The Lincoln legacy courtesy of NYcarbineer

alan1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
18,868
Reaction score
4,357
Points
245
Location
Shoveling the ashes
NYcarbineer wrote the below in another thread,

Lincoln was a Republican. It took many years to wring the truth out of modern day Conservatives, i.e.,

that they generally despise Lincoln.
I didn't want to derail that thread, so I started a new one.

NYcarbineer is sort of correct. I am a conservative, and I despise Mr Lincoln for what he set forth vis a vis states rights. I don't speak for all conservatives, just for myself.

At the risk of pissing people off, I'm going to make some unpopular observations and comments about Mr Abraham Lincoln and his presidency.

There was no civil war in the United States.
A civil war is when two or more factions fight over the control of a central government. The south was not trying to take over the federal government, they were trying to leave an oppressive federal government and establish their own government. Very similar to the revolutionary war that we are all so proud of.

The popular (and misinformed) opinion of Mr. Lincoln’s legacy is that he ended slavery. Let me remind the misinformed that the Emancipation Proclamation was signed into law after the war was already occurring. It also did not free all the slaves, just those that were in confederate states.

Mr Lincoln was no great liberator, in fact, in the Lincoln-Douglas debate in 1858, Mr Lincoln had this to say,
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races...I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Mr Lincoln was a racist.

States rights were one of the corner stones of the US Constitution.
The war between the states was an aggressive act designed to place the authority of the federal government over the authority of the individual states. Since that war, states rights have been eroded consistently and the federal government has continued to flex its muscle in denying states rights. Mr Lincoln’s action set forth a path of federal government intrusion and violation of the US Constitution and that is what his legacy should be about, not the bs that schoolchildren are taught about him supposedly ending slavery.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
46,862
Reaction score
10,671
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
Everyone knows or should know that the political party system was different 150 years ago. Republicans, democrats whigs and everyone else back then would have been appalled if they saw how close to tyranny left the democrat party drifted in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Who would have thought that the senate majority leader would have tried to influence opinion about a Military mission he authorized by telling the American people "the war is lost" (in Iraq) just as it was on the verge of victory? History means nothing to radical lefties . Democrats were segregationists in the 1960's just as they were in the 1860's and they are as anti-semetic today as they were in the 19th century. If it wasn't for the fawning support of the pop media the democrat party would have been laughed out of town 50 yerars ago.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,179
Reaction score
40,006
Points
2,190
The south was full of traitors who took up arms against their own country. Mr Lincoln saved our nation and turned a bunch of united states into THE UNITED STATES
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
56,529
Reaction score
14,210
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
At the risk of pissing people off, I'm going to make some unpopular observations and comments about Mr Abraham Lincoln and his presidency.
Then they’d be getting upset for no reason.

Your assessment is essentially correct, with the exception of ‘states’ rights’ and the legitimacy of ‘secession.’

Article VI of the US Constitution makes clear the supremacy of the Federal government as later confirmed by the Supreme Court. See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), United States v. Darby (1941), Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

It is true, however, that Lincoln did not ‘end slavery,’ that didn’t occur until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865.

In Ex Parte Milligan (1866), the court ruled that suspension of Habeas petitions was un-Constitutional given the circumstances that existed during the Civil War.

As for secession, that was later ruled un-Constitutional in Texas v. White (1869). The South never had the authority to succeed, as when a state enters the Union it enters into a contract not only with the other states but with the citizens of those other states as well.

Consequently, although the South’s act of ‘secession’ was illegal, so too was Lincoln’s response with regard to suspension of Habeas rights and the declaration of martial law, as the courts were indeed still functioning in Maryland and throughout the South at that time.

Also, Lincoln was no ‘friend’ to the slaves, advocating their ‘repatriation’ to Africa, and used the EP in a purely political context, in an effort to prevent foreign intervention on behalf of the South.
 

Trajan

conscientia mille testes
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
29,048
Reaction score
5,458
Points
48
Location
The Bay Area Soviet
ok folks, change up, 'civil war' out, new title- war for the 'united states' in.

solved.
 
OP
alan1

alan1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
18,868
Reaction score
4,357
Points
245
Location
Shoveling the ashes
The south was full of traitors who took up arms against their own country. Mr Lincoln saved our nation and turned a bunch of united states into THE UNITED STATES
The US was a bunch of traitors against England and who took up arms against their own country (England).
Mr Lincoln set forth a tyranny against states rights.
 
OP
alan1

alan1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
18,868
Reaction score
4,357
Points
245
Location
Shoveling the ashes
At the risk of pissing people off, I'm going to make some unpopular observations and comments about Mr Abraham Lincoln and his presidency.
Then they’d be getting upset for no reason.

Your assessment is essentially correct, with the exception of ‘states’ rights’ and the legitimacy of ‘secession.’

Article VI of the US Constitution makes clear the supremacy of the Federal government as later confirmed by the Supreme Court. See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), United States v. Darby (1941), Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

It is true, however, that Lincoln did not ‘end slavery,’ that didn’t occur until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865.

In Ex Parte Milligan (1866), the court ruled that suspension of Habeas petitions was un-Constitutional given the circumstances that existed during the Civil War.

As for secession, that was later ruled un-Constitutional in Texas v. White (1869). The South never had the authority to succeed, as when a state enters the Union it enters into a contract not only with the other states but with the citizens of those other states as well.

Consequently, although the South’s act of ‘secession’ was illegal, so too was Lincoln’s response with regard to suspension of Habeas rights and the declaration of martial law, as the courts were indeed still functioning in Maryland and throughout the South at that time.

Also, Lincoln was no ‘friend’ to the slaves, advocating their ‘repatriation’ to Africa, and used the EP in a purely political context, in an effort to prevent foreign intervention on behalf of the South.
I beg to differ in opinion re secession.
Just as the US can remove itself from treaties with other countries, the individual states should be able to extradite themselves from alliance to the USA. Please remember, that each state was once considered an independent Nation-State. The joining of the individual nation-states was to form an economic and military alliance to rival the power of European nations, much like the EU is now a group for economic reasons.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,179
Reaction score
40,006
Points
2,190
The south was full of traitors who took up arms against their own country. Mr Lincoln saved our nation and turned a bunch of united states into THE UNITED STATES
The US was a bunch of traitors against England and who took up arms against their own country (England).
Mr Lincoln set forth a tyranny against states rights.
And the big difference was that Southerners had a Constitution that let them VOTE for their representatives. The traitors in the south chose to go to war with their own nation just because they were dissatisfied with a lawful election

Traitors got what they deserved
 
OP
alan1

alan1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
18,868
Reaction score
4,357
Points
245
Location
Shoveling the ashes
The south was full of traitors who took up arms against their own country. Mr Lincoln saved our nation and turned a bunch of united states into THE UNITED STATES
The US was a bunch of traitors against England and who took up arms against their own country (England).
Mr Lincoln set forth a tyranny against states rights.
And the big difference was that Southerners had a Constitution that let them VOTE for their representatives. The traitors in the south chose to go to war with their own nation just because they were dissatisfied with a lawful election

Traitors got what they deserved
Southern states chose to secede.
Arms were taken up by both sides.
No different than the revolution by the states from England.
The victor in war writes the history.

Are you in favor of the federal government trampling upon states rights?
 
Last edited:

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,179
Reaction score
40,006
Points
2,190
The US was a bunch of traitors against England and who took up arms against their own country (England).
Mr Lincoln set forth a tyranny against states rights.
And the big difference was that Southerners had a Constitution that let them VOTE for their representatives. The traitors in the south chose to go to war with their own nation just because they were dissatisfied with a lawful election

Traitors got what they deserved
Southern states chose to secede.
Arms were taken up by both sides.
No different than the revolution by the states from England.
The victor in war writes the history.

Are you in favor of the federal government trampling upon states rights?
States had no right to secede
They had no right to attack US Soldiers and a US Fort

The north had every right to deal with treason

The History shows that the South chose to engage in treason just so they would have the right to own other human beings. One of histories bad guys
 

AmericanFirst

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
12,204
Reaction score
1,060
Points
175
The south was full of traitors who took up arms against their own country. Mr Lincoln saved our nation and turned a bunch of united states into THE UNITED STATES
The US was a bunch of traitors against England and who took up arms against their own country (England).
Mr Lincoln set forth a tyranny against states rights.
They came over here to get away from englands rule. It was good they rose up against tyranny.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,089
Reaction score
5,345
Points
280
Location
Washington
There was no civil war in the United States.
A civil war is when two or more factions fight over the control of a central government. The south was not trying to take over the federal government, they were trying to leave an oppressive federal government and establish their own government. Very similar to the revolutionary war that we are all so proud of.
Although a civil war commonly does involve a fight for control of the government, it is not a requirement. Check your definitions of civil war. It is a fight between regions or factions of a same country. Civil War is the property term. However, if the South had won the war it would have probably been called a revolutionary war, at least by Southerners.

Although the proclamation did not free all the slaves, it did lay the groundwork for the 13th amendment. If any man is to be given credit for freeing the slaves Lincoln is certainly that man.
 
Last edited:
OP
alan1

alan1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
18,868
Reaction score
4,357
Points
245
Location
Shoveling the ashes
There was no civil war in the United States.
A civil war is when two or more factions fight over the control of a central government. The south was not trying to take over the federal government, they were trying to leave an oppressive federal government and establish their own government. Very similar to the revolutionary war that we are all so proud of.
Although a civil war commonly does involve a fight for control of the government, it is not a requirement. Check your definitions of civil war. It is a fight between regions or factions of a same country. Civil War is the property term. However, if the South had won the war it would have probably been called a revolutionary war, at least by Southerners.

Although the proclamation did not free all the slaves, it did lay the groundwork for the 13th amendment. If any man is to be given credit for freeing the slaves Lincoln is certainly that man.
Slavery has never been a viable economic model long term. It would have ended with or without the war between the states.
But then, slavery was not the reason that Mr Lincoln chose war, was it? It was merely a pawn in his chess game.
 
OP
alan1

alan1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
18,868
Reaction score
4,357
Points
245
Location
Shoveling the ashes
And the big difference was that Southerners had a Constitution that let them VOTE for their representatives. The traitors in the south chose to go to war with their own nation just because they were dissatisfied with a lawful election

Traitors got what they deserved
Southern states chose to secede.
Arms were taken up by both sides.
No different than the revolution by the states from England.
The victor in war writes the history.

Are you in favor of the federal government trampling upon states rights?
States had no right to secede
And the colonies had no right to secede from England.
See how that works?
They had no right to attack US Soldiers and a US Fort

The north had every right to deal with treason

The History shows that the South chose to engage in treason just so they would have the right to own other human beings. One of histories bad guys
Your perception of history is incorrect.
It was about states rights, not slavery.
States rights have been stomped on and further restricted by the federal government ever since.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,179
Reaction score
40,006
Points
2,190
Southern states chose to secede.
Arms were taken up by both sides.
No different than the revolution by the states from England.
The victor in war writes the history.

Are you in favor of the federal government trampling upon states rights?
States had no right to secede
And the colonies had no right to secede from England.
See how that works?
They had no right to attack US Soldiers and a US Fort

The north had every right to deal with treason

The History shows that the South chose to engage in treason just so they would have the right to own other human beings. One of histories bad guys
Your perception of history is incorrect.
It was about states rights, not slavery.
States rights have been stomped on and further restricted by the federal government ever since.
Yea...yea

States rights to do what? Own slaves?

Why do we always hear about states rights when they want the right to violate the human rights of their citizens? They wanted a states right to own and rape other humans, they wanted states rights to make others second class citizens

Is there a better reason to ensure the federal government has jurisdiction over states rights?
 
Last edited:
OP
alan1

alan1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
18,868
Reaction score
4,357
Points
245
Location
Shoveling the ashes
Yea...yea

States rights to do what? Own slaves?

Why do we always hear about states rights when they want the right to violate the human rights of their citizens? They wanted a states right to own and rape other humans, they wanted states rights to make others second class citizens

Is there a better reason to ensure the federal government has jurisdiction over states rights?
All you want to focus on is slavery.
It was and is bigger than that whether you want to admit it or not.
Slavery was not the reason for the war between the states, but you seem to think it was. I can't combat that sort of ignorance/belief.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,179
Reaction score
40,006
Points
2,190
Yea...yea

States rights to do what? Own slaves?

Why do we always hear about states rights when they want the right to violate the human rights of their citizens? They wanted a states right to own and rape other humans, they wanted states rights to make others second class citizens

Is there a better reason to ensure the federal government has jurisdiction over states rights?
All you want to focus on is slavery.
It was and is bigger than that whether you want to admit it or not.
Slavery was not the reason for the war between the states, but you seem to think it was. I can't combat that sort of ignorance/belief.
Slavery was THE issue. The Souths economy was based on human bondage, rape and torture. The election of Lincoln threw the South into a panic because their precious slavery was now threatened

Why is it the South only brings up states rights when it comes to their treatment of blacks?
 
OP
alan1

alan1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
18,868
Reaction score
4,357
Points
245
Location
Shoveling the ashes
Yea...yea

States rights to do what? Own slaves?

Why do we always hear about states rights when they want the right to violate the human rights of their citizens? They wanted a states right to own and rape other humans, they wanted states rights to make others second class citizens

Is there a better reason to ensure the federal government has jurisdiction over states rights?
All you want to focus on is slavery.
It was and is bigger than that whether you want to admit it or not.
Slavery was not the reason for the war between the states, but you seem to think it was. I can't combat that sort of ignorance/belief.
Slavery was THE issue. The Souths economy was based on human bondage, rape and torture. The election of Lincoln threw the South into a panic because their precious slavery was now threatened

Why is it the South only brings up states rights when it comes to their treatment of blacks?
Since all you can do is repeat, so will I.

All you want to focus on is slavery.
It was and is bigger than that whether you want to admit it or not.
Slavery was not the reason for the war between the states, but you seem to think it was. I can't combat that sort of ignorance/belief.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,179
Reaction score
40,006
Points
2,190
All you want to focus on is slavery.
It was and is bigger than that whether you want to admit it or not.
Slavery was not the reason for the war between the states, but you seem to think it was. I can't combat that sort of ignorance/belief.
Slavery was THE issue. The Souths economy was based on human bondage, rape and torture. The election of Lincoln threw the South into a panic because their precious slavery was now threatened

Why is it the South only brings up states rights when it comes to their treatment of blacks?
Since all you can do is repeat, so will I.

All you want to focus on is slavery.
It was and is bigger than that whether you want to admit it or not.
Slavery was not the reason for the war between the states, but you seem to think it was. I can't combat that sort of ignorance/belief.
It was absolutely the reason. And to try to hide behind states rights nonsense is repulsive
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top