Special to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise
 No, that's not Abe Lincoln, there, though it does look a lot like him, 
don't you think? It's the hired gun, 
Daisuke 
Jigen. They really have a lot in common, both apparently having 
learned their trade in the nasty streets of Chicago, the main 
difference being that Jigen does his own killing and doesn't pretend 
to any kind of moral superiority or any of that "four score and seven" 
blather. But that comparison is just a hangup of mine. And this 
isn't just about Abe Lincoln, but about the Civil War. They're hard 
to separate, though. I never could get into the Lincoln cult, and for 
whatever reasons 
I've 
always thought of Lincoln as a politician, 
not a demigod, and despite Carl Sandburg and Walt Whitman and Steven 
Spielberg, I see no reason to change my mind. Why is the guy who 
almost destroyed the Union thought of as the guy who preserved it? 
The Brits couldn't break us, but Abe Lincoln almost did. We had a 
hellish stupid four-year war that killed seven hundred thousand 
Americans and we're perversely proud of it and we deify the clumsy 
politician who caused it. Well, I'm starting to rant. Let me hand 
the baton to the cooler-headed Steve Sailer, who can point out the 
madness of the Civil War and its aftermath in a much more measured 
way. For example, he writes:
No, that's not Abe Lincoln, there, though it does look a lot like him, 
don't you think? It's the hired gun, 
Daisuke 
Jigen. They really have a lot in common, both apparently having 
learned their trade in the nasty streets of Chicago, the main 
difference being that Jigen does his own killing and doesn't pretend 
to any kind of moral superiority or any of that "four score and seven" 
blather. But that comparison is just a hangup of mine. And this 
isn't just about Abe Lincoln, but about the Civil War. They're hard 
to separate, though. I never could get into the Lincoln cult, and for 
whatever reasons 
I've 
always thought of Lincoln as a politician, 
not a demigod, and despite Carl Sandburg and Walt Whitman and Steven 
Spielberg, I see no reason to change my mind. Why is the guy who 
almost destroyed the Union thought of as the guy who preserved it? 
The Brits couldn't break us, but Abe Lincoln almost did. We had a 
hellish stupid four-year war that killed seven hundred thousand 
Americans and we're perversely proud of it and we deify the clumsy 
politician who caused it. Well, I'm starting to rant. Let me hand 
the baton to the cooler-headed Steve Sailer, who can point out the 
madness of the Civil War and its aftermath in a much more measured 
way. For example, he writes:
The 16th president has been so sanctified that we're not supposed to 
notice that Lincoln's insularity left him unready to lead during the 
great crisis of secession in 1860-1861. Conversely, Lincoln's 
detractors like to portray him as a power-mad dictator. Yet his 
actions during the crucial months in which the Civil War might have 
been averted are most redolent of a crafty small-town lawyer who was 
badly in over his head in his new role. Lincoln worked hard and 
learned fast, but by the time he was ready for his job, the worst 
catastrophe in American history was underway.
In early October 1860, the experienced Democratic candidate 
Stephen 
Douglas conceded to his secretary, "Mr. Lincoln is the next 
President. We must try to save the Union. I will go South."
Ouch! Not much "Oh, Captain, my Captain" there. I've always felt 
that Douglas and Seward and Buchanan and Davis and Lee and even Grant 
were metaphorically bigger men than Lincoln anyway. Steve Sailer is 
really on a roll with this one. 
Read 
the whole thing HERE. Whoa! He just did 
ANOTHER 
POST ON THE SUBJECT.
Reprinted from Mr. May's 
"Ex-Army" blog