Blagojevich: House Democrats Would Have Impeached Lincoln

Newsmax ^ | Wednesday, 01 January 2020 | Rod Blagojevich

[jmacusa]

When did this happen and why?

[jmacusa]

Yeah. That's right Lampster. The North seceded from the Union and Lincoln personally manned a cannon on the South Carolinian shore and opened fire on Ft. Sumter.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "To the contrary. Lincoln started the country's bloodiest war."

If you wish to see how the Democrat mind works, read DiogenesLamp's posts -- he starts by redefining terms until up is down, red is blue, etc.
In this particular case "starting war" is not when Confederates fired on Fort Sumter & forced its surrender, oh, no, that was just kids peacefully playing in their sandbox.
No, civil war started when Lincoln "launched his war-fleet against the Confederacy."

Never mind it was a resupply mission to the Union troops in Fort Sumter with orders, in effect, of "no first use of force."
Never mind Confederates had been waging low-level war against the Union since December 1860, with no serious response from either President Buchanan or Lincoln.
Never mind Confederates quickly declared war against the United States, May 6, 1861, not important.

What matters to the mind of a Democrat like DiogenesLamp is that Lincoln's "war fleet" demonstrated less than abject surrender to Confederate demands, ergo, "Lincoln started war".

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The US Union didn't need to be "saved" anymore than the British Union (United Kingdom) needed to be saved.
This nation was founded on the principle that people had a right to independence, and they didn't need to be "saved" from wanting to be shed of a central government that they believed no longer served their interests."

Well, first, no Federal military force moved against Confederates until after Confederates provoked, started, formally declared & began waging war against the United States.

Second, before Fort Sumter seven slave-states voted to secede, eight voted not to.
Of the seven seceding states, on average 2/3 of their voters favored it, however in Georgia, Alabama and Louisiana, support for secession was barely 50%.
Huge regions of those states voted against.

And, of course, zero percent of slaves & women voted for secession.

As for our "founding principle" it was never and unlimited "right to secede", but rather... "when in the course of human events... a long train of abuses and usurpations..." makes disunion necessary.
No remotely similar conditions existed in November 1860.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Close enough.
He sent the warships with orders to fire on the Confederates."

That is a flat-out lie, and DiogenesLamp well knows it, but doesn't care, because he's a Democrat at heart and Democrats love to lie, indeed they live to lie, being a Democrat is all about telling the biggest lies you can get away with.
Think of Nancy Pelosi claiming how "solemn" and "prayerful" she was over impeachment -- that's what being a Democrat is all about -- straight-faced lying.

In fact, as DiogenesLamp well knows, Lincoln's resupply mission to Union troops in Fort Sumter had orders of "no first use of force", force only if necessary to resupply the fort.

There were no orders to "fire on Confederates".

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I can expect this sort of ignorance out of most people who don't know any better, but you've had the actual facts explained to you. Lincoln started it by sending warships to attack the confederates."

DiogenesLamp himself well knows the truth of this matter, but just can't stop lying about it -- he's a Democrat at heart, and lying is what Democrats do for their livings.
They're not all good at it, like Slick Willie, but they do all have to be sincere, and DiogenesLamp as sincere as any other Democrat.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your citing the timeline does not prove the war was started by the Confederates.

Also your "timeline" is very predjudicial in the manner it was written. Most of these "seizures" they simply walked in to abandoned buildings.

It also leaves off the fact that once a state had voted for independence, all their original real estate reverts back to them.

The fact remains Lincoln sent warships and because of their orders to use force to impose Lincoln's will on the people of South Carolina, it started a war.

Lincoln knew it would start a war. His cabinet knew it would start a war and they told him so back in March when he contemplated the idea. Major Anderson said it would start a war.

So don't get the idea that Lincoln didn't know what would happen if he sent warships to force the Confederates to obey his diktats. He knew fully well what would happen, and he was indeed counting on it to happen.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't know why you think making ridiculous statements adds anything worthwhile to the conversation.

The North wanted the South to remain under their thumb because wealthy and powerful people in New York and Washington DC (same bastards we are still fighting today) were making 60% of all the profits from Southern slavery.

If they could not keep that money streaming into their pockets, they were going to make sure nobody else got it either. First thing Lincoln did was impose a blockade to stop Cotton and other products from reaching Europe.

[rockrr]

I don't know why you think making ridiculous statements adds anything worthwhile to the conversation.

Pot=kettle

[DiogenesLamp]

If you wish to see how the Democrat mind works, read DiogenesLamp's posts -- he starts by redefining terms until up is down, red is blue, etc.

Here we go with Alinsky again!

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

I have never been a Democrat. I have been a Republican since I was first old enough to vote.

No, civil war started when Lincoln "launched his war-fleet against the Confederacy."

That is correct, (except for the civil war part. It wasn't an attempt by the Southern states to take over Washington DC, but calling it a "civil war" is all part of the propaganda lie.) and Lincoln's cabinet told him this is what would happen if he did what he did.

Lincoln needed a war to justify stopping the Southern states from trading directly with Europe and thereby depriving his government and his influence cronies all of that money produced by their economy.

Never mind it was a resupply mission to the Union troops in Fort Sumter with orders, in effect, of "no first use of force."

You don't send five warships and a troop carrier loaded with troops and munitions if you don't intend a first use of force. Their orders were to use all their warships to impose Lincoln's will on the people of Charleston.

Never mind Confederates had been waging low-level war against the Union since December 1860, with no serious response from either President Buchanan or Lincoln.

And that is a deliberate mischaracterization of what was happening. The Confederates were taking over previously Federal installations on THEIR land, as would any newly independent nation.

Never mind Confederates quickly declared war against the United States, May 6, 1861, not important.

And why not? Lincoln had committed several acts of war against them by that point, the first being the launch of that warfleet with orders to attack them if they didn't cooperate.

What matters to the mind of a Democrat like DiogenesLamp is that Lincoln's "war fleet" demonstrated less than abject surrender to Confederate demands, ergo, "Lincoln started war".

Their "demands" was that the unwanted guests take their baggage and go back home. I suppose you think it is okay for some squatter to just remain in your house after you've asked them repeatedly to leave?

At what point do *you* throw them out?

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, first, no Federal military force moved against Confederates until after Confederates provoked, started, formally declared & began waging war against the United States.

Here are a couple of pictures of the "supply" ships Lincoln sent to Charleston.

USS Pawnee:

And here is a picture of the USS Pocahontas:

The Powhatan was even more formidable, but I can't find any pictures of it's guns taken at close range.

These ships are what you call a "Federal military force", and yes, it moved against the Confederates BEFORE they had done anything.

And, of course, zero percent of slaves & women voted for secession.

Zero percent of women or slaves voted in the North too. Don't worry about the splinter in your brothers eye until you deal with the beam in your own.

As for our "founding principle" it was never and unlimited "right to secede", but rather... "when in the course of human events... a long train of abuses and usurpations..." makes disunion necessary.

Here you go again, trotting ot that "at pleasure" attempt to dodge the truth. The Founders left independence open ended, and they left it to the people who wanted independence to decide whether or not to have it, and for whatever reason they saw fit to have it.

To make this clear to you, the founders articulated independence "at pleasure" because that is *EXACTLY* what "CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED" means.

[DiogenesLamp]

That is a flat-out lie, and DiogenesLamp well knows it, but doesn't care, because he's a Democrat at heart and Democrats love to lie, indeed they live to lie, being a Democrat is all about telling the biggest lies you can get away with.

Alinsky again? Why do you keep using that evil Alinsky's tactic?

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

And no, it's not a "flat-out lie." Denying it is a flat out lie. We've gone over the ship's orders many times. It says to use the entire force at their disposal to place both men and munitions into the fort.

In fact, as DiogenesLamp well knows, Lincoln's resupply mission to Union troops in Fort Sumter had orders of "no first use of force", force only if necessary to resupply the fort.

The "no first use of force" claim is just a fig leaf to cover up the fact that everyone knew they were going to open fire on the Confederates if the Confederates did not *OBEY* them.

You keep trying to hide behind that fig leaf, but that fig leaf is not big enough to hide such a big lie.

The Ship's orders were to force them to comply if they did not comply voluntarily. Lincoln pointed a gun at them and told them to do as they were told, and they were having none of it.

It is the brandishing of the gun that makes it a first use of force. They were using that force to intimidate and coerce.

Try that in real life and see how the Judge responds to your claim that pointing a gun at people is not a "first use of force."

[DiogenesLamp]

DiogenesLamp himself well knows the truth of this matter, but just can't stop lying about it

I'm not the one lying about it Mr. Alinsky. You don't point a gun at people and claim you aren't using force.

The only way to make the claim that Lincoln's war fleet was really a "supply" mission was to leave off the warships. The first supply mission (Which incidentally was secretly carrying reinforcement troops) the "Star of the West" was not an armed warship like the ones Lincoln sent in April.

You keep repeating "supply" mission, because you want that to be the truth, but it was a war mission with war ships, and Lincoln sent it knowing full well what would be the result.

[DiogenesLamp]

That would be true if my statements were ridiculous. Since they are not, the analogy doesn't hold.

[polymuser]

It was a fast impeachment, in Texas, in a car.

[jmacusa]

Time and again you make the same stupid argument and time and again you’re proven wrong. Among other things irony is lost on you.

[DiogenesLamp]

Time and again I correct the false record, and time and again the people who want to believe something different from the actual truth, bitch about it.

[MinuteGal]

I'm born and bred in Illinois, was an elected County Commissioner for 20 years in a conservative Republican county of nearly a million population adjacent to Chicago's Crook, oops, Cook County...... now a long time resident of Florida, thank the Lord.

The Blago-bashers on this thread obviously didn't live where I did. If they had, they'd know that his impeachment and the destruction of his life was a mini-dress rehearsal of the Trump impeachment, led by the vast state-wide tentacles of the corrupt Chicago Daley machine, slavering federal prosecutors and the Chicago media.

Blogo was no Miss Goody Two-Shoes by any means, but the punishment didn't fit his alleged "crimes"....and he's still in prison for all these many years, while murderers who roam Chicago's South Side slaughtering dozens of humans including children each and every week are free to roam or they get off easy because the still-omnipresent corrupt Democrat machine, the Feds, the Illinois liberal-dominated courts and the enemedia pay lip service to law and order in this city war zone but do nothing about enforcing it.

Blogo has served enough time....I pray President Bush will grant him a pardon so he can go home to be with his wife and kids again.

Leni

[Bob434]

[[but the punishment didn’t fit his alleged “crimes”]]

Exactly-

[SkyDancer]

"I pray President Bush will grant him a pardon "

Bush????