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]

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln didn't go so far as murder, but he certainly engaged in dirty tricks to win the nomination."

Nothing in the least out of the ordinary for that time, and pretty mild compared some more recent shenanigans.
The fact remains that no Republican majority could be found for any of the other candidates -- i.e., Seward, Cameron, Chase, Bates, etc.
Lincoln rose from 2nd place (after Seward) on the first ballot to first place on the third, after which a solid majority switched to Lincoln.
Nothing unusual for that time, and certainly no colluuuuuuuusion with Russians!

Lincoln won fair & square.

[DiogenesLamp]

In fact, as DiogenesLamp happily points out, had Confederates won they would have strong claims to states like Illinois, Indiana & Iowa whose exports shipped down the Mississippi to New Orleans. Washington. DC, itself could become the Confederate capital, surrounded by Confederate states. The rump US capital would once again flee north, to Philadelphia or New York. So North America would split up into its several constituent parts and the United States would be no more:

Not exactly my argument, but not that far off. The South would have come to dominate the Western and border states, and those would have eventually come into it's political orbit, but none of this would have happened immediately. It would have taken decades.

Lincoln knew the threat that the South posed, and that's why he knew he had to keep places like Kentucky and Missouri from joining the South. Had those gone, others would have eventually gone too.

[DiogenesLamp]

Note my response in post #119 above.

Yes, it was being nice to the Germans that caused them to want revenge on the world.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You should read up on the law of contracts. "Intent" has not a D@mn thing to do with it.
What you wrote down and to which you agreed in writing is all that is required to hold you to the letter."

Wrong, wrong, wrong!
What those words meant at the time, and what the authors meant by them is all important.
Your pathetic ability to redefine those words to suit your own desires is ruled contemptible & out of order.

When I was a boy we learned there were "strict interpretations" and "loose interpretations" of the US Constitution, and the "loose interpretations" always won, making the constitution mean whatever "progressives" of the time wished.

Today, thanks to Justice Scalia & others, "strict interpretation" is replaced by the term "originalism" which has a different approach & meaning.

My argument here is that "original intent" is found not only in Founding documents, but also in Founders' writings and their actions after forming the Republic of 1788.

I think it's fair to say that the word "conservative" is defined as: starting with Founders' Original Intent.

You disagree?

[DiogenesLamp]

Northerners recognized that "property" was a stand-in for wealth said, in effect, "OK, if you wish to count your wealth for representation purposes, then we should also count ours -- our livestock or ships, etc." Of course slave-holders would have none of that -- Democrats are always inconsistent -- and so settled on 3/5.

They debated slavery at the Constitutional convention, and the Northern Delegates compromised on the issue. Had they refused to do so, the South would have never ratified the Constitution.

If they didn't like the terms, they shouldn't have agreed to them.

[DiogenesLamp]

Among the many fallacies in DiogenesLamp's arguments are these: Secessionists in 1861 did not simply "defend their homeland", they invaded Union states, Union territories and Unionist regions of secessionist states.

Pray tell, in what incident did the forces of the Confederate army invade Union states prior to the Union starting a war with them?

The Union army did invade Southern states first. I know of no incidents in which the Confederate Army invaded Union states first.

[DiogenesLamp]

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!!!

That the war was fought for Slave freedom is just propaganda, and it always was. It was the 1860s equivalent of Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia!

Yes, the Union states still had slavery after they had stopped all slavery in the South.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln's resupply ships were not intended to attack confederates, nor did they.

Their orders said they were to attack. So far as the Confederates could tell, the trigger was already pulled back on April 5, when Lincoln sent them out with orders to attack.

That they did not attack was completely the result of the command ship being given secret orders to not show up at Charleston. Nobody knew the command ship was not going to show up, because all the orders of which anyone knew said that they would lead the attack.

Very clever trick to start a war by convincing the enemy that you were going to attack them.

[DiogenesLamp]

You may not like the fact, but the Founder's justification for seceding from England was the belief that men had a natural law right to independence. This should have been the established paradigm for the United States, because it would have been consistent with the principle of it's own founding.

Opposing the foundation principle of natural rights is rebellion.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "In my previous message I noted how you were disregarding what was actually written down on paper in favor of some "intent".
Well you are doing it again here.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states that people have a right to independence for whatever reasons they see fit."

First of all, Founders' Original Intent is the only thing which matters, not your alacrity & talent for redefining & reinterpreting what you whish they'd said.
Second, the Declaration says no such thing as, "for whatever reasons they see fit."

Far from it, the Declaration goes to great lengths to explain the necessity which forced them to act:

1. "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve... "

2. "...Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."

3. "We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

DiogenesLamp: "It mentions no 'necessity', and it D@mn sure doesn't conform to your 'mutual consent' crap that you keep spouting.
There was no 'Mutual Consent' to break from England, and there was no 'Necessity' to do so either."

There certainly was necessity in 1776 and mutual consent in 1788.
Those are the conditions our Founders believed acceptable for disunion.
No Founder -- not one -- ever supported unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession "at pleasure", or in DiogenesLamp's words, for: "whatever reasons they see fit".

[DiogenesLamp]

Both only acted (Buchanan ineffectively) to stop Confederate aggression against the United States.

Telling people to get out of a fortress that overlooks the entrance to one of their most important harbors is not an act of aggression against the United States. Burning cannons at one fort at which they had been told would be turned over to the confederates peaceably and sneaking into this other fort in the dead of night, are acts of aggression against the Confederates.

[DiogenesLamp]

Worth noting here that Kettell's 1856 book "Southern Wealth and Northern Profits" was not intended to justify secession, but was used by secessionists for that purpose.

Facts don't have "intent." That the facts support the claims by the South do not lessen their truth.

It is a foundation document on which many of DiogenesLamp's misunderstandings are based.

It proves that the bulk of European money was coming from Southern exports, but all the money was being filtered through New York. It showed me something that clearly did not make any sense unless someone had cleverly manipulated conditions to produce such a result.

They had.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "It wasn't manned until Anderson made the decision to man it, *AFTER* South Carolina had declared independence.
Burning the cannons at Ft. Moultrie and seizing Fort Sumter were deliberate and hostile acts taken by the Union forces against the South. "

Anderson merely moved his troops from Union fort to another.
South Carolinians then lawlessly seized the fort Anderson abandoned.

DiogenesLamp: "So the principle that the 'Union must be preserved' was negotiable?
Then it wasn't a 'Principle.'
It was a bargaining chip. "

So what do you think, if Lincoln traded Fort Sumter for a promise by Virginia not to succeed, would that be just a "bargaining chip" or a "principle" preserved?

Personally, I think it would have been a good bargain to preserve the Union.

You disagree?

DiogenesLamp: "Interestingly enough, Representatives of Virginia came to Lincoln after his flotilla of warships had already been sent to start a war with the South, and they told him that Virginia would agree to remain in the Union in exchange for the other states being permitted to leave peaceably.
Lincoln was said to have replied 'Too late! You are too late sir!' "

Totally apocryphal, not vouched for by any reputable historian.
In fact, in Lincoln's last meeting with Virginia's Unionist delegates, they informed him they could neither disband their secession convention nor promise not to succeed.

[DiogenesLamp]

Protecting slavery was the issue used to sell secession to the vast majority of Southerners.

That may be true. I've read that this was a contemporaneous claim elsewhere. Even the Northern newspapers noted this was likely a propaganda technique to win support for secession, with the real reason being economic independence.

As Lincoln was going to protect slavery, it didn't really make any sense to say you were going to leave so that slavery would be protected, but populations are not always rational about what motivates them.

Still a Confederacy without slavery was inconceivable to Confederate leaders, thus preventing them from following the Union's example and enlisting African-Americans as real soldiers.

They attempted it at the end, but by then it was too late.

So it's simply disingenuous to pretend slavery was not important to Confederates especially, but also to Unionists.

It's disingenuous to pretend it was important to the Unionists. They didn't get rid of their own slavery until six months after they got rid of the South's Slavery, and they probably only did it because after getting rid of the South's slavery (probably only for revenge) it made them look hypocritical to keep their own.

At one time I believed they got rid of slavery because they believed that men should be free. Now I suspect they only did it because they wanted to break the South's economic power, to impoverish it's wealthy, and to create a political class that would support them in elections.

In other words, all for less moral reasons than "freedom."

[DiogenesLamp]

What Diogenes doesn't take away from this: Americans will elect a conservative president, if the conservative candidate is New York City (or Los Angeles) enough.

That disposes of all his relentless NYC bashing.

No it doesn't. That Trump turned out to be an enemy of the ruling class is just an amazing stroke of luck for us. It was all the more probable that he would do their bidding instead of fighting them.

The New York controlled media hates him with an insane passion. They are good little attack dogs for their masters.

[DoodleDawg]

You’re confused!

Not uncommon when dealing with the Confederate supporters. So let's unconfuse things if possible. When you said "the majority, voting a tax upon the minority to which they themselves would not be subject" what exactly did you mean?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "No, it's filled with euphemisms, but no honest reading of the document could conclude it meant anything other than slaves.
It used nicey nice language to mean slaves, but it was talking about slaves none the less."

No, unlike the Confederate Constitution, when the US Constitution used a term like "Person held to Service or Labour", it could refer to African slaves, indentured servants or prisoners.
By contrast, the Confederate Constitution made clear when it referred specifically to African slaves.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks for responding to that. I've been busy the last few days and frankly, there was so much wrong with his comments and analogies, I wasn't quite sure where to start.

You mean they contradict your world view which had been taught to you all your life.

There is nothing wrong with my salient point. The South did not invade the North. The North did invade the South with the intent to conquer it.

Those people who defended their lands were justified in fighting against the invaders. It is the invaders who should be criticized for bringing their violence against people who had done them no wrong.

[DiogenesLamp]

And they may not have, except they started & declared war on the United States and that sealed their fate.

Your numbers are all off, and it was the North that started the War. The South had no benefit to be had from War. The North was going to lose millions of dollars if they didn't have one.

The prospect of losing that money (and the possibility that other states would join the South) is why the North went to war.

[DiogenesLamp]

The US GDP nearly doubled during the Civil War and doubled again by 1892, during which time US Federal spending remained roughly 2.5% of the economy.

I've seen this discussion before. You are ignoring the effect of massive inflation caused by the government policy of borrowing and spending. (I wonder who was doing the loaning?)

There's no statistical evidence the percentage of corruption increased, though it's entirely possible the beneficiaries changed from pre-war 100% Democrats to later include some small percentage of Republicans, and that, we can be certain, is the source of endless Democrat caterwauling about alleged "Gilded Age Corruption".

In 1860, the Republicans *were* the Democrats. Big City, Liberal, Wealthy, colluding with Government, protectionist, tax and spend. Yup, Democrats.