North Carolina GOP Lawmaker Calls Abraham Lincoln a 'Tyrant' Like Adolf Hitler

Time ^ | 4-12-2017 | Alana Abramson

[brucedickinson]

Pittman replied, "And if Hitler had won, should the world just get over it? Lincoln was the same sort of tyrant, and personally responsible for the deaths of over 800,000 Americans in a war that was unnecessary and unconstitutional." Pittman did not respond to request for comment from TIME to clarify his remarks.

[BroJoeK]

dsc: "That’s what you could say, if you were sufficiently committed to the truth. I’m not holding my breath."

And yet the fact remains that you cannot logically support the Confederacy without supporting the basic reason for its existence: to protect & expand the institution of slavery.
Once you say that slavery was wrong, then the Confederacy has no reason for existence, and you have no cause to defend, FRiend.

That's why you are embarrassing.

[jeffersondem]

“West Virginia is the state jeffersondem sooooooo cleverly thinks was admitted to the Union as a slave state”

I never identified the state as West Virginia. And I'll tell you why: I didn't want to embarrass my many friends who like to believe the north was fighting to “free the slaves” while they were grabbing money with both hands and adding a slave state into the empire.

But I do admire the way you delicately explain things: “Yes, the north was pregnant. But it was only a little bit pregnant.”

[CommerceComet]

In 1861 the Confederacy had a constitution that provided for slavery....In 1861 the United States had a constitution that provided for slavery.

"Provided for" can have a range of meanings from tolerance to endorsement. The constitutions were not equivalent in their treatment of slavery.

So which constitution has the language "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed" and which one says "no bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed?"

Wasn't West Virginia admitted to the Union only because it had an abolition plan? Is that explaining it away? This doesn't seem inconsistent with eliminating slavery.

[HandyDandy]

I rest my case.

[rockrr]

I didn't want to embarrass my many friends who like to believe the north was fighting to “free the slaves...”

Who believes that?

[OIFVeteran]

The U.S. Army’s official name for it is the war of rebellion, which I think is most accurate. The US had an election for president per the constitution, with no accusations of fraud or other tampering. Southern states, starting with South Carolina, decided they didn’t like the outcome of the election and decided to take their toys and go home. Not only that, they sent representatives to other states that had not yet seceded to try and convince them to secede. If that ain’t treason I don’t know what is.

As far as whether secession was allowed under the constitution, I will take James Madison’s own words on that;

“I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word respective, prefixed to the “rights” &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should unite in contending for the security of them to each.

It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol. 2,1 with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.”
Letter from James Madison to Mr. Trist
Dec 23, 1832 during the nullification crisis.

[CommerceComet]

I never identified the state as West Virginia. And I'll tell you why: I didn't want to embarrass my many friends who like to believe the north was fighting to “free the slaves” while they were grabbing money with both hands and adding a slave state into the empire.

What possible difference does the specific identity of the state make?

[HandyDandy]

Darn good question. I wonder if our friend can give us an example of a Free State being admitted into the Confederacy, and if not, why not? Seems the North had Slave States and Free States. The South had only Slave States.

[dsc]

“And yet the fact remains that you cannot logically support the Confederacy without supporting the basic reason for its existence: to protect & expand the institution of slavery.”

And that is the error to which you cling like Linus to his security blanket. I don’t find it embarrassing though; I find it contemptible, like any other refusal to confront unwelcome facts.

[jeffersondem]

“Wasn’t West Virginia admitted to the Union only because it had an abolition plan?”

No.

West Virginia was made into a state because Lincoln considered it was in his best military, economic, and political interests.

But if you want to make the case that Lincoln created and brought a slave state into the union so that he could “free the slaves”, then go ahead.

You could probably make a stronger case that Lincoln’s decision to create a new slave state was an insincere political shenanigan. He was very good at that. Six hundred thousand widows will agree.

[rockrr]

You’ll spout any lie to advance your agenda. Lincoln didn’t orchestrate the secession of West Virginia.

[CommerceComet]

West Virginia was made into a state because Lincoln considered it was in his best military, economic, and political interests.

Your statement would be a lot more plausible if the congressional debate over the admission of West Virginia hadn't occurred. Whether you like it or not, the Willey Amendment is a historical fact which argues against your impugning of Lincoln's motives.

[KrisKrinkle]

“The U.S. Army’s official name for it is the war of rebellion, which I think is most accurate.”

I think it’s more accurate to call it “The War Between The States” because it was a “disagreement” among the participants (the States) of the compact to form a Union of states. And because everyone seems to give too much credit or blame to Lincoln when it should be given to the Northern States.

What could Lincoln do on his own? Could he send in the FBI or the ATF or have the IRS go after the secessionists? Some will say he sent in the army but someone up thread said the Regular Army at the time was 16,000 strong and, while I seem to recall it was closer to 30,000, in either case it wasn’t enough.

The Union force at First Manassas numbered more than the Regular Army because of Volunteers (not part of the Regular Army) from the Northern States. Note that when Grant was promoted to Major General he was promoted to Major General of Volunteers and was made Major General of the Regular Army later. I believe that without the support of the Northern States the war couldn’t have been fought and Lincoln couldn’t have done much about it.

“The US had an election for president per the constitution, with no accusations of fraud or other tampering. Southern states, starting with South Carolina, decided they didn’t like the outcome of the election and decided to take their toys and go home.”

I would say that the Democratic Party lost the election of 1860 and had a hissy fit. As I recall, all the Southern State governments were filled with Democrats. Further, Democrats in the North tried to undermine the war effort.

I also think that at it’s core (not the Average Joe party member), the Democratic Party is still working toward the dissolution of the United States.

I state the above as opinion for which I expect to receive abuse to which I may or may not respond. Time for bed.

[Pelham]

“The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. “

And the seceding States believed that they had been subjected to abuses so citing Madison doesn’t change anything. There wasn’t any outside agency to adjudicate the competing claims, just raw force.

“And, as it happened, in our Founders’ case both legitimate reasons for disunion happened “

And King George and Parliament didn’t accept the colonials’ excuses for secession and sought to forcibly put down the rebellion, to bring the traitors to justice, the same words that Lincoln would use 90 years later. Rulers resent losing territory and population. The words that George III uses in his 1775 letter to Parliament could be substituted for Lincoln’s, the main difference being the archaic English of 1775.

I still am waiting to see what moral right there was for the British colonials seceding from their mother government. The colonials resented being taxed for their defense during the French and Indian War. London thought that the colonies shouldn’t free ride and that they should pay the cost of their defense. If there was moral right there it may well have belonged to London.

[DoodleDawg]

I don't mind looking at secondary sources to learn something, but I'm not going to register on some Internet site that calls itself “ASALH”. For all I know this could be the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church.

The site is Jstor. And you could have read it for free if you chose.

[DoodleDawg]

This will all be explained away in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Nothing much to explain away.

In 1861 the Confederacy had a constitution that provided for slavery. The CSA president took an oath to defend its constitution.

In 1861 the United States had a constitution that provided for slavery. The USA president took an oath - twice - to defend its constitution.

One explicitly protected slavery and slave trade, the other was silent on the subject.

During Lincoln’s War both the USA and the CSA fought to defend their constitutions which provided for slavery.

But the South launched the rebellion to defend slavery, the North did not.

But only one of the two nations added a slave state to their countries after the actions of the Great Emancipator.

West Virginia was admitted with a constitution that required the gradual emancipation. In February 1865 the legislature outlawed it.

[BroJoeK]

to dsc: please note jeffersondem's comment below, it's what you're reduced to if you try to defend the Confederacy without defending slavery:

jeffersondem: "I didn't want to embarrass my many friends who like to believe the north was fighting to 'free the slaves' while they were grabbing money with both hands and adding a slave state into the empire."

Like jeffersondem, you ignore the beams in slave-holders' eyes while you focus your criticism on the motes in Northern eyes.
West Virginians -- who were anti-slavery to begin with, that's one reason they didn't secede along with Virginia -- West Virginians happily agreed to abolish slavery in 1863 and did so in 1865, but jeffersondem pretends his hair's on fire over it, because he alleges that was not fast enough.

In the mean time, Confederate states were fighting to the last blood of their poorest young men to keep hold their wealthiest slave-owners' "property" .

The fact is that, logically, you just can't make that case and really ought to just give it up.
It's embarrassing.

As for war profiteers, I've visited the McLean home in Appomattox Court House where Lee's surrender was signed.
It's a beautiful large home with very nice slave quarters behind it.
McLean was a big-time Confederate military supplier & war profiteer.
So it happens, some people make a lot of money during any wartime.
But they are never the reason for war, then or now.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran quoting Madison: "The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States.
The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it.
The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created...
It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion..."

Thank you, sir, for quoting Madison at length here.
He answers the question of Founders' Original Intent.

[BroJoeK]

HandyDandy: "Seems the North had Slave States and Free States.
The South had only Slave States."

Nicely done.

Our FRiend jeffersondem is hoping to answer the unanswerable question ("how can you defend the Confederacy without defending slavery") by going on offense -- after all, isn't the best defense a good offense?
So on offense, jeffersondem ignores 100% of 3.5 million Confederate slaves and focuses like a laser on any remaining Union slaves.

Yes, jeffersondem's argument is ludicrous, but it's the best he can do with a very poor hand of cards.

[BroJoeK]

dsc: "And that is the error to which you cling like Linus to his security blanket.
I don’t find it embarrassing though; I find it contemptible, like any other refusal to confront unwelcome facts."

But you have no facts at all, welcome or unwelcome -- zero, zip, nada, no facts -- only your Lost Cause mythology and that was a pack of lies from the beginning.
Which I'm certain you truly know, but for reasons similar to religion, will never admit, right?