APP - The truth about Lincoln

Establishment said:
I'm personally open to the concept of secession (as opposed to nullification, which is clearly illegal), despite a dominant view which deems it unconstitutional, and a violation of the rights of those citizens who are effected. The attack on Sumter made the question of legality irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Excerpt 2: Me stating my general openness to the doctrine of secession, though not to nullification. Rhode Island held out on ratification for some time. Now, I'm sure that MA, CT, and NH all hated RI back then, but, it was pretty inevitable, once it had finished asserting its independence, that they couldn't survive on their own.

Actually, I think that Article VII can be used to justify secession, as it stipulates that 2/3 of the states needed to vote for ratification, meaning that the Constitution can be in effect, even if not all states (such as RI) are on board.
 
Establishment said:
I'm personally open to the concept of secession (as opposed to nullification, which is clearly illegal), despite a dominant view which deems it unconstitutional, and a violation of the rights of those citizens who are effected. The attack on Sumter made the question of legality irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Lincoln had to provoke to call it a rebellion which it clearly was not. You don't negotiate a rebellion. Neither do you negotiate resuppling union troops in need of food etc only to instead send reinforcements. Twice.
Lincoln got his excuse to do what virtually Noone wanted at a cost in blood and cash that was massive. But the refrained Whig party lived on so it was all good.
 
Celticguy said:
Lincoln had to provoke to call it a rebellion which it clearly was not. You don't negotiate a rebellion. Neither do you negotiate resuppling union troops in need of food etc only to instead send reinforcements. Twice.
Lincoln got his excuse to do what virtually Noone wanted at a cost in blood and cash that was massive. But the refrained Whig party lived on so it was all good.
Click to expand...

The south wanted that war. Other than the Revolution, has there ever been a war the south opposed? Lest you forget, they attacked American troops, on American soil, and they didn't even have a compelling interest to do so.
 
I Love America said:
Abraham Lincoln is known throughout the land as the Great Emancipator because of the Emancipation Proclamation. However, what most people don't know is what a truly horrid President he really was.

First of all, The Emancipation Proclamation did not free anyone. It specifically exempted ares of the southern states that were under the control of the federal armies, but it allowed slavery to exist in Maryland, Kentucky and Washington D.C. The Emancipation Proclamation was a propaganda document that was meant to keep England from supporting the Confederacy.

In an August 22, 1862 letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said the following "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

How was it that so many other countries were able to end the practice of slavery without killing 620,000 of its citizens, but Lincoln the great orator was not?

Here is a list of Lincoln's tyrannical actions while President

1) He unconstitutionally conducted a war without the consent of Congress and intentionally waged war against civilians
2) He suspended habeas corpus
3) He conscripted railroads and censored telegraph lines
4) He imprisonied without trial some 30,000 northern citizens for merely voicing opposition to the war
5) He deported a member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, for opposing Lincoln’s income tax proposal at a Democrat Party political rally
6) He shut down hundreds of Northern newspapers and imprisoning their editors for questioning his war policies
7) He ordered federal troops to intimidate voters into voting Republican

For these reasons and more, I consider Lincoln to be our worst President ever. He committed the first full frontal assault on the US Constitution. Of course he must be lauded and held up by statists around the issue of slavery so as to whitewash his other transgressions against this country.
Click to expand...

Fitting for the founder of the Republican Party!
 
Establishment said:
The south wanted that war. Other than the Revolution, has there ever been a war the south opposed? Lest you forget, they attacked American troops, on American soil, and they didn't even have a compelling interest to do so.
Click to expand...

Why would they want a war ?
Union reenforcements instead of supplies is provocation the first time. It's an act of war the second time.
 
Celticguy said:
Why would they want a war ?
Union reenforcements instead of supplies is provocation the first time. It's an act of war the second time.
Click to expand...

It's a military fort, you can equip it as often as you like. You're making-up legal minutia where none exists. As for why, the south either believed it could win, or else it was too stupid to know better. Both are highly possible.
 
Establishment said:
The south wanted that war. Other than the Revolution, has there ever been a war the south opposed? Lest you forget, they attacked American troops, on American soil, and they didn't even have a compelling interest to do so.
Click to expand...

That is false. The South wanted to be left alone. In fact the people of the North agreed that the South had a right to secede.

Even in the 1800s Presidents worried about their legacy. It was about the Whig Party and Lincolns oversized ego. He was the traitor
 
I Love America said:
That is false. The South wanted to be left alone. In fact the people of the North agreed that the South had a right to secede.

Even in the 1800s Presidents worried about their legacy. It was about the Whig Party and Lincolns oversized ego. He was the traitor
Click to expand...

1) The attack on Sumter is proof the south wanted a war.
2) The Whig Party was dead. Preserving the union was, and remains, a lasting Republican legacy, for which we remain proud of (except for RINOs).
3) No one, including the War Democrats, believed the south had a right to secede. As I stated earlier, my opinion on secession is the minority view, then and now. If you have ever studied the Wilmot Proviso, you know this to be true.
 
Establishment said:
1) The attack on Sumter is proof the south wanted a war.
2) The Whig Party was dead. Preserving the union was, and remains, a lasting Republican legacy, for which we remain proud of (except for RINOs).
3) No one, including the War Democrats, believed the south had a right to secede. As I stated earlier, my opinion on secession is the minority view, then and now. If you have ever studied the Wilmot Proviso, you know this to be true.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect about the Norths feelings on secession.
 
Establishment said:
It's a military fort, you can equip it as often as you like. You're making-up legal minutia where none exists. As for why, the south either believed it could win, or else it was too stupid to know better. Both are highly possible.
Click to expand...

It's a military fort in the middle of another country. Because of that, the union had been in negotiations for an equitable transfer for this and other like properties. If it were as you suggest, why was the union doing it ?
Lincoln required conflict because losing the cash cow left the north with an unsustainable economy.
 
Celticguy said:
It's a military fort in the middle of another country. Because of that, the union had been in negotiations for an equitable transfer for this and other like properties. If it were as you suggest, why was the union doing it ?
Lincoln required conflict because losing the cash cow left the north with an unsustainable economy.
Click to expand...

1) The equitable transfer occurred in the 1830s.
2) The CSA possessed the unsustainable economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top