Lincoln's evil glove puppet

[Pokhara]

I have long held to the unfashionable view that Abraham Lincoln was a morally bankrupt warmonger.

People admire the Gettysburg Address, and seem not to realise that it basically says that it's okay to send huge numbers of men to get slaughtered in battle, provided that you invoke a purely imaginary benefit to the nation as a whole.

Wikipedia has just featured a story regarding a general called Burbridge, who I had not known about before.  It seems he was a war criminal who had Confederate guerillas murdered for spite, and who used violence and intimidation in a bid to help Lincoln get re-elected to the White House.

I link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_G._Burbridge

I guess people will carry on idolising the evil Lincoln, and who am I to complain?

[k-pappy]

Your hatred of lincoln is well known, but your post goes beyond obscene.

1)  MGEN Burbridge was never accused nor convicted of war crimes.  After he retired from the Army he lived a quiet life in NY.

2)  There is no evidence that he rigged the election in KY for Lincoln.

3)  He only lasted 9 months in KY...some sources say only 7 months.  Official records have him taking command in April though.

In Christ,
KP

[marc]

Actually, the second paragraph of the op was so bizarre I was dumbfounded and just moved on....

[Pokhara]

I cannot prove that what wikipedia says about Burbridge is correct, but I see no reason to doubt it.  If Burbridge was never tried as a war criminal, then that is just par for the course for the American Civil War (which was never really a civil war, unless you lived in one of the border states).  Lincoln didn't care how evil his generals were as long as they won the war.

And the Gettysburg address is a vile fascist document.  Does anyone seriously deny that?

[marc]

Yes.  Nearly everyone denies that.

[Jimbob]

This Gettysburg Address?  Seriously?

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

[Pokhara]

In the 1770s, a group of thirteen colonial states in north America decided that they would be better off being self-governed than continuing under the British yoke.  This provoked a lengthy war, and as a Briton I am prepared to say that Britain was on the wrong side in that war.

In 1861, a group of seven - and eventually eleven - states, some of which had been among the original thirteen states of the USA, decided that they would be better off being self-governed than continuing under the yoke of federal rule by the USA.  This provoked a war which was a huge holocause, and as a Briton I am prepared to say that far too many Britons at the time supported the wrong side.

Lincoln could have recognised the right to self-determination of the secessionist states, but he opted instead for holocaust.  The Gettysburg address basically waffles on about equality and unfinished work, but the unfinished work was murder.

Does anyone SERIOUSLY deny that the GA is a fascist call to arms?

[Jimbob]

Some would have the audacity to say it was those who sought to continue their holocaust of black West African slaves that gave the fascist speeches.

[marc]

Pokhara, I would seriously recommend a more thorough study of the whole situation.  James McPherson's "The Battle Cry of Freedom" is an excellent one-volume work.  Shelby Foote (a southerner) put out a three-volume collection that's as good as anything that's been written.  David H. Donald's "Lincoln" lays out the development of his personal and political beliefs in a way that shows the absurdity of much of the revisionist characterization of Lincoln.

The biggest problem with comparing what happened in 1860 with the American Revolution is that the southern states were self-governed.  Their complaints had much to do, even, with their desire that other states--particularly those in the west--not have the option to outlaw slavery in their own borders if they saw fit.  The southern states, with the complicity of the Taney court, had turned the federal government into slave-catchers, even. They feared that Lincoln's election would put an end to this, and realized that this would eventually cause slavery itself to cease.  It's all right there in the states' statements of seccession.

Robert E. Lee himself, in a letter to his son shortly before the War, said that the Union was not one that states could simply choose to leave if they desired.  I'll try to find the quote; it's an interesting admission, given what followed.

[Jimbob]

I don't remember the wording well enough to know quite what to search for, Marc, but I believe you posted that quote as a "Who said this?" at some point here on GCM.

[marc]

I think so.  I know when I ran across it, so maybe I can find it by the date.

[marc]

It was on top of page 2.

"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for "perpetual union

[Pokhara]

First, let me make it clear that I do not condone slavery.  The fifteen states in which slavery was legal (not all of which quit the union) were all acting in an unchristian manner.  However I do not believe that slavery justifies war.

Many African countries today still allow slavery to exist.  Should we declare war on those countries in the name of liberty?  Should your sons fight in the front line and come home in body bags?

Second, I am not impressed by letters written by Robert E Lee - or anyone else - on the subject of perpetual union.  What right does one generation have to tie the hands of future generations?  None.  The states that quit the Union in 1861 were perfectly entitled to do so, and the war was wrong.

Or maybe you think it a shame that Pakistan never declared war on Bangladesh?  Or maybe you were cheering for Ethiopia when Eritrea had to fight to secure its independence?

[marc]

That's a false equivalency. In the end, it may be that you have a false notion of what the United States was intended to be, in particular of the intent of the Constitution, which was adopted in order to form a strong, binding union.  The reason Lee's words are relevant is that he speaks directly to what this country was, and he was certainly in a position to do so, both as a direct descendent of some of those who played a key role in the country's founding and as the man who would eventually become the face of the confederecy and the sun that the lost cause myth revolved around.

But your direct statements "The states...were perfectly entitled to do so..." reveal, at the least, an incomplete understanding of the idea of the United States.  There was quite a difference in our purpose for existence and the purpose, say, of the European Union.  Again, perhaps some deeper reading into the circumstances of the war would do good. 


It's not that no one makes this argument; it's that this is all it is--an argument, not a fact of history. And I believe that history leans heavily in the other direction, that the permanancy of the intended union was intended from the start.

[Pokhara]

What absolute tosh.

It does not matter one jot what the USA was intended to be, simply because no generation has the right to bind all future generations by their choices, and TBH I fail to see why anyone should argue about this.

Compare Pakistan.  It was intended to be one country in perpetuity, but the people of East Pakistan (formerly East Bengal) decided they wanted independence.  By your logic they should never have been allowed independence, but instead they should have been forced to remain as part of Pakistan, even at the cost of a holocaust.

Likewise Eritrea.  It was never intended that it should exist as a country independently of Ethiopia.  Likewise Texas, which was never supposed to exist as a country in its own right.  Presumably when you watch the film The Alamo, you are cheering for the imperialist anti-slavery Mexicans as they slaughter the independence-loving and pro-slavery Texans.

BTW, I am not exaggerating when I use the word holocaust.  Lincoln's evil imperialist mission cost the lives of more than 600k people - and you think that can be justified by what a group of politicians decided nearly 100 years previously.

I repeat: the Gettysburg Address was a fascist call to arms.

I've yet to meet anyone who agrees with me on this point, but such is life.

[marc]

Sorry to sound so harsh.  I'll edit this--I really think that the context of The Civil War, which had been inevitable ever since the founders had failed to settle the slavery issue, changes things drastically.  I think that's what you're missing--and why you're finding so few that agree with you.

[Pokhara]

Sorry to sound so harsh.  I'll edit this--I really think that the context of The Civil War, which had been inevitable ever since the founders had failed to settle the slavery issue, changes things drastically.  I think that's what you're missing--and why you're finding so few that agree with you.

I did not read your unedited post, which maybe is just as well.

You seem to have changed tack.  Earlier on you were implying that the ACW was justified by the need to keep the USA as one country, as envisaged by its founding fathers.  Now you seem to be suggesting that the ACW was justified by the slavery issue.

Does this mean that you think that the atrocities committed by the Mexican army in Texas in 1836 were justified?  They were after all fighting against people who condoned slavery.

Would you support a military expedition into Mauritania or Myanmar?  These are countries where slavery exists to this day.  Would you want thousands of lives to be lost in a grand anti-slavery holocaust?

Or are we going to return to the perpetual union argument? 

Edit: I entered the name of a country where slavery still exists, and it came up as "bad word".  If you add a second g then yes it is.

[marc]

You see that's the thing--you can't compartmentalize.  You have to look at the whole context of slavery and the idea of union.  They were entwined from the beginning, with slavery being tolerated for the sake of union.  The fact that this arrangement could not continue indefinitely is why the nation was set up for trouble down the line. 

I really think "Battle Cry of Freedom" would help you see the big picture, if you get a chance to read it.  Joseph J. Ellis also dealt with the seeds of this in "Founding Brothers".

Really, though, context is essential for all of this. 

[spurly]

I repeat: the Gettysburg Address was a fascist call to arms.

I've yet to meet anyone who agrees with me on this point, but such is life.

Pokhara, have you ever considered that the reason you have yet to find anyone who agrees with you on that point is because you are incorrect in your assessment?

[Pokhara]

Pokhara, have you ever considered that the reason you have yet to find anyone who agrees with you on that point is because you are incorrect in your assessment?

No one has yet offered me any reason why my assessment should be incorrect.  Marc talks about the big picture.  The big picture is that more than 600k soldiers were killed for the sake of Lincoln's imperialist obsession.  That equals roughly 600k grieving families.

In the Gettysburg Address, AL talked about unfinished work.  I repeat that the unfinished work was murder.  Marc seems to want me to accept that this programme of genocide was justified by two things, neither of which can be (as he puts it) "compartmentalized" -  the perpetual union envisaged by a group of politicans who were all long since dead by the time the ACW began, and the issue of slavery.  How can either of those things justify genocide?

The funny (or maybe perverse) thing is that this is a Christian website.  Can anyone point me to a passage in the Bible which says that holocausts can be justified by referring to the dictates of dead politicians?

Let's have a sing song

Oh say can you see by the dawn's early light the charred remains of the houses in a "secess" village what we so proudly burned down last night?

[Dennis]

So your position is that no government ever has the right to use force to preserve itself, correct?

[Jimbob]

Pokhara, you do realize, don't you, that it is simply not that cut and dry?  First, the South actually killed more Northerners than the other way around, and more on both sides were killed by disease and other problems than bullets and swords.

Northern losses:
Battle deaths:     110,070
Disease, etc.:    250,152
Total    360,222

Southern losses:
Battle deaths:    94,000
Disease, etc.:    164,000
Total    258,000


And, as I recall it was the Southern Gen. Beauregard who ordered the cannon fire that started the war, wasn't it?

[Pokhara]

So your position is that no government ever has the right to use force to preserve itself, correct?

Preserve itself?  The ACW was fought to preserve a political arrangement which predated the war by eighty-five years.  Why couldn't Lincoln have admitted that the secessionist states had a right to self-determination?  Why not?  Because he was an evil fascist imperialist.  Is that something you condone?

Pokhara, you do realize, don't you, that it is simply not that cut and dry?  First, the South actually killed more Northerners than the other way around, and more on both sides were killed by disease and other problems than bullets and swords.

It is not surprising that the North suffered the higher casualties.  Not only did they have very large armies at their disposal, but at least some of their evil generals were quite happy to gamble the lives of huge numbers of soldiers in reckless frontal assaults on well-defended positions.

It may well be true that more soldiers died of disease than were killed in battle, but that was typical of war in those days.  No matter how the soldiers died, their deaths should have been on Lincoln's conscience.  Did he have a conscience?

And, as I recall it was the Southern Gen. Beauregard who ordered the cannon fire that started the war, wasn't it?

The decision to open fire on Fort Sumter was taken only after the govt of the USA had consistently refused to remove its garrison.  Considering that this fortress was off the coast of one of the secessionist states, then this act was in itself arguably a belligerent gesture.

I am British.  It is not that long ago that a group of British armed forces personnel were taken prisoner by Iran.  While I accept that this was a belligerent gesture on the part of Iran, I am glad that the British govt did not rise to the bait.  I hardly think that the event justified going to war.  Likewise, I do not think that the events of 12 April 1861 justified the holocaust that was the ACW.

The govt of the USA should have removed its garrison from Fort Sumter, and allowed the govt of South Carolina to take control of the fort.

I repeat that the Gettysburg Address was a vile fascist document.

[Jimbob]

So how is it you come to your conclusion only one side of the war was evil?  That's the part that is most baffling to me. 

Regardless of what led up to the first shot, we all know the first shot was not fired by those at the business end of the barrel.

[Dennis]

So your position is that no government ever has the right to use force to preserve itself, correct?

Preserve itself?  The ACW was fought to preserve a political arrangement which predated the war by eighty-five years.  Why couldn't Lincoln have admitted that the secessionist states had a right to self-determination?  Why not?  Because he was an evil fascist imperialist.  Is that something you condone?

Pokhara, you do realize, don't you, that it is simply not that cut and dry?  First, the South actually killed more Northerners than the other way around, and more on both sides were killed by disease and other problems than bullets and swords.

It is not surprising that the North suffered the higher casualties.  Not only did they have very large armies at their disposal, but at least some of their evil generals were quite happy to gamble the lives of huge numbers of soldiers in reckless frontal assaults on well-defended positions.

It may well be true that more soldiers died of disease than were killed in battle, but that was typical of war in those days.  No matter how the soldiers died, their deaths should have been on Lincoln's conscience.  Did he have a conscience?

And, as I recall it was the Southern Gen. Beauregard who ordered the cannon fire that started the war, wasn't it?

The decision to open fire on Fort Sumter was taken only after the govt of the USA had consistently refused to remove its garrison.  Considering that this fortress was off the coast of one of the secessionist states, then this act was in itself arguably a belligerent gesture.

I am British.  It is not that long ago that a group of British armed forces personnel were taken prisoner by Iran.  While I accept that this was a belligerent gesture on the part of Iran, I am glad that the British govt did not rise to the bait.  I hardly think that the event justified going to war.  Likewise, I do not think that the events of 12 April 1861 justified the holocaust that was the ACW.

The govt of the USA should have removed its garrison from Fort Sumter, and allowed the govt of South Carolina to take control of the fort.

I repeat that the Gettysburg Address was a vile fascist document.

So was your answer yes or no?

[Pokhara]

So was your answer yes or no?

As it wasn't really a pertinent question, neither yes nor no would be pertinent replies.

[Pokhara]

So how is it you come to your conclusion only one side of the war was evil?  That's the part that is most baffling to me. 

Regardless of what led up to the first shot, we all know the first shot was not fired by those at the business end of the barrel.

I find it baffling that anyone could think it right that 600k lives should be lost in a four year holocaust merely to deprive a country of its independence.

The South Carolinians may have fired the first shots, but they did so following belligerent provocation from the USA who refused to remove their garrison from Fort Sumter.

The war was evil, and Lincoln was to blame.  His response to the Fort Sumter incident should have been to admit that the USA was to blame, and to leave it at that.  Instead he commenced one of the biggest and bloodiest and most pointless wars in history.  What an evil person he was.

[Dennis]

So was your answer yes or no?

As it wasn't really a pertinent question, neither yes nor no would be pertinent replies.

I do not see why it is not pertinent.  You have contended that the US governement had no right to use force to preserve itself as the lawfully constituted government in the seceding southern states in 1861.  I am simply asking for the extent of your position.  Is it that a government never has the right to use force to preserve itself or is it only in certain circumstances?

[Jimbob]

So how is it you come to your conclusion only one side of the war was evil?  That's the part that is most baffling to me. 

Regardless of what led up to the first shot, we all know the first shot was not fired by those at the business end of the barrel.

I find it baffling that anyone could think it right that 600k lives should be lost in a four year holocaust merely to deprive a country of its independence.

The South Carolinians may have fired the first shots, but they did so following belligerent provocation from the USA who refused to remove their garrison from Fort Sumter.

The war was evil, and Lincoln was to blame.  His response to the Fort Sumter incident should have been to admit that the USA was to blame, and to leave it at that.  Instead he commenced one of the biggest and bloodiest and most pointless wars in history.  What an evil person he was.

Both sides were to blame.  You need to see that.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Should somebody mention that Lincoln's plan was to pack up all the freed slaves and send them back to West Africa?  Very humanitarian, that.

[Pokhara]

I do not see why it is not pertinent.  You have contended that the US governement had no right to use force to preserve itself as the lawfully constituted government in the seceding southern states in 1861.  I am simply asking for the extent of your position.  Is it that a government never has the right to use force to preserve itself or is it only in certain circumstances?

Your question implies that you agree with Lincoln's position that the war was justified by the need to keep the USA together as one unit.  Of course the secession of seven (later eleven) states did not destroy the USA.  It merely made it smaller by so many states.

I have made this point before.  If you think that war is justified by the "need

[Dennis]

I do not see why it is not pertinent.  You have contended that the US governement had no right to use force to preserve itself as the lawfully constituted government in the seceding southern states in 1861.  I am simply asking for the extent of your position.  Is it that a government never has the right to use force to preserve itself or is it only in certain circumstances?

Your question implies that you agree with Lincoln's position that the war was justified by the need to keep the USA together as one unit.  Of course the secession of seven (later eleven) states did not destroy the USA.  It merely made it smaller by so many states.

I have made this point before.  If you think that war is justified by the "need

[Pokhara]

It implies nothing.  It is simply a question, and I will ask one last time.  Is it your position that no government ever has the right to use force preserve itself, or is it only in certain circumstances?

Your question does carry an implication.  Let me remind you of what your question:

You have contended that the US governement had no right to use force to preserve itself as the lawfully constituted government in the seceding southern states in 1861.  I am simply asking for the extent of your position.  Is it that a government never has the right to use force to preserve itself or is it only in certain circumstances?

You imply clearly that the federal govt of the USA remained the lawfully constituted govt in the seceding states.  This is where I cannot agree with you.  When the seven (later eleven) states left the union, the federal govt ceased to be the lawfully constituted govt for those states.  If you deny that, then presumably you deny the legitimacy of any country which has ever declared independence at any time - the USA, Bolivia, Mexico, Texas, Ireland, Bangladesh, Eritrea - to mention just seven.

[Dennis]

It implies nothing.  It is simply a question, and I will ask one last time.  Is it your position that no government ever has the right to use force preserve itself, or is it only in certain circumstances?

Your question does carry an implication.  Let me remind you of what your question:

You have contended that the US governement had no right to use force to preserve itself as the lawfully constituted government in the seceding southern states in 1861.  I am simply asking for the extent of your position.  Is it that a government never has the right to use force to preserve itself or is it only in certain circumstances?

You imply clearly that the federal govt of the USA remained the lawfully constituted govt in the seceding states.  This is where I cannot agree with you.  When the seven (later eleven) states left the union, the federal govt ceased to be the lawfully constituted govt for those states.  If you deny that, then presumably you deny the legitimacy of any country which has ever declared independence at any time - the USA, Bolivia, Mexico, Texas, Ireland, Bangladesh, Eritrea - to mention just seven.

When you are willing to discuss rather than pontificate let me know.

[Pokhara]

When you are willing to discuss rather than pontificate let me know.

Wiktionary definition of discuss:

To converse or debate concerning a particular topic.

Wiktionary  definition of pontificate:

to express one's position or opinions dogmatically and pompously as if it is absolutely correct.

to speak in a patronizing, supercilious or pompous manner, especially at length.

Given the above definitions, I think I have been discussing.  As for your reference to pontificating, it would appear that flattery is not one of your vices.