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.

[OIFVeteran]

The video says nothing about what the war was about. It, in a humorous way, shows the hypocrisy of confederate civil war reenacters. I have been to several civil war reenactment’s (went to the 150th Gettysburg re-enactment) and talk to many of them. They all talk about striving for authenticity, but until I saw this video I never realize that the confederate reenactors are missing a big piece of the authenticity. The slaves that we’re forced to accompany their masters to the army. I wonder why that is?

As far as your deluded opinions go I’ve had enough. Your myopic view of the civil war is laughable, but it’s a free country so you can continue with your tripe. Anyone who has studied the history of this country realizes that slavery was a problem from the beginning. Finally resulting in southern states rebelling after a free and fair election when a guy they didn’t like was elected. True the Union did not go to war to free the slaves, but to maintain the union. Freeing the slaves became a war aim later. But the southern fire eaters rebelled due to slavery and your twisting of facts will not change that.

I will say this though these discussions here and at other civil war sites have chained my views on the southern fire eaters. I use to despise them for attempting to destroy this country I love and served for 20+ years in the military, but I am now glad they did what they did. Because without the civil war I believe slavery would have lasted in this country well into the 20th century.

As Lincoln said in his second inaugural address;
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

[DoodleDawg]

Lost Causers are not known for their sense of humor.

[DoodleDawg]

Just another case of people trying to push the same propaganda that the war was about slavery

Or their grasp of history.

[DiogenesLamp]

The video says nothing about what the war was about. It, in a humorous way, shows the hypocrisy of confederate civil war reenacters.

No it doesn't. It shows what subsequent propagandists want to promote as the hypocrisy of confederate civil war reenacters. In that era and that culture, slavery was a given, and they didn't focus on it when their soldiers talked about why they were fighting. They talked of hearth and home, of family, of loyalty, or defending their homeland.

The hypocrisy of the Union in keeping slavery for six months longer than the Confederacy is seldom mentioned, and never made the butt of jokes, even though it is a far more glaring hypocrisy.

As far as your deluded opinions go I’ve had enough.

You've invested a lot of your life in believing that the people who you have always been told are the "good guys" really were the good guys, and you don't want to hear any proof or evidence that they were in fact the tools of despotism and empire from the same people we as conservatives are still fighting today.

People just want to believe what they want to believe, and for you to ever change, you will have to be bugged by facts that don't make any sense, the same way I was for many years.

Anyone who has studied the history of this country realizes that slavery was a problem from the beginning.

But it wasn't why the Union went to war with the South. When you remove the "slavery" reason for going to war, what do you have left? How is what is left able to justify what happened?

But the southern fire eaters rebelled due to slavery and your twisting of facts will not change that.

Here is an example of one of those facts I mentioned above, that does not make any sense. Lincoln promised them slavery. They already had slavery. The Union kept slavery all through the war. How were they going to "rebel" over slavery?

I'm untwisting the facts. You can't claim people rebelled over something they already had, and something which would have continued to be protected had they not rebelled. To claim they rebelled over this does not make any sense.

Because without the civil war I believe slavery would have lasted in this country well into the 20th century.

Well duh. This is why I say it is the height of dishonesty to ignore the fact that the Union could not legally abolish slavery, and so slavery cannot honestly be claimed as the reason for attacking the South.

You also gloss over the dubious legality of abolishing it, ignoring evidence of the Lincoln government far exceeding it's constitutional authority to do such a thing. You like the result, and so you are willing to overlook the constitutional violations necessary to do it.

Why is the constitution important when it is used to achieve a result you want, (Justifying an invasion over the claim of "rebellion") but unimportant when it goes against a result you want? (Preventing the abolition of slavery.)

[rockrr]

Dealing with lost causers is like trying to play Chess with someone only familiar with tiddly-winks.

[DiogenesLamp]

Dealing with lost causers is like trying to play Chess with someone only familiar with tiddly-winks.

Yes it is, but I am still hoping that you will eventually graduate to chess.

:)

[rockrr]

And you to at least checkers.

[DiogenesLamp]

And you to at least checkers.

:)

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The hypocrisy of the Union in keeping slavery for six months longer than the Confederacy is seldom mentioned, and never made the butt of jokes, even though it is a far more glaring hypocrisy."

Your sensitivity to Northern "hypocrisy" is touching, very touching. </sarc>
And now you've now repeated your little insanity several times, just as if it was true and important.
It's neither.

1. By 1860 all Northern states, without exception, fully abolished slavery, voluntarily.

2. By 1860 no Southern state was even seriously considering voluntary abolition.

3. By early 1861 eleven slave-states declared secession, Confederacy and war on the United States, five slave-states remained loyal to the Union.

4. The US Constitution protected slavery in Union states, but not in states or regions in rebellion.
   So, in 1862 President Lincoln lawfully emancipated slaves of rebel Confederates as "contraband", enabling their service to the Union, including as volunteer colored troops (175 regiments = 180,000 men).
   But Lincoln had no constitutional power to emancipate slaves of loyal Americans, short of constitutional amendment, the 13th which Lincoln helped pass and was ratified in December 1865.

5. Confederate surrenders began at Appomattox CH on April 9, 1865 and continued -- over a dozen in total -- for months, the last for troops on June 23, 1865.
   On August 20, 1866 Democrat President Johnson declared the insurrection over.

6. In the mean time, by April 14, 1865, the 13th Amendment was ratified by 21 states, including Southern states of Maryland (loyal), West Virginia (loyal), Missouri (loyal), Virginia (Confederate), Louisiana (Conf.), Tennessee (Conf.) & Arkansas (Conf.).
   By December six more former Confederates ratified, including South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina & Georgia, thus confirming the Amendment, making it the Law of the Land.

7. In Union Kentucky about two-thirds of slaves were already freed before December 1865, the balance, around 82,000 were freed by 13th Amendment.
   In Union Delaware, about half slaves were already freed before December 1865, the balance, around 900 were freed by 13th Amendment.
   These numbers mean that 98% of slaves were already emancipated before final ratification of the 13th Amendment.

8. In future years the nine hold-out states also formally ratified, including Florida (C), Texas (C), Delaware (loyal), Kentucky (loyal: 1976) & Mississippi (C. 1995).

In summary:

1. By 1860 every Northern state had long since peacefully abolished slavery.
   
2. By April 14, 1865 seven slave-states ratified abolition, 13th amendment.
   
3. By July 1865 all seven Confederate states which had not yet ratified the 13th, had Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation forced on them.
   
4. By December 1865 abolition (13th Amendment) became the Law of the Land, including all loyal slave-states.
   
5. Three Confederate states and two loyal slave-states were forced the accept the 13th, despite not ratifying it by December 1865.
   All eventually did ratify.

So DiogenesLamp's often repeated claim of "hypocrisy" is just ludicrous.

[DiogenesLamp]

What part of the constitution gives him the power to do this? I would think this is flatly contradicted by Article IV, Section 2.

How does a President ignore a clear constitutional requirement? I know how a dictator does it, but how does a President do it?

[DoodleDawg]

What part of the constitution gives him the power to do this? I would think this is flatly contradicted by Article IV, Section 2.

The Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862, upheld by the Supreme Court.

[DiogenesLamp]

Overrides Article IV, Section 2, does it? Pretty neat trick for a law passed by Congress to actually override the Constitution itself.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "What part of the constitution gives him the power to do this? I would think this is flatly contradicted by Article IV, Section 2."

DoodleDawg: "The Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862, upheld by the Supreme Court."

People in rebellion, or at war against the United States, did not receive full protection of the Constitution, especially in matters relating to confiscations & "contraband".
This was true even in the Revolutionary War regarding loyalists.

Also, somewhere I've read, in the First Seminole War, Florida, circa 1818, when James Monroe was President, young John Quincy Adams Secretary of State, and Andrew Jackson in command of US forces invading Spanish Florida.
One of Jackson's actions was to declare slaves of Spaniards freed.
Iirc, Jackson's precedent was recalled by old Adams to young Congressman Lincoln, in 1847.

So it was well understood that people in rebellion could have their property confiscated, including contraband slaves.

And indeed, Confederates themselves practiced contraband confiscations in Unionist regions, to including grabbing any Union blacks they could for return to Confederate slave markets.

[DiogenesLamp]

People in rebellion, or at war against the United States, did not receive full protection of the Constitution, especially in matters relating to confiscations & "contraband".

I don't recall the "rebellion clause" giving you permission to ignore what the constitution tells *YOU* to do. It's understandable that the people who are breaking away from it might not obey it, but why would the people who are supposedly fighting a war to "save" the constitution, not adhere to it?

I guess Lincoln's thinking went something like this:

"You are breaking the Union created by the Constitution, therefore we shall go to war on you, and to show you we mean business, we will deliberately defy the constitution in pursuit of our war against you "rebels"."

"We have to break the law to save it. "

Yeah, that makes sense.

[DoodleDawg]

Overrides Article IV, Section 2, does it? Pretty neat trick for a law passed by Congress to actually override the Constitution itself.

No, it didn't and you seem to be the only person crazy enough to say it did. Had a slave fled from Kentucky into Ohio, or from Delaware to Pennsylvania then federal authorities would have been duty bound to return them. But there is no federal crime against a free black person going from Mississippi to Minnesota or any other state. Now is there?

[DiogenesLamp]

The Salient aspect of this clause of the constitution is "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof"

It cannot be just waved away without deliberately violating the intent expressed in this constitutional clause.

But I am well familiar with the phenomena of people who see nothing wrong with ignoring aspects of constitutional law they don't like. The proper way to deal with it is to change it through the amendment process, not to pretend it doesn't exist.

[DoodleDawg]

The Salient aspect of this clause of the constitution is "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof"

They weren't held in labor, or labour, because they had been freed.

But I am well familiar with the phenomena of people who see nothing wrong with ignoring aspects of constitutional law they don't like.

And I'm familiar with the similar situation of people who have only the sketchiest idea of what the Constitution said.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I don't recall the "rebellion clause" giving you permission to ignore what the constitution tells *YOU* to do.
It's understandable that the people who are breaking away from it might not obey it, but why would the people who are supposedly fighting a war to 'save' the constitution, not adhere to it? "

No, what's understandable is that both sides waged war according to rules of war well understood at the time.
That included, for both sides, confiscations of property deemed "contraband".

DiogenesLamp: "I guess Lincoln's thinking went something like this: ...
..."We have to break the law to save it."
Yeah, that makes sense."

Except that no laws of war, as understood at the time, were broken.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The Salient aspect of this clause of the constitution is "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof"
It cannot be just waved away without deliberately violating the intent expressed in this constitutional clause."

But the fact remains, regardless of how often you deny it, that Founders themselves did not understand any aspect of the Constitution to prevent states from abolishing slavery, at will.
Constitutionally, fugitive slaves were one thing, slaves moved permanently to a free-state were something else altogether.

DiogenesLamp: "But I am well familiar with the phenomena of people who see nothing wrong with ignoring aspects of constitutional law they don't like."

Or even more, with people like DiogenesLamp imposing meanings on Founders' words which Founders themselves never intended.

[DiogenesLamp]

They weren't held in labor, or labour, because they had been freed.

You always go around in a circle. The state law had not been repealed. The Constitution does not give the President the power to repeal state laws. The Constitution requires that so long as the state law exists, it must be obeyed.

Lincoln seized a power he was not granted under the constitution, and people are okay with it because they approve of the result. It's just another case of supporting an outcome rather than supporting the concept of law.

Another example of Government of men, and not of laws.