|
|
Posted: 6/24/2012 12:57:58 AM
THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2012 1:48:15 AM
Look at my location, and then listen to my words.
I told you so. Lincoln ripped apart the constitution like no president before him. Illegal taxation of states toto force revenue to flow into northern ports. Illegal seizure of ships and men to enforce blockades to set up to enforce the tax policy. Invasion and reinforcent of soverirgn military facilities in a foreign nation ( Confederate Stars, South Carolina). Many other thing as well, and every single one of then part of a Federal, and executive branch power grab as never seen before, resulting in state's rights being weakened dramatically, and setting precedent for them to be even further eroded over time, winding up with what we have right now, a tyranny that would have our founders in armed rebellion. The fact that we have right quasi dictator in office, and that people are accepting of it, is due directly to the acts of Lincoln. Wilson, FDR, Johnson, and others.would not have had the mechanisms in place,.nor the political precedence to implement what they did. Lincoln set the stage that moved us opposite the direction intended for the Republic. Any grammatical or punctuation errors are solely the fault of this damn auto correct on my phone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2012 2:09:22 AM
Eye opening book to say the least. I've recommended it to several people. It should be required reading.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2012 2:23:03 AM
He wasn't a vampire killer?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2012 12:11:24 PM
This book brought plenty to light that had only been hinted at in the several credit hours I have in American History (including a course entitled Civil War And Reconstruction!). For instance, I was aware Lincoln had suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, but the rationale had always been it was necessary to keep the peace in the North and that he was doing it for the good of the Union. Now I am ashamed that I ever considered that to be a reasonable explanation. It is painfully obvious to me now that Lincoln used the suspension of the writ maliciously, that is to punish those who opposed him or presented a political threat and to vindicate his highly unpopular war.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2012 1:29:16 PM
It is an eye opener that should be read by all.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2012 1:43:55 PM
[Last Edit: 6/26/2012 1:44:05 PM by freddd]
Excellent read. The truth is helpful even if it hurts.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2012 1:59:41 PM
I haven't read it yet, but I did see the review from the Claremont Institute that ripped Dilorenzo to pieces. http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.736/article_detail.asp
I'm not a Lincoln fan by any stretch of the imagination, nor am I a Lincoln scholar. Is the CI criticism accurate? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2012 2:22:36 PM
[Last Edit: 6/26/2012 2:26:09 PM by AJ_Dual]
It all comes down to the simple fact that Lincoln wouldn't have had cause to do the things he did, right or wrong, or for better or worse, if the south hadn't been so hell bent on trying to preserve slavery as an institution, and expanding it into the west to try and maintain some sort of a chance at slave state representational parity with the north.
The South could have imported tons of poor European labor as technically "free" farm hands, paid them less in salary or upkeep than a slave was "worth" and worked them harder since they'd have been in essence disposable unlike a slave. Doing this in the northern factories and cities is what led to the secondary economic and population disparities that southern apologists like to try and prop up as being "equal" causes to the Civil War along with slavery. (And allowed the north continually swell the ranks of the Union Army as cannon fodder...) Slavery caused secession, and secession caused "Lincoln", period. And no amount of whining about "pride", "traditions", states rights (state powers really, people have rights, state's don't...) southern belles or genteel "howdy do's" will erase that fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2012 7:12:16 PM
Originally Posted By AJ_Dual: It all comes down to the simple fact that Lincoln wouldn't have had cause to do the things he did, right or wrong, or for better or worse, if the south hadn't been so hell bent on trying to preserve slavery as an institution, and expanding it into the west to try and maintain some sort of a chance at slave state representational parity with the north. The South could have imported tons of poor European labor as technically "free" farm hands, paid them less in salary or upkeep than a slave was "worth" and worked them harder since they'd have been in essence disposable unlike a slave. Doing this in the northern factories and cities is what led to the secondary economic and population disparities that southern apologists like to try and prop up as being "equal" causes to the Civil War along with slavery. (And allowed the north continually swell the ranks of the Union Army as cannon fodder...) Slavery caused secession, and secession caused "Lincoln", period. And no amount of whining about "pride", "traditions", states rights (state powers really, people have rights, state's don't...) southern belles or genteel "howdy do's" will erase that fact. Interesting. So your argument as stated is that Lincoln may be excused from his violations of the Constitution and is vindicated in assuming dictatorial powers because it was to free slaves? Is this the litmus test for suspending the freedoms of US citizens? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2012 9:43:25 PM
[Last Edit: 6/26/2012 9:48:39 PM by AJ_Dual]
Originally Posted By TheOx05:
Originally Posted By AJ_Dual:
It all comes down to the simple fact that Lincoln wouldn't have had cause to do the things he did, right or wrong, or for better or worse, if the south hadn't been so hell bent on trying to preserve slavery as an institution, and expanding it into the west to try and maintain some sort of a chance at slave state representational parity with the north. The South could have imported tons of poor European labor as technically "free" farm hands, paid them less in salary or upkeep than a slave was "worth" and worked them harder since they'd have been in essence disposable unlike a slave. Doing this in the northern factories and cities is what led to the secondary economic and population disparities that southern apologists like to try and prop up as being "equal" causes to the Civil War along with slavery. (And allowed the north continually swell the ranks of the Union Army as cannon fodder...) Slavery caused secession, and secession caused "Lincoln", period. And no amount of whining about "pride", "traditions", states rights (state powers really, people have rights, state's don't...) southern belles or genteel "howdy do's" will erase that fact. Interesting. So your argument as stated is that Lincoln may be excused from his violations of the Constitution and is vindicated in assuming dictatorial powers because it was to free slaves? Is this the litmus test for suspending the freedoms of US citizens? Uh... no. You are assuming facts in my argument that aren't there at all.
In no way does any of that excuse Lincoln's usurpation of the Constitution, I'm merely pointing out that southern apologists who like to engage in sophistry and pretend the Civil War was about economics, electoral abuses of the north, states rights (POWERS! "states rights" bothers me as much as those who say America is a "democracy"...) etc. and that slavery was merely a "side issue" have only themselves and slavery to blame for Lincoln. Making everyone and the states a "slave" to the fed.gov in political terms, at least in the context of how the Framers originally envisioned the United States, isn't exactly the best way of going about freeing other slaves. Unless someone seriously wants to go on record and argue that they think Lincoln would have run roughshod over the Constitution, Congress, and the Judiciary as he did even if there were no slavery, no secession, or no Civil War. I only think Lincoln did three good/great things in his entire Presidency. 1. Preserved the Union. (At too high a cost in terms of the Constitution, and expansion of Federal power...For what the United States COULD have been... Kobiashi Maru... If one would forgive the Star Trek reference.) 2. Delivered the Gettysburg Address. 3. Freed the slaves. (With full recognition what an insincere instrument the Emancipation Proclamation truly was, only applying in Confederate/Rebel states, exempting Union slave states, and Lincoln's own words that he'd have either freed or left the slaves in bondage, whichever would have preserved the Union..) All else? A disaster of monumental proportions. That's the point I'm making, no more, no less. tl/dr version: South wants to bitch about Lincoln and "states rights"? It's their own damn fault, and took all of us with them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2012 10:24:30 PM
Originally Posted By AJ_Dual: Ok. So we are agreed. However, I would still lay the blame at Lincoln's feet. Would the North still have won without the suspension of habeas corpus, the federalization of the monetary system, and the bypassing of Congress for war powers? Its fortune telling, but I would say yes, the North's near inexhaustible supply of manpower virtually assures it. I am of the opinion that war was not inevitable. Lincoln made a choice, and the road he chose clearly went against his oath as President. To save the Union, he destroyed it. A Pyrrhic victory.
Originally Posted By TheOx05: Originally Posted By AJ_Dual: It all comes down to the simple fact that Lincoln wouldn't have had cause to do the things he did, right or wrong, or for better or worse, if the south hadn't been so hell bent on trying to preserve slavery as an institution, and expanding it into the west to try and maintain some sort of a chance at slave state representational parity with the north. The South could have imported tons of poor European labor as technically "free" farm hands, paid them less in salary or upkeep than a slave was "worth" and worked them harder since they'd have been in essence disposable unlike a slave. Doing this in the northern factories and cities is what led to the secondary economic and population disparities that southern apologists like to try and prop up as being "equal" causes to the Civil War along with slavery. (And allowed the north continually swell the ranks of the Union Army as cannon fodder...) Slavery caused secession, and secession caused "Lincoln", period. And no amount of whining about "pride", "traditions", states rights (state powers really, people have rights, state's don't...) southern belles or genteel "howdy do's" will erase that fact. Interesting. So your argument as stated is that Lincoln may be excused from his violations of the Constitution and is vindicated in assuming dictatorial powers because it was to free slaves? Is this the litmus test for suspending the freedoms of US citizens? Uh... no. You are assuming facts in my argument that aren't there at all. In no way does any of that excuse Lincoln's usurpation of the Constitution, I'm merely pointing out that southern apologists who like to engage in sophistry and pretend the Civil War was about economics, electoral abuses of the north, states rights (POWERS! "states rights" bothers me as much as those who say America is a "democracy"...) etc. and that slavery was merely a "side issue" have only themselves and slavery to blame for Lincoln. Making everyone and the states a "slave" to the fed.gov in political terms, at least in the context of how the Framers originally envisioned the United States, isn't exactly the best way of going about freeing other slaves. Unless someone seriously wants to go on record and argue that they think Lincoln would have run roughshod over the Constitution, Congress, and the Judiciary as he did even if there were no slavery, no secession, or no Civil War. I only think Lincoln did three good/great things in his entire Presidency. 1. Preserved the Union. (At too high a cost in terms of the Constitution, and expansion of Federal power...For what the United States COULD have been... Kobiashi Maru... If one would forgive the Star Trek reference.) 2. Delivered the Gettysburg Address. 3. Freed the slaves. (With full recognition what an insincere instrument the Emancipation Proclamation truly was, only applying in Confederate/Rebel states, exempting Union slave states, and Lincoln's own words that he'd have either freed or left the slaves in bondage, whichever would have preserved the Union..) All else? A disaster of monumental proportions. That's the point I'm making, no more, no less. tl/dr version: South wants to bitch about Lincoln and "states rights"? It's their own damn fault, and took all of us with them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2012 11:28:06 PM
Originally Posted By TheOx05:
I am of the opinion that war was not inevitable. Lincoln made a choice, and the road he chose clearly went against his oath as President. To save the Union, he destroyed it. A Pyrrhic victory. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2012 7:26:36 PM
Originally Posted By pavlovwolf:
Look at my location, and then listen to my words. I told you so. Lincoln ripped apart the constitution like no president before him. Illegal taxation of states toto force revenue to flow into northern ports. Illegal seizure of ships and men to enforce blockades to set up to enforce the tax policy. Invasion and reinforcent of soverirgn military facilities in a foreign nation ( Confederate Stars, South Carolina). Many other thing as well, and every single one of then part of a Federal, and executive branch power grab as never seen before, resulting in state's rights being weakened dramatically, and setting precedent for them to be even further eroded over time, winding up with what we have right now, a tyranny that would have our founders in armed rebellion. The fact that we have right quasi dictator in office, and that people are accepting of it, is due directly to the acts of Lincoln. Wilson, FDR, Johnson, and others.would not have had the mechanisms in place,.nor the political precedence to implement what they did. Lincoln set the stage that moved us opposite the direction intended for the Republic. Any grammatical or punctuation errors are solely the fault of this damn auto correct on my phone. Well, at least the nation survived and we are not all slaves to a bunch of Southern planters. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2012 4:39:11 PM
We are now only a bunch of subjects to an all mighty centralized federal government!
|
|
|