The Story-Life Of Lincoln

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."

“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.

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/wa...
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Watch and feel the power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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

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?

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.

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...