The Gettysburg Address

[Principal Skinr]

I've never heard the GA at 4th celebrations.

Me neither. Not in 46 years of breathing. Nice try, OP.

 

[DragonGunner]

Me neither. Not in 46 years of breathing. Nice try, OP.

Yup. But the Lincoln haters just can't help themselves. They will never get over it, not even on the 4th of July.

 

[indyjohn]

Yup. But the Lincoln haters just can't help themselves. They will never get over it, not even on the 4th of July.

In 51 years of breathing, I've never ran into this. Guess I'll consider myself lucky. Or unhelpable.

 

[Henry]

I suspect there is an extra hot spot in Hell reserved for Lincoln.

 

[sloughfoot]

So, Lincoln gforified tyranny?

Abraham Lincoln was a bloody butcher who raised an army to rape and kill fellow Americans to convince them to come back to the Federal government that, by its actions, forced the southern states to take steps to get out from under its tyranny.

Peaceful negotiations would have resolved the issues of the times. Maybe after many years, but that is inconsequential compared to the bloody slaughter that ensued. The Federal government guaranteed conflict when they confiscated the South Carolina island that comprised Ft Sumter in 1860.

As an example, research Sherman's "March to the sea". Civilians, both black and white were slaughtered and raped and the area laid waste as the invaders moved through.

What if Indiana said, enough, we are outa here. And the Feds sent troops to burn down Indy in response? And shoot everyone in their path?

 

[sloughfoot]

Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis first met in 1832 when they served together in NW Illinois to defeat the Blackhawk and his tribe. They shared meals and campfires. There is far more to the story than what the victors put into children's history books.

 

[rob63]

Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis first met in 1832 when they served together in NW Illinois to defeat the Blackhawk and his tribe. They shared meals and campfires. There is far more to the story than what the victors put into children's history books.

Likewise, there is far, far more to the story than what you relate. Slavery comes to mind. Here are copies of the exact documents that the Southern states issued to explain why they were leaving the Union. Don't take my word for it, read what they said about it:
Declaration of Causes of Secession

 

[rob63]

Abraham Lincoln was a bloody butcher who raised an army to rape and kill fellow Americans to convince them to come back to the Federal government that, by its actions, forced the southern states to take steps to get out from under its tyranny.

Fascinating view-point, especially considering that South Carolina seceded before Lincoln even took office. The "tyranny" of the Federal government was mostly their refusal to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act to the satisfaction of the Southern states. (See the Declaration of Causes of Secession posted above.) It is kind of ironic, considering the states rights arguments of today, that the South was mostly upset that the Feds refused to enforce the national law against the Northern states and force them to return the runaway slaves. It is also funny that they set up a government that was virtually identical to the one they had just left: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

Peaceful negotiations would have resolved the issues of the times. Maybe after many years, but that is inconsequential compared to the bloody slaughter that ensued. The Federal government guaranteed conflict when they confiscated the South Carolina island that comprised Ft Sumter in 1860.

The Federal government did not confiscate Ft. Sumter, they already possessed it. They simply refused to hand it over. The conflict was guaranteed when the shooting started. Guess who did that?

As an example, research Sherman's "March to the sea". Civilians, both black and white were slaughtered and raped and the area laid waste as the invaders moved through.

What if Indiana said, enough, we are outa here. And the Feds sent troops to burn down Indy in response? And shoot everyone in their path?

A lot happened in between Ft. Sumter and Sherman's March. It makes for an interesting study. FWIW, there has been quite a bit written about Sherman's March. There isn't any doubt about the "area laid waste", but civilians "slaughtered and raped" is mostly post-war accusations. It seems unlikely that there were not at least a few rapes considering the nature of man, but there is more than a little doubt about how widespread it really was considering that many of the accusations were made by people who didn't actually live in the path that the army took. The stories grew worse each time they were repeated.

 

[sloughfoot]

Funny how people justify deadly force being used against neighbors and fellow citizens to make them come into line with their way of thinking.

You really think there is justification for deadly force should be used by the Federal government against citizens?

 

[sloughfoot]

I am not saying I agree with the several states reasons or decision to withdraw from the Union.

I absolutely disagree with the policy to " kill 'em until they comply" that was taken by Mr Lincoln's government. I believe that negotiations and economic neccesity would have resolved the situation. And that the 10th amendment would not have been weakened by overuse of Federal power.

If you think about it for a while, i hope you will find that policy abhorrent too.

Just reviewing where the overwhelming number of battle took place will define the aggressor and the defender.

 

[Henry]

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

Lincoln

 

[Henry]

It's also worth noting virtually everywhere else where slavery was abolished (England, European countries, Caribbean Islands, etc) it was done so without a war.

 

[indyjohn]

I am not saying I agree with the several states reasons or decision to withdraw from the Union.

I absolutely disagree with the policy to " kill 'em until they comply" that was taken by Mr Lincoln's government. I believe that negotiations and economic neccesity would have resolved the situation. And that the 10th amendment would not have been weakened by overuse of Federal power.

If you think about it for a while, i hope you will find that policy abhorrent too.

Just reviewing where the overwhelming number of battle took place will define the aggressor and the defender.

Yikes! My history focus is WWII, not much earlier. this is new territory for me..

 

[Bravo-4-2]

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

Lincoln

And the last sentence in Lincoln's quote: "I do not understand that, because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone.[SUP][/SUP]"

Truth be told, an overwhelming majority of Americans today would essentially agree with Lincoln's thoughts even 150+ years later. We have been conditioned by the government, by the educational system, by television/media, and by a massive revision of history, to accept the "equality" that has been forced upon our society. If you can step back from the propaganda, and see the situation for what it truly is, it doesn't take much to understand that no government can legislate equality. Forcing disparate entities to be "equal" serves neither. We've spent the last 50+ years proving it while destroying the greatest society the world has yet known.

 

[Henry]

Lincoln was all about forcing will of the state.

 

[Henry]

Lincoln was also a proponent of rounding up all negroes and shipping them out of the country to a colony in Haiti.

 

[Henry]

" it doesn't take much to understand that no government can legislate equality. Forcing disparate entities to be "equal" serves neither. We've spent the last 50+ years proving it while destroying the greatest society the world has yet known."

There is much truth in that just as it cannot legislate charity.

 

[level.eleven]

I think we have finally found the author of the Ron Paul newsletters.

Case closed. Either that or David Barton is a member of INGO.

 

[ilikeguns]

Abraham Lincoln was a bloody butcher who raised an army to rape and kill fellow Americans to convince them to come back to the Federal government that, by its actions, forced the southern states to take steps to get out from under its tyranny.

Peaceful negotiations would have resolved the issues of the times. Maybe after many years, but that is inconsequential compared to the bloody slaughter that ensued. The Federal government guaranteed conflict when they confiscated the South Carolina island that comprised Ft Sumter in 1860.

As an example, research Sherman's "March to the sea". Civilians, both black and white were slaughtered and raped and the area laid waste as the invaders moved through.

What if Indiana said, enough, we are outa here. And the Feds sent troops to burn down Indy in response? And shoot everyone in their path?

"Peaceful negotiations"and compromises had been ongoing for decades before war broke out. The South was not haply with the status quo and were determined for slavery to expand into new territories. The gulf between northern and southern beliefs was unbridgeable. War was inevitable. The real crime,IMO, was southern leaders continuing to fight a losing war long after there was no Hope of winning.
It has become popular in modern times to say the war was not about slavery, and in a very abstract sense this is true. However, study of newspapers of the time, personal correspondence from both sides and public speeches shows that slavery was most certainly the major instigator. The south was in the wrong and THEY flatly refused compromise. In the end it brought about what they feared most, abolition, much sooner than if they had settled for what the north offered. Once war was unavoidable, death is the only thing that will end it.

 

[Bravo-4-2]

Abraham Lincoln was a bloody butcher who raised an army to rape and kill fellow Americans to convince them to come back to the Federal government that, by its actions, forced the southern states to take steps to get out from under its tyranny.

Peaceful negotiations would have resolved the issues of the times. Maybe after many years, but that is inconsequential compared to the bloody slaughter that ensued. The Federal government guaranteed conflict when they confiscated the South Carolina island that comprised Ft Sumter in 1860.

As an example, research Sherman's "March to the sea". Civilians, both black and white were slaughtered and raped and the area laid waste as the invaders moved through.

What if Indiana said, enough, we are outa here. And the Feds sent troops to burn down Indy in response? And shoot everyone in their path?

Funny how people justify deadly force being used against neighbors and fellow citizens to make them come into line with their way of thinking.

You really think there is justification for deadly force should be used by the Federal government against citizens?

I am not saying I agree with the several states reasons or decision to withdraw from the Union.

I absolutely disagree with the policy to " kill 'em until they comply" that was taken by Mr Lincoln's government. I believe that negotiations and economic neccesity would have resolved the situation. And that the 10th amendment would not have been weakened by overuse of Federal power.

If you think about it for a while, i hope you will find that policy abhorrent too.

Just reviewing where the overwhelming number of battle took place will define the aggressor and the defender.

As someone who has taught Civil War history at the small college level, and who is still a licensed battlefield guide at both Gettysburg & Antietam, I am constantly amazed at how poorly educated our citizens are regarding the American Civil War. I don't think you could have developed such a warped misunderstanding of the issues of the day on your own; someone with an agenda has obviously influenced you during your youth.


The agriculturally based South had legitimate grievances with the practices of the industrialized North that had grown to dominate Congress by the 1850's. Slavery was not an overwhelmingly important reason for the eventual conflict but it was a stick that helped to stir the pot. Stated differently, the American Civil War would have occurred for the reasons it did even if slaves had never been brought to these shores. The issue was used by both sides for posturing and propaganda, both before and during The Conflict.


If you want a villian, Lincoln is not the best candidate. That honor is reserved for Jefferson Davis and Robert. E. Lee. Davis & Lee had the choice to fight a military battle or a battle of recognition (if you don't understand the lay of the land in 1860 regarding world politics, the notion of a "battle of recognition" probably won't make any sense to you. There is no correlation in today's world.) James Longstreet understood this very well and, had he been in command of the Army of Northern Virginia, the South would have won the independence they claimed to want (for a while at least.) There was no need for a military victory. I think Davis understood this and I am sure Lee did. Neither man was willing to put their DESIRE for a fight ahead of their stated objective of independence. You want a villian? There's your best candidates.

Lincoln? The politics of the 1860's left him no other course than the one he took. There's no denying that Lincoln was inept as a wartime President but to say that his intentions were incorrect or dishonorable is to say that you have no true understanding of the political period or the variables that were in play. Educate yourself and from better sources than those you have already experienced.