Blagojevich: House Democrats Would Have Impeached Lincoln

I, like most people from my home state of Illinois, am a great admirer of Abraham Lincoln.

Recently I've wondered what would have happened had Nancy Pelosi been the Speaker of the House when Abraham Lincoln was president.

Would Speaker Pelosi's House Democrats use the same flimsy impeachment standard they are currently using to impeach Honest Abe, one of the greatest presidents in the history of our country?

In 1998 I was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives during the Clinton impeachment, and in 2009, as the 40th governor of Illinois, I had the unhappy experience of being impeached and removed from office.

DiogenesLamp: "Your citing the timeline does not prove the war was started by the Confederates. "

It shows that Confederates waged low-level war against the Union from Day One in December 1860 by seizing Federal properties, threatening Union officials and firing on Union ships.
It also shows the Union made no serious response until after Fort Sumter.
Fort Sumter was the Union's 9/11 or 12/7.
Suddenly all Unionists knew we were at war.

DiogenesLamp: "Also your "timeline" is very predjudicial in the manner it was written.
Most of these "seizures" they simply walked in to abandoned buildings. "

Or the caretakers took off their Union coats and put on Confederate coats, irrelevant.
It was Federal property.

DiogenesLamp: "It also leaves off the fact that once a state had voted for independence, all their original real estate reverts back to them. "

That is a flat-out lie, again, Democrats doing what Democrats do.

DiogenesLamp: "The fact remains Lincoln sent warships and because of their orders to use force to impose Lincoln's will on the people of South Carolina, it started a war. "

Their orders were, in effect, "no first use of force".
President Buchanan promised in February 1861 he would not surrender Fort Sumter without a fight, so Lincoln's resupply fleet came prepared.

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln knew it would start a war.
His cabinet knew it would start a war and they told him so back in March when he contemplated the idea.
Major Anderson said it would start a war. "

Lincoln's cabinet was divided in March when Lincoln asked them.
By April, having learned more of the situation, most supported resupplying Fort Sumter.
As to what might be the longer term consequences, nobody then knew, but most thought it better to keep Union troops in Union Forts Sumter & Pickens than to surrender ignominiously.

DiogenesLamp: "So don't get the idea that Lincoln didn't know what would happen if he sent warships to force the Confederates to obey his diktats.
He knew fully well what would happen, and he was indeed counting on it to happen."

Lincoln expected his resupply missions to succeed and to keep possession of Forts Sumter & Pickens.
As to what came later, that would be up to Jefferson Davis.

The real truth here is that in April 1861 Jefferson Davis' little 7-state Confederacy was a joke, not sustainable long run.
And Davis needed war to win over the Upper South (4 states) and Border (4 states) "swing states".
So Davis ordered war to begin at Fort Sumter and soon enough those "swing states" began swinging Davis' way.

Bottom line: In early 1861 Davis needed war to double the Confederacy's size.
Lincoln, like our current President, did not want or seek war, but would not back away from a fight if need be.

DiogenesLamp: "The North wanted the South to remain under their thumb because wealthy and powerful people in New York and Washington DC (same bastards we are still fighting today) were making 60% of all the profits from Southern slavery.
If they could not keep that money streaming into their pockets, they were going to make sure nobody else got it either.
First thing Lincoln did was impose a blockade to stop Cotton and other products from reaching Europe. "

DiogenesLamp likes to throw around numbers, like 60% of this and 75% of that, with wild abandon.
He neither knows nor cares what those numbers are supposed to represent.
In fact, they're pure nonsense.

In 1860 the Deep Cotton South (7 Confederate states) exported roughly $200 million worth of cotton, about 50% of total US exports.
The South, writ large, also "imported" about $200 million in products from the North.
Now the South's GDP in those days was at most around $1 billion, or less, so clearly that $200 million in exports plus $200 million "imports" from the North was a major factor in their great prosperity.
On top of that Southerners also owed around $200 million in loans from Northern banks.
So there was a huge national partnership, North & South, supporting Southern exports and fueling national prosperity.

But there was no 60% and no 75% of anything.
Instead we can say that 100% of Southern exports went to "pay for" those "imports" from Northern manufacturers and to loan payments to Northern banks.
All that ended when war started in 1861.

Who benefitted at the time?

DiogenesLamp: "Here we go with Alinsky again! "

Sorry, FRiend, but you are the one posting ludicrous arguments over & over, regardless of how often you're corrected.
And speaking of Alinsky, what do you call your own attacks on Lincoln and "Northeastern Power Brokers" if not Alinskyite?

DiogenesLamp: "I have never been a Democrat.
I have been a Republican since I was first old enough to vote. "

Nonsense, you were apparently raised (or later learned) to think and argue like a Democrat, specifically an Alinskyite.
What do you think all your "Northeastern power brokers" and "money flows from Europe" nonsense is about, if not promoting Democrat values & Alinsky's tactics?

DiogenesLamp: "It wasn't an attempt by the Southern states to take over Washington DC, but calling it a "civil war" is all part of the propaganda lie"

Curiously enough, as your fellow Lost Causer points out, in April 1861 Jefferson Davis called it "a war of extermination on both sides".
That word "extermination" is a powerful term today and we can't know now exactly what Davis meant by it back then.
But clearly Davis saw it as a war to end the United States as it had been previously known.

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln needed a war to justify stopping the Southern states from trading directly with Europe and thereby depriving his government and his influence cronies all of that money produced by their economy."

When Lincoln called up 75,000 Union troops to oppose the already called 100,000 Confederate troops, he said nothing about protecting "money flows from Europe" or "Northeastern power brokers".
Instead he said they were to repossess those forts, arsenals & mints, etc. seized unlawfully by Confederates, beginning with Fort Sumter.

So all this Alinskyite nonsense you keep adding, claiming to know what Lincoln "really" thought is just that, nonsense.

DiogenesLamp: "You don't send five warships and a troop carrier loaded with troops and munitions if you don't intend a first use of force.
Their orders were to use all their warships to impose Lincoln's will on the people of Charleston. "

A total lie.
In January 1861 President Buchanan sent an unarmed civilian resupply ship which was fired on and forced to withdraw, mission failed.
Lincoln merely sent enough ships that such a Confederate response would not force a similar result.
And their orders were, in effect, "no first use of force", regardless of how often you lie about it.

DiogenesLamp: "And that is a deliberate mischaracterization of what was happening.
The Confederates were taking over previously Federal installations on THEIR land, as would any newly independent nation. "

Right, they seized Federal properties illegally, threatened Union officials and fired on Union ships -- a low level war against the United States, until Fort Sumter.

DiogenesLamp: "And why not?
Lincoln had committed several acts of war against them by that point, the first being the launch of that warfleet with orders to attack them if they didn't cooperate. "

Right, a Union resupply mission to a Union fort with orders for no first use of force -- that's an "act of war" only in the minds of lunatics and Democrats, but I repeat myself.

DiogenesLamp: "Their "demands" was that the unwanted guests take their baggage and go back home.
I suppose you think it is okay for some squatter to just remain in your house after you've asked them repeatedly to leave?
At what point do *you* throw them out?"

Sorry, but you can't "ask" me at gunpoint to leave my house, idiot.
If you do, you will be met, politely, with necessary force.

And as you well know, the historical analogy is those British forts left over from the Revolutionary War in the American Northwest Territories, New York & Vermont, some of which were not finally evacuated by the Brits until 1814.

DiogenesLamp: "Here are a couple of pictures of the "supply" ships Lincoln sent to Charleston."

And here is the ship President Buchanan sent in January on that same mission, unarmed civilian steamship, Star of the West:

DiogenesLamp: "The Powhatan was even more formidable, but I can't find any pictures of it's guns taken at close range. "

Powhatan was not sent to Fort Sumter.

DiogenesLamp: "These ships are what you call a "Federal military force", and yes, it moved against the Confederates BEFORE they had done anything. "

From Day One Confederates in SC demanded Fort Sumter's surrender, threatened Union officials and fired on Union ships, all a low level war against the United States.
In April 1861 Confederates yet again demanded the fort's surrender, long before any Union ship appeared, and when refused ordered Fort Sumter be "reduced".

In the dark morning of April 12, when Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter began there were just two Union ships, unseen nearby well off-shore: the small Revenue Cutter Harriet Lane and an unarmed civilian passenger ship, SS Baltic.

DiogenesLamp: "Zero percent of women or slaves voted in the North too.
Don't worry about the splinter in your brothers eye until you deal with the beam in your own. "

Well, brother: in 19 Union states plus six territories there were no slaves.
Freed blacks did vote in six Northern states: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts & New York.
Now, let's talk about the beam in Confederate eyes.

DiogenesLamp: "Here you go again, trotting ot that "at pleasure" attempt to dodge the truth.
The Founders left independence open ended, and they left it to the people who wanted independence to decide whether or not to have it, and for whatever reason they saw fit to have it. "

And that's still a total lie, invented by no Founder but rather by some Southerners decades after the Founders passed.
In fact our Founders insisted that "a long train of abuses and usurpations" made disunion "necessary" and they opposed any & all attempts at secession at pleasure.

DiogenesLamp: "To make this clear to you, the founders articulated independence "at pleasure" because that is *EXACTLY* what "CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED" means."

There was nothing "at pleasure" about the 1776 Declaration of Independence -- they called it "necessary" instead.
Our Founders did define "consent of the governed" -- in their 1787 Constitution.

Nothing in 1860 remotely resembled conditions of either 1776 or 1788.

DiogenesLamp: "Alinsky again?
Why do you keep using that evil Alinsky's tactic?"

Says Mr. DiogenesLamp Alinsky.
I notice you've got those tactics memorized and well practiced against Mr. Lincoln specifically and Unionists in general.

DiogenesLamp: "And no, it's not a "flat-out lie."
Denying it is a flat out lie.
We've gone over the ship's orders many times.
It says to use the entire force at their disposal to place both men and munitions into the fort."

Wrong, it says in effect, "no first use of force".
It says no use of force period unless necessary to resupply Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.
It says nothing about "attacking Confederates".

So your claims here are just flat-out lies.

DiogenesLamp: "The "no first use of force" claim is just a fig leaf to cover up the fact that everyone knew they were going to open fire on the Confederates if the Confederates did not *OBEY* them. "

No, the Union required no "obedience" from Confederates -- that's just your Alinskyite Democrat brain hard at work turning up into down, red into blue, etc.
The Union made no demands at Fort Sumter.
Instead, it was Democrats Confederates who demanded obedience from Unionists in the form of abject surrender of Union troops in Fort Sumter.

It was Democrat Confederates who threatened and used force when the Union refused to obey.

DiogenesLamp: "The Ship's orders were to force them to comply if they did not comply voluntarily.
Lincoln pointed a gun at them and told them to do as they were told, and they were having none of it. "

Wrong, Lincoln's orders were, in effect, "no first use of force" but if necessary then get the resupply job done.
There was no "obedience" required from Confederates, only their willingness to remain at peace.

By stark contrast, Confederates at Fort Sumter required not just Union obedience but also abject surrender, something even President Buchanan in February told them he would not do.

DiogenesLamp: "It is the brandishing of the gun that makes it a first use of force.
They were using that force to intimidate and coerce. "

Confederates began "brandishing guns" at Union troops & officials in December 1860, they began firing on Union ships in January 1861, they began preparing to force Fort Sumter's surrender in March 1861.
The Union made no serious response to Confederate warfare until April 1861.
And yet it DiogenesLamp's Democrat Alinsky mind, that means "Lincoln started it".

DiogenesLamp: "I'm not the one lying about it Mr. Alinsky.
You don't point a gun at people and claim you aren't using force. "

Now, now Saul baby, you well know Democrat Confederates began pointing and shooting guns at Union Republicans in December 1860.
Republicans made no serious response until April 1861.

DiogenesLamp: "The first supply mission (Which incidentally was secretly carrying reinforcement troops) the "Star of the West" was not an armed warship like the ones Lincoln sent in April. "

Right and it failed, prompting President Buchanan to publicly promise not to surrender Fort Sumter without a fight.
Lincoln's resupply mission intended to fulfill Buchanan's promise.

DiogenesLamp: "You keep repeating "supply" mission, because you want that to be the truth, but it was a war mission with war ships, and Lincoln sent it knowing full well what would be the result."

It was exactly the same mission as Buchanan's Star of the West in January, 1861, only beefed up to handle use of force, if necessary.

By the way, in this context we should remember that very often an adequate show of force was all that was needed to keep the peace!
Consider, for example, the 1858 Paraguay Expedition which accomplished it's mission without firing a shot, thanks to the large US "war fleet", including USRC Harriet Lane.

Union fort, Union troops, Union resupply mission.

And there is the crux of it; The fundamental disagreement around which all else revolves.

If you believe, as the Declaration of Independence clearly states, that people have a right to "dissolve the political bonds" then the property belongs to the people who reside there.

If you believe that the Declaration of Independence is incorrect, then the property remains that of whatever entity was the current governing authority.

Now BroJoeK doesn't want to admit that he believes the Declaration of Independence is incorrect. He uses the dodge that it didn't specify "at pleasure", while I point out "consent of the governed" (which it does explicitly state) is factually equivalent to "at pleasure."

To shore up his weak argument, he uses the "sour grapes" technique, and claims the Declaration of Independence was a document with no legal standing, and therefore it is irrelevant what it says. (The grapes were sour anyways.)

Bro, you are wrong on both counts. You just want to believe what you wish to believe, and you will fudge or massage any factual information to fit into the framework of your belief system.

I've said many times, you have no objectivity, and so it is literally pointless to engage in discussion with you.

Oh, and it wasn't a "resupply mission". It was a military confrontation mission that the master of politics repeatedly described as a "resupply" mission.

To quote his own words " Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it so."

DiogenesLamp: "If you believe, as the Declaration of Independence clearly states, that people have a right to "dissolve the political bonds" then the property belongs to the people who reside there. "

Sorry, FRiend, but you just cannot make your case without lying, and your lies begin right here.
The truth is neither the 1776 Declaration nor any Founder every claimed an unlimited "right to secede" at pleasure.

The legal analogy is clear and simple.
You have an absolute right, recognized in every law, to defend yourself against attack.
But it must be a real, actual attack, not just a snowflake's response to microaggressions.

Consider an example: a man is killed and another charged with premeditated murder.
The defendant pleads "not guilty" on grounds of self defense, "he attacked me".
But what exactly was the "attack" -- did he attack with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat?
No, says the defendant, "he micro-aggressed and I felt discriminated against".

Ladies & gentlemen of the jury, what is your verdict?

That's exactly the way our Founders felt about disunion and it's why they went to such lengths to explain it for the "opinions of mankind".

DiogenesLamp: "If you believe that the Declaration of Independence is incorrect, then the property remains that of whatever entity was the current governing authority."

Total nonsense, the Declaration is not "incorrect", only DiogenesLamp is!
You have only projected your own fantasies onto our Founders and their documents.

DiogenesLamp: "Now BroJoeK doesn't want to admit that he believes the Declaration of Independence is incorrect.
He uses the dodge that it didn't specify "at pleasure", while I point out "consent of the governed" (which it does explicitly state) is factually equivalent to "at pleasure." "

And yet more nonsense.
"Consent of the governed", just like "all men are created equal" is their ideal, not their justification to the "decent respect to the opinions of mankind".
Their justifications for disunion begin with words like "necessary", "destructive" and "a long train of abuses and usurpations" and include a long list of legally actionable items, most notable:

"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."

That is legally just-cause for disunion, that makes our "murder" of the King's government a matter of self defense.
And nothing remotely similar existed in 1860.

DiogenesLamp: "To shore up his weak argument, he uses the "sour grapes" technique, and claims the Declaration of Independence was a document with no legal standing, and therefore it is irrelevant what it says. (The grapes were sour anyways.) "

And your lies just keep on coming!
That is total fantasy, I've never made an argument remotely similar.

DiogenesLamp: "Bro, you are wrong on both counts. You just want to believe what you wish to believe, and you will fudge or massage any factual information to fit into the framework of your belief system. "

FRiend, you are lying about everything!
You haven't posted even one sentence here which is even a little bit truthful.
So you live in a fantasy world of your own creation and I'm telling you, it's a form of mental illness.
You just must, must begin telling the truth.

DiogenesLamp: "I've said many times, you have no objectivity, and so it is literally pointless to engage in discussion with you. "

I am 100% objective, FRiend, it's you who live in the fantasy world of lies and self-deception.

DiogenesLamp: "Oh, and it wasn't a "resupply mission".
It was a military confrontation mission that the master of politics repeatedly described as a "resupply" mission. "

In February 1861, President Buchanan announced -- after secessionists demanded Fort Sumter's surrender and fired on his peaceful Star of the West resupply mission, forcing its failure -- Buchanan announced publicly that he would not give up Fort Sumter without a fight.
So Jefferson Davis was warned in February that his attempts to seize Fort Sumter would start a war.

And what did Davis do in response?
Two things: first the Confederate Congress authorized calling up 100,000 Confederate Army troops to oppose about 16,000 Union troops, most scattered in small forts out west.
Second, Davis ordered Confederate General Beauregard to begin preparations to seize Fort Sumter by force.

So, before Lincoln was even sworn into office, Davis had accepted President Buchanan's warning and begun preparations to start the war he already knew must follow.
Lincoln's resupply mission was hoped to repeat the 1858 show-of-force Paraguay mission, which accomplished its goals without firing a shot.
But Jefferson Davis needed war to grow his 7-state Confederacy and would not let this opportunity to start one pass:

"There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations."

"Other considerations" include: how does Davis get Virginians to flip from Union to Confederacy?
Answer: by starting war at Fort Sumter.

DiogenesLamp: ""Consent of the Governed" = "At Pleasure." "

But "consent of the governed" was not their reason for disunion, "a long train of abuses and usurpations" was.

DiogenesLamp: "And you are wrong about "any Founder." *ALL* the founders in the New York Legislature and the Virginia Legislature explicitly stated, voted on and agreed that states can leave if they see the federal government becoming abusive."

Right, correct, for once you've told the truth!
Now, FRiend, how does that feel?
Doesn't it feel better than constantly lying about everything?
So do it again, and then keep on doing it -- seriously, it's the only real path to political sanity.

Well, actually, the 1776 Declaration does say, "a long train of abuses and usurpations", but Virginia's words were "injury or oppression" and New York's were, "necessary to their happiness".
All of those words are freighted with meanings informed by our Founders' Revolutionary War experiences.
They all meant, in effect: legally actionable breech of contract.

It's the legal difference between legitimate murder in self-defense (what the cop shows call "a good kill"), on the one hand, and premeditated murder over some micro-aggression then claimed as "self defense", on the other.

1776 was the one, 1860 was the other.

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.