Why should I hate Abraham Lincoln?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yup. Somebody needs to make the case against him to me. I've never understood it, and have always viewed him as one of our nation's greatest Presidents. But I've heard grumblings from both sides of the political spectrum against him on this forum.

So: why should I hate Lincoln or am I just confused about the .org's position? :book:

[scooter_the_shooter]

Who doesnt like lincoln he was one of the best i think ~:cheers:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I thought I've heard both JAG and Capo, as well as others, not be too keen on the guy. Maybe I'm just imagining things. Again.

[GoreBag]

Well, people say that he only wanted a black vote, that he actually wanted to deport all the blacks...mostly stuff dealing with that kind of thing.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Well i always dismissed this as a lie but i heard he wanted to send them all back to africa after they were free ~:confused:

[PanzerJaeger]

You shouldnt hate him at all, you should just understand exactly who he was.
Others probably have more information, but Ill share my viewpoint of him compared with modern politics.

Abe Lincoln reminds me a lot of George W Bush.

He was viewed as a country boy, although he was well (self)educated. He was very thinly elected, and that election was contested. He was hated by a large part of the country. He understood that America stood for freedom, not oppression. He didnt get along with Europe very well. Finally, he understood that during a time of war the country had to operate in a way that it didnt during peacetime.(Imagine if Bush suspended the writ of habeas corpus today!)

People forget how hated he was, even in the north, during his time in office and how divisive he was, just like the current president.

Oh yes, he was just as racist as anyone else of that time. He didnt believe the blacks could make it in America and support Liberia I think.

[King of Atlantis]

I dont really hate lincoln, but he is not as great as many beleive.

He failed to stop america's only civil war. Sure he won the war, but in the end it was almost impossible for the south to win anyways. Sure he ended slavery, but it was only a way to cripple the south. He did it in the middle of the war, and it only applied to slaves in the states that rebelled. The true ending of slavery came from congress. So, with all that being said, I dont see what he did that was good.

[Steppe Merc]

Well, people say that he only wanted a black vote, that he actually wanted to deport all the blacks...mostly stuff dealing with that kind of thing.
Bingo. Many praise him as this wonderful guy who freed the blacks, but he didn't care about equality. I believe that some of the ideas he thought of were sending them off West, or to Africa.
I don't hate him per se, as there were far worse presidents. But I don't like him.

[Don Corleone]

He also instituted a lot of the restrictions on states rights and granted the federal government a lot of the powers they have that the Constitution never intended to grant them. I don't just mean slavery. But the idea that state militia could be co-opted by the US Army. Or that you could order Virginia and North Carolina to raise an army to go invade South Carolina & Georgia. These are his hallmarks, a powerful, centralized federal government, answerable to nobody.

[Xiahou]

Well, people say that he only wanted a black vote, that he actually wanted to deport all the blacks...mostly stuff dealing with that kind of thing.
I could be wrong, as Im no expert on this, but I had always taken it as more of a misunderstanding on Lincoln's part. Thinking that slaves, having been forcibly removed from their homeland, would want to return once freed. Obviously, this was not the case for most- but I don't know that he was wanted it to be mandatory.

The biggest gripes I heard about Lincoln was his violations of civil liberties and vast strengthening of the Federal government. This included suspending habeas corpus and throwing his critics into military prison to rot. LINK (http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm)

[GoreBag]

Ah, then, so far, he's a racist and a tyrant. But really, how many men are there throughout history who are associated with a certain kind of facial hair?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well, maybe he was not so great. But I have a follow-up question: were his actions necessary? IE could the Civil War have ended with the North and South reunited without those actions? I'm curious, especially seeing the gusto with which my original question was answered.

[The Black Ship]

Lincoln did not start the Civil War...we can blame South Carolina for that, their second attempt at secession I might add (Andy Jackson put the fear of God into them the first time). Lincoln was known to have abolitionist tendencies BEFORE the war...the primary reason for his negative image in the south. Furthermore, if he came out at the beginning of this pissing contest with staements like "free the slaves"!, he'd have lost the border states to the Southern cause too.

What do you want from the man? That he strengthened the Federal government at a time when the southern States were claiming an inherent right to usurp all power from the Federal government...that makes him a tyrant? That he supported an African homeland for freed Negroes makes him a racist on a par with slave holders? Hell, Harriet Tubman's familiy emigrated..you know ol' Harriet, the "undergorund railroad" babe...some must have wanted to leave.

You're viewing him with the benefit of hindsight, he had no such luxury.

[Steppe Merc]

Some might have wanted to move. Not be forced and shipped off to Africa, which, if memory serves, wasn't exactly the best place to live at that time.
That might not have been as bad as a slave holder, but it is certaintly racist, and he is IMO undeserving of the great rap he gets about being the slave free-er.

Alex, I don't know what he could have done better. But it seems to me he didn't care much at all about slaves, rather just outlaw slavery because it's bad, not so much for the slave's sake. And if he wanted to free them, he wouldn't have left them in the boder states.

[Tribesman]

Abe was attempting to help the Amish take over America ~;)
http://www.geocities.com/beaver_militia/lincoln.html

[Don Corleone]

Well, Shelby Foote, who nobody would call a Lincoln supporter, or in favor of the expansion of federal powers that Lincoln entailed, argues that Lincoln never meant it to be permanent. According to Foote, Lincoln was terrified France or England was going to recognize the CSA, then all hell would have broken loose... either one could move in for the kill after 10 years of warfare or so, conquering both North & South without too much trouble.

According to Foote, Lincoln was actually something of a libertarian himself who acted out of abject terror that the whole country was going to wind up losing itself to an outside influence. He did all he did in terms of trampling on individual and states rights to solve the conflict as quickly as he possibly could. He had always intended to relinquish these powers at the end of the war. There are records of him fighting bitterly with Stanton over this, Stanton wanted to establish a cabal, and in some circles it was whispered that Stanton was in on the plot to have the President killed, as Lee had just surredered and Johnston was going to any day. Stanton had to get Lincoln out of office before Lincoln could relinquish anything.

This is 'a' theory put forward by Mr. Foote. I don't know that he held it, but I know I never have. However, were it be proven true, a lot of my comments about Lincoln as the great American dictator are unfounded and I would owe the man and his legacy an apology. IF

[Kanamori]

"I thought I've heard both JAG and Capo, as well as others, not be too keen on the guy. Maybe I'm just imagining things. Again." - Alexander

I'm surprised Gawain hasn't been in here. Pindar and I will probably be the major proponents of his presidency that you will find here.


"Well i always dismissed this as a lie but i heard he wanted to send them all back to africa after they were free" - ceasar


That idea was popular in the north prior to the civil war days, and originated in the colonization party. The result was Liberia. The advocates of the strategy were either sympathetic towards blacks or, more often as the civil war came nearer, were sympathetic towards segregation of the races. Lincoln favored colonization, and, I am however unsure as to which category his support of colonization fell into.




"He failed to stop america's only civil war." - King of Atlantis

The second he was elected, secession began. His getting elected was only the catalyst for the civil war.


" He also instituted a lot of the restrictions on states rights and granted the federal government a lot of the powers they have that the Constitution never intended to grant them. I don't just mean slavery. But the idea that state militia could be co-opted by the US Army. Or that you could order Virginia and North Carolina to raise an army to go invade South Carolina & Georgia. These are his hallmarks, a powerful, centralized federal government, answerable to nobody." - Don

They were, indeed, questions that were not directly answered in the Constitution. What right does a state have to ignore its fellow states? It is a question that I believe, logically, would fall to the relationship between the states and the constitution and the relationship among the states. To me, because of the dreaded supremacy clause, anything passed under the system lawfully is unquestionable, and seccesion is not lawful under the constitution. Lincoln put an exlamation point on it, hastening the downfall of states' rights. Ironically, the US returned to the way it was in the ante-bellum times, after the war was done. As a post script to my response here, the extreme states' rights attitude taken in the south was its downfall; they failed to co-operate w/ each other, and states even refused to send troops outside of their respective states at times. Not a good or lasting system at all, IMHO. Do not take this as my total disregarding of the concept of states' rights, though, I just think that there is an shadey area between absolute federalism and absolute "localism" (as I am calling it...perhaps there is a more correct short-hand name for it that I am not aware of).


"The biggest gripes I heard about Lincoln was his violations of civil liberties and vast strengthening of the Federal government. This included suspending habeas corpus and throwing his critics into military prison to rot." - Xiahou


My beef with him would be suspending habeas corpus and how he treated all of the copper heads. I do not feel I am familiar enough with the time period to state whether or not the measures were necessary though.


"IE could the Civil War have ended with the North and South reunited without those actions?" - Alexander

The million dollar question :bow:


"And if he wanted to free them, he wouldn't have left them in the boder states." - Steppe Merc

He believed that he only had the authority to ban slavery, in newly gained territories or states. He believed that is was unconsitutional otherwise. In effect, he believed that the Southern states had already left the Union; this would be a precarious postion, if you ask me.

[ichi]

It's hard to not judge men by current standards.

Lincoln did some amazing things, right or wrong, for good reason or bad. Which of us could have such an impact on the world? I see him as recognizing the importance of the Union and doing what it took - essentially moving the world - to hold the US together.

ichi :bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'm surprised Gawain hasn't been in here.

Me to :bow:

Yes I didnt like him. He made the Federal government much stronger than the founding fathers intended. He trampled all over the constitution he was so fiercly defending. Man I could here the press today covering this war. The south would have won walking away.


Did President Lincoln suspend the U.S. Constitution?

Answer: No

Did President Lincoln suspend Habeas Corpus?

Answer: Yes, in 1861 and 1862

Was Habeas Corpus ever restored?

Answer: Yes, in 1866.

Here's the story:

As the Civil War started, in the very beginning of Lincoln's presidential term, a group of "Peace Democrats" proposed a peaceful resolution to the developing Civil War by offering a truce with the South, and forming a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to protect States' rights. The proposal was ignored by the Unionists of the North and not taken seriously by the South. However, the Peace Democrats, also called copperheads by their enemies, publicly criticized Lincoln's belief that violating the U.S. Constitution was required to save it as a whole. With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.

Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.

Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.

Copyright, 1999
American Patriot Network .

And you people complain about the Patriot act.


The Suspension of Habeas Corpus
Confederate flag
The Suspension of Habeas Corpus
And Ex parte: Milligan

On our 1997 Olde Colony Civil War Round Table picnic in Fort Warren on Georges island, member Jack Zeletsky, who had researched and studied the Fort for many years, mentioned in his speech that some members of the Maryland legislators, including Baltimore's Mayor and Chief of Police, were arrested without charge, trial and conviction, and were thrown to the jail in Fort Warren. The question that we are going to examine is ------ Did Lincoln overstep his power by suspending the writ of Habeus Corpus? Did Lincoln violate their Constitutional right? Let's examine the facts and issues.

The political situation was extremely grave in early Jan. 1861. Six states from the deep South, leading by South Carolina (12/20/60), Mississippi (1/9/61), Florida (1/10/61), Alabama (1/11/61), Georgia (1/19/61) and Louisiana (1/26/61), seceded from the Union. Texas (3/2/61) followed. President-elect Lincoln were powerless to do anything then, not until after his Presidential sworn-in in March 1861. After the Confederates bombarded Fort Sumter in April 12, 1861, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to save the Union. Virginia (4/17/61), Arkansas (5/6/61), North Carolina (5/20/61) and Tennessee (6/8/61) followed suit to secede. The situation of the Federal Capital, Washington, was very precarious. On its south, Alexandria, the northern part of Virginia, it was packed with rebels. Surrounding the capital, north, east and west was Maryland, a slave state, and full of Confederates and its sympathizers. The 6th Massachusetts regiment answered the call to guard the Capital, while en route Baltimore to change train, the soldiers were attacked by a mob of hostile Marylanders on 4/19/1861. Some Mass. soldiers (6th Mass. regiment) were killed. The Mass. soldiers were forced to defend themselves by returning fire.

The majority of the Maryland legislature fortunately refused to consider a secession ordinance, thus, saved the Capital. In order to take a preventive strike against any probable plots by the Confederate sympathizer, Lincoln ordered the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus, covering the departments in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Washington. General Scott ordered General Montgomery Meigs to arrest any suspicious disloyal citizens. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (a Marylander, and he was the same Supreme Chief Justice who decided the notorious Dred Scott case, which was overturned by the later U.S. Supreme Court cases, after the passing of the 13th Amendment.) protested strongly and argued only Congress had the authority to suspend habeus corpus. In examining the language of the Constitution, it did not address which branch of Government had that authority. Lincoln just assumed that power and ignored Taney's protest. Lincoln believed he had to take bold step to preserve the Union during the emergency of the nation. The Taney Court decided the Dred Scott case (7-2) in favor of the South, voiding the Missouri Compromise, upholding the Fugitive Slave Act, and extending its long arm to the Land of the Free.

When an U.S. President takes his oath, he swears "that he will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." If there were only one choice between saving the Union or upholding the law, I believe Lincoln would not hesitate to take the former, a more important aspect of the Constitution. Habeus corpus should not be suspended, except in war, riot and insurrection. It is clear that Lincoln had such authority under this exception rule. The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2, says,"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." The delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1778 voted unanimously on the first clause. Later, Gouverneur Morris introduced a qualifying second exception clause adapted from the Massachusetts state constitution, and the provision were passed by a vote of 7 states to 3 states. So, it is clear that Pres. Lincoln did not violate anybody's Constitutional right by suspending habeus corpus. But the question went further to examine whether or not the conditions in 1861 constituted war, riot and insurrection? Let's look at the facts again. As secession began, many Federal forts fell into the hands of the Confederates; military officers of the southern extraction resigned in drove from the old Army and went South; Gen. David Twiggs of Georgia surrendered his Federal Military Department to the Texans without a fight; Secretary of War Floyd of the Buchannan Administration amassed huge amount of military equipment in the hands of the military authorities with Southern sympathy; and crisis at the two forts, Pickens in Florida and Sumter in S. Carolina of which, nobody knew which one would blow up first at that time. All these facts were pointing to riots, insurrection and act of war. Certainly the conditions satisfied the exception clause to suspend habeus corpus.

In time of war, the laws are silent. (A Latin phrase: inter arma silent leges)

Whenever the case law related to Habeus Corpus is discussed, the landmark case Ex parte: Milligan will be cited. Lambdin P. Milligan moved to Indiana from New Orleans, Louisiana, bringing his slaves with him. When the Civil War started, he got himself involved in an subversive political organization, the Sons of Liberty, and launched an anti-government propaganda movement. In early 1864, Congress passed a law saying that Habeus Corpus could be suspended during war and insurrection. On 10/21/1864, Milligan was arrested by the order of Gen. Alvin P. Hovey, commander of the military district of Indiana. On 10/21/1864, the military commission tried Milligan and found him guilty, and sentenced him to be hanged. Milligan's defending attorneys discussed the case with Lincoln who promised to commute Milligan's sentence. Of course, Lincoln was assassinated before he could pardon Milligan. The appeal dragged on to 1866, and by then, the war and the national emergency were long over. The need to hang traitors did not exist anymore and in fact, people wanted to forget this horrible war episode and it would be politically incorrect to carry out the sentence. What would the Supreme Court do?

Well, the only route that the Supreme Court could do to save Milligan's neck was to declare the law unconstitutional. The decision was a narrow 5 to 4 votes by the 9 Supreme Court Justices. The interesting coincident was that the majority 4 of the 5 votes were Lincoln appointees. The court opinion was written by Justice David Davis, Lincoln's old Eighth Circuit court friend from Illinois and Lincoln's 1860 presidential campaign manager, and concurred by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, Lincoln's ex-Secretary of Treasury, and Justices Noah Swayne, Samuel Miller and James Wayne. Justice Chase was known as the "Attorney General for Runaway Negroes" in his salad days when he was practicing law in Ohio, using habeas corpus as his weapon. It was ironic that Salmon Chase used the same habeas corpus to save slaves and master alike.

Every Supreme Court decision became precedent (stare decisis) and would be cited by the future generation. Therefore, they had to write a "narrow" decision so that the future case would apply only if it fits to all these narrow conditions. They said when the civil courts were open, military commission (court) had no authority to arrest, trial and convict a citizen of the United States. Let me quote part of their opinion:

"It follows, from what has been said on this subject, that there are occasions when martial rule can be properly applied. If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to the law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the writ itself. The writ issues as a matter of course; and on return made to it the court decides whether the party applying is denied the right of proceeding any further with it."

During the 1866 era, the decision was considered as a blow to the Republican's attempt to reconstruct the South and cheered by the Democrats and the white southerners.

Today, every law student has to study this case in their Constitutional Law course. Numerous legal scholars had commented about this case. In 1920s Charles Warren's Ex parte Milligan became one of the most widely anthologized decisions of the United States Supreme Court, one of the benchmark of American liberty. John Garraty wrote Quarrels That Have Shaped the Constitution which included an essay by Allan Nevins (a famous Civil War writer who wrote a multi-volume Civil War books) describing the Milligan decision as a great triumph for the civil liberties of America in time of war. In Michael Belknap's American Political Trials (1981), Frank Klement contributed an essay on Ex parte Milligan describing the decision as "a notable victory for civil rights' that "has stood the test of time." Historian Emma Lou Thornbrough stated that Ex parte Milligan has been "long regarded as a landmark in the history of civil liberties."

It is fascinating that our Civil War brought in a few pages of landmark Constitutional Law.

(Written by Gordon Kwok, December 1997, using several Reference books.)


I believe he even had members of state houses arrested.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The civil war required more drastic action than the current war.

[Steppe Merc]

I disagree. Not allowing people to have a fair trial is always wrong. War should not change people's laws, otherwise there is no point of fighting war, if not to preserve one's way of life.
I forgot to metion the whole Habeus Corpus things in why I dislike him, thanks Gawain! ~D

[King of Atlantis]

I dont get why we even have the bill of rights when the government can take away those rights when ever they want. Lincoln did it, bush is doing it, and probably alot of others have done it to.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Lincoln did it, bush is doing it, and probably alot of others have done it to.

You left out one og the biggest culprits FDR. Bush hasnt done any of this. The Patriot act was passed by congress.

[King of Atlantis]

Bush may have not made the patriot act, but he didnt veto it and he is a big supporter of it, so you cant say he isnt apart of it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Bush may have not made the patriot act, but he didnt veto it and he is a big supporter of it, so you cant say he isnt apart of it.

I never demied any of that but he didnt write it or pass it . He only signed it and seeing as how it passed congres ond even SCOTUS hasnt found it unconstitutional I dont see where your coming from. Linclon just did it on his own.

[King of Atlantis]

you said bush didnt do any of this and he did. By signing a Bill he legitamized it. Sure he did it the legal way i never said he didnt.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

you said bush didnt do any of this and he did. By signing a Bill he legitamized it. Sure he did it the legal way i never said he didnt.

You said


I dont get why we even have the bill of rights when the government can take away those rights when ever they want.

Bush didnt take any rights away from us congress did. He didnt act like a dictator which is my gripe against Linclon.In fact SCOTUS found that his actions were unconstitutional.

[King of Atlantis]

Exactly, why do we have a bill of righs when government can take them away as they please? Congress is part of government.

Bush didnt act like a dictator and i never said he did, but he did take away some rights given by the bill of rights. Signing a bill from congress is still taking them away.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Bush didnt act like a dictator and i never said he did, but he did take away some rights given by the bill of rights. Signing a bill from congress is still taking them away.

The patriot act hasnt taken any rights from me. You will be hard pressed to find anyone whos rights have been taken away by it. That is unless your a terrorist.

[King of Atlantis]

It breaks a couple of the rights. Sure it isnt hurting anyone innocent, but it still breaks rights, and shows us that the government can throw away the rights when they become inconvenent

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Look you will get no arguement from me that the government sucks and has too much power. The thing is though that without security there is NO freedom. I dont think Bush went to far however I think Linclon did. Of course thats just my humble opinion though .

[King of Atlantis]

I dont think our government sucks.

Here is a good quote from some famous dead guy(cant remember his name ~:) )

-Our government would be a complete faliure if it wasnt the best the world has ever seen-

something to that effect.

Anyways the point still stands, our bill of rights IS really useless as it CAN be broken.

[Red Harvest]

Abe Lincoln reminds me a lot of George W Bush.


I think it would be hard to find two men more different. Dubya would like to compare himself to many great men, but he isn't one of 'em. Dubya has not faced 10% of the crisis that Lincoln or FDR did. Lincoln inherited a divided nation. He strived to maintain unity in what remained of the nation, while Dubya has sought through every act to divide what he inherited. Lincoln successfully walked a diplomatic tight rope with Europe while engaged in a major war of survival. Dubya wrecked our relations with Europe with some fabricated WMD claims. Lincoln intended to be magnanimous in victory upon re-uniting the nation, but he was gunned down by a misguided southern lunatic. Dubya hasn't even managed to fulfill our obligations in Afghanistan.

I can't imagine how Dubya's fiscal policies could compare with Lincoln's. Lincoln took steps to maintain the nations finances during a tremendous crisis, while Dubya has pushed in exactly the opposite direction. Most importantly, Lincoln was an articulate, literate man--you won't be hearing those terms used to describe Dubya.

Lincoln did what was needed to preserve the nation and move it forward. Too much of what I hear from Dubya's base is geared toward regressing.

[Red Harvest]

"And if he wanted to free them, he wouldn't have left them in the boder states." - Steppe Merc

He believed that he only had the authority to ban slavery, in newly gained territories or states. He believed that is was unconsitutional otherwise. In effect, he believed that the Southern states had already left the Union; this would be a precarious postion, if you ask me.

True, but it went beyond that. The Emancipation Proclamation was many things including a tool of foreign diplomacy, a military weapon (paving the way for negro troops), as well as an economic weapon.

It eliminated hope of Britain or France siding with the CSA.

With it, some of the problems posed by returning slaves in occupied secessionist states were eliminated. There were some rather ridiculous abuses occurring at the time by slave supporting officers in the Northern armies. It also meant that wherever Union forces marched into the south, slaves would flock to them, causing economic chaos in the South (and providing very useful intelligence.) This required the CSA to be even more fearful of the large slave population.

Being that it was time of war, and the States were acting illegally/treasonously by attacking the Union militarily, and they had declared themselves as seperate territories, I don't really see that the act could be construed as illegal. The states had chosen to exploit unaddressed portions of the Constitution, so Lincoln did likewise.

Most importantly, it would settle the path of the nation with regard to slavery once and for all. Never would slavery be used to divide the nation again. Sure, future acts would be needed by border states and the U.S. govt. to work it all out, but the course was clear and irrevocable.

Interestingly, there had been some earlier proposals in prior decades about resolving the slavery issue by phasing it out over a generation or two. This would have "weaned" the nation off of slavery. The South went all or nothing, and seceded (before Lincoln took office) because Lincoln had said he would make certain that slavery was not allowed in the territories. It was a foolhardy act showing the worst aspects of "Southern Pride" (an arrogant sense of elitism being a chief downfall.) Slavery would most likely have survived for decades in the South had they not seceded.

[Don Corleone]

I dont think our government sucks.

Here is a good quote from some famous dead guy(cant remember his name ~:) )

-Our government would be a complete faliure if it wasnt the best the world has ever seen-


The quote was "Democracy is the worst system of government ever invented. Except for all the others". And it was uttered by Winston Churchill

[Red Harvest]

I fail to see any real advantage to the concept of "States Rights" over Federal in a generic sense. Federal = more efficient than state. Want to see inefficiency? Look at 50 state systems vs. a single federal system. Federal = more fairly/evenly implemented than at state level. Want to see real abuse? Go down to the local level, below the state.

The most common justifications I've seen for pushing "States Rights" are regressive ones: to undo civil rights advances, to undo seperation of church and state, to undo programs to assist citizens. On balance I regard most of the "States Rights" pushes as either wrong or downright evil in character. State's right's heritage based on human bondage certainly was evil.

States rights died of theory. Dividing a single people into fiefdom's is regressive fantasy. History points the other way. States are stronger when they unite. They are weaker when they divide. Imagine relying on 50 militia and 50 security apparatus to respond to events in today's word.

The Senate, the electoral system, the Constitution are meant to give the States some powers and adequate representation, besides what they apply in their own domains.

I know one thing, I don't want to live in the "States Rights" country that some are fantasizing about.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Abe Lincoln was not a religious man.

Is that so?


One of Lincoln's earliest statements on the subject of his faith came in 1846:

"That I am not a member of any Christian church is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular....I do not think I could myself be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, or scoffer at, religion." [July 31, 1846]



Heres something I agree with him on.


It is true that Lincoln never did join a church, although he attended church services regularly while President. The reason he gave for never joining a church was that he could never be satisfied with all the dogmas and creeds that the denominational churches of his day required. On this subject Lincoln wrote:

"When any church will inscribe over its altar, as its sole qualification for membership, the Savior's condensed statement of the substance of both law and Gospel, 'Thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and thy neighbor as thyself' that church will I join with all my heart and all my soul."



LINK (http://members.tripod.com/~greatamericanhistory/gr02004.htm)

[Xiahou]

Now this is a little off-topic, but I wanted to respond to this.

Now, Bush.. I can see why he might be compared to Bush, but let's get some things straight:

Abe Lincoln was not a religious man. He openly slandered organized religion on several occasions, although there is no doubt that he believed in a higher power; George Bush, on the Other hand, has actually said that god talks to him. Quite a difference there.
"Well, I will tell you how it was. In the pinch of the campaign up there (at Gettysburg) when everybody seemed panic stricken and nobody could tell what was going to happen, oppressed by the gravity of our affairs, I went to my room one day and locked the door and got down on my knees before Almighty God and prayed to Him mightily for victory at Gettysburg. I told Him that this war was His war, and our cause His cause, but we could not stand another Fredericksburg or Chancellorsville... And after that, I don't know how it was, and I cannot explain it, but soon a sweet comfort crept into my soul. The feeling came that God had taken the whole business into His own hands and that things would go right at Gettysburg and that is why I had no fears about you." [Abraham Lincoln - July 5, 1863]


Abe Lincoln was also a very smart man. And he was of a sound military mind. Not so with Bush, who fires generals that disagree with him.
From Wikipedia:

The war was a source of constant frustration for the president, and it occupied nearly all of his time. Lincoln had a contentious relationship with General George B. McClellan, who became general-in-chief of all the Union armies in the wake of the embarrassing Union defeat at the First Battle of Bull Run and after the retirement of Winfield Scott in late 1861. Lincoln wished to take an active part in planning the war strategy despite his inexperience in military affairs. Lincoln's strategic priorities were two-fold: first, to ensure that Washington, D.C., was well-defended; and second, to conduct an aggressive war effort in hopes of ending the war quickly and appeasing the Northern public and press, who pushed for an offensive war. McClellan, a youthful West Point graduate and railroad executive called back to military service, took a more cautious approach. McClellan took several months to plan and execute his Peninsula Campaign, which involved capturing Richmond by moving the Army of the Potomac by boat to the peninsula between the James and York Rivers. McClellan's delay irritated Lincoln, as did McClellan's insistence that no troops were needed to defend Washington, D.C. Lincoln insisted on holding some of McClellan's troops to defend the capital, a decision McClellan blamed for the ultimate failure of his Peninsula Campaign. Sounds like McClellan didn't agree with Lincoln on much... and we know what happened to him. ~;)

[Red Harvest]

Sounds like McClellan didn't agree with Lincoln on much... and we know what happened to him. ~;)

McClellan was one of the worst commanders of the ACW, so score another point for Lincoln vs. Dubya. McClellan made a mess of the war in several theaters, not just his own. He had trouble beating Lee at Antietam even after recovering a copy of Lee's plans. Then he failed to follow up the victory (McClellan never followed up any victory that I can recall.)

McClellan was a good organizer and driller, but he was a terrible field commander and an egomaniacal politician.

It is to Lincoln's credit that he sacked the popular McClellan. Contrast that with Dubya who never admits fault and doesn't go after INCOMPETENT staff. He hangs onto the incompetents (yes men) and instead sacks the competent who disagree with him. Dubya even kept around O'Keefe who presided over the most recent shuttle disaster. The last person you want in charge while trying to rebuild a program, is the very sort that caused the problem in the first place. Alas, this is another example of running govt. like a business--business does the exact same thing with nauseating regularity, have the folks that drove the company into the dirt select the team to do the restructuring. :dizzy2: Not to mention O'Keefe lied on every single point in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. Accountability is not a strong point of Dubya's administration.

[PanzerJaeger]

Dubya would like to compare himself to many great men, but he isn't one of 'em.

Who has he compared himself to?


Dubya has not faced 10% of the crisis that Lincoln or FDR did.

Good for him and good for the country.


Lincoln inherited a divided nation. He strived to maintain unity in what remained of the nation, while Dubya has sought through every act to divide what he inherited.

In every act huh? Name one act where he has purposely tried to divide the nation.


Lincoln successfully walked a diplomatic tight rope with Europe while engaged in a major war of survival.

LoL - He almost ended up in a war with Britain. These days Britain is on our team.. ;)


Dubya wrecked our relations with Europe with some fabricated WMD claims.

Not really. More baseless rhetoric.


Lincoln intended to be magnanimous in victory upon re-uniting the nation, but he was gunned down by a misguided southern lunatic. Dubya hasn't even managed to fulfill our obligations in Afghanistan.

And what are our obligations to afghanistan? We got rid of our enemy and helped them set up a government.. its theirs to keep or lose now.

[Red Harvest]

In every act huh? Name one act where he has purposely tried to divide the nation.

Name one where he hasn't. His proposals are so one sided and partisan as to be laughable. He has gone to great pains to paint anyone who disagrees with him as a traitor to American ideals, a liberal, beltway type, etc. He thumbs his nose at 48% of us. Simply an awful, divisive president. He has never made any attempt at unifying the country.



LoL - He almost ended up in a war with Britain. These days Britain is on our team.. ;)


We had fought two recent wars with Britain, and had come close to getting into one or two others with her immediately before the ACW. (George Pickett left one of the "hot spots" just before the start of the ACW.) Lincoln defused the Trent situation by releasing the captured CSA diplomats with the comment about one war at a time being enough. Dubya could certainly use a bit of this wisdom as he's clearly bitten off more than he can chew.



Not really. More baseless rhetoric.


Hardly, the damage Dubya has done to US credibility both abroad and AT HOME is very real. Only the most obtuse could claim his actions were not deliberate. The damage Dubya did was compounded by the nation's error in re-electing him (or perhaps that should be "electing" him, since he lost the first election.) Until he won the recent election we could claim it was Dubya that was the source of the problem. Re-electing a pathological liar did not send any good messages to the rest of the world...



And what are our obligations to afghanistan? We got rid of our enemy and helped them set up a government.. its theirs to keep or lose now.

Dubya has not kept his promise to rebuild and set up a stable, viable govt. The rebuilding efforts were far less than what he pledged. They were HIS obligations. Like so much that Dubya said, they proved to be BS.

[Red Harvest]

You must not be too up on your history.

No, I'm up on it just fine. The problem is that most modern efforts for States Rights have been regressive (and extending back to the ACW again...) Are there places where the Federal govt. over reaches (like medical MJ?) You bet. Given time, most will be corrected. Federal level moderation has been better than State. I've seen worse done at state levels than Federal. Probably doesn't help that crooked Delay's district is right next to mine at the moment. ~;)

I still remember the stupid Blue Laws that wouldn't allow the sale of screwdriver on Sunday...real handy when you were trying to get some work done around the house and worked six days a week in a small town. States rights, BLECCCHHH!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Federal level moderation has been better than State. I've seen worse done at state levels than Federal. Probably doesn't help that crooked Delay's district is right next to mine at the moment.

But heres the difference if a state makes a laws you dont like it doesnt take much to move to another state as tehe law only effects that state but if the federal government makes a laws you dont like where are you going to go?

This is the crux of the matter


The country would be a better place to live, because you could always find a place that was just right for you, instead of trying to get your silly ideals (from either extreme) imposed on the whole country.

I'm of the opinion that the Constitution has been bastardized in regards to state's rights. And you know what? That's my right as a free American to think and say that. But, of course, both political parties that would seek entrance to the white-house are more concerned with forcing their whole social agenda on the entire nation than with the constitution they're supposed to serve..

Stop with the LIBERAL interpretations of the Constitution and just read the damn thing.

[Red Harvest]

But heres the difference if a state makes a laws you dont like it doesnt take much to move to another state as tehe law only effects that state but if the federal government makes a laws you dont like where are you going to go?

This is the crux of the matter



Not sure your line of work...but I can't just go changing states at the drop of a hat, nor can I choose which one I live in. And walking away from a career because of a shift in state or local politics is not really an option. I would rather have some assurance of basic uniformity, rather than a mix of screwy local legislation.

[Steppe Merc]

Cube, do you live in California, just out of curosity?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

.but I can't just go changing states at the drop of a hat,

No one sid that. But its certainly far easier than changing countries. Besides I dont know of a better country to go to but if the country was run as the constitution says there would be states that I would prefer. At least Id have a some good choices.


nor can I choose which one I live in

Have any states banned you from living there? ~:confused:


And walking away from a career because of a shift in state or local politics is not really an option.

It certainly is. In fact people and companies do it everyday.


I would rather have some assurance of basic uniformity

Basic being the key word here. Thats what the constitution says also but Im afraid weve gone way past that.


rather than a mix of screwy local legislation.

What screwy legislation?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I have read the Contitution, and I spend alot of time Studying the American Revolution. I don't think the Foudning Fathers would like the situation as it is today.

My post wasnt directed at you as we agree on this matter. They would be starting another revolution.

[Red Harvest]

Have any states banned you from living there? ~:confused:

It certainly is. In fact people and companies do it everyday.



If my company doesn't have any jobs there, or my industry doesn't have any, then I can't bloody well move there and have a career can I?

Companies are more likely to move out of the country, rather than move out of state... ~;) I might have to follow.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Companies are more likely to move out of the country, rather than move out of state... I might have to follow.

I bet more companies move accross the river here from NY to NJ than move overseas from the rest of the US just because the taxes and cost of doing buissiness are so much lower.

[Steppe Merc]

That explains why we have so many darn people here, and more coming every year. :help:

[Red Harvest]

I bet more companies move accross the river here from NY to NJ than move overseas from the rest of the US just because the taxes and cost of doing buissiness are so much lower.

I seriously doubt it. Manufacturing of nearly all types is leaving the U.S. the manufacturing recession has been going on since about late '98 beginning of '99 as best I can recall--it hit my industry then, while others were delayed until the beginning of the recession in 2000. I haven't looked at recent numbers but the last I had checked manufacturing was still declining during the "recovery." It is one thing if mature industries have a manufacturing flight, that is normal. The problem is there is nothing evident that is going to pick up the slack in new types of manufacturing. High tech and software have matured, even pharma has matured and become rather stagnant. The trade deficits tend to bear this out.

In my industry we were busy training the chinese how to build plants, and how to make our products. China was so backward technologically, that we were literally training engineers from their design institutes how to do basic equipment design and manufacture--essentially 30 year old technology for the field in the U.S. However, they are catching up fast because they are committed to doing so, and they have bright educated people, too (and LOTS of them.) China insists on doing nearly all the fabrication in China, even though it would be faster and easier to do portions of it elsewhere. They license your tech, then have you instruct them on how to fabricate it and run it. It is a brilliant policy and working very well. They use far more people to do a given job...but the cost of labor is so cheap and the labor pool so huge, that it doesn't matter.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I seriously doubt it. Manufacturing of nearly all types is leaving the U.S.

Who said anything about manufacturing?