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

Skip to comments.

Lincoln: An invented hero
National Post via Canada.com ^ | October 30, 2012 | Kevin Gutzman

Posted on 10/31/2012 9:08:23 PM PDT by EveningStar

The Abraham Lincoln of popular perception is a mythological figure. He has little to do with the actual 16th president.

(Excerpt) Read more at canada.com ...


TOPICS: History; Politics
KEYWORDS: abrahamlincoln; cinos; finos; kevingutzman; lincoln; neoyankeewifeswap; rinos; skinheadsonparade
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-234 next last

1 posted on 10/31/2012 9:08:30 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Canada sucks.


2 posted on 10/31/2012 9:11:30 PM PDT by edcoil (It is not over until I win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

That dispute was settled long ago and at a terrbile cost. Most of this column is just so much blather.


3 posted on 10/31/2012 9:11:30 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

In Canada they think democracy is NOT Mob Rule by Mobsters..
When it is.. No democracy has ever been democratic..


Democracy is the road to socialism. -Karl Marx

Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism. -V.I. Lenin

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism .-Karl Marx


4 posted on 10/31/2012 9:14:53 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

From Sask, originally and yes, it effing blows. Every high school in that putrid country, every student is brain-washed to hate America.


5 posted on 10/31/2012 9:18:13 PM PDT by max americana (Make the world a better place by punching a liberal in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: edcoil; hosepipe; max americana; All

Do a search “Kevin Gutzman” and see what his nationality is.


6 posted on 10/31/2012 9:21:50 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

The author is undermined by his use of hyperbole.


7 posted on 10/31/2012 9:22:49 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

“the only thing wrong with Lincoln’s famous speech is that: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.”

That’s so stupid it’s actually kind of funny.


8 posted on 10/31/2012 9:27:01 PM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (Thought Puzzle: Describe Islam without using the phrase "mental disorder" more than four times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar; Reagan Man
Nowadays, historians commonly call anyone who says that the Civil War was over states' rights any of several unsavory names.

That happens on this board's Civil War threads.

9 posted on 10/31/2012 9:30:43 PM PDT by Fiji Hill (Deo Vindice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Yeah well he swings a wicked axe.


10 posted on 10/31/2012 9:39:02 PM PDT by Frapster (There you go again....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
The author of the piece Kevin Gutzman, was born in the United States. He resides in Danbury, Connecticut. He is declared to be "An American Constitutional Scholar" (Wikipedia).

The National Post just happened to print his piece. Still, we Canadians can learn that one has to tread very lightly in dealing with a sovereign country's politics. I always speak respectfully of the now President of the United States. I have disquiet after reading "Dreams From My Father" (Barack Obama). I do state that however.

My prayers for the Republic on November the 6th. Excuse the sermon.

11 posted on 10/31/2012 9:39:07 PM PDT by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

[ Do a search “Kevin Gutzman” and see what his nationality is. ]

I do not even know the nationality of the President..
his grade school grades and passport are closely guarded secrets..

Am not in the mood for cute “titles”.. or people defaming US historical figures..
Kevin should watch his six..


12 posted on 10/31/2012 10:11:15 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Our hat speaks to us.


13 posted on 10/31/2012 10:15:18 PM PDT by cicero2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
This essay is mostly nonsense as anyone familiar with US history can recognize.

Lincoln was not perfect but he was an American hero when compared to his enemies.


14 posted on 10/31/2012 10:29:36 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

I found nothing but sober accuracy in this article.

The imposition of the 14th Amendment usurped the original Constitution - that’s a simple legal fact that continues today in a million ways. And that usurpation was the DIRECT result of the Civil War.

The Civil War was not about slavery. It was to build the federal army up to a size where the 14th Amendment (or something like it) could be imposed on all the States by that army. And that’s exactly what happened.


15 posted on 10/31/2012 10:35:39 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

16 posted on 10/31/2012 10:38:11 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

17 posted on 10/31/2012 10:39:28 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Hopefully, a week from now, it will be absolutely clear that not all Illinois lawyers are created equal.


18 posted on 10/31/2012 10:41:16 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frapster

19 posted on 10/31/2012 10:41:39 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Tis a sad shame that Gutzman has a far more accurate handle on who and what Lincoln actually was than 98% of Americans. Time washes away reality like the tide and leaves only fantasy, then Spielberg comes along and glorifies the fantasy.
20 posted on 10/31/2012 10:41:53 PM PDT by Ed Story
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: Talisker

You have a problem with cause and effect.

The insurrection attempted by the slave power was put down. The insurrection was attempted by the slave power, to further and extend the institution of slavery. The emancipation proclamation was developed to hinder the war making power of the insurrectionists.

The 14th Amendment was developed to correct the error of the Taney court in the Dred Scott case. It, with the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments corrected the error of the Dred Scott court.

It is amusing to watch people attempt to defend the Taney court. Life slavery was first instituted by colonial courts at the request of a slave owner of African heritage. North Carolina in particular permitted persons of African heritage to vote until 1835. Taney’s false legal doctrines were finally corrects.


22 posted on 10/31/2012 10:50:32 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fatasshick

I recommend you review “The Devil’s Brigade”. Canada provided crucial aid to the US during WWII, to include the expensive Dieppe raid which taught us much about the things that needed to occur during an amphibious landing.


23 posted on 10/31/2012 10:52:45 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Frapster

LOL

That movie was so cheesy and crappy.

I loved it and watched til the end.


24 posted on 10/31/2012 10:57:27 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

agreed


25 posted on 10/31/2012 10:58:42 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

The Canada National Compost is a combination of the words Communist and post . Here global warmers call others “deniers”. They bought out The Canada Financial Post and destroyed a serious scientific study article by Patterson who argued that solar conditions cause global warming...Bunch of creeps should not be taken seriously.


26 posted on 10/31/2012 11:05:15 PM PDT by mosesdapoet (The best way to punish a - country is let professors run it. Fredrick the Great para/p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill
Nowadays, historians commonly call anyone who says that the Civil War was over states' rights any of several unsavory names.

That happens on this board's Civil War threads.

Unfortunately for your argument, 'State's Rights' included the use of human beings as slaves. They're inseparable.

You're always going to lose, because you're never going to be able to justify the slaves.

27 posted on 10/31/2012 11:07:10 PM PDT by IncPen (Educating Barack Obama has been the most expensive project in human history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

The Republican Party platform of 1860 was revolutionary in denying the Supreme Court’s authority, not just disagreeing with the decision. Secession was counterrevolution.

A responsible party could have challenged the Dred Scott decision in many political ways, but the party of Lincoln chose confrontation. Just as today’s left wants it all in one bite, disaster followed when they got what they wanted.

What’s the definition of a communist: a liberal in a hurry.


28 posted on 10/31/2012 11:07:45 PM PDT by FirstFlaBn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker; Talisker

“It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the State [instead of colonizing them]? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites, ten thousand recollections by the blacks of the injuries they have sustained, new provocations, the real distinctions which nature has made, and many other circumstances will divide us into parties and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” —Thomas Jefferson:

Was he right or wrong?


29 posted on 10/31/2012 11:33:42 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Stand Up and Be Counted ... Or Line Up and Be Numbered ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
You have a problem with cause and effect.

The insurrection attempted by the slave power was put down. The insurrection was attempted by the slave power, to further and extend the institution of slavery. The emancipation proclamation was developed to hinder the war making power of the insurrectionists.

The 14th Amendment was developed to correct the error of the Taney court in the Dred Scott case. It, with the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments corrected the error of the Dred Scott court.

It is amusing to watch people attempt to defend the Taney court. Life slavery was first instituted by colonial courts at the request of a slave owner of African heritage. North Carolina in particular permitted persons of African heritage to vote until 1835. Taney’s false legal doctrines were finally corrects.

Slick, but tedious. It's you who have inverted cause and effect. Any reference to Dred Scott was merely part of the cover story to push the 14th, and the supportive 13th and 15th. You're trying to explain an ocean by citing a need for a water faucet - it's ludicrous.

I would say your understanding of law is virtually nonexistent, except you took care to try to cover your inversion of facts by accusing me of your own strategy - typical lawyer trick. Therefore what you are doing is deliberate, and you also understand you must base your argument upon misinformation and psychological tricks. So much for ethics, eh? Let alone truth.

30 posted on 10/31/2012 11:42:32 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: IncPen

>>You’re always going to lose, because you’re never going to be able to justify the slaves.

Hm, have you ever thought that we are slaves? I mean consider this:
- Congress spends money
- This increased national debt
—Debt is incurred by a promise to pay out of future earnings monies borrowed now
- This national debt _is_ what the taxpayer’s payment (supposedly) is for [in part]
- You are prohibited from not participating
- You are liable for [a portion of] that debt
- Your wages are garnished before you see a dime, as tax ‘withholdings’, for taxes
- Your government asserts things like ownership over your children [see public schools]
- Your government asserts ownership over things you produce (see raw milk raids)
- Your government claims ownership of your body (see the War on Drugs, and now Obamacare)
- Your government claims it can strip you of rights (voting, arms, etc) for felonies, even after the sentence is served
- Your government has increased possible felonies to such a point that “Three Felonies a Day” id the name of a serious, non-fiction book.
- Your government makes it a liability to be a citizen and an advantage to be an illegal immigrant.


31 posted on 10/31/2012 11:47:12 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
“It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the State [instead of colonizing them]? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites, ten thousand recollections by the blacks of the injuries they have sustained, new provocations, the real distinctions which nature has made, and many other circumstances will divide us into parties and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” —Thomas Jefferson:

Was he right or wrong?

Depends on what he meant by "incorporate." The entirety of the Constitution Jefferson helped create was based on the protection of The People from "incorporation." That act is the creation of a slave - a wholly state-owned human being. What Jefferson was suggesting was to take slaves that were already slaves and shift their ownership to the State, away from their human masters, and thereby "free" them by creating a legal "wardship" status for them, where they would be protected by law.

But if you would have told Jefferson HE should be "incorporated" by the State, or his family, or the rest of the free country, you'd find a gun stuck up your nose so fast you wouldn't be able to sneeze first.

Unfortunately, while the 16th Amendment actualized pretty much Jeffersons idea of slavery incorporation, the 14th Amendment extended that incorporation to free people - and for the most part, they STILL haven't figured it out.

Just recently, the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court TRIED to educate Americans about this issue, and was villified and ignored for his efforts. I wrote about that (in detail) here:

How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America

32 posted on 10/31/2012 11:50:30 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
The southern states were many things - valiant defenders of federalism wasn't one of them. Trying to paint them as virtuous defenders of state's rights who recognized the rights of secession is pretty ironic, considering how for decades the Southern states had used their greater strength in Congress and the Federal Government to push a pro-slavery agenda on the rest of the country (the fugitive slave laws, infringement of free-speech by abolitionists, weak enforcement of bans on the African slave trade, ect.).

In the end, the war came down to one thing - slavery. Now, that wasn't why most ordinary soldiers, Northern or Southern, fought, but for the Southern political leadership and the elites, that was very much why they desired to leave. Slavery was explicitly named as a primary cause for secession.

Don't take my word for it - let's look at what the men of the time had to say.

Mississippi Declaration of Causes:Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

South Caroline Declaration of Immediate Causes:

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States...

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

Texas Declaration of the Causes:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

These are not the words of men for whom slavery was of only tangential relation to secession, and who expected the institution to slowly die out within the next two decades.

33 posted on 11/01/2012 12:04:31 AM PDT by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FirstFlaBn
Lincoln had vowed to only oppose the expansion of slavery into the Western territories and to leave it alone in states where it was already being practiced. Whether he was telling the truth, we will never know, since as soon as an election went a way they didn't like, the Southern states just up and left, several before Lincoln had even been sworn in! They had no legitimate grievances upon which to base secession.

Or, rather, no grievances that would be appealing to modern apologists attempting to shoehorn in a modern political scene into the era. Many of the things that popped up concerned the internal affairs of other states (Southern states took a dim view of Northern states allowing abolitionist papers to be published freely, or their ignoring the Federal fugitive slave laws, or not recognizing slave ownership within their own territory), and that shouldn't have been their business under the doctrine they were supposedly advocating. The declarations of secession of many Southern states explicitly name this fact (Northern state's disobeying Federal pro-slavery legislation) as a major point for leaving the Union.

34 posted on 11/01/2012 12:08:10 AM PDT by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
A total of fifty US Army Rangers participated in the disastrous Dieppe raid. The Canadians bore the brunt of causalities in that attack, mostly all from The Princess Patricia Light Infantry Brigade.
35 posted on 11/01/2012 12:17:56 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

How much withholding taxes did slaves pay in 1861?


36 posted on 11/01/2012 12:20:03 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ed Story

The author correctly points out every one of Lincoln’s unconstitutional acts, except for imposing an income tax for the first time.

Lincoln himself said it best: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” He and his high priests have been fooling most Americans for a long time.


37 posted on 11/01/2012 12:28:29 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
The southern states were many things - valiant defenders of federalism wasn't one of them. Trying to paint them as virtuous defenders of state's rights who recognized the rights of secession is pretty ironic, considering how for decades the Southern states had used their greater strength in Congress and the Federal Government to push a pro-slavery agenda on the rest of the country (the fugitive slave laws, infringement of free-speech by abolitionists, weak enforcement of bans on the African slave trade, ect.).

In the end, the war came down to one thing - slavery. Now, that wasn't why most ordinary soldiers, Northern or Southern, fought, but for the Southern political leadership and the elites, that was very much why they desired to leave. Slavery was explicitly named as a primary cause for secession.

Don't take my word for it - let's look at what the men of the time had to say.

All of your examples - all of them - were argued at the time, and ever since, as empowered and defended by Federalism. They were federalist ISSUES. And you are being especially disingenuous by saying the South "pushed" these issues on the rest of the country, when the truth is that the South was arguing that Federalism applied to the whole country - there's a BIG difference there, thank you very much.

Same for your quotes - the LEGAL CONTEXT being argued for that "right" of slavery was Federalism, i.e. States Rights.

And I'll tell you the final nail in the Northern Righteousness coffin - you know how the North could have made the Civil War CLEARLY and ONLY a slavery issue? Simple - by acknowledging Blacks as full human beings, and therefore innately part of The People of the Constitution, and endowed with all Rights by their Creator. But did the North do that? No way!

Instead they were hypocrites, wanting to "free" a people they refused to acknowledge were fully human. And as a result, we got the 16th, and then the 14th Amendments, imposing corporate slave law upon us all by presumption.

And people STILL don't understand it.

38 posted on 11/01/2012 1:13:38 AM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
Lincoln was not perfect but he was an American hero when compared to his enemies.

I'd say Lincoln was a hero when compared to most people. He was certainly the best and most courageous president this nation has had.
39 posted on 11/01/2012 1:24:09 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend"
M/center>

40 posted on 11/01/2012 1:29:44 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

re: “The Civil War was not about slavery. It was to build the federal army up to a size where the 14th Amendment (or something like it) could be imposed on all the States by that army. And that’s exactly what happened.”

Total BS. Completely untrue. The War of Secession was about furthering the institution of slavery into the territories that would become future states.

If you know anything about American history, you and I both know that I can quote several Southern politicians and important military leaders who said the war was completely about expanding and preserving slavery.

Lincoln campaigned on limiting slavery where it already existed - this was why the Southern states seceded. Lincoln correctly saw that secession, if allowed to stand, was a direct threat to the existence of the United States and refused to concede its legality on the part of the Southern states. He tried to resolve the issue peacefully - he begged the southern states not to resort to civil war.

It was South Carolina that fired the first official shot by the newly enacted Confederacy on a United States military installation at Fort Sumpter. The South bears the responsibility for beginning the war.

No one is claiming that Lincoln wasn’t a politician, that he didn’t have ambition, or that he was a saint - but, on this issue of the war - it was completely about sustaining and expanding slavery. Individual soldiers, north and south, fought for various reasons. I respect the bravery and fortitude of the soldiers on both sides. It is a testament to the courage and sacrifice that American soldiers are willing endure.

But, again, your contention that the Civil War is not about slavery and was some conspiracy to boost federal power is complete and utter nonsense. I say this as someone who loves American history and loves the South.

But, the South’s forcing the country into civil war is what expanded federal power as it never did before. Lincoln did what he did to win the war against secession. He did not fight the war to abolish slavery in the South. He did not fight the war to give slaves freedom. He fought the war to preserve the Union of the United States. But, it is ironic that what Lincoln set out to do - preserve the Union - wound up not only doing that, but also inadvertently accomplishing the very thing that he campaigned for in his run for the presidency - keeping slavery out of the territories. Also, it accomplished something he never campaigned for nor sought as a war goal - the destruction of the institution of slavery itself.

On the other hand, also drenched in irony, is the fact that though the Southern leadership campaigned against Lincoln’s run for the presidency and led their states to secede from the United States, and initiated civil war - all with the aim to achieve the right to expand slavery into the territories - their actions not only produced the exact opposite of what they wanted to do - but destroyed the very institution they sought to preserve - slavery.

Lincoln fought the war to stop secession and preserve the Union. The South initiated secession and the war to preserve and expand slavery. Slavery was the aggravating issue. Secession and war was the South’s means to accomplishing their goal - it failed and led to the expansion of federal power which all of us are paying for today.


41 posted on 11/01/2012 1:57:57 AM PDT by rusty schucklefurd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rusty schucklefurd
“Secession and war was the South’s means to accomplishing their goal - it failed and led to the expansion of federal power which all of us are paying for today.”

Should have let the South GO, not worth the trouble.

42 posted on 11/01/2012 5:04:04 AM PDT by 2001convSVT (Going Galt as fast as I can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

If you think the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, then you should read the Ordinances of Secession by the various confederate states. Then tell us why you think the southern states seceded. Of course the chief cause was slavery. All other issues were secondary or tertiary but nothing close to slavery as being the chief cause.


43 posted on 11/01/2012 5:21:08 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
Most of this column is just so much blather.

I would be interested in your pointing out the "lies" in the column.

44 posted on 11/01/2012 5:56:34 AM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2001convSVT

re: “Should have let the South GO, not worth the trouble.”

Well, that’s a different story. Some would agree with you.


45 posted on 11/01/2012 6:25:18 AM PDT by rusty schucklefurd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Good article. No arguments from me. I’ve always despised Lincoln, and always failed to understand the attraction that’s been conjured up regarding his greatness.

But then, Virginia’s always been where my heart is, and my mother’s people were Caldwells and Calhouns. Did my Rat Year at VMI.


46 posted on 11/01/2012 6:29:55 AM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
Unfortunately for your argument, 'State's Rights' included the use of human beings as slaves. They're inseparable.

State's rights--the idea that states wield the preponderance of political power within a union presided over by a federal government with limited powers--is inseparable with the use of humans as slaves? That's an interesting concept.

47 posted on 11/01/2012 6:37:06 AM PDT by Fiji Hill (Deo Vindice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

“... no American president has ever been as hated as Abraham Lincoln. His election led seven states to secede from the Union, after all, and four more withdrew after seeing his first few weeks¹ performance in office.”

Hahahahahahahahaha.... Ouch. The truth hurts so good.


48 posted on 11/01/2012 6:45:25 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

“The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought
against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.”

As I’ve been saying for years.

“Americans will generally have none of this. The typical American will accept only a Manichean world in which Good battles Evil endlessly.”

And that, in a nutshell, sums up all the Southernphobes, Lincoln worshipers and other one-dimensional liberals who post here.


49 posted on 11/01/2012 7:09:37 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rusty schucklefurd
If you look at a map of the states and who receive what from the government, almost all the original Confederate states receive more than they send to Washington.

Therefore, if they want to leave and start a new nation I say let them, and the sooner the better.

50 posted on 11/01/2012 7:18:54 AM PDT by 2001convSVT (Going Galt as fast as I can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-234 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