About Me

My photo
I'm a simple man, not a simpleton. The worst thing any of our leaders can do is to get those two things confused. I'm a warrior for those things I believe in. I stand up for my friends, family, God, and country. All I truly want is for the government to stay as far out of my life as I can get it. Oh and just in case you haven't guessed it; I'm conservative in my bones.

Search

Custom Search

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Politically Incorrect History Correction

I got into a discussion a couple weeks back with my children concerning presidents and who we thought was the best and worst. When my youngest son asked me who I thought the worst president in history was my oldest responded with a laugh, "It has to be Obama, Dad thinks he's a putz!" (Ah from the mouths of babes.) But alas, I had to dash his absolute faith in his opinion of my political standing. Then I sent their eyebrows into their hair line with my answer...

And now I'm going to do the same here. You see, if I have to pick the absolutely WORST president in history, I have to give that dubious honor to Abraham Lincoln. Yeah, you read that right, "Honest Abe" is the worst person that has ever inhabited the Oval Office. Now, before my friends start trying to tar and feather me, let's look at the reasons that he is so adored.

First, he's given sole credit for ending slavery. Second, he's credited for saving the union. To both of these I have to point out that this is the largest steaming load of bovine scatology that the liberal education system has ever pulled down on our collective heads. And no one has the fruit of the looms to point out the truth: Abraham Lincoln was the epitome of all the things that our Founders left.

So let's take a look at what people would see if they looked past what the liberals in the government run schools pour into our heads when we don't have the brains to look deeper. I'll assault the second horse turd, first. He was a nationalist in that he believed that the federal government's authority took precedence over the states' rights. Second, he destroyed state sovereignty and opened the door for the abuses that the states are now being subjected to by waging an illegal and unconstitutional war against the southern states and completely suppressing and oppressing them into accepting rule by the north. Many of those states had seceded before he came to office. James Buchanan didn't agree that the states had the right to secede but he did rightly believe that the federal government did not have the authority to do anything about it. Lincoln believed that the ends (saving the union) justified the means (illegal war) regardless of the cost.

Next, he's credited for ending slavery. Bull. The fact of the matter is, if he had just let the south go, in roughly the same time frame slavery would have died on it's own by natural forces. Abolitionist groups and sentiments were going through the roof prior to the illegitimately named "civil war". Take the infamous Dred Scott decision. The southern courts had freed him and the northern courts had him put back in chains.

If you take these things into your head and really look at him through this prism, you begin to see Lincoln for what he was, a nationalist despot. And the Congress of the time was run by the Republican version of what we now have in the Dems. Out of control power mad men, hell bent on pushing through their agenda regardless of the cost to the states. Then look at the most famous of his speeches, The Gettysburg Address, the last lines of it were the most hypocritical lines ever written in light of the illegal war and suppression of freedom that he was engaged.

We've had terrible presidents since his death, no doubt about it. But none of them would have been possible were it not for his destruction of state sovereignty, in the first place. He is credited for saving the union but in doing so, he destroyed the freedom that he touted so much in the above mentioned address. And really, which is more precious, our country? Or the freedoms that our country is supposed to protect and nurture?

11 comments:

Joe said...

You are the first person I have ever known who agreed with me about this guy. I have always thought that the war between the states was not civil in nature but statist. It was like holding a gun to a wife's head to keep her from filing a divorce. Forced unity is not unity at all.

M. Rigmaiden said...

The balance in being a politician is what to do when half the people feel one way and the other half feel another. How does a politician represent the common interest then?

While I do feel that he used a heavy federalist hand, I also strongly feel that slavery is a human rights violation. It was not right to sanction the abuse of people by letting it continue.

I have thought over time and time again what I would have done if I were in his position. I would have taken a different approach, but the end result would have been the end of slavery.

I feel as though the government should have compensated the slave owners for the investment they lost in the slave markets to a capped percentage, given the fact that it was legally allowed one day and then not the next. The destruction of the economy in the South was considerable and felt for many years afterward.

I also feel as though the former slaves should have been compensated by their former masters AND the government. Because of the draconian nature of Old Abe's PROCLAMATION, the backlash in the South was considerable and in many cases the hard racist feelings got worse and not better.

This is from someone whose ancestors were both slaves and slave masters.

If you honestly believe in freedom, liberty and dignity for all people you could not support a foul institution such as human slavery. And letting it exist with no intervention is tantamount to not doing anything. He had to do something, I just disagree with his approach.

The worst President ever, is the President who spent the most money so far and who is making our bankrupt status as a nation even worse.

Greywolfe said...

Disa, you know I love you and value your opinions. And your position as a descendant of slaves (and owners) is of course valued, but I have to point out the historical points that you missed. First, and foremost as far as honest abe is concerned, the war between the states had nothing at all to do (in the beginning) with slavery. In fact, the entire argument from a northern standpoint against slavery was more about power than about equality. Much as todays argument about Mexicans is. Understand, I'm not equating black slaves and mexican illegals, I'm just saying that the whole thing is connected in that the arguments being used are for power manipulation more than for human rights purposes.

If he had invaded based on a constitutionally mandated reason. For instance, if the states had already passed legislation saying you couldn't secede and violators will be bombed into the stone age, then fine. But he didn't have that right.

I'm arguing from a legal, constitutional point of view, not an emotional one. On an emotional level, I agree that the entire notion of owning a human being is reprehensible in the most extreme. But if you read period literature in the south, slavery would have died a peaceful death on it's own and it is arguable whether or not the duration would have been any longer than it was WITH the war.

Keep in mind Abes justification for invading was about the states' secession and his belief that it was open rebellion. The immancipation proclamation was aimed more at keeping the British from coming to the south's aid than any altruistic intentions.

I don't argue that any form of human trafficing is right or just. I just realize that every socialist move the federal government has made can be tied to one thing, abes war on the south. Without that Hoover wouldn't have started the socialist policies regarding the farmers, which led to FDR's new deal, and culminating in the Marxist in Chief that we currently suffer under.

If there's a flaw in the logic of my argument, please show me.

M. Rigmaiden said...

I repeat myself again, if you believe in liberty and dignity for all humans, you would acknowledge that slavery was a terrorist institution that should never have been legalized to begin with; especially not in a place that was supposed to be built upon the ideals of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

It didn't die after we defeated the British a few years later, as was hoped. Instead it flourished for a while.

This is not emotional; this is someone who takes the Bill of Rights literally as I believe most Constitutionalists do.

Your line of reasoning would allow that institution to continue if the states locally allowed it. This is unacceptable.


To say that slavery would have died peacefully is morally inadequate. What would you have done if you lived in the South at the time, and had the power to make political decisions?

Greywolfe said...

Unfortunately, our founders didn't have the forethought to include a ban on slavery in the constitution. By default it WAS legal.

There was no power granted under the constitution as written to abolish it by force of arms.

Again, your point of view is that the war was justified because the end result was immancipation. But that wasn't the reasoning behind the war in the first place. Rebellion was.

As for what I'd do if I lived in a a Southern state at the time, I would like to believe that my belief in liberty would have had me joining in one of the flourishing abolitionist movements of the time (much like the militia that I am now forming.) Given the ability to make political decisions for a state, I'd have moved to have it banned in my state.

But my point can be boiled down to this one simple point: The federal government does not have a constitutional mandate to make changes in the governing INSIDE a state.

The bill of rights doesn't allow for the Feds to do anything about slavery. Much as I would currently have to argue that the legalizing of marijuana in California is a states rights issue and the Feds have no say. This is just on the basis of constitutionality. There simply isn't any rationalization for the war.

Using a 20th century point of view to justify an illegal war in the 19th century is not logical. It would make as much sense as trying to point out to the Jews of the first century that ok'ing the crucifiction of Christ is a really bad idea.

Sure we know that slavery is heinous and wrong on every level. Many people during the period were aware of this too. Hell, dread scott was freed in 1857 by Southern courts and returned to slavery by the northern Federal courts.

An illegal war is an illegal war, regardless of the eventual outcomes. The ends do not justify the means. It's an old argument but just as relavant today as ever.

I'm a strict constitutionalist, Disa. I have a feeling that this will be one of those areas where you and I will have to agree to disagree.

For me, Lincoln will always be the root cause of socialism taking hold in America. For you he will always be the man that freed the slaves.

M. Rigmaiden said...

"The bill of rights doesn't allow for the Feds to do anything about slavery. Much as I would currently have to argue that the legalizing of marijuana in California is a states rights issue and the Feds have no say. This is just on the basis of constitutionality. There simply isn't any rationalization for the war."

The Bill of Rights is written in the spirit of those who wanted to live in a FREE and JUST society. By construction slavery was and is incompatible with those ideals.

And there you have it. Your disdain for Lincoln and his policies has clouded your mind to the fact that our country was greatly divided once he got into office and slavery was a huge issue, among other things. If you read some docs and letters from the founding fathers, they did want slavery to end within twenty years after the start of the country. This was an area of contention at the start of our nation.

You cannot say you believe in liberty and hold the ideals of our founding fathers if you believe slavery should have persisted and would have 'died peacefully'. That's a cop out.

Ultimately, you seem to be the type that would stand by and let evil occur in your back yard simply because it was legal.

I don't abide that. I believe in fighting for what's right and legality may not have much to do with what is morally right sometimes.

LIFE LIBERTY and PROPERTY cannot be upheld as values in a society when one person can own another. This is not a twentieth century mindset; this is a mindset that has been around just as long as slavery has been around.

You ought to look at the letters sent between Benjamin Banneker and Thomas Jefferson. It almost reads identically to this one.

And you are incorrect about how I view Lincoln. Like I said, I would not have taken such a draconian approach as to declare war on my brothers BUT I would have worked to push legislation that would have let the former masters and former slaves come to an amicable compromise with money.

You haven't said what you'd do at all. The only thing I see is that you are defending one of the foulest institutions that has existed on our soil simply because of your weak Federalist ideals.

This is where caring for people should trump ideology at any turn.

I am incensed even writing this!

We often look at history though our lens of personal experience.

However, if the beliefs upon which this country is based has been breached by the very government which is supposed to uphold these beliefs something has to be done.

You have said this time and time again with regards to the current administration. Be consistent.

As to the marijuana comparison, if you believed in the LIBERTY aspect of the Bill of Rights then this would not be an issue either. I don't believe marijuana is a states rights issue; I think it is a right HUMAN beings should have to consume what they wish without the government telling them how and what they should eat; a far cry different than owning and trading human beings on the open market.

Greywolfe said...

Actually disa, I DID say that I'd have fought the issue of slavery within my state. Given the ability to change it I would do so in a minute. Also, I said that I've had joined political groups at the time dedicated to ending slavery.

And I have read the period documents on our founders beliefs concerning slavery. They saw it much as I do. Evil.

M. Rigmaiden said...

Well GW, fair enough. It's just that when you said it would have died on its own, that pissed me off. We don't have to agree on everything though; I think that is what life is all about. Keep writing your beliefs and I will always say something whether we agree or not. What I like about you is your willingness to discuss other viewpoints and not get into pissing contests. The fact that you would have done something to combat slavery if you lived during that time, makes my soul much more happy than reading 'it would have died on its own'.

I once knew a guy who had just finished his PhD in chemistry. He was teaching at an all Black college in Atlanta called Clark Atlanta University. He was a white guy who was pretty nice and quirky too. Anyhow he did Civil war reenactments and he always was a confederate. Since part of my family is decended from Confederate war veterans, I asked him questions curious about his choice. He felt that slavery would have disappeared on its own in time...etc.


I saw him ten years later at San Francisco State University (small world) and he looked really good and was giving a talk on some research he'd conducted. He remembered me after all those years and I asked him if he still played a confederate in the Civil War reenactments. He said NO because when he moved to Louisiana all the guys who played Confederates were outwardly racist and he couldn't reconcile those viewpoints.

I've met guys who play Confederates for different reasons who arent racist or anything else. Hell even some Black guys fought as Confederates in the war! But I do find it interesting how his life experience changed his point of view...And personal growth is all about expanding the mind. So although I was vociferous and passionate, I don't want you to think that I am angry or that I want to stop blogging with you. Hope you have a nice night with your family or your job:)

Ducky's here said...

I'm the descendant of slaves also, but they were in Ukraine so it's a different deal.

The Civil War pitted the plantation economy of the South against the new industrial economy of the North. Now, the Southern economic model was a failure anyplace it persisted so they should show some gratitude. Slavery, as a motive for the war, was in the background until Lincoln, looking for a way to win, realized freed slaves had a critical role to play.

As we continue to ingest the poison of white southern conservative culture I wonder if we wouldn't have been better off letting them go.

Greywolfe said...

First off Ducky, it has been such a long time since you've spared any drivel for my site, I thought the Obama coolaid might actually have poisoned you to death. But like cockroaches, you seem to be resistant.

Now to your blather. I can't believe you just equated yourself with mahndisa. You are completely unlike her in ANY way. She and I may have differences of opinion and in some of those they may even get heated at times, but she is always well reasoned in her responses, even if she and I come from different points of view. You on the other hand, arive, drop a hate bomb and leave without ever contributing to the discussion. I'm really not sure why you even bother.

Now for the only thing in your entire comment that comes close to deserving rebutal; to boil the war between the states down to a pissing contest between agriculture and industry shows your continuing lack of proper education.

The issue for the southern states had nothing to do with economics. It was about the right of each sovereign state to govern themselves as they saw fit. And about the North's decision to enforce their will on the South.

The rest of your comment really doesn't deserve response so I won't say more.

Although, I will say that my previous admonitions against your literary version of the burning sack of feces should be brought back to mind.

Give a reasoned argument or please read and move on. I really don't care to have your particular form of racism here.

Tim Kerns said...

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm of the opinion that we should change the name of our annual "back slapping" party to the "Aaron Burr Day Dinner." Consider this name for your list: G.W. Bush.

Web Site Hit Counter
discount climbing gear