Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Setting the Record Straight: Lincoln's Wisdom on the Politics of Race
Declaration Foundation ^ | December 8, 2002 | Dr. Richard Ferrier

Posted on 12/11/2002 3:15:37 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa

A minor scholar, an economist by the name of Thomas DiLorenzo, has been on an anti-Lincoln Jihad throughout the year 2002. His book, "The Real Lincoln," has led otherwise sound writers, like Paul Craig Roberts, to declare the Great Emancipator, "worse than [ the Cambodian mastermind of genocide] Pol Pot." Since Dr. Keyes and the Declaration Foundation take Lincoln to be a model of Declarationist Statesmanship, it behooves us to deal with the calumnies of Professor DiLorenzo, and we have done so throughout the year.

Today, I'd like to excerpt a section from our book, "America's Declaration Principles in Thought and Action," dealing with the charge made by DiLorenzo and many before him, mostly leftists, but also libertarians, that Lincoln showed himself a racist in the famous "Peoria Speech" of 1854. It is found in Chapter 8 of our book, which may be purchased online at www.declaration.net

As we read the Peoria speech today, one element jars our sensibilities: Lincoln does not take a stand for full political and social equality of the races. Some of the abolitionists of his day, especially the Quakers and other religious abolitionists, did. The 1854 laws of Maine set up in almost all respects what we would recognize today as equal civil rights, including jury duty and voting rights. But Maine was almost alone. Illinois' laws did not allow blacks to vote or serve on juries, and Illinois was typical of the free states.

In Peoria, Lincoln said this: "Let it not be said that I am contending for the establishment of political and social equality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary." Was this statesmanlike too, or was it either weak or unwise, or even unjust?

We think Lincoln's position in the Peoria speech can be vindicated, and that it can be reconciled with his support for expanded civil rights towards the end of the Civil War, if two things are kept in mind. First, as Lincoln himself said in 1859, "In this country, public opinion is everything." Second, that the knowledge of the statesman is prudence, or practical wisdom, which consists in knowing how to move towards moral goals by practicable steps, not in "the immoderate pursuit of moral perfection" which, in political life, "will more often lead to misery and terror than to justice and happiness," as Thomas G. West puts it in his book on the founding.

To take the first point first, is it not self-evident that in a republic, where the citizens are governed by their consent, their opinion will be the court of last resort, the final arbiter of all disputes? That does not mean that those opinions will never change, or that it will not be the duty of a good man and especially of a statesman to mold them for the better. But a public man will ignore them at his peril. Lincoln turns this weapon back on Douglas in the Peoria speech, when he tells him that he will never be able to suppress the voice of the people crying out that slavery is unjust: "...the great mass of mankind...consider slavery a great moral wrong; and their feeling against it, is not evanescent, but eternal. It lies at the very foundation of their sense of justice; and it cannot be trifled with-It is a great and durable element of popular action, and I think, no statesman can safely disregard it."

Sir Francis Bacon wrote long ago that, "Nature, to be mastered, must be obeyed." The saying is equally true of the nature of the physical body and of the body politic. Public opinion, the soul of the political body, was ailing in the days after the Nebraska Bill, and Douglas was prescribing as medicine what Lincoln thought poison. That the patient should also take up a regimen of vigorous exercise after his recovery was not and should not have been the first thing on the doctor's list.

Lincoln never said that political equality between the races was wrong; the most complete expression of his early views on the matter came in the 1858 debates with Douglas, and he clothed them entirely in the language of feeling: "...[I said years ago[1] that] my own feelings would not admit a social and political equality between the black and white races, and that even if my own feelings would admit of it, I still knew that the public sentiment of the country would not, and that such a thing was an utter impossibility, or substantially that." And again, in the same debate, "I agree with Judge Douglas that he [the Negro] is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color- perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without the leave of any body else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man."

It must be remembered that the young Lincoln had said in 1838 that our passions, our feelings, were to be the enemy of our freedom in the future, and that reason, "cold sober reason," would be the friend of the principles of the Declaration. Only one feeling, an almost religious reverence for the founding ideals, would buttress that reason. It should also be pointed out that Lincoln said that he knew only that the feelings of his fellow citizens would not admit of equality. He was certain that there was an inequality of "color." He did not say that he was certain of the infinitely more important inequality of "intellectual and moral endowments." These he said, might be unequal... "perhaps."

Many causes, including prominently the religious conviction that all men are brothers, conspired to change public opinion in the United States towards the end of the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation, by altering the legal status of slaves and by encouraging them to flee their masters and seek refuge in the Union armies, had some effect. But the greatest source of the change was probably the testimony given in blood by the black soldiers who had served the Union. The number enlisted was reported by the President to Congress in January of 1864 to be over 100,000,[2] and Lincoln and many others thought that without their services, the war could not have been won. To a complaining Northern politician, James C. Conkling, who objected to fighting to "free negroes," Lincoln penned these memorable words: "...[when peace comes] it will then have 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 consummation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they have strove to hinder it."

When a man will not fight to preserve his people and his principles, we call him a slave; when a slave does fight, we see in him a man. In antiquity, slaves who risked their lives to save their masters were often manumitted. They had proved their manhood. Lincoln wrote Conkling in the same letter, "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."

It cannot, alas, be said that the promise was perfectly kept. It would take a century more after the abolition of slavery for a new exercise of Declaration statesmanship to establish political equality without regard to race in this country. But the start was made in the time of Lincoln's stewardship.

Let us be blunt; if Lincoln had taken the full position of equal social and political rights, he would not have been electable to any statewide office in Illinois, neither in 1854, when he was a candidate for U.S. Senate and nearly won the nomination, nor in 1858, when he and Douglas had their memorable debates. He would not have become president in 1860, nor would any member of his party who took such a stand. He accomplished the good that he could, always insisting on the fundamental principle that in the fullness of time would yield such results. To achieve this good, he had to rekindle a reverence for the Declaration. Let us look briefly at how he did that in the Peoria speech.

Word, words, words. "Mere words" men say, and yet it is by the power of words that we take common counsel and learn to govern ourselves. We are free because we are made in the image of the all-wise God, and we have a bit of His light in our minds, and by that bit we strive to live according to His laws, the "laws of nature, and of nature's God." Of Divine things, St. Paul writes, "But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear of him without a preacher?"

Lincoln preached in Peoria. He preached the political religion he had declared must be preached years ago in Springfield. Douglas and the doctrine of popular sovereignty were "giving up the OLD faith... " Human equality and popular sovereignty were "as opposite as God and mammon..." Three times he calls the proposition that all men are created equal, the "ancient faith." Of the Nebraska Bill he says, "It hath no relish of salvation in it." He calls the Founders, "our revolutionary fathers," and "the fathers of the republic," stirring memories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He compares slavery to the fateful disobedience of Adam. He says: "Our republican robe is soiled, and trailed in the dust. Let us re-purify it. Let us turn and wash it white, in the spirit, if not the blood, of the Revolution."

Lincoln was like a great preacher in more than his scriptural language and his vision that America was founded on the Declaration as a kind of covenant or original creed, the "ancient faith." He endeavored to emulate the charity of great preaching, too, as when he admitted that "the Southern people" were "just what we would be in their situation," and when he said that "I surely will not blame them..." He stressed that Thomas Jefferson, the 'father Abraham' of the American covenant was "a Virginian by birth...a slaveholder..." He opened his speech by announcing that he did not "propose to question the patriotism, or to assail the motives of any man, or class of men...He. added that he wished "to be no less than national in all the positions" he would take. When he had suggested that "...a gradual emancipation might be adopted..." He immediately added, "but for their tardiness in this I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the south." Thus, to political faith, he added political charity.

The climax of the speech actually occurs about three-fourths in; after that point Lincoln anticipates some of the points he expects Douglas to make in his final hour's response. The paragraph begins with "Our republican robe is soiled..." It ends with these words of salvation and hope, which we quote in full:

Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. Let north and south--let all Americans--let all lovers of liberty everywhere--join in the great and good work. If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union; but we shall have so saved it, as to make and keep it, forever worthy of the saving. We shall have so saved it, that the succeeding millions of free happy people, the world over, shall rise up, and call us blessed, to the latest generations.

In the Lyceum speech, Lincoln had concluded by urging the statesmen of his day to take the materials supplied by reason and mold them into intelligence, morality, and reverence for the law. "Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its basis; and as truly as has been said of the only greater institution, 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." At Peoria, he took his own advice, and became such a statesman.

----------------------------------------------

[1]In fact, it was in the Peoria speech. The text there runs, "whether this [feeling against equality] accords with justice and sound judgement, is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded. We can not, then, make them equals."

[2] By the end of the war, over 200,000 blacks had served in the Union armed forces, and 37,000 had died serving their country.

Dr. Richard Ferrier President


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: freedom; lincoln; union
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-158 next last
To: wasp69
...taking away their right of a jury trial?

When cases of rebellion or invasion exist, the Constitution allows this.

Stop making excuses for traitors.

Walt

61 posted on 12/12/2002 8:32:20 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
YEP they do have to!

it's about covering up the UN-lawful, hatefilled, arrogant, ignorant,statist, stupid acts of the damnyankees, not to speak of the THOUSANDS of WAR CRIMES committed against innocent civilians & Confederate POWs in the "care" of the filth that came down from the north.

free dixie,sw

62 posted on 12/12/2002 9:37:51 AM PST by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: wasp69
Let us not forget this little gem...

Or this treasure from Article IV, Sections 19 through 21 of the Virginia Constitution

19. Slaves hereafter emancipated shall forfeit their freedom by remaining in the Commonwealth more than twelve months after they become actually free, and it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to prescribe proper regulations for reducing such negroes to slavery.

20. The General Assembly may profit the future emancipation of slaves, impose such restrictions and conditions as they shall deem proper on the power of slave owners to emancipate their slaves; and may pass laws for the relief of the Commonwealth from the free negro population, by removal or otherwise.

21. The General Assembly shall not emancipate any slave, or the descendant of any slave, either before or after the birth of such descendant.

63 posted on 12/12/2002 9:56:34 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: wasp69
Sir, are you implying that President Lincoln in no way shape or form tried to force Gen P. T. Beauregard to take Sumter to prevent reinforcement?

Pretty much, yeah. Lincoln made his intentions clear in letters to Governor Pickens and Major Anderson, the ships would unload provisions only unless opposition to that action was shown by the southern forces. Then arms and men should be landed. Had Davis not fired on Sumter then the status quo would have continued and a negotiated settlement might have eventually been reached. Instead Davis ordered Beauregard to open fire, and death and destruction throughout the south was the result.

64 posted on 12/12/2002 10:17:34 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: wasp69
With respect, you left out a couple of key passages there.

My dear Sir: The Maryland Legislature assembles to-morrow at Anapolis; and, not improbably, will take action to arm the people of that State against the United States. The question has been submitted to, and considered by me, whether it would not be justifiable, upon the ground of necessary defence, for you, as commander in Chief of the United States Army, to arrest, or disperse the members of that body. I think it would not be justifiable; nor, efficient for the desired object.

First, they have a clearly legal right to assemble; and, we can not know in advance, that their action will not be lawful, and peaceful. And if we wait until they shall have acted, their arrest, or dispersion, will not lessen the effect of their action.

Secondly, we can not permanently prevent their action. If we arrest them, we can not long hold them as prisoners; and when liberated, they will immediately re-assemble, and take their action. And, precisely the same if we simply disperse them. They will immediately re-assemble in some other place.

I therefore conclude that it is only left to the commanding General to watch, and await their action, which, if it shall be to arm their people against the United States, he is to adopt the most prompt, and efficient means to counteract, even, if necessary, to the bombardment of their cities---and in the extremest necessity, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Your Obedient Servant

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Note that Lincoln was advocating violence only if the state entered into armed rebellion against the Federal government. Why should Maryland have been treated any differently than any of the other confederate states?

65 posted on 12/12/2002 10:21:28 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Since the President has the power to decide which of two (or more) claimants is the legitimate government, the President must have the power to decide that *none* of the claimants is the legitimate government.   

Wrong.  The Executive does not have the power to decide that none of the claimants is the "legitimate" government - he must recognize one of the sides as the legitimate government. 

"By this act, the power of deciding whether the exigency had arisen upon which the government of the United States is bound to interfere is given to the President. He is to act upon the application of the legislature or of the executive [of the state in question], and consequently he must determine what body of men constitute the legislature, and who is the governor, before he can act. The fact that both parties claim the right to the government cannot alter the case, for both cannot be entitled to it. If there is an armed conflict like the one of which we are speaking, it is a case of domestic violence, and one of the parties must be in insurrection against the lawful government. And the President must, of necessity, decide which is the government and which party is unlawfully arrayed against it before he can perform the duty imposed upon him by the act of Congress."
Chief Justice Taney, Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1 (1849)

Thus, Lincoln had the power to act without waiting for a request from a Governor or State Legislature.  

"[U]pon the application of the governor under the charter government, the President recognized him as the executive power of the State."

"It is the second clause in the same section [Militia Act of 1795] which authorizes the call to suppress an insurrection against a State government. The power given to the President in each case is the same, with this difference only, that it cannot be exercised by him in the latter case except upon the application of the legislature or executive of the State."
Chief Justice Taney, Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1 (1849)

-- from the ACW moderated newsgroup.

I'd get away from relying on newsgroups.  Moderated or not.

66 posted on 12/12/2002 2:08:28 PM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist; Non-Sequitur
Once again you demostrate why discussing with you is so pointless and unpleasant. You habitually ignore, avoid or dismiss out of hand views that don't accord with yours. That's par for the course, but what's offensive is the way you change what the argument is about and attack others for not arguing what you think they should.

My argument was that on balance Lincoln was not a force for tyranny. You brought up tariffs. I responded that tariffs were a matter of ordinary government policy. I would have gone further into this but we have rehashed the issue at length earlier. It's clear that neither Washington, nor Hamilton, nor Madison considered protective tariffs tyrannical or incompatible with liberty. On balance, I said, Lincoln was a force for more, not less liberty.

You've insisted that the discussion was about tariffs and that my mention of slavery was a "red herring." But slavery is something that has to be taken into the balance. It was an implicit part of my argument from the beginning. And if you look at the thread title, it's "Setting the Record Straight: Lincoln's Wisdom on the Politics of Race ," and clearly has more to do with slavery than with tariffs. on

If you want to talk about tariffs in isolation, fine, but don't act as though a broader focus is somehow illegitimate or a "red herring." Seen in the context of history or of the thread, a narrow and inclusive focus on tariffs, looks like a real "red herring."

There were hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of people who disagreed with Lincoln about tariffs, yet agreed with him about slavery and secession, and on balance regretted his passing. And there were tens of thousands or more who agreed with Lincoln on tariffs, yet still fought against him on other grounds. If you do want to talk about tariffs in isolation from other factors, Non-Sequitur may still be waiting for the extended economic analysis you offered to provide him with two weeks ago.

But for the record: The argument against taxation without representation advanced during the revolution doesn't allow those who throw away their right to representation to cry about tax levels. And the idea of your "guys" at Mises Institute not imposing a narrow orthodoxy on their fellows is laughable. In grammatical English, we do not use articles before proper names. And "diefy" is not a word.

67 posted on 12/12/2002 5:39:08 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: x; 4ConservativeJustices; wardaddy; billbears; stainlessbanner; Twodees
Once again you demostrate why discussing with you is so pointless and unpleasant.

The fealing is mutual.

You habitually ignore, avoid or dismiss out of hand views that don't accord with yours.

I don't believe I've excessively avoided or dismissed that which is at hand in the conversation. I will readily concede to dismissing your little slavery equivalency charade, but I've already stated my reasons for doing so and stand by them as sound. Beyond that I would ask that you specify your allegations as I don't believe I've committed in any serious way what you accuse me of doing.

That's par for the course, but what's offensive is the way you change what the argument is about and attack others for not arguing what you think they should.

As is often the case with you, that statement would be well suited for a mirror. As for your allegation, I think we may assess its merits in the history of this discussion. You began with the comment that various political policies of The Lincoln, most of them economic, were not a recipe for big government. I challenged that assertion and made the case that they were. Rather than responding to my case, you threw the issue of slavery in the bag, evidently with hopes that by doing so you could respond not by addressing the intrinsic problems raised by economic policies under The Lincoln, but instead by their relative position as gauged by you through the lens of slavery. I then responded by pointing out the fallacy of that tactic and calling you to task on using it, to which you respond now by alleging that I'm trying to restrict your argument to my mold, and that is where we stand right now.

Now, it seems to me that your grievance is based on my dismissal of your attempt to use a tactic of diversion to alter the debate's subject matter into what you percieve to be your favor. That being the case, I respond that your grievance is without merit because it pertains to my refusal of your attempted manuever for similar lack of merit.

My argument was that on balance Lincoln was not a force for tyranny.

Your initial argument was that a list of The Lincoln's economic policies provided in your earlier post were not themselves a recipe for tyranny. I responded to that point, and you responded to me with a relativist judgment of them through the lens of slavery, an issue that is not intrinsic to the discussion of those policies.

I responded that tariffs were a matter of ordinary government policy.

That you did, and I offered my response as it pertains to taxing policy's relation to tyranny. I do not see any further response from you.

It's clear that neither Washington, nor Hamilton, nor Madison considered protective tariffs tyrannical or incompatible with liberty.

Nor do I suggest that protective tariffs are always tyrannical or incompatable with liberty. I do say though that abusive taxing policies are tyrannical and incompatible with liberty and, considering the presence of that issue as a central point of contention in the American Revolution, I do not believe you could successfully maintain that the founding fathers would disagree.

On balance, I said, Lincoln was a force for more, not less liberty.

That is your belief and you are entitled to argue it. Mine is that the gains in liberty under The Lincoln were outweighed by the losses in liberty caused in the denial of life by war, the destruction of homes and livlihood by the practices of that war, and the continued expansion of government power as a result of that war. It is my belief that The Lincoln won a pyrrhic victory.

You've insisted that the discussion was about tariffs and that my mention of slavery was a "red herring."

When you randomly toss out the issue of slavery as a relative standard by which to view all else that is being discussed, your mention of it is a red herring.

But slavery is something that has to be taken into the balance.

Yes, in a discussion of the war as a whole. But you threw it out there during a discussion of several specific economic issues and then proceded to use it as a relative standard by which to view those issues. As an argument, that type of a tactic is unsupportable.

If you want to talk about tariffs in isolation, fine, but don't act as though a broader focus is somehow illegitimate or a "red herring."

I would not do that to a broader focus. I would react that way, and did so accordingly, in the event that what you purport to be a broader practice is in reality a diversionary fish thrown out to reorient the discussion away from intrinsic consideration of The Lincoln's policies to a relative judgement of them through the lens of an issue external to their discussion, slavery.

There were hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of people who disagreed with Lincoln about tariffs, yet agreed with him about slavery and secession, and on balance regretted his passing. And there were tens of thousands or more who agreed with Lincoln on tariffs, yet still fought against him on other grounds.

Every cause has its minority of opponents somewhere. The fact that they exist does not make them equal in size to those opposite of them. In this particular case, the country divided over the tariff along lines virtually identical to the war as is evidenced in the May 1860 House vote on the Morrill tariff.

If you do want to talk about tariffs in isolation from other factors, Non-Sequitur may still be waiting for the extended economic analysis you offered to provide him with two weeks ago.

Non-Sequitur did not indicate during the course of that discussion that his interests were in doing so, or if he did, I must have missed it. I attempted this once before with him several months ago and went into extensive detail with formulas and import-export figures, but he ignored it and went back to the same old line of entry ports he has been towing ever since. Therefore I am hesitant to expend the effort as long as he is unreceptive to it. If he will indicate otherwise, I will do my best to accomodate him. But until then...

But for the record: The argument against taxation without representation advanced during the revolution doesn't allow those who throw away their right to representation to cry about tax levels.

Your argument here smells of chickens and eggs. One could just as easily say that the action of removing itself from the union government was in part brought about by the advancing installment of a the very same tax. Did the tax cause them to leave, or did they leave causing the tax? Citing the May 1860 sectional trends, I say the tax. If you care to argue differently you are free to do so.

And the idea of your "guys" at Mises Institute not imposing a narrow orthodoxy on their fellows is laughable.

If you wish to make your case, please do so. I'll happily do the same with Claremont though and point out that Claremont's network extends much deeper than you allege of "ours."

In grammatical English, we do not use articles before proper names.

Yet concepts are a different story. If you have not yet noticed, I maintain that the concept of The Lincoln, espoused by many around here, is significantly different from the man Abraham Lincoln in his worldly existence.

And "diefy" is not a word.

Neither is "demostrate" for that matter. On that note, I anticipate that you see the sillyness and potential dangers of letting this slip into a game of "typo patrol." If you have anything further to offer to this discussion though, I look forward to it.

68 posted on 12/12/2002 7:19:58 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"President Lincoln wanted all men, everywhere, to be free."

"All men?" Except, of course, those Americans who opposed his unconstitutional policies. Tell us again, friend Walt, about your opinion of Mr. Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, by which means he imprisoned many "men, everywhere," without benefit of trial. Perhaps you have forgotten Mr. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion on the suspension of the writ, or that of Mr. Justice Story, or that of Mr. Chief Justice Taney. Shall I refresh your memory?

Enjoy!

;>)

69 posted on 12/12/2002 8:13:26 PM PST by Who is John Galt?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I'm looking forward to all the posts from the southron contingent giving quotes from the Southern leaders...

You seem to be confused: your friend Walt seems to quote Jefferson Davis quite a bit more than any Freepers "from the southron contingent." And Walt is just as confused as you appear to be - he can't quite decide whether he is quoting 'Jefferson Davis the Statesman,' who's words would apparently be worth quoting, or 'Jefferson Davis the Despicable Traitor,' who's words we should presumably ignore.

But then, most of us have learned to expect nothing BUT confusion 'from the northern contingent'...

;>)

70 posted on 12/12/2002 8:22:48 PM PST by Who is John Galt?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wasp69
Bump!

;>)

71 posted on 12/12/2002 8:25:00 PM PST by Who is John Galt?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God can not be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party—and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say this is probably true—that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere quiet power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And having begun He could give the final victor to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds."

A. Lincoln, 1862

72 posted on 12/13/2002 3:13:25 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?
"All men?" Except, of course, those Americans who opposed his unconstitutional policies.

"I expect to maintain this contest until successful, or till I die, or am conquered, or my term expires, or Congress or the country forsakes me..."

A. Lincoln 6/28/62

Nothing Lincoln did was shown to be unconstitutional.

The only place to show that was in the courts, and the rebels dared not go there.

Walt

73 posted on 12/13/2002 3:31:47 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?
How about 'Jefferson Davis the Tyrant'? The 'Jefferson Davis the Racist' is a given, I'm not familiar with a 'Jefferson Davis the Statesman' and I don't go as far Walt in demonizing him as a despicable traitor. Ordinary traitor is enough.
74 posted on 12/13/2002 3:33:51 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Ordinary traitor is enough.

So you put Davis in the "Ethel Rosenburg" category, not the "Julius Rosenburg" category? ;-)

Did you see this thing on the exploration of the Bismarck?

Out of 700 14" and 16" shells fired at almost pointblank range they only found two penetrations of the belt armor. They found no important damage from the three torpedo hits form Dorcetshire. The Germans scuttled her.

The one torpedo hit fom the Swordfish caused massive damage to the starboard rudder and penetrated the hull, pushing the rudder into the center screw.

The show perpetrated the idea that Bismarck and not Prinz Eugen delivered the fatal shot to Hood, although I heard years ago that it was Eugen and not Bismarck that hit the Hood's magazine.

Prinz Eugen survived the war and wound up as a test dummy in one of the A-bomb tests.

Walt

75 posted on 12/13/2002 4:45:01 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
DiLorenzo may be "a minor scholar," but Ferrier is no scholar at all.
76 posted on 12/13/2002 4:50:50 AM PST by Trickyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
No doubt the southerners will blame that on Lincoln, too.
77 posted on 12/13/2002 5:15:56 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Trickyguy
DiLorenzo isn't a scholar. He is a man with an agenda and thanks to Lew Rockwell and members of this forum he has gotten far more mileage out of his scribblings than they deserve.
78 posted on 12/13/2002 5:18:13 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
No doubt the southerners will blame that on Lincoln, too.

He's clearly implicated. Didn't Lincoln allow his navy to begin conversion to iron-clad warships?

Walt

79 posted on 12/13/2002 5:42:57 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?
You seem to be confused: your friend Walt seems to quote Jefferson Davis quite a bit more than any Freepers "from the southron contingent."

The neo-rebs don't much care for quotes from people of the Civil War era. The record doesn't support their rant.

Walt

80 posted on 12/13/2002 5:48:07 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-158 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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