Posted on 04/29/2002 10:04:22 PM PDT by davidjquackenbush
Even IF President Lincoln took measures to ensure voter fraud -- rescinding the EP might have swayed MORE voters and he refused to do it. He took a strong moral position either way.
There is no way to suggest that I don't care about voter fraud from this post, as I knew before I asked.
I was trying to narrow the issue to something you might be able to grasp.
If President Lincoln was trying to fix the election, he wouldn't have hesitated to rescind the EP, and he refused to do that. He took a strong moral position that the promise of freedom, having been made, must be kept.
Walt
I would think part of your agenda is to discredit people personally when you have no refutation to their argument.
But can you explain how I admitted I didn't care about voter fraud?
Thanks.
Walt
"internal improvement" had 27 matches, "tariff" had 74.
Score another one for the Lincolnus Tyrannis crowd?
You mean the type of scrutiny that cherrypicks a source, predetermined for discreditation before it was seen, for errors to ridicule and disregards the major portion where errors are not to be found.
When you say "even if" Lincoln committed fraud it doesn't alter your opinion, you are saying you don't care if he did.
You are starting to sound like DiLorenzo.
There is no way to suggest that I said I didn't care about voter fraud in this thread, or at any time in the past, anywhere in the universe through any medium that exists or may be invented through infinity.
When I said that it didn't alter my opinion, I meant that even if voter fraud had been committed, it would still have behooved President Lincoln to have rescined the EP. But he didn't do that.
I in no way suggested that I approved of voter fraud, but I now predict a lessening of your postings leading to a cessation because your too rapid fingers are digging you in deeper by the minute.
Walt
I fell into the trap of trying to accurately depict a Politicians' character by referring to what he SAID rather than what he actually DID.
So sorry, I'll try harder next time.
Even IF President Lincoln took measures to ensure voter fraud
So?
How does that mean I approve of voter fraud?
The issue today has been to show whether or not President Lincoln adopted a pose about caring for blacks or if he sincerely cared about them.
To prove that he did care, I offered the fact that he refused to rescind the EP.
EVEN if voter fraud was committed, it would still have behooved him to rescind the EP and he didn't do that.
I guess I should now go on the record as disapproving of voter fraud?
But nothing I've said can possibly be construed as approving of it, as you falsely and pitifully and comically allege.
Walt
I didn't say you approved of it, I said you didn't care one way or another.
You can't prove that either.
Walt
Henry Clay was indeed an important figure behind the American Colonization Society. But Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, James Monroe, Francis Scott Key, William Crawford, Richard Bland Lee and Justice Bushrod Washington were also involved in its founding. Jefferson, Madison and Marshall were also supporters. Clay suceeded Madison as President of the Society. Slaveowners and present-day paleo-libertarian and paleo-conservative icons John Randolph of Roanoake and John Taylor of Caroline were also founders.
In other words, the ACS was as much a product of those Jeffersonian Virginians that Southern nationalists tell us to admire, as it was of Clay and his ideology. Indeed, it was much more a product of Tidewater Jeffersonians than of Yankees or Whigs. The founders were those slave owners who we are told were always on the verge of abolishing slavery -- and those who simply wanted to get rid of free blacks to ensure the survival of the institution. You can't excuse Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Taylor or Randolph and attack Clay and Lincoln for not coming up to 21st century standards.
If Lincoln was a "racist" or "apartheidist" early in his career, so was virtually the entire political elite and the entire country. Lincoln gradually extricated himself from much of the racial attitudes of his time. Whether or not one wants to praise or reward him for that, one should at least do justice to his transformation.
I don't think Lincoln was a tyrant. He was simply trying to preserve the union, nation and Constitution against those who wanted to destroy it. His methods were a reflection of theirs and vice versa. That is what happens during wars, particularly civil wars.
It also should be noted that some of those who called Lincoln or Davis "tyrants" may not necessarily have been disapproving. Ancient Greece saw temporary rulers called tyrants take over in times of severe crisis, and handed power back to legitimate authorities once the crisis had passed. At first there was some approval of these emergency rulers but in time they outstayed their welcome and brought the word into disrepute. I don't argue that Lincoln was a tyrant, but some of those who label Lincoln or Davis "tyrants" might have been using the word in its earliest sense and without the negative connotation.
Where Di Lorenzo and his followers go wrong is in projecting back all present-day conflicts and mentalities back on the past. He does this selectively in order to condemn Lincoln and only Lincoln and his supporters of racism, and excuse secessionists of this fault. Also, if the present age is marked by a conflict between socialism and freedom, then Lincoln must represent socialism and the Confederates freedom.
But in fact, the conflicts were different then. What di Lorenzo misses is the background of assumptions about race or economics or federalism that was not in question at the time, but that has since been lost. He substitutes the 21st century background for this, and selectively attacks those he wants to attack for not measuring up to 21st century standards.
Ages have family quarrels, like that between the Jacksonians and the Whigs. Such quarrels can be quite bitter, but still remain family quarrels, because of the common assumptions in the background. The outsider, cherry picking facts to support his own thesis misses these assumptions.
You lied.
Walt
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.