Interesting and controversial take on Lincoln

The American View ^ | Scott T. Whiteman, Esq.

[Jeremydmccann]

I know

[cincinnati65]

From the content of your posts, I can tell my comment really wasn't directed to you, but I'm trying to figure out how some posters are claiming "sour grapes" or "the South still trying to refight the war" from this article, when it was written by a Yankee, of all things.

I, for one, am not interested in refighting the Civil War, but the author does make some interesting points about how the Civil War did water down states' rights, and established the platform for such exciting national government innovations as a national income tax, welfare system, and other government entitlements.

[cynicom]

Lincoln was a hero to Karl Marx.

[Jeremydmccann]

That's exactly how I feel. Most people on this thread are missing the point of the article. The article makes some great points and I for one must say that I agree that states rights were hurt as a direct result of civil war and President Lincoln.

[doberville]

My dear sir:: Maryland most certainly WAS a Southern state! It did not leave the Union, true; but Lincoln had to sneak through Baltimore in hiding due to pro- Southern sentiment!

PLEASE stand a bit closer to your history book next time!

[tsomer]

But would a separated Northern United States and Southern Confederacy have been a match for Hitler and Japanese imperialism, or the Soviet Union, or the radical Islamic terrorists?

Or more immediately, French, (Nap III wasn't it?)English, Russian, Spanish, or German incursion?

Anyway, 'nuff said.
Next topic?

[cincinnati65]

I will stand semi-corrected. While there was pro-Southern sentiment in Maryland during the war, what I should have said was that Maryland wasn't a Confederate state.

[HaveGunWillTravel]

Thank you very much for posting it. Rarely do I get to read something that gets so much to the values that were the basis for the American Revolution. What a shame everyone thinks its a thread about the civil war.

You would think a few people would take the time to read before they comment and "move on", having completely missed the points of the article.

[Restorer]

Interesting drivel.

The Declaration, according to him does not address individuals' right to equality, but only the right of "peoples" to be equal to other "peoples."

Thus pretty much denying the entire American philosophy of individualism. The "people" of each state apparently have the right to oppress individuals in any way they see fit, as indeed they did in the Confederacy he admires.

[steve-b]

Second, who holds these truths to be self-evident? "We." The Declaration was not a document for individuals – it was written in the plural. "All men" does not mean "Each individual man." "The People" does not mean "Each and Every Person." Singular pronouns existed in 1776 – if the Founders intended by the Declaration to make a profession of the belief in individual equality and rights, they would have written the document in the singular. But they did not. Rather, the document was offered by the several united States as a declaration to the King. The States are the "We," as represented by their duly elected ambassadors, not the group of individual signors.

What an imbecilic statement. If the Founders had intended the collectivistic meaning he ascribes to them, they would have written "All nations are created equal", not "All men are created equal".

Certainly, the notion that the Founders would have been so ignorant of grammar as to use the singular "All man is created equal" is preposterous.

[billbears]

But would a separated Northern United States and Southern Confederacy have been a match for Hitler and Japanese imperialism, or the Soviet Union, or the radical Islamic terrorists?

Very doubtful these things would have come to pass as those issues can be laid at the feet of Woodrow Wilson

[billbears]

the Union was “born” in 1776. This is historical fallacy at best, and fraud at worst. In 1776, not one Union, but Thirteen separate States were created out of the formerly Thirteen English colonies. “United,” lower case in the document, the States combined their efforts to separate from England, and the Crown did eventually recognise the independence of each separate State. The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 was not between the King and “The United States,” as a singular proper noun, rather it was between the King and the “said United States,” plural, naming each of the Thirteen states making it abundantly clear that the King did not view the various States as a nation, and neither did they. The several states, united, had, under God’s Providence, through war, achieved “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them.”

Bump

[Alter Kaker]

I suspect if the South had won, it would have shut down slavery on its own eventually, just like South Africa was changed by World opinion.

Agreed. The South would have phased out slavery, almost certainly, by 1994.

With two English speaking States side by side

You're forgetting Canada, but also making the false assumption that other countries wouldn't have formed. Why couldn't the West have broken off? New England? Texas? Once anybody and everybody can secede, all bets are off.

[Smokin' Joe]

Maryland was occupied before the vote came on secession. Look at how Maryland voted--it sure was NOT for Lincoln.

[stand watie]

PLEASE don't blame the mess we have on Almighty God.

instead, you can lay it squarely at the door of a host of SELF-serving, power/money-HUNGRY bureaucrats & POLITICIANS, who care nothing for individual liberty.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

exactly.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

my guess is that within your lifetime that we'll find out if you're correct, with Le Republique Quebecois, Los Estados Unidos de Azatlan & a NEW & MUCH improved dixie republic being formed.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

my guess is that with the coming of the Industrial Revolution to agriculture, that chattel slavery might have lasted another DECADE, if that absent the WBTS.

the SLAVERS cared about just one thing = PROFIT.

killing a MILLION people (many, many of whom were slaves!) seems like a REALLY HIGH price to pay to end slavery a few years early.

but of course only FOOLS believe that the invasion of the CSA by the Union had much of ANYTHING to do with slavery. it was a war of CONQUEST, by a large industrialized state against a smaller, poorer agricultural one. nothing more, nothing less.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

PARDON ME, but states do NOT have RIGHTS. only PERSONS have RIGHTS.

that is a VERY important distinction, as when we give states RIGHTS, those of PERSONS (& their LIBERTY!) are DIMINISHED!

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

yet ANOTHER DUMB-bunny statement from tkathy.

is that you, "Mr SPIN"-the HATER,in another form???

free dixie,sw