Posted on 05/25/2002 3:14:07 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
Not personal reasons. Political reasons.
I'll grant you your cynicism
Not cynicism. Just accuracy.
but I must strongly disagree.
It's your right to do so and I am not going to stop you.
You really should read more history, and I don't mean pseudo-history.
By all means, take your own advice. I reached my conclusions about Lincoln by relying heavily on primary historical sources. Most modern sources give what I call pop history (i.e. the James McPherson brand) and it's almost always tilted heavily toward Lincoln. The historical Lincoln was a politician, not a diety.
Yep. Now you got it.
I'll grant you your cynicism,
No, not cynicism. Just historical accuracy.
but I must strongly disagree.
Again, that is your right and I am not going to try to stop you.
You really should read more history, and I don't mean pseudo-history.
Right back at you. I've verse myself well enough in historical matters and continue to do so when time permits. You on the other hand seem to have read just enough to permit you to adopt an extremely narrow view of it, beyond which you have willfully closed yourself off to any further readong. But inescapably, that's your choice, not mine.
If you have been reading primary sources, you need to be more discriminating.
Thanks but no thanks. Doing so would only limit me to the preset and historically inaccurate viewpoint you have adopted for yourself, all the while rendering yourself unable to escape it by the very same exercise you urge me to adopt.
I'm glad to find you have an open mind.
Yes, he did. There was no rebellion and he couldn't stretch his constitutional powers to cover waging war over secession, so he called the secession of the states a rebellion so that he would have the pretext for waging a war. You're the vicitm of an indoctrination, rather than the recipient of an education, kid.
Well, let's review the Big Lie here: accusing Lincoln of forming an army in order to "smash his own separatists" (as if the rebels were really rebelling against Lincoln, rather than the United States of America) and then, incredibly, your accusing him of "start[ing] an Empire," when he was on record as opposing the imperialist Mexican War, when he was clearly agonized by the Civil War, and when he was assassinated less than a week after the end of the war--hardly enough time to "start an empire."
If it were not for the courage and steadfastness of this one man, who can say whether we would even have a country now? However, I've been hearing Dixie agitprop against Lincoln for so long, forgive me if I can't simply be clinical about it.
And I'm sure you had nothing against Lincoln personally, you just think he was a freedom-hating, hypocritical tyrant who laid the seeds for liberty's destruction.
"What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, every where. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors." --Abraham Lincoln, September 11, 1858 Speech at Edwardsville
The fighting armed rebellion (see sedition) commenced before he was sworn in.
GOPCapitalist responded:
,/I> Lincoln was sworn in on March 4, 1861. The first formal acts of armed warfare did not occur for another month. Lincoln launched a fleet of warships tasked to fight their way into Fort Sumter for the purpose of reinforcing its garrison on or about April 6, 1861. Confederates caught word of Lincoln's plan and took the fort on April 12, 1861. Lincoln's fleet arrived on April 13, 1861, too late to do anything.
You are correct. I changed what I was saying midsentence and failed to proofread my post. I meant to write:
The armed rebellion (see sedition) commenced before he was sworn in.
This is a simple fact. Southern Militia stormed Federal armories before Lincoln was sworn in. Regardless of the date, this was no less sedition than the actions of John Brown.
No, as that was not the analogy to begin with. Had you read the article, you would know that. But instead, unable to deal with the fact that strong Lincolnian elements appeared during Palpatine's speech, you launched into a diatribe in which you created that alternative analogy of straw in order to divert attention from the actual one made in the article.
1. There were only Lincolnian elements for those who equate Lincoln with Democratic Tyranny. I think that the speech more clearly connotes speaches by Pompey and Caesar.
Again you are constructing a creature of straw with which to joust. The real analogy, not the straw conspiracy one you have created, was drawn between Palpatine's appeal to the union of the republic itself in opposition to the secessionist movement he created.
Thank you. Lincoln created no secessionist movement.
Also, if you had watched the movie while you were in attendance there last Friday night, you would know that the motion itself was prearranged, again on an appeal to the union and its "needed" army.
Yes, and had you watched the movie, you would know that the enter seccession and the armies were created by Palpatine and his protoge, Dooku. On the flip side, it could similarly serve as a test for those who view Lincoln as a "greatness" beyond his historically skilled and inescapably flawed person. For Lincoln worshipers, the symbolism is willfully ignored.
You see Palpatine as Lincoln, I don't. Lincoln was hardly a perfect man. He was no Washington. Neither was Jefferson Davis.
Am I? Cause I have readily identified several propaganda techniques commonly employed by the left (i.e. the construction of straw men) in your own attempts to discredit, or more appropriately distract from the analogy of clear Lincolnian elements in Palpatine's speech. That would seem to indicate that you, rather than myself, are currently engaged in the very techniques you speak of.
1. A straw man arguement, something you also use is a debating technique devoid of idology. The same is true for reducto ad absurdum. Deconstructionism was created by Michele Foucault.
2. Pointing out flaws is not a distraction to anyone but one who sees only his arguement.
Indeed, but that fact bears little relevance to and certainly does not exclude him from drawing upon historical motifs from elsewhere.
Lucas has never once mentioned the American Civil war. You are reading into a movie, something which is not there.
Lincoln took many unpopular positions which cost him elections.
GOPcapitalist responded
Yet to an even greater degree, he crafted his politics to win them.
It is easy to be an idealogue. It is far harder to be elected and turn principles into law or policy.
Lincoln opposed slavery and lost his Senatorial race to Stephan Douglas.
Untrue. If you recall back in 1858, senators did not run for election. The state legislatures picked them.
That the electorate was restricted ot the State Legislature did not preclude electioneering aimed at swaying Legislatures directly or through their constituents.
Lincold and Douglas both campaigned and famously debated each other.
So where then did the debates with Stephen Douglas come from? Quite simply, they were campaign appearanced made in attempt to win seats in the legislature for each figure's respective political party. As for those debate appearances, Lincoln was by far the bigger "waffler" of the two, tuning his message carefully to his audiences. He changes positions to his audience between stops so much that Douglas openly accused him in later debates of contradicting himself between appearances.
I will not deny that Lincoln tailored his message. He lost and deserved to.
Yes, but Lincoln was securely in his second term when the time for "reconstruction" emerged. He was not up for election any more.
You have it exactly backwards.
The Radical Republicans' plan for Reconstruction were never popular with most voters. The idea of posting large number of troops in a defeated South was not popular with a war weary populace.
Lincoln's more moderate plans were more popular. This angered some Radical Republicans like Thad Stevens, who tried to dump Lincoln.
Yes, he did. There was no rebellion and he couldn't stretch his constitutional powers to cover waging war over secession, so he called the secession of the states a rebellion so that he would have the pretext for waging a war. You're the vicitm of an indoctrination, rather than the recipient of an education,
The State militias which attacked federal armories to steal their contents were commiting Sedition, just as John Brown did. That a state government had illegally ordered them to do so, does not change the fact.
Lincoln took unConstitutional powers during the war. However, he was acting as Commander In Chief putting down an unConstitutional rebellion.
As for the statement "Yes he did", when did the South Carolina legislature become run by Lincoln Loyalists?
When a state secedes, the federal government has no property inside its boundaries any longer. Lincoln and his radicals needed for there to be a rebellion so that they could claim to be acting properly in invading the sovereign states of a newly formed nation, therefore they claimed that the seceded states were in a state of rebellion. That was hogwash then and it's hogwash now.
The way fantasy is established as historical fact will become apparent to you when your grandchildren argue with you that Clinton wasn't the corrupt rapist we all know he is, but instead, was the greatest president in our history. That will be the way Clinton is regarded after two generations have passed and it will happen in exactly the same way that Lincoln was deified. Your grandkids will stand there cloaked in a liberal socialist indoctrination, probably from your own alma mater and tell you that you're delusional because their professors gave them the facts.
I'm giving you this warning in case your lonely hearts ad in your profile bears fruit. ;-)
An unConstitional attempt to secede by means of armed forces in conflict with the lawfully constituted government is both secession and sedition.
Please show me where secession is allowed under the Constiution.
When a state secedes, the federal government has no property inside its boundaries any longer. Lincoln and his radicals needed for there to be a rebellion so that they could claim to be acting properly in invading the sovereign states of a newly formed nation, therefore they claimed that the seceded states were in a state of rebellion. That was hogwash then and it's hogwash now.
You assume that secession was Constitutional. It was not. The Federal government had every right and responsibility toi put down an insurrection once it had been attacked.
I would also note that the Confederacy ceded this point when it sought to forcefully occupy and pacify West Virginia and parts of the border states.
As for fantasy, the only one I see is the idea that a State could secede from the Union. States had a right to overthrow the Federal government. They had no right to dissolve the bonds of union without said tyranny.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Secession is still a valid state power because the Constitution has not been amended to prohibit secession. It doesn't make a nickel's worth of difference whether the states disarm themselves or not when they secede, they have the power to secede without secession being sedition.
First you say that states haven't any right to bear arms against the federal government, then you say that states have a right to overthrow the federal government. That shows that you haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about, because you're using the Declaration of Independence as your primary authority and absolutely ignoring the Constitution except to make an asinine claim that secession is somehow "unconstitutional".
Go to Columbia and demand your money back. They told you what to think, instead of teaching you how to think. You were robbed.
And even harder to get elected by playing personal gain politics to the extreme while simultaneously convincing a large number of people that you are not doing exactly what you are doing to win elections. And Lincoln did just that.
That the electorate was restricted ot the State Legislature did not preclude electioneering aimed at swaying Legislatures directly or through their constituents. Lincold and Douglas both campaigned and famously debated each other.
And had you read my full response before making that comment, you would know that I already acknowledged that fact.
You have it exactly backwards. The Radical Republicans' plan for Reconstruction were never popular with most voters.
Nobody ever said they were. In fact, many things Lincoln did were not popular with voters. But the political Lincoln convinced them to elect him on political sophistry.
I have made the necessary update for 1860:
"If one of the federated states (ass achusetts) acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist." - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
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.