Lincoln Lincoln Lies ?

[Red Harvest]

Red Harvest,
In my time as moderator I am constantly reading posts that insult or belittle other posters. It's a bore. Maybe it's my personality, but I honestly don't know what people get out of "extreme snark" or telling someone they're in the "tinfoil" brigade, or they don't know how to read. The posters who insist anyone who disagrees with them is "biased." The sarcasm and rudeness, the pointless, yet reflexive hostility. These are events that happened 150 years ago. Above you refer to "your scenario." Dude, I wasn't part of the Lincoln Douglas debates, its not my scenario.

As far as you promising to unload the sarcasm on anyone who doesn't live up to your expectation of "cogent" argument. Why? Does it make your feel better? I've been wrong about a lot of things about the Civil War. I'm not lying or wearing a tinfoil hat. Maybe I'm recalling something wrong, or maybe the interpretation of the events has evolved. Correct me. Dude, really I don't care. I'd rather not be wrong about something in"public" but I won't melt.

There are many occasions I haven't been as polite as I could be. I find fools and liars hard to take. But if I want sarcasm, insults, jabs, mocking, in perference to understanding and learning, I always have my family.

Matt,
It has been my experience that embracing an unsupported conspiracy theory only encourages more of them. (I participate in another board where such posts get removed. If a poster continues with CT nonsense they are eventually banned.) Why give undue credence to the absurd?

BTW in the edit I pointed to "your scenario" as I was specifically referring to the justification you made and quoted it. I wasn't attributing someone else's argument to you or even equating them. That was not insult, it was a direct discussion of the point you were making.

 

[Red Harvest]

Way, way overdue. Thank you, Matt.

Since most of your posts I've seen have been short personal insults/trolls, I find your response particularly amusing.

 

[Sneathen]

But the majority of the Southern states seceded before he he even took office. After, that he had no reason to comply with any demands to maintain slavery. In effect, the Southerners brought the EP on themselves.

Exactly, and people forget the original proclamation of come back to the union and you may keep your slaves - it sounded rather fair and generous imo.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Matt,
It has been my experience that embracing an unsupported conspiracy theory only encourages more of them. (I participate in another board where such posts get removed. If a poster continues with CT nonsense they are eventually banned.) Why give undue credence to the absurd?

Red Harvest,
It has been my experience that responding to posts you disagree with by making insulting or personal remarks only encourages more insulting or personal remarks. In fact, you may have noticed that a tried and true tactic of a poster losing the argument is to resort to taking cheap shots and trying to derail the discussion of the evidence by trying to turn it into a personal contest, or force the moderators to close a flaming trainwreck. I don't think this is what you do, but it one of the places insulting people can go. I suggest in the future address the specious and unjustified argument, and pass over the poster' insanity and moral bankruptcy.
Matt

BTW in the edit I pointed to "your scenario" as I was specifically referring to the justification you made and quoted it. I wasn't attributing someone else's argument to you or even equating them. That was not insult, it was a direct discussion of the point you were making.

I don't feel you have ever addressed me in a deliberately insulting manner, and have no problems with how you replied to my posts. I was, and am making a larger point.

 

[RobertP]

Since most of your posts I've seen have been short personal insults/trolls, I find your response particularly amusing.

I don't attack and demean people I disagree with. I will occasionally repeat their own words in pointing out the hypocrisy of a position. There is a difference and you should realize it.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I see my little sermon has gone the way of all good little sermons.

The topic of this thread is Lincoln and how he was a bad, bad man. Future off topic posts will be deleted.

POSTED AS MODERATOR

 

[cash]

I read as much as I could in the preview. Looks like another book to get! Thanks for posting.

There's always another book to get.

 

[unionblue]

Lincoln was not evolving he was flip flopping!!

Respectfully,

William Richardson

(Sigh.)

Another, predetermined point-of-view, carefully prepared, set in concrete, studying only parts of documents and evidence that will support that narrow interpretation.

It gets so old to see such come around, yet again, and see the same, old refusal to expand one's research, to actually read ALL of a speech and set it in context, instead of snipping and clipping the parts that proves one's narrow view.

If you're set and desire to no longer learn, there's no helping you, no sense encouraging you to actually lift you head and look past the rear end of the mule you are behind, plowing the single furrow you have decided to plow.

Enjoy the view.

Unionblue

 

[W. Richardson]

(Sigh.)

Another, predetermined point-of-view, carefully prepared, set in concrete, studying only parts of documents and evidence that will support that narrow interpretation.

It gets so old to see such come around, yet again, and see the same, old refusal to expand one's research, to actually read ALL of a speech and set it in context, instead of snipping and clipping the parts that proves one's narrow view.

If you're set and desire to no longer learn, there's no helping you, no sense encouraging you to actually lift you head and look past the rear end of the mule you are behind, plowing the single furrow you have decided to plow.

Enjoy the view.

Unionblue

Mr. Unionblue, I do study the letters, speeches, and documents. What get's old is someone assuming that others do not research or study, because they do not come to the same conclusions as you. I do not care to be spoon fed your opinions, your beliefs. You interpret things how you wish to see them and I am ok with that, but do not blast me or others, or ridicule me because I have a different interpretation or opinion. It is you that is set and closed minded not I. Now if you wish to discuss the American Civil War / War Between The States in a civil, respectful way then I am all for that, but if all you can do is sigh, and wish to force your beliefs and opinions on me or others I for one have others I can discuss it with. I am not here to force my beliefs on you or anyone else, but you seem to judge me when you do not know me at all.

Respectfully,

William Richardson

 

[Glorybound]

Everyone, the past few days I've seen a lot of posts that could easily be considered disrespectful, condescending, patronizing, directed at other posters, some of whom are new to this forum. This needs to stop. Disagreement with another opinion is fine, belittling another poster because of his/her opinion is definitely not fine. Let's take a moment before we hit the 'reply' button to review our posts to make sure they are not confrontational, provocative or rude in tone. Thank you for your help.

posted as moderator

 

[unionblue]

Mr. Unionblue, I do study the letters, speeches, and documents.

Yet you appear, by your posts contents, to be very careful as to what you pick and choose of those letters, speeches, and documents.

What get's old is someone assuming that others do not research or study, because they do not come to the same conclusions as you.

I, like all the other members of this forum, can only read what you post and as far as I can tell, you pick and choose.

I do not care to be spoon fed your opinions, your beliefs.

As is your right. But it is not a right to be automatically to be agreed with when you present such selected portions of a source document. Hence my response, as is my right. It is, after all, a forum, where people present their views and opinions, sources and evidence, and then should expect a response and not always favorable to the views and opinions expressed, nor the manner in which sources are selected and tailored for those views and opinions.

You interpret things how you wish to see them and I am ok with that, but do not blast me or others, or ridicule me because I have a different interpretation or opinion.

I will always respond to what I see and what I take it to mean when those of a different interpretation or opinion post those views or opinions. I will always point out what I think is wrong with such or the method in which they are presented. Its a forum, not a mutal admiration society.

It is you that is set and closed minded not I.

I completely disagree with your view concerning my views. See how it works?

Now if you wish to discuss the American Civil War / War Between The States in a civil, respectful way then I am all for that, but if all you can do is sigh, and wish to force your beliefs and opinions on me or others I for one have others I can discuss it with.

I will sigh, express disbelief, express opinion, and post about those whom I disagree with. And the only way I can force my beliefs and opinions on yourself is through posts here on this forum, exactly the same way you can try to force your beliefs and opinions on me, if you wish to try. Or why post here at all if you are not concerned about your own views on the Civil War and wish to express and convince others that you have a valid point? The fact is, you post here for others to read your views and beliefs and you would be extremely pleased if others came about to your beliefs and views, would you not? Its only human.

I am not here to force my beliefs on you or anyone else, but you seem to judge me when you do not know me at all.

I comment on what is posted, I respond to what is said, I agree with what I view as historically correct and I disagree with those I feel are not historically correct. And I tend not to waste my time in detailed posts when I come across a post that I have encounted countless times before. That's just me. I do not know you, but I know the flavor and context of your posts and I put you in a catagory based on my previous experiences with others that share your views. As it is more than likely we will never meet, this is all that I can do. Which is what I will continue to do, within the rules of this forum.

Respectfully,

William Richardson

Until our next post,
Unionblue

 

[W. Richardson]

Until our next post,
Unionblue

I apologize, I got lost among all the "I's" what were you saying ? Also could you provide a source for your replies ?

Respectfully,

William Richardson

 

[OpnCoronet]

Three rules for studying of historical records, Context, Context, Context(snippets and assumption on snippets just will not do).
A good rule of thumb for reading Lincoln's writings is that, because he was very logical and very precise in his language; within the context of the subject he is writing about, he means exactly what he says aned says exactly what he means(whatever the implications of those words might or might not be)

 

[DanF]

Taking a snippet of Lincolns response in a letter in which the context of his reply is framed in response to questions as to his intentions as President and taking, "I have no thought (present tense) of recommending the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia". And trying to turn it into "I have never thought about recommending the abolition of slavery in the district of Columbia". is either intentional dishonesty or the inability to understand and apply context.

 

[ole]

I agree that Lincoln was flipping forward, but not that he was flopping back -- that, today, is called evolving.

He moved from an avid supporter of colonialization to a final position of admitting that the USCT had earned suffrage, as well as the more intelligent among the freed blacks.

The Emancipation Proclamation? That was simply to deprive the Confederacy of labor. (And, eventually give rise to about 179k troops, along with civilians paid as teamsters, cooks, etc.)

He did not revert to his earlier convictions according to his audiences.

 

[W. Richardson]

Taking a snippet of Lincolns response in a letter in which the context of his reply is framed in response to questions as to his intentions as President and taking, "I have no thought (present tense) of recommending the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia". And trying to turn it into "I have never thought about recommending the abolition of slavery in the district of Columbia". is either intentional dishonesty or the inability to understand and apply context.

Side A - January 16th, 1849.....

While In Congress worked out a formula of conservative legislation for the ​

abolition of slavery in the District Of Columbia.​

Lincoln The President: Vol. 1 Springfield To Gettysburg Page 17​

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Side B -I have no thought of recommending the abolition of slavery in the District Of Columbia.​

Letter to Hon. John A. Gilmer​

Dec. 15th, 1860​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

​

Side A -I have never doubted the constitutional authority of congress to abolish slavery in this District​

; and I have ever desired to see the national capital freed from the institution in some satisfactory way.​

Collected Works: Vol. 5 Page 192​

Message To Congress​

April 16th, 1862​

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Side A He THOUGHT and wished to introduce a bill to congress​

Side B He has NO THOUGHT ​

Side A He now seems to have that THOUGHT again and abolition of slavery in the District becomes law.​

Side A to Side B back to Side A............Flip flop flip​

I have taken nothing out of context, you choose to not SEE and I am not going to make a blind man see. I am not here to MAKE anyone see what they refuse to see. You can call it what you want to but it is and was flip flopping. ​

Dec. 15th 1860 " I have no thought" Lincoln has ALREADY had the thought refer back to January 16th, 1849...Then in 1862 what happens ? The abolition Of Slavery in the District Of Columbia !!​

​

Reminds me of John Kerry IIRC " I voted for the war before I voted against it" Nothing has been taken out of context.​

​

Lincoln attempted this, Lincoln said he had no thought, Then Lincoln does what he attempted to do but had not thought on doing it ???????????​

​

Now respectfully to all if your opinion and belief is different then I respect that you can have your opinion and belief. ​

​

Respectfully,​

​

William Richardson​

 

[OpnCoronet]

The context concerning Emancipation in the D.C. by a Congressman in 1849, is completely different from that of a President Elect in 1860 and both even more different than that of a sitting President in 1862; in the middle of a great Civil War. The differing contexts are obvious to all who are capable of logical thought and possess even a passing knowledge of the historical events involved in each of those contexts.

 

[W. Richardson]

Same person with same intentions...Sorry no difference

Respectfully,

William Richardson

 

[DanF]

Side A - January 16th, 1849.....

While In Congress worked out a formula of conservative legislation for the ​

abolition of slavery in the District Of Columbia.​

Lincoln The President: Vol. 1 Springfield To Gettysburg Page 17​

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Side B -I have no thought of recommending the abolition of slavery in the District Of Columbia.​

Letter to Hon. John A. Gilmer​

Dec. 15th, 1860​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

​

​

Side A -I have never doubted the constitutional authority of congress to abolish slavery in this District​

; and I have ever desired to see the national capital freed from the institution in some satisfactory way.​

Collected Works: Vol. 5 Page 192​

Message To Congress​

April 16th, 1862​

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

​

​

Side A He THOUGHT and wished to introduce a bill to congress​

Side B He has NO THOUGHT ​

Side A He now seems to have that THOUGHT again and abolition of slavery in the District becomes law.​

Side A to Side B back to Side A............Flip flop flip​

I have taken nothing out of context, you choose to not SEE and I am not going to make a blind man see. I am not here to MAKE anyone see what they refuse to see. You can call it what you want to but it is and was flip flopping. ​

Dec. 15th 1860 " I have no thought" Lincoln has ALREADY had the thought refer back to January 16th, 1849...Then in 1862 what happens ? The abolition Of Slavery in the District Of Columbia !!​

​

Reminds me of John Kerry IIRC " I voted for the war before I voted against it" Nothing has been taken out of context.​

​

Lincoln attempted this, Lincoln said he had no thought, Then Lincoln does what he attempted to do but had not thought on doing it ???????????​

​

Now respectfully to all if your opinion and belief is different then I respect that you can have your opinion and belief. ​

​

Respectfully,​

​

William Richardson​

No, you are indeed ignoring the context and the plain meaning. you are taking I have no thought, (I have no plans) and trying to turn it into "I have never thought".

Lincoln did not say he had never thought of recommending the abolition of slavery in D.C. he was responding to a question about what he planned do as President. As president he had no thought about recomending such. It's the same as saying "I have no plans".

 

[OpnCoronet]

Lincoln had no plans for such an emancipation as President elect up to the precise moment he wrote that letter. He did not(and could not)presume to promise that changing events would not require a change in plans.