An honest and accurate essay on Lincoln

Discussion in 'Politics' started by billwald, Nov 12, 2009.

  1. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    Good article thanks
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for posting this, billwald. Of course, those who read folks other than the court historians have known the truth about Abraham Lincoln. He could be called America's original Marxist president.
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    I think he was one of if not the worst but not sure how you reached the idea he was a Marxist.
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lincoln was by no means a bad president. Not in the least. Anyone who thinks of him as marxist has got a screw loose.
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Look at who he surrounded himself with(from the article in the OP):

    " One very interesting aspect of Lincoln Über Alles is Emison’s discussion of the preponderance of “German Forty-Eighters” in the Lincoln administration and at the upper levels of his army. These men were German immigrants who participated in an 1848 European political revolt that advocated highly centralized government, despised state’s rights, and believed that citizens needed to subordinate their personal interests to the state. “Many Forty-Eighters were Marxists; some considered themselves communists. One of the Forty-Eighters was Marx’s own brother-in-law . . . the Forty-Eighters saw themselves as international agents of change.” "
     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    Interesting........
     
  8. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    He, at the very least, was the first big-government liberal republican. But I like how you just throw out the insult instead of addressing any fact in the article. It's easier that way, ain't it ?
     
  9. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    What were the federal laws regarding secession? In other words, once a state was admitted to the union, how could it legally leave?
     
  10. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Still, I would take Lincoln over anyone in Washington today. In a heartbeat.
     
  11. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Those are different for each state. Montana has an escape clause written into the constitution, and no contrary federal law supersedes it, on paper. The people who wrote our constitution probably had lincoln in mind.....
     
  12. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not me friend..
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780

    that is what he does.
     
  14. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    It couldn't.
     
  15. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Under the original, unammended constitution, each state had sovereign rights which some interpreted as including the right to affiliate with the union of other states under the limited government set forth in the constitution. It would seem to follow, then, that if the states have a right to affiliate, then they also have a right to separate. The civil war was really a clash between two differing economies, each trying to take advantage for itself over the other and each with its own dependancies on the other..... greed and control. Slavery was a side issue, as by the time of the civil war, ownership of slaves was already on the decline and in some parts of the South as well as the North, Negros, as free men, were already owning property, establishing communities, and setting up businesses. After asserting its rights as a sovereign state which had jusridiction over all the land and post within the state, SC was provoked by the attempt of the Federal government to send supplies and then forces to a post within that state. The people of that state, with southern sympathizers in other states saw this as an invasion upon their sovereign rights just as real as an invasion by an enemy intent on doing harm. As far as I'm concerned, history has proved them right.

    With blacks represented by a man of faith as nobel and intellectual as Fredrick Douglas, the son of slaves and himself a freed man after a period of slavery in his youth...... there was excellant counsel and advice for the freeing of slaves and the acknowledgement of their humanity and rights under God based on the constitution as it already existed, without added ammendments. The constitutional arguements which he supported did not receive much attention or support from those who saw their expendiency for control and power would be nulified by such challenge, if successful. They needed a cause which was more unifying as a cause and brought less attention to the other elements of difference as existed in economy and industry..... of which were insufficient in themselves to divide a nation and unify the polarization in each divide to accomplish a civil war.

    The south did not see itself as fighting for slavery but for the preservation of its agrarian economy and the rights within each state to rule and govern its people, where, among other things, each state had the right to determine if or when slavery was banned. The north, with many dependancies on the raw material and agriculture goods of the south, were not inclined to rally around divisions of economy to support a war. However, the north, having extablished itself as against slavery, accepted this cause as sufficient to rally together and fight its brothers in the south. The roots of civil war was in the making well before Lincoln came to office. But Lincoln was a self educated man, with principals and eloquence in speech, but relatively little experience in government or administration. He was of moody temperment, though quiet, and had cycles of depression and near dispair. While it is my opinion that he was a man of good character and sound principals, he also had weaknesses in confidence which made him open to manipulation and the persuasions of others. Only guessing can account for what reconstruction of the union would have been like if he had not been assassinated. We can look back to that era and see how the ambition and powers of people in the federal government, some to evil and some to good, to make an example for the permanence of the union and to prolong a suffering and delay the granting in reality of the rights of those who participated in separating. While it may be said that the gentleman's code of chilvary extended to those who led and fought in the separation, the same cannot be said for the condition of the people and the recognition of their rights by the union.

    For as much as we seem to give Lincoln credit for his learning..... he really was not intellectually challenged by experience or broad development of knowledge to be discerning in the ways of communist philosophy as contrasted with free enterprise and proprietary ownership of property.
     
  16. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is an excellant article and clarifys and corrects some misunderstandings which occurr in my previous post.

    Thanks so much for posting this link!

    It presents the side our public history texts have ommitted and bridges the gap between what we've been told vs. our perception that the stories didn't quite add up to our experience.

    Normally I read before posting, and this time I should have. Thanks again.
     
  17. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    There are no federal laws allowing for secession.

    Once a state has entered the Union, it cedes certain powers to the federal government, and the Constitution denies certain powers to the states.

    Once those powers have been ceded, upon what legal ground can a state assume them again?
     
    #17 Aaron, Nov 13, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 13, 2009
  18. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    It does not need any. And the constitution dos no powers to the state.
     
  19. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Yes, it does. States cannot create other states within its boundaries, neither can they join with another to create a new state without the consent of Congress.

    Neither can they trade or make treaties with foreign countries.

    And the list goes on.

    The long and the short of it is this. Once a entity becomes a state, there is nothing that gives it the power to secede.

    Despite the accusations against Lincoln (many of which are dubious) he was well within the scope of his office as chief law enforcement officer to enforce the statehood of those that defected.
     
  20. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aaron is correct. In fact, the issue of secession has been heard by the courts numerous times, and they have consistently interpreted the constitutional provisions on statehood to be irrevocable by secession.
     

Share This Page

Loading...