Deo vindice!
ping
The south went to war not for state's rights, but to enforce the supreme court trampling on them, in the name of slavery. Sure they waved state's rights around like a flag. But they didn't practice them, and they'd kill rather than recognize the right of Illinois to free a man in Illinois.
Did Beck ask Lincoln if he was a 9/11 truther too?
Deo vindice!
I’ve never seen Blanche Lincoln as being in favor of states rights...
Carl Sandburg is dead - the only Lincoln expert. However I do know that Lincoln’s hobby was ............ cats ........
You are missing an important point.
The southern states hid behind “States Rights” to protect slavery. By claiming that black Africans weren’t truly human but less than 100% human, they tried to prevent the Bill of Rights being applied to what was an economic necessity in their region.
Lewis Lehrman’s book “Lincoln at Peoria”: http://www.lincolnatpeoria.com/
Lincoln was a supporter of the US Constitution, as were most Americans, north and south. That is why the attempted secession failed. The Southern Founding fathers all regarded secession as treasonous. The secession attempt of 1860-61 was an attempt to overthrow the USA and replace it with a slave empire extending into the Caribbean and Latin America in alliance with the most extreme regressive European elements. All Americans should thank God it failed.
Dishonest Abe alert.
Did he comment on Lincoln’s propensity to sleep with men?
Glenn Beck was basically saying he comes on the side of Lincoln calming to have heard the other side, the anti-Lincoln side. and while he talks with a guy from the Lincoln institute about Lincoln they both like get it down to a half truth.
I uses to love Lincoln and idealizes him as I was taught about him in school. But what they did not teach to me or any of the other kids in school was the true magnitude and reality of what Lincoln did. As well as of Lincoln’s own hypocrisy in the matter.
As I later learned more and more of theses other details and their implications, and I think about it. The historic truth about Lincoln leaves nothing to love.
Glenn just skirted over theses facts in utter contradiction with the previous assertions of tyranny of the Unconstitutional lawless majority now being in practice just as them and the practical incapacity of the minority(politically) to protect themselves without the right to in anyway separate themselves from the rule of that hostile and lawless majority.
Lincoln himself was a hypocrite, and he was pro-secession before becoming president, not just for entire States but for any subdivision of any State. This was as Lincoln and our own Declaration of Independence held a natural and inalienable right of the people! A right that was critical to the preservation of constitutional law, and freedom.
Lincoln and the other pro-secession because he was an abolitions that did not want to have to return escaped slaves to the south. That’s all fine and good, but he did a 180 after achieving power and thou he himself admitted again and again he could not end slavery, and had no desire to. His denial of the people of the South of their Equal right to revolutionize and separate themselves from the hostile majority of the North is in retrospect tyrannical and in utter-contraction with our foundation as a people in the Deceleration of Independents.
A document in which We as a people, in Actual defiance of actual British law, not just a theoretical abstraction of law (an abstraction which is itself contradicted by the 9th and 10th amendments) did exactly the same thing with regard to the British Empire.
An unconditional union is the chains of slavery, as there can be no practical way for the minority(politically) to protect their rights.
Lincoln knew this, and acknowledged it before becoming president when the Northern abolitionist were in the minority. Lincoln CHOOSE to ignore theses Rights when he and the other Northern abolitionist became the majority. That singular choice in my opinion is what made him wrong. All other issues are in the grand scheme of things of 2ndary importance. The ends don’t justify the means.
Very few of our people ever face theses unavoidable facts. History at least the version they tend to want to teach in schools, if any at all at this point, is written by the victors who tend to want to show themselves in the best light. But there is far more record of our history then that which they teach in schools out there for the reading.
One of the main proposes of freedom of speech and reasons for the condemning of “book burning” as it is said is to help keep rulers from trying to rewrite history, in addition to reality.
In this respect with the unprecedented access to information for everyone in the information age afforded to us by the internet, the truth will eventually come out.
Even then in that age which was very much depended upon news papers, books and memory to teach people, those who were willing. Theses who were not blinded by ideology and 50 years of political rivalry and hate could learn of and remember the truth about freedom, and our union.
Why did they not get the north to respect and protect the rights of their political enemies?
Well even that is written of out in the open in our history, if you bothered to read them.
At the time, in the North when and where theses issues of natural right of secession were brought forth in argument against Lincoln’s War effort, Lincoln and his supporters first claimed that the Southern vote was ridged, and when that argument proved to be clearly fictions given the Southern peoples willingness to mobilizes and fight for their rights, Lincoln then proceeded to shutdown the news papers that dare speak of it.
In short Lincoln robed the people of their right to free speech and in doing so robed them of their only chance to realizes the magnitude of the crime that they were committing on Lincoln’s behalf. A crime that continues to haunt and enslave them as much as it haunts and enslaves the people they allowed themselves to be used in conquering.
In short nobody except the power brokers of Washington D.C. won the “Civil War”, everyone else particularly the rights of the people lost the war.
Lincoln quite possibly could have ended the slavery and preserved the Union without war.
State conventions in both Virginia and North Carolina, which by far were the center of gravity and ended up supplying the lion’s share of men for Confederate forces, voted AGAINST secession the first time it was proposed.
It was only AFTER Lincoln demanded that these states supply a large number of soldiers for use in conquering the deep south states who wanted to leave the Union that Virginia and North Carolina decided to secede.
States like New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania were all SLAVE states at one time. The outlawed slavery by law using sunset provisions.
This same sentiment to outlaw slavery by sunset provision saw increasing popularity in Virginia and North Carolina after the Revolution and the establishment of the Constitution.
It is quite possible that if Lincoln had held his horses for war and played his hand more intelligently, he could have managed to hold Virginia and North Carolina (Kentucky and Tennessee would have followed suit). In that case, the Union would have been much more powerful than the deep south states and after a period of time the deep south might have been cajoled back into the Union with sunset provisions to end slavery. All without war and the deaths of millions.
Just out of curiosity, did Beck say what state’s right Lincoln had trampled on?
What I object to is the idea that Lincoln was first and foremost an emancipator of the slaves. That was not Lincoln’s driving force. His read that it was above all else important to hold the union together was his driving force.
I would not state that Lincoln didn’t care about the slaves, but IMO he drafted the emancipation proclamation at a point in the war when he was desperately seeking to shore up support for the war, which was rapidly dissipating.
So my thoughts on what Lincoln actually achieved relate to his efforts on holding the union together vs his perceived anti-slave actions. The union clearly trumped here. He doesn’t really deserve any direct credit for ending slavery IMO. A footnote yes, a headline…, not really.
If he had started the war on that premise, fine. If he had held that premise early on, fine. If he had held that premise 50% or less of the way in, fine. He didn’t. No sale.
So Lincoln’s real achievement was three-fold. 1. He held the union together discarding any other consideration. 2. He set up the framework for what would follow, a climate where states could never secede from the union. 3. The at least partial enslavement of every U.S. Citizen.
You and I work two to four months each year in order to feed our masters, the federal government. Once the states saw that form of enslavement would be tolerated, they followed suit.
Other federal nonsense that we are compelled to accept, is also problematic, yet we are enslaved to it. One has only to look at what Obama is signing us on to today, that we connot refuse to accept, to see the truth in this.
We are not free.
That is Lincoln’s real legacy IMO.
I find it a little difficult to believe that northern men left their Homes, Jobs, Farms, Wives and Children, to go down and march a thousand miles on foot to kill their fellow countrymen and relatives because they had slaves.
That was then - this is now of course. Sending the military is one thing, but even for today’s standards - how many people on your block could you get to do that today? ( And Risk their lives )
I believe Beck set that guy up with that question.
Dixie ping
saw it and nearly had my jaw drop to my knees.
how on earth can he say Lincoln was strong on states rights when he went against states rights and caused over a half million deaths .
For the trolls on this then I know it was not all his fault either and if Davis had said he would get rid of slavery then Lincoln could not have used that political ploy to his advantage and it would not have stopped Europe especially the UK and France from undoing the blockade which was killing civilians
it seems Beck is starting to lose it on a couple of issues.
He never went after Jennings the homosexuals who teaches kids about fisting when he went after the czars.
This and another couple of points which elude me right now