Bump.
Posted on 02/23/2014 6:39:53 PM PST by grumpa
Few people understand how lawless Abraham Lincoln was in propagating our country’s biggest nightmare—the Civil War. And not enough people sense the parallel of Obama’s emerging lawlessness.
Lincoln achieved his political aims by bullying—rather than effective, innovative solutions and negotiations. Here are some facts:
• Lincoln closed more than 300 newspapers that disagreed with him.
• He arrested members of state legislatures, preventing them from debating the secession issue.
• He ordered military trials for citizens when civilian courts were available. Many of these trials resulted in hangings.
• Operating as a military dictator, Lincoln spent millions not authorized by the Congress.
• He suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a law that prevents people from being imprisoned without due process. This suspension, along with the military tribunals, resulted in the imprisonment of 14,000 war opponents illegally. (For comparison, Mussolini is reported to have jailed around 2,000 people.)
• When Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney ruled Lincoln’s suspension of the writ unconstitutional, amazingly, Lincoln ordered Taney arrested! But the United States Marshal’s office refused to make the arrest without a valid arrest warrant. However, due to the political situation at the time, the writ was never officially restored until Andrew Johnson’s tenure.
• The cruelty of the Northern generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan was authorized by Lincoln. The wanton cruelty toward civilian life and property made Lincoln clearly guilty of war crimes.
• His dishonorable prosecution of the war is responsible for the failure to re-assimilate the South after the war, and left bitterness for a hundred years. The Ku Klux Klan is certainly a result of this bitterness.
• Lincoln signed the order approving the hanging of 39 Sioux Indians, for dubious reasons. This was the only mass hanging in American history.
• Lincoln was a liar, changing his message to suit the audience and his political objectives.
This is all presented in an amazing book by Charles Adams entitled, When in the Course of Human Events. Adams concludes, as any reasonable man would, that Lincoln should have been impeached. The war would thus have not progressed to its devastating conclusion. And slavery, which was clearly on its way out anyway, would have ended without the loss of 630,000 American lives.
So, how is this relevant today? Is it not ironic that a black president is potentially taking us down a path of a constitutional crisis not seen since Lincoln? History never repeats itself exactly. But the parallels should be apparent to anyone willing to see them.
-— Attacking Lincoln and supporting the Confederacy is just another juvenile way to shock, like shouting the “f-word” in public -—
I loom at it this way. If secession from Britain was morally licit, why isn’t secession from the USA?
-— Attacking Lincoln and supporting the Confederacy is just another juvenile way to shock, like shouting the “f-word” in public -—
I loom at it this way. If secession from Britain was morally licit, why isn’t secession from the USA?
An evolutionist defending the Confederacy. How apropos.
No healthy nation will surrender its territory, however it started out. The instinct of self-preservation is as strong among states as it is individuals.
The men who led the Revolution to a man condemned people who resisted the US government. Even Samuel Adams advocated the death penalty for the agitators of Shays' Rebellion because he held disobedience to the law of a Republic is not legitimate. And long before Linclon George Washington personally led federal troops against the Whiskey Rebellion. Does that make them hypocrites?
In 1787-88 the United States Constitution was adopted. While the US may have won independence as thirteen sovereign states the Constitution created a nation--not a "compact" or "alliance." Why don't you read it some time? You will also read that it provides for the suspension of habeas corpus and defines "treason" as "waging war against the United States or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Thomas Jefferson was never at any time a party to the creation of this document. Alexander Hamilton (and George Washington and Gouverneur Morris and numerous other Federalists) were.
It's true that a more centralized government is easier to corrupt than a less centralized one, but if one were to carry this argument to its logical conclusion no state would ever be created or exist. I also find it a bit hypocritical to find a Roman Catholic arguing against a centralized government. Why aren't you consistent when you argue with Eastern Orthodox?
PS, psst - the war ended in 1865. Get over it.
Great Britain denied the colonists their right of representation.
The USA gave the states of the putative Confederacy more representation than they were actually entitled to.
The US left the UK because the UK denied them any voice in the nation's counsels.
The "CSA" left the USA because the USA refused to guarantee them a perpetual veto in the US Senate.
The "CSA" had no grounds for grievance whatsoever. They could not, under any formulation of the moral law as argued by your namesake, claim legitimate grounds for insurrection.
I’m sorry, I don’t have a cite for this – it was some time ago when I came across it and now have no idea where it was. Please be assured, however, that I didn’t just pull it “out of the air”.
In the meantime, I searched for a bit and found this related article:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/58402
“Obama himself has an interesting, if not peculiar, love affair with the nation’s 16th president. From quoting Lincoln to emulating his historic activities, such as his 2007 speech on the steps of the Springfield Capitol and his 2009 train ride to history, Obama seems to have embraced and even assumed the persona of Lincoln.”
Also, Obama's Lincoln Presumption: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2980646/posts
I agree with your point about the Constitutional scholar, which was my reason for mentioning the Lincoln scholar claim.
Lincoln was for slavery before he was against it.
The way I like to look at it is that few of us outside of Washington DC and the most credulous of MSNBC viewers are wrong one hundred percent of the time. The rest of us, strong disagreements and all, do the best we can.
For somebody “who is done with it” you sure seem to post a lot.
Bored. Worked the late shift, hadn’t been to bed yet.
Bump.
Show one time Lincoln expressed personal support for slavery.
I'm very comfortable with the high regard for the men of the Confederate army who bravely risked all for what they saw as their duty, but I have no respect for the borderline criminal element and-or political cheats that too often dominated secession and stay at home Confederate administration.
Amazing how handy you keep that pin up.
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone.[25]
I don’t have to get over anything. I’m just waiting for the South to rise again, hopefully in my lifetime. Or a peaceful split, which I prefer. I have no interest in living under liberals rules.
Not an expression of personal support for slavery.
In Peace, Regards, Janey
Lincoln maintains there that the Declaration of Independence asserts that the negro is equal to the white man, and that under divine law; and if he believes so it was rational for him to advocate negro citizenship, which, when allowed, puts the negro on an equality under the law. I say to you in all frankness, gentlemen, that in my opinion a negro is not a citizen, cannot be, and ought not to be, under the Constitution of the United States. I will not even qualify my opinion to meet the declaration of one of the Judges of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, “that a negro descended from African parents, who was imported into this country as a slave, is not a citizen, and cannot be.” I say that this Government was established on the white basis. It was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and never should be administered by any except white men. I declare that a negro ought not to be a citizen, whether his parents were imported into this country as slaves or not, or whether or not he was born here. It does not depend upon the place a negro’s parents were born, or whether they were slaves or not, but upon the fact that he is a negro, belonging to a race incapable of self-government, and for that reason ought not to be on an equality with white men.
“even read a word I said. “
When you say stupid crap like the South loved Lincoln I don’t.
Only a yankee liberal would try to make that sort of crap up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.