The Imaginary Abe Lincoln

[rpkennedy]

I agree, by the time of his presidency, Lincoln had abandoned all idealistic notions of the will of the people to decide their own course of action and had opted for imperious aggression as the alternative.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements."

Abraham Lincoln January 12 1848

And yet, the majority of the country was behind Lincoln on this issue. So, he was to consider only the wishes of the minority who wanted to leave and ignore those who wanted to preserve the Union?

R

 

[NedBaldwin]

I agree, by the time of his presidency, Lincoln had abandoned all idealistic notions of the will of the people to decide their own course of action and had opted for imperious aggression as the alternative.

Who are you agreeing with? Becuase thats not what I said.

 

[James B White]

There's the qualification, "having the power." White southerners were inclined, but one could argue that Lincoln didn't think they had the power, either militarily or legally.

 

[CSA Today]

And yet, the majority of the country was behind Lincoln on this issue. So, he was to consider only the wishes of the minority who wanted to leave and ignore those who wanted to preserve the Union?

R

The people seeking independence certainly weren't behind Lincoln on the issue.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements."

Abraham Lincoln January 12 1848

 

[rpkennedy]

The people seeking independence certainly weren't behind Lincoln on the issue.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements."

Abraham Lincoln January 12 1848

True, but, as I said, they were a minority in the country. Is Lincoln supposed to give in to the South because they wanted to leave, despite the fact that embracing secession was a minority view?

R

 

[jgoodguy]

I agree, by the time of his presidency, Lincoln had abandoned all idealistic notions of the will of the people to decide their own course of action and had opted for imperious aggression as the alternative.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements."

Abraham Lincoln January 12 1848

I have a horrible head cold and feel quite wooly, so could you put this in plain English with perhaps something in support.
Perhaps a plank in the GOP platform about idealistic notions of the will of the people to decide their own course of action (a plank in either Democrat platform) would be interesting. What exactly is imperious aggression and can you give an example?

 

[KeyserSoze]

The people seeking independence certainly weren't behind Lincoln on the issue.

Maybe they should have tried a little harder?

 

[johan_steele]

What exactly is imperious aggression and can you give an example?

Their view is quite simple once you figure it out: The US was/is evil while the CS pure as the driven snow. Under no circumstances can the CS be found at fault for anything otherwise you're "south bashing." Lincoln was the antichrist while Jeff Davis and the slaveocracy the second coming, if you fail to agree you are a "South bashing."

You aren't allowed to ask them identify the liberty that was challenged by the US that was preserved by the CS. Or to identify the Democracy that was damaged by the US but preserved by the CS. God forbid you ask what "Self-Determination" was threatened by the US but preserved by the CS.

As soon as you do you get accused of "South bashing" hateful rhetoric, being nasty etc.

 

[Battalion]

What exactly is imperious aggression and can you give an example?

Here's someone that Lincoln sent-

"I would banish all minor questions and assert the broad doctrine, that as a nation the United States has the right, and also the physical power, to penetrate to every part of the national domain....that we will remove and destroy every obstacle--if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper; that we will not cease until the end is attained."

-William T. Sherman

Sounds like imperious aggression to me...

 

[ole]

Their view is quite simple once you figure it out: The US was/is evil while the CS pure as the driven snow. Under no circumstances can the CS be found at fault for anything otherwise you're "south bashing." Lincoln was the antichrist while Jeff Davis and the slaveocracy the second coming, if you fail to agree you are a "South bashing."

You aren't allowed to ask them identify the liberty that was challenged by the US that was preserved by the CS. Or to identify the Democracy that was damaged by the US but preserved by the CS. God forbid you ask what "Self-Determination" was threatened by the US but preserved by the CS.

As soon as you do you get accused of "South bashing" hateful rhetoric, being nasty etc.

We have many "southern-leaning" members who do not resort to hateful rhetoric and many "northern-leaning" members who earn the same consideration. The few who do not are rightfully ignored. And, unfortunately, attacked.

This is a forum for learning and trading information. That some topics raise hackles is to be expected. But let us continue to learn and engage in civil debate. But hackles are not God given. They are within every individual's control. Each gets to decide how much value to place on a reaction.

Upshot: Grow a tougher skin. Ignore that which irritates you. Answer facts with facts and without anger. (Or snarkey ****.)

 

[jgoodguy]

Here's someone that Lincoln sent-

"I would banish all minor questions and assert the broad doctrine, that as a nation the United States has the right, and also the physical power, to penetrate to every part of the national domain....that we will remove and destroy every obstacle--if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper; that we will not cease until the end is attained."

-William T. Sherman

Sounds like imperious aggression to me...

From the same Sherman's letter.

The young bloods of the South: sons of planters, lawyers about towns, good billiard-players and sportsmen, men who never did work and never will. War suits them, and the rascals are brave, fine riders, bold to rashness, and dangerous subjects in every sense. They care not a sou for ******s, land, or any thing. They hate Yankees per se, and don't bother their brains about the past, present, or future. As long as they have good horses, plenty of forage, and an open country, they are happy.

Sounds like routine law enforcement to me.

 

[jgoodguy]

Their view is quite simple once you figure it out: The US was/is evil while the CS pure as the driven snow. Under no circumstances can the CS be found at fault for anything otherwise you're "south bashing." Lincoln was the antichrist while Jeff Davis and the slaveocracy the second coming, if you fail to agree you are a "South bashing."

You aren't allowed to ask them identify the liberty that was challenged by the US that was preserved by the CS. Or to identify the Democracy that was damaged by the US but preserved by the CS. God forbid you ask what "Self-Determination" was threatened by the US but preserved by the CS.

As soon as you do you get accused of "South bashing" hateful rhetoric, being nasty etc.

There are advocates that use facts or good argument that are a pleasure to read even if one disagrees. Then there are advocates that just use random rhetoric that can be simply amusing or frustrating according to a person's nature. Not responding to an advocate or not reading his post that is frustrating is a good option and a very good use of time and energy. After all it is like you are missing anything important.

 

[CSA Today]

True, but, as I said, they were a minority in the country. Is Lincoln supposed to give in to the South because they wanted to leave, despite the fact that embracing secession was a minority view?

R

If Lincoln was consistence in his thinking I would think so since as far I know he embraced the right of a minority in 1776 to secede, rebel, revolutionize, answer a call from heaven or whatever reason one might use to justify rebellion and unilateral secession.

" If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel."
Wade Hampton

 

[CSA Today]

Here's someone that Lincoln sent-

"I would banish all minor questions and assert the broad doctrine, that as a nation the United States has the right, and also the physical power, to penetrate to every part of the national domain....that we will remove and destroy every obstacle--if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper; that we will not cease until the end is attained."

-William T. Sherman

Sounds like imperious aggression to me...

Sounds like it to me too.

"If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking."

William T. Sherman

 

[FrazierC]

I know this isn't exactly what we were talking about, but I started reading The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo last night. I couldn't believe how flat out hypocritical it was. The biting irony that he gives the definition of what a "cult" is, when it perfectly describes the author's own followers. I found over 30 things in the first 3 chapters alone that are the author's opinion stated as facts, which he never backs up. Anyone agree?

 

[Rebforever]

I know this isn't exactly what we were talking about, but I started reading The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo last night. I couldn't believe how flat out hypocritical it was. The biting irony that he gives the definition of what a "cult" is, when it perfectly describes the author's own followers. I found over 30 things in the first 3 chapters alone that are the author's opinion stated as facts, which he never backs up. Anyone agree?

I don't know who would agree with you because what you say you have already made your mind up.
Basically you just have an opinion!.

 

[NedBaldwin]

I don't know who would agree with you because what you say you have already made your mind up.
Basically you just have an opinion!.

I think plenty of people might agree with him. He stated that "I found over 30 things in the first 3 chapters alone that are the author's opinion stated as facts, which he never backs up." The difference between a statement of fact and a statement of opinion is a generally understood concept for those who are open minded and educated.

 

[CSA Today]

I don't know who would agree with you because what you say you have already made your mind up.
Basically you just have an opinion!.

Or unwilling to looks at the endnotes and bibliography.

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states, they came out as subjects, and what they thus lost they have never gotten back."
H. L. Mencken

 

[FrazierC]

I don't know who would agree with you because what you say you have already made your mind up.
Basically you just have an opinion!.

Your correct: It was just my opinion. I was merely wondering if it is shared by anyone else.
You are incorrect, however, in stating that I had already made up my mind on DiLorenzo's work before I started reading it. Quite on the contrary: reading this thread yesterday is what inspired me to read the book. I went in with an open mind. I read the book to learn and understand what others on the forum were talking about, not to criticize it. I try to learn the facts of events, so that I can form my own opinions on what happened. My point was that I couldn't learn anything from the book, since he states things without backing them up (claiming that "tens of thousands" of political prisoners were put behind bars.... really?) and presents his own opinions. There is little to be learned from the opinion of historians, as DiLorenzo himself would agree.

 

[rpkennedy]

Your correct: It was just my opinion. I was merely wondering if it is shared by anyone else.
You are incorrect, however, in stating that I had already made up my mind on DiLorenzo's work before I started reading it. Quite on the contrary: reading this thread yesterday is what inspired me to read the book. I went in with an open mind. I read the book to learn and understand what others on the forum were talking about, not to criticize it. I try to learn the facts of events, so that I can form my own opinions on what happened. My point was that I couldn't learn anything from the book, since he states things without backing them up (claiming that "tens of thousands" of political prisoners were put behind bars.... really?) and presents his own opinions. There is little to be learned from the opinion of historians, as DiLorenzo himself would agree.

DiLorenzo isn't even a historian, something I think he would agree with. You've hit the nail on the head in that he presents opinion as fact and cherry-picks facts and statements in order to prove a point. Sadly, when put into context, these statements don't say what DiLorenzo wants them to say.

R