What Would Lincoln Say?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1


Father Abraham passes the Mantle to the Messiah

One often hears the names and sees the images of our current President and those of our 16th President in close proximity to one another, as if to imply that the two men are of a single mind and purpose, and as if to suggest that the greatness of one is the greatness of the other.

When the President celebrated Mr Lincoln’s birthday on the 12th, it doubtless reaffirmed the belief in many people’s minds that here was the fulfillment of a dream; the completion of a plan set in motion by the Great Emancipator. That one of the descendants of the emancipated would, free and equal to any other man, one day sit in that same seat of power from which Lincoln presided.

Let’s overlook for now that the 13th Amendment, which actually emancipated the African slaves, was not ratified until several months after Lincoln’s death. We’ll also ignore the fact that Mr. Obama, as a Kenyan, is not descended from anyone who was ever enslaved by an American or anyone else, and so has about as much ideological stake in the Great Emancipation as a Japanese man has in the building of the trans-continental railroads.

No, the issue is whether Lincoln, looking down on us from his supposed heavenly cloud, would indeed be pleased to see the way events have unfolded, and for him to be given so much credit for their having unfolding the way they have.

Perhaps these clippings from the New York Times, dated December 28, 1860, and January 14, 1861, can shed some light on the question. Download the PDFs, read them and form your own opinions.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9906E7DE133FEE34BC4051DFB467838B679FDE

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9505E2DB133FE034BC4C52DFB766838A679FDE

Excerpt:

“Now, gentlemen, I don’t want to read at any greater length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery, and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse.” (Emphasis in the original)

My intention here is not to denigrate the legacy of Mr. Lincoln, only to question the motives of those who would misrepresent his legacy to aggrandize themselves.

2

By the way: for you city boys, this is a chestnut horse.

3

…and this is a horse chestnut.

As you can see, they are not the same thing.

4

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

5

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I also think as per your thread request, that Lincoln was not all that passionate about the plight of the black man. He did claim passion for the preservation of the Union, to the extent that he was willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of his own people. The point could easily be made that the so called sanctity of the Union should have been of less importance than all those lives; that him being a non-military man made him naive about the suffering he was willing to inflict in pursuit of his lofty goal.[/quote]

In that case, I suppose our current president has more in common with his idol than I gave him credit for.

6

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

7

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:

I also think as per your thread request, that Lincoln was not all that passionate about the plight of the black man. He did claim passion for the preservation of the Union, to the extent that he was willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of his own people. The point could easily be made that the so called sanctity of the Union should have been of less importance than all those lives; that him being a non-military man made him naive about the suffering he was willing to inflict in pursuit of his lofty goal.

In that case, I suppose our current president has more in common with his idol than I gave him credit for.

In what regard?[/quote]

In the regards that I bolded above.

8

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

9

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Father Abraham passes the Mantle to the Messiah
…
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9906E7DE133FEE34BC4051DFB467838B679FDE

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9505E2DB133FE034BC4C52DFB766838A679FDE

Excerpt:

“Now, gentlemen, I don’t want to read at any greater length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery, and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse.” (Emphasis in the original)

My intention here is not to denigrate the legacy of Mr. Lincoln, only to question the motives of those who would misrepresent his legacy to aggrandize themselves.[/quote]

I understand your intent here.
But as for the Lincoln excerpts…context, context, context. Mercifully short:

Some number of them are from The Debates in 1858, in which Lincoln took the position that Douglas, and Popular Sovereignty, was in error. His point, sarcastically, was to distance himself from the so-called “Black Republican” and abolitionists, and make his stand on law, practicality and ethics. The Cooper Union speech would take this all further in 1860.

Lincoln’s feelings on race, spanning almost 40 years in public life, require more insight than I can summon, even on his birthday.

Our friend “Jack Dempsey” in this forum, is far more knowledgeable.

(As another issue, the question of Popular Sovereignty is still with us. Do people in each state and territory have the right to decide moral issues of a national character. Slavery? Well, then, the answer was war. Abortion? 30+ years after Roe v Wade, Popular Sovereignty is still at issue.)

10

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:

I also think as per your thread request, that Lincoln was not all that passionate about the plight of the black man. He did claim passion for the preservation of the Union, to the extent that he was willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of his own people. The point could easily be made that the so called sanctity of the Union should have been of less importance than all those lives; that him being a non-military man made him naive about the suffering he was willing to inflict in pursuit of his lofty goal.

In that case, I suppose our current president has more in common with his idol than I gave him credit for.

In what regard?

In the regards that I bolded above.[/quote]

Indifferent to death? Not a military man?

You fellas may want to re-read D K Goodwin’s book in that bold-faced regard.

11

Varquinar, thank you for posting those pictures.

I would have totally missed the implications of that (apparently out-of-context?) statement otherwise.

12

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

13

Barack would never order bombardment of cities (which was considered illegal and immoral in Lincoln’s time), the blocking of ports (illegal against one’s own ports), suspension of Habeus Corpus (only Congress could do that). I also suspect that BHO would never order a scorched earth policy, especially in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley, or in South Carolina.

They DO share a love for increasing the size of the Federal Government though. Gotta give 'em that…

14

"Lincoln also used his status as one of the top political insiders within the railroad industry to engage in some very lucrative real estate investments. On one of his trips in a private rail car accompanied by an entourage of Illinois Central executives Lincoln “decided to go to Council Bluffs, Iowa, where he had some real estate investments” (p. 152). “Shortly before his trip to Council Bluffs,” writes Starr, “Abraham Lincoln had purchased several town lots from his fellow railroad attorney, Norman B. Judd, who had acquired them from the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad. Council Bluffs at this time was a frontier town, containing about fifteen hundred people” (p. 195). To this day, this land in Council Bluffs, Iowa is known as “Lincoln?s Hill.”

Why invest in real estate in Council Bluffs, Iowa, of all places? Why not Chicago or even Springfield, the state capital? Because Lincoln the political insider knew that there was a very high likelihood that 1) the federal government would eventually subsidize a transcontinental railroad; and 2) the starting point for that railroad could well be in the vicinity of Council Bluffs. If so, the value of his real estate holdings would be wildly inflated and he would make a killing."

15

[quote]pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:

I also think as per your thread request, that Lincoln was not all that passionate about the plight of the black man. He did claim passion for the preservation of the Union, to the extent that he was willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of his own people. The point could easily be made that the so called sanctity of the Union should have been of less importance than all those lives; that him being a non-military man made him naive about the suffering he was willing to inflict in pursuit of his lofty goal.

In that case, I suppose our current president has more in common with his idol than I gave him credit for.

In what regard?

In the regards that I bolded above.

Indifferent to death? Not a military man?

You fellas may want to re-read D K Goodwin’s book in that bold-faced regard.

I don’t know how indifferent to death he was but the fact of the matter was he had never experienced the sheer horror and carnage of a battlefield. That is a simple fact.

I do know that he had alternatives to committing all out war against his countrymen. He did not choose any of those alternatives. Now I’m not necessarily saying that he should have but that he could have.

I understand the arguments for why he did so. I’ve heard them my entire life. But I also feel I am objective enough to understand why he shouldn’t have too.

We(I) could go off on many different tangents to make this case but for the sake of brevity let’s just mention one right now - Sherman’s March to the Sea. Lincoln authorized it. I have a hard time understanding how a man who truly agonized over his many wartime decisions as Lincoln reportedly did could possibly stamp his approval on such a reprehensible act.

It was barbaric and unnecessary. The back of the South had already been broken. The war for all practical purposes was over. It was sheer unmitigated vengeance and I don’t give a flying fuck that many advance all kind of strategic reasons as to its necessity. It was completely immoral in every sense of the word. The raping, pillaging and burning was straight from the pit of hell and it was not done to some foreign nation who had dastardly attacked the U.S. It was done to fellow Americans who had decided that if their state had the freedom of choice to join the Union 85 years before then it also had the freedom of choice to secede.

It’s just a gut instinct but I can’t for the life of me allow that if the tides of war had turned the other way and the South had prevailed that Lee under orders from Davis would have cut a swath of utter destruction and terror against the civilian populace of, let’s say, Pennsylvania.[/quote]

The Black Hawk War is a weak counter-example.
His position on the Mexican-American War is not worthy of note.
etc…

No time here, but let’s just say, Friend Push and Friend Varq, that every one of your contentions is, well, a contention, and argued by better minds than mine for decades.

16

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"Lincoln also used his status as one of the top political insiders within the railroad industry to engage in some very lucrative real estate investments. On one of his trips in a private rail car accompanied by an entourage of Illinois Central executives Lincoln “decided to go to Council Bluffs, Iowa, where he had some real estate investments” (p. 152). “Shortly before his trip to Council Bluffs,” writes Starr, “Abraham Lincoln had purchased several town lots from his fellow railroad attorney, Norman B. Judd, who had acquired them from the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad. Council Bluffs at this time was a frontier town, containing about fifteen hundred people” (p. 195). To this day, this land in Council Bluffs, Iowa is known as “Lincoln?s Hill.”

Why invest in real estate in Council Bluffs, Iowa, of all places? Why not Chicago or even Springfield, the state capital? Because Lincoln the political insider knew that there was a very high likelihood that 1) the federal government would eventually subsidize a transcontinental railroad; and 2) the starting point for that railroad could well be in the vicinity of Council Bluffs. If so, the value of his real estate holdings would be wildly inflated and he would make a killing."

[/quote]

Now, as for you HH, there is a reason I do not choose to answer any of your posts. It is an utter waste of time.

You know that I refuted this Rockwellian crap in another thread, long ago–citing the original testimony of Iowa neighbors, the thoughts of Granville Dodge in the McCullogh book about the railroad.
You could not respond then, and you cannot respond now, because you do not have the intellectual honesty to read outside your prejudices, which are legion, and learn something.

Such are the chains you have forged for yourself, link by link.

17

[quote]pushharder wrote:

We(I) could go off on many different tangents to make this case but for the sake of brevity let’s just mention one right now - Sherman’s March to the Sea. Lincoln authorized it. I have a hard time understanding how a man who truly agonized over his many wartime decisions as Lincoln reportedly did could possibly stamp his approval on such a reprehensible act.

It was barbaric and unnecessary. The back of the South had already been broken. The war for all practical purposes was over. It was sheer unmitigated vengeance and I don’t give a flying fuck that many advance all kind of strategic reasons as to its necessity. It was completely immoral in every sense of the word. The raping, pillaging and burning was straight from the pit of hell and it was not done to some foreign nation who had dastardly attacked the U.S. It was done to fellow Americans who had decided that if their state had the freedom of choice to join the Union 85 years before then it also had the freedom of choice to secede.
[/quote]

To the victor goes the spoils. But I don’t know that Lincoln knew exactly how far Sherman was going to take that.

You can say what you like about not caring about strategic reasons, but between that and Sheridan burning out the Shenandoah, they sent a clear message to the South- if you take this to a guerilla war, we will win.

I sympathize with many Southerners in their plight of that war. For a long time, I could have been considered a Southern apologist almost, and I’ve always found the Southern armies more interesting than the northern ones.

However, that war got to the point where it had to end, and end brutally. I would have said the same goddamn thing that Grant said about crows flying over the Valley carrying their own rations.

You come at the king, you best not miss. They missed. They paid.

[quote]
It’s just a gut instinct but I can’t for the life of me allow that if the tides of war had turned the other way and the South had prevailed that Lee under orders from Davis would have cut a swath of utter destruction and terror against the civilian populace of, let’s say, Pennsylvania.[/quote]

Lee would not. But do you want to go into the atrocities committed by men like Forrest, Bloody Bill Anderson, and a slew of other Southern guerillas that murdered innocents by the truckload?

Or better yet, let’s take the example of the system that the Southerners fought to preserve, that slavery thing. Cause that was so humane.

Atrocities are committed in wars. Would Lee have done it? No. Would Davis have ordered it? Oh I bet he would.

I have great respect for Lee, but I think many, many other commanders would have done that shit in a heartbeat. On both sides.

18

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

19

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
"Lincoln also used his status as one of the top political insiders within the railroad industry to engage in some very lucrative real estate investments. On one of his trips in a private rail car accompanied by an entourage of Illinois Central executives Lincoln “decided to go to Council Bluffs, Iowa, where he had some real estate investments” (p. 152).

“Shortly before his trip to Council Bluffs,” writes Starr, “Abraham Lincoln had purchased several town lots from his fellow railroad attorney, Norman B. Judd, who had acquired them from the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad. Council Bluffs at this time was a frontier town, containing about fifteen hundred people” (p. 195). To this day, this land in Council Bluffs, Iowa is known as “Lincoln?s Hill.”

Why invest in real estate in Council Bluffs, Iowa, of all places? Why not Chicago or even Springfield, the state capital?

Because Lincoln the political insider knew that there was a very high likelihood that 1) the federal government would eventually subsidize a transcontinental railroad; and 2) the starting point for that railroad could well be in the vicinity of Council Bluffs. If so, the value of his real estate holdings would be wildly inflated and he would make a killing."

Now, as for you HH, there is a reason I do not choose to answer any of your posts. It is an utter waste of time.

You know that I refuted this Rockwellian crap in another thread, long ago–citing the original testimony of Iowa neighbors, the thoughts of Granville Dodge in the McCullogh book about the railroad.
You could not respond then, and you cannot respond now, because you do not have the intellectual honesty to read outside your prejudices, which are legion, and learn something.

Such are the chains you have forged for yourself, link by link.
[/quote]

Rockwell is quoting a Lincoln historian. And you’ve never discussed Lincoln’s scorched earth policy, illegally blockading southern ports, unconstitutional suspension of Habeus Corpus, imprisoning ‘Copperhead’ newspaper editors, owners, and reporters BY THE THOUSANDS.

I didn’t respond to you then because you refuse to even acknowledge Lincoln’s own words!!

Example: “You will take possession by military force of the printing establishments of The New York World (newspaper) and Journal of Commerce …you are therefore commanded to arrest and imprison…the editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers.”
— order from Abraham Lincoln to General John Dix
May 18, 1864

What if Bush had sent troops to occupy newspaper offices? You’d shit a cow and denounce him as Satan incarnate. Yet you love ‘Honest’ Abe…roflmao!!!

20

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Sorry, Varq, you may now redirect the thread back to its original course.[/quote]

Okay.