In typically ignorant fashion, Governor LePage in Maine said John Lewis should thank Republicans for freeing the slaves. However, freeing the slaves was not Abraham Lincoln's purpose and he said if he did not have to free the slaves to hold the Union together he would not have done it. He also said if it was necessary he would do it but only in the context of holding together the Union.
Since you're just dying to hear something stupid from Paul LePage, here you go. (Daily Beast: Paul LePage: John Lewis Should Thank GOP for Ending Slavery)
Here's how it really went:
Lincoln: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
- American Digest: February 21, 2014
That was in a letter to Horace Greeley. We don't take anything away from Lincoln insofar as the slaves really were freed but any idea from LePage that Lincoln was driven by the importance of emancipation is utter bloody rubbish.
Cadillac Man knows American history like it's tattooed on his brain and I'm sure he will be happy to bust any misquote, mistake, half-truth, etc. I don't believe it exists but will be interested to hear of such if it does.
There's a novel phenomenon in politics in which Republicans were regarded generally as the good guys back then and the relatively-new Democrats were the bad guys. That reversed over time and they switched roles. The interest in that phenomenon now is in the observation the Democrats are switching back to being the bad guys (e.g. Obama dropped more bombs on Syria than Cheney dropped on Iraq, etc).
In response to the flip in the Democratic Party, presumably the Republicans should have flipped too but they didn't so now we have two parties of bad guys with not much differentiating them. In the Sixties, all the Democrats (except LBJ) were singing "Where Have All the Flowers Gone" but now they don't even listen to it.
Cadillac Man knows this aspect up and down and maybe it's one of the big intrigues in history for why should this happen but we see it in-play right now and it's most unusual.
As to Maine, they should stick to what they do best: catching lobsters.
They're good at it too. You can have lobster for breakfast up there if you like.
Pro tip: don't ever get a lobster which is over about 2.5 pounds as those ones are the best. I've even broken one of those claw-cracker devices on an older one because their shells get so thick. At 2.5 pounds, the lobster meat is just about as 'sweet' as it ever gets. You can get them for peanuts in Maine where they practically give them away. Many say those Maine lobsters are the best in the world.
Since you're just dying to hear something stupid from Paul LePage, here you go. (Daily Beast: Paul LePage: John Lewis Should Thank GOP for Ending Slavery)
Here's how it really went:
Lincoln: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
- American Digest: February 21, 2014
That was in a letter to Horace Greeley. We don't take anything away from Lincoln insofar as the slaves really were freed but any idea from LePage that Lincoln was driven by the importance of emancipation is utter bloody rubbish.
Cadillac Man knows American history like it's tattooed on his brain and I'm sure he will be happy to bust any misquote, mistake, half-truth, etc. I don't believe it exists but will be interested to hear of such if it does.
There's a novel phenomenon in politics in which Republicans were regarded generally as the good guys back then and the relatively-new Democrats were the bad guys. That reversed over time and they switched roles. The interest in that phenomenon now is in the observation the Democrats are switching back to being the bad guys (e.g. Obama dropped more bombs on Syria than Cheney dropped on Iraq, etc).
In response to the flip in the Democratic Party, presumably the Republicans should have flipped too but they didn't so now we have two parties of bad guys with not much differentiating them. In the Sixties, all the Democrats (except LBJ) were singing "Where Have All the Flowers Gone" but now they don't even listen to it.
Cadillac Man knows this aspect up and down and maybe it's one of the big intrigues in history for why should this happen but we see it in-play right now and it's most unusual.
As to Maine, they should stick to what they do best: catching lobsters.
They're good at it too. You can have lobster for breakfast up there if you like.
Pro tip: don't ever get a lobster which is over about 2.5 pounds as those ones are the best. I've even broken one of those claw-cracker devices on an older one because their shells get so thick. At 2.5 pounds, the lobster meat is just about as 'sweet' as it ever gets. You can get them for peanuts in Maine where they practically give them away. Many say those Maine lobsters are the best in the world.
8 comments:
States rights have always been the divisive issue from the time America formed as a nation during the revolutionary war from 13 independent colonies. You are totally correct in that Lincoln recognized if the southern states were successful in secession there would be two countries not one. Therefore, he saw his primary concern to preserve the union at any cost. He opposed slavery but was willing to tolerate it in the existing states to preserve the union. He used the emancipation of the slaves as a political issue partly to keep England from siding with the South. England had already abolished slavery in 1838. The emancipation proclamation he issued in September 1862 actually gave the South till January 1, 1863 to cease the rebellion. Had they done so slavery would have been allowed to continue there. There really weren't bad guys or good guys in this just a major difference in how much authority the federal government should have over the states. Fortunately, the founding fathers were dealing with the same issues and provided for a balance of power in the constitution.
Thanks for the definitive word on that history and I pity to the fool who questions your knowledge (larfs).
Yes, that was a Mister T knock-off although I suspect not too convincing.
I see my own bias toward the Fed but my perception nevertheless is states rights as that position stands now appear far more divisive than anything else insofar I've never seen anything useful come from it except obstruction.
My general perception also is the Union is being held together now only because Uncle Sugar put military bases and defense contractors in every state so they won't pull away and give up the gravy but that's a poor reason for claiming any kind of unity. Every time we hear of Texas prattling about secession, the only reaction is yeah, yeah, go ahead on. They won't do it.
The Fed should only be solving state to state issues. Not overall defense. One of the worst recent Fed moves was to allow banks to cross state lines
The Civil War did show the federal government's resolve to enforce it's authority over the states and maintain unity. As you state, that continues today via economic incentives. While I agree it is coercive to use economic means, it is still preferable to military use.
There's another alternative to let them go. When the Dixiecrats hate just about everything Washington does, fine ... take a walk and have a nice life. The determination to bind the Union at all costs is not, in my view, warranted. Neither an economic nor a military deterrent is acceptable here at the Rockhouse.
Agreed on the banks but I don't see that so much as states rights but rather a limitation of their power to whatever boundaries happen to present. Eliminating that may have been the single worst move Clinton ever made.
In my view, there's a large pile of absurdity with gambling, for example, since casino gambling is legal on the Indian reservations in Oklahoma but it isn't legal anywhere in Texas ... so Texans go up to Oklahoma on gambling junkets. I see that sort of thing as just plain silly.
If the State of Texas does not want gambling, it is there choice. Those who wish to gamble can travel.
I lived in a county that did not allow liquor by the drink. So no restaurant could serve alcohol, so there were very few upscale restaurants, finally they changed it to allow the influx of upscale restaurants. But it was the decision of the local people not Washington.
Washington sets laws to based on the current ruling power and thier agenda.
And the agenda continually seasaws and nothing is truly accomplished except money is spent
I understand and I've just thrown out a more recent article stating the case in more general terms which don't go so much toward the detail aspect but rather what holds the Union together in the first place. I think that one may go straight to it.
Post a Comment