Lincoln Lincoln Lies ?

[Copperhead-mi]

Does anything surprise you about him? Someone tell me how he was an attorney representing the railroad but would help people sue the railroad also.

It's called the "cab-rank rule" which was mandatory for lawyers in many countries to practice, although I don't believe it was required of lawyers in the United States. Regardless, it was practiced by many 19th century American lawyers, Lincoln included.

 

[W. Richardson]

-

The thread started out somewhat on an ominous note with negative anti-Davis overtones, such as this one was begun with anti-Lincoln overtones. The Davis thread went south pretty quickly and became unmanageable, so it was locked.

I am not sure what you mean as anti-Lincoln overtures ? Do you mean that one can not speak bad of Lincoln ?

Respectfully,

William Richardson ?

 

[Old_Glory]

And yet Lincoln reassured the South he would not and could not interfere with slavery and wanted them to believe him. Yet I am sure you can see why they could not believe him. Lincoln was a lawyer I can't agree on the Master Politician. I will say he was cunning.

Respectfully,

William Richardson

I suggest reading about how he handled Stephen Douglas, luring him into winning the Senate seat, but costing him the Presidency in the process. Lincoln was a master politician, maybe the best politically skilled person that has ever lived in America.

I would recommend, "Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Debates, 1856-1858". You can get it on Amazon. It is a fantastic read, far better than modern authors who layer on ridiculous bias to push their own agendas. These are Lincoln words, judge them for yourself.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

You are correct he was not in congress in 1849. I entered the in-correct year. It is flip flopping and lying, but however you are entitled to your opinion.

" I have NO thought " yet he seems to have had a THOUGHT in congress ?

Respectfully,

William Richardson

Reread what you posted. Lincoln believed that Congress had the right to abolish slavery in D.C. That is no different than Joe Schmoe stating that he's not going to personally recommend the deportation of an illegal immigrant parent who has U.S. born childen here but he has no doubt that Congress has the authority to do so. That is not flip-flopping.

 

[W. Richardson]

I suggest reading about how he handled Stephen Douglas, luring him into winning the Senate seat, but costing him the Presidency in the process. Lincoln was a master politician, maybe the best politically skilled that has ever lived in America.

I would recommend, "Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Debates, 1856-1858". You can get it on Amazon. It is a fantastic read, far better than modern authors who layer on ridiculous bias to push their own agendas. These are Lincoln words, judge them for yourself.

Thank you for your recommendations. I have read on the Douglas and Lincoln debates and I have and have read Life and works of Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Debates, 1856-1858. All very good reads. You have a higher regard for Mr. Lincoln than I do. He was a cunning politician.

Respectfully,

William Richardson

 

[W. Richardson]

Reread what you posted. Lincoln believed that Congress had the right to abolish slavery in D.C. That is no different than Joe Schmoe stating that he's not going to personally recommend the deportation of an illegal immigrant parent who has U.S. born childen here but he has no doubt that Congress has the authority to do so. That is not flip-flopping.

Please re-read my original post again.

Respectfully,

William Richardson

 

[matthew mckeon]

There's a difference between someone who studies the past and someone who leafs through material trying to confirm their biases. One enlightens, one obscures. One is worth reading or listening to, one isn't. One can learn, and one can't, because he or she already know all the answers.

 

[Old_Glory]

Thank you for your recommendations. I have read on the Douglas and Lincoln debates and I have and have read Life and works of Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Debates, 1856-1858. All very good reads. You have a higher regard for Mr. Lincoln than I do. He was a cunning politician.

Respectfully,

William Richardson

I respect his abilities. The South knew exactly what the Republican party had in mind if Lincoln won (particularly those backing him in the Republican party far more so than Lincoln himself). Men like Seward, Stanton, Smith, Sumner, were extreme radicals that were capable of doing whatever it took to get what they wanted.

In order to be a good politician, you must satisfy the radicals also. Had Lincoln just ignored them, they would have thrown him out faster than any Democrat could have. Politics is a tight rope walk which sometimes involves some crow eating to keep the extremists from ruining what you really want.

I feel one of Lincoln's major goals early on was to remove a large portion of the Negros from America to another place. In order to do that, the slaves must be freed or bought. There was a lot of fear in the North regarding the negro population becoming out of control. For some odd reason, Mississippi didn't seem to mind it even though they were over 55%.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Lincoln was actually quite aboveboard and consistent in his policies. He wasn't particularly devious either.

1. Slavery was bad. Unjust for blacks, degrading for whites, a "cancer" or "serpent" for the country. He held to that principle from his earliest days.

2. The Union would be preserved.

When he ran for the presidency(and before) he opposed the expansion of slavery into the western territories. He never compromised on this, and stated clearly that was the basis he was elected. The end of slavery's expansion he thought would bring about the peaceful end of slavery sometime in the future. As a plan it was Constitutional, since the federal government didn't have the power to abolish slavery, without a Constitutional amendment, or an extraordinary situation, like a war.

He didn't waver or compromise on the 2nd point either.

 

[matthew mckeon]

The problem with Lincoln isn't his supernatural "cunning." Its not that remarkable to be smarter than Jefferson Davis. The problem is Lincoln and Davis each wanted something very badly. Lincoln wanted to perserve the United States, and Davis wanted an independent Southern Confederacy. Both could not have what they wanted. All this stuff about Lincoln "master politician"ness or he supposed "doing anything for political gain," is just sour grapes. Lincoln wouldn't bend and he wouldn't scare. Neither would Davis.

 

[CharacterGroove]

I respect his abilities. The South knew exactly what the Republican party had in mind if Lincoln won (particularly those backing him in the Republican party far more so than Lincoln himself). Men like Seward, Stanton, Smith, Sumner, were extreme radicals that were capable of doing whatever it took to get what they wanted.

The South should have known because there was a published platform. Republicans wanted to cease any new expansion of slavery.

In order to be a good politician, you must satisfy the radicals also. Had Lincoln just ignored them, they would have thrown him out faster than any Democrat could have. Politics is a tight rope walk which sometimes involves some crow eating to keep the extremists from ruining what you really want.

I'm curious what pressures you believe Lincoln was balancing. Lincoln abhorred slavery and agreed with the majority of his party to end its expansion - in the hopes that it would also then dry up where it existed. Of course, he was much more pragmatic than, say, Sumner or Stevens. But he didn't budge with anybody to the other side on that critical point.

Although, perhaps this thread does suggest a little compromise. Even though Lincoln believed that Congress had the legal right to abolish slavery in D.C., Lincoln said that he would not recommend the measure. A hands off approach. That is consistent with the platform yet certainly does not go as far as the most rabid abolitionists hoped.

I feel one of Lincoln's major goals early on was to remove a large portion of the Negros from America to another place. In order to do that, the slaves must be freed or bought. There was a lot of fear in the North regarding the negro population becoming out of control. For some odd reason, Mississippi didn't seem to mind it even though they were over 55%.

Is there anything in particular that makes you feel that was one of Lincoln's major goals? I know it was always bandied about as a solution, and certainly some plans were put into motion, but is there anything to suggest that Lincoln was a major advocate?

With your last sentence, to put it bluntly, I think the fact that the powerful in Mississippi enslaved those 55% for considerable profit had something to do with it.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Please re-read my original post again.

Respectfully,

William Richardson

Lincoln's December 1848 bill was in response to New York Representative Daniel Gott's resolution to abolish the slave trade in D.C. whose language Lincoln found too abrasive against Southerners and felt the resolution if passed would make the Capital a safe haven for runaway slaves. Lincoln wrote a substitute resolution that would make all children born to slave mothers after 1850, free, and the slave-owner of the mother would be responsible for the child's education and welfare. In return, the child would be apprenticed to the slave-owner for an undetermined amount of years, at which point, the child would be released from appenticeship. Compensation was included in the resolution as was the return of any fugitive slave to its owner, who took refuge in D.C. The resolution required a majority approval by the voters in D.C. Lincoln's resolution caused Gott's more caustic resolution to be tabled and of course, Lincoln's proposal never made it to a vote in the House.

 

[K Hale]

I feel one of Lincoln's major goals early on was to remove a large portion of the Negros from America to another place. In order to do that, the slaves must be freed or bought. There was a lot of fear in the North regarding the negro population becoming out of control. For some odd reason, Mississippi didn't seem to mind it even though they were over 55%.

Maybe because Mississippi kept them enslaved? Just a thought.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I often read things along the lines of "slavery would have ended without a war." Eventually, in 20 or 50 or X number of years. How?!

Lincoln proposed two gradual, compensated plans for a phased ending or restricting of slavery. The one described above, and his platform of ending the expansion of slavery into the West. They were constitutional, peaceful, gradual. Robert E. Lee could somberly say slavery was evil, then go oh well, God will take care of it. Lincoln actual had a plan and the South seceded rather than see it attempted.

 

[Red Harvest]

There was a lot of fear in the North regarding the negro population becoming out of control. For some odd reason, Mississippi didn't seem to mind it even though they were over 55%.

There was far greater fear of that in the South. That was a major driver for keeping them enslaved, particularly in the Deep South. After they were freed and got the vote, well, the majority of the white population found ways to disenfranchise them and keep them as an underclass. Wasn't until the Civil Rights Act that this problem was addressed again by the nation. The response of the Deep South: Backing George Wallace "I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" in 1968.

Despite substantial black populations who now had the vote again (and of whom only 2% voted for Wallace) Wallace won 65.86% overall in Alabama, 38.65% in Arkansas (and all its electoral votes), 42.85% in Georgia (and all its electoral votes), 48.32% in Louisiana (and all its electoral votes), and 63.46% in Mississippi.

 

[Old_Glory]

The problem with Lincoln isn't his supernatural "cunning." Its not that remarkable to be smarter than Jefferson Davis. The problem is Lincoln and Davis each wanted something very badly. Lincoln wanted to perserve the United States, and Davis wanted an independent Southern Confederacy. Both could not have what they wanted. All this stuff about Lincoln "master politician"ness or he supposed "doing anything for political gain," is just sour grapes. Lincoln wouldn't bend and he wouldn't scare. Neither would Davis.

Sour grapes is it? Your arguments are of a black and white version of the Civil War that does not exist.

Do you deny Lincoln's great politically ability compared to anyone, not just Davis? Who was better than Lincoln in American Politics? Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union after he adopted policies that would easily destroy it. His election is one of the key events that started the separation of the Union. That is more than a minor detail being left out of the picture in your version.

 

[cash]

Lincoln on the abolition of slavery in the District Of Columbia

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no thought of recommending the abolition of slavery in the District Of Columbia.

Letter to Hon. John A. Gilmer
Dec. 15th, 1860
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln was not evolving he was flip flopping!!

Respectfully,

William Richardson

edited by glorybound to remove red type which is reserved for moderators/staff. 6/18, 2058

Not at all. You don't know the context in which he was acting. His plan of emancipation in DC was one of compensated emancipation and would be in effect only if it had the approval of the slaveowners who had slaves in DC. You are only quoting a small portion of the letter to Gilmer. In that letter he said there was no point in trying to introduce a bill to end slavery in DC because the Congress would never go along with it.

 

[cash]

It is flip flopping and lying,

Nobody who understands the context would honestly think that.

 

[cash]

No, not at all. I am enjoying reading more on Lincoln and finding out all the historians seem to ingnore.

You haven't put out anything historians ignore. Perhaps you just need to read more of what historians write.

 

[cash]

But yet that is exactly turned around an done. IMHO he intended to the whole time. It was one of his goals. He started on it while in congress and finished it during his presidency, while in between he denied he had and thought of doing so.

Respectfully,

William Richardson

It was Congress who ended slavery in the District of Columbia, as a result of the war.