The Coalition of the Swilling

Hrumpf. The worst president ever. In the style of McCain and Clinton, a shrewd political manipulator and tyrant. Responsible for starting an unnecessary war that killed 600,000 Americans. Made the US the only country in history that needed a war to free its slaves. Purposefully incited rebellion to increase his own power. Jailed the entire Maryland legislature to prevent the people of that state from seceding, which was widely recognized at the time as their right. Jailed any and all newspaper editors and staff that disagreed with his policies. Never freed a single slave. His entire political life was dedicated to spending money on pork barrel projects that were so disastrous that almost every state in the union rewrote their state constitutions to specifically forbid these projects. The drive to spend money on pork was so disfavored that it cost his party its existence. He increased federal power well beyond its intended limits through the license of his role as commander in chief.

Above all, he was responsible for destroying the birthright of Americans, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, for self-determination. People are no longer free to choose their government. He killed more than half a million people to prove that point.

Yeah, not my hero. Not one bit. He's more like Clinton than Washington.

You know, Skyler, I'm normally a pretty even keeled kind of guy.

But what in the holy name of FUCK have you been smoking to write that pile of shit?

The Civil War was made inevitable by the South's inability to find anyway out of the situation they found themselves in, whether they wanted to find a solution or not.

As with all Presidents, Lincoln swore to this:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

How does one do that by allowing the United States to dissolve? Armed rebellion against the United States is treason and had to be put down.

Article 1, Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation...Guess what, the Confederacy was unconstitutional. He was fully justified in using military force, especially after they fired first.

The US needed a war to end slavery because there was no other way. The slave populations in Europe were minuscule percentages of the population (although one could argue that it took the Bolshevik Revolution to end slavery in Russia at a cost of far more than 600,000 lives) and slavery there was outlawed in response to demands from the free poor working classes for labor. In 1860 the free population of the south was 5,482,222 and the slave population was 3,521,150. Yes, 39% of the population were slaves. 39 fucking percent. Slaves were roughly 50% of the population in most states, and in Mississippi and South Carolina they out numbered the free population. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming they wanted to somehow end slavery how the hell was it supposed to happen? John Calhoun should wave his cane and say "Sorry y'all, no hard feelings" and that would be that? The South was rightly terrified at the prospect of slave revolts and retribution were they to be freed, so even if they wanted to free them there was no way in hell they were going to. They even passed laws putting many restrictions on manumission, so folks could not free their own slaves even if they wanted to. So much for their "great respect for property rights", eh?

Destroying the birthright? First off, since when is the Declaration a legal document of the United States? Secondly, are you saying that this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Doesn't apply to blacks? By 1860 most of those 3.5 million slaves were born here. What about their right to self-determination; hell, their right to self anything?

Quite frankly, fuck the Maryland Legislature. Time and time again 'citizens' of Maryland attacked and harassed Union troops moving south to fight. We were fighting a Civil War. Yes, certain parts of the Constitution were suspended/violated during the Civil War, but only a blind ass would advocate blind obedience to every tot and jiggle when the survival of the very country was at stake. The important point is that after the war was won all the freedoms, and more in the case of the freed slaves, were re-instituted.

"People are no longer free to choose their government. He killed more than half a million people to prove that point."

What kind of crap is that? Did we stop having elections in 1865? How is a country supposed to advance if it is subject to revolutions every 20 years as Mr. Jefferson in one of his more retarded moments quipped? Or has Bolivia somehow become a world power and economic dynamo of late?

He didn't 'free a single slave'; One can just as easily say that he freed 3.5 million. The Emancipation Proclamation was used by the advancing Union Armies to sap the strength from the rebel states and slavery was outlawed in the entire country by 1865.

I mean, jesus christ skyler, sure the Republican Party has turned into as pork barrel a bunch of bastards as the Dems but it seems a bit of a stretch to lay that at Lincoln's feet. Sure, he expanded the Federal government's power and reach, but quite frankly it had to be done. We could not have stayed as an agrarian nation of independent little Jeffersonian farmers (who kept other humans in bondage, Oops!) and remained a free nation. Someone would have gobbled us up. And industrialization requires more government; perhaps not as much as we now have, I will grant you, but more than we had in 1860.

And he had a lunatic wife!! Jeez, Skyler, cut the guy a huss! Say "Happy Birthday, Abe" and get over it!

Wait...can I say 'lunatic'? If anyone was offended, I'm sorry you were.

Erm, dearest Uncle, whilst I agree with the whole; Section 10 of Article 1 of the constitution is in reference to a states abilities to act beyond the scope of federalized gov't:

There is actually nothing in the constitution against secession, and at the time of and before the civil war (keep in mind not a century before we had just seceeded) it was an understood right of the state to seceed if it's populace disagreed with the federalized system of gov't. The portion you mention of Article 1 is out of context because it's specifically mentioning "confederation" as a state reaching out of it's scope and, say, forming a military juncture with Mexico, without the approval of the federal gov't.

In the long run, there was nothing constitutionally at issue as far as a state's right to seceed in the Civil War. The federalize gov't simply recognised the integrity of the US was at stake, because if the secession succeeded, nothing was keeping the remaining states together afterwards. Whether they allowed, or through military means, managed to cordone off any attempts of breaking out of the gov't. Very little of it had to do with slavery, that was one of any number of conflicts between the south and the US gov't. It simply became a figurehead issue, as was warranted, but not, I think because of any overriding social concerns. Anyhow, I'm gonna do a bit more research, I actually had to do a research paper on this years ago, trying to remember what my thesis was.

Before a forget, Article 1, Sec. 10, in it's entirety:

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Don't make me come down there.

Bingley,

The emancipation proclamation did not free anyone. It only freed those slaves in states not conquered by the Union. It kept those in the Union, and those in states occupied by the Union still in slavery. Gee, I thought everyone knew that. The emancipation proclamation served only to encourage slave revolts in states still resisting the northern invasion. No slaves were freed until December of '65 when the 13th Amendment was ratified. Lincoln had died in April of that year.

Lincoln said that he would gladly keep slaves enslaved if it meant he could keep power, that he would free them all if he could retain power. Or he would free some and enslave others, so long as he could have power. In fact, he decided to only free the ones he had no power to free. It was an empty political gesture. But I guess it still works on the gullible more than a century and a half later.

As for starting the war, he certainly did his best to egg on those in South Carolina. A statesman of the stature that people claim for him should have done more, heck anything, to forestall a war. Instead, he knew that SC was filled with hotheads and he purposefully chose that one fort to egg them on. Note that several states (not including Maryland, of course) had not yet seceded. These states, such as Virginia, saw that Lincoln was dangerous and realized that his tyrannical behavior could not be tolerated. Only after Lincoln instigated the battle at Fort Sumter did these moderate states secede. And more would have, had Lincoln not rushed his army in the night to throw the entire Maryland state legislature in jail.

I make no excuse for slavery. There's no justification for it whatsoever, not even for a second. I'm offended that you even make the accusation. I did not mention that slavery was acceptable.

But I did say that every other nation on Earth was able to end slavery (at least officially) without war. A good president would have found a better way than invasion of the south. But that would have been harder and wouldn't have given him as much raw power.

Lincoln was only interested in power. A careful look at his political career before his campaign makes that very clear.

Bingley, your anger is misplaced. You may not agree with my characterization of the tyrant, but it's at least reasonable and based on historical analysis that is widely published and available to all.

A note to the wise Skyler: All this is great for fomenting social discord, but it you want to make a logical and documented argument...put the documentation in it. Where, when, and in what context did Lincoln, the Early Hitler Days, say all this? Also, as I said before, slavery was a miniscule portion of the argument between North and South. Lincoln wasn't interested in simple power with the war, it was in keeping the United States together. Ergo, keeping his basis of power solid, thus necessitating war.

Terms between states were notoriously fickle (all one has to do is read anything about the ratification of the constitution, or the Articles of Confederation, to see that) all the way up to the civil war. On a strategic level, that means that if Lincoln were to allow the South to Secede; then little beyond trade would hold the north together, and there was no need for federalization for that. Sumation? A succesful war was a necessary catalyst for sustaining of the United States as it was and into the future. The legality of it is almost a null and void issue. As I said before, there is nothing in the constitution for or against secession.

Also, the conceptional use of the word Tyrant is more accurate than you think. You're accusing Lincoln of being some fascist dictator, that's all well and good. The simple fact of the matter is that the original "tyrant" was a man put into place over the elder councils (greek city states, and also rome) for the short-term betterment or the whole -- hand someone power, and rarely are they going to willingly hand it back, human nature -- of the state in times of war; when quick decisions could not be made by a gathering, but rather needed to be made by an experienced individual. As far as Lincoln is concerned, his use of executive powers as Commander in Chief hailed back to the golden ages of saving the whole at the expense of the few.

Happy birthday Abe.

Civil War and slavery, hmmmm, the latter just a canard to the former. To loosely quote a confederate soldier to a query by a Union soldier as to why he was fighting for slavery, "I ain't". Then what are you fighting for asked the Union soldier? His reply "cause you're down here".

Ebola, I made no reference to Hitler or fascism, neither of which has anything in common with Lincoln. I presented nothing that anyone with a high school diploma should not already be familiar with. I just put a more cynical spin on it. That is, Lincoln's direct quote about his intentions towards slavery was slightly different. I paraphrased him to highlight the real purpose, his lust for power, not the stated purpose, the preservation of the union which was little more than his slogan for preserving his own power.

The term "tyrant" was current among his detractors, both north and south, thus his assassin's shout of "sic semper tyrannis" after he shot him.

But if you want a reference, I would refer you to Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln, A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War." It goes into great detail about Lincoln's pre war, pre-douglas debates history and demonstrates how he came to power. If you don't dig for the history prior to those debates, and accept what you're taught by schools, you would have no idea how Lincoln came to be head of this new republican party, nor what it stood for, beyond the fringe element of the abolitionists.

All politicians have agendas, most of which aren't good for us. Lincoln was no exception to that rule. His agenda was the promotion of large government projects with which to enrich supporters at the expense of the taxpayers. He cynically used the abolitionists to further his own power. He stopped at nothing to ensure his power grew. He suspended the writ of habeus corpus, he jailed all dissenters, he instigated war with South Carolina which caused the moderate states to recoil in horror and join the secessionist movement when before they had voted against it.

Afterwards, after undergoing such bloodshed, as is typical of societies, the horror of what happened caused people to rally around a myth that exonerated its architect and its victorious supporters.

The emancipation proclamation did not free anyone. It only freed those slaves in states not conquered by the Union. It kept those in the Union, and those in states occupied by the Union still in slavery. Gee, I thought everyone knew that. The emancipation proclamation served only to encourage slave revolts in states still resisting the northern invasion. No slaves were freed until December of '65 when the 13th Amendment was ratified. Lincoln had died in April of that year.

Slaves freed prior to Lincoln's death:

Washington DC - April 16, 1862, slavery was abolished in Washington D.C. This included compensation to slave owners for their lost “property” in the amount of $993,407 dollars.

Tennessee – Abolished Slavery in 1864. In order to balance Lincoln’s Union ticket with a Southern Democrat, the Republicans nominated him for vice-president. After his victory as Lincoln’s running mate, he summoned a convention that set up a new state government and abolished slavery in Tennessee.

Maryland - The third state constitution, which abolished slavery in Maryland, received approval of the voters on September 18, 1864, and took effect November 1, 1864.

The slaves were freed in Missouri in January, 1865

Lincoln said that he would gladly keep slaves enslaved if it meant he could keep power, that he would free them all if he could retain power. Or he would free some and enslave others, so long as he could have power. In fact, he decided to only free the ones he had no power to free. It was an empty political gesture. But I guess it still works on the gullible more than a century and a half later.

Back on Planet Earth here's what Lincoln actually wrote

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable [sic] in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

I fail to see any mention of this obsession with preserving his personal power; boy that'll teach this gullible fool to go to the original sources! Lincoln's primary concern was always preserving the Union, without which all the rights in the Constitution are meaningless. The EP was a brilliant political move that effectively kept Great Britain from recognizing the CSA and giving them much-needed legitimacy at a time when that would have in all likelihood won the war for the South. The Union's hold on the border states, especially hotbeds of treason like Maryland, was tenuous at best, which in fact further shows his genius in directing the immediate focus on to Southern slavery while at the same time taking some of the abolitionist pressure off of the border states because if they were lost the war was lost.

Read his State of the Union message to Congress in 1862 (and I'm going to quote large chunks of it because goddamnit I pay for the bandwidth):

On the 22d day of September last a proclamation was issued by the Executive, a copy of which is herewith submitted. In accordance with the purpose expressed in the second paragraph of that paper, I now respectfully recall your attention to what may be called "compensated emancipation."

...In the inaugural address I briefly pointed out the total inadequacy of disunion as a remedy for the differences between the people of the two sections. I did so in language which I can not improve, and which, therefore, I beg to repeat: One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.

...Our national strife springs not from our permanent part; not from the land we inhabit: not from our national homestead. There is no possible severing of this but would multiply and not mitigate evils among us. In all its adaptations and aptitudes it demands union and abhors separation. In fact, it would ere long force reunion, however much of blood and treasure the separation might have cost. Our strife pertains to ourselves--to the passing generations of men--and it can without convulsion be hushed forever with the passing of one generation.

In this view I recommend the adoption of the following resolution and articles amendatory to the Constitution of the United States: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of both Houses concurring), That the following articles be proposed to the legislatures (or conventions) of the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said legislatures (or conventions ), to be valid as part or parts of the said Constitution, viz:

ART.--. Every State wherein slavery now exists which shall abolish the same therein at any time or times before the 1st day of January, A. D. 1900, shall receive compensation from the United States as follows, to wit:

The President of the United States shall deliver to every such State bonds of the United States bearing interest at the rate of per cent per annum to an amount equal to the aggregate sum of ____ for each slave shown to have been therein by the Eighth Census of the United States, said bonds to be delivered to such State by installments or in one parcel at the completion of the abolishment, accordingly as the same shall have been gradual or at one time within such State; and interest shall begin to run upon any such bond only from the proper time of its delivery as aforesaid. Any State having received bonds as aforesaid and afterwards reintroducing or tolerating slavery therein shall refund to the United States the bonds so received, or the value thereof, and all interest paid thereon.

ART.--All slaves who shall have enjoyed actual freedom by the chances of the war at any time before the end of the rebellion shall be forever free; but all owners of such who shall not have been disloyal shall be compensated for them at the same rates as is provided for States adopting abolishment of slavery, but in such way that no slave shall be twice accounted for.

ART.--Congress may appropriate money and otherwise provide for colonizing free colored persons with their own consent at any place or places without the United States. I beg indulgence to discuss these proposed articles at some length. Without slavery the rebellion could never have existed; without slavery it could not continue.

Among the friends of the Union there is great diversity of sentiment and of policy in regard to slavery and the African race amongst us. Some would perpetuate slavery; some would abolish it suddenly and without compensation; some would abolish it gradually and with compensation: some would remove the freed people from us, and some would retain them with us; and there are yet other minor diversities. Because of these diversities we waste much strength in struggles among ourselves. By mutual concession we should harmonize and act together. This would be compromise, but it would be compromise among the friends and not with the enemies of the Union. These articles are intended to embody a plan of such mutual concessions. If the plan shall be adopted, it is assumed that emancipation will follow, at least in several of the States.

As to the first article, the main points are, first, the emancipation; secondly, the length of time for consummating it (thirty-seven years); and, thirdly, the compensation.

The emancipation will be unsatisfactory to the advocates of perpetual slavery, but the length of time should greatly mitigate their dissatisfaction. The time spares both races from the evils of sudden derangement--in fact, from the necessity of any derangement--while most of those whose habitual course of thought will be disturbed by the measure will have passed away before its consummation. They will never see it. Another class will hail the prospect of emancipation, but will deprecate the length of time. They will feel that it gives too little to the now living slaves. But it really gives them much. It saves them from the vagrant destitution which must largely attend immediate emancipation in localities where their numbers are very great, and it gives the inspiring assurance that their posterity shall be free forever. The plan leaves to each State choosing to act under it to abolish slavery now or at the end of the century, or at any intermediate time, or by degrees extending over the whole or any part of the period, and it obliges no two States to proceed alike. It also provides for compensation, and generally the mode of making it. This, it would seem, must further mitigate the dissatisfaction of those who favor perpetual slavery, and especially of those who are to receive the compensation. Doubtless some of those who are to pay and not to receive will object. Yet the measure is both just and economical. In a certain sense the liberation of slaves is the destruction of property--property acquired by descent or by purchase, the same as any other property. It is no less true for having been often said that the people of the South are not more responsible for the original introduction of this property than are the people of the North; and when it is remembered how unhesitatingly we all use cotton and sugar and share the profits of dealing in them, it may not be quite safe to say that the South has been more responsible than the North for its continuance. If, then, for a common object this property is to be sacrificed, is it not just that it be done at a common charge?

These are not the words of someone who is only interested in tyrannical power.

As for starting the war, he certainly did his best to egg on those in South Carolina. A statesman of the stature that people claim for him should have done more, heck anything, to forestall a war. Instead, he knew that SC was filled with hotheads and he purposefully chose that one fort to egg them on. Note that several states (not including Maryland, of course) had not yet seceded. These states, such as Virginia, saw that Lincoln was dangerous and realized that his tyrannical behavior could not be tolerated. Only after Lincoln instigated the battle at Fort Sumter did these moderate states secede. And more would have, had Lincoln not rushed his army in the night to throw the entire Maryland state legislature in jail.

In his first inaugural address he makes it very clear that he will preserve the Union. Let's not forget that seven states had already seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated; in fact Jefferson Davis was President of the CSA two weeks before Lincoln became President. What possibly could he have done other than capitulate to the rebels? The nation would have ceased to exist.

I make no excuse for slavery. There's no justification for it whatsoever, not even for a second. I'm offended that you even make the accusation. I did not mention that slavery was acceptable.

But I did say that every other nation on Earth was able to end slavery (at least officially) without war. A good president would have found a better way than invasion of the south. But that would have been harder and wouldn't have given him as much raw power.

I didn't accuse anything. But when you wrote "Above all, he was responsible for destroying the birthright of Americans, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, for self-determination. People are no longer free to choose their government. He killed more than half a million people to prove that point" well golly gee but my gullible old eyes read a lot of sympathy for those poor slaveholders being denied their 'property' but not a single word about that part of their 'property' that was possessed of two legs. and i agree there's no justification for it, not even for a second. So how would you propose getting that 39% of the population integrated into society if the other 69% says 'hell no, we're keeping them" ? His Tyrantness certainly failed the statesman challenge in your eyes at the time; surely with 145 years of hindsight at your disposal you've got the solution, right? Here's Jeff Davis' speech from February of 1861. Basically he says "Fuck you; we're doing what we want." Not much room for compromise there.

And with regard to ending slavery without bloodshed, which in the spirit of compromise I will pretend Haiti doesn't exist and grant you that point but with some important distinctions that need to be made. First, slavery in Europe was effectively domestic servants and never really amounted to a significant portion of the populace, so ending it there was quite simple. Secondly, slavery in Latin American countries was equally spread throughout the entire country so there were no regional disputes/antagonisms like there were in the US. Third, slaves constituted nearly 80-90% of the populations of these countries and the property/plantation owners were for the most part absentee owners who lived back in the mother country, which is completely different from the situation in the South where slaves were 'only' 40% of the population and the owners lived on the land and worked beside their slaves. This obviously made their attachment to the 'peculiar institution' a hell of a lot stronger than it was for the Latin slave owners. It was quite easy for an enlightened monarch in some distant capital across the sea to eliminate slavery with the stroke of a pen; for the most part they were simply recognizing the political reality in the colony. Lincoln and the southern slave holders did not have the advantage of such detachment.

Lincoln was only interested in power. A careful look at his political career before his campaign makes that very clear.

A careful look at his career clearly convicts him of being...a politician.

Bingley,

Here's the money quote from you:

"Lincoln's primary concern was always preserving the Union, without which all the rights in the Constitution are meaningless."

You have this backwards. Without the right of self-determination, the Constitution and the union are meaningless. Preserving the Union was only his concern because it allowed him to grab power.

You are right that the Declaration of Independence is not strictly speaking the law, but it is the basis of the philosophy of our nation, it is the foundation of our nation. And the philosophy is of inalienable rights and self-determination which are fundamental and precede any Constitution or laws made by men.

There was no need for Lincoln to preserve the union. Had he allowed the first wave of southern states to secede, what harm would it have done to the Constitution? Had he not precipitated this war, a third of the southern states would have remained prosperous members of the union, never having seceded. The whole premise of "preserving the union" by force is somewhat akin to the Viet Nam war quote that "we had to burn the village to save it."

Why is self-determination so critical? Let's imagine that we still had self-determination and the right to change governments or secede, and this was recognized and accepted by those in power in the federal government. The federal government would be substantially weaker. It could not afford to create a law that individual states found intolerable. As it happened, and not by happenstance, those who wanted to create a powerful central government were forced to create a cause that they could use to justify negating the right to secede.

Had the early republicans simply said, we want a mercantile style of government that will create protectionist trade policies that reward businesses that favor our political party and our regional governments, they would have been thrown out, just as the Whigs were. Instead, they took on the abolitionist movement as their moral justification to do the same thing.

The use of the abolitionists is much like global warming. How can anyone argue in favor of slavery and stay in the morally superior position? How can anyone argue in favor of global climate destruction? You can't. Slavery is wrong. Global climate destruction is bad. In each case, these crusaders were and are being used to justify an unrelated political agenda.

Lincoln was no hero. He was, in fact, the exact thing we're seeing in our political candidates today. If Lincoln were alive today, he'd be with Al Gore, demanding more power for the central government, and justifying it through a global warming facade. Except that even Al Gore hasn't suggested invading Hawaii and Alaska yet.