Lincoln Lincoln Lies ?

[rhp6033]

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.

Simple. There was more than one railroad. As an attorney with increasing experience in the rather new area of law, it is natural that clients would seek him out to sue railroads other than the ones he was already representing. There's nothing new to this at all, any more so than a patent attorney might be hired to defend a patent one day, and to attack a patent the next.

 

[W. Richardson]

I am curious as to what exactly, convinces W. Richardson Lincoln intended to end slavery in the District of Columbia, before the CW?

Lincoln: The President Vol. 1 Page 17 By J.G. Randall....While in Congress he worked out a formula of conservative legislation for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. Footnote reads ( Lincoln presented his plan for abolition in the District and gave notice of intention to introduce it as a bill, but in the strict parliamentary sense it appears that this was never done. )

I don't know about you but that pretty much convinced me.

Respectfully,

William Richardson

edited by glorybound to change red type. 6/19, 1911

 

[matthew mckeon]

So you are suggesting the conspiracy theory of throwing the senate election is true? Otherwise, a heavy dose of snark is just what the doctor ordered.

IMO, a dose of snark is almost never called for. In this particular case, the story of the Lincoln Douglas debates is often described as Lincoln cleverly putting Douglas in the position of publicly choosing either to continue popular sovereignty or Dred Scot. Clever because either option alienates a good part of the Democratic Party, a kind of a "heads I win, tails you lose." Douglas chooses to continue to push p.s. Its a winning move for the Senate race of 1858, but a losing move for the 1860 presidential election. I believe that is what the poster meant by "luring Douglas into winning the senate race." I'm oversimplifying a great deal, but its not a crackpot idea.

I don't see it as being particularly devious or cunning. Its a pretty obvious question to be asked in that senate race.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Lincoln: The President Vol. 1 Page 17 By J.G. Randall....While in Congress he worked out a formula of conservative legislation for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. Footnote reads ( Lincoln presented his plan for abolition in the District and gave notice of intention to introduce it as a bill, but in the strict parliamentary sense it appears that this was never done. )

I don't know about you but that pretty much convinced me.

Respectfully,

William Richardson

Oooh, you're about to get a nastygram from the mods. Only they are allowed to use red font.

Strictly speaking, you're partially correct. Lincoln's legislation would have outlawed slave ownership by permanent residents of the district. But Congressmen and Senators would be allowed to keep their slaves in the District with them whenever they were in Washington and regardless of how long they stayed. Lincoln saw it as a compromise effort, and when support for it dried up he didn't bother introducing it.

 

[cash]

IMO, a dose of snark is almost never called for. In this particular case, the story of the Lincoln Douglas debates is often described as Lincoln cleverly putting Douglas in the position of publicly choosing either to continue popular sovereignty or Dred Scot. Clever because either option alienates a good part of the Democratic Party, a kind of a "heads I win, tails you lose." Douglas chooses to continue to push p.s. Its a winning move for the Senate race of 1858, but a losing move for the 1860 presidential election. I believe that is what the poster meant by "luring Douglas into winning the senate race." I'm oversimplifying a great deal, but its not a crackpot idea.

I don't see it as being particularly devious or cunning. Its a pretty obvious question to be asked in that senate race.

That's mighty red lipstick on that sow.

Regarding the Freeport Doctrine, I seem to recall that particular theory has been debunked. I'll have to check and see what I can find on it.

 

[ForeverFree]

IMO, a dose of snark is almost never called for. In this particular case, the story of the Lincoln Douglas debates is often described as Lincoln cleverly putting Douglas in the position of publicly choosing either to continue popular sovereignty or Dred Scot. Clever because either option alienates a good part of the Democratic Party, a kind of a "heads I win, tails you lose." Douglas chooses to continue to push p.s. Its a winning move for the Senate race of 1858, but a losing move for the 1860 presidential election. I believe that is what the poster meant by "luring Douglas into winning the senate race." I'm oversimplifying a great deal, but its not a crackpot idea.

I don't see it as being particularly devious or cunning. Its a pretty obvious question to be asked in that senate race.

See, here's the thing. Old_Glory said:

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.​

​

That sounds to me like OG is saying, Lincoln intentionally manipulated events so that Douglas could win the senate election (thereby causing Lincoln to lose the seat), in order to ensure that when Douglas ran for president two years later (meaning Lincoln knew it was inevitable that Douglas would run for Pres), he would lose as a result of taking unpopular positions in the senate election.​

​

That's hard for me to believe.​

​

Here's what I think. I think Lincoln was trying to lure Douglas into defeat in the Illinois senate election, using cunning as needed, as was not thinking in the short term about whether Douglas would run for president two years down the road.​

​

I would add that Douglas tried to force Lincoln into taking some unpopular stands on the stump as well. Douglas' race-baiting of Lincoln in the debates is hard to take now, but Douglas knew (or believed) this line of attack would resonate with the voters.​

​

- Alan​

 

[matthew mckeon]

My point is the story of clever Lincoln trapping Douglas, and therefore damaging Douglas's chances for the presidency is a common one, not one made up or coming from left field.

I'm not totally comfortable with it being all that accurate. It's been a while since I read about the debates.

 

[cash]

Don E. Fehrenbacher, Prelude to Greatness: Lincoln in the 1850s, pp. 124-128 blows away the notion that Lincoln laid a trap for Douglas at Freeport.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Thanks, Cash. It was a common story. Does Fehrenbacher go into where the idea got started?

 

[Red Harvest]

IMO, a dose of snark is almost never called for. In this particular case, the story of the Lincoln Douglas debates is often described as Lincoln cleverly putting Douglas in the position of publicly choosing either to continue popular sovereignty or Dred Scot. Clever because either option alienates a good part of the Democratic Party, a kind of a "heads I win, tails you lose." Douglas chooses to continue to push p.s. Its a winning move for the Senate race of 1858, but a losing move for the 1860 presidential election. I believe that is what the poster meant by "luring Douglas into winning the senate race." I'm oversimplifying a great deal, but its not a crackpot idea.

I don't see it as being particularly devious or cunning. Its a pretty obvious question to be asked in that senate race.

Nope, the throwing the senate race idea is conspiracy theory nonsense. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'll challenge this sort of absurdity with extreme snark whenever I see it. If the poster can back it with a cogent and sourced argument I'll give some room. Considering the history of the poster, that ain't gonna happen.

EDIT: You realize of course that even by your scenario it is a potential winning strategy (rather than losing) for the senate race "because either option alienates a good part of the Democratic Party."

 

[matthew mckeon]

Nope, the throwing the senate race idea is conspiracy theory nonsense. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'll challenge this sort of absurdity with extreme snark whenever I see it. If the poster can back it with a cogent and sourced argument I'll give some room. Considering the history of the poster, that ain't gonna happen.

EDIT: You realize of course that even by your scenario it is a potential winning strategy (rather than losing) for the senate race "because either option alienates a good part of the Democratic Party."

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.

 

[cash]

Thanks, Cash. It was a common story. Does Fehrenbacher go into where the idea got started?

http://books.google.com/books?id=cmYXZNPwkF0C&q=Freeport#v=snippet&q=Freeport&f=false

 

[RobertP]

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.

Way, way overdue. Thank you, Matt.

 

[cash]

Way, way overdue. Thank you, Matt.

Irony.

 

[ForeverFree]

Question: Have we established that the situation in the opening post is not a case of Lincoln telling lies? I've made my own case that Lincoln wasn't lying (and got no argument on it), and others have made their own statements. It seems we're agreed, no lying in this instance, correct?

- Alan

 

[matthew mckeon]

http://books.google.com/books?id=cmYXZNPwkF0C&q=Freeport#v=snippet&q=Freeport&f=false

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

 

[matthew mckeon]

Question: Have we established that the situation in the opening post is not a case of Lincoln telling lies? I've made my own case that Lincoln wasn't lying (and got no argument on it), and others have made their own statements. It seems we're agreed, no lying in this instance, correct?

- Alan

No, I don't think that has been proved. I'm sure Lincoln lied about something during his career, but I don't see this as an example.

 

[RobertP]

Irony.

Truth to Power

 

[TDMD]

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.

Back then on the circuit, the lawyers would decide who would take the plaintiff's case and who would take the defendant's. Are you sure that he didn't sue a different railroad than the one he represented? He did sue the IC on his own behalf because he was owed payment from them.

 

[TDMD]

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

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.