Posted on 07/20/2018 8:55:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
President Trump has once again drawn the sneers and condescension of the Leftist establishment media with his claim that “I am the most popular person in the history of the Republican Party—92 percent. Beating Lincoln. I beat our Honest Abe.” Lincoln, sniffed Newsweek, “died a decade before the telephone, which is used for polling, was even invented, and about 80 years before job approval polls for presidents started.” CNN intoned magisterially, “That’s a hard claim to back up.”
But lost in the media contempt was the salient fact that Lincoln, as revered as he has been since his death, was a wildly unpopular President in his day, even within his own party. As Trump continues to receive relentlessly negative media coverage despite a booming economy and outstanding success against ISIS and with North Korea, this is good to keep in mind.
Just before Lincoln took office, the Salem Advocate from his home state of Illinois editorialized that “he is no more capable of becoming a statesman, nay, even a moderate one, than the braying ass can become a noble lion.” Lincoln’s “weak, wishy-washy, namby-pamby efforts, imbecile in matter, disgusting in manner, have made us the laughing stock of the whole world.” The Salem Advocate argued, just as Trump’s critics do today, that the President embarrassed Americans before the world: “the European powers will despise us because we have no better material out of which to make a President.”
The Salem Advocate wasn’t alone; the most respected pundits in the nation agreed that Lincoln was an embarrassment as President. Edward Everett, a renowned orator, former Senator and Secretary of State, and 1860 Vice Presidential candidate for the Constitutional Union Party, wrote that Lincoln was “evidently a person of very inferior cast of character, wholly unequal to the crisis.” Congressman Charles Francis Adams, the son of one President and grandson of another, sneered that Lincoln’s “speeches have fallen like a wet blanket here. They put to flight all notions of greatness.”
Critics decided what they saw as Lincoln’s despotic tendencies, often denouncing the very things for which Lincoln is revered as great today. When he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, the Chicago Times decried it as “a monstrous usurpation, a criminal wrong, and an act of national suicide.” The Crisis of Columbus Ohio sounded the alarm as hysterically as John Brennan crying treason after Trump’s press conference with Vladimir Putin: “We have no doubt that this Proclamation seals the fate of this Union as it was and the Constitution as it is.…The time is brief when we shall have a DICTATOR PROCLAIMED, for the Proclamation can never be carried out except under the iron rule of the worst kind of despotism.”
On the day the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, January 1, 1863, former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis said that Lincoln was “shattered, dazed and utterly foolish. It would not surprise me if he were to destroy himself.”
The Gettysburg Address didn’t go over any better. Edward Everett spoke for two hours just before Lincoln, and was showered with accolades. One man who was in the crowd, Benjamin French, recounted: “Mr. Everett was listened to with breathless silence by all that immense crowd, and he had his audience in tears many times during his masterly effort.” One of the reporters present, John Russell Young, praised Everett’s “antique courtly ways, fine keen eyes, the voice of singular charm.”
The Harrisburg Patriot & Union, by contrast, in its account of the commemoration at Gettysburg wrote: “We pass over the silly remarks of the President. For the credit of the nation we are willing that the veil of oblivion shall be dropped over them and that they shall be no more repeated or thought of.”
Everett himself, an experienced speaker who knew good oratory when he heard it, thought otherwise, writing to Lincoln: “I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes.” In response, Lincoln was grateful but self-deprecating: “I am pleased to know that, in your judgment, the little I did say was not entirely a failure.”
Lincoln did not even command much respect within his own party. The poet and lawyer Richard Henry Dana wrote to Charles Francis Adams in 1863 that “the most striking thing” about “the politics of Washington” was “the absence of personal loyalty to the President. It does not exist. He has no admirers, no enthusiastic supporters, none to bet on his head. If a Republican convention were to be held to-morrow, he would not get the vote of a State.”
In 1864, Lincoln was indeed renominated, but in a way that left Attorney General Edward Bates disgusted: “The Baltimore Convention,” he wrote, “has surprised and mortified me greatly. It did indeed nominate Mr. Lincoln, but…as if the object were to defeat their own nomination. They were all (nearly) instructed to vote for Mr. Lincoln, but many of them hated to do it.”
This is not to say that Trump is a new Lincoln, or that he will be as heralded after his administration as a distant memory the way Lincoln has been. But the lesson is clear: contemporary opinion doesn’t always line up with historical assessment. A notably unpopular President in his day, Abraham Lincoln, has become one of the iconic heroes of the Republic. It could happen again, and likewise the reverse could happen: the near-universal accolades and hosannas that today greet Barack Obama may one day, in the harsh light of history, appear to have been naïve, wrongheaded, and foolish in the extreme – at best.
But Lincoln committed no abuses of the Constitution -- none, zero.
That's because the Founders and their Constitution well recognized that wars and rebellion can require different rules, on habeas corpus, for example.
Further there were no actions Lincoln took that were not at least mirrored by Jefferson Davis in the Confederacy.
Of course the fact that DiogenesLamp claims: what Confederates did "didn't have a f***ing thing to do with" it, merely proves that like all Democrats, DiogenesLamp lives by the Eternal Double Standard -- one set of rules for thee, but very different rules (or no rules) for me.
DiogenesLamp: "Their behavior does not excuse Lincoln's abuses.
His abuses must be looked at as damage to our existing system as well as the greater threat to our nation, because his constitutional abuses are still having consequences for us today."
But Lincoln committed no abuses, any possible exceptions forced by Confederates' waging war against the United States.
Indeed, I'd argue that if you consider the United States' four biggest wars -- Revolution, Civil & two World Wars -- Lincoln committed fewer "abuses" than Americans did in any of the others.
Virtually all the abuses we see in government today were started by the same Democrats who declared war against the Constitution in 1861, then continued to wage virtual war against it in the Progressive era, New Deal, Great Society & Obama socialist transformation.
Democrats hated the United States from Day One of our new Constitution (1788) and have fought from the beginning to make us into something we didn't intend and don't want.
The only real difference is 1861 Democrats defined "slaves" as people of African descent forced to work hard for no pay to support Democrat voters.
Today us "slaves" are anyone of any descent who works hard enough to pay ever higher & higher taxes to support Democrat voters.
Sure, but even Robert Rhett's "Address to the Slaveholding States" (note the name here, it's not "to the freedom loving states"), starts out with his weaker arguments and ends with his strongest closing argument clinchers:
No, Jefferson Davis told Braxton Bragg he was going to start war at Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens as soon as he was ready, even if that lost him certain "advantages".
Davis just didn't care who started the war, he was happy to do it to protect Confederate "integrity".
Sure, Lincoln's resupply ships provided a convenient excuse, but Davis didn't one, he said so himself:
DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln also had a plan to start the war in Pensacola, and but for the intervention of Captain Meigs, he would have succeeded in starting the war there."
No, Jefferson Davis was perfectly happy to start war at Fort Pickens too:
Maybe, but we mus always be clear about our definitions of "North" and "South".
It's this: "North" are the blue colored counties.
"South" are the red colored counties:
It's not mentioned because it's not true.
First of all, Lincoln's alleged "war fleet" in Charleston Harbor was exactly two ships on the morning of April 12, 1861 when Confederates began firing on Fort Sumter.
One was a transport ship the other a small coast guard cutter.
Some fleet.
Second, and more important, Lincoln's "war fleet" was under orders not to attack and not to use force if not resisted in its mission to... resupply Fort Sumter.
Third, Lincoln's plan was to resupply Fort Sumter using small boats under cover of darkness or fog, keeping his larger ships well off shore.
Fourth and most important, all that is irrelevant because Davis had already issued orders to seize Forts Sumter & Pickens, by force if necessary, thus starting Civil War.
Davis didn't care about it.
Indeed, he needed war to convert Virginia and the Upper South from Union to Confederates.
That was the "other consideration" he told Bragg about.
Blame Davis.
Oh, it might be "ironic" if, in 1776, our Founders had invaded England and fought a great battle near, say, York, England, instead of at Gettysburg near York, Pennsylvania.
Then you'd have an exact parallel of our Founders attempting to destroy the United Kingdom in the same way Confederates attempted to destroy the United States.
Indeed, had our Founders invaded near York, England, they most certainly would have lost that war, for the same reason Confederates lost the Civil War: because they p*ssed-off average citizens of their parent country, and squandered military resources they could not afford to lose.
One thing for certain, both Lincoln and Trump drive Democrats berserk with insane hatred.
Washington is in a class by himself, but so is Lincoln.
No other presidents come close.
Here is the original:
Nonsense, what Confederates and Diogenes "forgot and misled" was that if you provoke, start, declare and wage war against the United States, you will lose, period.
Total nonsense.
You were lied to as a child and now nothing can bring you to truth.
In fact there is no confirmed data supporting any such allegations.
Property destruction? Sure, plenty.
Mass murders or starvation of civilians? No, no real evidence.
DiogenseLamp: "I read something last week to the effect that perhaps millions of former slaves died of starvation and exposure as a consequence of the war."
Sure, and "somewhere" I read that every single person alive during the Civil War, without exception, is now dead and it's all Lincoln's fault!!
Pure nonsense, no serious evidence for any of it.
Total nonsense.
"Worship" is what you Confederates do with your own loser leaders.
Now that's disgusting:
Of course the Left is super-eager to claim Lincoln as their own, so they can bury the truth of their own racist past in a deep dark memory-hole.
But the fact remains that Democrats then are basically the same as Democrats today -- they've always wanted slaves to work hard to pay for Democrats' benefits.
In the past those slaves were all of African descent, while today it's anyone who works hard enough to pay ever higher taxes.
Yeh Jeffy Davis isn't that popular in Chambersburg, PA since he had three different Confederate generals (Stuart 1862, Jenkins 1862 & McCausland/Early 1864) raid & burn it to the ground.
He would not get even the Democrat vote in PA. ;-)
Funny how that works.
;-)
As always, DiogenesLamp misrepresents the facts.
In this case he uses the phrase "if they so chose to be", implying Founders endorsed unilateral declaration of secession "at pleasure" meaning, whenever they wanted.
Nothing could be more false.
In fact the Declaration of Independence makes 100% clear that it's an act of necessity, not "at pleasure", which compelled them to declare independence and lists two dozen specifics.
In historical fact the Brits had already declared Americans in rebellion and waged war on us for over a year before July 4, 1776.
Nothing remotely resembling such conditions existed in December 1860 when Deep South Fire Eaters began to unilaterally declare unapproved secession at pleasure.
DiogenesLamp: "Besides, Lincoln was going to let the original seven states of the Confederacy leave if Virginia would assure him that they would stay.
If Lincoln was going to let them leave, then what about your "Perpetual" argument?
Care to try again?"
A total lie.
Lincoln is claimed to have offered only to evacuate Fort Sumter in exchange for Virginia's promise not to secede.
Nothing in such an offer would imply Union recognition of Deep South secession.
And Virginians turned Lincoln down, so the issue is mute.
Republicans in 1860 nominated Lincoln precisely because he was as back-woods as anyone could be.
Indeed, the dramatic devices they used to sell him were great long pieces of split-rail fencing, brought into the 1860 convention hall itself to prove their slogan: "Lincoln the rail-splitter" -- these are the rails he split, they said.
Those fence-rails won over the hearts & souls of Republicans then, in the same way that Donald Trump's great building successes win us over today -- he was a doer not afraid to get his hands dirty.
The claim that Lincoln was considered "monarchial" is further belied by "Ape Lincoln" political cartoons of the time:
DiogenesLamp: "I dare say no other President so abused his powers as this man, but Woodrow Wilson locking up some 35 thousand political prisoners comes close.
I suppose Roosevelt does too. "
If you consider the United States four biggest wars -- Revolution, Civil & World Wars One & Two -- Lincoln did less violence to the Constitution & human rights than Americans did in any of the others.
So Lincoln's actions were in no way inconsistent with what came before and after him, except to be more limited in scope.
DiogenesLamp: "But the form of government is irrelevant to the right of independence."
No, it's 100% relevant if constitutionally elected and governing.
No Founder ever proposed or endorsed unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.
Lincoln was on the ballot in the Border States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky & Missouri.
Only in Missouri did his vote reach even 10%.
DiogenesLamp: "He was like the Bernie Sanders of that era. A Kook extreme Liberal in the pockets of North Eastern big business. (except he was a lot smarter than Bernie Sanders.)"
No, you have it backwards, as usual.
In 1860 there were two mainstream candidates -- Lincoln (R) & Douglas (D) who together got 74% of the vote and two kook candidates Breckenridge (S-D) and Bell (Know Nothings) who split the remaining 26%.
Lincoln overall got 40% of popular votes and 60% of electoral votes.
He was neither the first nor the last to win the electoral college without a popular majority.
HandyDandy: " It is either, 'A collection of British colonies declared independence from a Monarchy' or 'A collection of Slave States seceded from a Union'. "
Pelham: "United Kingdom. George Washington.
Our British cousins mocked the Lincoln government for playing the role of King George,"
It seems the British upper-crust rather liked Confederate elites, but working middle-class Brits sympathized more with Rail-Splitter Lincoln and despised slavery.
Regardless the analogy of Revolution with Civil War is totally wrong because 1776 Founders only declared independence after Brits declared them in rebellion, meaning they'd hang if captured, and waged war against them for over a year.
Nothing remotely resembling such conditions existed in December 1860 when Deep South Fire Eaters unilaterally declared unapproved secession at pleasure.
I think you're telling us that Democrats mostly live in the biggest cities while Republicans mostly live in smaller towns & rural areas?
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.