The true Abe Lincoln

[Ga.windbreak]

The following link will take you to the sayings of Ole honest Abe and I will leave it up to you to decide just how honest and good he was.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/young8.html

Abraham Lincoln In His Own Words.

Here is just some of what is said by Lincoln between 1848 and 1865 and I quote:

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose – and you allow him to make war at pleasure.... If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.' The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood." ~ Representative Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to his long-time law partner William H. Herndon, denouncing the trickery of President Polk in provoking the Mexican War of 1848. The claims of the current president in regards to the alleged threat posed by Iraq are a fulfilment of Lincoln's warning about presidential despotism, which he later had the leading hand in bringing about.

"The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion – no using of force against, or among the people anywhere.... You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors." ~ Lincoln's ultimatum to the South: basically it states, pay tribute to the North or failure to do so will be interpreted as a declaration of war, by the South, against the North.

"...they [the South] commenced by an insidious debauching of the public mind. They invented an ingenious sophism which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps, through all the incidents, to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is that any State of the Union may consistently with the national Constitution, and therefore lawfully and peacefully, withdraw from the Union without the consent of the Union or of any other State." ~ Lincoln, in his Special Message to Congress July 4 1861.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements." ~ Lincoln January 12 1848, expressing the near-universally held Jeffersonian principle, before Lincoln unilaterally destroyed it, that no state could claim its inhabitants as its property.

"[I am] determined . . . to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government . . . in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness." ~ Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and a man whom Lincoln himself considered "the most distinguished politician in our history."

[Dee]

Excellent!

[ironfoot]

The Republican Party, which developed rapidly as a new political force following
the enactment of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill in 1854, gathered its strength chiefly from
those who opposed the extension of slavery into the Territories. In the Lincoln-
Douglas Debates this issue was paramount. Perhaps nowhere can a more concise
and explicit statement of the position of the Republican Party on this issue be found
than in Mr. Lincoln's opening speech at Quincy in the sixth of the joint debates.

We have in this nation the element of domestic slavery. It is a matter of
absolute certainty that it is a distribuing element. . . . The Republican party
think it wrong--we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong. We think
it is a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons or the States where it exists,
but that it is a wrong which in its tendency, to say the least, affects the existence
of the whole nation. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy
that shall deal with it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any other wrong, inso­
far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the run of
time there may be some promise of an end to it. We have a due regard to the
actual presence of it amongst us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any
satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligations thrown about it. I suppose
that in reference both to its actual existence in the nation, and to our constitu­
tional obligations, we have no right at all to disburb it in the States where it
exists, and we profess that we have no more inclination to disturb it than we have
the right to do it. . . . We also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread
itself. We insist on the policy that shall restrict it to its present limits. We
don't suppose that in doing this we violate anything due to the actual presence of
the institution, or anything due to the constitutional guaranties thrown around it.

We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which I ought per­
haps to address you a few words. We do not propose that when Dred Scott has
been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a mob, will decide him to be free.
We do not propose that, when any other one, or one thousand, shall be decided by
that court to be slaves, we will in any violent way disturb the rights of property
thus settled; but we nevertheless do oppose that decision as a political rule, which
shall be binding on the voter to vote for nobody who thinks it wrong, which shall
be binding on the members of Congress or the President to favor no measure that
does not actually concur with the principles of that decision. We do not propose
to be bound by it as a political rule in that way, because we think it lays the
foundation not merely of enlarging and spreading out what we consider an evil,
but it lays the foundation for spreading that evil into the States themselves.
We propose so resisting it as to have it reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule
established upon this subject.

LINCOLN OPENING SPEECH, SIXTH JOINT DEBATE,
AT QUINCY, ILL., OCTOBER 13, 1858.




http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=30393209

[Ga.windbreak]

The Republican Party, which developed rapidly as a new political force following
the enactment of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill in 1854, gathered its strength chiefly from
those who opposed the extension of slavery into the Territories. In the Lincoln-
Douglas Debates this issue was paramount. Perhaps nowhere can a more concise
and explicit statement of the position of the Republican Party on this issue be found
than in Mr. Lincoln's opening speech at Quincy in the sixth of the joint debates.

We have in this nation the element of domestic slavery. It is a matter of
absolute certainty that it is a distribuing element. . . . The Republican party
think it wrong--we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong. We think
it is a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons or the States where it exists,
but that it is a wrong which in its tendency, to say the least, affects the existence
of the whole nation. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy
that shall deal with it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any other wrong, inso­
far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the run of
time there may be some promise of an end to it. We have a due regard to the
actual presence of it amongst us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any
satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligations thrown about it. I suppose
that in reference both to its actual existence in the nation, and to our constitu­
tional obligations, we have no right at all to disburb it in the States where it
exists, and we profess that we have no more inclination to disturb it than we have
the right to do it. . . . We also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread
itself. We insist on the policy that shall restrict it to its present limits. We
don't suppose that in doing this we violate anything due to the actual presence of
the institution, or anything due to the constitutional guaranties thrown around it.

We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which I ought per­
haps to address you a few words. We do not propose that when Dred Scott has
been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a mob, will decide him to be free.
We do not propose that, when any other one, or one thousand, shall be decided by
that court to be slaves, we will in any violent way disturb the rights of property
thus settled; but we nevertheless do oppose that decision as a political rule, which
shall be binding on the voter to vote for nobody who thinks it wrong, which shall
be binding on the members of Congress or the President to favor no measure that
does not actually concur with the principles of that decision. We do not propose
to be bound by it as a political rule in that way, because we think it lays the
foundation not merely of enlarging and spreading out what we consider an evil,
but it lays the foundation for spreading that evil into the States themselves.
We propose so resisting it as to have it reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule
established upon this subject.

LINCOLN OPENING SPEECH, SIXTH JOINT DEBATE,
AT QUINCY, ILL., OCTOBER 13, 1858.




http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=30393209

You know I'm amazed that you just don't get it! No one here is in denial about slavery on either side. But, my friend, you are in denial about what your Mr. Lincoln did to the Constitution as a whole. We went from being A people with a government to a government with people. We became citizens of a country **see the illegal 14th amendment. We went from being a REPUBLIC to a DEMOCRACY. We lost much of our freedom because of the illegal things that Lincoln did. He broke the LAW. There is no way to say it any plainer. There were other and BETTER ways he could have freed the slaves first of all by freeing the slaves he had control over but he didn't do that, WHY not?

You are real good about bring up slavery but you add nothing to the discourse of Lincoln stepping all over the US Constitution which I remind you he was sworn to uphold and defend with his life. So much for "honest Abe."

[Dee]

If Lincoln were alive today, he would be called a Marxist. His bedfellows would be folks such as Schumer, Clinton, Obama, and so on. He did much to destroy STATES RIGHTS.
Break the Law? An understatement I think. He invaded Sovereign States, and IMPOSED his will at the end of a gun. Slavery was a side issue with him, and had he lived, they (the slaves) would now be living in Africa. He intended to repatriate them.

[Ga.windbreak]

If Lincoln were alive today, he would be called a Marxist. His bedfellows would be folks such as Schumer, Clinton, Obama, and so on. He did much to destroy STATES RIGHTS.
Break the Law? An understatement I think. He invaded Sovereign States, and IMPOSED his will at the end of a gun. Slavery was a side issue with him, and had he lived, they (the slaves) would now be living in Africa. He intended to repatriate them.

So true Dee as well as his policy of extermination of the native American culture. I don't know about Obama though as he would have made a very strange bedfellow for Mr. Lincoln, don't you think?

[Dee]

Mr. Lincoln basically OVER RODE states rights, and violated the Constitution by sending U.S. troops against American Citizens. He went after commercial businesses thru export tariffs to FORCE them to comply with government desires of the industrialized north's lobbyist to control them, and their productivity. When that didn't work, he sent the military. I believe Mr. Lincoln was an early day Marxist, before Carl Marx was a Marxist.
Right now Obama is stumping and stating that he wants to TAX (another word for confiscate) oil windfall profits, and GIVE THEM to the lower class folks to pay for their fuel bills and OTHER EXPENSES.
I'd say they would be the matching set of a pair of gloves.
Mr. Lincoln was no more of a hero to my ancestors (the Cherokee) than Andy Jackson was. Obama on the other hand is a scoundrel of the lowest order, and a liar to boot.

[ironfoot]

Dee
You state:
"He invaded Sovereign States...."  and "Mr. Lincoln basically OVER RODE states rights, and violated the Constitution by sending U.S. troops against American Citizens...."
How could Lincoln have both invaded a sovereign nation, the Confederacy, and have attacked Americans? The Confederates could not have had a sovereign nation and still be citizens of the US. Lincoln fought against what he viewed as an illegal rebellion, a rebellion which sought to thwart the results of a legal presidental election.

You state: "Slavery was a side issue with him, and had he lived, they (the slaves) would now be living in Africa. He intended to repatriate them."
Lincoln was chosen as the Republican nominee after givimg his Cooper's Union speech where he stated he would oppose expansion of slavery into the territorries. He expected that if not allowed to expand, it would die out elsewhere it existed in the US. The south thought so too, which is why it seceded. Regarding repatriating the slaves to Africa, Lincoln was trying to figure out how to deal with unemployed and impoverished freed slaves that white southerners did not wish to coexist with. Lincoln later advocated giving at least some of the freed slaves voting rights. When Booth heard that speech, Booth resolved to kill Lincoln.

Regarding tariffs, the south seceded before Lincoln took office, so how did "Lincoln's tariffs" cause the war?

I keep talikng about slavery, because I believe that was what the Civil War was about, and that southern apologoists keep wanting to change the subject from that awful truth.

Regarding Lincoln's war powers, Lincoln was elected President of the whole country, not just the North. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

If you want to read about a poor President, read this about Lincoln's predecessor, James Buchanan:

James Buchanan

A Pennsylvania-born Democrat, deeply devout in his faith and the only bachelor elected to the presidency, Buchanan rejected slavery as an indefensible evil but, like the majority of his party, refused to challenge the constitutionally established order. Even before he became president, he supported the various compromises that made it possible for slavery to spread into the western territories. In his inaugural address, the 15th president tacitly encouraged the Supreme Court's forthcoming Dred Scott decision, which ruled that Congress had no power to keep slavery out of the territories. More damaging to his name, though, was his weak acquiescence before the secessionist tide-an unwillingness to challenge those states that declared their intention to withdraw from the Union after Lincoln's election. Sitting on his hands as the situation spiraled out of control, Buchanan believed that the Constitution gave him no power to act against would-be seceders. To his dying day, he felt that history would treat him favorably for having performed his constitutional duty. He was wrong.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070218/26presidents_2.htm


Read here about General Lee and slavery:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070624/2lee.htm

Here is an exceprt:

What were his views on slavery?

These papers are filled with information about slavery. This is not something you have to read between the lines; Lee really tells us how he feels. He saw slaves as property, that he owned them and their labor. Now you can say he wasn't worse than anyone; he was reflecting the values of the society that he lived in. I would say, he wasn't any better than anyone else, either.

It is shocking how he treated his father-in-law's slaves.

Lee's wife inherited 196 slaves upon her father's death in 1857. The will stated that the slaves were to be freed within five years, and at the same time large legacies—raised from selling property—should be given to the Lee children. But as the executor of the will, Lee decided that instead of freeing the slaves right away—as they expected—he could continue to own and work them for five years in an effort to make the estates profitable and not have to sell the property. 

Lee was considered a hard taskmaster. He also started hiring slaves to other families, sending them away, and breaking up families that had been together on the estate for generations. The slaves resented him, were terrified they would never be freed, and they lost all respect for him. There were many runaways, and at one point several slaves jumped him, claiming they were as free as he. Lee ordered these men to be severely whipped. He also petitioned the court to extend their servitude, but the court ruled against him and Lee did grant them their freedom on Jan. 1, 1863—ironically, the same day that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect.

[Ga.windbreak]

ironfoot if you want to try and debate about slavery and if it was in any way part of the reason the South left or Lincoln started his illegal war you should go to my newest thread about this War against the CSA

In point of fact I dare you to find a way to disprove my findings. I'll be waiting, with pleasure. Enjoy the read. 

[Ga.windbreak]

Here is my reply to your statement:

If you want to read about a poor President, read this about Lincoln's predecessor, James Buchanan:

This is from President James Buchanan's Dec. 1860 speech before Congress. He was far from being poor.

Upon his motion the clause was unanimously postponed, and was never, I believe, again presented. Soon afterwards, on the 8th June, 1787, when incidentally adverting to the subject, he said: "Any government for the United States formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress," evidently meaning the then existing Congress of the old Confederation.

Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a State is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. Suppose such a war should result in the conquest of a State; how are we to govern it afterwards? Shall we hold it as a province and govern it by despotic power? In the nature of things, we could not by physical force control the will of the people and compel them to elect Senators and Representatives to Congress and to perform all the other duties depending upon their own volition and required from the free citizens of a free State as a constituent member of the Confederacy.

But if we possessed this power, would it be wise to exercise it under existing circumstances? The object would doubtless be to preserve the Union. War would not only present the most effectual means of destroying it, but would vanish all hope of its peaceable reconstruction. Besides, in the fraternal conflict a vast amount of blood and treasure would be expended, rendering future reconciliation between the States impossible. In the meantime, who can foretell what would be the sufferings and privations of the people during its existence?

The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force.

How can you read that, spoken by a man of the times, and not see the truth of what he says. Are we a happy and peaceable people? The afflictions of the Southern people by Northern agitators plus the war and then the 8 years of reconstruction can never be forgotten esp. when it is perpetuated on untruths as to the real reasons for the war in the first place.

The only way to even have a chance at real reconciliation is to own up to the real truths of the times rather than some story book knights lead by King Lincoln.

[Ga.windbreak]

Regarding Lincoln's war powers, Lincoln was elected President of the whole country, not just the North. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Hate to tell you this but the President has no power to make war, that power rest with the Congress alone. Which your Mr. Lincoln just happened to conveniently overlook aka "Broke the law".

[ironfoot]

King Abe at 199
By Christopher Orlet
Published 7/22/2008 12:07:15 AM
Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President
By Thomas L. Krannawitter
(Rowman & Littlefield, 376 pages, $24.95)


Americans, by and large, do not object to a little hero-worship now and then, as long as the hero is a democratic champion fighting for equal rights, or what we used to call "a fair shake." It's hard to think of a single hero -- from Superman to Martin Luther King -- who hasn't been associated in some way with the "never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way."

This goes double for our 16th president. For more than a century Abraham Lincoln was a veritable demigod, his reputation singularly incorruptible. North of the Mason-Dixon Line none dared utter an uncharitable word about him, with the lone exception of Edgar Lee Masters, himself raised not far from Abe's stomping grounds, and whose lawyer father officed with Lincoln's partner William Henry Herndon. Masters pere and fils seldom missed an opportunity to shatter the myth of the Great Emancipator, but it was the author of The Spoon River Anthology who grew rabid in his belief that the cold, lazy fanatic Lincoln was alone responsible for inciting the "War of Northern Aggression," for hammering the final tenpenny nail into the coffin of States' sovereignty, for dismantling the Constitution and ultimately corrupting the founders' dream. "Abraham Lincoln destroyed the American system," wrote Masters in his Lincoln The Man. "He was the ruin of its character and its primal hope. The Lincoln myth must cease."

Channeling his old drinking buddy H.L. Mencken, Masters describes Honest Abe thus:


He went about grotesquely dressed, carrying a faded umbrella, wearing a ludicrous plug hat. He was mannerless, unkempt, and one wonders if he was not unwashed, in those days of the weekly bath in the foot tub, if a bath was taken at all. [As attorney, for the Illinois Central R. R. he was found] riding about on special trains furnished him and posing as 'Humble Abe Lincoln.' . . . He set out to marry Mary Owens, and when she would not have him he was enraged and proceeded to degrade her by a vulgarity of words which were as well untrue.

The U.S. Congress attempted to ban Master's biography, which was offered only once in a brief first edition. It needn't have bothered. Booksellers were reluctant to stock the book, which they claimed did not sell.

Since the 1950s, however, the mythbusters and iconoclasts have been busily unmasking the Rail Splitter, chief among them the so-called neo-Confederates both north and south. Libertarian authors like Thomas DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln, have dusted off Masters' book, using it as a reference point, while black studies majors compose volumes detailing the Great Emancipator's supposed racist beliefs.


IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL in rural Illinois we were taught to revere "the Prairie Flower of the West" like a plaster saint. We took pilgrimages to his two-story home and his tomb in Springfield and visited his log cabin lodgings in New Salem. He was Moses, Julius Caesar, Mark Twain and Ragged Dick all in one. What we never heard, as grade school or college students, was much explanation of Lincoln's politics. What, besides preserving the Union, did he stand for?

This would have meant getting into ideas like natural rights versus states' rights, and that was beyond our teachers. Fortunately Thomas L. Krannawitter, assistant professor of government at Hillsdale College, has stepped into the breech. Riding to old Abe's defense, Prof. Krannawitter, who in his review of The Real Lincoln calls its author, "a giddy, careless, half-educated boy," debunks the idea that President Lincoln was the bogeyman of states' rights, favoring centralized government, empire, and mercantilism over equal natural rights and free market economics.

Important though the issues of slavery, individual natural rights, and state sovereignty were, there were more important matters to consider. Government of the people, by the people and for the people was on trial for its life, and there was no reason to think the American experiment would not go the way of the French Revolution. (Ironically, the American Revolution was no revolution at all, since no government was deposed. It was rather a textbook secessionist movement, writes DiLorenzo.)

In fact, King Abe's detractors were convinced the American experiment had already degenerated into a Napoleonic dictatorship. By denying the Southern states their legitimate and natural right to secede, Lincoln was more of a tyrant than Robespierre or Napoleon. In Abe's defense, Krannawitter argues there was no constitutional right of secession. True, but there was also nothing in the Constitution to prevent a state from seceding (despite what a majority of pro-Union justices wrote in Texas v. White). Had the Founders tried to insert such a clause, we would still be operating under the Articles of Confederation. Arguably the right of secession or "separation" was enunciated in the Declaration of Independence where Thomas Jefferson argued that whenever the consent of the governed is withdrawn it is the right of the people to "abolish" that government and "to institute a new government."

The issue, then, was the natural right of a people to withdraw from a voluntary union versus the importance of keeping the great democratic experiment alive. Lincoln chose the latter, thereby preserving the union and ending the peculiar institution of slavery.

Krannawitter argues that if Lincoln is not great, then no politician is, and without great politicians we sink into the deep funk of cynicism, throwing up our hands at the political process, while despots take charge (sort of like the liberals on the Supreme Court are doing currently). I don't know. I happen to think cynicism an important quality and cynicism directed toward politicians essential. Essential, that is, if we hope to keep the great democratic experiment alive.


Christopher Orlet is a freelance writer based in St. Louis, Missouri.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13567

[Ga.windbreak]

Very good I applaud your effort. And while I agree that Lincoln wasn't the "Devil Incarnate" as Mr. Masters paints him. I have and am reading that book, by the way, the third reprint (1997) so I guess somebody reads it.   You can't always believe what is written by someone can you.

The U.S. Congress attempted to ban Master's biography, which was offered only once in a brief first edition. It needn't have bothered. Booksellers were reluctant to stock the book, which they claimed did not sell.

In fact, King Abe's detractors were convinced the American experiment had already degenerated into a Napoleonic dictatorship. By denying the Southern states their legitimate and natural right to secede, Lincoln was more of a tyrant than Robespierre or Napoleon. In Abe's defense, Krannawitter argues there was no constitutional right of secession. True, but there was also nothing in the Constitution to prevent a state from seceding (despite what a majority of pro-Union justices wrote in Texas v. White). Had the Founders tried to insert such a clause, we would still be operating under the Articles of Confederation. Arguably the right of secession or "separation" was enunciated in the Declaration of Independence where Thomas Jefferson argued that whenever the consent of the governed is withdrawn it is the right of the people to "abolish" that government and "to institute a new government."


The issue, then, was the natural right of a people to withdraw from a voluntary union versus the importance of keeping the great democratic experiment alive. Lincoln chose the latter, thereby preserving the union and ending the peculiar institution of slavery.

Two things that should be stated at this point: #1. Lincoln had no right to Chose one way or the other. If we are to be a country of LAWS which is what the Constitution says we are then it would have been the JOB of Congress and/or the Courts to decide that question; most certainly not his. Lincoln overstepped his bounds.

AND

Ironically, the American Revolution was no revolution at all, since no government was deposed. It was rather a textbook secessionist movement, writes DiLorenzo.

#2 The so called great democratic experiment was not in jeopardy; The Southern states only wanted to leave and be left in peace. Please show me anywhere that anyone ever said or says that the South ever intended to overthrow the Federal government in Washington D.C.?! Lincoln, by his words and actions alone, made sure that the great democratic process died a horrible death. To the tune of some 630,000 troops and untold (30 to 50,000+) southern women and children (Black as well as White) civilian dead.

[Dee]

Ga.windbreak, you bring up a very interesting point. Mr. Lincoln served up "democracy" TO A REPUBLIC, at the END of a gun. What Mr. Lincoln and your opponent in this debate forgot, and are forgetting IS. "GOVERNMENT IS" FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.
The Confederacy was not a small group of malcontents. It encompassed almost the ENTIRE SOUTH, and like minded folks numbered in the thousands.
Mr. Lincoln's war was nothing more than a totalitarian attack of FORCED COMPLIANCE to a handful of NORTHERN industrialist DEMANDS, whom were looking to make themselves MORE RICH OFF THE BACKS OF THE SOUTHERNER'S ABILITY TO PRODUCE TEXTILES, i.e. mostly cotton. JMO

[ironfoot]

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/07/23/abraham-lincoln-and-the-election-of-1860.html

Abraham Lincoln is commonly listed by historians as one of America's greatest presidents—often as the greatest of all. Part of the reason is that he provided strong leadership, set a clear course, and articulated a moral vision to guide the nation through very difficult times. Franklin Roosevelt, also recognized as one of America's best chief executives, once said that, "All our great presidents were leaders of thought at times when certain ideas in the life of the nation had to be clarified." And it was Lincoln's singular accomplishment that he clarified the goals of "union and freedom" for his time and for the ages, according to historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

Lincoln had risen to national attention because of his widely reported debates with Stephen Douglas in the Illinois Senate campaign of 1858. During that race, Lincoln also gave a powerful and eloquent speech in Springfield in which he declared, "I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free." In another memorable passage, he said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." These arguments were considered moderate among the antislavery forces at the time, and they established him as a leader of what might be considered a "centrist" faction of the Republican Party in the North.

But the tone of the 1860 presidential campaign was anything but moderate. Slavery was the central issue and Lincoln, while he wanted to eventually end the "peculiar institution," favored as an interim step the exclusion of slavery from the new American territories. This infuriated leaders in the slave states, who were in no mood to compromise. Stephen Douglas, who had defeated Lincoln in that Senate campaign two years earlier, was his main competitor again in the presidential contest. Douglas had a more nuanced view of slavery—favoring its continuation in the states where it already existed. Douglas, in fact, envisioned a nation "forever divided into free and slave states, as our fathers made it as the people of each state have decided."

Lincoln won with 1,866,452 votes without carrying a single Southern state. Douglas, the candidate of some Northern and Western factions of the Democratic party who was more tolerant of slavery, had 1,376,957 votes. John Breckinridge, candidate of the Democrats' proslavery, prosecession Southern wing, and John Bell, a pro-Union candidate, split the remaining 1,438,660 votes cast. With the nation so divided and with so many embittered factions unwilling to give ground, the stage was set for the Civil War. In fact, many Southern leaders had warned that if Lincoln won, they would push for secession.

Lincoln immediately was thrown into the cauldron of crisis. Following the advice of bodyguards who were worried about assassination attempts en route to his inauguration in Washington, the president-elect changed trains in Baltimore to confuse his enemies and disguised himself in a soft hat and overcoat. His train moved through Baltimore before dawn without incident and arrived in Washington in secret. On March 4, 1861, he rode in a heavily guarded open carriage to the Capitol, and gave his inaugural address. He spoke directly to the South: "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war," the new commander in chief declared. "The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend' it." He added: "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break, our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

[billy_56081]

This is kinda like the Iran Iraq war back in the 80's. Fighting over some goats some guy stole a thousand years ago.

[Dee]

This is kinda like the Iran Iraq war back in the 80's. Fighting over some goats some guy stole a thousand years ago.

And you are kinda like the next door neighbor's brat kid. Sarcastically commenting on something you have no real interest in, just to be a smart-a## that believes himself both wise and funny, but is neither.

[billy_56081]

I truly love the history of the Civil war. I have read many books on the weopons used in the war and the evolution of weapons and tactics. I t was the first war of attrition. On the outcome or causes of it I really have no opinion on it as I know no one who was in it. And I'm really happy history hapened EXACTLY as it did or none of us would even exist.

[Dee]

ironfoot, at the same time Lincoln was giving this flowery speech to his southern country men he was also going to make good on his THREAT to DOUBLE tariffs on EXPORTS of textiles to Europe, and try and FORCE the southerner to sell to the industrialized north. This too is HISTORY.
Ga.windbreak can possibly help me with the numbers but, I believe that less than 5% of the population of the south held slaves, and about 3% of the north held slaves.
The REAL issue was not slavery, although slavery was an issue. Lincoln hid the real issues BEHIND SLAVERY, as it was a more noble cause than stealing textile production from southern producers.
As for Lincoln's greatness? Andy Jackson was considered a great man, but I doubt the American Indian would agree given his tactics. JMO

[Oldtimer]

Dee, I have not heard or read anything about Lincoln and the Indians.  I doubt that he was any kinder than any of the other presidents, even up to the present day.  Can you tell us more or send us to a book or site on the topic.
TIA

[AtlLaw]

Sarcastically commenting on something...  just to be a smart-a## that believes himself both wise and funny, but is neither.

Hey!  Wait just a minute here !      I... oh, you weren't talking to me... nevermind... 

[billy_56081]

About 4 blocks from where I am sitting at this time there is a reminder of Abe Lincoln and the Indians. It is a memorial to the 32 Dakota he signed the order to hang. It is a buffalo that is on the sight of the hangings. It is located in Mankato MN on Riverfront drive along the Minnesota river.

[Ga.windbreak]

Well ironfoot the facts don’t justify the pedestal you put Lincoln on, unless of course, you subscribe to the notion that anyone (The President) in the federal government is above the law aka The Constitution. Do you?

I will place the facts before you and you decide for yourself if the means justify the end. I am even willing to admit that the South fired the first shot (your ONLY moral high ground) and that slavery was part of the problem. We can start another thread, if you so desire, to debate those two issues.

The following are the ILLEGAL steps that Lincoln took while in office in the first 120 days. Never let it be said that he was slow to act, I’ll give him that.

1. Overthrows Maryland’s duly elected State government to keep them from seceding from the United States. Please show me anywhere that this is legal???

 http://www.etymonline.com/cw/maryland.htm

In the fall, Lincoln arrested allegedly disloyal members of the state legislature (Sept. 12-17, 1861), to prevent them from attending a meeting that could have voted on secession. But Maryland was not really safely in the Union until the November state elections. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested known Democrats and any disunionist who attempted to vote. The special three-day furlough granted to Maryland troops in the Union army, so they could go home and vote, further rigged the election. The result, not surprisingly, was a solidly pro-Union legislature. The next year, state judges instructed grand jurors to inquire into the elections, but the judges were arrested and thrown into military prisons.

2. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in April of 61. See the above link. Only Congress has the right to suspend Habeas Corpus; not the President.

April 27, 1861, order for the arrest and detention of anyone between Washington and Philadelphia who was suspected of subversive deeds or utterances, with its notorious suspension of habeas corpus. This led to the Merryman case

3. Had over 13,000 people thrown into military prisons and some of them hanged, including Native Americans and women, without benefit of a legal trial. Please show me any place you can find that says this is a legal act that the President has the power to oversee? Please tell me that you think it would be right for the President to have your local national guard arrest you for saying that you think the war in the middle east is wrong?

4. Shut down over 300 newspapers and jailed their owners, editors, and workers in military jails without benefit of court issued warrants or trials.

The above two points are a direct suspension of the First Amendment. I don’t believe that you can show me anyplace where the President of the United States can legally do this, can you?

5. Lincoln declared war and invaded the southern states. Only Congress has the power to declare War not the President. See the Constitution.

6. Two other things that show the arrogance and lack of feeling in this man and those who executed his orders. Late in the war when the South was running out of supplies and Lincoln had cut off troop exchange. The south requested medical supplies for the union troops in Andersonville (you’ve no doubt heard of the place) he said NO and they died. Also allowing over 30 to 50,000 southern women and children, black, white, and native American to be killed in the name of war.

 http://www.plpow.com/Atrocities_TargetingCivilans.htm

Americans are still fascinated by the war because many of us recognize it as the defining event in American history. Lincoln’s war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the "rewriting" of the Constitution by federal judges, "total war," the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big "problem solver." And I would add a STANDING ARMY which the framers never wanted and knew would lead to an ALL powerful central government.

Now I already know what you are going to say about Dilorenzo and his thinking but the facts are still the facts. He may verbalize them in a way you think is against Mr. Lincoln but if you deny the facts, which are true, then all you are doing is closing your eyes to the truth.

7. And finally the height of arrogance; Lincoln signed the arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the United States; Justice Taney. Who was safe from this man; no one.

And his sole reasoning for these illegal acts was to SAVE the Union. First of all he was in way over his head. Sitting here I can think of a lot of things to do that would have saved the Union without breaking even one law or ever called for the need to fire one shot. Second, and most important, he was a stubborn man who wouldn’t compromise once his mind was made up but wasn’t smart enough to think things thru. A prime example of his thinking was A. the south would never leave and B. even if they did it would only take 90 days or less of war to bring them back into the fold. There are several times during the war that emissaries were sent north to sue for peace but Lincoln wouldn’t even hear them out, no he and his wanted to beat them into submission, which they did.


** Quotes are in Red from the posted links.   



 
 

[Ga.windbreak]

ironfoot, at the same time Lincoln was giving this flowery speech to his southern country men he was also going to make good on his THREAT to DOUBLE tariffs on EXPORTS of textiles to Europe, and try and FORCE the southerner to sell to the industrialized north. This too is HISTORY.
Ga.windbreak can possibly help me with the numbers but, I believe that less than 5% of the population of the south held slaves, and about 3% of the north held slaves.
The REAL issue was not slavery, although slavery was an issue. Lincoln hid the real issues BEHIND SLAVERY, as it was a more noble cause than stealing textile production from southern producers.
As for Lincoln's greatness? Andy Jackson was considered a great man, but I doubt the American Indian would agree given his tactics. JMO

Dee there is no accurate way to tell just how many slaves were in the North in 1776 or before but it is estimated that in 1776 1/3 of all slaves in the United States were in the North. The thing that is really not talked about is just how many indebted persons were also up north. That was unheard of in the South because of the slavery issue. By 1790, when the first censuses was taken, Mass. had already gone from slavery to free white labor; having taken all of their slaves South to sell. If I remember right the figure is about 3% at the beginning of 1860 in the South. I'll try and find it again and post it for you. The other thing to note about Slavery is that the US Congress passed a law outlawing the slave trade after 1808 (a Southern heavy Congress by the way) but northern shipping just kept on breaking this law and it was made easier by the fact that foreign Navies weren't allowed to board US vessels. The last Boston slaver was caught and the Captain/owner arrested in 1863 by the US Navy. The Captain/owner, by the way, was hanged.

I certainly would have to agree with you about "Old hickory" and the lack of love between him and native Americans.

One other thing to throw out for everyone. So many state that Jeff Davis was a Slave owner but his treatment of his slaves has been said to be less than human at times. I'm now reading Shelby Foote's Triligy on the War between the States and he notes that contary to that is the fact that he Had a Black slave as his overseer and no slave was punished without a trial by his peers; yes 12 other slaves were his jury. Davis also taughed his slaves to read and write because he believed that slavery was not long for the South and he wanted his people to be able to take care of themselves once they were free.

[Oldtimer]

Billy, It looks like it was 39 Dakota.   Here is the text:
Text of Order to General Sibley, St. Paul Minnesota:

"Ordered that of the Indians and Half-breeds sentenced to be hanged by the military commission, composed of Colonel Crooks, Lt. Colonel Marshall, Captain Grant, Captain Bailey, and Lieutenant Olin, and lately sitting in Minnesota, you cause to be executed on Friday the nineteenth day of December, instant, the following names, to wit [39 names listed by case number of record: cases 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22, 24, 35, 67, 68, 69, 70, 96, 115, 121, 138, 155, 170, 175, 178, 210, 225, 254, 264, 279, 318, 327, 333, 342, 359, 373, 377, 382, 383].
The other condemned prisoners you will hold subject to further orders, taking care that they neither escape, nor are subjected to any unlawful violence.
Abraham Lincoln,
President of the United States"

I found this on http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/dakota/dakota.html

Looks like the Northern Aggression extended even into its own territory.

[Dee]

Thanks Ga.windbreak for the info. As per "Old Hickory" it is well known that his answer to the "Indian problem" was total annihilation. Honest Abe as you and I have tried to point out was far less than honest. If one were to have moved him BACK about 60 years he would have taken on the new role of a "wind chime". He UNDID what a lot of blood and sacrifice accomplished in badly damaging the Constitution, AND the Bill of Rights. He basically sounded the death knell of States Rights and we have suffered for it ever since. JMO

[ironfoot]

Ga.windbreak, you bring up a very interesting point. Mr. Lincoln served up "democracy" TO A REPUBLIC, at the END of a gun.






At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.

[ironfoot]

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1COAWOJXYL02X/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R1COAWOJXYL02X

By  Robin Friedman (Washington, D.C. United States)
             

Professor Jaffa asks at the outset what, if anything, differentiates the Southern Secession following the election of Lincoln to the Presidency from the actions of the Colonists in declaring independence from Britain in 1776. In answering this question, Professor Jaffa offers a discussion of the Jefferson-Adams election of 1800, showing how for the first time in history how a democratic society could resolve severe disagreement through the use of ballots in an election rather than through the use of bullets.

Jaffa's history has, I think, these two themes: 1.The Declaration of Independence's statement that "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal" did, indeed, apply for Jefferson and his contemporaries to all people, including the then African-American slaves. 2. The Declaration of Independence itself created a perpetual union of what had been 13 separate colonies of Britian and made the United States one country rather than a confederation of separate states.

Underlying these historical claims is a broader philosophical argument that is even more at the core of the book: Jaffa wants to reject arguments of cultural relativism, historicism, skepticism or other philosophical positions that argue agains the existence of objective moral principles. He finds that Jefferson correctly viewed the language of his declaration "All men are created equal" as expressing a moral truth based upon "the law of Nature and of Nature's God."

[ironfoot]

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/owens/00/jaffa.html


Jaffa’s Lincoln believed that America’s "ancient faith" was the "central idea" of equality as articulated by the common sense reading of the Declaration of Independence. He believed that Jefferson meant what he said when he wrote "all men are created equal," and that this meant simply that no person has the right to rule over another without the latter’s consent.

If, as Lincoln believed, equality is the basis of republican government, then slavery is an affront to republican government. But how is it possible to reconcile the words of the Declaration with the practice of slavery among some of the Founders themselves. Lincoln argued persuasively that the Founders compromised on slavery out of necessity, not because they thought it right or even because they were hypocrites. Indeed, there is ample evidence that the founders understood clearly the conflict between slavery and the principles upon which the US was created.

Lincoln contended the Founders believed that they had placed the institution of slavery on the road to extinction. But Lincoln had to deal with the growing, if not prevalent rejection of the common-sense meaning of equality.
 
In his Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney held that the Founders could not have meant to include blacks in the Declaration. As a result, the black man, whether freedman or slave, had no rights that the white man was bound to respect. According to Stephen Douglas’s doctrine of "popular sovereignty," slavery was an issue that should be left to the vote of the white people of a state or territory.

Lincoln understood the critical importance of public sentiment in a democracy. "Our government rests in public opinion....Whoever can change public opinion, can change the government, practically just so much." Lincoln was concerned that individuals like Taney and Douglas were preparing public sentiment to accept the transformation of the slavery question from one of "hostility to the PRINCIPLE, and toleration, ONLY BY NECESSITY" where the Founders had place it, to slavery as a "sacred right." Lincoln knew that if public sentiment in support of equality was undermined, the "moral lights" that supported our "ancient faith" would be extinguished and the possibility of free government would be lost.

Lincoln’s task was not only to restore this "ancient faith," but also to save the Union from those who would destroy it. The "new birth of liberty" promised by the Gettysburg Address could not have occurred if the Union had been split asunder. Thus Lincoln had to confront the argument of John C. Calhoun both with republican rhetoric and force of arms.

It is an understatement to say that Prof. Jaffa leaves the case for secession in ruins.

[Ga.windbreak]

Well ironfoot I see you are not going to show me the courtesy of answering my post of Mr. Lincoln's actions against the liberties of the people of the United States in that he broke every law in the Constitution. I will reply to your post concerning Prof. Jaffa. (Philosophy as History, July 17, 2001 By  Robin Friedman).

I. The man is a Professor of Political Philosophy not a History Professor so he is stating his personal feelings about what he thinks Abe Lincoln thought. PLEASE, for me and mine, I'll just stick to reading about history from people who base their writings on the Facts of the matter versus someone who thinks he knows what someone 200 years ago might or might not have thought about a subject. In a court of law, I believe, its called heresay.

So as for your statement about secession being blown out of the water; your bucket has a lot of holes.

2.Now to the meat of your Prof. Jaffa: Jaffa's history that has a nice ring to it but what does it have to do with the facts of America's history?

Jaffa's history has, I think, these two themes: 1.The Declaration of Independence's statement that "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal" did, indeed, apply for Jefferson and his contemporaries to all people, including the then African-American slaves. 2. The Declaration of Independence itself created a perpetual union of what had been 13 separate colonies of Britian and made the United States one country rather than a confederation of separate states.

1. If this is true and it did apply to all men then explain to us why there was a 3/4 rule inserted into the Constitution and then why was it necessary to amend the Constitution to free the slaves and count them for voting perposes if in fact what you and Prof. Jaffa contend is true? I mean you and Jaffa are claiming that the Declaration of Independence overrides and supersedes the US Constitution.

2. I quote from the Treaty signed by the King of England to the then 13 Colonys:  the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

I also remind you that at this time there was no Federal government there was only the Articles of Confederation which was entered into because of the secession from England. There was no 3 branches of government, no court system, and no President of the United States. Why was this? Because, my friend there was no FEDERAL UNION.

(Viz. is used to elaborate or detail text which precedes it)