http://mrsilence.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] mrsilence.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics 2011-02-02 04:16 am (UTC)

One thing I see as an Australian looking at U.S. history is that there appears to be 2 primary views of Lincoln, divided mostly on Geographical and ideological grounds.. The most common is as the great emancipator, the other as the northern conquerer, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, with a legend protected by the gauze of a cause only declared post facto.

What I also see from this distance, where the trivia of adulation, accusations and recriminations fade into a solid, obscure mess, is that what is most pertinent about Lincoln, is that whatever his motives may have been, his decisions led to the freeing of the slaves. The cost was very high true, but the result was worth it. What matters is not what Lincoln thought or was claimed to have thought or is accused of thinking, but what he did. And what he and the Union forces did is to be fiercely respected. The title of Great Emancipator is well deserved.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting