Lincoln s Spectacular Lie

LewRockwell.com ^ | 4/29/02 | Karen De Coster

[Non-Sequitur]

Bilbears, how you can sit there with a straigh face and place the writings of Karen De Coster on the same level of the people wrote or said what you quoted is beyond me.

[billbears]

during the entire New England ordeal, there is virtually no literature to be found that supports the view that the inherent right to secession was non-existent. It was, in fact, really never questioned

I'm not saying she's on the same level as these men but they are both saying the same thing. Face it, this nation was based on a secessionist movement and the attempt to practice it again in the early 1800s is never questioned. Heck, it's hard enough to find material about it!! Why? Because if the general public were to truly study not just the words of lincoln and his worshippers like McPherson, people would begin to see the South wasn't in the wrong and lincoln was

[billbears]

What ever will they do when they run out of revisionist proganda that hasn't already been debunked?

We weren't the ones who brought up secession in the first place. Perhaps you should look to your New England betters in the early part of the 19th century to discuss secessionist leanings

[Non-Sequitur]

You're wrong on a couple of things, billbears. Until you can show me where any section of the country talked about secession and then tried to put their talk into action they you are talking apples and oranges. I will concede that various parts of the North and the south talked of secession or threatened secession but it never got farther than that, and talk isn't a criminal offense. The south was the first to actually revolt, so they were the first that suffered the consequences. Had New England tried to secede and had the government taken no action then you have a case.

[Non-Sequitur]

Then why don't you despise Jefferson Davis for having the same beliefs you accuse Lincoln of having? Why don't you despise Robert W. Lee or John C. Breckenridge since they both advocated the colonization plans you criticize Lincoln for? Or are those beliefs OK just because they are southerners?

[Non-Sequitur]

BTW why back to JeffersonDavis? ConfederateMissouri get banned again?

[WhiskeyPapa]

Face it, this nation was based on a secessionist movement ...

Absolutely false and you've seen this before.

For the Revolution to have been a secessionist movement, the colonists would have had to have the same rights as Englishmen. And they did not.

Any reasonable definition of secession would have to include the concept that it transpired between equals.

You are trying to co-opt the true heroes of the Revolution to lessen the stench of the traitous rebels of 1860-65. And the record --to say nothing of the English language -- won't support it.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Papa, here you go again. Putting facts and ACUTAL quotes in front of the ant-Linconistas....How dare you!!!! Poor boys. What ever will they do when they run out of revisionist proganda that hasn't already been debunked?

Thanks. The only thing these people hate worse than the United States is the historical record -- it is SO inconvenient for them.

Walt

[r9etb]

Lew Rockwell weighs in on DiLorenzo's book.

I guess this serves as proof that one bad smell doesn't cancel another bad smell.

[billbears]

And we have already discussed this. The last paragraph in the Hartford document itself is quite telling. End the war by this point or else. What's the else? Considering Pickering and Cabot's own comments, as I've said to you before I don't think they were going to invite Southerners over for tea. Also consider this is just one instance this had happened. Also in 1803 and 1807, the north was itching to leave the union from day one

[WhiskeyPapa]

Then why don't you despise Jefferson Davis for having the same beliefs you accuse Lincoln of having? Why don't you despise Robert W. Lee or John C. Breckenridge since they both advocated the colonization plans you criticize Lincoln for? Or are those beliefs OK just because they are southerners?

They get a pass because they were slave holders. That seems to be the one common theme.

President Lincoln, who advocated voting rights for blacks, and worked hard for the passage of the 13th amendment is the villian.

It is hard to imagine that all the Lincoln vilifiers are not at least closet white supremacists.

Besmirching Lincoln's memory seems to be the best way for them to help tear down the United States, at least in the anonymous way possible on FR.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

But they never tried the '...or else' did they? Again, in none of the cases you mention was any illegal action taken. In none of those cases mentioned did someone fire on a federal facility. The comparison between them and the south is ludicrous.

[r9etb]

ROTFLMAO!!!! Using an online poll to "prove" what started the Civil War? Methinks you've had more than one2many.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The fact you can't prove your quotes is not a big deal? Or the fact that your chosen words "perpetual union" don't appear in the US Constitution is no big deal?

That's right. It's not a big deal.

Federal laws are supreme to state laws, per the Constitution. As long as brave and loyal Union me will come forward to fight for freedom with responsibility, it is definitely not a big deal that the single word "perpetual" doesn't appear in the Constitution.

What happened any way? Can you tell me? We you just minding your own business, maybe riding the school bus, and reading "The South was Right!" and you saw this datum -- that the Constitution dropped the word 'perpetual' -- and you snapped your fingers and said, "you know, that makes sense!"

No, the word iself doesn't appear, but the union of these states is as perpetual as brave patriotic men can make it.

Walt

[billbears]

No because the war had already ended!! And FWIW, South Carolina seceded BEFORE attacking Sumter. So they seceded legally, by state legislative vote. Much as the state of Massachusetts had a vote in their legislative house on whether or not to secede had done in the past. Once the state had seceded, it became sovereign territory of another nation. The north continuing to try to collect taxes within the CSA (another separate and equal nation) is just as ludicrous. But just as the newspapers of the day had pointed out, there would not have been war had lincoln not sent the troops in there. And don't give me the starving act either. Neither of us believe that line (at least I would hope not)

[one2many]

Ah my obtuse friend I am simply posting it as one indicator of the ground that you leftists are losing. BTW, are you another democrat voter like Wlat?

PINKO ALERT

WLAT! Do these people know how you and your fellow travelers vote?
Here is your reply to Leesylvanian from another thread:

==================================

Leesylvanian:

Keep in mind when dealing with WP that you're dealing with a man who favors the government's rights/authority over those of the people. He voted for Clinton twice. 'Nuff said!

Wlat (WhiskeyPapa):

Well, I've never said I voted for Clinton twice, so I am glad you will be glad to post a retraction.What I said was that I had never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. I voted for John Anderson in 1980. In '84 I voted Democratic. Same in '88. In '92 I DID vote for Clinton, although I was for Perot until he went batty. In'96 I didn't vote. In '00, I did vote for Al Gore. --Walt

780 posted on 2/28/02 10:49 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa

[WhiskeyPapa]

Even Fredrick Douglas, a man who supposedly liked Lincoln, knew that Lincoln just used blacks, that he never cared for them or considered them his equal.

That's a lie, Corky.

"After the interview was over, Douglass left the White House with a growing respect for Lincoln. He was "the first great man that I talked with in the United States freely," Douglass said later, "who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color."

--"With Malice Towards None, p. 357 by Stephen Oates.

Here's an extra helping of the record, Corky:

Late in October the President had a visit from Sojourner Truth, the elderly black woman who, after having been sold three times on the auction block, escaped to freedom and afterward brought out other fugitives on the Underground Railroad. She declared that she "never was treated by any one with more kindness and cordiality," and she was proud that the President wrote In her autograph book "with the same hand that signed the death-warrant of slavery." "I felt that I was in the presence of a friend," the old woman said, "and I now thank God from the bottom of my heart that I always advocated his cause."

Though abolitionists had often been critical of Lincoln a majority of the reformers now favored his reelection. Earlier in the year the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society was shattered after a debate between its two most notable leaders—Wendell Phillips, who announced that Lincoln had no commitment to liberty and was "knowingly preparing for a peace in disregard for the negro," and William Lloyd Garrison, who countered that the President had shown great capacity for growth and had moved as fast as public opinion allowed. In the months that followed, Phillips became one of the most conspicuous supporters of Fremont's candidacy and vowed that he would "cut off both hands before doing anything to aid Abraham Lincoln's election," while Garrison insisted that if Lincoln had made mistakes "a thousand incidental errors and blunders are easily to be borne with on the part of him who, at one blow, severed the chains of three millions three hundred thousand slaves."

"Lincoln" p 541 by David H. Donald

Walt

[r9etb]

The Preamble to the Consitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This one sentence pretty much makes your point concerning perpetual Union. The key phrase here is "a more perfect Union." The Union itself is taken for granted -- the Constitution is meant only to improve it.

So what about the nature of that Union? Let's now pass over to Federalist #40, which is basically an argument justifying the replacement of the Articles of Confederation.

One resolution goes as follows: The recommendatory act of Congress is in the words following: "Whereas, there is provision in the articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, for making alterations therein, by the assent of a Congress of the United States, and of the legislatures of the several States; and whereas experience hath evinced, that there are defects in the present Confederation; as a mean to remedy which, several of the States, and particularly the State of New York, by express instructions to their delegates in Congress, have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution; and such convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these States a firm national government

IOW, the Union that the Constitution was created to improve upon The Articles of Confederation, which is self-described as "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union."

The conclusion is quite obvious. The Constitution was trying to perfect a Union that had already been codified as "Perpetual."

... Not that I expect even such an obvious thing to carry any weight with the master debaters on the other side.

[Aurelius]

"It is hard to imagine that all the Lincoln vilifiers are not at least closet white supremacists."

There is ample ground for people of sound understanding, good will and with good historical knowledge, to find Abraham Lincoln worthy ov vilification. These things are matters of opinion and are not ultimately resolvable one way or the other. You can't or won't recognize this. You persist in the delusion that people who don't see the world as you see it are "wrong" while you are "right". You then go on to assume that their "error" must be due to some moral flaw, which you inevitably point out. This results in your being one of the more obnoxious posters on this forum, and your stubborn persistance in you self-delusion makes it impossible for serious people to take you seriously. I don't intend to respond to your posts in the future, nor will I bother to read any more of yours. Flame away all you want, in the end, you are just wasting your time.

[r9etb]

Ah my obtuse friend I am simply posting it as one indicator of the ground that you leftists are losing.

LOL! Whoops! There I go losing ground again to an incisive and fact-filled argument.

BTW, are you another democrat voter like Wlat?

Sigh. Yup, an impressive intellectual display on your part. But ya got me. I only vote for Democrats. I vote for them every day, even when there's no election to vote in. I have a voting machine in my living room so that whenever I feel blue I can just walk over and vote a straight D-ticket to cheer myself up. I even voted Democrat on that "What caused the Civil War" poll! Just call me Mr. Democrat.

I have to tell you, far2much: your "Walt-bash" wasn't impressive even the first time, and it's not gained any lustre in its innumerable subsequent postings.

Walt's posts are characterized by tight reasoning, ample documentation, and direct quotes. You, OTOH, are prone to abysmal, fetid rantings. About the nicest thing I can say about you is that you're causing a great deal of harm to your cause.