When asked if history would be kind to him, Winston Churchill responded, "Of course, because I will write it". Similarly, the "popular" history of the USA's "Civil War" has been very good to Lincoln and his friends.
Until recent books "The Real Lincoln" and "When In The Course of Human Events", a more accurate history has taken quite a bit of work to ferret out. Both books have extensive bibliographies proving that the evidence has been around, but ignored by too many of us. Anyone wanting to learn from history or use it as an example, should make some effort to insure 'their history' is accurate.
Regarding what is also known as "The War of Northern Aggression", there are numerous facts that have been inconvenient to the history taught by our government schools. Among them:
Lincoln freed no slaves in the USA, but only those slaves in the Confederacy, in hopes a slave revolt against the women, children and old white people left behind would destroy the south and its ability to fight.
Lincoln's plans for dealing with slaves all involved sending them away; the destination varied but included Liberia, Haiti, Central America and Africa (generically).
In Lincoln's state of Illinois, it was illegal to be even part negro.
Slavery, that had existed for over the preceeding 3,000 years was peacefully eliminated throughout most of the world between 1813 and 1860.
The monetary cost of Lincoln's war could easily have bought the freedom of every slave at current market rates AND provided each with 40 acres and a mule (a promise repeated made to the slaves during the war and to secure their Republican votes after the war, that was never kept).
The South legally withdrew from the Union because the more populous north created high tarriffs on exported goods that were the lifeblood of the agrarian South and high import duties on manufactured goods that competed with northern producers. The result being the south paid for the canals and railroads the federal government built almost exclusively in the north.
The so-called incompetent generals Lincoln replaced stubbornly insisted on fighting according to what was then the accepted standards of conduct.
The "competent" northern generals Lincoln finally found to win the war his way killed combatants and non-combatants alike, destroyed homes, barns, livestock and crops as a uniform policy - consciously leaving the conquered people to starve and die of exposure in the coming winter.
They shelled and burned to the ground occupied southern cities without allowing evacuation first...all according to Lincoln's specific instructions.
The horrors of Sherman's March to the Sea should be read by everyone who wants to claim any knowledge of our so-called Civil War.
Robert E. Lee later regretted his surrender. He and many of his troops would, in retrospect, have preferred to fight to the last man rather than live to see the abuse of the victors.
I suppose much of this is common knowlege in the old south. To me, raised in the West with the government-approved version of our Civil War history, Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" and Charles Adams' "When In The Course Of Human Events" were shocking as well as enlightening.
I strongly encourage you to read them.
Ted Dunlap
Chairman, Idaho LP