Posted on 02/04/2003 3:42:54 AM PST by kattracks
You're probably right. Liberal Democrat Bush-hater Walt is probably thrilled that the park service "finally got it right" and joined him in espousing his religion of The Lincoln and the leftist agenda. Seriously though - I will have to go check out this video at the temple for myself. Sounds like it is quite a laugh!
"If you non-U.S. citizens are wondering what the electoral college is and what bunch of ninnies thought it up: The US Constitution was written by rich white men like Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Randolph, and others. They wrote it for the benefit of rich white men like themselves. They didn't trust the common man --at all--, hence the college of electors, who didn't (and don't) necessarily have to vote for the candidate that carries their state. Here in Georgia, I didn't vote for Al Gore. I voted for nine Democratic Party hacks that promise to vote for Al when the college meets in December. Yeah, I know its crazy, but it works. Abraham LIncoln won the 1860 election with a clear victory in the Electoral College but only @ 40% of the popular vote." - Walt, explaining the electoral college to foreigners
SOURCE: AOL newsgroup
And just what is your authority for that assertion?
"There was not a nickel's worth of difference in what Washington, Madison, Jackson and Lincoln thought about Union and the Constitution."
Let's read it in light of another statement he made about many of those same men on an AOL newsgroup:
"The US Constitution was written by rich white men like Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Randolph, and others. They wrote it for the benefit of rich white men like themselves."
Holding all of Walt's assertions to be true, we may examine the implications of his statements. If Washington et all wrote their constitution "for the benefit of rich white men like themselves," and Lincoln's thought about the Constitution was identical to Washington et al, does it not follow that Lincoln favored a constitution to benefit "rich white men."
That assertion, it seems, would make Lincoln a white supremacist since, after all, he viewed the constitution as something that was for the benefit of rich white people. Yet Walt has adamantly denied Lincoln's white supremacist sympathies, even when presented with direct evidence of them in Lincoln's speeches. So either what Walt said about the constitution was true and he is lying about Lincoln's racism, or what Walt said about Lincoln is true, and he is lying about Lincoln having an identical view of the constitution with Washington et al. Either way, Walt is lying and those lies have caught up with him.
ROTFLMAO - that will make his head spin.
That sounds kinda like GWB, doesn't it?
Sigh. At least get it right. Lincoln told an anecdote about a hog rooting for subsistence when questioned about the effects of emancipation. For your edification [empahsis mine]:
Other matters were then talked over relating to the evils of immediate emancipation, if that policy should be pressed, especially the sufferings which would necessarily attend the old and the infirm, as well as the women and children, who were unable to support themselves. These were fully admitted by Mr. Lincoln, but in reference to them, in that event, he illustrated all he could say by telling the anecdote, which has been published in the papers, about the Illinois farmer and his hogs.*How pathethically compassionate of Lincoln.
* Mr. Lincoln had a wonderful talent for illustrations of this sort. His genius for Anecdotes was fully equal, if not superior to that of AEsop for Apologues or Fables. They were his chief resort in conveying his ideas upon almost every question. His resources for producing them, seemed to be inexhaustible, and they were usually exceedingly pointed, apt, and telling in their application. The one on this occasion was far from being entitled to a place on a list of his best and most felicitous hits of this character. The substance of it was this:
An Illinois farmer was congratulating himself with a neighbor upon a great discovery he had made, by which he would economize much time and labor in gatheringr and taking carle of the food crop for his hogs, as well as trouble in looking after and feeding them during the winter.
"What is it?" said the neilghbor.
"Why, it is," said the farmer, "to plant plenty of potatoes, and when they are mature, without either digging or housing them, turn the hogs in the field and let them get their own food as they want it."
"But," said the neighbor, "how will they do when the winter comes and the ground is hard frozen?"
"Well," said the farmer, "let'em root."Alexander Stephens, A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States: Its Causes, Character, Conduct And Results, Philadelphia: National Publishing Company, 1870, Vol. II, p. 615
It is commonly believed that Lincoln was an atheist. If he was then this is simply hyocritical posturing of an atheistic politician. It is inconceivable to me that a genuine believer could utter such blasphemy without fearing for his immortal soul. To suggest that God willed death, destruction and suffering for such a purpose - the preservation of a political abstraction? Did God will it because he willed the end of slavery and willed all of this death and destruction to punish people for tolerating the evil of slavery? But civilization had already endured for 12 thousand or more years and slavery with it. Why would God suddenly decide that it had to end then, violently, in America, when it was ending peacefully elsewhere. And why was it Americans who had to suffer the punishment for a 12,000 year old evil. Lincoln uttered a lot of nonsense, but his most nonsensensical utterances were those in which he tried to place the blame for his war on God.
"This is prescribed by the order of nature: it is thus that God has created man. For "let them," He says, "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every creeping thing which creepeth on the earth." He did not intend that His rational creature, who was made in His image, should have dominion over anything but the irrational creation -- not man over man, but man over the beasts. And hence the righteous men in primitive times were made shepherds of cattle rather than kings of men, God intending thus to teach us what the relative position of the creatures is, and what the desert of sin; for it is with justice, we believe, that the condition of slavery is the result of sin. And this is why we do not find the word "slave" in any part of Scripture until righteous Noah branded the sin of his son with this name. It is a name, therefore, introduced by sin and not by nature. The origin of the Latin word for slave is supposed to be found in the circumstance that those who by the law of war were liable to be killed were sometimes preserved by their victors, and were hence called servants. And these circumstances could never have arisen save through sin. For even when we wage a just war, our adversaries must be sinning; and every victory, even though gained by wicked men, is a result of the first judgment of God, who humbles the vanquished either for the sake of removing or of punishing their sins. Witness that man of God, Daniel, who, when he was in captivity, confessed to God his own sins and the sins of his people, and declares with pious grief that these were the cause of the captivity. The prime cause, then, of slavery is sin, which brings man under the dominion of his fellow -- that which does not happen save by the judgment of God, with whom is no unrighteousness, and who knows how to award fit punishments to every variety of offence. But our Master in heaven says, "Every one who doeth sin is the servant of sin." And thus there are many wicked masters who have religious men as their slaves, and who are yet themselves in bondage; "for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." And beyond question it is a happier thing to be the slave of a man than of a lust; for even this very lust of ruling, to mention no others, lays waste men's hearts with the most ruthless dominion. Moreover, when men are subjected to one another in a peaceful order, the lowly position does as much good to the servant as the proud position does harm to the master. But by nature, as God first created us, no one is the slave either of man or of sin. This servitude is, however, penal, and is appointed by that law which enjoins the preservation of the natural order and forbids its disturbance; for if nothing had been done in violation of that law, there would have been nothing to restrain by penal servitude. And therefore the apostle admonishes slaves to be subject to their masters, and to serve them heartily and with good-will, so that, if they cannot be freed by their masters, they may themselves make their slavery in some sort free, by serving not in crafty fear, but in faithful love, until all unrighteousness pass away, and all principality and every human power be brought to nothing, and God be all in all." - St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIX, Chapter 15
"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh."
If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
A. LIncoln 3/4/65
Walt
Lincoln was pretty much turned out to root himself.
But so much for him supporting left-wing social programs.
Walt
What would you have suggested?
Lincoln was a scoffer at organized religion.
In 1863 he told a Baltimore audience, ``I have often wished I was a more devout man. Nevertheless, amid the great difficulties of my administration, when I could not see any other resort, I would place my whole reliance in God, knowing all would go well and that He would decide for the right.'' When asked if he believed ``the Lord was on the Union's side,'' he replied, ``I am not at all concerned about that, for I know that the Lord is always on the right side. It is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on His side.''
Also consider:
"I have not forgotten--probably never shall forget--the very impressive occasion when yourself and friends visited me on a Sabbath forenoon two years ago. Nor has your kind letter, written nearly a year later, ever been forgotten. In all, it has been your purpose to strengthen my reliance on God.
I am much indebted to the good Christian people of the country for their constant prayers and consolations; and to no one of them, more than to yourself. The purposes of the Almighty are perfect, and must prevail, though we erring mortals may fail to accurately perceive them in advance. We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible war long before this; but God knows best, and has ruled otherwise. We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom and our own error therein. Meanwhile we must work earnestly in the best light He gives us, trusting that so working still conduces to the great ends He ordains. Surely He intends some great good to follow this mighty convulsion, which no mortal could make, and no mortal could stay."
Abraham Lincoln Letter to Eliza Gurney, September 4, 1864.
"We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. Intoxicated with unbroken successes, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us. It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness."
--A. Lincoln March 30, 1863
Walt
Yes Walt. They do. Stephen Douglas made an issue out of this in their debates and cited The Lincoln's conflicting statements before the audience.
Who was elected president, Douglas or Lincoln?
Lincoln also received more of the popular vote in the 1858 senate race than Douglas did.
People knew where Lincoln stood.
Walt
This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position.
I agree with Judge Douglas, [the black man] is not my equal in many respects -- certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral and intellectual endownments; ....
This Pistolpaknmama person made a statement on another thread that more blacks were lynched in "one day" (that's a quote) in the New York draft riots in 1863 than were lynched in 80 years in the south.
That statement is patently absurd.
Now, this same person has said that Lincoln called blacks "inferior" (that's a quote too).
I don't see the word "inferior" appearing in the excerpt of Lincoln's words you provide above.
Do you?
What I do see is Lincoln suggesting he doesn't -know- if blacks are inferior or not.
I also see Lincoln saying:
"So far as tested it is difficult to say they are as not as good soldiers as any."
To me, that is a statement of black equality, not inferiority.
Just found these:
I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of slavery in this country. I suppose it may long exist, and perhaps the best way for it to come to an end peaceably is for it to exist for a length of time. But I say that the spread and strengthening and perpetuation of it is an entirely different proposition. There we should in every way resist it as a wrong, treating it as a wrong, with the fixed idea that it must and will come to an end.
March 1, 1859
I say now, however, as I have all the while said, that on the territorial question -- that is, the question of extending slavery under the national auspices, -- I am inflexible. I am for no compromise which assists or permits the extension of the institution on soil owned by the nation. And any trick by which the nation is to acquire territory, and then allow some local authority to spread slavery over it, is as obnoxious as any other.
February 1, 1861
Walt
Let's consider Lee.
He said in March, 1865 that the best relationship of whites and blacks was that of master and slave. (1)
Lee agreed that the system of chattel slavery in the south was a positive good, both rational and Christian, and thus an institution fit to be made permanent to serve as the cornerstone of the Confederate "nation". Too, he was in fact a slave owner, his estate at Arlington being the home of 63 slaves. (2)
Lee took up arms against the United States before his letter of resignation was accepted. (3)
He was not even a very successful general, squandering his army's manpower in bloody battles that destroyed his opportunity for offensive action and ultimately led to mass desertions. "He failed to rise above local professional concerns and view the war as a whole, displaying little interest or understanding of the overall strategic situation, demonstrating a predilection for Virginia - and Virginians - to the exclusion of all other theaters." (4)
And Lee's honor? His statements were inconsistant and self serving:
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forebearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will.
It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession." January 23, 1861 (5)
"All the South has ever desired is that the union, as formed by our founding fathers, should be preserved." Jan 5. 1866 (6)
(1) Lee Considered, By Alan Nolan p. 21
(2) Ibid p. 10
(3) Ibid p. 52
(4) from "A Civil War Treasury" by A.A. Nofi
(5) Lee Considered By Alan Nolan p. 34
(6) Ibid p. 56
Walt
And just what is your authority for that assertion?
"If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Pennsylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the Eastern States, the carriage tax in Virginia, were all deemed unconstitutional, and were more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now complained of; but, fortunately, none of those states discovered that they had the right now claimed by South Carolina. The war into which we were forced, to support the dignity of the nation and the rights of our citizens, might have ended in defeat and disgrace, instead of victory and honor, if the states who supposed it a ruinous and unconstitutional measure had thought they possessed the right of nullifying the act by which it was declared, and denying supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and unequally as those measures bore upon several members of the Union, to the legislatures of none did this efficient and peaceable remedy, as it is called, suggest itself. The discovery of this important feature in our Constitution was reserved to the present day. To the statesmen of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the citizens of that state will unfortunately fall the evils of reducing it to practice."
--Andrew Jackson
"The doctrine laid down by the law of Nations in the case of treaties is that a breach of any one article by any of the parties, frees the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a union of people under one Constitution, the nature of the pact had always been understood to exclude such an interpretation." (Remarks to the Constitutional Convention, July 23, 1787).
And:
"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, then the other or others have to hold them to it.
And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of --98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created...."
(James Madison, Writings; Rakove, Jack N., editor; The Library of America; 1999; p. 862)
In March, 1833, he wrote to William Cabell Rives as follows:
"The nullifiers it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality are effectually transferred by it, and the dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution and laws of the several States; supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hands of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.
"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdrasw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a state, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst. (sic) their bretheren of other States, not to expose them, to the dangers of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtrude it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them!"
(ibid; pp. 864, 865)
-- James Madison
"I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several states. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."
George Washington to John Jay, 15 August 1786
"What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining..."
George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786
"In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existance. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds [at the constitutional convention] led each State in the convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude...the constitution, which we now present, is the result of of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculularity of our political situation rendered indispensible."
George Washington to the Continental Congress September 17, 1787
I've posted these quotes to you probably half a dozen times, in different form.
Walt
Different race, different time. Douglas was elected senator.
Lincoln also received more of the popular vote in the 1858 senate race than Douglas did.
Nonsense. There wasn't any such thing to begin with. Prior to amendment 17, senators were elected by the vote of the state legislature. There was no "mini-electoral college" or popular vote.
People knew where Lincoln stood.
Yeah. All over the radar. And that is why Douglas won the debates.
He said in March, 1865 that the best relationship of whites and blacks was that of master and slave. (1)
If he did, he would not be alone. The Lincoln said the same thing a few years prior. In the meantime, post the actual statements in proper context.
Lee agreed that the system of chattel slavery in the south was a positive good, both rational and Christian, and thus an institution fit to be made permanent to serve as the cornerstone of the Confederate "nation".
Post a legitimate source on this, as what you say conflicts with his letter in which he declares "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages." (Dec. 27, 1856)
Too, he was in fact a slave owner, his estate at Arlington being the home of 63 slaves.
He inherited them through the estate and eventually set them free out of personal belief.
Lee took up arms against the United States before his letter of resignation was accepted.
Yeah, and his own state of Virginia was invaded and blockaded before its ordinance of secession was officially adopted. So what's your point?
He was not even a very successful general, squandering his army's manpower in bloody battles that destroyed his opportunity for offensive action and ultimately led to mass desertions.
Nonsense. He achieved brilliant and one sided victories at Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and Mannassas to name a few, often against the superior numbers of his attackers. These victories afforded him opportunity for two major campaigns on offense in a war in which his side was by nature in defense of itself. The desertions, though they occured in the harsh conditions of war, have long been overstated including by Lee himself according to alternate accounts of his numbers at appomattox.
And Lee's honor? His statements were inconsistant and self serving
Surely no more so than Abe Lincoln's Clintonesque whoppers. While it is perfectly acceptable that Lee spoke against secession before the war, this is understandable in light of the fact that he spoke against war before the war. That all changed when The Lincoln decided to wage it.
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.