Yap! Yap! yapyapyap!!
Oh, rockrr shut up. You're so annoying!
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
Um.... the ping to that post had nothing to do with that. It was regarding a well know troll. I don’t care if you like Lincoln or don’t like him. I have my opinion and others have theirs. The ping was not to discuss Lincoln.
Yap! Yap! yapyapyap!!
Oh, rockrr shut up. You're so annoying!
Note how the Davis version differs from the Stephens version? Stephens mentions nothing about black soldiers and the problems they caused to their families, as if Davis really cared about that. I can hardly credit Davis with accuracy given how badly it differs from the accounts by those who were there.
You're not far off - I'm working with a considerable number of people born in a different hemisphere. I'm managing a software development project where all my customers and my project managers are in the U.S. and just about all my development staff is in India. Working 4 to midnight enables me to be on hand for the end of my customer's workday and the first half of my developer's workday so I can be involved in both. An annoyance but that's the fun of outsourcing.
But perhaps I need to explain to someone like you what 'software development' and 'project management' and 'outsourcing' mean?
And no doubt one of the pillars of this 'southern culture' you all obsess about is sincerity. When you can fake that you've got it made. Still, you need to keep working on it. The hatred still seeps through.
Non-Sequitur is worth some thing after all.
Good for you
Will you supply the trading symbol? I'd like to stake a rather large 'Short' position...
The colonists did not have a single representative in Parliament.
The Confederacy and the pro-slavery border states, with less than 30% of the voting population, had 28 out 66 seats in the Senate (42%) and 83 out of 237 House seats (35%).
Moreover, the Confederates and their border state sympathizers engineered the greatest intrusion of the federal government into the states in the history of the Union: namely the armies of federal marshals who raided Northern homes without warrants on suspicion of harboring "fugitives."
Like the famous case where 300 armed federal marshals tore up an entire Boston neighborhood searching for one elderly escaped slave who had gone missing almost 20 years before.
The Confederacy came into existence in 1860 because the racket was at an end: the 1860 census would have reapportioned the House more fairly, reducing the pro-slavery caucus to a permanent minority. The slavery lobby would no longer possess the balance of power in the Congress.
Instead of being grownups and accepting the Constitutional reality, the Confederacy armed itself and immediately began its strategy of illegally seizing the federal territory it desired.
Yeah, we should just believe what you say instead of what Lincoln said and wrote. What would Lincoln have known about his motives compared to you?
“Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist like Fremont and Stephens and Sumner.
Not what he was telling people in his letters in the 1840’s and 1850’s.”
In other words you ignore what he wrote in his First Inaugural. Give your magic eight ball a shake and tell us what Abe is telling you from the spirit world, we all want to know.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASproclamation.htm
“Most members of the Republican Party believed that the Constitution protected slavery in the states. However, some Radical Republicans such as Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, argued that after the outbreak of the American Civil War the president had the power to abolish slavery in the United States.
In May, 1861, General Benjamin F. Butler, a strong opponent of slavery, was placed in command of Fort Monroe in Virginia. Soon afterwards, runaway slaves began to appear at the fort seeking protection. The slaveowners demanded that the runaways should be returned. Butler refused, issuing a statement that he considered the slaves to be “contraband of war”. Butler’s action was welcomed by those involved in the struggle against slavery and he immediately became a favourite with Radical Republicans.
Abraham Lincoln believed that Butler’s action was unconstitutional. However, after a Cabinet meeting it was decided not to reprimand Butler. Three months later, Major General John C. Fremont, the commander of the Union Army in St. Louis proclaimed that all slaves owned by Confederates in Missouri were free. This time Lincoln decided to ask Fremont to modify his order and free only slaves owned by Missourians actively working for the South.
When John C. Fremont refused to back down he was sacked. Lincoln wrote to Fremont: “Can it be pretended that it is any longer the government of the U.S. - any government of Constitution and laws - wherein a General, or a President, may make permanent rules of property by proclamation.” Fremont was replaced by the conservative General Henry Halleck. He immediately issued an order forbidding runaway slaves from seeking permission to be protected by the Union Army.
Radical Republicans were furious with Lincoln for sacking John C. Fremont. The Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, William Fessenden, described Lincoln’s actions as “a weak and unjustifiable concession in the Union men of the border states. Whereas Charles Sumner wrote to Lincoln complaining about his actions and remarked how sad it was “to have the power of a god and not use it godlike”.
The situation was repeated in May, 1862, when General David Hunter began enlisting black soldiers in the occupied district under his control. Soon afterwards Hunter issued a statement that all slaves owned by Confederates in his area (Georgia, Florida and South Carolina) were free. Lincoln was furious and despite the pleas of Salmon Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, the instructed him to disband the 1st South Carolina (African Descent) regiment and to retract his proclamation.
On 19th August, 1862, Horace Greeley wrote an open letter to the Abraham Lincoln in the New York Tribune about forcing David Hunter to retract his proclamation. Greeley criticized the president for failing to make slavery the dominant issue of the war and compromising moral principles for political motives. Lincoln famously replied on 22nd August, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it.”
Despite this public dispute with Horace Greeley, Lincoln was already reconsidering his views on the power of the president to abolish slavery. He wrote that the events of the war had been “fundamental and astounding”. He admitted that these events had changed his mind on emancipation. He was helped in this by William Whiting, a War Department solicitor, who told him that in his opinion, the president’s war powers gave him the right to emancipate the slaves.
After consulting with his vice president, Hannibal Hamlin, Lincoln wrote the first draft of his Emancipation Proclamation. When Lincoln told his Cabinet of his plans to free the slaves in the unconquered Confederacy, Montgomery Blair, the Postmaster General led the attack on the idea. Blair argued that if Lincoln went ahead with this it would result in the Republican Party losing power. William Seward, the Secretary of State, agreed with Lincoln’s decision but advocated that it should not be issued until the Union Army had a major military victory. “
He knew - and the slavery lobby knew - that banning slavery in the federal territories would cause the eventual end of American slavery.
Slavery had to expand or it would die.
This is why the slavery lobby's first strategic war aim was to try to seize the West for the Confederacy.
While everyone was watching Sumter, Baylor was organizing the expedition to seize the New Mexico territory.
From the very beginning, the Confederacy's goal was not "peaceful secession." The goal was to maintain a tenuous peace with the loyal portion of the Union long enough for the Confederacy to equip and position forces to take control of the West.
--------------------------------------------------
Again, Facts disprove Lincolnite's mythology.....
Benjamin Wade Not too steady in his grasp of constitutional law, President Buchanan signed the joint resolution the day the Senate approved it: an unnecessary step, given the fact that Congressional power to propose amendments to the Constitution is not subject to presidential approval or veto. Two days later, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as the sixteenth president of the United States and the proposed amendment was largely forgotten, although two states, Ohio and Maryland, actually ratified it! An Illinois state constitutional convention that met in 1862 purported to ratify the amendment, but had no legal authority to do so. Interestingly, Lincoln alluded to the Corwin amendment in his First Inaugural Address (paragraph 29). Although he stopped short of endorsing it, he said, "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Those were clearly not the words of a wild-eyed abolitionist (as Lincoln's detractors portrayed him), but of a practical politician trying to manage an unprecedented crisis.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, namely: ART. 13. No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the 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. --12 United States Statutes at Large, 36th Congress, 2nd Session, 1861, p. 251.
http://ghostamendment.com/
In other words you ignore what he wrote in his First Inaugural. Give your magic eight ball a shake and tell us what Abe is telling you from the spirit world, we all want to know.
----------------------------------------------
Have you no clue? This whole Lincoln love affair has blinded y'all
_____________________________ In the Conkling letter before mentioned, I said: “Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time then to declare that you will not fight to free Negroes.” I repeat this now. If Jefferson Davis wishes, for himself, or for the benefit of his friends at the North, to know what I would do if he were to offer peace and reunion, saying nothing about slavery, let him try me (…).
Abe Lincoln
I’ve been sitting back watching you guys rip apart Lincoln and anyone who dares to support him, and I’d like to pose a question to you. Had the Confederacy won their independence, what would the Confederate States of America be like today? What would the powers of the Presidency be like, the Congress, the Judiciary? What amendments would they have made to their Constitution - if they made any, given that the amendment process in the Confederate Constitution was much more difficult than in the U.S. Constitution. What would what we consider second amendment rights or first amendment rights be like? Education? Stuff like that. I’m genuinely curious on what your opinions would be.
The North would be a fully socialst/communist state. The South would be a free market economy pre-1930’s type America.
------------------------------------------------------
They were not granted the Right of Self Determination. All other points are moot.
Let's say:
Lincoln had chosen the path of Friendly relations. Would we be better off?
The People spoke! They spoke for Secession. He denied the will of the People. People seem to forget all this. What you/me want is irrelevant. This Country is no longer "Free" and the so-called will of The People - Is - Nothing more than a Talking point.
When the people spoke - they - spoke as their state. We are running around in some huge Centralized nanny - State after Lincoln. Who's going to stop them now? Courts? It's not going to stop. Socialism is here!
Get ready for a boatload of confederate mythology. Hope you have your BS boots on.
I should have laid out some parameters to begin with. For the sake of arguement, let's assume the Confederacy won their independence on the battlefield and that for the most part the rest of history remained constant. In that scenarion the Great Depression still happens. Some of the strongest supporters of FDRs policies came from the South. Men like Huey Long, LBJ, Sam Rayburn, all went for the Democrats New Deal plans hook, line, and sinker. What's to say that given the economic conditions an FDR election wouldn't have been matched by a Huey Long election? Under those circumstances one could easily see the Confederacy with many of the same kind of programs the U.S. implemented. And with the strong president-weak judiciary precedent set by Jefferson Davis then it's possible that the excesses could have been even worse, couldn't it?
Yes, I know. They were defeated in their attempt to secede. But I’m asking you to speculate what it would have been like if they had won their war and secured their independence. If you’re not interested in playing then that’s fine too.
I’m sorry to add another ping to the hundreds you’ve received from this thread.
As you now know many freepers agree with your brothers.
Be wary of daring to disagree lest you be branded a “traitor to the Republic”.
I see you’re already been called a “troll” for not responding to the guy who called you a troll’s friend within 30 minutes of his post. How amusing.
Would you deny then that the North, seperate from the South, would not be a fully european socialist state by now, at a minimum? At worst communist country. You are not going to tell me the North would be MORE free market 140 yrs after the fact? Even you are not that full of BS.....
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.