Was Lincoln the great man his memorial would suggest?

[BLAZER PROPHET]

He was the only President to take this Nation into Civil War. I have always ask Why? And where did he get the authority? I see nothing in the Constitution giving the President or Congress for that matter, the right to object to States leaving the Union.
Even if you can come up with plausible answers to these questions, was war the wise solution to the issues?

The War cost about Nine billion dollars total and about 1.1 million lives. At that time the US was the first Nation to spend over1 billion dollars in a year.

Was freeing the Slaves worth this cost? Assuming this was the root cause of the war, Geez the cost was high. There were a little over 3 million slaves at that time so Lincoln killed a person for every three slaves freed and spent $3000 for each slave freed. That is a preposterous price per slave
when the average going price in 1860 was $450 at the market.

What sort of advisors did Lincoln have? Why didn't anyone suggest just buying the slaves and setting them free??? We have done that with most of the commercial fishing fleets, without a fuss.

Lincoln met the most challenging crisis moment in our nation's history with great wisdom, courage and a heart for the union as such. He was a man without peer and one of our two greatest Presidents.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Marazul is just upset that the Blazers don't own LMA.

 

[MarAzul]

Lincoln met the most challenging crisis moment in our nation's history with great wisdom, courage and a heart for the union as such. He was a man without peer and one of our two greatest Presidents.

Heck Lincoln was an advocate of the high Tariffs on the machines the south needed. They were being forced to pay way over the top for machines the North made due to the Tariffs on imports.

Shoot the man went against the Constitution in about every way known. Suspended Habeas Corpus, tax income even though a direct tax is prohibited in the Constitution, quartered troops in the homes of civilians. Perhaps the worse thing was his blatant 1st amendment violations
Where in the Constitution does it say he ever has the power to censor newspapers?

Where did he divine the power to go to war with a State just because they don't want to be in the US? Kill a million countryman?? Holy Jesus, the man thought he was god all mighty!

http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/history.php


Here is a point of interest. The Supreme Court upheld the Individual mandate in the Obama Care law, declaring the penalty levied on a person that does not have healthcare a tax. Congress can make taxes, but this tax has to be a direct tax since it is levied on an individual. Direct taxes are specifically prohibited, that is why the 16th amendment was passed, to permit the income tax. But only the income tax was covered, the healthcare tax has to be in direct violation of the Constitution. Some young fella should challenge this law forcing you to buy insurance or pay the "TAX". Show Obama he isn't Lincoln, you won't stand for it.

 

[MarAzul]

Marazul is just upset that the Blazers don't own LMA.

Under contract is fine, I like it that way and here in Portland too.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Heck Lincoln was an advocate of the high Tariffs on the machines the south needed. They were being forced to pay way over the top for machines the North made due to the Tariffs on imports.

Shoot the man went against the Constitution in about every way known. Suspended Habeas Corpus, tax income even though a direct tax is prohibited in the Constitution, quartered troops in the homes of civilians. Perhaps the worse thing was his blatant 1st amendment violations
Where in the Constitution does it say he ever has the power to censor newspapers?

Where did he divine the power to go to war with a State just because they don't want to be in the US? Kill a million countryman?? Holy Jesus, the man thought he was god all mighty!

http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/history.php


Here is a point of interest. The Supreme Court upheld the Individual mandate in the Obama Care law, declaring the penalty levied on a person that does not have healthcare a tax. Congress can make taxes, but this tax has to be a direct tax since it is levied on an individual. Direct taxes are specifically prohibited, that is why the 16th amendment was passed, to permit the income tax. But only the income tax was covered, the healthcare tax has to be in direct violation of the Constitution. Some young fella should challenge this law forcing you to buy insurance or pay the "TAX". Show Obama he isn't Lincoln, you won't stand for it.

Interesting choice of words. I think someone already beat you to it.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Heck Lincoln was an advocate of the high Tariffs on the machines the south needed. They were being forced to pay way over the top for machines the North made due to the Tariffs on imports.

Shoot the man went against the Constitution in about every way known. Suspended Habeas Corpus, tax income even though a direct tax is prohibited in the Constitution, quartered troops in the homes of civilians. Perhaps the worse thing was his blatant 1st amendment violations
Where in the Constitution does it say he ever has the power to censor newspapers?

Where did he divine the power to go to war with a State just because they don't want to be in the US? Kill a million countryman?? Holy Jesus, the man thought he was god all mighty!

http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/history.php


Here is a point of interest. The Supreme Court upheld the Individual mandate in the Obama Care law, declaring the penalty levied on a person that does not have healthcare a tax. Congress can make taxes, but this tax has to be a direct tax since it is levied on an individual. Direct taxes are specifically prohibited, that is why the 16th amendment was passed, to permit the income tax. But only the income tax was covered, the healthcare tax has to be in direct violation of the Constitution. Some young fella should challenge this law forcing you to buy insurance or pay the "TAX". Show Obama he isn't Lincoln, you won't stand for it.

No disrespect, but you have no sense of history. Lincoln must be judged based on the time he was President and the culture of those times- not yours at this time.

And no great man is without fault. His task was greater than any you can even imagine and he governed as he saw fit to preserve the union and ultimately ending slavery (although not his original intent). He stands near the very top of the greatest leaders in all of world history and his place there cannot be denied.

 

[santeesioux]

Didn't Lincoln have a gay lover tho? You'd think MarAzul would have a bigger problem with that.

 

[MarAzul]

No disrespect, but you have no sense of history. Lincoln must be judged based on the time he was President and the culture of those times- not yours at this time.

And no great man is without fault. His task was greater than any you can even imagine and he governed as he saw fit to preserve the union and ultimately ending slavery (although not his original intent). He stands near the very top of the greatest leaders in all of world history and his place there cannot be denied.

You do have the Carl Sandburg version of Lincoln down pat.

 

[PapaG]

James Buchanan was the President who lead the country to civil war, Lincoln was the one who won the war.

The civil war wasn’t fought to free slaves, that just happened to be one of the outcomes.

The Emancipation Proclamation escalated the Civil War and led to the battle of Gettysburg in May 1863. To deny that is revisionist history. The role of slavery played a huge role in the beginning of the war, too, and it became what the war was about after Lincoln bravely issued the EP.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

The Emancipation Proclamation escalated the Civil War and led to the battle of Gettysburg in May 1863. To deny that is revisionist history. The role of slavery played a huge role in the beginning of the war, too, and it became what the war was about after Lincoln bravely issued the EP.

You know it's true when everyone agrees with PapaG

 

[Denny Crane]

Regardless of why South Carolina said it was seceding in its "declaration of independence," Lincoln initially fought the war to keep the union whole. From everything I've read over the years, he would have been willing to codify slavery into law further to save the union.

The civil war was not fought to free the slaves, as Draco wrote. Quite the opposite, it was fought (by the South) to assure slavery remained in force.

 

[Denny Crane]

And Gettysburg was fought in July.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

You do have the Carl Sandburg version of Lincoln down pat.

Very good!

I have read about Lincoln extensively (reading Team of Rivals now) and Sandburg was OK but not my favorite.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Regardless of why South Carolina said it was seceding in its "declaration of independence," Lincoln initially fought the war to keep the union whole. From everything I've read over the years, he would have been willing to codify slavery into law further to save the union.

The civil war was not fought to free the slaves, as Draco wrote. Quite the opposite, it was fought (by the South) to assure slavery remained in force.

Denny knows his history. Now if only he could run a calmer message board...

 

[Denny Crane]

I think the war was fought over the railroads.

You see, there was a divide in congress between slave states and non slave states. The divide became greater and much heavier in the non slave states' favor due to the missouri compromise, which stated that no new state entering the union could be a slave state.

Meanwhile, the government was granting land in the North to build a complete railway system. If you look at a map of the railroads from back then, you'll see the railroads in the south had short lines that went from Atlanta to Charleston. You'll see the railroads in the north run coast to coast, and Chicago (famous for its stockyards) the hub of much of it.

Consider the economic benefit of being able to get your goods to market in the North vs. having to use wagon train to get your cotton or tobacco to the Mississippi river or to the coast.

 

[MarAzul]

I think the war was fought over the railroads.

You see, there was a divide in congress between slave states and non slave states. The divide became greater and much heavier in the non slave states' favor due to the missouri compromise, which stated that no new state entering the union could be a slave state.

Meanwhile, the government was granting land in the North to build a complete railway system. If you look at a map of the railroads from back then, you'll see the railroads in the south had short lines that went from Atlanta to Charleston. You'll see the railroads in the north run coast to coast, and Chicago (famous for its stockyards) the hub of much of it.

Consider the economic benefit of being able to get your goods to market in the North vs. having to use wagon train to get your cotton or tobacco to the Mississippi river or to the coast.

River and Canal traffic move the goods in the South to the Atlantic or Gulf ports. However, the Railroad was the hallmark of the industrial North and industrial barons. Tariffs protected all of their production and more, even the products not produced in the north. The Southern States paid these tariffs on their imports which provide revenue to the Federal government which spent the money largely in the industrializing North.

This Tariff protected industrialization was of the Hamilton economic philosophy, the Whig party as the name changed to Republican. It also supported dominance of the Federal government over State rule as the Constitution defines. The South was predominately followers of the Jeffersonian Republic State rule government as opposed to the Hamiltonian Federal system. Lincoln was the first Republican President since the party changed the name from Hamilton's Whig party. Basically the Industrializing North was exploiting the Agrarian South and the election of Lincoln, a hard core Hamiltonian Tariff supporting Whig tipped the cart over.

The Republicans of that day are not the same party as today, both parties have nearly reversed there philosophy since the days of Lincoln. The Republicans held sway for many years until Wilson managed to make the Democrats look more like Hamiltonians, Then the Republicans began to counter by becoming more like Jeffersonian Democrat/Republicans. Franklin Roosevelt/Truman-Kennedy/Johnson long run forced the morphing of the Republicans farther toward the Jeffersonian philosophy with the complete reversal of the South from Democrat to Republican.

During Wison's time the Hamiltonians Preferred the Label "Progressive" until it gathered a bit of ill will, but the term has made a resurgence again. I view Lincoln as the first Progress, Teddy Roosevelt the next (even though Republican).

Actually the War is not over, but Lincoln was the only President to take the battle to armed conflict up to this point and I am not at all sure how this act will close.