Posted on 02/15/2010 3:29:27 PM PST by central_va
Did anyone here see tonight's Glenn Beck TV show segment with the author (Lehrman?) of Lincoln at Peoria?
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What I object to is the idea that Lincoln was first and foremost an emancipator of the slaves. That was not Lincoln’s driving force. His read that it was above all else important to hold the union together was his driving force.
I would not state that Lincoln didn’t care about the slaves, but IMO he drafted the emancipation proclamation at a point in the war when he was desperately seeking to shore up support for the war, which was rapidly dissipating.
So my thoughts on what Lincoln actually achieved relate to his efforts on holding the union together vs his perceived anti-slave actions. The union clearly trumped here. He doesn’t really deserve any direct credit for ending slavery IMO. A footnote yes, a headline…, not really.
If he had started the war on that premise, fine. If he had held that premise early on, fine. If he had held that premise 50% or less of the way in, fine. He didn’t. No sale.
So Lincoln’s real achievement was three-fold. 1. He held the union together discarding any other consideration. 2. He set up the framework for what would follow, a climate where states could never secede from the union. 3. The at least partial enslavement of every U.S. Citizen.
You and I work two to four months each year in order to feed our masters, the federal government. Once the states saw that form of enslavement would be tolerated, they followed suit.
Other federal nonsense that we are compelled to accept, is also problematic, yet we are enslaved to it. One has only to look at what Obama is signing us on to today, that we connot refuse to accept, to see the truth in this.
We are not free.
That is Lincoln’s real legacy IMO.
No but cowboyway seems to have an abnormal interest in Lincoln's sexuality - see his reply 38. I'm sure he would be more than happy to fill you in on what seems to be one of his favorite subjects.
We can agree 100% about that.
Quote please?
This was as Lincoln and our own Declaration of Independence held a natural and inalienable right of the people!
To do what specifically?
War porn of the 1860s.
Fiction is all you have to fall back on.
And that was only AFTER the confederacy had chosen war to futher their aims.
This same sentiment to outlaw slavery by sunset provision saw increasing popularity in Virginia and North Carolina after the Revolution and the establishment of the Constitution.
Then why didn't they?
The ever popular "Damn, we fell right into his trap, the sneaky so-and-so" defense. Sorry, the Davis regime knew exactly what they were doing. If they hadn't started the war over Sumter they would have found another reason.
The South just wanted to be left alone. A lesson for Texas should it get any ideas.
Yeah. Don't bombard Fort Hood on your way out the door.
Except for the fact that in 1776 we seceded to secure inalienable rights. The South seceded in order to perpetually deny inalienable rights to a whole class of people. Governments only derives its JUST powers from the consent of the governed. People cannot morally assent to the exercise of unjust powers (i.e. enslaving Africans)
Do you believe today that the Bill of Rights supercedes any state’s rights?
Lincoln himself was a hypocrite, and he was pro-secession before becoming president, not just for entire States but for any subdivision of any State. This was as Lincoln and our own Declaration of Independence held a natural and inalienable right of the people!
I assume that you're half remembering Lincoln's speech on the Mexican War. What he said was that people have a natural right of rebellion and that when they win they can make up their own rules. The south, as you might have heard, was unable to win theirs.
That’s all fine and good, but he did a 180 after achieving power and thou he himself admitted again and again he could not end slavery, and had no desire to.
So apparently you believe that with a wave of his pen Lincoln could have freed all the slaves, without any constitutional amendment or any of that stuff, right?
His denial of the people of the South of their Equal right to revolutionize and separate themselves from the hostile majority of the North is in retrospect tyrannical and in utter-contraction with our foundation as a people in the Deceleration of Independents.
"The Deceleration of Independents"? is that when people who don't belong to either party take longer to vote? Oh, you mean the Declaration of Independence. So tell me, if the right to revolutionize is protected, how come the Constitution allows for putting down insurrections? Did John Brown have the Constiutional right to seize Harpers Ferry and start a slave rebellion? Did slaves have a Constitutional right to rise up against their masters?
A crime that continues to haunt and enslave them as much as it haunts and enslaves the people they allowed themselves to be used in conquering.
In addition to being only marginally literate, you're also delusional.
Seriously, what grade are you in? Because this is about the worst written thing I've seen on FR. "The Deceleration of Independents." Wow.
If the shoe fits, bud.
And when those New England states grumbled a bit about secession, the south screamed that they were talking treason.
Many of us are glad the Southern Experiment failed. My family in particular has a number of folks disabled and one buried at Gettysburg. That said, the Northern gummint that succeeded the sucession (so to speak) wasn’t something to be real proud of it seems.
Look at the census of pre war north. Plenty of slaves there.
I find it supremely ironic that the Southrons still cling to this motto. Did it ever occur to you that God DID "vindicate the right" in this particular squabble 145 years ago, and y'all just can't accept His verdict.
South Carolina seceeded and had a federal base sitting right in the middle of its real estate so it was a bit of a problem. Had the feds gave up the base (as they should have) then Ft. Sumter would had not been the starting pt.
You have no evidence that the South were destined to attack the North. They had an enemy base located in its state which was an unsustainable situation. Lincoln was very savvy and knew it was smarter to have the South fire first so he waited them out.
States have no Rights. Only the People have Rights.
States, like the Federal govt., have Powers vested in them by the People. Those Powers vested in the Fed in the Constitution are supreme over the States. All other Powers, except those specifically denied the States in the Constitution, are reserved to the States EXCEPT those retained by the People. Since the BoR are a list of Rights specifically retained by the People, then yes, they supersede State's Powers to deny them.
Even more so, since the 14th Amendment makes that clear:
"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
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.