Posted on 12/08/2019 6:35:40 PM PST by bitt
Time, and history, will tell if Donald Trump is “better” or “greater” than Abraham Lincoln. But if he is re-empowered in 2020 to actually make great Republican principles work, Trump would be the Lincoln we deserve.
recent poll, widely reported, found that a slight majority of self-described conservatives say Donald Trump is a better president than Abraham Lincoln. God only knows what such a response means, in an age when our mass media considers it their democratic duty to dox and fire ordinary people for their opinions, and when most historians regard it as unprofessional to teach American history in a way that leaves students with a favorable impression of America.
As a university teacher of American politics and American history, I wouldn’t say that Trump is a better president than Lincoln. More useful would be to ask how the principles Lincoln stood for and the policies the Republicans of his era favored can be adapted to the United States of today. After all, it is more than a century and a half after a Democrat and celebrity actor decided to sacrifice his life and career to star before a D.C. audience in actual assassination porn.
The Republican Party—from Lincoln to Ford—had a constitutional vision and a policy agenda. Republicans in Congress enacted pro-growth, pro-equality, domestic policy: civil rights for African-Americans, the Morrill Land Grant that subsidized higher education for the children of farmers and workers, fiat money, and the Homestead Act. Republicans enacted tariff and antitrust protection of American industries, and immigration restriction to protect American workers, so that “cheap goods” did not make “cheap men.”
(Excerpt) Read more at amgreatness.com ...
Read the Declaration of Independence.
Oh, and the Confederate constitution has nothing to do with why Lincoln sent warships to start a f***ing war with them.
When did Lincoln do that?
Then maybe you need to find another line of work? You don't seem to be successful at this one.
It has nothing to do with why armies marched across the border to subdue them. It doesn't matter what the confederates put in that constitution, the armies would have still marched across the border to make them submit, and you know it, though you don't have the honesty to admit it.
Also the US Constitution enshrined the right to keep slaves. You keep wanting to ignore that fact, but Abraham Lincoln himself repeated this over and over again.
You have an emotional view that you *WANT* to be the truth, but it is not actually true.
The South opened fire on Ft. Sumter. They started the war. And they lost. Nothing will ever change that fact.
A lot of efforts become futile because of a lack of persistence. When you quit, you have indeed lost.
Also, to determine success or failure, one must understand the goal being sought. Do I think I can convince jmacusa to have a more correct view of history? Not really, because I perceive his history is all about his emotional need to believe what he believes.
You can't argue people out of an emotional view. There is no rhyme or reason to it, just as you can't argue a person into or out of love.
The heart wants what the heart wants.
In any case, this isn't about him. It's about making others aware of these covered up and clarifying parts of history surrounding that war, and it is about making people aware of how the corrupt deep state collusion between Washington DC and New York (same bastards we are still fighting today) got started.
Only after Lincoln opened fire on them first by sending those warships to force them to submit.
You keep ignoring the fact that those warships triggered the attack, and that there was no intention to attack until reports came in that the warships had arrived to attack them.
Big guy says he's going to beat the shit out of the Little guy. Big guy takes a swing, and little guy tears into him, and you want to blame the little guy for starting the fight?
Nope. Big guy started the fight by taking a swing.
Maybe it would work better if you stopped presenting your opinions as fact?
You are trying to put the cart before the horse. My opinion is the cart. The actual true and correct facts of the case are the horse. My opinion follows the facts, just as the cart follows the horse.
They go in the same direction, and for all intents and purpose they are interchangeable, with the sole exception of causality. My opinion comes *AFTER* the facts, not before.
It is the facts to which you object, and I fully understand why. If I had to defend those facts, I too would try to make it a matter of subjectivity, even though it isn't.
Blaming the messenger may give some comfort, but it is ultimately futile.
No. The South started the war. They opened fire on Ft. Sumter. Christ sake you are too f**king stupid to be an idiot.
The truth is the South violently seceded from the North and opened fire on Ft Sumter in Charleston Harbor as Lincoln was attempting to resupply the garrison there. This is what you won’t admit. And for someone who routinely is trounced here with your revisionist and factually incorrect history of the events and causes of The Civil War anyone with any brains or dignity would cease making an ass out of themselves but you seem to have a positive talent for not doing so.
Incorrect. They peacefully seceded from the North, but the North didn't accept it, and so they sent a war fleet to force South Carolina to submit to Federal taxation from Washington DC.
and opened fire on Ft Sumter in Charleston Harbor
Because they learned a war fleet was coming to attack them, and the fort had become a threat to them. Anderson refused to maintain a cease fire against them, and so they were left with no choice but to neutralize the threat his control of that fort represented to their own forces.
as Lincoln was attempting to resupply the garrison there.
Well firstly, they were illegally occupying the fort, and secondly, Warships with extra troops and munitions does not constitute a "resupply" and most especially not when the ships orders include the instruction to use all of their available force to place munitions and men into the fort.
This is what you won’t admit.
I won't admit it because it's bullsh*t. Lincoln started that war, and he did so on purpose. His entire cabinet told him that sending those warships would cause a war, and that is exactly what happened. Had he done nothing, there would have been no war.
You would have us believe, firstly, that there is no right to independence, even though our own founding document is based solely on the assertion that there is. You have *NO EVIDENCE* (except a 40 year later letter from Madison) to prove Independence was illegal, and I have not only the founding document which explicitly says so, but the statements of three states ratifying the Constitution explicitly saying so, and two more beside those asserting the same thing in 1814.
Abraham Lincoln himself even says so twice in public statements that a right to independence is a natural and sacred right. He says this once in 1848, and again in 1852, yet his position flips 180 degrees by 1860.
And for someone who routinely is trounced ...
Hardly. You don't even put up a fight. You just repeat yourself again and again.
Post evidence that the US Constitution made Independence illegal. I can post several examples of evidence which demonstrates the very opposite.
The only evidence I know for your side is that letter from James Madison written in 1833, and which contradicts what Madison said as a member of Virginia's ratification committee back in 1788.
You got anything to prove your case other than that letter from Madison? Letters from people who weren't actually there in 1787 don't count, so don't be dragging out Justice Story, or other subsequent people who have no first hand knowledge of the founders intent.
Founders and ratifiers only. All else is just crap opinion.
Frustrating, isn’t it? Dealing with an irrational fanatic who views the world as he would like it to be, not as it is. Fortunately there are few of them (although they tend to compensate with more volume, LOL).
It is indeed rockrr. Diogenes probably got stuffed into lockers a lot and had his lunch money routinely stolen when he was a kid.
State of Alabama: On 3 January 1861 Governor A. B. Moore directed the Alabama militia to seize the Mount Vernon Arsenal and Forts Morgan and Gaines, which controlled the entrance to Mobile Bay. The Arsenal was seized on the 4th, and the two forts a day later. Alabama didn’t succeed from the Union until 11 January.
State of Arkansas: On 8 February 1861 Arkansas militia volunteer companies seized the Little Rock Arsenal at the direction of the governor. On 6 May the Arkansas Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Convention elected not to submit the Ordnance to the people of Arkansas in a referendum for their approval.
State of Florida: On 6 January 1861 the Florida militia seized the U.S. arsenal at Apalachicola, the sole Federal arsenal in the state. On 7 January the Florida militia seized Fort Marion at St. Augustine. And, on 8 January Federal troops at Fort Barrancas, guarding the entrance to the harbor at Pensacola, fired on a party of Florida militia who had demanded the surrender of that fort. The next day, Lieutenant Adam J. Slemmer gathered the 50 men in his company from Forts Barrancas and McRee, dumped 20,000 pounds of gunpowder into the bay, and spiked his guns at those two forts. With the help of sailors from the Warrington Navy Yard, he moved all of his remaining supplies across the bay to Fort Pickens, which the Federal Army retained for the balance of the war. On 10 January the Florida Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted to the people of Florida for their approval in a referendum.
State of Georgia: The Georgia Secession Convention passed its ordnance of secession on 19 January 1861 and the state withdrew from the Union. The Georgia militia seized the Augusta Arsenal on 24 January, and on the 27th Oglethorpe Barracks and Fort James Jackson at Savanah were also seized. In response to a demand from the state government for surrender of the Arsenal, Captain Arnold Elzey, the commander, had asked the War Department for instructions. Acting Secretary of War Holt had responded on 23 January that “The governor of Georgia has assumed against your post and the United States an attitude of war. His summons is harsh and preemptory. It is not expected that your defense shall be desperate. If forced to surrender by violence or starvation you will stipulate for honorable terms and a free passage by water with your company to New York.” In accordance with his instructions, Elzey made terms with Governor Brown, and his company was permitted to depart the arsenal with its arms and company property and to have unobstructed passage to New York.
State of Louisiana: The U.S. Arsenal at Baton Rouge, was seized by the Louisiana militia on 10 January 1861, as was the U.S. Army pentagon barracks at Baton Rouge. The New Orleans Barracks [Jackson Barracks] was seized on 11 January, as were Forts St. Philip and Jackson. Between them, these two forts controlled the Mississippi River approach to New Orleans. Fort Pike, which controlled the Rigolets Pass approach to Lake Pontchartrain was taken on 14 January. Fort Macomb, which controlled the Chef Menteur Pass approach to Lake Pontchartrain was seized on 28 January. On 31 January Revenue Captain James G. Breshwood surrendered the revenue cutter Robert McClelland to the State of Louisiana; which turned the cutter over to the Confederate States Navy which renamed her CSS Pickens. On 31 January the revenue cutter Washington was seized by Louisiana authorities in New Orleans. On 26 January the Louisiana Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted in a referendum to the people of Louisiana for their approval.
State of Mississippi: On 9 January 1861 the Mississippi Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted in a referendum to the people of Mississippi for their approval. On 21 January the Mississippi militia seized Fort Massachusetts, an unfinished brick fort on Ship Island on the Mississippi coast. The fort was abandoned by the end of January because Governor Pettus had no artillery to arm it.
State of North Carolina: On 23 April 1861 the North Carolina militia seized the Federal arsenal at Fayetteville, and the Federal garrison subsequently departed on 27 April. On 20 May the North Carolina Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted to the people of North Carolina for their approval in a referendum.
State of South Carolina: On 20 December 1860 the South Carolina Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted in a referendum to the people of South Carolina for their approval. On 27 December Captain Napoleon Coste turned the revenue cutter William Aiken over to South Carolina secessionists. On the same date, the South Carolina militia seized Castle Pickney, a small masonry fort in Charleston harbor. A Federal officer and a sergeant and his family were captured, provoking a discussion by the South Carolinians over whether to treat them as prisoners of war. The officer was allowed to go to Fort Sumter, while the sergeant was given a safe conduct and permitted to remain in his quarters at the fort. Also on the 27th the militia seized Fort Moultrie, another of the forts guarding Charleston harbor, which had been evacuated by its commander, Major Robert Anderson, on the 26th. On 28 December the South Carolina militia occupied the site of Fort Johnson on Windmill Point on James Island. Although long unoccupied by the U.S. Army, it had been one of the four forts controlling Charleston harbor. On 30 December the Charleston Arsenal was seized.
State of Tennessee: On 6 May 1861 the Tennessee Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. Although the state did not formally succeed from the Union until a “declaration of independence” referendum on 8 June, Governor Isham G. Harris persuaded the legislature to create the Provisional Army of Tennessee on 6 May. The enabling legislation authorized an army of 55,000 volunteers and authorized the governor to issue $5 million in state bonds for defense and military supplies. By the end of May convicts at the state penitentiary in Nashville were manufacturing small arms cartridges and other military supplies. The 8 June referendum affirmed the Ordnance of Secession 104, 913 to 47,238. East Tennessee voted solidly Unionist, and there were reports of interference with the vote in middle and western Tennessee, however.
State of Texas: On 1 February 1861 the Texas Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was submitted to the people of Texas for their approval on 23 February, with the referendum passing 46,153 to 14,747. Although Texas had not yet seceded, Major General Twiggs surrendered his forces and facilities, including the San Antonio Arsenal, at the demand of Texas authorities on 16 February. His officers and enlisted personnel were permitted to depart the state with their small arms, and the two artillery batteries under his command with four guns each.
Commonwealth of Virginia: On 17 April 1861 the Virginia Secession Convention passed the Commonwealth’s Ordnance of Secession, but there was an effort to initially suppress the announcement that the Ordnance had passed. While the Convention was meeting in secret session on the 17th, William C. Scott, the delegate from Powhatan County, said “I was told by the Adjutant General this morning that if we passed an ordinance of secession, we ought not to let it be known for a few days, because he sent for arms to the North, and he is apprehensive that they may be intercepted if it was known that the ordinance passed. Would it not be well, if we are determined to secede, to wait a little while in order that we may receive those arms from the North? We could then secede, and we would be in a much better condition to meet the enemy than we are now. This seems to be the proper course, and I trust the Convention will pursue it.” Later in the debates that day, Scott again mentioned his conversation with the Adjutant General and said “The Governor tells us this morning that if the action of this Convention is permitted to be known outside of this body, these arms will not be allowed to come here. If you send a communication of this sort to the President of the Confederate States, there will be great danger that the whole secret will leak out.” On 30 April the Convention authorized the Governor to issue $2,000,000 in treasury notes for the defense of the Commonwealth. The Ordnance of Succession was not ratified by the people of Virginia until a referendum on 23 May, wherein it passed 132,201 to 37,451. Although secession had not yet been approved by the people, the Commonwealth militia prepared to seize the Harper’s Ferry Armory. First Lieutenant Roger Jones, USA, had been ordered to Harper’s Ferry on 3 January with a company of eight non-commissioned officers and 60 enlisted men. By 18 April Rogers was in command of the post. Recognizing his utter inability to defend the armory, Jones set fire to the buildings and retreated with his troops across the Potomac River.
The above is probably incomplete; does not included the seizure of non-military facilities such as those of the Treasury Department, Post Office, etc.; and ends with the firing on Fort Sumter. The only “aggression” I see here is on the part of the Confederates, although I suppose that a “bitter ender” would assert that LT Slemmer’s defense of his post at Fort Barrancas in the face of an armed attack was “aggression,” or that the burning of the Harper’s Ferry Armory by 1LT Jones was “aggression.”
Under the law of nations in 1861 – and the Confederacy wished to be recognized by the world powers as an independent nation - honorable men issued declarations of war before they began hostile military actions. In this respect, the leaders of the Confederacy were as honorable men as the Japanese on 7 December 1941 at Pearl Harbor.
If all these "seizings" you mention were significant, why aren't they used as the examples instead of Fort Sumter?
How many Federal troops were killed or wounded in any of these seizings?
Also in the case of Fort Barrancas and Fort Moultrie, I happen to know you are deliberately misstating what happened, and I can only conclude if you aren't telling the truth about those two examples, your other examples are probably false or misleading too.
How many Rebel troops were killed or wounded by the appearance of the resupply fleet? Yet you claim Lincoln started the war by doing that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.