AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
In your April 17 issue, a loyal American complained that your review of DiLorenzo's book, The Real Lincoln, failed to meet your normally high standards because it was biased toward the Southern view of the war; it portrayed Lincoln as a racist who wanted to ship blacks to other countries; and it overlooked the fact that America would have broken into pieces without Lincoln's decision to go to war. But his letter lacks objectivity. He said that the "official name" for the war by those who fought in it was the War of Rebellion.
He also said that a neutral term for the conflict was the "Civil War." It is a neutral term, but it isn't accurate; a civil war is, by definition, a war between two factions to control one government; of the federal government, the Confederacy sought, not control, but only nunc dimittis--to depart in peace. Congress recognized that, noting that the "War Between the States," the term used in The Real Lincoln, is both neutral and accurate.
Two-thirds of Confederate soldiers never owned a slave. Did they go to war so that other men could keep the slaves they wrongly held? No, Southerners fought for other strongly held ideals. One was the belief that a contract must be ...
Source: HighBeam Research, Writing history.(Letter to the editor)