The Imaginary Abe Lincoln

[CSA Today]

An article by Joseph Sobran

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/the-imaginary-abe-a-reply-to-harry-jaffas-in-re-jack-kemp-v-joe-sobran/#more-7775

 

[ole]

Sobran almost rises the the level of believability of the Saints Kennedy, DiLorenzo and Lew what's his name.

How about citing someone who knows something?

 

[CSA Today]

Sobran almost rises the the level of believability of the Saints Kennedy, DiLorenzo and Lew what's his name.

How about citing someone who knows something?

Who do you recommend?

"What passes as standard American history is really Yankee history written by New Englanders or their puppets to glorify Yankee heroes and ideals."
Dr.Grady McWhiney

 

[ole]

Who do you recommend?

"What passes as standard American history is really Yankee history written by New Englanders or their puppets to glorify Yankee heroes and ideals."
Dr.Grady McWhiney

Gallagher, Robinson, Freehling, Catton, Nevins and a host of others. Add McWhiney to those who don't count as objective.

 

[CSA Today]

Gallagher, Robinson, Freehling, Catton, Nevins and a host of others. Add McWhiney to those who don't count as objective.

So, in essence, anyone who lauds Lincoln is objective while anyone who doesn't isn't.

"What passes as standard American history is really Yankee history written by New Englanders or their puppets to glorify Yankee heroes and ideals."
Dr.Grady McWhiney

 

[Rebforever]

Sobran almost rises the the level of believability of the Saints Kennedy, DiLorenzo and Lew what's his name.

How about citing someone who knows something?

I take it then what he says is not true according to you? Can you explain this so as to be clear on Sobran's points?

 

[ole]

So, in essence, anyone who lauds Lincoln is objective while anyone who doesn't isn't.

"What passes as standard American history is really Yankee history written by New Englanders or their puppets to glorify Yankee heroes and ideals."
Dr.Grady McWhiney

Didn't say that. Just that Sobran touts the same line as you do.

 

[ole]

I take it then what he says is not true according to you? Can you explain this so as to be clear on Sobran's points?

Too many to bother. Have spent 10 years reading the same arguments here.

 

[NedBaldwin]

I take it then what he says is not true according to you? Can you explain this so as to be clear on Sobran's points?

A few problems with Sobran:

• Paragraph 3 talks about the Declaration of Independence. He claims that "the Declaration said nothing about a "Union,"" If this doesn't set of a red flag for you, just read the end of the Declaration which refers to the signers as "Representatives of the united States of America" who were making a declaration for " these United Colonies"
• In paragraph 4 he makes a stupid marriage analogy while at the same time bizarrely states that it is false to claim that "the Union was older than the Constitution". Again a red flag should go up in your mind to read something like that.
• He declares "A state can secede from a confederation any time it wants to. " Just declaring it so does not make it so. Sobran provides no explanation or justification for this assertion.
• He goes on to incorrectly characterize the Articles of Confederation and the Treaty of Paris.

I stopped reading since there was so much **** already. This article shows either dishonesty or ignorance.

 

[CSA Today]

Didn't say that. Just that Sobran touts the same line as you do.

I see, so the people that agree with you are objective while those that agree with me aren't. What ever happened to difference of opinion or difference in interpretation of history?

"Since the Constitution doesn't forbid the states to secede, the North found it necessary to violate the Constitution in order to suppress Southern independence. Lincoln was forced to usurp legislative powers by raising troops and money and by suspending the writ of habeas corpus; when Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled such acts unconstitutional, Lincoln wrote an order for Taney's arrest! He never followed through on that, but he did illegally arrest 31 antiwar members of the Maryland legislature and install a puppet government. He went on to crush freedom of speech and press throughout the North. Such was Lincoln's idea of 'preserving the Constitution' and government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Joseph Sobran

 

[NedBaldwin]

I see, so the people that agree with you are objective while those that agree with me aren't. What ever happened to difference of opinion or difference in interpretation of history?

Whatever happened to fact or to honesty?
Or do you think its cool to just make up stuff and claim it is just a difference of opinion?

 

[Rebforever]

Too many to bother. Have spent 10 years reading the same arguments here.

I wondered how you would get past a question but thanks for your opinions.
You would expect the same out of others that posted a topic of concern.

 

[CSA Today]

Whatever happened to fact or to honesty?
Or do you think its cool to just make up stuff and claim it is just a difference of opinion?

Please be more specific as to what you think I made up.
As for "fact or to honesty", I take you would agree with Professor Burgess.

"The history of the United States should be written by a Northerner and "from the Northern point of view...because the Northern point of view is, in the main, the correct view," and that, while sincerity must be allowed the Southern people and their leaders, "not one scintilla of justification for secession and rebellion must be expected. The South must acknowledge its error as well as its defeat."
John W. Burgess, Dean of the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University, 1897."

 

[NedBaldwin]

Please be more specific as to what you think I made up.

I am referring to Sobran. You fawn over someone because he feeds your fantasies with lies.

As for "fact or to honesty", I take you would agree with Professor Burgess.

No, I do not.

 

[Rebforever]

A few problems with Sobran:

• Paragraph 3 talks about the Declaration of Independence. He claims that "the Declaration said nothing about a "Union,"" If this doesn't set of a red flag for you, just read the end of the Declaration which refers to the signers as "Representatives of the united States of America" who were making a declaration for " these United Colonies"
• In paragraph 4 he makes a stupid marriage analogy while at the same time bizarrely states that it is false to claim that "the Union was older than the Constitution". Again a red flag should go up in your mind to read something like that.
• He declares "A state can secede from a confederation any time it wants to. " Just declaring it so does not make it so. Sobran provides no explanation or justification for this assertion.
• He goes on to incorrectly characterize the Articles of Confederation and the Treaty of Paris.

I stopped reading since there was so much **** already. This article shows either dishonesty or ignorance.

I have looked at the Declaration and there is NO mention of union. However, it does say this.
You are purposely misleading in your post.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

 

[NedBaldwin]

I have looked at the Declaration and there is NO mention of union. However, it does say this.
You are purposely misleading in your post.

I correctly quoted the Declaration. There is mention of Union. The one misleading is you.

Look at the passage you quote. Right before the part you underline comes "That these United Colonies are" That is subject of the underlined portion. Do you know what United means?

 

[Rebforever]

A few problems with Sobran:

• Paragraph 3 talks about the Declaration of Independence. He claims that "the Declaration said nothing about a "Union,"" If this doesn't set of a red flag for you, just read the end of the Declaration which refers to the signers as "Representatives of the united States of America" who were making a declaration for " these United Colonies"
• In paragraph 4 he makes a stupid marriage analogy while at the same time bizarrely states that it is false to claim that "the Union was older than the Constitution". Again a red flag should go up in your mind to read something like that.
• He declares "A state can secede from a confederation any time it wants to. " Just declaring it so does not make it so. Sobran provides no explanation or justification for this assertion.
• He goes on to incorrectly characterize the Articles of Confederation and the Treaty of Paris.

I stopped reading since there was so much **** already. This article shows either dishonesty or ignorance.

It is your right to discontinue. If I had posted misleading information I too would disappear.

 

[Rebforever]

I correctly quoted the Declaration. There is mention of Union. The one misleading is you.

W

I correctly quoted the Declaration. There is mention of Union. The one misleading is you.

Look at the passage you quote. Right before the part you underline comes "That these United Colonies are" That is subject of the underlined portion. Do you know what United means?

What were they united in? Not united states per say but stood by each other in the cause. Come on, you know better.

 

[NedBaldwin]

W


What were they united in? Not united states per say but stood by each other in the cause. Come on, you know better.

I know better than what? You arent making sense.

 

[CSA Today]

I am referring to Sobran. You fawn over someone because he feeds your fantasies with lies.


No, I do not.

Perhaps you will share those whom you "fawn" over so we can then compare "lies."

"The history of the United States should be written by a Northerner and "from the Northern point of view...because the Northern point of view is, in the main, the correct view," and that, while sincerity must be allowed the Southern people and their leaders, "not one scintilla of justification for secession and rebellion must be expected. The South must acknowledge its error as well as its defeat." John W. Burgess, Dean of the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University, 1897."