We still live under the empire Lincoln set in motion and we still have to look at his ugly mug on pennies and $5 bills.
How dreadful for you!
Posted on 06/17/2002 1:35:37 PM PDT by shuckmaster
There are, of course, many faults of the Confederate government, but it was born and bred in the time of fire. Davis wanted control over everything and drew on much of his experience as a commander to lead the Confederacy.
However, I fear it extends only to nitpickery and vacuity. Russ would agree that to call our second greatest president such inappropriate terms shows the namer is a mendacious moron. Thus, you become a defender of mendacious morons. Have at it they need all the defense they can get since a mountain of lies cannot stand against the pinprick of truth.
This is true! Lincoln prayed to God for guidance, and God enabled him to preserve the Union. This allowed America to become the superpower that it is today.
I am a Southerner and I value my heritage, but I value my country even more! The Civil War split my family almost in half, so I had ancestors that fought on both sides.
BTW, once you form your own country, please don't come begging to the United States for foreign aid.
We still live under the empire Lincoln set in motion and we still have to look at his ugly mug on pennies and $5 bills.
How dreadful for you!
By a vote of 9-0 in ex parte Milligan the Supreme court held otherwise - what's unconstitutional during peace is unconstitutional during war:
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."Lincoln himself didn't consider the EP "constitutional". And he issued the EP to prevent the slaves from fighting against the union.
The term "War of Northern Agression" can only be seen as an orwellian term when we consider that 11 of the first 15 presidents were southern, that tariff rates were set just the way that southerners wanted them, and that the Supreme Court had sided strongly with southern interests. The most intrusive piece of federal legislation --by far-- prior to the ACW was the Fugitive Slave Act which made a mockery of states rights -- nothern states rights, which was also the import of the Dred Scott decision.
You can call it the WNA all you like, but there is no basis in the record for that, and whatever you had to say of value will be compromised BY that.
Don't forget also that the so-called CSA raised a 100,000 man army when the US army was only 17,000 strong. Don't forget that the so-called CSA actually promulgated a declaration of war before Presidend Lincoln called for volunteers to restore the rightful authority, and don't forget that the forces of the so-called CSA fired the first shot.
It was really the war of 'southern hubris, lack of analytical powers, and dearth of adult behavior'. It was in fact the:
SHLAPDAB
Walt
Proof?
Here's what he said
"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not.
Yet I have neither adopted nor proposed any measure, which is not consistant even with your view, provided you are for the Union.
I suggested compensated emancipation; to which you replied you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. But I had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way, as to save you from greater expense, to save the Union exclusively by other means. You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I think differently. I think the Constitution invests the commander in chief with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy?
....but the proclamation, as law, either is valid, or it is not valid. If it is not valid, it needs no retraction. If it is valid, it can not be retracted, any more than the dead can be brought to life....The war has certainly progressed as favorably for us, since the issue of the proclamation as before. I know as fully as one can know the opinions of others that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us some of most important successes, believe the emancipation policy and the use of colored troops, constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt the rebellion, and that at least one of those important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers....I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections, often urged, that emancipation, and arming the blacks, are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted, as such, in good faith. You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. Fight you then, exclusively to save the Union...
Negroes, like other people act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise, being made, must be kept....peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it. Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result."
8/24/63
Should I call you a liar now, or later?
Walt
That, of course, is why Americans are moving South in increasing numbers.
I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government --- that nation --- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together. When, early in the war, Gen. Fremont attempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. When a little later, Gen. Cameron, then Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I objected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. When, still later, Gen. Hunter attempted military emancipation, I again forbade it, because I did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come. When, in March, and May, and July 1862 I made earnest, and successive appeals to the border states to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the indispensable necessity for military emancipation, and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. They declined the proposition; and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter.
Abraham Lincoln, "To Albert G. Hodges", 4 Apr 1864, Collected Works Of Abraham Lincoln, (Roy P. Basler, Ed.), Vol VII, p. 281.
I think you'll have to wait.
Now you know how many in the South feel, except what you call history has been modified since 1860, and still occurs.
Last month, I requested a US Park Service Historical Brochure from one of the 1861 war parks. The official from the park said that they were temporially out of the brochure because the Park Service had requested that they all be returned to Washington.
When asked why they were not available, the official said that the historical brochure was being rewritten.
When asked what of the history of the site could be 'rewritten' he said that "we have got to get the paragraph about slavery being the cause of the war into the copy".
The question here is not about the validity of the slavery=cause issue, but why in 2002 the US Congress would "remember the war", and go to the trouble to direct the US Park service to add its historical analysis of the cause of the war.
Is it really over? It isn't over for the US Congress and Park Service.
Why is the insertion of this explanation important to them? They won, but they can't get over it?
Do we need more proof that the winners write the history?
Do we need any more proof that it might be wise to question what the publishing houses, certain historians, and now, the Federal Government, would like for us to believe. Sounds as if they have to bolster their story....in 2002!
I think not. In both the Hodges letter you provide and the Conkling letter I quote, Lincoln states that the EP WAS constitutional.
Even if you could torture the Hodges letter into meaning that "Lincoln thought the EP unconstiutional", the Conkling letter was conveniently ignored by you -- so you could lie and distort the record.
Walt
Tortured? Just what part of "I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful" don't you understand?
Besides, the Conklin letter was dated 24 Aug 1863, while the letter to Hodges was 4 Apr 1864, some 8 months later. Distort the record? Lincoln clarified it.
You revisionist yankees don't even bother researching before making up lies to smear Southern conservatives do you? If you, or anyone else, wants to order this excellent book:
just click on the graphic, order, and Amazon will send 15% directly to help keep shucks.net online so the truth about lincon's tyranny will continue to reach the masses.
Lincoln is clearly saying in the Hodges letter that the measures he took -were- constitutional because of the extreme nature of the situation, a position he took at the time and then avowed to Hodges in April, 1864.
In the Conkling letter he states point blank that the EP was constitutional. That letter was written in August, '63.
Nothing in the Hodges letter nine months later contradicts what he wrote to Conkling.
You tried to pull another fast one, and as usual, you got caught.
Walt
What Lincoln said -is- the record, good bad or indifferent. You have tried to distort the record, if only by ignoring the Conkling letter, which you have seen many times before.
It is simply false to suggest that Lincoln himself thought the EP unconstitutional. It is a lie.
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.