Abe Lincoln - Our first dictator
Since the media and the government is promoting lincoln as the savior of the union,I thought I would state the other side and bring him down from the pedestal they put him on.
Let's look at the phrase "saved the union".In joining the united states it was for the states benefit not by gun point.So what do you do when the union isn't beneficial anymore?According to lincoln leaving isn't an option.It reminds me of a marriage.Would you use force on your spouse to not break the "union" of marriage?
Here's one of many articles on this tyrant.
Happy Birthday, Abe
You son of a b____. Card from Karen De Coster. - http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster21.html
*excerpts -
Lincoln was a ruthless dictator of the most contemptible sort. A conniving and manipulative man, and a scoundrel at heart, he was nowhere near what old guard historians would have us believe.
...this beast ruled the country by presidential decree, exercised dictatorial powers over a free people, and proceeded to wage war without a declaration from Congress.
...Lincoln was a consummate con man, manipulator, and a State-serving miscreant.
In the march through Georgia...he and Sherman carved out a murderous campaign, maiming innocent civilians and setting a precedent for the next century’s bloody genocides that followed. A fine exemplar was he, the Communists might say.
...Lincoln believed there was an inherent inequality between the black and white race, and held a conviction that a "superior position" should be assigned to the white man over the black man due to this political and social inequality.
Lincoln was the darling candidate of the moneyed industrialists of the North....
Lincoln signed ten more tariff-raising bills...He manipulated the American public into the first income tax, he handed out huge land grants and monetary subsidies to transcontinental railroads (corporate welfare), and he took the nation off the gold standard... Then, he virtually nationalized the banking system under the National Currency Acts in order to establish a machine for printing new money at will and to provide cheap credit for the business elite. This mercantilist tyrant ushered in central banking, our greatest economic curse to this day.
...he assembled a vast army by presidential decree...
...drafted individuals into slavery to the federal government.
...any war dissenters or advocates of a peaceful settlement with the South were jailed...
All said, Lincoln was a ruthless dictator and he set the precedent for what is known as the "Imperial Presidency." He was the most evil, damaging, aggressive, abominable, and destructive president ever to defy American liberty. Happy Birthday, Abe.
Fascinating
.
But it is not the whole story.
Got any dirt on Santa Claus? Jesus? Gandhi?
I tingle in anticipation.
He was all of that and more
He forced the south into secession much the same as we are being forced into it now. The first shots were fired by the south only because they were left with no alternative and that was what he wanted.
I have a feeling our own noses are being rubbed in a mess now so we will fire the first shots also.
Of course they would love nothing more than to have an excuse to take our guns.
So be patient but be ready.
"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"
"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"
"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"
I agree the worst thing we
I agree the worst thing we could do is shoot first... use the ballot box.. at some point it should turn!
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson
I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money. --Mark Twain
“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)
Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
Great post. This is a good read.
Here, it's somewhat confusing, due to the benign-sounding title and the fact that paragraph four is not bracketed or put in quotes.
But the author nails this topic beautifully on his blog site. His last few paragraphs sum it up nicely.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
old Abe is definetly not the
old Abe is definetly not the hero our Government run/statist schools brainwashed us into believing he was.
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson
I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money. --Mark Twain
“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)
Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
The best president ever was
The best president ever was James Madison.
"Notwithstanding a thousand faults and blunders,
[Madison's] administration has acquired more glory, and established more union,
than all his three Predecessors, Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, put together."
John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 1817
http://www.preservationnation.org/travel-and-sites/sites/sou...
James Madison, against the greatest odds, won a major war, with low casualties, while at the same time, preserving the Constitution. The 2nd War of Independence, also known as the War of 1812, freed us from the yoke of British tyranny on the high seas and opened up our economy to the greatest economic expansion in world history.
Madison, at the conclusion of his second term was the most popular president in U.S. history, and his protege James Monroe went on to serve two terms as well, winning by overwhelming margins.
Ever other president of a major war has committed atrocious deceptions and violations of the Constitution. Madison committed none. And every other president faced a weaker opponent, rather than a stronger opponenet like Madison did.
This includes:
Lincoln - suspended habeas corpus, arrested congressman, tried to arrest the chief justice of the Supreme Court, allowed major war crimes, allowed mass murders of the Indians, was a stone-cold racist, arrested publishers of newspapers, etc. Orchestrated the Ft. Sumpter incident and botched the 1st battle of Bull Run, as well as the first 2 1/2 years of the civil war.
FDR - warmonger who "interned" the Japanese and lied about Pearl Harbor, lied about Huey Long, saying he botched the beginning of WWII (for us) is being nice.
LBJ - lied about the death of JFK, the gulf of Tonkin incident, the U.S.S. Liberty, and never got a declaration of war, and botched the Vietnam war.
Truman - never got a declaration of war, lied about nuking Japan, botched the beginning of the Korean war.
Wilson - Violated the Monroe Doctrine, arrested newspaper publishers, lied about the Lusitannia and the Mexico/German connection, started the income tax, the war on drugs, the direct election of Senators (even worse than the income tax), the alcohol prohibition, and the secret Federal Reserve System.
McKinley - lied about the sinking of the Maine.
Polk - lied about the cause of the Mexican War.
In 1865, Paul Jennings, a slave owned by James Madison said that James Madison was the best man who ever lived.
A Colored Man's Reminiscences
of James Madison:
Electronic Edition.
Jennings, Paul, b. 1799
http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/jennings/jennings.html
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
Madison and the Bank!!!
The 2nd Banks of the US was asked for by Madison and signed into law by Madison in 1816. He could have killed the Bank but he didn't. He instead brought it back to life. Jackson by far was a better President for the single reason that Jackson killed the Bank.
haven't done my homework on Abe
but from reading all the comments, I've settled on a vague notion that Abe had a different vision for the "Republic".
It's not my vision.
I'm glad the by-product was freedom for the slaves....but the price was high, if there was a way to achieve the same result at a lower cost, that would have been nice...
If you think about the nature of man, the nature of ourselves......our most essential liberty is liberty itself...free will.
Your pursuits are boundless as long your pursuits don't infringe on another person's free will...otherwise official or perhaps unofficial forces may correct the imbalance.
Lincoln was the consequence of people living freely while enslaving others.
They clamored for their sovereignty while putting their boot down on someone else.
goddamn lincoln
and
goddamn the old south for making it possible for a lincoln to exist and flourish.
blowback. that's what the south got.
The war was over the south
The war was over the south making a stand against having to pay 87% of the government revenue. But yeah, the 93% of the southern population who did not own slaves deserved to see their homes, towns, and way of life burned to the ground to compensate for the 7% who did.
If you go and read the speeches of Jefferson Davis given to the Confederate States you would find that they had definite plans to start phasing out slavery-- the same way other countries had. Also worth noting is how the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves who were owned in the states which sided with the Union, it was only those in the rebellious states. Strange.
So you buy into the theory that the war was fought over slavery?
It was fought over money. And it was fought to clamp down on secession, aka 'saving the Union'. Slavery was a sideline issue.
What do you think of this quote?:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."
--A. Lincoln, Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Kev Tuma
I agree with you -- it was over money.
It was over cotton trade money -- England was subsidizing southern seccession -- this was not only a way for England to get cheap high quality cotton but also to gain a foothold back into America.
That is fact!
We put too much power in the hands of the President -- also, too much blaming.
The South could have made different moves. They could have stopped being anti-Christian -- They could have been moral.
It's like protecting the derivatives / bad debts rather then just allowing it go fully ill-liquid and burst -- have a quarter or two of downturn then pull through it -- no one wants the pain of letting go.
We haven't changed.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
87% of government revenue is
87% of government revenue is nothing to sneeze at.
Only 7% of the southern citizens had slaves-- but if the argument is of tolerance. The Northern populace had no problem being Christian when they tolerated the prominent Northern families making huge fortunes off of the slave trade. How about the honorable way the North ended their own ownership of slaves (not their participation in the slave trade) via selling them off rather than freeing them. Or what about all the laws that they put in place to keep and detour the FREE men of color from choosing to live in their States? Their was actually still Northern activity in the slave trade up until the war.
Also it was the North not the south which instated the Jim Crow laws-- not the south! Actually the only person who voted against them was the only Southerner on the panel, the rest were the so-called moral Christians.
Would you like references I can give many.
Wow -- You people just make up your own history
http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating2.htm
http://afroamhistory.about.com/od/jimcrowlaw1/a/creationjimc...
Go read about Jim Crow and come back to class with your thumbs in your pockets walking backwards -- then sit in the corner.
Yes I'd love some referrences!!
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
One of the clearest
One of the clearest principles that I have found about history over the last 6 or 7 decades is that history doesn't have to tell the truth just because it is labeled history. As such, it is important to know that what might be considered history is usually a mixture of fabrications and facts, usually presenting the official line in the best light while leaving the actual facts in the dusty crevasse of time.
While it is commonly thought that the "Jim Crow" laws were purely a Southern invention, the fact is that the laws reach back and find their origins not in the South, but in the North. Northern railway lines had, in fact “Jim Crow Cars” as far back as the early 1840s, which segregated whites and blacks.
A Congressional Commission in the late 1800’s found that the primary reason for racial strife in the South was the Reconstruction Acts and the horrible acts of the Union League during that period. Prior to the War and even in a decade afterward, race relations in the South were generally cordial. So much so, that Northerners, particular Union Troops were appalled at the friendliness between the races in the South.
Alexis de Tocqueville noted this even earlier in his work entitled “Democracy in America”, which is an eye-opener concerning the differences in attitude and actions toward the black race in America when comparing North verses South. Tocqueville was startled by the depth of extreme race hatred in the North and equally as shocked to find it virtually non-existent in the South.
He stated:
“The prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known.”
“So the Negro in the North is free, but he cannot share the rights, pleasures, labors, grief’s, or even the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared; there is nowhere where he can meet him, neither in life nor in death.
In the South, where slavery still exists, less trouble is taken to keep the Negro apart: they sometimes share the labors and the pleasures of the white men; people are prepared to mix with them to some extent; legislation is more harsh against them, but customs are more tolerant and gentle.”
He concluded that there was a far more rigid racial segregation in the North than in the South and that the laws regarding the black race in the North were of the most brutal kind. This same degree of severity was seen in most Northern States, even in the Western territories, during and after the War. The North had enacted what came to be known as Black Exclusionary Laws or Black Codes, some would not allow blacks to travel through the States, some would forbid them to stay over a couple of days and the penalty for breaking those laws were very severe, including whipping or hanging.
Union Troops, particularly in their letters home, later noted this. Many were shocked to find the relationships between whites and blacks to be so close and friendly. One letter I read was of a soldier who expressed his contempt and disgust at the fact that white plantation owners would dare allow black “mammies” to nurse their white children on black breasts…he used the Northern term for blacks: the “N” word, yes that is a Northern expression that appears to have been used by the Slave Traders from the North back in the 1600s. Many troops were also shocked to find blacks and whites attending church together, eating together and simply having conversations with each other as though the best of friends. Why wouldn’t they be shocked, they had been indoctrinated totally different and their view of the South was carefully constructed.?
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com
"The Truth is not always comfortable, but it is always safe" - H. W. Johnstone
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Oh, well I could post you a
Oh, well I could post you a link of my old school text book that would support your claims also. However, that doesn't mean it is the actual truth.
Most people (I assume you are one of them) think that the segregation laws were something that was imposed on people of color by evil southern legislatures. However these laws were based on the Black Codes established by the Northern Union general Ben Butler after he invaded New Orleans during the war. It is true that by the 1900's racial segregation was a fact by law (de jure) or by socially enforced tradition (de facto). White society in the North as well as the South believed in and practiced racial segregation. The infamous Plessy v. Ferguson case in which the United States Supreme Court codified racial segregation (Jim Crow laws), was based upon precedent set by Massachusetts law passed in the 1840s. The federal judges who approved Jim Crow were, with only one exception, Northerners. The chief justice who presided over the deliberation was from Michigan. The only Southerner on the court came from a family who had once owned slaves and for a short while had personally owned slaves. This Southerner was the only dissenting vote in the now infamous Jim Crow decision.
625,000 Americans dead
625,000 Americans dead (Lincoln)
Makes Bush seem a lot smaller in that light.
Let's see what Obama has in store. Don't see the troops coming home yet.
Bring 'em home man.
grant
I just moved my truck closer to the door, and on the radio
was the Laura Ingram show, I heard about 2 minutes of it, but she had two guys on at least worshiping lincoln and saying that o'bama is no lincoln, lincoln was wonderful. No mention of how lincoln totally disregarded the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, or was worse than the worst democrat alive today on big government. This is the definition of neo-con.
Thank you Dr. Paul for making me act on what I already knew was right.
*May the only ones to touch your junk, be the ones you want to touch your junk.*
laura ingram is dangerous.
laura ingram is dangerous. ;-)
she's a good looking broad, and several of my ignorant boot licking republican friends love her.
I like the way she looks, and the way she speaks, but the content is all mucked up.
King Lincoln Archive.....
The best treasure trove/spotlight on the writings on lincoln that I have seen all in one place.
King lincoln Archive
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html
Gunny G
The "G" Blogs....
http://www.gunnyg.wordpress.com
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
Gunny G
The "G" Blogs....
http://www.gunnyg.wordpress.com
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
Millions of words have been written
about Lincoln. There are all sorts of viewpoints. My opinion of Lincoln was formed by diverse reading over many years.
IMHO Lincoln was the greatest american politician, the greatest president, and his words, and actions, should be studied by every lover of liberty.
De Coster's "comments" are mostly nonsense.
h-daddy
Amazing H-daddy, simply
Amazing H-daddy, simply amazing. Lincoln's apotheosis was intentional, even many of the history books were slanted to enshrine Lincoln and his Administration. For a much more enlightening view, read the work entitled "Lincoln: The True Story of a Great Life", now Herndon, unlike the others who wrote of Lincoln, Herndon knew Lincoln very, very well. He was Lincoln's life-long friend and Law Partner; he didn't gloss over Lincoln's personal or political life at all.
Can anyone be considered a "great president" when, using the office, he abused the very principles of the Constitution he swore to uphold? I would say absolutely not. Lincoln imprisoned 10's of thousands of Americans for political reasons, had hundreds of newspapers closed, lied and lied even more. Threatened the arrest and then disbanded the Legislative body of the Sovereign State of Maryland. Threatened to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and indeed issued an arrest warrant for the Justice because the Justice decided against Lincoln's actions as un-Constitutional. He even went as far as arresting any preacher in the pulpit that spoke out against his actions. Among his un-Constitutional actions, he spilt a Sovereign State apart, speaking about Virgina; you should read just how that was done. Read about the actions taken on Lincoln's behalf in Missouri, want to read a horror story, read about that.
Habeas Corpus, well, we know how that faired under the regime of Lincoln. Anyone who did not openly and unconditionally pledge his allegiance, not to the country, not to the Constitution, but to the Lincoln Administration and its unconstitutional war against the Southern people along with its usurpation of the rights of the Northern people, was to be considered guilty of a vague and newly defined act of treason. As such, they would be subject to arrest without warrant and imprisonment without trial in a lawful court. Yep, sounds like a great president alright!
Former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis wrote this about Lincoln:
"When the Constitution says that the President shall be the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States... does it mean that he shall possess military power and command over all citizens of the United States; that, by military edicts, he may control all citizens, as if enlisted in the army and navy, or in the militia called into actual service of the United States? Does it mean that he may make himself a legislator, and enact penal laws governing the citizens of the United States, and erect tribunals, and create offices to enforce his penal edicts upon citizens?...
He is general-in-chief; but can a general-in-chief disobey any law of his own country? When he can, he superadds to his rights as a commander the powers of a usurper; and that is military despotism....
Whence, then, do these edicts spring? They spring from the assumed power to extend martial law over the whole territory of the United States; a power, for the exercise of which by the President, there is no warrant whatever in the Constitution; a power which no free people could confer upon an executive officer, and remain a free people. For it would make him the absolute master of their lives, their liberties, and their property, with power to delegate his mastership to such satraps as he might select, or as might be imposed on his credulity, or his fears. Amidst the great dangers which encompass us, in our struggles to encounter them, in our natural eagerness to lay hold of efficient means to accomplish our vast labors, let us beware how we borrow weapons from the armory of arbitrary power. They cannot be wielded by the hands of a free people. Their blows will finally fall upon themselves."
Stephen D. Carpenter gave a strong warning about the actions of Lincoln, but few heeded his words:
"
From the foregoing evidence... we cannot escape the general conclusion that it is the purpose of those in power and those who control the Administration, to plunge us into despotism — to finally destroy this old Union, and to build up a government on its ruins, in accordance with the early motives of a privileged aristocracy, or limited monarchy. The Union as it was, we need never look for again. So the despots in power tell us, and if they can prevent it, that fabric of free government reared by the combined wisdom and through the mutual sacrifice of a race of heroes and statesmen, will never be permitted again to shed the luster of its glory on a people that will soon lament the entire loss of liberty....
Our government is undergoing a revolution at the North as well as at the South. The party in power... have put themselves on record in favor of a different government from that of our fathers. They spit upon and deride the Constitution. But they knew they could not change this government to that of a military despotism, except by and through the means of military power. Hence, they have stricken down the civil and erected the military standard. We are now virtually under martial law. We can exercise no civil functions that do not suit the pleasure of the Military Dictator. This is the land-mark we have reached to-day. No man can deny this fact, and if this power is not exercised in every particular, it only shows that the historian was correct when he asserted as a general maxim that "new born despotism is both timid and cautious, and seldom reaches its altitude at one bound, but chooses rather to approach it by slow but sure degrees." It is a shrewd policy to allow the people for a while some of their rights, lest a counter revolution might be inconvenient and troublesome [emphasis in original]."
You want to read a real history, read "American Bastille", find out what Lincoln allowed to happen to Americans. Lincoln was compared to Napoleon III in his barbarism toward his own people. Read about the horrible tortures inflicted on some of the political prisoners held by the Lincoln Administration.
"IMHO Lincoln was the greatest american politician, the greatest president, and his words, and actions, should be studied by every lover of liberty."
The greatest politican, if you conclude that you must be a total liar then maybe he was. The greatest president...well, if you consider Lincoln the greatest then I would hate to hear what it would take for a president to be considered the worse. Every lover of Liberty despise the actions, the usurpations, the illegal acts, the criminal activities and the despotic powers that Lincoln assumed.
Mostly non-sense...I suggest you read much more than you apparently have in your life on Lincoln. Read the accounts of his contemporaries, read the newspaper accounts of the day, read the writings of those who were directly affected by his actions, not just in the South, but in the North. He was the enemy of the People, the enemy of the Constitution and the Republic.
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com
"Don't worry, we've thrown out the Weimar Republicans and elected the Zimbabwe Democrats." Billy Joe Allen
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
All your posts tend to go on and on
but say very, very little. Lincoln has his critics and his admirers. You dig up quotes that put Lincoln in a bad light. So what? There are just as many that do the opposite.
You've obviously read a lot about Lincoln but, unfortunately, the details seem to escape you. For example, the suspension of habeous corpus was only along a single military route through Maryland and for a short period of time. It was not a blanket edict across the entire country.
I'm entitled to my opinion and you to yours. Don't feel you need to lecture me about history or recite your interpretations.
I've read Herndon's book. It makes me appreciate Lincoln's greatness even more.
h-daddy
I find it strange that you
I find it strange that you think my post say little since I have both received compliments from several scholarly people and my articles have been honored on several occasions as Best of the Web, among other nationally recognized websites and publications.
While I don't have time to address your comments completely at this moment, I will say that Lincoln's actions speak much louder than any words he may have uttered in his lifetime. Indeed, his actions speak volumes about the man and the character of the man. A man can say anything and since it is usually a mans words that are imortalized, people forget about the actions that actually portrayed his real character.
The details are explicit in describing the actions of Lincoln, his crimes are evident in those details. It is not a matter of interpretation when you read the actions he took, the consequences his actions and edits had on real people, their families and their futures. How shameful it would be if we were to simply allow for such things to happen simply because we find the words of a man admirable and lofty.
_______________________continued:
I dig up facts that put Lincoln in the light of his character. Indeed, I can easy substantiate and document the supporting evidence that surrounds such quotes. The National Archives, along with the Library of Congress has a wealth of information concerning the actions of Lincoln, actions which are not only to be considered Un-Constitutional, but criminal, both in intent and execution.
You state, wrongly so, that the suspension of Habeas Corpus was limited to a single military corridor through Maryland. If you were indeed up on the various crimes of Lincoln then you would readily recognize that is simply not the case. Even if that were the case, which it is not, Lincoln did not have the Constitutional authority to do so, that is a Congressional authority under very specific circumstances.
Now, contrary to your opinion and obviously your knowledge; on April 27, 1861, Lincoln ordered Winfield Scott to arrest anyone between Washington and Philadelphia “suspected” of subversive acts or speech. Did you get that H-Daddy? He ordered the arrest of anyone on mere suspicion or even speech that Scott considered subversive. Specifically, he authorized the suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus in such vague cases based solely on suspicion, nothing else. Yep, it sure sounds like a “great president”, one who broke so many of this country’s laws that it is completely unimaginable and in a very real sense horrifying and repugnant to anyone who holds the Constitution in high regard.
Chief Justice Taney was correct in his assessment of Lincoln when he said that Lincoln showed a complete lack of respect for the high office he held, in fact he did, not only a lack of respect for the office, but for the Constitution and the People of this country.
Now, once again contrary to your knowledge, on September 24, 1862, Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus over the entire North, once again he did so illegally, although in two months time, after some intimidation, Congress introduced a bill, expo facto, to indemnify the actions of Lincoln. Of course, as we know, the issuance of an expo facto law is also Un-Constitutional.
Thus, while you think I am holding an opinion simply because I am entitled to one, the truth is that I have been convinced by facts contrary to decades of teaching which I was subjected to by the overt indoctrination process that apotheosized Lincoln as a great and saintly man whose actions were completely in line with the Constitution and that his motives were pure, when the facts show something completely opposite. I mean do you think I have always held these opinions? I was brought up with a picture of Lincoln on my schoolroom wall, memorizing the Gettysburg Address and history books that primarily revolved around Lincoln and his actions to “save the union”.
When confronted with such facts I had the choice to either ignore them or continue to search for the truth no matter what my previous and I might add, relatively comfortable opinion of Lincoln, was. In other words, the truth was and is much more important to me than my own opinions. I learned long ago that I must be willing to give up preconceived ideas, or knowledge based on either partial information or, as in the case of Lincoln, an intentional shellacking of history.
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com
"Don't worry, we've thrown out the Weimar Republicans and elected the Zimbabwe Democrats." Billy Joe Allen
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Isn't it also strange
that you feel I should adjure to your words because others admire them? And, that you feel I should ignore the words of Lincoln?
I say you say little because you are "proving" a very small point; that Lincoln did "bad" deeds. Who would argue that any President was perfect? In your effort to convince me that Lincoln is solely responsible for the Civil War and is a mass murderer, you stretch yourself beyond credibility. That doesn't imply that your facts are wrong but simply that a collection of facts is just that, no more no less. I have read as you have and IMHO Licoln is no mass murderer etc.
You can go on and on about habeus corpus but I know it is clear to you that in times of rebellion it is Constitutional despite Taney's objections. I am well aware of the 1862 Proclomation and I am sure you are well aware that it was preceded by the invasion of Maryland. Martial Law was in effect in several states already.
No more lectures please.
h-daddy
The Founders stated that the
The Founders stated that the States were, even after the ratification of the Constitution, FREE, INDEPENDENT AND SOVEREIGN STATES. Did you get that? They also stated that each of the States Acceded to the union voluntarily and that it was a Compact of Federation. Do you know what federalism means? It certainly doesn't mean that the central government is all powerful and superior to the States it represents.
Now, since the States, being Free, Independent and Sovereign, acceded to this union they were free to secede from it. The South seceded from this union in the same manner that they acceded to it, through Convention in each of the States. There was no rebellion, although that is the most convenient lie that was proposed by Lincoln and the Radical Republicans.
In fact, not only did Lincoln recognize the Confederate States of America as a Sovereign country, but it was recognized by the United States Congress as well. That being the case how could it be rebellion? If the Secession was rebellion then the government of the United States would have never recognized the Sovereign country of the Confederate States of America, never. The idea of rebellion was nothing more than an effective LIE used to wage war for the purpose of retaining the vast tariff revenues. That is, after all, the real reason for the war, and Lincoln admitted that fact on several occasions.
Even Lincoln supported Secession at one time...talk about his words, have you read them? Lincoln must have lied when he spoke these words: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
Lincoln was no mass murderer? He was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans, not just combatants, but innocents. His orders were followed and war crimes were committed in his name, torture, rape, plunder, pillage.
You didn't seem to be aware of the 1862 suspension of Habeas Corpus before when you stated that it only happened in a narrow military route? The Sovereign State of Maryland was, for all practical purposes, taken over in 1861, not 1862. In 1861, the Legislature and all Southern sympathizers were rounded up. Taney's objections were right on in terms of Constitutional legality, Lincoln not only ignored the Supreme Court, but issued a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice. The case by the way that Taney wrote his opinion on was John Merryman. Yeah, Lincoln was a great president alright, he swore to defend and uphold the Constitution and yet he defied and destroyed it at every turn.
I am amazed that anyone who can support the restoration of the Constitutional Republic could even dream of thinking that what Lincoln did remotely supports or portrays the principles behind the Constitution. The two are polar opposites, completely different in every aspect. Simply amazing!
Look around you, I would think that you have the country you want, after all, much of what we see today is a direct result of Lincoln, his policies of centralized government, the subversion of the Constitutional principals of Sovereign States and even the central banking system, fiat money gets heritage in the policies of Lincoln.
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com
"Don't worry, we've thrown out the Weimar Republicans and elected the Zimbabwe Democrats." Billy Joe Allen
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Great post.
"...the States were, even after the ratification of the Constitution, FREE, INDEPENDENT AND SOVEREIGN STATES."
Well said!
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Republicae I salute you! I
Republicae I salute you! I enjoy reading your posts because its obvious that you are a man of in depth research which I myself try to be-- emphasis on try. ;-)
Thanks.....I also appreciate
Thanks.....I also appreciate your contributions to the subject of the mass murderer Lincoln. Under other circumstances, Lincoln, Sherman and Sheridan would have been hung for war crimes. Sherman was very aware of that fact.
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com
"Don't worry, we've thrown out the Weimar Republicans and elected the Zimbabwe Democrats." Billy Joe Allen
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Republicae I salute you! I
Republicae I salute you! I enjoy reading your posts because its obvious that you are a man of in depth research which I myself try to be-- emphasis on try. ;-)
What?
"Greatest president"? What garbage is this? Lincoln was probably the worst president, if you love liberty.