The Key To It All/ Lincoln's Birthday, 2014

Townhall.com ^ | February 11, 2014 | Paul Greenberg

[x]

An Italian exchange student once asked me what he should know in order to understand America. The best I could come up with on the spot was the U.S. Constitution, jazz and baseball.

Thank you, Ken Burns ...

[killermosquito]

Alexis de Tocqueville

[RKBA Democrat]

What a load of crap. The tyrant lincoln was our first dictator.

[x]

And so another s___storm begins ...

You think they'd cut the guy a break when his birthday comes around ...

[RKBA Democrat]

I don’t recall that we cut dear leader a break on the anniversary of his birth. So why do it for tyrant lincoln?

[central_va]

Lincoln was not the President of 11 states during the period of 1861-1865. Historically I do not consider him my president, just the dictatorial fuhrer of the enemies of the Confederacy. President Davis was the legitimate President during those four years for those 11 states.

[afsnco]

In terms of creating our monstrous federal government, I consider Lincoln on the same level as FDR, LBJ and Obama.

The book, The Real Lincoln, although containing a lot of inaccuracies, is accurate in describing all the many abuses of power he committed. And first and foremost, if a state voluntarily enters the Union, it logically follows that that state can just as voluntarily secede from it.

[Kaslin]

Blah, blah, blah. Crawl back under your rock you crawled out from

[RKBA Democrat]

“Blah, blah, blah. Crawl back under your rock you crawled out from.”

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You’ve been a FReeper a long time. You know that when you invite other FReepers to crawl under rocks, they have a habit of bringing back the things they found lurking there.

Here’s something interesting from the History News Network at George Mason University. “Was Lincoln Gay?”

http://hnn.us/article/96

Maybe we should do a comparison thread about famous presidents from Illinois?

[Kaslin]

Like I said crawl back under your rock you

[loveliberty2]

Another great post.

Speaking of Lincoln, perhaps we might re-read Lincoln's letter to Henry L. Pierce and others. In it, Lincoln's understanding of the ideas of liberty, of Jefferson's role in "encapsulating" those ideas in our Declaration of Independence, and the importance of distinguishing those ideas from those which interpret the word, "liberty," to mean something other than that of the Declarion.

Springfield, Ills, April 6, 1859

Messrs. Henry L. Pierce, & others.

Gentlemen

Your kind note inviting me to attend a Festival in Boston, on the 13th. Inst. in honor of the birth-day of Thomas Jefferson, was duly received. My engagements are such that I can not attend.

Bearing in mind that about seventy years ago, two great political parties were first formed in this country, that Thomas Jefferson was the head of one of them, and Boston the head-quarters of the other, it is both curious and interesting that those supposed to descend politically from the party opposed to Jefferson should now be celebrating his birthday in their own original seat of empire, while those claiming political descent from him have nearly ceased to breathe his name everywhere.

Remembering too, that the Jefferson party were formed upon its supposed superior devotion to the personal rights of men, holding the rights of property to be secondary only, and greatly inferior, and then assuming that the so-called democracy of to-day, are the Jefferson, and their opponents, the anti-Jefferson parties, it will be equally interesting to note how completely the two have changed hands as to the principle upon which they were originally supposed to be divided.

The democracy of to-day hold the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another man's right of property. Republicans, on the contrary, are for both the man and the dollar; but in cases of conflict, the man before the dollar.

I remember once being much amused at seeing two partially intoxicated men engage in a fight with their great-coats on, which fight, after a long, and rather harmless contest, ended in each having fought himself out of his own coat, and into that of the other. If the two leading parties of this day are really identical with the two in the days of Jefferson and Adams, they have perfomed the same feat as the two drunken men.

But soberly, it is now no child's play to save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation.

One would start with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but, nevertheless, he would fail, utterly, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society.

And yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success.

One dashingly calls them "glittering generalities"; another bluntly calls them "self evident lies"; and still others insidiously argue that they apply only to "superior races."

These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect--the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads, plotting against the people. They are the van-guard--the miners, and sappers--of returning despotism.

We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us.

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.

All honor to Jefferson--to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.

Your obedient Servant
A. Lincoln--

---

Source: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler.

Source for this reproduction of the letter here.

[lentulusgracchus]

[Art.] And the war came. Like an awesome act of justice from on high, ....

Come on, Greenberg, get a life.

We are not talking about a visitation from the Paraclete here, or an apparition of Elias the Prophet transfigured. We're talking about a war, red war. Either we discuss it like adults instead of a bunch of First Communion schoolchildren, or we go home and forget it, all of it, because we haven't learned anything.

Old H.L. Mencken would be very disappointed to see how long this Civil War doxological stuff has dragged on, generation after generation.

[lentulusgracchus]

Alexis de Tocqueville

Bump. Understanding the difference between the United States in Andrew Jackson's day and what Lincoln and his cabinet wrought is Key No. 1 to understanding U.S. history and why the Republic arguably ended in 1860, when the "living Constitution" was born.

Unless you care to argue that America today is what the Framers had in mind.

[lentulusgracchus]

“Was Lincoln Gay?”

Oh, no, not again! That old Log Cabin chestnut?

The gay conspiracy has been ranting with one voice for 50 years, that everyone you/we ever admired was 365 gay.

Part of their lie-aganda.

Please don't drag it in here.

[DoodleDawg]

Either we discuss it like adults instead of a bunch of First Communion schoolchildren, or we go home and forget it, all of it, because we haven't learned anything.

Based on how it's gone so far I'm heading for home. Nothing good is going to come out of this.

[lentulusgracchus]

Okay, so he was running for President, and he wrote a polemical campaign letter.

Squid ink isn't archival quality.

[x]

Historically I do not consider him my president ...

Unless you're about 150 he wasn't your president.

But since when do merely subjective opinions determine who the president is?

... just the dictatorial fuhrer of the enemies of the Confederacy.

Classy as usual.

First refer to Hitler = you lose the argument.

President Davis was the legitimate President during those four years for those 11 states.

And yet Lincoln actually was elected, in contrast to Davis.

[RKBA Democrat]

Well isn't that special.

[BroJoeK]

RKBA Democrat: "The tyrant lincoln was our first dictator."

central_va: "Lincoln was not the President of 11 states during the period of 1861-1865.
Historically I do not consider him my president, just the dictatorial fuhrer of the enemies of the Confederacy."

afsnco: "In terms of creating our monstrous federal government, I consider Lincoln on the same level as FDR, LBJ and Obama."

The first key point to remember here is that Americans in 1860 were not constitutional dummies.
They well knew what the constitution allows a President during times of rebellion and war, and whenever there was a serious question in their minds (i.e., habeas corpus), Congress took it up and voted to support Lincoln.
At no point did Congress censor Lincoln's actions.

Yes, the US Supreme Court, under pro-slavery chief justice Roger Tanney, did rebuke Lincoln's use of habeas corpus authority, but only so long as Congress had not approved it, which Congress in due time did.

A second key point to remember is that Lincoln's government in 1861 was vastly closer in size & scope to that of George Washington than to any of our modern "liberal/progressive" administrations -- i.e., FDR, LBJ & Obama.
To cite some examples:

• In 1792 George Washington's government spent 2.3% of US GDP.
• In 1833 Andrew Jackson's government spent 2.3% of US GDP.
• In 1858 James Buchanan's government spent 2.2% of US GDP.
• In 1861 Abraham Lincoln's government spent 1.8% of US GDP.

By stark contrast:

• In 1936 FDR's government spent 10.9% of GDP.
• In 1968 LBJ's government spent 19.6% of GDP (half on defense).
• In 2010 Obama's government spent 25.3% of GDP (20% on defense).

Well, you might say, didn't Lincoln's war put the Federal Government on the path towards massive expansion?

No, after the Civil War, the government had huge debts to pay off, and so it took about 20 years (1888) before federal spending again fell to 2.3% of GDP.
It remained at those levels even under allegedly "progressive" Republicans Teddy Roosevelt and Howard Taft.
Government only began inexorable growth under Southern-Democrat President Woodrow Wilson (1915), after passage of Southern-supported 16th and 17th Ammendments.

Those are historical facts.
Sorry if they don't fit the anti-Lincoln narrative.