Posted on 02/12/2003 2:29:32 PM PST by rdf
February 12th
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DESK
Fellow Declarationists,
Today is Abraham Lincoln's 194th Birthday.
I wish to honor him by sharing a few reflections about his Second Inaugural Address, given on March 4th, 1865.
(Excerpt) Read more at declaration.net ...
The unusual spelling is from that site.
Happy birthday, Mr. Lincoln, and God save the United States!
Cheers,
Richard F.
I hope, and am praying, that you are right about our President. In the matter of Iraq, at least, he has done very well indeed, according to my imperfectly informed judgment.
Cheers, and thanks for the kind words about my Lincoln reflections.
Richard F.
One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it.
Well, heck we know good and well that Mr. lincoln didn't have to worry about blacks, let alone slaves in the state of Illinois, now did he? Considering that state had passed one of the most stringent black codes in 1853 isn't it curious that abe never spoke out against it?
All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war
Well there you have it. From abe's mouth to our ears. 140 years later people are still believing that line. Interesting considering that in his first inaugural address he said something to the effect of
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.Seems to me the good folks of the South weren't duped into attacking abe's tariff collecting station until a month later. It also seems that if the war was over slavery, then the good folks wouldn't have bitten the bait in April. Because right here in 1861, a liar stood before them and stated that he had no right nor concern to interfere with a state's internal affairs. Well, it must have been over something else then huh? Tell us, rdf, what was that fort there for in SC? To show the good folks of SC the pretty blue uniforms? More like to show the good folks of the South the steel hand in which Washington collected its tribute money
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
Wow!! If that doesn't sound like it's straight out of the Communist Manifesto, I don't know what is. Course considering the letters Mr. Marx wrote praising lincoln's tariff war and the personal letters Marx wrote to him I'd say abe and Karl were of the same stock, wouldn't you?
That's right, and thanks for at least reading my comments on Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural, and how his words might be relevant to our coming war with Iraq and the terrorists.
Cheers,
Richard F.
I sincerely hope not. Even in a just war, which I believe the current one to be, it is sinful to shrug one's own responsibility for wrongs that may occur in it and downright blasphemous to turn around and blame those same wrongs on God.
Re the speech by Lincoln, one of the flaws is contained herein:
'On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil-war. All dreaded it - all sought to avert it.'
That's a lie, as Lincoln refused to even meet with the peace commissioners from the Confederacy, mediated by Supreme Court Justice Campbell (and justice Nelson as well).
The commissioners had been sent to Washington to peacefully settle all property disputes and any other items but were refused. For what it's worth, the property in South Carolina including Ft. Sumter legally belonged to SC.
Freegards,
4CJ
Fort Sumter was the property of the federal government.
Exactly!! That was it's only purpose. It certainly was not there to protect SC. We were more that capable of that.
But we both know that the black codes down south were more stringent, don't we? Why didn't Lee or Davis speak out against them?
Ya think? If you don't mind responding to a few questions, this matter can be resolved. I will not dispute that SC ceded the land for the erection of the fort, that was done by the SC legislature when it resolved a dispute over the legal ownership of the land (underwater) for the site of the fort.
1)When did construction of the Fort begin?
2)When did construction end?
3)When was the Fort garrisoned?
4)What were the terms of the cession?
Ahh, but the truth about Lee or Davis isn't obscured by some myth that they cared about the slaves like the lie constantly forced down our throats about lincoln
Exactly. He also neglected his lone opportunity to work for real compromise in the winter session of congress by instead taking the political route. Lincoln knew and Henry Adams admitted that the incoming president had sought to intentionally lead the debate on the compromises toward slavery and away from the tariff and other disputes. To that end, Lincoln personally guided his other 13th amendment - the pro-slavery one - through congress and then, to escape responsibility of it all, he claimed to have not even seen the thing when he endorsed it in his inaugural.
When inauguration day came he gave a speech indicating his goals were clear - he would use force to collect his taxes. It was a direct message to those southern members of congress who were still in Washington that war was coming. Those who remained wrote this. A group of them telegraphed the confederate government moments after the speech to convey what The Lincoln had said - "inaugural means war."
And then at first opportunity with Fort Sumter, Lincoln launched a fleet of warships for no other purpose than to provoke a war there. This is evidenced by the fact that the first action by the first ship of the fleet to arrive there, the Harriet Lane - firing on a civilian confederate vessle that was trying to enter the harbor. Lincoln immediately expanded that war with his blockade of the south, including states that had not yet seceded. Within a few months he had an army of invasion ready and he began his march toward Richmond. There is no doubt as to the facts of the situation - Abe Lincoln chose war and in choosing that war he consented to it in its bloodiest and most brutal form.
Contrary to his speech, Abe Lincoln did not seek to avoid war. He brought it on himself. He tried to blame it on everybody but himself, including God, but he was ultimately responsible and, like a lying coward, he shunned that responsibility for his sins.
Perhaps Lincoln said it best, when he pointed out that one party "would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish."
Had the secessionists accepted the result of the election, including the pledge of the victorious party to work for the repeal of Dred Scot and to restore the old policy of banning slavery in at least some of the Federal Territories, the war could have been avoided. But this, precisely, was never on the table. The Government, under Lincoln's stewardship, would not yield on these points, nor would it accept the legality of secession.
Lincoln was willing to go to war to overturn what he held to be, in my view rightly, an illegal secession, or, in plain terms, a rebellion.
Davis and his associates, insisted on the wrongness of the Republican Platform, and on the legal right to secession as a proper response to the Republican victory at the polls. They were willing to let their cause be vindicated, if God so willed, by arms.
Both sides hoped to triumph without a recourse to arms.
Since neither party would yield, and since, in Lincoln's view, the acts of the secessionists were rebellion, while in their own view, the secessionist slave states were not rebels but sovereign entities, "the war came."
Doubtless this won't convince you, but I state it to clarify what I, in agreement with Lincoln, hold.
Regards,
Richard F.
You are free to appeal to the popularity of a position if you desire. Just the same, I am free to offer my reasons for disagreeing with that position, be it popular or not, and in this case have done so.
Perhaps Lincoln said it best, when he pointed out that one party "would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish."
I would answer that, in typical Lincolnian fashion, he got it backwards. His side decided that it would rather make war than let the south govern itself. By contrast, the south decided it would rather accept that war and attempt to defend itself rather than submit to the coercion of its northern neighbor.
Had the secessionists accepted the result of the election, including the pledge of the victorious party to work for the repeal of Dred Scot and to restore the old policy of banning slavery in at least some of the Federal Territories, the war could have been avoided.
Just the same, had the Lincoln accepted the fact that the south no longer desired to be part of the union, including its act of secession which, more than any other possible course of action, had the result of permanently separating itself from those very same territories that the Lincoln claimed as his priority, the war would have been avoided. War was not a necessary consequence of secession and nothing in secession made it so that war was inevitable. Rather, war was chosen as the yankee policy for dealing with secession and its patron was none other than Abe Lincoln himself.
No, the truth about Lee and Davis are simply ignored by the southern contingent since their actions were indefensible.
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.