RE: [DL] Freeing the Slaves

["Mark Chiddicks" <Mark.Chiddicks@descisys.com>]

The Union did a good thing for the wrong reasons - I think thats the closest to the truth you can get in a single statement.

The permanent and irrevocable destruction of slavery was utterly worth the effort, even though it wasn't Lincoln's original aim at all.

Of course things didn't improve for THAT generation of black Americans, but had emancipation come 50 years later, we'd still be in 1952 so far as civil rights go. It was the beginning of a long long process, not an end in itself


-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Young [mailto:jason_d_young@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2002 3:35 p.m.
To: deadlands@gamerz.net
Subject: RE: [DL] Freeing the Slaves



--- "Mr. Christopher McGlothlin, M.Ed." <sosentinel@adelphia.net> wrote:
>Far from it. The question of whether States can leave the Union
> peacefully (for any reason) is the key argument in The War. The fact
> that 
> Lincoln believed they could not and settled the issue with force gives
> us 
> our current understanding of the issue. Further, the fact that Lincoln 
> would've acted as he did if the South had
> seceded because they didn't like his hat shows this issue's primacy, and
> empasizes that without Lincoln, there is no War.

Mr. McGlothlin,

Are you saying that /no/ other person would have come to the same
conclusions, decisions, and opinions about secession and the nature of the
Union that Lincoln did? And pursued it in the same way? I don't deny that
his character is a key factor, but I am always cautious in ascribing
historical cause to a personality (even when it's warranted, I'm still
cautious :-) ).

I don't disagree, by the way, with anything you say. I'm just curious
about whether you would qualify ". . . without Lincoln, there is no War"
at all.

(And believe me, I'm going to run and hide if this starts to turn into a
debate. I haven't sharpened my Civil War Antecedents and Causes sword
since about 1986, and you aren't someone I would care to tangle with on
these issues without a serious refresher.) :-)

And whomever it was that said the North was "right," come on! (I think you
were kidding, but what I have to say is still somewhat relevant.) Even
though it often strives to be about right and wrong, that is not
necessarily what history is capable of achieving (some of my former
professors would disagree with me, here). Most of the time history's
judgements say much more about the people who are writing the history than
they do about the subjects covered by the history. Sure, today we may say
the North was "right" because we find slavery distasteful. Tomorrow we may
decide the South was "right" because they should have been able to
participate in the Union or not -- our change of heart might be predicated
by a crisis involving some other group of states over some other issue.

All such perceptions are shaped by the society in which you live. Stepping
outside to arrive at some absolute truth is extremely difficult.

I should stop. So I will.

Thanks!

Jason

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com


To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
	unsubscribe deadlands@gamerz.net
as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.