I have often
wondered what President Obama would have done had he been in President
Lincoln’s shoes on the eve of the American Civil War.
Like President Lincoln, President Obama would not have had foreknowledge of the “magnitude or the duration” of the coming Civil War. Neither would he have known that 112,000 union soldiers would be killed in action or die of wounds; that 25,000 more would die in confederate prisons, and that 282,000 would be wounded and maimed.
Like President Lincoln, President Obama would not have had foreknowledge of the “magnitude or the duration” of the coming Civil War. Neither would he have known that 112,000 union soldiers would be killed in action or die of wounds; that 25,000 more would die in confederate prisons, and that 282,000 would be wounded and maimed.
Nor that when deaths from illness and other causes were added in, the
total number of union dead would be 385,000. And he would not have
known that confederate losses would be 260,000 dead and 137,000 wounded.
He would not have known the final cost to free
the 4 million slaves, and/or to save the union would be a half million
dead and 400,000 wounded.
So what would President Obama have done when South Carolina seceded from the union? When Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, etc., followed? When South Carolina demanded the evacuation of Ft. Sumter?
President Lincoln ordered the Star of the West, an unarmed merchant vessel, to carry federal troops and supplies to the fort. Would President Obama have done that much?
What would President Obama’s response have been when secessionist troops fired on the fort? President Lincoln declared a “state of insurrection” and called for “75,000 volunteers to enlist for three months” of service to quell the insurrection. Would President Obama have done likewise?
Mr. Lincoln ordered a naval blockade of all confederate forts. Would Mr. Obama have done that?
President Lincoln ordered federal troops to engage the confederate army in the first battle of Manassas. The union army was beaten and retreated. Would President Obama have ordered union forces into battle? Would he have continued the war, or would he have withdrawn to avoid further loses?
Fourteen months later, Lincoln’s union forces engaged the confederates in the battle of Antietam in which 2,108 union soldiers were killed, 9,540 were wounded, 546 confederates were killed and 7,752 were wounded. Would President Obama still have been pursuing the war? Would he have quit after the carnage of Antietam?
President Lincoln saw the war through.
If we speculate and assume that President Obama would not have fought the Civil War, or that he would not have fought it through to the bitter end, would his decisions have been better or worse than President Lincoln’s? More or less moral?
Was preserving the union worth 500,000 deaths? Over 400,000 wounded and maimed?
Was freeing 4 million slaves worth such casualties? Would the slaves still be slaves today, or would changing economic or other social conditions caused its demise by 1900? 1930? 1945?
Is it moral to kill to preserve a political union that supposedly is based on the “consent of the governed?” Is it moral to use deadly force to end slavery?
On March 4, 1865, 150 years ago, President Lincoln delivered a sober and reflective second Inaugural Address.
“On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it.
“Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. ....
“Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. ....
“The prayers of both could not be answered. ... neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. ....
“If God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsmen’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword ... it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’”
I cannot believe, given his unwillingness to make war shown during his years in office, President Obama would have called up troops and gone to war to preserve the Union.
Nor do I have any evidence to believe Mr. Obama would have embarked upon the Civil War to free the slaves. Consider his remarks when Russia intervened/invaded Ukraine: “Russia is on the wrong side of history.” Would he have said, “The Confederate States are on the wrong side of history in seceding, and keeping slaves?” Would he have chosen to employ for “diplomatic and economic steps” to isolate the Confederacy? Would he have been wrong? I don’t know.
Was it wrong or immoral to pursue a war that resulted in nearly a million casualties, not to mention the destruction of families and property, to advance in time the emancipation of 4 million slaves. At Galesburg, President Lincoln labeled slavery as a “moral, social and political evil.” He believed the use of deadly force was justified to end that evil, and to save the union.
Because I, like Mr. Lincoln, would not want to be a slave, and without the advantage of hindsight, I (to free the slaves) would have supported President Lincoln’s course of action. How about you?
To go to war, or not?
The question is not academic. It is the question that President Obama faces every time he is asked to make war, or put “boots on the ground.” But history shows that the euphoria at going to war soon is replaced by a generation-long misery for all those touched by the war.
So what would President Obama have done when South Carolina seceded from the union? When Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, etc., followed? When South Carolina demanded the evacuation of Ft. Sumter?
President Lincoln ordered the Star of the West, an unarmed merchant vessel, to carry federal troops and supplies to the fort. Would President Obama have done that much?
What would President Obama’s response have been when secessionist troops fired on the fort? President Lincoln declared a “state of insurrection” and called for “75,000 volunteers to enlist for three months” of service to quell the insurrection. Would President Obama have done likewise?
Mr. Lincoln ordered a naval blockade of all confederate forts. Would Mr. Obama have done that?
President Lincoln ordered federal troops to engage the confederate army in the first battle of Manassas. The union army was beaten and retreated. Would President Obama have ordered union forces into battle? Would he have continued the war, or would he have withdrawn to avoid further loses?
Fourteen months later, Lincoln’s union forces engaged the confederates in the battle of Antietam in which 2,108 union soldiers were killed, 9,540 were wounded, 546 confederates were killed and 7,752 were wounded. Would President Obama still have been pursuing the war? Would he have quit after the carnage of Antietam?
President Lincoln saw the war through.
If we speculate and assume that President Obama would not have fought the Civil War, or that he would not have fought it through to the bitter end, would his decisions have been better or worse than President Lincoln’s? More or less moral?
Was preserving the union worth 500,000 deaths? Over 400,000 wounded and maimed?
Was freeing 4 million slaves worth such casualties? Would the slaves still be slaves today, or would changing economic or other social conditions caused its demise by 1900? 1930? 1945?
Is it moral to kill to preserve a political union that supposedly is based on the “consent of the governed?” Is it moral to use deadly force to end slavery?
On March 4, 1865, 150 years ago, President Lincoln delivered a sober and reflective second Inaugural Address.
“On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it.
“Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. ....
“Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. ....
“The prayers of both could not be answered. ... neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. ....
“If God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsmen’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword ... it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’”
I cannot believe, given his unwillingness to make war shown during his years in office, President Obama would have called up troops and gone to war to preserve the Union.
Nor do I have any evidence to believe Mr. Obama would have embarked upon the Civil War to free the slaves. Consider his remarks when Russia intervened/invaded Ukraine: “Russia is on the wrong side of history.” Would he have said, “The Confederate States are on the wrong side of history in seceding, and keeping slaves?” Would he have chosen to employ for “diplomatic and economic steps” to isolate the Confederacy? Would he have been wrong? I don’t know.
Was it wrong or immoral to pursue a war that resulted in nearly a million casualties, not to mention the destruction of families and property, to advance in time the emancipation of 4 million slaves. At Galesburg, President Lincoln labeled slavery as a “moral, social and political evil.” He believed the use of deadly force was justified to end that evil, and to save the union.
Because I, like Mr. Lincoln, would not want to be a slave, and without the advantage of hindsight, I (to free the slaves) would have supported President Lincoln’s course of action. How about you?
To go to war, or not?
The question is not academic. It is the question that President Obama faces every time he is asked to make war, or put “boots on the ground.” But history shows that the euphoria at going to war soon is replaced by a generation-long misery for all those touched by the war.
Posted: Monday, December 7, 2015 6:44 am. QCOnline.com
No comments:
Post a Comment