Replies

From GOPcapitalist:

I said specifically: "The historical Lincoln was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery where it existed and only moved to end it as a war time strategy."

I said:

And that is simply not true by any fair reading of these events.

So it is hardly a straw man to quote you and then refute what you say, but it is getting sort of comical to cover the same ground over and over, but that is the nature of these vanities regarding poor old Lincoln.

Now, it is simply -not- fair to say that Lincoln only became interested in the slavery issue in 1861. He opposed slavery throughout his life.

But we can continue to spin this out as long as you like.

Walt

From GOPcapitalist:

I said specifically: "The historical Lincoln was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery where it existed and only moved to end it as a war time strategy."

FROM YOU, INDICATING YOUR PURPORTED RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE:
I said: And that is simply not true by any fair reading of these events.

But wait, that is NOT what your actual response to my above statement was. Your actual response said, and I quote, "Your statement that Lincoln opposed slavery only as a war measure is simply NOT supported in the record."

In that case, you are SPECIFICALLY attributing a statement to me (as in "your statement that...") which I did not make (I did not say "lincoln opposed slavery only as a war measure," I said "Lincoln was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery where it existed and only moved to end it as a war time strategy."). That makes it a straw man - you attributed an argument to me that I did not make. It resembled one I made but differed in key elements as your attributed argument is less specific and accordingly weaker than the argument I actually made. Hence, you are guilty of constructing scarecrows.

So it is hardly a straw man to quote you and then refute what you say

Indeed, that would not be a straw man. But that is not what you did as you did not quote me. Instead you generalized and modified my argument, then restated it in terms where it had been altered. That makes it a straw man.

but it is getting sort of comical to cover the same ground over and over

Indeed it is, just as your increasingly desparate debate tactics are becoming quite comical themselves.

but that is the nature of these vanities regarding poor old Lincoln.

Perhaps where you are involved, in which case I would not be surprised.

Now, it is simply -not- fair to say that Lincoln only became interested in the slavery issue in 1861.

Indeed it would not be fair to say that, but that is a moot point as nobody ever said that other than you in denouncing it.

He opposed slavery throughout his life.

Yet he was willing to endorse a constitutional amendment designed to perpetuate, protect, and even expand its presence...

But we can continue to spin this out as long as you like.

You can continue spinning it all you want. I need only respond by directly citing the plane historical fact of Lincoln's endorsement of the amendment.

I am sorry Whiskey papa, but you are so WRONG about Lincoln not willing to put up with Slavery, since everyone loves to use lincoln quote, I will use on as well.

Preservation of the union was Lincolns primary goal in the civil war, 1861-1865. it was"not either to save or to destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Oh yeah, slavery was THE issue wasn't it? NOT.

Now as far as secession is concerned and whether indeed it was legal.

Horace Greely: "If the Declaration of Independance justified the secession of 3 million colonists in 1776, why did it not justify the secession of 5 million southerners from the Union in 1861."

How many states has the United States helped to secede from Russia and other nations since 1861?

The act of forming the Federal government was, as Rawle stated "the act of many independant states", and "those who have the power to make, have the power to unmake".

"To deny this right [secession from the Union] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."

According to Rawle, if a majority of the people of a state peacefully and deliberately "resolve to relinquish the republican form of government, they ceased to be members of the Union." But if a faction or a small group of people takes control of a State by violence and thereby destroys Republican government, at that time "the Union is bound to employ its power to prevent it." The only pretext for Federal intervention in the affairs of a State is when the will of the majority of established electors has been usurped.

- All this comes from William Rawle, LL. D 1825. This is in the book A view of the Constitution by William Rawle, published in 1825 Secession as Taught at West Point.

These were constitutional views taught at West Point. Referenced in The Centennial of the United States Military Academy at West Point,

i.e. secession was taught to be Constitutional and legal at West Point, so long as it was carried out by the will of a majority of that state.

Now as far as Lincoln and his love of the constitution.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS BY LINCOLN:

"Constitutional Problems under Lincoln," James G. Randall, 1951, Urbana: University of Illinois Press:

"Among the unconstitutional and dictatorial acts performed by Lincoln were initiating and conducting a war by decree for months without the consent or advice of Congress; declaring martial law; confiscating private property; suspending habeas corpus; conscripting the railroads and censoring telegraph lines; imprisoning as many as 30,000 Northern citizens without trial; deporting a member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, after Vallandigham - a fierce opponent of the Morrill tariff -- protested imposition of an income tax at a Democratic Party meeting in Ohio; and shutting down hundreds of Northern newspapers."

The Confederate War, Gary Gallagher, 1998, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press:

"The Emancipation Proclamation caused a desertion crisis in the United States Army. At least 200,000 Northern soldiers deserted; another 120,000 evaded conscription; and another 90,000 Northern men fled to Canada to evade the draft, while thousands more hid in the mountains of central Pennsylvania 'where they lay beyond the easy reach of enrolling officers.'"

Abraham Lincoln, as cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.,: Rutgers University Press:

"Send them to Liberia, to their own native land. But free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit this."

"Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men," Jeffrey Rogers Hummel; Laissez Faire Books

"The Lincoln Administration imprisoned at least 14,000 (Northern) civilians throughout the course of the war. ... The federal government simultaneously monitored and censored both the mails and telegraphs. ... It also suppressed newspapers. Over three hundred, including the Chicago Times, the New York World, and the Philadelphia Evening Journal, had to cease publication for varying periods."

Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men," Jeffrey Rogers Hummel; Laissez Faire Books

Former Democratic Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, running for governor, "delivered a speech in May 1863 that accused the President of unnecessarily prolonging the conflict. The Union commander in Ohio" -- never a war zone -- "rousted Vallandigham from his home at night and jailed him. A military court handed down a sentence of confinement for the war's duration, but public indignation forced Lincoln to commute the sentence to exile behind Confederate lines."

Oh yes, Lincoln was a hero and a statesman, NOT, he was a tyrant and a traitor!!

You truly do have to laugh at poor old walt's line of reasoning for just about everything he does not want to hear!

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.