The Cult of Lincoln

[sudden valley gunner]

Oh I see so it isn't hostile to hold military in a foreign state who doesn't want you there......

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The reason you claim for secession matters not.

The north didn't invade over slavery.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

More accurate picture of Lincoln?

More accurate than he was a tyrant?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It's interesting though.

This thread is about Lincoln, the continued misdirection to others instead of countering the crappy tyrannical things Lincoln did.

I was always taught two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Its funny that despite the personal accusations and poor attempt at shutting down a thread.

That people at that time including Lincoln didn't think the war started before he was president.

That northern newspapers didn't think that. In fact later Lincoln shut down hundreds of papers who criticized him.

That northern congressmen as exemplified in the speech by Vallandingham I posted (which obviously went unread) didn't think the war had started before Lincoln manipulated events into war, by war acts.

That distinguished Historian and Law professors with PHD's in both field Don't think that.

Yet one individual is going to hang his whole argument Lincoln wasn't so bad because SC shot first?

Why go through so much mental wrangling to defend a tyrant, you cannot be a supporter of the constitution of the united States or of liberty and support Lincoln.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The north didn't win because of a god. That is nonsense.

When US seceded and England fought them US was protecting slavery, since England had already outlawed it.

This rational is ridiculous.

Jim Crow laws in many forms already existed in the north in many cases worse than the south.

To justify the war and Lincolns Tyranny because the only good outcome was the destruction of slavery after admitting that wasn't the intent is disgusting. This is the ends justified the means thinking which is abhorrently immoral.

"Why did you kill your neighbor"
"I didn't like he was leaving the neighborhood association"
"That's horrible"
"NO its not he also used to beat his wife"
"But you didn't kill him because he beat his wife, you were fine with that"
"Yea, but now his wife is free"

 

[utbagpiper]

The north didn't win because of a god. That is nonsense.

Only for those who resist the common sense words of Patrick Henry used to rally the Revolutionists:

"Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us."

I suppose you'll tell me that those Revolutionists who were rallied by such language were just stupid simpletons for placing any credence in (what do you like to say?) "unreliable" deity.

When US seceded and England fought them US was protecting slavery, since England had already outlawed it.

This rational is ridiculous.

Actually, what is ridiculous is for someone with such a pathetically incorrect knowledge of history to presume to correct historic errors.

US revolution was waged from either April 19, 1775 (Battle of Lexinton/Concord) or July 4th 1776 (official date of the Declaration of Independence) until October 19, 1781 (Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown) or September 3, 1783 (when the US and Britain signed the Treaty of Paris officially ending the war and recognizing the Independence of the former British Colonies).

As you can readily read in this wiki article England abolished the slave trade in 1807 with the Slave Trade Act of 1807. Slavery itself was not abolished in England until the Slavery Abolition act of 1833. This act abolished "slavery throughout the British Empire (with the exceptions "of the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company," the "Island of Ceylon," and "the Island of Saint Helena"..."

According to the article, slavery was outlawed in the rest of British empire in 1843.

So, let's do some math shall we SVG? What came sooner, AD 1783 which the latest widely recognized date for the end of the American Revolution, or AD 1833, the year that England abolished slavery in most of the British Empire?

Hmm. 1783 or 1833?

Historic ignorance that get a school boy laughed to shame. Our Revolutionary War ENDED 50 years, a half a century. before England outlaws slavery.

As for the hopes that England would intervene, surely anyone who presumes to anything of US Civil War history would know the phrase "King Cotton." From an article on the history of the War we can read thus:

The diplomatic strategy was designed to coerce Great Britain, the most powerful nation in the world, into an alliance with the Confederacy by cutting off the supply of cotton, Britain’s essential raw material for its dominant textile industry.

Additionally, some believed England was anxious to see the US fail and be weakened. To wit, this tidbit:

Cassius Clay, the United States Minister in Russia, stated, “I saw at a glance where the feeling of England was. They hoped for our ruin! They are jealous of our power. They care neither for the South nor the North. They hate both.”

The problem for the Confederacy was at least three fold.

1-England had stockpiled cotton before the war, and had time to build suppliers elsewhere in the world.
2-England had issues to worry about closer to home; and didn't need to make an enemy of the union.
3-Popular sentiment in England opposed slavery.

From another nice wiki article accessible even to those who don't know that 1833 came 50 years after 1783:

...slavery was the cornerstone of the South's plantation economy; yet it was repugnant to the moral sensibilities of most people in Britain, which had abolished slavery in its Empire in 1833.

...
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation announced in preliminary form in September 1862, by making ending slavery an objective of the war, had caused European intervention on the side of the South to be politically unappetizing.


...

The British working class population, most notably the British cotton workers suffering the Lancashire Cotton Famine, remained consistently opposed to the Confederacy. A resolution of support was passed by the inhabitants of Manchester, and sent to Lincoln. His letter of reply has become famous:

I know and deeply deplore the sufferings which the working people of Manchester and in all Europe are called to endure in this crisis. It has been often and studiously represented that the attempt to overthrow this Government which was built on the foundation of human rights, and to substitute for it one which should rest exclusively on the basis of slavery, was likely to obtain the favour of Europe.

Through the action of disloyal citizens, the working people of Europe have been subjected to a severe trial for the purpose of forcing their sanction to that attempt. Under the circumstances I cannot but regard your decisive utterances on the question as an instance of sublime Christian heroism which has not been surpassed in any age or in any country. It is indeed an energetic and re-inspiring assurance of the inherent truth and of the ultimate and universal triumph of justice, humanity and freedom.

I hail this interchange of sentiments, therefore, as an augury that, whatever else may happen, whatever misfortune may befall your country or my own, the peace and friendship which now exists between the two nations will be, as it shall be my desire to make them, perpetual.

—Abraham Lincoln, 19 January, 1863
​

There is now a statue of Lincoln in Manchester, with an extract from his letter carved on the plinth.

Lincoln became a hero amongst British working men with progressive views. His portrait, often alongside that of Garibaldi, adorned many parlour walls. One can still be seen in the boyhood home of David Lloyd George, now part of the Lloyd George Museum.

Jim Crow laws in many forms already existed in the north in many cases worse than the south.

I've repeatedly written on this very forum that the North was no less racist than the South. Your point?

To justify the war and Lincolns Tyranny

Who has justified the war? Not I. I have entirely mixed feelings on it.

Ending slavery (whether the original intent or not) was an indisputable good.

I believe--knowing that others disagree--that preserving the union was good. I question how a divided nation, two weaker nations, might have handled WWI or WWII for example.

Lincoln's unconstitutional methods, and the growth of federal power at the expense of States' Rights are harmful to the proper functioning of our Constitutional Republic.

I have certainly not justified Lincoln's Tyranny.

I have simply attempted to correct some of your gross historic mis-statements including who started the war (SC most obviously started the war; one can argue whether they were justified or not), when England abolished slavery relative to the American Revolution, and whether Lincoln's views on race make him unusually racist among his contemporaries.

because the only good outcome was the destruction of slavery

Not quite the only good outcome as asserted by the same wiki article as above:

The Union victory emboldened the forces in Britain that demanded more democracy and public input into the political system. The resulting suffrage reform of 1867 enfranchised the urban male working class in England and Wales and weakened the upper class landed gentry who identified more with the Southern planters and feared this might happen. Influential commentators included Walter Bagehot, Thomas Carlyle, John Stuart Mill, and Anthony Trollope

after admitting that wasn't the intent is disgusting.

Since I haven't justified the war nor Lincoln's unconstitutional acts, my recognition of the end of slavery as a good thing is simply a recognition of historic fact. I suppose if I should mention the tremendous medical breakthroughs that came about as a result of WWII, or the technological advancements that came from the Cold War, some who are so opposed to government to be unable to read straight would think I was justifying those wars as well.

What is disgusting, and laughable, is to be so sure of oneself and one's positions as being the only, absolute good and decent opinion one might hold when such positions are based on such grossly erroneous facts as you've displayed in this thread and this most recent post in particular.

The problem with hating Lincoln more than one loves truth, is that truth is so easily discarded in favor of whatever fanciful and wrong "facts" as might support the narrative of hate toward an individual.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

This thread is about Lincoln, the continued misdirection to others instead of countering the crappy tyrannical things Lincoln did.

And when one bases his hatred of Lincoln on materially erroneous historical "facts" like claiming that England had abolished slavery before our own Revolution or that Lincoln's views on race were notable for anyone of his day, we see the problem with dedicating a thread to hating a historic figure rather than to actually attempting to correct history.

I was always taught two wrongs don't make a right.

So you should live it. Historic inaccuracy to attack Lincoln isn't any better than the grade-school historic inaccuracy to deify Lincoln that you claim to be trying to correct.

Correct with accuracy rather than just being anti- .

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

That people at that time including Lincoln didn't think the war started before he was president.

That is generally agreed. I think most people overlook the seizure of Union property and the firing on union forces before Lincoln was inaugurated.

But as I posted, Southern Abolitionists, present at the Battle of Fort Sumter (which is the generally recognized start of the War), declined the "honor" of firing the first shots at the Fort because they didn't want to fire the first shots of the war.

The first shots of the war were fired by South Carolina.

Yet one individual is going to hang his whole argument Lincoln wasn't so bad because SC shot first?

"One individual". How utterly gutless and cowardly. Man up. You know exactly who you are talking about. Address or name me directly, SVG.

And then be mature enough not to put words in my mouth. I've not defended Lincoln, nor said he "wasn't so bad because SC shot first." I've simply corrected your historic errors that "Lincoln started the war."

He didn't.

Ignoring wild conspiracy theories, Lincoln sued for peace and begged the Southern States not to secede. He even offered to abandon Sumter if Virginia would stay in the Union. He made clear to SC that he was only sending food to the Fort and the record is clear that he did not send armaments or men.

And what of you who seems intent on proving that Lincoln was bad because SC didn't start the war? Well what happens to your premise if SC did start the war?

Was their war just? On the issue of secession from a voluntary union, yes. On the issue of preserving slavery, eternally no.

Were their methods just? On the issue of ignoring property rights, no. On the issue of shooting before exhausting diplomatic methods, no.

Why go through so much mental wrangling to defend a tyrant, you cannot be a supporter of the constitution of the united States or of liberty and support Lincoln.

And yet I am a supporter of the Constitution of the United States which is more than you can say. You generally attack it as a horrible loss of freedom compared to the Articles of Confederation, and those far worse than would have been some anarchist paradise. Yet when you can use the Constitution to bludgeon Lincoln, you will feign some regard for it?!? How utterly disgusting (to use your favorite descriptor) and disingenuous.

I'm NOT supporting Lincoln. I am supporting accurate history that says SC started the war, and the War lead to the end of legal slavery in this nation. The war was waged with unconstitutional and morally reprehensible methods. It had the negative effect of reducing States' Rights and increasing federal power.

And honest and mature man--a man who knows enough of history to know when England abolished slavery relative to our own Revolution and the effect that abolition had on English and French willingness to support the Confederacy, a man mature enough to balance the conflicting principles of morality not being relative but we not being able to judge history through our current standards and mores--can see both sides of complex issues, rather than trying to paint history as white-and-black, heroes and villains. The latter is the purview of public grade schools...and some posters here.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Oh I see so it isn't hostile to hold military in a foreign state who doesn't want you there......

And the juvenile eye-roll for those who lack the ability to express themselves maturely.

When a government rightfully owns land and has men in a given area, they are not exactly obliged to abandon their property nor withdraw their forces the moment someone says, "You are no longer welcome."

But it is so very interesting to see you defending some rightful power of a government--the "state" that you hate so much--to seize property owned by another entity.

One person owns property. Another person decides he doesn't want the first person to be his neighbor anymore and so seizes that property and kicks him out.

And YOU of all people are arguing that this magically is ok if we talk about groups of persons or governments rather than individuals?!?!?!?

ROTFLMAO at your complete 180 on this issue. You, who so values self-consistency, abandons all consistency on an issue so fundamental to you as "groups of persons have no more rights than any individual in the group" in your zeal to attack Lincoln for "starting" a war clearly started by SC.

Let me see if I can summarize your positions:

Government are bad, unless it is the government of SC telling Lincoln and the feds to bugger off.

Groups have no more rights than individuals, unless the SC government tells union property owners to surrender their property.

The Constitution is a horrible form of government, and Lincoln is a tyrant for not adhering to said Constitution.

Public schools are dishonest for indoctrinating students that Lincoln was a wonderful liberating, but SVG is doing the work of angles by claiming that England abolished slavery before the US Revolution as part of his argument that slavery played no role in England not assisting the Confederacy.

Lincoln is a "racist d-bag" for saying some things about blacks and slavery that offend our politically incorrect ears, while Jefferson's ownership of slaves can be overlooked because he was opposed to the Constitution.

How is that consistency thing from libertarian rights theory working for ya?

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

The reason you claim for secession matters not.

It matters a whole lot in determining whether secession is something that moral men can support.

The north didn't invade over slavery.

I'm not supporting the Northern invasion nor prosecution of the war. I'm attacking your pathetic "history" that is no less in error than the school version you started this thread to attack. Go re-read my first post on this thread, some 3 pages into it. My position hasn't changed. My feelings on the war are mixed.

But because I disagreed with your characterization of Lincoln, you've repeatedly attempted to put words in my mouth.

I'm not going to support slavery nor attempts to continue it as you do implicitly in running away from the documented reasons for SC's secession and their firing the first shots of the war before making serious attempts to avoid violence.

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

LOL...the inconsistency is too much.

Everyone believed SC didn't start the war at the time, yet clearly SC started the war.

I Mis characterized Lincoln because of England's banning slave trade in the 1800's (yet England banned slavery in England in late 1600's), the logical disconnect on that one is hilarious.

God was on their side because Patrick Henry said so.

The war wasn't about slavery yet for some reason it is.

You don't support Lincoln yet spend an abundance of time making apologies for him.

You support the constitution yet don't support it?

Individuals when in groups somehow equal a government?

The war wasn't about slavery yet it was? Lincoln sued for peace but the only terms was non secession, and pay high tariffs.

Anarchy is not part of this discussion yet somehow it is?

Being mature and not name calling is wrong unless you do it?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The purposeful untruthful summary of my position is entertaining.

The rants are painful.

Not one contrary cite made to contradict the viewpoints on Lincoln himself is duly noted. All the other dicta is just misdirection.

 

[OC for ME]

...

You are most welcome.

The rightness or wrongness of a properly enacted law? Do we violate a/the laws because we disagree with it/them? Or, do we change/repeal them via legislative acts or by defeating them in the courts.

No arguments from me. Yet, SC had exited the union and now as a independent/sovereign nation desired to remove a potential enemy from their property.

All is fair in love and war. Sucks for the losing side. It is what Lincoln did, or did not do (tolerated), before the war, regarding the south, and then what he did in the "north" during the war, given his professed reverence for the constitution, that I take issue with.

Lincoln fought to preserve the federal government. I have addressed this in a previous post.

Slavery was a vile institution, worthy of eradication. State's rights is enshrined in the constitution. State's rights or slavery?

Anyway...

It boggles my mind that some folks know that the war was the only method to eradicate slavery. That these same folks know that the Confederacy would not rejoin the union via negotiation. That having two distinct sovereign nations, next to each other, as there was/is in Europe could not peacefully coexist.

Apparently Lincoln knew that none of this could ever come to pass.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You are most welcome.

The rightness or wrongness of a properly enacted law? Do we violate a/the laws because we disagree with it/them? Or, do we change/repeal them via legislative acts or by defeating them in the courts.

No arguments from me. Yet, SC had exited the union and now as a independent/sovereign nation desired to remove a potential enemy from their property.

All is fair in love and war. Sucks for the losing side. It is what Lincoln did, or did not do (tolerated), before the war, regarding the south, and then what he did in the "north" during the war, given his professed reverence for the constitution, that I take issue with.

Lincoln fought to preserve the federal government. I have addressed this in a previous post.

Slavery was a vile institution, worthy of eradication. State's rights is enshrined in the constitution. State's rights or slavery?

Anyway...

It boggles my mind that some folks know that the war was the only method to eradicate slavery. That these same folks know that the Confederacy would not rejoin the union via negotiation. That having two distinct sovereign nations, next to each other, as there was/is in Europe could not peacefully coexist.

Apparently Lincoln knew that none of this could ever come to pass.

Yet most of the world rid slavery without war.
We peacefully coexist with Canada and Mexico.
I see no evidence that all of the states wouldn't have remained out of the union. After all states like Virginia only joined the confederacy after Lincolns Machiavellian maneuvers in SC.

 

[OC for ME]

Yet most of the world rid slavery without war.
We peacefully coexist with Canada and Mexico.
I see no evidence that all of the states wouldn't have remained out of the union. After all states like Virginia only joined the confederacy after Lincolns Machiavellian maneuvers in SC.

No doubt.

But, it is to be noted that the abolition of slavery in other countries did not involve, for example, Scotland leaving the British empire. South Africa is a tangential analog because the population threw off "slavery" and the slave masters, Apartheid, while not desiring to divide their country as the South did.

The Civil War was a uniquely American thing. No other country had a document that, arguable, enabled a disgruntled state to leave the union if they so desired.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

No doubt.

But, it is to be noted that the abolition of slavery in other countries did not involve, for example, Scotland leaving the British empire. South Africa is a tangential analog because the population threw off "slavery" and the slave masters, Apartheid, while not desiring to divide their country as the South did.

The Civil War was a uniquely American thing. No other country had a document that, arguable, enabled a disgruntled state to leave the union if they so desired.

Each state is a sovereign entity. Maybe the document was new, but it didn't supersede the states right to withdraw from it.

The south as independent states or a new union, very well could have rid slavery peacefully as the other countries did. Economically chattel slavery was on its way out.

South Africa is a state so the analogy doesn't quite compute with me, unless it was a state in union with other African states.

I also don't like calling it a civil war since it was not a civil war anymore than the American revolt and secession from England was.

Great discussion!

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Slavery is now known as human trafficking and is worth 30+Billions world wide.
(http://www.havocscope.com/tag/human-trafficking-statistics/)

The world and the US are not rid of slavery, only the name has been changed to ease the minds of the guilty.

Military draft could be added to that name change too.

 

[OC for ME]

Each state is a sovereign entity. Maybe the document was new, but it didn't supersede the states right to withdraw from it.

The south as independent states or a new union, very well could have rid slavery peacefully as the other countries did. Economically chattel slavery was on its way out.

South Africa is a state so the analogy doesn't quite compute with me, unless it was a state in union with other African states.

I also don't like calling it a civil war since it was not a civil war anymore than the American revolt and secession from England was.

Great discussion!

http://www.southafrica.info/about/geography/provinces.htm#.VhfEKkbtrYg

Most countries have provinces/states.

The term Civil War is a product of the North defining what the war was for the benefit of garnering support from the northern states. Defining the conflict as a rebellion, which is what it was not, made the discussion between the northern states and the federal government. The South did not attempt to overthrow the federal government to institute their own/a new government under one union of states.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebellion

 

[solus]

please be careful with the use of the term apartheid and use it nor confuse it with the term slavery. the minority white Afrikaners forced segregation on the country's black citizens to preclude them from benefits whites were receiving, e.g., education, medical, etc. SA blacks were not slaves under apartheid.

i liken it our segregation activities, after the civil war's slavery issue was resolved, which were 'in most cases' not written as laws but rather enforced by white peer pressure. whereas, in SA, segregation was actually written in their laws which, for one example, forbid a black child to attend school beyond the 8th grade, or stated blacks could not see the same medicos as the Afrikaner.

Nelson and F.W. as co presidents, did quite a lot of good but to over turn the half century of segregation activities was a tough up hill battle so they did little to sway the Afrikaners mentality and like in this country, segregation's mentality is still just below the surface of our consciousness.

ipse