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 ...
Is slavery always and everywhere a moral wrong? Personally, I agree with Lincoln. If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong.
I'm perfectly willing to agree my northern and southern ancestors who owned slaves were wrong to do so. Are you?
Slavery was started by a black man in Connecticut, a northern State.
The first African slaves were sold in VA in 1619. CT was founded in 1633-36.
Right. As in he hoped it would disappear on its own, maybe in a thousand years or so.
To paraphrase The Great One, “Well, the trouble with our lost cause loser friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
“I’m perfectly willing to agree my northern and southern ancestors who owned slaves were wrong to do so. Are you?”
I have said many times that it was wrong. Why would you assume I haven’t, because I am southern? Is that a prejudice you have of southerners, that they all automatically approve of slavery? I don’t assume anyone approves of slavery, why would you think someone might?
“Right. As in he hoped it would disappear on its own, maybe in a thousand years or so. “
Many of the time had the issue, northerners as well. Why lay all blame on him, because he is southern? Lincoln was a racist and did not want freed blacks anywhere near him, so even if he freed them he wanted to still enslave them through denial of freedom. Do you think that was OK?
“It’s interesting that you would (so ironically) toss this gem around at anyone whose opinions do not comport with you. Congratulations, YOU ARE A BIGOT! “
Sorry, but your third grade logic doesn’t hold here, either. Pointing out someone’s anti-southern bigotry is not being a bigot.
I really don’t know what makes you so stupid but it really works.
I was just restating the Lt’s question you did not answer in your response to him.
The reason some might assume you think slavery isn’t wrong, or isn’t very wrong, is because you are defending the CSA, a “country” specifically and openly dedicated to defending and eventually expanding the institution of slavery.
As they said themselves, their nation and way of life were totally bound up with slavery, so it’s really difficult to defend them without appearing to also defend the cause for which they fought.
Not really. His opposition to it was mild at best. He was perfectly happy to see it continue for thousands of years if God willed it, and was opposed to anyone working towards ending it.
You should do your homework before trying to impugn the man.
Good advice. When are you going to start.
He hated slavery and was known to help slaves, from teaching them when it was illegal to helping them gain freedom, even his own slaves given to him as a present.
Again, fun but fantasy. Jackson also had no problem with slavery. He owned slaves most of his post-army adult life. He bought them, sold them, made a profit off their work. He taught them scripture, something common in churches througout the South, but there is no evidence outside of Lost Cause sites indicating he taught them to read. He never freed a single slave he owned, and didn't work towards freeing others. You really should do some reading on the man yourself.
I know, your bigoted ways of liberal thinking hate anything remotely southern so both of these men was the evil
And your rabid Lost Causerism makes you hate anything connected with the North, almost like you had gotten beaten up by a Yankee as a kid.
But let's return for a moment to your post 163 and your condemnation of Lincoln. You said, "He said negros were inferior, have no business marrying white women, and should not be allowed in Illinois. He hated slavery but he also thought of blacks as inferior." Both Jackson and Lee beleived blacks were inferior. Lee is on record as saying slavery was the best condition for blacks to be in. Both men would have been appalled at the idea of a white woman marrying a black man. Both lived in Virginia, a state whose constitution mandated that any slave freed in the commonwealth had 12 months in which to leave the state or else they would be sold back into slavery. Neither man had a problem with slavery and both thought blacks were inferior. In what way are they any different from the Lincoln you condemn as a racist? Yet you totally ignore those features in two men and roundly condemn it in one. Since you chose to drag out the racist card then shouldn't you apply it fairly? Or is that asking too much?
“Right. As in he hoped it would disappear on its own, maybe in a thousand years or so. “
That comments suggests the north fought the war to free slaves. Funny, we’ve proven time and time again on these threads that is a false assumption. In fact, even Lincoln said himself that he had no desire to stop slavery. Why do you continue to bring that up? Public school didn’t teach you all the facts, just the ones they wanted to brainwash you with. Open your mind, read a book, and find the war wasn’t about slavery.
Since you seem to read such things and forget, let me remind you of Lincoln’s inaugural address:
“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, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Lincoln might have not liked slavery but he wasn’t going to do anything about it.
On the scale of slavery approval vs. disapproval, lets’ put Jeff Davis and Calhoun at 1, and Frederick Douglass and Garrison at 10.
On that scale I think Lincoln would come in at perhaps a 6 and Lee at perhaps a 4.
So I don’t think it’s right to say “Lee was against slavery,” as if his attitudes towards the institution were no different from Lincoln’s. Lee had no intentions whatsoever to do anything at all to inconvenience or prevent the spread of slavery, whereas Lincoln did.
But I will agree both were on the moderate ends of their particular groups.
And yet according to most of your cohorts the only racist in the mid-19th century was Abraham Lincoln. Maybe you should direct your lecture at them?
“Lee had no intentions whatsoever to do anything at all to inconvenience or prevent the spread of slavery, whereas Lincoln did”
Lee was a military officer and not in a public position to do anything about it. Lee did something about it, including teaching slaves and trying to free them. To say he did nothing is not historical. he went against the law to do what he did and could have been arrested. Lee believed blacks were equal to whites and did not petition to prevent them from having equal status. Lincoln did. Lincoln argued in law, in Congress, in the Illinois legislature to prevent blacks from having equal status.
Lincoln was a devout racist, Lee was not. For the day, I would put lee ahead of Lincoln for that reason.
As a personal reach, I think Lee would have supported a proposal to free all slaves and treat them as equal citizens under law. Lincoln never supported that position, and while I have no doubt if Lincoln could have freed all slaves he would have but they would not have had equal status under the law.
Great revolutions and wars seldom end up where those who start them plan on their ending.
The US Revolution started off with colonists wanting some minor changes in British policies and wound up with the first British Empire destroyed and an independent USA. Nobody wanted that to start.
The French Revolution started off wanting equality and civil rights and wound up with a Terror and a dictatorship of the Jacobins followed with a military dictator and the Emperor. Nobody wanted that to stated.
Our Civil War (on the Union side) wanted, initially, merely a reconstruction of the Union. That shifted over time, and by 63 the desire to destroy slavery was nearly universal in the North.
Why people insist on quoting Lincoln’s intentions from 6o or 62 as if they are indicative of his never-changing intentions is beyond me. Have you read post 109? I assembled it myself because I got tired of people constantly acting as if the Union made only two attacks on slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. In actual fact, the abolition of slavery was a continual process from May or 1861, the month after the War started, to December of 1865, when 13A was finally ratified.
What!!!!!! Where did you dredge that nugget of pure manure from?
Lincoln was a devout racist, Lee was not. For the day, I would put lee ahead of Lincoln for that reason.
Absolute balderdash.
As a personal reach, I think Lee would have supported a proposal to free all slaves and treat them as equal citizens under law. Lincoln never supported that position, and while I have no doubt if Lincoln could have freed all slaves he would have but they would not have had equal status under the law.
Oh come on. Are you reading any of this before you hit the post button? There is not a single shred of evidence supporting any of that. You people have absolutely no shame when it comes to your rabid, incoherent, all consuming hatred of Abraham Lincoln.
the asset I was referring to were the slaves.
He’s just not bright enough to appreciate the nuance Sherman.
I meant that the old line between north and south would play a big part in how the new nations (I could see as many as 5) would be divided.
I actually agree with your comments about the Midwest. The way I would see things splitting up is:
Northeast (basically the old union)
South (basically the old confederacy)
West - all the pacific coast states
Mountain - all the mid west states you stated
and Texas standing alone.
that's how I see a 5 state solution.
Although it would be hard for the Midwest to be land locked, and I see Texas as the natural pairing for them to gain port access, which would bring it down to 4.
Then Texas would act as the gateway to the South and I could see a new nation eventually emerging which included the old south, Texas and nearly all the west and midwest states except those that border the pacific.
Arizona and New Mexico would be wildcards, which could do anything including merging with Mexico.
Toads like this take the lazy approach or parroting whatever drivel they read over at lewrockwell or cherry-pick to suit their agenda. In doing so they often quote speeches or passages of writing and infer the exact opposite of what the author really meant.
If it weren't for aspersions, misinterpretations, and outright lies this one would have nothing to say at all.
First, it's amazing how people who are populist, anti-elitist, and anti-establishment can just fall all over themselves celebrating slave-owning elite rule.
If you're at all honest, you might admit that you'd be fighting that smug, privileged elite as much as any other -- or that you'd find the rule of other elites as palatable as that of the planters.
Secondly, if there's any truth at all in this talk of an unphilistine, unmaterialistic South it has to do with the afterglow of the 18th century. One can't assume that such traditions would persist centuries later, when they were already fading away.
As new regions went into the cotton business, India, Egypt, Central Asia, South America, the American Southwest, the price of cotton was bound to sink, and with it the prosperity of the Deep South.
Those planters weren't as non-materialistic as many people think. Someone like Thomas Jefferson (assuming there were people like him) sank slowly into debt, while the new men, like Faulkner's Thomas Sutpen were shrewd and determined businessmen who didn't need lessons from Northerners in cutting deals.
But if there was truth in the aristocratic myths, could it be that slavery -- not having to work for a living, always having unpaid servants to see to one's needs -- had something to do with it?
More subtly, the Southern Agrarians painted Lincoln as an early champion of “Yankee capitalism that was omnivorously dissolving all traditional social connections in the cash nexus.”
Spot the irony?
It`s obvious now you are puuling facts out of thin air.
The Morrill vote sectional breakdown was 96–15 in the north, 7–9 in the Border, and 1–39 in the south.There were 55 abstentions.
The Morrill bill was brought to the Senate and passed 25 to 14. Supported by 24 Republicans and Democrat William Bigler of Pennsylvania. It was opposed by seven southern Democrats, three from the Border, two from the north, and two from the far west. Most of the Southern Senators had resigned. Thus it had easy passage.
You are completely wrong.
I never engage in a debate with anyone who serves up their own disinformation as facts.
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.