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 ...
They didn't change their mind about it causing a war. They changed their mind about whether it would be in best interests of the Washington DC Government to start a war or not.
Their boss wanted a war. So what did you expect them to say once he made his feelings plain and they served at his pleasure.
They still thought it was going to cause a war. None of them thought 8 armed ships would deliver "supplies" without triggering that war.
Major Anderson himself said it would cause a war, and he certainly indicated that he believed the Union started it.
You know what I think? Whatever happened there. it was only a matter of time before something sparked the war. Lincoln and Davis were not ever going to reconcile, and public opinion was high on both sides.
No, they aren't. But they're exactly what a nation sends when one of its fortifications are being put at risk.
But then, you don't really care about protecting this nation, do you?
The standards of the era means nothing to you. What counts, and all you care about, is your opinion of the standards of the era.
So what you're saying then is that when it comes to the causes and motivations of the Southern rebellion you have always been wrong?
Several of the ships were armed. And they were carrying men and munitions to be landed at Sumter if the resupply was opposed. But had the South not chosen to start the war, the fleet would have done nothing but land food and supplies, no reinforcements or munitions.
Truth hurt?
Rather than saying "most likely because it's BS", you should be finding the quotes from the various cabinet members that refute it.
But your post is BS not because the quotes were made up, I believe that they are all somewhat accurate, but because you neglected to mention that quotes are from the cabinet meeting on March 15 or 16, and that at the March 29 cabinet meeting the vote to resupply Sumter and retain Pickens was 4 to 2 in favor. But instead your intention was to deliberately mislead and make it look like Lincoln ignored his cabinet. He didn't and your implication that he did is the BS.
Of course this point isn't something trivial like the origin of "sold down the river", so I can see why you have no interest in tracking it down.
But as with the earlier discussion, you are either being deliberately misleading or rather dense.
Just as Hillary was touted as the most qualified person ever - EVER! - to run for president.
‘and he just set it in motion. Deliberately.’
yeah, always hated that he ordered the firing on Fort Sumter...
I wonder if his university grades will be in the library?
Maybe. I don’t want to argue about the details of the lead up to the engagement.
But. it seems to me there was a lot of tinder laid about. Do you really think that but for Fort Sumter, there would have been no Civil War?
‘But had the South not chosen to start the war, the fleet would have done nothing but land food and supplies, no reinforcements or munitions.’
please don’t confuse our Civil War genius with logical premises; he refuses to accept that the Southrons were spoiling for war...
‘Major Anderson was going to evacuate the Fort peaceably if Lincoln had just allowed him one more day. He had already written the evacuation order.’
‘The Confederate Congress at Montgomery, Alabama, had decided on February 15 that Sumter and other forts must be acquired “either by negotiation or force.” Negotiation, it seemed, had failed. The Confederates demanded surrender of the fort, but Major Robert Anderson, commander of Fort Sumter, refused.’... from History.com
any logical reason to believe you over actual historians...?
LOL, You’re trying to be funny aren’t you?
You can put cigarettes out in the carpet at the Obama librariy. As if anyone is there to read.
Lincoln made it clear that Sumter was a US fort and not one belonging to South Carolina.
South Carolina was blocking access to a US fort. Lincoln did exactly what many other governments would have done in the same situation. Your facts are somewhat amiss in that Lincoln was planning on attacking Charleston. He was planning on relieving the fort. There IS a big difference between the two.
I’d say the American public is a bit more aware of what happened down there than you give them credit for.
Couldn’t have said it better...obama IS THE BIGGEST POS ever.
You can always tell Diogenes. But you can’t tell him much.
“Lincoln sent 8 warships to attack the Confederates”
Kind of irrelevant since South Carolina militia had already fired on an unarmed US troop transport ship sailing to Sumter in January 1861 before Lincoln had even assumed the Presidency.
Why? It's understandable why we had to have a war with the United Kingdom because the foundation of British law did not recognize any right to deny allegiance to the King.
The founding document of the United States did however recognize such a right.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That 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.
So why shouldn't a government founded on such a principle not recognize this same right for others?
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.