The Cult of Lincoln

[utbagpiper]

How right he is. The cult like followers of Lincoln and the empire he created will treat anything bad about Lincoln as heresy.

Yes, some will. Today's high school (and sadly even college) history studies seem to do just that.

Sadly, there are some on the other side whose lack of honesty and understanding of complex subjects is of equal magnitude. That those who hate all things about Lincoln have their vector pointing in the opposite direction from those who worship Lincoln as wholly good, doesn't make their superior. They are equal to those they accuse of being in a cult of Lincoln: Equally misguided, equally immature, equally silly and sad in their blind devotion.

We might just as well focus on MLKs philandering while ignoring any good he did as to make excessive hay about Lincoln not wanting to marry a black woman, or even being more interested in preserving the Union than in ending slavery. Shall we compare that to those more interested in maintaining slavery than in maintaining the union?

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

WW2, the Germans were not bad people. The plus side is that th r NAZI helped in medical and scientific advancements. The way they got some of the results were questionable but the end results were good. Just saying that if you have to take the good with the bad about Lincoln, then you have to do the same with Hitler. Also all the advancements from all the wars no matter the cause for the wars.

Since wars create advancements that can improve our daily lives, we should just have a good shoot it out every 20-30 years.

You almost make my point, but miss it.

The fact that the Nazis engaged in horrific genocide doesn't eliminate the fact that they produced amazing engineering and scientific accomplishments. The fact that war is horrible, doesn't change the fact that it does tend to motivate us to make some great engineering, medical, and scientific advancements.

So if someone were to come on here and say the Nazis/Germans were stupid, lazy, no-good-for-nothing people because of the Holocaust, I'd correct that stupid and juvenile assertion. In fact, if someone were so historically ignorant as to claim that the Germans (or even the Nazis) were unique in holding anti-Semitic views in mid 20th century, I'd have to correct that as well; just as Charles Lindburg's or Dr. John Nash's publicly expressed anti-Semitism doesn't diminish their accomplishments.

I won't defend racism, anti-Semitism, genocide, nor war when it can be properly avoided. And I don't think you can find me actually defending the War Between the States, nor the unconstitutional tactics used to execute it.

But this thread isn't about the War. This thread, it seems, is about trashing everything about Lincoln. There is much that an honest student of history can dislike about Lincoln. But some of the charges levied here simply do not stand up to any scrutiny at all. At least not for any who are intelligent and mature enough to understand something beyond 1-dimensional caricatures. Neither the union nor the confederacy can lay claim to holding all moral high ground in the conflict between the States. Neither is either side without some degree of justification.

Intelligent and thoughtful men would mourn the loss and costs of the war while looking for lessons to be learned to avoid ever repeating it. Others simply want to cast individual players as wholly evil or wholly noble, with no real thought to the nuances that were actually at play.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

The one good thing that came out of the war was abolition of slavery. Yet I think the way it was done led to 100 plus years of oppression and blame. It was after all the norther packed courts that upheld Jim Crowe laws etc.

Interestingly and ironically (given your view of Lincoln) but I think a fine case can be made that even more than the war, it was the way Reconstruction was waged after Lincoln's assassination that caused the biggest problems. And what was Booth's motivation for killing Lincoln? In addition to all the usual reasons about being a Confederate sympathizer Booth was also spurred to action by a speech Lincoln gave 3 days before Booth assassinated him:

"On the evening of April 11, the president stood on the White House balcony and delivered a speech to a small group gathered on the lawn. Two days earlier, Robert E. Lee had surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Court House, and after four long years of struggle it had become clear that the Union cause would emerge from the war victorious. Lincoln’s speech that evening outlined some of his ideas about reconstructing the nation and bringing the defeated Confederate states back into the Union. Lincoln also indicated a wish to extend the franchise to some African-Americans—at the very least, those who had fought in the Union ranks during the war—and expressed a desire that the southern states would extend the vote to literate blacks, as well. Booth stood in the audience for the speech, and this notion seems to have amplified his rage at Lincoln. “That means [the "n-word"] citizenship,” he told Lewis Powell, one of his band of conspirators. “Now, by God, I’ll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.”

(Seems Lincoln's views on race may not have been quite so black and white--no pun intended--as "some" here have tried to claim.)

It is widely recognized (based on both the speech referenced above, as well as other material) that Lincoln intended a quick and benevolent reunion following the war. Whatever one thinks of the war itself, it seems clear that Booth did not do the Confederacy any favors when he assassinated Lincoln and left others, far more bitter and perhaps far more racist, to impose a vindictive "Reconstruction" rather than a quick and proper reunification.

Charles

 

[Bikenut]

I see personality issues expressed in your post, but no real response to my main point.

Either the slaves had a right to seek their freedom, or they didn't. Which was it, in your view?

Either decent men have a right to help other innocent men secure their natural rights, or they don't. Which is it?

And if you don't want me or others to comment on your discussions with others, don't post them in a discussion forum.

Charles

Must be frustrating to have someone not respond to your blatant attempts to control the conversation.

And I see personality issues expressed through arrogance and insults in each and every one of your posts regardless of what the topic is or who you are responding to.

But at least you never fail to amuse.

 

[utbagpiper]

But at least you never fail to amuse.

So you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion, resorting to insults and personality issues, I see.

Charles

 

[Bikenut]

So you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion, resorting to insults and personality issues, I see.

Charles

Says the King of insults and personality issues adding nothing of substance to the discussion.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snipped from post #3 of this thread--

I anticipate this thread will cleave members into opposing groups with little good, outcome/results.

The Social Lounge was designed as a place to post off topic (within limits) threads and it has been the policy of the administration to guide with a light hand in most cases, rather that use firmer methods. We recognize too the strong personality traits of activists in our arena and wish to give all the opportunity (again within limits) to express themselves.

Each individual, side, group has points that they feel are so obviously noteworthy that the truth of them cannot be intelligently denied - they bear repeating, rewording, and restructuring replete with additional information interspersed. The beat goes on...and on.

When the barbed remarks and unkind jabs begin, soon followed with insults and poor characterizations, the damage begins. Some of the references are subtle, some like a knife in the back. We are of the same brotherhood and do not need to drive wedges into our midst, to rip the cohesive bond of our fraternity. We are now engaged in doing just that. Further input of this nature will accomplish little good and do us much harm. We must stop the insults and personal attacks.

There has been ample opportunity for most to respond to the OP who might wish to do so.

I am locking this thread for the good of the forum.

 

[Grapeshot]

Reopened with some hesitancy/reluctance.

You know what you must not do - now go ye forward and do it not.

 

[Bikenut]

Reopened with some hesitancy/reluctance.

You know what you must not do - now go ye forward and do it not.

A word of advice Grape.... leave this thread closed. I, for one, will no longer put up with ridicule and/or insults outright or implied as ploys to redirect conversations and I will respond in kind each and every time.

 

[solus]

A word of advice Grape.... leave this thread closed. I, for one, will no longer put up with ridicule and/or insults outright or implied as ploys to redirect conversations and I will respond in kind each and every time.

grape, while i was fascinated with the subject matter and the information & discussion presented, which i found viable based on the background of the individual(s), being presented and discussed, the singular distractor's rants have destroyed any and all enjoyment from pursuing the subject matter in an open discussion venue.

While i know you understood this might occur when you initiated the thread, however, this individual identified as a semi-illiterate peon will pursue the matter through private conversation(s) or research the links provided to date and continue the conversation as needed.

ipse

 

[Grapeshot]

Trying?

Like doctors practicing, perhaps we can try to get it right.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Thank you Grape.

I will do my part to ignore and not participate in personal attacks.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

A word of advice Grape.... leave this thread closed. I, for one, will no longer put up with ridicule and/or insults outright or implied as ploys to redirect conversations and I will respond in kind each and every time.

Let's rise above it. I found your points in this thread interesting.

I think one thing we can do is remove the slavory/bigot issue out of this.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It was mentioned that the South fired the first shot.

Yet the North put warships in a sovereign states territory they also instituted a blockade. A blockade is an act of war as Senator Valandingham pointed out in his speech.

It's akin to someone mugging you with the threat of violence and when you shoot said mugger in self defense, the anti's crying out "you shot first".

 

[utbagpiper]

It was mentioned that the South fired the first shot.

Yet the North put warships in a sovereign states territory they also instituted a blockade. A blockade is an act of war as Senator Valandingham pointed out in his speech.

It's akin to someone mugging you with the threat of violence and when you shoot said mugger in self defense, the anti's crying out "you shot first".

Citations?

Construction on Fort Sumter began in 1829 in response to the war of 1812. The constitution only authorizes forts when the land is "purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be" located [Art 1, Sec 8]. No doubt in 1829, the State of South Carolina was more than happy to have the national government pay for the construction of a fort to protect one of the State's most important harbors and cities. Seventy thousand tons of New England granite was imported to build up a sandbar for the fort.

Then, in 1860, South Carolina simply demands that the federal government abandon the land it had duly purchased and made significant improvements to. On what principle can this action be supported?

It is a bit like selling your neighbor a stretch of land, him putting in a nice driveway, and then you deciding unilaterally you want the land back, with the new driveway, all for free.

It was South Carolina who effected an effective siege of Sumter denying any supplies. The State sank some derelict ships to block the shipping channel. So in late December 1860, (lame duck) President Buchanan sent the unarmed civilian merchant ship, Star of the West, to provide supplies to the garrison at Sumter in less provocative manner than an armed warship would provoke. North Carolina forces on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie fired on the Star of the West forcing her to withdraw. Major Anderson, commanding Sumter, chose not to engage.

North Carolina again demanded the abandonment of Fort Sumter in a letter from the governor to President Buchanan on January 31, 1861. So far as I know, no offer to purchase the land back or pay for the fort itself; just a demand to turn over significant national assets to the State.

Through all of this, "The seceding states seized numerous Federal properties within their boundaries, including buildings, arsenals, and fortifications. President James Buchanan protested but took no military action in response. Buchanan was concerned that an overt action could cause the remaining slave states to leave the Union, and while he acknowledged there was no constitutional authority for a state to secede, he could find no constitutional authority for him to act to prevent it." wiki for convenience.

"efore Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, five states had voted against secession, including Virginia, and Lincoln openly offered to evacuate Fort Sumter if it would guarantee Virginia's loyalty."

Now, "The South sent delegations to Washington, D.C., and offered to pay for the Federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States." Lincoln rejected this as I believe is the right of any land owner to refuse to sell land or other assets he doesn't care to sell.

" On April 6, Lincoln notified Governor Pickens that "an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort.""

Jefferson Davis who had to this point opposed an attack on the Fort as being bad PR, decided it should be taken before supplies were delivered.

"Only Secretary of State Robert Toombs opposed this decision: he reportedly told Jefferson Davis the attack "will lose us every friend at the North. You will only strike a hornet's nest. ... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal.""

Beauregard demanded on April 11 that Anderson surrender the fort. "Anderson refused, although he reportedly commented, "I shall await the first shot, and if you do not batter us to pieces, we shall be starved out in a few days."

Beauregard responded on April 12: "If you will state the time which you will evacuate Fort Sumter, and agree in the meantime that you will not use your guns against us unless ours shall be employed against Fort Sumter, we will abstain from opening fire upon you."


"Maj. Anderson replied that he would evacuate Sumter by noon, April 15, unless he received new orders from his government or additional supplies."

"Col. Chesnut considered this reply to be too conditional and wrote a reply, which he handed to Anderson at 3:20 a.m.: "Sir: by authority of Brigadier General Beauregard, commanding the Provisional Forces of the Confederate States, we have the honor to notify you that he will open fire of his batteries on Fort Sumter in one hour from this time." "

"Anderson escorted the officers back to their boat, shook hands with each one, and said "If we never meet in this world again, God grant that we may meet in the next." "

"At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, Lt. Henry S. Farley, acting upon the command of Capt. George S. James, fired a single 10-inch mortar round from Fort Johnson. (James had offered the first shot to Roger Pryor, a noted Virginia secessionist, who declined, saying, "I could not fire the first gun of the war.")" The battle commenced from there with Anderson eventually surrendering the Fort (but not himself or his men) on April 14th.

Now, I realize this narrative will cause some consternation to those who have convinced themselves that the North "started" the war.

But it is clear that even staunch secessionists of the day considered the first shots of the war to have been fired by the South. Jefferson Davis' own Secretary of State considered it unnecessary and unwise to attack the fort. And looking at the timeline, it is clear that the North's only "provocation" was not turning over property it had constitutionally acquired with the consent of South Carolina and then dramatically improved upon.

The South started the war, and did so from the perspective of South Carolina's secession document virtually entirely for the cause of maintaining legal slavery. Mississippi, likewise cites slavery as its primary concern. Georgia splits between slavery and tariffs that favor the North.

Now, by what right do you believe South Carolina could seize property belonging to another simply because it (SC) no longer wanted an association with the federal government? The offer to purchase came only after assets had been seized and Fort Sumter was under siege. Certainly you cannot claim such conditions create a fair situation for ascertaining value, or even giving the rightful owner the opportunity to decline the sale.

The South had legitimate grievances in the tariffs that favored the North.

But their complaints that fugitive slave laws were not being strictly enforced up North fall solidly into your category of those who claim law creates morality. Holding another as a slave is morally repugnant. Forcing anyone to assist you in holding that man as a slave, or returning him to slavery should he escape, is also morally repugnant. Using force of arms to seize property to enable oneself to maintain the institution of slavery is pretty tough to defend.

So, where does that put us as we look objectively at the history of the start of the War Between the States?

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Yet the rules of war was instigated by the south.

Read the link I provided, earlier.

The consitution does not seem to support Feds owning permanent land forever in a state. Could there be a negotiation for compensation sure. Not start a war over it.

Lincoln maneuvered this event to look like the north was attacked. Bottom line warship in your territory, is an act of war.

Secession isn't starting a war.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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. -Lincoln 1848 In Congress, (specifically about Texas's right to secede from Mexico, but also may have been supporting socialist revolutions of Europe)

Yet when in power, suddenly this right does not exist?

 

[OC for ME]

How a government deals with property has been the window to the soul of that government. Property may have been a tangible item and liberty may have been an intangible value, but the preservation of both was the historic purpose of American government; and the preservation of one was the precondition to the preservation of the other. Sir Henry Sumner Maine (1889) found that the history of property and civilization “cannot be disentangled” (p. 230). The desire and use of property raised mankind from political slavery.

http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/HJP/article/viewFile/669/512

Odd, the feds built the fort with monies derived from the people, even southern people. The feds "own" nothing. A wee stretch, sure.

It remains true, federalists, non-dissolutionists, desire the federal government to hold primacy over all of the several states. There is no "service" that the feds now do that the states cannot do...if the income tax dollars that go to the feds to perform those services remained with the states.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

There is no "service" that the feds now do that the states cannot do...if the income tax dollars that go to the feds to perform those services remained with the states.

Except screw things up on a larger scale.

A major problem with government, once elected, appointed or paid by tax dollars, the people involved tend to become... corrupt & self serving.

 

[OC for ME]

Except screw things up on a larger scale.

A major problem with government, once elected, appointed or paid by tax dollars, the people involved tend to become... corrupt & self serving.

When was the last time you went to your federal level representative and had a face to face to voice a grievance?

I have visited my local (town/county/state) reps. Heck, my alderman lives across the street. So, the opportunity to hold him (they) to account for his (their) acts is very close indeed. I find, via my experiences, that the state is far more likely to do as we bid vs. the federales, and less likely to screw it up due to this close proximity.

Even the DMV drone can be held to close account.