The true Abe Lincoln

[Ga.windbreak]

ironfoot are you going to attend and report? I had already seen this in the news.

[williamlayton]

Was Rommel a Nazi or a German?
The same can be asked of most of the Generals of this conflict between the states.
And, many of the staes that seceeded were a close split.
It is all very good press too claim this and that 150 years after the fact----I don't know what it proves, however.
Were all of the elected not politicians? I would agree that in those days there was a greater expectation of statesmanship than today. Both sides thought they were correct. Only one could walk away a winner in this "Election" if the war was a vote.
The same with all wars.
Blessings

[Oldtimer]

How do we see Lincoln's actions regarding the Indians who were hanged?  Do we see him as the killer of 38 Indians, or the savior of 265?  If it were totally a political decision, would he have not just agreed to the hanging of the lot, to win the votes of the Minnesotans?  After all, the Indians had no vote.   I can certainly understand Dee's revulsion with the whole deal, and from the Indian standpoint, one Indian being hanged would be too many.  The whites had already attacked Indian prisoners twice, so letting all the Indians off would have at best just continued the conflict, with continued deaths on both sides.  There would have been a continued need for Federal troops in Minnesota, when they were needed on the battlefields to the south.  So, to sum up, what number would you all have picked, if not 39?  If this is an offensive question Dee, I apologize in advance.

[Dee]

To answer the question and at the same time get back on topic, no I am not offended about what happened 150 or so years ago. I merely acknowledge that things haven't changed much since then.
 I do however, agree with Ga.windbreak, as to the REAL reasons behind the war of northern aggression, and the end of states rights at the hands of Lincoln whom had no regard for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and was merely catering to the northern lobbyists, whom were wishing to CONTROL the southern textile business for their own profit.

[Ga.windbreak]

To all those who hold fast to the idea that Lincoln was the saviour of the Union. I will reply with this quote:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis

[williamlayton]

Screwtape letters.
I would advise that these are the laments from those that lost a war they ignorantly began.
I disagree on the princilpe that one cannot correct a wrong with another wrong.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Screwtape letters.
I would advise that these are the laments from those that lost a war they ignorantly began.
I disagree on the princilpe that one cannot correct a wrong with another wrong.
Blessings

Advise all you care to, its a free country, advice freely given is worth what?

A double negative; come on WL just what are you trying to say here? The principle is that "two wrongs don't make a right." and you disagree?

The only ignorant person in this whole sad affair was your Mr. Lincoln. Davis, on the other hand, knew that he couldn't win in the long run if war came. His one shining mistake was to allow himself to be forced to appear to be the aggressor. He should/did know better as he was a West Point grad and had seen the elephant thus he knew what was to come. What he should have done was to wait for Lincoln's next move but he didn't so Lincoln got his war. I believe that once he tasted that fruit he knew it was bitter.

[williamlayton]

I use double negatives often---I might use the excuse that it was a test--THAT would be a lie.
No one was less anxious than Davis, however; I do think that a short study will show that the firebrands in SC were going too do it anyway---such is the nature of a Confederacy.
Our common friend, Gen. Sherman, had much too say about that and was very mindful of SC in his march too the sea.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

I use double negatives often---I might use the excuse that it was a test--THAT would be a lie.
No one was less anxious than Davis, however; I do think that a short study will show that the firebrands in SC were going too do it anyway---such is the nature of a Confederacy.
Our common friend, Gen. Sherman, had much too say about that and was very mindful of SC in his march too the sea.
Blessings

Are you baiting me WL? You are the one who said we wouldn't pass that way again and I agreed. So I'll hold you to your word, my friend.

That's where you are wrong, Davis had many problems with the states because of the Confederacy but a lack of discipline among the troops was not one of them

[williamlayton]

I agree that I broke an agreement--well kinda.
I could not express and explain my thoughts without example. I apologize for that but not for the reasons for my thoughts.
The firebands of SC were the government of SC and the Army of SC.
They had no illusions of any kind of allegiance to withold their attempts too disloge any semblance of the Union from their midst--it was their country and they had the right as a sovereign state too do as the saw fit.
Getting back too the real Lincoln.
It was an interpretation of the constitution which was bound too come too a head, whether then or today.
Was any one right and another wrong? It depends on how one views this Union.
It was proved correct by the given outcome of the conflict---history, if you will. It could have been altered had the South been patient and work within the constitution.
Why did they not is the real question.
Did they really feel that they were pushed against the wall?
Honestly, IMO, they did not. They---they being some in power, as usual---used that as a reason and swelled the masses behind them with rhetoric--seems Hitler put this too good use--as well as a couple of Presidents we have had (not speaking of Lincoln at all).
Greed/power and what do you have?
I am not defendin OL ABE as above any of the above. There are no leaders without ego. Such is the reason for the fall from the garden.
IMO
Blessings

[Dee]

Screwtape letters.
I would advise that these are the laments from those that lost a war they ignorantly began.
I disagree on the princilpe that one cannot correct a wrong with another wrong.
Blessings

Advise all you care to, its a free country, advice freely given is worth what?

A double negative; come on WL just what are you trying to say here? The principle is that "two wrongs don't make a right." and you disagree?

The only ignorant person in this whole sad affair was your Mr. Lincoln. Davis, on the other hand, knew that he couldn't win in the long run if war came. His one shining mistake was to allow himself to be forced to appear to be the aggressor. He should/did know better as he was a West Point grad and had seen the elephant thus he knew what was to come. What he should have done was to wait for Lincoln's next move but he didn't so Lincoln got his war. I believe that once he tasted that fruit he knew it was bitter.

Ga.windbreak, your thought on Davis is on the money. He was not by any stretch an ignorant man. He was a man under tremendous pressure to make a bad situation, better. He played the cards dealt so to speak, and when one looks at him more closely, his character far out shined the scoundrel Lincoln. I believe Davis was for the people of the South, and Lincoln was most obviously for the "money" of the North. Would you agree?

[williamlayton]

Dee
There are those on both sides who would say "Show me the money/power."
Too put the South in a position of absolute "in the right" is too ignore the truth.
It was a bloody conflict. It had little too do with logistics/travel distances.
It was, in the end, a war of wills and the wills of those in leadership--not the common man.
Those in leadership used men as pawns for their own power and greed, too satisfy their ego's---not their statesmenship.
Each had goals and those goals were personal---all wars are the same no matter how they are defined as galant and holy.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Screwtape letters.
I would advise that these are the laments from those that lost a war they ignorantly began.
I disagree on the princilpe that one cannot correct a wrong with another wrong.
Blessings

Advise all you care to, its a free country, advice freely given is worth what?

A double negative; come on WL just what are you trying to say here? The principle is that "two wrongs don't make a right." and you disagree?

The only ignorant person in this whole sad affair was your Mr. Lincoln. Davis, on the other hand, knew that he couldn't win in the long run if war came. His one shining mistake was to allow himself to be forced to appear to be the aggressor. He should/did know better as he was a West Point grad and had seen the elephant thus he knew what was to come. What he should have done was to wait for Lincoln's next move but he didn't so Lincoln got his war. I believe that once he tasted that fruit he knew it was bitter.

Ga.windbreak, your thought on Davis is on the money. He was not by any stretch an ignorant man. He was a man under tremendous pressure to make a bad situation, better. He played the cards dealt so to speak, and when one looks at him more closely, his character far out shined the scoundrel Lincoln. I believe Davis was for the people of the South, and Lincoln was most obviously for the "money" of the North. Would you agree?

Yes I would Dee. I'm reading a book on Jeff Davis right now and the more that I read about the man the more I admire him. It's a sad thing that so little is written or known about Davis because he lived a life that is worthy to know about. He taught his slaves to read and write, his overseer was one of his slaves, a man that Mr Davis said he not only trusted his money with but also his life and the lives of his family. He took in an orphaned slave boy and raised him as his own until he was captured and the young man was taken away from him by the bluecoats.

He was once asked by a northern reporter just why he didn't lock his doors at night, wasn't he afraid that the slaves would come in and kill him and his family. His reply was "They  are my family, too, why would they do that?"

He didn't want the job of being President, it was thrust on him, but like so many other southerners of that time, Jeff Davis was a man of honor and duty. He told his wife that he could see that war was coming and felt powerless to stop it because he could see no other way out because of Lincoln's stubbornness.

[Ga.windbreak]

Dee
There are those on both sides who would say "Show me the money/power."
Too put the South in a position of absolute "in the right" is too ignore the truth.
It was a bloody conflict. It had little too do with logistics/travel distances.
It was, in the end, a war of wills and the wills of those in leadership--not the common man.
Those in leadership used men as pawns for their own power and greed, too satisfy their ego's---not their statesmenship.
Each had goals and those goals were personal---all wars are the same no matter how they are defined as galant and holy.
Blessings

WL not saying you are wrong about men in power, in general, but Jeff Davis was one in a million in my book. I believe the man meant what he said and said what he meant. Its unfortunate that not more is written or known about him and his life.

[Dee]

Ga.windbreak, Robert E. Lee had the opportunity to choose power, and influence over right, and honor. Truth, and personal dignity won over in his choice. I believe that Lee was well aware of the goings on in Washington, and what Lincoln's movement was all about. He was actually there, and he chose the other. That Lee understood both the Constitution and Bill of Rights is an understatement, as he lived it, and knew when it was being violated.

[Ga.windbreak]

you are so right Dee. I think its very telling that such a group came out of West Point during that short period. Both Lee and Davis esp. truly lived up to not only the letter but the spirit of Honor, Duty, and  Personal courage that is so admired about West Point and our other Service Schools. Sad to say not all lived up to those standards.

Lee said it best when writing to his Son: "Do your duty in all things; you can't hope to do more and you should never do less."

[williamlayton]

Nothing I have ever read would indicate that Lee's stance and choice was based on diagreement with the constitution or political but only loyalty too Virginia.
Much as Rommel was not political such was Lee.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

WL and Dee - I believe it was as much a Federalist/Anti-Federalist thing as it was a emotional States rights/Union or Slave/Free thing. The South or North part had little to do with it as there were people in both areas that felt both ways. You have to be true to yourself which is what I feel Lee did. He could not draw his sword against his own people even though he hated to go against the Union.

Is a man any less a patriot because he stands for something the crowd does not? I say it takes more courage to do that than to go along just to get along. Right is right, even when everyone is against it; Wrong is wrong, even when everyone is for it. - William Penn

[Dee]

You are absolutely correct Ga.windbreak. Mr. Penn, too, was on the money in his quote. There is much to say about patriotism to one's country, however, one should also be aware that a leader of such country can be DEAD WRONG, on an issue, as we see in today's government. Many "go along" with today's policies, just as they did in Lincoln's day, either for the sake of power, or ignorance. Either gets the same results.
Like Lincoln, the present government is ignoring an over-whelming voice of the people in favor of power. Lincoln, had he gone by the Constitution, and Bill of Rights would have NEVER caused the secession of the Southern States by violating both documents.
Lincoln as the politicians of today ignored these documents as he, like they feel THEY KNOW BETTER. Biblical principals concerning the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ignored then, as now. Lincoln was on the road to Marxism, via the Socialist path. JMO

[williamlayton]

I can't find that in any of my studies.
It was a fact that there was a crossroads's,
a strong union or a number of states in a treaty.
The union makes the only sense.
The rest is just political fodder.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Dee, right on!! Wl I invite you to turn on your TV you won't have far to look to find the results of Federal greed and it can all be traced back to Lincoln's big business and bigger government. A federal banking system built on the backs of hard working citizens who are then fleased out of their money again by having to pay 28-30% on loans so some guy at fanny mae can make millions a year. A 90 year old woman shot herself today because they (FM) was going to take her house. Its bad and going to get worse but you can't find a reference and she is only political fodder?? SAD!!!!!

[williamlayton]

What? Would you rather have each state or bank printing their own money or perhaps having too carry gold or silver around in a pouch.
That doesn't make sense.
NOW, I do agree that some have taken advantage--many do with anything that can be had---from welfare too FEMA and all in between. Look at the number of lawsuits today.
Man cannot fool those who wish to steal.
Republicans or Democrats.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

You know WL we did pretty good until FDR took us off the Gold standard. By the way JFK was going to put us back on it but that was squashed when he was killed. Hmmm!! We were doing even better until the Dems put their greedy hands into the SS fund in the late 50's and started using it in 63. Good ole LBJ's idea so we could waste it in Nam along with 59,000 lives. So please spare me the some have taken advantage. The fund would be solvent for at least another 100 years if only left alone as was the original intent, but no, all that money just sitting there. We have not only let these SOBs steal from us but they have killed our children's and Grandchildren's futures with the mess they just pulled. And yes, it all started with Lincoln!!!

[Dee]

Plus One Ga.windbreak! That is a synopsis of the past, present and FUTURE since Lincoln. He was a door opener for the Elitist.

[williamlayton]

That is a stretch, don't you think Dee?
I seem too remember a few others who preceded Him.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

No, its no stretch WL.

Two quotes which I feel illustrate the dynamics in our country.

http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_patriotism.html

Rabbi Sherwin Wine:
Quote:
There are two visions of America. One precedes our founding fathers and finds its roots in the harshness of our puritan past. It is very suspicious of freedom, uncomfortable with diversity, hostile to science, unfriendly to reason, contemptuous of personal autonomy. It sees America as a religious nation. It views patriotism as allegiance to God. It secretly adores coercion and conformity. Despite our constitution, despite the legacy of the Enlightenment, it appeals to millions of Americans and threatens our freedom.

The other vision finds its roots in the spirit of our founding revolution and in the leaders of this nation who embraced the age of reason. It loves freedom, encourages diversity, embraces science and affirms the dignity and rights of every individual. It sees America as a moral nation, neither completely religious nor completely secular. It defines patriotism as love of country and of the people who make it strong. It defends all citizens against unjust coercion and irrational conformity.

This second vision is our vision. It is the vision of a free society. We must be bold enough to proclaim it and strong enough to defend it against all its enemies.

Lincoln's Republican party grew out of that puritan past with its fanatical base and only changed its ways to become what it was in the Reagan years so as to break into the Southern states and as McCain so rightly pointed out has gone back to its beginnings which is why its fallen out of favor. I blame that on Bush who's power grab is second only to lincoln's.

And the second is:

Hermann Goering:
Quote:
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. quote verified at snopes.com

Now just who do you think he learned that history lesson from? Lincoln!! 

[Dee]

This power grab and continual erosion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, has been going on since Lincoln, and is at the present time escalating as the American public sleep. The Lincoln push to over throw states rights was a very aggressive move, which in fact violated all articles of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is the guide lines for what the Government CAN DO, and the Bill of Rights to illustrate what the government CAN'T DO without due process.
Yet the Patriot Act injected into the government via George W. Bush without even giving Congress the opportunity to read it, is in eventuality going to be "as damaging" as Lincolns physical invasion of the southern states. It basically nullifies much of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And America sleeps on.

[Ga.windbreak]

Right on, Dee!!!! Thats a two thumbs up!

[williamlayton]

Much written since I left is correct--and I agree.
I may not be as inclined too be as worried about it as you two. I see ebb and flows in history as ebb and flows.
Herr Goering was not a student of Abe in his quote but a student of history and people.
Are we too assume that we have given up our rights because a leader has assumed power?
I doubt it, but, I do not doubt we have given up much rights because we do not vote and mostly, when we do vote it is with the reasons given by Herr Goering--not with our minds but from our feelings.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

WL if we, the people, allow that leader to run rampant in taking away our civil liberties without strong reaction in the courts and by our elected officials we have no one to blame but ourselves. The real problem as I see it is that most are to busy to realise what is happening at the time it takes place. Look no futher than the Patriot Act and the way it was pushed thru congress thru the use of fear and "you're not a patriot if you don't vote for it", and on and on. Or take a look at the bail out and some members being told that ML would be in forced if it were not signed.

No, I feel that once Lincoln did his thing that it became the yardstick by which all others will use in times of national crises. Lincoln said that very same thing, in so many words, in his second inaugural address.