Wisdom for our time, from Honest Abe’s time
Of the more than 40 presidents to occupy the White House, Abraham Lincoln was the only one whose presence was essential to the nation’s future.* The Great Cataclysm that occurred under his leadership had been building for decades and had become inevitable; had it occurred under those who came before him, or those who came after him, the Union as we know it would not have survived.
With that in mind, I’ve collected some pearls of wisdom from Honest Abe that hold particular relevance for our own times and challenges:
“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise — with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”
“The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves — in their separate, and individual capacities.”
“There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.”
“I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him.”
“I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else”
—————————
*And yes, I confess that is artfully worded. We did have one other essential president, George Washington. Like Lincoln, he was uniquely qualified for the time in which he served.
But you see, Washington never lived in the White House.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
553 comments Add your comment
TBS
February 18th, 2013
5:36 pm
td
There is truth to what you say, no doubt.
End of the day, the majority of the “leaders” in the south or elsewhere wanted nothing more than status quo..
“Free at last………”
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 18th, 2013
5:38 pm
It took three generations for any of it, to return to any recognizable beauty
Apparently that gas stop on I16 (Dublin) has not caught up.
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
February 18th, 2013
5:39 pm
Its anger is still seething just below the surface to this day. There is no great love in the White Southern Man’s heart for good ole Abe.
Three words – GET OVER IT!!
It’s been 200+ years! DANG! Abe begat violence WITH violence — not everyone is going to turn the other cheek.
Abe wasn’t perfect and war is hell — what else is new?
JamVet
February 18th, 2013
5:41 pm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo12.html
Nod did I write that he did.
But he did allow the link to it.
The entire premise that Lincoln was some demonic dictator and that the poor misunderstood, albeit murderous, slave-holders and traitors in the south were his victims and the good guys is nuttier than a romanticized fruitcake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kansas_Civil_War_units
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 18th, 2013
5:42 pm
DDR, well if Lincoln had just used drones instead of fire…
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
February 18th, 2013
5:44 pm
DDR, well if Lincoln had just used drones instead of fire…
Heh heh heh…..
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
February 18th, 2013
5:45 pm
Well folks I’m outta here for the evening.
Take care all!
josef
February 18th, 2013
5:47 pm
K’CHAK
“Lew Rockwell
There’s your sign.”
That was my own first thought, too…the contentions of the second part of the citation, however, are born out fully in the historical record…
kayaker 71
February 18th, 2013
5:47 pm
We might remind all of you liberals that Lincoln was the father of the Republican party. It was through the efforts of the first Republican president that, with the help of a few hundred thousand Union troops, that slavery was abolished and emancipation was started. How soon we forget.
комиссар (Occupation)
February 18th, 2013
5:53 pm
Bernie: “It took three generations for any of it, to return to any recognizable beauty. Its anger is still seething just below the surface to this day. There is no great love in the White Southern Man’s heart for good ole Abe.”
Tough for Southerners to face the fact that they were in opposition to arguably the only truly great American who’s ever lived. I get that.
td
February 18th, 2013
5:54 pm
DebbieDoRight – A Do Right Woman
February 18th, 2013
5:34 pm
Do a little research and you will see that everything in the article was factual. Now Lincoln supporters will say he was “saving the union” and he did but at what cost?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 18th, 2013
5:55 pm
k71, have you talked to td about that Lincoln thing?
josef
February 18th, 2013
5:58 pm
History is written by the winners. Always has been, always will be.
td
February 18th, 2013
5:58 pm
JamVet
February 18th, 2013
5:41 pm
“The entire premise that Lincoln was some demonic dictator and that the poor misunderstood, albeit murderous, slave-holders and traitors in the south were his victims and the good guys”
Never said that. Lincoln threw out the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and was basically a dictator. If you feel the outcome was justification for what happened then that is fine but those are the facts.
F. Sinkwich
February 18th, 2013
5:59 pm
“I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good.”
Anybody forward this quote to O’bozo?
Oh, that’s right, he never listens to Republicans — he knows best.
Matti
February 18th, 2013
5:59 pm
I’ve read that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. (Santayana?) In the modern age of search engines and information overload, however, I don’t think that’s the case anymore. It seems like people just pick what they want from history to justify whatever they want to do or believe now. Our access to historical data has never been greater, but in the end, I don’t think it will save us from anything, least of all ourselves. That’s how it looks from where I’m sitting, anyway.
TBS
February 18th, 2013
5:59 pm
td and kayaker
To minds that I would love to just sit back and listen….
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 18th, 2013
6:00 pm
History is written by the winners. Always has been, always will be.
4 out of 5 MAJOR historians agree.
Mama Says
February 18th, 2013
6:02 pm
Kam,
What is your real purpose ?
You will not have a debate in anything, its just BS out of you. U refuse to answer any questions and spurt crap just so you can read what u write.
You and I both know that democrats controlled the house and the senate in the first two years Obama was president yet you decide to parse my words and question my use of the word chambers.
Really, what’s your point. I may well be a loud mouth but I have indicated that as a con I would support the environmental efforts libs make along with supporting gay adoption, medical exception for abortions and a reduction in military spending. You cannot allow yourself to have any kind of discussion.
It’s nit Pickens hyperbole that you spout and you are example of exactly why we can’t get a functioning government.
TBS
February 18th, 2013
6:02 pm
Two not to, but I just wanted to read these heavyweights thoughts..
They always astound and perplex
JamVet
February 18th, 2013
6:03 pm
Lincoln is beloved because he was an early liberal/progressive. And because he was on the morally sound side of the issue.
He chose the path of abolitionists and other liberals like Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Angelina Grimké and John Brown.
Men and women of inestimable courage and vision.
That he and the only other modern liberal Republican, Theodore Roosevelt, are both on Mount Rushmore is tribute to the liberal philosophies which they championed.
Philosophies which the current Republican Party have long forgotten and have tossed away.
And why they have a barely believable (in this day and age) 2% black membership.
The right wing’s longstanding “Negro problem” (along with their “woman problem”) will likely be their ultimate undoing…
josef
February 18th, 2013
6:03 pm
Matti
@ 5:59
Yep.
K’CHAK
Matti
February 18th, 2013
6:04 pm
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” — George Orwell, re-purposed by Rage Against the Machine
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 18th, 2013
6:05 pm
You and I both know that democrats controlled the house and the senate in the first two years Obama was president yet you decide to parse my words and question my use of the word chambers.
Take a civics class, please.
josef
February 18th, 2013
6:05 pm
“I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth”.
–Theodore Roosevelt, Champion of Liberal Philosophy
комиссар (Occupation)
February 18th, 2013
6:06 pm
td: “Now Lincoln supporters will say he was “saving the union” and he did but at what cost?”
At what cost? At a cost made unavoidable by the imperative that the North American slave society be destroyed at the end of a bayonet. Which was done.
mbtc
February 18th, 2013
6:08 pm
Stevie R.:”I think ranking presidents is useless. Some of course are clearly not worthy. Seems to me how the issues of that time handled and how the country was left to the next occupant is most important…”
Which is why GWB is far and above the worst. And Clinton could be said to be one of the best.
Brosephus™
February 18th, 2013
6:09 pm
We might remind all of you liberals that Lincoln was the father of the Republican party. It was through the efforts of the first Republican president that, with the help of a few hundred thousand Union troops, that slavery was abolished and emancipation was started. How soon we forget.
And now for the rest of the story…
LILY-WHITE MOVEMENT. The “lily-white” movement began within the Republican party after the Civil War. From the first days of Reconstruction, a fight developed not only in Texas but across the South between white and black factions for control of the newly formed party. As white GOP leaders sought “respectability” among Southern voters and a conviction grew that continued “black and tan” involvement thwarted expansion of the party, the lily-white Republicans began an organized effort to drive blacks from positions of party leadership. Though Texas blacks appealed to Northern party managers to halt the movement, lily-whiteism flourished because Republican presidents after 1865 wanted approval from the Southern white masses. The term lily-white apparently originated at the 1888 Republican state convention in Fort Worth, when a group of whites attempted to expel a number of black and tan delegates. Norris Wright Cuney, the black Texas leader who controlled the state party from 1883 until his death in 1896, promptly labeled the insurgents “lily-whites,” and the term was soon applied to similar groups throughout the South.
—————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily-White_Movement
From the beginning of Reconstruction conservative Southern white factions fought against factions of blacks and liberal white factions for control of the party. White Republican leaders became increasingly concerned about the exodus of white voters in the South and other parts of the country, some out of concerns for the strength of the party and some for purely racist reasons.
Following the death of Texas Republican leader Edmund J. Davis in 1883, black civil rights leader Norris Wright Cuney rose to the Republican chairmanship in Texas becoming the national committeeman in 1889.[8] This development, among others, led to the Lily-White Movement’s becoming a more organized, nationwide effort.
Ergo, Conservative Whites ran the Blacks out of the Republican Party and started doing so before Lincoln’s body was cold to the touch. The “Party of Lincoln” isn’t something that White’s should espouse, when they don’t know the entire history of their party. The all out race to go “conservative” doesn’t help either given the history of Republican Conservatives and conservatives in general.
Brosephus™
February 18th, 2013
6:11 pm
History is written by the winners. Always has been, always will be.
4 out of 5 MAJOR historians agree.
The 5th one called out sick the day the poll was taken. That’s why it’s only 4 out of 5.
JamVet
February 18th, 2013
6:12 pm
The records of the most beloved American presidents and other historical figures are viewed by the intellectually honest both in terms of the totality of their records and the times in which they occurred.
If Lincoln and Washington and TR and FDR and LBJ and GWB are all murderous demons, so are we all.
At least to the extent that we did not do as much as Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass and John Brown to stop any of them.
td
February 18th, 2013
6:13 pm
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 18th, 2013
6:05 pm
Since you seem to always be supporting the group, this is for you:
Lincoln disregarded the Constitution by “discovering” presidential powers in the Constitution that no previous president had ever found before. He claimed that being President and Commander-in-Chief allowed him carte blanche in the name of “war powers.” Lincoln, among other usurpations and Constitutional violations:
Unilaterally suspended habeas corpus in the North
Usurping the power of Congress, and acting against the ruling of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and used the military to arrest and imprison without proper legal procedures any who voiced disagreement with his war and domestic policies. Suspension of habeas corpus remained in effect during his entire administration and thousands were held indefinitely without trial. Historians estimate that more than 13,000 political prisoners were held in the military prisons-many of whom were not secessionists. Lincoln also ordered the arrest of Chief Justice Taney for daring to challenge his usurpation.
Declared martial law in the North
With civil liberties nullified by suspension of habeas corpus, citizens were subject to arbitrary arrest by the military for the duration of Lincoln’s administration. Vague accusations and rumors such as participating in “disloyal practices” were rampant and the military was given the power to decide what was “disloyal.” No dissent was tolerated.
Censored the press and imprisoned publishers in the North
Any newspapers that criticized Lincoln were shut down in various ways. Publishers and editors were imprisoned without due process or a trial. Printing presses were destroyed and dozens of prominent newspapers all over the North were shuttered.
Censored all telegraph communications in the North
Beginning February 2, 1862, the Federal government began censoring all telegraphs communications.
Ordered Federal troops to prevent opposition voting in the North
In Maryland election judges were instructed to throw out any votes for candidates who opposed Lincoln’s war. Posters were placed at voting booths instructing everyone to expose anyone voting who opposed Lincoln. Soldiers were present to arrest anyone suspected of southern sympathies.
Deported U.S. Representative Clement Vallandigham of Ohio
Congressman Vallandigham was arrested without a warrant and thrown into military prison for making a speech criticizing Lincoln’s unconstitutional usurpation of power. He was then deported to the South.
Illegally established West Virginia as a state
Lincoln unconstitutionally orchestrated the creation of the new state of West Virginia and set up a puppet government that would be pro-union.
http://confederatemuseumandlibrary.org/camp36/abedord.html
Boris Badnoff
February 18th, 2013
6:14 pm
The most amazing accomplishment of Abe is he gave all those speeches without a teleprompter. That and he closed down newspapers that disagreed with him. And threw the editors in jail. Yep, Spilberg’s latest propaganda movie shows congressmen from Connecticut voting against the Emancipation Proclamation. Actually it was congressmen from Illinois. And a few other states. But I thank Abe for giving the Post Office the day off so I won’t have to throw another letter from GEICO away until tomorrow.
комиссар (Occupation)
February 18th, 2013
6:15 pm
kayaker 71: “We might remind all of you liberals that Lincoln was the father of the Republican party”
No need to remind US. It’s you people, the ones who pretend to march under the same principles represented by Lincoln today, defiling the name of his party in the process, who need to be reminded.
Vet
February 18th, 2013
6:17 pm
“But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free?” Lincon said. ” I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace unless we get rid of the negroes…I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves.” Abraham Lincoln ……. The man not the saint some would have you believe him to be!
mbtc
February 18th, 2013
6:18 pm
комиссар (Occupation)
February 18th, 2013
6:15 pm
BOOM!
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 18th, 2013
6:18 pm
…gave all those speeches without a teleprompter.
Mitt Romney says, “What?”
josef
February 18th, 2013
6:19 pm
BROSEPHUS
Unmentionable says, thass awright, come on over and go for a ride in Geronimo’s Cadillac and y’all can discuss the progressive policies of TDR
josef
February 18th, 2013
6:21 pm
Right…and Hitler gave us Volkswagen and the autobahn. What’s a little genocide in the great order of things, eh?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 18th, 2013
6:23 pm
Lincoln unconstitutionally orchestrated the creation of the new state of West Virginia and set up a puppet government that would be pro-union.
Well that is one viewpoint. Others felt differently. Hey where in the Constitution does is say that the US can buy the Louisiana Purchase or Alaska? And secession?
Sure do make them executive order poutrages seem silly now don’t it?
josef
February 18th, 2013
6:23 pm
Let’s not forget what the transcontinental railroad and the homestead act, two great “accomplishments” of the era under discussion meant to the pesky savages who got in the way of, uh, “progress.”
Mama Says
February 18th, 2013
6:24 pm
You win Kam,
In a blog full of liberal right doing hypocrites you have managed to avoid any question which is posed to you. None of your liberal friends will correct your behavior or bias based political garbage which u spout.
Rather than worrying about my use of he word chamber, to describe the house and senate or your thoughts that I need a civics class you should worry about answering questions with straight forward truth. You are the very definition of a hypocrite and like our government this blog would be better served without your participation. U neither move the conversation forward nor solve any issues. You would rather protect your space in wonderland than have an actual discussion.
Bless you because I am sure your lack of communication skills and ethics hamper your interaction with more people than those who participate in this blog.
To answer my own question, which u refuse to say, Yes- the democrats had all bodies of government in the first two years of his administration. Bodies would include the terms chambers, floors, committees, offices and or any other adjective which describes two of the three branches of government which participate in the construction, implementation and review of law in the federal level of governance in this country.
The same bodies that passed the healthcare bill.
Get it now ? Oh yeah you knew the answer before all your BS.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 18th, 2013
6:25 pm
While we are at it, td, you can explain how we negated all them treaties with the firsties?
josef
February 18th, 2013
6:25 pm
GOOD FIGHT
Well, as far as the Louisiana Purchase is concerned, let’s at least give TJ his credit in questioning his own constitutional right to pull it off.
Moderate Line
February 18th, 2013
6:26 pm
Of the more than 40 presidents to occupy the White House, Abraham Lincoln was the only one whose presence was essential to the nation’s future.
++++
I agree with the statement 100%. Lincoln made one major mistake as president. He let Andrew Johnson run as vice-president. Debatably the worse president ever. He should be at least in everyone’s type 5.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 18th, 2013
6:26 pm
oh no…. I am channeling my inner josef. I really need a drink now.
josef
February 18th, 2013
6:27 pm
GOOD FIGHT
Just playing EOI here, but the Confederate States of America stands alone of the American nations to have never broken a treaty with an Indigenous nation…
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 18th, 2013
6:27 pm
Yes- the democrats had all bodies of government in the first two years of his administration.
“[A]ll bodies of government?
Democrats controlled the SCOTUS?
Again, please take a civics class.
Thomas
February 18th, 2013
6:27 pm
The South, as well all know, had the superior intellect. We simply did not have the weapons as the North had. The South would have one the Civil War if it had drone technology.
West Virginia is an illegal state and should be (voluntarily) deported back to Mexico.
Lincoln, contrary to popular belief, did not use a teleprompter.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 18th, 2013
6:29 pm
josef, they just needed more time.
Paul
February 18th, 2013
6:29 pm
“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise — with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.” (Applies to both parties, but more particularly those who cannot bring themselves to say “compromise”).
“The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves — in their separate, and individual capacities.” (Sounds like somebody believed we need to help each other out)
“There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.” (So much for the “I’ve got my gun so I can kill federal workers and Congressmen and Senators if I think they’ve become tyrannical’ crowd – )
“I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him.” (Fox with Benghazi, my sorry excuse for a senator, Ted Cruz, the list is so long….)
“I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else” (as has been noted here, one has a greater likelihood of moving from the lower to the middle class or the lower or middle to the upper class in Europe than in America. So much for socialism -)
Brosephus™
February 18th, 2013
6:30 pm
josef
JamVet
February 18th, 2013
6:31 pm
Vet, perhaps you can point me to the claims about Lincoln being a saint?
He was brutal. He had to be. He had millions of traitors trying to kill Americans on American soil.
What the hell would you have done?
Negotiated with the terrorists?
LOL!
Mama Says
February 18th, 2013
6:31 pm
Forget it TD, you are trying to talk to a person with no answers, only insults.
Kam, has no way of defending the truths that you spoke so be asure in the fact he will insult you.
By he way Lincoln’s actions beg the question. Is liberty preserved by employing tyranny.
In other words Lincoln’s actions were the beginning of the end of he American form of government.
Be it Lincoln, Busch, or Obama the executive order is not democracy at work
Brosephus™
February 18th, 2013
6:31 pm
Keep @ 6:29
You beat me to it!!
Brosephus™
February 18th, 2013
6:35 pm
Be it Lincoln, Busch, or Obama the executive order is not democracy at work
George Washington says Huh?!?!?!
http://www.historyofthings.com/history-of-presidential-executive-orders
An Executive Order is a powerful regulation first used by President George Washington on June 8, 1789. It carries the full force of the law when based on the president’s constitutional power, and Congress passed said order into law. Executive orders direct federal agencies and officials in their implementation of Congressional laws and policies. This regulation that the acting president issues legally binds agencies and officials. The president delivers Executive Orders to Federal Administrative Agencies.
In essence, a EO is a directive to agencies under the President within his 1/3 of Government instructing them how to do their job. As long as it’s constitutional, there is nothing undemocratic about EOs at all.
Get Real
February 18th, 2013
6:36 pm
Mama Says …..why are wasting your time trying to have a quasi intelligent discussion with Kammie Poo?
It lives in its own world of reality…
josef
February 18th, 2013
6:37 pm
GOOD FIGHT
Not really. Ya gotta remember the CSA was negotiating with the “civilized” nations…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPFP_XazE5U
JamVet
February 18th, 2013
6:37 pm
In other words Lincoln’s actions were the beginning of the end of he American form of government.
Where do you come up with this stuff???
Is this the handiwork of Glenn Beck, or something?
LOL!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 18th, 2013
6:38 pm
Now stop that Bro….. The founding fathers would have been outraged by the EO. Washington the general would have slapped Washington the president silly!
Mama Says
February 18th, 2013
6:39 pm
Ok Bro,
I believe u said it, as long as its constitutional.
Lincoln decided he could throw out the basic tenets of the constitution. As far as I can tell jailing people for voicing opposition and arresting the editors of newspapers is an abuse of the very power we speak of
Mama Says
February 18th, 2013
6:40 pm
He can’t even argue right
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 18th, 2013
6:42 pm
Obsession unhinged.
Doomy on the drive by
February 18th, 2013
6:42 pm
TBS,
Reagan? You mean the guy that deregulated everything and brought us unprecedented prosperity including 7% economic growth in some quarters, 1 million new jobs in one month alone, 21 million new jobs from the bottom of the recession and 16.1 million net new jobs overall. I hate it that it bothers you so much but those are after all the F A C T S. Just the facts sir. Just the facts please. Doomy out.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 18th, 2013
6:43 pm
josef, I thought you were going with this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsj4s9z-EAE
Mama Says
February 18th, 2013
6:43 pm
Jam,
Since you will explain your sides position. Can you please tell me how you argue against basic thoughts.
Who ever thought the president could legally use the EO to arrest members of the public for voicing opposition ? Who ever envisioned newspaper editors being arrested for writing articles disagreeing with the president ?
I mean seriously, think this was an exercise in constitutional law ?
Brosephus™
February 18th, 2013
6:44 pm
Lincoln decided he could throw out the basic tenets of the constitution.
And, at the time of Lincoln’s administration, things were not peachy keen, hunky dory either. That’s where I personally think people fail at trying to judge presidential actions. It’s easy to quarterback decisions 150 years later. At the time, Lincoln didn’t have such hindsight to fall back on.
Either way I see it, he’s damned in the eyes of the country. People hate him for what he did. Had the US collapsed, they would have hated him for that.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 18th, 2013
6:48 pm
People hate him for what he did. Had the US collapsed, they would have hated him for that.
Yep.
And that was the dilemma he had to wrestle with.
josef
February 18th, 2013
6:49 pm
GOOD FIGHT
Love that scene!
Mama Says
February 18th, 2013
6:51 pm
Well that’s where we disagree Bro.
There is no circumstance when the president himself can decide times are so difficult he will do what he wishes.
He had a constitution to go by then and it’s the same one we have now.
If indeed Busch is wrong with detainees of foreign origins, I promise you Lincoln had no legal right to imprison American citizens without trail.
I don’t even speak of confederate citizens, I can see denying them rights since they renounced citizenship. But you think he had the right to deny due process to northern newspaper editors ?
I would put forward this thought. Lincoln got away with because the other party vacated their responsibilities. By leaving the union there was no opposition political power to stop Lincoln from doing what he wanted. Much like republicans of today, none of them sought to oppose the leader of their own party during a ti e of conflict.
This doesn’t mean that the constitution want usurped
josef
February 18th, 2013
6:52 pm
Aw, had Lincoln survived to complete his second term, he would have been hamstrung by the Radical Republicans for his policy of malice toward none and charity to all. His Reconstruction policy wasn’t real popular and he didn’t go into office the second go round with a landslide of the popular vote.
Mama Says
February 18th, 2013
6:54 pm
By the way I don’t know of a clause that says the constitution can be ignored because the president faces a difficult situation. I believe it’s there to guide a president during the difficulties
Doggone/GA
February 18th, 2013
6:56 pm
“By the way I don’t know of a clause that says the constitution can be ignored because the president faces a difficult situation.”
Guess what? It was over 150 years ago and there’s NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT NOW.
Mama Says
February 18th, 2013
6:58 pm
A modern day analogy of Lincoln’s abuse can be seen in Wisconsin. Walker, a republican had no obligation to satisfy the democrats because they left the state.
What happened, he got every law he wanted passed with no liberal input on any of the bills that democrats hate now.
Does that make Walker right ?
Jay
February 18th, 2013
6:59 pm
“Aw, had Lincoln survived to complete his second term, he would have been hamstrung by the Radical Republicans for his policy of malice toward none and charity to all. His Reconstruction policy wasn’t real popular and he didn’t go into office the second go round with a landslide of the popular vote.
I see where you’re coming from, Josef, but I also think that as the victorious, celebrated president, Lincoln would have had a lot of political capital. We will never know of course.
JamVet
February 18th, 2013
7:00 pm
By leaving the union there was no opposition political power to stop Lincoln from doing what he wanted.
I don’t think that you are particularly well read on his matter.
Lincoln faced vehement opposition from the Democrats and others in Washington throughout the entire war. And even before it began – “Peace Democrats” proposed a peaceful resolution to the developing Civil War by offering a truce with the South, and forming a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to protect States’ rights.
Thank all of the deities they failed and the abolitionists won.
Doggone/GA
February 18th, 2013
7:01 pm
“Does that make Walker right ?”
Only TOO “right”
Brosephus™
February 18th, 2013
7:01 pm
Mama Says
If you’re a government worker, you’ve taken the Oath of Office at least once, right? There’s that statement within that oath to “protect and defend the Constitution”, but there’s no instructions within the Constitution that dictates what the President can and cannot do to uphold that oath.
If we disagree anywhere, it’s because I believe that keeping that oath is completely necessary to ensure the Constitution functions as it is written. The President’s Oath is enshrined within the very document he swears to protect. Not doing anything and everything possible to protect said Constitution is a failure to uphold your oath of office in my book.
————–
josef
The Conservative Republicans from Texas would have made sure of that.
Mama Says
February 18th, 2013
7:02 pm
Thank you Dog,
Now you make the point cons try to argue.
You can’t do anything about it because its law now. The practice of presidential wars by EO is now set. Nobody opposes it and its just accepted. Today’s arguments bare that same logic. What is established today will have precedent 100 years from now. You can demand that the constitution be followed or accept that is intent is ruined 100 years from now.
Corey
February 18th, 2013
7:03 pm
@TaxPayer
February 18th, 2013
3:34 pm
Slaves were provided arms in South Carolina to help fight Indians and help settlers expand westward in the Piedmont region. My regret is they shot the wrong people.
Mama Says
February 18th, 2013
7:04 pm
Jam,
Nobody held him to the right to a fair trial did they ? Or freedom of the press
Doggone/GA
February 18th, 2013
7:05 pm
“You can’t do anything about it because its law now”
Except, that laws can be changed or repealed. So it’s not true that “you can’t do anything about it”
josef
February 18th, 2013
7:07 pm
JAY
“Lincoln would have had a lot of political capital. We will never know of course”
I would agree with that up to a point. But given the attitudes and actions of the Radical Republicans I’m not sure that political capital would have been enough. Had he not been assassinated, he would not have become a martyr with the accompanying hagiology. He’d've been a sitting duck for the macchinations of what was without a doubt one of the most, well, Byzantine cabals of court intrigue yet seen in our republic, But, as you say, we’ll never know.
barking frog
February 18th, 2013
7:07 pm
Lincoln proved might makes right, but to this day any
time the National Guard is activated by a former
Confederate State it is immediately Federalized.
JamVet
February 18th, 2013
7:10 pm
That Lincoln violated the US Constitution is not debatable.
That it was proper and necessary is.
That he also won the war and saved this greatest on nation on earth from traitors is not.
josef
February 18th, 2013
7:10 pm
BROSEPHUS
Not to mention the Northern Democrats who had some real axes to grind with the Lincoln administration. A lot had been put on the back burner for the duration of the hostilities.
Mama Says
February 18th, 2013
7:11 pm
Let me try to help you guys out some. The con logic states this.
The word precedent indicates the ability for the government to claim that what they do now is legal based on what was done prior.
This is very dangerous by the mere fact that essentially this means that the constitution can be refreshed so to speak, by legal definitions and current circumstance.
The constitution is amendable but not via precedent, but through ratification of the states.
As a con I know, and you guys do also I think, that either party will abuse precedent.
Bro, I did take an oath to defend the constitution and have about 8 times.
Not one of those oaths said anything about blind obedience to whatever the president wants. As did mine, his oath dictates that he will preserve the constitution as written, not to preserve his right to interrupt it.
josef
February 18th, 2013
7:12 pm
ZamVet
Of course it was traitors. After all, Sen. Wilson, we do know its “brains” was “from the race of traitors.”
Doggone/GA
February 18th, 2013
7:13 pm
“As did mine, his oath dictates that he will preserve the constitution as written, not to preserve his right to interrupt it.”
Well…let’s dig him up and try him then.
josef
February 18th, 2013
7:18 pm
DOGGONE
“Well…let’s dig him up and try him then.”
Dang! I thought that’s what we were doing!
Mama Says
February 18th, 2013
7:18 pm
Let me throw this out there.
Can any lib out there tell me where in the original documents you derive your belief that the government can take anything from anyone ?
This not only goes to taxes but eminent domain and any other practice that is considered constitutional now.
I will vehemently argue with anyone who try’s to tells me that the government, of which cons distrust, is not the entity who granted itself every Power that it has today.
Not one citizen voted on abortion, taxes or war since these issues became issues. The government decided how each would be interrupted and now the government calls their decisions precedence.
JamVet
February 18th, 2013
7:19 pm
jonix, you know me!
i don’t sugar coat words.
I do not refer to them as rebels or secessionists or insurrectionists. Or confederates (As Lincoln did so as not to provoke them further).
I call them what they were. Traitors.
And I also believe that the most virulent of the right wing southerners have never gotten over that loss.
It afflicts them to to this day.
And explains both their negrophobia and how the most fanatical of them still want to figure out a way to secede from the Union.
http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm#civilwar
josef
February 18th, 2013
7:21 pm
ZamVet
And the Union policies of anti-Semitism…don’t sugar coat that while you’re at it…
Doggone/GA
February 18th, 2013
7:24 pm
“Dang! I thought that’s what we were doing”
Yeah, no kidding. Just think what the “conversation” would be like if we were discussion Bush motives for the Iraq invasion instead.
Mama Says
February 18th, 2013
7:25 pm
Ok Dog,
I tell u what you ignore the precedent he laid and dismiss the actions of our politicians if u like. You too make silly arguments. Yeah let’s dig him up and try him Dog. It would be much easier to simply enforce the constitution rather than the precedent he laid ground for.
We could
josef
February 18th, 2013
7:26 pm
DOGGONE
Funny, I was thinking much the same thing….
Doggone/GA
February 18th, 2013
7:26 pm
“Can any lib out there tell me where in the original documents you derive your belief that the government can take anything from anyone ?”
When you base your argument on a lie…you have no argument.
TBS
February 18th, 2013
7:27 pm
Josef
Good points. The south was all about the Jews right?
Not where it fit them politically but just becasue…. Right?
Doggone/GA
February 18th, 2013
7:31 pm
“It would be much easier to simply enforce the constitution rather than the precedent he laid ground for.”
And if he had stuck to the “letter” of the Constitutition – that no one can even agree on – and lost that war, would he have been guilty of failing to protect it?
There’s NOTHING in the Constitution to direct a President how to react in the face of an all out war of secession. It’s pointless to second guess his decisions because first of all, they worked…and secondly, we weren’t there to judge the conditions under which he was operating.
If there’s ever another all out war of secssion, we’ll get a chance to compare THAT President’s reactions to Lincoln’s.
josef
February 18th, 2013
7:32 pm
TBS
Say what? I was simply making the point to ZamVet, a fellow MOT, that Jews were singled out in the North for some particularly vicious attacks during the course of the Civil War. So were American Indians. So were Catholics. So were women. So were the ethnic French.
JamVet
February 18th, 2013
7:33 pm
jonix, a great article about how Grant rued his General Order No. 11 and how Lincoln rescinded it.
After his election as president in 1868, he bent over backwards to demonstrate that it was an aberrant and thoughtless act done, he claimed, “without any reflection and without thinking of the Jews as a sect or race.” He emphasized, “I have no prejudice against sect or race, but want each individual to be judged by his own merit.”
In fact, his presidency inaugurated what Sarna refers to as a golden age for Jews in the country. Grant appointed more Jews to public office than any previous president. No other president until well into the 20th century so firmly urged clarity in keeping church and state apart nor made such efforts to promote freedom of religious expression and the embrace of non-Protestants and non-natives as fully American.
So popular did Grant become among Jews that he was invited and became the first American president to attend Jewish worship services, at the dedication of a new Washington, D.C., synagogue. Sarna writes, ‘Now, the man who had once expelled ‘Jews as a class’ from his war zone personally came to honor Jews for upholding and renewing their faith.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/21/what-happened-when-general-grant-expelled-civil-war-jews.html
I’m fairly certain that the Negroes in the South would have fared much, much, much worse in a post-war Lee presidency…