Posted on 04/19/2010 8:18:35 AM PDT by erod
Hi FRiends,
I have two brothers who I love very much, they’re young and libertarian Ron Paul supporters, sigh. We get along and I’m hoping that one day they’ll come back to conservatism, but they have bought into a theory that I don’t think makes much sense:
Abe Lincoln was a dictator.
There are many websites dedicated to this nonsense you can Google "Abe Lincoln dictator" and get some weird stuff, if you want to check it out.
I need your help in busting this myth are there any books I can read on this subject to dispel this stuff? Do you know any of the arguments to combat this nonsense? Ie. Lincoln did not want to free the slaves.
Thanks for taking time out of your day to help me out, -Erod
Sumner should not have made mocked the old South Carolina senator’s speech defect. That was low and unworthy of his position. Otherwise, there was nothing wrong with his speech and he said some things that needed to be said. And there was still no excuse for Brooks’ cowardly attack.
----------------------------------------
This is true..
He does own a mirror.
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who in the land is the most Idiotic of all? Answer = Non-Sequitur
Really? The part about old whores and stuff? That was senatorial eloquence? (Hmmm, wonder if the Senate ever got around to taking down those words, or if they are still in the Congressional Record to promote interstate amity and concord today.)
I’ll admit Sumner wasn’t a paragon of bi-partisan outreach. Sumner was the Ann Coulter of his days and Preston Brooks was Keith Olbermann.
There, fixed it for ya.
Is that supposed to be little chunks of scalp on the cane? Ewwwwwwwwwww.
------------------------------------------------
Show some respect,boy
Sorry Ma'am, sorry that you have to deal with this, and sorry that we've taken this long to raise again. We love our Southern belles
Tennessee also accomplished a de facto secession by an act of the legislature. The calling of a convention was soundly defeated in February and when the legislators thought the situation changed in the spring they did not bother with resubmitting to the people the question of calling a convention. Strictly speaking, they invited the rebel army to invade and overrun the state. But with the presence of an alien army and the local rebs insane with joy at the prospect of fighting Yankees, the June election was a fraudulent rubber stamping formality.
When Brooks beat Sumner senseless he reduced the senator to the brainpower of an antebellum South Carolina congressman.
Nice quote from William Wallace. Problem is that while it can be applied to the honorable descendants of the average noble Confederate soldier fighting for his sovereign state, it can also be legitimately applied to the Neo-Nazis running around in Germany today.
Sure it is. Sumter belonged to the federal government. Only Congress could dispose of it per Article I, Section 8. What rule of law are you relying on?
...but I can at least say all lands of a country belong to that country, just like after our revolutionary war.
Now that's just plain idiotic.
England has no claim to anything here, but according to you they do...
Ownership of any British property not already in Colonial hands was settled by the Treaty of Paris. What similar treaty transferred ownership of Sumter?
It can also be applied to the Boot Licking Federalists that infest this thread and deify Lincoln's butchery.
---------------------------------------------------
Secession was approved 104,471 to 47,183 by The People
Clearly he is attacking him with that quill, I wouldn’t want to get my eye poked with that. Were were all of the pansy ass Yankees to help him? I guess they were Barny Franking in the cloak room at the time.
Were=Where (Pre coffee post)
Yeah it does, as you would know if you broke down and read it. Ownership of all British property not already in U.S. hands was transferred by treaty.
The fact is you need Fort Sumter to support your anti-Southern bigotry. Without it, the North was an invader the south was rightly defending herself against.
Fact is that you're completely wrong on all counts.
You are a pro-homosexual, anti-Southern anti-Conservative bitgot.
You Lost Causers love to turn to homosexuality, don't you? I wonder why that is?
Something tells me you had a bad experience while in the Navy at Charleston and grew to hate Southerners because of it.
Not at all. Charleston was fine. The people there were nice enough. No bad memories that I can recall. So what caused this rabid hatred you have towards Northerners?
Perhaps this is why the only threads you generally post on here on FR are civil war threads.
I'm here because boobs like you are here posting Southron myths and flat out lies and parading them as fact. So long as you continue to do so we'll be around to set the record straight. Get used to it.
You know even less than Obama about law and history, using only bits and pieces of each to support your anti-Southern claims.
And your level of knowledge of both hovers somewhere between zilch and none.
A lot of people thought that election was a fraud engineered by the Democratic-Confederate power structure.
When was that? What bill?
Lincoln, like Horace Greeley, saw the west as a pristine land for the white man exclusively. No blacks need apply.
And the opposite position taken by the Southerners was that blacks were free to flock to the territories...if and only if they were someone's property. Lincoln was dedicated to keeping the territories slave free. Southerners were dedicated to making them slave. Simple as that
I believe Brooks had an armed accomplice keeping other senators at bay. And if Sumner was armed with more than a pen, i doubt the gallant Brooks would have chanced an attack.
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.