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 was never pro-secession. Lincoln did uphold the principles of revolution as put forth in the Declaration of Independence.
The closest historical figure to Lincoln that I can come up with would be Julius Caesar. There are many parallels there.
Quote please?
This was as Lincoln and our own Declaration of Independence held a natural and inalienable right of the people!
To do what specifically?
Except for the fact that in 1776 we seceded to secure inalienable rights. The South seceded in order to perpetually deny inalienable rights to a whole class of people. Governments only derives its JUST powers from the consent of the governed. People cannot morally assent to the exercise of unjust powers (i.e. enslaving Africans)
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!
I assume that you're half remembering Lincoln's speech on the Mexican War. What he said was that people have a natural right of rebellion and that when they win they can make up their own rules. The south, as you might have heard, was unable to win theirs.
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.
So apparently you believe that with a wave of his pen Lincoln could have freed all the slaves, without any constitutional amendment or any of that stuff, right?
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.
"The Deceleration of Independents"? is that when people who don't belong to either party take longer to vote? Oh, you mean the Declaration of Independence. So tell me, if the right to revolutionize is protected, how come the Constitution allows for putting down insurrections? Did John Brown have the Constiutional right to seize Harpers Ferry and start a slave rebellion? Did slaves have a Constitutional right to rise up against their masters?
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 addition to being only marginally literate, you're also delusional.
Seriously, what grade are you in? Because this is about the worst written thing I've seen on FR. "The Deceleration of Independents." Wow.