Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Real Abraham Lincoln
The Laissez Faire Electronic Times ^ | Tibor R. Machan

Posted on 04/12/2002 7:49:37 AM PDT by Sir Gawain

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-255 next last
To: humbletheFiend
No, I do not favor reparations for either decendants of slaves or decendants of slave owners.

Niether group represents the party actually damaged.

I do favor reparations that were paid to the Japanese that were inturned. The payments were made to actual victims.

41 posted on 04/12/2002 9:50:50 AM PDT by Triple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Not one time someplace. Inumerable times right here at Fr. I am not trying to squelch debate. I'm trying to find debate. This article is rehash.
42 posted on 04/12/2002 9:53:55 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain;stainlessbanner
good article thanks for the ping
43 posted on 04/12/2002 9:54:42 AM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Scarlet Pimpernel
Do you think that a human being can be property?

Well, since the Emancipation Proclamation, we have adopted the Thirteenth Amendment by following the amendment procedures described in Article V of the Constitution. So, at the present time, a person cannot constitutionally own another person.

But Article V remains as potent as ever. If we want to, we can repeal the Thirteenth Amendment and replace it with an amendment which specifically provides for slavery. To illustrate the flexibility afforded to us by Article V, see Amendments 18 and 21.

44 posted on 04/12/2002 10:07:32 AM PDT by humbletheFiend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Triple
No, I do not favor reparations for either decendants of slaves or decendants of slave owners.

Niether group represents the party actually damaged.

You're just willing to let bygones be bygones, eh?

I'm with you.

45 posted on 04/12/2002 10:09:55 AM PDT by humbletheFiend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MyPetMonkey
Do you believe everything a politician says?

What are you talking about?

I can see that Lincoln sincerely thought he had no chance of winning the 1864 election. I can see that he eschewed a course of action that might have helped him win. I don't need to consider his words at all. His actions -- sticking to the moral high ground -- to support BLACKS of all people -- speak louder than words.

Walt

46 posted on 04/12/2002 10:14:08 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Very true...the Union troops, as well as Lincoln, were very magnanimous in their victory. They even allowed the Confederate soldiers to retain their fire arms. There were many other acts of benevolence documented. Lincoln would have made Southern reconstruction as painless as was possible. All of that went out the window when Johnson stepped in as president. TAF
47 posted on 04/12/2002 10:18:02 AM PDT by Right_Makes_Might
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: MyPetMonkey
"The principle [of the Proclamation] is not that a human being cannot justly own another," the London Spectator observed on October 11, 1862, "but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States" government.

The Spectator was entirely correct.

President Lincoln issued the EP in the manner he did (it covered only areas in insurgent hands) because he had NO power to act on slavery as president, EXCEPT as it applied to his war powers as commander in chief of the armed forces in time of war.

It took the 13th amendment, which President Lincoln stroingly supported to legally end slavery throughout the United States.

Walt

49 posted on 04/12/2002 10:23:32 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator

To: MyPetMonkey
My pet monmeky says:

If you don't need to consider his words, then stop quoting him.

Lincoln was yet another fanatic who thought he was killing and killing and killing and killing according to God's will, when he was really killing to further his own interests (his political career). Fanatics tend to stick it out when others get nervous.

Lincoln's words show what a great and good man he was, and his actions show you for a fool or poltroon.

Your bald statements need to be supported in the historical record. But there is no support there.

Walt

51 posted on 04/12/2002 10:26:34 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Perhaps Mr. Machan should take a closer look at the other side:

"...several editors have confessed a fear of having their offices closed, if they dare to speak the sentiments struggling for utterance. It is indeed a reign of terror." -- speaking on conditions for the press in Richmond

"...the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended to and calculated to carry out the object...If the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional" -- Jeffeson Davis. It should be noted that the confederacy didn't even have a Supreme Court to act as a balance to the other two branches of government.

52 posted on 04/12/2002 10:28:21 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #53 Removed by Moderator

To: MyPetMonkey
My pet monkey says:

Mighty nice of Massa Abe to insist on a war so he could have war powers.

Then why did he wait 18 months to use them?

Your position is moronic.

Why did President Lincoln offer, in his first inaugural, to support the proposed 13th amendment, if he was set on war?

War was forced on the government. The traitors were laid low because of their selfish folly.

Walt

54 posted on 04/12/2002 10:31:03 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

Comment #55 Removed by Moderator

To: MyPetMonkey
My pet monkey says:

Richard Nixon's words tell me he wasn't a crook.

Then look at his actions.

Walt

56 posted on 04/12/2002 10:32:45 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
No Supreme Court?

ARTICLE III of the Confederate Constitution
Section I. (I) The judicial power of the Confederate States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Sec. 2. (I) The judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under this Constitution, the laws of the Confederate States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the Confederate States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State, where the State is plaintiff; between citizens claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects; but no State shall be sued by a citizen or subject of any foreign state.

(2) In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

(3) The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Sec. 3. (I) Treason against the Confederate States shall consist only in levying war against.them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

(2) The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.

57 posted on 04/12/2002 10:35:08 AM PDT by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

Comment #58 Removed by Moderator

To: WhiskeyPapa
He lost a close contest for the senate in 1858 (one in which he received more popular votes than his opponent).

Irrelevant at best, total ignorance of the Constitution at least. You really are an Al Gore supporter, aren't you? And a pretty stupid comment, even considering your track record.

59 posted on 04/12/2002 10:36:29 AM PDT by FirstFlaBn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #60 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-255 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson