Stephan Thernstrom: Kerry's Phony Test for WarRoundup: Historians' Take
Robert Kagan offered a thoughtful critique of the "Kerry Doctrine" -- that the United States goes to war only "because we have to." I suggest another example he failed to mention.
Did President Abraham Lincoln really have to use force to preserve the Union in 1861? After all, the people of several Southern states were only asserting a right that had been spelled out in the Declaration of Independence long before. These people reached their decision through democratic political processes.
No serious historian would contend that the Confederacy had any designs on Northern territory. Had Lincoln been willing to abandon Fort Sumter instead of resupplying it, 600,000 American deaths could have been avoided.
I believe that Lincoln was un- questionably right to act as he did, but I wonder how supporters of the Kerry Doctrine could reach the same conclusion.
comments powered by Disqus
- Savannah Approves Changes to Confederate Monument From 1875
- Law Professor Eric Posner Proposes Bringing Back Indentured Servitude
- Public Rates Presidents: Kennedy, Reagan, Obama at Top
- Elizabeth Warren’s striking speech responding to Trump’s “Pocahontas” taunts
- When the next generation looks racially different from the last, political tensions rise
- Was This Technology historian plagiarized? Sure seems like she was.
- Meet the new authorized historian of Britain's communications intelligence agency
- Lerone Bennett Jr., journalist and historian of African American life, dies at 89
- Right after the Civil War, says Stanford's Richard White, Americans were really hopeful, then reality hit
- What departments of history are doing about lower enrollments