Response to your editorial
 
From: GMForsythe@Verizon.Net
To: letters@express-news.net
 
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” – Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848.
 
It is curious that Lincoln, no doubt recalling the necessity of the first War for Independence on this continent, spoke these words just 12 years before his election as President. Just as the current occupant of the White House forgot his earlier speech about the illegality of invading a foreign country without congressional approval, Mr. Lincoln relied upon the American “forgettery” to exonerate him from responsibility for his contradictory actions.
 
Unfortunately, serious students of history and politics tend to consult source material rather than rely upon history that is re-written by the victors in military conflicts.
 
Nor was this Lincoln’s only contradiction. In his 1st Inaugural Address, he assured America that he had no right or interest in abolishing slavery where it existed. After several of the Southern states had seceded, Lincoln petitioned them to return, assuring them that he would protect their right to own slaves. Does this sound like an emancipator to you?
 
If ending slavery were the underlying reason for the war, why did it have to be settled by force of arms? Virtually every other country in the New World (other than Haiti, where the slaves themselves revolted) ended it peacefully. No soldiers were killed at Fort Sumter where the customs agents of the USA continued to collect tariffs for that country on the soil of the CSA. Lincoln had a proposal on his desk to reimburse the slave owners 50 cents per dollar, but he decided to give it the "pocket veto" allegedly because there was not enough support in Congress for it.  If ending slavery were the reason, why did the Constitution of the CSA specifically forbid the foreign slave trade? If ending slavery were the reason, why did numerous Union soldiers desert immediately upon hearing Lincoln issue his misnamed “Emancipation Proclamation?” Does any of this seem logical to you?
 
George M. Forsythe, New York