- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
"...That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do..."
If we were still free and independent "States" and had true State sovereignty we would dissolve our ties to DC...
It is good to hear from you. Quite right. I am not a big fan of Mr. Lincoln either, knowing the history the PC crowd doesn't want people to know about. I do believe, he, like many others, did posses some wisdom. Unfortunately he seems to have forgotten much of it after the war began.
Yes, his penchant to dispense with the constitution as he saw fit does seem rather Obama like.
Regards,
O.A.
Despite his actions, you find no wisdom in his words contained within the Lincoln- Douglas debates? the Gettysburg address? the Emancipation Proclamation? You are not a proponent of slavery are you? Slavery is a vile collectivist atrocity. Would maintaining slavery have been a benefit to our nation?
His governance and actions contrary to the Constitution were reprehensible, but that does not mean the man never had a wise thought. Even an idiot can have a brilliant thought.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Lincoln is known for suspending habeas corpus, but in fact, he has suspended the First Amendment – he shut down all newspapers that were not on the side on the Union and there were instances of executions of those that spoke against the Union; he suspended the Second Amendment – homes were searched and weapons confiscated in Maryland and Missouri (perhaps elsewhere as well); he suspended the Third Amendment – Union soldiers simply occupied the conquered homes and disposed of the property at will (looted); he suspended the Fourth Amendment – Union troops regularly searched the homes of Confederates or of suspected sympathizers in the Union states; he suspended the Fifth and Sixths Amendments by executing civilians at will (Adm. Farragut in New Orleans, for example); and, arguably, the Tenth Amendment by assuming powers never intended for the Executive by the Framers. Officially, he did not suspend the Bill of Rights; just like the current president, he simply ignored it.
You mention, passionately, slavery. But Lincoln was not opposed to slavery. He did not like it personally, that is true, but as a matter of policy, it was not of great importance to him. The break up of the Union was certainly fueled by Abolitionists who were passionate about the cause, but Lincoln himself in on the record as stating that he would keep or abolish slavery, either way, as long as it preserves the Union. Of course, the undeniable facts are that DC, Maryland and Missouri were Union states (they were 50/50 states, but conquered early in the war), but retained slavery until 1865. Slavery did not even become a central issue in the war until the second year, when the Union experienced shocking failures and needed a propaganda cry. I am not, as you may have implied, a proponent of slavery by any means (including modern); I am presenting historical facts, which differ much from current revisionist “history.” I would say that if your American history comes from a text written anytime after about 1980, you have not been taught history.
In summary, despite his speeches, he was the first American Despot and set a precedent for others to follow. Respectfully, I would submit that Lincoln’s true legacy are the erosion of the original freedoms and the seeds of the next civil war.
I believe you are reading more support for the man in my comments than I intended. I am not placing the man or his actions on a pedestal, only recognizing that he spoke some words of wisdom he did not live up to...That despite his own beliefs and motives regarding slavery he was instrumental in its abolition. I understand and agree with the majority of criticisms you and others have made. He is not on my list of great presidents because of his actions. However, just as I do not agree with Plato on a great many things, it does not mean that he was devoid of all wisdom. I would not debate you on Lincoln because I am aware of the issues you presented and did learn of Lincoln well before 1980. I would not be so foolish as to support him in a debate of meritorious actions. I would suggest you start a separate thread if you desire, where I would likely be generally aligned with your positions. Although it appears you and others have already demonstrated the strength of your case, leaving little to say. I try not to hijack threads with off topic material.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Regards,
O.A.
Yes it is. That is your prerogative. :)
Regards,
O.A.
I also think it is arguable whether the 2nd, 4th and perhaps the 6th amendment apply in times of war.
He certainly violated the 9th and 10th amendment with the income tax, legal tender laws, and conscription.
Looting would hardly be prescribed by law. Was very common. Humiliating the Southerners on purpose would also not be prescribed.
There are recorded instances of executions of civilians (Southern sympathizers). One that I mentioned happened on orders of Adm Farragut in New Orleans. This was fully supported by the Union government. Summary execution of a civilian (not a spy) without a trial is directly against the 5th Amendment, war or not.
With regard to the Second Amendment, the Union forces confiscated arms in MD and MO, states that were officially on the Union side. Otherwise, what good is the Second Amendment if it could be stricken at any excuse, such as riots or disturbances (think of New Orleans during Katrina). It's purpose is to hold government abuses in check, not hunting on a weekend. The same applies to the 4th Amendment, which was ignored in the Union states.
Clearly, you will agree that closing newspapers that argued against the government was a violation of the First Amendment?
An argument can always be made that special circumstances justify various violations. Perhaps. But it is always a slippery slope. But what bothers me, is the revisionist "history" that teaches that Lincoln abolished slavery and that the reasons for the Civil War were primarily due to slavery. That is just not true. Slavery was an issue, very important to some, but secondary to Lincoln and most of the people responsible for the war on both sides. I have noticed this revision in textbooks dating back to around 1980. Many of the young public school teachers today have been so indoctrinated that they only know the slavery issue as the cause of the war and the states' rights are either not talked about or are secondary. That is socialist revisionism.
The present situation in the US certainly shows we need a through vetting of how the Bill of Rights applies in times of war. However, we don't respect the bill of rights or the constitution at all anymore.
As for slavery, it was Lincoln that pushed through the 13th amendment. Even though it didn't receive final state ratification until after his murder.
Of course, that still leaves crimes against the Constitution within the states that were officially in the Union - MD, MO and in DC.
On your last point, yes, Lincoln did push through the 13th Amendment. It is proper to consider him as ending slavery. My point was that slavery was not a major issue for Lincoln throughout his presidency and it was not the major reason for the war. The current textbooks, of course, are teaching the reverse of the facts. In retrospect, slavery was coming to an end in the South anyway, not only because it is reprehensible morally, but because economically it was not as productive as the alternative in the North. But Lincoln's violations of the Constitution have set a precedent forever, besides the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.
The precedents of violations are terribly important because the Constitution had (and has) an mortal flaw, and Lincoln exploited it -- the Constitution does not specify any punishment for its abrogation. The Framers of the Constitution were Gentlemen, and it was sufficient for Gentlemen to agree to certain rules and those rules would be obeyed. But the Gentlemen died and were replaced by lawyers, who had no scruples is breaking agreements. And then the ball just rolled down the hill...
As I said before, extra-ordinary times sometimes require extra-ordinary measures.
It is still to the credit of the US that we have (mostly) returned to the baseline instead of keeping the extra-ordinary measures.
OA is a student of philosophy and History. I do not see that his comments are inconsistent with Objectivism on Lincoln.
The statement by Robbie puzzled me. First, I don't know what are anti-Lincoln types (maybe there are; I'm not aware of it) and to refuse to discuss facts, presumably because they are inconvenient, is not what an Objectivist would do, nor a student of history. If this issue has been discussed here before, I was simply not aware of it.
I have no problem discussing facts, and will acknowledge that there were certainly liberties taken with the constitution during the civil war. I would also say that similar liberties were taken during WWI and WWII, so Lincoln isn't alone in that regard.
Extraordinary times sometimes call for extraordinary measures. The strength of the US has been that we were able to return to "normal" after those times. That is, until now. I fear there is no return today.
We need an amendment that limits the power of the SCOTUS to adjudicating disputes between states and citizens of different states, determining whether the laws passed are constitutional, and whether the laws as implemented have been done so in accordance with the law and uniformly.
"obfuscation"- patent attys all day long get down to the meaning of a word. They put words together like an equation. Those words must have value. The problem is, people including judges, don't take the time to read the claims. To read claims in a patent, requires skills-like learning biochem or electro magnetics. It's not any more obscure than those fields are obscure. It requires multiple degrees, and time, and experience to do that job. Most judges and the commentators on patents don't have that.
Thanks to you comment I realized DC has a "positive looter's outlook."
AKA the PLO.
And PLO = more than "positive looter's outlook."
Hint: Think "Palestinian."