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 ...
Yes it is, but I have patience when dealing with irrational fanatics like you, and I just keep pointing out the unpleasant truths that you don't like to hear, such as Lincoln's cabinet telling him his actions would start a war.
I do so not to convince you fanatics, but to both make you fanatics gun shy about engaging in a debate with someone who knows the actual truth instead of just the propaganda, and to also persuade people other than yourselves who are not fanatics.
Sorry to burst your sense of self importance, but you irrational fanatics are not the target of my responses. You are merely the convenient occasion to reiterate the information that has been mostly covered up by the long repeated propaganda of the Civil War.
Lincoln started it, deliberately, and with malice aforethought.
For what it's worth, no one has ever stuffed me into a locker or taken my lunch money. People generally did not f*** with me, and those few who did were quickly made to wish they hadn't.
Ultimately many hundred thousand.
Issuing orders to use force against hundreds of troops surrounding Fort Sumter is still culpable even if no one gets hurt. Firing a gun at someone and missing is still considered an act of violence, even if no one gets hit.
The point is intent to harm, and lucky accidents notwithstanding, if you strike at someone with intent, it makes no difference if you connect on them or not, you still initiated the violence.
As I said up thread. Lincoln swung and missed. They swung after Lincoln and connected.
If Lincoln didn't want a fight, he should have left them alone. Lincoln did indeed want the fight, and he did exactly what he knew would provoke one.
Oh yeah. You were a terror alright. Listen bozo your arguments are crap, your grasp on the cause that lead to the Civil War fit a narrative in your mind and your mind alone. There isn’t anything to discuss. The South chose violent secession, out right treason in reality, opened fire on Ft. Sumter as part of a larger aim of maintaining a system of labor based based on the use of slave labor and sought to expand slavery westward into the new Western territories. And in the end they were soundly defeated. So grow up and shut up.
Yes, the Declaration of Independence does not specify a right to Independence. Total crap. Don't know how the founders ever believed they had a right to independence.
The South chose violent secession
Already corrected you on this point before. No, the South chose peaceful secession, and it was peaceful all the way up until Lincoln sent Warships with orders to use force against them.
Lincoln chose violent war instead of a peaceful separation. Get it right!
opened fire on Ft. Sumter as part of a larger aim of maintaining a system of labor
Opened fire on Ft. Sumter because the first of the warships (which they knew were coming) had arrived, and Major Anderson had refused to agree to maintain a cease fire against them.
Trying to say Beauregard fired upon Sumter because of "SLAVERY!" is just nonsense. He fired on Sumter because he didn't want to lose men from being attacked from two directions simultaneously.
You are deliberately misrepresenting what happened and why.
based on the use of slave labor and sought to expand slavery westward into the new Western territories.
Wrong on both points. The existing system would have been maintained indefinitely by Washington DC, and the proof of this is the fact they passed the *CORWIN AMENDMENT* with only Northern votes in Congress.
Because you want to keep lying about this, you will refuse to acknowledge the fact that the North was trying to play "Let's make a deal" on permanent slavery.
The second point you are wrong about is the expansion of slavery. This was mostly propaganda, because the reality of the situation was that you could not expand slavery into the western territories to any significant degree, because there is nothing that could be done with slaves in those territories that could turn a sufficient profit to make it feasible.
In all of New Mexico territory, which constituted everything between Texas and California at the time, there were only a dozen slaves in the entire region.
Slavery was not, and could not be made profitable in the territories, and it is for that reason there was virtually no slavery in the territories.
But you don't care about the truth, you only want to keep spouting your propaganda justifying a horrifying war against people who had done nothing wrong beyond wanting to rule themselves instead of allowing the corrupt cesspool of Washington DC rule them.
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
Passed with only Northern votes in Congress, and ratified by five Northern states.
Stop lying. Slavery was being protected by the Northern States and Congress so long as the South agreed to be ruled by Washington DC.
Slavery was never the issue. Control was always the issue.
Because the South chose to start a war.
The point is intent to harm, and lucky accidents notwithstanding, if you strike at someone with intent, it makes no difference if you connect on them or not, you still initiated the violence.
So when the South fired on the Start of the West and the Rhoda Shannon their attempt was to harm. So the only thing that prevented the war from starting earlier is that the North chose not to accept the South's acts of war.
As I said up thread. Lincoln swung and missed. They swung after Lincoln and connected.
More like three strikes and the South was out. Four years, massive devastation, and hundreds of thousand of lives later. Davis should have stayed out of the game I guess.
The South had no ability to make that choice. Lincoln alone possessed the ability to decide whether or not there would be a war, and Lincoln decided that there would be one.
Again, everyone told him that sending those ships would trigger a war, and he chose to do it.
The firing on Sumter was a consequence of those ships arriving. The confederates intentions were to simply give Anderson as much time as he needed to evacuate the fort, and Anderson was going to do it.
Then the initial ships of the fleet arrived, and turned everything into a combat situation.
So when the South fired on the Start of the West and the Rhoda Shannon their attempt was to harm.
Star of the West was a militarily belligerent ship. It was secretly carrying troops and munitions, and so represented a valid military target.
In other words, the Star of the West was the aggressor.
The Rhoda Shannon was just a mistake caused by everyone being paranoid.
So the only thing that prevented the war from starting earlier is that the North chose not to accept the South's acts of war.
Let's keep the timeline in order, shall we?
Burning the cannon carriages at Fort Moultrie and grabbing a ship to carry his forces into the unfinished Fort Sumter in the full knowledge that this was completely against the wishes of the new government was the first act of aggression in the war.
Do not forget that Anderson's men discussed firing cannons into the city of Charleston, which is also a likely reason why people would simply not put up with them being there.
Northern newspapers had already called for the guns of the fort to be turned upon them and fired.
Nobody wants to live with that kind of threat hanging over their heads.
In December 1860, when the second session of the 36th Congress was convened, the deepening rift between slave states and free states was erupting into a secession crisis. The Senate quickly formed a "Committee of Thirteen" to investigate possible legislative measures that might solve the slavery predicament. The House formed a "Committee of Thirty-three" with the same objective. More than 200 resolutions with respect to slavery,[5] including 57 resolutions proposing constitutional amendments,[6] were introduced in Congress. Most represented compromises designed to avert military conflict. Senator Jefferson Davis proposed one that explicitly protected property rights in slaves.[6] A group of House members proposed a national convention to accomplish secession as a "dignified, peaceful, and fair separation" that could settle questions like the equitable distribution of the federal government's assets and rights to navigate the Mississippi River.[7] Senator John J. Crittenden proposed a compromise consisting of six constitutional amendments and four Congressional resolutions,[8] which were ultimately tabled on December 31.
When you keep repeating something that is demonstrably untrue, at some point it can no longer be regarded as an "accident" that you are getting it wrong.
Here's something I want to to look up bozo, just as a matter of my family's personal history: The US Army Field Surgeons Manual by William C. Grace. That's my great-great grandfather. He wrote that. What did yours do?
I have no idea, but whatever it was he did, he did it in Denmark. I don't think the American Civil War was a thing over there at that time. He was probably more concerned with the Slesvigske Krig.
So you have a personal interest in seeing the war a certain way. I have no personal interest in the war, and I don't have to look at it a certain way to justify the actions of my ancestors.
For that reason I can be objective about it, and call things as I see them.
That’s why I love responding to your posts. You’re never at a loss for something new and unusual to make up and toss out there as if it were an actual fact.
Yes it was, and it proves that the North was willing to accept permanent slavery, and this therefore proves that slavery wasn't the bone of contention between the two sides.
What was the single nonnegotiable point?
Independence. Not Slavery.
I will also point out that efforts to pass the Corwin Amendment did not entice the Southern states to return, so clearly they were not interested in further protection for slavery, they were interested in running their own affairs.
New and Unusual? Were you unaware that the "Star of the West" was carrying troops and munitions?
Kinda paints a different picture of it, doesn't it?
Don't take my word for it, look it up. I only learned of it a year ago when someone pointed it out.
I had previously not known that the Star of the West was engaging in dirty pool.
Posting in huge font only reveals you as a buffoon. It does not win arguments.
It made you notice, didn't it?
The passage of the Corwin Amendment is by itself sufficient proof that slavery was not the cause of the war.
It is also proof that the motives behind those launching their invasion of the South were not "morality."
I noticed you were playing the fool again - I didn’t bother reading what you scribbled.
Ah, but you're still attracting attention to it. Like the old Hollywood saw goes, "there is no bad publicity!"
:)
I actually agree with you that biggest bone of contention is that the fire eaters in the south believed they could just vote to leave the Union. Though there were many southerners that wanted to stay in the Union.
Many in north did not believe that a state (not just the southern states but any state) could just vote itself out of the Union. Though there were some northerners who wanted to let them go.
Neither side would budge, so the war came. However, you have to ask yourself why the fire-eaters seceded? What was it about the election of a Republican to the presidency that cause this. (Remember they threatened to do this if Fremont was elected as a Republican in 1856.) I think if you research why the southerners called Republicans “black Republicans” or called Lincoln “Ape Lincoln” you might find out why they seceded. Or you could just read there secessionist declarations.
Again, you distort the Corwin Amendment. The Corwin Amendment was intended to put the right to be a free-state or a slave-state, into the hands of each State. More importantly, it took the decision out of the hands of the Central Government, and thence, the Confederacy had no reason to be........... unless they had other plans. You are making it out to be that Slavery would be permanent throughout the nation by passage of the Corbin Amendment. Your horse is not connected to your carriage and you are following a carrot on a stick. I can put this in bold lettering if you would prefer 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.