Posted on 02/06/2003 1:37:27 PM PST by clintonbaiter
Marc Morano of CNSNews has reported that tours of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. aren't what they used to be. I can remember my first visit to D.C. way back when and my parents telling me about the Lincoln Memorial, and walking up the huge steps, and seeing the great man seated and looking majestic. I can even remember seeing his words etched in the stone all around me as I stood at his feet. It was striking, it was awe-inspiring.
I thought I had learned a good deal about Lincoln in school and felt like I knew him. I guess I was wrong.
Now, according to the Discovery Channel, Abraham Lincoln, Republican and the 16th President of the United States, was in reality a liberal Democrat. Moreover, not just any liberal Democrat. According to the folks at Discovery Channel, Abe Lincoln was slightly to the left of the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone......
(Excerpt) Read more at iconoclast.ca ...
She/he definitely exhibits some unbalanced logical processes. There is repeatedly demonstrated an inability to follow any flow of conversation. 'This' becomes 'that' in the blink of an eye. I too can now look upon Wlat and see him as rational in comparison to this one. I never thought I would say that, but it's true. Wlat's attempts to simply lie here and there are nothing compared to the bizarre irrationality this one displays.
At minimum, both Walt and Non-Seq -try- to construct arguments. Those arguments are seldom very logical and many times fall short on facts, but at least they are attempts at reasoning. This new fellow seems to bounce all over the place though.
Agreed, it's like watching a nervous breakdown in progress. Upon review, I shouldn't have been so harsh, the individual is obviously disturbed.
As evidenced by his recent reply, it seems that he believes in a radical dualism of tax policy: You must either love all taxes or hate all taxes...As far as argumentation goes, it simply makes no sense.
Quite right. I truly believe there is somehing "not right" about this person's thinking. I should have simply ignored her/his irrational racebaiting and hatemongering. I hope I haven't worsened their condition by attempting to make them deal with reality. When they excused Lincoln's abuse of the Constitution with the "there was rebellion" statement, I guess it's a good thing I didn't mention that the Founding Fathers would have considered his abuse to the real rebellion, and hung him for it. That may have put him/her into a catatonic state of shock, or even worse.
LOL! Sometimes that is not necessarily a bad thing. I once suggested leading Wlat by way of John Locke into David Hume for the purpose of exacerbating his tendency to behave irrationally. The idea was to drop him off in the middle of a skeptic's wasteland, thus prompting him to question his own perception of reality. This new guy seems to be retreating into a similar direction, only it is one where his connection to reality and the related ability to percieve it appears to be, for lack of a better word, damaged.
I suppose its not very nice to egg them on like that, but it sure makes for first rate entertainment!
Brilliant! Truly the quote of the month! I saved that one on my computer. A most wonderful use of words and mental imagery.
Have you ever wondered how they can go on and on playing the slavery card when the Northern Unionist military and government immediately set about on a campaign of GENOCIDE against the Plains Indians in the years after the WBTS? The very generals, leaders, and soldiers they laud as "champions of equality and freedom" were planning, organising, and carrying out a campaign of delberate GENOCIDE. The whole thing makes these neo-unionist extremists seem somewhat "less than genuine" in their professed beliefs. The hypocrisy of their position is unfathomable.
I think he had to pay a 50,000 dollar fine in the process for his arrogance too.
Well, you're wrong, of course. And this is why Jackson's example at least mitigates anything President Lincoln did.
Jackson did suspend the Writ while a British army was proximate to New Orleans. He arrested several citizens including a judge. After the British army withdrew Jackson rescinded his suspension and the judge promptly fined him $1,000. There the matter stood for nearly 30 years, when Congress refunded the money with interest and their thanks.
It is at best a cloudy issue who can suspend the Writ.
Consider this:
"Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Habeas corpus is a concept of law, in which a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held. A writ of habeas corpus can be issued by a court upon a government agency (such as a police force or the military). Such a writ compels the agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court that the person is being reasonably held. The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.
Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is often argued that only Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the declaration; or it can reject the President's imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html
The fact that neo-rebs hate Lincoln has nothing to do with the Writ and everything to do with race.
You hate Lincoln because he helped advance human rights.
You make personal attacks on me because the record won't suit you.
Walt
Not "persons held to service or labor." They had no right to be protected by the federal government.
You can't really believe the crap you post.
Walt
1. The anti-Americans lost.
2. The anti-Americans should have lost.
3. The anti-Americans supported slavery.
4. The anti-Americans started the civil war.
5. Those who call it the "war of northern aggression" probably subscribe to Million Man Math.
6. Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents who ever served this country.
7. Lincoln was a Republican.
8. The anti-Americans started the Klan.
9. The anti-Americans started them there Jim Crow laws.
10. As much as I love the South, I'm ashamed of what we did to the Union and what we did to halt civil rights.
11. Song of the South is one of the greatest movies ever made.
12. Shellin' peas and pickin' cotton or harvesting cotton would not have held the South up if they would have won.
13. Saddam Hussein can kiss my a$$.
14. I would vote to bring down the confederate flag, and I also believe it's up to the people to decide.
15. Bush is a conservative, not a libertarian.
16. Did I say that Hussein can kiss my a$$?
17. Yes, those sweet magnolias blossom 'round everybody's door.
18. Might I add Uday to the a$$ kissing list?
19. I think I'll add Chirac and Schroeder to that list as well.
20. Finally, Lincoln changed when he realized that slavery was going to tear this country apart.
21. Nobody ever said the Union didn't have racists.
22. We're better off because of Lincoln's leadership. Good-night everybody! :)
Ellsworth's motion to refer the plan to the legislatures of the states for ratification was defeated 3-7. The plan that was submitted by committe "to refer the Constitution, after the approbation of Congress, to assemblies chosen by the people was accepted 9-1.
The convention did consider the option of submitting the Constitution to the people of the states en masse for ratification:
"Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved, that the reference of the plan be made to one general convention, chosen and authorized by the people, to consider, amend, and establish the same."
But you KNOW that is not the whole story.
You KNOW that the Supreme Court said in Hunter v. Martin's Lessee (1816) that the sovereignty of the United States rests upon the people of the whole United States, and you know that McCullough v. Maryland (1819) affirmed the same thing in very clear language.
So why would you try and mislead people so blatantly?
The neo-reb rant can only be sustained by lies and half truths.
It's pretty obvious that, your disinformation tactics notwithstanding, that the people -have- maintained the Union.
Walt
So do you disagree with the South when they first embraced tariffs when they couldn't compete with Indian cotton?
Compared to the yankee tariff that was four times as high, yes. It was.
The North had an industrial base to establish to catch up to Europe. The South put all their marbles on slavery and it put them behind industrially and after getting off the ground, they suddenly didn't want the tariffs anymore. It went from tariff=good to tariff=bad in a few decades for the South.
I would support a low-level revenue tariff now in the place of an income tax and federal spending. I would not support a high-level protectionist tariff though.
So you believe Bush was wrong in protecting the vital war industry of steel from foreign dumping?
I never said I hated low-level revenue tariffs and defy you to show otherwise. I did state my opposition to protectionist tariffs though and that is exactly what the north had. For some unknown reason though this distinction seems to be well beyond your comprehension abilities. But perhaps if I put it in simpler terms for your simple mind... 13% = low rate 40% = high rate The South had 13% The North had 40% 40% is bigger than 13%. See the difference now?
The reason the South had no industrial base to protect was because they laid their marbles on slavery. Their mistake. The South loved tariffs until slavery made their cotton cheaper than India's
You are babbling incoherently now.
I'm looking for consistency from you.
To know that would require that you first grasp my theories. To date all of them seem to be beyond your comprehension. Therefore I may safely say that you would not understand my theories if they were glued to your forehead. Accordingly you cannot legitimately claim to know whether they are falling apart.
See above for a new round of questions.
Even if we accept that premise, it does not follow that he had a need to tax the country to death in order to enrich the protected northern industries.
He didn't tax us to death, we beat the South.
No, only abusive ones. Taxes in a restrained fashion are a legitimate function of government. They are often abused though and that is where they become problems.
Was the North's tariffs all Lincoln's idea or was Congress involved in passing them? Was was the level of the tariff before Lincoln took office?
If they're not too big and if they're used for legitimate functions of a government like defense etc.
Or winning a war?
No. Only certain taxes that are low, restrained, and without excess.
I'm glad to see this.
Not really, cause "my side" didn't have a 40% tariff schedule. Therefore "my side" did NOT "do them to."
Because your side had slavery, they didn't build their industrial base. There wasn't much to protect.
If that is true, why did every single southern congressman save one vote AGAINST the Morrill tariff on the first vote ever taken on it? I asked you that before and you avoided the issue.
That tariff was in 1861, wasn't it? I said the South liked tariffs decades earlier when they had to compete with Indian cotton. When slavery gave them an advantage, they turned against the tariff. Slavery caused the South's industrial growth to be stunted and therefore they turned against tariffs. They made their own bed.
In the form he supported them, basically. Yes. And that is what they did at the expense of the whole nation.
You're making things up. Tariffs went up and down for decades prior to 1861. Their purpose was to get American industry off the ground and to finance the government.
Not at all. Your strawman did change its mind though, just as you built it to do. Marx was a real live person with a real live socialist club that followed him. Surely you do not think they were imaginary, do you?
Marx also praised the founding fathers. Your accusations are meaningless to the point that you had to add made up words to spruce it up.
Check out the World Socialist Website (a trotskyite marxist group). They've got a lengthy interview with marxist-sympathizing historian James McPherson on the subject.
Marxist "sympathizer"? Is that the clsoest you can get? LOL
So now you are calling Karl Marx and his group of followers "imaginary" and made up? Nice try, but Marx and his group physically issued a proclamation congratulating The Lincoln on his reelection. It appears in his collected works series. I gave you a quote from it which you have yet to comprehend despite its simple and straitforward message.
He also praised the founding fathers.
Then you did not read the quote. He refers repeatedly to the "working men" and an era of the "working men." Since you are obviously of diminished mental capacity, I have attempted to make those as readily discernable as possible for you by bolding the applicable words and explaining them in great detail. Unfortunately comprehension is not your ally, meaning there is little more I can do for you.
LOL You have to change the meaning of words to get what you want out of Marx' quote. What is the meaning of "is", anyway?
Not really. He simply acknowledged that their revolution led to an age of the middle class, which, to him, was a step in the long progression toward communism.
LOL I knew you would rationalize away that even though Marx praised the founding fathers that he didn't really mean it. So is it your contention that the founding fathers were commies like you implied with Lincoln?
Unfortunately for your case, the words you claim to be imaginary are as real as their author Karl Marx, who you also just claimed to be imaginary. That you have comprehension disabilities does not mean that something lacks existence beyond the impared scope of your mind. I've already shown you exactly where phrases about the "working men" etc. appear in that quote by bolding them yet even they do not make it through to you. The problem is obviously on your end.
Working men is working men. Middle class is middle class. You have to change the meanings of words to make your point.
With regard to The Lincoln's actions, he DID say so. When he says "a new era of ascendancy...for the working class," he means proletarian communism.
You're adding words to make a point. You're making things up.
When he says "the reconstruction of a social world" he means reconstructing it into communism. That is how Marx wrote. That is how Marx referred to communism. If you do not like it and do not like its implications about Abe Lincoln, tough.
The fact that he said the same thing about the founding fathers makes your point inconsistant and therefore meaningless.
Yes. It does very specifically in two places. It predicts "new era of ascendancy...for the working class," which in marxian terminology means proletarian communism.
You're adding words, making things up, like I said at the start of this thread you neo-Confederates do all the time.
It also predicts the "reconstruction of a social world," which in marxian terminology means a social world of communism.
He said the same of the founding fathers.
So now you admit that he did say the working class?
When have I denied that he said "working class"? Working class is working class though and Marx' statement is pretty mild and true. The founding fathers created a system that helps the middle class ascend. Lincoln improved this system by eliminating slavery so that the slaves may ascend also. Looks good to me.
Then why all this nonsense of the past several lines in which you denied exactly that and accused me of imagining it?
Because you're adding words. You said that Marx meant that Lincoln was a commie. Marx said nothing of the sort.
And for the record, his reference to the middle class was of a previous revolution. He did not say it of The Lincoln.
Exactly, he said the founding fathers helped the middle class to ascend. But you say that your theory doesn't apply to the founding fathers, only to Lincoln. You neo-Confederates can rationalize anything.
He DID say so.
Then he said the same of the founding fathers.
Use of the terms working class was his way of saying it.
But his use of the word "middle class" meant nothing?
It was his way of saying it in the letter to The Lincoln just as it was his way of saying it in Das Kapital, the manifesto, and practically all of his communist advocacy writings.
You're adding a lot of stuff here, stuff that's not in the quote. You're making things up, like you neo-Confederates always do to make a point.
But OK if it's legal, right?
Second, even if I had not posted that excerpt about slavery's wrong, why should I have to keep posting over and over again what is painfully obvious to any sane individual? I suppose if you came along and started trying to justify slavery I would have a reason to argue against you over that. But seeing as you are not doing that, why should I bother reminding you every day that slavery was wrong?
Why don't you recognize that the Declarations state clearly that slavery was the reason for secession? I've never seen any of you do that. You avoid it like the plague.
Yeah, and unlike you he had no problem recognizing the sins of The Lincoln and his armies. Nor did he have any problem outing them for those sins. You on the other hand seem to be incapable of admitting that The Lincoln did anything wrong and attack those of us who suggest otherwise.
Lincoln did nothing wrong. He is Commander in Chief and protector of the Constitution. The Constitution is protected by protecting America.
If I were not concerned with it, why would I be posting one of the greatest philosophical attacks on slavery in all of human history?
Why won't you admit secession was for slavery like the Declarations of Secession say?
Obviously you do not care much about what anyone other than you says.
Spooner wasn't president, he was a man with an opinion. You're right that I don't put too much in any one man's opinion, especially a man who was inconsequencial like Spooner. I get my opinions from the bible and myself (one of God's gifts is individual discernment if we have the will to develop it) and I look for men in power that I can agree with that I can support. Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, and Bush43 are the presidents that I agree with most. That's enough for anyone to get through life on.
You do not respect the words of historical figures as evidenced by your butchery and/or dismissal of their words when you do not like what they say.
What they say disagrees with the bible. Jesus made the gentiles clean with His blood on the cross if they believe on Him and therefore become spiritual descendents of Abraham. Peter got a rough lesson in this when he disrespected some non-Israelites (non-genetic). Secession was for slavery as the Declarations of Secession clearly say. Slavery violates Paul's "do unto others" commandment from God. Most blacks are spiritual descendants of Abraham and therefore our "neighbors" as defined by Jesus. America is God's country, prophesy says so. The break up God's country over an evil of slavery over spiritual descendants of Abraham was about as wrong as could be.
Nor do you respect the words of your peers on this forum. Instead you misrepresent them and construct straw men to resemble them as a means of avoiding their content.
Because you make up stuff. You add stuff. Why can't you be like Walt and just stick to the truth and not add stuff to it?
It is also a philosophical argument of merit from an individual of greater authority on the slavery issue than 99.999999% of those other 30 million at the time. This fact indicates that your dismissal of it is not based on its numerical status as an opinion relative to those around it, but rather on the fact that you do not like what it says.
Because I think he is in disagreement with the bible.
For one, because it contradicts your implication that people who object to The Lincoln are slavery lovers by default.
No, because they never mention anything about how wrong it was to secede for slavery.
Beyond that, you would do good to pay attention to it because it came from a leading historical authority on the abolition of slavery, a topic you profess to abide by yourself. But since you are not interested in hearing anything but your own predetermined view of the conflict, I do not anticipate your interest in it will grow any. You might as well glue your eyes shut, stick your fingers in your ears, and pretend that the world around you does not exist. And in all honesty, you do not appear to be far from that point as it is right now.
At least I don't add words to historical quotes like you do. I stick with truth and I spend hours a week working on improving my discernment. You are correct that I don't put too much stock in any one man's opinion. It's so easy to be misled when you do that. Just look at this thread, early on some said they they believed one way, but after reading one man's opinion, they believed completely the other way. My goodness, don't their have any convictions or are they so easily swayed by the words of man? Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous. That's how tyrants get their power, by a subtle tongue.
You're leading this dance. I haven't gone anywhere you haven't taken me.
As evidenced by his recent reply, it seems that he believes in a radical dualism of tax policy: You must either love all taxes or hate all taxes.
In post #21 You said Lincoln was like Wellstone because he like taxes. I assumed that meant you were against them.
In this particular case he does not seem to be capable of distinguishing between good tax policies and bad tax policies. His only positions are that either the 13% confederate tariff was good and therefore the 40% yankee one was good also, or that the 40% yankee one was bad and therefore the 13% confederate one was bad as well. As far as argumentation goes, it simply makes no sense.
I assumed you meant all taxes when you implied you were against them.
Oh well. I guess we've found a replacement jester on the Wlat brigade since that Llan-Ddeussant aka Titus Fikus aka all those other fake names got banned.
You neo-Confederates like to bring up the word "banned" a lot too. Don't like dissent, huh?
You said Lincoln ended the Constitution.
You are clearly the disruptor, running around spewing your hatemongering racist allegations. I pissed you off by exposing your buddy wlat's hatred of the US Constitution, that's your beef with me.
LOL My gosh, if I got mad everytime Walt was attacked, I'd be committed by now.
LOL - Dumbass, look at the statement you're responding to. I most certainly have denied what you've said. LOL, you're an idiot, in addition to being a hatemongering racebaiter. If it resulted in better race relations after emancipation than what was created by the Northern carpetbaggers during reconstruction.
See, I haven't mischaracterized you. Slavery isn't as big a deal to you as your made-up grievances.
Racebaiter. This question does not relate to my statement that you are specifically responding to, it is only more proof of your racebaiting.
It has everything to do with this topic. If Lincoln had not done what he done, slavery would've continued for decades more.
We were specifically discussing the US Constitution, you are diverting the topic again, with no absolutely no other purpose than to racebait and call people racists. You repeatedly do that, no matter what the real subject is.
Because you don't concern yourself with slavery. Your disagreement with Lincoln over Constitutional powers is foremost in your mind. That's callous.
Yes, I said I thought it wrong. That makes my feelings the same as Lincoln's, dumbass.
Littering is wrong. Slavery is an abomination.
Most Constitutional historians and legal scholars would laugh in your face over that statement. As the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall said, "The union survived the Civil War, but the Constitution did not."
He's wrong too.
There you go again you racebaiting hatemonger. My question to you was about that "made up gievance" as you called it, not secession, slavery, horsefeathers or pie recipes either. By the way, little miss hatemonger, Thurgood Marshall the Black Supreme Court Justice agrees with ME in regards to that "made up grievance" (the issue at hand), so you must think he was a racist too, which, like most of what you have posted, clearly exposes you as a racebaiting hatemonger.
Remember your "Prozac" post? Who needs it now? LOL If Marshall said the Constitution ended in 1861, then he is wrong. Simple really.
You have definitely lost all touch with reality. The issue was not secession or the declarations of secession, it was the Constitution. It was not even what the 13th or any other amendment were about. It was about the Constitution, and the fact that our Constitutional form of Government was changed forever. Now you respond to my having clearly exposed your racebaiting diversion by posting another racebaiting diversion. You are more of a hatemongering racebaiter than I had realised.
The abolition of slavery took away any need for secession, so yes the country was changed, but the Constitution wasn't until the 13th amendment.
LOL - That's doublespeak. You sound like a character in a George Orwell novell.
How so?
You did it again, you diverted the topic to your racebaiting crap. You can't discuss Constitutional issues, or any other issues, so you just divert the topic and spew your racebaiting hatemongering crap. No matter what the point is, you divert and spew. Back to the topic, it's not a question about 'differnt' ideas of Constitutional powers, its about what the Constitution clearly says regarding the separation of powers.
There was rebellion. The president is authorized as Commander in Chief to preserve the Constitution.
Washington and Jackson both did the same as Lincoln when faced with rebellion.
New? I used to argue with you neo-Confederates all the time and then Lincoln's poll numbers went up dramatically so I could see that the liberal and neo-Confederate attacks on Lincoln backfired. The liberals have now adopted a new strategy to say "OK, OK, we now agree that Lincoln was great but he was really a liberal". The Lott affair and the damage it did to our agenda made me come back and engage you people again. You're costing us our agenda and you need to either start your own party, or go back to the Democrats where your roots are and where Byrd will welcome you with open arms. The Civil War was a Democrat vs. Republican war. Republicans have always stood for equality from ending slavery to passing civil rights, to opposing affirmative action now. We are the party of Lincoln. Anyone who disagrees with Lincoln's actions in preserving the union and ending slavery has some serious fundamental differences with the Republican Party now and historically.
These massacres were the blackest mark on our history. I can admit that unlike you who can't admit that slavery was the reason for secession.
The very generals, leaders, and soldiers they laud as "champions of equality and freedom" were planning, organising, and carrying out a campaign of delberate GENOCIDE.
I've never lauded them as champions of equality and freedom. I've always said most Northerners supported the war to preserve the union. The Radical Republicans did fight for equality and freedom though.
The whole thing makes these neo-unionist extremists seem somewhat "less than genuine" in their professed beliefs. The hypocrisy of their position is unfathomable.
You're making things up again, par for the course for you neo-Confederates. I've never claimed that the North's main purpose in the Civil War was to end slavery.
You would. LOL You agree with the "making things up" crowd.
Good post. I think secession for slavery was pushed by a few plantation owners and the poor man had to fight that war for them. I think most Confederate soldiers fought because they had a sense of duty to protect their homeland. All the more reason that secession for slavery was so wrong. I wouldn't vote for removing the Confederate flag either. Two minor points of disagreement. :^)
I think the Southerners are great people and I vacationed down there recently to defy the NAACP, drove a NASCAR, spent a lot of money. Jesse Jackson et al are no different than slaveholders.
This may have been misunderstood. The slaveholder secessionists used the poor Confederate soldier's sense of duty to protect the homeland to fight for the slaveholder secessionist slavery cause. That's what made it even more wrong.
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.