Abraham Lincoln: ‘A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand’
by PubliusSpringfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858
MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION:
If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.
Have we no tendency to the latter condition?
Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination — piece of machinery, so to speak — compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design, and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning.
The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State Constitutions, and from most of the national territory by Congressional prohibition. Four days later, commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that Congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained.
But, so far, Congress only had acted; and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and give chance for more.
This necessity had not been overlooked; but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of “squatter sovereignty,” otherwise called “sacred right of self-government,” which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows: “It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of “Squatter Sovereignty,” and “sacred right of self-government.” “But,” said opposition members, “let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the Territory may exclude slavery.” “Not we,” said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.
While the Nebraska bill was passing through Congress, a law case involving the question of a negro’s freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free State and then into a Territory covered by the Congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the U. S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and law suit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The negro’s name was “Dred Scott,” which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. Before the then next Presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a Territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers: “That is a question for the Supreme Court.”
The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the endorsement. The Supreme Court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argument. The Presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming President in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision.
The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital indorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained!
At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton Constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind — the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision “squatter sovereignty” squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding — like the mould at the foundry served through one blast and fell back into loose sand — helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans, against the Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point — the right of a people to make their own constitution — upon which he and the Republicans have never differed.
The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection, with Senator Douglas’s “care not” policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The working points of that machinery are:
First, That no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution, which declares that “The citizens of each State, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”
Secondly, That “subject to the Constitution of the United States,” neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from any United States territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the Territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future.
Thirdly, That whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott’s master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State.
Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are; and partially, also, whither we are tending.
It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left “perfectly free,” “subject only to the Constitution.” What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people, voted down? Plainly enough now: the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Senator’s individual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential election? Plainly enough now: the speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President’s felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President’s advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the President and others?
We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few — not omitting even scaffolding — or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such a piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.
It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska bill, the people of a State as well as Territory, were to be left “perfectly free,” “subject only to the Constitution.” Why mention a State? They were legislating for Territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely Territorial law? Why are the people of a Territory and the people of a State therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same? While the opinion of the court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial Legislature to exclude slavery from any United States Territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a State, or the people of a State, to exclude it. Possibly, this is a mere omission; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a State to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a Territory, into the Nebraska bill; — I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other? The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language, too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion, his exact language is, “except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction.” In what cases the power of the States is so restrained by the United States Constitution, is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the Territories, was left open in the Nebraska act. Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of “care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up,” shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made.
Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. That is what we have to do. How can we best do it?
There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object. They wish us to infer all, from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and we have never differed. They remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But “a living dog is better than a dead lion.” Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion, for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery? He don’t care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the “public heart” to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas democratic newspaper thinks Douglas’s superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave trade. Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new Territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave trade — how can he refuse that trade in that “property” shall be “perfectly free” — unless he does it as a protection to the home production? And as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition.
Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday — that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas’s position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. But clearly, he is not now with us — he does not pretend to be — he does not promise ever to be.
Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends — those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work — who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud and pampered enemy. Did we brave all then, to falter now? –now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail — if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
89 Comments
States rights are an issue again….sure hope we don't have to go thru another civil war to deal with them this time.
That decision by the U.S. Supreme Court announced on March 6, 1857 the status of an illiterate Negro slave, Dred Scott was in my humble option by far the low point of of our judiciary branch of Government.
maybe just maybe enough states demanding their RIGHTS will do the job…..if not what is the difference between "against enemies both foreign and domestic?"
Lincoln was paraphrasing Jesus, who said it first.
Read Matthew 12:25
No matter, it is both true and the Truth.
Clearly Lincoln was not Christophobic and not afraid to use bible verses in public.
Today the ACLU and other preverts would have him sent to reeducation camp or perhaps simply do him in.
Oh, that's right – the pregressives did do him in.
the hysteronics are strong with this one. When you extend the hyperbole to public commentary, with things like "hit squads" and "reeducation camps" you make it damn near impossible to put a divided house back together again.
He was a Republican whom actually read the Bible, for then it was a part of education since it was a widely owned book. Remember that abolitionists were held in the same esteem as the ACLU is today, if you do believe, have faith God knows what she is doing.
Nearly always the ACLU renders help to causes counterintuitive to freeedom loving Americans.
They are friends of the state so they are clearly the enemy.
That may all be true but Lincoln was a "white supremicist", he wanted all freed slaves deported. Much more is found in "The Politically Incorrect Guide To American History by Thomas E. Woods Jr., Ph.D fully footnoted. Lincoln was not who and what we now kindly believe him to have been. More reading of history is necessary for the complete picture.
Lincoln had a hard-on for the South the same way Bush had a hard on for Iraq. He was going to invade by hook or by crook.
Originally founded to defend Bolsheviks or Bolshevism, I seem to remember.
The lessons of the past are most interesting. However, what are we to do today to save the Republic?
"Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design, and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning."
Words of wisdom.
I didn't know that. I might verify that, those kind of facts are fun to throw at leftists.
I've never heard that. Really? hmmm. wow…
Thank you for posting this speech in honor of Lincoln's birthday (yesterday).
We are "a house divided" yet again. This time, though, it is not state vs state but neighbor vs neighbor. May God have mercy on us all.
"fully footnoted". You mean like "peer reviewed"?
kwg1, nearly all whites were afraid of blacks at that time. There were no ready examples of men of different colors living peaceably together in 1858. Nevertheless, Mr. Lincoln believed that black and white deserved to "eat the bread of their own labor"; that treating blacks like cattle was inherantly wrong; and that the words of The Declaration of Independence applied to black as well as white.
Chew on this quote for a while: "In his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858 he decalred: 'I will say that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they can not so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. Sounds like a Constitutionalist to me, and someone who wan't to apply that to everyone, don't you? And just three years before he was President. You can say what you want but that does not make it so! Thanks.
friends of the state to government sponsored hit squads is still a very large leap.
the ALCU does yes at times support groups with interest counter to the progress of american progress. They however do this because even those people have rights, the whole idea of the american political system is that ideas and policy gets tested in such a way, otherwise you become a suppressive government in your own right.
I love Lincoln and have read several biographies about him. He had some wonderful ways of looking at adversity. My favorite Lincoln quotation is, "A man is about as happy as he makes up his mind to be." Pretty juicy stuff from a guy who was miserably married to a lunatic who did everything she possibly could to make his life miserable. Whoever said, "Behind every successful man is a woman" never read a Lincoln biography… or a biography of Joseph Haydn for that matter. I could cite other examples.
From the Book for your reading pleasure: "Praise for The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History: "An important work that refutes the misinterpretations of American history that have misinformed generations about their country, its origins, purposes, successes and failures. Riveting highly readable"-Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury" "Solidly based in the best and most recent scholarship and written in an agreeable, flowing style, The Politically Incorrect Guide is a gem. It will be treasured by history buffs and by anyone who suspects that high school and college textbooks might not have told the whole story.- Ralph Raico, professor of history, buffalo State College.
"The history of America as taught in high school and college textbooks is often as distorted as the histories imposed on the hapless people of the former Soviet Union. Professor Woods's book should be required reading for college students. If it were, we might hope to recover something of the decentralized polity of the Founders.- Donald W. Livingston, professor of philospohy, Emory University. The entire series of Politically Incorrect Guides has been reviewed and out for many years. This one was published in 2004.
During the War between the States it was individuals (neighbor vs neighbor as you put it) who came down along similarly strong dividing lines as they exist again today. People make war throught the instrumentallity of governments they either control or want to control. In this sense nothing has changed. Your implication it is worse now is off the mark. I do agree with your last line however.
Publius, will you make it routine to publish more excerpts of conservative thinkers? Stuff like makes for a good refresher course.
Ya, I get the "strong, competant and vigorous" defense stuff. That's understandable.
All powers not delegated to the federal government belong to the states or to the people.
That is the Constitution. That is what we should be following.
Tempus………………..never heard of Fort Sumter?
What kind of revisionist/ alternative history did you get in school, or did you sleep through it all ?
Tempus………………..never heard of Fort Sumter?
I suppose you believe that Lincoln colluded with Brigadier General Beauregard, right ?
What kind of revisionist/alternate history were you "taught" in school?
And Abraham Lincoln is supposed to be the guy that Barrack Obama was going to model his presidency after? Sounds to me like our current president has A LOT of work to do to accomplish that.
The idea of any kind of slavery is abhorrent, however, I don't really see much difference in what Obama is trying to do with the 'forced' health care…the government says "buy it or pay a fine and/or (both) go to jail…anytime you FORCE something on someone, that would be slavery…social security, federal income tax, the IRS…I could go on, but what's the point…
This process has to stop NOW!!
Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, Palin, our best presidents.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=a...
"The Democratic Party platform of 1960 summarizes the switch boldly and explicitly. It declares that a Democratic Administration “will reaffirm the economic bill of rights which Franklin Roosevelt wrote into our national conscience sixteen years ago.”
Bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of “rights” when you read the list which the platform offers:
“1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
“2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
“3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
“4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.
“5. The right of every family to a decent home.
“6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
“7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.
“8. The right to a good education.”
A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make the issue clear: At whose expense?
Jobs, food, clothing, recreation(!), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values—goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor."
What caused the Civil War? Lincoln's election as president.
What will cause the next one, if any?
I don't think that 'new' bill of rights was ever made into law…? am I right?
No, but it is telling to see how close the platform of 1960 is to the agenda of the left today. They have been working for many decades to enact these collectivist socialist forms of government and at that, all one has to do is look at what their limited successes have done to know where they intend to take us. Have they reduced poverty? No they have increased it. Have they created better and more productive educational institutions? No they have turned the public schools into indoctrination camps.
No this is not law yet but they want it to be.
Ask any leftist where the right to health care comes from and they will have no answer. Health care is a service produced by men, and government control of that production and distribution is enslavement and this cannot be debated.
Lincoln caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of patriotic men. Does that make him great? My hero is John Wilkes Booth.
I see there are still lots of misconceptions about Lincoln. Even in his own papers he freely admits that he never intent to save the slaves, free them or anything else and did actively oppose the freedom of slaves during his tenure as a senator in the fifties. Additionally, he clearly stated if he could "save" the union without freeing a single slave he would do so. Toss in on top of that the fact that both Lincoln and Chase freely admitted to perverting the constitution in order to "save the union at any expense" and it starts to become clear. The tenth amendment does protect (or at least was written to protect) the right of the states to secede from the union. As for the war of Northern aggression, once the Carolinas did secede, Fort Sumter was effectively foreign soil. Not only did Lincoln not abandon the fort but actively sought to reinforce it and that attempt to reinforce a fort illegally held on foreign soil was what led to Southerners having no choice but to stand their ground or cede their lives, their fortunes and their Sacred Honor without so much as a whimper.
Apart from that, given his belief in the Bible and what I have read about him, I have no doubt that Lincoln was in fact a good man and I believe I would have probably gotten along with him. However, there is a reason behind the saying that the road to hades is paved with good intentions … those that dare to oppress us for our own good will do so in a clear conscious and be ever more willing to further erode our rights and liberties "for our own good".
Unfortunately, we find ourselves in something of the reverse situation this time and it will be interesting to see what the ultimate outcome will be. I daresay I do shudder to think of the cost no matter what the new "final solution" may be or which side wins.
The times they are indeed changing and as used to be commonly said, they are becoming "interestinger and interestinger".
Thanks for providing a little clarity on a vaguely undersood subject. And yes, we are living in interesting times.
We are a house, divided.
I for one, would never unite with the left, no matter if we were invaded by an army of man eating space aliens.
Obama and the minions of the left are more a threat to liberty than any enemy from without.
two big govt. jerk-offs who came from IL- Obama and Lincoln
I hate to be a stick in the wood and I am born and raised in N.W. Connecticut, but to me the lawyer, Lincoln, was a Progressive before his time? Just when was Marx around, by the way?) Lincoln was every bit a Progressive as a McCain, a Wilson, FDR, Johnson, and yes, even a Bush or TWO! I'm definitely NOT a RACIST, but slavery was a TOOL used by SOME of our FOUNDING forefathers who disagreed with other founding fathers about the power and form of the newly created Federal Government made by the UNITED STATES, not vice versa! In fact, Madison did not even want to use the word "Democracy" to describe this NEW REPUBLIC (Now I know why!), but others obviously wanting a KING with federal power, got their way! This "power and control" fight was really the main point of the civil war i.e., that WHITE POLITICIANS used "RACE" as a tool and right from the beginning to get their agenda done! THINK AMERICA!
TRUE! TRUE! EVER SO TRUE!
Lincoln is a complicated subject, as a Southerner, and like was said in an earlier thread, Lincoln and Sherman were both dirty words in our house when I was a kid. Slavery was an abomination whose time was coming to an end with or without the war.
His words, as a politician many times didn’t jive with Lincoln the man, he was always ambiguous about slavery, even at the time of “The House Divided,” speech. As a politician he was not above political expediency (The Emancipation Proclamation.) The war had been going on for over a year, and badly, he had to change the equation. McClellan was bivwacked on one side, and Lee and Jackson on the other, not good. So invoke abolition, and give the war religious fervor, and next find Grant.
However, by using Reagan’s eleventh commandment, “never speak ill of a fellow Republican,” and by further personal review, I’ve come to admire Lincoln in many ways, some not so much.
As an aside Lee freed all of his inherited slaves (he was married to Martha Washington’s great granddaughter, and became the head of the house at Arlington) – - once he assumed command of The Army of Northern Virginia.
oh yeah both are jerk-off lawyers too!
Sure, we'd like to have God have mercy on us as a nation…But the way our Nat'l Moral Character is, we aren't going to get Mercy….We've been given Mercy & Grace for quite awhile now.
Our Punishment or Chastisement will be greater, as we were given more….and slipped into a Nat'l Lifestyle that could be considered much worse than Sodom & Gomorrah, besides other nasty stuff..
The only way to avoid this is to return to Basic biblical principles that our Founding Fathers used to create our nation. In reality, this ain't gonna happen, no way, no how; as our Political System and Associated School System won't allow it to happen.
I'm thinking he said that F.D. Roosevelt was his role model. Lately, Hillary made a similar statement that she likes the True Progressive approach to govt.
The next is Spiritual/Moral.
In general there is "religious" war with Israel and Islam…
Islam hates us, equally as they hate Israel…Well no, we called "the great satan" and are a bigger threat to their empire-building cause..
Our Divine Protection that we have enjoyed is Letting Down His Guard as a punishment.
The 19th century libertarian Democrats followed Jefferson and Madison and the Party stood firm for State's Rights as a roadblock to protect local and self government instead of the growing nationalism of those from Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt on up to John McCain, leaving out Reagan, who reflected more the early Democrat views. Modern Democrats follow Rousseau and Marx since Wilson to Obama, and they would push the boundaries of government further away from the individual. They believe community interests are more important than are individual interests. How far we have come? Its described in The Changing Face of Democrats on Amazon and claysamerica.com. State's Rights meant something important. Find out why.
His Bilical Answer would have to be….Return the Foreigners to their Homeland. Primary Reason.
Then, since the slaves came from Ethiopian, A Christian nation, he realized that in the future that nation would be destroyed, along with others in a super-catastrophic war…It is highly likely that the slaves did not maintain their Christian Belief system, …so Pres Lincoln was spiritually or morally caught between a Rock and a Hard Place.
I can only speculate with this idea….that maybe Pres Lincoln could have made them into Contract Workers with no Personal Rights, but yet subject to the law of the land.
Generally, when various peoples were enslaved, eventually their would be an uprising, so that was another thing for him to consider….
The Left is an "arm" of the Anti-Christ Forces, which are legion.
Thanks Clay! Well said! As I said above, this fight has been going on since before we were even a "United States" of America!
Thank You Mr Tuttle,
I stopped being a Democrat when Carter took office….But as an IBEW Union member, our Unions never gave us a copy of the Democrat Platform….NEVER.
Now, I'm learning Constitutional & Biblical Principles.
II'm thinking to demand our school boards provide our students with their own personal Cys of our Founding Documents…Is that a good lst step?
Nancy Pelosi was told that the Health Care System proposal was a violation of the 10th Amendment, you probably know that.
Her response was: "Are You Serious? Are You Serious?" And turned her back to the audience to regain her composure.
Sure, we are quite aware that she could be voted out of ofc shortly.But her attitude permeates the Congress, right?
Can't Articles of Impeachment be served on her?
What caused the first civil war? Slavery
What will cause the second civil war? Slavery
Think about it: Just as the United States of the 19th century could not allow the slavery of blacks and remain a Free Republic for all men, so too today the 21st century USA cannot allow the existence of slavery (socialism) to exist within its borders and remain a Free Republic.
Like Lincoln said, "A house divided cannot stand."
Mr Obama would need at least 12 Tele-Prompters to model Lincoln's speech. Lincoln would have "bitch-slapped" Obama….at least challenge him to a duel.
Mr Obama: TAKE DOWN YOUR WALL, IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST!"
I need at least 2 "Amens!"
Well first, get a writer who knows how to spell, and maybe write. he uses "indorse" several times when he means to say "endorse" Second what a bunch of rascist drivel, and long winded at that. The Dred Scott descison of 1857 was fundementally flawed as it directly ignored that line in theDeclaration of Independence and, Bill of Rights that "All men were created equal"
Don't tell me that posters and the author are just expressing an opinion either, suggesting Lincoln a scourge to the country. You do understand he was a Repulican. By the way the argument that states rights are supreme was resolved long ago. It works like this, states are supreme as long as they don't violate the Constitution of the US or the Bill of Rights and the priciples of the Declaration of Independence, you know the countries founding documents.
Now the author, editors, and bent little posters on here, go crawl back under your 19th century rock.
To all people who don't believe the Civil War was about slavery: you are wrong.
South Carolina gave it's reasons for leaving the U.S. and they ware all about preserving slavery.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scars...
Please resist the revisionist drivel out there about how the Confederacy was right.
To be clear I didn't write what I posted here, this was taken from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand.
Getting involved at all levels from the school board on up is not just a good step, this is the answer! Remember they would have passed the health care bill back in August if it was not for the tea party and the town halls, and again it would have passed in Jan if it wasn't for MA and Scott Brown.
That is you and all of us demanding of our representatives, we will be heard! And it works.
Happy to have you on the side of liberty Gregory!
CNS news did a series asking not just about the 10th amendment but the more general question 'what constitutional authority allows you to mandate health care be purchased by the citizens' and this was asked of a number of Senators.
Pelosi:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971
My favorite is Akaka:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57024
"When asked if there was a specific part of the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to make people buy health insurance, Akaka said: “Not in particular with health insurance. It’s not covered in that respect. But in ways to help citizens in our country to live a good life, let me say it that way, is what we’re trying to do, and in this case, we’re trying to help them with their health.”
Akaka is basically saying – there is no authority but because they believe they are doing good they will just go ahead and do it anyway. This should make all free citizens very very afraid. When the government gets to decide what is allowed we are all being ruled by tyrants.
The there is Landreau:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58401
“But what I will say is that most certainly it is within Congress’ jurisdiction to come up with a way to have a health insurance funded with shared responsibility, is the way I like to, you know — government has a responsibility, individuals have a responsibility and business has a responsibility,” said Landrieu.
This is barely coherent. What fools they believe us to be,
Pro-Confederate sympathies are a hindrance to conservatism. Not only did the South want, above all, to preserve slavery, but they were trying (successfully) to suppress the freedom of all Americans to speak out against slavery or to help escaped slaves; even more, they were positioning themselves to spread slavery throughout North and South America. They would have formed something close to a Nazi regime fairly soon. The only freedom they defended was their own to hold slaves. It's amazing that so many conservatives don't see this, and waste their time "debunking" Lincoln. By defending the Confederacy, you defend no real principle, and give others cause to believe that conservatives are in sympathy with the racist elements of our past.
My great great great grandfather was a charter member of the Republican party, a free citizen and freehold farmer of Wisconsin, that is, he held voting rights and his own land debt free.
He and his neighbors were upset because their county of their state had to pay for the apprehension and the cost of return of any escaped chattel property of the citizens of other states back to the state the chattel had fled.
They were also fearful of the vast land claims the State of Virginia possessed upon the free (leaving aside how the Native Americans may have felt about such matters) lands to the west, that in the end, the slave owning aristocracy could acquire the right to hold and own as property a person of any race.
Lincoln seriously considered just letting the South leave, however the vast land claims that the state of Virginia would then hold as a competing sovereign power, or as a member of a competing sovereign power, ended that path of thought.
And so a terrible war was fought amongst brothers.
I dont like the way that you are portraying God with your garble of understanding, I dont think you really know gods overall plan.
Let's just pray that they don't get their wish!!
Reality check yourself! I was replying to a poster who, in a round about way, claimed that Lincoln wanted to "invade" the South, in "truther" kind of way, re 9/11.
I do actually know and understand the history of the Civil War.
Reality check:
South Carolina seceded, requested politely, then slow escalated their rhetoric ask/telling the Federal troops to leave Ft. Sumpter. Lincoln knew this, and also knew that many States that later seceded likely wouldn't secede if he had withdrawn the troops there and respected the S. Carolinian's request.
Instead he decided to resupply the troops. In short, he thumbed his nose at the now independent Confederacy and maintained troops in their geographical territory, refusing to withdraw them when given ample opportunity to do so.
So in order to prevent a hostile foreign government from controlling a major harbor, the Confederacy had to use force to eject foreign troops from their soil. Yes they fired first, but Lincoln had been clearly provoking them.
After that, the final wave of secession came, Lincoln's response? Invade Virginia, which had just recently left the US.
These Divisions happen on the spiritual plane 1st. Then it manifests itself on our physical plane. Originally, the Heavenly Division was 2/3's "good guys" Vs the 1/3 "bad guys."
A future event on the heavenly plane is that the "bad guys" get thrown down to Earth, so Crime will increase drastically. But, the lst Manifestation of this event is that Lies and Liars will increase massively. I'd rather say increase exponentially but I can't prove that biblically.
For this reason, the American House will remain divided, 50/50 on moral issues causing no progress to be made.
God of the Bible is making this division as we're living in age where He is dividing the sheep from the goats routine. You see, God caused the various divisions of the people-groups, into 3 races, and thern later on into 70 nations for His Management Purposes. He gave them their own boundaries and borders to stay in!
We started out as a Christian Republic and now we are in general an Atheist Democracy.
It is the nature of Democracy to be divided as it was divided from its Original Start up as a nation after Greece fell.
It seems even more evident to me now a certain importance of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding corporate political free speech, and Barack Obama's objection to it after reading this. Lincoln's own illustration of a house being constructed sums it up best. We have a president who is working on the structure of a fascist government house. How many major pieces have been added to this machine in Obama's one year? All the while people are saying he hasn't accomplished anything, but really they're almost there.
Lincoln was in need of soldiers too, and i believe played a role in issuing the emancipation proclamation, Lincoln also made statements that could be interpreted as white supremacy. So both Lincoln and Obama are racist, isnt that lovely, a couple of tall skinny pencil necked geek lawyer racists
May 2, 2009
Please print as my answer to XXXXX criticism:
Dear Mr. XXXXX via XXXXXXX:
Any politician who proclaims proudly that he is “ . . . remaking America . .” is by definition a Yertle. Yertle as you point out was a totalitarian despot, but not at first. At first he was King of the pond, but he was not satisfied and wanted more power, and to get it he coerced other turtles to act in his interest, and against their self interest. President Obama is doing the exact same thing, he’s just doing it with a smile. Thus, any official who seeks to induce me to operate against my rational self interest, and the liberty of others, are “Yertles.” I do not need to remind my fellow letter writers how citizens used far worse with regard to President Bush; they compared him to Hitler, I am just returning the favor. Where was Mr. Sorrels respect for the office then?
Even a casual observer of history ought to be able to see that in the not to distant future we will face massive military challenges. As I write these words Kim Jung Whackjob is in the process of transferring his power over to the military with a new nuclear toy to overrun South Korea, Communist China is attempting to build a blue water nuclear powered Navy, Pakistan is on the cusp being overrun by Islamo Facists AKA “The Taliban,” Saudi Arabia faces a daily threat from a growing Wahhabist faction and Iran calls for the destruction of Israel like you or I would order a beer and chicken wings at the Blazer. Against this backdrop Mr. Obama goes around the world apologizing for America, and failing to unapologetically illustrate the gift we’ve given the world at the enormous price of blood and treasure; in an old envelope I have pieces of my grandfathers bones, and the screws and plates that held him together while in the hospital, and the memory of a man who never woke from the horror that is war, and a diary with neat and careful lines crossing out all the friends he lost along the way. I witness Secretary Gates intone how we have no military option to deny Iran nuclear weapons in open session on C-Span. Mr. XXXXX if you were running Iran how would you react to that? If you were running Israel how would you react to that? One nuclear blast and Israel will not recover and she will have only fifteen minutes warning. The closer America gets to either being unwilling or unable to fight the closer actual war is. Peace through strength is the only hope we have ever had.
As far as your assertion that I should treat President Obama as if I were in uniform and not a civilian; Americans owe no duty to the President. Quite the opposite in fact. I’ve very little respect for Mr. Obama or the way he practices politics. Any President who without a second thought takes private property and treats it as his own for political purposes is not to be respected he is to be feared and rejected. For Mr. Obama has revealed himself to have no self governing limits on his authority, let alone respect for Constitutional ones. We are in for a long trip and those who share my philosophy are not in power Mr. XXXXXX; those who share yours are, let us see how that philosophy works in the next 550 or so days. We will then go to the ballot box and decide if we want more of it; Will the world be a more peaceful place? Will prosperity return to our shores and be balanced on the rock of fiscal responsibility or my children's mastercard? Will Mr. Obama’s route to comity among nations through apology work? Will private companies be allowed to run as they see fit or will capital by allocated for political purposes? Will States be able to decide if they do or do not want abortions, same sex marriage or a whole panoply of issues on their own; or must they to be cowed by the President and activist federal judges? Will rising taxes be the answer to our budgetary woes or will tax receipts shrink as taxes rise? Will Vice President Biden ever stop shooting off his mouth like Mr. Cheney on a quail hunt? I have a strong sense as to what is on the way and answers to these questions – but I may be wrong. I am an open minded fellow and think that people ought to live as they see fit so long as it’s not in my living room or on my front lawn or pounded into my child's head at school.
Mr. XXXXXX if I do one day run for office and am unlucky enough to win I will remind you of your words if I pass by. I will not be looking for a salute, only a handshake because when all is said and done we’re Americans! As Lincoln said in 1858 “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
Regards,
I wish I had studied history in college. It would be paying off in spades now.
[...] [...]
You betcha!
Is it too late to sandblast Teddy Roosevelt's face off of Mt. Rushmore and replace it with Reagan's?
Way to go, Guest. I feel stupid for having attributed the phrase to Lincoln–but at least he was interested in what Jesus had to say, and actually read the Bible.
What's even more alarming is that our present administration is actually laboring to DIVIDE this house.
In this, our house, the White House administration is perpetuating the problem–they're actually working to make the divisions. WE, THE PEOPLE are working at keeping us together–just as our Founders would have wanted.
I agree completely, and would add that as a christian, I (and I believe Lincoln also) would not deliberatly hurt the slaves if there were power available to turn the circumstances. Jesus said, If you've done it unto the least of these, my bretheren, you've done it unto me. He did not want to destroy the union, but not only a house divided, but divided against God is doomed. I believe this country is here as a counterweight to evil such as Hitler, Stalin, and that God is with us while we are for Him. What other country has abolished slavery in that era on moral grounds. Our resolve to be honorable preserves us as a nation, and is our only hope in these days.
Had you studied American History in College … at least studied it with an eye and ear for details from those that were there, you may have discovered the college courses to be woefully lacking in content and substance.
[...] [...]
I don't see anything wrong with dividing the country. In fact, I think it is our only and best solution at this point. It seems to me that each state should take a vote on whether they want to be in the Constitutional Republic of the US or in the People's Socialist Democracy of the US. Then anyone who lives in a state where they are in the minority should be given a period of time during which to move the other country – peaceably.
I think this is the only solution. Why should I be a slave to Socialists and why should they have to live under a Capitalists system for which they are clearly unequipped (i.e. too damn lazy) to handle?
The results of such a situation would be inevitable and fascinating. All the businesses and all the real entrepreneurs (not the crony capitalists like Immelt) and the hard working people and the innovators would move to the CR of America and our nation would thrive. The PSD of America would become a 3rd world country very rapidly – with no jobs (except perhaps Hollywood and of course the govt) and no economic growth or wealth creation. Then, of course, they would blame the CR of A for "stealing" all the money and the businesses away from them "unfairly." And my response to that would be, "If Socialism is SOOOOO GREAT, then shouldn't your country be a paradise without all those evil, greedy Capitalists? Isn't that what you wanted to create your Utopia – to get rid of Capitalism? What happened? (Giggle, giggle, giggle)?"
If we divide as a nation; we will be committing national suicide. If that is your cause – you'll earn me as an enemy.
[...] [...]
is it true that Lincoln stated if he could get the south to join the union. He would have never bothered to fight to end slavery?
29…
[…]If 4 out of 5 people SUFFER from diarrhea… does that mean that one enjoys it?[…]…
Get your horse tack!…
Not sure if this is the right place (I’m not really good with computers), but left you a trackback for your readers, if they ever need some information about horse tack….
Thanks a lot for sharing this amazing knowledge with us.
High PR Backlinks
invest liberty reserve I think this is one of the most vital info for me. And i am glad reading your article. But want to remark on some general things, The web site style is great, the articles is really great : D. Good job, cheers…
I think this is one of the most vital info for me. And i am glad reading your article. But want to remark on some general things, The web site style is great, the articles is really great : D. Good job, cheers…
puppy breeders The example of these blogging engines and CMS platforms is the of limitations and palliate of manipulation that allows developers to compel flush noesis and ‘skin’ the site in a way that with very little effort one would never asking w…
The example of these blogging engines and CMS platforms is the of limitations and palliate of manipulation that allows developers to compel flush noesis and ‘skin’ the site in a way that with very little effort one would never asking what it is making …
[...] of our party. He governed at a time when there was no United States other than in name only. When he said, “A House divided against itself cannot stand,” he was as prophetic of a civil war as he was [...]
[...] of our party. He governed at a time when there was no United States other than in name only. When he said, “A House divided against itself cannot stand,” he was as prophetic of a civil war as he was [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.