Help me out here: How can you Lincoln-haters love the Pledge of Allegiance?

journal-sentinel ^ | June 28, 02 | churchillbuff

[churchillbuff]

The Pledge says the Nation is "Indivisible" -- exactly what Lincoln believed. In contrast, the Lincoln haters who are so many on Freerepublic think secession was legitimate - - in other words, you believe the Nation is "Divisible."

Also, the Pledge says it's a nation with "liberty and justice for all." The secessionists who you Lincoln-haters honor seceded in order to prevent "liberty and justice" for Southern blacks.

So help me out: Why DO you Lincoln-haters love the Pledge? I think it's because you haven't thought through the implications of your own pro-secession beliefs.

[churchillbuff]

In other words, you're confused.

[ml/nj]

It is indivisible ... now.

ML/NJ

[churchillbuff]

Thanks to Lincoln.

[colorado tanker]

Well this ought to be interesting.

[Deb]

Oh, no...not a Lincoln thread!!

Run for your lives, people!! Here comes the Civil War!!!

[churchillbuff]

Well this ought to be interesting.""

Logic - and the truth - sometimes hurt. So I expect a lot of Lincoln-haters to studiously ignore this thread because they can't deal with the contractions in their own thinking - -

[churchillbuff]

Sorry, that's "contradictions in their own thinking"

[Notforprophet]

I'd agree with you on all your points, with the exception of one case: The State of Texas. Which was a Republic before it joined the Union, and ought to still have the right of secession - Lincoln or no Lincoln.

[My2Cents]

EXCELLENT question, CB.

[ohioman]

Shove it up your buff, Churchhill.

[Senator Pardek]

Ya know how even decades after V-J Day, folks would stumble across Japanese soldiers who thought that WW II was still being waged?

Same situation here. There's a hand full of Freepers who have never been informed that The Civil War is over. It's most odd.

[Britton J Wingfield]

Do you ever post anything besides ad hominem attacks?

[axxmann]

This "Lincoln-Doubter" (not hater) isn't all hot and bothered about the pledge. I agree with Ohioman.

[Senator Pardek]

"Hand full"?!

[churchillbuff]

Sad to hear such sentiments from someone who apparently hails from one of the most loyal states during the Civil War - and a state that gave Lincoln big electoral majorities.

[axxmann]

We know the war is over and we know who won. We just miss what was lost, freedom.

[mdittmar]

exactly what Lincoln believed.

Yes he did,thank you Mr. Lincoln.

Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley: Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable [sic] in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Yours, A. Lincoln.

[Sonny M]

Here is a really really strange bit of trivia for you, Texas, and I always thought this was an urban legend, but its actually true, has the right to break up into 5 states anytime they wish. It was part of their agreement into entering the union, no other state has that right. I believe it might have been a trade of over the right to succeed.

[mdittmar]

P.S.

I believe the States have the right to succession,and I believe it is the Presidents duty to keep the "Union" together.

If a State or States want to succeed they better win the war.

[colorado tanker]

"Logic - and the truth - sometimes hurt. So I expect a lot of Lincoln-haters to studiously ignore this thread because they can't deal with the contractions in their own thinking - -" Yep. Usually, however, they just pile on to any thread mentioning Lincoln.

[Notforprophet]

To heck with 5 states... Texas ought to be able to secede and return to 1 Republic. Watch the stock market tank on that one!

[Arkinsaw]

Lincoln-hater.....Clinton-hater. My least favorite rhetorical tactic. Just deal with the points of argument rather than negative characterizations of the messengers. The Lincoln-hater label is just as impressive as the Clinton-hater label. In other words, not at all.

I personally admire Lincoln for his humor, his skills, his compassion as the court of last appeal to condemned soldiers, and his wisdom regarding reconstruction. That does not make me an admirer of "Stanton's Little Bell", or his idea of union trumping self-determination, etc.

As for the Pledge of Allegiance, I am happy to make the Pledge. Since I do not agree with the 'indivisible' portion of the Pledge I just don't say it. Nobody has ever noticed and I do not try to make it obvious. Likewise if someone does not agree with "under God" then their best bet is to just refrain from saying what they don't agree with rather than trying to use the courts to make everyone else stifle their views, which is the majority.

Though I don't consider these United States indivisible as a matter of law I consider them indivisible as a matter of voluntary common good. The Pledge of Allegiance is a good thing and when I make it I am sincere in honoring it. I am in favor of it remaining just as it is in schools and if individual students disagree with any part of it for whatever reason they are not forced to participate and not forced to say anything more than what they desire. That is their right, but it is not their right to force everyone else to stop reciting it as they see fit.

You post is designed to bring ME and others like me into conflict with other Freepers who do believe the union is 'indivisible'. A conflict that is not necessary in this fight for the Pledge of Allegiance and a conflict that is actually counterproductive in trying to maintain the Pledge AS IT IS.

I do not have to agree with every word of the Pledge of Allegiance to fight for the right of the majority to continue to recite it however they want and in the traditional manner if they want. If I don't want to say it then I won't (individually and without a federal court to make you stop saying it also).

If you have any interest in actually GROKKING that concept then I hope you get it now. If you are just trying to stir up a catfight by trolling these traditionally good troll/disruptor waters then p*** off.

[goodieD]

Help ME out here. What is your problem with people who don't agree with you on every single issue? Is your only recourse to attack every time your heroes get outed? Or were you one of those kids in school, who would sucker punch a kid then cry when someone hit back?

[churchillbuff]

At least you're honest in acknowledging that the Pledge's celebration of indivisibility is at odds with secessionist beliefs. It's basically a celebration of Lincoln's achievement in keeping this nation whole.

[churchillbuff]

your heroes get outed?

Who's been "outed"? If you're referring to recent books defaming Lincoln for leading a war to keep America whole and indivisible, that's not "outing" him, that's HONORING a great achievement! Its Lincoln's achievement in keeping the nation indivisible that we celebrate every time we say the pledge!!

[Malcolm]

I'm a Southerner, I like Lincoln, and I like the pledge. Why would any normal person not like Lincoln?

[fight_truth_decay]

Yawns..beats a dead horse repeadly...!!

[don-o]

It's a fair question. I do not participate on "Lincoln-hating" threads. Nor am I torqued off over the pledge flap, so I am not your target audience.

In the last 20 years, I have said the pledge only at pro-life gatherings. And the only reason I can say it there, in good conscience, is because it ends, "with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn."

I am raising and educating my sons to have good understanding about American history. The War of Northern Agression is covered; so that they know both what the Union and the Confedracy meant.

Good Southron principles are one key to reclaiming the Republic from the Democracy that POTUS16 installed.

That is what I try to teach.

[goodieD]

over and over again, Lincoln has been shown to be a scoundrel of the highest order. And regardless of who "won" the war, this fact does not change. It's not about not being able to get over the outcome of the war, but about exposing the truth about one of the worst presidents in history. But you will never believe that, even if the truth were right in your face. Typical of those who believe in blind obedience to authority.

[Arkinsaw]

Why would any normal person not like Lincoln?

I'm not sure how anyone who reads about Lincoln can help liking him as a person. I read quotes from him and he cracks me up. Particularly when he was discussing his Secretary of War and stated "The only thing he wouldn't try to steal is a red hot stove.". LOL

Liking Lincoln as a person for his humor, his compassion, his skill, and his plans for reconstruction does not necessarily mean a person must agree with his political stances or his government policies. He was a person, a politician, a lawyer, a president, a warrior, etc. He wasn't right all the time, he wasn't wrong all the time. The people I don't trust are the ones who make him out to be either Satan or God with no deviation permitted.

[Fish out of Water]

There is nothing in the pledge that prevents the revocation of allegiance when the Government gets abusive.

[Moose4]

At least you're honest in acknowledging that the Pledge's celebration of indivisibility is at odds with secessionist beliefs.

Well...yeah. No argument here.

I said "indivisible" as I recited the Pledge every day in elementary school (and also said "under God" as well), but now, if I had to say it, I'd just not say or mumble through "indivisible".

I don't believe this union should be 100% indivisible, I believe that the states should hold a right of secession as a last resort. I'm a proud Southron who opposes any attempt by the liberal politically-correct crowd to rewrite and destroy our history. But, that doesn't mean that I'm not a ferociously patriotic American. I love this country, I love that flag, and I love that Pledge of Allegiance. And if all the people around me want to say "indivisible", hey, they can go for it. I won't deny their privilege to do it just because I don't believe it 100%---unlike our atheist friend in Fornicalia.

Look...Lincoln used the Constitution for a throw rug with much of the stuff he did as President. He may have kept the Union together, but he did it at the cost of planting the seed of the powerful central government that we have today. Just because that I believe that it worked out better all around that the Union stayed together doesn't mean that I agree with how Abe did it--or that I agree with all the consequences that have resulted from it over the past 140 years.

}:-)4

[norton]

I merely note that this thread was launched by someone (a) apparently wildly approving of Lincoln, (b) apparently needing some sort of arguement to perk up his day, or something, (c) and NOT by a "Lincoln hater".

So, given that us lincoln haters are comfortable with several elements of our history, I'd be more inclined to conclude that it is churchillbuff who is confused.

I don't think Winny suspended thr rights of ordinary Brits, and I believe that he went to some lengths NOT to invade Ireland despite it's pro Axis sympathies. I believe that Churchill lied at times as did Lincoln, Rosevelt, and others, but with the advent of Bill Clinton that is old news. Churchill certainly did not gain office under one set of professed beliefs and change them once he had the upper hand. Scotts and the Welsh would posit that he did repress their cultures, again, like every other PM or crowned head of the UK.

What you cannot fathom is that most people who dislike Lincoln do so because of the hypocracy rampant in the war between the states, not because Abe was nice to black people because that was merely his sometimes propaganda line - his motive was to institutionalize northeastern (industrial) control over the agrarian South and to insure that domination into the new West. The big states/small states, industrial/agrarian debates of the past were put to rest y force of arms almost a hundred years after they began.

However, once done, the South had to come to grips first with surviving after a defeat that devastated both the land and it's populace. Today's Klan is odious, but it began as a defense force, racist, yes, but due in part to beilefs very similar to those that prompted lincoln to attempt to start a slave rebellion in the South during the war (he is famous for that after all). That and the fact that their country was being occupied at the time (carpetbaggers - remember?).

Unlike other peoples, Irish, 'Palistinian' et al, southerners were able to adopt, or readopt, the larger republic as their own once again. That's why every war we've fought since then featured so many maimed, wounded, and decorated southerners of all races.

As to the pledge, maybe it's because their ancestors fought against the flag when it represented repression to them that it is so important to them today that it not represent repression and that it does recognize a god that is more real to most southerners than to most of the rest of us.

No Church, we ain't confused, we ain't traitors, and we aren't even all southerners.

Heck, we were all for ousting that creep from Arkansas so I'd say the 'Lincoln haters" had pretty well got over it.
How about you?

That, by the way is rhetorical because I have no intention of gracing this debate, sparked as it was by spite or boredome, and doomed to wrap itself in the usual circles.

[Arkinsaw]

At least you're honest in acknowledging that the Pledge's celebration of indivisibility is at odds with secessionist beliefs. It's basically a celebration of Lincoln's achievement in keeping this nation whole.

Just bear in mind that someone who thinks of the United States as a federal republic in the true meaning of 'federal' and who believes that secession can in certain circumstances can be an effective tool for the protection of liberty (as in Taiwan/North American Colonies/Ukraine) does not necessarily desire any dissolution of the United States and is not necessarily your enemy.

I'm fairly certain that Jefferson and Madison did not want to see the union dissolve when they wrote the Kentucky/Virginia resolutions. But they nonetheless voiced the warning that the States of Kentucky and Virginia would not tolerate the Alien and Sedition tyranny and would interpose themselves between their citizens and tyrannous actions by the federal government if it persisted. A prime example of patriots using State sovereignty to warn the central power away from tyrannous action.

A union is not more important than liberty. As long as the union is a vehicle for liberty then it is deserving of life. When it becomes an obstacle to liberty then it ought to be dissolved and a new one formed that is more advantageous to liberty.

Debating whether or not the Southern secessions met this test seems like a more fertile area of argument for you, and worthier. But the idea that a union is indivisible forever and ever amen regardless of its stance towards individual liberty seems more like worshipping a Church building rather than the God who resides in it.

[Copernicus]

Not sure about "Lincoln-hating" but I have posted these thoughts about the Pledge of Allegiance elsewhere to little avail

Best regards,

Thoughts on the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thought 1 . God fearing Patriots and Conservatives do NOT Pledge Allegiance to a piece of CLOTH or a tangle of poorly defined concepts.

This is called IDOLATRY.

Thinking Conservatives pledge allegiance to God and BECAUSE of their pledge to God swear to protect and defend those institutions and principles critical to Human Events here on God's Earth.

To understand this concept compare and contrast the Pledge of Allegiance with the Boy Scout Oath or the Oath of Office required of the President as written in the Constitution to wit:

"I solemnly swear (or affirm) I that I will faithfully execute the office of the president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.(so help me God)

Distinguish between this oath taken by a man whose allegiance is pledged to God and who seeks to honor God with his vow to serve faithfully and well on Earth and the Pledge of Allegiance to the "flag and the republic for which it stands" (whatever that means!)

This also happens to be the oath administered to members of the United States Military and the vow I took when I joined the Navy.

I must honor that oath by my respectful disagreement with those people who somehow confuse idolatry with an attack on religious belief.

Thought 2. This tempest in a teapot is a direct result of leviathan Government abrogating unto itself the education of the nation through the device of a monolithic Public School establishment.

It is inconceivable the government court system would do anything other than rule for the benefit of the government in the government run school system.

Anyone unhappy with the 9th Circuit ruling should seek to shut down the government monopoly over education immediately.

Impeachment of judges, public street protests, letters to the editor are both useless and meaningless if the Public School Monopoly survives unaltered.

It has been said many times before: "The Government governs best that governs least". This is especially true in regard to the education of the young.

Best regards to all, .

[Restorer]

Particularly when he was discussing his Secretary of War and stated "The only thing he wouldn't try to steal is a red hot stove."

The real story is actually funnier.

Here's quote from a site dedicated to correcting historical misquotes: http://www.wardell.org/jotd/classic/famous_folk/corrected.htm

Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania served as secretary of war in the first year of Lincoln's administration. There has always been some serious question of his integrity. Indeed, Thaddeus Stevens, a Pennsylvania Congressman, is reported to have given his opinion that Cameron would steal anything but a red-hot stove.

This quote has been repeated over the years, recently by no less an authority than Shelby Foote, one of the major contributors to the epic PBS series on the Civil War a few years ago. However, that's not exactly how it happened.

When the statement came to Cameron's ears he, in great dudgeon, complained to President Lincoln. There was not much that Lincoln could do except suggest to Stevens that he might care to say he had been misquoted.

Stevens, a harsh curmudgeon of a man, promptly stated that to keep peace within the party he would be pleased to state that he had indeed been misquoted.

What really had been said, he explained, was that Cameron would steal anything, including a red-hot stove ...

[varina davis]

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex. The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston. http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm

[Texas Gal]

When one recites the pledge of allegiance, are they acknowledging that the nation is now indivisible, that they hope it remains undivided, or that it always should have been indivisible and shame on anyone who ever thought different?  And is it even necessary for all who say the pledge to mean exactly the same thing as every other one who says the pledge in order for them to each be expressing sincere devotion to the nation? 

[mlo]

I do not have to agree with every word of the Pledge of Allegiance to fight for the right of the majority to continue to recite it however they want and in the traditional manner if they want. If I don't want to say it then I won't (individually and without a federal court to make you stop saying it also).

The recent ruling had nothing to do with preventing the majority from reciting the pledge any way they want.

[Twodees]

Maybe you could name a few secessionists who want the Pledge in schools. I don't know of any myself.

[LibKill]

You will never make converts by insulting people who don't like Lincoln. Assuming that you do want to change minds, rather than spout cheap rhetoric, you could serve your cause better by telling of the man's humor and common sense.

Here's an example.:

When Lincoln appointed Grant to the command of the Union armies, one of Grant's enemies went to Lincoln and said; "Mr. President, you must know that General Grant drinks."

Lincoln replied, "Drinks, does he? Well, find out what he drinks and send a barrel of it to my other Generals!"

[Twodees]

Don't you wish you were as funny as you try to be, Senator?

[Stefan Stackhouse]

Just because the union is indivisible does not mean that it is indissolvable.

The constitution has always contained a provision that could theoretically result in the dissolution of the union. This is the provision whereby a supermajority of the states can call for a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing constitutional amendments. It is quite possible that such an amendment could actually amount to an entirely new constitution. This is not unprecedented -- in fact, that is exactly the procedure that resulted in our present constitution, which supersceded the old Articles of Confederation. It is also quite possible that such a convention could propose an amendment that would in effect be a "de-constitution" -- provisions for the formal dissolution of the union, and the devolution of sovereignty to the individual states. Such an amendment would actually have to be quite long and detailed, because there would be many complicated issues to address, such as: the disposition of federal assets and liabilities, the status of foreign treaties, the status of US territories, etc., etc.

The bottom line, however, is that it is indeed theoretically possible to dissolve the union -- the legal, constitutional mechanisms do exist to facilitate this, if the vast majority of states were ever to desire it. This mechanism was every bit as much in place in 1860, and it was the one and only proper mechanism available to the Southern states to pursue. If they had done so, and managed to be successful at it, they could have left without firing a shot, and Lincoln would have been powerless to do a thing about it. He would have been out of a job, for that matter, unless he somehow managed to get elected to the chief executive of whatever successor federation included his home state of Illinois.

There is NO constitutional provision, however, for the unilateral secession of individual states. When we pledge that the Union is indivisible, it is this that we are affirming -- that we will not advocate the unconstitutional and unlawful seccession of any part of the Union from the whole. Lincoln was quite right to insist on this principle.

[Eagle Eye]

There's a hand full of Freepers who have never been informed that The Civil War is over.

The South was gonna rise again last fall, but someone fried up some catfish and hushpuppies, and we drank some beer, and we just decided to put it off for a spell.

[babaloo999]

Thank you for falling for the Lincoln-baiting tactic.

[Eagle Eye]

I've sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution on several occassions. To me, that trumps plaedging allegience to the flag.

The flag represents what is; the Constitution represents what should be.

[Senator Pardek]

Don't you wish you were as funny as you try to be, Senator?

LOL - I make a humorous yet pithy comment about those who won't let go, and you flame me - this is exactly what I'm talking about.

BTW - PUT SHERMAN ON MT. RUSHMORE!

[Cultural Jihad]

Psssst. Wasn't 'Pardek' the maiden name of William Tecumseh Sherman's mother?

[Senator Pardek]

Cool - once I save up enough scratch, I'm moving down there (I need a change)!