Posted on 06/23/2013 5:55:07 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
From the time Abraham Lincoln entered the White House nearly a century and a half ago, there has been an anti-Lincoln tradition in American life. President John Tyler’s son, writing in 1932, seemed to speak for a silent minority: “I think he was a bad man,” wrote Lyon Gardiner Tyler, “a man who forced the country into an unnecessary war and conducted it with great inhumanity.”
Throughout his presidency Lincoln was surrounded by rivals, even among his own cabinet. Outside the White House, his many enemies included conservative Whigs, Democrats, northern copperheads and New England abolitionists. Wisconsin editor, Marcus M. Pomeroy, sniped that Lincoln was a
“worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero.”
Shortly before his reelection Pomeroy added: “The man who votes for Lincoln now is a traitor and murderer.… And if he is elected to misgovern for another four years, we trust some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good.”
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Let’s being back your comment that the South had all the money and more than the North:
GDP: North-$3.6 billion, South-$0.733 billion.
Population: North-27.71 million, South-8.73 million.
Cost of War: North-$3,366 million, South-$3,286 million.
Cost per Capita: North-$148, South-$376
As a bigot, you talk smack of things you know nothing about. Your excuse for your ignorance of these numbers: Oh, but cotton prices were high so the South must have had vast wealth.
By that logic, there are no property rights at all. If land deeded to the federal government can be seized by a state at will, then land deeded to a private individual must also be subject to seizure at will.
To the radial anti pet crowd no, according to them no living thing should be enslaved regardless of how well it is treated.
The point was, every argument you use to justify pet ownership can be applied to slave ownership.
It is one thing to choose death over enslavement for yourself, it is entirely another to make that choice for your children.
It is also easy to say you’d choose death in the abstract, but you might have a sudden change of heart when the machete is about to chop off your head.
Not in a rational discussion, no.
Part of, perhaps. The property my house sits on is part of the state of Nebraska. But the state cannot just come and take my house and force me out of it without legal actions and compensation. But apparently the law applies only when convenient. A very Confederate viewpoint.
You anti-Southern bigots are a riot.
And we find you rabid Lost Causers to be a hoot as well.
The civil war was about freedom from central government tyranny. Unfortunately the good guys lost, and as always the victors get the privilege of writing the history in such a way as to justify their actions.
I do not disagree, though it does make the Founders look a little hyperbolic, by your standard.
What I don’t understand is how you can defend the morality of those who impose this choice, or who profited by it once made. It is the utter antithesis of the American Way, to my mind. Which is, of course, only a restatement into political terms of the Golden Rule.
Without slavery there is little reason for not slaughtering the looser of any conflict. There must be an economic advantage to letting the loser live that outweighs the benefits of just wiping them off the face of the earth and being done with them forever.
We live in a world kept artificially from that awful choice because of 70 years of the US enforcing it's values on the world and preventing it. But the US wont always be there to enforce these rules.
Do you imagine for a minute that if the Muslims were to somehow defeat us that there would be any mercy shown to us? If Islam were to somehow defeat us.... what would ensue would be the greatest pillage, rape, slaughter and enslavement the world has ever known.
WE are all that stands between the world and the abyss God help us all should we fall.
Do not disagree. I guess. Though, as far as slavery goes, the US was pretty late to the party. Must give the Brits and particularly the Royal Navy credit for that one.
Your thin understanding of history fails you so you resort to insults.
The Civil War was about the slavers freedom to enslave other human beings. Period.
and as always the victors get the privilege of writing the history in such a way as to justify their actions.
And the losers write the myths to salve their consciences.
And we've had to hear you moan about how unfair it all is for the last 150 years and that one of these days soon you're gonna do somethin' about it. Just wait. Any day now. And THEN we'll be sorry, yessiree.
The Law of Economics would have destroyed slavery by itself.
Econ Prof. W.Williams expounded on the fact that Lincoln fought the Constitution, and won:
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/walter-williams.html
Uh,..:
The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It detailed where slaves were freed, only in those states “in rebellion against the United States.” Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion – such as Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, said, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”
http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams157.html
The EP was only part of the continuous process of abolition that started in May of 1861 and ended in December of 1865.
The EP was a military measure. Lincoln had no right to confiscate slaves or other property of those not fighting against the USA.
Youse guys constantly complain about Lincoln violating the Constitution. Well, here he was scrupulously obeying it, and you criticize him for not exceeding his Constitutional authority.
Wrong, the EP was a purely political move to win the war by winning over Europe as he freely admitted in his own words.
” Lincoln’s intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to “impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government” that “place at defiance the intentions of the republic’s founders.” Douglas was right, and Lincoln’s vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed. “
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams120298.asp
“I view the matter (Emancipation Proclamation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion... I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.”
The ironic thing is that they criticise Lincoln for denting the constitution when the confeds crapped all over it before kicking it to the curb.
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.