Lincoln was a great leader exclusive of the war, darn him

[JakeStarkey]

Recommended reading for the neoconfederates (ha! Like they would ever...) ...for those who are following and want to learn more about Lincoln.

His Cooper Union speech was especially good.

The Lincoln Douglas debates also really give a great insight into how his mind worked. Stop reading out-of-context snippets - read the whole thing. The man could speak!

a snippet, of the Copper Union Speech:

"But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism?

Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new.

True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty"; but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live."

Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations."

==============

One more snip:

"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events."

Cooper Union speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

February 1860. More than a year before the south would fire the first shots of the war.

All that shows is that Lincoln opposed extending slavery to new states. He calls them "territory," but once they are admitted as states, they are no longer territory. Of course, Lincoln doesn't say a thing about abolishing slavery in states where it already exists.

Lincoln was out to hold the union together, with or without slavery, as you well know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gipper is a confirmed white supremacist, with Harry Byrd and Strom Thurmond as his heroes.

 

[bripat9643]

Explain?

The South lost the election of 1860 and refused to submit to constitutional, electoral process.

And they chose to secede, which was their right.

Correct. However, they had no right to fire upon or seize federal property. Instead of invading the South, Lincoln could have demanded reparations and used a naval blockade to enforce it.

They had every right to fire on it. The Fort was within the boundaries of South Carolina. That's all the justification required.

Only in your diseased mind.

That's international law, dipshit.

 

[bripat9643]

Explain?

The South lost the election of 1860 and refused to submit to constitutional, electoral process.

And they chose to secede, which was their right.

No, it was not, anymore than a portion of the population today can 'secede'.

That's only because Lincoln made it clear the federal government will slaughter you if you try.

That is the law and the law is backed by the force of government.

Really? Then I suppose you can quote this "law."

 

[bripat9643]

Gipper is a confirmed white supremacist, with Harry Byrd and Strom Thurmond as his heroes.

Lincoln was a confirmed white supremacist, and you worship him.

 

[bripat9643]

Recommended reading for the neoconfederates (ha! Like they would ever...) ...for those who are following and want to learn more about Lincoln.

His Cooper Union speech was especially good.

The Lincoln Douglas debates also really give a great insight into how his mind worked. Stop reading out-of-context snippets - read the whole thing. The man could speak!

a snippet, of the Copper Union Speech:

"But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism?

Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new.

True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty"; but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live."

Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations."

==============

One more snip:

"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events."

Cooper Union speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

February 1860. More than a year before the south would fire the first shots of the war.

All that shows is that Lincoln opposed extending slavery to new states. He calls them "territory," but once they are admitted as states, they are no longer territory. Of course, Lincoln doesn't say a thing about abolishing slavery in states where it already exists.

Lincoln was out to hold the union together, with or without slavery, as you well know.

You mean he was out to impose hegemony on the South so he could loot it with high tariffs.

 

[occupied]

Take your history revision and shove it. The question of the legality of secession was settled the minute the confederacy opened up on Fort Sumter. Such a hostile expansionist nation could not be allowed to share the same continent with the United States. If they had been interested in peaceful co-existence and sticking to their borders maybe things would have ended up different but the South had dreams of conquest West and further South that could not be allowed to go forward. Bleeding Kansas was still a fresh example of how far the slavers were willing to go to expand their way of life.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


Explain away.


.

I was responding to the overly long post by gipper on the last page where the poor little south was just minding it's own business when the the North decided to beat them up for no good reason. For some reason his post would not quote right so I edited it out.

Too bad you did not read my post.

It clearly informs the reader that secession was always an option available to the States. It also informs that the South tried to peacefully secede, but Lincoln more or less told them to fuck themselves.

An Jake claiming since the Constitution does not provide for secession, means secession is unlawful, is proof he does not understand the Constitution. Does it not?

I didn't read it because I have heard it all before. Secession might have been allowed had the South not acted so hostile and provocative. From Nov. 1860 up to Ft Sumter in April 1861 the South went on a rampage of seizing federal property and private property belonging to Northerners. They seized forts and imprisoned union troops as well as engaging in a campaign of espionage against the north. They made it clear from day one that they intended to be expansionist and had no interest in being good neighbors. They wanted the West and they ultimately wanted South America as possessions and a place to sell excess slaves and were willing to fight the North to have their way. No union troops were called up until after the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the federal government pretty much did nothing until then.

The South could have possibly kept their independence but they had to be boastful, violent hillbillies bent on taking what they coveted by force. In short, they became a rogue state and therefore could not be allowed to exist.

The one who was violent and bent on using force was your beloved god like figure, Dishonest Abe...a confirmed white supremest.

You are the one taking the side of traitors who started a bloody civil war rather than give up their slaves like decent human beings.

 

[Contumacious]

Take your history revision and shove it. The question of the legality of secession was settled the minute the confederacy opened up on Fort Sumter. Such a hostile expansionist nation could not be allowed to share the same continent with the United States. If they had been interested in peaceful co-existence and sticking to their borders maybe things would have ended up different but the South had dreams of conquest West and further South that could not be allowed to go forward. Bleeding Kansas was still a fresh example of how far the slavers were willing to go to expand their way of life.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


Explain away.


.

I was responding to the overly long post by gipper on the last page where the poor little south was just minding it's own business when the the North decided to beat them up for no good reason. For some reason his post would not quote right so I edited it out.

They were.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?


.

 

[bripat9643]

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


Explain away.


.

I was responding to the overly long post by gipper on the last page where the poor little south was just minding it's own business when the the North decided to beat them up for no good reason. For some reason his post would not quote right so I edited it out.

Too bad you did not read my post.

It clearly informs the reader that secession was always an option available to the States. It also informs that the South tried to peacefully secede, but Lincoln more or less told them to fuck themselves.

An Jake claiming since the Constitution does not provide for secession, means secession is unlawful, is proof he does not understand the Constitution. Does it not?

I didn't read it because I have heard it all before. Secession might have been allowed had the South not acted so hostile and provocative. From Nov. 1860 up to Ft Sumter in April 1861 the South went on a rampage of seizing federal property and private property belonging to Northerners. They seized forts and imprisoned union troops as well as engaging in a campaign of espionage against the north. They made it clear from day one that they intended to be expansionist and had no interest in being good neighbors. They wanted the West and they ultimately wanted South America as possessions and a place to sell excess slaves and were willing to fight the North to have their way. No union troops were called up until after the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the federal government pretty much did nothing until then.

The South could have possibly kept their independence but they had to be boastful, violent hillbillies bent on taking what they coveted by force. In short, they became a rogue state and therefore could not be allowed to exist.

The one who was violent and bent on using force was your beloved god like figure, Dishonest Abe...a confirmed white supremest.

You are the one taking the side of traitors who started a bloody civil war rather than give up their slaves like decent human beings.

Slavery was the law of the land and therefore no justification for making war on anyone. According to the definition in the Constitution Lincoln was the traitor because he is the one who made war on the states of the union.

Article III Section 3​

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.​

 

[bripat9643]

Take your history revision and shove it. The question of the legality of secession was settled the minute the confederacy opened up on Fort Sumter. Such a hostile expansionist nation could not be allowed to share the same continent with the United States. If they had been interested in peaceful co-existence and sticking to their borders maybe things would have ended up different but the South had dreams of conquest West and further South that could not be allowed to go forward. Bleeding Kansas was still a fresh example of how far the slavers were willing to go to expand their way of life.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


Explain away.


.

I was responding to the overly long post by gipper on the last page where the poor little south was just minding it's own business when the the North decided to beat them up for no good reason. For some reason his post would not quote right so I edited it out.

They were.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?


.

I predict the answer will be "they fired on Ft Sumter." They repeat that like a mantra, no matter how many times you shoot it down.

 

[jwoodie]

It is amazing to me that, even 150 years later, any criticism of Abraham Lincoln is met with hyper-emotional hysteria. Apparently, he is among the pantheon of the secular Left.

 

[gipper]

It is amazing to me that, even 150 years later, any criticism of Abraham Lincoln is met with hyper-emotional hysteria. Apparently, he is among the pantheon of the secular Left.

It is amazing...when the truth is readily available.
However I think you will find many on the right are just as ignorant of Dishonest Abe.

 

[Contumacious]

It is amazing to me that, even 150 years later, any criticism of Abraham Lincoln is met with hyper-emotional hysteria. Apparently, he is among the pantheon of the secular Left.

He is the father of government supremacists and fascists.

Ape Lincoln moved slavery from the South to Washington DC.

Now ALL Americans re subjected to a tyrannical centralized government.


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You mean he was out to impose hegemony on the South so he could loot it with high tariffs.

.
Nope

Nope

 

[JakeStarkey]

Slavery was the law of the land and therefore no justification for making war on anyone. According to the definition in the Constitution Lincoln was the traitor because he is the one who made war on the states of the union.

Article III Section 3​

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.​

No one was fighting for slavery, bub, in April 1861, but Lincoln was fighting to keep the Union. The South had no legal right secede. Show us in the Constitution where it gives states the right to leave.

 

[JakeStarkey]

AL is among the pantheon of great Americans.

 

[gipper]

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


Explain away.


.

I was responding to the overly long post by gipper on the last page where the poor little south was just minding it's own business when the the North decided to beat them up for no good reason. For some reason his post would not quote right so I edited it out.

Too bad you did not read my post.

It clearly informs the reader that secession was always an option available to the States. It also informs that the South tried to peacefully secede, but Lincoln more or less told them to fuck themselves.

An Jake claiming since the Constitution does not provide for secession, means secession is unlawful, is proof he does not understand the Constitution. Does it not?

I didn't read it because I have heard it all before. Secession might have been allowed had the South not acted so hostile and provocative. From Nov. 1860 up to Ft Sumter in April 1861 the South went on a rampage of seizing federal property and private property belonging to Northerners. They seized forts and imprisoned union troops as well as engaging in a campaign of espionage against the north. They made it clear from day one that they intended to be expansionist and had no interest in being good neighbors. They wanted the West and they ultimately wanted South America as possessions and a place to sell excess slaves and were willing to fight the North to have their way. No union troops were called up until after the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the federal government pretty much did nothing until then.

The South could have possibly kept their independence but they had to be boastful, violent hillbillies bent on taking what they coveted by force. In short, they became a rogue state and therefore could not be allowed to exist.

The one who was violent and bent on using force was your beloved god like figure, Dishonest Abe...a confirmed white supremest.

You are the one taking the side of traitors who started a bloody civil war rather than give up their slaves like decent human beings.

Wrong. They weren't traitors and Lincoln started the war.

 

[gipper]

AL is among the pantheon of great Americans.

A sad commentary on American education and propaganda promoted by statist historians.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

600,000 dead to save his presidency. Absent his assassination, he would be considered a villain.

Tens of millions died for Stalin and Mao's power grab, and the left still considered them heros.

 

[bripat9643]

Slavery was the law of the land and therefore no justification for making war on anyone. According to the definition in the Constitution Lincoln was the traitor because he is the one who made war on the states of the union.

Article III Section 3​

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.​

No one was fighting for slavery, bub, in April 1861, but Lincoln was fighting to keep the Union. The South had no legal right secede. Show us in the Constitution where it gives states the right to leave.

You keep saying that, but you have yet to post a shred of evidence that supports the claim.

Show in the Constitution where it denies states the right to leave.

Your position that everything that isn't expressly permitted is forbidden is a truly novel theory of law.