Replies

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "I doubt you would be so tough talking about knocking people of pedestals if we were talking in person."

Are you that insecure? I was referring to your pretense of moral superiority.

BTW, I am in my 70's, so I can only dream of the days when I enjoyed TKD sparring.

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "And I find your constant lying to be sickening. You claim to be a veteran, but I find that highly unlike with your twisted, hateful view of American history."

I have told no lies, so that makes you the liar. I also told you that I love my country; and because I love my country, and because I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, I am obliged to expose Lincoln for destroying the checks and balances that were put in place by men far superior to him, as well as for destroying the lives of perhaps a million or more Americans in an unconstitutional war.

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "But I will leave you with some quotes from on of the greatest president of this country. And some quotes from a traitor who was captured while fleeing in woman's clothing. However, I fear you are to blind to see the moral difference between the two."

No one, post-war, believed it could be proven that Davis was a traitor; so he was released from prison. Davis didn't make war against the United States; Lincoln did:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." [Law, "Constitution of the United States and Amendments." 1787, Article III, Sect. 3]

Yes, the traitor was Lincoln, who, as an American citizen, made war against the United States. Someone should have told Abe, "If you don't like the Constitution, there is an amendment process available to change it." Instead, he usurped power and destroyed the Union, along with half the countryside. Not unsurprising, you will find Lincoln-like doctrine in Mein Kampf:

"For it was not these [American] states that had formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states. The very extensive special rights granted, or rather assigned, to the individual territories are not only in keeping with the whole character of this federation of states, but above all with the size of its area, its spatial dimensions which approach the scope of a continent. And so, as far as the states of the American Union are concerned, we cannot speak of their state sovereignty, but only of their constitutionally established and guaranteed rights, or better, perhaps, privileges." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf: Manheim Translation." Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999, p.566]

Compare with: First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, in Roy P. Basler, "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 4." Rutgers University Press, 1953, pp.253-254

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Or perhaps you agree with Davis?"

I certainly do not agree with him on slavery, but I am 150 years too late to tell him about it. I would, however, like to thank him for his service in the Mexican-American War, but I am too late for that, as well. You do know he was a West Point graduate, don't you?

How about you? Do you agree with Lincoln on slavery? Do you believe it was right for his hero (Henry Clay) to be a slaveholder? Do you believe it was right for him to marry into a slave-holding family? Do you believe Lincoln was superior to blacks, as he claimed to be? Do you believe Lincoln was right in his goal of seeking a lily-white nation by colonizing the blacks back into a nation where they did not want to go? Do you believe Lincoln was right in seeking to forever enshrine slavery into the Constitution (with the Corwin Amendment?) Just curious . . .

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "I learned a different lesson in my 20+ years in the military. I served alongside people of all races and found some to be good, some to be average, and some to be bad. We were instructed at boot camp that it didn't matter if we were lite green or dark green, we were all green and all Marines."

Every branch of service teaches that all blood runs red.

You can feel free to climb down off your moral high-horse, any time. I will never accept that you are morally superior to me -- equals, perhaps, but not superior.

BTW, many of my friends are retired Marines, and most, if not all have similar opinions of Lincoln to mine. So this discussion has nothing to with who served in what branch. Why not try to debate the issues?

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Lincoln’s comments on slavery: "I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858), p. 492."

What did Lincoln say the next day? The reason I ask is, he was a master at speaking out of both sides of his mouth. This wasn't exactly the next day, but:

"I have again and again said that I would not enter into any of the States to disturb the institution of slavery. Judge Douglas said, at Bloomington, that I used language most able and ingenious for concealing what I really meant; and that while I had protested against entering into the slave States, I nevertheless did mean to go on the banks of Ohio and throw missiles into Kentucky to disturb them in their domestic institutions. I said, in that speech, and I meant no more, that the institution of slavery ought to be placed in the very attitude where the framers of this Government placed it, and left it. I do not understand that the framers of our Constitution left the people of the free States in the attitude of firing bombs or shells into the slave States." [Speech at Springfield, Illinois, July 17, 1858, in Roy P. Basler, "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 2." Rutgers University Press, 1953, p.517]

Yea, right . . .

Are you aware that, as a trial lawyer, Lincoln never represented a runaway slave? He represented a free woman to keep from being sold into slavery, but never a runaway. He did, however, represent a slave-owner in an attempt to help recover his fugitive slaves. David Donald wrote this about "the Great Emancipator" at work in 1847:

"When [Robert Matson's] slaves [Jane Bryant and children] ran away and, with the backing of local abolitionists, brought suit for their freedom, on the ground that the Northwest Ordinance forbade the introduction of slavery into the state of Illinois, Matson employed Lincoln, along with Usher F. Linder, to defend him. Characteristically Lincoln admitted his opponents' main argument, that the slaves were free if Matson had brought them to Illinois for permanent settlement, but he invoked the right of transit, which the courts had guaranteed to slaveholders who were taking their slaves temporarily into free territory. He placed great stress on Matson's public declaration, at the time he brought the slaves into Illinois, that he did not intend the slaves to remain permanently in Illinois and insisted that "no counter statement had ever been made publicly or privately by him." The circuit court ruled against Lincoln and his client, who, it was reported, left immediately for Kentucky without paying his attorneys' fees. Neither the Matson case nor the Cromwell case should be taken as an indication of Lincoln's views on slavery; his business was law, not morality." [David Herbert Donald, "Lincoln." Touchstone, 1996, pp.103-104]

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me;" Abraham Lincoln - Letter to Joshua F. Speed, 1855

It appears that Lincoln was so tormented about those slave irons in 1841 that he became forgetful -- forgetful enough that by 1847 he was willing to accept a case seeking to put Jane Bryant and her children back in irons.

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 255.

Abe believed it was a "monstrous injustice," except when he was "doing business," such as defending a slaveholder.

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle - the sheet anchor of American republicanism." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 266.

Tell that to a couple of million southerners, most of which were NOT slaveholders.

Abe Lincoln was a master politician -- a liar so accomplished he would make Bill Clinton envious. He was also the consummate hypocrite, claiming in his inaugural that secession was the essence of anarchy, but defending it in the case of West Virginia. And, of course, no person who hated slavery as much as Lincoln claimed would have attempted to permanently enshrine slavery's legality into the Constitution, as he did.

The bottom line is, Jefferson Davis was a slaveholder, which was cruel; but Lincoln was a coniving, blood-thirsty tyrant, which was far, far worse.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata to OIFVeteran: "I have told no lies, so that makes you the liar."

I've seen nothing honest from Kalamata.
Even his admittedly accurate quotes he uses to serve Big Lies about history, science and the United States.

He claims to be a scientist (and veteran?!) but his voice & tone are those of a master propagandist.

Kalamata "I also told you that I love my country; and because I love my country..."

Total lies, Kalamata loathes & despises his real country and instead loves some fantasy which might be described as what the antebellum South would have become had Pickett & Pettigrew been better supported by Longstreet & Alexander.

Kalamata "...and because I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, I am obliged to expose Lincoln for destroying the checks and balances that were put in place by men far superior to him, as well as for destroying the lives of perhaps a million or more Americans in an unconstitutional war."

All lies, but in this case they well support my argument that Kalamata hates to his soul the United States of America.

Kalamata "No one, post-war, believed it could be proven that Davis was a traitor; so he was released from prison.
Davis didn't make war against the United States; Lincoln did:"

And Kalamata's bald-faced lies just never stop.
How messed-up does a man's soul have to be to claim that those who formally declared war against the United States, on May 6, 1861, were fighting for it and those who fought to defend the Union were against it?

And this from a man who claims to be a "scientist".
In truth there's nothing scientific going on inside Kalamata's brain, it's all just blatant, absurd & obscene propaganda that would make a PJ Goebbels blush.

Kalamata: " Not unsurprising, you will find Lincoln-like doctrine in Mein Kampf:"

And the shameless smears just never stop.

Kalamata: "I certainly do not agree with him [Jefferson Davis] on slavery, but I am 150 years too late to tell him about it."

In fact, Kalamata agrees with everything Davis did in defense of the Confederate Slave-Republic, and disagrees with everything Lincoln did to oppose it.

Kalamata: "Do you believe Lincoln was right in his goal of seeking a lily-white nation by colonizing the blacks back into a nation where they did not want to go?
Do you believe Lincoln was right in seeking to forever enshrine slavery into the Constitution (with the Corwin Amendment?)
Just curious . . ."

All lies.
Recolonization (as it was called) was a voluntary program first proposed by President Jefferson and supported by Federal & states' funding beginning in 1820.
It never really worked and Lincoln's efforts failed also.
By 1865 Lincoln had given up on it and instead sought full citizenship for freed slaves, including voting rights.

And that, it is said, is what caused John Wilkes Boothe to murder Lincoln.

As for Corwin, Lincoln did not "support" it, but did not oppose it because he believed it would change nothing practical and might help hold some slave-states in the Union, which it did.
Corwin was a small bit of what Southerners like Jefferson Davis had said they wanted and was as far as Lincoln would go to meet them half-way.

Kalamata: "You can feel free to climb down off your moral high-horse, any time.
I will never accept that you are morally superior to me -- equals, perhaps, but not superior."

Everyone who tells the truth, even occasionally, is morally superior to Kalamata who absolutely refuses to, under any circumstances.

Kalamata: "BTW, many of my friends are retired Marines, and most, if not all have similar opinions of Lincoln to mine. "

And doubtless some Marines also voted for Presidents Carter, Clinton & Obama.
But not a majority.

By the way, it's worth noting that when President Trump holds huge rallies in places like Alabama & Louisiana, he always reminds them that we are, yes, the "party of Lincoln."
It's not a big applause line in those states, but our President is not afraid to say it there.

Kalamata: "What did Lincoln say the next day?
The reason I ask is, he was a master at speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
This wasn't exactly the next day, but:

"I have again and again said that I would not enter into any of the States to disturb the institution of slavery."

In fact, Lincoln was 100% consistent.
Slavery in Union states was abolished peacefully, by constitutional amendments, not by Proclamation or force of arms.

Kalamata: "He [Lincoln] represented a free woman to keep from being sold into slavery... "

In 1841, Lincoln's first slavery case, Bailey v. Cromwell, Lincoln successfully got the Illinois Supreme Court to rule: "the presumption [is] . . . every person was free, without regard to race . . . the sale of a free person is illegal."[2]

This overturned the same court's 1828 ruling against the same defendant, Nance Legins-Costley, then saying: "A servant is a possession and CAN BE SOLD.”[5]

Nance Leggins-Costly and her children were the first of roughly four million slaves Lincoln freed.

"In 1845,

successfully defended Marvin Pond (People v. Pond)[10] for harboring the fugitive slave John Hauley"

Kalamata: "He [Lincoln] did, however, represent a slave-owner in an attempt to help recover his fugitive slaves.
David Donald wrote this about "the Great Emancipator" at work in 1847:"

In 1847, while serving in Congress, Lincoln argued in Matson v. Ashmore, the legally correct position that transient slaveholders in Illinois retained title to their "property" temporarily.
Lincoln lost the case because the court ruled, among other things, that two years "in transit" is not "temporary" but permanent relocation and so declared Anthony Bryant & family free.

This was also the issue in Dred Scott, where the US Supreme Court (crazy Roger Taney) reversed such lower court rulings.

"While a congressman from Illinois in 1846 to 1848, Lincoln supported the Wilmot Proviso, which, if it had been adopted, would have banned slavery in any U.S. territory won from Mexico.[11]

Lincoln, in collaboration with abolitionist Congressman Joshua R. Giddings, wrote a bill to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia with compensation for the owners, enforcement to capture fugitive slaves, and a popular vote on the matter.[12][13] (Slavery in the District of Columbia was not ended until 1862, when Lincoln was president and there were no Southern senators.) "

Lincoln's work against slavery began early in life and lasted through his last days on Earth.

Kalamata: "It appears that Lincoln was so tormented about those slave irons in 1841 that he became forgetful -- forgetful enough that by 1847 he was willing to accept a case seeking to put Jane Bryant and her children back in irons."

Well... Jane Bryan was a 1930s era actress, who married a wealthy businessman, James Dart, in 1939.
They had three children and lived, so far as we know, happily ever after.

What Kalamata refers to here is the 1847 Matson v. Ashmore trial which involved a foreman slave named Anthony Bryant, his wife Jane and their children, one of whom was sent back to Kentucky, by slaveholder Matson.
Anthony Bryant sought legal protection and was actually imprisoned at the time of trial.
He was not a fugitive.

We might notice that the Bryant child returned to Kentucky was not effected by Illinois court rulings and so family reunion could only have happened had Anthony Bryant been returned to his slaveholder, Matson.
Eventually Anthony Bryant's family recolonized to Liberia, but we are not told what happened to the child sent back to Kentucky.

Kalamata "Abe believed it was a "monstrous injustice," except when he was "doing business," such as defending a slaveholder."

That Lincoln lost the case should tell us something and that he won others against slavery should tell us more.

Kalamata: "Tell that to a couple of million southerners, most of which were NOT slaveholders."

This is a point about which our Lost Causers always lie, even though they certainly know the truth of the matter.
It's this:

Across the Deep Cotton South almost half of families owned slaves meaning many who didn't had close slaveholding relatives.
So virtually every Confederate soldier from the Deep South brought a strong family commitment to slavery to the battle.
In the Upper South slave ownership was much less, perhaps only 25% of families overall, with many regions having few to no slaves -- i.e., Eastern Tennessee, Western North Carolina.
In those low-slavery regions, most of the young men volunteered for the Union cause or were forced at gun-point into Confederate ranks.
In the Union Border slave-states ownership was even lower, 10% of families on average, and much larger regions with very few slaves.
Those states refused to secede even after Fort Sumter, and provided on average two Union troops for every one Confederate Army soldier.

Kalamata: "The bottom line is, Jefferson Davis was a slaveholder, which was cruel; but Lincoln was a coniving, blood-thirsty tyrant, which was far, far worse."

Lies, the truth is Davis was all of those, Lincoln none.