Posted on 04/19/2010 8:18:35 AM PDT by erod
It was your article...and it does not support your argument. It ain’t denial unless the accusation is true.
Not to mention the institutionalized slavery of millions of black people. Yeah, I went there. The Confederacy only seceded because the economic wellbeing of their elite depended on slavery. They openly admit the primacy of the slavery issue in the documents rationalizing their secession.
South Carolina—"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."
Mississippi—"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun."
Georgia—"The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose."
Texas—"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law."
Given the choice of one temporary "dictator" and a nation of little dictators enslaving millions and degrading an entire race, I know who I'd choose.
Moreover, Lincoln’s position on slavery was THE fundamental cause of southern seccession. I don’t see how you can deny that.
Get your picture straight. Lincoln as a State Representative voted to prevent blacks from owning land, businesses, or residences in Illinois. Lincoln, like Horace Greeley, saw the west as a pristine land for the white man exclusively. No blacks need apply. Try to forget the 50 years of Hollywood propaganda regarding the War and remember who wanted to allow the west to be settled by both blacks and whites. It wasn’t Lincoln and his friends.
Bottom line, Lincoln screwed up royally and then committed the nation to its bloodiest war to cover for his incompetence. Ask yourself why Lincoln publicly taunted SC with published news accounts of re-inforcing Fort Sumpter? An odd form of behavior from a peaceful man of law?
Okay, fine.
But why, then, did you ask your question about “other” presidents who “put down” secessionist movements?
DiLorenzo’s book, “The Real Lincoln”.
“If I could save the Union by freeing all the slaves I would. If I could save the Union by freeing none of the slaves I would not” Look it up. Lincoln said it.
Lincoln had a personal loathing for slavery but did not make it a political or military goal until late into the war. The Emancipation proclamation freed no slaves in the border states - Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky - but only in territory occupied by the Union Army in states that had seceeded. The proclamation also excluded slaves in the parishes of Louisiana around New Orleans.
In addition, Lincoln did act in ways that could be described as dictatorial. For instance, he jailed thousands of US citizens on executive order without habeas corpus and defied an order from the Supreme Court to stop.
Last but not least, Lincoln claimed the Confederate States did not, and could not leave the Union. That means he used the United States military against US citizens in violation of the Constitution. No Confederate forces invaded the United States for the first years of the war. The most brutal behavior ever committed by US forces wasn’t at My Lai but in Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia - all with Lincoln’s active and informed consent.
I’ll give Lincoln another look, I am guilty of sometimes relying on what I learned in High School and I’m a Yankee too (I’m from Illinois). That is why I’m looking for a good book to read on the man that takes an unbiased look at him.
What part of "They did not tax exports" is unclear? Tariffs were applied to imports only. And the bulk of imports were consumed by Northerners. It should be noted that on February 28, 1861 the confederate congress did place a duty on cotton exports - 1/8th cent per pound on all exports after August 1861. Even though this was in direct violation of their constitution.
If Egypt did not have bumper cotton crops in 1862-64, the British would have allied with the Confederacy. Imagine the British Navy knocking heads with the Union Navy? A whole different outcome would have been possible.
Probably not.
This was a war that Lincoln caused, not one chosen by the people. It could easily be said that Lincoln was over his head as President and an entire generation paid the price. Sound familiar?
Yeah. But while that is certainly true of the president today it is completely inaccurate to say the same of Abraham Lincoln.
No, it was slaveholders who wanted to bring their slaves with them.
That's hardly an argument in favor of your cause.
Yep, King Lincoln was a dictator.
Legally he could do it only in areas still in rebellion. To end slavery in other areas took the 13th Amendment.
In addition, Lincoln did act in ways that could be described as dictatorial. For instance, he jailed thousands of US citizens on executive order without habeas corpus and defied an order from the Supreme Court to stop.
Except there was no such Supreme Court order to stop.
No Confederate forces invaded the United States for the first years of the war.
Unless you count Fort Sumter and all the other federal facilities stolen by the confederate government.
The most brutal behavior ever committed by US forces wasn’t at My Lai but in Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia - all with Lincoln’s active and informed consent.
Oh puleeze.
seriouisly? You don’t know this?
Both sides were right and sought enforce their belief. A Great War ensued and We have a whole United States, the beginnings of a more centralized government and thankfully the beginnings of the end of slavery.
However, the 14th amendment was not ratified until 1868, years after the war and the equal protection clause would not be inserted unit 1954!
In between these events you had a very important case, Slaughter-House, which sought to clear up interpretation of the 14th amendment, which was not fully enforced not understood in the context of it’s meaning or intent.
There are other points for sure but if Lincoln wanted to end slavery he, Congress and the States should have expeditiously.
But he and they did not and in the interim suspended many Constitutional rights in the pursuit of his vision.
If he had been serious about ending the war even it meant not one slave would go free he had plenty of opportunity to petition the other side for a cease fire and negotiation.
Instead, more than 660,000 lives were lost and the South was left impoverished for years, in particular those areas raised to the ground by General Sherman.
ML/NJ
Then who was it?
Ask yourself why Lincoln publicly taunted SC with published news accounts of re-inforcing Fort Sumpter?
Lincoln sent word to Governor Pickens by private messenger of his intent to resupply Sumter with food only, well before the attempt was made. The decision on peace and war lay with Jeff Davis. And he chose war.
Word that! People forget that or don’t know it’s duplicity.
No, it was slaveholders who wanted to bring their slaves with them.
That’s hardly an argument in favor of your cause.
Ask yourself one simple question, why did Yankees hate black people so much? Simple, they had never lived with them. Blacks and Whites in the South have been one culture since Jamestown. Northern interests were not upset with cheap cotton produced by slave labor, they just didn’t want to have to bid against British interests to buy it. The Kansas Jayhawkers were against slavery and they introduced Americas first terrorist organization (i.e., John Brown). The war should have been avoided. An entire generation was slaughtered. I keep saying this and you avoid dealing with its impact. The Northern interests were seeking to control the entire country. Ultimately, they did. Stop carrying water for tyrants. Your defense of Lincoln could easily be updated to defend Obama.
I cannot believe how factual you are and a stickler for details!
You make me sick! /S/S/S/S
Then they were in fact not free. Only free men have all the rights others have, their color having nothing to do with nor their prior bondage.
If they were free, they should have been free to live under the same Constitution as everyone else.
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.