Posted on 11/13/2006 9:25:11 PM PST by freedomdefender
The Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission was created by Congress to inform the public about the impact Abraham Lincoln had on the development of our nation, and to find the best possible ways to honor his accomplishments. The President, the Senate and the House of Representatives appointed a fifteen-member commission to commemorate the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln and to emphasize the contribution of his thoughts and ideals to America and the world.
The official public Bicentennial Commemoration launches February 2008 and closes February 2010, with the climax of the Commemoration taking place on February 12, 2009, the 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth.
Across the country communities, organizations and individuals have already begun to plan parades, museum exhibitions, performances, art installations and much more.
THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN! < /Lincoln bashers >
This thread is going to get rocky.
I doubt that. We all acknowledge Lincoln's greatness, humanity and contributions.
Remembrance Day is this Saturday at Gettysburg. All the cool people will be there!
Uh-oh...
Shortly after Lincoln entered office the Civil War began. Taking a broad view of the president's war powers, he proclaimed a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus for disloyal activity, spent money without congressional authorization, and controlled the war effort. On most legislative matters he yielded to Congress, but he carefully preserved his independence on questions that he considered executive responsibility. Despite his military inexperience, he displayed a shrewd grasp of military strategy, recognizing from the beginning the importance of the western theater and the necessity of taking advantage of the Union's superior resources. It took him several years, however, to find competent generals to implement this strategy.
from
http://www.answers.com/topic/abraham-lincoln
"We all acknowledge Lincoln's greatness, humanity and contributions."
Actually not everybody. Some can see him for what he was, not what the history writers made him out to be.
And perhaps this Gentleman in 2007 (DOB 19 Jan, 1807)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Robert_Edward_Lee.jpg
Nice post. I hope we celebrate it like it should. However I fear we will not. Ah American History so neglected now a days
My paternal ancestor was Lincoln's law partner.
Lincoln did other great things that never get acknowledged. The whole expansion into the west was going on under his watch. The land grant college system is huge and not hardly no one gives hime credit for it. Even my beloved LSU was a part of that. Before then we were a small Military Semianry(headed by Gen Sherman by the way). Most major colleges especially in the South are based off that far sighted legislation
I question the character of a man that invokes God but was not a believer in God, never joined a church, and often mocked Christians and Christianity.
Source: Doris Kearns Goodwin's book titled "Team of Rivals"
I only pray that Hillary or some other leftist democrat scum isn't president to lead the bicentennial proceedings.
I remember hoping and praying that President Reagan outlives the Clinton administration. Blessedly he did.
Lincoln grew in his faith during the war and saw God's hand in it.
I'll need to re-borrow said book from my local library however my notes indicate the following quotes from Ms. Goodwin's book:
"Lincoln’s inability to take refuge in the concept of a Christian heaven."
Regarding the deaths of those close to him she wrote that he: "confronted the loss of loved ones without prospect of finding them in the afterlife."
I'll get back to you with the appropriate page numbers as soon as I can.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2002, at 4:43 PM ET
"Now that Goodwin has not only committed plagiarism, but lied about whether it was plagiarism (and, incidentally, paid hush money to one of the people she plagiarized), Harvard's Board of Overseers (i.e., its board of directors) might ordinarily be expected to revoke these awards. Except—whoops!—Goodwin is also a Harvard Overseer!"
"[Update, Jan. 25: The author Goodwin paid off, Lynne McTaggart, now tells the Weekly Standard's Bo Crader (who broke this story) that the plagiarism was more extensive than has been reported. She also says that she received "a substantial monetary settlement" from Goodwin, not "a token sum."]"
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com/
Do you have anything on this?
I never recall Lincoln mocking Christianty, but instead quoted Scripture quite often.
His 'House Divided' speech is an example of Biblical usage.
"Mrs. Lincoln stated that after the demise of their son Willy in early 1862, her husband drew much closer to God."
(Excerpt) Read more at Lincoln's Faith in God
I have read that no Christian minister in Springfield would endorse him for president, apparently because of his lack of church affiliation.
Oh, now you're just baiting the neocon[federate]s.
I am not questioning the fact that he was never formally associated with a church.
I am questioning the assertion that he made anti-Christian remarks.
I do not believe he became actually became a Christian until two years into his administration, probably after Gettysburg.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
And I question the character of a man who questions the character of a man who he doesn't really know. Lincoln's spiritual beliefs were complex and perhaps unorthodox, but they were there.
Nice quote. I have no idea who actually said it but it wasn't Lincoln.
In Doris Kearns Goodwin's seminal work on Lincoln "Team of Rivals," she quotes Ward Lamon, a Lincoln supporter and friend, as saying that the President had a premonition of his assassination in one of his dreams right before his tragic journey to Ford's Theatre. Lamon says that Lincoln said he saw a "corpse whose face was covered while others weeped pitifully." Lincoln seeing the corpse demanded that the ceremonial guard tell him who was laying in state. "The President" was his answer, "he was killed by an assassin!"
Lamon said the President tried to "evade the portent of the dream" by trying to comfort Lamon that it wasn't him in the dream "but some other fellow that was killed..." The President then says to Lamon "I think the Lord in his own good time and way will work this out alright. God knows what is best."
At least one major Lincoln biographer has questioned Lamon's chronology of events and thus whether this story is accurate.
That Lincoln rarely attended church services, and never joined a Congregation is not in doubt. However Lincoln was very converant with the bible, and claimed to be a Christian.
[Lincoln said]"I said nothing to any one; but I made the promise to myself and (hesitating a little) to my Maker." While Lincoln rarely acknowledged the influence of faith or religious beliefs, "there were occasions when, uncertain how to proceed," remarked Gideon Welles, "he had in this way submitted the disposal of the subject to a Higher Power, and abided by what seemed the Supreme Will."
No mention at all of this book about atheism or ridicule of Christianity.
Perhaps you like this example of Southern "conventional Christianity" more:
Methodist Rev. John T. Wightman, preaching at Yorkville, South Carolina: "The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South . . . This war is the servant of slavery." [The Glory of God, the Defence of the South (1861)
(Not all southern Methodists believed this way. There was a good number who were persecuted by the thug reb regime for their loyalty to the old government.)
I've got a lot less problems with Lincoln's character than with that of southerners like Wightman who invoked Christianity in the maintenance of their material well being at the expense of others.
". . . with the climax of the Commemoration taking place on February 12, 2009, the 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth."
That's appropriate. That'll be just about the same time the democrats complete the total restructuring of our republic into one federal state -- the culmination of the process started by Lincoln.
The process started with southern Democrat Woodrow Wilson, not Lincoln. There is a middle ground between unconstitutional centralization and decentralized chaos instigated as a power grab by a narrow group of politicians. Lincoln preserved that middle ground. He saved the nation from chaos and defended the people against the politicians.
"The great popular heart is not now and never has been in this war. It was a revolution of the politicians, not the people."
~Confederate Governor Zebulon Vance of North Carolina
I know what kind of thread this is, but you can't be serious!
The "narrow group of politicians" you refer to was almost the entire population of the South. And speaking of "chaos" the War for Southern Independence was THE most chaotic episode in our history. What would have resulted if Lincoln had not gone to war would have been the opposite of chaos.
LOL! Speak for yourself.
Allowing the federal government to escape it's designated, Constitutional confines so painstakingly constructed by the Founders just so he wouldn't be remembered as the President under whom the country was (partially) dissolved isn't an accolade deserving of the denotation 'greatness', IMHO.
Nor was he humanitarian by any stretch of the imagination. Almost a million people died in that war.
My only solace is that he had the ability to look down upon the country in horror and realize his actions opened the door for the federal government to enslave us all.
------
Note: As many Freepers cannot discern between the LEGAL and MORAL issues of slavery as it existed at that time, anyone replying with the 'So you think we should reinstate slavery', 'You're a racist' type screes will be summarily ignored.
It's wasn't me but your Confederate Vance who said that the rebellion was of the politicians and not the people.
There was large groups of southerners who had no desire for separation. This sentiment was particularly strong in places like Northern Alabama, East Tennessee and Western NC, but it existed everywhere. When people like Sherman showed the rest of the population the price that would have to be paid for a slaveowners' state, many of them quit the fight also.
Chaos was inevitable when you split one people into two. We were one people with only an interest in slavery and the desire for power by a few slaveowners separating us.
"It's wasn't me but your Confederate Vance who said that the rebellion was of the politicians and not the people."
You can cherry pick quotes to justify or rationalize ANY position on the war. "It was about slavery." "It was about state's rights." "It was about neither." Take your pick. they're all out there some where.
"There was large groups of southerners who had no desire for separation."
There were large groups of northerners who said "let them go." So?
"When people like Sherman showed the rest of the population the price that would have to be paid for a slaveowners' state, many of them quit the fight also."
Oh, I thought Linclon fought the war to bring the south back into the union. OK, which one of you is lying?
"Chaos was inevitable when you split one people into two."
Oh, really? Go tell that to the Brits and their former subjects in Candada. We all remember the great Canadaian Revolution, don't we.
"We were one people with only an interest in slavery and the desire for power by a few slaveowners separating us."
Yup, tarrifs, unfair legislation, state's rights had nothing to do with it.
Hey, I got nothing on you, dude.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union
In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact, which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.
Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
-----
It seems to me that a precedent for secession resting upon dissatisfaction with the results of an election is a mighty frivolous recipe for future destruction of our people.
Fair enough, but compare this speech-
House Divided Speech Springfield, Illinois June 16, 1858
Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention.
If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.
We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.
Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.
In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.
With this one -
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, October 15, 1858
Lastly, in the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, it is said: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
(snip)
I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again, what I understand to be the real issue in this controversy between Judge Douglas and myself. On the point of my wanting to make war between the free and the slave States, there has been no issue between us. So, too, when he assumes that I am in favor of introducing a perfect social and political equality between the white and black races. These are false issues, upon which Judge Douglas has tried to force the controversy. There is no foundation in truth for the charge that I maintain either of these propositions.
(snip)
I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law that is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made available to them without Congressional legislation. In the Judge's language, it is a "barren right" which needs legislation before it can become efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it is guarantied. And as the right is Constitutional I agree that the legislation shall be granted to it and that not that we like the institution of slavery.
(snip)
I say if that Dred Scott decision is correct, then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a Constitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his runaway returned. No one can show the distinction between them. The one is express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is construed to be in the Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be correct believes in the right. And the man who argues that by unfriendly legislation, in spite of that Constitutional right, slavery may be driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnishing an argument by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return fugitives, and claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. I do not know how such an argument may strike a popular assembly like this, but I defy anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educated to estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of difference between the Constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive, and the Constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided this Dred Scott decision is correct.
-------
Four months after he said slavery should be abolished, he admitted their was a Constitutional right to own slaves as well as having escaped slaves returned.
Kerry must have perfected his flip-flopping ability by reading Lincoln.
From your quote:
"It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood."
Therein is your answer.
Hopefully some definitive information regarding the genealogy of President Abraham Lincoln's mother will be unearthed in the months ahead. Our personal relation to him hangs in limbo until historians can either perform DNA testing or be able to locate correct documentation.
The threat of coercion which materialized on the evening of April 11, 1861. Secession was the last refuge of the South from the meddling and coercion of the North.
What meddling? Lincoln himself said he wouldn't interfere with the South's institutions and he didn't have the right to under the Constitution.
At first, the sailing qualities of such a vessel was doubted, but soon, to the relief of their owners, these flat-bottomed ships proved to have fine sailing qualities. These were the ships used in what became the massive coastal trade.
With these technical advancements, cotton was loaded onto the coastal packets, shipped to New York via these fast boats, offloaded to warehousing, and shipped out on the large V-bottomed ships that sailed the high seas to Liverpool.
All along the way, the middlemen took their cut and New York merchants prospered.
Regularly scheduled coastal packet shipping became a very lucrative trade. Stevedores now had lots of work.. Insurance agents, bankers, accountants, livery agents, boat builders, riggers, and cargo shippers vastly benefited.
Wharf owners stayed busy and Atlantic packets sailed eastward on the "Downhill Passage" with full cargoes and stayed very busy for years.
With the control of the transportation trade business being dominated by Northern interests, and now being vastly aided by the Warehousing Act, southern planters began to complain.
Many estimated that New York merchants were making 40 cents on every dollar, but being constantly in debt to the New Yorkers, they were hardly in a position to change this state of affairs.
The Northerners were in full control of the market.
This combination of Federal Law that favored Northern businessmen, Federal law prohibitions against Southern expansion of shipping, the 1860 Republican party plank proposing a federally funded transcontinental railroad, and the Lincoln supported Morril tariff would eventually turn out to be the major causes of the secession.
Too bad those guys that wrote Mississippi's secession document didn't know that in 1861. They would have at least mentioned all that and not wasted all that ink only talking about slavery.
They did.
"They would have at least mentioned all that and not wasted all that ink only talking about slavery."
There were all sorts of speeches and documents of the time trying to explain secession. The one you posted was not a legal statement of any sort.
With each state’s voting on the massive question of secession from the Union, their legislatures determined that a document should be published, outlining the reasoning and causes of their disunion.
None of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.
bump
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.
