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: "Oh good.
You've raised your admitted value of Southern exports from 50% up to 60%. Perhaps if you keep doing your research, you will raise them up to the 73% that I cite from that book, or even up to the 83% that another Freeper says..."

As always, you only read the part you wanted to see.
In fact, in post #488 I proved that "Southern exports" were nowhere near that supposed 60% because when "Southern exports" ended 100% in 1861 the net reduction on US total exports was only 30%!

There is simply no possible way for "Southern exports" to have been 83% or 72% or even 60% when their elimination only reduced total US exports by 30%.

Wrap your mind around that one, FRiend.

[x]

Are you aware that at this time in history the entire Caribbean and much of Central and South America had the bulk of all slave operations?

Britain had freed its slaves in the West Indies in 1834. France freed its slaves in the West Indies in 1848. The Danes did the same in the same year, the Dutch in 1863.

Most of the South American and Central American countries abolished slavery when they became independent or shortly afterwards. Brazil and the remaining Spanish colonies still had slavery, but they were (with the US) the exceptions, not the rule.

So what the heck are you talking about, Diogenes?

________

Would there have been another war?

Probably. War over the western territories was possible. So was war over the Border States. There would have been anti-slavery and pro-secession militants active in the border areas. Sooner or later there would have been a clash that would serve as a justification for war.

There also could have been a Confederate war with Spain or Mexico or Central America over the expansion of slavery. Either the US or Britain might have gotten involved in such a war.

[BroJoeK]

BJK: "In sum, 'the South' was certainly important economically, but just not as important as they imagined..."

DiogenesLamp: "Your statement above is based on what happened, rather than what would have happened had they been left alone."

But your claim is that "the South" produced 72% or 83% of all US exports and the facts of 1861 decisively disprove your claims.
In fact, in 1861 when "the South" was totally eliminated from US exports, they fell only 30% net.
Further, the Union's GDP quickly recovered and then nearly doubled by 1865, again demonstrating conclusively that "the South" was not as important as they had imagined.

Oh, you say, that's only because of the Union blockade and army invasions.
I take you to mean that: if Confederates had been allowed to force their wills on the United States, then the Confederate economy would have done much better and the Union economy worse.

Answer: maybe, but history doesn't provide real answers to such counter-factual speculations.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran: "I know we are getting into what if territory here, but I think the most likely outcome if the confederacy had been successful in their attempt at breaking away from the union would be another war between the US and the CS within 10-20 years."

Had there been no Fort Sumter, then any number of Confederate military actions in 1861 would soon enough have started war anyway, including:

1. Confederate military operations in Union Missouri.
2. Confederate military actions against Union Fort Pickens, Florida.
3. Confederate invasion of Union Oklahoma territory.
4. Confederate invasion of Union New Mexico territory.
5. Confederate military operations in Western Virginia.
6. Confederate invasion of Union Kentucky.
7. Confederate actions against Union forces in Union Maryland.
8. Confederate actions against Unionists in places like Eastern Tennessee.

This list could go on, but there's a start, with my point being war was almost certain, regardless of Fort Sumter.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Good, good.
We are now up to 61%. I've seen a 1% increase in your estimate in just the last 20 minutes of reading your messages. :) "

Nonsense, you've simply ignored the fact that even the 61% reported by my source is certainly wrong, proved wrong by the fact that US exports declined only 30% net when all "Southern products" were eliminated, in 1861.

The real number for "Southern products" in 1860 was just 30%, not 50%, not 61% and certainly not the 72% or 83% you claim.
All reports of "Southern products" greater than 30% are simply including exports that were in fact produced elsewhere.

So your whole economic justification theory is based on lies, FRiend.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "If the United States accepted the idea that the populations of states have a right to become independent, "and to institute new Government..."

See my post #564 above to learn why no such thing could ever happen.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp on Germany: "We are still occupying them.
I have little doubt that were we to leave, there is a good chance the Germans would go back to making trouble again."

So, given your theory of German national psyches (though I disagree), you do agree that our behavior after the Second World War was, in effect, nicer than after the First, implying that's just what we should have done in 1918.

And in that you would be agreeing with such brilliant American minds of that time as US Commanding General John Pershing and our young assistant Secretary of the Navy, a handsome lad with a great future, one Franklin D. Roosevelt.

DiogenesLamp: "They seemingly have a preference for dictators."

Ach, so! Muttie Merkle eine Diktator?!

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp on the 1787 Constitution convention: "More like they pragmatically did what they thought was necessary to present a stronger front against the possibility of England changing it's mind about their secession. "

But in 1787 there was no possible way for Brits to "change their minds" about US independence, since they had already fought & lost a six year, very expensive war to prevent independence.
And with the French Revolution threatening, Brits were in no condition economically or militarily to take on another war against Americans in 1787.

Rather the need for "a more perfect Union" was clearly demonstrated by factors much closer to home, including:

1. Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts.
2. Accumulating state & national war-debts.
3. Inter-state rivalries in commerce, tariffs, territories and finances.
4. British occupation of US Northwest Territories.

For starters...

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "This is what I have come to realize.
The power block that influenced Lincoln to launch a war against the South to preserve it's money dominance, and which involved itself in all the corrupt dealings subsequent to the Civil War, is still in power today."

What you "realize" is nothing more than a fantasy, born of your self-loathing and hatred for true American history, which you don't respect enough even to learn in some detail.

Naturally, I don't blame you for that, but rather our self-destructive public education system which, when it's not producing the occasional Nikolas Cruz is pumping out great rivers of kids taught to hate themselves, their country and everything that's good.

But that is not Lincoln's fault.
If anyone in particular, it would be far more Lincoln's younger European contemporary: Karl Marx.
But even that is going to far, since with changes we see today are more recent, born of FDR's New Deal and the 1960s radicals...

My hope is that at some point you'd give up on Lost Causer nonsense and start to study what really happened.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "April 12 comes before June 10. The Union sent their troops and warships to Charleston in early April."

Which would have accomplished their resupply mission without war had Jefferson Davis wanted that.

DiogenesLamp: "Besides, the battle of Big Bethel took place in Virginia, which you may or may not have noticed was part of the Confederacy by this time. "

And which had formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.

DiogenesLamp: "The Confederates did not kill those soldiers.
Error on the part of the Union forces in Sumter is what killed those men."

But Confederates did rain death & destruction on Fort Sumter, forcing its surrender which lead to those Union deaths.

DiogenesLamp: "But I can see why you would want to grasp at straws to justify the Union invading."

But there was no Union "invasion" of any Confederate state until after the Confederacy formally declared war, May 6, 1861.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "It wasn't the reason the Union went to war with the South. Money was the reason the Union went to war with the South."

Repeat that as often as you wish, it's still fake news, can never be anything else.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "There is no rational explanation for the behavior of Lieutenant David Porter and his secret orders from Lincoln except to deliberately mislead the Confederates as to the intentions of that war fleet and troops."

Only in your fever-swamp conspiracy theory fantasies, since you assume Confederates immediately knew everything Union forces did and that Federals knew Confederates knew, such that Lincoln's mix-up in orders to Porter could also mislead Jefferson Davis!

That's just nuts.
Occam's razor says the simplest explanation is best: the new President (as new Presidents are want to do) mixed up his instructions with the end result that Fort Pickens was saved and Fort Sumter lost.

Jefferson Davis and Jefferson Davis alone, nobody else, is responsible for Jefferson Davis' actions, period.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I keep repeating what the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE explicitly says.
If they didn't believe that, why did they write it down and send it to England?"

But of course you don't.
You only repeat those few words out of context which support your own fantasies.
The full context shows that's not what they meant at all.

And you well know it, but prefer your own fantasies, so continue to deny it.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The constitution was specifically referring to slavery.
There is no need to tell states to respect criminal convictions (prisoners) or contract law (indentured servants) of other states."

And there was no need to mention slaves either, except that Southerners insisted on it.
Still our Founders went to lengths not to refer directly to African slaves, even though Southerners insisted that's who they must mean.
Of the two places (only 2) where slaves are meant:

1. the 3/5 rule can only refer to slaves.
2. escaped fugitives can refer to indentured servants, prisoners or slaves.

By stark contrast, the Confederate Constitution referred to African slaves specifically a dozen times.
It shows a distinct difference between the 1787 Founding generation and that of 1861 Fire Eater secessionists.

[BroJoeK]

Well, that’s enough fun-time for me for now.

Now it’s back to work for a few days.

Enjoy!

[rockrr]

Interesting reading - I admire your patience!

[OIFVeteran]

I just saw this last night and thought it was brilliant. Like all good humor it also makes a statement. And if I was black I would do this, except for the last part.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldMb_TZtq0c

[rockrr]

OK, that was funny!

[DiogenesLamp]

I just saw this last night and thought it was brilliant. Like all good humor it also makes a statement. And if I was black I would do this, except for the last part.

Just another case of people trying to push the same propaganda that the war was about slavery. They don't make this sort of mockery about Union troops regarding Missouri, or Maryland, or Kentucky, or any other Union slave state.

They mock the Confederates with this lie for the same reason the Nazis mocked the Polish people. Because they put up a serious fight against overwhelming odds against them.

Rank and file confederates fought because someone invaded their homeland, but the liars and history revisionists want people to believe the Union were the good guys, so they spread the propaganda that the Confederate soldiers were fighting to preserve the slavery that Lincoln already said he would preserve if they didn't fight him.

[rockrr]

So there’s one That’s Funny and one sourpuss. Anyone else?