Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809

VA Viper ^ | 02/11/2018 | Harpygoddess

[harpygoddess]

It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of the people, can be strong enough to maintain its existence in great emergencies.

~ Lincoln

February 12 is the anniversary of the birth of the 16th - and arguably the greatest - president of these United States, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865). Born in Kentucky and raised in Illinois, Lincoln was largely self-educated and became a country lawyer in 1836, having been elected to the state legislature two years earlier. He had one term in the U.S. Congress (1847-1849) but failed (against Stephen A. Douglas) to gain election to the Senate in 1856. Nominated by the Republican party for the presidency in 1860, he prevailed against the divided Democrats, triggering the secession of the southern states and the beginning of the Civil War. As the course of the war turned more favorably for the preservation of the Union, Lincoln was elected to a second term in 1864, but was assassinated in April 1865, only a week after the final victory.

[BroJoeK]

Mollypitcher1: "Lincoln had to come up with an excuse and settled on emancipation as the best way to sway public opinion away from the states rights issue as well as the monetary issues"

Northern Republican public opinion had no interest in either your "states rights" or "monetary issues".
They did care about preserving the Union and also about emancipation.
But Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was, strictly speaking, a military measure intended to both reduce African-American support for Confederates and at the same time increase their support for the Union, to include enlistments as soldiers.

Mollypitcher1: "Some southern states had been GUARANTEED the right to withdraw from the Union should they see fit AFTER agreeing to the Constitution and signing it.
What happened to that guarantee?
Lincoln ignored it."

I've seen no such guarantee made to anybody ever.
Sounds like somebody's mythology.
More important, secession did not start Civil War, Fort Sumter and the Confederate Declaration of War (May 6, 1861) did.

Mollypitcher1: "You state emancipation was important to many Unionists.
IF it was so important, why were slaves in the Unionist (northern states) NOT included in the Emancipation??????
Not to include the slave brokers located in the north!!!"

Many but not all Northerners cared a lot about emancipation and were willing to serve to bring it about.
But constitutionally, President Lincoln could only declare emancipation of slaves (as "contraband") of those in rebellion against the United States.
All others required passage of the 13th Amendment, which Lincoln did live long enough to see.

[Bull Snipe]

History degree from Washington State University. Thirty year career Naval Officer. Civil War buff from 1960 as a 7th grader. Was a Civil War re-enactor for 20 years. Commanded the only Yankee infantry company (Co A. 79th New York) in Tidewater Virginia, where I live. Did Confederate when required.

[BroJoeK]

CodeToad: "..."the FF we’re paranoid, and rightly so...
They stated very clearly they felt the States were going to split and that would be the end of the union.
Stop being so damned juvenile and argumentative."

Says suddenly juvenilely argumentative CodeToad, because you just refuse to confess that your word "paranoid" regarding our Founders was simply inappropriate.
They were far from "paranoid", they were realistic and, yes, idealistic too.

[Ambrosia]

Awesome!

[Ambrosia]

I am in NC, so you are north from me...lol I was USNR for many years and enjoyed it all, now retired. Former CJ Instructor at CC. Your knowledge is extremely obvious. Thanks for reply!

[CodeToad]

“Rebellion is what the South did in 1861-1865. “

They attacked their fellow States?? You’re an idiot for saying such nonsense.

[Bulwyf]

I don’t know what to tell you, you’ve either got some excellent rose coloured glasses on, or you don’t know history.

Too many Hollywood movies then?

[BroJoeK]

CommerceComet: "Proverbs 26:4 came to my mind."

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him."

I love Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, chapter 11, it begins: "I hope you will put up with me in a little foolishness."

I could only aspire to be so foolish...

[Bull Snipe]

70 years old now, looking forward to the next thread on the FR

[BroJoeK]

Bulwyf: "The horror stories from the day were the exception, not the norm."

Agreed, and proof positive is the statistical fact that slave populations increased just as fast as free-whites nationwide.
So there was nothing remotely resembling the sort of slave-labor practiced by, for examples, Stalin's Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.

Still the fact remains that no Northern freed blacks, so far as we know, ever voluntarily went back into Southern slavery.
That has to tell you something.

[Bull Snipe]

Try reading, its enlightening.

[Ambrosia]

ROFL.... 1947? What day?

[DoodleDawg]

They attacked their fellow States??

Yup

You’re an idiot for saying such nonsense.

You're an idiot for denying it.

[BroJoeK]

Bulwyf: "The union pressed them into service for cannon fodder hence the reason many escaped into Canada."

Nooooooo....
About 200,000 black soldiers served the Union Army during the Civil War.
Of those roughly half were Northern freed-blacks and half were Southern escaped slaves, aka "contraband".

So far as I know, all enlisted voluntarily, possibly for better pay than they would make as ordinary workmen building, for example, Union fortifications.
I don't think any were drafted.

As for fleeing to Canda, that was before the Civil War, using the so-called Underground Railroad to escape Federal slave-catchers in Northern states.
That would certainly have ended with the coming of war.

Bulwyf: "While we’re on topic, let’s talk about how many more white slaves there were and how much more poorly treated they were."

What you call "white slaves" in North America (as opposed to, say, Africa) were in fact Indentured Servants who (usually) voluntarily sold themselves into slavery for a limited time in order to pay off debts, especially the cost of transportation to America.
I think before 1800 about half of immigrants to America arrived here as indentured servants.

Typical indentured service was seven years, then the servants were free to marry and/or move on to a better life elsewhere.
That is a vastly different situation than African-American chattel slavery.

Bulwyf: "Slavery is wrong regardless of skin color, but I’m tired of hearing about one small percentage of it, and how everyone should owe them."

I can almost guarantee you that every living human being, if they could trace back far enough in their family trees would find both kings & slaves, princes & paupers, saints & sinners, scholars & fools, and so could claim or pay reparations for each.

In other words: it's all ludicrous.

Bulwyf: "There’s a few prominent black folks that are thankful their ancestors got on the boat."

I'd be certain there are no African populations on earth better off economically than African-Americans, at least those who work.
It's why there's never been a great rush to escape the United States for other countries.

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: "It was necessity.
The majority, voting a tax upon the minority to which they themselves would not be subject.
The only just solution to that was separation."

Total nonsense, it never happened, nor did any for the Deep South secession documents -- i.e., "A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union." -- none mentioned that as their reason.

All explicitly said protecting slavery was their reason.

editor-surveyor: "Instead the constitution was demolished, and made subject to whim through ratification of amendment by the press (16th)."

The only demolition was done by Confederates and that 16th Amendment was ratified, first & foremost, by Solid South Democrat states.

So don't blame Lincoln, because it's all Democrats' fault.

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: "You swim in foolish ignorance!
The abundance of the west is what made railroads fiscally feasible."

Sorry, but in 1860 or 1865 there were no transcontinental railroads connecting California to the East.
The first transcontinental railroad came several years after the Civil War.

At the start of the Civil War the Union had about 21,000 miles or railroad, Confederates 8,000 miles.

US railroads in 1860:

[BroJoeK]

Bulwyf: "I don’t know what to tell you, you’ve either got some excellent rose coloured glasses on, or you don’t know history.
Too many Hollywood movies then?"

But Bull Snipe has that point exactly right, so what exactly is your problem, FRiend?

[Ambrosia]

Never mind, I’m too tired, I would not answer that either... same age. Have good evening...

[Bulwyf]

My problem to go back to the start is the civil war was about centralizing power in DC. The propagandists of the day made it about slavery, but it wasn’t. You can cherry pick quotes all day, but at the end of it all, state’s rights went straight downhill after that.

You fast forward to today, and look at the federal behemoth now. That was all born in 1865.

That is the basis of my problem. To talk about it further would require an actual meeting. There’s too many different points and ramifications from that to type about.

[editor-surveyor]

.
You continue to battle your strawman and false opinions, rather than address the fact that the wast was booming.

You live in a paper mache world.