The Cult of Lincoln

[Grapeshot]

There is truth to be found in fiction.....sometimes. We do tend to quote what best fits our goals even if it is allegorical content.

 

[Grapeshot]

Ah yes - He was the captain of the queen's navy......and he polished up the handle on the big brass door. :lol:

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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

Provinces is a very different definition of states.

We don't think of the state of Israel as a territory to another nation. Niether did the states before the civil war.

Lincoln created an empire by definition.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

By the way I think Patrick Henry's response to Lincoln and the war to his fellow southerners would have been "I told you so".

 

[Citizen]

By the way I think Patrick Henry's response to Lincoln and the war to his fellow southerners would have been "I told you so".

Yep. And, the other authors of the Anti-federalist Papers.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Yep. And, the other authors of the Anti-federalist Papers.

Interesting there were some Europeans who referred to Lincoln and his new party as "federalist".

 

[OC for ME]

Lincoln was no federalist. If he were a federalist he would've adhered to the principles of federalism, which he did not.

 

[utbagpiper]

LOL...the inconsistency is too much.

Yes it is.

The constitution is horrible, yet should be supported when it allows slavery to continue via secession. Governments are generally bad, unless it is a pro-slavery State government seceding from what they believed (erroneously) to be a pro-abolition federal government.

What is more important to you SVG, individual rights that naturally prohibit slavery, or the "right" of some States to disassociate from the federal government?

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

I've already provided quotes from Southern Secessionists who declined the "honor" of firing the first shots at Fort Sumter because they didn't want to start 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.

I'll take a citation on your repeated claim that England banned slavery in England in the late 1600s. Everything I've found says England banned slavery in England in the 1800s. But don't let basic historic facts get in the way of your narrative.

Charles

 

[Freedom1Man]

Yes it is.

The constitution is horrible, yet should be supported when it allows slavery to continue via secession. Governments are generally bad, unless it is a pro-slavery State government seceding from what they believed (erroneously) to be a pro-abolition federal government.

What is more important to you SVG, individual rights that naturally prohibit slavery, or the "right" of some States to disassociate from the federal government?



I've already provided quotes from Southern Secessionists who declined the "honor" of firing the first shots at Fort Sumter because they didn't want to start the war.




I'll take a citation on your repeated claim that England banned slavery in England in the late 1600s. Everything I've found says England banned slavery in England in the 1800s. But don't let basic historic facts get in the way of your narrative.

Charles

What about slavery in other countries and slavery of whites?

What about the current slavery that is being imposed by our federal government? What about the same slavery that Lincoln tried to impose in 1861 which was of course ruled to be unconstitutional. Then in 1916 it was reinstated under false pretenses despite being ruled upon by the USSC as not having changed as shown in the BRUSHABER case.

So your contention that slavery is wrong and bad so long as you can change the name to suit your sensibilities?

So why are you defending slavery while none of the rest of us are in this discussion?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[utbagpiper]

What about slavery in other countries and slavery of whites?

What about it? Seems far afield from this discussion.

What about the current slavery that is being imposed by our federal government? What about the same slavery that Lincoln tried to impose in 1861 which was of course ruled to be unconstitutional. Then in 1916 it was reinstated under false pretenses despite being ruled upon by the USSC as not having changed as shown in the BRUSHABER case.

Again, seems off topic to this thread.

So your contention that slavery is wrong and bad so long as you can change the name to suit your sensibilities?

This seems to be a statement intended to attack and provoke rather than an honest attempt to capture my position. Why are engaging in such conduct?

So why are you defending slavery while none of the rest of us are in this discussion?

You know very well I'm not defending slavery. Why are you engaging in such thinly veiled attacks?

If someone wants to defend the rights of North Carolina to secede in the manner they did and for the reasons they did, they need to deal with their own inconsistencies in terms of property rights ignored, individual rights oppressed (secession for the stated purpose of continuing slavery), and sudden love for government power (State of NC) compared to their normally stated anarchists positions.

If a right for a State to secede from the union is more important to some than the individual right not to be held in literal and absolute (not figurative, not partial, not political disagreement, but literal and absolute) slavery, then they can defend that position.

They might also figure out when England did or didn't ban slavery and get some basic historic facts straight before building up a narrative about all the reasons that Lincoln was the anti-Christ while the slavers of NC were pure and lily white angels of truth and good principles. That fable is no more respectable that the reverse taught in schools to which the OP (and I both) object.

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Lincoln was no federalist. If he were a federalist he would've adhered to the principles of federalism, which he did not.

The Federalist party, were not adherents to federalism and this would be what they were referring too.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Everyone can read and can see who the inconsistant one is. He has brought nothing new that hasn't been refuted or rebutted.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I would like to read that, do you have a citation URL, please?

I'll try to find it again it was something I read in passing was intrigued by it yet had more research to do at the moment.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

LOL....

I never have said the constitution was horrible. Yet one cannot argue for the constitution and argue against secession and for Lincoln.

I have never supported slavery or the government of the south either.

The conflation of individual right as the ultimate and then trying to say tie that in with the north fighting to end slavery is amusing since it has already been admitted the war wasn't about slavery.

Quotes of a southerners who didn't want to start a war, does not mean that the southerners who did fire started the war.

Someone may want to look into the history of England, ask themselves what King in the 1600's made statues that set in motion for a case in the 1770's that showed that slavery was not legal in England and when a slave owner brought him there he was freed.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

What about slavery in other countries and slavery of whites?

Contrary to apologist opinion very on topic.
In spite of the request to keep slavery out of the topic since all seem to know the war wasn't about slavery.
This is a good question. The union didn't invade other countries over slavery, just like it didn't invade the separate countries of the south over slavery.
Ethnicity has little to do with it though, other than Lincoln wished to keep blacks out of the territories so there wouldn't be mixing. Not because he was against slavery.

What about the current slavery that is being imposed by our federal government? What about the same slavery that Lincoln tried to impose in 1861 which was of course ruled to be unconstitutional. Then in 1916 it was reinstated under false pretenses despite being ruled upon by the USSC as not having changed as shown in the BRUSHABER case.

Again on topic, because Lincoln as Spooner pointed out vastly increased the amount of slaves. Notice how the apologist attacks the bad guys of the south because we point out Lincolns tyranny. A common misdirection tactic of progressives, which Lincoln definitely was.



Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Citizen]

Contrary to apologist opinion very on topic.
In spite of the request to keep slavery out of the topic since all seem to know the war wasn't about slavery.
This is a good question. The union didn't invade other countries over slavery, just like it didn't invade the separate countries of the south over slavery.
Ethnicity has little to do with it though, other than Lincoln wished to keep blacks out of the territories so there wouldn't be mixing. Not because he was against slavery.



Again on topic, because Lincoln as Spooner pointed out vastly increased the amount of slaves. Notice how the apologist attacks the bad guys of the south because we point out Lincolns tyranny. A common misdirection tactic of progressives, which Lincoln definitely was.



Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Good point. Very good point.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Contrary to apologist opinion very on topic.
In spite of the request to keep slavery out of the topic since all seem to know the war wasn't about slavery.
This is a good question. The union didn't invade other countries over slavery, just like it didn't invade the separate countries of the south over slavery.
Ethnicity has little to do with it though, other than Lincoln wished to keep blacks out of the territories so there wouldn't be mixing. Not because he was against slavery.



Again on topic, because Lincoln as Spooner pointed out vastly increased the amount of slaves. Notice how the apologist attacks the bad guys of the south because we point out Lincolns tyranny. A common misdirection tactic of progressives, which Lincoln definitely was.



Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

You do realize that I was asking these questions to defend your point, right?

But I glad that we do agree on the points I was making.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You do realize that I was asking these questions to defend your point, right?

But I glad that we do agree on the points I was making.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Yes I added to your points.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP ...get some basic historic facts straight before building up a narrative about all the reasons that Lincoln was the anti-Christ while the slavers of NC were pure and lily white angels of truth and good principles.
Charles

Please show where a poster in this thread or a recent thread said the slavers of NC were pure and lily white angels of truth and good principles.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Please show where a poster in this thread or a recent thread said the slavers of NC were pure and lily white angels of truth and good principles.

Besides the fact that the post is about Lincoln and what a d-bag tyrant he was, it isn't about the slavers of NC. Total progressive misdirection.