ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S AMERICA

[pneu-engine]

Thank you, Seth Doty. :thumb

[Annie]

That was a good post, Seth. In high school U.S. History, I was taught that the South in the War Between the States was merely fighting "for states' rights" against a Union that wanted to emphasize (and abuse?) the federal government's roles. As I have read further on the subject, I have come to realize that the main "right" the South was fighting for was indeed the "right" to own slaves. I do understand and appreciate the need to de-emphasize the role of "big government"; however, the South was fighting for an immoral practice, and we shouldn't listen to the revisionists who play this important fact down. Of course there were problems with both the North and South at this time in history (as there are with all men at all times in history)...but making Lincoln out to be a monster is just not accurate; it's a lopsided presentation of history.

I will say that living in the South for the last 12 years has been enlightening. (They're still fightin' the war down here in a lot of ways.) I may have mentioned this on here before, but we live in an area in which churches are still segregated. There is the "black church," and there are the "white churches." I'm talking about the small mountain town just down the road; we attend church in a large city farther away, where racism isn't as present. One restaurant in our neighborhood, as recently as 10-15 years ago, refused to serve my half Mexican, half Indian friend. Their words: "We don't serve your kind here." To this day, I've never seen anyone but white people in that place. This is the same community who ran their mayor out of town when they discovered he had at one time defended a black man in court. Yikes!

(I really do love living in the South. I just don't pretend that there are no problems with it, both now and in the past.)

[John81]

Nice posts Seth, but they have absolutely nothing to do with this thread. :puzzled:

[pneu-engine]

Nice posts Seth' date=' but they have absolutely nothing to do with this thread. :puzzled:[/quote']
Actually, John, they have everything to do with this thread. :thumb

Annie :thumb

[trc123]

Such would depend upon the timing, exactly which states and how many states.

Did anyone ever imagine the Soviet Union would break apart as it did?

HUGE Difference. Many of those Socialist Republics were in the USSR at the point of a knife. That can hardly be said about any state in the USA. 95% of each state's population want to be part of the USA and more still are trying to become a state. There are no where's near enough people who want to succeed (at this time) from the Union.

Besides, who wants to have to get a passport to fly to Florida to see their parents for a week's vacation? whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...................

[trc123]

They don't if you don't want to hear what the poster is saying!

[John81]

They have absolutely nothing to do with the presidents who turned America away from a Constitutional Republic into a socialistic country.

[JerryNumbers]

John, You will never make some people understand, the south had leaders who were leading to stop slavery, if States right had not be so violated, and them come a war declared by the president who was power hungry, slavery would have ended, maybe not quite as soon, but there would have been many less both white and black people killed.

But if it had not gone that way, the carpetbaggers would not have been able to come south and strip many of the southern people of everything they had with the help of the Army. You know, before the war the south had a booming economy and there were many who wanted a piece of the action.

And no, I'm not for slavery, I'm totally against it.

[Revelation3:20]

south had leaders who were leading to stop slavery

As was mentioned in the article, slavery was given constitutional protection by the south. As was also pointed out that which is placed in the constitution of a country is generally what is held most dear. It is wishful thinking to say the south would have ended slavery on its own. I know some people will never understand that though. Some are passionate about making lincoln out to be a power hungry monster rather than a man forced to make difficult choices to save the country. Some in the south are to this day culturally and generationally bitter to the point they can't see the facts. But never mind that. At this point in history, slamming either lincoln or southern leaders, north vs. south arguements, all are strivings to no profit. Do we need that?

Some verses that might do us all good to think on.

Proverbs 25:8 Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy neighbour hath put thee to shame.

2 Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

[Annie]

John, You will never make some people understand, the south had leaders who were leading to stop slavery,

What anti-slavery southern leaders did you have in mind here? Not Lee...He owned (and whipped) slaves. Not Jackson, who also owned slaves. Who were the ones speaking out vocally and publicly against slavery? (I'm asking because I really don't know--you've made me curious.)

It's easy to say that the South would have ended slavery on its own. I see no evidence that it would have. Even though the South was made to give up slavery almost 150 years ago, racism is still alive and well today where I live in the mountains of NC...and even in the larger towns around here.

[John81]

Those who wish to ignore Lincoln's unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, actions and what he did to lead this country towards socialism always ignore the ills he did and instead attack slavery.

Research. There was a strong abolitionist movement in the South and there was also a decent non-radical abolitionist movement outside the South. These were leading the nation towards a peaceful end to slavery along the same model of how England and other nations had ended slavery. It was the radical abolitionists, mostly from New England, who pushed for non-peaceful means to end slavery.

Slavery was already fading in America. At the foundation of America slavery was present in most states. As the nation changed fewer and fewer states found slavery needful. Just as happened everywhere else in the civilized world, slavery was heading towards an end by the fact it was becoming less needful, less profitable and non-slaves who wanted work didn't want to have to compete with slaves. Why would anyone think that America would be the only country to have to wage war over slavery when she was already heading towards the end of slavery in the same manner as other civilized nations?

More important, why ignore unconstitutional actions of various presidents which helped to bring America to her current abhorant state? Lincoln's war helped to destroy the Bill of Rights and Constitution and set the stage for all those who followed that further eroded them. His recruitment of tens of thousands of Catholic socialists from Europe helped speed up the ruination of America.

The damage done to America and that we and our children suffer from should be an American matter but some keep trying to turn it into a regional matter so as to avoid the ugly facts of some of America's presidents. Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, etc., are responsible for the unconstitutional and ungodly mess America is today.

[Wilchbla]

What anti-slavery southern leaders did you have in mind here? Not Lee...He owned (and whipped) slaves. Not Jackson, who also owned slaves. Who were the ones speaking out vocally and publicly against slavery? (I'm asking because I really don't know--you've made me curious.)

It's easy to say that the South would have ended slavery on its own. I see no evidence that it would have. Even though the South was made to give up slavery almost 150 years ago, racism is still alive and well today where I live in the mountains of NC...and even in the larger towns around here.

I've lived most of my life in the Northeast and live in Virginia now as well for a short time in Lousiana and "racism" is just as prevalent up North as it is in the South. Really, I don't see any difference.

Also, I believe that Lee released his slaves while Grant kept his.

And as far as the "racist" Jackson. Wikipedia states:

Little as he was known to the white inhabitants of Lexington, Jackson was revered by many of the African-Americans in town, both slaves and free blacks. He was instrumental in the organization in 1855 of Sunday school classes for blacks at the Presbyterian Church. His second wife, Mary Anna Jackson, taught with Jackson, as "he preferred that my labors should be given to the colored children, believing that it was more important and useful to put the strong hand of the Gospel under the ignorant African race, to lift them up." The pastor, Dr. William Spottswood White, described the relationship between Jackson and his Sunday afternoon students: "In their religious instruction he succeeded wonderfully. His discipline was systematic and firm, but very kind. ... His servants reverenced and loved him, as they would have done a brother or father. ... He was emphatically the black man's friend." He addressed his students by name and they in turn referred to him affectionately as "Marse Major

and...

James Robertson wrote about Jackson's view on slavery:

Jackson neither apologized for nor spoke in favor of the practice of slavery. He probably opposed the institution. Yet in his mind the Creator had sanctioned slavery, and man had no moral right to challenge its existence. The good Christian slaveholder was one who treated his servants fairly and humanely at all times.

Bill

[Annie]

Slavery was already fading in America. At the foundation of America slavery was present in most states. As the nation changed fewer and fewer states found slavery needful.

Yes, this was true...in the North. I see no evidence that it was true in the South, whose abundant acreage and rich soil couldn't get enough workers to farm it. If you have evidence that this was true in the South, I'd be interested in the documentation.

Just as happened everywhere else in the civilized world, slavery was heading towards an end by the fact it was becoming less needful, less profitable and non-slaves who wanted work didn't want to have to compete with slaves.

Yes...in the North. But not in the South.

Why would anyone think that America would be the only country to have to wage war over slavery when she was already heading towards the end of slavery in the same manner as other civilized nations?

Again, if you have evidence for this, post it. I'm genuinely interested and curious about what you're talking about.

More important, why ignore unconstitutional actions of various presidents which helped to bring America to her current abhorant state? Lincoln's war helped to destroy the Bill of Rights and Constitution and set the stage for all those who followed that further eroded them.

How did Lincoln's actions destroy the Bill of Rights? The South had seceded; they were technically no longer under any Bill of Rights (although Lincoln fought to keep those states in the Union). Same with the Constitution. (Exactly what parts of the BOR and Const. did Lincoln violate, and how did he violate them?) Please understand I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm wondering where these ideas come from.

Can anyone at any time decide to break away from his/her/its own nation--and expect to do so without a fight? If so, why? I can't recall a time in history that any nation has let settled, civilized territory go without a fight (or a purchase/deal of some sort). Such a secession as some southern states proposed would, for many reasons, have not have been in the best interest of the United States of America. (The word "united" does mean something, after all.) I see no logical or Constitutional reason to allow states to secede at will.

His recruitment of tens of thousands of Catholic socialists from Europe helped speed up the ruination of America.

You're speaking of French mercenaries, correct? This was nothing new. The French were a major force in George Washington's army. Without them, we could not have won the War for Independence. The French have had a strong presence in America since before our country's birth. To my knowledge, Lincoln was just borrowing a page out of Washington's playbook when he recruited European mercenaries.

The damage done to America and that we and our children suffer from should be an American matter but some keep trying to turn it into a regional matter so as to avoid the ugly facts of some of America's presidents. Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, etc., are responsible for the unconstitutional and ungodly mess America is today.

No man is perfect. These leaders did what they felt was necessary and best for their country at the time. There is never any perfect set of options. We can talk all day about what might have happened if... But I imagine that if the South had been allowed to secede, there would have been much more trouble in this land than there has been since our union has been preserved intact.

[John81]

I don't have time for a long reply right now Annie.

The issue isn't slavery, so I'll only briefly touch upon it. If you research the withdrawal of slavery in America you will see it began in the northern states where there was less need for slaves and then spread southward over time. The nothern states sold their slaves to states south of them. The so-called border states and/or up upper south was in the process of going through this as well.

America was a voluntary association of soverieng states, each with the right to voluntarily leave just as they entered. This was documented by some of the Founders and was a firm belief throughout the Union early on. New England threatened to seceed on a few occasions and no one ever once accused them of any wrong. Even West Point, where the US trained her top officers, taught secession as a right.

It should be remembered, originally only 7 southern states seceeded. The American congress, even with the 7 southern states gone, approved what would have become the 13th amendment which would have guaranteed slavery forever with absolute state autonomy over the slavery issue with the Feds having no jurisdiction over the matter at all. Lincoln agreed to sign such. However, the 7 states which had left did so over a broad array of constitutional issues and not over slavery itself so they would not return for that morsel. Several good proposals were put forth to resolve the situation in a more constitutional manner but Lincoln rejected them.

It wasn't until Lincoln unconstitutionally called for 75,000 volunteers to illegally invade the 7 southern states which had seceeded that the other states left the union.

With regards to Lincoln bringing Catholic socialists into America, some were French, but many came from a variety of other European nations including Ireland, Germany, some eastern European nations, etc.

The 9th and 10th amendments (Bill of Rights) were put forth specifically to constrain the federal government from going beyond what the Constitution specifically gave them charge over. Lincoln violated these. Lincoln refused to recognize the seceeded states as no longer being a part of America so by his own reasoning he was dealing with his own nation.

The end justifies the means is a worldly concept. For a Christian we should hold to, and expect others to hold to, doing right and trusting God. It's wrong for a leader to violate the laws of the land, to disregard his oath before God and man, to change the very charactor of a nation for the worse. Only 40% of voters voted for Lincoln. Even outside the south Lincoln was seen as a tyrant and destroyer of the Constitution.

We can't know what might or might not have happened if those 7 states had been allowed to peacefully seceed. Likely as not, one or all of them would have rejoined the Union if the Constitution were once again held to. What we can know is that Lincoln violated the Constitution and his oath of office setting the stage for the dire condition America is in today.

It's not about north/south, it's not about slavery, it's about whether or not one believes America should be a Constitutional Republic as our Founders established or whether presidents should be able to violate the Constitution at their discretion and lead America into socialism.

[John81]

A very large number of professing Christians and conservatives are against President Obama so let's compare.

Obama:

Would likely sign Fairness Doctrine, which would force radio stations to provide equal amounts of time for conservative and liberal programs, if such a bill were put on his desk.

Would likely sign laws into effect that would further restrict the right to own guns if he had the chance.

Seems willing to take extra-legal measures to win election.


Lincoln:

Had newspaper editors, journalists and publishers across the land arrested and often locked up for months or years with no charges. Closed down newspapers across the land which dared to oppose his politics or supported another candidate for president.

Actually confiscated the guns of law abiding citizens across the land.

Used the military to force the outcome of elections.


It's no wonder Lincoln is Obama's favorite president and role model.