President-elect Obama to be sworn in on Abraham Lincoln's inauguration bible

Barack Obama will take the oath of office using the same Bible that Abraham Lincoln was sworn in on at his first inauguration, marking the President-elect's latest symbolic gesture to follow in the foot steps of the nation's 16th president.

Obama, who will become the first African-American president when he is sworn in Jan. 20, will be the first president to use the Lincoln Bible since its initial use in 1861.

"President-elect Obama is deeply honored that the Library of Congress has made the Lincoln Bible available for use during his swearing-in," Emmett Beliveau, executive director of the presidential inaugural committee, said in a statement.

Obama launched his presidential campaign in February 2007 at the Historic Old State Capitol building in Springfield Ill., where Lincoln gave a famous speech condemning slavery.

During the speech, Obama said that "divided we are bound to fail. But the life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different future is possible.

"He tells us that there is power in words. He tells us that there is power in conviction, that beneath all the differences of race and religion, faith and station, we are one people."

The theme for Obama's inaugural ceremony - "A New Birth of Freedom” is taken from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

Earlier this year, when asked which book, aside from the Bible, he would find essential in the Oval Office, Obama said, "Team of Rivals,” Doris Kearns Goodwin's 2005 bestseller about how Lincoln surrounded himself with advisers who coveted the president's job.

For the inauguration, Obama plans to take a train trip from Philadelphia to Washington, evoking Lincoln's inaugural trek.

The Bible, bound in burgundy velvet with a gold-washed white metal rim around the three outside edges of both covers, was originally purchased by William Thomas Carroll, clerk of the Supreme Court, for Lincoln's swearing-in ceremony on March 4, 1861.

Lincoln could not use his family bible for his inaugural ceremony because it was packed away with the First Family's belongings and still en route to the White House at the time of the ceremony.

All the edges of the 1,280-page bible are heavily gilded. In the center of the top cover is a shield of gold wash over white metal with the words "Holy Bible" chased into it.

The Bible will be on display at the Library of Congress Feb. 12th to May 9th, 2009, as part of an exhibition titled "With Malice Toward None: The Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Exhibition." The exhibit will then travel to five other American cities.

Since they were so dependent on trade, by 1860 the Southern states were paying in excess of 80 percent of all tariffs, while they believed that most of the revenue from the tariffs was being spent in the North.

Absolute BS.

Slavery was irrelevant to the issue and in fact Lincoln was in favor of repatriation of all blacks back to Africa or a new home in central america.

More BS, but even so where is that worse that the Southern leaders who were hell-bound and determined to keep all blacks right where they were, on the plantation, with ownership title in their pockets? You're claiming the moral highground on that?

Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858

Why not continue? Lincoln went on to say "...but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence-the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."

Can you provide a quote from a single Southern leader who believed the black man was his equal in any respects at all?

Lincoln was a tyrant who should have been shot sooner.

And Jefferson Davis was a traitor who should have been hung. Neither one of us got what he wanted.

” ...’ perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.’ “

Why not continue !? Let`s see what Abe meant later,

Lincoln,” I will say then that 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; 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.
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 inasmuch 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.”

The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln , Vol. III, pp. 145-146.; The Struggle for Equality (Princeton Univ. Press, 1964); Created Equal?: The Complete Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858

You can call his ideas of repatriation BS all you wish, it won`t make reality disappear.

Lincoln`s first message to Congress on December 3, 1861 proposed that those freed during the war be colonized,removed,from the States,”It might be well to consider, too, whether the free colored people already in the United States could not, so far as individuals may desire, be included in such colonization.”
Lincoln`s Confiscation Act of July 1862 had monies in place specifically for resettling blacks.

August 14, 1862, Abe met with black ministers at the white house and read a statement in regards to his Chiriqui resettlement project,

” You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.”

Lincoln was in fact in favor of repatriation BEFORE agreeing with the emancipation movement and only reluctantly. In his Congress of December 1, 1862 Lincoln affirmed support for gradual emancipation coupled with “deportation”,

” I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization.”

The Proclamation was nothing more than war propaganda to encourage discontent among slaves in the Confederacy.

The fuel that fired secessionists were the Tariff of 1828, Morrill tariff,etc.

Let`s see what Abe meant later...

Lincoln was a man of his times. If his views towards blacks were so contemptable then please show me where the Southern leaders were so much better? If you want to hold Lincoln to a certain standard then shouldn't you hold his peers to the same standard? So how about it? Any quotes from Davis showing he thought blacks were his equal in any way whatsoever? Any from Lee? Jackson? Anyone?

You can call his ideas of repatriation BS all you wish, it won`t make reality disappear.

Nor will it turn your falsehood into fact. Lincoln was in favor of voluntary colonization. Big deal, many people in the U.S. were in favor of it. But the key word is voluntary, not the mass deportation of each and every one that you claimed in your earlier message. And when you get right down to it, please tell me where Lincoln was so wrong? What was the alternative? Slavery? That's what the South wanted. And where slavery was outlawed what were the conditions? Did the average white person welcome freed blacks? No. Did they have the same opportunities as whites? No. Was there discrimination and racism? Most certainly yes. Lincoln wasn't any fool. He knew what the average American was like and knew what reception lay in store for freed slaves. He also was smart enough to know that he wasn't going to change most people's minds. So why not emigrate? Why not offer them a chance to return to Africa and carve out a life for themselves, free from the racism and hatred that they faced in the U.S.? I'm not saying Lincoln's idea was the best one going, but I understand why he offered it and I'm damned if I can see why he was such a rotten person as a result. Madison supported colonization. Monroe did. Breckenridge did. Lee put his money where his mouth was and paid passage for some of his slaves to Liberia. Again, if Lincoln is such an evil individual for supporting voluntary colonization then weren't all those other men as well?

The Proclamation was nothing more than war propaganda to encourage discontent among slaves in the Confederacy.

And that call in the Proclamation? The one that said, "And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages?" I suppose Lincoln put that in to throw people off from the real reason for the proclamation - to kill all de white men and rape all de white wimmin? I swear you Southron types are shameless.

The fuel that fired secessionists were the Tariff of 1828, Morrill tariff,etc.

Oh barf. The fuel that fired the secessionists was what they saw as a threat to their institution of slavery. Pure and simple.

From Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address:
“One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”—March 4, 1865

” Lincoln was a man of his times “

So why isn`t he portrayed as such by historical revisionists? Lincoln believed blacks were an inferior race. Not the story being told today.

” Lincoln was in favor of voluntary colonization. Big deal...Was there discrimination and racism? Most certainly yes. Lincoln wasn’t any fool...”

Fool no, racist yes. Once more, unbeknownst to most who are told of Lincoln and do not read for themselves is that he was a white supremacist not some morally superior super human ahead of his time.

” And that call in the Proclamation.I suppose Lincoln put that in to throw people off from the real reason for the proclamation - to kill all de white men and rape all de white wimmin? I swear you Southron types are shameless.”

You`re so naive it`s almost laughable.September 13, 1862 the day after, Lincoln said, “ Understand, I raise no objections against it [slavery] on legal or constitutional grounds ... I view the matter [emancipation] as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.”

Lincoln responding to an op-ed piece in the then NY Tribune,who called on Lincoln to immediately and totally abolish slavery,

” My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. “

Once again, Lincoln signed the proclamation as nothing more than war propaganda.

” The fuel that fired the secessionists was what they saw as a threat to their institution of slavery.”

Slavery was going to die a slow death being economically untenable. If Abe was truly the Messiah of his day then he would have abolished slavery through a scheme of compensated emancipation, end it peacefully, without war. The fact is slavery was irrelevant, tariffs were.

Lincoln ignored the right to secession, ignored the 10nth Amendment, ignored habeas corpus, committed war crimes by sacking and burning whole southern cities.

And you,you`re just another typical revisionist-apologist.

So why isn`t he portrayed as such by historical revisionists? Lincoln believed blacks were an inferior race. Not the story being told today.

Let's not even talk about historical revisionism. While that accorded Lincoln is excessive, it doesn't come even close to the revisionist tales told of Lee or Jackson or Davis. Jackson owned slaves most of his adult life. Lee thought blacks were suited only for slavery, and said as much less than 4 months before surrendering at Appomattox. Yet one would think the confederate holy trinity walked on water. You want to hold Lincoln up to the racial standards of today? Fine. But do it to the rebel leaders, too.

Fool no, racist yes. Once more, unbeknownst to most who are told of Lincoln and do not read for themselves is that he was a white supremacist not some morally superior super human ahead of his time.

And at that, Lincoln's views were head and shoulder above Lee or Davis. So if Lincoln was a vile racist and an evil white supremacist then what does that make them?

And that's exactly what it was. It took the 13th Amendment to actually end slavery, both North and South, and Lincoln was primarily responsible for that, too.

Lincoln responding to an op-ed piece in the then NY Tribune,who called on Lincoln to immediately and totally abolish slavery,

Try quoting the letter in context, and include the whole thing. Including the line that Lincoln closed with: "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." Why do you all keep leaving that out?

Once again, Lincoln signed the proclamation as nothing more than war propaganda.

Complete BS. It was an effective tool for combatting the rebellion. It meant that each and every Southern slave who fled their owners could not be returned to that owner. It removed the Fugitive Slave laws from the picture.

Slavery was going to die a slow death being economically untenable.

So you say now with 20/20 hindsight. Surely you have a quote from some Southern leader or another who believed slavery was on its last legs as you do? Who didn't believe it was worth fighting for because it was dying anyway? Any leader, military or civilian, will do.

If Abe was truly the Messiah of his day then he would have abolished slavery through a scheme of compensated emancipation, end it peacefully, without war. The fact is slavery was irrelevant, tariffs were.

A couple of problems with that ridiculous statement. One, the Southern states launched their rebellion before Lincoln was even inaugurated so he could hardly have proposed any such plan. Two, compensated emancipation needs one key ingredient to work - the willingness of the slave owners to join in the scheme. There is absolutely no evidence that the Southern slave owners wanted their slaves emancipated through any means, compensated or otherwise. One reason why we know this is that Lincoln DID propose compensated emancipation on seveal occasions and was met with a deafening silence.

The fact is slavery was irrelevant, tariffs were.

Balderdash.

Lincoln ignored the right to secession, ignored the 10nth Amendment, ignored habeas corpus, committed war crimes by sacking and burning whole southern cities.

There is no right to unilateral secession. The right to secession is not defined in the 10th Amendment. Habeas corpus was suspended through constitutional means, and was suspended by Jeff Davis as well. And your comments about war crimes are idiotic, to put it mildly.

” Yet one would think the confederate holy trinity walked on water. You want to hold Lincoln up to the racial standards of today? Fine. But do it to the rebel leaders, too”

I`ve never ONCE defended inequality as opposed to those who errantly state Lincoln was not a supremacist who engaged in propaganda and political machinations for only one purpose, to win a war and create a Clay/Keynes central state.

“And that’s exactly what it was”

Indeed, emancipation was in fact a war propaganda measure to “ be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.”
His war strategy guaranteed the North to appear as liberators not only domestically but in Europe also thereby winning the propaganda war.
Salmon Chase, Abe`s Treasury Secretary on the emancipation propaganda strategy, “The proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification, except as a military measure,”

“Try quoting the letter in context, and include the whole thing. Including the line that Lincoln closed with...”

I`ve already quoted extensively his personal views and held beliefs in white supremacy and his political expediency of using the emancipation as war propaganda and feel that further quotes and citations is irrelevant to blind-faith revisionists such as yourself.

” Lincoln’s views were head and shoulder above Lee or Davis”

I`d say a hair, not a head. Even during the outbreak of the civil war Abe stuck to his policy before his war emancipation propaganda gambit. He countermanded orders by Union generals to free slaves.Gen. Framont in Missouri declared all slaves to be free, Abe immediately canceled the order.Gen. Hunter did likewise, Abe countermanded immediately. An irate Congress then only consisting of Northern States passed the Confiscation Act, freeing all slaves who`s owners dared to declare secession, Abe refused to sign the Bill until amended and then only signed it reluctantly stating his dissatisfaction and did not faithfully enforce either of the Confiscation Acts.

” It removed the Fugitive Slave laws from the picture.”

The same laws that Lincoln enforced faithfully to the point that Washington DC jails were filled with blacks. Abe felt the pressure from the abolitionists and did waht was politically expedient at the time, urging the United States to formally recognize the black republics of Haiti and Liberia with the object of removing blacks from the U.S.

“So you say now with 20/20 hindsight”

Only about 1/4 of white families in the South had direct connections to slavery so had no vested interest in the exercise. Agitation from the North incited fear as the South recalled Haiti and the New York riots.
Economically it easier to pay a person for their labor rather than paying for their well being, health, housing,etc. In essence slavery was economically untenable.

” One reason why we know this is that Lincoln DID propose compensated emancipation on seveal occasions and was met with a deafening silence.”

Not true:

Congress, 2nd Session, Public Laws of the United States 1861-1862, XII, p. 378.

On the contrary, once elected Abe was willing to sign an amendment sponsored by Sen. Crittenden allowing the institution of slavery, against federal interference, in those places where it was already established and Abe stated he would endorse it if it would restrict slavery to the states where it was already established.

Abe, in keeping with his supremacist policy, and Congress were willing to spend whatever it took to send them all home,whether it was the Chiriqui Resettlement Plan, Haiti, Liberia,etc.

” There is no right to unilateral secession. The right to secession is not defined in the 10th Amendment. Habeas corpus was suspended through constitutional means, and was suspended by Jeff Davis as well. And your comments about war crimes are idiotic, to put it mildly.”

No prohibition of secession exists in the Constitution.

Declaration of Independence describes the States: “ Free and Independent, they have full Power to levy war and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States, may of right do.”

Also: “ whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “

Lincoln: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.”

Hamilton:” To coerce a State would be one of the maddest projects ever devised. No State would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another.”

Before 1868 Americans were State citizens and not citizens of Washington D.C.

Congress the was not in session and Lincoln usurped all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In Ex parte MERRYMAN the USSC overruled the usurper YET the usurper IGNORED the Constitutional ruling !!!

You obviously don`t know what your talking about.

What`s a war crime? How about burning large southern cities to the ground, looting and pillaging.

Again, you`re dumb as a stump and the typical usurper apologist.

OK, for the record are you prepared to state that when if comes to vile racists then Lee and Davis and Jackson were as bad if not worse than Lincoln?

Indeed, emancipation was in fact a war propaganda measure to “ be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.”

As a 'propaganda' measure it sure was a success. Hundreds of thousands of slaves were able to flee their former masters, secure in the knowledge that they could not be returned to bondage.

His war strategy guaranteed the North to appear as liberators not only domestically but in Europe also thereby winning the propaganda war.

It had that additional affect. Once the Emancipation Proclamation was released it killed forever what slim chance of European intervention still remained. Great Britain was not about to align itself with a cause dedicated to the preservation of slavery and the other European powers weren't about to jump in without Great Britain.

Salmon Chase, Abe`s Treasury Secretary on the emancipation propaganda strategy, “The proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification, except as a military measure,”

Actually it was Lincoln writing to Chase who wrote those words. And he was commenting on Chase's suggestion that the Proclamation be applied to all the states. The quote, in context, goes: "Knowing your great anxiety that the emancipation proclamation shall now be applied to ~~those~~ certain parts of Virginia and Louisiana which were exempted from it last January, I state briefly what appear to me to be difficulties in the way of such a step. The original proclamation has no Constitutional or legal justification, except as a military measure. The exemptions were made because the military necessity did not apply to the exempted localities. Nor does that necessity apply to them now any more than it did then..."

The Emancipation proclamation was a war measure. It drew it's authority from the Confiscation Act of 1861. It could not be applied to those areas not in rebellion. To free the slaves in those areas, in fact to end slavery throughout the country, required the Constitutional amendment that Lincoln later fought for.

You pick and choose quotes out of context to support your agenda. All to hold Lincoln to standards that your own Southern heroes could never measure up to.

I`d say a hair, not a head.

Of course you would say that. You have nothing to back up your claim with, but you would say that.

Even during the outbreak of the civil war Abe stuck to his policy before his war emancipation propaganda gambit.

It's called following the rule of law. Like it or not, federal law required that runaway slaves be returned to their owners, even if those owners happened to be supporting the Southern rebellion. Local commanders had no authority to overturn the law. So of course Lincoln was forced to countermand their orders.

The same laws that Lincoln enforced faithfully to the point that Washington DC jails were filled with blacks.

I'll pass on asking you for your source that "Washington DC jails were filled with blacks" and merely point out that Lincoln could not legally decide what laws he would enforce and what he would not. Congress would have to repeal the law first.

Only about 1/4 of white families in the South had direct connections to slavery so had no vested interest in the exercise.

In some Southern states that ratio approached 50 percent. And many of the non-slaveholders worked in support of the slave holders. Finally, there was the mere fact that slavery set the poorest white man head and shoulders above the best treated slave. A situation that would go away with slavery.

Economically it easier to pay a person for their labor rather than paying for their well being, health, housing,etc. In essence slavery was economically untenable.

Again you say with 20/20 hindsight. I would love to see you come up with a quote from any of the Southern leaders who support your position.

Not true.

True. See Lincoln's comments on the Delaware draft of a compensated emancipation bill in November 1861. See his Message to Congress in March 1862. See his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation issued in September 1862 and his annual message to Congress in December of that same year. The evidence is there if you were interested in finding it.

No prohibition of secession exists in the Constitution.

Yes it does. As the Supreme Court found in December 1869.

Declaration of Independence describes the States: “ Free and Independent, they have full Power to levy war and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States, may of right do.”

And the Constitution says otherwise. Last time I checked the Constitution is the basis for out laws, not the Declaration of Independence.

Lincoln: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.”

Lincoln was talking about rebellion. Which is what the South tried and which is what the South lost. Badly.

Before 1868 Americans were State citizens and not citizens of Washington D.C.

Which is why the Constitution in it's first sentence talks about 'We the people of the United States'. Which is why it says Senators and Congressmen must be citizens of the United States. Which is why Washington said, "Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes." If Washington had been alive he'd be the first to join the fight against the South's rebellion.

Congress the was not in session and Lincoln usurped all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. The Constitution says when habeas corpus may be suspended. It is silent on just who may suspend it.

In Ex parte MERRYMAN the USSC overruled the usurper YET the usurper IGNORED the Constitutional ruling !!! You really are not good at research at all, are you. Taney issued his order in his role as a circuit court judge. The entire Supreme Court never took up the Merriman case.

What`s a war crime? How about burning large southern cities to the ground, looting and pillaging.

Yada, yada, yada. When Union did it it was bad Lincoln. When the South did it you have no problems at all.

Again, you`re dumb as a stump and the typical usurper apologist.

Based on your posts to date, being called dumb by you is like being called ugly by an orangutan.

“or the record are you prepared...As a ‘propaganda’ measure it sure was a success...It had that additional affect...”

Tacit admittance to my central point. You`re back pedaling faster than a circus clown on a unicycle.

” It’s called following the rule of law”

That`s hilarious coming from a man who cared not a wit for the “rule of law...Yada, yada, yada...When Union did it it was bad Lincoln. When the South did it you have no problems at all”

Ex parte MERRYMAN

The distinction here is the fallacy that Lincoln was doing what he did based on morality and not power in the form of a massive centralized govt. with Clay/Keynes economics as it`s basis.

” As the Supreme Court found in December 1869.”

LOL You cite a decision that came down AFTER States did in fact secede ! LOL
And just who was the chief justice !? LOL Abe`s stooges placing the final nail in their Clay/Keynes central government ideals. Chase was biased and the decision seen as a joke.

” Actually it was Lincoln writing to Chase...”

Chase, the then to be USSC chief justice who in all honesty should have recused himself, was an abolitionists who had challenged Lincoln for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination.

“Which is why the Constitution in it’s first sentence talks about ‘We the people of the United States’...”

United States, not a citizen of Washington, before 1868.

“’ll pass on asking you for your source”

Stephen B. Oates, With Malice Toward None: The Life of Abraham Lincoln Nathaniel Weyl and William Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro

” One reason why we know this is that Lincoln DID propose compensated emancipation on seveal occasions and was met with a deafening silence”

I`m bored with correcting your gubment skooling.

Congress passed a joint resolution and Lincoln signed it on April 10 1862 promising federal funds to any state that passed a gradual emancipation law. April 6, the Senate passed (29-14) a bill abolishing slavery in the nation’s capital of Washington, D.C. The House approved the measure (93-39) on April 11, and President Lincoln signed it into law on April 16. It emancipated over 3000 slaves, compensated owners, and set aside funds for voluntary colonization abroad. It was the only time the federal government compensated former slaveowners for the loss of their slaves. (13thamendment.harpweek.com)

“I would love to see you come up with a quote from any of the Southern leaders who support your position.”

Slavery was economically untenable. The fact that either those in the south or north didn`t get it is testament to their undeveloped economic theories and practices.

“servile labor disappeared because it could not stand the competition of free labor; its unprofitability sealed its doom in the market economy.” (mises.org/pdf/humanaction/pdf/ha_21.pdf)

Uh-huh... I see I`m dealing with another Keynesian without a clue who thinks usurping the law is fine in order to uphold Abe`s nebulous ideals of what the law should be according to how he felt on any particular given day. In today`s era we call them adherents to a “living breathing Constitution”.

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.