After Confederate statues fall, is Lincoln Memorial next?

https://www.reporternews.com ^ | March 9, 2019 | Jerry Patterson

[rockrr]

Lincoln was a socialist and a pen pal of Karl Marx.

Absolutely untrue.

[jeffersondem]

“As OIFVeteran pointed out, the dividing line between our Founders’ somewhat weak abolitionism and 1860s Fire Eater pro-slavery came in roughly 1832, with the Virginia state debates on abolition.”

The bright dividing line was 1832 you say. Prior to that year must be the period the Puritans refer to as the golden era of slavery, the time when stewards - North and South - could use the labor of those bound to service to produce food and fiber without too much public opprobrium.

After 1832 was the dark era of slavery when stewards in the South used the labor of those bound to service to produce food and fiber with considerable opprobrium.

At least for the time being you have dropped the angry attack on a super-majority of the Founding Fathers ("Well... Democrats, whether Antifa or slaveholders, have always been all about the Big Lie — it's how they make their livings.
They are kindred souls, brothers in arms against the truth. Only the lies change, the liars are all the same.”)

[FLT-bird]

We’ve gone down this road hundreds if not thousands of times before. I am not going to waste my time with your responding to respond posts in which you endlessly spew your ignorant and false PC Revisionist drivel.

7th attempt.

[FLT-bird]

Bull Snipe:

Which Confederate States had laws that allowed slaves to serve in the regiments raised by that state and sent off to serve in the Confederate Army.

Tennessee did it. Alabama did it. Others may have officially. And of course Confederate officers in the field frequently did so whether the politicians authorized it or not.

If that was the case, why did the Confederacy wait until Nov 1864 to offer Emancipation as bargaining chip to lure the Brits and French into diplomatically recognizing the Southern Confederacy. Why not 1861 or 1862. The answer, in those years the Confederacy had an expectation of victory.Which Confederate States had laws that allowed slaves to serve in the regiments raised by that state and sent off to serve in the Confederate Army.

If it were what they were fighting over why not simply accept the North's offer of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment?

[FLT-bird]

DoodleDawg:

Yes, the Confederate contempt for their constitution is well established. And without the third branch of government to act as a check and balance on the other two branches they may have gotten away with it.

Its nowhere near as well established as Lincoln's contempt for the US Constitution. We both know the CSA would have accepted it if it meant independence. Slavery was dying anyway. Many if not most throughout the Western world saw that.

Only one I'm aware of.

Then you need to read much more since the US federal government did it to a much greater extent.

Davis and the Confederate congress had the time to confirm four Secretaries of State, though they had nobody to carry on diplomatic relations with. They confirmed five Secretaries of War, though Davis ran things on his own. Six Attorney Generals, though they didn't have a judiciary. Three Treasury secretaries, a Navy secretary, and a Postmaster general, all appointed and none required by the constitution. They kept Davis's revolving door of a cabinet stocked but not the third branch of government. Exigencies of war had nothing to do with it. Contempt for the rule of law did.

Horsehockey. Cabinet positions are vital for the functioning of a government in time of war. The courts could be duly appointed once the national emergency was over and independence gained. The Founding Fathers didn't appoint judges during their war of Independence either.

Would you cut Lincoln the same slack?

Was Lincoln faced with getting a new government up and running while simultaneously being attacked by a far larger aggressor like the Confederate government was faced with?

My opinion hasn't changed. And as I said it's hard to sit by when you post such ridiculous crap.

Nor has mine. Yet somehow I am able to control myself and refrain from seeking you out despite all the ridiculous crap you post.

[FLT-bird]

We’ve gone down this road hundreds if not thousands of times before. I am not going to waste my time with your responding to respond posts in which you endlessly spew your ignorant and false PC Revisionist drivel.

7th attempt.

[FLT-bird]

We’ve gone down this road hundreds if not thousands of times before. I am not going to waste my time with your responding to respond posts in which you endlessly spew your ignorant and false PC Revisionist drivel.

8th attempt.

[FLT-bird]

We’ve gone down this road hundreds if not thousands of times before. I am not going to waste my time with your responding to respond posts in which you endlessly spew your ignorant and false PC Revisionist drivel.

9th attempt.

[DoodleDawg]

Its nowhere near as well established as Lincoln's contempt for the US Constitution.

Complete nonsense.

We both know the CSA would have accepted it if it meant independence. Slavery was dying anyway. Many if not most throughout the Western world saw that.

Do we now? It's easy to look back over 150 years and say it was dying. But in 1861 you would be hard pressed to find many in the South who would agree with that. But that doesn't change the fact that the actions you say that they were pursuing were completely forbidden by the constitution.

Then you need to read much more since the US federal government did it to a much greater extent.

Again, complete nonsense.

Cabinet positions are vital for the functioning of a government in time of war.

What clause of the constitution requires any of those cabinet posts? Oh wait, I forget. Constitutional requirements were of no interest to Davis and his people.

The courts could be duly appointed once the national emergency was over and independence gained. The Founding Fathers didn't appoint judges during their war of Independence either.

The Founding Fathers were not operating under a document that required a judiciary. The Confederates were.

Was Lincoln faced with getting a new government up and running while simultaneously being attacked by a far larger aggressor like the Confederate government was faced with?

Lincoln faced "exigencies of war" just like Davis did. Would you cut him the same slack?

[Bull Snipe]

What laws allowed Tennessee to enlist black soldiers into their militias.

You did not answer the question, If Davis was so willing to give up slavery, why did he wait until Nov 1864 to make the offer to emancipate the slaves in the Confederacy in exchange for European diplomatic recognition.

[BroJoeK]

DoodleDawg: "That is completely false.
Treaties cannot override the constitution, not even the Confederate one."

FLT-bird: "You say its bogus.
Maybe it even is.
However if both the President and the Congress went along with it then it would be done regardless of the actual constitutional niceties....as we both know.
They'd hardly be the only government in North America to have trampled on their constitution in order to do what they thought necessary to win."

Lost Causers' accusations that, "Lincoln trampled the Constitution" are nonsense but what's even more so is their eagerness to excuse Confederates for the same acts.

What's up with that?

DoodleDawg on Confederate Congress' alleged approval of Kenner's mission: "Did they give their approval? If so, when?"

FLT-bird: "1864. and in anticipation of your next tiresome gambit, feel free to look it up for yourself."

Any claims that FLT-bird might have to legitimacy disappears with comments like that -- "look it up yourself".
The fact is that FLT-bird simply misremembers what he thinks he read "somewhere" at some time, and now is too much the coward to admit he's wrong on this detail.

The Kenner Mission:

"...Kenner suggested that Davis tell both governments [France & Britain] that the Confederacy would abolish slavery.
No timeframe was discussed, and Kenner originally floated the idea of presenting the plan to the Confederate Congress.
Davis asked Kenner not to do so and rejected the idea outright, thinking that the situation was not yet desperate enough to warrant such a move, but in late 1864 he sent for Kenner and told him to put the plan in motion.
Kenner was given credentials and set out on a secret mission to Europe in January 1865."

Kenner's mission to France & Britain was totally a last-ditch act of cynical desperation.
Had Davis done it in January 1862, he could have won the war, but in January 1865 it was far too little, too late.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird to rockrr: "As for me I've provided all sorts of facts, quotes and statements.
What I will not do is be your - or anybody else's google monkey. "

It's true that FLT-bird has a pretty large inventory of more-or-less legitimate quotes he can & does cycle through each thread.
But he also has a long list of false accusations and misremembered "facts" for which neither he nor anybody else has credible references.
Naturally, what FLT-bird hopes for is that his readers here will confuse & conflate his true facts with his misremembered nonsense and grace them all as "legitimate".

They're not, and neither is FLT-bird until he cleans up his act, which we can be certain will happen any time now, right?

[BroJoeK]

NKP_Vet: "Lincoln was a socialist and a pen pal of Karl Marx."

Look it up.
You'll find one letter from Marx congratulating Lincoln on his reelection and supporting abolition.
You'll find one response to Marx, not from Lincoln, but from the US ambassador in London, thanking Marx for his kind words."

NKP_Vet: "He destroyed the government that our Founding Fathers fought and died for."

No, if anyone, that would be 1860 Deep South Fire Eaters declaring secession and 1861 Confederates who provoked, started, declared & waged war against the United States, in Union states.
But the fact is that by the end of Reconstruction in 1877, except for the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments, the Federal government had returned to pretty much its stature of, say, 1860.

NKP_Vet: "A two-bit railroad lawyer with no scruples doing the bidding of the NE Industralists who controlled the government."

Now there's your Lost Cause Marxist speaking like a true left-winger.
The fact is, Lincoln had tons of scruples, and until March, 1861, Democrats controlled the swamp in Washington, DC, beginning in 1801.
Democrats held the DC purse strings, Democrats doled out Federal largess and the single greatest US industry, by far, lined up solidly in support of Democrats -- cotton growers & NE clothing manufacturers.

Those are the people thrown out of power by the 1860 Republican victory -- they were not Lincoln's supporters, but opponents, Democrats who then, just as since 2016, went berserk when they lost their privileged position in Washington, DC.

Republicans then as now were all about rural & small-town farmers, businessmen, professionals & "wide awake" evangelicals.

[rockrr]

Thanks for providing a much more comprehensive response to a world-class silly assertion. I can’t for the life of me understand why they post such easy to refute drivel!

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "The bright dividing line was 1832 you say.
Prior to that year must be the period the Puritans refer to as the golden era of slavery, the time when stewards - North and South - could use the labor of those bound to service to produce food and fiber without too much public opprobrium."

Nonsense, as usual.
Even as late as 1832, Virginia's Richmond Enquirer said of slavery:

"Are we forever to suffer the greatest evil, which can scourge our land, not only to remain, but to increase in its dimensions?"

By 1856, that same Richmond Enquirer said:

"Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."

There, sir, is your "bright dividing line".
Before 1832 even Southern Founders like Washington, Jefferson & Madison opposed slavery and worked to restrict or abolish it (i.e., Northwest Territories).
In the mean time, Northerners state by state actually did gradually abolish slavery.
By 1832 it was Virginia's "turn" and Virginia balked, refusing to do what, one by one, Northern states (yes, including Pennsylvania) had already done.

After 1832 slavery to Southerners was no longer "the greatest evil" but rather a positive blessing.
Please note the many quotes saying that in my post #259 above.

jeffersondem: "After 1832 was the dark era of slavery when stewards in the South used the labor of those bound to service to produce food and fiber with considerable opprobrium."

Naw… after 1832 Southerners themselves flipped from official opposition to slavery to defending it as a "blessing":

Atlanta Confederacy, 1860:

"We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."

jeffersondem: "At least for the time being you have dropped the angry attack on a super-majority of the Founding Fathers"

quoting BJK: "Well... Democrats, whether Antifa or slaveholders, have always been all about the Big Lie — it's how they make their livings.
They are kindred souls, brothers in arms against the truth.
Only the lies change, the liars are all the same."

By 1787 most Founders, including Southerners, opposed slavery to the point of restricting and abolishing it where possible.
By 1832 many still believed slavery, "the greatest evil", but the majority of Southerners was already slip-sliding away and beginning to claim slavery a "social, moral and political blessing".

So your term "angry attack" can apply to Democrats who supported slavery, not to Founders who opposed it.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "7th attempt."

7th cowardly attempt to escape the truth and answer for your own lies.
You don't because you can't.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "9th attempt."

9th cowardly attempt to escape the truth and answer for your own lies.
You don't because you can't.

[rockrr]

I understand the temptation to send it right back up her stovepipe, but I hope you don’t fall into tit~for~tat!

[jeffersondem]

“So your term “angry attack” can apply to Democrats who supported slavery, not to Founders who opposed it.”

The numbers suffice as rebuttal: 41 of 56.

[DiogenesLamp]

Corwin Amendment.