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

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.

central_va: "Joe, the Southern strategy from Sumter on wards was a forced settlement after a stalemate.
That is fact.
You are a product of some real bad education I guess. "

Once again, you're playing with definitions of words.
What you are here calling "stalemate" most Confederates & Unionists would have called "Confederate victory".

central_va: "do you really think the people of the South are that dumb to think that they could invade/conquer/occupy the North"

They certainly did invade Union states & territories, conquered some parts and occupied as long as they could.
Here, yet again, is the list:

Maryland
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Ohio
Indiana
Kentucky
Missouri
Kansas
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Arizona
Colorado -- guerillas
California -- guerillas
Vermont -- bank robbers

That's 14 Union-Northern states & territories suffered Confederate military operations, some very successful, others not so much.
Sure, you may call that "stalemate", but Confederates considered every battle won a victory, and expected victories would lead to favorable peace terms.
Favorable terms would have won at least some of those states & territories including:

Kentucky
Missouri
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Arizona
West Virginia
Maryland

So now central_va wishes to define that as "stalemate" but I'm saying that would be a huge Confederate victory and virtual destruction of the United States.

Like I said, you're just playing with definitions of words.

“So Jefferson said. He tells us that South Carolina and Georgia wanted the passage removed, and that he “believes” that Northerners “felt a little tender under those censures” — meaning that he thought some Northerners weren’t happy with the passage — but he doesn’t mention any strong opinions directed against the passage.”

Whether the north had strong opinions, or weak opinions, the northern states voted to adopt a DOI that did not include the condemnation of the slave trade, and did include the King’s exciting slave rebellions as a cause for the revolution.

Later the northern states would adopt a constitution that provided for slavery. The reason: they decided it was in their best interest.

Well I'm happy for you that you've found yourself another little nugget of fools gold. I know you are quite pleased with yourself, however,........you are still avoiding the question, i.e., "who made the legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce, that Jefferson spoke of?" That was the question to you. I'll give you a hint: it was neither Georgia nor South Carolina. Meanwhile, let me throw the following into the mix ---- Jefferson much later said of the deletion: "Severe strictures on the conduct of the British King, in negativing our repeated repeals of the law which permitted the importation of slaves, were disapproved by some southern gentlemen, whose reflections were not yet matured to the full abhorrence of that traffic." 4 Dec 1818 letter to Robert Walsh, in Saul K. Padover, ed., A Jefferson Profile: As Revealed in his Letters. (New York, 1956) 300.

“Well I'm happy for you that you've found yourself another little nugget of fools gold. I know you are quite pleased with yourself, however . . .”

I have been thinking and wondering why you did not mention Jefferson's quote about northern involvement in deleting the slave trade condemnation. This one:

“The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who on the contrary still wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren also I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for tho’ their people have very few slaves themselves yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.”

Was it because you did not want word to get around?

central_va: "Joe the North fought with one arm behind its back. The South was never a threat to the North.
It is all in your mind."

So you keep saying but the fact is that Lincoln went through a long list of Union generals before he found the few who could turn the Union's natural advantages into battlefield victories.
A lesser man than Lincoln (Democrat President Buchanan comes to mind) could well have frittered away Union assets allowing Confederates to achieve their wildest dreams, and more, the virtual destruction of the United States.

So your claim that the Confederacy was "no real threat" rests 100% on the relative success achieved by Union commanders at such places as Antietam, Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Nashville & Petersburg.
Lesser Union leaders would have made the Confederate threat very real indeed.

Honestly, I'd never read the full quote that included the Northern brethren part. I'd just stumbled on someone else paraphrasing the quote and they didn't include the Northern Brethren part. I just copied and pasted what they said. I should have known better. Happy now? If I had read, for myself, the Northern Brethren part I would have done my best to track down their names. Of course we know the big monied shipbuilders/owners were northerners. Have you come up with their names? Have you determined how many Southerners opened up shop up North to ply the trade (so to speak) and so on and so forth......I think that you are running a bit far with your interpretation of Northern Brethren. I have no doubt that Jefferson is referring to specific State delegates. No doubt he knew them by name. The general masses were not party to the congressional discussions. It was the same old 50 to 100 wealthy American who were always the "delegates". Whereas you take it to condemn the whole North.

I have now lost count of how many questions I have asked you that you have ignored. The latest one is 'who was Jefferson referring to, who made the legislative attempts to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce'? I even gave you a hint.

“So it happens, some people make a lot of money during any wartime.
But they are never the reason for war, then or now.”

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.

He has erected a multitude of New offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

Are you absolutely sure that money has never been the reason for war?

“I have now lost count of how many questions I have asked you that you have ignored. The latest one is ‘who was Jefferson referring to, who made the legislative attempts to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce’? I even gave you a hint.”

I don’t know the answer to your latest question, nor do I know the reason for the question.

As a good sport I’ll take a guess: Thomas Jefferson. I know he had qualms about the peculiar institution and had talked about ending the guest worker program.

Your observation about my ignoring some questions is right. As a rule I don’t answer questions that compare Human Exhibit 1 to Jesus or Hitler. For some reason those conversations are rarely productive.

As far as the overall tone of your post - I welcomed it. It was positive. Maybe we can both keep it up.

jeffersondem: "Are you absolutely sure that money has never been the reason for war?"

Your post #207 referred to people who "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."

"Grabbing money with both hands" would refer to war profiteers, certainly not to your average farm boys enlisted for three years to defend their home, preserve the Union or free the slaves.
"War profiteers" would include a certain Confederate, Wilmer McLean, in whose house Lee surrendered to Grant.

So, did Wilmer McLean start Civil War? No.
Did Wilmer McLean lobby to keep the war going? No.
Did Wilmer McLean prevent peace from breaking out? No.
Did any Confederate or Union army march to war singing "let's fight so Wilmer McLean can make more money!". No.
Did Wilmer McLean's war profiteering delay the Lee-Grant signing ceremony in any direct way? No.

So, my too obvious point is: there were war profiteers in every war on both sides, but they neither started wars nor kept them going beyond what otherwise would have been.
Your insinuations regarding war profiteers are bogus.

jeffersondem quoting the Declaration of Independence grievances: "For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.
He has erected a multitude of New offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

Once again, none of those grievances have anything to do with war profiteers, but rather with the overall economy and average citizens' welfare.
That is a very different matter.

So anybody with half an ounce of honesty in their bones will admit the central role of slavery/economics in motivating Deep South Fire Eaters to declare secession and push for war against the United States.
Then naturally, pro-Confederates wish to turn the tables and also claim a central role for Union economics in Lincoln's decision to accept the war Jefferson Davis started at Fort Sumter.
After all, didn't lots of Unionists make lots of money off the war? So their argument goes.

The difference is that Deep South secessionists provided us a clear record of their reasons and motivations, focused almost exclusively on protecting slavery, meaning economics.
And so did Unionists, but their records say almost nothing of economics but focus on preserving the Union, defending the constitution and freeing slaves.

Now the oddest of odd arguments from our pro-Confederates is their claim that both Confederates and Unionists were lying when they told us why they did what they did.
You people claim the Confederates were lying when they said it was all about slavery and Unionists were lying when they said it was all about preserving the Union.

I prefer to think the real liars here are the ones hoping to conjure a whole revisionist mythology out of thin air.

Sure. Slavery and abolition weren't big issues in 18th century America. It took time for anti-slavery sentiment to build up. Most people -- North or South -- either weren't aware of slavery as a problem, or thought it would eventually go away on its own.

But slavery and the slave trade were big issues to South Carolina and Georgia planters back then, and they were behind the opposition to Jefferson's passage attacking the slave trade.

The degree to which Northerners (or Virginians for that matter) joined the vocal opposition to the paragraph is harder to say. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the Northern delegates had spoken against the passage, but it's also possible Jefferson convinced himself that they had to have been seriously opposed than they were.

Jefferson was the only Southerner on the drafting committee of five members, and apparently the committee approved his original version. Roger Sherman, for example, disliked slavery and assumed that it would eventually be abolished but recognized that the revolution would fail if Southern planters were alienated by attacks on slavery or the slave trade, but it doesn't look like he wanted the passage removed.

Jefferson was a great man, a great soul. He was also a dreamer, and also a partisan. We can value his best ideas and learn from him without necessarily believing everything he said or wrote when he was trying to settle partisan scores.

Pelham: I'm pinging you because last I heard it was courteous to ping someone if you mention them in a post. Respond or not as you please.

jeffersondem wrote: I’m not following your thinking. Post 186 was not mine.

Kriskrinkle replies: I slipped up in my rush to get on with other things. I'll start over. I hope I have the sequence correct.

1. Pelham Post 214: " I still am waiting to see what moral right there was for the British colonials seceding from their mother government."

2. Kriskrinkle Post 230 responding to Pelham Post 214: "And they used the Declaration of Independence to convey the moral right for their rebellion. What parts of the Declaration do you find immoral?" (Bolded because it's important here.)

3. jeffersondem Post 250 chiming in to respond to Kriskrnkle Post 230: "Arguably, referencing slavery as a justification for the Declaration of Independence was immoral."

(I don't believe Pelham ever responded, but things happen so I have no quarrel with that.)

4. Kriskrinkle Post 257 responding to jeffersondem Post 250: "You apparently know more about this than I, so give me a convincing argument."

(Because I don't see a reference to slavery in the DOI.)

5. jeffersondem Post 270 responding to Kriskrinkle Post 257 citing an excerpt from Lord Dunmore's Proclamation of November 7, 1775 apparently as the start of convincing argument in support of the position that the DOI words “He has excited domestic insurrections” means slave insurrections.

6. Kriskrinkle Post 289 responding to jeffersondem Post 270: I messed up the first paragraph.

In the second paragraph I wrote: "As to Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation, he required “every Person capable of bearing Arms, to resort to His MAJESTY’S STANDARD” and declared “all indented Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His MAJESTY’S Troops”. On the face of it, that doesn’t seem like a call for insurrection (although an inference might be taken), but instead a call to join the forces of one side in an already ongoing conflict. And it wasn’t addressed only to slaves, nor to all slaves."

In the third paragraph I wrote: "In short (because I’ve other things to do), as far as I can tell, you haven’t presented anything convincing."

7. Finally, my position noted in bold in 2 above is "And they used the Declaration of Independence to convey the moral right for their rebellion. ( And I asked of Pelham: "What parts of the Declaration do you find immoral?" )

After that I got enmeshed in the tangle or whether or not the DOI referenced slavery as a justification.

So, getting back to what I was really interested in, my position that they used the DOI to convey the moral right for their rebellion, the question is: Even if, or stipulating for the sake of argument that, the DOI references slavery as a justification, does such a reference, not an outright statement, invalidate the DOI as a whole as something that conveys the moral right for their rebellion?

Pelham (if you wish)? jeffersondem? Bueller? Anyone?

Dunmore’s Proclamation required slaves to fight with the Redcoats to gain their freedom. Philipsburg was a general emancipation.

I never said that I found any part of the DOI immoral and I haven’t seen anyone produce a post of mine to that effect. Someone may be reading their own ideas into what I did write- I asked what ‘moral rights’ the DOI is said to be citing by those making that claim.

The DOI isn’t the ‘Declaration of Moral Rights’, it’s an announcement that the colonials were fed up with their mother gov’t in London and that they intended to start their own gov’t. London considered it treason. Had London won I suspect that we’d be treated to the story that the colonial rebels were guilty of treason rather than unsuccessful defenders of some unnamed moral rights.

“Even if, or stipulating for the sake of argument that, the DOI references slavery as a justification, does such a reference, not an outright statement, invalidate the DOI as a whole as something that conveys the moral right for their rebellion?”

Short answer: no.

Longer answer: All thirteen states referencing slavery in the U.S. DOI as a justification for separating from England is not a disqualifier anymore than southern states referencing slavery in their secession declarations.

All states voting to provide for slavery in the U.S. constitution is not a disqualifier any more than southern states including slavery in the Confederate constitution.

The money made by northern investments in slavery over its 230-plus year history is no more a disqualifier than southern profits from slavery over the same time period.

Lincoln's white supremacy rule was no worse than Davis’ white supremacy rule.

Arguably, the north had the high moral ground when they profited from capturing and buying slaves; transporting slaves; trading and selling slaves; working slaves; buying, selling, and transporting slave-produced cotton; and selling manufactured goods into the southern slave economy. The high moral ground later enabled them to kill people - well, loosed the terrible swift sword on those - who didn't want to “free the slaves.”

The reason I say the north may have had the high moral ground is because - in all of this - the northern people had really, really, really, really good intentions.

Don't take my word for it. They will tell you that themselves.

Gentlemen, we have a problem. Our FRiend jeffersondem made the following statement, "Jefferson's long paragraph was edited by his colleagues to remove the stinging references to the slave trade;to shorten “he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us” to simply “excited domestic insurrections”. This is utter fabrication bordering on sheer mendacity in order to advance a false narrative.

Jefferson's colleagues DID NOT EDIT the "long paragraph". Jefferson's colleagues DID NOT SHORTEN “he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us” to simply “excited domestic insurrections”. In fact, the "long paragraph" and the “excited domestic insurrections” clause were completely separate and distinct freestanding clauses in the first draft. The "long paragraph" was stricken in its entirety. There was no editing. There was no shortening. The "excited domestic insurrections” remained and had absolutely no relationship to the "long passage". The "long passage", which obviously dealt with the slave trade, was jettisoned (for the benefit of certain delegates) due to its references to slavery and the slave trade. BroJoeK and DoodleDawg have been absolutely correct. The "domestic insurrections" clause absolutely does not in any way, shape or form have anything to do with slaves or slavery. Therefore, that leaves no reference to Slavery in the final draft of the Declaration of Independence.

Jeffersondem, you are wrong. You have made a mistake. I had wondered why you kept repeating that the "long passage" was "wrecked" when you know as well as any of us it wasn't wrecked, it was entirely stricken. You put forth that this, "he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us” was shortened to this “excited domestic insurrections”. That goes beyond pure rubbish.

HandyDandy: "This is utter fabrication bordering on sheer mendacity in order to advance a false narrative."

Great expression!
I think I'll save it for future reference. ;-)

The point bears repeating, since jeffersondem himself cannot acknowledge it:

Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence expression "excited domestic insurrections" does not refer to slave revolts, since there were none, zero, nada slave revolts at that time.
It does not refer to Dunmore's 1775 proclamation, since revolt is not what Dunmore called for.
Instead Dunmore called for servants of all kinds to join the British army.
And "excited domestic insurrections" does not refer to Indian raids on colonial settlers since that subject was addressed in its own expression.

What it clearly does refer to are several domestic insurrections even then happening between American loyalists and patriots.
In post #276 above I listed several of these domestic insurrections.

Bottom line: jeffersondem cannot accurately claim the Declaration of Independence in any way justified slavery.
Rather, it came within one draft of condemning slavery as being started & maintained by the King.

So as with so much else, what jeffersondem here claims is just mythology, not history.

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.