Posted on 02/18/2009 12:37:27 PM PST by LibertyandGrace
This past week, America celebrated the 200th birthday of President Abraham Lincoln. Republicans all over the country held “Lincoln Dinners” lauding the man they herald as the founder of their party. A plethora of verbose speeches telling of the greatness of our 16th President were offered by elected officials from coast to coast and on both sides of the isle. I have to admit, I literally cringe whenever I hear politicians, pastors, teachers, and media-types sing the praises of “Honest” Abe.
If it weren’t for his outspoken belief in white supremacy, I could possibly understand the Lincoln-worship by those on the left. After all, Lincoln was a life-long proponent of big-government who supported a national bank, high protective tariffs, and federal subsidization of internal improvements in the states. What is completely incomprehensible is how neither the former nor the latter are enough to dissuade conservatives from hailing Lincoln as a standard bearer for their cause.
Yes, Lincoln was... read more at: http://libertyandgrace.com/blog1/2009/02/14/tipping-a-sacred-cow/
(Excerpt) Read more at libertyandgrace.com ...
Just joined today & your first post is........????
Liberals holding Lincoln Day dinners, now that’s a new one. We should thank them for honoring our favorite Republican President.
I smell a DUmmie!
Hey, at least it’s in the right forum, and they already figured out how to post stuff to their about page! Pretty good for a person this new.
I guess that I should have read the article before commenting. Anyway, we will continue to hail Lincoln as the most famous Republican President for no other reason than the fact that he ended slavery, the sacred cow of the left.
You’re new, and it shows.
OK, I take the comment back, I will reserve judgment until a later post.
This is and excerpt from another suspect article posted at this source. How dreadful! It’s called “Say NO to Socialism”
Twenty-eight years ago, Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President of the United States. In his so eloquently delivered inaugural address the great communicator spoke a profound truth. Reflecting on the perilous state of the United States’ economy he made this statement: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem.”
Now I ask you to contrast President Reagan’s statement with the proposed policies of our newly elected, and very popular, 44th President, Barack Obama. In his inaugural address, President Obama made these statements: “We must begin the work of remaking America,” and “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, and whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified…”
Friends, make no mistake about it, our government IS TOO BIG! The size and scope of our federal government is so unfathomably far beyond that which the Founders intended and so far beyond that which the Constitution allows that I dare say the Constitution itself no longer poses any real threat to those who would seek to impose their socialist ideals upon us. One need not look further than the daily news to realize we are already well on the road to becoming a socialist America.
He sent warships to Charleston in early April, 1861.
He congratulated one of his people for starting the war.
What else do we need to know?
Us Southerners have never held a very high opinion of Mr. Lincoln. I don’t care what party he was from.
Notice that he says ASSIGNED to the white race; that reflects the fact that he did not hold this position to be inherent.
Now, as you point out, it's true that Lincoln did not free the slaves by the emancipation proclamation. But is it reasonable to suppose that the party he founded passed the amendments to do so against his will?
Lastly, there is this contempibly ignorant statement from your source:
The preservation of a voluntary union can never be achieved through force. The Southern states chose to withdraw from the Union in response to policies they considered to be unconstitutional and harmful to their liberty, peace, and prosperity. The Southern cause was one of independence and not slaveryIn fact, the north withdrew its forces from several bases to one military base which was quite unsuitable for launching an aggressive attack. This was entirely consistent with Lincoln's assurances he would not impose his position on the South. But what the South saw in Lincoln was a drive to populate the West, and to prevent the West from becoming a slavery-based economy. Instead, landsteaders could move West instead of being bound to an aristocracy of landholders. The South needed more than to assert states' rights; it needed to crush Northern expansionism, which would eventually make slave-holding unprofitable. This is why the issue of slavery suddenly got hot again under President Polk.
Your author tries to have it both ways; he buys into the War of Northern Aggression nonsense, yet asserts that Lincoln had no interest in ending slavery. The truth is that Lincoln had found a way to likely end slavery without using such an anti-conservative means as imposing the North's laws onto the South: allow the free hand of the market to abolish slavery. Therein is what is so fantastic about conservativism: since it relies on natural law, it permits natural law to correct injustice. Thus, apparently competing goals, such as states' rights AND putting an end to slavery can be met. Or a southerner would later say about social security; Abe would see slavery to wither on the vine
Sadly, due to the belligerence of the South, a much more bloody course of nationalism, instead of republicanism, was followed.
The other great thing about Lincoln’s conservativism is that it mattered not whether Lincoln was inclined to end slavery or not; Lincoln supported what, we can clearly see in hind sight, would have ended slavery. That’s the other blessing of conservativism: it produces outcomes superior to the scheming of men.
Slavery was already legal in the states where it was practiced. All Corwin did was reiterate what Lincoln had said many times, that he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed. What Corwin didn't do, of course, was protect slavery in the territories, so it wasn't good enough for the south.
Interesting, perhaps he’s right. It’s always good to shine the light on historic personalities. I, for instance, look forward to the day we can all listen to the taped recordings of Martin Luther King made by the FBI. I hear there may be some VERY revealing information on those tapes.
Well, there’s conservative, and there’s “Conservative.” Since America is founded as a liberal democracy, and has drifted towards statism, conservatives (who wish to preserve what America has been) are classic liberals, while liberals are statists!
Today, the conservative impulse is to preserve classical liberalism. What I was describing was Lincoln’s conservativism, which I wouldn’t at all call statist but does not necessarily equate with what Reagan meant by calling himself “conservative.”
Now, Lincoln’s chief objective was to preserve the union. Had the South not attacked Fort Sumter, there would be a very strong dilemma: While the South may have had the RIGHT to secede, doing so would absolutely destroy what the founding fathers had sought to create, so you can’t appeal to the founding fathers to justify such a dissolution. They said, “United We Stand, Divided We Fall.” Therefore, the North was also fighting for its own national survival. But how do you fight for your national survival when you must subvert the principles of your nation to do so? The South spared the North that dilemma by making its secession patently illegal. By attacking Fort Sumter without first pressing for a legal settlement of outstanding issues, the South made its actions those of insurrection, not self-defense.
(By outstanding issues, I mean at the very least, standard divorce issues: who owns what, etc.)
Huh? Can you expand on this statement?
No hijacking please. The point of the post was to show that Lincoln endorsed the national legalization of slavery through an Amendment to the United States Constitution.
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.