Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lincoln's Legacy at 200
The Patriot Post ^ | February 13, 2009 | Mark Alexander

Posted on 02/13/2009 2:08:04 PM PST by hellbender

Though Lincoln has already been canonized by those who settle for partial histories, in the words of John Adams, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

In our steadfast adherence to The Patriot Post's motto, Veritas Vos Liberabit ("the truth shall set you free"), and our mission to advocate for the restoration of constitutional limits on government, I am compelled to challenge our 16th president's iconic standing.

Lincoln is credited with being the greatest constitutional leader in history, having "preserved the Union," but his popular persona does not reconcile with the historical record. The constitutional federalism envisioned by our Founders and outlined by our Constitution's Bill of Rights was grossly violated by Abraham Lincoln. Arguably, he is responsible for the most grievous constitutional contravention in American history.

(Excerpt) Read more at link.patriotpost.us ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abelincoln; anniversary; civilwar; constitution; dishonestabe; kkk; lincoln; presidents; slavery; tyrant; warcriminal
I suspect that the real reason 0bama admires Lincoln is that the latter used the full force of government, including wholesale armed violence, to crush a minority.

Please read the linked article before you flame away.

1 posted on 02/13/2009 2:08:05 PM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hellbender

“Property is the fruit of labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in
the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich,
and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who
is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and
build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe
from violence when built.”
Abraham Lincoln
Source: March 21, 1864 - Reply to New York Workingmen’s
Democratic Republican Association”.


2 posted on 02/13/2009 2:11:27 PM PST by griswold3 (a good story is more compelling than the search for truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
used the full force of government, including wholesale armed violence, to crush a minority.

We should give them reparations.

3 posted on 02/13/2009 2:12:08 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (Pro-Life Capitalist American Atheist and Free-Speech Junkie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

You would be shocked to learn how many left wingers don’t know that Lincoln was a Republican. When I tell them, they just stare at me..I tell them to look it up.


4 posted on 02/13/2009 2:16:11 PM PST by texmexis best (uency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

Abe: The original RINO


5 posted on 02/13/2009 2:16:57 PM PST by arealconservativeforachange (Tell JD Hayworth to run for McCain's seat! http://www.jdhayworth.com/contact.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

ping


6 posted on 02/13/2009 2:19:13 PM PST by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

Damn that Obama for not wearing a flag pin to show his love for the United States!

Damn that Lincoln for preserving the United States! /sarc


7 posted on 02/13/2009 2:23:45 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (Pro-Life Capitalist American Atheist and Free-Speech Junkie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

Everyone wants to claim Lincoln for his own. Overall, he kept the US strong and unified for its future role in the future as the final guarantor of peace in the world. If the US had had a somewhat hostile southern neighbor it would never have had the freedom of maneuverability to intervene in a timely and casualty-friendly manner in world affairs and dominate the 20th century so much.

And the inclusion of the south has kept the politics of the country right-ward even when the rest of the western world was going gonzo for socialism. Well until the election of Barry. Now we’re just running out the clock until the US is a socialist hellhole just like France.


8 posted on 02/13/2009 2:27:06 PM PST by DiogenesLaertius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
"I suspect that the real reason 0bama admires Lincoln is that the latter used the full force of government, including wholesale armed violence, to crush a minority."

I suspect you're right. Lincoln was complex and enigmatic. Obama is pure ego and arrogance.

9 posted on 02/13/2009 2:29:46 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
In our steadfast adherence to The Patriot Post's motto, Veritas Vos Liberabit ("the truth shall set you free")...

The truth didn't make it past the third paragraph.

10 posted on 02/13/2009 2:31:12 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLaertius
Now we’re just running out the clock until the US is a socialist hellhole just like France

I think a communist hellhole like Cuba or Zimbabwe is even more likely.

11 posted on 02/13/2009 2:33:04 PM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
There is a good defense of Lincoln against these racist slanders by a Christian Hillsdale College history professor, Thomas Krannawitter:
Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President

CSPAN's BookTV and Lincoln 200 websites have much information and video on Lincoln.

An excellent recent BookTV program:
In Depth: Abraham Lincoln with authors: Edna Greene Medford and Frank Williams

12 posted on 02/13/2009 2:40:58 PM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
a Christian Hillsdale College history professor, Thomas Krannawitter

Reading it now. Very good book.

13 posted on 02/13/2009 2:43:32 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLaertius
I really don't want us to be the "guarantor of peace." We can no longer afford that role, which was never desirable anyway. I just want the govt. to fulfill its Constitutional responsibility and defend its own citizens from foreign enemies.

U.S. intervention in Europe hasn't exactly been a brilliant success. Wilson got us into WW I, where our so-called Allies imposed a brutal peace on Germany which led directly to WW 2, which in turn saved Stalin and enslaved millions, leading directly to the Korean War, Vietnam War, Cuban missile crisis, etc.

Washington explicitly warned us not to get involved in the endless vendettas of the European powers.

14 posted on 02/13/2009 2:43:33 PM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hellbender; Bubba Ho-Tep; Ditto
It was a smash and grab on the part of the slave state leaders. Lincoln had to stand up against them for the union and the Constitution.

Many historians fantasists argue that Southern states would likely have reunited with Northern states before the end of the 19th century had Lincoln allowed for a peaceful and constitutionally accorded caved in to unconstitutional secession.

Fixed it. The Confederate government was a government, not a collection of disgruntled guys meeting in basements. They got the war started to establish a country of their own in opposition to the United States. When was the last time a government ever decided to go out of business?

And even if the nation did eventually reunite, on whose terms would it have been? The secessionists' definitely. That would mean no civil rights laws, a Southern veto over legislation and no federal power to stand up to foreign governments.

Please understand, the rebel leaders weren't in favor of "the Constitution as it was." They were opposed to the Constitution of 1789 and to the results it could bring. They destroyed "the Old Republic" before Lincoln even got into the White House.

15 posted on 02/13/2009 2:45:13 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Just what is untruthful there.


16 posted on 02/13/2009 2:45:32 PM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: x
"Smash and grab" by the South? They wanted only independence, and there were many in the North who said "let them go." Actually, on both sides, the tail wagged the dog, and extremists forced the issue. Many people, esp. in border states, were opposed to both secession and Lincoln. The Southern states which eventually bore the main burden in lives and destruction (VA and NC) were initially reluctant to secede. Lincoln's call for a massive army (which everyone knew was to invade the South, swung the less extreme Southern states into the Confederacy.

The whole slavery issue, which is the most disastrous mistake in U.S. history, should have been dealt with decisively at the time of ratification of the Constitution. Sane and ethical leaders like VA's Washington (our real greatest President) wanted to phase out slavery, starting with an end to the slave trade and it's exclusion from new territories. The extreme Southern states refused to accept any restrictions. Why? For the same basic reason Jorge and others want amnesty for Hispanic illegals: Blacks could be made to do "the work white Americans wouldn't do." Land was nearly free and abundant, so each white could have his own farm. No white would work as serf on a malarial plantation. So in order that an elite could enjoy an aristocratic lifestyle on the backs of others and "generate wealth," slavery was allowed to continue. The result was example of what happens when short-term economic considerations and greed triumph over ethics and national interest.

17 posted on 02/13/2009 3:07:19 PM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
I agree with the premise of the article. I have always
thought that Lincoln believed that the ends
(preserving the Union) justified the means (ignoring
and/or flauting the Constitution of the United States).
The entire camel is now under the tent.
18 posted on 02/13/2009 3:54:03 PM PST by MamaLucci (I wanna party like it's nineteen ninety-four!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
I suspect that the real reason 0bama admires Lincoln is that the latter used the full force of government, including wholesale armed violence, to crush a minority.

If that's the case, then Obama must really be a fan of Jefferson Davis for his armed violence against southerners who did not step in line to the Confederate New Order with sufficient discipline. For example, Lincoln's actions get condemnation from the hooray for Dixie crowd for the imprisonment of suspected pro-Confederate bridge-burner John Merryman yet we never hear a word about Jefferson Davis's parallel order to hang on bridges the bodies of Merryman's southern Unionist counterparts. So many rhetorical tears over an imprisonment, yet so little concern for Jeff's Confederate hanging party. Such is the nature of the rabid Lincoln haters. A 20-20 eye armed with a microscope examining every deed of Lincoln and a Mr. Magoo eye blind to all the misdeeds of the Confederacy.

Partial truth is often no truth at all and to understand Lincoln's actions one must also honestly examine the nature of the threat he was up against.

19 posted on 02/13/2009 7:50:40 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x

The smashing and grabbing was done by Sherman’s looters.


20 posted on 02/13/2009 7:58:21 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Once again the thread is titled “Lincoln’s Legacy at 200”, no mention of Davis in the title.


21 posted on 02/13/2009 7:59:22 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Once again the thread is titled “Lincoln’s Legacy at 200”, no mention of Davis in the title.

To understand and appreciate Winston Churchill's actions it helps to have an idea about what sort of people Hitler and the Nazis were.

22 posted on 02/13/2009 8:11:45 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

invoking Godwins law....you’re not worthy of my time


23 posted on 02/13/2009 8:16:12 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
invoking Godwins law....you’re not worthy of my time

Sorry. I'll rephrase that.

To understand and appreciate Ronald Reagan's actions it helps to have an understanding of what sort of people Yuri Andropov and the Soviets were.

24 posted on 02/13/2009 8:18:50 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
Just what is untruthful there.

Where to begin? There's his judging Lincoln by todays standards of racism. His misquoting Lincoln to make it appear that he used the term 'ni**er' rather than quoting other or attributing the term to them. Lincoln himself never used the term in common conversation or in any of his correspondence. There's his claim that nobody was freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. His selective quoting of Frederick Douglass out of context to make it appear that he thought Lincoln was no friend of the black man, the exact opposite is true. There's his claim that many historians agree that the South would have reunited with the North without a war, I don't know of a single historian who says that. His claim that all the founders thought unilateral secession was legal; I'm not aware of a single one who said that and Madison is very dismissive of the idea. Then there's the claim that Robert Lee detested slavery when he in fact believed that was the best condition for blacks to be in. The claim of tens of thousands of polticial prisoners, hundreds of newspapers closed down, and on and on and on. It's nothing more that a list of the top 100 Southron myths.

OK?

25 posted on 02/14/2009 4:52:00 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I think the author of the article, Mark Alexander, deserves some credit for rising to a dignity well above the DiLorenzo level. The argument is still misleading, incomplete and just plain wrong, but in not trying to portray Lincoln as a combination of Simon Legree and Pol Pot, he's progressed much farther than the overpriced toilet paper produced by the likes of DiLorenzo.

On the other hand, the relative reasonableness of his prose will likely lessen its appeal with the usual consumers of such work.

26 posted on 02/14/2009 5:17:36 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

He may not have the mouth-foaming intensity of Tommy DiLusional, true. But with all due respect, bullsh*t is bullsh*t no matter how it’s packaged. His paper his nothing less than a garbage dump of the highlights from DiLorenzo and the Kennedy boys, with a dose of Crocker thrown in.


27 posted on 02/14/2009 5:26:03 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You deny that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and locked up or exiled antiwar Northerners? That's a fact. Lincoln immediately raised a huge army specifically to invade the South, which had declared independence on exactly the same legal basis as that used by the 13 colonies less than a century before. You describe every pro-Confederate argument as a "myth," probably because a bunch of liberal professors filled you with all the gushing Lincoln mythology and Yankee propaganda, just the way they are filling empty heads with worship of 0bama today.

The Civil War was fought almost entirely on Southern soil, and conditions there soon became desperate. Conditions like that motivate extreme measures against people perceived as giving aid and comfort to the invaders, in every war. However, only the North had a specific planned national policy of making war on civilians. When an army invades a rural agricultural society and burns buildings and crops, kills or steals livestock, it is tantamount to killing civilians by starvation and exposure. That's an atrocity unmatched in scale by anything the Confederacy did. In contrast, when Lee invaded PA, his men were commanded to respect civilians, and officers were ordered to pay civilians for supplies they requisitioned. They did not go around burning down PA barns and crops a la Sherman.

I repeat: Lincoln did irreparable damage to the Constitutional, Federal system. Not until FDR was his trashing of States' rights surpassed. If Alexander does exaggerate a little, I don't really care, because we desperately need some antidote to the disgusting sentimental hype about a man who sent hundreds of thousands to their deaths in order to establish by force the outrageous concept that every State and its citizens belongpermanently to some imperialistic "national" govt., instead of being sovereign entities who voluntarily delegated limited powers to a small central govt. Union victory in the war basically trashed every principle on which this country was founded.

If you go on reading slanted liberal academic propaganda about the Civil War and other things, you are well on your way to becoming a fan of FDR ("he had to be fascist to save capitalism") and 0bama.

28 posted on 02/14/2009 6:48:54 AM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
What threat was poor Dishonest Abe up against? The Confederacy sought only independence, just as their forefathers had from Britain. They did not invade the North, make war on its civilians as official deliberate policy, and leave a path of destruction in their wake. Many people in the North were willing to let them go, but the Great Railsplitter and Homespun Lawyer immediately called for an army of unprecedented size in order to conquer the South and undo the will of its people and their elected representatives. Representative democracy and federalism be damned, because Abe, like 0bama, WON the election and that gave him the right to do anything. Those "rebels" down South had to be put in their place. Even Northerners who advocated peace were "put in their place," either prison or exile. The South was converted into a military dictatorship by a govt. which it tried to escape. That's why Leftists like 0bama love Lincoln. He set the example for how they would like to deal with traditionalist and Constitutionalist "bitter clingers."
29 posted on 02/14/2009 6:59:11 AM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
You deny that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and locked up or exiled antiwar Northerners?

I deny his suspension was illegal or that the number reached the tens of thousands the author claimed. People who have studied the matter have found that on a per-capita basis you were far more likely to have been locked up without trial in a Jeff Davis confederacy than an Abe Lincoln United States.

That's a fact. Lincoln immediately raised a huge army specifically to invade the South, which had declared independence on exactly the same legal basis as that used by the 13 colonies less than a century before.

If memory serves, the United Kingdom then raised a large army to oppose the 13 colonies and their rebellion. So if you want to equate the two then fine, both rebelled but only one actually won their rebellion.

And I'll point out that the confederacy called for raising an army of 100,000 the day Lincoln was inaugurated and over a month before Lincoln called for troops. What was their army for? Parades?

You describe every pro-Confederate argument as a "myth," probably because a bunch of liberal professors filled you with all the gushing Lincoln mythology and Yankee propaganda, just the way they are filling empty heads with worship of 0bama today.

And here we see that grand old Southron whine in all it's full-blown glory - anyone who doesn't believe in the confederate cause has just got to be a liberal. You all are nothing if not predictable.

The Civil War was fought almost entirely on Southern soil, and conditions there soon became desperate.

Having chosen war, only the confederacy was in a position to keep it from being fought on their own territory. They didn't do a very good job of it.

When an army invades a rural agricultural society and burns buildings and crops, kills or steals livestock, it is tantamount to killing civilians by starvation and exposure.

Fair enough. We'll ignore the rebel stripping of Pennsylvania during their campaign there and instead ask how many civilians died of starvation or exposure as a result of Sherman's or Sheridan's armies? Thousands? Tens of thousands? If it's as many as you would have us believe then it has to be documented somewhere. Can you enlighten us?

In contrast, when Lee invaded PA, his men were commanded to respect civilians, and officers were ordered to pay civilians for supplies they requisitioned.

So if Sherman had paid for the food he foraged with toilet paper, about the same value as confederate currency, then that would be all right? In fact, if you would read up on the campaigns in the North, Lee's men looted and foraged and "requisitioned" to much the same extent that Sherman's men did. And then there was that whole abduction of free blacks in Pennsylvania and Maryland and sending them down south to slavery thing that you all try to ignore. But I'm sure they were very polite on the trip back to slavery.

I repeat: Lincoln did irreparable damage to the Constitutional, Federal system.

And I repeat: Nonsense.

Not until FDR was his trashing of States' rights surpassed.

In what way did Lincoln trash state's rights. Be specific now.

If Alexander does exaggerate a little...

A little????? Baby Lord Jesus, boy, that's like saying the Obama administration upped spending a little. Lies are lies. Deliberate misquotes are deliberate misquotes. Whether you do it a little or a lot it still makes a mockery of your arguement.

If you go on reading slanted liberal academic propaganda about the Civil War and other things, you are well on your way to becoming a fan of FDR ("he had to be fascist to save capitalism") and 0bama.

Nothing is more amusing than a confederate kool-ade guzzler in high dudgeon.

30 posted on 02/14/2009 7:50:17 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
Many people, esp. in border states, were opposed to both secession and Lincoln. The Southern states which eventually bore the main burden in lives and destruction (VA and NC) were initially reluctant to secede. Lincoln's call for a massive army (which everyone knew was to invade the South, swung the less extreme Southern states into the Confederacy.

I don't think we disagree on that. My point is that the result was one that the Confederacy provoked.

Davis fired on Sumter in part because he was afraid the South Carolinians would do it with out him and in part because he thought the Northern reaction would drive the upper tier of slave states into the Confederacy, which it did.

Secession was a very sketchy business. Historians have had a hard time trying to figure out whether Georgia's secession really resulted in a valid win for the secessionists. Virginia's convention rejected secession, and then, in the panic over Sumter and the Union draft, accepted it.

North Carolina voters rejected a secession convention in February, and the legislature called on in May, which passed an Ordinance of Secession, which was never submitted to the people in a referendum. Arkansas's convention rejected secession in March and called for a referendum in August, then voted for secession in May. The referendum was never held.

Even if you assume that unilateral secession was constitutional, there was room for controversy over these rushed secession resolutions. Davis was willing to do everything he could to weaken the Union. That's what I meant by "smash and grab." The country didn't go through a reasoned process of deliberation about union or disunion. The process was rushed and forced by secessionist elements, so that they could pick up the pieces themselves.

31 posted on 02/14/2009 10:45:42 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
The argument is still misleading, incomplete and just plain wrong, but in not trying to portray Lincoln as a combination of Simon Legree and Pol Pot, he's progressed much farther than the overpriced toilet paper produced by the likes of DiLorenzo.

I was thinking along the same lines about DiLusional, but didn't know how to put it without the four letter words.

32 posted on 02/14/2009 10:54:01 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
My original post was about the manifest statist sins of Abe Lincoln, and the consequent folly in any real conservative worshipping the creep. You have responded by consistently avoiding the issues, while dragging up red herrings about alleged misdeeds of various Confederates. (Incidentally, I grew up and have lived almost all my life in the North, and have almost no Confederate ancestors. I simply hate govt. tyranny and Leftist propaganda, like the putrid myths surrounding Father Abraham and his war criminal commanders.)

Everyone on both sides knew the election of Lincoln meant secession and war against the South. The majority of Northerners elected him anyway. The North invaded the South from the very beginning. The North had an official policy at the highest level to commit war crimes against Southern civilians. That was never the policy of Jeff Davis, and certainly against the direct orders of R.E. Lee. No general can control every soldier, but I can tell you this: I have been all over southern PA where the Army of N. VA invaded, and there are thousands of fine old barns and houses standing unscathed, which would not be the case if Lee's army had a policy of trashing civilians and their property, as did Sherman's and Sheridan's. The ANV paid civilians with what they had, Confederate currency. That's what their own soldiers were paid with, when they were paid at all. I don't know where you get this crap about the Confederate Army kidnapping free blacks from PA. Lee's army limped back to the Potomac, barely able to take away its own thousands of wounded; there was no time to capture and guard blacks, even if they had wanted to. Those are facts, but you prefer the propaganda of your liberal historians, apparently. And yes, the overwhelming majority of historians, esp. in academia, are liberals. Maybe you believe in global warming also, because most self-styled experts" in academia tell you that's true too.

You finally acknowledge that the South acted on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, then sneer that the South lost and the colonial rebels won. Obviously you don't care about principles, but think that might makes right, that Lincoln was entitled to make himself a military dictator, by the same principle 0bama uses to trash his Republican opponents and the American taxpayer--because the arrogant bastard WON (by hook or by crook) and raised a huge army to crush his opponents, Northern and Southern. You justify Lincoln's tyranny the same way 0bama justifies his--he "had to" to fix a "national crisis" --which in both cases was created by the tyrant's own party. 0bama wants to stamp out the last vestiges of conservative influence, like talk radio, just as Lincoln silenced his opponents, and as Republicans disenfranchised Confederates for many years and ruled the South with an army of occupation and corrupt civilian carpetbaggers.

33 posted on 02/14/2009 10:56:05 AM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
Everyone on both sides knew the election of Lincoln meant secession and war against the South.

And southern leaders, itching to secede, intentionally split the Democratic party into the Breckinridge and Douglas factions, ensuring that Lincoln would be elected and they'd get what they wanted.

34 posted on 02/14/2009 6:54:23 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

self-ping


35 posted on 02/14/2009 7:02:12 PM PST by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Technological progress cannot be legislated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
What threat was poor Dishonest Abe up against?

It seems like the presence of armed force trying to prevent you from fulfilling your oath of office is threat enough.

The Confederacy sought only independence, just as their forefathers had from Britain

Nope. Independence had already been won in 1776-83. The secessionists wanted more than mere independence, they wanted a central national government of their own that would be an engine to protect and advance slavery, the greatest material interest of the world according to the Mississippi secessionists.

Even Northerners who advocated peace were "put in their place," either prison or exile.

And in the South, the place for people who advocated the old Union was often six feet under in a grave. The comparison makes the North look a whole lot better.

36 posted on 02/15/2009 5:27:56 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
My original post was about the manifest statist sins of Abe Lincoln...

Yes, it's obvious your imagination knows no bounds.

Incidentally, I grew up and have lived almost all my life in the North, and have almost no Confederate ancestors.

A Copperhead. I should have guessed.

Everyone on both sides knew the election of Lincoln meant secession and war against the South.

Because of Lincoln's steadfast opposition to the expansion of slavery, his election certainly made Southern secession inevitable. But only the South could have their war.

The North invaded the South from the very beginning.

It is true that the South started losing territory almost from the moment they started the war, yes.

The North had an official policy at the highest level to commit war crimes against Southern civilians.

ROTFLMAO!!

I don't know where you get this crap about the Confederate Army kidnapping free blacks from PA.

I read it. See "Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage" by Noah Andre Trudeau; "Retreat From Gettysburg: Lee, Logistics, and the Pennsylvania Campaign" by Kent Masterson Brown, or "A Regular Slave Hunt" by Ted Alexander which was in the September 2007 issue of North and South magazine. In fact, Brown's book also goes into great detail about the lengths Lee went to strip the Maryland and Pennsylvania countryside of everything usable and how his commanders would ride into towns and place levies on them for a specific amount of supplies or else he would burn the town. So please spare us your fairy tales on how noble Lee and Davis were. The documentation disputing it is there if you care to look.

You finally acknowledge that the South acted on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, then sneer that the South lost and the colonial rebels won.

It is true that both sides rebelled. But to equate the reasons why the Founding Father's rebelled against the King with the reasons why the Southern states rebelled against the federal government is ridiculous.

37 posted on 02/15/2009 2:48:14 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Oh, I see. The poor helpless Unionist North just had to invade the South and crush its independence, then impose a military dictatorship which ensured Republican domination for decades, because otherwise troops from Mississippi would have rampaged through New York, New England, Illinois, etc., re-enslaving blacks and setting up plantations.

And the Southern independence movement had nothing in common with the American Revolution, even though the Confederate constitution was almost identical with the U.S. one.

I think you need to broaden your horizons and find new heroes to go along with Lincoln. Just as baboon-face "had to" be a tyrant and unleash total war on his own former countrymen "to save the Union," King George "had to" unleash war "to save the Empire," FDR "had to" impose socialism and trash the Constitution "to save capitalism," and 0bama "has to" socialize the rest of the economy "to save" the country from an unprecedented crisis.

38 posted on 02/20/2009 5:52:07 AM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
Oh, I see. The poor helpless Unionist North just had to invade the South and crush its independence, then impose a military dictatorship which ensured Republican domination for decades, because otherwise troops from Mississippi would have rampaged through New York, New England, Illinois, etc., re-enslaving blacks and setting up plantations.

All your hyperbole aside, war was what the South chose when they fired on Sumter. Having chosen war then only the South was in a position to keep that war from coming into its homes. It's the risk you take when you start a conflict like that. So if your asking me to feel sorry for your precious confederacy because they lost the war then you're looking to the wrong person.

And the Southern independence movement had nothing in common with the American Revolution, even though the Confederate constitution was almost identical with the U.S. one.

Of course it didn't. The Founding Fathers rebelled on the principle that those being taxed should have representation in government. Well the South certainly had representation in Congress and they were overly represented in the House. They had their voice in each and every act of government. So rather than rebel in the face of injustice, the South chose to rebel to defend their institution of slavery.

I think you need to broaden your horizons and find new heroes to go along with Lincoln. Just as baboon-face "had to" be a tyrant and unleash total war on his own former countrymen "to save the Union," King George "had to" unleash war "to save the Empire," FDR "had to" impose socialism and trash the Constitution "to save capitalism," and 0bama "has to" socialize the rest of the economy "to save" the country from an unprecedented crisis.

I think you need to go and read up on the subject.

39 posted on 02/20/2009 7:06:21 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
SC fired on Fort Sumter because the Yankee Federal-supremacists would not vacate a fortress in the harbor of a vital port in their newly-independent nation.

I guess I need to read more of your bizarre revisionist historians. Then I'll realize that the Confederates didn't blunder into Gettysburg looking for shoes for their pathetically equipped troops, but in order to round up blacks to take home. I'll also realize that the common Confederate soldiers often fought with fierce courage not because they were defending their homeland, but because they wanted to get up North and seize the farms and factories from their kindly pacifist owners and replace them with slave plantations.

Your theories have about as much validity as Louis Farrakhan's about the origins of the white race, or Jeremiah Wright's about the origin of AIDS.

40 posted on 02/20/2009 7:36:41 AM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
SC fired on Fort Sumter because the Yankee Federal-supremacists would not vacate a fortress in the harbor of a vital port in their newly-independent nation.

Why should they? It was their fort.

Then I'll realize that the Confederates didn't blunder into Gettysburg looking for shoes for their pathetically equipped troops, but in order to round up blacks to take home.

If you read the historians I do then yes, you would learn that the story that Heath went to Gettysburg looking for shoes is indeed a fallacy. And you would also learn that the rebel army did round up free blacks and send them South. I doubt that was the primary reason for their campaign, just a happy offshoot of their march.

I'll also realize that the common Confederate soldiers often fought with fierce courage not because they were defending their homeland, but because they wanted to get up North and seize the farms and factories from their kindly pacifist owners and replace them with slave plantations.

No but you might learn the reasons why those federal troops were down there in the first place - because the confedracy started their war.

Your theories have about as much validity as Louis Farrakhan's about the origins of the white race, or Jeremiah Wright's about the origin of AIDS.

And those are about as acccurate as the Southron fairy tales you peddle.

41 posted on 02/20/2009 9:50:53 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I can't wait to hear your revisionist historians' twisted justification of why the same Federal-supremacist generals who boasted and gloated about burning homes, barns, and crops and killing livestock in a 60-mi-wide swath of Georgia, specifically to starve and demoralize the civilian population, waged even more extreme genocidal war against Indian tribes, killing off their food and clothing supply (buffalo) and killing women and children. Thank goodness, one of their number led a cavalry charge through what he thought was a helpless Indian village one too many times, and the Yankee egotist lost his pretty blonde locks.

The message of the Yankee imperialist army against the Indians was the same as that against the secessionists: "You mess with the Federal govt., and we will destroy you." A message with which no conservative would ever sympathize.

I also think you need to get some therapy for your Lincoln idolatry from that well-known Copperhead and defender of the principle of secession, Walter Williams.

42 posted on 02/20/2009 11:53:50 AM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
I can't wait to hear your revisionist historians' twisted justification of why the same Federal-supremacist generals who boasted and gloated about burning homes, barns, and crops and killing livestock in a 60-mi-wide swath of Georgia, specifically to starve and demoralize the civilian population, waged even more extreme genocidal war against Indian tribes, killing off their food and clothing supply (buffalo) and killing women and children. Thank goodness, one of their number led a cavalry charge through what he thought was a helpless Indian village one too many times, and the Yankee egotist lost his pretty blonde locks.

"War is hell." How's that?

I also think you need to get some therapy for your Lincoln idolatry from that well-known Copperhead and defender of the principle of secession, Walter Williams.

I get all the Southron revisionist crap I need from reading your posts.

43 posted on 02/20/2009 11:56:09 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson