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

[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?

No, I mean someone who fights to preserve this country, this Republic, this Union! Someone who acknowledges our Christian heritage and promotes it! Someone who fights to terminate a terrible sin from the land of this nation!

[central_va]

Abraham Lincoln did everything in his might to keep the Union, the Republic, together!

A republic held together at the point of a gun isn't much of a republic.

How is it a state right to be allowed to succeed(sic) from the Union?

The USC is totally silent on secession. If you read what was written at the time, any no out clause for the states would have made the USC DOA, and would have never been ratified by the states. There are some misguided fools around here that would argue the opposite is true, I am not buying though.

The Civil War was never about states rights, it was about a rebellion trying to keep slavery!

Secession is not an act of war, only a fascist war pig and statist piece of crap jerkface would think that way. Not that you would think like that :)

[central_va]

The so-called "independent South", as you call it, began as an oppressed country already in a downward spiral.

Take away, from the USA, the South in the 19th century and by the end of the 20th century the USA would be a totally socialist, if not communist country. An independent South would be a conservative country, to argue otherwise is to declare your historic incompetence.

[rockrr]

If you read what was written at the time, any no out clause for the states would have made the USC DOA, and would have never been ratified by the states.

But it was ratified, and without any "no out clause for the states" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

[rockrr]

and to argue for it is to declare your hysterical incompetence lol

[Texas Fossil]

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

In my opinion this is an unnecessarily divisive thread. It started with a question that baited old regional mistrusts that should have long since been buried. What followed was the same old arguments that have existed for the past 120 years. Some (not named) spoke of "Southern" Republicans as if they were Neanderthals and throwbacks to the dark ages. WHY? We have enough current real enemies to occupy our time without such nonsense. Lets end this now.

[Non-Sequitur]

Secession is not an act of war, only a fascist war pig and statist piece of crap jerkface would think that way.

Bombarding a fort is an act of war, only a fascist war pig and totalitarian piece of crap jerkface would think otherwise.

[Non-Sequitur]

Take away, from the USA, the South in the 19th century and by the end of the 20th century the USA would be a totally socialist, if not communist country.

And under the precedents set by Jeff Davis in the 19th century, an independent confederacy by the end of the 20th century would be a totalitarian police state with a socialistic economy and a society most likely resembling South Africa at the height of apartheid. To declare otherwise shows an abysmal lack of historical knowledge of the Davis regime and the policies he enacted.

[JohnnyBibs]

A republic held together at the point of a gun isn't much of a republic.

Then are you arguing that Abraham Lincoln should have allowed the rebellion to form and maintain the Confederacy?

There was never any statue that allowed secession, it was then a choice of Union or Disunion; Lincoln fought to preserve the Union!

Secession is not an act of war, only a fascist war pig and statist piece of crap jerkface would think that way. Not that you would think like that :)

Secession might not be an act of war, but it was never legalized to the best of my knowledge; there is nothing wrong with what Lincoln did, which was to try and keep the Union united! I would have done just about the same if I was in his same position!

[rockrr]

Your choice of ‘respondees’ is interesting. Why did you choose us and not central_va or colonel mosby (for example)? There is nothing divisive about the original thread. It was complementary of one of our most revered presidents. It didn’t rub noses of the confederates or the neo-confederates.

A couple of years ago I would have agreed with your POV. There are age old prejudices that are better buried. But that was before I met up with the Lost Cause Losers who wish fervently to destroy this nation.

You are right in that we have bigger fish to fry, but part of that is getting our own house in order and that will entail driving out the agitators, anarchists, and arsonists.

[FourPeas]

So, after a year of leave, you decide to wade back into FR and gin up the debate about Lincoln?

[FourPeas]

I would have done just about the same if I was in his same position!

High praise, indeed.

[JohnnyBibs]

So, after a year of leave, you decide to wade back into FR and gin up the debate about Lincoln?

Not exactly.

What I wrote was actually intended to point out the subterfuge used by moderate Republicans. I was for the most part caught by surprised when people started to debate the policies and actions that Abraham Lincoln stood for.

[FourPeas]

You were surprised??

[JohnnyBibs]

You were surprised??

For the most part.

[rockrr]

There are some malcontents here who hold a visceral hatred of anything Lincoln. You have to know that February 12th is a day of mourning for them ;-)

They invariably swarm any thread that mentions his name and spreads their crap.

And there are a few of us that stand in opposition to them.

Sorry for tracking all over your thread ;-)

[FourPeas]

Dude, you really need to spend a bit more time reading FreeRepublic.

[Texas Fossil]

but part of that is getting our own house in order and that will entail driving out the agitators, anarchists, and arsonists

Agitators, anarchists, and arsonists? That sounds like the Leftie cretin we are in battle with. Don't see any of that on this thread.

[rockrr]

No, I guess you wouldn’t...

[Jay Redhawk]

These Civil War threads have grown old so I will say this and nothing else: There were numerous reasons for Southern secession, but the reason the war started was Lincoln’s invasion of Virginia. Lincoln started the war, and Lincoln republicans are all over the place today. We call them Rhinos.