Started By
Message

re: Lincoln on Lincoln

Posted on 6/12/17 at 4:27 pm to
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
36044 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 4:27 pm to
quote:

Which basically involved a customs house.


Give it up, 1803 La. Purchase
1812 La. is made state
1815 Battle of NO

And you are arguing that the US Govt. had no presence in La. after paying millions to Napoleon for the territory?????

Admit it, you are wrong.

Admit that Lincoln wasn't some moral superior president, and he was totally invested in keeping the union because he knew that the US divided wouldn't be nearly as strong. Your own quotes proved that.
Posted by mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Member since Nov 2015
35512 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 4:37 pm to
quote:



No it didn't say that.


Yeah it did.

"Perpetual Union"

Don't quibble over semantics.
Posted by TrueTiger
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
67926 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 4:49 pm to
quote:

Perpetual Union


That was a bit presumptuous and arrogant on their part.

Even Hitler anticipated the 3rd Reich being only a 1,000 year duration.
Posted by chickenpotpie
Member since Aug 2013
1161 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 6:33 pm to
quote:

The 13 states pledged their perpetual alligience to the Union. I know neo rebs like to ignore the definition of common words commonly used. But the record is clear.


Apparently, you do not know what "perpetual" means in a legal sense. A legal document that is in effect in perpetuity only has no defined termination date in the contract. It is in effect as long as both parties willingly accept it. Either party can withdraw when they please.
Posted by chickenpotpie
Member since Aug 2013
1161 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 6:37 pm to
Based on all of Lincoln's quotes, he is nothing more than a lying politician pandering to whatever audience to which he is speaking. He has contradicted himself so many times in his own quotes that he apparently stands for anything that will gain him personal favor. What a great American hero.
Posted by cr32pll29
Member since Apr 2017
500 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 6:40 pm to
quote:

A bunch of neo-rebs will soon descend to defend succession.



You are missing the forest for the tree, Myths are very important to mantain the cohesion of a group, it does not matter if they are real or invented, and the only reason to destroy such myths, is to destroy said group. Are you an enemy of Southern Whites? or Whites in general? Are you aware that we are only about 8% of the world's population, are you aware that if current demographic trends continue, white people will disappear in a few decades?
Posted by chickenpotpie
Member since Aug 2013
1161 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 6:46 pm to
quote:

Again, if one State may secede, so may another; and when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours, when we borrowed their money? If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms upon which they will promise to remain.


Why was letting the South go with a system to repay its debts not an option? If Lincoln's true objection to secession was the debts "owed" by the South, why did he never consider this? "Protecting the Union" was merely his cover to continue milking the South.
Posted by Wolfhound45
Hanging with Chicken in Lurkistan
Member since Nov 2009
120000 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 6:50 pm to
quote:

WhiskeyPapa
On a positive note, you spread your downvotes out.

So you got that going for you. Which is nice.
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
36044 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 6:50 pm to
quote:


Why was letting the South go with a system to repay its debts not an option? If Lincoln's true objection to secession was the debts "owed" by the South, why did he never consider this? "Protecting the Union" was merely his cover to continue milking the South


Lincoln wasn't letting anyone leave.
He wanted to preserve the Union.
That was his goal. It's not complicated.
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46511 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 6:53 pm to
quote:

Why was letting the South go with a system to repay its debts not an option? If Lincoln's true objection to secession was the debts "owed" by the South, why did he never consider this? "Protecting the Union" was merely his cover to continue milking the South.


Lincoln's goal was to preserve the union at any cost.

And the south needed the north far more than vice-versa.
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
36044 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 6:58 pm to
quote:

Lincoln's goal was to preserve the union at any cost.


Exactly.

He was never going to stand idly by and let the South go.
Posted by mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Member since Nov 2015
35512 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:10 pm to
quote:

The nation purchased, with money, the countries out of which several of these States were formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave, and without refunding? The nation paid very large sums, (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundred millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that she shall now be off without consent, or without making any return? The nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of these so-called seceding States, in common with the rest. Is it just, either that creditors shall go unpaid, or the remaining States pay the whole? A part of the present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is it just that she shall leave, and pay no part of this herself?


Was there any plan or negotiations from the Southern government on behalf of certain Southern States to pay the Federal government back for the land they were given by Federal money and would steal by seceding?

Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri?
Posted by WhiskeyPapa
Member since Aug 2016
9277 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:18 pm to
quote:

Why was letting the South go with a system to repay its debts not an option?


"And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man the question whether a constitutional republic, or democracy--a government of the people by the same people--can or can not maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration according to organic law in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth."

- 7/4/61

What made sense to a lot of people was that a discontented minority could not be allowed to wreck the government. If they were not opposed - and defeated - it would mean that men could not govern themselves through free institutions.
Posted by GREENHEAD22
Member since Nov 2009
19600 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:20 pm to
Arent you a Nazi?

Or is it a Muslim?

Cant remember but I do recall you hating jews.
Posted by WhiskeyPapa
Member since Aug 2016
9277 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:21 pm to
quote:

The 13 states pledged their perpetual alligience to the Union. I know neo rebs like to ignore the definition of common words commonly used. But the record is clear.

Apparently, you do not know what "perpetual" means in a legal sense.


Why would that apply? See, neo rebs can't accept the common meaning of commom words.




Posted by chickenpotpie
Member since Aug 2013
1161 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:23 pm to
quote:

Lincoln's goal was to preserve the union at any cost.


Exactly my point. Lincoln's goal was to preserve the union in which the North benefited at the expense of the South. His quotes about debts owed are merely excuses to cover his true intentions.

quote:

And the south needed the north far more than vice-versa.


That's debatable. 80% of federal dollars were spent in the North. The biggest importer of Southern goods was England. The Southern economy was the 3rd largest of America and Europe. The South had navigable waterways that didn't freeze and more direct access to the ocean.
Posted by McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
31499 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:29 pm to
quote:

but only secession that does not take into account the debt and payment of the seceding state. 


Which debts, Lincoln insisted, said states duly owed to the Union for the Union's slaughter of the Indians. Good peeps those Yanks. Pay up, Johnny.

Lincoln can eat my neoRebel shite.
This post was edited on 6/12/17 at 7:30 pm
Posted by WhiskeyPapa
Member since Aug 2016
9277 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:30 pm to
quote:

Give it up, 1803 La. Purchase
1812 La. is made state

1815 Battle of NO

And you are arguing that the US Govt. had no presence in La. after paying millions to Napoleon for the territory?????


That's right. Besides a customs house, and the post office, the federal government left not just Louisiana essentially alone, but the whole territory purchased by the United States - while included the territory of 15 states.

How The West Was Won

The actress on the right is Carolyn Jones soon to be immortalized as Morticia in the Addams Family.
Posted by chickenpotpie
Member since Aug 2013
1161 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:33 pm to
quote:

In the long run he did the south a favor, as an independent confederacy was unsustainable long term without the northern infrastructure.


I have to disagree. Along with the benefits I listed in my post above, the South had 1/3 of the railroads in the country. Had the South been able to leave the Union peacefully, they would have been able to use their wealth to advance their own states instead of sending a large portion to the North. To think they would not have invested in infrastructure is silly.

Also, they would have the money from the oil in Texas starting in 1901. The South was already expanding into New Mexico and probably would have continued to California giving them access to both oceans. The South would have been fine without the North.
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46511 posts
Posted on 6/12/17 at 7:38 pm to
quote:

That's debatable. 80% of federal dollars were spent in the North. The biggest importer of Southern goods was England. The Southern economy was the 3rd largest of America and Europe. The South had navigable waterways that didn't freeze and more direct access to the ocean.


The north had all the materials for producing boats, trains and railroads.

And once the industrial revolution hit it would have been game over.
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram