Wednesday, August 05, 2015

"Bloody Abe"?

When I recently wrote my low opinion of Abe Lincoln, stating that, having been responsible for the deaths of 750,000 Americans, his nickname shouldn’t have been “Honest Abe,” it should have been “Bloody Abe,” I expected some readers to spring to his defense. Instead, I heard from about a dozen people who agreed with me. That should teach me to never underestimate my readers.

They all acknowledged that his primary concern wasn’t the abolition of slavery, but the preservation of the Union, whatever the cost in other people’s lives.

But as it took the deaths of 750,000 young Americans, a number representing nearly three percent of the total population, I believe that only a Stalin, a Hitler or a Mao, would argue that preservation was worth the cost.

To me, the South’s desire to secede is like a wife who wants a divorce. But instead of granting it, the brutal husband beats her to within an inch of her life, turning her into an invalid, and, for good measure, murders most of their kids.

In the aftermath, making it even worse, historians and other assorted pinheads have gone around saying what a great guy he was.



Anonymous said...

A very disgusting post !
Without the efforts of Lincoln there would be two small, unimportant countries instead of the most magnificent nation the World has ever known.

Dean said...

Not only would there be two unimportant countries, but the abomination of slavery would have lasted much longer.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Lincoln wasn't concerned about abolishing slavery? The evidence suggests otherwise.

Use the Name, Luke said...

"This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."
— Abraham Lincoln during the Lincoln-Douglas debates, August 21, 1858

Anonymous said...

"That should teach me to never underestimate my readers."

That should teach me to never underestimate the stupidity of my readers.

There, fixed it for ya.

Anonymous said...

The civil war was much more about states right vs federal rights than about he side issue of slavery. Much like the fight going on now about marriage or legalization. Who should have the right to choose for it's people, the state, or the fed?

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:10:

The Civil War had many causes depending on who you were reading, who you were listening to and what interests you had.

While it is easy to say that the war was about "states rights vs federal rights," the fact of the matter is that the number one "state right" the southern states were fighting for was slavery. There is simply no way around that.

Anonymous said...

I have never understood the idea that it was Lincoln who caused the Civil War or in this case, an article that tries to make the case that Lincoln was responsible for 750,000 dead.

It was not Lincoln who initiated an armed rebellion against the United States - it was the southern states. It was not Lincoln personally or a Federal gun that fired first - it was a Southern battery that fired the first shot.

The problem with Lincoln is that he did expand Federal authority and in some cases ignore and breech the US Constitution. The question is then "is there a higher moral law than the Constitution that we should follow in times of crisis?"

I don't know that answer, but when you look at Lincoln's actions and even his inactions at a time when there were those around him who despised him and literally wanted him to be dead or removed from office, his navigation of those angry waters can only be seen as brilliant.

Nothing illustrates that better than when Lincoln was elected, the State of Maryland was solidly pro slavery to the point where the train carrying Lincoln to the White House had to rerouted to slip through Baltimore undetected.

When Lincoln's body returned to Illinois, the train going through Baltimore was mobbed with people in grief who had changed their mind on slavery and Lincoln.

Like him or hate him, Lincoln had a way about him that made people who got to know him respect and love him.

Bird of Paradise said...

Liberals again trying to destroy american icon and replace them with their favorite crinimals like Micheal Brown and Trayvon Martin

stinky said...


If Lincoln's concern had only been preservation of the Union, he would have simply conceded on the issue of slavery.

Anonymous said...

The pity was that Lincoln didn't repatriate the slaves back to Africa.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Well said, 5:36!