The Lincoln Myth

[4est_4est_Gump]

The moral grandeur of Lincoln is rooted in the myth that he made a war on the South to abolish slavery. This is, at most, a Platonic noble lie designed to legitimate the Unionist regime. Lincoln thought that slavery was immoral, but so did Robert E. Lee. And Lee, at his own expense, freed the slaves he had inherited, through marriage, from the family of George Washington. Only around fifteen percent of southerners even owned slaves, and the great majority of these had holdings of one to six. Jefferson Davis was an enlightened slave holder who said that once the Confederacy gained its independence, it would mean the end of slavery. The Confederate Cabinet agreed to abolish slavery within five years after the cessation of hostilities in exchange for recognition by Britain and France. Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery, but simply and solely because they were being invaded. And the North certainly did not invade to abolish slavery.

Nor should this be surprising considering the Negrophobia that prevailed everywhere in the North. It was assumed by the vast majority of Americans, North and South, that America was a white European polity, and that the Indian and African populations were not—and were never to be—full participants in that polity. For example, blacks were excluded from the western territories. Oregon became a state in 1859, and its constitution, which was passed by a vote of eight to one, declared that

No free negro, or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall ever come, reside, or be within this state, or hold any real estate, or make any contract, or maintain any suit therein; and the legislative assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such free negroes and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the state, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or employ or harbour them therein.[1]
The constitution of Indiana contained the same prohibition. Lincoln’s state of Illinois prohibited the entrance of Africans unless they could post a bond of $1,000. Free Africans in northern states were severely regulated. The following regulation is from the Illinois revised statutes of 1833:

If any person or persons shall permit or suffer any ... servant or servants of colour, to the number of three or more, to assemble in his, her, or their out-house, yard, or shed, for the purpose of dancing or revelling, either by night or by day, the person or persons so offending shall forfeit and pay a fine of twenty dollars.

And it was the duty of all “coroners, sheriffs, judges, and justices of the peace” who learned of such assemblages to commit the “servants to the jail of the county, and on view of proof thereof, order each and every such ... servant to be whipped, not exceeding thirty-nine stripes on his or her back.”[2]

Emancipation laws in the antebellum North were designed to rid the North of its African population. They typically declared that the children of slaves born after a certain date would, upon reaching a certain age, be emancipated. This meant that adult slaves were not freed and that families could be sold South before children reached the age of emancipation. Emancipation led to a reduction of the African population in the North, not to an increase, as it did in the South. Lincoln’s own solution to the race problem was mass colonization of Africans, and he proposed securing land in Africa and elsewhere for the purpose. Even abolitionists were careful to point out that it was not the slave they loved but the slaveholder they hated, and that emancipation did not at all mean social and political equality with whites.

Slavery was more secure in 1860 than it had ever been. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, had declared that Africans were not citizens; and Congress approved a constitutional amendment that would take the regulation of slavery forever out of the hands of the central government. Lincoln said that he had no authority and no inclination to interfere with slavery in the states where it was legal. He could tolerate slavery as a means of controlling what nearly everyone saw to be an exotic and alien population. What he could not tolerate was a dissolution of the Union, loss of revenue from the South, and a low-tariff zone on his southern border. This was the consistent thread running through Lincoln’s policy from 1860–1865. He would not recognize the conventions of the people of the southern states, and he would not negotiate with their commissioners. He would go to war immediately to coerce the states of the deep South back into the Union. And it was this act that Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas could not tolerate. They had been opposed to the radicalism of the deep South, and their legislatures had voted firmly to stay within the Union. But they would not answer Lincoln’s call for troops to coerce a state into the Union; this they considered not only unconstitutional, but immoral. And in this they were correct. But so strong is the Lincoln myth and so interwoven with American self-identity that Americans have never been able to confront the stark immorality and barbarism of Lincoln’s decision to invade the South and to pursue total war against its civilian population.

Read More: http://mises.org/daily/6374/Lincolns-Inversion-of-the-American-Union

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yawn....

The entire point of a "discussion board" is to put your own spin on it and tell us what you think. Any moron can google and come up with what someone else thinks.

 

[Liar]

So, did he hunt vampires or not?

 

[Busybody]

So, did he hunt vampires or not?

STFU, FOREIGN and/or DOMESTIC NIGGER

 

[kbate]

Apparently, we should tear down the monument and replace it with one depicting slave owners and slaves standing around and exchanging pleasantries before the barn dance.

 

[marshalt]

Apparently, we should tear down the monument and replace it with one depicting slave owners and slaves standing around and exchanging pleasantries before the barn dance.

Why is it called square dancing? I mean, the participants are never actually in a square.

 

[kbate]

Why is it called square dancing? I mean, the participants are never actually in a square.

Think about it for a few minutes and then that cute little light of realisation might click on for you too.

 

[StephenHawking]

the op is too stupid. last time i checked, it was the csa that fired on fort sumter. invasion did lincoln or congress ever recognize the csa as sovereign that never happened. you can't invade your own countrydumb ass southerners

 

[Greypowerful]

In my experience, there always have been, and always will be, "myths" about political figures, particularly those as pivotal to social change as Mr. Lincoln.

I don't want to go too far out here, until I've seen the new movie.... (I need a "refresher" on the interim events betwixt 1860 and the assassination) but from what I understand, it focuses mostly upon the process of governance during Lincoln's Presidency. The dichotomy between Honest Abe and the "money-men" of the GOP is the salient issue therein, is it not?

However... as a longtime affectionate student of your Great Republic, I will say that the first paragraph of poster Gump's entry is by and large, accurate. The difficulty, it seems to me, is that one GENERALLY enters into analysis/criticism of any Historical event based upon the mores of Today... So, it's a bit Sophist, in my view, to say that Mr. X was "bad" and Mr. Y was honourable.

In the end, we need to focus on the great evil of Reconstuction, rather than the human flaws of such Great men as Bobby Lee and Abe Lincoln. From my perspective, the effects of THAT vengeful period was hugely prescient... Versailles, 1919 comes to mind.

The issue that has always dogged American society is that OTHER dichotomy... what the Constitution states, and what The "cult of The Individual" delivers. Principles versus the Greenback - ain't gonna change in my Lifetime, nor anyone else' in this discussion.

 

[tactful]

He discovered the copper, that's how he got on the penny, it makes cents.

 

[bronzeage]

Why is it called square dancing? I mean, the participants are never actually in a square.

Because truly hip people refuse to do it.

 

[hogjack]

So, did he hunt vampires or not?

You realize that graphic novel and film were a complete fabrication, right? There is no historical evidence that Abraham Lincoln was a vampire slayer.

NONE.

There are vampire hunters operating around the world at all times so many of those undead son of a bitches were eliminated during Lincoln's time in office. Lincoln or his Cabinet members might have been aware of the slayers but historians have not found the proof documented.

 

[phrodeau]

A strawman argument from AJ? How is that possible?

 

[Wrong Element]

A strawman argument from AJ? How is that possible?

Remember, it was the Scarecrow who said "If I only had a brain."

 

[eyer]

Sovereign States which voluntary joined a Union with other sovereign States...

...voting that the federal government of that Union had grown too tyrannical and, so, they would divorce themselves from that Union they no longer wanted to be a part of?

Kinda like a marriage that didn't work out for all parties, right?

Screw that, proclaimed Abe, I'm willing to sacrifice 650,000 American lives to prove the federal government of the Union is the baddest dog in all the land...

...and 650+K did die, and the federal government has been the top dog ever since, beginning as it really entrenched itself by totally dictating its tyrannical power during "Reconstruction".

And then, after a short bit, came the statist twin bozos - teddy & woodrow - who took Hypocritical Abe's power grab and began progressively implementing federal government's unassailable reign fully throughout the very fabric of American culture....

...150+ years now of total federal government domination over the sovereignty of all States, and the republic as it was Constituted has been lost.

Thanks, Abe...

 

[Greypowerful]

Holy vitriol, Batman.... tell us what you reaallly think.

 

[sigh]

Read More: http://mises.org/daily/6374/Lincolns-Inversion-of-the-American-Union

Actually, that's pretty much the version of the Lincoln story that I was taught in my American Government class in high school. I've always thought the Civil War was about states' rights rather than slavery.

Certainly, very few people in power were that worried about the rights of blacks at that time (or women either for that matter).

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In my experience, there always have been, and always will be, "myths" about political figures, particularly those as pivotal to social change as Mr. Lincoln.

I don't want to go too far out here, until I've seen the new movie.... (I need a "refresher" on the interim events betwixt 1860 and the assassination) but from what I understand, it focuses mostly upon the process of governance during Lincoln's Presidency. The dichotomy between Honest Abe and the "money-men" of the GOP is the salient issue therein, is it not?

However... as a longtime affectionate student of your Great Republic, I will say that the first paragraph of poster Gump's entry is by and large, accurate. The difficulty, it seems to me, is that one GENERALLY enters into analysis/criticism of any Historical event based upon the mores of Today... So, it's a bit Sophist, in my view, to say that Mr. X was "bad" and Mr. Y was honourable.

In the end, we need to focus on the great evil of Reconstuction, rather than the human flaws of such Great men as Bobby Lee and Abe Lincoln. From my perspective, the effects of THAT vengeful period was hugely prescient... Versailles, 1919 comes to mind.

The issue that has always dogged American society is that OTHER dichotomy... what the Constitution states, and what The "cult of The Individual" delivers. Principles versus the Greenback - ain't gonna change in my Lifetime, nor anyone else' in this discussion.

Two thumbs up.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Actually, that's pretty much the version of the Lincoln story that I was taught in my American Government class in high school. I've always thought the Civil War was about states' rights rather than slavery.

Certainly, very few people in power were that worried about the rights of blacks at that time (or women either for that matter).

One thumb up...





Wanna know where the other one is?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Sovereign States which voluntary joined a Union with other sovereign States...

...voting that the federal government of that Union had grown too tyrannical and, so, they would divorce themselves from that Union they no longer wanted to be a part of?

Kinda like a marriage that didn't work out for all parties, right?

Screw that, proclaimed Abe, I'm willing to sacrifice 650,000 American lives to prove the federal government of the Union is the baddest dog in all the land...

...and 650+K did die, and the federal government has been the top dog ever since, beginning as it really entrenched itself by totally dictating its tyrannical power during "Reconstruction".

And then, after a short bit, came the statist twin bozos - teddy & woodrow - who took Hypocritical Abe's power grab and began progressively implementing federal government's unassailable reign fully throughout the very fabric of American culture....

...150+ years now of total federal government domination over the sovereignty of all States, and the republic as it was Constituted has been lost.

Thanks, Abe...

Could have been said better, but yeah...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A strawman argument from AJ? How is that possible?

This is the best the Left can do in its own defense...



Truly tragic.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

It all about that damn horse of yours surrendering and pulling wagons in Kansas.


I'm beginning to think he just ran off with the Redlegs of his own volition.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We ARE the regular Federal authority now!





And we're coming for your guns and liberty.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Listen cat, I just got in from New York.
All I want is a bottle of whisky and a quiet hour to drink it in.​