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]

jeffersodem: "And I don’t know why Congress went along with Lincoln’s decision to kill 600,000 Americans."

With such comments jeffersondem demonstrates yourself to be a true Democrat -- always blaming others for their own actions.
It's equivalent to our modern Democrats caterwauling that "Republicans shut down the government!" when in reality, it's always Democrats who actually cause it.
But their success in blaming Republicans has driven them to repeat the claim as often as possible.

And now like a true Democrat, jeffersondem blames Republicans for the war Democrats provoked, started, declared and waged until final defeat and unconditional surrender.

[sigh} It's what real Democrats do, sort of in their political DNA.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "I have it on good authority - from, you might say, an unimpeachable source - that the love of money is the root of all evil."

So you freely confess then that Deep South secessionist slave-holders were driven first & foremost by their "love of money" in slaves and commerce?
And you freely confess that Confederates' "love of money" drove them to provoke, start, declare & wage war until final defeat and unconditional surrender?

If so, then sir, you are a much bigger man than I'd ever imagined.

{but somehow I doubt it}

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "If you read the Declaration of Independence, you'll find the rebellious states identified the King's interference with slavery as justification for dissolving the political bands."

DoodleDawg: "So you keep claiming.
But even if so, that is one reference to slavery among twenty eight reasons listed."

Some items in the Declaration include more than one complaint so I counted 35 total reasons.
Plus one more -- the only one which specifically refers to slavery, the one Jefferson was forced to remove from his list by fellow slave-holders who did not wish to imply they ever intended to free their slaves.
In that item Jefferson not only blames the King for imposing slavery but for preventing colonies from abolishing it.

The item our own jeffersondem constantly harps on does not refer specifically to slavery:

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Jefferson's term "domestic insurrections" may or may not refer to Dunmore's Proclamation of 1775, or to rumors of British inspired slave rebellions, or even to such "domestic insurrections" as the burning of Norfolk (January 1776) after British war ships bombarded it.
Regardless, the reader quickly skips over that when encountering "merciless Indian Savages" who were said to threaten vastly more serious harm.

Bottom line: one item of 35 may or may not refer to slave rebellions, while another deleted item specifically blames the King for slavery.
So jeffersondem's Herculean efforts to make our Revolutionary War seem like a battle for slavery notwithstanding, it simply was not.

In the Continental Army at Yorktown in 1781 a German officer in the British army reported about one in four US soldiers were African Americans.
They had been promised freedom in exchange for their service:

[BroJoeK]

KrisKrinkle: "...he was Commander in Chief of the military and in the military, particularly in time of war, rebellion, insurrection, some actions of any military commander can be construed as dictatorial."

Thanks, we're getting down to just fine points of definitions here, and that's pretty good.
So the word "dictator" is almost always a pejorative, never a neutral or complementary term, certainly not in the USA.
A "dictator" is essentially a sovereign king without the panoply of family history & ceremony.
But the term implies arbitrary, capricious, sovereign and unrestricted -- and none of that applies to our President, even as commander in chief.

As commander in chief the president is still subject to every duly passed law & regulation and to the constitutional limits of the office.
So by definition he cannot be a "dictator".

Yes, of course, political opponents always label strong presidents as "dictators" to win political points and money contributions.
But neither Lincoln nor, for example, Franklin Roosevelt ever met in any way the definition of a real dictator such as this thread's originator, Adolf Hitler or any number of others who quickly come to mind.

The claim of Lincoln as "dictator" comes basically from his decision to call up troops in April 1861, to deny habeas corpus and to arrest pro-Confederates (aka "copperheads") in Union states.
All such actions were anticipated by our Founders' constitution and their Militia Act of 1792, as responses to rebellion and were approved by Congress at the time.
Even the Supreme Court whose chief justice Taney censured Lincoln on habeas corpus, the court as a whole never did so.

[rockrr]

Taney was a petty partisan. Imagine Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg vs. Donald Trump (if you could keep her awake long enough).

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Arguably, referencing slavery as a justification for the Declaration of Independence was immoral."

KrisKrinkle: "Where did that happen? I just read the DOI, albeit quickly, and didn’t see the word 'slave' or 'slavery'."

Please see my post #263 above.
The word "slavery" or any variation of it is certainly not in the Declaration of Independence.
What is there are about 35 different complaints, of which one mentions "domestic insurrections" and that is the hanger on which our jeffersondem places his hat.

But "domestic insurrections" in 1777 could refer to almost anything, including Dunmore's proclamation of 1775, rumors of slave revolts or any other uprising against local authorities such as the burning of Norfolk in January 1776.
That had nothing to do with either slaves or Indians.

So jeffersondem's claim that the Declaration of Independence has something, anything, specific to do with protecting slavey is simply bogus.
Indeed, Thomas Jefferson's true feelings on the subject can be found in the one item his fellow slave-holders forced him to delete: it accuses the King of forcing slavery on the colonies and of refusing to let them abolish it.

[HandyDandy]

He has been told all this. You have to bear in mind that you are speaking to a person who believes that a horse can fly.

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "Taney was a petty partisan. Imagine Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg vs. Donald Trump..."

And it was worse than that, since by my count in 1861 every one of them was a Democrat, possibly excepting Justice John McLean, the sole remaining opponent to Dred-Scott (Justice Curtis resigned in 1857).
McLean had been all over the map politically but ended his long career as a Republican.
But even McLean died in April 1861.

So imagine our current Supreme Court full of Leftist Democrats ruling on whether a President Trump should be allowed to... do anything?

[DoodleDawg]

He has been told all this. You have to bear in mind that you are speaking to a person who believes that a horse can fly.

He posted to me. It's only polite to respond.

[jeffersondem]

“Do you mean the words “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us...” to include slave insurrections? If so, which slave insurrections did “He” excite, and how did he “excite” them so as to provide grounds for the complaint?”

Royal Governor of Virginia Lord Dunmore. Start with that.

“…I do require every Person capable of bearing Arms, to resort to His MAJESTY’S STANDARD, or be looked upon as Traitors to His MAJESTY’S Crown and Government, and thereby become liable to the Penalty the Law inflicts upon such Offenses; such as forfeiture of Life, confiscation of Lands, &. &. And I do hereby further declare all indented Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His MAJESTY’S Troops as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing this Colony to a proper Sense of their Duty, to His MAJESTY’S Crown and Dignity.”–Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation, Nov 7 1775.

[jeffersondem]

“I will contradict these fanatical bigots, just so that third parties will know that there is another point of view, but my days of posting 15,000 words a day are over.”

Thank you for your input and keep up the good work. I could never advocate writing 15K words on a site like this. The truth can usually be told in a few sentences. When writing to people trained in government schools to believe Lincoln's War was fought to “free the slaves” it is best to use very small words.

[rockrr]

When writing to people trained in government schools to believe Lincoln's War was fought to “free the slaves” it is best to use very small words.

No one on these boards is doing that...except for you.

[jeffersondem]

“But “domestic insurrections” in 1777 could refer to almost anything . . .”

In other words, according to you, the intent of the charges against the King found in Declaration of Independence are unknown and unknowable.

Jefferson writes, “To prove this (history of repeated injuries and usurpations) let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

Jefferson writes, “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.”

And you say, what Laws? And what public Good? “That could refer to almost anything!”

Jefferson writes, “He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance . . .”

And you say, what Governors? What Laws of Importance. “That could refer to almost anything!”

Jefferson writes, “He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People . . .”

And you say, What new offices? What Swarms of Officers? “That could refer to almost anything!”

You would have members of this board believe that Huntington, Sherman, Williams and Wolcott of Connecticut; McKean, Read and Rodney of Delaware; Gwinnett, Hall and Walton of Georgia; and so forth and so on throughout the roll call signed off on the DOI but they had no idea what “excited domestic insurrections” meant?

You have renounced reason but don't get me wrong; I'm not asking you to change. My biggest fear is someday I'll run up against an apologist for the north that knows what he is talking about and confronts me with facts forcing a change in world view.

[jeffersondem]

“It gradually emancipated the slaves and forbade the importation of new slaves into West Virginia. It didn't completely satisfy anyone but compromises seldom do.”

From my reading - correct me if I'm wrong - the Willey Amendment freed no slaves when West Virginia became a state. And there were no provisions to free slaves over the age of 21 - they were expected to die in slavery sometime early in the 20th Century.

Children born to slaves after July 4, 1863 would be free but their parents would not be free. Since Lincoln's plan to deal with free black people was to repatriate them to Africa, or somewhere, it seems the free children were to be taken from their slave parents and sent elsewhere. Why do people think the Willey Amendment was good? It sounds cruel to me.

If Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he should have just asked Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to free the slaves. And not in 1865. He should have done that in 1861 - or even earlier in his political career. That way the war and all the killings could have been avoided.

Creating a new slave state in the union just seems an odd way to free the slaves. Maybe there were important political or economic things going on behind the scenes in the union government that we don't know about.

[jeffersondem]

“He (jeffersondem) spends most of his time disrespecting Lincoln and the North, but he spends almost no time on positively promoting the South.”

Well, George Washington, the father of our country, was a Southerner.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, was a Southerner.

James Madison, father of the Constitution, was a Southerner.

George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights, was a Southerner.

Start with that.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem on Founders: "...signed off on the DOI but they had no idea what “excited domestic insurrections” meant?"

No, read my post #266 again.

1. I said it could refer to Dunmore's Proclamation of 1775, also in your post #270.
   However we could note now Dunmore did not call for "domestic insurrections", but rather for slaves to join the British army.
   
2. I said it could refer to rumors of British inspired insurrections against local US authorities.
   
3. I said it could refer to an actual "domestic insurrection" which happened in Norfolk in January 1776 when the Brits bombarded the town.

Indeed, by July 4, 1776 there had already been (by my count) 26 battles, incidents or insurrections in 10 colonies including, for example, an insurrection in South Carolina where American patriots fought loyalists, called the Snow Campaign of 1775.
The 1775 Snow Campaign had nothing to do with slaves or Indians, yet did include "domestic insurrections" by British loyalists.

So, to our Founders, "domestic insurrections" did not refer primarily to slave rebellions of Indian massacres, but first & foremost to British loyalists fighting patriots, such as:

1. Siege of Savage's Old Fields, SC Nov 1775
2. Battle of Great Bridge, VA Dec 1775
3. Snow Campaign, SC Dec 1775
4. Burning of Norfolk, VA Jan 1776
5. Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge, NC Feb 1776

These "domestic insurrections" resulted in dozens killed, hundreds more wounded or captured and certainly filled the bill for Jefferson's Declaration.

jeffersondem: "My biggest fear is someday I'll run up against an apologist for the north that knows what he is talking about and confronts me with facts forcing a change in world view."

Naw, you've been drinking the Lost Causer koolaid too long, now you're addicted to it, so no mere facts can break its hold on you.

At least I've never seen such a thing happen before.

[BroJoeK]

HandyDandy on jeffersondem: "...he spends almost no time on positively promoting the South.”"

jeffersondem: "Well, George Washington, the father of our country, was a Southerner...."

And there are also some from 1861 you admire?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Creating a new slave state in the union just seems an odd way to free the slaves."

Of the nation's 4 million slaves about 400 thousand lived in the five Border States of Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky & Missouri.
Of those, fewer than 20,000 lived in West Virginia, about 5% of its total population.

Of those Border States, West Virginia was the third to free its slaves (after Maryland & Missouri) in early 1865, nearly a year before ratification of the 13th Amendment.

But the original 1863 plan for gradual abolition -- the Willey Plan -- was consistent with earlier abolition plans of other northern states, which is why it was approved.

So, what jeffersondem's posts draw attention to is the shift in Northern public feelings regarding slavery from the war's beginning in 1861, to time of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, to the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865.

It began mainly as a war against Southern rebellion but ended, at least in Northern minds, as a war to free the slaves -- just as we were taught in school.
Except for jeffersondem, who learned something very different and now just can't get over it.

[drjimmy]

What makes you think jeffersondem et al. will listen to you, when they won’t even listen to the leaders of the Confederacy, who told everyone at the time that they were seceding from the Union in order to preserve slavery?

[central_va]

Slavery was the excuse to get a government furnished rifle, ammunition and all the Yankees you wanted to shoot. To the average soldier and citizen it could have been about tulip bulb futures.