Tide Fans Opinions about Abraham Lincoln

[Tidewater]

comparing 1776 and the 1860s is apples v. oranges

Slab had questioned the viability of the Confederate States as an independent nation-state and had labelled the Confederacy a "plutocracy led by a small cabal," etc. What yardstick should we use to evaluate Slab characterization? Should we compare the southern states of 1861 to the US of today? If so, then the US of 1860 comes off looking not so good either.
How big does a nascent country have to be to be considered viable? My point was that, whatever yardstick one chooses to use, the Confederate States were better off than the US had been when they started their independence. I believe that the US proved to be viable, although the jury is still out on that.

 

[MegaVars]

He was a pretty good dude. If if weren't for him, we wouldn't have the Lincoln Monument, the $5 bill, there'd only be three heads on Mt Rushmore, we'd only have a one sided penny, and I certainly couldn't pimp my Continental Mark V at the yacht club.

Least you forget about them lawgs you played with as a kid, and them cornhuskers wouldn't have a place to put their college.

 

[92tide]

Slab had questioned the viability of the Confederate States as an independent nation-state and had labelled the Confederacy a "plutocracy led by a small cabal," etc. What yardstick should we use to evaluate Slab characterization? Should we compare the southern states of 1861 to the US of today? If so, then the US of 1860 comes off looking not so good either.
How big does a nascent country have to be to be considered viable? My point was that, whatever yardstick one chooses to use, the Confederate States were better off than the US had been when they started their independence. I believe that the US proved to be viable, although the jury is still out on that.

still apples and oranges, imo. one has nothing to do with the other.

how about comparing it to the northern states of the time if you really need such a comparison, or if you can find another nascent country in the 1850's-60's that may provide some insight as well. but, honestly, i dont understand all of the fetishisation of the confederacy that goes on here.

 

[rizolltizide]

Least you forget about them lawgs you played with as a kid, and them cornhuskers wouldn't have a place to put their college.

Indeed. See how easily I forget important things.

 

[MegaVars]

Indeed. See how easily I forget important things.

I'm kinda iffy on the Rushmore thing...If no Lincoln, I'm thinking Coach Bryant would have got dibs.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Considering in 1860 the South accounted for 2/3rd of the world's supply of cotton (known as 'white gold'), I find it interesting some folks don't think the confederacy would have succeeded.

The question is how the north would have succeeded with the ample food supply flowing from down south.

 

[92tide]

The question is how the north would have succeeded with the ample food supply flowing from down south.

i read a book somewhere that they had unearthed the recipe for soylent green in eli whitney's notes. luckily, they didn't need to play that card

 

[cbi1972]

Also, as an aside, I always think it is strange when secessionists complain about violations of the Constitution.

Why?

 

[DiamondDust]

Considering in 1860 the South accounted for 2/3rd of the world's supply of cotton (known as 'white gold'), I find it interesting some folks don't think the confederacy would have succeeded.

The question is how the north would have succeeded with the ample food supply flowing from down south.

Because of wartime actions from the Union and Confederacy, Europe was buying their cotton from Egypt at that point. After the war and after the Confederacy lost all bargaining power they had, the price bottomed out and Europe went back to buying American cotton. Even if the Confederacy had remained, all Britain had to do was go to Egypt.

 

[bamanut_aj]

are y'all talking about the dude with the beard and that weird hat? He was like a president or something?

 

[92tide]

are y'all talking about the dude with the beard and that weird hat? He was like a president or something?

nah, just some hipster down in little five points

 

[bamanut_aj]

nah, just some hipster down in little five points

the gay guy that sells the pretty little bongs?

 

[92tide]

the gay guy that sells the pretty little bongs?

he's not gay, he's asexual, ironically so. get it right, suit

 

[Tidewater]

Also, as an aside, I always think it is strange when secessionists complain about violations of the Constitution.

I do not believe secession violates the Constitution in any way. The Constitution places restrictive limits on the Federal governments powers (it delegates limited enumerated powers to the Federal government and denies to the Federal government all those not enumerated), and places some permissive limits on States' powers (it restricts the states from engaging in some specified actions, leaving the states otherwise free to do what they want). Silence in the former case means an absence of the delegation of the power and the unconstitutionality of its exercise, whereas silence in the latter case means reservation of the unspecified power. At least, that was the agreement the people entered into in 1787-1790.
Opposing secession my military force, and replacing elected republican state governments with appointed military ones, clearly violates the Constitution, however.

The larger issue that war was fought over was whether the Federal government had the power to define the limits of its own powers or not. The southern states (citing the original understanding of the Founders*) asserted that the Federal government ultimately did not possess that power. Abraham Lincoln (citing his own novel interpretation) asserted that he did in fact possess that power.

* James Wilson, in the Pennsylvania Convention: "in this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Iredell of North Carolina: "The Congress cannot assume any other powers than those expressly given them, without a palpable violation of the Constitution. ... The powers of the government are particularly enumerated and defined: they can claim no others but such as are so enumerated." Madison said, "Who are parties to it (the Federal compact)? The people—but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties." Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution: "the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers."

 

[rizolltizide]

are y'all talking about the dude with the beard and that weird hat? He was like a president or something?

No , that dude is a chimney sweep.

 

[Tidewater]

still apples and oranges, imo. one has nothing to do with the other.

how about comparing it to the northern states of the time if you really need such a comparison, or if you can find another nascent country in the 1850's-60's that may provide some insight as well. but, honestly, i dont understand all of the fetishisation of the confederacy that goes on here.

I don't make a fetish out of the Confederate States. That government was guilty of its share of sins. I do, however, embrace the principle of self-government and the idea that that the people of the United States placed limits on the powers of the Federal government, which that government proceeded to violate pretty ruthlessly in 1861 (ruthlessness being evidence by 265,000 deaths, 3 x that in wounds, the destruction of millions of dollars in private property, and the crushing of self-determination of millions)

The Lincoln myth that surrounds the man's legacy, on the other hand, is something of a fetish. What I find remarkable is the tendency of many, like O'Reilly, to overlook the man's obvious racism, his willingness to ruthlessly pursue Republican Party interests and northern business interests, his callous disregard for the common humanity in pursuit of those objectives. Yes, Lincoln was (moderately) anti-slavery, but if one wants a more humane anti-slavery figure, I would suggest Lysander Spooner or John Quincy Adams or Harriet Tubman. At least they avoided the enormities that Lincoln committed.

 

[It's On A Slab]

I don't make a fetish out of the Confederate States. That government was guilty of its share of sins. I do, however, embrace the principle of self-government and the idea that that the people of the United States placed limits on the powers of the Federal government, which that government proceeded to violate pretty ruthlessly in 1861 (ruthlessness being evidence by 265,000 deaths, 3 x that in wounds, the destruction of millions of dollars in private property, and the crushing of self-determination of millions)

The Lincoln myth that surrounds the man's legacy, on the other hand, is something of a fetish. What I find remarkable is the tendency of many, like O'Reilly, to overlook the man's obvious racism, his willingness to ruthlessly pursue Republican Party interests and northern business interests, his callous disregard for the common humanity in pursuit of those objectives. Yes, Lincoln was (moderately) anti-slavery, but if one wants a more humane anti-slavery figure, I would suggest Lysander Spooner or John Quincy Adams or Harriet Tubman. At least they avoided the enormities that Lincoln committed.

Neither Spooner, Adams, nor Tubman were thrust into the maelstrom (with so much responsibility) that Lincoln found himself in.

When you go to war, property gets destroyed, stuff gets broken and people get killed. The South asked for it by starting the rebellion in the first place, and it's not like they didn't do a lot of killing and rampaging on their own.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Neither Spooner, Adams, nor Tubman were thrust into the maelstrom (with so much responsibility) that Lincoln found himself in.

When you go to war, property gets destroyed, stuff gets broken and people get killed. The South asked for it by starting the rebellion in the first place, and it's not like they didn't do a lot of killing and rampaging on their own.

Fighting to (constitutionally) leave and fighting to (unconstitutionally) force one to stay are different, no?

 

[It's On A Slab]

Fighting to (constitutionally) leave and fighting to (unconstitutionally) force one to stay are different, no?

See my post re: Monday morning QB'ing.

 

[Bodhisattva]

See my post re: Monday morning QB'ing.

You're going to have to explain your thought process here.