Lincoln Abraham Lincoln: American Dictator and the Case for Secesion.

Maybe I ought to start from the beginning.

Consider if you will a fictional President of the near future.
Ok, with you so far.

Suppose said fictional president, elected by a regional base not representative of the country as a whole with a minority of popular and electoral votes,
Nope you’ve lost me part way through your second sentence.

According to the Constitution a president cannot be elected with a minority of the electoral vote. Therefore your fictional president would not and could not be president except by some other means such as force of arms. (In which case I’m sure you’re right in that everybody but his supporters would be mighty ticked.)

The popular vote or regional vote are not mentioned in the Constitution at all and have no legal bearing. Take a look at the 2000 election.

Lincoln however won a majority of the Electoral College (180 when he only needed 152). i.e. He was legally and constitutionally elected. So your analogy doesn’t stand.

immediately set upon raging a war of aggression against his fellow countrymen for following proper and widely accepted constitutional law which, such as the right to vote, is not explicitly mentioned yet we commonly viewed as a right of the people.
Nor does your analogy hold up here. After his (as noted above) perfectly legitimate election Lincoln was faced with a rebellion before he was even sworn into office. How exactly does this constitute a war of aggression on his part?

You are correct that the right to vote is not in itself enshrined in the Constitution (though it is more implicitly ‘there’ than a ‘right to secession.’) But all this means is that the right to vote can indeed be taken away for reasons other than those explicitly enumerated as unconstitutional such as race, colour, previous condition of servitude or sex. How does that support another ‘right’ that is not enumerated such as your supposed right to secession? Are we supposed to accept that because the people think they have a right that right exists? You watch your footing on that slippery slope you’re standing on.

It's time for bed. Catch up with y'all in the morning no doubt.
 
Jonathan,

Just for your information, there are currently 11 full pages of Lincoln topics on this forum that have been as recent as a few days ago to some ranging back to the very beginning of this forum.

Several of the thread titles might be of interest to you.

Treason, Articles of Impeachment Against Abe Lincoln.
The Constitution meant NOTHING to Lincoln.
Lincoln the Great Centralizer.
Lincoln: Deport All Free Slaves!
How Lincoln Could Have Prevented Civil War.
Lincoln and the Constitution.
Lincoln and Constitutional Law.
That Despot Named Lincoln.
Lincoln, a Tyrant?
Lincoln, the Despot?

Now, realize, these are only the few of many, many threads that I think come very close to what you stated in your series of posts on this particular thread.

However, I think it may be a good idea to avail yourself of this forums search function and take some time to view these threads and see how those debates turned out and what was said during them.

Simply go to the upper right hand side of the page and click on the words, "Advanced Search" then, in the new window, under the words, "Search For" type "Lincoln" in the Keyword(s) box, then slide your cursor to the right and then click on the drop arrow beside the box with the words "Search Entire Posts." Then click on the words "Search Titles Only" and the pages and pages of articles on Lincoln will be displayed from which you can make your choice to view.

I suggest looking at the "Treason, Articles of Impeachment Against Abe Lincoln" thread first, as it was our most recent debate on Lincoln.

Enjoy,
Unionblue
 
Seriously....



You posted a link to junk in a CHAT ROOM? Really? That's like me posting Ole's diatribe on lutefisk as an example of Hood's incompetence at Franklin!

Oh, the first one doesn't work, by the way.

I think most of the folks here stick to a higher standard. Heck, my 7th graders do.


If Hood had, had lutefisk and a couple trebuchets at Franklin the route of the Yankees would have been not only assured but magnificent
 
Yawn, been here read that. F at premise and research simply because DiLorenzo is quoted in any way shape or form, the man has been caught out too many times inventing things. F at the simple use of the search engine on this site.

I'm too jaded, too cynical in dealing w/ worshippers at the shrine of Jeff Davis and the Lost Cause.

Somebody wake me up if something original on the subject comes my way. At least that way I'm guaranteed a good nap.
 
Yawn, been here read that. F at premise and research simply because DiLorenzo is quoted in any way shape or form, the man has been caught out too many times inventing things. F at the simple use of the search engine on this site.

I'm too jaded, too cynical in dealing w/ worshippers at the shrine of Jeff Davis and the Lost Cause.

Somebody wake me up if something original on the subject comes my way. At least that way I'm guaranteed a good nap.

How about a nice Black Confederate thread?:laugh2:
 
The link in question cites the source, Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.) directly underneath the quote. Yes, the link itself takes you to a blog post, but all the post is, is a quote from Lincoln and the source. So, I really don't understand how that is such a bad thing. As for the first link not working, I am sorry, it was working just fine last time I used it. Its just a link to "The Real Lincoln" which many of you are familier with it looks like.

I have to ask though, Jonathan, whether you ever even read the Lincoln speech in question? Or were you content to just take an out-of-context snippet from a blog just because it satisfies your own preconceptions? Here's what Lincoln REALLY said in the debate you mentioned above:

While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me, I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.

And here's a REAL source:
http://www.bartleby.com/251/41.html

I would also echo the sentiment of others here that you might want to do some research on this very forum. This has all been hashed over here ad nauseum. There is not a person here who doesn't understand that Lincoln shared the racial prejudices of his time. But if you're going to denigrate Lincoln for that, what does that say of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and other Confederate leaders? As Lincoln pointed out above, he believed that blacks were inferior, but that didn't make it right to enslave them.
 
Tough crowd. Not even an attempt to respond to my arguments? I thought that's what these boards were for.

The problem is this subject had been discussed to the point of fatigue. After seeing a re-run so many times, people just change the channel.

This might be of interest:
====

Was Abraham Lincoln a Racist? Three Takes


TAKE 1: Quick Take

“Everybody was racist. EVERYBODY!”
- historian Gary Gallagher, expressing his amazement and frustration that so many people don’t realize that everybody in the Civil War era was racist.
****

TAKE 2: All racists are not alike; and being racist is not the same as being pro-slavery.

Was Abraham Lincoln racist?

That’s like asking “do fish swim” or “do birds fly.” A distinguishing characteristic of fish is that as a class, they all swim; likewise just about all birds fly. A distinguishing characteristic of the white population in Lincoln’s time is that they were “all” racist – or perhaps 95%+ were. Of course, there are no polls from the 19th century to provide a statistically exact or even estimated number. But most historians agree that the overwhelming number of white (northern and southern) Americans of the era were racially biased against blacks, Asians, and Native Americans – not to mention ethnically biased against Irish Americans.

But it’s important to understand this: all racists are not the same. There is a difference between a racist person who will not vote for an African American, and a racist person who will kill any African American who attempts to vote (and armed attacks were made on blacks seeking the vote during the Jim Crow era). Saying that both people are “equally racist” is ridiculous. It’s much more complicated than that.

What is racism, anyway? As some people see it, racism in not merely an idea or an intent, it is a set of behaviors. Some acts of racism are “relatively” benign (“I won’t vote for blacks”), others are more dangerous (“I will kill black voters”). There is a range of racist behaviors that can be objectively or subjectively classified by the “harm” they do. And views on race change over time: keeping blacks as slaves is understood to be a horribly racist act today, but that was very much in dispute 150 years ago.

Abraham Lincoln is a case study in the complexities of 19th century views on race and slavery. He lived in Illinois, which was the most anti-black of the Northwest Ordinance states. (Most people in the lower half of the state were “butternuts” who came to the state from the South.) Appeals to racial equality, and the possibility of whites competing for jobs with black laborers – free or slave – did not sit well here. Thus, Lincoln’s positions on those issues made him an outlier in the state. In 1854, Lincoln said in Peoria, “When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government — that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men are created equal,” and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.” Those kinds of statements were very progressive for Illinois in the 1850s, although Lincoln’s concept of racial equality was extremely limited based on today’s standards.

No wonder, then, that in the famous Lincoln-Douglass Illinois Senate debates of 1858, Democrat Stephen Douglas blasted Lincoln for being what would be called a “nig*** lover” in 20th century language. Lincoln, said Douglas, “believes that the Almighty made the Negro equal to the white man… He thinks that the Negro is his brother. I do not think the Negro is any kin to mine… This government… was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity, to be executed and managed by white men.” (One commonly used insult of the day was to call Lincoln’s Republican Party the “Black Republicans.”)

Lincoln responded with language establishing that he was no extremist on race, but yet, he stayed true to his own views on slavery and his own concept of racial equality. In the fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate, in September 1858, he said:

I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

But he also said in the last debate in October 1858:

It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, “You toil and work and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.” No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

Lincoln walked on the tightrope of slavery and racial politics, but he chose to walk that tightrope. He was as aware as anyone of the racial prejudice of the era (including his own), but nonetheless championed his own vision of racial equality – which said that no matter what their race, men were entitled, as the Declaration of Independence stated, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Befitting the motto of the Republican Party, Lincoln believed in free (non-slave) labor and free men.

It’s useful to compare Lincoln’s views with those of another major politician of his era: Jefferson Davis, who was a US senator from Mississippi before the Civil War, and was the president of the Confederate States of America. When it seceded from the Union, the state of Mississippi explained why: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.”

Jefferson Davis elaborated on this in his farewell address to the Senate, January 1861:

…if I had not believed there was justifiable cause; if I had thought that Mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation, or without an existing necessity, I should still… because of my allegiance to the State… have been bound by her action. I, however, may be permitted to say that I do think she has justifiable cause, and I approve of her act.

I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them then that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted…

It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.

To Jefferson Davis, the mere articulation of the idea that men of all races were free and equal was an attack on a vital social institution in his state – slavery. It was a cause for secession, and eventually, a cause for war. Davis didn’t walk on a tightrope; he walked the straight line, where white was on one side and black the other. There were no shades of grey in between.

It’s really this simple: Abraham Lincoln believed that slavery was wrong, and Jefferson Davis believed that slavery was right. Indeed, for Lincoln, slavery wasn’t a racial issue: he believed the enslavement of either race was wrong, even if whites were superior to blacks. For Jefferson Davis, it was the very inferiority of blacks which required that whites keep them enslaved; slavery was not merely a way to exploit African labor, it was a necessary institution for ensuring racial control. Their racism was not “the same,” and it’s vital to understand that. Because it was Jefferson Davis’ fear of men like Abraham Lincoln that would lead to the Civil War.

TAKE 3: Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis: two racists compared

These talking points will make you seem quite the knowledgeable person in discussions with friends, family, and co-workers about Civil War race and slavery. They describe the views of Lincoln and Davis before the war started.

United States President Abraham Lincoln:
• was a racist, that is, he believed that the white race was superior to the black race and did not advocate full citizenship rights for blacks
• believed that the Declaration of Independence included blacks as among those who were “equal,” that is, entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and hence freedom from enslavement)
• was not an abolitionist
• was anti-slave labor
• believed that the constitution gave states the right to allow or disallow slavery within their borders
• was anti-slave expansion (he believed that slavery should not be allowed in the US territories)
• believed in the gradual end of slavery, accomplished by colonization to the extent practical.

Confederate States President Jefferson Davis:
• was a racist, that is, he believed that slavery was a natural, biblically sanctioned condition for blacks
• did not believe that the Declaration of Independence included blacks among those who were “equal”
• was not an abolitionist
• was pro-slave labor
• believed that the constitution gave states the right to allow or disallow slavery within their borders
• was pro-slavery expansion (he believed that slavery should be allowed in the territories)
• did not believe in the end of slavery
 
Is jonathan lane, trying to claim that Lincoln was not President or that he was not legitimately President? As already shown on this thread, both claims are, in fact, false. So jonathan lane's arguments start out, based on false assumption(s).
 
To Jefferson Davis, the mere articulation of the idea that men of all races were free and equal was an attack on a vital social institution in his state – slavery. It was a cause for secession, and eventually, a cause for war. Davis didn’t walk on a tightrope; he walked the straight line, where white was on one side and black the other. There were no shades of grey in between.

And of course it wasn't just Davis, it was virtually every political leader of the Confederacy. I think it's very interesting to compare the quotes Jonathan has taken out of Lincoln's speeches, and the quotes Howell Cobb (former Georgia Governor and future President of the Provisional Confederate Congress) took out of Lincoln's speeches. Here's Mr. Cobb explaining to Georgians why they should secede from a country that would elect Lincoln to the Presidency (the words in blue are Cobb's own, the words in black are Cobb quoting Lincoln):

To find a candidate of the same principles and less notoriety was the great work to be performed by the Chicago Convention. That duty was successfully discharged in the selection and nomination of Mr. Lincoln.

He had placed on record his calm and solemn declaration on the subject of slavery, sentiments which remain to this hour without retraction, or even modification, by himself. In the pamphlet copy of his speeches, revised by himself, and circulated throughout the Presidential canvass by his supporters, we find the following clear and unequivocal declaration of his views and feelings on the subject of slavery:


"I did not even say that I desired that should be put in course of ultimate extinction. I do say so now, however: so there need be no longer any difficulty about that. It may be written down in the great speech."

"I have always hated slavery, I think, as much as any abolitionist. I have been an old line Whig. I have always hated it, but I have been quiet about it until this new era of the introduction of the Nebraska bill began. I always believed that everybody was against it. and that it as in the course of ULTIMATE EXTINCTION."

"We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this Government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will "CEASE TO BE DIVIDED: IT WILL BECOME ALL ONE THING OR THE OTHER. Either the opponents of slavery will ARREST the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ULTIMATE EXTINCTION, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South."

Commenting on this, he afterwards said:

"I only said what I expected would take place. I made a prediction only; it may have been a foolish one, perhaps. I did not even say that I desired that slavery should be put in course of ultimate extinction. I do now, however, so there need be no longer any difficulty about that.

"If I were in Congress, and a vote should come upon a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a new Territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I WOULD VOTE THAT IT SHOULD."

"What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another without the other man's consent. I say this is the leading principle, (?) ANCHOR of American Republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, - that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, DERIVING their just power from the consent of the governed.

"I have quoted so much at this time merely to show, that according to our ancient faith, the powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. Now, the relation of master and slave is, pro tanto, a violation of this principle. The master not only governs the slave without his consent, but he governs him by a set of rules altogether different from those which he prescribes for himself. Allow all the governed an EQUAL VOICE IN THE GOVERNMENT; and that, and that only is self-government."

Again, in a speech delivered in Chicago, during the last Presidential election, which we find published in the Illinois State Journal, the state organ of the Black Republican party of Illinois, on the 16th of September, 1856, Mr. Lincoln said:

That central idea, in our political opinion, at the beginning was, and until recently continued to be, the equality of men. And, although it was always submitted patiently to, whatever inequality there seemed to be as a matter of action necessity, its constant working has been a steady progress toward the PRACTICAL EQUALITY OF ALL MEN.

"Let past differences as nothing be; and, with steady eye on the real issue, let us re-inaugurate the good old central ideas of the Republic. We can do it. The human heart is with us; God is with us. We shall again be able, not to declare that all the States, as States, are equal; nor yet that all citizens, as citizens, are equal; but renew the broader, better declaration, including both these and much more, that all men are created equal."

Yet again, in a speech at Chicago, on the 16th of July, 1858, Mr. Lincoln said:

"I should like to know if, taking the old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are created equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man say, it does not mean a negro; why not another say, it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book in which we find it, and tear it out. Who is so bold as to do it? If it is not true, let us tear it out. [Cries of "No no!"] Let us stick to it, then; let us stand firmly by it, then.

Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man - this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position - discarding the standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land until we shall once more stand up declaring that ALL MEN are created equal. I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms UNTIL THERE SHALL NO longer be a doubt that ALL MEN ARE CREATED FREE AND EQUAL."

In these declarations Mr. Lincoln has covered the entire abolition platform - hatred of slavery, disregard of judicial decisions, negro equality, and, as a matter of course, the ultimate extinction of slavery. None of these doctrines, however, are left to inference, so far as Mr. Lincoln is concerned, as we see he has avowed them in the plainest and clearest language. They are not exceeded by the boldness of Seward, the malignity of Giddings, or the infamy of Garrison. It was the knowledge of these facts which induced his nomination by the Republican party; and by the free circulation which has been given to them in the canvass, it would seem that Mr. Lincoln is indebted to their popularity for his election. The insincerity of his disavowal of the doctrine of negro equality, when pressed to the wall, after the solemn declarations I have quoted, is too transparent to require remark.


Source: http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/howellcobbletter.htm

Cobb was very clear. Georgians should secede because Lincoln "hated slavery" and believed in "the doctrine of negro equality."
 
I have to take a bit of an exception here.

Much of what Lincoln said regarding equality of the black man was because he knew that the black man was never going to get a fair shake in this country.

FF wrote an awesome post on Lincoln's opinion. Read it again with the idea that Lincoln's idea of equality gave in to the idea that equality couldn't happen. I don't know when he declared directly that the colored man was not equal. Lincoln danced around that declaration mostly by saying that the colored man could not be equal and that he wouldn't stump for equality. (What politician of the time would?)

He was saying the same thing when he assembled a group of colored leaders and tried to convince them to colonize elsewhere because they weren't going to see equality here.

In that, he was somewhat naive, but do the colored have complete equal status even now. 150 years later?
 
I have to take a bit of an exception here.

Much of what Lincoln said regarding equality of the black man was because he knew that the black man was never going to get a fair shake in this country.

FF wrote an awesome post on Lincoln's opinion. Read it again with the idea that Lincoln's idea of equality gave in to the idea that equality couldn't happen. I don't know when he declared directly that the colored man was not equal. Lincoln danced around that declaration mostly by saying that the colored man could not be equal and that he wouldn't stump for equality. (What politician of the time would?)

He was saying the same thing when he assembled a group of colored leaders and tried to convince them to colonize elsewhere because they weren't going to see equality here.

In that, he was somewhat naive, but do the colored have complete equal status even now. 150 years later?

I don't think we can look at Lincoln's attitude towards race as a static thing. It evolved over time. Before he became President he had very little exposure to black people, and certainly not the likes of Frederick Douglass or Sojourner Truth. He also hadn't seen what black troops could do in combat. So it's understandable that he could have been influenced by the popular stereotypes of the day. He was always less racist than most of the people of his era, but he became even less racist as his experience broadened.
 
Consider if you will a fictional President of the near future. Suppose said fictional president, elected by a regional base not representative of the country as a whole with a minority of popular andelectoral votes....
Presumably you are trying to make a comparison to Lincoln. If so, note that Lincoln received a majority of the electoral votes.

immediately set upon raging a war of aggression against his fellow countrymen for following proper and widely accepted constitutional law

If this is again supposed to be a comparison to Lincoln, then his actions against the rebels were not immediate and secession did not follow proper or widely accepted constitutional law.

in order to squelch opposition to his undeclared and therefor unconstitutional war,
Lincoln made a declaration before taking action; this declaration was Constitutional.

The commonly accepted misconceptions, outright lies, and rationalizing excuses for Lincolns actions aren’t hard to understand

The most common misconceptions and outright lies that I see are the ones against Lincoln.


Lincoln, in reality, freed the slaves only where he had no authority to do so

Umm, no, the opposite is true. He had no authority to free slaves in loyal states and he exempted other areas which he expected were going to be electing members of Congress. However, there was significant captured territory that was not exempted by the proclamation. For example, at the time of the proclamation, US forces occupied Corinth Mississippi, Huntsville Alabama, Helena Arkasans and parts of coastal North Carolina and South Carolina, none of which were exempted.

If you could let go of your misconceptions and outright lies you might understand history better.
 
Jonathan Lane, mistates or misundertands Lincoln Emancipation Declaration(whether from ignorance or malice is hard to tell). Lincoln freed all the slaves he was constitutionally empowered to. To attempt to free all the slaves, was illegal, yet the poste's seeming assumption that Lincoln could or should have broken the law with impunity, reflects a not uncommon mindset among 'lost causer's' and/or CW Revisionists.


P.S. Assuming Jonathan Lane is the latest in a long line posters who have stumbled upon DiLorenzo and experienced(or suffered) an epiphany.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Consider if you will a fictional President of the near future. Suppose said fictional president, elected by a regional base not representative of the country as a whole with a minority of popular and electoral votes, immediately set upon raging a war of aggression against his fellow countrymen for following proper and widely accepted constitutional law which, such as the right to vote, is not explicitly mentioned yet we commonly viewed as a right of the people. Consider what your reaction might be if this nightmare President, in order to squelch opposition to his undeclared and therefor unconstitutional war, suspended the right of habeas corpus, also without the consent of Congress, and preceded to jail, censor, bankrupt, intimidate, and deport political opponents whose only crime was outspoken criticism of a war against one’s own countrymen. What would you think if this man supported openly deportation of every member of a disenfranchised minority group, such as Mexican Americans, in order to make American lands “secure for the white man”? Might you be made to resist this man if he were to arrest your legislature, threaten to bombard your capitol, and militarily occupy your state? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What honor do you think such a man deserves? What title should future generations bestow upon such a tyrant? Of course you already know the answer, for as the title of this post and even a basic understanding of history would tell you one of our supposed ‘greatest’ Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, whose record is more reminiscent of a tyrant than that of a protector of individual liberty, is guilty of such crimes. And yet his face appears on our currency, in monuments to his name, and the side of a mountain, while his legacy has reached that of almost universal admiration, where even the act of criticizing him is shouted down in a sea of emotional falsehood; proof that history is written not by who is right, but by whoever has the most guns. The commonly accepted misconceptions, outright lies, and rationalizing excuses for Lincolns actions aren’t hard to understand, after all America spent four years fighting the bloodiest and most costly war on the American continent, of course its victors are going to spread the lie that they were morally and legally right from the beginning, and not merely strong enough to force their will upon the militarily and industrially weaker south. This is why our history is so blatantly slanted towards Lincolns, and the Republican parties, point of view, not because they were right, in the same sense that the colonies almost a hundred years earlier were right, but because they were willing and able to reduce the southern states to a smoldering ruin in order to get their point across. Six hundred and twenty five thousand military deaths alone. Factored as a percentage of the population, today that would cost the lives roughly two million lives, 100X the number of deaths suffered in Vietnam. The Civil War was the most costly war in American history, and it was completely avoidable. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The myth that Lincoln ‘freed the slaves’ is at once the biggest misconception about the war and the easiest to disprove. One need only read the Emancipation Proclamation to see for themselves. Pay extra attention to paragraph three and four. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Lincoln not only exempted loyal slave holding states such as Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia (a state whose constitutionality I will not get into here) but also puts a great emphasis on not freeing any slaves in captured confederate territory at that time. Lincoln, in reality, freed the slaves only where he had no authority to do so, where at the time of the proclamation in September 1862 (it didn’t go into effect until January 1863) he had no reason to believe he’d ever have the authority to end slavery having days before narrowly turned back an invasion of Maryland in the bloodiest single day in American history. What was the point of such an act? What principled abolitionist would be so cynical as to free the slaves only where he could not? What enemy of slavery would expressly exempt occupied confederate territory as well as northern slave states when given the chance to end slavery in America once and for all? Isn’t that what so many seem to believe the Civil War was about? To end slavery? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Lincolns own words shed light on the myth that he was an abolitionist. “[Abolitionists] would shiver into fragments the union of these states, tear to tatters its now venerated constitution and even burn the last copy of the Bible, rather than slavery should continue for even an hour” ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/clay.htm[/FONT][FONT=&quot]) Harsh words from America’s so called ‘Great Emancipator.’ In fact notable abolitionist Lysander Spooner, who wrote ‘The Unconstitutionality of Slavery’ in 1845 and ‘A Defense for Fugitive Slaves’ in 1850 had this to say at the conclusion of the war, “All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” of having “preserved the union,” of establishing a “government of consent” and of “maintaining the national honor” are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats- so transparent that they ought to deceive no one.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] “The President has purposely made the proclamation,” wrote the New York World, “inoperative in all places where we have gained a military footing which makes the slaves accessible. He has proclaimed emancipation only where he has notoriously no power to execute it. The exemption of the accessible parts of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia renders the proclamation not merely futile, but ridiculous.” ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://www.civilwarhome.com/lincolnandproclamation.htm[/FONT][FONT=&quot])[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Lincolns own Secretary of State William Seward stated, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.” [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It would seem to me that the overall principle of the Emancipation Proclamation is not that one man may not own another, but that one man can own another only when loyal to the United States. Lincolns so called proclamation was nothing more than a sham, a ruse used in order to prevent England, which abolished slavery peacefully several years earlier, from joining the war on the side of the Confederacy. By presenting an end to slavery as one of the main purposes for the war, despite the fact that the war was already more than a year old and going badly for the north, he could claim a moral high ground while, for all practical purposes, doing absolutely nothing. The slaves in the union states would remain slaves for the duration of the war, and remain slaves until December 1965 when the 13th amendment was passed, long after Lincoln’s death. Military defeats in the Seven Days Battle, Manassas I and II, and Fredericksburg (which took place before the emancipation took effect), along with bloody stalemates at Shiloh and Antietam, forced Lincolns hand. Had any European power intervened at that point the war would be over. The slavery issue was little more than a tool used to achieve his goal of winning the war. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]““I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I ... am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”[/FONT]

Impressive. You don't often see so much drivel in a single post. You are truly a Lost Causer.
 
The problem is this subject had been discussed to the point of fatigue. After seeing a re-run so many times, people just change the channel.

This might be of interest:
====

Was Abraham Lincoln a Racist? Three Takes


TAKE 1: Quick Take

“Everybody was racist. EVERYBODY!”
- historian Gary Gallagher, expressing his amazement and frustration that so many people don’t realize that everybody in the Civil War era was racist.
****

TAKE 2: All racists are not alike; and being racist is not the same as being pro-slavery.

Was Abraham Lincoln racist?

That’s like asking “do fish swim” or “do birds fly.” A distinguishing characteristic of fish is that as a class, they all swim; likewise just about all birds fly. A distinguishing characteristic of the white population in Lincoln’s time is that they were “all” racist – or perhaps 95%+ were. Of course, there are no polls from the 19th century to provide a statistically exact or even estimated number. But most historians agree that the overwhelming number of white (northern and southern) Americans of the era were racially biased against blacks, Asians, and Native Americans – not to mention ethnically biased against Irish Americans.

But it’s important to understand this: all racists are not the same. There is a difference between a racist person who will not vote for an African American, and a racist person who will kill any African American who attempts to vote (and armed attacks were made on blacks seeking the vote during the Jim Crow era). Saying that both people are “equally racist” is ridiculous. It’s much more complicated than that.

What is racism, anyway? As some people see it, racism in not merely an idea or an intent, it is a set of behaviors. Some acts of racism are “relatively” benign (“I won’t vote for blacks”), others are more dangerous (“I will kill black voters”). There is a range of racist behaviors that can be objectively or subjectively classified by the “harm” they do. And views on race change over time: keeping blacks as slaves is understood to be a horribly racist act today, but that was very much in dispute 150 years ago.

Abraham Lincoln is a case study in the complexities of 19th century views on race and slavery. He lived in Illinois, which was the most anti-black of the Northwest Ordinance states. (Most people in the lower half of the state were “butternuts” who came to the state from the South.) Appeals to racial equality, and the possibility of whites competing for jobs with black laborers – free or slave – did not sit well here. Thus, Lincoln’s positions on those issues made him an outlier in the state. In 1854, Lincoln said in Peoria, “When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government — that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men are created equal,” and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.” Those kinds of statements were very progressive for Illinois in the 1850s, although Lincoln’s concept of racial equality was extremely limited based on today’s standards.

No wonder, then, that in the famous Lincoln-Douglass Illinois Senate debates of 1858, Democrat Stephen Douglas blasted Lincoln for being what would be called a “nig*** lover” in 20th century language. Lincoln, said Douglas, “believes that the Almighty made the Negro equal to the white man… He thinks that the Negro is his brother. I do not think the Negro is any kin to mine… This government… was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity, to be executed and managed by white men.” (One commonly used insult of the day was to call Lincoln’s Republican Party the “Black Republicans.”)

Lincoln responded with language establishing that he was no extremist on race, but yet, he stayed true to his own views on slavery and his own concept of racial equality. In the fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate, in September 1858, he said:



But he also said in the last debate in October 1858:



Lincoln walked on the tightrope of slavery and racial politics, but he chose to walk that tightrope. He was as aware as anyone of the racial prejudice of the era (including his own), but nonetheless championed his own vision of racial equality – which said that no matter what their race, men were entitled, as the Declaration of Independence stated, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Befitting the motto of the Republican Party, Lincoln believed in free (non-slave) labor and free men.

It’s useful to compare Lincoln’s views with those of another major politician of his era: Jefferson Davis, who was a US senator from Mississippi before the Civil War, and was the president of the Confederate States of America. When it seceded from the Union, the state of Mississippi explained why: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.”

Jefferson Davis elaborated on this in his farewell address to the Senate, January 1861:



To Jefferson Davis, the mere articulation of the idea that men of all races were free and equal was an attack on a vital social institution in his state – slavery. It was a cause for secession, and eventually, a cause for war. Davis didn’t walk on a tightrope; he walked the straight line, where white was on one side and black the other. There were no shades of grey in between.

It’s really this simple: Abraham Lincoln believed that slavery was wrong, and Jefferson Davis believed that slavery was right. Indeed, for Lincoln, slavery wasn’t a racial issue: he believed the enslavement of either race was wrong, even if whites were superior to blacks. For Jefferson Davis, it was the very inferiority of blacks which required that whites keep them enslaved; slavery was not merely a way to exploit African labor, it was a necessary institution for ensuring racial control. Their racism was not “the same,” and it’s vital to understand that. Because it was Jefferson Davis’ fear of men like Abraham Lincoln that would lead to the Civil War.

TAKE 3: Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis: two racists compared

These talking points will make you seem quite the knowledgeable person in discussions with friends, family, and co-workers about Civil War race and slavery. They describe the views of Lincoln and Davis before the war started.

United States President Abraham Lincoln:
• was a racist, that is, he believed that the white race was superior to the black race and did not advocate full citizenship rights for blacks
• believed that the Declaration of Independence included blacks as among those who were “equal,” that is, entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and hence freedom from enslavement)
• was not an abolitionist
• was anti-slave labor
• believed that the constitution gave states the right to allow or disallow slavery within their borders
• was anti-slave expansion (he believed that slavery should not be allowed in the US territories)
• believed in the gradual end of slavery, accomplished by colonization to the extent practical.

Confederate States President Jefferson Davis:
• was a racist, that is, he believed that slavery was a natural, biblically sanctioned condition for blacks
• did not believe that the Declaration of Independence included blacks among those who were “equal”
• was not an abolitionist
• was pro-slave labor
• believed that the constitution gave states the right to allow or disallow slavery within their borders
• was pro-slavery expansion (he believed that slavery should be allowed in the territories)
• did not believe in the end of slavery

ForeverFree,

Excellent! :smile:

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Back
Top