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

To: DiogenesLamp
Had King George III been running the Civil War instead of King Lincoln I, they would not have lost, but since Lincoln was far more fanatical, and was willing to allow far more people to get killed, he eventually ground them down.

Your feelings towards Lincoln appear to grow more rabid with every passing day. I do believe that your dealings with the other folks on this topic are beginning to get to you.

126 posted on 08/17/2017 8:03:35 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]


To: DoodleDawg
Your feelings towards Lincoln appear to grow more rabid with every passing day. I do believe that your dealings with the other folks on this topic are beginning to get to you.,

I actually have quite a lot of respect for Lincoln, but much of this discussion is just rhetoric. I sometimes refer to him as "King Lincoln" (but I have never referred to him as an "ape" or any of these other derogatory terms) but when I do so, it is to emphasize the point that in many cases he acted far outside of his legitimate constitutional authority.

Abraham Lincoln even admits this, but he justifies it by claiming it was necessary to protect the greater part of the Constitution.

I have also admitted that were I in Lincoln's position, I would have likely done the same thing he did. The economic, political and territorial threat to the Union was real, and Lincoln appears to have understood that, and he did what he believed was essential to preventing this threat from developing.

I think his argument that states didn't have a right to leave was just bullocks, and is no way supportable by the historical record and the example of the founders, but this is a philosophical point, and often times real world pragmatism results in having to let go of the theoretical in order to deal with the real.

Trump is an example of this. I've argued till I was blue in the face with "never Trumpers" who believe as a matter of "principle" that they must oppose him because he is insufficiently "conservative" to lead their party.

I point out that the alternative (Hillary Clinton) would have been far worse for the nation, and my first priority is making sure that I and my Family are capable of surviving, and of secondary concern to me are philosophical concerns about "purity" of ideology.

Yes, I would have preferred to nominate someone who is more clearly aligned with my beliefs, but when the choice is between a horribly evil psychotic hate-witch and a moderately liberal with some conservative leanings, I'll take the moderately liberal with some conservative leanings over the worse alternative.

As it turns out, Trump has been behaving in a more conservative manner than I had expected, and in many cases I am pleasantly surprised.

But this Civil War business is a philosophical discussion, because the real events already happened and are irrevocable.

131 posted on 08/17/2017 8:38:04 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | 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