Not a Lincoln Man

Regarding the article “Civil Liberties v. National Security—The Long Shadow of the Civil War” (June 2007), mainstream historians praise President Abraham Lincoln to the skies because they cannot envision the prospect of a Confederate States of America existing today in harmony with the United States of America. They say so in their American history texts, blatantly and excessively. In those texts they offer frequent thanks that Lincoln used whatever means were available to do whatever it might take to prevent this supposedly unthinkable disaster. But ignoring liberal historians and judging Lincoln solely by his acts, it is difficult to view him as anything other than a president who did far more harm than any other person in our history.

Lincoln is a myth. He never existed as he is portrayed. He is responsible for the deaths of more than 623,000 Federals and Confederates. He is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Southern civilians because he approved General William T. Sherman’s scorched-earth policy in Georgia.

Had the Union been defeated, Lincoln and all those in charge would have been tried and executed for the atrocities they committed in this war. He invaded the sovereign states of the South without consulting Congress. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus during his entire term of office. He sent thousands of Northerners to jail without trial if they printed or spoke anything critical of him. He ordered Federal troops to ensure the outcome of elections. He attempted the ethnic cleansing of the entire Southern population. He demolished the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the Constitution.

In 1865 Southerners were governed at bayonet point. During the war Lincoln taught Northerners to live within a dictatorship. His goal was to force by right of physical might a government of absolute power over all the states.

Sean H. Quinn
Venus, Fla.

More on Lee’s Pennsylvania Motives

In response to the readers’ poll question in the March/April 2007 issue, I believe Robert E. Lee’s primary goal in the 1863 invasion of Pennsylvania was to score a major victory on Northern soil and hasten a negotiated settlement of the war in the Confederacy’s favor. I do believe, however, that his original target was Harrisburg, Pa., but situations beyond his control dictated that the battle be fought at Gettysburg.

With the Federal army severely demoralized after the Battle of Chancellorsville—a battle that, on paper, it should have won easily—Lee felt that the time was right to invade the North and deliver a second devastating punch to convince the Northern populace and government that the war was unwinnable for the Federals. On going to Pennsylvania, Lee also had the opportunity to relieve the South of the burden of the war and attempt to secure independence for his country, a task that his job and duty required him to do.

Blake Axelson
Lockport, Ill.

There’s More to the 1863 Draft Riots

I would like to see more written about the draft riots that erupted in New York City in July 1863.

The general belief is that the New York rioters, many of them Irish laborers, were revolting against the draft because they felt they were being discriminated against in a “rich man’s war, poor man’s fight.” But there was a little more to it than that—a religious element also came into play. The Vatican under Pope Pius IX came closer than any foreign power to officially recognizing the Confederacy. This sowed dissent in New York. At the time of the draft riots all the Irish Catholic papers in the city aggressively condemned the administration for its support of black emancipation. The archbishop supported the war and vehemently opposed abolition. He did not attempt to publicly calm his flock until July 17, after the violence had all but run its course.

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to