So, our local PBS station was re-running "The Civil War" last night...

[regnaD kciN]

I remember first seeing this around 1990-91.

What struck me the most during the first episode was seeing how "our greatest President" Lincoln responded to the start of hostilities.

-- He waged war without Congressional approval for the early stages of the conflict.

-- He suspended habeus corpus.

-- He had troops sent to potentially "disloyal" northern cities like Baltimore, and jailed the city's leaders.

-- He imprisoned people indefinitely without trial.

-- When the Supreme Court ruled against these steps, he "simply ignored them," and contemplated jailing the Chief Justice.

I wonder how many viewers, when the series first aired, admired Lincoln's actions, and thought his measures were necessary, if "regrettable," in the cause of either saving the Union or ending slavery?

I wonder how many viewers had a completely different reaction last night?

And, the uncomfortable $64,000 question: how can we deplore BushCo's "security" measures ranging from indefinite detention to ignoring the decisions of courts that go against them as being contrary to American principles of liberty, when the sainted Abraham Lincoln used the same means while carrying out his own undeclared war? :shrug:

[maine_raptor]

1. One big difference

Lincoln's war was a Civil War within the confines of the US. Bush's war is an external war.

Another difference: Lincon did not choose to go to war, Bush did.

[Edith Ann]

2. Lincoln

Just a reason not an excuse. Lincoln was trying to preserve the union. Bush was just trying to steal oil and power for his rich buddies. Lincoln was provoked. Bush attacked without a justifiable reason. I don't know about Lincoln, but Bush lied to get us into war. Lying to the American people about going to war is a crime.

[Mr Rabble]

3. Unacceptable then, unacceptable now.

These acts were, and still are deplorable.

History, being written by the winners, obviously, managed to gloss over the import of what Lincoln had done.

It's disgusting regardless.

The Bush Crime Family isn't going to win this one however, and as such, crimes for which Lincoln was "forgiven" will be hung around the shrub's neck as an albatross.

[KharmaTrain]

4. A Civil War Is Not A War For Profit

When Lincoln acted, he had enemy troops he could see out his window across the Potomac and he acted, albeit as a dictator, but in what many today would call a true "national emergency". Iraq is anything but and the aftermath of what this regime has done and all the laws that have been broken will be an on-going job/investigation for years to come...long after this regime is sent packing.

BTW...put down that pickle...or so says Melanie Haber...or is that Susan Underhill?

[maine_raptor]

5. If I put down the pickle, I'll have to hand over the pliers n/t

[KharmaTrain]

6. When The Dwarf Is Crushed...In The Meantime, Have Some Beer Whiz Beer

:toast:

It's in the water...that's why it's yellow...

[maine_raptor]

8. Now hold it right there.

Glad too! Now I think I'll hold it over here.

(Damn I wish I could get my turntable to work. Still have all of there stuff on LPs)

[KharmaTrain]

10. Shoes For Industry

Now see what I've gotten into. :rofl:

There's an internet station that plays all the Firesign eevn the solo stuff along with Nat Lamp Radio Hours and tons of great stand-up every Sunday night...it's sounds as fun and fresh now as ever.

In the meantime, it's back to the shadows again...out where a friend is a friend...where the vegatables are green and you can pee into the stream (and that's important)...back to the shadows again.

:hi:

[trumad]

7. he had enemy troops he could see out his window across the Potomac

Bingo---

If anyone can't see the difference in our Civil War and the clusterfuck we have raging today in Iraq---well---they're not trying to hard.

[rogerashton]

9. Remember also

that the Confederacy attacked U. S. troops.

(I'm from Louisiana, by the way. My ancestors on Dad's side were Confederates).

Even after South Carolina had seceded, they could have been a little patient and tried to negotiate withdrawal of US troops from Fort Sumpter. They chose not to and instead began an aggressive war against the United States Government.

Legally, an American citizen who makes war against the United States is guilty of treason. Now, to be sure, the citizens of the Confederacy did not consider themselves any longer citizens of the United States. This does not apply, however, to citizens of Maryland and New Yori. Of course, treason is a crime, and a person accused of treason is entitled to trial by jury. If, however, treason is common then it may not be possible to find a jury that does not include traitors. I would argue that in those circumstances, it simply was not possible to continue constitutional government, than any action the government could have taken would have violated the constitution in one way or another. Therefore, better they should be violated to restore the union than to destroy it.

Notice that Confederates were not tried for treason. There are two reasons for that. First, Confederate belligerence had been recognized by several major countries, which meant that treating them as criminals would have caused international complications. (Notice that when Bush "declared war on terrorism" he unilaterally granted belligerent status to al-Qaeda). The more important reason that amnesty from charges of treason was necessary for a peace settlement. You don't restore peace by executing thousands of the opponents. Amendments 14 and 15, I believe, established an alternative, non-criminal treatment of "rebels." But according to the constitution ex ante bellum, the thousands of executions would have been the only constitutional path.

[KharmaTrain]

11. Excellent Points

Most civil wars end with some sort of amnesty...without one the chain of retribution remains as conquered and vanquish continue to take revenge upon one another. In the case of the American civil war, a case could be made that a blanket amnesty for the South (except for Jefferson Davis) was a quid pro quo for states to accept the 14th and 15th ammendments...and it took 5 to 6 years for some states to get to that point.

The other battle in the civil war was a Constitutional one...states rights vs. those of the federal government. Did states have "home rules" that could supercede federal mandates or not. While there was tensions in the early half of the 19th century, there had been no real test of that concept since the Whiskey Rebellion and its still, IMHO, vague if Southern succession was legal or not. Regardless...I feel the industrial revolution that really kicked in during the later half of the 19th century would have forced the South to re-evaluate both its position on institutionalized slavery and its relationship with the north. The Civil War still fascinates.

Cheers...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Short answer: Lincoln was on "our" side.

Just as the "Sons of Liberty" who torched Tory houses and farms and tarred and feathered them were on our side.

Just as the "terrorists" of the ANC were on "our" side.

Just as FDR, who imprisoned the Japanese-American citizens in WWII was on "our" side. Not to mention the "terror" bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

To deny that the "left" has it's own biases and hypocrisy is absurd.

I'm a leftist and I regard Lincoln as our greatest president because he freed the slaves. Did he do some things that I find abhorrent by today's standards of "the Left"? Sure. So, like many on the left, I'm a hypocrite about certain things.

So sue me.

[donsu]

13. you are trying to equate an apple with a rake

america attacking and occupying an innocent country has nothing to do with our civil war.

[regnaD kciN]

14. So, the sense of what I'm getting from most of the replies here...

...is that there are circumstances in which everything Lincoln did (and, by extension, everything Bush is doing) in violation of the Constitution would be totally justified. The only objection lies, not with the principle of being able to disregard civil liberties for a "greater national good," but with the current circumstances not justifying such action at this time.

Perhaps.

But I can only think of the old exchange, sometimes attributed to George Bernard Shaw or Winston Churchill:

MAN: Madam, would you sleep with a man for a million pounds?
WOMAN: Well...I guess I probably would.
MAN: Then, will you sleep with me for one pound?
WOMAN: Of course not! What sort of woman do you take me for?
MAN: That, madam, has already been established. Now, we're merely negotiating price.

On which point, keep in mind that many Americans would choose a far lower "price" than we ourselves might wish.