Abe Lincoln was a dictator??? (Need Help combating loony argument)

[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

[central_va]

I have with someone who argues Lincoln was a tyrant ultimately comes down to a defense of slavery and to racism.

Yes, Lincoln was both a racist and a tyrant.

[Bigun]

In my personal experience, although it often takes a long time, almost every discussion I have with someone who argues Lincoln was a tyrant ultimately comes down to a defense of slavery and to racism.

Then you have never had a discussion with me.

[Impy]

Yeah. Even if one regard the actions Lincoln took as wrong you can’t regard the Confederates as the ‘good guys’. Since they left the union due to their zealous desire to not only keep but expand slavery (which legal or not was WRONG of them to do, extremely wrong).

To make a modern analogy. It would be as if Vermont left the union (say in 2003) so they could perform “abortions” up to the point of the cutting of the cord and Bush sent troops in. Even if you thought Vermont had the right to leave I doubt many freepers would be supportive of that decision or call Bush a ‘tyrant’.

[central_va]

Whether or not a socialist is from the North or the South matters little because now it is the North that is bastion of liberal/socialist voting base. The monies spent on placating southern poverty would not be spent(wasted) in an independent South. Just wouldn't happen. johnson fooled the south in the 1960's, after that, the lesson was learned, at least below the mason-dixon.

The 1980 election ended the Demo stranglehold on dixie.

[equalitybeforethelaw]

So Impy, you are a ends justify the means kind of guy. So why bother referencing the Constitution and law? Lets turn it around, could the United States have gained its independence without the support of slave owning states? If you say yes, please explain.

[equalitybeforethelaw]

To Central_VA

You are looking at Presidential electons. The year 1994 ended the Dem stranglehold over the South at the Congressional level. We can thank bill and hills for that gift. Remember, the only moderating influence on the hard left Dem party came from seniority of southern dems. When the hard left took out senority around 1973 after the Wilber Mills Tidal Bowl scandal the party went forever from the “liberal” coalition to the “socialist” coalition. It took roughly 20 years of painful experience for southern voters to conclude that the Dem party dispised them and alter course. The south made one more try with the dems this past cycle, but that will be the last for an eternity. Two Illinois transformers should be enough to put the south beyond the siren call of “free stuff”. The Dems have become what they always were, a community of Tammany Halls.

[Impy]

Look I don’t like Sherman’s march to the sea either, I wouldn’t have volunteered for the Union army but I cry no tears for the damn CSA.

If child-rape was legal in some part of the country and a bunch of states left the union after a President unsympathetic to child-rape was elected would you stand with the child rapists and their alleged right to secede? I wouldn’t, I’d tell them to go to hell for raping children.

CSA sure didn’t care about the black mans NATURAL RIGHT not to be a damn slave. Or about Kansas’ right to decide they didn’t want to be a slave state. or the right of nortern states not to let brutal fugitive slave hunters operate north of the mason-dixon. But it wrapped itself in the US constitution and it’s alleged right to leave to union for any reason. Pathetic. Selective love of the constitution.

If a slave killed his owner while trying to escape would you have favored hanging the slave as was the law at the time? I say it’s self defense. But the law is the law. Right? Irreverent question? No more so than your completely off-point question about the Revolutionary War.

You can argue both sides were wrong but you can’t argue for the virtue of the CSA. They left the union for a crappy and moronic reason.

[equalitybeforethelaw]

Lets turn it around, could the United States have gained its independence without the support of slave owning states? If you say yes, please explain.

Impy, you never answered my question. I know slave owners are next to Satan, but how did Lincoln find himself President of the US if not for all those slave owners that created the US? What changed?

[Impy]

I don’t say yes, I agree with you that the answer is no.

And I don’t think they were Satan. They were people doing what was common at the time.

But how in hell is that relevant to what we are talking about here?

Slave states helped win the revolution therefore decades latter I should pat them on the back for leaving the union they helped create over slavery? And not just keeping it mind you cause Lincoln had neither the power nor intention to end it in the South. Congress passed a consitional amendment that would enshrined the South’s right to have slavery if they wanted. But they wanted to expand it to the territories (whether the people there wanted it or not) and make new slave states. They ironically did the one thing that guaranteed a swift end to slavery. What a bunch of idiots.

[central_va]

Would you be suprised to know that a bill making secession illegal was voted on in the Senate? It was voted down.

[rockrr]

You ask an excellent question, but of an obdurate and hidebound audience.

The rebels threw together a poor imitation of the US Constitution (one could almost understand, what with the haste they needed to construct their little mutiny in the dead of night). It’s cornerstone celebrated the peculiar institution that compelled them to explode the system our founding fathers carefully crafted.

Having proven to themselves and any interested parties that “when the going gets tough, the rebels cut & run” ruled the day they would have very soon succumbed to the inevitable internal squabbles and power plays. At the same time they would be absorbed with defending their borders against foreign incursion and invasion.

Having played the role of grasshopper they would finally realize that they should have developed a more robust economy instead of one that lazily relied on their brethren for their keep. Unfortunately they would be realizing this as they were overrun by invaders who would carve them up and subjugate them. Hopefully they would fare better than the slaves they held as pawns.

Perhaps they would call upon their old brothers & sisters from the United States to bail their asses out, but I suspect that their fierce pride wouldn’t allow it.

At any rate it wouldn’t be the glorious south of Lost Causer mythology.

[rustbucket]

While everyone was watching Sumter, Baylor was organizing the expedition to seize the New Mexico territory.

We had a long discussion about this before in August of 2008 [Post 127 and subsequent posts]. At that time you had said that "Before the Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter, Confederate soldiers were already marching through Texas to seize the federal territory of New Mexico." I think I showed that this was not so.

Now you say that Baylor was organizing an expedition to seize New Mexico territory while everyone was watching Fort Sumter. I've not been able to find a source that says that. If you are aware of one, would you please provide it.

[equalitybeforethelaw]

CSA sure didn’t care about the black mans NATURAL RIGHT not to be a damn slave.

Neither did the US so whats your point? As I recall, the British basically announced an emancipation like Lincoln’s in hopes of causing a slave rebellion. How is that different? Doesn’t it make the British more concerned with human rights than the Americans?

[cowboyway]

Dear Non-Sequitur, it seems you care too much. This is the second day of your constant slurs against Southerners.

Dear Non-Sequitur, it seems you care hate too much. This is the second day decade of your constant slurs against Southerners.

There. Fixed it.

[Idabilly]

Neither did the US so whats your point? As I recall, the British basically announced an emancipation like Lincoln’s in hopes of causing a slave rebellion. How is that different? Doesn’t it make the British more concerned with human rights than the Americans?

---------------------------------------------

Walk silently, my friend.

Next, they'll be bashing George Washington.

Flying the British union jack,of course........