Lincoln thought that emancipation of the slaves in the states then in rebellion was absolutely necessary as a war measure. He believed a Union victory could not be accomplished without striking at the very social, economic and poltical fabric of the Confederacy. This represented a revolutionary change in the purpose of the war and he knew it would inflame the passions of both the South and the North and make any compromise peace impossible. He justified this under his war powers and based it not on moral gorunds but on the necessity to destroy the economic base of the Confederacy. Later he exacerbated the issue by recruiting former slaves into the Union army. Lincoln was fully aware that a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery would be necessary after the war. and that the civil, legal, social and economic rights of the freedmen would have to be determined after the Union victory.

Post civil war America was faced with the presence of more than ten million freedmen whose stautus in the Americnatin had to be determined.. The question of whether the freedmen would become citizens with full constitutonal rights or remain wards of local governments had to be addressed.

Lincoln's death removed him from the issue. The Radical Republicans took advantage of their two-thirds majority in Congress to propose the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments which granted citzenship to the freedmen and the suffrage to male freedmen. The former Confederate states were required to ratify these amendments as a condition for their return to politcal status within the Union.. The northern states were persuaded to ratify them on the grounds that the blood of Union soldiers would have been shed in vain if the amendments were not ratified. The action of the Republicans was motivated by idealism, hatred, revenge and the desire to ensure the future political power of their party. We are still dealing with the problems created by their precipitate action.

America now has more than ten million persons within its borders who are here illegally and are not citizens. They came here voluntarily and with deliberate intention to violate American law. Regardless of whose fault this is, these persons are here and the situation must be addressed. The problem is compounded by the fact that many of these persons are childen born in the U.S. and therfore American citizens. Public and political opinion is passionately divided on the issue of what to do about this situation.. Will there be a solutoin based on passion, partisan politics and quick fix or one based on the needs of both the nation and the illegals?. The solution may have an impact on our nation as far reaching and for as long a time as the as that devised for the status of the freedmen.

"these persons are childen born in the U.S. and therfore American citizens."

That's a matter of opinion. I and many others interpret the Constitution differently, in that they were clearly not subject to the jurisdiction of the US when they were born, therefore the 14th Amendment does not apply.

That pesky 14th amendment, its as aggravating as the 1st amendment.

doctorfixit and Old Gaffer Thank you for the replies. I think doctorfixit made a very good point. I also wonder whether the illegals can be consideredd immigrants in the true sense of the word; I think "invaders" would be more appropriate. No mattter how you defne or describe the illegals, they constitute a huge problem. I hope a program is formulated that is better than that of the Radical Republicans The interesting thing is that states and local authorities want to handle this problem just as the slave holding states wanted to deal with the freedmen. If the illegals are not technically immigrants, then maybe the states and local government have authorityiy to deal with those inside their borders.

Lincoln's Republican Party was full of devout abolitionists, and he depended on them for political support. Generally, the war was fought by the North to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves. The average Union soldier had no idea what slavery and abolition were all about, and Union soldiers were puzzled when they encountered Confederate soldiers who accused them of "fighting for a bunch of niggers." I suppose this illustrates how the South blew up the abolitionist issue and used it to propagandize and motivate its own troops.

Still, Uncle Tom's Cabin was an enormous best-seller, in spite of being banned in most of the South, and the abolitionist movement really took hold in New England and parts of the Midwest. When Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe, he remarked, probably not with absolute sincerity, that she was the woman who "started the war" with her book. Absent the abolitionist movement, and its ability to elect legislators who proposed abolitionist laws, the South might not have attempted to secede in the first place. True, many Southerners wanted to secede anyway, but the ecomomic and social threat of freeing the slaves added an enourmous amount of fuel to the secessionist fire.

The immigration question poses a similar problem for politicians today, and I like the way you allude to the potential volatility of the situation.

"The action of the Republicans was motivated by idealism, hatred, revenge and the desire to ensure the future political power of their party. We are still dealing with the problems created by their precipitate action."

Obviously, a big reason they acted the way they did was Lincoln's assassination. I'm sure some were motivated by moral outrage, while others just saw an opportunity to take advantage of a weakened South and solidify a political advantage. The way politicians approach the immigration issue is not so different, in terms of those who rise up and speak with great moral indignation about rewarding lawbreakers, etc. when they're perfectly happy to reward the lawbreakers who donate money to their campaigns. God help us if a Mexican illegal shoots the President!

I seldom agree with President Bush, but I think he's heading in the right general direction with some kind of balanced approach that includes "earned amnesty" or whatever you want to call it. We should find a way to keep honest, hard working immigrants, even if they're illegal, and kick out those we don't want. This would create much unhappiness for those who want to deport them all, and just as much unhappiness for those who want to keep them all. I don't think anyone at either extreme has a leg to stand on, so I really don't care about their uncompromising positions, no matter how much moralizing they want to include.

well written livy, arlington. worth the read. My two cents:

physically fence the border, for real

find a way to deport "the bottom 15%" ... people with drunk driving convictions, criminals, people likely to hurt the population body in some way.

install a clear and doable path to citizenship for the remainder.

I have many hispanic friends/acquaintances and many of these are illegal. My little company publishes drivers manuals in spanish, as our state refuses. My old Honduranian mistress is legal, and very social, so i know many of her friends.

While sometimes a help to them I criticize, too. I notice that they can be very insular, don't have any investment in the community, and learn english slowly (except for their little children that go to school, they speak unaccented english and prefer it, as the modern thing)

So I ask them, "Say I move to Mexico, but I live apart, I have only Yanqui friends, I don't take part in the community, I don't learn Spanish. What would you think of me?" They invariably answer that "We would think you are a snob, maybe a racist" Then I spread my hands and smile, "isn't that what you do here?"

Now let me say something else. Most of these people have no legal pathway to residency or citizenship. This is part of the problem. The Thailanders I know have worked very hard to assimilate, be a true part of the community. But they are legal and have a legal path to citizenship. They strive to be part of the action.

I live in GA and this state is very red and very hostile on immigration. This region has a horrible history of genocide and slavery, and half the population thinks its a virtue. But I don't want, I'm sick of looking at, a society where some are labor without any legal recourse and protections, rights to vote or the obligation to participate, and where others have all these rights and responsibilities.