Skip to comments.Federalist Patriot bashes Abe Linclon
Posted on 02/17/2006 5:47:19 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
I don't know how many of you get the Federalist Patriot report via email, but it is a great source of conservative news and opinion that all of you should get.
You can find their site at:
Anyway, even though I support them, they sent out an email today that bashed Abe Lincoln fiercely. I was so moved to annoyance by their biased and ill thought out email that I had to write them and say how disappointed I was.
You can go to their site and see the anti-Lincoln screed that they put out to know exactly what I am replying to if you desire to do so.
Now, I know some of you freepers are primo confederate apologists so I thought this would stir debate on freerepublic!!
Now, let the fur fly as we KNOW it must...
I have to say that I am a supporter of the Federalist. I have donated money in the past and I enjoy the updates I get via email. So, I must say that it came as a bit of a shock to me when I read your anti-Lincoln screed this week.
Not only was nearly everything you presented about Lincoln skewed badly, but some of it was just plain unfairly attached to the martyred president. Worse yet, you used a quote from Thomas DiLorenzo on whom you laughingly bestowed high credentials of a "Lincoln scholar" to support your positions. DiLorenzo is one of the worst polemicists I think I have ever seen. His MO is one you decry in leftists all the time; arrive at a conclusion, then warp the facts to support it. He is no scholar, and from some of the roundtable discussions I have seen between him and real Lincoln researchers, he ain't much of a gentleman either. You do both yourselves and your readers a disservice to use him as a source.
If you are still bothering to read this, you may want examples of my disagreements with your Lincoln bashing. Well, glad you asked...
Now, I would absolutely agree with you that Lincoln had eliminated the old order of the formation of the country. I agree with you that he instituted a nation of big government. I also lament this to a degree, as well.
However, you act in your piece as if things were going along swimmingly with the Founder's plans until that Lincoln, avaricious of power, came along and destroyed democracy! You are absurd to say so, too. The southern block had quashed democracy in the 1830s with the gag orders on the issue of slavery in Congress long before Lincoln ever decided to run for president. If you want to decry the destruction of the old order, you can thank the slave holding south for starting the ball rolling.
In light of this, I was flabbergasted to see you signing onto the mythical "reunification model" dream that has been touted by people who ignore everything that was happening in this country prior to the war's beginning. Not only that, but to assume that the south would have just meekly returned to the Union after a few decades alone in the wilderness is idiotic to say the least. Nations, once they have successfully assumed that mantle, do not just cast it aside voluntarily and the South would probably have been no different.
Now, I think I can agree that secession was a concept assumed as possible by most politicians of the day and those days previous to the War Between the States. However, I feel that shows a weakness of our system not a strength. And that weakness was exploited dozens of times from before the Constitution was signed to the day the first gun fired at Fort Sumter. Dissolution was a constant threat used by weaker sections to force conciliation. This is a tyranny of the minority and NOT very democratic, I'd say.
The war may have worked for posterity, but I would have stood up at the time in favor of allowing the south to depart in peace, I must admit. So, to this point I'd say Lincoln did overstep his bounds.
But your lauding the ability of the south to separate makes the lie to the very stance you take today on American involvement in the Mideast. Two of the biggest reasons we use to involve ourselves in other countries -- and reasons that are ultimately legitimate in light of American exceptionalism -- are the same ones we have used since the war with Spain; human rights and spreading democracy. If your desires to see the south separate and become a sovereign nation would have come to fruition you would thwart both concepts. The south was neither democratic, nor did it observe the human rights of its chattel slaves. Your inconsistency on this matter is not just incidental, but abhorrent.
Further you assume the consolidation of this southern confederacy was transcendent in the south. But, if you look at the numbers of southern men who fought for the Union from every single southern state, you would see that the Confederacy never had majority support even among its own people. Conversely, few Northern states had anything more than tiny handfuls of men go south to fight for the Confederacy, many states statistically had none. The south forced thousands upon thousands of people in every member state into slavish support of the CSA. So much for your vaunted democratic ideals, eh?
Next you lambasted Lincoln with the results of reconstruction, yet Lincoln was dead during that era and never had the chance to offer his guidance to much of what went on then. And it is widely recognized that radical, "bloody shirt waving" Republicans were the ones that drove reconstruction to the oppressive ends it reached. Lincoln cannot be blamed for reconstruction and you are illegitimate to discuss that era in a Lincoln piece tagging him for its failures and excesses, for sure.
And it is obvious you have read nothing but DiLorenzo's prosaic canard on Lincoln's supposed hypocrisy on the Negro question. Both he and you make it clear that you haven't a clue of the racial attitudes and relationships that most whites had with and for blacks of the time much less any grounding in Lincoln's.
Lincoln mentioned slavery over a thousand times in his personal papers. This idiotic claim that he somehow didn't care about blacks just reveals your lack of knowledge all the way around. Yes he used the emancipation as a war aim. Yes he was cagy at times about slavery and did his best not to be too forthright in his condemnation. But his whole career as a candidate for the presidency from the Cooper Union speech to the day he died was backed by his desire to materially alter and hopefully eliminate slavery in the USA.
The fact that he did not feel blacks were the mental equal to whites is so immaterial to that issue that it isn't even funny. Few whites anywhere in the entire world at that time felt a black could ever be an equal citizen to a white person. Even science at the time had arrived at a consensus that blacks were a lesser human being. And those who did think blacks could be equal thought so on the basis on radical, quasi-religious fervor, not societal or scientific principle. Why would you expect Lincoln to be so much above his society and even the scientists of his day on this issue???
Furthermore your claims that the war was not about slaves at the beginning is a meaningless point. The war, every war, was a political animal as well as a security issue. The war could not have been carried on if it was "all about the Niggers" as many of the day put it (in fact two entire regiments of Illinois troops quit the war when the Emancipation was issued). Like I said, Lincoln was enough of a politician to know that politics is more often about the possible than the principle.
Next you act as if the South would have given slavery up and that it didn't need to take the war to do so. In that contention, history would prove you wrong. As each decade passed after the Constitution was signed slave advocates grew stronger in he south. What on earth would make you imagine that could be reversed?
This feeling against blacks was one that was felt by whites on both sides of the Mason/Dixon line. And that is why Lincoln didn't free any slaves in the North with the Proclamation. Again, we see that politics is about the possible and it was not politically possible to free slaves in the Northern held areas. But, Lincoln was the first president that ever succeeded in making this first step toward eliminating slavery. The issue is far more complicated than your superficial assumption that any US president could just have eliminated slavery with the "stroke of a pen" makes it seem.
(Also, the story of Robert E. Lee being offered command of all Union forces is problematic and not one fully proven.)
As to your discussion of the civil rights abuses that Lincoln engaged in, well that is all quite true. And I also find this a dent in his sterling record. But, then again, every president and administration we have ever had has done similar things to one degree or another in time of war. After all, you have written in favor of the Patriot Act, it MUST be pointed out! (And I support that support, by the way)
We have always limited civil rights in some way when we have been faced with war, and that is as it must be. It is a truism that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. But, every time a war is over, we've gone back to a fuller enjoyment of our common freedoms and that is because our system is designed with the flexibility to respond to times of war.
Also, your harkening back to the abuses of Mad King George is also foolhardy. After all, our president was given powers stronger in many ways than that of the King's by the very men who fought a war to free themselves of that same King. Nearly every president until Lincoln used those powers liberally.
In the end, your reputation has taken a sever blow with me I am quite sad to say. This slanted, often illogical, and badly ahistorical polemic against Lincoln has made you look little better than a hood wearing, cross burning southern apologist from the late 1800s. It has also made you look just like the leftists who warp and bend facts to fit their needs of the day. You needed to bash Lincoln, so you warped things to do so.
I suggest you stay with current affairs. Your history seems a bit tarnished.
This is not my kiss goodbye, I feel it necessary to say. It is my democratic right of disagreement with you. I still support your work and look forward to seeing your next email missive. I just hope that I can trust it as fully as I have in the past.
I bailed out from subscribership. What they did was too much. I won't be back.
Yes that's probably true, even though Lincoln was a great president overall. Slavery needed to end no doubt. But the principle is still the same.
"Needless to say, when one dares tread upon the record of such an iconic figure as Lincoln, one risks all manner of ridicule from devoted loyalists. That notwithstanding, Patriots should be willing to look at Lincoln's whole record, though it may not please our sentiments or comport with the common folklore of most history books."
Reagan did some things that weren't exactly above board either, but overall the two of them are perhaps our greatest Presidents.
And you've just uncoverd a MAJOR inconsistency on their part. Statist today, but NOT for the past? If it is good today as far as they are concerned, why not for then?
I know people personally that worshipped for years at the altar of the 16th president for years. And to some of them it is easier to see the view of federalism through a historical view first before discussing with them the unconstitutional actions of the federal government today. If this achieves that, so be it. However I expect the Jaffaites will flood this newsletter with complaints against their hero for sometime
Jaffaites! Ha, that was a good one.
Like I said, I agreed with some of their points, but to rely on that horrible "writer" DiLorenzo for their points is the worst in negligence. DiLorenzo is no better than the Kennedy brothers who wrote "The South Was Right!" Apologiests with little basis in fact.
Lincoln was a flawed leader, as the Patriot said. But, their "flaws" were badly researched and definitely filled with a lack of understanding.
I've read DiLorenzo and the Kennedys. I would not lump them together in any form. DiLorenzo backs up his facts. The Kennedys on the other hand are a little too on the edge and seem a little more involved than they should be to write their books
...unfortunately his "facts" are generally skewed beyond measure. The man is little better than the Kennedys.
If you want to see his butt totally wiped check out the debate between him and Professor Propkowitz (spelling?) in the civil war magazine North and South. DiLorenzo looked like a total fool and then nearly started calling the good professor names in a temper tantrum instead of debating the points!
DiLorenzo is horrible.
I will look to see if I can find that back issue, although I am seriously doubtful, especially considering the organizations Prokopowicz has belonged to in the past.
...as if I hadn't seen that before???
Nothing you can say would make me support the polemicist, DiLorenzo. As far as I am concerned he is entirely disreputable. His work is superficial and lacks any greater understanding of the pre-civil war political situation, any understanding of the Founder's era, lacks an understanding of the Constitution and is wholly free of any understanding of the social mores and feelings of the common American of the era.
In short, Dilorenzo is an utter failure.
I have read a lot of what he has written and at first was excited by his works.... until I began to check his points out with other history. And I am NOT talking just about other writers. (I own the entire 8 vol set of Lincoln's writing, for instance) I have no respect for Dilorenzo at all. I also disagree with the "Jaffaites" who imagine Lincoln walked on water, by the way.
Lincoln saved the south from the utter stupidity of creating a failed totalitarian thuggocracy.
I don't know if it's God's will or not, but it has been very fortuitous that a unified, Christian land controlled the continent of North America, secure from any European power and able to defeat any empire that sought to control the world.
What are rights are the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, which the South, refusing to let slavery die, denied to 3 million people.
The problem with DiLorenzo is that he simply starts with the premise that all war is bad.
This is the Libertarian view of the Mises Institute.
This pacifist view, by the way,was not held by Mises himself, who defended the war against Nazism as justified and held that those who claimed to be neutrals in WW2 were pro-Nazi by default.
go read lincoln's own words.
the ONLY reason he issued the EP was that he feared the GB & France would recognize the CSA.
he hated & FEARED "persons of colour". his plan was to deport the Blacks to Africa after the war AND to "drive out or exterminate all of the red savages from our dominions".
I agree with your second point but not your first (see the Declaration of Independence). The problem is that both were at issue at the same time. I tend to agree with Lincoln that the tragedy of the war, regardless of which side you were on, was somehow God's judgment on America for the sin of slavery.
What perverse imp from hell urged you to start this crap again?
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
I guess I just love to see slavery loving, white trash acting, neo-Confederates get all steamy mad!!
But, seriously, the Federalist was so far off base that it really amazed and saddend me. I am generally a huge supporter of their work.
if you are, i PITY you.
and fwiw, there are NO "neo-confederates". that term of abuse is straight out of the most extreme, lunatic, LEFTIST wing of DY/northeastern academia.
Lighten up, Francis!
This backward element always attempts masking their true colours, never succeeding. If they hate the country so much, and desire to depart, there is always an airport near by.
It's time for the great civil rights Republican Party to rescue their party from the takeover (by neoconfederates who hate everything the reps stand for).
Revisionism and denial are the tools of the newconfederates.
Intersting they noted Hamilton's opposition:
noted in Federalist No. 81 that waging war against the states "would be altogether forced and unwarranted." At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton argued, "Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself?"
The FR author's rebuttal hardly makes the case. As noted in the Patriot piece, "Cultural myth, after all, can cloud historical truth."
Fed 81 was written more as wishful thinking than anything based on historical analysis or the law. The Federalist also wrote against the idea of Political Parties, too. But we had those within a decade after we started the country!
Articles of Confederation:
Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
"And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual."
The moment that the Articles of Confederation were signed, secession was no longer a right.
|1||incessant, perpetual, endless
|occurring so frequently as to seem ceaseless or uninterrupted; "a child's incessant questions"; "your perpetual (or continual) complaints"|
|2||ceaseless, constant, incessant, never-ending, perpetual, unceasing, unremitting
|uninterrupted in time and indefinitely long continuing; "the ceaseless thunder of surf"; "in constant pain"; "night and day we live with the incessant noise of the city"; "the never-ending search for happiness"; "the perpetual struggle to maintain standar|
|3||ageless, eternal, everlasting, perpetual, unending, unceasing
|continuing forever or indefinitely; "the ageless themes of love and revenge"; "eternal truths"; "life everlasting"; "hell's perpetual fires"; "the unending bliss of heaven"|
Pinging you to post #32.
people who use that "term of abuse" are 100% DUMB or terminally IGNORANT and/or filled with HATRED for dixie & her people.
REVISIONIST/REVISIONISM is a "term of art" in historiography, which has a fixed & well-known meaning.
REVISIONIST historiography/thought is LEFTIST/south-HATING & KNOWINGLY FALSE!
The reason for the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union, not a loose collection of quasi-nations.
No, we love 'dixie' so much that Lincoln had the song played after he found out Lee had surrendered.
Dixie is part of America.
No site attacking Lincoln is conservative or worth paying attention to.
attacking lincoln,the TYRANT & destroyer of the BOR, is PATRIOTIC & SMART.
blindly "worshiping the DY's secular saint,upon your knees before his clay feet", is TERMINALLY dumb.
Still raving I see. Carry on, you are the best argument FOR Lincoln around.
So you don't understand the Constitution either.
Even Andy Jackson knew that was NOT true. He was ready to start hanging South Carolinians.
You get some of the best raving lunacy on these threads from the DSs.
lincoln worshipers make me GAG!
Hamilton would have been the first to take up arms against the traitors attacking America. He would not have hesitated in attacking the secessionists. Anyone claiming anything to the contrary simply have no clue about the great Hamilton.
After all he was a founder of the NY Manumission Society and defended slaves whose masters were attempting to drag them back into bondage.
So don't try and drag his good name through the mud.
check out this quote post by Luis.
It is hard to say who hates this country more the Democrat Underground or the pseudo-rightist DSs.
Even Lincoln acknoweldged the right to secession. He backtracked later in his administration.
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.