The Real Abraham Lincoln

The Laissez Faire Electronic Times ^ | Tibor R. Machan

[Sir Gawain]

-

[Huck]

Why not just find the most recent Lincoln thread and bump it? This article offers nothing new. It references the same writers, the same arguments, the same over simplified rehashing of American political history. And the same posters will eventually show up to post the same arguments and the same rebuttals to the same counter arguments. The same quotes will be cut and pasted, the same aphorisms taken out of context. The same lines from some federalist paper will be plucked and presented to mean the exact opposite of its actual meaning.

This will go on for a good 200 posts or so. And what will be accomplished? What was accomplished by the last such thread? Or the one before that? Or the one before that?Or the one before that? Or the one before that?Or the one before that? Or the one before that?Or the one before that? Or the one before that?Or the one before that? Or the one before that?Or the one before that? Or the one before that?Or the one before that? Or the one before that?Or the one before that? Or the one before that?Or the one before that? Or the one before that?Or the one before that? Or the one before that?

[humbletheFiend]

Ping.

[Sir Gawain]

You could apply that to nearly every topic here.

[Triple]

"Isn't it time, also, to abandon the tactic, deployed, sadly, even by Professor Jaffa, of dismissing Lincoln critics as apologists for slavery, thus sparing oneself the trouble of coping with damning evidence?" - article

Yep.

But when they do, how are these same apologists for Lincoln going to live with the guilt associated with his actions, such as shuttng down the free press in the 'North'?
- or forcibly preventing the Maryland legislature from meeting?

[stainlessbanner]

Good essay - the author clearly points out the changing views of Lincoln on secession and slavery. IMO, he was a politician that changed his views based on supporters (business men, political foes/allies, and public view) - no different than today's politicians. Clearly his goal was to save the union at ANY cost....including total warfare.

[humbletheFiend]

Clearly his goal was to save the union at ANY cost....including total warfare.

It was more than just his "goal" to preserve the Union; it was his duty.

[WhiskeyPapa]

One fact serves to demolish this whole article. That was President Lincoln's refusal to consider rescinding the Emancipation Proclamation when it appeared certain that he would lose the 1864 election. This proved two things:

1) he did care about blacks, and:

2) he was a man of principle.

"But now, if he followed their advice,[and rescinded the EP] he would have to do without the help of nearly 200,000 black men in the service of the Union. In that case 'we would be compelled to abandon the war in 3 weeks.' Practical considerations aside, there was the moral issue. How could anybody propose 'to return to slavery the black warriors of Port Hudson and Olustee to their masters to conciliate the South?' "I should be damned in time and eternity for so doing,' he told his visitors (Gov. Randall, and Judge Mills, both from Wisconsin). "The world will know that I keep my faith to friends and enemies, come what will.'"

--"Lincoln" by David Donald

Walt

[Free the USA]

Thanks for the ping a very good and balanced analysis.

[Free the USA]

Good post

[Sir Gawain]

That quote didn't support your argument. It only suggests that he was a man of his word. If you say you are going to gut the Constitution, and you follow through, you're still an honest man.

[Colt .45]

That one "fact" sounds more like a political expediency.

"Those who have been once intoxicated with power ... can never willingly abandon it." - Edmund Burke

"Elective despotism is not the government we fought for." - Thomas Jefferson

[Pharmboy]

Burke was wrong--at least about General Washington; he walked away twice.

[stainlessbanner]

Ping

[WhiskeyPapa]

That one "fact" sounds more like a political expediency.

Consider the facts. In the summer of 1864 the Republican National Committee actually asked Lincoln to step down so a new candidate could be chosen. That is how sure they were that the White House would be lost. It was thought it might improve his chances TO win, if he rescinded the EP.

He flatly refused.

If it is expedient to do things that will COST you an election, then Lincoln's actions were expedient.

What this incident says is that Lincoln was ready to take on all the responsibility for failed policy and failed war, and hundreds of thousands of deaths, rather than surrender his moral position.

I don't see how you can honestly see it any other way.

Don't forget that Lincoln was the loser in many the election. No president had won re-election in over 30 years. He lost a close contest for the senate in 1858 (one in which he received more popular votes than his opponent). He fully expected to lose in 1864.

The log jam in afairs began to dissipate with the fall of Atlanta in September, and the people did sustain him; but the fact remains that he took a strong moral position prior to that.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

If you say you are going to gut the Constitution, and you follow through, you're still an honest man.

Lincoln did not gut the COnstitution, so your point is simply wrong.

Walt

[humbletheFiend]

That quote didn't support your argument. It only suggests that he was a man of his word. If you say you are going to gut the Constitution, and you follow through, you're still an honest man.

Do you think that the Emancipation Proclamation was a violation of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the taking of "property, without due process of law" and its injunction that "private property [not] be taken for public use, without just compensation" being made to the owner?

[Paul Ross]

It should also be pointed out that Lerone Bennett is a shameless, unrepentant communist agitator, and just plain vile in his venoumous vituperation against anything noble in American history. He is sickening. And his scholarship is partisan, and notably less than 'balanced' or fair. His attempts to refute a panel of Lincoln scholars in Chicago in front of a black audience was a disaster for his credibility. He was pretty thoroughly debunked. And yet this character and his worthless propagandistic book are listed as if credible by this article, rather than outside-the-pale defamation which was par for the course during Lincoln's presidency. The South as well as the North was ripped with passionate controversy. And Lincoln, standing in the middle, got it from both sides.