Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ 

O Captain! My Tyrant!

February 13, 2012 by  

O Captain! My Tyrant!

Sunday marked the 203rd birthday of the 16th President of the United States, The Great Emancipator: Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln Liked Racial Inequality

Lincoln is a President who many Americans hold in great esteem, and many take a peculiar notion from their earliest school lectures: Lincoln ended slavery and preserved the Union in doing so. This is false. Perhaps the end of slavery was a byproduct of the Civil War, but it is often duly noted that every other country that abolished slavery during the 19th century did so peacefully by means of emancipation compensation or waiting until industrialization effectively eliminated the need for slave labor. Historians have never ceased to argue whether this would have happened in the United States had the Civil War not occurred because Southern States rejected the idea of compensated emancipation each time it was proposed.

But Lincoln did not free the slaves. In fact, it could be said that the President effectively enslaved the 11 States that seceded from the Union to the will of a Federal government that today has grown into a mammoth of stifling bureaucracy.

The idea that Lincoln had any interest in freeing slaves was heavily based in rumors spurred by his Democratic challenger, Stephen Douglas, during the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates during a Senate race in 1858. Douglas focused much of his campaign on issues of race relations and accused Lincoln, and Republicans in general, of advocating the political and social equality of the white and black races, and of thereby promoting racial amalgamation. Lincoln flatly denied the charge, saying that he simply wanted to stop the spread of slavery to the Western territories and new States to reduce the proximity between whites and blacks, thereby reducing chances of race mixing. Douglas won the election, but the Lincoln-Douglas debates had raised Lincoln’s political profile.

On Aug. 21, 1858, before a crowd of 10,000 in Ottawa, Ill., Lincoln declared:

I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

When Lincoln became the Republican nominee for President in 1860, Southerners became very nervous. Though he and most Republicans contended that abolishing slavery was not an issue of central importance, Douglas’ accusations from 1858 stuck in the minds of many in the South. After the results of the election were known, South Carolina called for a State convention to vote on secession. Within 40 days of South Carolina’s secession, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas followed suit. The Confederate States of America was formed, and Jefferson Davis of Mississippi was inaugurated as its President — all before Lincoln took office.

Lincoln Opposed ‘The Consent Of The Governed’

In his inauguration speech on March 4, 1861, Lincoln again said that he had no ambition of freeing slaves, and he told his audience that no State had the right to withdraw itself from the Union:

I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the states. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or, in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary.

Lincoln held no regard for the Jeffersonian principle of “consent of the governed.”

The war to preserve the Union and forever make each State in it subservient to the edict of the ruling class began on April 12, 1861, when Southern secessionists sought control of the U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter, S.C., and so began Lincoln’s tyranny.

Violence in the United States gave Lincoln the opportunity to exercise practices expressly forbidden in the Constitution.

In 1861, in order to finance the Civil War, Lincoln signed the Revenue Act, imposing the first Federal income tax in U.S. history. The Revenue Act defined income as gain “derived from any kind of property, or from any professional trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere or from any source whatever.”

The President suspended Habeas Corpus in 1862 and, like a true despot, began to order the military arrest of thousands of critics in order to ensure that supreme power in the United States would forever be wielded from Washington, D.C., where the Federal income tax money was being sent. Federal bureaucrats have long thanked Lincoln for testing the waters of how far tyranny would be allowed to go in the United States, most recently paying tribute with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that allows for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.

When Chief Justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, issued an opinion in the case of Ex parte Merryman (May, 1861) that declared Lincoln’s actions unConstitutional, the embarrassed tyrant did what any other would do: He ordered Taney’s arrest.

Professor Thomas DiLorenzo in his book The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War probably best summarizes Lincoln’s assaults on the Constitution:

Lincoln implemented a series of unconstitutional acts, including launching an invasion of the South without consulting Congress, as required by the Constitution; declaring martial law; blockading the Southern ports; suspending the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of his administration; imprisoning without trial thousands of Northern citizens; arresting and imprisoning newspaper publishers who were critical of him; censoring all telegraph communication; nationalizing the railroads; creating several new states without the consent of the citizens of those states; ordering Federal troops to interfere with elections in the North by intimidating Democratic voters; deporting a member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, for criticizing the administration’s income tax proposal at a Democratic Party rally; confiscating private property; confiscating firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and effectively gutting the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, among other things.

In observing today’s American political landscape, as lawmakers continue to do everything in their power to take away citizens’ rights, it is no surprise that people are still taught and still believe that Lincoln freed the slaves because he cared, saved the Union because the Constitution gave him the right and that the United State could not have survived — or would have been worse off in the long term –without him. He remains the most powerful propaganda tool the United States has ever seen for the advancement of Federal tyranny.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “O Captain! My Tyrant!”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • OBAMA HATER 4 SURE

    After reading this article it sounds to me like Old Abe Lincoln was very much like the POTUS of 2012, Barack Hussein Obama. There actions are very much alike, in the early years of their terms, of course Lincoln finally ticked off the wrong guy and was shot and killed, however no such luck for the citizens of the U.S.A. today. I would guess we will still be waiting up until 2016 election cycle providing he hasn’t declared himself perminate POTUS before then.

  • Marty

    This article is a lie. Why then, if this were the case did Lincoln fill his entire administration with anit-slave freemen? Seward and Chase were rivals to head up the anti-slave movement. Then there was Bates, all three were three of the biggest anti-slavers in the country at the time. And why then did South Carolina whine if Lincoln won the election, we will succeed? In fact the entire country in 1860 knew slavery must end, except for the elite southerners.

    • wandamurline

      It is not a lie…it is history and the truth. Honest Abe was not as honest as everyone thought. It all goes to power…power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And, many of the southerners were already freeing their slaves themselves….Robert E. Lee was working on freeing his…his wife was teaching them reading and math. Besides, it was four years into the civil war that Lincoln decided he needed a ruise for his unconstitutional acts, so he threw in abolishing slavery to make things look better for him because he knew he has gone against the Constitution.

      • Flashy

        Wanda….re-read your history. Concentrate on biographies as well as mid 19th century US economics. you need help..badly

      • Average Joe

        Flashy,
        Maybe you should take your own advice? I realize that certain minds can only hold so much information without exploding….the problem arises when you load that mind with incorrect information…and then refuse to purge the incorrect information and replace it with real….FACTS and TRUTHS. Stick to your guns Flashy….stupidity looks good on you…you wear it very well….pour yourself another bowl.

      • Flashy

        Joe …. when you come across a fact you agree with, let us know. Most of the ones i see you labeling as ‘facts” or “truth’ are just the opposite.

        Have a great day in whatever land your mind is in …

      • Average Joe

        Flashy,
        Until you disprove my post above (Historical Outline)….you are doing nothing but blowing smoke up your own backside. The rest of us here know that if brains were dynamite, you couldn’t blow your own nose…now is the time for you to prove the post wrong….or STFU….put up or shut up.
        BTW, I won’t wastse any more of my valuable time (something that can’t be replaced)…responding to your ignorant rants. Get a clue….or grow a brain….Again, do the research and prove it wrong (not that you will and not that you can)…or admit that you are just one lame moron trying to convince the rest of us that you are not…your words tell us otherwise.

      • Flashy

        Joe…i’m not even going to waste time line by line beginning with your first contention. It is so far from any reality it speaks for itself as to its accuracy.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        Flashy has been proven a lier many times over. Opal did a nice job of it above and DaveH has done it repeatedly as well as others.

      • Average Joe

        Buster the Anatolian,

        You’ve heard the saying,” He can’t see the forrest because there are too many trees n the way”?

        Flashy is one of those people that has to cut down all of the trees…in order to see that there was once a forest.

    • OBAMA HATER 4 SURE

      Marty perhaps you need to do a little more research on the subject of
      OLD Abe because I think you will find that you are wrong. The anti-slave folks were just a ploy that Lincoln used to settle the differences between the north and the south when the civil war was over, much like POTUS of these days di when they pick both Demacrats and Republicans to be part of their administrations.
      It is my opinion Marty that if you would take off the blinders and look around you would find that Old Abe and OBUMMER were and are very much alike, perhaps that is why OBUMMER was sworn into office using Old Abe’s Bible. One liar has already attested on it so another can’t hurt to much.

    • Isaac Davis

      The only lie here is the fact that you say the article itself is a lie. You, apparently, have not read the article beyond the title. Lincoln was as much a white supremacist as anyone, so why would he put a black American in the administration? Lincoln didn’t give one iota about slaves, it was tariffs on the South that he was pushing to control the flow of money and how the commerce was to be carried out that ignited Secession and dividing the nation. The Constitution affords the “GOVERNED” to throw of the chains of tyranny when the government no longer serves those who loan it the power to function. Lincoln desecrated the Constitution, and set us on a course to destroy the Republic whether he knew it or not. Lincoln in his blindness of the human spirit, slaughtered over 600,000 to preserve an imperfect “union” that was granted to power by the Founding Fathers to shed a government that did not serve The People. In Lincoln’s blindness of the future, he put the Republic on a path to a far greater peril.

    • Joe H.

      Marty,
      If your last sentence is correct then why was Lincoln ready to let SLAVERY continue in the north if need be???

  • RivahMitch

    The article is “right on”. lincoln marked the beginning of the ever expanding federal Imperium.

  • Dens

    Joe Stalin was a great Lincoln fan. He especially liked the way Lincoln handled the people who did not agree with him and opposed his Federal Government’s tax mandates. Stalin ordered the deaths of many millions who would dare oppose his control. Lincoln demonstrated how effective the use of force and great slaughter can be at destroying those who would dare oppose your demands. Lincoln didn’t give a rat’s butt about slaves or slavery. He ordered the destruction of the South and it’s people because they dared to say no to his crooked government’s demands for more and more loot.

  • Supertad108

    wt post,
    I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.
    Barack Obama

    Amazes me obama can say such words (apologetic) abroad and at the same time is full steam ahead at destroying Liberty here in what he calls “my country”.. really!

    If your child turned out to be a success in life is it appropriate to continue to apologize and harp on past mistakes? Seems if one hadn’t been a success then it would make sense to LEARN from past mistakes. So, is obama saying that the U.S. has NOT been a success?

    • Flashy

      What part of the Obama quote are you disagreeing with?

      • Average Joe

        Only the parts where he’s opened his mouth and uttered words….the rest was fine.

      • cawmun cents

        Oh,I dont know…..perhaps the part about equality.
        Everyone is born equal to evryone else.
        But after that,circumstances beyond an individuals control,often make equality something which must be worked for to achieve.
        Anyone with good sense knows this.
        Apparently,a preponderence of the supposed”educated”folk in our nation,havent received the memo yet.
        There are no guarantees after the(paraphrasing)”all men are created equal”quote.You are no longer equal one second after your creation.
        Nothing in that phrase or any other intelligent quotation,will guarantee anything past the second you are born.
        That is because reality sets in after your creation,and upsets the balance of imagination with the heavyweight champion of life……”environmental conditions beyond your control.”
        After birth,or creation…..as it were,the industrious among us realize that there are no such guarantees inherent.Everything that occurs after that moment is beyond our ability to have equality with or mastery over,unless we architect it ourselves,and with help from others.Any onther understanding of the phrase”all men are created equal”,is wishful thinking.Your freedom,liberty,and equality and or mastery of life are due to your ability to cope with the circumstances of your environment.They are not implied,neither are they guaranteed by any document that is worth its salt in reality.
        This is where many are hopelessly confused.They believe that they are entitled to some measure of equality and or liberty at birth.
        This is simply not true or possible,without conditions which will permit such to occur.Therefore after birth(creation),there has to be conditional and environmental intricacy introduced to the equation.
        Otherwise it just does not add up to the proper solution.
        While there is truth to the phrase all men are(created)equal,there is also truth to be gleaned from knowing that immediately afterward the situation changes,and equality is no longer necessarily present or guaranteed by implication,in the previous sense.
        Overlook this at your own peril you educated folk.
        My hope is that you really apply thought to your own knowledge,as it appears right now that you who deem equality as guaranteed….do not.
        -CC.

      • Joe H.

        CC,
        In other words, you are saying, quite elloquently that there are among us, people tha t realize that freedom isn’t FREE, it has to be worked for and earned. Above ALL it has to be VALUED above all ELSE!!

      • Isaac Davis

        Ther is NO such thing mentioned, uttered, or implied in the Constitution of these United States, The Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence that anyone has “equality” with anyone else. Zerobamateur just creates this rhetoric as he goes along, and few, if any, ever call him on it. People like “flashy” quote these bogus creations of speech and continue to spread the lies and falsehoods.

        We are all here spinning our wheels over useless rhetoric while the evils that AverageJoe brought into the conversation about who really runs this clown circus.

        Meanwhile, at your local level, such evil is afoot under Agenda 21…where you will eventually be routed out of your property by zoning laws that you haven’t even begun to fathom. Own rural property? You are a prime target for the plan in the years ahead. Your county is probably tied into NACO where the code word “sustainability” is put on it like a bow. Regional Commission? FEMA camp with shopping and theaters where you will be fit and trim since you certainly won’t need that polluting hydrocarbon burning four-wheeled independence any longer.

        People like “flashy” are the useful idiots who will never see it coming, since gubmint knows best how he should live his life.

      • Joe H.

        Issac,
        in the declaration of independance it says ” We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL”!! read your founding documents before commenting on them please!

  • David Michael Myeers

    Too bad Sam Rolley didn’t mention that the Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in the SOUTH. All the northern slaveholders remained slaveholders in NY, MA, CT, etc.

    Honest Abe warn’t so honest war he? He was truly our first dictator.

    • Flashy

      So you place as one of your heros John Wilkes Booth?

      • Joe H.

        flashy,
        so it was OK that he was going to let slavery continue in the NORTH??? Are you saying THAT?

  • John H.

    People in this country tend to have blinders on when it comes to the subject of slavery. Slavery as a human institution has always been with us, and still is today — despite the fact that every nation on earth has abolished it, at least in terms of legalities.

    Blacks in America also have blinders on with regard to their history in re: slavery. Blacks have not even been the people most enslaved in history, not by a long shot. The Egyptians enslaved the entire Israelite race, for example. Native American tribes warred against each other for thousands of years, capturing and enslaving members of other tribes for all that time. Virtually every human civilization practiced slavery to a greater or lesser degree from the beginning of recorded history, and race had very little to do with it despite what some today would have you believe.

    Of course, there are those who profit because of it; who make a living by keeping the pot stirred and boiling. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton come immediately to mind. But such people have always been with us. Those who captured and sold others in slavery (the Arab slavers in Africa, and black tribal chiefs selling other tribes to Arab and white slavers); those who sold slaves as an economic endeavor, those who professed to want to end slavery and provided means to slaves to escape, etc. Regardless of which end of the spectrum they fall into, they all had, and have, a vested interest in the culture of slavery (and racism) continuing.

    No matter how enlightened we think we may be, the things that lead people to engage in slavery have been with us for the entire length of human existence and that isn’t likely to change much any time soon. The dark side of humanity is as much hardwired into us as any other trait. Until we accept that truth, things won’t change.

    • http://personallibertydigest Gottaplenty

      J0hn H your right on. Nobody has brought up the history of slavery without just skinning over black history .. How many do you know that ever brought up White Slavery. There were more white slaves in America than Black slaves. Just pull up white slavery on your computer and get educated.

    • Joe H.

      john,
      If you check a little closer, you will find that there are countries that still LEGALLY have slavery. Africa, according to wikkipedia, still has legal slavery! don’t talk in absolutes when speaking on something you aren’t sure of.

  • Norm

    There are a bunch of people in the “liberty movement” and the Free State Movement and in the FTL community who keep saying that the South had a right to secede in 1861. This is complete and utter hogwash. There is no right to secede, and if you secede you are a traitor, and if you advocate secession you are a seditionist.

    When the North fought the Civil War against the South, it was fighting to bring a group of people who had seceded and thus had committed treason back into the Union, which it certainly had the right to do. And furthermore, when the South seceded, everyone in the South who aided and/or abetted secession lost all their rights, and only had the rights that the rest of the Union (the North) was willing to give to them. So if the North would have decided that the South was only to have half the rights that they had before, i.e. that every Southern state was now to be only a half-state with only one Senator in the national Congress and only half the representatives that they had before, then that would be legit. If the North would have decided that the South now had no rights, and was to be governed as a conquered territory with no rights indefinately, then that would have been legit too. But luckily for the South they got Andrew Johnson in there and he pardoned them, so all their rights were restored. But if Johnson hadn’t have gotten in there, and it was decided by the North that they were to only have half rights or no rights, then that would have been perfectly legit because they seceded and committed treason and thus lost all their rights.

    • Norm

      At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation’s loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.

      Southern leaders including Davis and Lee should have been hanged.

      • Joe H.

        Norm,
        some advice. I was born and raised in the north, but most of my relatives are from Ga. Even I know enough not to say that too loudly in the deep south, even now!!! But then, if you’re feeling froggy, then, by all means,LEAP!!! I will be the first to laugh when some southern farm boy that seems a little slow, plants you firmly on the ground!!! but then, you are a prog! Those mean southern boys wouldn’t DARE do that to you!

    • John H.

      There are a number of states whose state constitutions specifically reserve the right to secede from the Union if they feel it is in their best interest to do so. Texas comes immediately to mind. In fact, Texas was an independent republic when it joined the Union. Also, there is no clause anywhere in the Constitution that prohibited any state prior to the Civil War from seceding if it desired to.

      Remember, the Constitution is at its heart, an agreement between the various states to form a central government for the purposes of defense, trade, and making foreign treaties. It is NOT a list of things the federal government can do, but a list of things PROHIBITED to it. The original Bill of Rights added specific rights and prohibitions just in case there was an doubt. States rights was a prominent part of that Bill.

      Lincoln shredded the Constitution in the name of the Union, and forced the Secession states into submission, not by legal means but by military might. We all lost because of that.

    • Sol of Texas

      I think many southerners (then and now) refer to the event as the “War of Northern Aggression”.

    • Steve E

      I’m a (what you called) seditionist. I believe the States have the right to secede if they wish. It was just murderers that came and stopped it. I thinks the States should give it another try.

  • Robert E.

    Those are some serious indictments of Honest Abe’s administration. While I knew of his suspension of Habeas Corpus, and was subliminally aware of an income tax to finance the [Civil] war, I was not quite prepared for a depiction of him as a tyrant or usurper of the Constitution

    I do believe he was correct, as was Jefferson and others before him, that there are several major, irreconcilable differences between the races, and perhaps he made a tactical error in judgment by not shipping all former enslaved persons of color back to Africa, rather than turning them loose to fend for themselves in a country ill prepared for their culture and their unpreparedness for total freedom following the war.
    My feelings are substantiated by a century or more of dependence on others for their basic needs, and an unwilling society to grant them the respect a free people deserve.
    Today, more than ever, despite finally achieving as much equality and opportunity as they could have ever hoped to achieve in the USA, they are more hostile, more ignorant, more criminally pre-disposed, and more disenfranchised from the rest of the country than ever in our history, and the end appears nowhere in sight.
    If what was written about Lincoln is true, it’s no wonder he is greatly admired by Obama, himself a tyrant, bent on removing from the majority of us, the last vestiges of our Constitutional freedoms.

    • John H.

      Another bit of history that most people don’t know is that a great many of the freed slaves (and not a few free blacks) repatriated themselves voluntarily to Africa, where they formed the nation of Nigeria. While it was a noble plan at the time, it ultimately was a failure.

      By the end of the Civil War, very few slaves were left who were not born in America. Most were second, if not third generation descendents of the original African slaves. Most of their tribal culture had been lost by then, so returning to Africa and trying to reassimilate into a tribal culture was doomed to failure.

      I used to know a guy from the Ivory Coast in west Africa. We used to have a lot of discussions about slavery, black and white racism, and black/white culture in general. He used to laugh himself to tears over the way American blacks were constantly trying to get in touch with their African “roots”. He told me many times that even back after the Civil War, an American black wouldn’t last ten minutes if he went back to Africa. He also thought it profoundly comical that blacks here wanted to be called “African-American” because nothing in their background today had anything to do with Africa. Of course, the same idea applies to the rest of the hyphenated crowd, regardless of race.

      • Flashy

        Liberia, not Nigeria

      • John H.

        Sorry about that, momentary lapse… comes with age.

      • Flashy

        Close enough. it’s an ” … eria” LOL

      • Steve E

        Both countries are screwed up anyway

      • Dixie Suzan

        And one of the things the repatriated slaves to Liberia did was set up plantations for themselves and enslave the local black Africans. Eventually this caused a civil war in Liberia in the 1970′s(?). The old original slaves sent to Liberia maintained control of the government over many generations and were entrenched in dictatorial power.

  • http://www.considertis.net CF Castleberry

    If you believe in reincarnation, then Barry Sotero certainly fills the bill to be the reincarnation of Lincoln. He is using the same illegal and unconstitutional tactics to complete the socialist agenda started by Lincoln.

  • Rene

    Thank you for this article, every American needs to read this, perhaps it would help them to understand where America started loosing it’s liberties, perhaps they would be encouraged to learn the whole story, perhaps it would help in the effort to turn America around, and head it back toward a Constitutional Republic.

  • Vulpine

    Just remember. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

  • wt

    All men are born equally free.
    Salmon P. Chase

    All men are created equal, it is only men themselves who place themselves above equality.
    David Allan Coe

    Coming generations will learn equality from poverty, and love from woes.
    Khalil Gibran

    Equality is the soul of liberty; there is, in fact, no liberty without it.
    Frances Wright

    Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
    Abraham Lincoln

    From the equality of rights springs identity of our highest interests; you cannot subvert your neighbor’s rights without striking a dangerous blow at your own.
    Carl Schurz

    I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.
    Barack Obama

    “All the citizens of a state cannot be equally powerful, but they may be equally free”
    Voltaire

    • cawmun cents

      All men are created equal.
      But some of us understand that after the creation,it may be necessary to work out ones equality or mastery over creation.Notice that the phrase does not guarantee anything after creation.It does not make you equal one second afterward.That part,it should imply,you must make for yourself.That is where your confusion is apparent.There is no guarantee of equality after your creation.None other than what you work for yourself.
      You dont get a free mealticket.
      That was never implied.
      The fact that you see the phrase,”all men are created equal”,and think it means you get just treatmment,is a testament to your ignorance of the realities inherent in life.
      That phrase makes no such assertion.
      But yet you imagine that it does.
      That is where the quotes from the folks you posted here escape you.
      Your mind has twisted them into meaning things which they do not necessarily mean.You borrow these thoughts,and lay to them your eisegesis of their meaning,which shows that your education is incomplete.
      Then you use them as tools by which you think you have become wise.
      Perhaps you should exercise caution when you use the quotes of others to substantiate arguments for which you have no foundation in knowledge.

      “Nothing ought to keep us from directing our observations to our own selves,or from applying our thought to criticism of itself.”-Freud

      Take note,and take heart.

      Cheers!
      -CC.

      • Donald

        The idea that “all men are created equal’ means that they are entitled to equal treatment before and under the law regardless of their talents, wealth, intelligence, etc. This does not mean that they are “in fact” treated equally, just that by their very existence as human beings they should be treated equally. Unfortunately, this requires that the judicial system be totally honest and free from prejudice.

    • Isaac Davis

      The Constitution, the very fact of being an American, affords any of us Equal Opportunity–there is not and can never be within a Constitutional Republic the “guarantee” of something called Equal outcome, as that is entirely up to the ingenuity and blood, sweat and tears of the individual through their own life. With life comes Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the fruit of the labor of Freedom.

      You quote socialists who think that everyone is entitled to what everyone else has, and you obviously subscribe to the pink bunny/chocolate fountain side of the argument that states, “Government cannot give anything to anyone that it first does not take from someone else.”

      Molon Labe

    • Joe H.

      wt,
      Adumberer may have said it, but his SPEACH WRITER wrote it!! Adumberer is not capable of independant thought, just listen to the way he stutters and stammers when he isn’t directed by a teleprompter!!! GROW UP, SON!!!

  • wt

    Finally, what MLK said wa true. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.
    Martin Luther King Jr., I Have a Dream, 1963.

  • Robert Button

    Most so called historians love to leave out that the attempted Secession of 1861, was the Third attempt at splitting the Country. The first attempt was in 1832, and the issue then was of all things their version of Free Enterprise, in which each State would negotiate Import, and export taxes and fees independent of the Federal government. This ended when A Democrat President, Andrew Jackson started buying a lot of Rope hang them. It was he who argued that the splitting of the Country would result in turning America into another Europe, with endless power struggle and war. After winning the argument, he also predicted the Secessionist next excuse would be over Slavery. Which came to pass in 1852, and was put down by Zachery Taylor, a Slave owner himself.

    • Beverly Price

      Lincoln has been dead almost 150 years. Why the urge to belittle him and change history? Andrew Jackson would have hung anybody that didn’t agree with him. He sent thousands of American natives to their deaths on 5 different Trail of Tears, proudly stating the “only good Indian is a dead Indian”. None of us know what it was like to live in those days. None of us know what Lincoln was going through, what he was facing. How easily, people looking for conspiracy in every shadow, can dare to know or decide the wrong decisions were made in a time so long ago. We can be grateful we’ve never had to live through a civil war. I am grateful that not all of my ancestors died on the Trial of Tears, just some. Most of the true history of those times can be found in Congressional records. Beware the babbling of fools trying to rewrite history.

      • Libertytrain

        Beverly, you need to go back and read a Cherokee site…. Jackson wasn’t president during the Trail of Tears tragedy.

      • brkshoe

        Beverly , History has already been rewritten. What we are trying do do here is bring back the truth. If you have the means, I suggest you read “The Real Lincoln” by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. It will be a real eye opener for you. His research is thorough and every statement is backed by footnotes that are available as public record. You need not take his word for anything he says

  • Michael J.

    Who will this time be emancipated? Will the fabricated plight of illegal aliens this time become justification for the impending implementation of Martial Law? Or will it be attacking space aliens or the faux return of a God-like figure via HAARP holographic projectors that will ring in a long sought after dictatorship and the fruition of a one world government dominated by unseen, unelected elites whose leadership is justified only by their mass accumulation of wealth. Bill Gates who brought us computer wonders and a population cap of 500 million. The Rockefeller’s who brought us cheap oil and The Federal Reserve.

    All these and more contengencies aimed at a time between October and December of 2012 to be implemented as they see fit. And no, the Mayans did not see this in their calendar, but never the less are amongst the continually evolving contengencies.

  • Supertad108

    Came across a PBS airing of Black History month. It was basically a tribute to Lincoln. Interesting to see a room full of Black men with all efforts toward the resemblance of Lincoln. 2012.. as a Bear in winter the truth continues to hibernate.

  • texastwin827

    Thank God someone knows the “real” history of Lincoln! One only needs to read the Emancipation Proclamation to know the only slaves he actually freed were the ones in ANY state that seceded. Few realize that the Northern slave states were not required to do so and most didn’t until AFTER the Civil War was over.

    • Michael J.

      texastwin827,
      Correct, not only were slaves in northern states not freed, but emancipated slaves who managed to escape north of The Mason Dixon line to enlist in Union Armies were paid only half wages. Lincoln wanted only to gain military advantage by cutting the legs out from under the South’s black work force.

      • Flashy

        Lincoln stated on many occasions he had not the power to abolish slavery except in areas which were in rebellion and under Federal control. He never stated he was fighting on the slavery issue…his one stance was to preserve the Union and stamp out the rebellion.

      • Average Joe

        flashy,

        Historical Outline

        1st: Martial Law is declared by President Lincoln on April 24th, 1863, with General Orders No. 100; under martial law authority, Congress and President Lincoln institute continuous martial law by ordering the states (people) either conscribe troops and or provide money in support of the North or be recognized as enemies of the nation; this martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today. This martial law authority gives the President (with or without Congress) the dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by government in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. This conscription act remains in effect to this very day and is the foundation of Presidential Executive Orders authority; it was magnified in 1917 with The Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917). and again in 1933 with the Emergency War Powers Act, which is ratified and enhanced almost every year to this date by Congress. Today these Acts address the people of the United States themselves as their enemy.

        2nd: The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a “municipal corporation” to govern the District of Columbia. Considering the fact that the municipal government itself was incorporated in 1808, an “Organic Act” (first Act) using the term “municipal corporation” in 1871 can only mean a private corporation owned by the municipality. Hereinafter we will call that private corporation, “Corp. U.S.” By consistent usage, Corp. U.S. trademarked the name, “United States Government” referring to themselves. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 places Congress in control (like a corporate board) and gives the purpose of the act to form a governing body over the municipality; this allowed Congress to direct the business needs of the government under the existent martial law and provided them with corporate abilities they would not otherwise have. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District of Columbia. Follow this link to see the effect of the District of Columbia Act of 1871.

        3rd: In said Act, Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national constitution’s 13th Amendment and the national constitution’s 14th, 15th and 16th amendments are respectively numbered 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in the Corp. U.S. Constitution. At this point take special notice and remember this Corp. U.S. method of adopting their own Constitution, they will add to it in the same manner in 1913.

        4th: Corp. U.S. began to generate debts via bonds etc., which came due in 1912, but they could not pay their debts so the 7 families that bought up the bonds demanded payment and Corp. U.S. could not pay. Said families settled the debt for the payments of all of Corp. U.S.’ assets and for all of the assets of the Treasury of the United States of America.

        5th: As 1913 began, Corp. U.S. had no funds to carry out the necessary business needs of the government so they went to said families and asked if they could borrow some money. The families said no (Corp. U.S. had already demonstrated that they would not repay their debts in full). The families had foreseen this situation and had the year before finalized the creation of a private corporation of the name “Federal Reserve Bank”. Corp. U.S. formed a relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank whereby they could transact their business via note rather than with money. Notice that this relationship was one made between two private corporations and did not involve government; that is where most people error in understanding the Federal Reserve Bank system—again it has no government relation at all. The private contracts that set the whole system up even recognize that if anything therein proposed is found illegal or impossible to perform it is excluded from the agreements and the remaining elements remain in full force and effect.

        6th: Almost simultaneously with the last fact (also in 1913), Corp. U.S. adopts (as if ratified) their own 16th amendment. Tax protesters challenge the IRS tax collection system based on this fact, however when we remember that Corp. U.S. originally created their constitution by simply drafting it and adopting it; there is no difference between that adoption and this—such is the nature of corporate enactments—when the corporate board (Congress) tells the secretary to enter the amendment as ratified (even thought the States had not ratified it) the Se3cretary was instructed that the Representatives word alone was sufficient for ratification. You must also note, this amendment has nothing to do with our nation, with our people or with our national Constitution, which already had its own 16th amendment. The Supreme Court (in BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)) ruled the 16th amendment did nothing that was not already done other than to make plain and clear the right of the United States (Corp. U.S.) to tax corporations and government employees. We agree, considering that they were created under the authority of Corp. U.S.

        7th: Next (also 1913) Corp. U.S., through Congress, adopts (as if ratified) its 17th amendment. This amendment is not only not ratified, it is not constitutional; the nation’s Constitution forbids Congress from even discussing the matter of where Senators are elected, which is the subject matter of this amendment; therefore they cannot pass such and Act and then of their own volition, order it entered as ratified. According to the United States Supreme Court, for Congress to propose such an amendment they would first have to pass an amendment that gave them the authority to discuss the matter.

        8th: Accordingly, in 1914, the Freshman class and all Senators that successfully ran for reelection in 1913 by popular vote were seated in Corp. U.S. Senate capacity only; their respective seats from their States remained vacant because neither the State Senates nor the State Governors appointed new Senators to replace them as is still required by the national Constitution for placement of a national Senator.

        9th: In 1916, President Wilson is reelected by the Electoral College but their election is required to be confirmed by the constitutionally set Senate; where the new Corp. U.S. only Senators were allowed to participate in the Electoral College vote confirmation the only authority that could possibly have been used for electoral confirmation was corporate only. Therefore, President Wilson was not confirmed into office for his second term as President of the United States of America and was only seated in the Corp. U.S. Presidential capacity. Therefore the original jurisdiction government’s seats were vacated because the people didn’t seat any original jurisdiction government officers. It is important to note here that President Wilson retained his capacity as Commander in Chief of the military. Many people wonder about this fact imagining that such a capacity is bound to the President of the nation; however, When John Adams was President he assigned George Washington to the capacity of Commander in Chief of the military in preparation for an impending war with France. During this period, Mr. Adams became quite concerned because Mr. Washington became quite ill and passed on his acting military authority through his lead General Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Adams was concerned that if war did break out Mr. Hamilton would use that authority to create a military dictatorship of the nation. Mr. Adams averted the war through diplomacy and the title of Commander in Chief was returned to him.
        (See: John Adams, by David McCullough, this book covers Mr. Adams concerns over this matter quite well. Mr. Adams was a fascinating man.)

        10th: In 1917, Corp. U.S. enters W.W. I and passes their Trading with the Enemies Act.

        11th: In 1933, Corp. U.S. is bankrupt, they force a banking holiday to exchange money backed Federal Reserve Notes with “legal tender” Federal Reserve Notes the Trading with the Enemies Act is adjusted to recognize the people of the United States as enemies of Corp. U.S.

        12th: Some time after 1935, you ask Social Security Administration for a relationship with their program. With the express purpose of generating Beneficiary funds to United States General Trust Fund (GTF) the Social Security Administration creates an entity with a name (that sounds like your name but is spelled with all capital letters) and an account number (Social Security number). They give you the Social Security card and let you know that the card does not belong to you but you are to hold it for them until they want it back. If you are willing to accept that responsibility over the card you activate the card by signing it, which gives you the ability to act as the fiduciary for the cards actual owner Corp. U.S. and you can use the card’s name and number to thus transact business relations for the card’s actual owner. You are also to note that though the card verifies its agency (you as the single person with authority to control the entity so created) it is not for use as identification. On review: notice the Social Security Administration was the creator of the entity, they offered you the opportunity to serve its Trustee capacity (by lending it actual consciousness and physical capacity), they gave you something (the card) that does not belong to you to hold in trust and they reserved the actual owner of the thing (Corp. U.S.) as the beneficiary of the entity—by definition, this only describes the creation and existence of a Trust. More importantly: the name they gave this Trust is not your name, the number they gave the Trust is not your number and your lending actual consciousness and physical capacity to this Trust’s Trustee capacity does not limit you or your capacity to separately act in your natural sovereign capacity in any way—what you do, when you do it and how you do it is still totally up to you.

        13th: In 1944, under the Bretton Woods Agreement, Corp. U.S. is quit claimed to the International Monetary Fund, and becomes a foreign controlled private corporation.

        14th: In 1962, considering the states were forced to carry out their business dealings in terms of Federal Reserve Notes (foreign notes), which is forbidden in the national and State constitutions, out of the necessity the states began protecting themselves from the people by forming corporations like Corp. U.S. Accordingly, those newly formed corporate state administrations began adopting Corp. U.S. suggested uniform codes and licensing structures that allowed better and more powerful control over the people, which thing the original jurisdiction governments of this nation had no capacity to do. Our Constitutions secure that the governments do not govern the people rather they govern themselves in accord with the limits of Law. The people govern themselves. Such is the foundational nature of our Constitutional Republic.

        15th: By 1971, every State government in the union of States had formed such private corporations (Corp. State), in accord with the IMF admonition, and the people ceased to seat original jurisdiction government officials in their State government seats.

        Now, having stated these historical facts, we ask you not to believe us, but rather prove these facts for yourself. We then ask you to contact us and share your discovery with us.

        When you find there is no error in this historical outline, then remember these simple facts and let no one dissuade you from the truth.

        The Bottom Line: when you speak about these private foreign corporations remember that is what they are and stop calling them government.

        Further, it is very important that we cease to attempt to fix them. It is far more important that we learn how to reseat our original jurisdiction government and spread the word about the truth. By reseating our State and national governments in their original jurisdiction nature, we gain the capacity to hold these private foreign corporations accountable. They owe us a lot of money, in fact they owe us more money than there is available in the world. In fact it is impossible for them to pay and that gives us the leverage we need to take back our nation and put things right. The process is a simple one. The difficulty is in getting our people to wake up to the truth. That’s why we ask you to prove the truth for yourself and contact us with your discovery.

        That means that you must stop acting and communicating like you are anything other than the sovereign that God created you to be. And, stop referring to Corp. U.S. or the STATE OF ‘X’ as anything other than the private foreign corporations that they are. And, finally, stop listening to the Bigfoot Patriot Mythology that is espoused by those that only give these facts lip service.

        It’s time to wake up and follow the truth, time to repent and become a moral and honorable society instead of lauding our Piety while we stand guilty of:
        a) not knowing the truth;
        b) not living the truth;
        c) believing God will save us even though we have the tools to know the truth the ability to use the tools but we refuse to live by the truth and use the tools we have to save ourselves and thereby become free.

        The biggest problem with that get all excited about uniting against the tyranny of Corp. U.S. is that they are blind to the truth having no remedy so they bail out of “the system” hell bent for a rebellion even the scripture says cannot be won with conventional weapons of war. Would that we could instead follow the admonition of the King of Kings and unite with truth to legally, lawfully and peacefully reseat our original jurisdiction government thereby taking back the control our nation in accord with law.

        flashy, do not respond to me…rather do as instucted in the above post. Do the research and prove them wrong…send your findings to them @ teamlaw.org. I have done my research, and can find no flaws in their findings. Education is a wonderful thing…get some…please.

        A child miseducated is a child lost.
        John F. Kennedy

        The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
        John F. Kennedy

      • Flashy

        My advice…move to a country more to your liking. It would be easier than trying to legitimize and be considered within touching distance of sanity in outlining this vast conspiracy theory you outlined.

      • Average Joe

        I have no problems with my country…I do however have a problem with idiots…like yourself flashy. …I can call you an idiot…because you have reading comprehension problems…..I am guessing that on your report card there was a lot of, “does not follow directions… at all”.

        If ignorance is bliss flashy…you must be the happiest person on earth.

        Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.
        Albert Einstein

      • Flashy

        Joe…just out of curiousity…do your neighbors grasp the kids hands a little tighter and walk a little faster when they walk by your place?

        Ever wonder why that is?

      • Jay

        And what country would that be, Flashy? Since, as AJ, rightly pointed-out, and for your benefit, the conspiracy is global in nature. It is one thing to be positive, and look at the bright-side, but to ignore the avalanche of facts, is not only fool-hardy and insane, but to be sure, lethal!

      • Average Joe

        Flashy,

        Just out of curiosity, what color is the sky in “your” world. No sense arguing with you as I am unable to fix “stupid” in your case and apparently…nobody else can either.
        Feel free to go back to playing with your finger paints and jax….it’s apparent that you’ve already lost all of your marbles.

        He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher… or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.
        Douglas Adams

        I am guessing that Mr. Adams knew you personally, Flashy.

      • Conservative Canadian

        Well done. That should run on every television station and radio station on the hour every hour.
        Nice response Flashy, You should have said love it or leave. That drives me nuts when people say that. Dissention is the greatest form of patriotism. Average Joe is a patriot. What are you?

      • Flashy

        The question should be…Joe may call himself a patriot, but who is Joe a patriot for? Certainly not the USofA.

      • Steve E

        That’s exactly why VA should succeed from the Union. I will keep us away from people like Flashy

      • DG

        Flashy’s comments prove flashy is a stooge of US Corp. No one should reply or consider flashy as a relevant contributor to this forum.

        Flashy be gone. Please stop typing it only exposes your lack of education and unwillingness to seek better guidance.

        However, your ability to change the topic and throw insults demonstrates your partisan politics when confronted with the truth. We are many you are one.

        In order to correct the faults of the past history, must be revised. Your suggestion to have a hands off approach to your personal opinions of history smacks of elitism.

        Winners write history. Truth comes later by research.

      • Isaac Davis

        Beautiful, Sir! In the words of George Orwell, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” We love These United States, we do not love the maroons who have managed to desecrate the Republic with their socialist views and national socialist repeat of history. Jokers like “flashy” have no ability to pursue the truth, but to simply flail noisily against facts, common sense, the Constitution of these United States, The Founding Fathers, LIBERTY AND FREEDOM and any semblance of their heritage.

      • Joe H.

        Flushy sez, ” do the parents grip their childs hand a little tighter and walk a little faster when passing you? This from the man who hasn’t seen ANYBODY walk by his house as ther detour around the block to AVOID him!!! They fear the contamination!!

  • JJ SANDLIN

    I think this is a dangerous time to be any kind of political activist, unless one has at least $200,000,000 of cash to protect oneself from the despots who have now taken our country away from us. Needless to say, I am devastated by these current events.

  • Flashy

    Freeing the slaves was not the goal of Lincoln. Preservation of the Union was. He swore such an oath to “preserve and protect’ the Union. In the beginning of the rebellion, it was the Sotuth that began the aggression. It was the South who made the first move in every step of the ramp up to war, including the First Battle of Bull Run.

    Rebels resided everywhere. There was a strong contingent in the North who were either pro-Southern or were of the mind to “let the rabble go.”

    The South (and a large minority in the north , especially along the Mason Dixon Line”) said they could leave the Union as it was not a permenent union. Lincoln said “no”, that the Union can never be dissolved. And he resisted the Southern aggression to dissolve the Union. And won. He not only won, but presided over a new country entirely rebuilt and far removed from what it had been.

    The United States was transformed under Lincoln. From an agrarian society with State power often superceding the Federal to amodern technological 9for the time) manufacturing economy. From horse and buggy roads to one of rails. From a small unimportant country of world affairs to having the largest most modern armed forces the world had seen up to that time.

    No lessr a man would have, could have, kept the Union intact.

    Attempted Revisionist history portraying this negatively be darned. For without Lincoln using every means at his disposal, and without his genius, we would not be the Nation we are today. There would be no Untied States of America.

    The question should be asked…why is there this attempt to further degrade and denigrate the Nation. Why is there this revulsion bout taking it forward ? Why this hatred for this Nation?

    • wt

      You have to remember, the right wing needs all those smoldering racists to vote against Obama, so they try and defend their racism in terms of states rights. Same thing Barber and Patterson did as govenors in Mississippi and Alabama in the early 1960s.

      • Flashy

        There was an interesting piece in the Editorial section of the NYTs yesterday talking about the extremism of the GOP and how the Far Right has hijacked any sense of sanity. The view was the con game of the economic conservative and the wealthy backers of the GOP entrenched power circles came to bear the unwanted fruit.

        How for decades, i’d say since Reagan at least, the GOP won elections by preaching division of social and racial issues, pushing for social upheaval instead of healing and understanding , then upon winning an lection…ignoring the preachings and putting in deregulation and lower taxes for the wealthy and Big Corporations. The author said the pek of this hypocrsy was when Bush campaigned as the defender against gay marriage terrorism then used his ‘victory’ to say he had a “mandate” to privatize SSI.

        The elite wealthy and Bog Corporations have used divisiveness as the road to winning, and then attacking the Middle Class and entrenching their own self interests. They play a massive con game based on fear, hate and ignorance.

        Now…seeing they are losing control, they attack the very core values and fabric of this Nation. One has to wondr, why does the far right hate this Nation? Why do those falling for this con game feel comfortable falling into that line of support for tearing this Nation down?

        One has to wonder….

      • Ted Crawford

        This may well be true, Flashy, in whatever parallel universe you inhabit, but in this one just the opposite is the fact!

      • Flashy

        Errrr…hard to correct you when you can’t make any argument against anything. perhaps because you can’t make one?

      • DG

        Flashy is just that a flash, i.e. nothing substantial nor sustainable. True facts must be a source of irritation to flashy. But propaganda does need a mouth piece and flashy is one.

      • Flashy

        What have I written that you find in error? Specifically. And please have your argument why you believe it to be erroneous.

      • Opal the Gem

        Flashy you are a proven lier many times over so so the burden is on you to prove what you claim.

      • John H.

        Slavery was already on the way out by the time the Civil War started. If the abolitionists had left things alone (they’re the ones who created a situation backing Lincoln into a corner that resulted in the Emancipation Proclamation), slavery would have ended as an economic entity within 10 years.

        Remember too, that the early Republican party was a refuge for Federalists who were mostly the Tories of the Revolutionary era transformed. The Whigs had become Democrats. Neither of those parties bear any resemblance to the current versions. In fact, they are just the opposite. Democrats are now the Federalists, and Republicans are the Statists. As such, the Democrats are the ones who have the most to gain by keeping blacks and other minorities “in their place.”

      • JUKEBOX

        wt, do your research better! Coleman was Governor of Mississipi in the 60′s.

      • Joe H.

        wt,
        Oh, so if someone doesn’t agree with Obamas politics, then he is a racist??? If I believe in the constitution as it is written now then I am a racist?? If you say that, then YOU are a fool!! An ignorant, uneducated, judgmental FOOL!!! GROW THE HELL UP!!!

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Flashy,

      You write: “He swore such an oath to “preserve and protect’ the Union.” No. He swore an oath “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” (Article II, Section 1)

      You write: “It was the South who made the first move in every step of the ramp up to war, including the First Battle of Bull Run.” Really? I suggest you study geography and Civil War history. At Bull Run, the Confederates were entrenched in Virginia. There would have been no battle there had Union troops not crossed into Confederate territory.

      You write: “The United States was transformed under Lincoln. From an agrarian society with State power often superceding (sic) the Federal to amodern (sic) technological 9for (sic) the time) manufacturing economy. From horse and buggy roads to one of rails. From a small unimportant country of world affairs to having the largest most modern armed forces the world had seen up to that time.” It’s difficult to understand exactly what you’re saying here. However, if I interpret correctly, my response is; this would have happened regardless of who was President. Granted, it may not have happened as quickly, as Lincoln used the Federal treasury to subsidize his buddies in the railroad business.

      You write: “Attempted Revisionist history portraying this negatively be darned. For without Lincoln using every means at his disposal, and without his genius, we would not be the Nation we are today. There would be no Untied States of America.
      The question should be asked…why is there this attempt to further degrade and denigrate the Nation. Why is there this revulsion bout taking it forward ? Why this hatred for this Nation?” You are the one revising history. I’m not sure how you equate stating historical facts with “hating the nation.” You appear irrational.

      Finally, I may me be wrong, but I suspect that you supported the NATO intervention in Libya to overthrow Ghadaffi, and probably support intervention in Syria and Iran. If so, please square for me how Lincoln’s war that killed 700,000 to “preserve” the Union was a noble cause, but Ghadaffi’s war and al-Assad’s war on their “rebels” in order to save their nations constitute criminal activity that justifies NATO intervention.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Flashy

        Mr. Livingston. Last i looked, Virginia was a member of the Union then and now. A state could not secede, which was Lincoln’s main premise. To say it was “Confederate territory” is to state there was such as country as a Confederacy. It was a rebellion against the Union. I may be in error in this, but I do not believe there was any country which gave the rebels diplomatic recognition as a country.
        =====
        ” I’m not sure how you equate stating historical facts with “hating the nation.” You appear irrational.”

        I have read so many attempts at “revisionism” from posters on this site one has to wonder why. From our basic heros and events, down to social historical matters, there appears no part of our nation’s history and fabric which is deemed out of bounds from being attacked. Irrational is attacking our Nation at every turn and in every facet of its existence, oft time istorting hiostory and plain evidence, unwilling to turn to heal the disruptions caused by constant attacks the past 30 years, and then calling such poison an act of being a “patriot’. Which leaves begging the question for whom is one a “patriot” for …

        In my view, it is irrational to use hate, fear and ignorance to further social discord and divisiveness and put it forth as the truth and “saving’ the nation (when it serves nothing but the opposite).
        ====
        “I may me be wrong, but I suspect that you supported the NATO intervention in Libya to overthrow Ghadaffi, and probably support intervention in Syria and Iran. If so, please square for me how Lincoln’s war that killed 700,000 to “preserve” the Union was a noble cause, but Ghadaffi’s war and al-Assad’s war on their “rebels” in order to save their nations constitute criminal activity that justifies NATO intervention.”

        I am surprised at you Mr. Livingston. I expected better. Using your examples of Ghaddaffi and Assad…they were/are not attempting to save a ‘nation”, but a country. There is a difference.

        Lincoln fought to save the Nation AND the country..as exemplified by his attituide of sending the rebels home after it ended without punishment. In no way can one conjure up any rational similarity of Assad and Ghaddaffi’s despotic rule with the US government at the time of the rebellion. Would you have another, more accurate example you wish to put forth?

        Respectfully …

      • JUKEBOX

        I wonder if Flashy was ever taught by his revisionist, progressive teachers that there was the Confederate States of America with Jefferson Davis as President. He probably never heard of the Republic of Texas either. He probably believes that there are 57 States also, because Obama said it, and that makes it true!

      • Flashy

        Juke…was the CSA ever recognized by any country as being legitimate? i.e diplomatic relations?

        ’nuff said

      • JUKEBOX

        Yes, I believe France did.

      • Joe H.

        JUKEBOX,
        CORRECT!

      • DG

        A note to flashy. Nations, as policy, do not recognize a new nation until it can prove itself on the world theater. Otherwise it would be drawn into a war and shipping would be destroyed as one example. Britain and France supported the CSA against the aggressor. They played both sides as the US Fed does in conflicts around the world today.

        The firings on Ft. Sumter was to open the water ways for free trade.

      • Flashy

        Errrr…was Fort Sumpter blockading the port? I think not.

        lacking even one country’s recogniztion shows one thing for certain… the so-called CSA was never a country.

      • libertytrain

        flash as usual you can’t spell or have created a new Fort….

      • eddie47d

        Britain and France got involved because they had their eye on regaining lost territory. England could of cared less about the North or the South or the Republic or the Constitution.

      • Joe H.

        Regardless of that little fact,eddie, they still RECOGNIZED the CSA!! Their reason to do so matters not, their recognition does!

      • Steve E

        Just to let you know. I am a Virginian and many of us want a succession to this Tyrant Nation. This is the only thing we can do to get out from under the U.S. tyrannical system.

      • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Flashy,

        You write: Last I (sic) looked, Virginia was a member of the Union then and now. A state could not secede…” That would come as a great surprise to Jefferson, Madison and other Founding Fathers. Look at the text of the Declaration of the Independence: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the power of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation… That to secure these rights, Government 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…”

        “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right w hich we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” –Abraham Lincoln, Jan. 12, 1848.

        “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments to the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”—Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural address.

        As the New England Federalists were discussing seceding in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation… to continuance in union… I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’’

        There are more, but time and space limit me. You can find them, if you wish.

        You write: “Using your examples of Ghaddaffi and Assad…they were/are not attempting to save a ‘nation”, but a country. There is a difference.” You are really torturing the English language here.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

      • Flashy

        Mr. Livingston:

        I cede the argument on the rights of a People cited by the Declaration of Independence. I, and I believe you in reference to “Confederate territory”, was referring to whether the Constitution was recognizing the right of secession by a state. Lincoln, I believe correctly, said ‘no, there is no state right to destroy the Union’.

        We can go a bit further as to Lincoln’s view by his reaction to Meade’s anouncement after Gettysburg that he was reforming and following lee to “drive the enemy from our soil”. Lincoln reportedly was so exasperated at such response, he considering all soil to be that of the United States and not recognizing any country called the CSA, Meade’s goose was cooked as commanding the Army.

        To take one of your quotes…”being inclined AND having the power…’.

        The rebels had not the power to dissolve the state ties under the Constitution.

        Commenting on the Country vs nation definition. It is not splitting hairs. A country is differetn from a nation. We are the United States of America…a country. As a Nation, we are Americans.

        In Syria and Libya, those are artificial creations. They were formed as colonial political units and were not formed as a national identity.

        Be that as it may, i will try and tackle your question, even though the examples are far from being comparable.

        The Civil war had a group of southerners who disagreed with the political decisions and directions of the majority. They said, “we don’t loike it, we’re taking our states and leaving”. The underlying reasoning was not racial or ethnic, not was it economic repression. it was ideological. Lincoln, and the North, said ‘uh uh”. It was not an attempt by the rebels to overthrow the government, it was to take territory of the United States. There was no infringement on the Rights of the People of the South. they had all the Rights as enjoyed by all people of the union. None were taken.

        Syria and Libya are examples where the populace are not trying to take a segment of land, but were/are overthrowing the existing government of the country. There was/is infringement on those Rights of Man as recognized by our own Declaration of Independence.

      • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Flashy,

        You write: “I cede the argument on the rights of a People cited by the Declaration of Independence. I, and I believe you in reference to “Confederate territory”, was referring to whether the Constitution was recognizing the right of secession by a state. Lincoln, I believe correctly, said ‘no, there is no state right to destroy the Union’. I have already quoted Lincoln recognizing the right of secession. You are simply wrong.

        You write: “There was no infringement on the Rights of the People of the South. they had all the Rights as enjoyed by all people of the union. None were taken.” The Southerners who supported secession would disagree with you.

        You write: “Syria and Libya are examples where the populace are not trying to take a segment of land, but were/are overthrowing the existing government of the country. There was/is infringement on those Rights of Man as recognized by our own Declaration of Independence.” Semantics and hypocrisy on your part.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

      • Sirian

        Bob,
        It is quite “self evident” that Flashy is extremely proficient at “torturing the English language”. I came to that realization quite some time ago and have since ignored his clever and well managed forms of argument. Upon reading one post of his that listed his usual sources of information, which numbered many, Al Jazeera included, it was openly obvious that he is, without doubt, an extreme Progressive liberal coupled with undoubtedly well induced bias. His ability to use, as you yourself have realized, “Semantics and hypocrisy” is troubling not only to you but several other regular posters. I must admit that you battle his form of thought exceptionally well and without encumbrances that stifle so many of the rest of us – outstanding! I prefer basic common sense attitudes in relation to whatever topic may be the one of concern. Yet still, Flashy remains within the attack mode 99% of the time. With that, as so many others, after a few engagements of minds, it is realized what his primary intent is and he is simply ignored. I truly appreciate your wherewithal but may I suggest you join ranks with many others and ignore his rants. It does not take very long before he has morphed into a true irritation that crawls under your skin and gnaws on you in more ways than one. Isolation of such intruders is the best medicine available. Just a thought.

      • Joe H.

        Flashy,If you want to get techncal, the canadians can also say they are Americans, NORTH AMERICANS. the Chilean can also say with certainty, that they are also AMERICANS, South Americans! I correct you as a country and soverein nation, we are the United States of America!

  • Dwight Mann

    Øbama may be lincoln like in his violations of the constitution, but these days the constituency is much more educated and aware of this situation, and will respond accordingly.
    Ostracize the Fed, the 16th amendment, the UN, the NWO, and Agenda 21.
    These are all tools of the central banking cartel, that wants to enslave this great nation. . .

    • Maryland Freestater

      @Dwight M – AGREED! THESE are the REAL enemies of Mankind.

      Anybody here who is engaging in race-baiting is either a troll, demokrat apparatchik, or true idiot. Humans, despite their paint-jobs, are NO different. What some here consider Black hegemony is actually the result of White Liberal Policies. Differences are superficial and cultural.

      I must admit that driving the DC Beltway every day can make one fall into a racist temptation, but then my ‘better angels’ kick in (Lincoln, I believe). Don’t fault nonwhites – it’s that Black Americans have been conditioned by the WHITE liberal elites that they are absolved all responsibility for their actions. Sounds like a long-term plan for stoking hatred and anarchy when the ‘Crunch’ comes.

      My ancestors were Eastern-European polyglots, poor as ‘gowna’, yet they didn’t run around and act like a bunch of entitlementalist jackasses. They made themselves Americans and integrated into the culture. They made themselves BETTER. What, should I sue the Russians because they forced my ancestors out of their ancestral homes?

      We need to convert Blacks to either conservatism or Libertarianism (latter is harder because it requires a classical-liberal college prep education to fully understand Libertarianism in my opinion) because liberal enetitlementalism just ain’t cutting it…

      Back to my paragraph 1. Several years Humanity had the perfect chance to rid itself of our oppressors when Katherine Graham died (she was the heiress to the WaPo). It seems most of the honchos who actually control the world were at her wake in DC. All it would have required was a well placed thermochemical device and Humanity would be free today.

      Just saying. Anonymous anybody?

  • wt

    Slavery in practice is the most anti liberty institution mankind can operate.

    So, when you speak of liberty while somehow justifying slavery or who was responsible for its demise or how or when you are , in essence, defending that anti liberty institution that seperated families, murdered the slaves, and denied them human dignity.

    The US Constitution was founded o thje rpinciples of individual liberty and noone was a citizen when the Constitution was written. Any person living in the US was automatically grandfatered as a citizen and slaves should have been too.

    • John H.

      There were a great many free blacks in the American colonies at the time of the Revolution. In fact, the first man killed in the runup to war was a Crispus Atticks in the Boston Massacre — a free black.

      The biggest reason Lincoln opposed secession was economic. The North had most of the manufacturing, but without the raw materials supplied by southern plantations, the North would have fallen apart. The Southern states were perfectly within their rights to secede, as there was no prohibition in the Constitution. Lincoln wasn’t about to let that happen. He may have been the first Republican president, but he was also a Federalist to the core.

      • http://www.facebook.com/rayburndouglas.drake Rayburn Douglas Drake

        The Republican Party, forming up in 1854, was for the purpose of enlarging the central government and minimizing state and individual rights. All the accusations against Lincoln in the article are true.
        The North and the South hated him. (the British continued commercial ties to the South during this war – hint, hint)

        In 1974 a black man shut me down from praising Lincoln. He said what I knew of Lincoln was not the truth, the Lincoln subject was a sore spot, and the occasion was wrong for an in depth discussion.

        I could have been educated. I didn’t start hearing the truth until 1996. There is no way Lincoln thought blacks were equal to whites.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        He actually thought it would be better if the blacks were repatriated to there former home countries, as he did not believe they would ever be able to assimilate into white society. Was he right?

    • Michael J.

      wt said:
      “Slavery in practice is the most anti liberty institution mankind can operate.”

      Tell that to the African War Lords who sold their own people into bondage and without whose support and interaction the world wide slave market would not have been possible.

      • Sapphira Sez

        Thank you Michael J. You are so right. Wt is a big supporter of the foreign-born poser, and as such he is blinded to the fact that what we have now is Slavery of the Worst Kind–slavery on Uncle Sam’s Plantation. We who work and pay taxes are thus enslaved to work harder make more money, pay more taxes, to support the non-working slackers who also live on the Plantation and are enslaved and prevented from improving their lot in life because the slave owners (the Fed and their democRAT supporters) need their votes. Those who rob from Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.

      • Chris

        That’s why I got the hell out. Been gone 6 years now and not lloking back. Just like my ancestors left Europe in the 19th century looking for a better place; I have accomplished the same thing. All governments are corrupt; some are just more corrupt than others. Find a good place where you have the rights that Americans used to have.

      • Joe H.

        and just where is THAT, pray tell????

    • JUKEBOX

      The Congressman from the New England and Northern states were the ones that instituted the law that made a black man with only 2/3 of a vote. Were they called “RACIST” when they did this? Are they called “RACIST” today for doing this?

      • AK Tom

        It was 3/5 not 2/3 and it was done to prevent the slave states from getting more representation in congress. Since slaves weren’t allowed to vote it wasn’t fair to count them as part of the population. So it was actually to help them out.

      • JUKEBOX

        Since they couldn’t vote, how come the first two black Senators came from Mississippi, right after the Civil War?

  • FlaJim

    An excellent analysis but missing a few key facts. In 1860, 80% of federal revenue was generated by tariffs from the Southern states and that’s the primary reason Lincoln invaded the South. That had come to be because of wealthy manufacturers in the northeast who made sure their imports or exports were lightly taxed. They’re the ones who financed Lincoln’s election, in fact.

    Second, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America stated that slavery would be abolished within 6 years. Few know that. Slavers had already come to the conclusion that slavery wasn’t profitable. Forced labor always produces poor results. In addition, the owner must feed and house them. That’s why many had come to start paying their slaves to perform real work.

    Lincoln’s only interest throughout was Lincoln. A study of his life reveals a very selfish and self adoring man. He simply enjoyed being in charge.

    • wt

      Slavery in the South continued into the 1960s in the form of Jim Crow laws. Economic and social slavery, that denies everyone equal opportunity and equal access to opportunity. See Freedom Riders. Equal justice was not prevalent in the South either.

      So, all this quoting of the Constitution and discussion of liberty is ironic given the past history of the US.

      • Sapphira Sez

        Okay, it’s becoming more and more obvious you are an angry person who needs to take a melatonin and get some rest. Please, quit spewing your hatred. It’s no longer funny.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        So what? Does anybody really care what you think? I think not.

      • JUKEBOX

        Did you know that it was the DEMOCRATS who passed the JIM CROW laws, and the blacks must have loved the laws, because they vote at over 90% today for the Democrats.

      • eddie47d

        That was the old Conservative Democrats who were replaced with Liberals and they abolished those Jim Crow laws. That is why they(blacks) vote the Democrat Party today.

      • Average Joe

        Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
        Robert A. Heinlein

        eddy, believe it or not, I like you as a person. You have some fundamental flaws (as do we all) but, every so often you do actually get it…I mean actually “get it”. This is good, because it means that there is still hope in getting you to “get it” more often. Please read the above staetment over and over until you get it…..this is not rocket science….we are either one or the other….you can’t be somewhere in the middle…..either you (or they) want to control people…or…you want to leave them alone to live their own lives…as they see fit. Labels are misleading…stop using them.

    • Flashy

      1. Lincoln did not invade the South until the South began the aggression. Not Fort Sumpter, but at the Battle of Bull Run.

      2. The South made no such declaration of freing slaves within 6 years. Unless you have a link about that, I’m calling pure hokum on that claim. Such was the reason the South triied to secede, was for the preservation of Slavery. And any claim otherwise flies in the face of numerous official documents and letters from the time listing preservation of slavery as the main, if not sole, reason.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Look it up dim wit. You may be surprised what you find.

      • Flashy

        CB…you’re stating the South did not fire the first shot at Fort Sumpter? Or that the rebels formed an army at Manassass junction? Or they did not attack the federal army thus initiating the battle? Or are you denying that anyone who states the South made declarations of freeing the slaves was stating falsehoods…deliberate ones in light of the volumes of documents stating otherwise?

      • Opal the Gem

        ” Lincoln did not invade the South until the South began the aggression. Not Fort Sumpter, but at the Battle of Bull Run.”

        Once again Flushy lies. The South fired on Ft Sumter on April 12 1861 the Battle of Bull Run started on July 12 1861 THREE months after Ft Sumter.

      • Flashy

        What lie? The South fired on the fort. The north did not invade nor act with aggresion. The Battle at Bull Run was when the armies faced off..and the South attacked.

        The South began the war.

      • TML

        Some interesting points to note are, no shot was fired at the Fort until after secession passed state legislature, and other states did the same, and a President elected, while the Union refused to remove their armies from Confedarate land, and was sending arms and supplies to hold the fort in South Carolina.

        NO Union soldier was killed in Fort Sumpter.

        The Battle of Bull Run was in Virginia… part of the Conferate States of America.

        And all this, with the outright admission that Lincoln intended to hold the nation together by the barrel of a gun.

        “But the Union, in any event, will not be dissolved. We don’t want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it we won’t let you. With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury, in our hands and at our command, you could not do it… …We do not want to dissolve the Union; you shall not.” – Abraham Lincoln, Fremont Campaign 1856

        The responded as the should against any tyrant such as Abraham Lincoln

      • Opal the Gem

        And once again you lie.

        “Popular fervor led President Lincoln to push a cautious Brigadier General Irvin McDowell, commander of the Union army in Northern Virginia, to attack the Confederate forces commanded by Brigadier General P.G.T. Beauregard,…”

        Lets make this real simple so even you should be able to understand. The north invaded and attacked the South not the otherway around. Except for the South firing on Ft Sumter the north was the agressor. They invaded the South.

    • DG

      I believe some 90% of the GDP of US export was cotton at the time of state split off. Blockade of southern states was to prevent the flow of goods out of southern states. A new mill had been erected in the north for manufacturing of cotton. But the mill owners did not have the scratch to buy the cotton on the world market price. So make a nice little war to get what you want from those that have it.

    • mark

      Yeah not like those two rich pig, slaveowners – Jefferson and Washington. Now there are a couple of scumbag, racist pigs we should all worship for their wonderful ideas about liberty when they weren’t buying and selling human beings, raping and whipping slave women, and ordering slave children to wipe the mud off their boots while they stuffed their pig faces at the dinner table.

      • Average Joe

        Such language for a supposedly winning adventurer…..

      • libertytrain

        No kidding….

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Were you there? Otherwise you fall in the catagory of a liar.

      • Joe H.

        Nadzieja,
        Do his DREAMS count???? LOL!

    • brkshoe

      I’ve been offline for about a week so I am a little behind in this discussion, but I checked the Confederate Constitution and could find nothing about freeing the slaves in 6 years. Could you please tell me where this is in the Constitution

  • Kerry

    Why doesn’t anyone point out Lincoln and Obama are both QUEERS! Lincoln spent the night with young Yankee Officers and Obama prefers Choirboys that smoke crack! The only difference I see is Obama killed his boyfriends;look up Donald Young and Larry Sinclair from Rev. Wrights Church in Chicago in ’99! Not only is Obama a born Kenyan from Mombasa to a dad and grandfather whom were Mau Maus that killed whitey by cutting off arms and legs then gang raping what was left, Obama hates whitey as much if not more than them!

    • wt

      Obama – martried one woman.

      Newt..married more times than Henry VIII, nees HIV test

      • texastwin827

        Your history is sorely lacking. Newt’s on his 3rd wife…Henry had 8

      • wt

        I was counting his mistresses

      • Sapphira Sez

        So you voted for obuma and still support him, even though it is now obvious his goal and aim is to destroy America? Boy, you are so “smart”!!!! Keep on showing your ignorance, you are providing the rest of us with good medicine in the form of laughter!!

      • Joe H.

        wt,
        And you are an expert on them, how??? you know the exact number of mistresses he had HOW?? I truly believe Newt the lizard is an immoral man, and do NOT want him for my president but what does that make you when you make up claims against him!!

      • Le Beauf

        Actually, Henry Vlll had six wives. Quite sufficient!

      • icetrout

        Thank God for the Great Maryland Actor & Patriot John Wilkes Booth!!!

      • wandamurline

        Halle juah.

      • Michael in Iowa

        Amen. JWB=tyrant killer!

      • Flashy

        Hokayyyy….the squirrels are gonna be bloated today with all the nuts around here…

        So tell everyone so we all know…why do you hate America? Why are you so intent on tearing it down?

      • Average Joe

        Actually, the squirrels are gonna starve…seems to be only one real nut on here today (and a msguided soul or two)….shhhhh…we won’t tell anybody it’s you Flashy…..Everybody here seems to be chewing you up and spitting you out already today….and we certainly don’t want a sick squirrel on our consciences.

        Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
        Douglas Adams

      • Don

        icetrout, where is his brothers when you need them ??

      • Al Hill

        In my opinion, John Wilkes Booth was probably responsible for making Lincoln a martyr.

      • JUKEBOX

        What has that to do with Obama’s hatred of his WHITE background? He has been indoctrinated with the Communist African hatred of the white man for all of his life.

      • Donald

        Since Obama’s father left early, you are saying that Obama was taught to hate whites by his what mother. Huh!?

      • JUKEBOX

        Wow, you figured it out all by yourself. Frank Marshall Davis also contributed to his black “education”.

      • Joe H.

        JUKEBOX,
        Let’s not forget the honorable(not) reverand(?) wright!!!

    • wt

      You mean like a Catholic priest? That kind of sex pervert, pedophile Catholic bishop?

      • icetrout

        More like the Queer Pedophiles of Penn State.

      • JUKEBOX

        More like Obama’s membership in that GAY CHICAGO BATH HOUSE.

    • wt

      Romney and the First Ladies will be the Morman President’s announcement. hahahaa

    • Flashy

      Whoa…someone is a few fries short of a Big mac Deal …

    • Steve E

      What you just stated is true. BHO is a fag. The media has kept this story under wraps. Only the informed people know this.

  • Michael J.

    The American Civil War Act II may be looming on the horizon. Lincoln era policies parallel current political dynamics, but is only one contengency amongst the plethora of designed futures at their fingertips.

    • Martha

      This explains why Obama admires Lincoln even though he was a supposed Republican. But Lincoln was an embarrassment to the Republican party just like so many others have been through the years, and are today. It’s too bad the TRUE story of Lincoln has never been taught in the schools instead of the ‘polished’ version that even I…50 years ago was taught. I think Obama is using Lincoln’s tactics as a guide for his Presidency. You see Lincoln declared Martial Law? I feel that is coming probably this summer. We are living in very scary times.

      • bernadine

        FREE from SLAVERY in the 1900′s. the blacks inslaved the whites and everyone else in the 1960′s. used racism to sue every one for moneyand large amounts. demand jobs they are not qualifed for or
        the esayest jobs the blacks in congress cheat and scream discrimination.get a free pass. while every American would have to pay aprice with jail.SO WE A BLACK MAN STEALS THE ELECTION NOT QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB.TRASHES THE CONSTITUTION, DISTROYS JOBS,TRASHES GOD,FOR THE DEVIL. AND AMERICANS JUST SAY OK.dEATH CAMPS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE.THE ARMY HAS BEEN CORRUPPTED ALONG WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.SO WHY NOT LEGALIZE THE DRUGS.ABORTION ,MURDERERS,
        RAPIST WHAT EVERY YOUR LITTLE HEARTS DISIRE OF EVIL. THE ROMEN EMPIRE
        IS BACK. DO WE GET THE ROMAN GLADIATORS TO BEFORE THIS IS OVER.
        WOMEN SAY BEING SICK IS A DESEASE.EDUCATED SELFISH WOMENTHAT THINK THEY ARE SMARTER THAN MAN.THE SMART WOMEN STAND BEHIND HER HUSBAND
        AND BRINGS HIM UP.INSTEAD WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT THINK THEY CAN RUN THE WORLD BETTER THAN MAN AND GOD. NOW LOOK WHERE WE ARE GOING TO HELL FAST.

        MAY GOD BLESS THIS COUNTRY AGAIN AMEN AMEN

      • Donald

        You are really nutty!

      • http://liberty Tony

        To Donald:
        Right on!!

      • Joe H.

        donald,
        I got nothing for an argument with you on that one!!!

      • Alex

        You are very sick, bernadine, and should try to get some help. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

      • Liberals-R-Stupid

        I agree with you guys. Not only that, it was hard to read and understand. Hate it when people think they have to write their whole post in all capital letters, as well.

      • Michael in Iowa

        You have a misconception of the Republican party The GOP of Lincoln’s time is what the GOP really is, the original big government party. The Federal Reserve was devised by GOP senators. Republican & Conservative are NOT, and NEVER have been, synonymous.

      • Charlie

        The congress, senate and presidency ( Woodrow Wilson )were all controlled by Democrats when the Federal Reseve Act was passed ( just like when Obamacare was passed – go figure ). It was the Democrsta that gave us the FED. The party of the people / little guy.yeah right ! Though the Senator who proposed the bill ( Aldrich ) was a Republican.

      • http://google.com Rob Luna

        To sum this up, apparently neither party is for the little guy. It’s us against them. We the people (350 million) sit back and allow 535 idiots and one Jack Ass to tell us how to live, where to work, what to eat, and then they take away our money and threaten us with prison if we refuse to hand it over.

        Now there’s a possiblity that these 536 people are going to put 300 million of us in Detention Camps and starve us to death. Are we this stupid to let these idiots treat us this way. At the first move toward detention camps we all should grab our weapons and march on DC. This is our country!

      • JUKEBOX

        I wonder how many people know that Lincoln summoned some of the top black leaders to the WH, and pleaded with them to gather the captured Africans together, and return with them to Africa. Some of them did so, and established the African country of Liberia. Read your history books people.

      • Flashy

        i don’t believe the word ‘pleaded” would be a correct description. Frederick Douglas described the meeting as congenial and the issue was discussed earnestly. Lincoln realized his plan of expatriation to Mexico or to Africa was not workable in that mnay slaves were born in the US and considered the land their “home” and birthright.

      • eddie47d

        Africa was still fresh in the minds of some slaves and they willfully went back there. Most by the time of the Civil War only knew America as their home or birthplace. Once they were emancipated though some went back to the same plantation for work and little changed. Slavery was replaced with segregation for a hundred and fifty years. Then segregation was replaced with imprisonment to keep them in their place.(Longer sentences for the same crimes a white person would commit). Are we all not equal in God’s eyes or not? At least that is what our Constitution says.

      • mark

        Read your history, Jukebox. The colonization of Liberia with freed African slaves began in 1820 forty years before Lincoln was elected. It started under President Monroe that is why the Liberians named their capital Monrovia in his honor. The capital is not called Lincoln. Lincoln definitely dabbled in the idea of colonization as part of the solution for the disposition of freed African slaves in America. But it was only a part of his ideas and he never believed in coerced migration of slaves overseas.

      • TheOtherWhiteMeat

        CALLING JOHN WILKES BOOTH…..!

      • Stuart Shepherd

        Bernadine is NOT really nutty- she’s right! (except maybe the death camps) I think I can see what she’s saying through the way she says it because my wife is from Africa and I think Bernadine may be from there, also. I used to think my wife was nuts about a lot of the things she said (!!!) and then I realized she was right about everything! She has a wisdom you don’t see that often in America, even if she says it kind of funny compared to the way we would! Their spirituality is more aware of evil and evil spirits (which DO EXIST, folks, I hate to tell you!) than ours. But Africans can be very superstitious- my wife told me that in Africa they thought Obama might be the anti-Christ when he was first elected (!) and now I’m starting to wonder if she might be right about that, also!!! Go back and read what Bernadine wrote again and be a little humble about the possibility of her wisdom.

    • wandamurline

      Absolutely….you may have to lock and load. But, in the end, Lincoln got what he deserved….didn’t he? Those that are wheeling now will also get theirs…sooner or later.

      • mark

        Lincoln was murdered by a cowardly assassin who shot him in the back of his head at point blank range while he was watching a play with his wife. He was killed by a traitor. But to many Libertarians I am sure Booth is a hero. Like the guy who shot Congresswoman Gifford. After all she was a liberal. So she got what she deserved, right?

      • Joe H.

        actually mark, Giffords was pro-gun a point of contention amoung the PROGS, not the libertarians. I have heard, in fact, that her husband and her are STILL pro gun! Very constitutional thoughts, something you usually don’t see among the libbies that have the reputation of consuming their own!!

      • skip

        So as I understand the overt or subliminal message from some of these rather obscene blogs, slavery should be re-instituted or blacks returned to Africa or expatriated? What the hell is going on in some of your minds? Little wonder Obama can’t get any reasonable program through, with this sort of undercurrent of extreme racism.

      • Stuart Shepherd

        Mark- no the 2 people you mentioned didn’t deserve to be killed by assassins or would-be assassins BUT (since you mentioned liberals) – DID THE 50 MILLION BABIES THAT HAVE BEEN KILLED, IN A SENSE, BY LIBERALS DESERVE TO BE KILLED, EITHER?!!! 50 Million!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Totally innocent. We have already put Hitler to such shame it isn’t even funny! And, just like in Hitler’s Germany, all because they stood in the way, or were the despised and unwanted rivals of the narcissistic self-image of the National Socialists (Nazis in Germany, the “Liberal”-Fascist Socialist Alliance in America) and/or an exhibition of their ultimate “power.” Whenever I hear all this squabbling about the stupidest social issues I just laugh when I think about the comparison to the greatest holocaust of history- right here in the land of the free and the home of the brave!

    • Disgusted Vet

      As long as they have control over the schools, food and fuel supply chains, pop culture, and the currency (not like real money since it has no real value behind it) they should be able to curtail most of any of the thinking and push back from any of us SLAVES with the help of the mass media. Yes Lincoln used US troops and weaponry against US citizens so what is to prevent them be used again?

      • Flashy

        They were rebels taking up arms against the United States DV …

      • Michael in Iowa

        And what was George Washington in 1776 according to George III?

      • Les

        They were seceding from the union as was their right under the constitution. read the original Constitution for the united states of America. It wasn’t a revolt.

      • Flashy

        Read it, many times. there is no provision for a state to withdraw. As was Lincoln’s point. If there were that ability, the process would have been spelled out.

      • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Flashy,

        Actually, during the Constitutional Convention a provision was proposed that would have permitted the Federal government to use force against a state that did not comply with Congressional mandates. Edmund Randolph, a delegate from Virginia, presented his “Virginia Plan” which provided that the government could use force against the states of the union that neglected to fulfill their obligation. While much of the Virginia plan was adopted in the Constitution. the force provision was omitted. Source: The Constitution in Exile by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

        “It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of any individual without its consent. This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every Sate in the Union… The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have not pretensions to a compulsive force. They confer no right of action, independent of the sovereign will. To… authorize suits against States for the debts they owe… could not be done without waging war against the contracting State…, a power which would involve such a consequence, would be altogether forced and unwarranted.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 81.

        A State cannot be “called at the bar of the Federal Court.” Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall.

        “If Northern states refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain can not be broken by one side, and still bind the other side.” Daniel Webster, 1851.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

      • Flashy

        Mr. Livingston:

        You are correct that such use of force to compel Congressional mandate was considered, and rightly rejected. To date, the federal government cannot use force to compel a state to adopt a Congressional mandate. The federal government may use force to compel a state to recognize Rights.

        We see this practiced today by the states allowing marijuana for medical use, and the Federal government cannot compel state police to enforce federal law. As well, we saw the opposite in school desegregation when federal troops were called out to enforce the Rights to attend desegreagated schools.

        I believe one source of friction was when Congress…(or the court in Dred Scott?) changed everything and escaping slaves were no longer “safe’ when they reached Northern states. they had to go to Canada to be safe from recapture.

      • TML

        Flashy, Flashy, Flashy… the US Constitution only delegates powers. Quite simply, because secession is not in the Constitution, or even how a state ‘could’ secede (no provisions), secession is therefore NOT a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and therefore is reserved for the states per 10th Amendment.

        There was no revolt, rebellion, or revolution… it was a peaceful declaration of secession, not one of war. Secession passed each state legislator.

      • ohoh

        Secession had already been attempted with a negotiated solutions, the same the North should have done with the South no matter how long it took or how implausible it seemed at the time. The consent of the governed is fundamental and no specific process was necessary just like there is no specific process delineated for thousands of other rights not necessary to recite in a document based on negative rights in order to restrict our government to enumerated powers and infringing on all of the other rights that we and the states retained. We didn’t give up the the right to individual liberty without our consent. It’s implicit in the limiting language of the Constitution and protected by the guarantees of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

      • bob

        Flashy, you did not read the article and do not know real history. The South wanted to be left alone to run thier own business. They seceded, from the U.S. they did not try to conquer it. There were no Union deaths at Fort sumpter, bet you did not know that. Lincoln was the real initiator of the war for Southern independence, in the north it was called Mr Lincoln’s war, in the South it was called the war of nothern agression. It was totaly un-necessary. When New wanted to sedede around 1815, there was a compromise reached, on one said it was un constitutional. Same for all of New england in the late 1840′s.
        It was a war for the North to make sure they kept the money comming from the south to feed the ever expanding Central (Federal) Government. The south paid tarriffs and dutise of up to 70% of their exports to Europe and the North paid less than 10%. The goods returning to the the South were also taxed outrageously. It was an Ecomomic war, the South was tired of 50 years of being abused just because there were more congressmen from the North than The South, thereby giving them the votes to economicly ‘rape’ the South. It was the South that was invaded and trashed. The Southerners who owned slaves only made up about 2-3% of the population, but almost all southerners supported the war effort because they were defending their homes, wives, childern and livelyhoods.
        Learn some real history, not the revised garbage the conquerers made up to justify their agression.

      • Flashy

        Every document written by every Southern state, without exception, places slavery as the main point of reason to secede from the Union.

        What is of interest is that Lincoln never stated he would abolish slavery though he would admit without compromise those anti-slavery territories who petitioned for statehood. Lincoln stated several times he thought slavery would eventually fail as an institution.

        It was without question once the anti-slavery states outnumbered the pro-slavery states, there would be a push to admend the Constitution. Emotions ran very high on both sides. Witness John Brown, a butcher who was more suited for the asylum than the streets..yet he was made into a martyr for the Harper’s Ferry raid. And Bloody Kansas.

        To state the South seceded for any reason other than slavery is a delusional fantasy and ignoring volumes of written evidence to the contrary.

      • Opal the Gem

        “Learn some real history, not the revised garbage the conquerers made up to justify their agression.”

        Flushy is still revising history.

      • Flashy

        noted your absence of any argument other than you disagree. In other words, you have no argument other than delusions.

      • Opal the Gem

        “Every document written by every Southern state, without exception, places slavery as the main point of reason to secede from the Union.”

        Flat out lie Flushy. The article of secession of the first state I looked up (Arkansas) said NOTHING about slavery. It in fact said the reason for secession was the agression of the feds against other states.

      • Opal the Gem

        The Tennessee ordianace of secession also says NOTHING about slaves or slavery.

      • eddie47d

        Bob was correct to say it was economics and unfair taxation that riled Southerners. Although slavery was vigorously defended by their owners also.The whole war was a waste of life no matter what the reason. Obviously slavery was evil and those slave owners were guilty of evil against humanity. Yet the Northerners still took enormous amounts of taxes from the labor of those slaves which made them complicate in that slavery.

      • Opal the Gem

        Louisiana says NOTHING about slavery or slaves in its ordinance of secession so I repeat FLUSHY YOU ARE THE ONE REVISING HISTORY.

      • Opal the Gem

        DaveH. Ain’t it fun putting the screws to Flushy.

      • independant thinker

        Good job Opal. I double checked those three and Flushy is indeed proven to be a lier once more.

      • Flashy

        Check out …

        Georgia
        Mississippi
        South Carolina
        Texas

        C.S. Vice President Alexander Stephens declared that the “cornerstone” of the new government “rest[ed] upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world,

        Source; Causes of the Civil War

        Note as well, y’all are seriously stating slavery was not the root cause for the secession of those states you listed ? Seriously? Want to check your sources a little deeper as to the comments made by the leaders of those states…or do i have to go and paste them later when y’all wn’t be embarressed because you’ll be off line.

        i don’t mind being corrected. And I am glad when you think, on those rare occasions, you have. But on this…you really want to challenge this?

      • TML

        Flashy… there was another reason for Secession. Executive Orders

        “Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department the means of suverting the Constitution itself” – South Carolina, Declaration of Causes of Secession

        It might be interesting to note that all other Presidents before Lincoln wrote few Executive Orders, and when Lincoln came along, there was an explotion of them, and has been ever since. Executive Orders is what Lincoln used to suspend Habeas Corpus and get around Congress and subvert the Constitution.

      • Opal the Gem

        “Every document written by every Southern state, without exception, places slavery as the main point of reason to secede from the Union.”

        Your words Flushy your words. I proved you to be a lier. One of the examples I gave to prove your lies clearly satates that the aggression of the feds was the reason they seceeded.

      • ohoh

        Jefferson Davis’ inaugural address doesn’t, Flashy… and it laid out the entire reason for the seccession in detail.

      • Average Joe

        TML, Actually for the record, as stated above in my first post Lincoln signed the very first executive order ever (Executive order 100 was the very first ever signed), no other president before him had ever signed such an order…as there is no specific part of the Constitution giving a sitting president that authority….Unless they are under invasion…which they were not and Lincoln overstepped his Constitutional authority in Declaring Martial Law.

      • TML

        Average Joe,

        Select the desired year from the drop down box at the following link
        http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=1826&Submit=DISPLAY

        Take particular notice to the number of Exectuive Orders before and after Lincoln

        The Constitution does allow for Executive Orders, but as the South Carolina Declaration of the Causes of Secession entails; a sectional party found this as a way to subvert the Constitution.

      • TML

        As a side note; I would think that a discovery of such an flaw in the Constitution was grounds for secession above any other reason. Think about it.

      • Average Joe

        TML,
        I stand corrected and thank you for the link…lots more reading and history for me to absorb.
        Again, thanx!

      • Dennis48e

        ” But on this…you really want to challenge this?”

        You have been challenged Flashy pants and you have been proven to be a LIER.

      • Steve E

        It was rebels taking up arms against a Tyrannical U.S. And the bad guys won.

      • Flashy

        Then leave and go somewhere where you believe there are ‘good guys’. Why are you wanting to tear this nation down?

      • Donald

        People have the right to rebel and the government has the right to defend itself. In the end, history is written by the victors.

      • TML

        How could they be rebels taking up arms against the United States if the war took place on Southern land?

        I once heard a quote from a “rebel” soldier when asked why they were fighting the Union. He replied, “We’re fighting because you’re down here. Go home”

      • OLD STAR PACKER

        For your info “Flashy” Lincoln Invaded the South. not because of slavery but because of taxes. We were being taxed to death by the northern states.

      • JUKEBOX

        NOTHING! Now, we are all slaves on the government plantation.

      • Donald

        Since your are a good slave, the government feeds, clothes, and shelters you, right?

      • mark

        You wouldn’t last two minutes as an antebellum slave, tough guy. You don’t know what 19th-century chattel slavery was – and equating your current situation in the United States to that kind of slavery shows what a complete joke, crank, and loon that you are.

      • mark

        Yeah, he used U.S troops and weapons – against fully-armed traitors and insurrectionists who attacked a U.S. fort, Ft. Sumter. Attack one today and we will do the same to you. Defeat you and humilitate you for the traitor that you are.

      • Joe H.

        mark,
        have YOU ever had to call any man “Master”? Or do you just pick up the cloak of slavery to wear as a point of contention that you have no FIRST HAND knowledge of what so ever??? I dare you to find one person that either owned or was a slave in the civil war times!! you can’t. in fact, I have ancestors that fought on BOTH sides of the war. NONE of them OWNED slaves nor supported it as far as we can tell from their writtings! Grow up and quit being a VICTIM! The only thing holding you back in life is YOURSELF!!

    • Shavis

      Well said, Michael!

blog comments powered by Disqus
Bottom