0 votes

The Story-Life Of Lincoln

I have this wonderful book about one of my heroes since boyhood.
(written by Wayne Whipple, copyright 1906)
The book is a slightly worn cover, with Lincoln's portrait embossed in leather on the front. Looks like the penny, same color and everything.

With the exposure of the Lincoln Letters, and how Ron Paul suggested Lincoln wanted to buy the slaves freedom, which is correct, I would like to open this thread to share some of Lincolns best quotes and best statements.

I will start out with a couple of my favorite quotes.

---
"No man is good enough to govern another man without that
other man's consent."
---

---
"Nobody has ever expected me to be president. In my poor,
lean, lank face, nobody has ever seen that any cabbages are
sprouting out."
---

---
"My poor friends," he said, "You are free-free as air. You can cast off the name of slave and trample upon it; it will come to you no more. Liberty is your birthright. God gave it to you as He gave it to other, and it is a sin that you have been deprived of it for so many years. But you must try to deserve this priceless boon.

Let the world see that you merit it, and are able to maintain it by your good works. Don't let you joy carry you into excesses. Learn the laws and obey them; obey God's commandments and thank Him for giving you liberty, for to Him you owe all things.

There, now, let me pass on. I have but little time to spare. I want to see the Capitol, and must return at once to Washington to secure you that liberty which you seem to prize so highly."
---

---
"It had been represented to the President that the Negro soldier
would not fight. Quick as a flash Mr. Lincoln turned to the "doubting Thomas" and said:

'The Fifty-fourth Massachusetts, under Colonel Shaw, was at Fort Wagner. The fighting was hot, and the firing from the fort was very disastrous to our boys. The colors were shot away, and the colonel asked for a man who would bring back the flag. A black soldier came forward and agreed to return with the flag. He crawled on his hands and knees, and, wrapping the colors around his body, crawled back, riddled with bullets.

And three cheers went up for the color-bearer of the Fifty-fourth Massachusetts. Do you tell me' continued Mr. Lincoln, "that a black
soldier won't fight?'

The visitor was silenced.

He cited another instance,-thus:
'A colonel on the eve of battle gave his color-bearer the regiment flag, saying, "Defend it, protect it, die for it, if need be, but never surrender it."

The black color bearer replied. "Colonel, I will return this flag with honor, or I will report to God the reason why." He died in defending the flag.'

---

After passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (9 Stat. 462), which required Northern states to return escaped slaves and imposed penalties on people who aided such runaways, abolitionists became actively involved in the Underground Railroad, a secretive network that provided food, shelter, and direction to escaped slaves seeking freedom in the North. This network was largely maintained by free African Americans and is estimated to have helped 50,000 to 100,000 slaves to freedom. Harriet Tubman, an African American and ardent abolitionist, was one organizer of the Underground Railroad. During the 1850s, she bravely traveled into Southern states to help other African Americans escape from slavery, just as she had escaped herself.

Whereas the vast majority of abolitionists eschewed violence, John Brown actively participated in it. In response to attacks led by pro-slavery forces against the town of Lawrence, Kansas, Brown, the leader of a Free Soil militia, led a Reprisal attack that killed five pro-slavery settlers in 1856. Three years later, he undertook an operation that he hoped would inspire a massive slave rebellion. Brown and 21 followers began by capturing the U.S. arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia). Federal forces under Robert E. Lee promptly recaptured the arsenal, and Brown was hanged shortly thereafter, becoming a martyr for the cause.

In 1854, abolitionists and Free Soilers joined with a variety of other interests to form the Republican Party, which successfully stood Abraham Lincoln for president in 1860. Although the party took a strong stand against the introduction of slavery in the territories, it did not propose the more radical option of immediate emancipation. In fact, slavery ended as a result of the Civil War, which lasted from 1861 to 1865. Not a true abolitionist at the start of his presidency, Lincoln became increasingly receptive to antislavery opinion. In 1863, he announced the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves in areas still engaged in revolt against the Union. The proclamation served as an important symbol of the Union's new commitment to ending slavery. Lincoln later supported the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which officially abolished slavery in the United States.

After the war, former abolitionists, including radical Republicans such as Senator Charles Sumner (R-Mass.), continued to lobby for constitutional amendments that would protect the rights of the newly freed slaves, including the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, which guaranteed citizenship to former slaves and declared that no state could "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without Due Process of Law; nor deny to any person … the Equal Protection of the laws." Former abolitionists also lobbied, albeit unsuccessfully, for land redistribution that would have given exslaves a share of their former owners' land.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Abolition

----

Alexander Stephens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Stephens
was the vice president of the south, under Jefferson Davis. He was also a former member of the Whig Party, which we now know as the Republican Party. But he was pro slavery, since he owned 34 slaves.

On the brink of the Civil War, on March 21, 1861, Stephens gave his famous Cornerstone Speech in Savannah, Georgia. In it he reaffirmed that "African Slavery … was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." He went on to assert that the then-prevailing "assumption of the equality of races" was "fundamentally wrong." "Our new [Confederate] government is founded … upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition," and, furthermore, "With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...

And a letter from Lincoln to Stephens shortly after this then famous speech.

Hon A.H. Stephens

"My dear sir:- Your obliging answer to my short note is just received, and for which please accept my thanks. I fully appreciate the present peril the country is in, and the weight of responsibility on me.
Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with the slaves or with them about the slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.
The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, that does not meet the case. You think slavery is right, and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be abolished. That, I suppose, is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.
Yours very truly,
A. Lincoln"

A Stormy Session of Buchanan's Cabinet

One day, Secretary Stanton referred to the meeting of the Buchanan Cabinet called upon receipt of the news that Major Anderson had evacuated Fort Moultrie, and gone to Fort Sumter.

"This little incident" said Stanton, "was the crisis of our history,-the pivot upon which everything turned. Had he remained at Fort Moultrie, a very different combination of circumstances would have arisen. The attack on Sumter-commenced by the South-united the North and made the success of the Confederacy impossible. I shall never forget," he continued, "our coming together by special summons that night. Buchanan sat in his armchair in a corner of the room, white as a sheet, with a cigar in his mouth. The despatches were laid before us; and so much violence ensued that he had to turn us all out-of-doors"
Six Months in the White House, F.B. Carpenter, page 54

Why did the South Secede?

What took these seven States-soon to be followed by four more-out of the Union? The answer is, it was their first conviction that slavery would thrive better by being seperated from the influence of the North; and, secondly, it was their belief in "States Rights," upheld by South Carolina as far back as Jackson's Presidency. According to that idea, any State was justified in separating itself from the United States whenever it became convinced that it was for it's interest to withdraw.

In this act of secession many of the people of the South took no direct part,-a large number being, in fact, opposed to it, - a few political leader did the chief part of the work. Their aim was to establish a great slave-holding republic, or nationality, of which they should be head.

President Buchanan made no attempt to prevent the States from seceding; part of his cabinet were Southern men, who were not in full sympathy with the Southern leaders, and the President did not see how to act.

The seceded States seized the forts, arsenals, and other national property within their limits, so far as they could do so. Fort Sumter, commanded by Major Anderson of the United States army in Charleston Harbor, was one of the few where the Stars and Stripes remained flying.

President Buchanan had made and attempt to send men and supplies to Major Anderson by the merchant steamer Star of the West; but the people of Charleston fired upon the steamer and compelled her to go back.

All eyes were now turned toward Abraham Lincoln. The great question was, what will he do when he becomes President?
The Leading Facts of American History , D.H. Montgomery, page 282

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Republicae's picture

Sevns...Since you have the

Sevns...Since you have the impression that Lincoln was a man of faith, read what these men say about his "religion":

These men knew Lincoln, one was his close friend and Law Partner Mr. William Herndon:

William H. Herndon testifies:
"Mr. Lincoln told me a thousand times that he did not
believe that the Bible was any revelation from God. I assert
this of my own knowledge ; others will confirm what I say."

After Lincoln's death his wife wrote Lamon:
Mary Todd Lincoln stated: "Mr. Lincoln had no hope and no faith in Christianity."

Lamon testifies that: "Lincoln never changed his opinions of
the Christian religion, but he became discreet in talking of
them."

John Matthews testifies as follows:
"I knew Mr. Lincoln as early as 1834; knew he was
an infidel. He attacked the Bible and the New Testament ;
he talked infidelity, ridiculed both Bible and Testament.
He often shocked me, he went so far. He often came into
the clerk's office, where I and other young men were writing.
He brought a Bible with him, read a chapter and argued •
against it. He wrote a book on infidelity. I was his personal
and political friend. I never heard that he changed
his views."

On page 497 Lamon says :
"While it is clear that Mr. Lincoln was at all times an
infidel, it is also very clear that he was not at all times equally
willing that everybody should know it. He never offered to
purge or recant ; he was a wily politician and did not disdain
to regulate his religious manifestations with reference to his
political interest. He saw the immense and augmenting
power of the churches, and in times past had felt it. The
charge of infidelity had seriously injured him in several of
his earlier political campaigns. Aspiring to lead religious
communities, he saw he must not appear as an enemy within
their gates. He saw no reason for changing his convictions,
but he saw many good and cogent reasons for not
making them public."

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Hmm.

Wonder why Lincoln stated,

"Faith in God is indispensable to successful statesmanship"

"Take all of the Bible upon reason that you can, and the balance on faith, and you will live and die a better man"

"God bless my mother! All I am or hope to be I owe to her"

Before we get into the whole religious debate, I welcome you to take a look into my personal life, which, may or may not make a difference in the world.

I believe God gave me a dream that revealed my part in this whole thing, and it was not a small part. It was the lead part. He further convinced me that this was the case when he introduced me to His Last Prophet. I have had several spiritual experience throughout my life, and I have pictures that would suggest proof, however, I don't care to show them anymore, because very few see what I see, and the rest make fun of it.

I am aware that we are set for hard times. VERY HARD TIMES, and no gun will save you. Only faith. True, life lived faith. Faith that has been molded by the fire, tested and passed. And even then, it will be tested again. If the dream I had about the giant bats with razor sharp claws has any reality to it, things are going to get spiritually ugly. Man can manifest wonderful things with good thoughts, and man can manifest horrible things with bad thoughts. But what the spirit world can bring, is a whole other beast. We will not be prepared for that. That is why faith, will be the only thing that will save one. You will have to look inside your mind, your soul, and THINK about what it is that makes you whole, and who decides when you die, and how you die, and why you die.

The bible suggests, it's not what you take in, but what you put forth in thoughts, words, ideas, action. It's quantum physics with spiritual power.

Because when you get right down to it, the truth is, you are what you believe.

That is why Jesus said, "with faith, anything is possible"

http://www.steamboatstuff.com/Bill__the_homeless_man.html

Well, I will share a couple since you have been so much fun debating.

This is a picture of Gods image in the sky. Well half His face. The rest of Him is behind the clouds. Few see this one.
http://i32.tinypic.com/2s85kw1.jpg

This is a picture of baphomet. Now him, everyone sees!
http://i31.tinypic.com/1jujup.jpg

Republicae's picture

Some excerpts from private

Some excerpts from private letters from William Herndon to Mr. Remsburg, in 1893:

"I was the personal friend of Lincoln from 1834 to the day of his death. In 1843 we entered into a partnership which was never formally dissolved. When he became unpopular in this Congressional district because of his speeches on the Mexican War, I was faithful to him. When he espoused the anti-slavery cause and in the eyes of most men had hopelessly ruined his political prospects, I stood by him, and through the press defended his course. In those dark hours, by our unity of sentiment and by political ostracism, we were driven to a close and enduring friendship. You should take it for granted, then, that I knew Mr. Lincoln well. During all this time, from 1834 to 1862, when I last saw him, he never intimated to me, either directly or indirectly, that he had changed his religious opinions. Had he done so had -- he let drop one word or look in that direction, I should have detected it.

That Mr. Lincoln was an Infidel from 1834 to 1661, I know, and that he remained one to the day of his death, I honestly believe. I always understood that he was an Infidel, sometimes bordering on Atheism. I never saw any change in the man, and the change could not have escaped my observation had it happened.

Lincoln's task was a terrible one. When he took the oath of office his soul was bent on securing harmony among all the people of the North, and so he chose for his cabinet officers his Opponents for the Presidential candidacy in order and as a means of creating a united North. He let all parties, professions, and callings have their way where their wishes did not cut across his own. He was apparently pliant and supple. He ruled men when men thought they were ruling him. He often said to me that the Christian religion was a dangerous element to deal with when aroused. He saw in the Kansas affairs -- in the whole history of slavery, in fact -- its rigor and encroachments, that Christianity was aroused. It must be controlled, and that in the right direction. Hence he bent to it, fed it, and kept it within bounds, well knowing that it would crush his administration to atoms unless appeased. His oft and oft invocations of God, his conversations with Christians, his apparent respect for Christianity, etc., were all means to an end. And yet sometimes he showed that he hated its nasal whines.

Let me ask the Christian claimant a few questions. Do you mean to say, when you assert that Mr. Lincoln was a Christian, that he believed that Jesus was the Christ of God, as the evangelical world contends? If so, where did you get this information? Do you mean to say that Mr. Lincoln was a converted man and that he so declared? If so, where, when, and before whom did he declare or reveal it? Do you mean to say that Mr. Lincoln joined a Church? If so, what Church did he join, and when did he join it? Do you mean to say that Mr. Lincoln was a secret Christian, acting under the cloak of the devil to advance Christianity? If so, what is your authority? If you will tell me when it was that the Creator caught in his almighty arms, Abraham, and held him fast while he poured the oil of grace on his rebellious soul, then I will know when it was that he was converted from Infidel views to Christianity."

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Republicae's picture

I wonder that myself, could

I wonder that myself, could it be that for political reasons Lincoln presented a particular face of his "faith"? If you read every account of people who knew Lincoln, including his dear wife Mary, you will find that Abraham Lincoln was a rather accomplished political actor and despised all that the bible stood for.
Read, the journals of those who knew him best like those of William Herndon who was not an enemy but a close friend and Partner at Law, or Stanton. Lincoln's life, except those unsupported assertions created to deify him and make him someone he was not, show him to be one of the more rough sorts, a base man with base instincts and even baser lusts.

His friends Lamon and Herndon both are in agreement when, like Herndon say:"Lincoln was extremely fond of horse races and cock fights, and had a passion to spin yarns on street corners or grocery stores to a crowd of boys. Yarns far too vulgar to be repeated."

Stanton, who served in the Lincoln Whitehouse said this of Lincoln: "I met Lincoln at the bar and found him a low, cunning clown." You can read his journal in which he said this of Lincoln, I wonder why he would say such a thing about a man he worked with and supported: "Soap and water can wash dust away; no amount of soap and water will wash away mental and moral foulness"

A Baptist minister from Baltimore stated that Lincoln was: "wholly inaccessable to Christian appeals. His egotism will forever prevent his comprehending what patriotism means."

Now, the men of the day give us very good evidence why the modern perception of Lincoln as it is. General Don Piatt, of the Union Army knew Lincoln very well and indeed he admired Lincoln, so would you not find it odd that such a man would say this about his friend who he admired, when that friend died: "With us when a leader dies, all good stanch Republicans go to lying about him. From the monument that covers his remains to the last echo of the rural press, in speeches, in sermons, eulogies, reminiscences, we hear nothing by pious lies." In other words, there was a very direct attempt at the deification of Lincoln, entire false autobiographies were expressly written to accomplish that very thing and paint an entirely different picture of Lincoln then was the truth. Too bad so many believe those fabrications. Those lies served only one purpose, it was not to comfort friends and relatives at his death, but it served a purely political agenda. Those who knew Lincoln the best: Herndon, Lamon and Piatt, could never understand or approve of such lies and sought to tell the truth no matter how unpleasant.

Although the facade of Lincoln states that he was a man of uncommon virtue, with no vices as in this highly varnished tid-bit: "living among the roughest men, many addicted to the coarsest vices, Lincoln never acquired a vice. There was no taint on his moral character. No Stimulant ever touched his lips, no profanity ever came from them." That little statement was of course just another attempt to deify Lincoln in the hearts and minds of the People, it was a cult of personality that was being created around the man with the most creative lies imaginable to man.

The people who knew him, like his cousin Dennis Hanks, said Abe would drink whiskey by the dram, cuss a sailor down and spewed out vulgarity with ease.

Lamon, his personal friend said he was a natural politician, extremely ambitious and anxious to be popular. He said: "How can these Republicans [speaking of the Party apparatus that sought to deify the person of Lincoln] tell our boys that Lincoln was like unto Christ? Do these men wish to make infidels of our Republican boys? How can any boy reverence Jesus of Nazareth if he believes he was like Abe?"

Oh yes, "Honest Abe" in one account of he and his friend Allen Gentry on a river boat trip, states that Gentry had come into possession of some counterfeit money. When ole Honest Abe found out he said: "Never you mind, I will pass it off on some other fellow" Lamon, Lincoln's friend gave the account like this: "The trip of young Gentry and Lincoln was a very profitable one. Abe displayed his genius for mercantile affairs by handsomely passing off on the innocent folks along the river some counterfeit money which has been imposed on the young Gentry."

Now once again, his friend, Mr. Lamon, who truly cared for Lincoln, said this: "Lincoln was a deep-grounded infidel, He disliked and despised churches. He never entered a church except to scoff and ridicule. On coming from a chruch he would mimic the preacher" You tell me, why would his own friends, and others who knew and in some cases love him tell such horrible stories about a man for whom they cared for?

On that same subject Lamon says: "No phase of Mr. Lincoln's character has been so persistently misrepresented as this of his religious belief. Not that the conclusive testimony of many of his intimate associates and relations to his frequent expressions on such subjects have ever been wanting, but his great prominence in history, his extremely general expressions of religious faith called forth by the exigencies of his public life, or indulged in on occasion of private condolence have been distorted out of relation to their real significance or meaning to suit the opinion or tickle the fancy of individuals of parties."

Another account by his cousin Dennis Hanks, who by the way looked up to Lincoln, said" When Lincoln went to church, he went to mock and came away to mimic. When he went to New Salem he consorted with free thinkers and joined with them in deriding the gospel story of Jesus."

Once again William Herndon, perhaps one of the most faithful friend Lincoln had, was so outraged at all the falsehoods put forth about Lincoln's piety that he wrote the following about the same incident in New Salem: " In New Salem Mr. Lincoln lived with a class of men, moved with them, had his being with them. They were scoffers of religion, made loud protest against the followers of Christianity, They declared that Jesus was an illegitimate child. On all occasions that offered they debated on the various forms of Christianity. They riddled old divines, and not infrequently made those very divines skeptics by their logic; made them disbelievers as bad as themselves. In 1835 Lincoln wrote a book on infidelity and intended to have it published. The book was an attack on the idea that Jesus was Christ. Lincoln read the book to his friend Hill. Hill tried to persuade him not to publish it. Lincoln said it should be published. Hill, believing that if the book was published it would kill Lincoln forever as a politician, seized it and thrust it in the stove...When Mr. Lincoln was a candidate for the Legislature he was accused of being an infidel and of having said that Jesus was an Illegitimate child. He never denied it, never flinched from his views on religion. In 1854 he made me erase the name of God from a speech I was about to make. He did this to one of his friends in Washington City. In the year 1847, Mr. Lincoln ran for Congress against the Rev. Peter Cartright. He was accused of being an infidel; once again he never denied it. He knew it could and would be proved on him. I know when he left Springfield for Washington he had undergone no change in his opinion on religion. He held many of the Christian ideas in abhorrence. He held that God could no forgive sinners. The idea that Mr. Lincoln carried a bible in his bosom or in his boots to draw on his opponent is ridiculous."

Once again his own cousins testifies that: " At an early age Abe began to attend the preachings around about, but mostly at the Pigeon Creek Church, with a view to catching anything that might be ludicrous in the preaching, in the manner of matter, and making it a subject of mimicry as soon as he could collect a crowd of idle boys and men to hear him. He frequently reproduced a sermon with nasal twang, rolling his eyes, and all sorts of droll aggravations, to the great delight of the wild fellows assembled. Sometimes he broke out with stories passably humorous and invariably vulgar."

Another friend, Jesse E. Fall, who reluctantly testified: "Mr. Lincoln's friends were not a little surprised at the finding in some biographies statements of his religious opinions so utterly at variance with his known sentiments. Lincoln held opinions utterly at variance with what are taught in the churches."

William Herndon once again said: "Mr. Lincoln told me a thousand times that he did not believe that the bible was any revelation from God. I assert this of my own knowledge; others will confirm what I say."

So, amid all the evidence, why would there be such a concerted effort to paint a picture of Lincoln that was totally untrue?

Politics, it is no different today...

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Goodbye.

Thank you for playing.

Good luck, and may
God have mercy.

Amen

Does that mean we close this

Does that mean we close this Lincoln-worship thread? Because we're wasting valuable space that could support a Nixon-worshiping thread, an FDR-worshiping thread, and a Bush-worshiping thread.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

Republicae's picture

Actually Kevin, I think this

Actually Kevin, I think this is probably one of the most valuable threads that has ever appeared on this forum. In fact, if a person doesn't understand just what happened during the War and the Reconstruction that followed, then it is almost impossible to understand just how we got to the place we are today. The Radical Republican Party of the 1860s, was the direct blood-line of the Whig and the Progenitor Party of the Federalists who held that only an Autocratic Oligarchy, with an extremely strong Centralized Government combined with a Central Bank, was the proper form of government for this country. They did not want a Republic where the government governed at and with the Consent of the People, they wanted a ruling class over a mass of peonage to support that Ruling Class.

That is exactly what we have today, with a Central Government usurping all authority, the Constitution has been basically overturned by the actions that began in 1796 with the Federalist accent. The Republican Party of Lincoln basically absorbed the Old Democratic Party of Jefferson during Reconstruction and today there nothing left but a grand presentation with little substantial differences from which the People can choose. In fact, we are not given real choices, only false ones.

Look at where we are today, what you see in our government and our country, indeed in the world, is a direct result of the events that led to and played out during the 1860s. The roots of tyranny spread from those events and if we actually think that we can Graft the Branch of Liberty onto the Rootstock of Tyranny that was planted during that period then we are sadly mistaken, there can be no such Hybrid. The Rootstock of Tyranny must be yanked up, every bit of that Root must be unseated and destroyed.

The Rootstock of Tyranny is found in the sprouting of Wilson, FDR, Truman, Nixon, Clinton and Bush...their Party affiliation may be different, but the Root is the same. There has only been one Major Voice of Liberty, springing from the Rootstock of Jefferson, Madison, Paine...and that is that Lone Voice who has risen in Opposition to the Bloodline of Tyranny, one who has the Blood of Our Patriot Fathers coursing through his veins: Dr. Ron Paul.

There can, in the end, be no mixture of the Bloodlines, no compromise between the two political philosophies. The Bloodline of Tyranny must be exterminated from our country, it is that clear.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Republicae's picture

“Perhaps the fittest title

“Perhaps the fittest title to this work would be "A Protest 
Against Injustice" — the injustice of misrepresentation — of 
false charges — of lies. The feeling of injustice certainly inspired 
the idea of this work. The greater number of the facts 
herein laid before the reader were not drawn from Southern 
or Democratic sources, but from high Republican authorities. 
Part first of this work presents Abraham Lincoln to the people 
of this generation as his contemporaries saw and knew him. 
The characteristics portrayed will be a revelation to many 
readers. As an offset to the falsity of Republican histories of 
the war of the 6o's, permit me to express the hope that in the 
near future our people will make more general use of those 
histories which are truthful and just to the South.” ~Edmonds

“Even in the South the real Lincoln is lost sight of in
the rush and bustle of our modern life, and many Southerners accept 
the opinion of Lincoln that is furnished them ready made 
by writers who are either ignorant, or else who purposely falsify 
plain facts of history.” ~Edmonds

Herndons Life of Lincoln is probably one of the best written because he was a personal friend and Law Partner of Lincoln. This is an extremely difficult book to find because, unlike most that did not slap the truth about Lincoln with a healthy coat of varnish, they either went out of press or were forced out by heavy Party suppression. You may be able to find it on Amazon, but I’m not sure. I have an original copy and it is, yet another eye-opener about Lincoln.

In his suppressed "Life of Lincoln" Herndon
says:

"Before running for any office he wrote
a book against Christianity and the Bible. He showed it to
some friends and read extracts. A man named Hill was
greatly shocked and urged Lincoln not to publish it. Urged
it would kill him politically. Hill got this book in his hands,
opened the stove door, and it went up in flames and ashes.
After that, Lincoln became more discreet, and when running
for office often used words and phrases to make it appear that
he was a Christian. He never- changed on this subject. He
lived and died a deep-grounded infidel."

Herndons Life of Lincoln is probably one of the best written because he was a personal friend and Law Partner of Lincoln. This is an extremely difficult book to find because, like most that did not slap the truth about Lincoln with a healthy coat of varnish, they either went out of press or were forced out by heavy Party suppression. You may be able to find it on Amazon, but I’m not sure. I have an original copy and it is, yet another eye-opener about Lincoln.

Herndon states the following about Lincoln and he should know:

“1. "Mr. Lincoln possessed inordinate desire to rise 
in the world ; to hold high positions in high offices."


2. "Mr. Lincoln always craved office."

3. "Mr. Lincoln coveted honor and was eager for power. 
He was impatient of any interference that delayed or 
obstructed his progress." 


4. "Mr. Lincoln was a shrewd and by no means an unselfish 
politician. When battling for a principle, it was after 
a discreet fashion. When he was running for the Legislature 
his speeches were calculated to make fair weather with all 
sides. When running for the United States Senate, he was 
willing to make a sacrifice of opinion to further his own aspirations."


5. "When Lovejoy, the zealous abolitionist, came to 
Springfield to speak against slavery, Lincoln left town to 
avoid taking sides either for or against abolition. This 
course practically saved Lincoln, as the people did not know 
whether he was an abolitionist or not." 


6. "Lincoln believed in protective tariff, yet when urged 
to write a letter for the public saying so, he refused, on the 
ground that it would do him no good."


7. "Until Mr. Lincoln's 'house divided against itself 
speech, in 1858, he was very cautious in his anti-slavery 
expressions. Even after the Bloomington convention he 
continued to pick his way to the front with wary steps. He 
did not take his stand' with the boldest agitators until just 
in time to take Seward's place on the Presidential ticket of 
1860." 


8. "To be popular was to Lincoln the greatest good 
in life." Yet Republicans call him 'The Martyr President.' 
Do martyrs crave popularity ?
10. "Lincoln was extremely fond of discussing politics. 
He disliked work. He detested science and literature. No 
man can put his finger on any book written in the last or 
present century (Nineteenth) that Lincoln read through. He 
read but little." 
n. "If ever/' said Lincoln, "the American society 
of the United States are demoralized and overthrown, it 
will come from the voracious desire for office, the wriggle 
to live without work, toil or labor, from which I am not free 
myself." 


12. "Lincoln had no gratitude. He forgot the devotion 
of his warmest friends and partisans as soon as the occasion 
of their service had passed." . 


13. "Lincoln seldom praised anyone; never a rival." 


14. "Lincoln never permitted himself to be influenced 
by the claims of individual men. When he was a candidate 
himself he thought the whole canvass ought to be conducted 
with reference to his success. He would say to a man, 'Your 
continuance in the field injures me,' and be quite sure he 
had given a perfect reason for the man's withdrawal. He 
would have no obstacle in his way. 


15. "Lincoln was intensely cautious. He revealed just 
enough of his plans to allure support and not enough to expose 
him to personal opposition."


16. "When first a candidate for the United States Senate 
Lincoln was willing to sacrifice 'his own opinion to further 
his aspirations for the Presidency." 


17. "Notwithstanding Lincoln's over-weening ambition, 
and the breathless eagerness with which he pursued 
the object of it, he had not a particle of sympathy with any 
of his fellow-citizens who were engaged in" a similar scramble 
for place and power."

As Lamon put it: “the press continued to teem with pretended lives of Lincoln, not one of- which deserved one 
particle of respect. These pretended biographies are fostered 
and praised and cherished by Republicans. The falser they are, 
the higher the praise.”

“Certainly no right thinking man 
would erect a statue or put a portrait in their legislative hall of 
a self-seeking, cunning, coarse-minded politician, a man scorned 
by his own official family and by the most powerful and prominent 
of his Republican contemporaries. Amid the universal din of 
praise that it has become the fashion to sing of Lincoln, only the 
student remembers the real facts, only the student knows not only 
that the Lincoln of the popular imagination of today bears little 
or no resemblance to the real Lincoln, but that the deification 
of Lincoln was planned and carried out by the members of his 
own party, by men who but a few short hours before Booth's 
bullet did its deadly work at Ford's theater, were reviling him 
as a buffoon, a coarse, vulgar jester”~Edmonds

The Globe-Democrat Paper: “One thing is certain, Lincoln was apotheosized after 
his death. Had he lived 4000 years ago his name would now 
be enrolled among the gods of Greece and Rome.”

“The men who bestowed that honor upon 
Lincoln, though of his own party, though having known him 
well during his Presidential life, had during that period openly 
disliked, despised, and distrusted him, and had persistently lavished 
upon him the most "venomous detractions" the English 
language afforded. These facts will be proved by indisputable 
evidence. Why the Republican leaders .who had always "venomously 
vituperated" the Hying Lincoln, the hour after his 
death made frantic haste to perform the apotheosis ceremony, 
and hoist their dead President up to the sublime realm of the 
gods, it is the purpose of the writer to show. We entreat the 
reader not to make the mistake of supposing that the apotheosis 
ceremony was a mere holiday affair gotten up to amuse or astonish 
the public.

Its conception was a flash of genius. It was the 
last act' of the dreadful tragedy of war, and the prelude of political 
plans of deep and far-reaching importance. The apotheosis 
ceremony and its successful upholding during all the years (
thirty-eight) since Lincoln's death, has done more to prolong 
the power of the Republican party than its victories and conquest 
of the South. The old saying that "facts are stranger than 
fiction" is as true as it is trite. The most fertile fictionist earth 
ever produced has never created so unique, so incongruous, so 
unparalleled a character as was Abraham Lincoln, mentally, 
morally and physically, nor has the most inventive ever thought 
out so unexampled a career as was his from cradle to coffin 
bed. Nor could the most ingenious romancer, delving 'in his 
closet, have devised so original, so daring a scheme and so successfully 
carried it out as that apotheosis ceremony, planned on 
the spur of the moment by the Republican leaders, confused, 
confounded, alarmed as they were by the sudden taking-off of 
their first President.

Although the writer of this has no authentic 
account of any secret caucus held by the Republican 
leaders in Washington City at the time of Mr. Lincoln's death, 
their entire unity of action in the unexpected emergency that 
confronted them is presumptive evidence that a caucus was 
held, almost before Mr. Lincoln's body was cold ; that plans 
were made and secret instructions sent forth to the foremost 
men of the party, advising them of the course necessary to 
pursue, the tone, the attitude, it was the duty of every man to 
assume toward their dead President. The men composing the 
caucus saw as by a flash of lightning the vital necessity of concealing 
from the world the opinions they and their whole held of the living Lincoln.

The preservation of party power 
was their first thought. They saw the black gulf into which 
their triumphant party would sink unless swift measures were 
taken. They realized the fact that if their President were 
known to the world as they knew him, the glory of their victory 
would fade ; as he stood, so their party would stand. If he was 
despised, they and their party would be despised. If made 
public, every venomous word they had flung on the living 
Lincoln would rebound on their party. To exalt the dead 
President became the vital necessity of the hour. The passion 
of the Republican heart is to possess power. They had won 
power through seas of blood ; to lose it now would be anguish 
to their very souls. To exalt to the high realm of godship 
the dead man they had in life despised as the dirt under their 
feet, was the first thought that darted on their agitated brains. 


To bury with their dead President's body every mental and 
physical quality which had so prominently distinguished him 
from his kind, and which had provoked from them so many 
gibes and jeers and contemptuous flings, was the first duty 
they saw before them ; the next was to manufacture an effigy 
of their dead President, clothe it from head to heels in attributes the very reverse of those the living President had been clothed in, and then boldly, under the wide light of the Nineteenth Century, start that effigy, that fake of their own creation, down 
the ages, labeled:
" Abraham Lincoln, First President of the Republican 
party, the greatest, wisest, godliest man that has appeared 
on earth since Christ."

While The New York Independent was a strong Republican paper, it is interesting that in its issue of August 9th, 1862 this article on Lincoln’s state papers appeared:

“Compare the state papers, messages, proclamations, orders, 
documents, which preceded or accompanied the War of 
Independence, with those of President Lincoln's papers. 
These are cold,' lifeless, dead. There has not been a line in 
any government paper that might not have been issued by 
the Czar of Russia or by Louis Napoleon of France." 
The state papers of the War of Independence were inspired 
by the highest, the most generous emotion of the human heart- 
love of freedom. The state papers of President Lincoln were inspired 
by the meanest, the most selfish — the passion for conquest. 
Is it strange that in tone and spirit, Lincoln s state papers should 
resemble those of the Czar of Russia? Both men stood on a 
despot's platform. "
Our state papers," continues the New York Independent, "
during this eventful period (the war of conquest on 
the South) are void of genius and enthusiasm for the great 
doctrine on which this government was founded. Faith in 
human rights is dead in Washington." 
Never spoke journal a more lamentable truth. Faith in human 
rights was not only dead in Washington, but the Government 
in Washington was using all the machinery in its power 
to trample down that faith deep in bloody mire on a hundred 
battlefields. The Washington Government had gone back a 
hundred years to the old monarchic doctrines of George III., and 
was doing its utmost to quell and kill the patriotic spirit of '76, 
which had rescued the- Colonies from kingly rule.” --Dunning, 
President of Columbia University

At a speech at Cooper’s Union in 1864, Wendell Phillips of the Republican Party said the following:
“I judge Mr. Lincoln by his acts, his violation of the 
law, his overthrow of liberty in the Northern States. I 
judge Mr. Lincoln by his words and deeds, and so judging, 
I am unwilling to trust Abraham Lincoln with the future 
of this country. Mr. Lincoln is a politician ; politicians are 
like the bones of a horse's fore shoulder ; not a straight one 
in it. I am a citizen watchful of constitutional liberty. 
Are you willing to sacrifice the constitutional rights 
of seventy years? A man in the field (the army) said: '
The re-election of Lincoln will be a national disaster.' Another 
said: 'The re-election of Lincoln will be national 
destruction.' I want free speech. Let Abraham Lincoln 
know that we are stronger than Abraham Lincoln ; that he 
is the servant to obey us."

Once again, another strongly Republican paper called the Sentinel stated the following:

“The rail splitter called for more, and more, until he had over 2.000.- 
ooo armed men, and he sent 'em down to burn and pillage, to 
kill, conquer or annihilate traitors to our glorious Union, the 
Constitution all the while in the Capitol cellar. 
Although every intelligent man in the Republican party 
knows that their party despised the Constitution, still as the great 
body of the North's people had not lost love and reverence for it, 
few Republicans openly denounced it Wendell Philips, Lloyd 
Garrison, and other bold men, time and again, had publicly denounced 
the Constitution and shouted aloud their desire to tear 
it in pieces. Beecher, from his pulpit, contemptuously called the 
Constitution a "sheep skin" government deserving no respect.”

If you read the Chase Paper and his diary, you will see indisputable evidence to prove 
the fact that before Lincoln entered on the Presidency, certainly 
during the first month of his incumbency, he and Seward were 
determined on war, and determined to make the Northern people 
believe the South began it.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

I so appreciate this thread.

Nothing ever seems to be the way the way it seems.
I read a book where it said that Britain was about to break the blockade of the Southern ports as they needed the cotton.
But one battle that was bloody indeed, both the North and the South left the field.
It appeared this was the decider. Once it was seen that the South could at best achieve a stalemate the Northern win was inevitable. That meant to get the cotton they would need the North.
The South lost their support and their future.

Maybe they should have gone for a McCain favorite model of a North and South divided with a peace treaty and a buffer zone. LOL.

***************************************************
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrHmwiMgE74
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01kcqKd2Tag
Watch and feel the power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

***************************************************
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6zhIiGCvg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrHmwiMgE74
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01kcqKd2Tag
Watch and feel the power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Republicae's picture

A great history and expose

A great history and expose about the real Lincoln can be found in the work of George Edmonds in 1904. Edmonds hits the nail on the head, exposing the ideology of Lincoln and why the Radical Republican Party apparatus felt the need and had the desire to make Lincoln seem like a god in the eyes of the people of this country. They had to do that to accomplish the agenda that Lincoln implemented and that they desired to fulfill.

The book is called Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South, 1861-1865, once again by George Edmonds, printed in 1904. It is not an easy volume to find however, if you do find a copy it is well worth it.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Republicae's picture

The Revolutionary Right of Secession

THE RIGHT OF SECESSION.

First and foremost of the States which seceded appealed to the Constitution in justification of their course. The rightfulness of this contention must be determined not by our conceptions of what would have been the best system of government or the best form of constitution, but what, in the light of the admitted facts of history, and the actual terms of the Constitution as adopted, were the relative rights of the States and of the Union, with respect to this great problem. I can not, upon this occasion, do more than epitomise the facts and reasoning upon which the advocates of secession maintained the justice of their cause. It will help to a clearer understanding if we take one Commonwealth and portray her relations to the Union, and as we are to-day to honor the memory of Virginians, I shall select for that purpose our native State.

Virginia was one of the original colonies, having a separate existence from the other colonies, and yet, like the others, forming an integral part of the British Empire. Pending this political relation, the allegiance of her citizens was due the British crown.

On the 15th of May, 1776, the people of Virginia met in convention, and acting without association with any of the other colonies, declared her separation from and independence of Great Britain.

BILL OF RIGHTS.

On the 12th of June, 1776, she adopted and proclaimed her bill of rights; and on the 29th of June adopted her Constitution. She declared all power of government vested in her own people, who alone succeeded to the rights and territories of the crown. Her governor and State officers were elected, taking an oath of fealty to the Commonwealth of Virginia. All this was accomplished before the 4th of July, 1776--before the Declaration of Independence, which declared the colonies free and independent States, had been proposed at her instigation and prepared by her great son.

Thus, the people of Virginia became citizens of the State, and she their sovereign. The Declaration of Independence, so far from changing the allegiance of her citizens or proclaiming the independence of the country as a whole, by its very terms declares that the several colonies are "free and independent States."

The Articles of Confederation were formulated by the Continental Congress in November, 1777, and submitted to the legislatures of the respective States as such, and not to the people, for ratification.

These articles constituted by their very terms a compact between States, naming them, and not the people of the whole, country; and declare that each State retains its sovereignty and every power which is not expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled. While numerous powers were vested in the Federal Congress, yet it had no power, except acting on and through the States as such, even to collect taxes or to enlist troops for the prosecution of the war of the Revolution.

NOT AS A WHOLE.

When, by the treaty of peace with Great Britain, our independence was acknowledged, the independence of the people of the United States as a whole was not recognized, but each of the separate Commonwealths, naming them, was declared a free, sovereign and independent State.

Thus stood the government--Federal and State--and the allegiance of the citizen, after the treaty of peace with Great Britain acknowledging our independence.

In 1787 the Constitutional Convention, as it was called--a body authorized by no Federal enactment--assembled at Philadelphia, prepared and proposed to the several States for adoption a new constitution. The old Confederacy was abandoned, and by the express terms of the Constitution it was not to be effective until nine States should have ratified the same.

The adoption of the Constitution was not the act of the people of the whole country, but of each State, as only by the separate acceptance of its terms by each State could it become binding upon her. The States were absolutely free to enter the new Union, or to retain their complete independence. Thus North Carolina and Rhode Island--the latter not being even represented at the Philadelphia convention--refused to enter. The Congress of the United States laid tariff duties upon imports from both of these Commonwealths, as in the case of other foreign States--acts which were not repealed until they entered the Union.

CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT.

When Mr. Henry, who was not a member of the Philadelphia convention, charged that the expression, "We, the people of the United States," in terms implied a consolidated government. Mr. Madison, the foremost architect of the Constitution, replied: "Who are the parties to it? (the Constitution). The people. But not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties. Were it, as the gentlemen asserts, a consolidated government, the consent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment."

The bare recital of these facts would seem to demonstrate that in the formation of the Constitution, and the resulting Union, the States acted as separate sovereignties, and that the government thus created, was the result of a compact between them, and not the act of the people as a whole.

The powers of the Federal Government, therefore, were delegated and not inherent; and to ascertain them it is only necessary to search the Constitution, where those so delegated are enumerated.

In the conventions of Virginia and New York, the question was raised as to the relative rights and powers of the State and Federal governments, and in order to define more clearly the meaning of the Constitution, and to establish more firmly the rights of the States, the resolution of the Virginia convention, in adopting the Constitution, uses this language:

VIRGINIA CONVENTION.

"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, do in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

The resolution of adoption by the New York convention is of very much the same import. These two States also proposed amendments to the Constitution, which were quickly ratified and made a part of the instrument itself. The amendment bearing specifically upon the point under consideration, was the 10th, which expressly provides "That the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Thus, with the very adoption of the Constitution, the position maintained by the statesmen that the Constitution was a compact between States, was established, as they thought, beyond a question.

If it was a compact between separate sovereignties, and the compact enumerated all the powers surrendered to the federal head, then the parties to the compact could withdraw as an incident to their sovereignty, and because that right had not been surrendered. The citizen, as we know, was the citizen of the State, and not of the Union. If the State had a right to secede, it had the supreme claim upon the allegiance of all its citizens, even in a controversy between the State and the federal head.

POSITION OF THE FOUNDERS.

This was the position of the advocates of the right of secession, and the reasoning upon which they based their claim. The principle so declared, had been frequently asserted by States and statesmen, in the most solemn manner. Thus, upon the passage of the Alien and Sedition laws, the celebrated resolutions of 1798 were adopted by the legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia--the first of which was prepared by Jefferson, and the second by Madison. These resolutions, thus prepared by the author of the Declaration of Independence and the father of the Constitution, asserted in the most solemn form that the government was a compact between States; that its powers were limited to those specifically delegated in the Constitution; and that the States had the right to determine for themselves when the Federal government exceeded its authority.

These declarations became the subject of assault and defence, but so far from the principles annunciated being repudiated, at the very next election, Mr. Jefferson was elected President of the United States, and after a service of eight years, was succeeded by Mr. Madison, who filled the office for a like period.

CAUSE OF DISSOLUTION.

In 1804, the legislature of Massachusetts passed an act declaring that the purchase and annexation of the territory of Louisiana by the general government was a sufficient cause for the dissolution of the Union.

In 1814 the representatives from the six New England States assembled in the celebrated Hartford convention, and, because of their opposition to the war with England, declared that unless the policy of the administration in prosecuting this war was changed, they would be forced to adopt measures for withdrawing from the Union. The convention adjourned to meet the following June, when the timely ending of the war prevented the necessity of its reassembling.

Josiah Quincy, of Massachusetts, in a speech delivered in the House of Representatives upon a bill for the admission of the first State from the Louisiana purchase, declared: "It is my deliberate opinion that if this bill passes, the bonds of the Union are virtually dissolved; that the States which oppose it are morally free from their obligations, and that as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some, to prepare definitely for a separation."

In 1839 John Quincy Adams, in an address before the New York Historical Association, declared: "We may admit the same right has vested in the people of every State of the Union with reference to the general government, which was exercised by the people of the united colonies with reference to the supreme head of the British Empire, of which they formed a part, and under these limitations have the people of each State in the Union a right to secede from the Confederate Union itself."

NO BINDING FORCE.

In 1845 the legislature of Massachusetts, in view of its opposition to the proposed annexation of Texas, passed a series of resolutions in which, after declaring that there was no precedent for the admission of a foreign State or territory into the Union, and as the powers granted in the Constitution do not provide for such legislation, so "an act of admission would have no binding force whatever upon the people of Massachusetts."

These various resolutions and enactments of State authorities, and declarations of statesmen both of the Revolutionary and later periods, were accepted as avowals of constitutional rights, implying no lack of loyalty or patriotism.

If the States had the right under the Constitution to secede, then the Federal government had no constitutional right to coerce them. The inability of the Federal government to coerce States had been frequently illustrated by the refusal of governors to honor requisitions made upon them by governors of other States for the rendition of fugitive slaves, though the statute under which the requisitions were made was passed by Congress, and the government stood pledged to enforce its execution.

Thus stood the historical and legal features of the great controversy. To say that the people of Virginia, or of any other State, acting under the forms of law, could not withdraw from the Union without a violation of the Constitution, was to contest what was an accepted theory of the government, held by leaders of thought in every section, from the day of its foundation.

We are not discussing either the wisdom of exercising the right of secession or the wisdom of the fathers in the formation of such a government, but we are considering the actual terms of the Constitution and the truths of history. And in the light of these conditions, that man is indeed reckless of inexorable facts who avows that men who died in the maintenance of rights so time-honored and so widely accepted were guilty of treason.

THE RIGHT OF REVOLUTION.

The statesmen of the seceding States founded their action, as we have seen, upon their rights under the Constitution. They never admitted that it was necessary to have recourse to the right of revolution. Mixed, however, in the popular mind with the right of secession was the conviction that the right of revolution was one that could not be denied. They had never learned to admit that George Washington was a traitor, only saved from the scaffold by the adventitious fortunes of war. Less than one hundred years before, their fathers had decided for themselves the great question of their political destiny, with no higher warrant than the brave avowal of the declaration that governments are instituted among men, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The people felt that they had walked the path blazed out by the fathers, and asserted rights which had been vindicated in the heroic days from Lexington to Yorktown. If thirteen colonies, with a population of less than three million of free men had the right to determine for themselves their form of government, and secede from the mother country, how much more should this new nation, possessing a territory twice as great, with a population of over six million of free men, exercise the same prerogative?

SOUTH NOT ALONE.

And not alone was this the conviction of the people of the seceding States, but the same sentiment was wide-spread among leading statesmen, journalists and the people of the North. Thus, the New York Tribune, foremost among the organs which had supported Mr. Lincoln, declared: "If the Declaration of Independence justified the secession from the British Empire of three million of subjects in 1776, it was not seen why it would not justify the secession of five millions of Southerners from the Union in 1861."

At a great meeting held in New York on the 31st of January, 1861, after the Cotton States had seceded, addresses were delivered by ex-Governor Seymour, Chancellor Walworth, and other leading citizens. Governor Seymour asked whether "successful coercion by the North is less revolutionary than successful secession by the South? Shall we prevent revolution by being foremost in overthrowing the principles of our government and all that makes it valuable to our people, and distinguishes it among the nations of the earth?"

Chancellor Walworth declared: "There were laws that were to be enforced in the time of the American Revolution. Did Lord Chatham go for enforcing those laws? No, he gloried in the defence of the liberties of America."

The Vindication Of The South
Brilliant Address of Hon. B. B. Munford

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Republicae's picture

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS? In

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS?

In an Allentown, PA museum a letter from Lincoln was found, the letter dated March 16, 1861, and signed by Abraham Lincoln imploring the governor of Florida to rally political support for a constitutional amendment that would have legally enshrined slavery in the U.S. Constitution.

If Lincoln's main purpose was to free the slaves WHY WAS HE WORKING SO HARD TO PROTECT IT?

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Republicae's picture

Lincoln "broke laws, he

Lincoln "broke laws, he violated the Constitution, he usurped arbitrary power, he trampled individual liberties." As quoted from an 1864 letter to Albert Hodges, in which Lincoln declared that "measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation."

At the outset of the Civil War, without Congressional authorization, Lincoln raised troops, appropriated funds, suspended habeas corpus in Maryland and ignored a ruling by Chief Justice Roger Taney ordering the release of a man arrested for aiding the rebellion. Later, Lincoln extended the suspension of habeas corpus to include the entire North. Under his authority as Commander in Chief, the military arrested thousands, most of them accused of actively aiding the Confederacy, but some of nothing more than criticizing Administration policies. The most notorious was Clement Vallandigham, a Congressman from Ohio, convicted by a military tribunal of disloyalty for a speech opposing the draft.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

BTW

I live in Virginia, and have been to the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, which by the way is amazing!! I was amazed to see how many black confederates there were. I thought to myself, why would a black man fight to keep himself enslaved? Now of course after some study I see that what I was told my whole life was wrong. I recommend the museum to all who can visit, it is truly an eye opening experience. I didn't want to leave!!!!

Jamestown is awesome too!!
I'm actually only a few miles from there. I love living is such a historical state!! Unfortunately, it has become one of the most tyrannical. It's really very sad that the place where it all started is now one of the worst to live in.

For some of the best books of this subject check out:
http://confederatereprint.com/

Yes, there were Indians

who fought for the white man too.

Trying to avert the fact that slavery was abolished and ratified in the United States constitution because of the Civil War, doesn't show much respect for the 600,000 that had to die to accomplish this fact.

I personally don't care whether you like Lincoln or not. I'm started this thread because Lincoln make inspiring quotes, and the campaign was a little down

What I got was a bashing from my fellow Ron Paul supporters and a complete attack on the people that pushed the anti-slavery issue.

So I have posted more in the original post, because the truth is, the anti-slavers kicked the bigots ass.

Spirited discourse is not

Spirited discourse is not bashing. Some of us may have times been a bit harsh, but that wasn't the intent. I've posted further down that if I came off as bashing you then I apologize as that wasn't my intent.

Just because we may disagree does not mean we are bashing...many of us just have a very different viewpoint on Lincoln.

======================================================
Federal Reserve to the American People:

"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."

================
Who is John Galt? Vote ███ ███ 2012!

Well, I appreciate that.

Really wasn't trying to get into a debate here. However, I feel much more educated through the course of this thread.

And don't worry, I can't take the jabs. :)
Just kiddin.

One more thing

the amendment which you refer to (14 amendment) didn't abolish slavery, it made us all slaves. Do some research on it and I will guarantee you that you will not look at it the same way.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=y4xV4MTnCdc

Republicae's picture

Read my post below on the

Read my post below on the State of New Jersey's reaction to the 14th Amendment, entitled :THE MOST AMAZING, MOST... is absolutely the most amazing document exposing what the 14th Amendment was intended to do. The least of which was to destroy the Constitutional Republic....Thanks to all those Lincolnite Radicals deadset on subversion of our Republic!

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

There is a way to fix this...

The Red Amendment.
Restore your status to that of a constitutionally correct status of State National.
pacinlaw.org
deprogram.us

deprogram.us is pretty neat.

deprogram.us is pretty neat. It doesn't go into enough detail for me about the problems of the 14th amendment or how you unplug, but is a good primer.

======================================================
Federal Reserve to the American People:

"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."

================
Who is John Galt? Vote ███ ███ 2012!

The Red Amendment

is an expose on that issue. And it does provide a way out. If you are interested in the truth about the 14th amendment this is the only guy you should ever listen to. The man who created the deprogramming sequence wrote the book. I know his process works as I have been "unplugged" for a few years now, and have had no problems.

We are going to be distributing this info with DaddyWarbucks information packets that will be sent out this summer.

Republicae's picture

PAC

I began with the PAC and The Red Amendment about two years ago; as is stated you really need to love your State Constitution and be sure that there are protections in that Constitution before you take the recommended steps. The problem is that the majority of Constitutions, especially in the South were nullified and then replaced by the federal government under Military Law under the Reconstruction Act. This poses a particularly difficult position in which to place one's self when such State Constitutions now provide for federal interventions despite the "safe-guards" that are intended in such State Constitutions therefore, I have chosen to wait to complete the process. Since "expatriation" from the federal system means that you are then totally dependent upon the State Constitution in which you are a Citizen, this still poses a problem since even our State Constitution has been compromised by the influences of the foreign government of Union States of America in Washington.

The stance of the People, under the Law, de jure Law, has always been that of an Adversary to the government’s ability to usurp authority with de facto Law. For decades, the People have been lulled into believing that the government will automatically defend and uphold Our Rights, nothing can be farther from the truth. Neither the Executive Branch, Legislative, no even the Judicial Branch will automatically take it upon itself to stand in the gap to uphold that, which places limitations upon itself. It is that unquestioning trust that endangers the very existence of the American Republic and the Constitution.

What is the Constitution? It is a compact, a contract between the People and themselves; it is primarily an Anti-Government document created to limit the degree in which the People can be governed. It is not intended to be a governmental document creating a government as much as a promise and a guarantee that the government created is built upon the Foundation of Individual Liberty. It is an Offensive Document intended to protect the People from the greatest danger and the biggest threat they face to their Freedom, Liberty, Rights and Way of Life: the government.

Being an Offensive Document, the Constitution is in direct opposition to expansive government intrusions and therefore poses the greatest threat to the government itself. As such, it is the nature of government to seek to control the manner in which the Constitution is both interpreted and applied, as it seeks to limit the effectiveness of the Constitution and has, through the implementation of the 14th Amendment, dissolved the Reflective Union of State Republics and replaced that with a Nation Union of Corporate States. Since the biggest threat to the government is the Constitution itself, all interpretations and applications of the Constitution will be biased toward the government and its own expansive powers. History bears this fact out, time and time again.

Although the government has and does use the Constitution to legitimize itself and its actions, it has shown that its real intent is to neutralize the effectiveness of the Constitution while maintaining a degree of Constitutional legitimacy in the eyes of the People. While originally the government was intended to be both servant and protector of the Peoples Rights; it has been transformed over the years to become the grantor of all protections and rights, making that protection and those rights contingent upon compliance to its will and governance.

The Constitution, instead of limiting the reach and scope of government is now used by government to limit the reach and scope of the Rights of the People. In every case reviewed by the Supreme Court that involves the Rights of the People, it usually becomes a question of the extent of those Rights, the limitations of those Rights as opposed to the limitations of the government to deny the fullness of those Rights. The government now takes it upon itself the ability to compromise, ignore, or limit any Right that it deems necessary to allow it to function, regardless of the Constitutional restrictions to the contrary.

Indifference, ignorance and apathy toward Our Rights are the only thing that relinquishes those Rights to the authority of a government that is only too willing to usurp. The Peoples ignorance and passivity allows the government to maintain an expansive stance at the expense of the People, their Rights and therefore their lives. A wait and see attitude by the People perfectly suits the government, it allows it to expand without questions to it authority. The government employs the apathy of the People to maintain, and therefore control or manage its superior position over the People. In the simplest sense, the People have no Rights if they don’t know and exercise those Rights in an Adversarial manner before the government.

The war for Our Liberty, Our Freedom and Our Rights is not waged in some foreign land, but here on American Soil and it requires the Dedication of the People to succeed against the lingering wiles of that primoris malum unus Lincoln. His decaying stench remains strong, staining the air that we once breathed in the Liberty of a Free Republic.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Yeah, I've seen that book

Yeah, I've seen that book for sale. Haven't bought one...very appealing though.

======================================================
Federal Reserve to the American People:

"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."

================
Who is John Galt? Vote ███ ███ 2012!

I agree with you Lincoln

had some great quotes, my favorite is:
"If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution".
Lots of not so great people have had a shining moment and given some great quotes. And lots of people can speak eloquently and say some awesome things, that doesn't mean they apply the things they say.
And I don't think I have ever bashed you. I do not agree with slavery. But I do know the war wasn't fought to free the slaves.
I think if you continue to study the info you have been given here with an open mind you too will eventually see things differently.
I repeat, it has NEVER been my intention to bash you.

Republicae's picture

I agree, many of Lincoln's

I agree, many of Lincoln's quotes are wonderful, the problem is that his actions nullify such wonderful sentiments. If Lincoln had lived by the wonderful words he spoke then it would be a totally different story, but he didn't, he totally contradicted his words witht the actions he took to destroy the Constitutional Republic.

I mean if you look at some of the quotes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao, you will find some very intellectual and very wonderful sentiments however, that does not justify their actions, in fact it only serves to condemn them.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Republicae's picture

Oh, speaking of Native

Oh, speaking of Native Americans, did you know that the "Indian Nations" were welcomed into the Confederacy as equals and that they fought for the Confederacy. In fact, in honor of the 5 Indian Nations, on one of the National Flags of the Confederacy 5 Red Stars were placed in the blue.

While the biggots in the North were murdering the Indians, passing anti-Negro laws which carried some of the most harsh penalties for simply being in a Northern State, the South, the Confederacy was seeking to include the Indians and at least, despite slavery, treated blacks with far more respect and kindness then any of those in the North.

So, before you use the word biggot, you should actually read the history of biggotry in the North. THAT SIR IS HYPOCRISY...I would assume that you are a religious man/woman...if so then how on earth can you reconcile such in your conscience the type of disinformation, misinformation and out right lies that you promote? You call the South biggots and ignore the crimes and racism of the North. You call the South criminals and yet you deny that illegal actions of not only Lincoln, but those who followed his example later in the Unionist controlled government.

I personally am offended by the contradiction of your logic, by the seeming disregard for the evidence and the truth and by your use of hyprocritical slurs intent on casting doubt into the hearts and minds of the people on this forum who seek truth above comfort. I am offended by the disrespect shown to the Spirit of Liberty that not only Dr. Paul stands for, but that every person on this forum stands for as they seek to restore those things that have been destroyed by such Statist as Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and Bush.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Republicae's picture

Sir, your words have shown

Sir, your words have shown far less respect, not only for the Honorable Memory of the dead who fought on both sides of the Conflict, but also for the Constitution, the Founding Fathers and all that gave their lives for the cause of Liberty.

We are not trying to avert the fact that slavery was abolished, we are taking issue with is that Lincoln's actions were not only illegal, but also Un-Constitutional and that many of those policies are the very same ones that Dr. Paul STANDS AGAINST AND WHY THIS REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.

There is a very distinct difference between bashing you and bashing the evidence you have presented. I simply cannot reconcile how a person who says they support Dr. Paul can, in all honesty, support the criminal actions of Lincoln, who clearly and deliberately subverted the Constitution, ignored and broke the Law of the Land. It borders on both a political and intellectual schizoprenia and would be a mental conflict for anyone with the ability to logically reach such a conclusion between the two.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Republicae's picture

Not only that, but why would

Not only that, but why would the mass of volunteers from the white population of the South, who were not slave owners, fight and give their lives just to defend the institution of slavery?

In fact, if you read the vast number of letters from those rank and file soldiers, you will find that they were fighting against a foreign invader, they were fighting to protect their homes and their States. They were fighting for their Liberty against an over powerful federal government which had usurped its authority, un-Constitutionally and was operating illegally to tax the South to death for the benefit of the North, and deny the people of the South their Life, Liberty and Property.

Those men, including thousands of black Confederates, were fighting against a foreign invasion of their country.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Yes, they were forced to fight.

The 1863 New York times explains it pretty well on this website. Scroll to bottom.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1862/co...