Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

YouTube ^ | March 20, 2008 | Abraham Lincoln via cparsons2005 on YouTube

[cowboyusa]

Ok, here we go, what would have eventually happened is, some of the states that made up the Confederacy would have seceded from it(Texas absolutely.) There would then be 13 little Republics all fighting with each other, and the Confederacy, and the US. Lincoln saw this(so did my Andrew jackson)and kept the unity of the UNION as the primary focus.

[cowboyusa]

I should say, AndrewJackson is one of my hero's.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ok, here we go, what would have eventually happened is, some of the states that made up the Confederacy would have seceded from it(Texas absolutely.)

The evidence I see has it going quite the opposite of that. What I see is that the five Union slave states would leave the Union and join the Confederacy, shortly followed by several west and Midwestern states. The reason? The much greater economic wealth they would acquire by trading through New Orleans with Europe than they got through the New York controlled coalition of the Great Lakes Canal and Railroad system.

Ever hear of the "Graingers"? Look them up. They were itching for alternatives to buy and ship their grain other than the New York controlled system.

A lot of people would have gotten richer once the New York controlled system of trade and transport had been broken. The making of money would have kept the new coalition together. As it is, New York kept a stranglehold on US trade, and that's where the money went.

[DiogenesLamp]

I should say, AndrewJackson is one of my hero's.

I like him too. He did a lot of impressive things and he had a lot of quotable quotes. I'm sure you like this one.

""John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation, I will secede your head from the rest of your body."

[nicollo]

Given in 1863, "Four Score and Seven Years ago" refers to 1776 when 13 slave owning states seceded from a Union.

Lincoln referred to self-government, not slavery.

Had the Founders wanted to end slavery they could have easily done so, but if so they never would have created the Union -- that Lincoln saved.

The Founders and Lincoln chose their battles very carefully. You may thank God for it.

[rockrr]

It’s abundantly clear who the moronic liar is here...

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln referred to self-government, not slavery.

He cited the portion of the Declaration of Independence that is most associated with slavery, not that portion of it that is most associated with "consent of the governed", which is the more accurate summation of the Document's purpose.

Had the Founders wanted to end slavery they could have easily done so, but if so they never would have created the Union -- that Lincoln saved.

In 1776, every state was a slave owning state. By 1787, the vast majority of them were still slave owning states. The founders could not have possibly ended slavery. It would have required the legislatures in every state to do it, and they weren't going to do it because people had too much money invested in the practice and they would not give it up willingly.

Also Lincoln did not save the Union created in 1776. That Union recognized the right of people to separate from a government they no longer saw as serving their interest. What Lincoln did was create a new Union who's foundational principle is that the Federal Government rules supreme over the states. We've been dealing with the consequence of this change ever since.

It has manifested itself in the form of Abortion, Gay Marriage, Anchor babies, Welfare, banning of prayer in public schools, and other social disasters for the nation, all done against the public will.

You may thank God for it.

I don't think the killing of 750,00 people was God's idea. I think that was Lincoln's idea, though he didn't know at the time he started the war, that it would turn into such bloodshed.

[DiogenesLamp]

It’s abundantly clear who the moronic liar is here...

I am confident that you will regard anything I say as a "lie" if it does not comport with what you prefer to believe.

You have no objectivity.

[DoodleDawg]

"John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation, I will secede your head from the rest of your body."

Almost certainly apocryphal. But regarding the secession crisis Jackson did say, "But if one drop of blood is shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find."

[central_va]

"But if one drop of blood is shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find."

Can you show us the law or Constitutional article/section making secession illegal. Thanks.

[Mr. K]

In fact, they were all promised that if a state wished to withdraw if it felt ‘The Union’ was not acting in their best interest any more.

But they made it so sacrosanct to preserve “The Union” ... Because “The Union” was the best thing to be, ever... or something.

[DoodleDawg]

Can you show us the law or Constitutional article/section making secession illegal. Thanks.

Secession isn't. Rebellion is.

[DiogenesLamp]

Almost certainly apocryphal. But regarding the secession crisis Jackson did say, "But if one drop of blood is shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find."

And Jackson was the sort of man that no one would take lightly. He had demonstrated again and again that you trifle with him at your own peril!

There is much to admire about him, but I still do not grasp why he did the Indians so dirty. Did he have no empathy for them and their lives after having spent so much time with the Seminole?

I still consider that an ugly mark on the man. He shouldn't have done it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Secession isn't. Rebellion is.

To quote Lincoln, "Just because you call a tail a leg doesn't make it so."

[DoodleDawg]

To quote Lincoln, "Just because you call a tail a leg doesn't make it so."

Agreed. Just because you call it secession instead of rebellion doesn't make it so.

[DiogenesLamp]

Agreed. Just because you call it secession instead of rebellion doesn't make it so.

Except the facts contradict this position. No effort was made to take over Washington DC and usurp the existing Federal government of the USA.

That makes it "not rebellion."

[DoodleDawg]

Except the facts contradict this position.

Well your opinion does anyway.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well your opinion does anyway.

This is the consequence of having an opinion based on facts.

:)

[DoodleDawg]

his is the consequence of having an opinion based on facts.

Based on your interpretation. Others look at the same facts and disagree.

[DiogenesLamp]

Others look at the same facts and disagree.

They don't look at the same facts, and nothing I can do will make them look at them. They choose not to see them, and so they do not see them.

People want to believe the myth, and they don't want to believe that one of their heroes has feet of clay or that his cause was unjust.

They don't want to feel bad. They want to feel good, and in order to feel good they have to believe that the right thing was done for the right reasons.