The Cult of Lincoln

[Dave_pro2a]

I figure Cali and NJ have the terrible gun (and tax) laws they do not because some outside force is imposing it on them, but because most residents thereof approve of such laws.

I certainly welcome an alternate and more charitable assessment...if you have one to offer.

Charles

Follow the funding.

Start with public school.

Then roads.

Then union power.

Next up, population density, since that dictates priorities.. because it's all about the cash.

But Utah is never one to miss out on using 1000 words, when 26 might suffice.

 

[utbagpiper]

Next up, population density, since that dictates priorities.. because it's all about the cash.

But Utah is never one to miss out on using 1000 words, when 26 might suffice.

It is shame that even when we largely agree on a topic--such as we seem to do on immigration, that you have to be such a ****.

No one forces you to read a post that exceeds your attention span, Dave. It is a discussion board, not twitter. And I doubt either I or my home State have ever done anything to harm you. So grow up and accept that disagreements in some areas don't make someone a mortal enemy.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

This can be true, but it can also be purely semantics.

If someone is really pro-freedom, they are necessarily anti-tyrant. What you're hinting at is their focus, perspective, concentration... But his post, IMO, doesn't at all indicate that his concentration is necessarily negative. So this is likely all semantics and not indicative of his state of mind.

ETA, in other words, contrary to you saying "this explains a lot", it actually "explains" pretty much nothing of the sort, and I think that you are reaching.

Seems my attempt at some room for politeness were misinterpreted.

What has become clear is that the cult of anti-Lincoln is exactly what we'd expect from someone's whose focus is attacking an individual and painting him in an entirely negative light.

No doubt Lincoln did some very objectionable things.

He also intended to give some blacks voting rights and hoped to see Southern States do likewise for literate blacks. He planned for a rapid and benevolent reunification of the Southern States.

His assassination at the hands of someone who was anti-Lincoln and anti-black rather than pro-Southern, hurt the South tremendously.

To counter rose colored children's history of Lincoln with the complicated truth is a good thing.

To presume to counter it with an equally inaccurate picture of Lincoln as wholly evil, unusually racist for his day, etc, is counterproductive. Anyone who really cares for honest history is likely to quickly confirm several key aspects of this anti-Lincoln narrative as false, and potentially discount some less well known aspects that might actually be true.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Please behave yourself and stop the insinuations , if you wanted a cite or where I came by my statement simply ask.

I have, repeatedly as you've moved the goal posts or ignored. To wit:

Yet the North put warships in a sovereign states territory they also instituted a blockade.

(emphasis added)

How many warships (your plural) did "the North" put into SC's territory, on what date? On what date did the supposed blockade begin?

How do these dates compare to the late December 1860 date on which SC forces fired on an unarmed supply ship and federal property? How do they compare with the dates when SC forces seized federal property throughout the State?

Bottom line warship in your territory, is an act of war.

Now down to a single warship, but still no admission of the dates of when the ship entered SC's territory vs the dates when SC opened fire and seized federal assets.

Invading and blockading before the deals can even be talked about shows us this wasn't the motivation for Lincolns acts he did without approval of congress.

What does it show us about motivation when property is seized before deals for compensation can even be talked about? On what dates were property seized vs on what date was any federal warship put into SC's territory?

Moving a war ship into a sovereign territory and announcing a blockaded are acts of war.

On what date was this singular warship moved into the territory of SC? On what date was a blockade announced? Was this before or after SC fired on Fort Sumter and an unarmed supply ship in late December 1860? Was it before or after SC forcefully stole property rightfully owned by the entire nation?

It was Lincoln who refused to meet for peaceful compensation for federal property yet sent a warship into a sovereign state.

On what date was this singular warship moved into the territory of SC? On what date did Lincoln (who took office in March of 1861) refuse to meet to discuss forced compensation for property the federal government didn't care to sell? Was this before or after SC fired on Fort Sumter and an unarmed supply ship in late December 1860? Was it before or after SC forcefully stole property rightfully owned by the entire nation?

Once South Carolina declared its sovereignty, the foreign soldiers of the northern union who refused to leave and to continue to maintain a military presence were it wasn't wanted is an act of war. Blaming S. Carolina for the attack is nonsense.

So your narrative has gone from (plural) warships sent to SC and a blockade, to a single warship and blockade, to the mere fact that union soldiers didn't abandon federal property at the moment SC declared independence.

In all of this you've ignored requests for citations or to provide the dates on which key events happened.

You are convinced that South Carolina did not start the War and so when presented with indisputable facts that challenge that belief, you change your standards for constitutes the real start of the war. By this last standard, it wasn't Lincoln who started the war, but his predecessor Buchanan. SC seceded, fired on Fort Sumter and an unarmed supply ship, and seized federal property and assets the last week or so of December, 1860, over two full months before Lincoln even took office up through February, days before he took office. It was Buchanan, not Lincoln, who sent the supply ship to Charleston Harbor, who ordered union forces to move into and hold the not quite finished Fort Sumter. Lincoln set a supply ship with explicit promise it would only supply rations, and that no arms or men would be put into the fort unless the for was attacked.

Again, the problem with being "anti-Lincoln" rather than pro-accurate-history is that you clearly care very little for small but important historic details like the dates on which events actually happened or who was in office. Your narrative is that Lincoln was evil and so your history supports that.

I don't like Lincoln because he said something nice about my religion. How facile to even suggest that; how utterly sophomoric if you actually believe that based on what I wrote.

There is much Lincoln did that I abhor. There are other aspects of him that I find laudable. And much as the means and costs are distasteful to me, I am pleased that the union was preserved.

What is lost in your cult of "anti-Lincoln" is any room for any good in him at all. Whatever his views on race in 1860 or before (and best evidence I've seen is that he was somewhere between middle of the road to slightly progressive on the issue for his day), by 1865 he intended to extend the franchise to some blacks in the North and hoped to see the South do likewise for literate former slaves. While he single minded preserved the union--admittedly without regard to constitutional limitations--he also intended for a rapid and benevolent reunification of the South. All indications are that were it not for Booth's assassination of Lincoln, the South would have fared MUCH, MUCH better than it did after his death. Your cult also prevents you honestly discussing the South's culpability in starting a war. The first several violent acts in the war, from seizing federal assets, to firing on an unarmed supply ship, to firing on and laying siege to Fort Sumter ALL occurred before Lincoln even took office.

There are many interesting aspects of the War one might discuss including whether SC had a right to secede, how that should have been property handled by both sides, etc. But when you can't even acknowledge your narrative has factual errors, you are engaging in cult-like behavior.

Enjoy your cult of anti-Lincoln. I find it as juvenile and ill-informed as those who praise Lincoln without reservation.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

I am trying my best to ignore the usual tactics of one poster of personal attacks, misdirection, and changing the parameters.

This is the kind of crap that degrades discussion on the forum.

We all know to whom you are referring. Man up and name names and point out specific offenses if they really exist. Cite these personal attacks. Call them out to the mods who do not let personal attacks stand. You don't, because you can't, because I haven't.

I've not misdirected nor changed any parameters. Indeed, what clearly annoys you on this thread is what annoys the anarchists every time I engage them on one of their anti-whatever rants: my single minded determination to stick to the relevant points. As my post above with multiple quotes from you highlights, I've not changed parameters nor misdirected; I've repeated asked you to correct your incorrect assertions regarding the events and dates in the earliest days of the civil war, two months before Lincoln even took office.

Generic and unsupportable allegations of offensive "tactics" is itself offensive.

Either stick strictly to the issues, or make clear what "tactics" you find so offensive. Problem is, nobody except your own cheer-leading section is going to agree that being corrected on dates and events is offensive.

Charles

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Seems my attempt at some room for politeness were misinterpreted.

In that case, then, you were just wrong... My misinterpretation was actually to your benefit.

This is the kind of crap that degrades discussion on the forum.

Oh bagpiper, if you want to know what kind of crap degrades discussion on the forum, just click your username followed by view recent posts, and you'll find a full list of examples.

No society can exist long if it admits new comers as full and equal partners without regard to how those newcomers view the culture into which they are being admitted.

Pure hogwash. You know, prior to your re-entry into the discussion, we were actually productively discussing how communities my come together and legitimately limit or control immigration. Then you come along and start spewing this hate for fellow man, with an attitude like failure to preserve tradition at the point of a sword will result in the most dire of dooms for us all. Give it a rest.

It is ironic that those who see so little relevance or importance to the uniforms (or "costumes" as they call them) of police officers, seem to implicitly place so much importance on the lack of uniforms worn by invading forces.

This post is increasingly disgusting. That you'd generally and casually liken immigrants to invading military forces is reprehensible.

Were millions of uniformed, armed persons to advance across our borders with stated intents to take our property and fundamentally infringe our other rights, every sane person and even most anarchists would recognize a legitimate right to self-defense to repel the invading army. Yet for some reason when an equal number of persons without uniforms enter our nation it is wrong to look at the macro effect in considering what action to take?

Here you imply that that a prediction of subjectively negative effect is just as good as stated evil intent when justifying physical force, even lethal force, against another human being or even an entire group of them, ignoring individuality. Your post is just getting worse and worse.

Oh and thanks for the morning entertainment. I probably won't be replying to you again, so don't expect any continuation here.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

LOl....

Wow lets grab a mistake on plurality and make that the entire basis of an argument.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

What goes noticed is the purposeful ignoring of the analogies that showed it was north acts of war.

Cult of "anti Lincon".....lol......may want to look up the definition of Cult. "A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object:the cult of St. Olaf"

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Lincoln sent a ship in to resupply a military fort in a foreign country. That did not want that base there.

There is no changing the parameters. I am not the one who made the original claim SC started it because they fired upon a ship.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Mod...it now appears one individual is purposefully attempting to lock this thread.

Please take that into note and rather than lock the thread, maybe ban him from posting if he can't do so with decorum.

 

[OC for ME]

The government of Lincoln perseveres only because so many citizens desire it to do so.

I suspect that current polling data contradicts your contention. Though, We The People are notorious complainers and non-doers. In other words, the feds suck, except my fed. A victim of our own design me thinks. But, this does not change the fact that our elected reps are certainly not representing us once we put them in office.

That quote is from the Utah State Constitution, "Ordinance Section", not our enabling act. What does it have to do with the point at hand? (Not that the irony in the language isn't a fine topic for conversation--Imagine proclaiming perfect religious tolerance except that we won't be permitting mass, confessions, no praying while facing specific sites in the Middle East. But it seems OT for the topic at hand.

Uh..OK.

http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/1894text.htm

Enabling Act ENABLING ACT, Approved, July 16, 1894.

AN ACT to enable the People of Utah to form a Constitution and State Government, and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of all that part of the area of the United States now constituting the Territory of Utah, as at present described, may become the State of Utah, as hereinafter provided.

SEC. 2. That all male citizens of the United States over the age of twenty-one years who have resided in said Territory for one year ...

SEC. 3. That the delegates to the Convention ...

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; Provided, That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/conintro.htm

The Utah Constitution was drafted by delegates to the 1895 constitutional convention and ratified 5 November 1895 by a popular vote of 31,305 to 7,607.

Just a nit. The point is that the (then) federal government, that Lincoln perpetuated, continued to abuse the states...before they were states. very relevant in my view. Utah had a choice to make and they chose to become a state. Granted, they thought that statehood meant more autonomy vs. being a territory, but, the citizens held great power over the feds via sheer numbers as just one example.

I find it odd that the secession of southern states irrevocably meant that a more perfect union could not/would not have come about if war had not been waged. Utah is more than the predominate religious denomination now or at the time...as is all of the states.

As did his plans for a rapid and benevolent reunification with the South. That is my point. The cult of anti-Lincoln is attributing to Lincoln many bad things that either he didn't do, or he did as a matter of winning a war, but didn't intend to perpetuate. It was those who followed he bear the blame for some of the evils attributed to Lincoln by this cult of anti-

I cannot argue this, yet those who the citizenry of the south elected were exempt from the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction. No, Lincoln would not tolerate total reunification...though, what "general" would not exempt those who waged the war beyond the fodder that were the front line of battle. Winners do get to be choosers. Might makes right...even to this day.

No one is required to "care" at all about what is or was happening in the West. But it is a bit hypocritical to complain about the evils perpetuated on the Southern States 100 years ago (Certainly no one today is going to defend any supposed "right" of the States to impose Jim Crow in the 1960s) while turning a blind eye to what the feds are doing today. I am sympathetic to the wrongs inflicted on Southern States precisely because I'm living through wrongs inflicted on my State today. Yet I notice that very few Southerners (excluding Texans) care in the least about current federal oppression in Western States. Many seem to at least tacitly approve of the feds withholding control of State lands from us.

I again asj what wrongs? Utah agreed to the land grab as a condition of entry into the union as a state. I see no impetus to take the lands back from the feds? At least the south tried, and failed, to act on their constitutional right.

Utah is not alone. The Southern States were terribly mistreated...100 years ago. And other Western States continue to be mistreated much as Utah is. But with the third highest percentage of "federal land" in our State, Utah suffers heavily.

I've been to Utah and certain geographical realities make your claimed suffering ring hollow. Not much in the way of Utah is needed for useful things, certainly not past Lake Point and Windover, nor Spanish Fork to St. George. Also, there is a whole lotta green on the Utah map. If Utah objects to this there is a process to get the feds to return that green, and remaining lands, to Utah.

A low regard, or an accurate assessment?

I figure Cali and NJ have the terrible gun (and tax) laws they do not because some outside force is imposing it on them, but because most residents thereof approve of such laws.

I certainly welcome an alternate and more charitable assessment...if you have one to offer.

Charles

I submit that most folks in NJ or CA is a qualitative term. But, on this score I concede to your point. As all liberty minded individuals should recognize, all of the several states have this issue.

Lincoln was "bad" not because I say so, but because his entire effort on preserving the union was based on the irrefutable fact, in his mind, that secession was a attempt to overthrow the then federal government. Not merely several states exiting from the union while leaving the remaining union's federal government to its own devices. Rebellion/insurrection, as cited in the constitution, was redefined by Lincoln.

 

[OC for ME]

...No, Lincoln would not tolerate total reunification...though, what "general" would [strike]not[/strike] exempt those who waged the war beyond the fodder that were the front line of battle. Winners do get to be choosers. Might makes right...even to this day. ...

My apologies.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

It is shame that even when we largely agree on a topic--such as we seem to do on immigration, that you have to be such a ****.

No one forces you to read a post that exceeds your attention span, Dave. It is a discussion board, not twitter. And I doubt either I or my home State have ever done anything to harm you. So grow up and accept that disagreements in some areas don't make someone a mortal enemy.

Charles

Well, that's the second time you've called me a dirty word. Iirc, I've never sworn at you, called you dirty names, or lobbed intentionally hateful personal insults.

Noting how much someone loves the sound of their own voice is hardly close to cussing someone out. It's not an insult, it's observing reality.

You lose all rights to cry foul over your treatment here, as you continue to personally attack in the most aggressively offensive manner possible.

Enjoy the rest of your week.

 

[OC for ME]

Lincoln sent a ship in to resupply a military fort in a foreign country. That did not want that base there.

There is no changing the parameters. I am not the one who made the original claim SC started it because they fired upon a ship.

Technically, the Confederacy most certainly did want Fort Sumpter. Many Civil War forts, the construction and location, are excessively expensive to build and the south had not the money or time to build them.

Few examples: Fort Gaines & Fort Morgan, Mobile bay. Fort Pulaski, Savannah. Fort Monroe, Norfolk (Olde Point Comfort). Fort Massachusetts, MS (Ship Island, entrance to New Orleans), Fort Pike (north entrance to Lake Pontchartrain), Fort Macomb (south entrance to Lake Pontchartrain). There are others of lesser importance guarding the various approaches to New Orleans and the Mississippi. Of course, Fort Sumpter in Charleston.
[h=1][/h]

 

[solus]

snip...

Utah is not alone. The Southern States were terribly mistreated...100 years ago. And other Western States continue to be mistreated much as Utah is. But with the third highest percentage of "federal land" in our State, Utah suffers heavily.

Charles

Alternatively, would a region of republican constitutionalists be able to legitimately exclude a bunch of anarchists immigrants as a matter of self-defense?

No society can exist long if it admits new comers as full and equal partners without regard to how those newcomers view the culture into which they are being admitted.

snip...

I agree fully that reducing or eliminating government welfare would dramatically reduce the draw for illegal aliens. But a major draw would remain and that is the draw of citizenship, the ability to direct the future of the nation. For others, the draw would not be citizenship, but the ability to wage a war from within our borders.

Charles

Just a nit. snip ]Utah had a choice to make and they chose to become a state. Granted, they thought that statehood meant more autonomy vs. being a territory, but, the citizens held great power over the feds via sheer numbers as just one example[/U]

I find it odd that the secession of southern states irrevocably meant that a more perfect union could not/would not have come about if war had not been waged. Utah is more than the predominate religious denomination now or at the time...as is all of the states.

it is interesting to note the shortsightedness when one is already entrenched in the land of plenty...
here is the historical record of what the nation truly thought of admitting a bunch of anarchists immigrants from Utah to the union:

THE LITERARY DIGEST
Vol. XII., No. 10 New York, January 4, 1896. Whole Number, 298
Published Weekly by
Funk & Wagnalls Company, 30 Lafayette Place, New York.
London Fleet Street. Toronto: Richmond Street, West.

The Forty-Fifth State In the Union.—-The formalities connected with the admission of Utah into the Union will be will be concluded by proclamation of admission by the President on January 4. The new State government will be controlled by the Republicans, due, it is asserted, to the influence of leaders of the Mormon Church unexpectedly thrown in favor of Republican candidates. Such political activity on the part of the Latter-Day Saints raises the question in some quarters as to whether the “Mormon problem" has really been settled by the provisions for religious toleration and the prohibition of polygamy incorporated in the new constitution. The Providence Journal (1nd.) thinks that public sentiment outside the State ought to be strong enough to operate powerfully against future interference of the Mormon Elders in political affairs. We shall all of us," says the Journal, “regard Utah as ward of the nation for some years to come, younger member of the family of States which deserves our oversight and protection on account of the peculiar conditions under which it has developed. And while Congress has made the Mormons comparatively independent by its enabling act, it is pretty certain that intelligent criticism of their policy in the future will have its influence upon them, even if it comes from the far distant Atlantic slope." The State will add two Republicans, probably free-silver men, to the United States Senate, making the number of members of that body 90, and but one representative to the House, making the number there 357. Of the political effects to follow the admission of Utah the Baltimore Sun says: “The total of the electoral college is correspondingly increased. For 1896 it will number 447, and 224 votes will be required to elect our next President…
Snip
“Parts of the State are but thinly settled, Grand County having but 541 souls and San Juan but 365. As center of Mormon thought Salt Lake City, with the spirit of independence quickened by state hood, will count, perhaps, far more than its population might suggest. The Mormons have become numerous in the adjacent States, and will, it is thought, to some extent control their political future. Idaho. Nevada, Wyoming, and Colorado will be subject to influences emanating from Salt Lake City. There remain of the once long list of Territories only Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.”

Unknown. (1896). Literary Digest. Vol. XII., No. 10. Page 276. Retrieved 23 Sept 15 from: http://books.googleusercontent.com/...pOatf3U9UQxZ0wX8KWXSlZV5XZQVKmDuWphQ3VHJmWq6l

Pipe, seems the mentality to watch those pesky anarchists, real or perceived has been pervasive for quite awhile eh mate?

ipse

 

[Citizen]

SNIP 1.This post is increasingly disgusting. That you'd generally and casually liken immigrants to invading military forces is reprehensible.


2. Here you imply that that a prediction of subjectively negative effect is just as good as stated evil intent when justifying physical force, even lethal force, against another human being or even an entire group of them, ignoring individuality. Your post is just getting worse and worse.

1. Agreed. Emotionally equates the two, rather than rationally differentiates.

2. And, he broad-brush smears immigrants by connecting them to property theft of an invading army (otherwise, why mention property theft at all?)

3. The omission of agreement with more points doesn't mean there wouldn't be any; just means I was skimming and those jumped out at me.



Separately, I agree with SVG. It appears Utbagpiper is trying to be unnecessarily provocative to prompt a thread lock. Request the moderator identify the actual source of trouble and handle him rather than lock the thread.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Technically, the Confederacy most certainly did want Fort Sumpter. Many Civil War forts, the construction and location, are excessively expensive to build and the south had not the money or time to build them.

Few examples: Fort Gaines & Fort Morgan, Mobile bay. Fort Pulaski, Savannah. Fort Monroe, Norfolk (Olde Point Comfort). Fort Massachusetts, MS (Ship Island, entrance to New Orleans), Fort Pike (north entrance to Lake Pontchartrain), Fort Macomb (south entrance to Lake Pontchartrain). There are others of lesser importance guarding the various approaches to New Orleans and the Mississippi. Of course, Fort Sumpter in Charleston.

Oh most definitely. As they should want it. Of course who knows how it would have worked out in Congress who were debating on what to do about it. The military personal there should have left when SC left the union and no longer desired what amounts to a foreign army on their soil anymore.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

1. Agreed. Emotionally equates the two, rather than rationally differentiates.

2. And, he broad-brush smears immigrants by connecting them to property theft of an invading army (otherwise, why mention property theft at all?)

3. The omission of agreement with more points doesn't mean there wouldn't be any; just means I was skimming and those jumped out at me.



Separately, I agree with SVG. It appears Utbagpiper is trying to be unnecessarily provocative to prompt a thread lock. Request the moderator identify the actual source of trouble and handle him rather than lock the thread.

Stealthy rightfully pointed out a very disturbing thing.

It is thread drift but I don't mind a bit of it, its how we talk. It doesn't surprise me from the parties of war who need to dehumanize people to engage in what would normally be morally reprehensible among individuals.

Lincoln referred to Mexicans as "mongrels" if I recall right. Seems to fit in with his distaste for the mixing of blood that went on in the south.

 

[solus]

most conversationalists do a banter back in & forth to quantify & clarify points being made between participants...

i am catching up on the subject matter so i can begin to even understand what to ask.

thanks for the patience shown it has been a fascinating exploration.

ipse

 

[sudden valley gunner]

most conversationalists do a banter back in & forth to quantify & clarify points being made between participants...

i am catching up on the subject matter so i can begin to even understand what to ask.

thanks for the patience shown it has been a fascinating exploration.

ipse

Glad you enjoy the post.

Banter is the proper word.