Posted on 08/01/2021 4:20:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
For most of my adult life, I’ve considered Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural address to be the most moving and compelling example of political rhetoric I’d ever read. In that appraisal I’m certainly not alone. Having read it scores of times since my first ignorantly casual perusal in now what’s commonly referred to as middle school, its impression upon me has sharpened and deepened over the course of my years.
Lincoln had the ability to speak profoundly, but with a remarkable economy of words. The fact that when those words were uttered he had but a short time left on this Earth only increases their impact.
Today, on both sides of the widening gulf that makes up our growing political divide, there are those who truly believe we’re headed for another civil war. There are some whose honesty and integrity make it impossible to deceive themselves and deny the threat of that terrible eventuality, and sadly others who appear to blithely labor to bring just such a grim circumstance to full fruition.
“Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.”
“Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Mr. Zuckerbrod hits the ball out of the park with this article. Thanks for posting.
bump
I was taught the lie that Lincoln was the great leader who saved the republic. What I learned in the military was Lincoln was in fact the great war monger and totalitarian who used war to murder his enemies instead of letting them leave the union peacefully.
Lincoln’s war was, in fact, a war of northern aggression.
We’re not Confederates.
We’re the slaves.
Deep State is the Confederacy.
And Trump is our Lincoln.
Graduated from public schools, eh?
How’d ya guess?.
In retrospect, it’s hard to believe he said that with a straight face. It almost sounds like a preamble to a Confederate Constitution.
That’s funny considering Lincoln is the one who started the war....unconstitutionally at that. He had no Congressional authority to commit an act of war by sending a heavily armed flotilla into Confederate sovereign territory to precipitate war yet he did so.
Also his rhetoric was quite simply false. 7 states leaving the US would not have destroyed the US. It simply would have made it smaller.
Get ready. The PC Revisionists masquerading as conservatives are about to attack you for speaking the truth.
........well, there was a lot going on in early 1861 and Ft. Sumter came on April 12, 1861.
Your comment caused me to go back and review the First Inaugural which occurred on March 4, 1861.
After reading part of it, I think his “overthrow” comment was an effort to provide some context and “appear” reasonable in his efforts to persuade the south to calm down.
Standing alone by itself though, your right, it would make a great preamble to the Confederate Constitution.
“I was taught the lie that Lincoln was the great leader who saved the republic. What I learned in the military was Lincoln was in fact the great war monger and totalitarian who used war to murder his enemies instead of letting them leave the union peacefully.
Lincoln’s war was, in fact, a war of northern aggression.”
Actually, had the southern states let go of federal property in the south such as Fort Sumter (and others), the reasons for going to war in April 1862 would have evaporated. Instead, as in the case of Fort Sumter, the South Carolina militia fired on it thus starting a war they had very little chance of winning.
Consider learning how to read and actually put a few books in front of your face. It’s educational.
^^^ April 1861 my bad
Seems like we are at a time when Lincoln's Corning Letter bears reviewing
The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his government is discussed, cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy; much more if he talks ambiguously — talks for his country with “buts,” and “ifs” and “ands.”
I don't advocate civil war, but crossing lines that endanger freedom is a risky business.
That wouldn’t make any difference. Those convinced that Lincoln was the warmonger, and not the fire eaters, and that the war was not fought over slavery, will not be moved from those positions no matter what evidence is presented to persuade them. It’s so bad that one poster now says that Southern leaders only stated things about slavery triggering secession for political reasons to convince common folk to fight.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3979429/posts?page=350
I may be wrong, but didn’t the confederates fire the first shot?
That would make it a war of southern aggression
So tell me: What were Northern troops doing in Mississippi?
ML/NJ
Technically correct but the first real ‘shot’ of the civil war was verbal.
https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/first-shot-civil-war-fort-sumter/2441338.html
The most important sentence in this article is, “But Abraham Lincoln, the president of the United States, said the southern states did not have right to secede.”
That was the first proverbial ‘shot’ fired in the civil war.
And right on cue, 'fatboy' fulfills your prediction.
Notice how he ignores the fact that a heavily armed federal fleet invaded the CSA’s sovereign territory first. If someone who is heavily armed invaded your property and you fire to drive them away. THEY and not you are the aggressor.
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.