Abraham Lincoln

Ordered, That the 22d day of February, 1862, be the day for a general movement of the land and naval forces of the United States against the insurgent forces; that especially the army at and about Fortress Monroe. the Army of the Potomac, the Army of Western Virginia, the army near Munfordville, Ky., the army and flotilla at Cairo, and a naval force in the Gulf of Mexico be ready to move on that day.

That all other forces, both land and naval, with their respective commanders, obey existing orders for the time and be ready to obey additional orders when duly given.

That the heads of Departments, and especially the Secretaries of War and of the Navy, with all their subordinates, and the General in Chief, with all other commanders and subordinates of land and naval forces, will severally be held to their strict and full responsibilities for prompt execution of this order.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

Only so far as we focused on the same sentence in this article. I know nothing else about Chili.

“…I'm not sure whether your comment was directed at me or the author of the article.”

My comment is directed at anyone who can support or justify the conclusion of this article that only, “…the right wing can never forgive [Lincoln],” though I think it more appropriate that the person who wrote this statement should be the one to support it.

“Democrats in the ante -bellum South were a much different breed than we think of democrats today. They were Jeffersonian or Jacksonian democrats.”

The left has changed over time. I agree. That’s kind of why I used the phrase “…of that time.” But, when did the right wing change so much from their Lincolnian roots as to never forgive him? Or, did Lincoln not have significant political support from his right? Did he have significant support from the left?

The body of this article covers Lincoln’s critics on both the left and the right. But, the summary conclusion states ONLY, “…the right wing can never forgive [Lincoln],” and it states, “…THAT slavery came to an end,” not HOW Lincoln ended it. It is understood that Lincoln went through some Constitutional red lights to end slavery. But, why is it that the right, and only the right, is unforgiving that Lincoln ended slavery? And, if it’s all about Lincoln running Constitutional red lights, is this one-sided statement implying that the left has forgiven him for ending slavery because he over-stepped the Constitution to do so?

The conclusive statement contrasted with the article’s main body is so one-sided and unsupported that it SEEMS to come out of left field (pun cautiously intended). So, I posted my request to please substantiate it. Please can someone specify who exactly will never forgive Lincoln for ending slavery? List their names. Show the evidence. Make the cases that support the statement.

It seems a bit emphatic, me repeating and rephrasing my question. It is not that big of an issue for me. I only found and read this article while attempting to re-discover the details of the Fifth Lincoln- Douglas Debate, for which I thank you very much; I doubted that I would find it without a thorough academic search digesting many volumes.

Democrats in the ante -bellum South were a much different breed than we think of democrats today. They were Jeffersonian or Jacksonian democrats. Or, power to the people, rather than to the government, democrats, but they also had divisions among their ranks. Some wanted a strong Union based on a lesser centralized government paradigm, others preferred secession and the re-establishment of a new constitution; one which gave States more sovereignty and would permanently establish slavery. Preserving slavery was the core issue of secession, no matter how much revisionists try to avoid this fact.

As far as Christians fighting against slavery, that all depended on one's Christian upbringing and teaching. In the South Christians were taught for the most part that slavery was good and ordained by God, therefore it was righteous. In the North it was vehemently condemned from the pulpit. It took a Civil War to resolve these national contentions and divisions, which then led to the bitter backlashes and covert operations of anti-government and anti-black societies (KKK) breeding among of those who lost the war. Reconstruction abuses fueled these flames as well.

The bitterness, the hating, the attempts at revisionism are still ongoing in the 21st century, as you can see from a number of posts on this site, but especially among literature streaming out of southern nationalist movements and confederate heritage groups. But as already mentioned, there are a few well schooled and honest dissenters which bring up legitimate questions on constitutionality. If Abraham Lincoln were alive today he would not have a problem with these proper constitutional questions and challenges. His problem resulted when enemies of the constitution tried to use the freedoms of the constitution to destroy the Union. This crafty manipulations on the part of these subversives, which were incessant during the time of the Civil War, are what forced his hand to do things, like suspend habeas corpus. This in turn brought serious outcries against him from various quarters.

I know this response was long, but considering the scope and dimension of the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln's presidential and constitutional role, it really is quite concise.

Are you related to Chili Dogg, a few posts above? Anyway I'm not sure whether your comment was directed at me or the author of the article. I would like to respond if I may.

First off I agree with anyone who is complaining about, or criticizing, any author, of any given article, when said author attempts to take a historical reality and then make a conjecture as to why a certain modern day political group is 'probably' behaving the way they do based on that historical reality. We all tend to do it at times in a passing comment, and on rare occasions the speculation fits. But for the most part, especially in a professional essay, or in depth historical treatise, the writer needs to avoid this sort of extrapolation.

The excerpt that you cited is a classic case of blurring historical facts with present racial attitudes. I would like to personally state, The right wing does not hate Abraham Lincoln because he ended slavery. Most of the right wing, except for anti- Lincoln radicals, love Abraham Lincoln. However, there are many conservatives who blame Abraham Lincoln for the transfer of so much power to a centralized federal government post bellum; but this to is a misguided interpretation of history. These critics cite Lincoln's enormous use of presidential powers, at times above and beyond constitutional limits. Some of the more scholarly and astute Lincoln critics delineate excellent constitutional arguments; yet equally competent historians have answered their charges in a manner so as to acquit the sixteenth president of flagrant, or tyrannical, abuses during the course of his administration. Non biased historians can furthermore prove that it was not Abraham Lincoln's extreme use of presidential powers, but national conditions and post-bellum social forces after his presidency that instigated an increase in the size of the U.S. Federal government. A clear pattern throughout history is as follows: When the people behave, the government stays small; When people increase in numbers and misbehave, the government gets big. An easy to read and enlightening book on Lincoln's use of power is 'Lincoln's Constitution,' by Daniel Farber.

Although very intellectual, Lincoln was not a book worm, or a strict constitutional constructionist to the point of executive paralysis like his predecessor. James Buchanan (Lincoln's predecessor) was a paralyzed strict constructionist, and could be likened to the driver of a vehicle whose house was in flames, but decided that he must strictly obey all the traffic lights along the way, waiting for each one to turn green before he could proceed in his effort to reach home and family. Most historians will rightly argue that Lincoln went though a few red lights, but that he did it with caution and for good reason. It was all in his motive. Lincoln did not assume executive powers, and do what he did, to play the tyrant as detractors claim. A thorough study of his life and character completely destroys all accusations of this nature.

Here's one concise essay on Abraham Lincoln in Perspective:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B7lAWzevz5aKM2YwZWM3ZGUtMWQ3NC00ZWNkLWE4ZTktMTlkZjNiMmVjMWI0&hl=en_US

And here's the Lincoln-Douglas debate on the question of inconsistency you requested. It starts around the 4th or 5th paragraph. Lincoln's rebuttal is further down the page. Good reading and God bless.

Fifth Lincoln- Douglas Debate October 7, 1858

http://history1800s.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=history1800s&cdn=education&tm=123&f=00&tt=3&bt=1&bts=1&st=11&zu=http%3A//www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate5.htm

What scant and vague knowledge I have on this topic does not jive with this statement. I would like to read some substantiation for this statement, please.

Was the Southern Democrat demographic of that time not the wellspring of resentments and the primary source of backlash groups like the KKK? Weren’t the majority of Christians of that time fighting to end slavery? Lincoln himself a Whig turned Republican and Douglas was the Democrat.

I understand that racism is a human failing and neither political party has a monopoly on it. But, my current understanding of this history is the left-leaning preponderance for wanting to maintain the status quo of slavery and second-class citizenry of blacks.

I’m not just being politely modest in estimating my knowledge, here. My pursuit to enlighten my ignorance led me to this article.

My knowledge on this may be 5th grade level, but my wisdom in life is not. I cannot respect any teacher, or their teachings, when I smell bias. So, PLEASE substantiate your summarizing statement.

You can start by substantiating which “right wingers,” then or now, have expressed such undying lack of forgiveness or any other form of negativity directed at Lincoln's accomplishment.

ON A SECOND, UNRELATED TOPIC:
I am specifically looking to refresh or confirm my vague memory of a Lincoln-Douglas campaign incident.

In one debate, Lincoln said one thing and then in another debate, he said the opposite or something that conflicted. Douglas criticized him on his inconsistency. Lincoln’s response, with all his statesmanship eloquence, was exceptionally well stated. But, I can’t recall or find any of the specifics.

Can you fill in the missing details or point me to a source that will?

Thanks.

An honest evaluation of Abraham Lincoln's life – rather than revisionist attempts to exacerbate Lincoln's faults and weaknesses, or their focusing on his controversial executive decisions, in order to push their agenda forward – show his character to be one of pragmatism and intelligence; one of caring for his fellow man.

More importantly, regardless of who owned slaves or who didn't, regardless of taxes and anything else the South had enough of, the record is indisputable that the South seceded to protect the institution of slavery and not for any other reason. Honest research will show that the dominating concern and diliberations in the various state legislatures which chose secession was all about slavery and their right to preserve it at all cost.

No! Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant. No! the North did not invade the South at all, and certainly not per revisionist view points and reasoning. But the North did send troops to stand against a reckless insurrection, and to protect federal property.

What triggered off the war? The Southern aristocrats – which controlled their respective state legislatures – refused to work things out with the North by not agreeing to keep their immoral practice out of the territories. Not spreading slavery into the territories was the only point that Lincoln would not budge on. Gradually phasing out slavery, or letting it die of its own lack of political ability to survive, Lincoln did support. That record is also clear.

Your last comment about WWII is not a valid debating point. As already mentioned and historically proven, the war was never about freeing the slaves, that is a sleight of hand that revisionists push, but it was about an all out effort to preserve and expand slavery, and choosing rebellion, secession, and war to accomplish that end.

http://www.writersintouch.com/article_view.php?articleid=6736