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!
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.
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.
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.
And how did he do that?
I might agree, but I suspect well under 25% of Americans would join me. 1/4 of the population does not win elections.
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.
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.
I’d heard it was the united states of America and now it’s the United States of America.
Where are the Lincoln Republicans? Living in log cabins?
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.
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.
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.
Yea, he would have been so much better had he allowed a bunch of treasonous bass-turds tear this nation apart.
You see treason. I see tyranny.
And here we are. How do you find our destination?
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
Or would have pursued the socialistic totalitarianism of Jeff Davis to an even greater degree. A more likely scenario, IMHO of course.
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.