A Republican hero, but was Abe Lincoln gay?

It is news guaranteed to make many Republicans squirm. Was Abraham Lincoln, founder of the party now seeking a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in America, actually gay himself?

A new book, published next month, certainly thinks so. The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln by C.A. Tripp produces evidence that one of America's greatest Presidents had a long-term relationship with a youthful friend, Joshua Speed, and shared his bed with David Derickson, captain of his bodyguards.

Tripp, a former researcher for sex scientist Alfred Kinsey and an influential gay writer, includes asides by many of Lincoln's close friends. 'He was not very fond of girls, as he seemed to me,' his stepmother, Sarah Bush Lincoln, once told a friend.

It also includes a diary excerpt by one upper-class Washington woman who wrote of Derickson: 'There is a Bucktail soldier here devoted to the President, drives with him, and when Mrs L is not home, sleeps with him. What stuff!'

Scholars have long debated Lincoln's sexuality, and as early as the 1920s were making veiled references to his relationship with Speed. However, critics say that in the pioneer days men sleeping together in rough circumstances was not uncommon.

Now Tripp has discovered letters between Lincoln and Speed which supposedly betray a deep intimacy.

But Tripp's book really breaks new ground in its exhaustive portrayal of many of Lincoln's possible gay lovers, including one man who said Lincoln's thighs 'were as perfect as a human being could be'.

'Make no mistake - Abe Lincoln was gay,' said Professor Scott Thompson, from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts.

But David Donald, a Harvard professor and respected Lincoln biographer, has disputed Tripp's findings in his own book, We Are Lincoln Men, published last year, and says there is no definitive proof of Lincoln having affairs with any men.

I thought I had answered your objections but I guess you don't think I have. I will try again.

I am glad you concede that secession might be OK at times instead of outright rejecting it, as some do. Maybe I'm making some progress. Do you concede that sometimes secession would be OK if it were unilateral and the other side didn't agree? (I think secession in general implies unilateralness, otherwise I think it would be more accurate to call it dissolution.)

I rejected your scenarios because I do not think they reflect reality. You are being naive and idealistic. You say governemnts are supposed to "protect" people's rights, and I agree, that is what governments are supposed to do. But that is not what governments historically do. Governments historically oppress and tyrannize. That is why secession , which checks government, is almost always good. The Spanish nationalist recognized this when he said Basque independence is an "insult to the State." The question is, is do you realize it?

But to humor you, I will address your unlikely mental scenarios. If the town of Pervert seceded so they could make it legal to molest little boys, I would not support that and would say send in the troops. But the motivation would be protecting the little boys, not saving the Union. However, if the town of Tax Protester seceded because they no longer wanted to pay income or social security taxes, I would throw a party. I would give them all metals for their courage. Would they as a result, forfeit their "right" as Americans to collect Social Security, or AFDC, or WIC, etc. Of course. I would believe that would be something they would be very aware of when they did it. If someone on the inside didn't like the idea then I think it is highly likely they would be allowed to leave.

Whether a supra-majority of some sort is necessary to secede is something I am willing to discuss. But I would be more inclined to support needing a supra majority to join a union. States and territories joined the Union initially by simple majority vote of their legislatures. At the precious city and county level, that you keep referring to, cities routinely annex new areas without any input from the people being annexed so they can get their grubby hands on more tax revenue. I will trust that you do not support that kind of tyranny on the local level that happens all the time.

Since you are giving me mental scenarios, here is one for you. Lets say that due to the growing deficit, made possible by so called conservatives who seem incapable of actually cutting any spending, the marginal tax rate was raised to 50% on any income over $50,000. If my great home state of Georgia decided it could no longer tolerate such confiscatory tax rates, and secede, would you send in the troops? How many Georgians would you be willing to kill? I submit, if you would send in the troops and kill one Georgian to save your precious Union, you are a tyrant just like Lincoln. Would the people in Georgia loss their rights as Americans? Sure they would. But they would gain their rights as Georgians. And I can guarantee they would be freer as a result.

Were you the one who used to have as a tag line something about American exceptionalism? If so, that is part of the nationalists problem. Yes America is exceptional in many ways, but it is exceptional because of its people and its history and its religious orientation, etc. (See Samuel Huntington's new book to see just how exceptional we are on the international level, when it comes to things like work ethic.) But they often believe that our Government is exceptional as well and resistant to bad motives if not immune. Well just between you and me, we won't tell anyone else, your government is tyrannizing you buddy. It is confiscating your wealth and redistributing it for things it is not Constitutionally authorized to do. (About 80-90% of what it does, I would guess.) Guess what. If you decided you were going to withhold your share of the taxes until someone proved to you it was only being spent on things authorized by the Constitution, then storm troopers would come and get you. And after a thorough cavity search, I'm sure, they would throw you in jail. That is this little thing we call tyranny, and yes it is happening in America.

Well meaning "mainstream" conservatives who recognize a problem and want to change it, instead of just accepting Big Government as a good thing or necessary evil, always preach working within the system. Well that has really been working for us hasn't it? Well you can scream at the top of your lungs all day that all the alphabet soup programs are not authorized by the Constitution, and what is that getting you? At some point it is going to take some active defiance. Defiance that is not lawless and is authorized under the original understanding of our union of States. Nullification would be a good, less radical first step. Secession if necessary. Both, unless the federal government acted tyrannically, would be peaceful and bloodless. Wake up my man. All is not right regardless of what Rush and Rove tell you.

Do you concede that sometimes secession would be OK if it were unilateral and the other side didn't agree?

Yes.

I rejected your scenarios because I do not think they reflect reality.

Don't blame me. It was you who presented the scenario of the "blue states" seceding, and applauded it. Now, you're apparently saying that your own scenario does not reflect reality.

You are being naive and idealistic.

Look in the mirror. You apparently can see only those scenarios where secession would be of benefit. You are the one with an idealistic view of secession. I'm the guy with the realistic view because I see how it can be good or bad depending upon the underlying facts. But apparently, you consider any "bad" scenario to be unrealistic, and only consider the "good" scenarios to be "realistic". That's naive. Particularly when you tossed out the scenario of the blue states seceding in the first place.

You say governemnts are supposed to "protect" people's rights, and I agree, that is what governments are supposed to do.

I never said what they were "supposed" to do. I was talking about our government specifically, and the specific rights that would be lost to citizens in blue states that seceded.

But that is not what governments historically do.

That's too much of a generalization. Different governments do different things. None are perfect, but neither are the virtues of every government outweighed by its weaknesses.

One thing you apparently are not considering in your secession scenarios is that those who secede will still have a government. And like all governments, it should be mistrusted. There is no inherent virtue in secession, nor any rational basis to assume that the government of the seceding entity will be any better than the government from which it is seceding. That's partiuclarly true in a democracy, because there's no reason to assume that the voters in the seceding state are any more moral or just than those in the larger entity, or that they will be any more respective of rights.

Do you really think a sovereign government of the People's Republic of Massachusetts is as likely to protect rights as is our current federal government?

If the town of Pervert seceded so they could make it legal to molest little boys, I would not support that and would say send in the troops.

Do you realize that by saying you'd "send in the troops", you are giving the majority the power to decide whether or not the minority will secede? That secession is not an absolute right, but only permissible to the extent permitted by the larger state?

By the way, what if instead of wanting to molest little boys, it wanted to reinstitute slavery?

If my great home state of Georgia decided it could no longer tolerate such confiscatory tax rates, and secede, would you send in the troops? How many Georgians would you be willing to kill? I submit, if you would send in the troops and kill one Georgian to save your precious Union, you are a tyrant just like Lincoln.

I don't recall Georgia seceding because of higher tax rates, so that wasn't the choice Lincoln faced. As I recall, the primary reasons for Georgia's secession were as stated here:

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html And I don't think fighting secession to oppose those reasons made Lincoln a tyrant.

To flip your scenario around, what if the state of Massachusetts seceded, and wanted to raise everyone's tax rates to 95%. How'd you feel about that?

Anyway, to answer your question directly, I would say that Georgia would not be allowed to secede because that would deprive the citizens of Georgia of the rights contained in the U.S. Constitution. In my view, the proper thing to do would be for advocates of secession to push for an amendment permitting it under certain conditions.

At the precious city and county level, that you keep referring to, cities routinely annex new areas without any input from the people being annexed so they can get their grubby hands on more tax revenue. I will trust that you do not support that kind of tyranny on the local level that happens all the time.

And yet, you support the right of such cities and counties to secede, become sovereign, and then be even more aggressive in thier actions because they would not even be remotely constrained by the 5th Amendment. This is unbelievable. You are pointing to how rotten some cities are, and yet want to remove whatever restraints exist on their power by permitting them to secede.

"I'm not going to waste my time engaging in point by point refutations of articles you copy without linking, or your selective citations to certain laws at certain times without references to changes in those laws, and to the passage of other laws."

But you will engage in point by point rebuttle when you think you are on firm ground. Looks as if the specific facts presented to you do not increse your confidence level.

"What further distinguishes you from me is that I look back on the states that supported slavery and think they were wrong. You look back on them and think they were right."

A false choice.......no one here is defending slavery. What is being dealt with is your false, self-serving superiority display.

"When you throw all the facts into a blender and measure the viscosity of the finished product..."

Translates, "my opinion, no data".

"its apparent to any unbiased observer that Northern opposition to slavery and the election of a guy with Lincoln's views were the primary impetus for southern secession."

Apparent? Your opinion again.

"It's just that the South's moral position on issues of race was even worse. Namely, they wanted to ensure the preservation of slavery."

You have not mentioned Lincoln and his support of the Corwin Amendment. But of course, you wouldn't. It blows your insinuated point that the South was the only section wanting to preserve slavery.

"You can try to muddy the water by pointing out various racist activities in which certain northern states engaged, but that's irrelevant."

You can try to dismiss the introduction of facts that give the whole picture, but dismissal does not produce irrelevance. You cannot refute facts and re-frame the conditions of 1860. The facts are the facts.

"Evidently, the people living in the South at that time saw a big difference between the North and South on matters of slavery, and were sufficiently concerned about it that they decided to secede."

Wrong again. Secession For Dummies:

1/1861 Jefferson Davis’ Farewell Address to the Senate (January, 1861) included the following:

“It has been a …belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision.

“A State, finding herself in the condition in which Mississippi has judged she is, in which her safety requires that she should provide for the (secession) out of the Union…”

Secession was a checkmate on loss of Constitutional protections. You want to dwell on "right and wrong", the refuge of a Southern basher, while ignoring facts that develop the real social, financial, and Constitutional underpinning of the Republican action, through Lincoln, to militarially coerce the South into submission.

Your thinking neatly fits into the revisionist history-fact control effort that easily dismisses the deaths of over 600,000 American and Confederate lives by reducing the conflict to settlement of the slavery issue.

As I pointed out, Lincoln did not agree with you either.

You #191: "Arguing that slavery was the "sole cause" of the Civil War is dumb. Arguing that it wasn't the primary cause, and the triggering issue, is equally dumb.

So you are stating that arguing that slavery was the primary and triggering clause but not the sole cause would be smart.

AGAIN, the man that sent the troops that started the war disagrees with you:

March 4, 1861 at the inauguration, Lincoln said: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

Lincoln is disagreeing with your contention that slavery was a "triggering cause of the Civil War".

"And as to the substance of what he said, you oughta read it a bit more closely. 'In the states where it exists.' See that? What he was saying is that he would not permit its expansion into other states. And by not permitting the expansion of slavery, he was guaranteeing that the slave states would become a shrinking minority within the union. That was intolerable to the slave states. So we're right back to slavery as the key issue."

Are we? In the same speech, he endorsed the newly passed Corwin Amendment which said this:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor service by the laws of said State”.

Five days later the Amendment was sent to the states for ratification with a letter of endorsement from Lincoln.

So, how does this fact square with your contention:

"What he was saying is that he would not permit its expansion into other states.... So we're right back to slavery as the key issue."

Nonsense. Again, Lincoln disagrees with you.

And with regard to your assertion that the Texas secession document justifies secession based on slavery, you were shown that the document listed Constitutional protection failures as the reason for secession, you said:

"It does nothing of the sort. It says exactly what I said it said (slavery as primary motivating issue}. I quoted it, and here is the language I quoted:

"....make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and prosperity of the people of Texas and her Sister slaveholding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression."

In plain language from your quote:

"...the power of the Federal Government is...a weapon...to strike down...our shield against...aggression.

"It says exactly what I said it said (slavery as primary motivating issue).

Your nonsense is clear.

I don't recall Georgia seceding because of higher tax rates, so that wasn't the choice Lincoln faced. As I recall, the primary reasons for Georgia's secession were as stated here: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Do you not even read your own links, Jarhead? From the first and second paragraphs:

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all. All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies.

Once again, an "oversight" of that magnitude is attributable to but one of two things: illiteracy or willful dishonesty. As always, I'll let you choose which one.

"Here's my favorite part of that document-- again, nothing to do with slavery, right?"

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

Where is your proof that slavery caused secession? Certainly not in that quote.

"I can certainly understand why you might choose to characterize this as a lofty objection to a failure to fulfill 'Constitutional obligations', but the only 'Constitutional Obligations' about which South Carolina seemed to have any substantial objections all pertained to slavery."

Not so, and not so with all the others you quote without supporting context.

The Southern states did not fear Northern opposition to slavery, because some in the North had been opposed for decades. The South both feared and considered it illegal and an affront for the Republican party to fail in its responsibility to adhere to the US Constitution and its equal protections.

Even the judiciary was willing to forgo US law:

In a dramatic speech to the delegates (of Congress), Chief Justice Chase made it clear that none in the Republican party could guarantee that the South would continue to receive equal treatment under the Constitution, or that their private property would be protected.

He claimed that the result of the election meant that the Northern States would not, and ought not, to comply with the obligations of the Federal Constitution.

He stated that the new political leadership would admit the validity of the Constitution, but that they would also admit that circumstances have arisen that make the Republican party unable to comply with the contract.

He stated that the North and West would not consent to throw away all that had been gained in the election. What had been gained was support of the mercantile system that benefited business interests in both sections, and restrictions on slave labor for the South.

And with regard to equal enforcement of the laws here is a quote of Daniel Webster, speaking as a constitutional lawyer, Mr. Webster said:

"How absurd it is to suppose that when different parties enter into a compact for certain purposes either can disregard any one provision, and expect, nevertheless, the other to observe the rest!

"I intend, for one, to regard and maintain and carry out to the fullest extent the Constitution of the United States, which I have sworn to support in all its parts and all its provisions. It is written in the Constitution--

'No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.'

"That is as much a part of the Constitution as any other, and as equally binding and obligatory as any other on all men, public or private."

You can throw up slavery as the issue. The men of the South had fought and died to protect the Constitution and would have its equal protections. When that would be taken away by the Republican party and Lincoln, that was enough to cause secession

Georgia Secession Decree (January, 1861):

“(The Northern States) have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and refused to comply with their constitutional obligations to us in reference to our property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

“The people of Georgia, after a full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with firmness that (the Northern States) shall not rule over them.”

I'm not really sure its possible to discuss things with you because you deny the clear meaning of words. I'll try again.

AGAIN, the man that sent the troops that started the war disagrees with you:

No he does not. He does not address my point in the slightest. You are not reading what he says -- you are reading what you think he said. Or imagine he said. Whichever.

March 4, 1861 at the inauguration, Lincoln said: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

That is Lincoln's statement of what he intended, right? Can we at least agree on that?

Lincoln is disagreeing with your contention that slavery was a "triggering cause of the Civil War".

No he is not. He is saying that he would not go to war to force the southern states to give up slavery. But his stated intentions are not the same thing as the intentions of the states that seceded. You are taking the bizarre position that he is authorized to speak on the reasons why the southern states seceded. He is not.

He says he will not interfere with slavery in the southern states. But he said nothing about ignoring secession that was triggered by the southern refusal to see slavery squeezed out of new territories.

I'll toss out my position, and you're free to agree with it or not. It really doesn't matter to me. But at the very least, nothing in Lincoln's statement contradicts what I'm saying. Lincoln and the northernors were unwilling to agree to the expansion of slavery into the territories, even if he was unwilling to end the practice in the states (states, not territories) where it already existed.

Many of the southern states opposed that. Just as one example, Georgia's own Declaration of Causes gives the prohibition of slavery in the territories as one of its grievances. And the reason they opposed it is simple. If every new territory is free, the slave states will become more and more outnumbered as time goes on. They will become a smaller and smaller minority, and eventually the addition of new free territories as free states will give the North the ability to vote to end slavery in the entire country. If all territories (as future states) are free, the slaveholding states are doomed.

And of course, the passage of a constitutional amendment banning slavery would give Lincoln or some other President the power to end slavery lawfully. Note that Lincoln doesn't say that he is morally opposed to ending slavery in the slave states. He says only that he has no "legal right" to do so. Gaining votes through the accretion of free territories as states changes that, though. The southern states weren't stupid. They could see exactly where a ban on slavery in territories would take them eventually.

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor service by the laws of said State”.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made about banning slavery in new territories. Or do you not understand the difference between a state and a territory? By barring slavery in territories, you guarantee that all new states will be non-slave as well.

"...the power of the Federal Government is...a weapon...to strike down...our shield against...aggression.

Hey, nice job of using elipses to eliminate the language that contradicts your point. Anyway, what say you regarding the Declaration of Causes passed by the same Texas legislature that passed the Ordinance of Secession? Does that Declaration not give us some pretty damn good clues regarding the causes of secession?

You accidentally omitted the first half of the first paragraph, which places your excerpt in context. I'm sure it was simply an oversight, so here it is:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of 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. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

I don't care to argue with you, GOPCapitalist. The text speaks for itself. You and I disagree on the interpretation of that text, and I again hope people just read it and determine for themselves the role slavery played in the decisions to secede.

Oh, and thanks for dragging the name of a great man like Ludwig von Mises through your moral sewer. He deserves much better, and I hope people who may not recognise his name in your tagline don't assume he shares your views on sweeping slavery under the rug.

I know you're going to respond with something because you're the type of guy who thinks having the last word means you've won. But honestly, I don't care to waste my time trying to wade through more of your revisionism and responding to your threads. So whatever your response is, I'm just going to say ahead of time that my response is that people should read the Declarations of Causes for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

You accidentally omitted the first half of the first paragraph, which places your excerpt in context.

Your dishonesty knows no bounds, Jarhead. I never disputed, contested, or denied the existence of the first half of the paragraph or anything else in the declaration. Rather, I simply noted that you - be it out of illiteracy or inability to tell the truth (i'm beginning to suspect the latter given my experience with you on other matters) - told a flat out falsehood about the supposed absence of taxation grievances in the Georgia document.

I don't care to argue with you, GOPCapitalist.

Go ahead and run away, for all I care. It only shows you to be a coward in addition to a filthy liar. You evidently cannot handle factual refutations of your emotionally-laden historical preconceptions, misconceptions, and falsehoods, thus we find a clear pattern of cowardice in your posting habits, viz. the use of racial slurs and personal invective, obstinate refusals to examine or respond to counterevidence, the telling of outright lies about your opponents and their positions, and the habitual abandonment of discussions with anybody and everybody who directs attention to documented historical facts that do not mesh with your unsubstantiated, unsourced, and wholly gratuitous claims.

You and I disagree on the interpretation of that text

No Jarhead. You made a factually erronious statement about the content of the text by denying the existance its very directly stated grievance on the issue of higher taxes. Whether you choose to interpret the lengthy passage about taxes or how you opt to do so is not of any consequence in determining whether or not that passage is there. You denied it was there though, and I corrected you for it.

Now, unable to conscience the simple fact that you were wrong (or the alternative possibility that you deceived and got caught for it), your only response is to unleash a shower of invective while quietly slipping out the back door of this debate.

"nothing in Lincoln's statement contradicts what I'm saying."

You said in #191: "Arguing that slavery was the "sole cause" of the Civil War is dumb. Arguing that it wasn't the primary cause, and the triggering issue, is equally dumb."

So you offer arguing that slavery was the primary cause and triggering issue of the war is not dumb.

AGAIN, the man that sent the troops that started the war disagrees with you:

March 4, 1861 at the inauguration, Lincoln said: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

Lincoln is saying he won't intefere while your contention is that slavery was a "triggering issue of the Civil War".

So, you are either wrong, or Lincoln was lying in the Inaugural Speech.

Next thing we will see is that you start backpeddling from your previous assertions, changing them, and use new red herring issues to cover your tracks. You might even use some other logical fallacies to hide behind.

Well, by George here they come. Now you want to introduce another key issue to modify your argument in an effort to look like you are reinforcing your original position............slavery in the territories.

No thanks pal. You have no historical authority here. We are better served with Davis', Pickens, and even Lincoln's words than yours.

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.