Posted on 02/13/2018 6:12:01 AM PST by Bull Snipe
I leap to the conclusion Lincoln did not have the votes to peacefully amend the constitution. If he wanted to abolish slavery - some accounts say he did - he would have to find some way to get more votes. Or eliminate some opponents.
What Lincoln needed was some pretext to justify exercising extraordinary political and military power.
Lincoln should have tried the peaceful constitutional amendment process first. There is a chance it could have worked over a period of time. And if the peaceful, legal attempt had failed, he could have still used the military to attack and kill his opponents.
After killing a half-million, who was going to say he was wrong?
” Given my past posts, no rational person would conclude I agreed with them that the Confederacy was an independent country . . .”
People grow. I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt every chance I get.
The Federal Register is only an estimated two million pages now. Who knows, when it reaches two million, five hundred thousand pages - including 40,000 pages of homosexual cupcake production quota rules - you too may regret the disaster at Appomattox.
How does he eliminate slave states?
What Lincoln needed was some pretext to justify exercising extraordinary political and military power.
Oh barf.
Lincoln should have tried the peaceful constitutional amendment process first. There is a chance it could have worked over a period of time. And if the peaceful, legal attempt had failed, he could have still used the military to attack and kill his opponents.
Which is what Lincoln did up to the point where Davis started the war. After that it was out of his hands.
“Which is what Lincoln did up to the point where Davis started the war.”
No. Lincoln never introduced or supported a constitutional amendment to peacefully abolish slavery before the fighting started even though Lincoln himself served in Congress at one time. About that you are mistaken.
There are better rejoinders than that.
As a friend, may I suggest the polemic: “Lincoln fought to Free The Slaves!” It is not accurate but it is a crowd pleaser.
“How does he eliminate slave states?”
Rather than giving a short answer, I postpone until this evening to give me a chance to look up some actual quotes about the Lincoln-Sherman tactics.
But few more appropriate.
As a friend, may I suggest the polemic: “Lincoln fought to Free The Slaves!” It is not accurate but it is a crowd pleaser.
You assume too much.
one trick phony
After your math lesson, I referenced in my post 81 that Lincoln would have to find some way to "eliminate some opponents."
His methods of eliminating opponents are well documented. Arrest and imprisonment without trial. Destroying the food supplies of opponents. Destroying, or taking, the livestock of opponents. Burning opponents out of their cities and homes and letting nature take its course.
Of course, killing on the battlefield. But the killings weren't just on the battlefield. One of Lincoln's chieftains, General Sherman - to cite just one specific example - wrote to Brigadier General Louis Douglas Watkins on how to deal with civilians during Lincoln's War:
""Can you not send over to Fairmount and Adairsville, burn 10 or 12 houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random and let them know it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon from Resaca to Kingston."
On another occasion Lincoln's chieftain wrote:
The Government of the United States has in North Alabama any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war--to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything--because they cannot deny that war does exist there, and war is simply power unrestrained by constitution or compact. If they want eternal war, well and good; we accept the issue, and will dispossess them and put our friends in their place. I know thousands and millions of good people who at simple notice would come to North Alabama and accept the elegant houses and plantations there. If the people of Huntsville think different, let them persist in war three years longer, and then they will not be consulted. Three years ago by a little reflection and patience they could have had a hundred years of peace and prosperity, but they preferred war; very well. Last year they could have saved their slaves, but now it is too late. All the powers of earth cannot restore to them their slaves, any more than their dead grandfathers. Next year their lands will be taken, for in war we can take them, and rightfully, too, and in another year they may beg in vain for their lives. A people who will persevere in war beyond a certain limit ought to know the consequences. Many, many peoples with less pertinacity have been wiped out of national existence.
Wiping people out of national existence. It was not until the 1940s that the world had a single word to describe what you have read in the long paragraph.
As for eliminating states? States can be ruled as conquered territories. State lines can be ignored. States can be grouped into military districts and military governors can be appointed. Even though states can be repatriated to the Federation at the point of bayonet, the conquered can be disenfranchised for years; can be denied representation in Congress until they consent to a new constitution. (Consent obtained by coercion is not consent.)
That is how you eliminate opponents and opposing states.
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.