Especially if appropriately means being paid by those in charge and keeping your head in place between your shoulders...
ya forgot that aspect of the equation.
ipse
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
The Cult of Lincoln
- Thread starter sudden valley gunner
- Start date
ya forgot that aspect of the equation.
ipse
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
"...which explains all the empty pages in French history books." Yeoman Warder Bill Callaghan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWFq-v7TKdQ skip ahead to 11:40
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
"...which explains all the empty pages in French history books." Yeoman Warder Bill Callaghan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWFq-v7TKdQ skip ahead to 11:40
Hahaha ah the poor French, the but of our capitulation jokes....
utbagpiper
Banned
An overly simplistic view unsupported by the evidence from source documents. As I noted and you've ignored since it doesn't fit your narrative:
utbagpiper said:
Your overly-simplistic view of history to support a cult of anti-Lincoln is no more correct nor intellectually mature than the overly-simplistic view of history used to support what you've derided as the cult of Lincoln. I agree with your disgust as the schools' misrepresentation of history. But two wrongs don't make a right and your misrepresentation of history is no less offensive to me than that perpetuated by the schools.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
Perhaps you'd like to point out exactly which portions of the document you think make a case for SC secession without being linked (directly or in context) to the issue of slavery?
To be clear, SC makes a very strong case that the northern States have not upheld their constitutional duty. But the duties they failed to uphold are related almost entirely to slavery. Unless you can specifically point out language to the contrary.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
When and how?
Meaning what?
It has long been conceded that Lincoln's stated and obvious goals were to prevent secession, not to end slavery.
But as evidenced by the SC Secession document, the southern States didn't believe that. They seceded for the stated reason of protecting their right to maintain slavery from a President they believed (however erroneously) intended to end slavery.
Telling me Lincoln was perfectly fine supporting the continuation of slavery doesn't really change the fact that SC seceded over a fear that he wasn't fine with it.
Show me where the SC secession document says anything directly about unjust tariffs.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
The question is, in your view, can a person be a supporter of the federal constitution and of liberty?
And to be clear, I haven't seen anyone here praising Lincoln. Some of us have simply been attempting to correct some inaccurate condemnations of him, or inaccurate portrayals of the South.
That Bill Clinton is an adulterous perjurer doesn't mean he is a pedophile.
It also doesn't mean that Monica wasn't an adulterous **** herself.
Charles
“You can please some of the people all of the time, [strike]you can please all of the people some of the time[/strike], but you can’t please all of the people all of the time."
With apologies to John Lydgate, I think I fixed that.
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." A. Lincoln
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin110340.html
With apologies to John Lydgate, I think I fixed that.
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." A. Lincoln
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin110340.html
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
And Lincoln would know since he continues to fool so many even today. Zing!
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
LOl....no inaccurate condemnations of him have been corrected.
Again the south didn't start the war, and the north didn't start it over slavery (as you admit) so the war was not about slaver by default. It isn't rocket science.
Semantic word play. You cannot be a supporter of the federal constitution and be a supporter of Lincoln. A d-bag tryant. You cannot be a supporter of Lincoln who supported slavery, who ignored liberties to get what he wanted.
By the way the one ignoring the counters is not me.
Bring up small little issues and trying to use those to rationalize Lincolns actions while claiming not to support him is amusing.
Again the south didn't start the war, and the north didn't start it over slavery (as you admit) so the war was not about slaver by default. It isn't rocket science.
Semantic word play. You cannot be a supporter of the federal constitution and be a supporter of Lincoln. A d-bag tryant. You cannot be a supporter of Lincoln who supported slavery, who ignored liberties to get what he wanted.
By the way the one ignoring the counters is not me.
Bring up small little issues and trying to use those to rationalize Lincolns actions while claiming not to support him is amusing.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
It matters not why SC seceded if the issue they seceded over wasn't an issue with the one who wouldn't recognize their secession.....again not rocket science.
Oh and my detest and anti Lincoln does not mean offering up apologia or support for Southern slavery or southern government either. So don't try to pull that insinuation.
Oh and my detest and anti Lincoln does not mean offering up apologia or support for Southern slavery or southern government either. So don't try to pull that insinuation.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
OC for ME
Regular Member
I do not contend that slavery was not a central issue for SC, or the other southern states.
Slavery was legal. SC adhered to the 1808 ban on slave importation, granted the slave population had reached self-sustainment (~4 million slaves). Much of the Southern delegation voted for the 1808 ban.
SC (the south) followed the law. Lincoln did not follow the law.
If secession was not the singular point behind the civil war for some folks they are certainly free to believe that Lincoln prosecuted a war over a institution that he had little interest in one way or the other.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I was always told growing up two wrongs don't make a right. Interesting thing is Lincoln had no qualms about this wrong other than it competed with free white labor ( he was supported by Marxist), so to make the case in favor of Lincoln by saying well these guys were D-bags too is a blatant fallacy, a poor attempt at a misdirection.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Lincoln is held in great esteem because of his acts to eliminate slavery. Unfortunate it is that this is as far as folks go.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Yep and that they have been mislead that he was for a moral cause he wasn't.
utbagpiper
Banned
Really? Who started the war? On what date?
SC most certainly started the war.
It seized property contrary to all property rights theory.
It fired upon union troops who didn't even return fire. It laid siege to a union fort that was properly owned by the federal government. It fired upon an unarmed union ship.
In doing this, prominent secessionists declined the "honor" of firing the opening volley because they saw the opening shots as the start of a war that might yet be prevented. Yet you would declare better than those fine and honorable Southern Gentlemen present at the time that it was not they, but the north that started the war? Rather presumptuous I think.
One has to ignore a host of history and engage in mental gymnastic suitable for a federal judge in order to convince himself that SC didn't start the war.
But by their own words in their secession document, SC did secede over slavery. Therefore, the history is a tad more complicated that the childish version that either the public schools or that you, SVG, attempt to paint.
Who here is supporting Lincoln? I am merely trying to paint a more accurate picture of history than either you or the public schools. You both seem to engage in the same, one-dimensional tactic, just on opposite sides. Some might compare you and the public schools to the Republicans and Democrats.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
Deleted
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
To suggest that the reason for secession matters not at all is grossly overly-simplistic.
I'm sorry, no insinuation. I'm flat out accusing you of tacitly supporting SC's attempt to continue slavery when they believed (however erroneously) it was in danger. By constantly claiming that SC didn't start the war, you are shifting from SC the responsibility for shedding blood for the intent of continuing to hold human beings as slaves.
In your attempt to tear down Lincoln, you've become more obsessed with attacking Lincoln than with defending real liberty.
I'm sorry, but any right for SC to secede is highly tainted by the stated reason for which they seceded. They were not seceding to preserve liberty, nor because they had been denied a representative voice in the national government. Their secession document says nothing of unjust tariffs. There were many cultural and regional issues that drove the desire for secession, and many bigger reasons than slavery that drew and kept the Southern States in the War once SC started that war. But the proximate cause for SC's separation, from SC's own pen, was the insistence to continue the practice of slavery for as long as they saw fit.
No honest man can read their secession document and come to any other conclusion.
And whatever Lincoln thought of slavery and Africans when he was campaigning or inaugurated, by the end of the War, he was proposing voting rights for at least some former slaves. That single fact paints a very different picture than your childish, one-dimensional characature of a "d-bag racist tyrant".
If you want to set the record straight from what grade schools are teaching, I'm with you. If you just want to engage in the same dishonest historic revision from a different angle, I'll call you on it in slightly less offensive terms than you've used for those with whom you disagree.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
That places you way ahead of some others then. Thank you.
SC followed a wholly immoral law allowing the keeping of slavery. I do believe SC violated the law and/or the law of nations (or at least all sense of property rights) when it seized property rightly held by the federal government, fired on union forces within union property, fired on an unarmed ship, and laid siege to a union fort properly owned by the union, all before any serious efforts had been made to resolve upon how to respect both the sovereignty of SC and the property rights of the federal government.
Lincoln certainly violated constitutional limits in a number of ways as he prosecuted the war.
There is no doubt that Lincoln fought the war for the singular purpose of preventing secession. I believe that save for the issue of slavery, Lincoln would have lost because slavery became the moral justification for the war when Northern interest waned. Slavery also prevented England from providing assistance to the Confederacy.
In his War Inevitable speech, Patrick Henry said, "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."
That just God could not support the continuation of slavery. And so the Confederacy fought alone...and lost.
I've written before, it is a shame that the question of secession was fought with slavery as the major reason to test the theory. Likewise, it is a shame that the great test of "States' rights" came over the issue of segregation.
Lincoln did not fight the war initially to end slavery. But SC started the war to continue slavery. Ultimately, the war brought about the end of slavery. Ultimately, it required the squashing of the last remnants of States' Rights to end Jim Crow. We are paying a very heavy price in this nation for our history of racism, including being forced to give the legal name and benefits of marriage to conduct that is not and never will be true marriage. We are forced to tolerate the legal slaughter of the most innocent of children despite State sentiments that would protect them.
Accurate history is important. But it is important because wise men will learn from it. A few facts, even if true themselves, strung together to support a narrative that does us little good are no better than a child's bedtime story.
What is the greater good, secession and States' Rights, or ending slavery and ending Jim Crow?
Do we learn more by calling Lincoln vulgar names as our OP has repeatedly done? Or by thoughtfully, maturely, considering our very painful and complicated history?
Charles
Last edited: