The Gettysburg Address

[Henry]

Meh. Each will have an opinion of his own. I consider him nothing less than a tyrant cut from the same cloth as King George.

The article is, regardless, a good read.

 

[Hawkeye]

Meh. Each will have an opinion of his own. I consider him nothing less than a tyrant cut from the same cloth as King George.

The article is, regardless, a good read.

unfortunately, the article is behind the WSJ pay wall.

 

[MisterChester]

Meh. Each will have an opinion of his own. I consider him nothing less than a tyrant cut from the same cloth as King George.

The article is, regardless, a good read.

Lincoln was not perfect by any means, but he was no King George.

 

[Iron Brigadier]

It's always been my understanding that Lincoln totally abolished states rights and gave us an overpowered federal state. I don't figure that's a good thing

 

[Henry]

Lincoln was not perfect by any means, but he was no King George.

King George’s war of aggression towards those who chose to secede from his rule resulted in the death of approximately 100,000 people.

Lincoln’s war of aggression towards those who chose to secede from his rule resulted in the death of well over 600,000.

Lincoln, by comparison, made George look like a rank amateur when it came to “preserving union”.

Add to this numerous other tyrannical acts of Lincoln (imprisoning newspaper editors that were critical of him, closing down opposition newspapers, currency manipulation, suspension of Habeus Corpus, indefinite detention of accused lawbreakers, etc. etc.) and I have to agree.

Lincoln was no King George.

I stand corrected.

My apologies to King George for insulting him by comparison.

 

[MisterChester]

Henry, you keep using the term "war of aggression". What does that mean, exactly to you? Does that mean there are wars that are non-aggressive?

 

[ilikeguns]

"The river was died with the blood of the SLAUGHTERED for two hundred yards. The approximate loss was upward of five hundred killed,but few of the officers escaping. My loss was about twenty killed. It is hoped that these facts will demonstrate to the northern people that negro soldiers cannot cope with southerners." Nathan Bedford Forrest CSA,Future first Grand Dragon of the KKK..... "I will drink all the blood spilled by secession" Jefferson Davis,to crowds of cheering people........ Some heroes you have there........... There are many things I disagree with Lincoln about and I feel no inclination to stand up for him. I do have the inclination to denounce the CSA. The undeniable FACT is that the north would have stopped at any time and allowed the states that seceded back into the Union as long as slavery was not included in the deal. The Southern states WANTED to quit,they WANTED to end the war and rejoin the Union but ONLY IF SLAVERY WAS PROTECTED. To keep screaming "states rights states rights" may sound really great to you but history speaks for itself. The South was willing to rejoin the Union with only ONE condition,that slavery was protected. Or they were willing to kill hundreds of thousands to protect their precious "peculiar institution". You can dislike Lincoln all you want,but you really should take an objective look at history(read something that doesn't come with preconceived prejudices)and find some different heroes.

 

[Bravo-4-2]

"The river was died with the blood of the SLAUGHTERED for two hundred yards. The approximate loss was upward of five hundred killed,but few of the officers escaping. My loss was about twenty killed. It is hoped that these facts will demonstrate to the northern people that negro soldiers cannot cope with southerners." Nathan Bedford Forrest CSA,Future first Grand Dragon of the KKK..... "I will drink all the blood spilled by secession" Jefferson Davis,to crowds of cheering people........ Some heroes you have there........... There are many things I disagree with Lincoln about and I feel no inclination to stand up for him. I do have the inclination to denounce the CSA. The undeniable FACT is that the north would have stopped at any time and allowed the states that seceded back into the Union as long as slavery was not included in the deal. The Southern states WANTED to quit,they WANTED to end the war and rejoin the Union but ONLY IF SLAVERY WAS PROTECTED. To keep screaming "states rights states rights" may sound really great to you but history speaks for itself. The South was willing to rejoin the Union with only ONE condition,that slavery was protected. Or they were willing to kill hundreds of thousands to protect their precious "peculiar institution". You can dislike Lincoln all you want,but you really should take an objective look at history(read something that doesn't come with preconceived prejudices)and find some different heroes.

Almost without exception, what you have posted is inaccurate. Neither the North or South had any particular allegiance to a position regarding slavery during The Conflict. Slavery is not what started it nor is it what sustained it. To say it another way that is usually more helpful, the American Civil War would have happened even if not one slave had ever been brought to these shores. The root cause of the South's unhappiness was the industrially prosperous North more and more taking control of politics from the agriculturally poor South. It would take volumes to get you up to speed on all of what that means but the summary is that it has nothing to do with slavery. Absolutely ALL you have read in modern script trying to make it so is nothing but historical revision being created for self-serving opportunists.

It should be ignored.

 

[MisterChester]

Almost without exception, what you have posted is inaccurate. Neither the North or South had any particular allegiance to a position regarding slavery during The Conflict. Slavery is not what started it nor is it what sustained it. To say it another way that is usually more helpful, the American Civil War would have happened even if not one slave had ever been brought to these shores. The root cause of the South's unhappiness was the industrially prosperous North more and more taking control of politics from the agriculturally poor South. It would take volumes to get you up to speed on all of what that means but the summary is that it has nothing to do with slavery. Absolutely ALL you have read in modern script trying to make it so is nothing but historical revision being created for self-serving opportunists.

It should be ignored.

If that was really the case, why didn't the civil war start during the nullification crisis?

 

[jamil]

Note: The popcorn is a statement not just tagging the thread.

I do find the last few posts fascinating.

I'm on the edge of my seat here.

 

[MisterChester]

Note: The popcorn is a statement not just tagging the thread.

I do find the last few posts fascinating.

I'm on the edge of my seat here.

I hope you brought enough for everybody, sir

 

[Coach]

If that was really the case, why didn't the civil war start during the nullification crisis?

Fear of the tactical and strategic abilities of Andrew Jackson, the fact that the nation was not in the clutches of a lame duck president and the trouble makers did not have time to get ahead of the curve.

States rights died at the Constitutional Convention. The Supremacy Clause is a part of the Constitutional Convention and Lincoln was defending it. The founders decided states being more powerful than the federal government did not work and they changed the system. The South had their representation and did not like how the votes came out. Lincoln saved the union by not allowing that to happen. We have all benefitted from the strength and power of this country. If secession was permitted this nation would be insignificant, and the quality of our lives would be less.

I am not a fan of the federal government these days but Lincoln is not a demon or tyrant. The facts do not support that claim.

 

[ilikeguns]

Almost without exception, what you have posted is inaccurate. Neither the North or South had any particular allegiance to a position regarding slavery during The Conflict. Slavery is not what started it nor is it what sustained it. To say it another way that is usually more helpful, the American Civil War would have happened even if not one slave had ever been brought to these shores. The root cause of the South's unhappiness was the industrially prosperous North more and more taking control of politics from the agriculturally poor South. It would take volumes to get you up to speed on all of what that means but the summary is that it has nothing to do with slavery. Absolutely ALL you have read in modern script trying to make it so is nothing but historical revision being created for self-serving opportunists.

It should be ignored.

"Modern script" has nothing to do with it and your assumption that "It would take volumes to get you up to speed on what that means" is beyond pretentious..... Modern script did not get Charles Sumner beat nearly to death on the floor of the Senate. Abraham Lincoln,who only wanted to preserve the Union, said "The war is in some way about slavery". In U.S. Grants memoirs he was abundantly clear about what he felt the "root cause" of the war was and he never read a present day history book. Abraham Lincoln was not President when the tariffs were instituted yet no Southern states seceded until he was elected. Hmmm. Fear of the north taking control of politics is true,but that was also very much about slavery. Up until more and more territories were becoming states the representatives in Congress were relatively balanced. The South knew that if slavery was not allowed in the new states then the representatives from the new states would not have Southern sympathies and the balance of power would tip farther away from them. There were other big issues than slavery. However the passion revolved around slavery and war takes passion. Every single newspaper and almost every single piece of correspondence from the period has one main subject. SLAVERY. That is not modern script. On the contrary, the popular saying that slavery had almost nothing to do with the war is modern script. I am not saying that the North went to war over slavery,they went to war over secession. I am not saying the South had no other reasons than slavery. But to say that slavery was not the root cause lurking in the background is to be in denial. Apparently no one actually alive at that time really knew what they were talking about.

 

[buckstopshere]

If that was really the case, why didn't the civil war start during the nullification crisis?

you don't have to take Bravo 4-2 word for it, here's what Lincoln said to Horace Greeley. I'll bold the important parts:

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.


Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.


I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.


As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.


I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.


I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.


Yours,
A. Lincoln.




His only interest was a Central Government. Period.

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln

 

[Henry]

Henry, you keep using the term "war of aggression". What does that mean, exactly to you? Does that mean there are wars that are non-aggressive?

Just a brief overview.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

 

[Henry]

South Carolina wished to simply withdraw; to walk away. Lincoln waged a war of conquest for territorial gain and subjection. It was a war of northern aggression.

It was not a civil war. In a civil war, opposing parties fight for control of the central government. Those that seceded were not looking to take over control of the central government. To the contrary, they were seeking to exercise their power to withdraw; to simply walk away.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Those that seceded were not looking to take over control of the central government.

You mean other than the Confederate plans and the actual battle to seize Washington D.C.? Yeah, other than the plans to seize D.C., the CSA had no plans to seize Washington D.C.

It was a war of northern aggression.

One does not commit Treason and then claim victimhood when your nation prosecutes you.

 

[Henry]

The battle was after North started its aggression. Taking over the federal government was not South Carolina's goal when it left nor was it the objective of the Confederacy.

Further, exercising a retained power is not treason. In fact, if you do your homework, you will find even Jefferson said as much in his inaugural address. Numerous other examples are yours for the finding though public education rarely even touches on them.

 

[rambone]

Lincoln would have been popular in the Anti-Right To Work crowd. Union or death.

 

[MisterChester]

Just a brief overview.

War of aggression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was self-defense, militarily at least. The rebels shot first, we covered this already.