REMEMBERING MR. LINCOLN

Powerline ^ | 12 Feb 2024 | Scott Johnson

[Rummyfan]

Today is the anniversary of the birth of America’s great or greatest president, Abraham Lincoln. As a politician and as president, Lincoln was a profound student of the Constitution and constitutional history. Perhaps most important, Lincoln was America’s indispensable teacher of the moral ground of political freedom at the exact moment when the country was on the threshold of abandoning what he called its “ancient faith” that all men are created equal.

In 1858 Lincoln attained national prominence in the Republican Party as the result of the contest for the Senate seat held by Stephen Douglas. It was Lincoln’s losing campaign against Douglas that made him a figure of sufficient prominence that he could be the party’s 1860 presidential nominee.

At the convention of the Illinois Republican Party in June, Lincoln was the unanimous choice to run against Douglas. After declaring him their candidate late on the afternoon of June 16, the entire convention returned that evening to hear Lincoln speak. Accepting the convention’s nomination, Lincoln gave one of the most incendiary speeches in American history.

Lincoln electrified the convention, asserting that the institution of slavery had made the United States “a house divided against itself.” Slavery would either be extirpated or become lawful nationwide, Lincoln predicted, provocatively quoting scriptural authority to the effect that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Demonstrating how it “changed the course of history,” Harry Jaffa calls it “[t]he speech that changed the world.”

[cowboyusa]

You haven’t read freeper ls’s book at al. Always with your lost cause excuses. You lost, get over it, thier is a real war on now.

[ProgressingAmerica]

I asked first.

[x]

“1776 people” for the most part, were the same as 1780 or 1787 people. What they thought in 1776 inspired what they did later.

The men who signed the Declaration of Indpendence were thinking of their own freedom, but they recognized that the Declaration asserted general principles that could be applied in other cases. The Declaration made assertions that weren’t confined to the rights of Englishmen or White English-speaking colonists. The Declaration set no limits or restrictions on its principles.

And yet perhaps there were limits and restrictions. The Founders, 1776 people, weren’t keen on attempts to break up the republic they established. Jefferson, very much a 1776 person, didn’t think much of attempts by Aaron Burr to break off part of the country for Burr’s own rule.

[DiogenesLamp]

I cannot answer your question unless you clarify what you mean.

If you are referring to 1787, then your question is moot, because this does not address the point being discussed, which is about 1776.

If you are referring to 1776, then I have no idea what you are talking about, because I know of no history showing 11 states wanted the Declaration to be about slavery.

[DiogenesLamp]

The men who signed the Declaration of Indpendence were thinking of their own freedom, but they recognized that the Declaration asserted general principles that could be applied in other cases.

Later. In 1776 they were only concerned with their own freedom.

The Founders, 1776 people, weren’t keen on attempts to break up the republic they established. Jefferson, very much a 1776 person, didn’t think much of attempts by Aaron Burr to break off part of the country for Burr’s own rule.

Nobody wants to see the work they produced collapse before their eyes.

But they either believed in the principle of self determination, or they were just pretending to believe in it for political gain.

I like to think they really believed in the principle of self determination.

[x]

In 1776 Jefferson wrote:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.

That was taken out of the finished document. I don't think we know what the vote was. Jefferson says Georgia and South Carolina objected, but also blames some Northerners. But that Jefferson wrote it and most of the delegates don't seem to have objected indicates that many of the Founders were well aware of the contradiction between slavery and the "most sacred rights of life & liberty."

"The principle of self-determination" is an idea whose content and limits have to be worked out by people as new cases come up. If the Founders did not believe that enslaved people had the right to self-determination, then it's already clear that they believed that that principle had its limits.

But I don't think you're being serious. The Founders had one thing to worry about: winning independence from Britain. They weren't going to jeopardize that by pursuing other goals. But they based their desire for self-determination on principles, and the recognized that those principles could be applied to other situations. It's not about how we reinterpret them. It's about how many of them interpreted their own beliefs.

[ProgressingAmerica]

That’s not how it was. The only two colonies who refused in 1776 were South Carolina and Georgia. All of the rest were on board with that declaration clause.

That’s 11 to 2, in case you needed numbers.

Why is this so important to you that you’ll go to such great lengths as to ignore the 11?

(Seemed like a re-do was in order.)

[jmacusa]

You’re side lost Reb. Deal with it. You stupid Confederate.

[FLT-bird]

You’re side lost Reb. Deal with it. You stupid Confederate.

Your side had the tyrant who started it you stupid Yank.

[FLT-bird]

You haven’t read freeper ls’s book at al. Always with your lost cause excuses. You lost, get over it, thier is a real war on now.

I guarantee I've read far more than you have on the subject. You seem to think one book alone is holy gospel. You'd do well to broaden your reading on the subject and actually see what both sides have said about it.

[jmacusa]

Oh please. Come up with something original. You know damn well who started it.

You can go on with your “Lincoln was re enforcing Ft. Sumter t precipitate an attack yada yada''. Doesn't change a thing Reb. The CSA batteries opened fire and the ball was opened and your side got the war it wanted and lost it. It'll never be 1861 again. No do overs for the CSA.

[FLT-bird]

Oh please. Come up with something original. You know damn well who started it. You can go on with your “Lincoln was re enforcing Ft. Sumter t precipitate an attack yada yada''. Doesn't change a thing Reb. The CSA batteries opened fire and the ball was opened and your side got the war it wanted and lost it. It'll never be 1861 again. No do overs for the CSA.

Yes, we know Lincoln started it - deliberately. He sent a fleet of heavily armed warships which invaded South Carolina's sovereign territory.

[BroJoeK]

ComputerGuy #10: "I don’t know enough to have an informed opinion.
I only know one thing: Mr Lincoln’s army invaded my ancestor’s homeland."

DiogenesLamp #15: "Isn't this the only thing you really need to know?"

ComputerGuy #24: "It’s the only thing that matters. Always has been."

Our pro-Confederates love to forget that Confederate forces also invaded every Union state & territory they could reach, including:

1. Maryland
2. Pennsylvania
3. West Virginia
4. Ohio
5. Kentucky
6. Indiana
7. Missouri
8. Kansas
9. Oklahoma
10. New Mexico

There were also Confederate guerilla operations in California, Colorado and Vermont.

In the Civil War's first year, more battles were fought in the Union than in the Confederacy and more Confederate soldiers died on Union soil than on Confederate grounds.

Sure, as the war progressed, most battles were indeed fought in Confederate states, but even as late as the summer and fall of 1864, there were still Confederate attacks in Union states like Kansas (i.e., Mine Creek), Missouri (Little Blue River) and Maryland (Folck's Mill).

Civil War battles, by year:

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Yes, we know Lincoln started it - deliberately.
He sent a fleet of heavily armed warships which invaded South Carolina's sovereign territory."

Noooooo.
There was no "fleet" in Charleston Harbor on April 11, there was only one small ship -- the Revenue Cutter USRC Harriet Lane arrived late in the day and never got anywhere close to "South Carolina's sovereign territory".

Jefferson Davis himself confessed he had no need to wait for a Union provocation, since:

"There would be to us an advantage in so placing them [Lincoln] that an attack by them [Lincoln] would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison [Fort Sumter] that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations.

The case of Pensacola, [Ft. Pickens], then is reduced [to] the more palpable elements of a military problem and your measures may without disturbing views be directed to the capture of Fort Pickens and the defence of the harbor.
You will soon have I hope a force sufficient to occupy all the points necessary for that end.
As many additional troops as may be required can be promptly furnished.'
[Jefferson Davis to Braxton Bragg, 3 Apr 1861]

So, regardless of endless Lost Causer lies about this, Jefferson Davis himself confessed he didn't need to wait for Lincoln to provide him a pretext to start war at both Forts Sumter and Pickens.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to ProgressingAmerica: "If you are referring to 1776, then I have no idea what you are talking about, because I know of no history showing 11 states wanted the Declaration to be about slavery."

Well.....
The question of slavery did indeed come up in 1776, as related to Jefferson's famous deleted paragraph blaming King George for American slavery.
Jefferson's sincere words were a stinging indictment of both slavery and British laws enforcing it.

Now the story as to how Jefferson's anti-slavery paragraph got deleted from our Declaration of Independence -- it's a bit vague, since Jefferson himself didn't name individuals and also claimed some of them were northerners.
But was there an actual vote and do we know how many supported or opposed it?
No, of course not, but it's easy to imagine someone as anti-slavery as Pennsylvania's ultimate diplomat, Benjamin Franklin, saying, "let's set this one on the table for another day".

Jefferson wrote:

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thithe...

...he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

So, Jefferson himself knew that his words "all men are created equal" applied to more than just white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

[FLT-bird]

I see we have the usual PC Revisionist lies repeated once again. OK. Let's go through it again.

The fleet of warships consisted of:

The steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, 181 officers and enlisted Armament: • 8 × 9 in guns, • 2 × 12-pounder guns

USS Powhatan, 289 officers and enlisted Armament: • 1 × 11 in (280 mm) Dahlgren smoothbore gun, 10 × 9 in (230 mm) Dahlgren smoothbore guns • 5 × 12-pounder guns, also transporting steam launches and about 300 sailors (besides the crew, these to be used to augment Army troops)

Armed screw steamer USS Pocahontas, 150 officers and men (approx.) 4 × 32-pounder guns, 1 × 10-pounder gun, 1 × 20-pounder Parrot rifle

The Revenue Cutter USS Harriet Lane, 95 officers and men Armament: 1 x 4in gun, 1 x 9in gun, 2 x 8in guns, 2 x 24 lb brass howitzers

The steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tug boats with added protection against small arms fire to be used to tow troop and supply barges directly to Fort Sumter (or some other point since it is inconceivable that they would be taking small arms fire from a union held fortification)

Totals

4 war ships

4 transports

38 heavy guns

1200 military personnel (at least 500 of whom were to be used as a landing party)

"Lincoln and the First Shot" (in Reassessing the Presidency, edited by John Denson), John Denson painstakingly shows how Lincoln maneuvered the Confederates into firing the first shot at Fort Sumter. As the Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861, "Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor" by reprovisioning Fort Sumter. On the day before that the Jersey City American Statesman wrote that "This unarmed vessel, it is well understood, is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South." Lincoln's personal secretaries, John Nicolay and John Hay, clearly stated after the war that Lincoln successfully duped the Confederates into firing on Fort Sumter. And as Shelby Foote wrote in The Civil War, "Lincoln had maneuvered [the Confederates] into the position of having either to back down on their threats or else to fire the first shot of the war."

Here is Lincoln's Letter congratulating his naval commander, Fox for having started the war Lincoln wanted:

"May 1st, 1861. Washington Capt. G.V. Fox:

My Dear Sir, I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground ; while, by an accident, for which you were in nowise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent, was, you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.

I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN."

Lincoln sent a fleet of heavily armed warships to invade South Carolina's sovereign territory which it duly did. This forced the CSA to either defend itself by opening fire or to allow itself to be invaded without firing a shot in its own defense. The Confederates did what any other country would do upon being invaded - they fired to drive the invaders away. An aggressor is one who invades the land of another - not one who fires to drive an invader away.

[Larry Lucido]

:)

[Larry Lucido]

Norm MacDonald (RIP):

First of all, I’m an old man, you know? I… I’m like uh… threescore and… twelve, or something like that. I’m trying to get “score” going again. I feel that Lincoln, when he thought that up, he thought that was going to go. You know what I mean? Like, his wife was like, “Why don’t you just say ’87’?” He’s like, “Why don’t you shut the f*** up?” “Last I checked, I was the orator in the family and you were the f***ing insane lady.” “When I say fourscore and seven, believe me… ‘score’ is going to catch on big time.” But… it never did.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "The Ludwig von Mises Institute has repeatedly outlined how tyrannical Lincoln was."

Anybody can call somebody a "tyrant" because the word is meaningless without context.
In this particular case, the context question is whether Lincoln was any more "tyrannical" than Jefferson Davis?

Every account I've read says that, relative to populations, Jefferson Davis:

1. Arrested as many Union loyalists as Lincoln arrested Copperhead Democrats.

2. Forced just as many unwilling Southerners to serve in the Confederate army as the Union drafted for its armies.

3. Confiscated as much Confederate property as Lincoln confiscated Union property.

4. Imposed as many arbitrary laws on Confederates as Lincoln did on the Union.

5. Micro-managed the war itself as his own Commander in Chief and Chief of Staff, issuing orders regardless of states rights or human rights.

The "Solid South" was anything but "solid" in its votes for secession.
Jefferson Davis used whatever forces necessary to compel obedience from pro-Union regions.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "I see we have the usual PC Revisionist lies repeated once again."

Hmmmmmmm......

1. FLT-bird: "USS Pawnee"

   Arrived near Charleston after Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter began, remained 10 miles off-shore.

2. "USS Powhatan"

   Never came anywhere near Charleston Harbor or Fort Sumter.

3. "USS Pocahontas"

   Was nowhere near Charleston Harbor during the Battle of Fort Sumter.

4. "Revenue Cutter USS Harriet Lane"

   The smallest ship of the alleged "war fleet", USRC Harriet Lane arrived near Charleston Harbor the evening of April 11 and remained well offshore for the entire battle, attacked no Confederate forces.

5. "steamer Baltic"

   An unarmed civilian transport ship with supplies for Fort Sumter, plus troops if necessary.
   SS Baltic arrived near Charleston Harbor after bombardment had already begun against Fort Sumter.
   SS Baltic threatened or attacked nobody.

6. "three hired tug boats with added protection against small arms fire to be used to tow troop and supply barges directly to Fort Sumter "

   None of the three were anywhere near Charleston Harbor during the Battle of Fort Sumter.
   Only one arrived in time for the surrender.

FLT-bird: ""Lincoln and the First Shot" (in Reassessing the Presidency, edited by John Denson), John Denson painstakingly shows how Lincoln maneuvered the Confederates into firing the first shot at Fort Sumter. "

If your author does not acknowledge what Jefferson Davis himself confessed -- that Davis didn't need a provocation at Fort Sumter to start Civil War -- then it's all just another pack of Lost Cause lies.

FLT-bird: "as Shelby Foote wrote in The Civil War, "Lincoln had maneuvered [the Confederates] into the position of having either to back down on their threats or else to fire the first shot of the war.""

That's nonsense, since by his own confession, Davis was going to start war at Forts Sumter and Pickens, regardless of what Lincoln did or didn't do:

"There would be to us an advantage in so placing them [Lincoln] that an attack by them [Lincoln] would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison [Fort Sumter] that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations.

The case of Pensacola [Ft. Pickens] then is reduced [to] the more palpable elements of a military problem and your measures may without disturbing views be directed to the capture of Fort Pickens and the defence of the harbor.
You will soon have I hope a force sufficient to occupy all the points necessary for that end.
As many additional troops as may be required can be promptly furnished.'
[Jefferson Davis to Braxton Bragg, 3 Apr 1861]