ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S AMERICA

[Seth Doty]

As it happened Lincoln was fighting a civil war. During wars someones rights are usually violated. Drastic times can call for drastic measures. Before you complain to much about what Lincoln did and say the founders were all about states rights and would never have done anything like that perhaps you should look and see what president George Washington did during the Whiskey Rebellion. Every heard of the Militia Act of 1792?

[John81]

The Constitution has provisions for dealing with war. Lincoln was not dealing with an actual civil war. Times of war do not justify violating ones oath or the law of the land.

Shutting down newspapers and arresting newspapermen and holding them in jail for excercising their First Amendment rights is illegal and wrong. Had any actually committed a crime there were legal means to deal with such.

The Whiskey Rebellion is a very different situation and a topic all it's own...and a rather interesting one when studied in depth.

I want to make something clear just so some folks don't get the wrong impression. I'm not one who thinks Lincoln, or any president for that matter, was "all evil" or some kind of monster or did nothing right.

I loved having Ronald Reagan as my president yet I could list unconstitutional aspects that occured during his time in office and there are areas where I disagree with his handling of some things.

I couldn't stand Jimmy Carter as president but there is at least one thing off the top of my head I recall he did that was good.

Sadly, we have had a lot of bad presidents with a few "good" ones here and there. Not all that different than the kings of Judah in the Old Testament.

We live in a fallen world and America and her leaders are a part of that so it should come as no surprise how quickly America began heading away from her original high ideals and forms in the beginning and that she has had a lot of wayward leaders.

[Seth Doty]

Lincoln was not dealing with an actual civil war.

I doubt many would agree with you, but your welcome to an opinion, wrong though it is. :lol

I want to make something clear just so some folks don't get the wrong impression. I'm not one who thinks Lincoln, or any president for that matter, was "all evil" or some kind of monster or did nothing right.

Ok, I will take your word for it, but I doubt I was alone in getting that impression. Similarly I don't think Lincoln was perfect, but he was president during one of the most difficult times in American history, and he was very instrumental in preserving our nation at a time when it could have easily been completely destroyed. I think he deserves some of the credit for that even if you don't. While his censure of the press was unconstitutional in a sense, you tell me how the government is supposed to deal with those printing materials favoring the enemy during war time. There can be a fine line between free speech and treason during war time. The civil war wasn't the only time our nation has imprisoned those suspected of encouraging the enemy and weakening the country in time of war. It is a tough call to make sometimes, particularly when the nation is in such a deadly struggle for survival.

[John81]

I doubt many would agree with you, but your welcome to an opinion, wrong though it is. :lol




Ok, I will take your word for it, but I doubt I was alone in getting that impression. Similarly I don't think Lincoln was perfect, but he was president during one of the most difficult times in American history, and he was very instrumental in preserving our nation at a time when it could have easily been completely destroyed. I think he deserves some of the credit for that even if you don't. While his censure of the press was unconstitutional in a sense, you tell me how the government is supposed to deal with those printing materials favoring the enemy during war time. There can be a fine line between free speech and treason during war time. The civil war wasn't the only time our nation has imprisoned those suspected of encouraging the enemy and weakening the country in time of war. It is a tough call to make sometimes, particularly when the nation is in such a deadly struggle for survival.

Actually a great many agree what is known as the American civil war was no civil war at all.

Lincoln brought about the crisis. Had he dealt with the situation at hand in a constitutional and wise manner secession of half a dozen states and the war and the destruction of the Republic need not have happened. That said, much of the burden awaiting him was pre-created by radical abolitionists, socialists, humanists and a few others, mostly from New England, who had been working for decades to divide America according to their liking. Even so, Lincoln didn't have to play into their hands.

Going against the Constitution and forsaking ones oath to the same is unjustifible. The Constitution provided all the means necessary for the entire situation to have been handled legally.

President G.W. Bush didn't close down newspapers and arrest newsmen who wrote or spoke out against his policies, his war actions, constitutional aspects, etc. In fact, President Bush, much to his credit, spoke favorably of those who reported in such ways and continually pointed out such was their constitutional right and something we should welcome.

Many presidents have violated the Constitution and taken the law into their own hands illegally using war as their justification. They were wrong and criminal in their actions.

[Seth Doty]

Actually a great many agree what is known as the American civil war was no civil war at all.

Only southern revisionists.

Lincoln brought about the crisis. Had he dealt with the situation at hand in a constitutional and wise manner secession of half a dozen states and the war and the destruction of the Republic need not have happened. That said, much of the burden awaiting him was pre-created by radical abolitionists, socialists, humanists and a few others, mostly from New England, who had been working for decades to divide America according to their liking. Even so, Lincoln didn't have to play into their hands.

:reality: Sorry, but that is so blind to the facts and inaccurate that it would be funny if you were not so serious. Lets just drop it shall we John? I have no interest in refighting the civil war with you but if you insist on being provoking by making all these rabidly pro-south and anti-lincoln postings your bringing it on yourself. I don't think I can ignore it any longer. I am not going to just sit by while you say this stuff. I am not a mod any more and can say what I want without feeling bad about it. :frog

Grace and peace...

[Wilchbla]

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.

Actually, in the South's Constitution outlawed the importing of anymore slaves though it still protected slavery within the Confederacy.

I disagree with you about how slavery would have never been ended in the South. Pressure from their favorite trading partner (Europe) as well as the industrialization of the South would have ended slavery. Slavery is common in agrarian societies which the South still was at that time. Also, the economics of slavery would have been to difficult to bear much longer for the South. Slavery is not conducive to capatalism. Anotherwards, freeing the slaves and paying them wages would haved been more cost effective.

Every nation in the world has able to end slavery without a war. So, clearly there was something else at work here than just freeing slaves, i.e. the Federal centralization of power. I agree with Ron Paul here. If Lincoln and the Feds were so concerned about the slaves they should have just bought them out as they did in England. It has been proven that this would have been cheaper than the cost of the Civil War.

[John81]

Only southern revisionists.




:reality: Sorry, but that is so blind to the facts and inaccurate that it would be funny if you were not so serious. Lets just drop it shall we John? I have no interest in refighting the civil war with you but if you insist on being provoking by making all these rabidly pro-south and anti-lincoln postings your bringing it on yourself. I don't think I can ignore it any longer. I am not going to just sit by while you say this stuff. I am not a mod any more and can say what I want without feeling bad about it. :frog

Grace and peace...

You can do your own research if you desire. Such has nothing to do with "southern revisionists"; whatever that is.

Read what British, French and Northern folks wrote about the same thing. Read the writings of the Founders.

Study the history of the Mexican War and the secessionist movement in New England as well as the controversy that erupted when Texas was admitted into the Union.

You are right, there is no need for us to carry on with this. The truth is out there if you desire to search for it and it has absolutely nothing to do with northern or southern.

God bless and peace to you my brother.

[HappyChristian]

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.

Many of the slaveholders didn't necessarily like it...

Although George Washington was born into a world where slavery was accepted, his attitude toward slavery changed as he grew older. During the Revolution, as he and fellow patriots strove for liberty, Washington became increasingly conscious of the contradiction between this struggle and the system of slavery. By the time of his presidency, he seems to have believed that slavery was wrong and against the principles of the new nation.

As President, Washington did not lead a public fight against slavery, however, because he believed it would tear the new nation apart. Abolition had many opponents, especially in the South (but please note, not the south alone. Washington seems to have feared that if he took such a public stand, the southern states would withdraw from the Union (something they would do seventy years later, leading to the Civil War). He had worked too hard to build the country to risk tearing it apart.

Privately, however, Washington could -- and did -- lead by example. In his will, he arranged for all of the slaves he owned to be freed after the death of his wife, Martha. He also left instructions for the continued care and education of some of his former slaves, support and training for all of the children until they came of age, and continuing support for the elderly.

From Geo Wn.'s will: (paragraph breaks by me, to make it easier to read)

Item Upon the decease of my wife, it is my Will & desire that all the Slaves which I hold in my own right, shall receive their freedom. To emancipate them during her life, would, tho' earnestly wished by me, be attended with such insuperable difficulties on account of their intermixture by Marriages with the dower (those who came with her to the marriage)Negroes, as to excite the most painful sensations, if not disagreeable consequences from the latter, while both descriptions are in the occupancy of the same Proprietor; it not being in my power, under the tenure by which the Dower Negroes are held, to manumit them.

And whereas among those who will recieve freedom according to this devise, there may be some, who from old age or bodily infirmities, and others who on account of their infancy, that will be unable to support themselves; it is my Will and desire that all who come under the first & second description shall be comfortably cloathed & fed by my heirs while they live; and that such of the latter description as have no parents living, or if living are unable, or unwilling to provide for them, shall be bound by the Court until they shall arrive at the age of twenty five years; and in cases where no record can be produced, whereby their ages can be ascertained, the judgment of the Court, upon its own view of the subject, shall be adequate and final.

The Negros thus bound, are (by their Masters or Mistresses) to be taught to read & write; and to be brought up to some useful occupation, agreeably to the Laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, providing for the support of Orphan and other poor Children. and I do hereby expressly forbid the Sale, or transportation out of the said Commonwealth, of any Slave I may die possessed of, under any pretence whatsoever. And I do moreover most pointedly, and most solemnly enjoin it upon my Executors hereafter named, or the Survivors of them, to see that this clause respecting Slaves, and every part thereof be religiously fulfilled at the Epoch at which it is directed to take place; without evasion, neglect or delay, after the Crops which may then be on the ground are harvested, particularly as it respects the aged and infirm; seeing that a regular and permanent fund be established for their support so long as there are subjects requiring it; not trusting to the uncertain provision to be made by individuals.

And to my Mulatto man William (calling himself William Lee) I give immediate freedom; or if he should prefer it (on account of the accidents which have befallen him, and which have rendered him incapable of walking or of any active employment) to remain in the situation he now is, it shall be optional in him to do so: In either case however, I allow him an annuity of thirty dollars during his natural life, which shall be independent of the victuals and cloaths he has been accustomed to receive, if he chuses the last alternative; but in full, with his freedom, if he prefers the first; & this I give him as a testimony of my sense of his attachment to me, and for his faithful services during the Revolutionary War.

Stonewall Jackson's contributions to black people:

Indeed, a careful study of his life would lead one to believe that General Jackson might even be described as a civil-rights leader. Yes, that?s right, a civil-rights leader. In the nineteenth century, prior to the War of Federal Aggression, Virginia law prohibited whites from teaching blacks to read and write. Though Stonewall Jackson was known as an upstanding and law-abiding citizen in Lexington, he routinely broke this law every Sunday.

Though the law was not strictly enforced, Jackson quietly practiced civil disobedience by having an organized Sunday school class every Sunday afternoon, teaching black children to read, and teaching them the way of salvation. There are still churches active today that were founded by blacks reached with the Gospel through Jackson's efforts.

This relationship between Jackson and the blacks of his community was not all that uncommon in the South, particularly pertaining to whites who were devout Christians.

"In Jackson?s mind, slaves were children of God placed in subordinate situations for reasons only the Creator could explain. Helping them was a missionary effort for Jackson. Their souls had to be saved. Although Jackson could not alter the social status of slaves, he could and did display Christian decency to those whose lot it was to be in bondage?he was emphatically the black man?s friend."

I really find it amusing that those who are "rabidly" in favor of Lincoln, no matter what he did to the Constitution and the country, accuse others of rabidity. Seth, you are just as inflammatory in your comments, imo.

The war did not solve anything. The seceded states had every right to secede - joining the union was a choice, leaving was also a choice. But Lincoln (and others, like Daniel Webster) didn't like that - so he ignored the Bill of Rights and proceeded to military action (and other things like the Habeas Corpus debacle, causing major problems for a judge who had the audacity to challenge Lincoln (gulp...that sounds like Clinton!), etc.

Had things been allowed to proceed as they were, slavery would have ended, and ended peacefullly, wihout, imo, the racial tension that is existant today (and stoked by those who want to continue to divide this country). Things like Eli Whitney's cotton gin were making it unnecessary for manual labor on the plantations. More and more slave owners were teaching their slaves how to read and write. But there were a great majority of freed slaves who didn't know - so it was hard for them to find work...even in the north, where people want to believe that everyone was so altruistic about slave ownership being wrong (even Gen. Grant, that great drunken general who became POTUS, owned some...20 years before he was singing the greatness of stamping out slavery, he was singing the praises of a boy slave given to them, from whom he could get $3 a month right then and more when he was older...the exact same attitude as those in the south...).

The war was about state's rights. The federal government did not have the authority to willy-nilly tell the states to do something the POTUS decided he wanted them to do (or not do something he didn't like). There is a proper way to go about that, and it isn't war. But war was chosen. The success of the North simply put the first coffin into America as a Republic.

I'm not interested in re-fighting the war, either. But mayhap John isn't the one blind to the facts.

[Seth Doty]

You can do your own research if you desire. Such has nothing to do with "southern revisionists"; whatever that is.

Read what British, French and Northern folks wrote about the same thing. Read the writings of the Founders.

Study the history of the Mexican War and the secessionist movement in New England as well as the controversy that erupted when Texas was admitted into the Union.

You are right, there is no need for us to carry on with this. The truth is out there if you desire to search for it and it has absolutely nothing to do with northern or southern.

God bless and peace to you my brother.

I Have done my research and have reached vastly different conclusions than you have reached. No doubt we would be shooting it out if it was an issue of today. Fortunately it isn't. I am glad you are willing to give this topic a rest, nothing good would come of it.

Seth, you are just as inflammatory in your comments, imo.

I know it HC, I would never start a thread for the express purpose of praising Lincoln or attacking the south, lee, jackson, or any other southern heros because I know we have a number of southern sympathizers and I have no reason to start a thread that I know would cause a fight. I merely hoped the reverse courtesy was true as well. I have tried to make more tactful hints in the past but I wasn't getting anywhere. John has graciously agreed to let the matter drop so hopefully in the future we can mostly avoid this topic which is of no great importance today and bound to significantly annoy a number of people on one side or the other.

"Romans 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."

[JerryNumbers]

And as if there's not any sympathizers from the north on this message board, this is that which LuAnne spoke of you doing, only doing it in a very sly manner. :thumb

<<"Seth, you are just as inflammatory in your comments, imo.">>

[Seth Doty]

And as if there's not any sympathizers from the north on this message board, this is that which LuAnne spoke of you doing, only doing it in a very sly manner.

I was actually just being blunt because tact had failed in previous less direct posts related to this subject on different threads. There certainly are a number of northern sympathizers on the board, I freely admit to being one even though I was born and raised about as deep into the south as you can get. That was my whole point. This is a topic that it would be better to avoid all together, because it is one that is guaranteed to generate ill will between board members who are doctrinally fairly close. I will be completely willing to avoid praising the north and to avoid condemning the south and its leaders on this board to avoid offending you, John, LuAnne and others if you all show the same courtesy to those of us who feel the south was dead wrong by refraining from posting how great the south was, how evil Lincoln was etc. I think that is the best, most peaceable option. Simple enough I hope?

If that doesn't work to bad, because from now on I plan to offer a counter point to all the pro-south sentiment when it is being pushed here instead of keeping quiet or just dropping mild hints and mild posts but not saying what I wanted to say as I have in the past.

[John81]

Seth,

All I can say is I once held the position you hold but being a lover of history and the truth I spent countless hours over the course of years studying this and the facts are very clear once you dig through to the source at which point the only room for conclusion is to either accept the truth or reject the truth; it's really that clear.

The intention of starting this thread was not actually about Lincoln, rather it was about the sorry state of our country and how we came to this mess. It's so true that if we don't understand our past we can't rightly judge the present or prepare for the future. This is why so many accept Obama and the liberal-socialist agenda. They are so ignorant (in the true sense of the word, not as an attack) of their own history and have been fed so much propaganda many actually believe the liberal version of American history which is almost totally fabricated.

I wrote a term paper in an American history class in university. This was for a unit on the "civil war". The professor delayed returning my paper for an additional two weeks beyond the regular grading time period. He had been teaching that course for a dozen years and most of what I wrote he had never heard of before. It was his belief that I had made up much of the report and used bogus sources. To his credit he actually took the time to look up every one of my sources and concluded they were indeed all solid and factual. He was in the process of writing a book regarding the "civil war" and he said he would have to redo at least one entire chapter due to the new information he learned from my report. He also asked for my permission to quote from my report in his book.

These days I don't do such intense research into historical matters, though I'm thankful to God for that which I learned previously doing such. The vast majority of my reading and research now is Bible-based as I no longer plan to teach college history. The Lord has been directing me towards concentration in growth in personal holiness and service to others, and I have no doubt the Lord has something different planned for my career or Christian service in the future which He hasn't yet revealed to me.

Seth, I hadn't intended on posting this much. It's good that we not become hotly engaged in that which isn't of the hightest importance. I didn't mean to hit upon a sore spot with you and I do look forward to more brotherly discussions with you in more biblical threads.

[Seth Doty]

All I can say is I once held the position you hold but being a lover of history and the truth I spent countless hours over the course of years studying this and the facts are very clear once you dig through to the source at which point the only room for conclusion is to either accept the truth or reject the truth; it's really that clear.

I too have examined the issue fairly extensively. I have examined what those of the time on both sides actually wrote in letters, newspapers, various legal documents, etc. to form my views, and I am in no way a victim of liberal thought on this issue since I have been exposed to a far greater extent to those promoting your views on this all my life. I simply find that view false and ill fitting with the facts of history from my own examination. That is why we are never going to see eye to eye on this. Completely different conclusions reached by those looking at the same facts is no doubt why the civil war is also known as a war that split families down the middle. We see just a taste of that today... Imagine how bad it would have been at the time...

[John81]

I want to clarify something here, I'm NOT a "Southern sympathizer" or any other such. My goal has been to know truth and to stand there regardless of who or what the truth supports or condemns.

This is true with regards to history, America, the world and the Bible and Christian living.

I don't like propaganda (not positive or negative) put forth by any side whether historical, political or relgious.

Holding partisanship and having personal dogs in a race is what leads to conflicts, wars and other such things. Very few are willing to take the truth at face value, they twist it one way or another, overemphasize some aspect while diminishing or ignoring another. I've been there and done that myself. The Holy Ghost showed me the error of such thinking and thankfully I finally listened.

I was once a very partisan "America is perfect" sorts. I recall when I was 18 or 19 some of us were discussing American history and the Monroe Doctrine came up. One of the people asked what right President Monroe had it trying to tell other countries what they could or couldn't do in places like South America. My response was "because we're America!" To me, that was answer enough and I was very shocked and then upset that such wasn't good enough for them.

In any event, none of us should partake in a topic that gets our dander up.

[Seth Doty]

I want to clarify something here, I'm NOT a "Southern sympathizer" or any other such. My goal has been to know truth and to stand there regardless of who or what the truth supports or condemns.

Well by that standard I am not a northern sympathizer either though I do not object to the term. When I was speaking of northern or southern sympathizers I was speaking of the views held regardless of how they were reached. By a views basis it is clear that by and large you support the southern cause and by and large I support the northern cause. That is all that is meant by "sympathizer", to me at least.