Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

There are one million and one “Reagan Republicans“¸ but where are the “Lincoln Republicans“?
JohnnyBibs ^ | Tuesday, August 24, 2010 in the year of JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY! | Daniel Benjamin Orris

Posted on 08/25/2010 5:26:17 AM PDT by JohnnyBibs

There are one million and one “Reagan Republicans“¸ but where are the “Lincoln Republicans“?

7:21 pm-est, Tuesday, August 24, 2010 in the year of JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY!

by,

Daniel Benjamin Orris of Pennsylvania

When I heard a quote this evening of a political candidate calling himself a “Reagan Republican“, I was reminded of that now common phrase used more as political subterfuge or chicanery, rather than containing any genuine meaning.

The unfortunate reality is, it seems, many otherwise Conservative voters are being deceived into supporting moderate Republicans who appeal to the Tea Party by using phrases such as “Reagan Republican“ and now near hollow planks like “smaller government“ and “less taxes“; akin to what happened in Massachusetts with the deceptive Rep. Scott Brown.

These and many other phrases and words have lost their meaning, some never even having an honest meaning to begin with.

Unfortunately, the late former President Ronald Reagan has become the go-to figure of moderate Republicans who employ the “Reagan Republican“ title in an attempt to gain popularity among Conservatives, fellow moderate Republicans and Tea Parties.

His face is seen on tee shirts, bumper stickers and an assortment of other novelty items.

Ronald Reagan was considerably the best president of the 20th Century, but in my opinion not the best Republican president.

The designation of “Best Republican President“ is reserved for the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln seems to be a forgotten figure.

The utmost of all post-founding U.S. presidents, Abraham Lincoln fought for a national end to slavery, acknowledged the Christian heritage of the U.S.A. and began a new era of civil rights that only ended when the Democrats regained control of congress almost two-decades later!

In my opinion, it seems honorable men such as Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, Fisher Ames and even George Washington are being forgotten by Americans who choose to remember a more recent political figure, Ronald Reagan.

The term “Reagan Republican“ seems to have come to represent a moderate Republican than anything Ronald Reagan stood for.

Nevertheless, if presented with a choice, I would rather vote for a “Lincoln Republican“ than a “Reagan Republican“; even if they are both true to their name.

Without disrespecting Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln was a better president; he did more for this country.

Conservatism in the United States Of America is still a ways away from being near to that of our fore-fathers, I contribute that to the lack of genuine Conservative leadership and organizations.

Without a doubt in my mind, two of the most popular icons for Conservatives and Republicans in the U.S.A., Fox News & the Tea Party along with individual “leaders“ being Sarah Palin & Ann Coulter among others, are really destructive moderate Republicans that humiliate the party name.

However, I believe if Conservatives and Republicans in this country are gave a choice between so-called “Reagan Republicans“ and “Lincoln Republicans“ (meaning genuine Constitionalists instead of moderate Republicans), the latter will be chosen.

Sadly, it appears that the U.S.A. will have to wait at least another election year until “Lincoln Republicans“ begin to appear on a mainstream level.

As we all should, I Praise and Thank JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY LORD GOD and SAVIOR! May HE Bless these United States Of America!

Sincerely,

Daniel Benjamin Orris of Pennsylvania

11:08 pm-est, Tuesday, August 24, 2010 in the year of JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY!


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: lincoln; reagan; republicans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last

1 posted on 08/25/2010 5:26:23 AM PDT by JohnnyBibs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnnyBibs

Lincoln was a bad president, and the beginning of the end of this Republic.


2 posted on 08/25/2010 5:29:46 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyBibs

Calvin Coolidge Republican > Lincoln Republican


3 posted on 08/25/2010 5:33:42 AM PDT by miliantnutcase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyBibs

I like Washington and John Adams.
Question. If our rights come from God, if you are not a believer in God, shouldn’t that negate your right to rights?


4 posted on 08/25/2010 5:38:30 AM PDT by huldah1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyBibs

all I know is that independents either did not show up or American’s like the pain. If ever we needed term limits it is now.


5 posted on 08/25/2010 5:40:54 AM PDT by dalebert (true hillbilly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Someone else gets it.

ML/NJ

6 posted on 08/25/2010 5:43:23 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Lincoln was the worst “ Republican “ of all.

As Shelby Foote noted, BEFORE Lincoln’s War, it was:

The United States ARE

AFTER the War, it was :

The United States IS

Everything has gone downhill since Lincoln first took the oath of office......Teddy, Woodrow, Franklin, Lyndon....now Barack. You can’t undo the damage they’ve done to the Republic.........unless.........

you just start over completely, as in.....REVOLUTION !


7 posted on 08/25/2010 5:43:32 AM PDT by colonel mosby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyBibs

There are five questions you can ask any candidate to see if they are a conservative, or something else.

1) Should America build a fence, militarize the southern border, and deport all illegals?
2) Should DADT be preserved, gay marriage and unrestricted abortion as a form of birth control should be banned?
3) Should America bring home its troops, end foreign aid payments, and let countries we compete with in the world marketplace pay for their own defense?
4) Should America slash the size of government and government spending - by 50% or more - and institute a 10% flat tax rate?
5) Should America restrict free and open trade to civilized western democracies with equivalent standards of living?

Any true conservative and American patriot should be able to answer all five questions with an unequivocal “Yes.” If a candidate answers no to any one of these questions, you have to do some real digging into what their motivation is.

For instance, take a candidate like John McCain...this “pseudo conservative” would answer all these questions with a “No.”


8 posted on 08/25/2010 5:46:29 AM PDT by Yet_Again
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyBibs

I think of myself as a Coolidge Republican.


9 posted on 08/25/2010 5:47:38 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (Defeat Dingy Harry Reid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776
Question. If our rights come from God, if you are not a believer in God, shouldn’t that negate your right to rights?

The rights are there from God, whether any specific person believes in Him or not. The problem is if someone does not believe, they may not/will not stand up for their rights.

10 posted on 08/25/2010 5:48:26 AM PDT by FairWitness (Everything is easy, once you've done it once)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776
Question. If our rights come from God, if you are not a believer in God, shouldn’t that negate your right to rights?

Okay, I really can't help myself from responding to a paradox, so -

The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.
George Washington, Address to the Members of the Volunteer Association of Ireland, December 2, 1783

11 posted on 08/25/2010 5:54:22 AM PDT by MamaTexan (Dear GOP - ~ We suck less ~ is NOT a campaign platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyBibs

Lincoln Republicans....you mean someone who wants to set aside the Constitution and concentrate power away from the states and to the federal government?

Unfortunately, we have far too many “Lincoln Republicans” running around Washington DC now, as it is.


12 posted on 08/25/2010 6:00:20 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. - Dr. Wm R. Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyBibs

Other than destroying the republic, states rights and killing 6000,000 in the process, I have no problem with the man.


13 posted on 08/25/2010 6:02:35 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776
Question. If our rights come from God, if you are not a believer in God, shouldn’t that negate your right to rights?

Of course not. We possess these natural, inherent rights by virtue of our creation in the image of God. This is true, regardless of whether someone believes in God or not. This is why rights are called "unalienable" - they cannot be deferred or given away, even by the possessor his or herself.

14 posted on 08/25/2010 6:02:45 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. - Dr. Wm R. Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyBibs

I see the Southern brand of Republicans have begun to show up.


15 posted on 08/25/2010 6:04:14 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby

Totally agree. There are some things worth fighting for.


16 posted on 08/25/2010 6:08:56 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyBibs

Lincoln suspended several Constitutional protections during the war. A Lincoln-Republican would be someone who is willing to allow government to exceed the authority granted to them by the Constitution to overcome a crisis. While it worked for Lincoln, this is a dangerous position to take.

You could even consider Obama to be a Lincoln-Democrat. In his case, it isn’t working.


17 posted on 08/25/2010 6:09:36 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby
Lincoln was the worst “ Republican “ of all.

As Shelby Foote noted, BEFORE Lincoln’s War, it was:

The United States ARE

AFTER the War, it was :

The United States IS

--

Inclined to agree with you to a point. I blame Lincoln for much of that war, but I blame the "Radical Republicans" (after his death) for what happened during Reconstruction. Secession was a terrible mistake, but there were many mistakes made on both sides There was no excuse for slavery and there was no excuse for the economic prejudices of the North/East.

18 posted on 08/25/2010 6:10:00 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyBibs
The designation of “Best Republican President“ is reserved for the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.

I have a lot of respect for Lincoln, but I would not considerate him anywhere close to being the "Best Republican President". At best, he might rank in the high 20s to mid-30s in ranking . . . . . . at best!

Lincoln started the Civil War by ignoring the Constitution AND the Federalist Papers in order to impose his will on the country. The south paid a huge price and penalty for his tyranny. IMO, he was the Obama of his day.

I think this guy a little whacked.

19 posted on 08/25/2010 6:35:15 AM PDT by DustyMoment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

The non-Southern brands of Republicans would never have come back to power during the Reagan administration except for them. They defected from the Dem ranks 25 year ago due to the leftist takeover of the Dem party. I have never been a Dem.

I am a lover of the Constitution, freedom and free association. If that makes me less a “Republican” “so be it”.


20 posted on 08/25/2010 6:41:28 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
The non-Southern brands of Republicans would never have come back to power during the Reagan administration except for them.

Check a map. Reagan could have lost the entire South in both elections and still won handily. Don't claim credit where it isn't deserved.

They defected from the Dem ranks 25 year ago due to the leftist takeover of the Dem party.

They defected from the Democratic ranks when they found they could do so and still keep their big government, big spending ways.

21 posted on 08/25/2010 6:44:48 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby
As Shelby Foote noted, BEFORE Lincoln’s War, it was: The United States ARE - AFTER the War, it was: The United States IS

Shelby was an excellent writer, but he was at best partially correct in this assertion.

The IS formulation was occasionally used as far back as the late 1700s, and gained considerable ground after the War of 1812.

The ARE formulation hung on till the end of the 1800s, although becoming progressively less common.

While the switch in usage may have become more common after the WBTS, it was part of an ongoing process that took the entire 19th century to complete.

22 posted on 08/25/2010 6:59:16 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
They defected from the Democratic ranks when they found they could do so and still keep their big government, big spending ways.

Texas is not a Big Government state and I think the bias toward big government comes from DC not the States (with some exceptions). Large cities seem to have a Big Government bias everywhere, but especially the North East and West Coast.

My bias against the Lincoln era Republicans comes from ancestors who were "burned out" of AL during Reconstruction. Much of the horrors of the history of that time are not recorded in History books, but has left an indellible imprint on those who moved due to the abuses by the Federal Government. The current parallels frighten me, and I am not easily frightened.

I repeat for clarity that I have never been a Dem.

23 posted on 08/25/2010 7:00:21 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
Lincoln started the Civil War by ignoring the Constitution AND the Federalist Papers in order to impose his will on the country.

And how did he do that?

24 posted on 08/25/2010 7:01:12 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyBibs
Sorry, guys, but the majority of Americans do not consider the Tea Party, Fox News, Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter to be insufficiently conservative. Anyone who thinks Americans feel this way is seriously delusional.

I might agree, but I suspect well under 25% of Americans would join me. 1/4 of the population does not win elections.

25 posted on 08/25/2010 7:02:32 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
Texas is not a Big Government state and I think the bias toward big government comes from DC not the States (with some exceptions). Large cities seem to have a Big Government bias everywhere, but especially the North East and West Coast.

And in 2005 when Tom Delay was proudly claiming that the Republican leadership had done such a good job that there was no more fat to cut in the federal budget? Doesn't sound like a small-government Republican to me. And if memory serves he was from....Texas? Somewhere like that? And those princes of pork, Trent Lott and Richard Shelby? Where are they from again? The Northeast or the West Coast? And Eric Cantor, with his talk this week about how when the GOP takes over the House again then 'deserving' earmarks will be just fine with him. What region does he hail from?

My bias against the Lincoln era Republicans comes from ancestors who were "burned out" of AL during Reconstruction.

Would it be too much to point out that Lincoln had been dead for two years before Reconstruction was imposed?

Much of the horrors of the history of that time are not recorded in History books...

They live on in Southron mythology.

26 posted on 08/25/2010 7:07:43 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
They live on in Southron mythology.

No, that is not true. Lynchings, burned homes, stolen property by both Carpet Baggers and Scallywags in power did happen. Mythology, it was not. FACT.

The anti-DC sentiment now is in response to the same arrogance of power that existed then. I never blamed Lincold for Reconstruction, that happened after his death. I do blame him for the suspension of the legal system in persuing the war. And why are we talking about this stuff now? I detest CW history, it is a subject that is best left dead.

27 posted on 08/25/2010 7:20:56 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby

I’d heard it was the united states of America and now it’s the United States of America.


28 posted on 08/25/2010 7:21:09 AM PDT by FrdmLvr ( VIVA la SB 1070!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyBibs

Where are the Lincoln Republicans? Living in log cabins?


29 posted on 08/25/2010 7:22:06 AM PDT by csmusaret (A government that can dictate how much water flows into a toilet is a powerful government indeed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And how did he do that?

Ok, I'll play along. He started the Civil War.

30 posted on 08/25/2010 7:28:19 AM PDT by DustyMoment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
Ok, I'll play along. He started the Civil War.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't bombarding Fort Sumter mark the beginning of the rebellion? Having chosen war to gain control of the fort, the South can hardly complain just because it didn't turn out the way they had hoped. They have only themselves to blame for losing.

31 posted on 08/25/2010 7:35:34 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Yes, Fort Sumter was fired upon after repeated warnings to quit re-supplying the fort. Fort Sumter was in a tactical position to enforce federal tariffs, which South Carolina was paying in a far disproportionate manner.

John C. Calhoun had raised hell about this for decades in the 20s and 30s.

This war was inevitable after Lincoln and his Radical Republicans took the reins of power.


32 posted on 08/25/2010 7:55:44 AM PDT by colonel mosby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby
Yes, Fort Sumter was fired upon after repeated warnings to quit re-supplying the fort. Fort Sumter was in a tactical position to enforce federal tariffs, which South Carolina was paying in a far disproportionate manner.

A) It was a U.S. fort. Built with federal funds on land deeded to the federal government free and clear by act of the South Carolina legislature. B) Linoln made one attempt to resupply the fort, and only after informing the governor of South Carolina of his intentions well ahead of time. The decision for war lay in the hands of Jefferson Davis. C) Sumter made no attempt to interfere with traffic in and out of Charleston and was hardly in any position to enforce any tariffs since it was located across the bay from where goods were landed and tariffs collected. D) The idea that the South paid the bulk of the tariff is nonsense. The South imported comparatively little from overseas and well over 90% of all tariff revenue was collected in three Northern ports - New York, Boston, and Philadelphia.

This war was inevitable after Lincoln and his Radical Republicans took the reins of power.

And Jefferson Davis made it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

33 posted on 08/25/2010 8:02:15 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Yea, he would have been so much better had he allowed a bunch of treasonous bass-turds tear this nation apart.


34 posted on 08/25/2010 8:23:26 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
The states are what matter. We had a union of the several states. At one time, those states ratified the Constitution, but time passed and that union of states was not necessarily permanent. When several states decided to leave that union and form a separate union, there was nothing inherently treasonous or illegal about it. They tried to leave peacefully, through a political process invovling state legislatures. But Lincoln sent an army into Virginia to thwart the will of the people.

You see treason. I see tyranny.

And here we are. How do you find our destination?

35 posted on 08/25/2010 8:30:39 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Okay, I’ll bite.

If Fort Sumter was not there to enforce federal tariffs, then.....................................

What was the purpose of having federal troops in Charleston Harbor ?

Perhaps to protect against a sneak attack from the Spanish Armada ?

Respectfully, where are you getting your history lessons....from the National Education Association ?


36 posted on 08/25/2010 8:39:47 AM PDT by colonel mosby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

We can re-visit this issue if you want, but it has been beaten to death on this site and I’m pretty sure that everyone is fed up with it.

With all the back and forth on this site, there was still no consensus and the wounds resulting from the war remain pretty raw; despite the fact that none of us were there.

So, let’s just leave it as an issue that we all agree to disagree on.

However, since you asked about Ft. Sumter, let’s have a BRIEF discussion of Ft. Sumter: On December 26, 1860, six days after South Carolina declared its secession, U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson abandoned the indefensible Fort Moultrie and secretly relocated companies E and H (127 men, 13 of them musicians) of the 1st U.S. Artillery to Fort Sumter without orders from Washington, on his own initiative. He thought that providing a stronger defense would delay an attack by South Carolina militia.

The Fort was not yet complete at the time and fewer than half of the cannons that should have been available were not, due to military downsizing by President James Buchanan. Over the next few months, repeated calls for the United States evacuation of Fort Sumter from the government of South Carolina and later Confederate Brigadier General P.G.T. Beauregard were ignored. United States attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from The Citadel prevented the steamer Star of the West, a ship hired by the Union to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.

After realizing that Anderson’s command would run out of food by April 15, 1861, President Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships, under the command of Gustavus V. Fox, to attempt entry into Charleston Harbor and support Fort Sumter.

So, let’s review what the first provocative act was. From the Union side, it was the South seceeding from the Union and, later, firing on Ft. Sumter. I’m not going to debate the merits of this because it has been debated to death, like the rest of the Civil War, and the argument remains open to interpretation.

From the Southern perspective, the increasing argument between abolitionists in the North and slave-owners in the south came to a head in the 1850s and peaked with the election of Lincoln. While Lincoln was not necessarily considered an abolitionist (in the strictest sense of the term), he had proposed (and later enacted legislation in support of) limiting slavery to the states where it already existed and preventing its expansion.

For the south, primarily an agricultural area, the use of slaves allowed southern farmers and plantation owners to meet the ever growing demand for more food by a growing nation and still keep prices low. So, the threat that Lincoln’s election represented was the end of the south’s primary means of generating income.

From the perspective of provocation, then, it depends on which side of the fence you stand on. With respect to this discussion, AFAIC, it is at an end. I’m not going to debate the Civil War and its causes ad infinitum again. We’ve all been there and done that and this discussion is closed.


37 posted on 08/25/2010 9:02:00 AM PDT by DustyMoment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
On December 26, 1860, six days after South Carolina declared its secession, U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson abandoned the indefensible Fort Moultrie and secretly relocated companies E and H (127 men, 13 of them musicians) of the 1st U.S. Artillery to Fort Sumter without orders from Washington, on his own initiative. He thought that providing a stronger defense would delay an attack by South Carolina militia.

Mainly true, but he had verbal authority to move his command if he felt it was in danger. The authority had been given him by Major Don Carlos Buell during a meeting earlier in December. In light of the threats passed on to him by Unionists in Charleston, Major Anderson acted in the manner he thought prudent. There is no crime in that.

Over the next few months, repeated calls for the United States evacuation of Fort Sumter from the government of South Carolina and later Confederate Brigadier General P.G.T. Beauregard were ignored.

There was no reason why the fort should have been abandoned on demand.

United States attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from The Citadel prevented the steamer Star of the West, a ship hired by the Union to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.

And I would point out that happened while Buchanan, a Democrat, held the White House.

After realizing that Anderson’s command would run out of food by April 15, 1861, President Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships, under the command of Gustavus V. Fox, to attempt entry into Charleston Harbor and support Fort Sumter.

Again, after having a message clearly stating his intention to land food and supplies only unless the resupply was opposed.

For the south, primarily an agricultural area, the use of slaves allowed southern farmers and plantation owners to meet the ever growing demand for more food by a growing nation and still keep prices low. So, the threat that Lincoln’s election represented was the end of the south’s primary means of generating income.

It did not threaten that at all. In the first place, Southern agriculture was geared towards producing and exporting crops like cotton and tobacco, and not with feeding the country. And Lincoln's election did not threaten the South's economy or society or primary meands of generating income at all. Lincoln made it clear that he had not power and no intention of interfering with slavery where it currently existed. He knew that to do so would require a Constitutional amendment, and such an amendment was impossible. The South knew that as well.

From the perspective of provocation, then, it depends on which side of the fence you stand on. With respect to this discussion, AFAIC, it is at an end. I’m not going to debate the Civil War and its causes ad infinitum again. We’ve all been there and done that and this discussion is closed.

Hardly closed. But I understand that this may not be the time or place to revisit the rebellion. The claim has been made by many on this thread that virtually all our nation's ills are the result of Abraham Lincoln and his opposition to the Southern rebellion. I find that claim to be ridiculous and questioned it. Other's brought the war into it.

38 posted on 08/25/2010 9:16:55 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The claim has been made by many on this thread that virtually all our nation's ills are the result of Abraham Lincoln and his opposition to the Southern rebellion.

I am sure the "Nations" ills would have occurred in the North without Lincoln. An independent South would have been spared the socialism and downward spiral.

39 posted on 08/25/2010 9:26:47 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: central_va
An independent South would have been spared the socialism and downward spiral.

Or would have pursued the socialistic totalitarianism of Jeff Davis to an even greater degree. A more likely scenario, IMHO of course.

40 posted on 08/25/2010 9:33:27 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
IMHO of course.

The Coven and humility are total strangers....

41 posted on 08/25/2010 9:36:47 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: central_va

And the Lost Cause Losers and common sense are even further estranged.


42 posted on 08/25/2010 9:57:25 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby
What was the purpose of having federal troops in Charleston Harbor ?

Fort Sumter was a federal facility. The troops were manning their post.

Perhaps to protect against a sneak attack from the Spanish Armada ?

Doubtful, if for no other reason than the Spanish Armada had sailed 250 years before.

Respectfully, where are you getting your history lessons....from the National Education Association ?

Would that be worse than getting it from a variety of Southern Mythology websites, as you seem to have done?

43 posted on 08/25/2010 10:35:05 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
For the south, primarily an agricultural area, the use of slaves allowed southern farmers and plantation owners to meet the ever growing demand for more food by a growing nation and still keep prices low.

The south was barely self-sufficient in food production. The bread basket of America at that time, and the only part exporting food products in any quantity, was the midwestern states, And they seemed to do just fine without slaves.

44 posted on 08/25/2010 10:37:59 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

Did you miss the part where I said that this discussion is closed?


45 posted on 08/25/2010 10:59:24 AM PDT by DustyMoment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby
What was the purpose of having federal troops in Charleston Harbor ? Perhaps to protect against a sneak attack from the Spanish Armada ?

Gee, then you'd have to wonder why the South Carolinians expended so much energy to get Ft. Sumter built.

The fact is that after the War of 1812, when the British fleet was able to bombard east coast cities more or less at will, James Madison called for the construction of a series of forts up and down the entire coast. Surveying for the entire project began in 1817, and the site for Sumter was chosen in 1826. Various legal hurdles--individuals claiming ownership of the shoal--were dealt with by the South Carolina legislature, which was eager to see the fort built. Actual work began in 1828. Oh, and during that whole time, John C. Calhoun of Charleston was either Vice President or Secretary of War.

So now the question has to be asked, where did you get YOUR education on the subject?

46 posted on 08/25/2010 11:01:23 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

Then feel free not to read or reply anymore. But this is a public forum and you don’t get to simply announce a subject closed.


47 posted on 08/25/2010 11:03:21 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

That’s all well and good.

But neither you nor non-sequiter answered the question. Why was the Lincoln government so intent on manning the Fort AFTER they were asked to leave ?


48 posted on 08/25/2010 11:52:05 AM PDT by colonel mosby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby
I'm asking you to leave your house and hand it over to me.

Why haven't you left? Same reason. It was property of the United States government.

49 posted on 08/25/2010 12:24:17 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: colonel mosby
Why was the Lincoln government so intent on manning the Fort AFTER they were asked to leave ?

Because it was their fort.

50 posted on 08/25/2010 12:32:30 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson