Joey's posts are always deceptive. Lincoln may have served a week constitutionally, but that is debatable. He was a tyrant and a butcher at heart, and he never found a law or power he didn't want to usurp.
Show us your references that show Lincoln served constitutionally.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Lincoln arrested most everyone who disagreed with him. That is not exactly republicanism."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Jefferson Davis arrested proportionately as many pro-Union Confederates as Lincoln arrested pro-Confederate Union citizens."
Only fool would believe you, Joey. Show us your references.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "You are pretending the Constitution actually existed at the time of the secession. It didn't. Otherwise, the legacy of Lincoln, his merry gang of thugs, and the rubber-stamp Congress, would have been: "They hung by ropes until dead."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "That is a complete lunatic lie."
Only fool would believe you, Joey. Prove me wrong.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "A survivor would have been Chief Justice Taney, who ruled against Lincoln's tyranny regarding habeas corpus"
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Judge Crazy Roger Taney expressed his lunatic opinion in a lower court. The US Supreme Court never agreed with him."
Only fool would believe your deception, Joey. Show us your references.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Lincoln would not even recognize them. He couldn't recognize them and maintain his LIE about the Confederacy being an insurrection:"
>>BroJoeK wrote: "In fact, Lincoln never called secession an "insurrection" until after Fort Sumter."
Only fool would believe you, Joey. Show us your references.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "However, the dictator Lincoln was in "fashionable" company in those days"
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Leftist racist Edmund Wilson in 1962 comparing Lincoln with Bismarck & Lenin."
Lincoln was a leftist racist, Joey. Did you never wonder why the Far-left political hacks disguised as historians, such as Eric Foner, Allen Guelzo, and the late Harry Jaffa, have swooned over Lincoln?
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "But, ironically, both Lincoln and Bismarck pretended to be republicans, the complete opposite political theory to statism."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Young Bismarck was a royalist, a politically reactionary, who believed the Kaiser had a divine right to rule. Older Bismarck was appointed Chancellor by the Kaiser, and dominated both the Reichstag (House) and Bundesrat (Senate) due to the strength of his personality and successes of his policies.
My point was, the two statists, Lincoln and Bismark, pretended to be republicans.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Both Hitler and Lincoln had dictator-speak down to a science. Face it. Lincoln, your hero, was a power-hungry psychopath who despised the constitution and liberty."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "All of that is just insane ranting, illustrating that our new FRiend Kalamata is mentally one sick little SOB."
When Joey uses the "FRiend" label, he is trying to deceive you. It is always a good idea to have your historical facts down-pat before conversing with a deceiver like Joey.
That said, historical facts are historical facts, and Lincoln was a blood-thirsty psychopath, as were many Northern Congressmen and in the media in those days. See for yourself (reposting):
"In the Congress, there was a significant group of South haters, with murderous demands. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, Thaddeus Stevens, was willing that the South "be laid waste, and made a desert, in order to save this Union from destruction." Before a Republican state convention in September 1862, he urged the government to "slay every traitor-bum every Rebel Mansion.... unless we do this, we cannot conquer them." The New York Times wrote in March 1861 that the North should "destroy its commerce, and bring utter ruin on the Confederate states," and this was before the bombardment at Fort Sumter."
"Congressman Zachariah Chandler expressed the spirit of so many in the Congress: "A rebel has sacrificed all his rights. He has no right to life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness. Everything you give him, even life itself, is a boon which he has forfeited."
Such sentiments found their way to the European observers of the war, who found them hard to believe from a civilized people. A correspondent for the pro-Northern Macmillan Magazine, in December 1863, wrote, "How can you subjugate such a people as this? And even supposing that their extermination were a feasible plan, as some Northerners suggested, I never can believe that in the nineteenth century the civilized world will be condemned to witness the destruction of such a gallant race."
"On 5 May 1861, this genocidal passion against the South found analysis in the New York Herald. It quoted the views of the abolitionists: "When the rebellious traitors are overwhelmed in the field, and scattered like leaves before an angry wind, it must not be to return to peaceful and contented homes. They must find poverty at their firesides, and see privation in the anxious eyes of mothers, and the rags of children."
"Another radical editor noted that the New York Herald called "for the punishment of all individuals in the South by hanging, and the confiscation of everybody's property in the seceding States." "Richmond," said another, "must be laid in ashes," and as for Baltimore, "it must become a heap of cinders and ashes, and its inhabitants ought either to be slaughtered, or scattered to the winds." Virginia and Maryland deserve to be "laid waste and made desolate" and 500,000 troops should "pour down from the North, leaving a desert track behind them." The editor responded, "Submission on the part of the South would not satisfy these bloody journalists of the Republican party. Far from it. They cry out: 'We mean not merely to conquer, but to subjugate.'" The editor then adds, "The people of the North are prepared for no such extremities as the brutal, bloodthirsty journals of the abolitionist school suggest."
"On 24 May 1861, the Daily Herald in Newburyport, Massachusetts, said that "if it were necessary, we could clear off the thousand millions of square miles so that not a city or cultivated field would remain; we could exterminate nine millions of white people and re-settle-re-people the lands. There is no want of ability; and if such a work is demanded, there would be no want of a will."
"It is no wonder that the Civil War generated hatred for the North and the Republican party among Southerners for well over a hundred years the bloodthirsty rhetoric of the radicals in the North in time found expression in the devastation of civilians and civilian property by Sherman, Sheridan, Grant, and the commander in chief-Lincoln. It didn't end with the war, for it was then carried on in a less violent form in the Reconstruction laws for the South by the radicals. The object was to exterminate the culture of the Southerners, and to subjugate then destroy the political force of the Southern establishment, and not just the planter-slave owner class. There was to be a new order in the South, excluding the established Southerners of all classes. The radicals succeeded for a while and then moved on, leaving a wasteland in which secret societies and lawlessness prevailed. Thus, in a sense, the Northerners did exterminate a society in every way except genocide. By contrast, no such genocidal threats were made by Southerners against the North."
[Charles W. Adams, "When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession." Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, pp.54-56]
That is blood curdling. No wonder the Southerners wanted to secede from that bunch of psychopaths. Did you notice that one of the most mentally-unbalanced of all was Thaddeus Stevens.
I am not sure if I told you this, Joey, but did you know that Woodrow Wilson was a fan of three of the historical figures that you admire the most?
"The active statesman is often an incomparable teacher, however, when he is himself least conscious that he is a teacher at all—when he has no thought of being didactic, but has a whole soul full of the purpose of leading his fellow-countrymen to do those things which he conceives to be right. Read the purposes of men like Patrick Henry and Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln, men untutored of the schools—read their words of leadership, and say whether there be anything wiser than their home-made wisdom." [Woodrow Wilson, "The Papers of Woodrow Wilson Vol 05." Princeton University Press, 1966, p.398]
How about that?
Mr. Kalamata
Did you never wonder why the Far-left political hacks disguised as historians, such as Eric Foner, Allen Guelzo, and the late Harry Jaffa, have swooned over Lincoln?
Jaffa wrote for Barry Goldwater and contributed to conservative periodicals. He certainly wasn't everybody's idea of a conservative. He tread on a lot of toes in arguments. But he was not "far left" or a "political hack.
That's even more true of Guelzo, who has also contributed to leading conservative publications and is even something of an Evangelical. Conservatism can't be pure Lysander Spooner or Thomas Jefferson and certainly not pure Jefferson Davis. It needs realists as well as dreamers, and the more one cares about something, the more apt one is to be realistic about it, rather than engage in fantasies. That's why people like Hamilton, Clay and Lincoln, shouldn't simply be condemned - and certainly not in hysterical terms - for not conforming to libertarian fantasies.
Eric Foner definitely is on the left and very prominent there. His views on the Civil War and Reconstruction, though, are very different from those on the left a century ago, like Charles Beard, who was far more sympathetic to slaveowners and the Confederacy. Beard and other progressives had no use for slavery but they saw the Southerners as fellow opponents of big business, industrialism and the Republican Party.
[Charles W. Adams, "When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession." Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, p.3]
Check out Adams’s bibliography. Who is one of Adams's main sources? None other than Eric Foner's uncle, Philip Foner. Uncle Philip has been accused of being a plagiarist himself, and he was generally acknowledged to have been a Communist, losing a teaching position for that in the Forties - about the time he was writing Business and Slavery: The New York Merchants and the Irrepressible Conflict. What does Charles Adams say about that book? He calls it "remarkable" and says, "If money makes the world go around (private sector) and is the heart of war and the blood of governments (public sector), then the Foner book explains more about the Civil War than any other study."
Let us pause and reflect: the theory that Kalamata and Diogenes have been expounding for months, even years, rests largely on a book by a Marxist historian. Those ideas didn't start with Foner; they go back to Charles Beard and others. And Marxist or progressive or Lost Causer origins don't necessarily mean the theory is wrong, but it ought to make us think at least a little before dismissing other views and adopting economic determinism and the idea that the bad bankers were behind it all.
Have you ever heard of the American Society for Promoting National Unity? It was a group founded early in 1861 to preserve the union through compromise with the South on slavery. Its members included former presidents, former vice presidential candidates, politicians, a mob of ministers, New York and Massachusetts businessmen, and names from the cream of New York society.
In March and in April of 1861 - right up until Sumter - they were still calling for compromise to save the Union. Too late I know. But a good indication that peace was more on the minds of New York's elites than war.
Now that you know about American Society for Promoting National Unity, it's not hard to find the membership list on their prospectus - a broad cross-section of the wealthy and prominent who sought peace and unity through concessions to the South. Can anyone come up with the names of those who were supposedly beating the war drums in 1861? Not people who just expressed concern about revenue, or people who wanted a show of firmness, but people who actually wanted war. In the North, I mean. We all know about the wild war talk in the South.