Oh, one other thing. The first quote you posted in your last response was a direct response in 1858 to Stephen Douglas’ off-the-wall claims that Lincoln wanted to promote the marriage and “breeding” of blacks with whites. Given the context and the times in which he gave that quote, it is understandable that Lincoln would so severely denounce blacks. But this says nothing about Lincoln’s change of heart regarding the eradication of slavery as an institution more than four years later.
Okay, I couldn’t resist this last parting shot. I suspect that the long delay between your last post and your second to last post was because you were searching the Internet in a frenzy trying to find some sort of primary evidence to support your assertion that Lincoln was primarily motivated by a loss of revenue, but you could not find anything, thus the nature of your last post. The evidence simply does not exist.
Selah…
Hahahaha! The President who risked political suicide to free the slaves didn’t care about them at all? I laugh. I’ve never denied that Lincoln was a racist, but to say that Lincoln didn’t care about them AT ALL is simply hilarious.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
No they did not.
He was just a hypocrite and perfectly typical politician.[/quote]
Nope, Lincoln was referring to the right to revolution as cited by the Declaration of Independence. There is nothing hypocritical about it - Southern secession wasn’t an invocation of revolution. A secession is, definitionally, not a revolution.
You’ve been whitesmoked on this topic more times than I can count. Why continue to repeat flawed contentions?[/quote]
Semantics, really?
Oh, it is not a “revolution”, it is a “secession” ?
So he would have been against a divorce, but bashing your partners head in would have been ok for him?
You are a tragic case of someone whose eye for principles has been corrupted by too much legal training.
You are even so tragically deluded that you believe that those who still see the big picture have a problem whereas you. who gets lost in semantics and formalities, sees the real world as it is.
Either people are free to overthrow their government or they are not. Had you read the quote above you would also know that even part of a people had a right to do that, at least according to the president who pressed free men into service to deny other free men the right to form a government that they believed would serve them better.
Did the colonies “revolt” or “secede” and what was the fundamental difference between their acts and the acts of the confederacy?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
My question still stands: if Lincoln was economically motivated, then why did he severely undercut the South’s economic base by issuing the EP? Or do you deny that the availability of free labor had a major impact on the South’s economy?
[/quote]
Maybe he freed slaves because he was economically attacking the South? With most of the white men away, could such a thing be disruptive of the South’s economy?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
No they did not.
He was just a hypocrite and perfectly typical politician.[/quote]
Nope, Lincoln was referring to the right to revolution as cited by the Declaration of Independence. There is nothing hypocritical about it - Southern secession wasn’t an invocation of revolution. A secession is, definitionally, not a revolution.
You’ve been whitesmoked on this topic more times than I can count. Why continue to repeat flawed contentions?[/quote]
Semantics, really?
Oh, it is not a “revolution”, it is a “secession” ?
So he would have been against a divorce, but bashing your partners head in would have been ok for him?
You are a tragic case of someone whose eye for principles has been corrupted by too much legal training.
You are even so tragically deluded that you believe that those who still see the big picture have a problem whereas you. who gets lost in semantics and formalities, sees the real world as it is.
Either people are free to overthrow their government or they are not. Had you read the quote above you would also know that even part of a people had a right to do that, at least according to the president who pressed free men into service to deny other free men the right to form a government that they believed would serve them better.
Did the colonies “revolt” or “secede” and what was the fundamental difference between their acts and the acts of the confederacy?
[/quote]
Very good points. According to the literalists, we have the right to revolt but not to secede? That sounds like parsing worthy of Bill Clinton!!
This is a fascinating thread in which I will for the moment remain content as a spectator.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Semantics, really?
Oh, it is not a “revolution”, it is a “secession” ?
So he would have been against a divorce, but bashing your partners head in would have been ok for him?
You are a tragic case of someone whose eye for principles has been corrupted by too much legal training.
You are even so tragically deluded that you believe that those who still see the big picture have a problem whereas you. who gets lost in semantics and formalities, sees the real world as it is.
Either people are free to overthrow their government or they are not. Had you read the quote above you would also know that even part of a people had a right to do that, at least according to the president who pressed free men into service to deny other free men the right to form a government that they believed would serve them better.
Did the colonies “revolt” or “secede” and what was the fundamental difference between their acts and the acts of the confederacy?[/quote]
This again?
If you have a right to “secession”, you have a lawful, formally recignized right to leave. There is thus no need to revolt - just leave when you want to go. “Secession” isn’t overthrowing anyone - it is exercising your lawful right to leave.
If there is a right to “secession” under the Constitution, you have no need to revolt. So the neo-Birchers need to get their act together and decide - was the action in 1860 a secession? Or a revolt?
Neo-Birchers have no idea. They conflate the two as if they are the same. They aren’t.
There is no right to secession. So, a trip down that lane is fruitless. Asked and answered.
If the neo-Birchers insist it was a revolution a la the Declaration of Independence, no problem - what was the catalyst of revolution? What was the denial of rights that justified a revolt? What is the “long train of abuses”?
There isn’t one. The only thing that happened in 1860 was the Slave Power’s candidate lost a national election and the winner was a moderate abolitionist won and expressed an interest in giving slavery - a denial of natural rights - a slow, legislative death.
There was no Jeffersonian denial of rights taking place in 1860. If losing an election you freely participated in amounts to justification for “revolt!”, there is no such thing as constitutional republicanism.
The colonies “revolted” from the rule of England based on a denial of our rights by the King - see the DOI. It wasn’t a secession - we didn’t have a formal withdrawal from the kingdom.
We have been through this over and over. You never get any smarter or better, or come up with any rebuttals. Why not just let it go?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is a fascinating thread in which I will for the moment remain content as a spectator.[/quote]
Well, unfortunately it may be just about dead. Ol’ Bill has zero legit evidence to back up any of his claims and was forced to resort to Sophistry, has repeatedly misconstrued what I’ve said, has ignored the context of the things Lincoln said about blacks (none of which further his point in regards to economic motivation). I think he realizes he’s wrong but chooses to hide behind the old ‘we agree to disagree’ bullshit.
The bottom line is that while Lincoln was a racist, this did not distract from the fact that he felt salvery, on a personal level, to be evil. But at the outset of his Presidency, he viewed the aim of the war to be the restoration of the Union for reasons more magnanimous than monetary concerns. This entire time he was against slavery, but Bill thinks that his quote about just as soon having slavery if it meant the restoration of the Union is an indicator that he supported slavery.
However, that quote really illustrates the level to which Lincoln was willing to go in order to save the Union, and does not accurately illustrate his personal feelings about slavery. As the war continued, Lincoln knew that the war could only end with the eradication of slavery. His views changed over time, but Bill and others fail to realize that what Lincoln said about slavery in 1848 or 1858 or at any time before the war has no bearing on what he felt about it once the war started.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Very good points. According to the literalists, we have the right to revolt but not to secede? That sounds like parsing worthy of Bill Clinton!![/quote]
So, you consider yourself a constitutionalist, but now you are the enemy of literalism?
At least try to be coherent.
I can’t add much to what DB and Thunder have said, but here is a thought.
Even if you thought that Lincoln could care less about slaves (which, in and of itself, I have not found to be true)…but even if you do believe that…Lincoln on NUMEROUS occasions stated that slavery, as an institution, was a “cancer” that would inevitably destroy us. It simply is not sustainable
In other words, subjugating millions of people would eventually lead to revolt and tear apart the very social, economic, and yes, moral fabric of the nation.
Mufasa
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…slavery, as an institution, was a “cancer” that would inevitably destroy us…[/quote]
This sentiment was prevalent at the beginning of the American Revolution and again 12 years later when the Constitution was proposed. The abolition movement had wings well before the 1850s and 60s.[/quote]
True.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Very good points. According to the literalists, we have the right to revolt but not to secede? That sounds like parsing worthy of Bill Clinton!![/quote]
So, you consider yourself a constitutionalist, but now you are the enemy of literalism?
At least try to be coherent.[/quote]
Apparently, according to you gents, the FF were not. How can anyone grant the ‘right to revolt’? Congress grants it? How in hell can there be a ‘right’ to revolt, and its granted? The concept is laughable.
The Southerners were gentlemen. They went to see Lincoln, to say they were leaving. He refused to see them. Now this is ‘illegal’. If they shot at him, well, that’s their right because they are revolting. LOL!
Apparently the FFs were as dumb as a box.
Instead, states have a right to leave. No authority for an armed invasion of a state is allowed. If they were still states, and not warring nations, how could he invade? They are still states. They were prevented from leaving!! So…invasion was illegal. Only alien nations can be attacked.
Lincoln turned the Constitution into rubber, twisting it every which way. The tradition continues today.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…slavery, as an institution, was a “cancer” that would inevitably destroy us…[/quote]
This sentiment was prevalent at the beginning of the American Revolution and again 12 years later when the Constitution was proposed. The abolition movement had wings well before the 1850s and 60s.[/quote]
True.[/quote]
How come slaves deserve thier freedom but states are subject to armed invasion when they want their freedom?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Apparently, according to you gents, the FF were not. How can anyone grant the ‘right to revolt’? Congress grants it? How in hell can there be a ‘right’ to revolt, and its granted? The concept is laughable.[/quote]
No one grants the right to revolt. More importantly, no one suggested this. Stay focused.
Formally withdrawing from the Union when you have no right to do so, yes, is illgeal.
This is barely readable - but I would answer by telling you that the Constitution permits the government to put down insurrections and rebellions. It’s there. Look it up.
You haven’t really made a point here at all. Your post is just a random collection of incoherent arguments.
Question posed and yet to be answered: what “rights” were denied in 1860 that justified a revolt?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Apparently, according to you gents, the FF were not. How can anyone grant the ‘right to revolt’? Congress grants it? How in hell can there be a ‘right’ to revolt, and its granted? The concept is laughable.[/quote]
No one grants the right to revolt. More importantly, no one suggested this. Stay focused.
Formally withdrawing from the Union when you have no right to do so, yes, is illgeal.
This is barely readable - but I would answer by telling you that the Constitution permits the government to put down insurrections and rebellions. It’s there. Look it up.
You haven’t really made a point here at all. Your post is just a random collection of incoherent arguments.
Question posed and yet to be answered: what “rights” were denied in 1860 that justified a revolt?[/quote]
There WAS no revolt. Revolt means you want to topple the national government. The South simply wanted to leave, with the national government just fine and dandy.
Lincoln would not let them leave. This means that they were STILL STATES within the United States. Where is it in the Constitution that Federal armies may invade a state?
Where is it that Federal forces can prevent duly elected officials from taking their state offices (Maryland)?
Where is it that armies can burn the homes and property of private citizens in states that are still legally states? General Sherman must be familiar with that ‘law’.
Lincoln was NOT the Great Emancipator. He was the Great Centralizer.
The point that Thunderbolt made above about “insurrections and rebellions” hits the nail on the head with thunderous accuracy (pun intended). I’m not an expert in constitutional law by any stretch, but Lincoln (hell even Buchanan before him) felt that secession was illegal and treasonous. The secession of the South was, in Lincoln’s mind and many others, an act of treason and he treated it as such.
When the South began to seize federal property, culminating in the taking of Fort Sumter, to Lincoln this was a direct attack on the United States by insurrectionists. The fact that there were no casualties is irrelevant. The war was inevitable once the South began to seize federal property. If they were still legally states, then it was the SOUTH and NOT the North that acted illegally. If the city in which I live were to “secede” from the state and then began to seize state property and buildings, the state govt certainly has the right to come in and take it back, with force if necessary. The same applies to the secession of states.
As for Sherman’s march through Georgia, in war the aim is to win. If you believe that Sherman was wrong, then by the same logic you must also be against the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the commitment to total war in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. We could have used a general like Sherman in Vietnam and we could use one in Afhganistan. By decimating the South in the manner Sherman did, he destoyed what little resolve the South had by that time and his actions served to hasten the end of the war. Remember, war should never be fought without a willingness to do everything it takes to win.
The US didn’t ratify the first Geneva Convention until 1882. Before then it wasn’t written anywhere that Sherman COULDN’T plow right through Georgia. His responsibility, and that of the Union Army in general, was not to the South; it was to the North. Lincoln knew that only total warfare would end the war as quickly as possible, which is exactly why he replaced McClellan after his blunder in not pursuing and destroying Lee’s forces after Antietam. The war might have been virtually ended right there in 1862. Lincoln regretted the outbreak of war as much as anyone, but he was smart and pragmatic enough to know and understand that once the war had started, half measures would only prolong the war. Kill 50,000 NOW in order to save who knows how many later on.