Abraham Lincoln

[Benfranklin403]

>>>>>>>One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.<<<<<<

--- A. Lincoln

Some present day revisionists like to argue that the issue in the 1860s was states rights or maybe tariffs. That is a remarkable revision of history since all the participants of the time, south and north, agreed that slavery was the only substantial issue. Why do the revisionists prefer to attempt to maintain the fiction about states rights? Because even they do not like to be seen as defending slavery.

 

[Benfranklin403]

>>>>>>>>Prior to Lincoln's rants to "Save the Union" (p.r. to raise troops and taxes) it was The United States IN America. Each state was sovereign. Very little power was entrusted to the Federal government, and after that limited amount - all authority and power were retained by the STATE.<<<<<<<<<

I agree that the Civil War greatly expanded federal power. But I also think it was a good thing.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Benfranklin403:
Why do the revisionists prefer to attempt to maintain the fiction about states rights?

The revisionists are (and have always been) those trying to justify an unjust war. Lincoln was deified as "Savior of the Union", only a little lower than Jesus. The war was to "free the negroes". The war was "to put down the rebellion".

Hogwash.

It was states rights and of course you are right that "the peculiar institution" was at the front of the states rights issue.

More than that is p.r. from the winners. Remember, the winners write the history books, and many of our schools and churches have bought the whole Federalist lie, hook line and sinker.

 

[Turpius]

I have mixed feelings about Lincoln. I know he did some good and bad as president, but I hadn't come to any hard conclusions about his administration yet.

 

[Daniel David]

Dr. Bob, let me point out what the State of Virginia ratified:

"We the people of the United States..."

Again, they were people of the US. Virginia is where they lived.

 

[Benfranklin403]

>>>>>>>>>>Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence?<<<<<<<

What were the ills that the south flew from? Were they of so serious a nature as to justify rebellion?
For those sympathetic with the south, please describe with precision the nature of those ills.

 

[Phillip]

BenFranklin are you talking about basic issues like the slavery issue among others?

If so, slavery was not the major problem, although it was a key issue.

I am NOT sympathetic to the south even though I guess Oklahoma is on the western edge of the south at that time, and several decisive battles were fought here.

I may be missing your question entirely, but if not let me say this. For instance, the slavery issue went far beyond ownership of human beings. Some slave owners were actually very nice to their slaves, treating them well, feeding them, keeping them warm, etc. Others, caused a very bad name for slave owners. Do I think slavery is wrong? YES. But you must understand that many of these issues were accepted in that day and time (the same as in Jesus' day). Remember that Jesus did not condemn slavery, but "cruelty to slaves". So, it was not necessarily a problem and even many in the North did not see it this way. But, completely releasing slaves was an economic impact on the farms that were set up in the south to rely on slave labor. This and many political reasons were parts of the problem.

Remember, history usually sides with the winner. If England had won the war of independence we would today be talking about how those rebels were evil to try to break away from the British rule today.

The problems with the South & North were obviously strong enough to cause brother to fight brother and cousin to fight couin.

Abraham's whole problem was to figure a way to put the country together again. He did an outstanding job and yes the rumours are true that he did not have an issue with slavery, he had an issue with the rebel states splitting from the union.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

The war is over folks. Let's act like it...

 

[church mouse guy]

Lincoln is no longer popular with anyone. At one time, he was very popular in Indiana where he lived as a child and where Gov. Morton was his friend in 1860. Now the public has turned against Lincoln and he is seldom mentioned. African-Americans call him a liar.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

He's still VERY popular in the town where I live!

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
The war is over folks. Let's act like it...

My favorite bumper sticker I have read:

Yankees 1
Rebels 0
(Halftime)

 

[Benfranklin403]

>>>>BenFranklin are you talking about basic issues like the slavery issue among others?<<<<<<<<


It seems to me that the south had virtually no good reasons to leave the union. Most people agree that the war was about slavery yet Lincoln promised the south that he would not disturb slavery.

 

[JGrubbs]

In May of 1860 the House passed the Morrill Tariff Bill which would raise the average tariff from record lows of about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. This was reminiscent and even higher than the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, which had led to the 1832 Nullification Crisis, which included armed standoff, threats of secession, and eventual easing of the tariff. While protectionist tariffs helped Northern manufacturing interests, they resulted in serious economic hardship for many Southern states.

The South believed that it did not need the North, since it could buy the goods it needed from Europe, but the North needed the South as a market for Northern goods.

The Philadelphia Press on 18 March 1861 demanded a blockade of Southern ports, because, if not, "a series of customs houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers, will be subject to Southern tolls."

 

[DavidFWhite3]

Originally posted by PastorGreg:
I haven't heard anyone whining about losing the War of Northern Aggression. Whining is different from historical analysis. Lincoln was wrong. The war was not about slavery. The states were supposed to be sovereign and therefore had the right to secede. That's not whining, just facts. (BTW, I've never lived in the south)

Well I'm from the south and I totally disagree with you based entirely upon documented facts.

Article Six of The Constitution clearly establishes the ultimate authority of the Federal Government. There was nothing in the Constitution to address the possiblity of secession. The whole point of the Constitution was to create one nation out of thirteen. Lincoln was right when he said,"If we have no nation we have no Constitution."

And the war was about slavery. An abundance of documents from the period establishes the fact that there would have been no secession if the southern aristocrats did not believe that Lincoln presented a threat to their peculiar institution. When SC seceeded those who produced and signed the Articles of Secession issued an accompanying document explaining their reasons, and defense of slavery is a big one.

Call it states rights if you want, but by states rights they meant the right of each state to decide if it was going to be a slave state or not. The southern states had already lost one battle in the Missouri Compromise. By establishing their own nation, slavery would be protected, and with it, the foundation of the southern economy.

But ironically, for Lincoln the war was not about slavery at all. It was about preserving the authority of the Federal Government, and with it, the Union. He indirectly ended slavery by directly preserving the union. Even though I had two great-great grandfathers fight with Lee from Seven Days to Appomatox, I tend to agree with most historians who rate Lincoln as one of our two best presidents, the other being Washington.

 

[Benfranklin403]

>>>>>>Call it states rights if you want, but by states rights they meant the right of each state to decide if it was going to be a slave state or not.<<<<<<<

It is a lot less sleezy to cite state's rights than it is to cite slavery as the cause of the war, if one is in favor of the southern position. That is the reason for the double talk by the apologists for the south.