Posted on 05/16/2018 1:36:01 PM PDT by Kaslin
This is a story of priorities and hypocrisy, brought to us by a president who saved the Union and was murdered for it, and a president whose policies and malevolence damaged both the nation and the world, and who is being rewarded for it.
The Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation is in trouble. It is auctioning off non-Lincoln related artifacts in an effort to pay back a loan that is coming due. You see, the Lincoln Library doesn’t make a lot of money or attract enough major donors to operate. This is odd, considering President Lincoln is a “favorite” president for so many of today’s modern politicians.
Lincoln wasn’t just a regular touchstone, as an example, for the now super wealthy Barack Obama, he was used to help get Mr. Obama elected as president. Mr. Obama’s affinity for, and similarity to, Mr. Lincoln was made clear to us by his sycophantic legacy media.
“In the last couple of years, several best-selling books have focused on the life and political skills of the nation’s 16th president. And one man in particular has taken a particular interest in not just reading about the Illinois politician, but also modeling himself politically after him. That man: Barack Obama, who will be sworn in as the nation’s 44th — and first African-American — president Tuesday …,” gushed CNN on Jan. 19, 2009.
The New York Times told us, “Not since Lincoln has there been a president as fundamentally shaped — in his life, convictions and outlook on the world — by reading and writing as Barack Obama.” Obama the bookworm. And even better than Lincoln.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Finding the truth in your posts is a never-ending struggle.
What I am saying is that the legal authority of ownership for the property is the same for the Colonists as it was for the Confederates.
There was no legal authority for the colonists. They launched a rebellion against the crown and any British assets they seized were spoils of war. Legal ownership was not established until the Treaty of Paris.
So again, are you saying the South launched a rebellion and illegally seized federal property?
He said he believed any people anywhere had a right to independence and had a right to the land which they inhabited. Trying to insert the meaning "except for South Carolina" is just another of your attempts to bend reality to your will.
If they had the power to win their rebellion. You keep forgetting that part.
I've long maintained that the "rebellion" was denying the fundamental foundation of our own government as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln was the "rebel."
You are entitled to your own opinions, of course. But "rebellion" is defined as "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government." It obvious that the Southern actions meet that definition.
I would point out that they put up a far greater fight, and with far greater sacrifice than did the colonists in their effort to get King George III to leave them alone. They just had a more dictatorial adversary than did the Colonists.
Or was it that the Colonists had a better motivation for their rebellion - governing themselves - than the Southerners had for their's - slavery?
When you tell them this material will be turned over to them, and then you burn it, "they" are not the ones doing the stealing.
If I tell someone that you are going to turn your house over to them and then you point out that I didn't have the right to speak for you and that you aren't obligated to follow through on my promise then are you stealing your house?
Why don't you read the messages yourself? You can start here. You'll have to go through them until you find it, but i'm not going to look it up for you.
Of course you won't. Documenting your claims has never been your strong suit.
The Harriet Lane was carrying some of the cannons, and it was the first to open fire on the other side. Also what need of 200 riflemen would a "resupply mission" require?
Yes, six of them. And the troops were their for reinforcing the fort if the resupply effort was opposed. It's all there in the letter Lincoln sent to Pickens.
I believe the ordinary complement of the Powhatan was something around 300 men.
Roughly. So take the 289 men on the Powhatan and the 200 troops on the Baltic and you're only about 1900 men shy of the claimed amount. Where were they?
So far as I can tell, he is wrong about that, but given the fact that I keep getting surprised about details that have been ignored in the official narrative, I shall not be surprised to find out there is some basis for his statement.
But right on the hundreds of cannon and thousands of men?
Oh, you've found Lincoln's order?
His intent is right there in the Pickens letter.
I point out the obvious effort to gain/suppress votes that always went to one party, and you think it's about me?
Why must you try to make it personal? You've done this before, and I called you out on it.
Look, i'm sure all of you who argue against me are fine people, and I have no desire to cast any aspersions on your character, and I would think we could all at least agree to that.
To you, “purest essence” is the reiteration of what you wish to believe. You have the sort of mindset that simplifies the forming of cults. :)
That's because "you" are usually more ignorant and willfully intent on remaining so.
You’re wrong - of course.
Hare Krishna. :)
There was no “Confederate military chain” in January 1861. At the time The Star of the West was fired on, South Carolina was the only seceded state (Mississippi seceded later in the day). The cadets were at Fort Moultrie by invitation of the state of SC which had seized the fort after it was evacuated by Federal troops and they were engaged in training.
They fired on the Star of the West by order of Major Stephens who had been instructed by Governor Pickens to fire on any ship flying United States colors that tried to enter Charleston harbor.
The cadets were not kids acting on their own. They fired on The Star of the West by order if their major who was under instructions of the South Carolina governor.
I stand corrected. My reading said they were cadets from the Citadel, and said nothing further about them having orders from the governor.
No problem. There is no agreement amongst professional historians either as to what incident specifically was the “start” of the Civil War
Years ago I just thought history was. In the intervening time I have found out that it seems to vary quite a bit depending on who you want to hear, and what their agenda is.
Things that people don't want to talk about, like Kennedy stopping the air and naval support for the Cuban freedom fighters, don't get mentioned much, if at all.
I've come to appreciate Orwell's perceptiveness on the subject.
"Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future."
When you say that somebody or other doesn't "give a sh*t" about somebody or something, people won't think much of you or your opinions.
I suppose it's sometimes true, but at least as often people who talk that way make it clear that they aren't interested in serious analysis of anything.
And the assumption that all of some "them" doesn't care and you do, is also pretty smarmy.
It's confusing, too: you've transformed yourself into some 19th century fellow who's indifferent as regards slavery, or even supportive, but then you claim to be a modern-day person who cares when it's a way of sticking the knife into other 19th century fellows.
David Hogg: Get ready for 'politicians acting like they give a s--t' after Texas school shooting
I cannot influence events over 150 years ago, I can only look at them. My observation is that all the upheaval had nothing to do with what was in the best interest of black people, and any subsequent concern was an afterthought, and I suspect entirely based on political advantage.
It's confusing, too: you've transformed yourself into some 19th century fellow who's indifferent as regards slavery, or even supportive, but then you claim to be a modern-day person who cares when it's a way of sticking the knife into other 19th century fellows.
I am not indifferent, I think no one should be coerced to serve others against their will except in punishment of a crime. I simply wish to keep clarity on what were the primary contests, what is the noise, and what is the lesser concerns.
I am also more concerned with what affects me in the here and now and from whence it came. The issue of slavery may be very dear to some, but me and mine had nothing to do with it either in the past or in the present, and I am far more concerned about this out of control "cabal" running our Capitol city now.
When I was in high school my best friend was black. He and I shared a lot of interests, especially in science fiction and military technology, and we talked about many different subjects. My primary concern at that time was the possibility of being incinerated by Soviet Nuclear ICBMs (for Obvious reasons growing up next to a US Military base) and my secondary concerns were things like Taxes and the effort of government to undermine civil society through abortion, the normalization of homosexuality, and assaults against the culture such as banning prayer in schools and such.
His primary concern was racism. Oh sure, he was concerned about the Russian Nuke thing too, but not as concerned as he was about finding racism everywhere he looked. He read scads of books on the subject, and he would often steer the conversation into "That waitress is racist because she served me last."
It got to where we would just change the subject. Occasionally we would try to push back gently on his narrative, for example, by pointing out occasions when he wasn't served last, but he just regarded such examples as "flukes" and not demonstrative of the usual racism that affected his life.
Meanwhile, those Russian nukes were still pointed at us.
Same thing with the Civil War. Slavery is long gone, but that "Cabal" is still pointed at us.
We call it the "Establishment" nowadays, and it's the problem that is still lingering for over 150 years.
He is a History major, and currently works as a school teacher on the East Coast.
Orwell hit the nail on the head.
bump
Of course you think that. But of course, the people concerned -- Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth -- didn't think so. They actively encouraged African-Americans to fight. They weren't trying to give out or withhold brownie points for moral purity. They were out for freedom and willing to take support wherever it came from.
You could draw a parallel to the Second World War. Americans fought in the war or supported the war for different reasons. But would you really opt out or condemn or subvert the war effort because some of us weren't entirely pure in our motivation by 21st century standards?
My observation is that all the upheaval had nothing to do with what was in the best interest of black people, and any subsequent concern was an afterthought, and I suspect entirely based on political advantage.
That is how we get people saying stuff like "Once some people were slaves. Now everyone is a slave. Lincoln made us all slaves." They don't take slavery seriously, so they think everything they don't like is like slavery or worse than slavery.
First of all, if you cared about slavery, you'd know that it involved more than just having to pay taxes. Secondly, if we are less free now than we once were (and a lot depends on how you define "we"), the settling of the frontier and the introduction of the income tax in the Progressive Era (and withholding during the FDR years) has more to do it than the Civil War. Third, wouldn't be any freer if the Confederates had won. They were a government like any other (if not worse than many) and they had an interest in maintaining and increasing their power over their subjects.
My primary concern at that time was the possibility of being incinerated by Soviet Nuclear ICBMs (for Obvious reasons growing up next to a US Military base) and my secondary concerns were things like Taxes and the effort of government to undermine civil society through abortion, the normalization of homosexuality, and assaults against the culture such as banning prayer in schools and such.
The Soviet threat and gay marriage? Were you in high school for twenty years or something?
P.S. Give my regards to your imaginary Black friend.
The last time we had any long conversations was 2008. (He has moved a long way away.) His wife was a big Obama supporter and I was unabashedly Pro-McCain. (though i've since had reasons to regret that)
He was pro Obama also, but he knew how I was, and he understood that I wasn't going to support the Democrat. His wife kept trying to convince me that Obama was awesome or something.
I think his long friendship with me steered him more to the libertarian side. I took him shooting one day, and he turned into a gun nut. I had been steadily advocating conservative ideas to him since I met him. Some he agreed with, and others he rejected.
He knew I wasn't going to support any Democrat, and he could disagree with my position and still respect me for holding it because I had always been that way. We had lots of grand arguments.
But getting back to the Nuclear missiles and gay marriage, I had been warning him about the normalization of Homosexuality since the late 1970s. He used to think I was just nuts, that no such thing would ever happen. Back around 2003 or so, I went to stay with him a couple of days (he had moved several hundred miles away) and he told me that I had been right about every single thing I had warned him about.
So yes, the conversation had spanned several decades.
P.S. Give my regards to your imaginary Black friend.
There you go with the ad hominem stuff again.
I have never disputed that slavery was wrong and should never have been practiced in this country, but it wasn't the central motivation for starting the civil war.
If Lincoln is to be believed, his motivation was a belief that the states were under some obligation to remain under his control. That like the hotel California, they could checkout any time they want, but they could never leave.
The idea that states were obligated to remain permanently attached to people whom they wished to be rid of, was debated at the time. Many believed a Union voluntarily joined could be voluntarily left. Others believed that independence, once surrendered, was permanently forfeit.
Lincoln singlehandedly imposed his view on everyone else.
And the disposition of slavery got tossed in there near the middle of the war.
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.