible of Bush to do the things he is doing. Once again the arrogance of a small group of powerfully rich men is costing us 100's of thousands of lives.
States had the right to succeed from the union. Our founding fathers made the constitution the way they made it so that States had the power not the Fed. Lincoln single handedly turned that on its head. (Jackson started it and Roosevelt finished it, and Bush is abusing it).
Lincoln was against slavery. I am glad of that. He should have been, but I think it can be successfully argued that had the Civil War not been fought slavery would have passed without bloodshed and the hatred of black people that the war engendered in the hearts of the defeated South could have been avoided.
None of our history books tell us that... They tell us that it was the fault of Booth and his cronies that assassinated Lincoln that led to Johnson's incompetent handling of the carpet baggers and their dismantling of the South. We can't know that for sure. What I do know is that it wouldn't have been a question at all had the war not been fought. For that Lincoln will have to answer to God.
Me -- I want to stay as pro-life as I can get... and starting wars in the name of any ideology is not being pro-life. Someone should tell James Dobson and his cronies that when they support the war in Iraq. I guess Focus has no designs on a ministry in Bagdad anyway.
Mike, no where did I say Blacks should be blamed for southerners attitudes toward them after the Civil War. Nothing can be farther from the truth. No one but Southerners can be blamed for their own hostility and actions. The war however increased those feelings. Lincoln was responsible for the war.
To answer your first question I believe, that slavery was quickly on the way out. The cotton gin and technology was making slavery economically unfeasible. It was only a matter of time.
Grant, in his address to the troops needed to give them a reason, that they had endured so much other than the necessity of a political machine and the pride of a misguided president. That doesn't look so good in print...
Posted by: Stephen Grant | 02 March 2008 at 09:21 PM
Slavery would have eventually passed away had their not been a civil war, but when? It may have been a failing system, but rotten sytems have continued for years, witness the USSR and others. Jefferson Davis, who should have been hanged for treason, had plans to expand slavery into Central America, not eliminate it. Grant in his farewell address to his troops, expressed the opinion that the war had been fought to free the slaves.
How can black people be blamed today for any ill will held toward them by the South? They were enslaved against their will.
Posted by: Mike | 02 March 2008 at 11:29 AM