Federalist Patriot bashes Abe Linclon

2/17/06 | Mobile Vulgus

[Mobile Vulgus]

I don't know how many of you get the Federalist Patriot report via email, but it is a great source of conservative news and opinion that all of you should get.

You can find their site at:

http://patriotpost.us/

Anyway, even though I support them, they sent out an email today that bashed Abe Lincoln fiercely. I was so moved to annoyance by their biased and ill thought out email that I had to write them and say how disappointed I was.

You can go to their site and see the anti-Lincoln screed that they put out to know exactly what I am replying to if you desire to do so.

Now, I know some of you freepers are primo confederate apologists so I thought this would stir debate on freerepublic!!

Now, let the fur fly as we KNOW it must...

[Ditto]

You raise a good point. How about the fact that when Lincoln ran for reelection in 1864 which he won by a slim margin against General George McClellan who wanted to end the war the South did not vote.The vote was conducted in the North only. Had the South been able to vote Lincoln would have been defeated by a landslide. In that he was an illegitimate president.

LOL. Illegimate President? You sound like a Gore-bot.

Not that I want to keep raining on your myths, but here's the facts.

10% is a "slim margin" in your world? The Electoral count was even more lopsided.

Some other "facts" you probably don't care to know. McClellan did not support an "end to the war" other than through victory. He was a "War" Democrat, not a "Peace" Democrat. He did oppose the freeing the slaves however which is why he won in the slave states of Deleware and Kentucky.

As to the results being different if the South had been able to vote, assuming all of their 80 votes would have gone the War Democrat McClellan, the Electoral Count would have been 212 for Lincoln and 102 for McClellen.

[MamaTexan]

What fool would think that the same founders that had thrown off the shackles of a despotic government would turn around and bind themselves forever to another?

THANK you!

:-)

[4CJ]

What a laugh coming from a supporter of Calhoun's idea that people were NOT created equal, and that rights belonged to society, not individuals.

Please don't project your beliefs upon others - I believe that ever person on this earth is a descendant of Adam and Eve, brothers and sisters in the eyes of God and myself. Individuals have God-given rights, societies protect those rights. Individuals have the right to assemble together, and form whatever government they choose. That is the sentiments of the founders, of John C. Calhoun, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, William Patterson, and a plethora of others.

It is the belief of Lincoln, liberals, socialists, and communists that people cannot form the government of their choice, and they're the ones that wage war to prevent it, or post on web sites against it.

[MamaTexan]

If you can point to a clause that prohibits a state from being expelled from the Union against its will.

The states were bound by their own VOLUNTARY act.

Is being thrown out *voluntary*?

DUH...It's being forced to leave against your will!

[4CJ]

It was then agreed that the Union was perpetual, to add a clause making the dissolution of a perpetual union illegal would be unnecessarily redundant and needlessly repetitious.

Bwahahahahaha! It was NOT agreed the union was perpetual - a word that had been used 5 times in the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union was dropped. The states seceded from the Articles! Repetitious? 5 times in the old agreement, ZERO in the new. Even a single mention would not have been repetitive.

[Ditto]

Lots and lots of points here Mama, and even a few good ones. ;))

I'll reply maybe tonight, more probably or tomorrow. Have a good evening. Good chatting with you.

[Ditto]

Yes, unions can be dissolved unilaterally . Its called divorce.

Really? What state do you live in where you can walk away from your wife with your house, car, bank account, kids and every thing else you owned jointly and never even have to get permission from a judge to dissolve that contract. It's got to be the fastest damn growing state in the nation.

I have heard of no-fault divorce (i.e. no need to show "oppression") but I have never heard of unilateral divorce where you don't even need to get permission from the same body that formed the union in the first place.

[4CJ]

;o)

[Ditto]

My point is that Lincoln was a radical figure to the South and would not reconcile his position to fit the southern concept.

By 1860, anyone who did not view slavery as a positive good was considered a radical in the south. Read the literature.

I still feel that slavery was naturally doomed and would have faded away because it would be no longer feasible as technology made human labor unnecessary.

Just the opposite. Technology made labor more in demand, so much so that in the 50-60 years after the Civil War, the North easily absorbed many millions of immigrants from across Europe (and blacks from the south) to labor in its mines, mills and factories. Your impression of the South may be that slaves were all field hands. Not true. They also worked in southern industry. When there was a strike by white workers for higher wages in Richmond's famous Tredgear Iron Works in the mid 1850s they were replaced by slaves "rented" from their owners. Those slaves provided the bulk of the labor there to the end of the Civil War. Fredrick Douglass was trained as a ship's caulker (a skilled job) in Baltimore's shipyards before he escaped to the North. Slaves, rented from their masters, built much of the South's railroad lines. Slaves were blacksmiths, farriers, worked in cotton mills, coal mines, or just about any industrial labor situation that existed then. They were not just picking cotton.

[stand watie]

i knew that.

our SCV camp also used to meet at Mary Surratt's Boarding House, which is now WOK & ROLL Asian restaurant.

free dixie,sw

[Ditto]

The prosecution of a horrendous war that was the worst war in U.S. history is for me an immoral act perpetrated by Mr.Lincoln and his uncompromising attitude that the union had to be preserved at all cost.

In you mind, should the South have compromised on their insistence to expand slavery any where they chose, or did only Lincoln have the obligation to surrender to their demands.

Looking forward the failure to prosecute the war would have resulted in two separate nations on this land. Not a bad compromise given the carnage, death and destruction that so many suffered.

Pure conjecture. What is not conjecture is that separation would not have ended disagreements and disputes, over slaves, territory or trade. Lets conger this? How much additional carnage would have resulted if the shooting had been delayed another 10, 20, or 50 years until such a time when machine guns and poison gas would have been available to both sides? The Somme or Stalingrad could well have been in Virginia or Pennsylvania instead of Europe.

In my reading of history and trying to walk in the shoes of them men on both sides who lived that history, there is only one way at one individual point in time that the Civil War could have been avoided. That was at the Continental Convention in 1787. There were a strong plurality of delegates from both Northern and Southern states, who were willing to put slavery in the entire nation to an end via gradual emancipation as several of the Northern states had already done at that point. Not an abrupt end, but a reasonable phase out period. The overwhelming sentiment was also to immediately ban further importation of slaves because even those who saw slavery as ok, saw the slave trade as completely barbaric. The majority would have likely gone along with both ideas because even slave holders such as Washington and Madison saw the basic hypocrisy of fighting for such concepts as liberty and human rights while they lived in an economic system that denied even the most basic rights to a million others.

Those discussions were halted in their tracks when both the Georgia and South Carolina delegations announced they were completely unacceptable. The best they could come up with was a 20 year time limit on the importation of slaves after which it was forbidden.

Here's where the test was. Could a majority of the delegates have ignored the objections of those two small states even if it meant they would have refused to ratify the Constitution and gone their own way? The Union surly could have prospered just as well with 11 members instead of 13. In 20 or 30 years slavery would have ceased to exist as opposed to rising in that same time period as the driving force in sectionalism.

Just my thoughts. The opportunity was lost in Philadelphia in 1787. The fuse was lit then and nothing Lincoln, Davis or any other mortal could have done could have stopped the bomb from exploding.

[stand watie]

are you REALLY DUMB enough to believe that ignorant,SELF-serving, MEAN-spirited,SELF-righteous, DAMNyankee, LEFTIST PROPAGANDA????

slavery was important ONLY to the slave-OWNERS (in BOTH north & south). hardly anybody else cared a damn about "the pitiful plight of the slave" in the 1860s.

you think/write like a blinded "vicktim ouva nawrthun pubic screwl edumakashun sistim". PITY!

the WBTS was NOT over the slavery issue, as the "peculiar institution" was DYING an UNlamented, natural death, due to advances in agriculture by the mid-1850s. absent the WBTS, it MIGHT have lasted another 5-10 years, until it died out as UNprofitable.

the war was about LIBERTY for dixie & her people! nothing more & nothing less than that ONE issue.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

CORRECT!

free dixie,sw

[Non-Sequitur]

For some reason, you always seem to throw Davis into these discussions. He is not the subject here. What Davis did or didn't do is not even an issue. I am asserting that Lincoln was a despotic Tyrant. What Davis did is immaterial to the discussion.

You're too embarassed about Davis to even talk about him. I understand completely.

[stand watie]

otoh, your deifying of lincoln, the clay-footed, secular saint of DAMNyankeeland, is NAUSEA-producing!

lincoln could have saved a MILLION LIVES by accepting secession & trading with the new dixie republic. he CHOSE war, thus the BLOOD of MILLIONS is indelibly on his hands.

free dixie,sw

[Non-Sequitur]

Please see #306 above. A state cannot be expelled.

I read #306. I've even read the Constitution. In the first place Article V deals with amendments to the Constitution. We're not talking about amending the document here, and reducing the number of senate seats a state has. We're talking about booting a state out entirely, without it's consent. And there is nothing I;m aware of in the Constitution that prevents that, and you've shown nothing that prevents it, either. Regardless, Article V says that no state may be deprived of it's two senators without it's consent. Well, if the other states expel Rhode Island, for example, the Rhode Island isn't a state any more and isn't entitled to any representation at all. You claim that states can withdraw at will, for any reason or for no reason at all, and they are no longer bound by the restrictions of the Constitution. Well, if the other states boot Rhode Island then it is entitled to none of the Constitution's protections. That has to be possible, given your beliefs on the sovereignty of the states and their power to alter the agreement with other states at will. Doesn't it?

[Non-Sequitur]

Try again. The clause specifically states that it must be with the states consent. In your liberal reading of a living Constitution you can find whatever penumbra and emmanation your heart desires, but the clause in no way is a guarantee of equal representation - that's Article 1 §3 ['The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State'].

And I will repeat, since you seem to be a little slow today, if the other states, acting in the capacity as sovereign entities, boot another state out of the Union then that body of land is no longer a state. No longer bound by the Constitution. No longer protected by it. It has no right to representation, so the other states are depriving it of nothing.

[Non-Sequitur]

The true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object; whether it devises and creates an instrumentality for executing the specific power granted; and if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional.

Thanks, first time I ever saw the quote in full. So if Lincoln believed that the power to suspend habeas corpus was a power granted to him by the Constituion then his actions were constitutional, right? After all, who was there to tell him he was wrong?

[Non-Sequitur]

Disagree here. The states were already in existence, but they petitioned to join the United States of America.

How could they be? States have rights and protections. States are guaranteed represenatives in Congress. States can pretty much run their own show within their borders. Territories hve none of these rights and protections, until Congress votes to admit them into the body politic as a state. Congress, to all intents and purposes, creates them as such.

[Non-Sequitur]

Nothing.

An honest man at last. Now, do you really believe that to be true?