Replies

sobieski wrote: Lincoln was a typical descendant of the Puritans who moved from New England: self-righteous and, well, puritanical. He pulled a coup de etat on our Constitution (suspension of habeous corpus, denying the right of seccession, arresting state legislators, suspending newspapers, instituting the draft, total war, & etc). He was a monster.

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. – The United States Constitution, Article. I., Section. 9., Clause 2

Lincoln, the monster converted the Constitution from "A pact with Satan" in that it permitted human slavery, to a document that removed the most serious flaw in the original Constitution. The United States was already united, as shown by the use of "perpetual union" TWICE in the Articles of Confederation.

Lincoln managed to accomplish this despite the greater readiness of the southern militia (the better to be prepared for slave revolts), the treason behavior of most of the United States officer corps, and the outright treason of the former Sectetary of War Floyd. When an officer is given special trust and confidence by the congress, he can not gain release of his duty and responsibilities by sending a "never mind" letter.

Linoln was right! The southern states gained their wealth in a system where their exports were protected by the US Navy, and the western states were created by the United States. For states such as Alabama and Mississippi to assert that they had collective rights before the Constitution is only something that would pass in a KKK dominated curriculum.

What was the alternative? Two nations, then three, then 12 endlessly subdiving through war after war like in Europe? Piracy and local bandits blocking all trade like in Mexico and Tripoli?

Let us remind outselves that these are not just historical questions. The same people who endlessly drag out issues solved at the price of treasure and blood, over 140 years ago, intend to get rid of states with which they disagree, so that may not be troubled to compromise or win elections of All The People. They image that if California could be devolved to Mexico, and New York and New England could be devolved to the Socialist Canadiens, then they could have the laws and leadership they desire. If they gained their wish, then the border wars would begin.

Slavery was the essential compromise in the federalist era. Its elimination was not easy, but was a worthwhile goal, necessary to build the nation.

If for every drop of blood shed by the lash, one must be shed on the field of battle, if the treasure amassed through years of bondage were to be sunk beneath the waves, still it must be said, "the judgements of the Lord are True and Righteous altogether."

Lincoln was a typical descendant of the Puritans who moved from New England: self-righteous and, well, puritanical.

Wow. You seem to know more about Abraham Lincoln, then he did. In his autobiography he claimed he knew little of his ancestry. For decades afterwards, researchers have tried in vain to find his roots. For those who claim one line, there is another group who claims another. Presently there are claims that he descended from aristocrats, and others that he came from "indistinguished" heritage.

But with boldness in your speech, you cast aside any question and blurt out something you made up because you (1) hate Lincoln, and (2) hate Christians. Two birds, one stone, no truth required!

For a man that allegedly was a "typical descendant of the Puritans", perhaps you can tell us what church he attended. (Answer: he didn't he was disgusted with organized Christianity and fancied himself a Do-it-Yourself unaffiliated "Christian") In fact, Lincoln wasn't even exposed to "church" until he was 14 when his step-mother drug him to Pigeon Creek Baptist Church. Certainly it is "typical of the Puritans" to not take their children to church until they are about ready to leave the home.

As far as adopting a work ethic that mimics the Puritans, he may have actually had one. Then again, if he didn't work, the family wouldn't eat. Unlike today, there wasn't a welfare safety ~~net~~ hammock that encourages sloth and punishes productivity.

As far as the "monster" part. I am in agreement. A must read book is Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln". That ought to be a reality check on this god-like worship of Lincoln.

Lincoln was a typical descendant of the Puritans who moved from New England: self-righteous and, well, puritanical.

Actually, he was an Anglo-Celt (Scots-Irish is the older term) from Kentucky; there is another thread debating his origins, which speculates that he may have been illegitimate, his mother reputedly having had an affair of some duration with another man, and his father Thomas Lincoln actually sterile. I don't endorse any POV on that thread since I don't know enough, but it makes a) an interesting read, and b) it shows that he was an Appalachian Scots-Irishman on both sides of his family -- no matter which of two men he was descended from.

Therefore, ethnographically, Lincoln had more in common with the kind of men who made up the enlisted ranks of the Confederate States Army and the Union regiments from West Virginia -- and the Kentuckians who fought on both sides. He had more "relatives" in the South and the CSA than he did in the Union army and government.

William Herndon tried to interview Lincoln about his origins for IIRC political backgrounding purposes and, eventually, what turned out later to be his biography; but he said that Lincoln was very, very guarded about parts of his family history, and Herndon found parts of the Lincoln family bible's genealogy pages to have been filleted. There is a strong hint of a mystery in Herndon's retelling -- but then, people complain about Herndon.