Quote: Original post by MSW
That is taken from a letter to the editor of the New York Tribune, its a response to the abolisionist charge that he was acting too slowly on the issue of slavery.

Full letter:

Quote:
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable [sic] in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

Which again leaves my premise that the civil war was not about slavery unblemished and enhanced. Per Lincoln, it was ancillary. If nothing else you should grant that.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
You mean like receiving Frederick Douglas in the White House to discuss the war and slavery?p

Sure, that's what I meant because he was thought so highly of by abolitionists. I take it your research consisted of what you recall from grammar school.

Quote:
States rights was and still is the excuse used by those who would exploit other people.

The abridgments of rights and consolidation of power is what people use to exploit others. Not everything has to bow down to your secular state-god to be decent and just.

Quote:
That's incorrect. Prior to the Civil War the verb use with the United States was "are", as in "The United States are..." After the Civil War the verb used was "is", as in "The United States is..." From plural to singular. You would know this if you knew what you were talking about. It's ordinary today to come across the phrase "these United States". The phrase "this United States" still sounds awkward.

You're right. Thank you.

Quote:
You mean we should adopt your revisionist view of Lincoln?

I mean you should expand your understanding beyond what you learned in social studies, or more likely in your case socialist studies. [smile]

Quote:
Are you kidding? The books will count GWB as a war criminal, who used a great national tragedy to justify indefinite detention, torture and illegal surveillance. He basically set up a framework for dictatorship.

Right, GW is going to be prosecuted and history will damn him. Lincoln made GW look like a rookie when it came to subverting the constitution. But here you set, worshiping at the altar.

Quote:
There is too much footage available to support that fantasy.

I think you might be amazed by the effect that time and a cadre of court jesters has on a persons legacy. Thus this debate.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
States rights was and still is the excuse used by those who would exploit other people.

I wont disagree with that, but the converse is equally true. You as a liberal now do not see any reason, owning congress and the white house, not to grow leviatian as you please and wield its power to tell texans how they should treat their homosexuals.

Laudable ends, horrible means.

Wont you forget to dismantle the beast before election time comes, and the texans will, if only out of vengeance, tell you what you can and cannot smoke in your golden state, or how you ought to treat your homosexuals?

What net good is created in the long term by this zero sum game? None. At what cost?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
What net good is created in the long term by this zero sum game?

Military hegemony?

Quote: Original post by Silvermyst

Quote: Original post by Eelco
What net good is created in the long term by this zero sum game?

Military hegemony?

I fear that touches on the heart of the matter indeed.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Which again leaves my premise that the civil war was not about slavery unblemished and enhanced. Per Lincoln, it was ancillary. If nothing else you should grant that.

Your premise is built upon the whitewashing of slavery from american history. It asks that we change all refences of slavery into something that would have been a far less divisive issue...like bubblegum. As if the key issue of the day was the south liked cherry bubblegum, while the north liked grape. Only then can your points be made clear.

But you also want to cling to the inherit racism of slavery in america, label Lincoln a biggoted white supremist because his views 150 years ago were not in accordence with our own. But even you can't seperate slavery in america from its inherit racism, ergo you cannot dismiss slavery as the key issue of the civil war.



The abolishionist were called that because they wanted to abolish slavery. That they were even given such a label should inform you thier views were not shared by the mainstream. Lincoln as president had not only to deal with abolishionist but also slave owning states that did not join the confederate secession. His letter frames emancipation in terms of maintaining the union. The proclimation did not free slaves in those boarder states because THAT would trample on thier state rights. The proclimation granted freedom to the slaves the union encounters in what basicly constituted enemy territory. This helped weaken the slavery resolve of those boarder states, setting the stage for the 13th admendment.

Even the most radical of abolishionist like John Brown (the Osama Bin Laden of the day according to some) held racial views, that we today can find biggoted.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
You mean like receiving Frederick Douglas in the White House to discuss the war and slavery?p

Sure, that's what I meant because he was thought so highly of by abolitionists. I take it your research consisted of what you recall from grammar school.

Abolitionists thought more of Lincoln than they did of Jefferson Davis. I studied the life of Frederick Douglass in college actually. If you're interested in how Douglass saw Lincoln, he laid it all out, warts and all, in this speech: Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
States rights was and still is the excuse used by those who would exploit other people.

The abridgments of rights and consolidation of power is what people use to exploit others. Not everything has to bow down to your secular state-god to be decent and just.

Decent and just? You're crying about the lost rights of states that willingly denied any rights to millions of people, denied that they were even people, states that were so intent on continuing to deny those rights that they took up arms in rebellion against the Constitution. They tried to hide all that behind the feeble mantra of states rights and still do.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
I mean you should expand your understanding beyond what you learned in social studies, or more likely in your case socialist studies. [smile]

As if you know squat about sociology or history for that matter.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Are you kidding? The books will count GWB as a war criminal, who used a great national tragedy to justify indefinite detention, torture and illegal surveillance. He basically set up a framework for dictatorship.

Right, GW is going to be prosecuted and history will damn him. Lincoln made GW look like a rookie when it came to subverting the constitution. But here you set, worshiping at the altar.

Lincoln fought a Civil War. Bush and Cheney fought a war of their own choice.

You just regurgitating the Libertarian party line on Lincoln. Which is extremely ironic in that it positions Libertarians as defenders of slavery. Property rights first!

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
There is too much footage available to support that fantasy.

I think you might be amazed by the effect that time and a cadre of court jesters has on a persons legacy. Thus this debate.

No, this debate flows from Lincoln's present day critics, who are less interested in clarifying the historical record than they are in propelling a political agenda. The resurrection of states rights began as backlash to the civil rights movement and proceeded from there with a reeducation effort starting with the evisceration of Lincoln. You're doing your best to push that project along. Property rights first!

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by LessBread
States rights was and still is the excuse used by those who would exploit other people.

I wont disagree with that, but the converse is equally true. You as a liberal now do not see any reason, owning congress and the white house, not to grow leviatian as you please and wield its power to tell texans how they should treat their homosexuals. Laudable ends, horrible means.

Are you claiming that Federal Law is a horrible means?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Wont you forget to dismantle the beast before election time comes, and the texans will, if only out of vengeance, tell you what you can and cannot smoke in your golden state, or how you ought to treat your homosexuals?

If you're just now waking up from an 8 year sleep, let me tell you that Texans just finished up running the nation into the ground.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
What net good is created in the long term by this zero sum game? None. At what cost?

Zero sum game? Are you trying out some new vocabulary?

Quote: Original post by MSW

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Which again leaves my premise that the civil war was not about slavery unblemished and enhanced. Per Lincoln, it was ancillary. If nothing else you should grant that.

Your premise is built upon the whitewashing of slavery from american history. It asks that we change all refences of slavery into something that would have been a far less divisive issue...like bubblegum. As if the key issue of the day was the south liked cherry bubblegum, while the north liked grape. Only then can your points be made clear.

But you also want to cling to the inherit racism of slavery in america, label Lincoln a biggoted white supremist because his views 150 years ago were not in accordence with our own. But even you can't seperate slavery in america from its inherit racism, ergo you cannot dismiss slavery as the key issue of the civil war.



The abolishionist were called that because they wanted to abolish slavery. That they were even given such a label should inform you thier views were not shared by the mainstream. Lincoln as president had not only to deal with abolishionist but also slave owning states that did not join the confederate secession. His letter frames emancipation in terms of maintaining the union. The proclimation did not free slaves in those boarder states because THAT would trample on thier state rights. The proclimation granted freedom to the slaves the union encounters in what basicly constituted enemy territory. This helped weaken the slavery resolve of those boarder states, setting the stage for the 13th admendment.

Even the most radical of abolishionist like John Brown (the Osama Bin Laden of the day according to some) held racial views, that we today can find biggoted.

Thanks for the encyclopedia tour of "Everything I learned about the civil war, I learned in 4th grade." I'm not stating that slavery didn't factor in to the civil war, I'm stating you are wrong when you claim that the civil war was about slavery.

Quote:
Decent and just? You're crying about the lost rights of states that willingly denied any rights to millions of people, denied that they were even people, states that were so intent on continuing to deny those rights that they took up arms in rebellion against the Constitution. They tried to hide all that behind the feeble mantra of states rights and still do.

My point was that decency and justice exist outside of your narrow world view, depsite your ignorance of this fact. You're wasting time beating up a straw man.

Quote:
As if you know squat about sociology or history for that matter.

Yeah for personal attacks! You're momma's so fat, she jumped up in the air...and got stuck.

Quote:
Lincoln fought a Civil War. Bush and Cheney fought a war of their own choice.

You can't even be talked in to agreeing that the civil war was about a variety of issues, when virtually every war ever waged was about a variety of issues.. Nor can you seem to admit that Lincoln was indeed a tyrant. A reasonable approach would be to try and explain why he was a tyrant, but to do so would require you to admit you are a stalinist. Thus you beat up strawmen and post wiki articles. Feel free to carry on..

Quote:
You just regurgitating the Libertarian party line on Lincoln. Which is extremely ironic in that it positions Libertarians as defenders of slavery. Property rights first!

And you are apparently unable mentally to distinguish the difference between freeing slaves and killing half a million US citizens. Somehow other countries managed to accomplish this feat without fratricide.

As tit for tat this illustrates that you are regurgitating the illiberal mantra passed down to you by government approved hagiographers. Your logic is weak and unconnected, and speaks clearly as to the basis of your position.

Me- "I don't think we should have nuked Hiroshima."
You- "You want the Jews to be exterminated!"

Quote:
No, this debate flows from Lincoln's present day critics, who are less interested in clarifying the historical record than they are in propelling a political agenda. The resurrection of states rights began as backlash to the civil rights movement and proceeded from there with a reeducation effort starting with the evisceration of Lincoln. You're doing your best to push that project along. Property rights first!

And you feel compelled to maintain the deification of Lincoln because he embodies your ubermensch. Imprison political adversaries, squash free speech, order the slaughter of civilians, and wipe his ass with the Bill of Rights, all for the glory of your secular god. That's change YOU can believe in.