The Litmus Test for American Conservatism (The paloeconservative view of Abe Lincoln.)

Chronicles Magazine ^ | January 2001 | Donald W. Livingston

[lentulusgracchus]

You deny southern trampling of civil rights, too. All that paper piled all over the place.

Fallacy of distraction. Changing the subject. Conceding for the sake of argument (for about eight seconds) that your statement is correct, how does that exonerate Abraham Lincoln of the charge of having started the war?

[Non-Sequitur]

Conceding for the sake of argument (for about eight seconds) that your statement is correct...

Agreeing to fact is hardly a concession.

...how does that exonerate Abraham Lincoln of the charge of having started the war?

No need to exonerate President Lincoln for something that Jefferson Davis did.

[lentulusgracchus]

Our arrival at the show has been continuously building since the 1950's. It has increased to unanimous attendence at the present. Meanwhile, yankeeland has been departing at similar rates over the same period and even the plains states, with their dozen electoral votes, have boycotted some performances entirely such as 1964. But not Dixie. We've had a presence at every one of them and as of today make up the largest segment of the audience. Forget that fact and the Republican Party will never win a national election again.

Your statement explains the New Red Historians' South-bashing. The South is eeeevil! Southern conservatives are Hitchcock caricatures in slouch hats with snaggly teeth, like the ethnic-caricature critter-man in Jeepers Creepers.

[lentulusgracchus]

Case in point, your opening statement to me on this thread: "Meditate on that [civil] statement until you figure out how totally wrongside-out it is, then get back to us."

I considered your feelings very carefully before I edited it for sensitivity, into the form that you have so ably cut-and-pasted.

You should have seen it before I edited it!

[lentulusgracchus]

See what above?

Try posts 83, 87, 102, and 104. Also the "Neoconfederates" thread referenced in 83.

[lentulusgracchus]

No need to exonerate President Lincoln for something that Jefferson Davis did.

Oh, I agree. But his roasting soul might appreciate exoneration from what he did, i.e. starting the war.

[lentulusgracchus]

Agreeing to fact is hardly a concession.

True statement as far as it goes, but it doesn't go as far as Neely's wonkery. But we'll see.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Nice try. Point denied. Lincoln started the war, the evidence is becoming overwhelming.

In his first inagural address, President Lincoln agreed to support a constitutional amendment to protect the domestic institutions of the states, and he agreed not to send obnoxious officials into the south. In point of fact, President Lincoln bent over backwards to avoid the war. Insurgent forces had fired on Old Glory well before he took office. Yours is just another attempt to flip an inconvertable fact of history into something else entirely.

Walt

[lentulusgracchus]

If George Bush decides to hide the Consitution for 4 years and starts locking up newspaper editors who don't agree with him, will that make him a great statesman also?

If you're a historian, you have to be careful to wait to see how things come out first. If he ultimately fails , then you can award him style points, like Machiavelli did Cesare Borgia, but in the end you have to ding him. If he wins, of course, all his flaws are washed clean -- along with his hands -- and you can raise your voice in orisons of praise without fear of effective contradiction.

He wins, he's great. He loses, he's a bum. National Hockey League or The History Channel, the rules are pretty much the same.

[Non-Sequitur]

Try posts 83, 87, 102, and 104. Also the "Neoconfederates" thread referenced in 83.

Yeah, I read them. Just the same old opinion restated over and over again. In short, same old sh*t, different day. Lincoln made it clear that he was resupplying the fort, something he was well within his rights to do seeing as how it was a federal facility. He made it clear that if the resupply effort wasn't opposed then no new troops and munitions would be introduced, thus keeping the status quo. Yet Davis chose to fire anyway, and initiate a war in the process.

[Non-Sequitur]

But his roasting soul might appreciate exoneration from what he did, i.e. starting the war.

Do you have a special link to God so that you know exactly where Jeff Davis wound up? A burning bush, something like that? How else would you know that Jeff's soul was roasting?

[Non-Sequitur]

True statement as far as it goes, but it doesn't go as far as Neely's wonkery. But we'll see.

So what did Neely state that you have shown to be wrong?

[lentulusgracchus]

To: lentulusgracchus

*Ignored post

248 posted on 09/11/2003 9:22 AM CDT by [*] (Ignored Poster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[rustbucket]

Yet had the confederate government had any interest in all in protecting individual rights then they would have had plenty of time to do so. After all, they had time to start a war, establish an army, institute a tariff, create a cabinet, all in the first three months. But not establish a judiciary.

We refuted you on the 'no judiciary' charge not long ago.

CSA judiciary appointments
CSA District Court ruling upholding civilian rights
thatdewd's list of CSA District Court records
Non-Sequitur's concession to thatdewd
Non-Sequitur's concession to rustbucket

[lentulusgracchus]

Just the same old opinion restated over and over again.

Nope. Read nolu chan's and rustbucket's retrievals, here:

Posts 1783, 1794 &ff, on the subject of whether Lincoln actually started the Civil War.

[lentulusgracchus]

So what did Neely state that you have shown to be wrong?

LOL-- I'll tell you, just as soon as you finish reading War and Peace seven times and then write me a 500-page book report. I should be done reading and fact-checking Neely's 3000 pages of Clintonoid wonkery by then!

Homework assignment refused. Old ploy. Write me when you get to St. Louis.

[lentulusgracchus]

We refuted you on the 'no judiciary' charge not long ago.

What, is our friend not playing fair again?

We'll have to mark him down a bit again in "Plays Well with Others".

[lentulusgracchus]

Do you have a special link to God so that you know exactly where Jeff Davis wound up? A burning bush, something like that? How else would you know that Jeff's soul was roasting?

Well, I wasn't discussing Jeff Davis's soul, but now that you mention it, we can surely hope that he doesn't have too close a view of where Abe's is roasting.

[Non-Sequitur]

I've done some further reading on the subject, and your posts overlook or ignore a few items. Primarily the fact that the one court required by the confederate constitution, the one branch of government that could have acted as a check on Davis, wasn't established at all. Nor did the district courts meet on a regular basis. And when habeas corpus was suspended by the confederate congress, the process for identifying and jailing the violators was left in the hands of appointed commissioners not subject to judicial review. So your judiciary was a paper tiger, a judiciary in name only with no power to rein in the excesses of the Davis regime.

[Non-Sequitur]

LOL-- I'll tell you, just as soon as you finish reading War and Peace seven times and then write me a 500-page book report.

Try reading Neely once instead. It's less than 200 pages of actual reading, not 3000, and backed up by about 25 pages of footnotes. No pictures, however, so I guess that knocks it off your reading list. Why read it when blanket criticism is so much easier?