Posted on 02/09/2007 7:22:48 PM PST by ChildOfThe60s
Fact: Lincoln defended a Kentucky slaveholder.
Oh my.
If a laywer defends a drunk, does that make them in favor of drinking?
If a laywer defends a murderer, does that make them in favor of murder?
If a laywer defends you, does that make them like you?
Make certain to get your spellings correct so as not to conflate Stephen Arnold Douglas (1813 - 1861), a Senator from Illinois and Frederick Douglass (1818 - 1895), a former slave and famous abolitionist.
Noted. thanks.
Fact: Lawyer Lincoln also defended runaway slaves.
Fact: Politician Lincoln repeatedly stated he was not for equality between blacks and whites.
Fact: Lincoln was a man of his times and virtually nobody advocated that. Also fact: Lincoln believed that black men were entitled to the same rights that white men were entitled to, a position which put him at odds with men like Roger Taney and all southerners of the time. Men like Lee and Davis and Jackson all believed that blacks were best in slavery. Yet you never talk about them in that context, or condemn them for not believing in the equality of blacks and whites. Why is that?
Fact: President Lincoln advocated a black colonization program.
Fact: So did Madison and Monroe and Jefferson. So did Taney and Lee and Breckenridge. All members of the Southron Hall of Fame. I'd say that puts Lincoln in pretty good company.
What about the millions made by cotton growers?
And the northern states were bleeding the southern states.
How so?
Trying to change the subject again, are we?
Now what does this have to do with attorney Lincoln practicing his profession? Perhaps it is related to the fact that he was home schooled and thus had a far superior education to the crop of current public school system.
I think the point you need to be replying to is should an attorney represent a client when he ends up defending a case that clashes with his personal values.
Did Lincoln adequately defend his client in that case or did he submarine him?
Should his client have brought a malpractice suit against Lincoln for his lethargic and incompetent defense?
Should Lincoln have sued the client for his refusal to pay his fee? Does it make a difference that Lincoln presented an incompetent case.
Didn't he free the slaves?
No good deed goes unpunished in Liberalland
Lincoln's actions:
1. Illegal appropriation of funds to build weapons (no Congressional consent)
2. Illegal blocking of Southern ports (considered an act of war, no
Congressional consent obtained)
3. Suspension of habeas corpus (again, without Congressional consent)
4. Demanding state governors conscript 75,000 soldiers (no Congressional
consent)
5. Usurpation of power
6. Deportation/Colonization plan for slaves in Liberia/Panama/Haiti
7. Shutting down of newspapers and other outlets
8. Refusal to trade Union POWs with Confederate POWs
Lincoln's results:
1. Creation of unprecendented centralized national government
2. Essentially dissolved state sovereignty
3. Creation of centralization national bank system
4. Reconstruction resulted in one of the greatest failures in American history
9% Union and 12% Confederate POWs died in prison camps because
Lincoln refused to exchange prisoners
5. Imprisonment of over 14,000 civilians by military police for "alleged"
crimes that never existed.
6. Shutdown of nearly 300 newspaper and media outlets that voiced concern
over the administration's policies.
7. 620,000 American Dead. More than all other American military conflicts
combined.
8. Nearly 500,000 American Wounded.
9. Billions of dollars in war costs, reconstruction, and veteran benefits.
10. Destruction of thousands upon thousands of livestock and agricultural
land, primarily in the South.
Many on this thread are still denying that pathetic little Lincoln was no more than a Hillary in disguise. Chances are, they are going to keep denying all his witchhunt deeds until a Hillary or a Hillary, Marxist wannabe is elected and everybody finds themselves in the grip of a Hugo Chavez regime...
Put Lincoln's views on racism in them context of history with like-minded men - fine. Don't give him a free pass and put him on a pedastal.
Get a laywer to answer your questions.
Of course not, stainless. You all would choke on your grits before you would ever admit to the flaws in their character. Believing blacks were inferior, supporting colonization, considering slavery the best condition for them, all are supposed to be Southeron character strengths, I guess.
Put Lincoln's views on racism in them context of history with like-minded men - fine. Don't give him a free pass and put him on a pedastal.
OK, let's put them in context with like minded men. Can you produce a single quote from Lee or Davis or Jackson that might indicate that their viewpoints on the races were more enlightened than Lincoln's? Can you do that? Or will you continue to give them a free pass on their racist viewpoints?
I'm curious to know if statements by Davis-Lee-Jackson were submitted as evidence; I suspect not since it was Lincoln's trial, not theirs.
If Lincoln's views are, at worst, no different than Lee or Davis or Jackson then they should be included in your condemnation, no?
I'm curious to know if statements by Davis-Lee-Jackson were submitted as evidence; I suspect not since it was Lincoln's trial, not theirs.
Doubtful. Being Southern slave supporters they were no doubt already considered racist. Far more fun to judge Lincoln by today's standards and condemn him. If they knew how much they were gladening the hearts of Southron supporters everywhere I wonder if they'd still do it?
Many FR's know the speech.
Why did Obama ignored it?
The folks at the 'State of The Black Union' in Jamestown, VA didn't let the opportunity slip by.
"I wonder if they'll follow up with trials for Woodrow Wilson (who allowed many Federal gov't offices to be segregated), and FDR (who refused to support anti-lynching legislation, largely because it would cost him political support from southern Democrats of that era)."
Actually, many radical blacks are consistent in their attacks on all dead white presidents.
Get a WHAT? a laywer? What is a lawyer? Is that something like a potatoe or perhaps a poatto.
Perhaps because that is one of the more idiotic statements made around here? Even considering the source? If I wanted to support despotic Marxist wannabes I'd come out in Jeff Davis' corner.
LOL - that's it!
I'd bet I could show evidence that he wasn't -- but that is if this "Court" would allow analysis of the context of the day, which I'm willing to bet they couldn't even begin to comprehend.
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.