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

To: Clintonfatigued

I spent the better part of my life thinking Lincoln was a great president. I am no longer as convinced as I once was. I am a firm believer in state's righs. I believe the federal government is here to protect the states from invasion, conduct trade policy and little else. What the federal government is today, is probably the best damnation of Lincoln there could be. With stronger states, we wouldn't be in as big a mess as we are today. Lincoln set the state for the federal supremacy.

I'm not convinced of this, but it is definately a point I ponder from time to time.


3 posted on 02/05/2005 6:46:01 PM PST by DoughtyOne (US socialist liberalism would be dead without the help of politicians who claim to be conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: DoughtyOne

If I'm not mistaken, Lincoln did not plan for centralization of power to be permanent. He wanted to gradually restore states' rights once reconstruction was completed, and the reconstruction he supported was condemned by many in his own party as overly lenient and forgiving. The mass centralization of power in D.C. is unfortunate, but the Radical Republicans who came to power following Lincoln's death are responsible for starting that.

Incidently, the South didn't support states' rights until it was clear that the majority of the American public opposed slavery. In fact, the slave-owning territories had once attempted to have slavery Federally protected.


6 posted on 02/05/2005 6:52:23 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne
I think the real damage that was done to Constitutional federalism occurred in the early 20th century. While I don't agree with everything Lincoln did during the Civil War, I don't see any permanent damage done by Lincoln's actions to hold the Union together.

The contributions America made to the world in the 20th century would not have been possible if Lincoln had not held the Union together.
7 posted on 02/05/2005 6:56:32 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne
With stronger states, we wouldn't be in as big a mess as we are today.

And the continued existance of slavery would be such a small price to pay for avoiding that. </sarcasm>

8 posted on 02/05/2005 7:00:25 PM PST by irv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne
Lincoln set the state for the federal supremacy.
I'm not convinced of this

I am! As far as I am concerned, Lincoln begat Clinton.

93 posted on 02/07/2005 1:42:01 PM PST by Da Bilge Troll (The Compassionate Troll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne
Lincoln was a mediocre poltician. His campaign managers won the Republican ticket by promising cabinet positions and spreading rumors that Seward could not carry some mid-west states (think Ohio).

Lincoln's rail speeches on the way to the Whitehouse were uneventful and sometimes downright awful - even the GOP wondered if they had selected the right man.

He continually avoided the question of secession and war, basically stating if tempers were calmed, this problem would blow over. He greatly underestimated the Southern politicians.

Lincoln had no pulse on the people of the Republic, disregarded Southern politicians, and made deadly mistakes at Sumter by going against his own cabinet's recommendations.

155 posted on 02/07/2005 5:52:46 PM PST by stainlessbanner (Don't mess with old guys wearing overhauls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne

I'm with you.


219 posted on 08/27/2005 10:19:56 PM PDT by Nephi (Globalism is incompatible with originalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

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