6/28/2005 07:35:00 AM|||Nathan Moore|||

Barack Obama has called into question Abraham Lincoln's role in the defeat of the South and the freeing of the slaves in the region. This prompts at least one obvious question - if not Lincoln, then who? Does Sherman get the credit, or perhaps Grant? Maybe we give it to Lee for surrendering.

If Obama recalls his history a little more clearly than he has to this point chosen, he will note that the North was suffering from severe war fatigue in late 1862, and early 1863. The only faction that was passionate about continuing the war were the abolitionists, who Lincoln steadfastly endorsed.

Obama then criticizes the Emancipation Proclamation as being a document more of a military nature than a "clarion call for justice."

"As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African-American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice."

Put aside the fact that the proclamation solidified abolitionist activism in the Union, certainly it was a miltarily focused document. I suppose that this is Obama's modern liberal coming out, which he hid so very well at the Democratic Convention last year. "Military" is used almost as a pejorative. It is obvious that Obama does not connect military action to the liberation of blacks in the South. It would be interesting to see what alternate solutions the senator from Illinois would propose.

The United States was divided and thrown into the largest conflict it has ever known. The Emancipation Proclamation was designed to help win the war, and to let the slaves in the South know that if they were to revolt, the Union army would be there to support them. I cannot think of anything more pro-freedom and more designed to end slavery, then stating in a public proclamation that an enslaved group of people can fight for their freedom, and will have the support of the largest military mobilization in the history of the nation issuing it. And not only would they have it, they did have it. The war was not won in this manner, but this was the intent. Obama's history is wrong.

Obama's revision of Lincoln's role in freeing blacks in the South, and his discounting of the effect that Lincoln's resolve has had on Obama's success today, is indicative of the complete nonsense that pervades the Left. Only an ideology so blind can believe that the ending of slavery in this country was by accident. No one disputes that the initial rallying call for the North was the preservation of the Union, but that call for unity became less and less persuasive as the human sacrifice mounted.

I especially like his listing of credentials, to include the one he cannot control, race. If being a United States Senator is not enough credential, I have to question the self-assurance of the man and his rating of the significance of the others listed.

|||111996348938415336|||Revisionist History