“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

As you’ll note, there’s nothing that could be used to make this argument in the case of a free African-American, and there’s nothing referencing a slave’s citizenship or lack thereof. Though it is true that Scott didn’t really have a leg to stand on in his legal argument (though he would have had he made the argument while living in a free state), the argument used by the SC is wholly unconstitutional. Zootsuit could probably tell you more.

Person 1 has an absolute stand against slavery. He fights it anywhere and everywhere he can find it to the point of trying to rob an armory and start a slave insurrection. He is unsuccessful, ends up hanged for doing it and inflames the supporters of slavery to the point where they push for even more legislation protecting the practice.

Person 2 speaks against slavery, works to block legislation which expands it (often unsuccessfully). Works to implement policies which restrict slavery while not inflaming those who support it, and eventually outlaws it in areas over which he has no direct control. This eventually ACTUALLY ends slavery in this country.

Both of these men were real and both ended up dead for their actions. The first, though more moral by your definition, made things worse. The second was of course Lincoln.

So which is more moral? The one who made a lot of noise and made things worse or the one who tried the gradual approach and succeeded?

ALL of his writing and speeches and political stands suggest that Lincoln hated the practice of slavery. He just didn’t think the total abolitionists had any chance of success and thought that his program would be more likely to end slavery than theirs.

This would be equivalent (practically, not morally) to those of us who think Social Security is a terrible program and should be shut down, but not all at once. It would be too traumatic and unjust to those who paid into the program all these years to just shut it off. We need to do it gradually providing for those who have come to depend on the poor policies of the government and weaning off the rest.

I don’t even bother reading Lincoln detractors’ posts. I have argued every aspect until I’m blue in the face. It’s the same stuff over and over.

So, if you made a good point or two, I didn’t see it. If I am assuming far too much of your anti-Lincolnism, then I can admit when I’m wrong. But, see, that would require me to waste my time weeding out the anti-Lincolnisms from the rest.

I just won’t do it. Let others argue Lincoln. I’m now content to just state my point and move on. The debate is wearisome. I have done it far too much on numerous other forums. Any hint of anti-Lincolnism and I ignore all.

So, like I said, if you aren’t as anti-Lincoln as I at first assumed, then fine. But don’t ask me to launch into hours of repetitive anti/pro Lincoln debate. I just don’t have the interest any more.

We’re foolish, and we are spreading “lies.”

We’re a “waste of time.”

If that’s the case, then why the heck did you post on Lincoln in the first place?

BTW, no one said any of the things that you accuse us of saying. Secondly, we are arguing that the comparison between Obama and Lincoln is not a bad one. Finally, my personal argument is that Lincoln is not the best role model of conservative, small-government leadership.

Your refusal to engage in debate on your own thread, and your dismissive attitude of and ridicule towards those who respectfully disagree with you is very enlightening.

I think that I’ll be posting quite a bit more on REDSTATE. It needs quality improvement.

He did nothing to change the institution in the North, and in fact, suppressed abolitionists so that Maryland, Delaware, and other states would stay in the Union. He was not a moralist on the issue. And I go back to my original reason for posting on this thread. Obama – Lincoln is an excellent comparison.

Reagan was wildly successful in his agenda. He slashed taxes dramatically, cut the size of government, and destroyed the Soviet Union. He was an experienced leader who ran to enact an agenda of conservatism. Lincoln was an opportunist. Your comparison is awful.

What I said was that the Constitution guaranteed slavery – which it did. It was not pro or against slavery in a moral sense. It simply allowed the continuation of an ongoing practice. Second, it also provided for a gradual phase out of the slave trade, which, by itself guaranteed years of the legal importation of fresh slaves from Africa.

The Dred Scott decision was not judicial overreach. It was based on a sincere reading of the Constitution and an application of the founder’s principles. The problem was not the Constitutionality of the decision. It was the moral abhorrence of slavery itself.

I refer you to my other posts on state’s rights.

http://hnn.us/articles/30419.html

Which “guys” misrepresent Lincoln’s views on slavery and The Constitution ?
All I did was ask why you were misrepresenting what he said by leaving some of it out!

When did I say he was a dictator ?

When did I say he abused the Constitution ?

When did I say he did not care about slavery ?
Can you not read ?
By my realizing he did speak of slavery, I have shown that I know he did care about slavery.

When did I call him a racist et c, et c, et c ?

You may think you have spent years arguing with foolish Lincoln haters, but, it is obvious that now you prefer to accuse anyone that doesn’t say you are always right about Lincoln, of things they have not ever said !

You should have just stuck with a better comeback, like “Oh Yeah ?”

You guys all universally misrepresent Lincoln’s views on slavery AND the Constitution. It’s pretty pointless to bother, really.

He was no dictator.

It is a lie to say he abused the Constitution.

It is a lie to say he “really” didn’t care about slavery.

It is a lie to say he was just as racist, etc., etc.

I have spent years arguing with foolish Lincoln haters. It is a waste of time.

I don’t know if it was your intention to do so, but that’s where I drew that assumption from.

By the same token, if Southerners had hypothetically suggested the opposite (that states could only be admitted if they were slaveholding states), that too wouldn’t have been unconstitutional for the same reason.

If you’re referring to the abolitionist wackos, then yes, their position that the federal government should stop slavery in the Southern states would be an unconstitutional one due to the 10th Amendment, and the fact that Southern states were already established and could invoke the 10th.

Besides that, there are also instances where the South used judicial overreach to support slavery (Dred Scott v. Sanford), so I don’t think that Southern extremists had a leg to stand on on this issue.

You also left out the regulation of the slave trade. Check the history of the abolitionist movement to find out if the Constitution dealt with slavery.

Your own comments prove that Lincoln said whatever he had to say to gain power. You can excuse him as long as you want to, but the fact is that the only slaves he ever freed were those whose liberation helped destabilize the Confederacy.

I read your column and like a few other commenters here, I was wondering why you overlooked some of the statements made by Lincoln that would not support your presupposition of him being anti-slavery.

Then I read the comments, and when you were called out on it, your response, Warner, was to use an ad hominem attack on a professor that was not even here to defend himself. Smooth.

Obama is more like your idealized Lincoln than you will ever see. He is willing and able to tell his audience whatever he believes they want to hear. Then he will do that which he feels will deliver the results he wants.

Cynacism, arrogance, incompetance and contempt for the Constitution? I’m fine with the comparison.