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.

[DoodleDawg]

The majority, voting a tax upon the minority to which they themselves would not be subject.

Huh? Are you suggesting that the Northern states were not subject to the tariff? Really?

[Mollypitcher1]

BroJoeK: “Northern Republican public opinion had no interest in either your “states rights” or “monetary issues”.
..........................
Naturally they didn’t care. they were NOT among the states that had to be persuaded to join the Union and sign the Constitution on the promise they could withdraw if their sovereignty came into question. You need to study more.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
BroJoeK: “Sounds like somebody’s mythology.”
......................

Your mythology is that Lincoln was the “Saint” of the time and that the southern states were the evil doers. Study the REAL history of the time the country was “born.” Revisionists have had a field day on our history.
...........................
BroJoeK:secession did not start Civil War, Fort Sumter and the Confederate Declaration of War (May 6, 1861) did.
..................
Lincoln IGNORED the peace seeking delegation sent by the southern states to negotiate the purchase of Ft. Sumter and any other Federal possessions within the southern states. He REFUSED to meet with them. He then sent a MILITARY CONVOY to resupply Ft. Sumter with men, arms, food, etc. He FORCED the Confederacy to attack the Fort before the convoy could arrive. Lincoln is clearly responsible for forcing the attack on Sumter.
He also got word from a union SPY that Maryland, a border state, planned to join the Confederacy and sent troops to ARREST the duly elected Marylanders so that they could not meet and officially secede from the Union. (Washington, D.C. is built on Maryland soil.) War was his intention although he thought it would be very short in duration.

[rockrr]

He FORCED the Confederacy to attack the Fort before the convoy could arrive. Lincoln is clearly responsible for forcing the attack on Sumter.

ah.the old "Linkum made me do it" dodge. How embarrassing for you. What they were doing was wrong and Lincoln had no obligation to entertain any delegations so long as they imposed the precondition that they be regarded as a separate nation instead of what they were: states in insurrection.

[DoodleDawg]

Lincoln IGNORED the peace seeking delegation sent by the southern states to negotiate the purchase of Ft. Sumter and any other Federal possessions within the southern states. He REFUSED to meet with them. He then sent a MILITARY CONVOY to resupply Ft. Sumter with men, arms, food, etc. He FORCED the Confederacy to attack the Fort before the convoy could arrive. Lincoln is clearly responsible for forcing the attack on Sumter. He also got word from a union SPY that Maryland, a border state, planned to join the Confederacy and sent troops to ARREST the duly elected Marylanders so that they could not meet and officially secede from the Union. (Washington, D.C. is built on Maryland soil.) War was his intention although he thought it would be very short in duration.

It never ceases to amaze my how you Confederate supporters can cram so much false information into a single post. Bravo! Well done!

[Mollypitcher1]

Every statement I made is backed up by history. Stop continually showing your IGNORANCE!

[Mollypitcher1]

They were expressing their rights and looking for a peaceful solution.

[BroJoeK]

Bulwyf: "My problem to go back to the start is the civil war was about centralizing power in DC."

Sorry, but that's just total nonsense -- mythology invented after the fact to explain the inexplicable.
In fact, when the first seven Deep South states declared secession, none of them said anything about "centralizing power in DC".
All said they thought Northerners were aiming a "blow" at their "peculiar institution", slavery.
Specifically, that "blow" was restricting the expansion of slavery in the western territories.

But secessionists imagined "Black Republicans" would do far worse and that made secession important in their minds.

Bulwyf: " 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."

More mythology, not historical facts.
In fact, after Civil War reconstruction "states rights" remained as before, excepting the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.
You may remember the presidential election of 1876 was so close Democrats were able to extract the new President's promise to remove Federal troops from former Confederate states, allowing Southerners to become what they most wanted to be: Jim Crow, black laws & KKK enforcement squads.
So the South had all the "states rights" they wanted, and what did they do with them?
Well, among others they lead the charge to ratify the 16th Amendment.

Sure, the South was more reluctant with the 17th Amendment, but in the end only four Deep South and one each Upper South and Border State refused to ratify it.

So you just can't claim the South has been this conservative bastion against Big Government, because it just hasn't.
What's much more true is that the South has acted just like Democrats -- always looking to extract more out of Big Government than they contribute to it.

That's not conservative, that's just the swamp doing its swampy thang.

[BroJoeK]

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."

Total nonsense unless by "booming" you refer to California gold and Nevada silver, then sure.
But in 1860, in a nation with over 30 million people, fewer than 400,000 lived in California and fewer than 10,000 in Nevada.
The entire Far West's population was barely 600,000 or 2% of the nation's total.
And, in 1860 there were no transcontinental railroads connecting the Far West to the Mid-West.

Of course, gold & silver were very important indeed, not trying to minimize them.
But in 1860 the Far West was still basically the Empty Quarter in terms of the nation's population & economy.

Do you disagree?

[rockrr]

I suppose some could somehow claim a “right” to make war on their own country but it’s remarkably foolish to say in the same breath that they sought any peaceful solution other than a complete capitulation by the legitimate government of the United States.

They knew what they were inciting but didn’t care - until they were brought to heel.

[BroJoeK]

Mollypitcher1: "Naturally they didn’t care.
they were NOT among the states that had to be persuaded to join the Union and sign the Constitution on the promise they could withdraw if their sovereignty came into question.
You need to study more."

Well, first of all, no state's "sovereignty" was in question in 1860 when Deep South Fire Eaters began organizing to declare secession.
So no promise was ever broken.

But more important, no such promise was ever made because none could ever be kept.
There is certainly no signed document to that effect anywhere.

Mollypitcher1: "Your mythology is that Lincoln was the 'Saint' of the time and that the southern states were the evil doers.
Study the REAL history of the time the country was 'born.'
Revisionists have had a field day on our history."

From the beginning, mythologizing revisionists were the Lost Causers who invented "facts" long afterwards to explain the inexplicable.
As for Confederate leaders being "evil-doers", well... there is that little matter of the war they started, waged and refused to stop fighting until some 700,000 American soldiers died.
For month after month, year after year, Confederate leaders refused any better terms than Unconditional Surrender.
Sure that's a heavy burden for anyone to bear, but they did bring it on themselves.

Mollypitcher1: "Lincoln IGNORED the peace seeking delegation sent by the southern states to negotiate the purchase of Ft. Sumter and any other Federal possessions within the southern states.
He REFUSED to meet with them."

Sure, just like the Brits in the 1770s ignored Dr. Franklin, sent by the good citizens of Philadelphia to negotiate better terms for American colonists.
But the Brits ignored Franklin for 10 years, and for 10 years Franklin kept trying to negotiate better terms.
Without success.
So when Franklin finally returned to Philadelphia in 1776 it was to help write the Declaration of Independence.

So, just like Philadelphians, Confederates sent emissaries to Washington, who like Franklin worked for 10 years to negotiate a better deal, right?
No, wait, it wasn't 10 years for Confederates, was it one year?
Was it even a full month?
How many days did those Confederate emissaries actually stay to negotiate, before heading home to declare war on the United States?
Not very many, suggesting first: they weren't really very serious about it.

Second: those Confederate emissaries' precondition for meeting was the implied recognition of Confederate sovereignty over states they claimed, something neither Democrat President Buchanan nor Republican President Lincoln ever did.
Constitutionally, the body charged with deciding disposition of Federal properties is the US Congress, not the President, but those emissaries never went to Congress, thus demonstrating again they weren't serious.

Mollypitcher1: "He then sent a MILITARY CONVOY to resupply Ft. Sumter with men, arms, food, etc.
He FORCED the Confederacy to attack the Fort before the convoy could arrive.
Lincoln is clearly responsible for forcing the attack on Sumter."

I hear that from a lot of our pro-Confederates, but it's sheer nonsense.
First of all those ships were sent to resupply Union troops in Union Fort Sumter -- equivalent today to US forces at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
And like the Commie Cubans Confederates then didn't recognize our right to be there.
But if the Commie Cubans threaten war and then start war because of US resupply ships in Guantanamo Bay, that war will be on them, just as the Civil War is on Jefferson Davis.

And Davis well knew it at the time.
His Secretary of State, Robert Toombs warned him accurately:

"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."[15]

Mollypitcher1: "He also got word from a union SPY that Maryland, a border state, planned to join the Confederacy and sent troops to ARREST the duly elected Marylanders so that they could not meet and officially secede from the Union.
(Washington, D.C. is built on Maryland soil.) "

But there's more to this story.
For example, did you know the Maryland legislature voted on April 29, 1861 against secession by 53-13, four to one?
And what happened just a week later?
That's right the Confederate Congress formally declared war against the United States, May 6, 1861.
Now, did you study your Constitution enough to learn the definition of "treason"?
Well, here it is:

Article3, Section 1: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

So, according to the Constitution, what was any Marylander who supported secession after May 6, 1861?
That's right, treasonous.
And what does the Constitution say about rebellion?

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

So, in extraordinary circumstances the government can take extraordinary actions, and what circumstances were ever more extraordinary than those in 1861?

Mollypitcher1: "War was his intention although he thought it would be very short in duration."

No, from Day One, Lincoln's intention was to avoid war, just as he promised in his First Inaugural Address:

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war.
The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. "

Lincoln did not want war and would not start war, but he did provide Jefferson Davis with the opportunity to start Civil War, and Davis took it without hesitation.

Big mistake.

[DoodleDawg]

Every statement I made is backed up by history. Stop continually showing your IGNORANCE!

LOL! Opinion is not history.

[Mollypitcher1]

Not my “opinion.” Strictly Historical FACT!

[DoodleDawg]

Not my “opinion.” Strictly Historical FACT!

Lol! Not hardly.

[DoodleDawg]

[Mollypitcher1]

Blah blah blah completely ignoring the FACT that when the Constitution was ratified, certain southern states were assured they could withdraw should their sovereignty be challenged. This was NOT in the 1860’s as you have inferred. The Constitution was signed in 1787 and did not take effect until March 4, 1789. 1860’s were a long time later.

[Mollypitcher1]

Glad you at least have a camel to talk to.

[Mollypitcher1]

insist all you wish. Your stupidity is showing.

[DoodleDawg]

...ignoring the FACT that when the Constitution was ratified, certain southern states were assured they could withdraw should their sovereignty be challenged.

That's not true either. At least you're consistent.

[rockrr]

The signing statements, tacked onto the ratification documents, were designed to allay fears regarding their great undertaking. They have no force of law. They were (and remain) merely symbolic gestures.

[BroJoeK]

Mollypitcher1: "Blah blah blah completely ignoring the FACT that when the Constitution was ratified, certain southern states were assured they could withdraw should their sovereignty be challenged."

Regardless of how often you repeat it, that's still mythology, not fact.
And you yourself can prove it by producing the document you claim exists making such a promise.

Take your time looking for it, I'll wait...

Mollypitcher1: "This was NOT in the 1860’s as you have inferred.
The Constitution was signed in 1787 and did not take effect until March 4, 1789.
1860’s were a long time later."

Right, got that, so Lincoln himself never made such a promise.
But who then, pay tell, did?

And while we're at it, what "challenge", exactly, existed in November 1860 against, say, South Carolina's "sovereignty"?