Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Abraham Lincoln, Political Tyrant

February 11, 2011 by  

Abraham Lincoln, Political Tyrant

We’ve spent a lot of time recently bashing “the worst President who ever lived.” (That’s the description of the current occupant of the White House by many of my readers.) Instead, this week let’s do something different. Let’s turn our attention to the President whose birthday we celebrate tomorrow… the Great Emancipator, who is generally acclaimed as the greatest American President of them all.

But was he, really?

I don’t know what they teach in United States history classes today, but back in the middle of the last century, when I was in elementary school, there was absolutely no question about how we were to regard Abraham Lincoln. We were taught to feel a reverence bordering on awe for Honest Abe, the eloquent martyr who saved the Union.

We were required to memorize the Gettysburg Address. And if we were lucky enough to join a field trip to our nation’s capital, one of the most significant events was our visit to the Lincoln Memorial. (A few of us rapscallions spoiled the solemnity of the moment by sliding down the sides of the monument.)

That was what we were taught in the grade schools of Cleveland. And I suspect it wasn’t any different in any other school in the North. Some of you sons and daughters of the South will have to tell me what your teachers and history books said.

It wasn’t until I became an adult and started reading history on my own that I began to doubt the version of events I was taught several decades earlier. For example, did you know that Lincoln suspended civil liberties in the North, including the writ of habeas corpus? That he filled the jails with more than 13,000 political prisoners, all incarcerated without due process? The Supreme Court protested Lincoln’s disregard for our Constitutional protections, but the President replied he had a war to fight. Since he commanded the army, Lincoln won that argument.

And speaking of the war, guess who uttered these words:

"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, which 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 their territory as they inhabit."

I’ll admit this is a trick question. The speaker was Lincoln. But he was not talking about the Southern states that tried to secede from the Union. No, these remarks were made in 1847, when Lincoln was defending the right of Texans to demand their independence from Mexico. A dozen years later, when six Southern states tried to declare their independence, Lincoln’s response was to smash them to bits.

As a child, I never questioned the assertion that the South was wrong to secede. And that Lincoln was right to use as much force as necessary to preserve the Union. Later, as I grew to understand the strength and uniqueness of our Constitutional Republic, I began to question both assumptions.

The U.S. Constitution, I came to believe, was a contract — a contract between the various states and the Federal government they created. Note that the Constitution had to be approved by the states, not a majority of the citizens. There was no "majority rule" here, no popular vote taken.

But this raises the question, if it was necessary for the states to adopt the Constitution, why wouldn’t it be legal for some of those states to rescind that vote, especially if they felt the contract had been broken? More and more, I found myself thinking that the South was legally and morally right in declaring its independence. And the North, by invading those states and waging war on them, was wrong.

And what a terrible war it was. By the time it was over, nearly 625,000 soldiers (and another 75,000 or so women, children and elderly civilians) were dead — more American servicemen than were killed in World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War combined. Fully one-fourth of the draft-age white population of the South was dead.

The devastation in the former States of the Confederacy is hard to imagine. Sherman’s march from Atlanta to Savannah is notorious for its savagery. But he was far from the only Northern officer who ordered his troops to lay waste to Southern farms, fields and plantations. Union troops routinely destroyed crops, sacked homes and even stabled their horses in Southern churches.

As H.W. Crocker III puts it in The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War (Regnery Publishing, 2008), "If abiding by the law of a free republic and fighting a defensive war solely against armed combatants be flaws, the South had them and the North did not. Lincoln ignored the law, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court when it suited him. His armies waged war on the farms, livelihoods and people of the South, not just against their armies."

Of all the big lies about the War Between the States, the biggest of all may be that it was necessary to end slavery. The truth is that many illustrious Southerners, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, recognized that slavery had to come to an end. But it should not come by force of arms, they felt; not at the point of a gun, but rather through the free consent of the owners, with the proper preparation of the slaves. To get them ready for their own freedom, for example, Lee’s wife insisted the family’s slaves be taught to read and write, and the women how to sew.

Despite what most of us have been taught, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves. It wasn’t a law, but an edict. It specifically exempted the Border States and any parts of the South that were already under the control of Federal forces. It applied only to areas that were still in rebellion. So the Proclamation, of and by itself, did not free a single slave.

What it did, however, was change the nature of the conflict. Now the war was no longer about restoring the Union or preventing Southern independence. Now it was about the morality, and the legality, of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation did not make the war more popular in the North, but it did end the possibility of other countries, especially France and Britain, from coming to the aid of the South. They might have been willing to assist Southern independence; but support a war in favor of slavery? Never.

As Crocker notes, "In Southern eyes, the Emancipation Proclamation was the ultimate in Yankee perfidy — an attempt to incite slave uprisings against Confederate women and children."

Then he notes, "Happily, while the proclamation did encourage slaves to seek their freedom, there were no slave uprisings, no murders of women and children — which might say something good about Southerners too, both white and black."

Lincoln, more than any other President who came before him, changed the very nature of our government. There would never again be as many limitations on the powers of the Federal government. And just as tragic, the concept of States’ rights suffered a blow from which it has never recovered.

I’m told that more than 14,000 books have been written about Lincoln. Most, of course, are incredibly adulatory. The few that attempt to balance the scales are virtually ignored. While it may not be true that might makes right, it is definitely true that the winners write the history books.

If you’re open-minded enough to consider another point of view, let me recommend two books by Thomas J. DiLorenzo to you: The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked. In these two books he presents a vastly different view of Abraham Lincoln than you’ve heard before, I promise.

Both are available at (What isn’t?) Also, do yourself a favor and go to the website of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, where DiLorenzo serves as a senior fellow. You’ll find an extensive selection of articles, essays, and yes, books you can order that are way out of the academic mainstream.

So there you have this contrarian’s view of Abraham Lincoln. I’m eager to hear what some of you think — especially the sons and daughters of the South, whom I suspect, were raised with a somewhat different slant than I.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

Chip Wood

is the geopolitical editor of He is the founder of Soundview Publications, in Atlanta, where he was also the host of an award-winning radio talk show for many years. He was the publisher of several bestselling books, including Crisis Investing by Doug Casey, None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham and The War on Gold by Anthony Sutton. Chip is well known on the investment conference circuit where he has served as Master of Ceremonies for FreedomFest, The New Orleans Investment Conference, Sovereign Society, and The Atlanta Investment Conference.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Abraham Lincoln, Political 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

  • s c

    To me, the lesson to be learned from the Civil War is the idea that we’re not that far from another. This time, Uncle Scam is the villain. Washington is Uncle Scam’s “crib,” and Uncle Scam will do whatever it takes to have and hold absolute power over the American people.
    We do need another Lincoln. This ‘Abe’ must free every American slave from Uncle Scam’s evil grasp. It is entirely possible that we will see a modern version of deeds and characters that mirror the days from 1861 to 1865. Throw in the collapse of the dollar, and we have the makings of an international event.
    It’s going to get interesting, people. Are you ready?

    • Richard

      Right sc,
      Lincoln saved the Nation from the Southerners who thought that only French goods were good enough for their fancypants. American goods were too utilitarian for them. So they said the hell with American Indusrty – we want free trade. Lincoln was elected because of his campaign – Protect the Home Markets. Now here we are with free trade and a real unemployment rate of over 20%. It will take someone to rise up as a great leader like Lincoln did because the American people aren’t protecting their markets and themselves.

      • Gordon in Texas

        I agree with both of you. The civil war was fought over shipping and the economy. If the Southern States did leave the Union the North would suffer, as the best ports were in the southeast. The freeing of slaves was a ploy brought about by those who wanted to idolize Lincoln and bring down the South. Lincoln was a dictator.

        • Richard

          Ports didn’t matter as much as all industry was in the North. Free trade meant that the infant industry of the US would be demolished as is happening now. France was preparing to enter the war alongside the South. France had abolished slavery and had turned anti-slavery. Emancipation was the only option to sway the French people against joining the South.

          • Pathfinder

            @ Richard : Glad to see that you admit that emancipation was only a ploy to keep France out of the war.

        • Michael in Iowa

          He sure was. He established the dictatorship of the Federal Government.

          • Bruce D.

            Those who are concerned about States Rights and original intent of the Constitution have to question Lincoln’s place in history. He was the person single most responsible for destroying original intent. It has been under assault ever sense. Today the Constitution has little or no meaning for activist judges and those on the left who wish to dominate individuals and society by abusive Federal power which at this time is rampant.

          • Pete

            Y’all should read Ward Moore’s book “Bring the Jubilee” on what would have happen if the Confederacy “won” the Battle of Gettysburg. Here is the wikipedia article hyperlink


        • Martin

          Yes Lincoln was a dictator. And you are correct. The Civil war was about taxation without representation. It wasn’t about slavery until the war was almost over and lincoln needed a reason to be killing so many americans. How many did he Kill, one out of every 3. If a dictator did that today he would be executed for war crimes. Lincoln was a low life who sent his murderers and rapists South to force them into submission. And this continued after the war was over for many years. And by the way, General Custer was a low life murderer and rapist.

          • http://personallibertydigest Brad

            Lincoln nearly destroyed this nation and Custer got what he deserved.

        • JUKEBOX

          I wonder how many people know that Lincoln called the most prominent black leaders of the time to his office and told them that they should try to gather as many blacks as possible, and return with them to Africa. This movement established the country of Liberia in Africa.
          Lincoln also told them that he did not believe that blacks and whites could live together in harmony.

        • YH

          Slavery was the engine of the souths economy. The souths wealth hinged on enslaved labor. Do you debate that fact?

      • dan

        not so DICK…more about cotton sold to England and excise/import taxes/tariffs levied against it by federal legislature controlled by corporate/industrialists (sound familiar?) and requiring all goods to
        be shipped to England through New England ports (Boston/New York)
        instead of southern ports of New Orleans and Savannah in what I was a concession to the political cabal that allied itself against the agrarian south.

        • BigBadJohn

          Exactly right Dan, The north was hurting and in a number of recessions, the South was prospering because of “King Cotton” so the North wanted the south to share that prosperity.

          • JUKEBOX

            That sounds like Obama saying today, “SHARE THE WEALTH”. The northern legislators were the ones that passed the law about 2/3 vote for blacks, because we had so many in the South, we could have the power.

          • Vigilant

            And why was “King Cotton” so lucrative? SLAVERY! It couldn’t exist without it.

            I’m getting tired of the Southern revisionist historians denigrating Lincoln, and that now goes for the Libertarians as well. Thanks a lot, Chip, for cooperating with the leftists in this country to revise American History and further erode confidence in our GREAT leaders.

            Those who would be apologists for slavery in the South, and assert that it had little to do with the Civil War, are just plain stupid. Anyone who has truly studied Lincoln with an open mind would know that he abhorred the idea of Civil War, that he made his views on slavery very well known on numerous occasions prior to the War, and that slavery was by no means a dead issue.

            The CSA constitution, available for all to read on the internet, advocated extension of slavery into the new territories and states that they wanted to perpetuate this abominable institution. Their talk of a second “war of independence” is ludicrous, as they would have kept the slaves in chains forever and denied them their independence.

          • Pete


            If my memory is serving me correctly, I think Southern slaveholders were down to four percent of Southern population. I have no figures on Northern slavery. Half the slaveowners lived with their slaves and worked besides them on small farms. The other half were the plantation owners…..

            SO 96% of the Southern population, at the time of Lincoln, were freemen who owned zero slaves …

            The IMPORT OF SLAVES from Africa was illegal at this time. The flag of the CONFEDERACY NEVER FLEW ABOVE A SLAVERS SHIP !

            Except for some INBRED PLANTATION OWNERS the ownership of slaves was on it’s WAY OUT throughout AMERICA, NORTH and SOUTH !

            THE STARS and STRIPES – OLD GLORY, The flag of the USA flew above many slaver ships …. the same flag used by “The Union”…..

            Jefferson Davis, after the war, sold his plantation to one of his former black slaves … correct me if I’m wrong, I’m a Yankee from the North and my great great grandfather fought in the Northern Army of Agression ….


            The poorer, genetically sound, (not inbred) slaveowners owned probably like one slave. That slave was treated like the rest of the family – de facto, (but a slave legally) – they even went to church together ….. no segregation there !

            Honest Abe honestly wanted to keep those tariffs coming in for the Federal coffers. Southern independence was interpreted as a tax (tariffs) rebellion. The darn inbred plantation owners wouldn’t budge because they were mentally deficient …. literally INBRED ! Like the Kings and Queens of Europe were at that time ! or the banjo playing hill billy on the movie “DELIVERANCE” …. they had always been pampered and felt the war would be over in a few weeks … stupid ‘tards !

            So their you have it … Mental Deficient Inbred Plantation Owners who looked butt ugly ! And were dumb as cow manure !

            You have all them tariffs coming in – the South was WEALTHIER and RICHER than the NORTH !!!

            You have them poor farmer slaveowners, simple folk (but not inbred – they were intelligent Johnny Rebs !) treating their slaves practically equal to the rest of the family …..

            And then it’s all “Gone With the Wind” …… the NORTHERN INVADERS BURN ALL THE FACTORIES, BLOW UP ALL THE SHIPS, BLOCKADE ALL THE PORTS, BURN DOWN MANY OF THE TOWNS and relocate many captive Southerners to Northern cities …. but the inbred white plantation owners (who needed plastic surgery because they were so butt ugly) were not committed to asylums …

            So the initial reason for Northern Agression against the Confederacy was tariffs. When the Southern economy WAS RUTHLESSLY DESTROYED the reason was conveniently switched to “slavery” …

          • Vigilant

            Pete says, “…Southern slaveholders were down to four percent of Southern population. I have no figures on Northern slavery. Half the slaveowners lived with their slaves and worked besides them on small farms. The other half were the plantation owners…..

            SO 96% of the Southern population, at the time of Lincoln, were freemen who owned zero slaves.”

            And your point is….what? I’m sure those figures meant a lot to the slaves in Mississippi and South Carolina, who outnumbered the whites in total population, BUT HAD ABSOLUTELY NO VOTE, NO SAY IN HOW THEIR LIVES WERE TO BE CONDUCTED, WERE UNABLE TO KEEP THEIR FAMILIES TOGETHER, COULD HAVE THEIR LIVES SNUFFED OUT OR BE BEATEN FOR MINOR INFRACTIONS, etc., etc.

            Over four million blacks were slaves in 1860, and the Constitution of the CSA would have perpetuated that evil institution into the new territories and states. And you say it was on the way out? You bet your ass it was, and it took thousands of deaths and years of civil war to do it!

            That ANYONE could try to soften, mitigate, rationalize or condone the evils of slavery, or in ANY way say that things really weren’t all that bad needs to have their head examined. We fought a Revolutionary War over slavery, if you will, on the part of Great Britain, and to enshrine the ideals, nay the RIGHTS of life, LIBERTY and pursuit of happiness.

            Tell you what, Pete, I’ll buy you and your wife and kids and you can come here to work for me on the farm. The hours are long and hard, but you’re guaranteed two or three meals a day and a place to sleep, OK? I won’t beat you, and you might even get some pocket change from me or perhaps a turkey at Christmas, but that’s about it. Of course, if I take a fancy to your wife you’ll have to put up with it, ’cause that’s the way the system works. And if I decide to sell off one of your kids, that’s kosher too.

            Now I may be only one of a few percent of people who own slaves, so that should be OK with you

          • Vigilant

            And BTW, Pete, I really wonder about your obsession with inbreeding. Doesn’t strike close to home, does it?

          • Pete


            White Europeans pretty much stopped being slaves about 500 years ago (exception is the Slavs in Eastern Europe). Africans pretty much stopped being slaves 150 years ago …

            Hey, you know whats going to happen. If you take a liking to my wife – Master Vigilant, that’s OK ! If Missus Vigilant takes a liking to me, that’s OK with me too ! Your wife has my son – and you won’t even know !! Heh Heh !!

            Those Old Latin Families sure had it good ! Lucky Romans !

          • Pete


            About the inbreeding, you got to look at some of the photographs, those woman didn’t look like Olivia De Havilland ….

          • Pete

            Hey Master Vigilant,

            Take care of my, oops, your boy !

        • ValDM

          Also, don’t forget the railroads of the South. The robber barons o fhte North just couldn’t stand the idea of not having their greedy mitts on these profit makers. They tried to “nationalize” them in that day, and the South just wasn’t having any of that.

      • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Lisa

        The South had a right to trade with whomever they chose. That is the whole point of a republic and states rights.

        • kate8

          The thing about history books is that they promote the bias of whoever writes them. How can we ever know the actual truth about history, about the who and why of events, and what doors were left open for future turns.

          It’s frustrating. I suppose we need to always bear in mind that men are always deeply flawed, subject to personal interests and, perhaps, that they feel that they are following a calling.

          It’s not so bad growing up believing in American heros and holding them up as ideals to emulate. Perhaps more important than trying to figure out the truth about history is figuring out what we can learn from what we believe about it, and how to apply that for a betterment of our today.

          • http://donthaveone Beberoni

            I agree with you Kate. Everyone can write about history, and apparently anymore, re-write history to read it as they think it should have been. Who is to say who is telling the truth and who isnt. Who can truly examine the mans heart and know if in his mind he was doing what he thought best for the country, or for himself. If for the country, then as president, that is what he was paid to do. On the other hand, only going on the the current level of politicians from Illinois, who know what was going on in his heart and mind. Its not like Illinois has ever had a politician that wasnt rotten or crime connected in one way or another, and its even worse now. When youve got a guy that is a higher up in the Federal Government, and he walks away and quits to go try to become the mayor of Chicago, wow, that says loads. But each author of books can present compelling points and make it appear as their version is the truth. Who knows, I dont. I wasnt there. And like you said, I chose to learn from things, and try to make things better for myself and my fellow man, not sit there and point fingers and place blame, not offering any solutions to making things better, like some current administration we have now.

          • http://none BobM

            You are so right. Human life is a journey of travails, Socrates’ shadows on the cave walls. Without ideals we have no inkling of choice or path. The truth is; we have too little of either. The South over time felt little or no allegiance to the North, falling prey to its own vices for luxury and separation of powers. While the North gasped for survival without the South’s mercantile allegiance. Since the Declaration and rancor surrounding the first writing of the Constitution, the South saw and believed the North had little interest in their way of life, but compelled the constitution delete the abolition of slavery. This conciliation from the Northern Colonies codified the Force majeure needed to depose a King. Jefferson, himself a slave owner, remarked that slavery would be ‘the dog that would come back to bite us’, and as he foresaw….it certainly did, and has in a big way. By default our Constitution declares a preservation of the Union. While no other nation on earth that partook in that evil suffered as we have, it is because our Judeo-Christianity, conscience and remorse, that we begged providences’ punishing retribution. Essentially the US paid the price for the soul of the world at the expense of family and fortune, but most certainly not our future. A debt paid is a debt forgiven. In this sense, “An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” was modern man’s unlearned lesson, learned. Where now does the rest of the world turn for Democracy?

            The dissolution of the Union guaranteed perpetuation of slavery at least until the industrial revolution’s mechanical productivity would serve as suitable substitute for slavery to the agrarian economies. The South would most certainly not have forfeited this practice had its growing relation with Europe continued to flourish.

            Lincoln saw many things about Europe and France in particular that were ‘unhealthy’ for Americans. He saw, for instance, a ruling class and aristocracy developing between the Southern States and Europe. History is not above all else, isolated from itself. The French Revolution was seen throughout the world as a bellwether or turning point for humanity that had worldwide ramifications, our revolution being one. But its eventual secularism was in conflict with the mores of our Union. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on August 26 1789 held that “the source of all sovereignty is located in the NATION; no body, no individual can exercise authority which does not emanate from it expressly” (Noll, 2000, p.247).

            (I put forth to you Chip Wood, this confrontation was a legitimate and codified ideological war ruled by the tenets of our Constitution, signed to by all parties concerned). Winner takes all! Once elected, Jefferson Davis gathered those states that opted in to secession a month before Lincoln took office, then struck the first blow at Ft. Sumter, all this for the want of a ‘French Doily’.

            Now I offer you Chip Wood’s isolated Lincoln quote: “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, which 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 their territory as they inhabit.”
            Mr. Wood… revolutions have outcomes.

            Just more food for thought begore one engages in the condemnation of Mr. Lincoln.

        • Richard

          Lisa, nobody stopped the South from trading with anyone.
          The Republic had did the right thing and protected it’s markets. No point in having a Republic if you don’t protect the markets because all forms of protection for a free Republic rely on the markets.
          As we are plainly seeing now, our Republic will be just like our trading partners. Has to be, free trade means wages for workers fall to the lowest paid amongst the trading partners. Since Americans won’t work for a few dollars a day – industry leaves in favor of child and slave labor market. So the choice comes – work for the lowest pay or lose your Republic. All simply eliminated by just protecting the markets – industry thrives, high unemployment ends.

          • Levon

            Have you even considered that a lot of buisness have moved from the United States because of the EPA and not because of labor?
            I agree that the South should have been free to trade with anyone they wanted to,they produced it so it belonged to them not the North.

          • Richard

            Certainly Levon,
            Polluters will always want to get away with polluting. The amount of industry lost here because of the desire to pollute is small compared to the amount of industry lost to child and slave labor markets.

      • Bus

        there are so many factual and interpreational errors in your piece that I won’t even bother addressing them. But what your article points out is that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Lincoln and the millions who chose to fight for the Union felt these breaches to the peacetime interpretation of the constitution were necessary.
        The constitutional writers realized that in a state of war many protections could and should be removed. That’s why modern presidents look for a war to wage (even if its never declared) because then they can stretch their powers, (Patriot Act).
        Did you know he also started the “National Banking System”? Horrors. Aren’t there enough enemies running around today, do you have to dredge up people of the past and falsly villify them based on present interpretations of morality?

        • http://donthaveone Beberoni

          Yeah, Saddam Hussein was a nice guy that never did nothing to nobody, and we should have left him alone to build his weapons and get nuclear arms to blow us to hell and back. Yeah, we just needed a war and made him up. I mean, those 13 years of sanctions didnt mean anything did they? And that list of WMD’S they inventoried when Clinton was president, and they all mysteriously disappeared, that didnt mean anything either. Its just all an illegal war someone did just for the hell of it, with absolutely nothing for them to gain. Do you now see how sick your statement is? The guy you all blame and point fingers at, and talk war for oil and balderdash like that, is gone and has been for over 2 years. Retired. There is no oil. He gained nothing, except finally striking back at an enemy that exploited the weakness of the left to not strike back after being attacked again and again and again. Give it a rest.

        • http://FoxNews Oldman

          Bus, you young people are talking about the morality of long ago and not the present. Anytime our morality changes, we as a people have a problem

          All four of my great-grandfathers were in the Confederate Army. Why? They were Southerns. They knew the US Constitution and what it said. They all began to hate Lincoln long before the war started. I was taught to believe he did not follow the Constitution. If you know nothing about common law and law of the land, you will never be able to understand history.

          Long live my ancestors, man who came to Virginia in the early 1600s as this country became a Colony, and many who fought for our United States to be born, and many of us have fought, not just talked, over many years.

          Long live the ancestors.

          • JUKEBOX

            My great grandfather was also a Captain in the Confederate Army, and I remember the stories of how the “CARPETBAGGERS” came to the South to roughshod over the defeated trash. In those days, that was the original purpose of the KKK, to protect the South from the atrocities of the famed General Sherman. The war WAS about money.

          • http://donthaveone Beberoni

            Had the South won, I have no doubt, we would be a much strong, much more a We the People country than we are now. And Im from the North, but we would be far better had the south prevailed.

          • http://none BobM

            Hey Jukebox…maybe they shouldn’t have shot Lincoln. They eliminated their hope for a decent reconstruction but with him out of the way chaos ruled, fortunately, not in the South’s favor.

        • Void1972

          “Lincoln and the millions who chose to fight for the Union felt these breaches to the peacetime interpretation of the constitution were necessary.”
          The majority of “those who choes to fight for the Union” were Irish immigrants that had no choice in the matter.
          New York had a massive riot over this truth, that wealthy man could buy their sons out of service, and the poor would be made to fight.
          Most of the Union Army was against the war, but had no choice in the matter.

      • Jim Harrison

        Protective tariffs are mercantilist in nature. This was the attitude of the British Government toward the American colonies. mercantilism holds that colonies exist for subservience to the mother country. Lincoln and his cohorts endeavored to turn the South into colonies, subservient to their interests. This is why the Northern states wanted every slave to be counted as ONLY three fifths of a person in the census. This weakened Southern political clout in the House of representatives.

        Furthermore, it is not free trade that is hurting America economically; it is unionism, environmentalism, and draconian government regulation that is sending our jobs overseas. If we could drill for oil, build nuclear power plants and shut down the Federal Reserve printing presses, it would be a giant step toward REAL and lasting economic recovery!

        • Richard

          Of course tariffs are mercantilist, you either protect your mercantile or lose it. Of course unionism hurts when corporations can leave and not have to pay a decent wage and then not face a tariff. Of course, if we eliminate the right to organize for workers (unionize) then we should fairly eliminate the right to organize for business (incorporate). If workers have to be individually responsible for handling all matters then all owners should be responsible in the same way – but shareholders will never go for that. Of course environmentalism will drive out industry as long as countries that don’t care about being ruined by pollution can host the industry and no tariff makes it unfeasible. I don’t know who told you we can’t drill for oil – but that is complete BS. Nuclear power plants? There is no such thing as a nuclear power plant that is worth building – uranium is going up and is a very limited commodity and there is no way to handle the disposal of used materials – it is completely idiotic. Stopping the Federal Reserve would be the best thing that could ever happen. But it will never happen – they own you, you are property. Americans don’t have the balls to do anything about their owners.

          • JUKEBOX

            I’m wondering when the South will be retaliated against for our ever expanding auto industry: Mercedes, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, VW, Kia, & Hyundai. GM & Ford have closed many of their plants in the South. It won’t be long before the jealousy of the northern iron belt states will precipitate some type of illegal action against us, like OBAMACARE.

        • Vigilant

          “Lincoln and his cohorts endeavored to turn the South into colonies, subservient to their interests. This is why the Northern states wanted every slave to be counted as ONLY three fifths of a person in the census. This weakened Southern political clout in the House of representatives.”

          Jim, your understanding of the 3/5 compromise is totally misguided. The compromise was reached to save the Constitution; it could not have been ratified without it. Why? Because the slaveholders wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

          The Southern bastards wanted representation in Congress based on total state population, including slaves! Of course, it didn’t matter that the slaves in fact had no say whatsoever in government because the South considered them as property, not human beings.

          The North said, “you can’t have it both ways.” You either free them to become full fledged citizens with voting rights, or you relinquish any claim to representing them. OF COURSE it weakened the political clout that the south felt entitled to, but without the 3/5 compromise, they would have had even less clout.

          Even Frederick Douglass understood the import of the compromise, and it was rightly considered an anti-slavery measure, not a pro-slavery one. And if you consider this to be punishment of the south by taking away legitimate representation, then you must be a pro-slavery person.

          Facts are indeed stubborn things. You might want to read an unbiased history book some time.

          • http://donthaveone Beberoni

            There are also many, many accounts out there, that the rich Northerners also had slaves, and were much more arrogant about it.

          • Pete


            That’s pretty liberal, at least a slave counted as 3/5 a person, I don’t think they counted that much at any other time in history .. Crazy Americans !

          • Vigilant

            That’s OK Pete. I would never expect a person of normal intelligence to turn every serious discussion into a joke.

      • DaveH

        Here we are with Free Trade? Surely, you say that in jest Richard? You mean we can still buy and sell freely if the Government approves?
        We haven’t had Free Trade in the last 100 years.
        For anybody who is interested in understanding the economy, just go to the website that Chip recommended:

        • Richard

          Understanding the economy is extremely simple. If you don’t apply the tariffs that are great forefathers knew had to be, then you lose. Simple fact that wages have to fall to the lowest amongst trading partners. If the wages don’t fall then the jobs go. The only way to have industry is to protect it – just as our forefathers did.

          • DaveH

            Simple for those who don’t understand it. Here is a free online book detailing the mistakes of the Great Depression, including protectionism:

          • Richard

            You mean here’s a pdf the international bankers that want people to fall for free trade have made. The depression was caused by bankers – not smart protectionism.

          • DaveH

            You think so, huh? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that protecting companies of people from competition is no different than protecting individuals from life by giving them welfare. Both result in lazier, less productive people.

          • DaveH

            So, Richard, you dismiss a book without reading it? How convenient.
            Protectionism is pushed by companies who don’t want to be subjected to the rigors of competition. That comes at the expense of higher prices to the consumers and lost jobs to the innovative people that would be their competitors without the added expense of regulatory hurdles meant to favor Crony-Capitalists.

          • DaveH

            And finally, Richard, I want to address your unfounded accusation that the book is a front for central bankers. If you knew anything about Murray Rothbard (the author), you would know that he is a staunch Libertarian, and we Libertarians are the only political party calling for the elimination of central banks.
            Read the book. Learn something.

          • Richard

            Libertarians are very often tools used by the international bankers, especially in support of free trade. Protecting your markets has nothing to do with protecting companies from competition. Other American companies are allowed to compete freely, and protection in the form of tariffs that allow our markets to survive don’t stop foreign competition from competing – it just stops them from ruining our markets as is happening now. And in the case of quality – if Americans don’t keep it as high as it should be – the tariff won’t stop the poor quality company from failing. There are plenty of fronts for the bankers – Cato (especially so) ,the Libertarian party, the Democrat party, the Republican party, and many think tank members at heritage, etc.

          • DaveH

            Richard says “Libertarians are very often tools used by the international bankers”. So you honestly expect people to believe your fabricated facts, Richard, when the Libertarians are among the few people calling for non-fiat collateralized money?
            I think, Richard, that you are a front for International Bankers. See, I can fabricate facts like you can.

          • DaveH

            For those who might (through ignorance) swallow Richard’s fabricated facts:

          • Richard

            There are plenty of Americans of all parties calling for the elimination of the Fed and fiat tripe. When you get a little older with some experience you will most likely begin to see how things actually work since you seem bright. The bankers use the right heavily, they use the left heavily, they use think tanks very heavily. Places like Cato would simply cease to exist without the banker’s dollars funding them.

          • DaveH

            So, here’s a guy who won’t read a book, because he’s afraid apparently that he might learn something, admonishing me to get more experience. What a joke.
            Ask yourself folks — Do you want Free Markets where you make the choice of which products to buy, where you succeed or fail based on the amount of effort you want to exert? Or do you want Richard’s idea of good economics where you hire unproductive bureaucrats to make your choices for you, and pay them dearly to make those choices for you? What’s dearly? Right now the Government sucks up over 40% of our financial and physical resources. Imagine how many more goods and services we could buy if we saved just half of that money (Government spending at 1950s levels).

          • DaveH

            Speaking of experience, anybody who has been around since the 1960s knows just how shoddy American cars were becoming until the Japanese automakers started selling quality cars to us. Without that competition we would be taking out ten year mortgages to buy our American cars and they would have been of much poorer quality. Without that foreign competition the Union auto workers would be even fatter and happier at our expense. That’s protectionism in a nutshell.

          • Richard

            David, I don’t know who told you I didn’t read the book. I will now admonish you on comprehension. Nowhere do I state to hire unproductive bureaucrats – your comprehension sucks. Or is it that you do understand and know you can’t win? You post about succeeding based on effort – that is the way it should be – but cannot be with free trade in a free nation – because success depends on being cheaper than the nations that are not free. Bringing up the 1950s is awesome – a great era. After the depression followed by WWII, America was heavily in debt yet rose above it. How did America rise then to become an industrial superpower with a great standard of living in the 1950s? Protecting the markets!!!

          • Richard

            So Dave you don’t believe Americans can compete with each other and someone would have started making quality cars to compete?

          • DaveH

            You’re admonishing me, Richard? You have provided no evidence or logic to support your claims. Instead you have repeatedly stated such nonsense as our “Forefathers” knew tariffs were necessary, and personal attacks on me.
            Tariffs only enrich Government coffers and their Crony Capitalists. The rest of us are stuck with paying the higher prices and suffering with the lesser quality that results when people or companies are protected from competition. If you did read the book, then you know that a large factor in the Great Depression was Protectionism which led to the balkinization of trade amongst our former trading partners. Tariffs are just yet another scheme employed by Government to transfer our wealth to theirs and their Crony Capitalists’ pockets.
            A Free people can choose where to spend their own money without interference from Big Government.

          • DaveH

            And Richard,
            Speaking of sucky comprehension, I said the 1960s, not the 1950s. Maybe you need some new reading glasses?

          • http://donthaveone Beberoni

            When you install protections that dont allow free trade, meaning I decide as the buyer whom I want to purchase from, and dictate to me that I can only buy from 1 or 2 places, and count out 3 and 4, your doing everyone a great injustice. Let the free market work, and keep government out of it. Expanding government is wherein the problem originated and still is. The free market will dictate who is successful and who isnt, because we can buy from whom we please, not being forced to pay an inflated price because of government interferance. That is what is happening now.

          • Pete


            The fallacy of your view is it doesn’t take into account the nation state. You assume moral sanction of buying from another nation/state is good because the price is lower.

            Nation/states do exist, and the government of these nation/states should make sure their citizens get the better deal. The US government has reneged on this with NAFTA and out trade with China ….

            In other words – preverting your prophetess Ayn Rand’s Objectivist reasoning – the normative function of government is to protect their people. Free trade in Libertarian (an Mises) reasoning is relegated to a dysfuntional use of government.

            Hi Libertarians ! I have some bad news for you, GOVERNEMNTS EXIST AND SHOULD FAVOR THE PEOPLE THEY GOVERN …. Y’know existence exist also ?

            By FIAT when I allow my people to trade with THE COMMIES in China I am arming my enemy…. Didn’t you read Atlas Shrugged where Ragnar Danneksjold is the capitalist pirate, sinking all those Socialist countries who had “free trade ” agreements with the USA?

            Why aren’t you Libertarians doing the same thing ? John Galt said he would put an end to all the socialist garbage ….

            I’ll tell you why, because “free trade” helps you rationalize that trading with the bad guys is good.

            No wonder you are know as Rand’s illegitimate children …

            Oh, by the way, I’m not a capitalist nor a socialist … I’m an advocate of technology …

          • Pete


            I apologize, that monologue of nonsense I just spouted was directed at DaveH !

            Forgive a senile fool …

          • Pete

            DaveH and Vigilant

            I’m just talking out of back orifice .. don’t take it wrong .
            Things are pretty boring right now at the funny farm, they revoked our TV priviliges for a week for not taking our meds, no more Star Trek …

      • Penny R. Freeman

        It’s obvious Richard that you think the entire South was plantations and slave owners. Well you can think again. There were the wealthy in the South, but there weren’t that many plantations. Most people were just everyday working folks trying to support their families back then just like they are today. Yes, I’m from the South y’all and proud of it. I’ve lived here my entire life. The farthest north I have ever bothered to travel is St. Louis, MO. And for your info Chip when I was in school we were taught the same things about Lincoln that you were. What makes you think textbooks down here differ from those anywhere else, except possibly looney tunes California? But the farther I went in school the more I read and learned about the war and the way our states were treated by the North. There’s one thing that you Yankees never have understood about Southerners, back then especially, honor and respect were valued even above money. Yes I do know Robert E. Lee lead the Confederate army, but if you don’t know he did that reluctantly. He went to West Point just like Grant did and really didn’t want to see the war start. But his allegiance to his troops kept him from standing against them, that’s why he became the South’s lead general. And yes I have read about what would now be termed war crimes that were committed by Lincoln and the northern troops. But if you ask me we now have the worst president in office we’ve ever had. He is deliberately spending this country into financial destruction. No, you Yankees don’t make the assumption that I’m criticizing Obama because of the color of his skin. I probably have more African-American friends than I do white. I was taught early on by my mother who grew up in Missouri that prejudice is wrong. I criticize Obama because I have never liked his liberal/socialist agenda. He’s spending away my children’s future and destroying this country in the process. Besides if you can’t tell just by watching him that everything he says is a lie, you’re not paying attention. The only time he comes close to even delivering a speech that might make him appear favorable is when he has his campaign manager in the background probably writing or assisting writing his speeches. Did any of you take note of how he quickly backed the protestors in Egypt, but since the Tea Party were criticizing him he quickly called them every name he could to invalidate their protests? I understand Oprah Winfrey made a public statement about how she expected people to respect him because of the office he holds. Well I respect the office, but not the person in it. He has shown nothing from day one but total disrespect for the American public. Until he shows respect for ALL of us (not just his labor union boss buddies, George Soros, and his select others) he’ll not gain any respect or vote from me. The first day I showed up to work at a manufacturing plant years ago and saw that almost everyone else was African-American I really didn’t know what to expect. I was respected more and treated like a part of the group from the minute I walked in than our current liar-in-chief has ever respected anyone outside his little inner circle. Too bad people don’t have proof on some of the things rumored about him. If they did we’d save ourselves and this country a lot by being able to impeach his constantly spending a**!

    • Dave

      (Offensive attack removed) as usual,. Your view of the world should scare any intelligent person, and probably does. What do you think about Obama helping to encourage a peaceful change to democracy instead of going to war and killing thousands to try to force it, by the way? You say in your article that Lincoln told Texas it has the right to secede from Mexico but didn’t allow the south to secede from the US. Well, let’s see, maybe it’s because he wasn’t the president of Mexico. Maybe the southerners who seceded were treasonous and needed to be dealt with. Was the south really going to just coexist next to the north. What about manifest destiny? What about solidarity? Can states just secede from the country they supposedly love because they can’t their way? Are they spoiled little children who try to emancipate themselves from their family because they have to go to bed at 8:00? PLEASE, everyone here who believes what this man is saying, PLEASE read a book with facts in it. YOu don’t have to believe the “liberal media” Just don’t believe Fox and people like Chip Wood instead. People like Chip constantly tell you the sky is falling and then when bad things inevitably happen they say “I told you so. I’ve been telling you along. See, I’m right about everything. Listen to my lunacy.” That’s how people like Hitler and Mao and Stalin come into being. Sure he uses Capitalism and freedom talk instead of communist talk but he’s doing the same thing. He’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Don’t you notice how he tells you armageddon is coming and then every other email is tryign to sell you stuff to help you survive armageddon. Do you see how he and people like Glenn Beck push buying gold and scare you into it then they make money off of selling you the gold? Just think twice and let’s all try to work together and not let people like Chip and Rupert Murdoch divide us for profit and a feeling of self worth.

      • Granny Mae


        Well I guess you think most people out here don’t have a mind of their own nor are they capable of sorting out information and comming to their own conclusions on most any matter. Wow ! I see more interpretations of ever idea and thought in these blogs than anywhere. I listen to Beck and CNN and HNN and CBS,NBC, and sometimes ABC. I also get several mailings from many sources and some of them sell a lot of things out there and still I haven’t bought the first thing from any of them ! I’m not as narrow minded as you seem to think but it sure looks like you have the corner on that ! All of us are capable of deciding what we feel is true and that is our right. I would appreciate it if you stuck your opinnion in your pocket and keep it there !

        • Dan az

          Hey Granny
          You still got it girl!

        • Joyce from Loris

          Brilliant, Granny Mae, and well said. I am a Southern woman, and my lessons from the Civil War are FAR different from those that were taught in the North. However, I have studied both arguments. I also like to seek the FACTS. I just know this… that according to the census of 1859 and 1860, only 5% of Southern people even owned a slave. The hard working farmers and their families did not go to war so that the few, rich slave owners could keep their slaves. 80% of all taxes in the US were paid by Southern people. After the war started, Lincoln was interviewed by a newspaper, and asked “Why not let the South go in peace?” His response… “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government?”. These are documented facts,and there are many more just like these.

          • Granny Mae

            Joyce from Loris,

            I have no doubt that those are surly the facts. It is always like that in war. It serves only the rich and the poor get poorer and stand to loose the most and always do. It is a shame that the truth was never taught in our schools. I guess they never heard the saying The truth will set you free ! Here I am an old woman and just now learning the truth of our history. The south is my adopted state . I’m here by choice and I’m staying. I’ve been here 40 years now and that is more than half my life so I guess you could say I’m a southerner! My kids all grew up here so this is their home all their lives and they won’t be going anywhere. Yep, I’m home !

          • Vigilant

            Want some FACTS?


            “Why Did Non-Slave Owning Whites Support the System?

            Slavery was enshrined in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. Most of the political and military leaders of the Rebel States, as Lincoln called them, owned slaves. As recent historians like James McPherson of Princeton have demonstrated, non-slave owning whites enlisted to fight for an ideal of freedom (generally, freedom from “Northern tyranny”). But this also entailed the full acceptance of the peculiar institution that drove the Southern economy.

            It wasn’t about slavery per se, but more about a lifestyle and culture that existed, at its core, because of slavery. Slavery dominated every aspect of Southern existence, regardless of how many people actually owned slaves. That the South saw itself as a confederation of sovereign state entities able to leave the federal union was based on John C. Calhoun’s notion that the South could not safely remain in the Union if the North challenged slavery. Slavery was the dagger that pierced the heart of the Union in 1861.”

            And your claim that the South paid 80% of the taxes? Source, please!!!!

            Read more at Suite101: The 1860 Census and Slavery in the United States: Interpreting Census Data and Research on Pre-Civil War Slavery

        • libertytrain

          Granny Mae – well said -

        • Pete

          God Bless You Granny Mae ! You have more brains in your pinky than I have in my whole body. Hopefully, as I get older, maybe I’ll get smarter ? No ? A guy can be hopeful, right ?

      • John Woodbury

        DaveH what a piece of work you are. It is useful fools like you who have no ”education” that are destroying this country. I hope you and all you idological friends rot in Hades forever. In West Texas, we did not have Lincoln’s birthday off, we did have San Jactinto Day off. I hope that your ideas are not the main stream America understanding of recent history; but I am afraid they are. No clue, just blue; describes so many stupid people in America right now, no matter how much schooling they have. I am very sure Chip Wood belives what he says and does not lie. He may be wrong about future events, but who is always right? I can not make that statement about your great leader, The O. What he believes is anyone’s guess.

        • DaveH

          John, I’m a piece of work? Best get out your reading glasses, Ignoramus. That wasn’t my comment.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          I think right here might be the place to insert the, as Abby would say, the MEA CULPA!!!!

        • http://donthaveone Beberoni

          John, dont confuse DaveH, with just plain Dave. DaveH is a pretty smart conservative guy. Just plain old Dave, is the liberal you meant to send your post against. He is the uneducated one.

      • JUKEBOX

        People who have ideologies like you are the very reason why cities like Detroit and Pittsburg have lost much of their manufacturing base, and have nice homes being destroyed by years of neglect. You need to have generations of your family live in the South before you criticize our way of life and beliefs.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          I’m not about to cut the southern way of life as I lived there for awhile and I have generations upon generations that come from the south WAY before the war of Northern agression!!

      • http://donthaveone Beberoni

        Right. And Obama wants to sit down and have a glass of wine and a nice pork dinner with the Arab terrorists who want to kill us. He thinks himself so arrogant that he can talk them into playing nice. But everyone knows, when youve got an enemy, who has vowed to kill you, and will not stop until we are dead or they are dead, that you dont sit down and talk with them. They laugh at us for this. No, you do what Bush did, you kick them in the groin, then kick them again before they get up. What do you propose, we pull a Bill Clinton, and let them blow up the WTC basement, then the USS Cole, and drag our dead through the streets of Somalia beating their dead bodies on live TV, and do absolutely nothing? Are you nuts? That is why 9-11 happened, as they saw Clinton and the dems did nothing, so they assumed they could do anything, because we are weak. I guess they thought wrong, because finally a MAN was elected who stood up to them and punched back, and God bless him for that. Now the democrats have let off the gas, gotten off track in the war, and are still in the process of making it all crumble so that they can point the finger at Bush and blame him, when the facts are when he left office, things were shaping up really good in Iraq, I know, I talk to guys on the front lines over there. Unfortunately our press didnt tell us just how good it was going. And they are not telling us now how bad it is getting, as these guys are sleeping at the switch, as they dont have clue what they are doing. Just shooting from the hip, trying to be popular. Its a mess, and its time for them to go. You cannot make peace by talking, only by force, will you have peace. So get over yourself and your arrogance, that your mere words mean something to them, because they laugh in your face, and Obama is the laughing stock of the world. Heck man, even the French are laughing at him.

    • Mario

      If people in America did not stand up against the previous administration, they will never do. If we believe in a government by the people and for the people and we still don’t do anything when a bunch of people who use the benevolence of our system to move to leadership positions to use it against the people’s will, then this will continue on and on. Perhaps we have grown to the easy life. It used to be that you have to fight, now a days, no one wants to fight for what is right. Politicians who understand this take it to their advantage, and use it to promote their agendas. They move the masses to a mind set, and they just contemplate their achievements with a smile and wonder how millions subscribe to the wrong ideas because they know how to manipulate. While they reap the benefits of scamming the public, we the scammed prised them for doing what they do to us.
      When us as people are going to stop thanking those who hurt us?

      • http://donthaveone Beberoni

        The previous admin kept you safe, unlike the one before them (Clinton), and these current lepers are sleeping, and we will get it again in the term of whoever serves next, because they have taken their eyes off the enemy. You watch and see. Of course, you lefties spin things, so you will try to blame it on whoever is serving at the time, when it is being set up right now, as obama fiddles and we burn.

    • Jim Bernard

      It is unlikely that the south would ever have vulantarily voted to end slavery.

      It is very profitable and convenient to have people working for nothing.

      Even the founding fathers after agreeing thal all men are born equal with inalienable rights, could not bring themselves to free their own slaves.

      But onr of the interesting things about Abe was that he decided not to
      borrow from the private banks to finance the war.

      He instructed the federal treasury to provide the finance INTEREST FREE ! and therefore the cost of the war for his side was not muchh at all.

      This is a vital lesson because the only way the stranglehold on American and world finances can be broken, is for the federal treasuries to issue credit to citizens bank accounts each week as very low interest loans, by electronic bank transfers and sideline the Banks
      see this story of Abe’s money policies

  • Patriot1776

    Lincoln was atyrant in many ways. Especially in the idea that the Union must be preserved! This is supposed to be a voluntary Union, Yet, Lincoln took it upon himself to decide that the Constitution was a binding contract even if the General Government created by the contract was in clear violation of its edicts. Slavery played a major role in the war of northern aggression. To deny that would be foolish. But it was NOT the central factor in starting the war, nor in Lincolns motivation just read this letter in response to Horace Greely’s critique of Linclns motivation for the war. Greely was an American newspaper editor. His New York Tribune was America’s most influential newspaper from the 1840s to the 1870s. He was also a proponant of ending slavery and Lincoln in general. Here is Lincoln’s response…..

    Executive Mansion,
    Washington, August 22, 1862.

    Hon. Horace Greeley:
    Dear Sir.

    I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

    As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

    I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

    I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

    A. Lincoln.

    So…. the War between the States was fought over slavey alone? I think not. Follow the money and you will find the true motivation for the bloodiest war in American history.

    • JC in CA

      Dear Patriot1776,
      You have opened a ‘pandora’s history box. You are spot on that the Civil War was all….ALL…about money. Little or I should say, NOTHING, is taught about the Union’s financial situation other than in the documentary video ‘The Money Masters’ and maybe another source or two.

      As I have come to learn, The 1st U.S. National bank’s charter was hotly contested and not renewed after the War of 1812. The patriots in the early government recognized the treacherous actions of ‘unpatriotic’ money….as money owes allegiance to no one.

      So the mid-1800′s were prosperous, no wars, states had their own currencies, No central banks…local, responsible banks loyal to their patrons.

      Here’s one rub I have come to learn is that the North’s Industries, had unions, had to pay wages to their workers….and the Nothern local banks began to tighten their currencies and put pressure on the workers’ reps in congress…messin’ with peoples’ monies is serious business. The Southern Plantation owners had free labor, held great advantage over the north with food, liquor and textile industries on the backs of the slaves.

      Enter the evil bankers of the North prodding the congress to ‘act’ against the evil doers in the south, owning slaves. It was never about the existance of slaves, but the pressure of ‘fairness’ in the corporate world. This was cleared up after I learned about the corporate lawsuits filed in favor of viewing corporations as ‘individuals’ with ‘corporations having rights as the individual persons’ that the lawyers and big banks and big steel and rail corporations of the day. Right after the War, over 300 lawsuits were filed for the ‘rights’ with over 290+ filed for corporations and a small handful filed in favor of individual blacks and their ‘civil rights’.

      The history is out there to be learned. I hold the responsibility for my family , to work, pay taxes, and teach history when it affects my family and my loved ones.

      Chip, I trust you do keep your powder dry as do I.


      • Vicki

        JC in CA writes:
        “The Southern Plantation owners had free labor….”

        Just a casual reminder, slaves are not and never have been “free” labor. It costs to buy them, to feed them, to house them. Their labor would likely be lower cost then the union labor of the north but it was never “free”.

        • Mario

          Just because it wasn’t free made it OK?

          • Eric Bischoff

            I love these discussions they help people show their true colors. Notice the lack of response here. I see the modern hatred on organized labor as just another extension of the backwards thinking on slave labor not being so bad. Hey we housed them and fed them what are they complaining about!

          • vicki

            Mario says:
            “Just because it wasn’t free made it OK?”

            Did it violate first principle? Did it violate the Constitution?

          • DaveH

            We don’t hate organized Labor, Eric. We just recognize them for what they are — a gang of bullies who extort money from company owners and prevent other willing workers from earning a living.

          • DaveH

            Also, the Unions achieve their ill-gotten gains at the expense of the rest of the citizens whose standards of living are diminished by the higher cost of goods and services.

          • DaveH

            Notice, Folks, that Eric attempts to take the moral high ground about slavery when in fact it is his kind that are trying to enslave the United States citizens with their Big Government.
            Yes, Eric, slavery is wrong. So how about you stop trying to force the rest of us to turn over our money and choices to the Liberal elite who think they know what is best for everybody else?

          • http://donthaveone Beberoni

            I have to agree with what DaveH said Eric, about organized labor. And you see, I know, I was a part of it for 13 years, and I saw enough that If I were to ever own a company, and my workers mentioned the word union, I would close it immediately, as I saw the thousands upon thousands of dollars of waste and theft these union thugs caused the companies I worked in, and nothing was ever done about it. Shameful, and you need not look any further than organized labor to see why GM and Chrysler have failed so miserable. Funny Eric, how Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Volkwagon, Audi and others didnt fail, competing in the same exact market. Gee Eric, now what could have possible caused them to be such miserable failures, and deemed to be important enough for Obama to reward their failure with billions of dollars? Hmmm, doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

          • Vicki

            Since Mario is unwilling or unable to answer my questions I shall do so myself

            Mario asks me (trying to imply that which is not):
            “Just because it wasn’t free made it OK?”

            I asked Mario: “Did it (slavery) violate first principle? Did it (slavery) violate the Constitution?

            I now answer yes (to both). Therefor of course it was NOT ok. This is not at all relevant to my point which is that slaves did not provide “free” labor. But then it is a typical liberal argument to try and distract you from the points of a discussion.

            I could also comment to Eric’s attempt to take moral high ground but DaveH and others did a nice job already.

          • June

            Mario-No, she didn’t “say” that made it OK!

      • wayne

        You said there was no war in the middle 1800′s.

        Actually there was a whole lot of war. The history of this time is replete with historical tales of illegal wars where most of the victorious aggressors have become heroic by the rewriting of history.

        First off, the war that started it all began with an illegal rebellion by (mostly illegal whites – for all the irony ) immigrants to Mexico overthrowing the existing government and seceding – giving birth to the Republic of Texas in 1835. Skirmishes between Mexico and Texas continued until the Texas joined the union in 1846.

        Thus encouraged by various mostly financial interests and by Mexico’s weakened French-controlled colony status, the newly enlarged United States embarks on an invasion of Mexico from 1846 – 1848 that was by most measures totally unprovoked and forces Mexico to sell – at gunpoint and in a bargain price treaty called Hidalgo- Guadelupe – almost half its territory from Texas all the way to the Pacific and North to the Oregon border (later ceded by Britain to what is now Canada’s edge). Funny that it was less than a year later that gold was discovered in abundance at Sutter’s Mill in 1849.

        Due the addition of Texas, Kansas, and all the new territory, the argument over Slave verses Abolitionist exploded in the Missouri Territory with cross border assaults with Kansas killing hundreds on both sides. This was the REAL beginning of the Civil War – 1854 – 1858 which exploded outward when John Brown attacked Harper’s Ferry in Virginia in 1859.

        This set the stage for next November’s election win by Lincoln and the secession of the Southern States with the Ft. Sumter battle in April 1861.

        • John Woodbury

          Wayne, while I am not an expert on the Texas War of Indipendence, I can tell you it would never have happened if the Hispanics of Texas did not support it. Look at a map of Texas and see just how many Hispanic names the counties have. If I were you I would suggest to you reading old books both for and against the war with Mexico before you pop off. The treaty signed with Mexico gave Texas the land North/East of the Rio Grande. But Santa Anna never meant it and as soon as he was freed and back in power he tried to take the land in bits back. He insisted that the treaty was null and void because he signed it while a prisoner, and isisted on two other rivers as boarders, the Pacos (South/East of) and the Nueces (North/East of). The Americans took possion of Texas to the Rio Grande and bulit a fort there. Fort Brown, named after the first man to die protecting Texas form Mexico. The first two battles were in Texas and the Mexican army moved North to fight them.

      • Dave

        JC and Chip, interesting interpretation of loose facts you have. So you’re implying that people opposed slavery because of unions. That’s pretty convenient. The union that existed back then kept 10 year olds from being abused at factories and the such. I guarantee there were not pension plans and health benefits and the such. Slavery was and is immoral. Was the war simply about slavery, NO, were there people who may have encouraged it for their own selfish interests, YES. That doesn’t mean that the southerners were poor victims here. You can’t just break apart the United Stated on a whim. YOu can’t just not agree and leave. That’s just ridiculous. What do you think the North should have done? Your “story” is a typical justification for fanaticism and “keeping your powder dry.” You know what, I think we fought this war already, YOU LOST! Get over it and let’s all live our lives.

        • Vicki

          Dave writes:
          “The union that existed back then kept 10 year olds from being abused at factories and the such.”

          Really? how did they do that? Didn’t the 10 year olds have parents? Were the 10 year olds held in slavery chained to their workbenches?

          • libertytrain
          • Granny Mae


            Thanks for the sight. Good information !

          • Granny Mae


            Back in the old days, people had children to help with the work on the farm or sometimes even to help by working out to bring in more money. Things back in the 17 and 18 hundreds were very different than they are today ! I had my children do chores to teach them the skills they needed to get by but going to school was my main interrest for them . In my father’s day most kids were lucky to have an 8th grade education. Especially if you lived on a farm. The chores of the farm fell to the children in the winter time for a lot of farmers because the head of the household would try to earn extra money durring wintertime by working for someone else. In my fathers case his father spent the winters working in the woods of Michigan cutting lumber ! Dad and his brother and sisters had to do all the chores on the farm and still go to school. It became such a burden for the kids that they ended up quitting school so they could keep things going on the farm ! It was a ruff life.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Granny Mae,
            My father did jig and fixture work, he did tool and die work, he did R & welding and design, He took two small cars and from the parts made a bull dozer. He did carpentry, concrete, ifr he wanted a tool and didn’t have it, alot of times he made it. He did this all on a fifth grade education! The difference between him and a lot of these college deucated idiots is he was very LONG on common sense!!!

        • Vigilant

          Dave, you’ve written some of the first sensible words I’ve read on this site. Thank you.

        • http://donthaveone Beberoni

          But you see, there is a new slavery now, and it is forced on workers. Its called taking money from you, then redirecting it to the democratic party. Its called Union dues. Then there is the forced thing, where if they find your not voting for the democrat of their choice, they will kick you out of the union. Now you may not call this slavery, but that is exactly what it is. They own you, lock, stock and barrell. But you all that demonize what was done 100 years ago, and I agree it was wrong, but you know, its over and done with, so let it go, but still it is brought up all the time, and yet you guys are participating in slavery today by forcing people to give you money to give to a politician that isnt their choice, and by getting rid of them if they dont vote a certain way. And dont say it isnt that way, or you sir, are a huge, huge liar, in the mold of one Bill Clinton, and thats pretty bad.

      • JUKEBOX

        The liberals love for their myrmidons to teach all of this revisionist history. I read a study recently that said slaves in the South had better housing, food, and medical care than the average industrial worker in the North in the 1850′s & 1860′s.

    • Granny Mae


      Thank You. Very good post. I learned something and that is saying a lot for an old woman ! I never learned any of this in school and I was crazy about history ! Just goes to show you not all things are the same in all parts of this country ! Too bad !

  • DaveH

    Good article, Chip. As usual.

  • Nancy

    What a pity!

    Taking quotes out of context and heavily relying on re-written history doesn’t make lies true. Congrats on joining the left in hating Lincoln. He can’t defend himself. So slander and defame away. I in turn, will continue to respect him and stay with original source history that certainly doesn’t agree with you!

    • Dick Gazinia

      Many people on the left admire Lincoln.

      • mathilda

        You are so right,Dick Gazinia, Remember Obama kept putting Abraham Lincoln in his speeches when he was running for president. I do not think slavery was a good thing. There are all kinds of people out there that do bad.
        But that war was told to me that is was not about slavery at all. It was about taxes, control, and envy what someone else had. And he had no control over it. So, he did something about it, like Obama will do to us, if we don’t stop it. My great grandfather came to Texas at the end of the war from Missouri. He had a plantation that had 500 share croppers that lived on it. He shared a percentage on what they did, they even had thier own houses as long as they lived there. They liked being there. The Union Army came in and told them they had to leave that place. They told them that they were share croppers, and they had a right to be there. The soldiers took them all to a stockade in shackles, and they dug a hole and came back. The soldiers came back and sent them back again, they got loose and came back. My great grandfather told them that it was not good to come back. They told him that that was their home, and thier lively hood. The Union soldiers came back, lined all 500 men, women, children, and shot them all. Left them laying there. My greatgrandpa dug a trench and buried them. He burned the house, and all the buildings, had packed his wagon and left to go to Texas. That was what I was told, and my grandma did not lie, she was too mean and religous for that. She told me a lot of things that happened in that war. And it was not good. So, I believe that the war was for greed and slavery was just an excuse to take what the North wanted so bad, was control and money that they were not getting and control. It is happening again now, if we don’t watch out we will be doing it all over again.

        • http://donthaveone Beberoni

          As I have examined the civil war, and read many, many books, not only about the war, but about the characters involved, Lincoln, Lee, Jackson, Lawton I believe, and many others, I have come to the out and out conclusion, having seen what this nation has turned in to, what with all its political correctness, and bowing to enemies, that we as a nation, would have been so much better off had the South prevailed. Much better off. It is even reflective today in the people in these areas. I go down to Townsend Tennesee, or Lexington Kentucky, and the people are so nice, always willing to help a person out. Yet you go up to New York, Jersey, Philadelphia Pennsylvania, and it seems to be all about people wanting to get something from you, and people are just downright cold and unfriendly. But not in the south. Those folks are kind and have so much self respect, it manifests itself into respect for others. I have found in my life, that 90 percent or more of people who are disrespectful of people, have no respect for themselves to start with. Yes, I fully believe, had the South won, this country would be standing tall and proud, as a bastian of light and freedom to the world, instead of hearing the sucking sound of nations that hate us, being given millions and billions of our dollars, for one stupid reason or another. This is the work of the greedy lawyers of the north. No doubt.

          • Void1972

            I have to agree with you, the southerner is so polite and here in the North, most would not give you the time of day. Whites are very respectful of Blacks, and Blacks very respectful of whites. Only those Blacks who move to the South from the North have attitudes.
            If the South was able to mend the slavery issue on it’s own, and they would have, our nation would be a much better place.
            The brilliant elected idiots and the corrupt bankers that created this entitlement system that has bankrupted America are the same people that wrote the history books. Slavery is a horrible human fault, but the slavery that the entitlement system promotes is even more horrifying.
            As humans, we have a limited time to be the best we can be, create something of ourselves, live life to it’s fullest. These poor folk living on our taxes, and contributing nothing to themselves or thier world is a horrible form of slavery that they cannot escape.
            This is what our leaders have created.

          • Vigilant

            Void 1972 says, “If the South was able to mend the slavery issue on it’s own, and they would have, our nation would be a much better place.”

            You’re as full of it as a Christmas Turkey! For a great champion of the South, why don’t you take the time to read the Constitution of the CSA? You do that, and then come back and we’ll talk about how the CSA advocated extension of slavery into all new territories and states, and how slaves were officially recognized as “property” of their owners by that document.

          • http://donthaveone Beberoni

            To Vigilant, your talking a long, long time ago. We are talking about the gradual time frame from then to now. Slavery would have ended no matter who won, and Void tells the truth. Southern blacks are kind and friendly , and I have never once been referred to as a cracker, honkey, or “what you want ’round here white boy”, as I have be referred to, to my face here in the north. Its pathetic. And maybe you havent paid attention, but there are quite a bit of black politicians holding office in the south, and not too many in the north. Gee, can you explain that? Guess we all know who the racists are now, dont we? Come on, go ahead and explain away, were waiting.

          • Vigilant


            I’m afraid your argument is faulty. The very simple reason, and you may wish to check it at is that there are many more blacks in the South than there are in the North (duh!). But then, mayge you haven’t paid attention. Your implication that the North is more racist because it elects fewer black politicians is ridiculous.

            You seem to conveniently forget that the most famous and powerful black politician in history, Barack Hussein Obama, was elected to office from Illinois. Perhaps you’d like to explain that away.

            Regarding Void’s assertion that slavery would have died a slow death anyway (and he’s right about that), you might want to read the Constitution of the CSA with regards to how they would have kept that evil institution alive considerably longer if they had won the war.

            And to say “it would have ended no matter who won,” the immediacy of the war and the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution considerably foreshortened the life of that terrible and brutal practice. It would have been a poor substitute to say to a family of slaves in 1860, “just wait another 10 or 20 years and you’ll have your freedom.”

            Your reference to how blacks differ from the North and South is paternalistic and stereotypical. Are you implying that blacks in the South “know their place” better than their Northern cousins? Moreover, I was responding to Void’s comments relative to the time period for the death of slavery and nothing else. Modern black attitudes have nothing to do with the argument.

            Beberoni, I don’t know why you’ve taken this tack with me. I’ve always respected your postings and, to the best of my knowledge, have never taken such a sarcastic and confrontational approach to answering any of your comments. When you say, “I have found in my life, that 90 percent or more of people who are disrespectful of people, have no respect for themselves to start with,” you may want to introspect about that comment.

            To quote you, “Come on, go ahead and explain away, were waiting.”

        • Dave

          I’m sorry that you were told those stories. Some of things might have even happened but the each side spins things the way they want. YOu don’t think southern plantation owners wanted to keep the money they were making due to slave labor? That was for the money too. In every war each side makes themselves out to be the victim and in the right. Horrible things happen in war and I’m sure this was no exception. A lot of the atrocities happen because people weren’t as educated back then and stories were made up and changes like a game of telephone you played as a kid. That’s why we need to make sure we are better educated and not filled with propaganda for someone elses ends. That’s what Chip and Fox News are doing to you. They’re taking advantage of your grandfather’s legacy to distort things for their own good. Barack Obama is not perfect, no president was or ever will be. He does want what’s best for this country though. YO udon’t have to agree with everything he does but you shold treat him fairly and give him the benefit of the doubt. I’m not saying blind allegiance be cause no one deserves that. I’m just saying that we should expect the best out of our ELECTED officials and do our best to uphold this country and encourage it’s stability and diversity.

          • Granny Mae


            Stability is one thing but when a person is of the marxest, socialist or communist belief, that is a far cry from what this country has ever been and from the examples of those beliefs, that we have to go by, that is not where this country wants to go. I don’t care how sweet he talks the things he says just don’t set good with me. He wants to change this country’s whole form of government and the end goal is to conform to a one world government. Now I ask you, how do you run a one world government? You have to take away most all the freedoms that we in this country enjoy. There will no longer be freedom of individual states to govern themselves and make decissions that are for their best interrest! This country will have to become all one state and then we will have to blend in with every other country in the world with no exceptions for the people living here . Decissions will have to be made for the collective good of all countries and not for the good of those living in a certain area ! It will be run like a giant corporation and the sad thing is eventually giant corporations begin to fall apart because they get too big. Those running the big corporations become the filthy rich and the rest of the little people become the slaves or pesants. There is never any hope to improve ones lot in life because your ot in life has been choosen for you by the government before you were born. Sorry Dave you can kiss up to Mr. Wonderful all you want but I see him in a different light and I don’t want anything to do with him or his ideologies ! That man scares the bewaddens out of me and the sooner he can be replaced with someone with American ideas the better !

          • Dan az

            In 1863, Lincoln instituted martial law and ordered that the States either conscribe troops and provide money in support of the North or be recognized as and enemy of the nation; this martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today—what it means is that the President has dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by the government in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. This martial law authority is still in effect to this day and this Act was the foundation of today’s Presidential Executive Orders.

            By 1868 the war was over and the government had a gigantic problem. Until that time Congressmen were equally, collectively and severably liable for any official acts they performed outside of their constitutional limitations. It was much like a General Partnership. In the wake of the war martial law was necessarily enforced in the South and carpetbaggers were sent down to ”help adjust property ownership problems” after the war. Many great atrocities were committed making the vulnerability to lawsuit unbearable. It was considered that, in the interest of better handling the business interests and needs of government, the government should form a corporation, because from the protection of such a corporation they could continue to do what they felt was necessary to reunite the Union. To accomplish this, under the Constitution’s allowance for Congress to pass (and enforce) any law within the 10 mile square of Washington, D.C., they passed The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 (Chapter 62, 16 Statutes at Large, 419).

          • Doc Franklin

            I must take strong issue with your belief that Obama wants what is best for this country. He is a Marxist ideologue with a history of suckling at Lenin’s breast almost from birth. He also is a Muslim beyond question. His “what’s best” for this country entails turning it into a socialist, Islamic theocracy. This man will author bankruptcy, oppression, tyranny and enslavement. His dream is to destroy this nation, and so far, he has done a great job of it. You need to take the blinders off.

          • Average Joe

            First of all, this discussion is about Lincoln and his effect on the nation…it is not about promoting or tearing down Obama….please stay on subject (and stop trying to promote your personal agenda).
            Second, you forget that each of us is an individual and that each of us see the universe from a uniquely singular view…our own.
            Rather than read the books mentioned in Chip’s article or research the material contained within….it is always easier to just jump up and down, scream, holler and just dismiss it all (that this can’t be true) with nothing to back up your opinion on the matter. Opinions are just that, “opinions” and nothing more… (with opinion facts don’t really matter….nor are opinions relevent to the truth of the subject).
            In the future, you might try actually reading the material presented to you…before you attempt tearing it down…not doing so shows your lack of credibility and complete inabilty to debate the issue….because you have no facts with which to debate with.

            Sometimes life reqires….Critical Thinking!

            It’s an indulgence to sit in a room and discuss your beliefs as if they were a juicy piece of gossip.
            Robert A. Heinlein

            No statement should be believed because it is made by an authority.
            Robert A. Heinlein

          • Matt Newell

            Of course he does — as long as he and his friends are in charge. Tyrants always work for the people’s good (as in taking it all).

          • http://donthaveone Beberoni

            Your a liar. Obama does not in any shape or form do what is best for this country. First thing he did, was sign a bill to take our money and pay for abortions in third world countries. You find that good for America? Wow. 2nd thing he did, was expand welfare and food stamps. We have lazy no good for nothing bums that dont want to work, collecting food stamps, welfare, WIC, and other handouts, and yet they all seem to have money for booze, cigarettes and dope. And you want to expand that? Sorry, that is damning for America, to build generation after generation of people dependant on the government. Very damning to this country. Not in America’s best interests sir. Then, the guy takes our tax dollars, and buys lawyers, to defend terrorists caught trying to kill us in the war. Unbelievable and destestable, and and at the very least, un-American as can be. Then, he tells terrorist nations that we are not a Christian country anymore. Excuse me, but the muslim can speak for himself. And the moment this country dries up its Christian movement, were finished, and thats a fact. He has spent us into oblivion, rewarded bad behavior by certain business’s with billion dollar checks, and has escalated the unemployment rate since he arrived. These are all bad, anti American things. Oh yeah, and one more I almost forgot. His transparent administration, went behind closed doors, and rammed a health care packing down the throats of what is now up to over 70 percent of a population that didnt want it. When you force things on the American public that they dont want, that sir, is the very meaning of Anti-American behavior. So your either a liar, or just a poor mis-informed soul if you thing this guy has done good things for America. No sir, come again. Not even close.

        • Hank, MO

          I have read your comment several times and still have problems with it. Apparently, after 500 men, women and children were massacred by the Union army on your great grandfather’s plantation in MO, he burned the buildings and moved to TX. I would like to know where in MO that this happened. I have studied a good deal of history pertaining to that time and have never heard of such an incident in MO. Furthermore, from my understanding of it, sharecropping did not become a popular way of farming until after the Civil War when it became necessary because of the financial hardships resulting from that war and the recovery measures imposed upon the southern states afterward. Five hundred sharecroppers is a lot to be working on one plantation– must have been a mighty big plantation! Where was that located? Why would your great grandfather just simply walk away from such a large operation? Why not sell part of it and use the proceeds to hire workers to continue on a smaller scale? or all of it and become rich and retired? Digging a ditch large enough to hold 500 bodies must have been quite an enterprise in itself. You think he might have needed help doing that? How long did it take him to do that and what kept the bodies from decomposing in the meantime?

          I think your grandmother may have exaggerated a little bit (or maybe, a lot)! After thinking about these considerations, if you still want to stick with that story, I would like for you to post the exact location of that plantation where all those bodies are buried along with any other particulars about the incident. I would think the name of the army’s commander or at least the unit number, the approximate dates and exact location would be easily learned from various sources. I would like to investigate that incident if it, in fact, did occur.

      • JUKEBOX

        Yeah, and they are too stupid to realize that he was a Republican.

    • Conservative at Birth

      Unless you have read all of the books about Lincoln and the Civil War, you are ignorant. You may choose to ignore the dark side of Lincoln, at your own peril. I think Lincoln was one of the worst Presidents in our Hisotory, along with; Obama, Carter, L.B.J., F.D.R., Herbert Hoover, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Andrew Jackson. So There!!! By the way I am what you might call a radical right wing Republican. Although, I consider myself a Libertarian.

      • Bruce D.

        Lincoln no doubt was a tyrant. No one did more to destroy the Republic than Lincoln by destroying the intent of the Constitution which was to limit the power of the Federal government over the States and the people and we have never recovered from that. The 10th Amendment clearly emphasizes the States and the people respectively were to have the power. Not the Federal government. The Federal government’s power was intended to be severely limited by the Constitution. Lincoln began the use of Executive Orders which circumvents Congress. He sent soldiers into both the north and the south to force States to rewrite their Constitutions to his liking. What was once a voluntary Union became a Union based on the force of military might and the threat of being killed.

        • Vicki

          Kind of like the Mafia. You can get in but you can’t get out.

        • smilee


          Amendment X

          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


          This puts ONLY everything not assigned to the The US Congress or not defined as prohibited to the states as the rights of the states and does not allow the states to override these rights of the US Congress thus it is regarded as the supreme law unless specifically defined otherwise or ignored. So many in their rhetoric today redefine the Constitutional rights of the US congress and define the rights of the states as supreme. This misinterprets the US Constitution


          To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

          The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.


          Lincoln was within his constitutional rights to suspend habeas corpus during the civil was (see above) and within in his rights to use the militia to suppress the insurrections by the confederates after they fired the first shot at Fort Sumter and stated this insurrection that later became a full fledged civil war. (see above) Lincoln did not violate the Constitution but fulfilled its requirements despite those her who choose to believe otherwise and choose to perpetuate this distortion of history.

          • http://donthaveone Beberoni

            Good points Smilee, I have to agree with you. And since I wasnt there, and I cant judge the mans heart, I dont know if what he did was a good thing or a bad thing. I mean I hate war and death, but in every war we have fought, it was a necessary thing to bring peace, and only by force has peace ever been attained, and its how this country was founded. I think had the South won, we would have been a better country, but then again, we never will know that now.

          • Jim Harrison

            The South did not invade the North before the war began. In fact, Jefferson Davis could have called for the invasion of unprotected Washington D.C. after the surprise Southern victory at Manasseh. But he mistakenly thought the Yankees probably learned their lesson. He wanted Southern independence, not a struggle for central power.

            As for Fort Sumter, they were warned. It was a military build-up in the sovereign state of South Carolina, which had already seceded from the union. They ignored the warning at their own peril. It took fire power to wake them up to that reality. They finally surrendered the fort with no casualties other than a man who fell from the wall.

            Even then, the war did not begin until after Virginia seceded, and the North invaded that sovereign state and suffered that humiliating defeat at Manasseh.

          • Bruce D.

            A lot of what you are saying makes sense but in those days jurisdiction and States Rights were very important. Lincoln overstepped his jurisdiction with the buildup of troops which was a violation of the Constitution and considered a threat by the South. By overstepping his jurisdiction and violating the Constitution with the buildup of troops he initiated the war. The Federal government only has jurisdiction in the States in Federal enclaves. Other than that they are there by invitation of the States only as Bush concluded in Hurricane Katrina. States Rights are now at issue again and it is looked on as a check against the abuse of Federal power which we see today.

          • vicki

            Smilee. Amendment 10 doesn’t say ANYTHING about states rights. States have powers. Amendment 9 talks about rights. The rights of the PEOPLE. People have rights and powers. Governments have only the powers the people choose to delegate to government. The People placed in the Constitution limits on what powers the people can delegate to the government. Thusly we have a Constitutionally limited Republic. Amendments 9 and 10 re-enforce this design detail. People have rights (9) and powers (10). States have only powers (10).

          • Dan az

            Civil War had recently ended and the country was still under Lincoln’s Conscription Act (Martial Law). Congress had at least three problems they could see no way to directly cure by following the laws of the land: they were out of funds, they had promised 40 acres of land to each slave that left the South to fight for the North and they had to reintegrate the south into the Union, which they could not do without controlling the appointment of the Southern States Congressional members. There were other problems but these three stand out from the rest. That is enough about the environment for the purposes of this review, however the more you study the historical events of this time the more obvious the relationships will become and the more proof you will amass to prove the facts of what actually happened.

          • Average Joe

            Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
            Section 8 – Powers of Congress

            The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

            To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

            To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

            To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

            To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

            To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

            To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

            To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

            To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

            To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

            To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

            To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

            To provide and maintain a Navy;

            To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

            To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

            To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

            To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

            To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

            These my friend, are the powers delegated to Congress….please take note of this line in Article 1 Section 8:

            To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

            (NOT EXEEDING 10 SQUARE MILES)…What this means is: The “United States” is only 10 square miles (not including “territories” “PURCHASED” by the “United States”)….everything else…is the “States” of a union… AKA The “United States of America”…..
            Two completely separate concepts….learn the difference.
            Before one may claim that they are this or that, they must know who and what they truly are.
            I am not a U.S. Citizen, I am a citizen of the State in which I was born and may take up domicile in any one of the 50 several states (so long as that particular State allows me to)…..I know who and what I am and who and what I am not…do you?

            You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don’t ever count on having both at once.
            Robert A. Heinlein

            I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
            Robert A. Heinlein

          • smilee

            Bruce D. says:
            February 11, 2011 at 7:42 pm

            NOT TRUE

            vicki says:
            February 11, 2011 at 8:36 pm

            Constitution says: Tenth Ammendment

            The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

            You say:

            “People have rights and powers. Governments have only the powers the people choose to delegate to government.”
            The Constitution defines the rights of the US Congress and the people can only change it by amending it and they have not as yet, so you are wrong your will does not supersede the Constitutions. People’s rights or the states are secondary if the constitution delegates it to Congress or prohibits it to the state. YOU ARE WRONG on this issue!!!

            • Average Joe says:
            February 11, 2011 at 11:07 pm


            To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
            To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

            This applies to the land that the seat of the US government is located on and all other federal lands within any state and not to the states themselves. YOU WILL SPIN IT ANY WAY SO YOU CAN BELIEVE WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO BE RATHER THAN WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS!!!!

          • Dan az

            Im sorry but you need to research alittle more.This info that I’ll post will start you off but the site that I will leave you is where you need to start.
            Corp. USA
            Under The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 a private corporation named, ”The District of Columbia”, was formed. It trademarked the names ”THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT”, ”United States”, ”U.S.”, ”U.S.A.”, ”USA”, and ”America”. It should be noted that this corporation was not simply a reformation of the municipality as its Organic Act was chartered in 1808. Without amending that municipality’s charter, this 1871 Act marked the creation of a new private corporation known as, ”The District of Columbia” (hereinafter ”Corp. U.S.”) owned and operated by the actual government for the purpose of carrying out the business needs of the government under martial law. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of Washington, District of Columbia. In said, Act Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution the (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 Article of Amendment and the national Constitution’s 14th, 15th and 16th Articles of Amendment are respectively numbered 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments in their constitution.

            Corp. U.S. was not well received by the people so Congress revised the Act in 1874 and finalized it in 1878.

            Corp. U.S. began issuing bonds to cover the expenses of running government. By 1912 there was more bond debt due than there was money in the Treasury to pay and the debt was called.

            Seven very powerful families had been buying up the bonds and in 1912 they demanded their timely redemption. When Corp. U.S. couldn’t come up with the money due, its owner (the actual government) was obligated to pay. The Treasury of the United States of America did not have sufficient funds to cover the bonds either but the seven families accepted all of the assets of the nation’s Treasury along with all of the assets of Corp. U.S.’ Treasury as a settlement of the debt saving the nation from bankruptcy.

            By 1913 there was still no money for operating the government/corporation, and if Corp. U.S. didn’t do something the people would revolt against them, so Corp. U.S. went to those seven very powerful families and asked if they could borrow money from them.

          • Dan az

            Average Joe
            Good work keep up the good fight!

          • Vigilant

            Sorry, Dan, The Organic Act was nothing more than the incorporation of a unique district, identical to the incorporation of villages and cities throughout the US.

            Have you read the Act? I have, and it neither says nor implies anything other than a means of governing the District of Columbia. This canard has grown legs, thanks to the faulty and self-serving interpretation of the “Team Law” ambulance chasers.

            Concentrate on something important, not this drivel.

          • Dan az

            I have read many times can you prove it wrong?show me a site that can!

          • Dan az

            It is sometimes thought that “the Constitution” consists only of the written document. This is not so. The title “The Constitution of the United States” was added after the document was adopted, but “constitution” meant the “basic legal order”, and the Constitution consists of both the written document and the common law at the time the document was adopted, which is here referred to as the Common Law in caps. Now, the written document does supersede the Common Law where they might be in conflict, but it does not replace it, and courts must refer to the Common Law for guidance where the written document is silent or ambiguous.

            In addition to the written document and the Common Law, the Constitution also includes Treaties, which, although they are valid only insofar as they are not in conflict with the written Constitution, are superior to both the Common Law and to State constitutions and laws, to the extent that those might be in conflict with the Treaties. Thus, some of the Treaties that have been adopted extend and clarify some of the rights, powers, and duties provided in the written Constitution. For example, that is how “federal ground” is extended to include coastal waters out to a certain distance from shore, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad, and how the rights of the people are amplified by the Charter of the United Nations and by various bilateral and multilateral Treaties that extend civil and commercial rights to U.S. citizens abroad.

          • smilee

            Dan az says:
            February 12, 2011 at 7:21 pm

            Your posts do not respond to mine WTF?? It is clear to thoise of us who understand the Constitution that you certainly do not!!

          • Dan az

            Hey smelly what exactly was your post besides saying every one is wrong or confused?I for the life of me cant find any thing that you said had any thing to do with anything other than insults and conjecture.So I ask for proof that you even know what your saying has any bearing on the subject at hand.Insults are not facts and until you figure that out I dont think anyone will bother with you any more, so show us what you disagree with and type something rather than cut and paste and insult.

          • Vigilant

            Dan AZ says, re the Organic Act, “I have read many times can you prove it wrong? show me a site that can!”

            I repeat, “it neither says nor implies anything other than a means of governing the District of Columbia.”

            Now Dan, I don’t need a site of bogus lawyers like Team Law to “explain” something that doesn’t exist. I challenge you to quote me ANYTHING in the Organic Act that either replaces the Constitution or provides for anything other than the governance of the District of Columbia.

            SHOW ME, and if you can, I’ll publicly apologize to you. Now you’ve got the challenge, what are you going to do about it?

            BTW, it may be of interest to the uninitiated that all the talk of NWO conspiracy by the Rothschilds, etc., was one of the bases for the NAZI anti-Semitic political theories.

          • Vigilant

            smilee, your take on the Constitution is entirely correct.

            Does it surpise anyone that those who don’t read the document are so willing to attribute such evil motives to one of the greatest presidents we’ve ever had?

            Keep up the good work, smilee; there are just a few of us here who have more than a basic understanding of the Constitution.

          • vicki

            Smilee says:
            “The Constitution defines the rights of the US Congress and the people can only change it by amending it and they have not as yet, so you are wrong your will does not supersede the Constitutions. People’s rights or the states are secondary if the constitution delegates it to Congress or prohibits it to the state. YOU ARE WRONG on this issue!!! ”

            Other than the obvious mis-use of a word (rights) I am mostly in agreement with your claim so it is unlikely that I am wrong unless you are also wrong.

            Let us look for a moment at the word right(s). I just re-read the US Constitution from end to end (minus amendments) and verified that the word “Right” appears exactly once. It appears in Article 1 Section 8 “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; ” where the Right to exclusive use and marketing of their Writings and Discoveries for a LIMITED time is enforced by the POWER of government.

            Even section 8 does not grant or refer to any rights of congress. It says and I quote again “The Congress shall have Power To….”

            Now let us look at the amendments.

            1. “Congress shall make no law…. ” clearly a limitation on the POWER of Congress to make laws.
            “….the right of the people….”

            2. “…..the right of the people…..”
            3. The word “right” does not appear. The phrase “the consent of the Owner” does.
            4. “….The right of the people….”
            5. a bunch of specific limitations on what ANY level of government can do. The word “right” does not appear.
            6. “…the accused shall enjoy the right…”
            7. “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved”
            This is the only amendment I could find where it is potentially ambigous as to whom or what gets the right. The right itself is “trial by jury”
            8. The word “right” does not appear.
            9. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

            You will notice yet again that the object of the right(s) is PEOPLE not states or other government.

            10. The word does not appear. The word power does. And mentions that states have powers and that PEOPLE have powers and that the federal government gets to have powers. Nothing about rights being delegated to any form of government.

            11. The word does not appear.
            12. “…the right of choice shall devolve upon them…”

            The right to choose the president whenever the right of choice works down to them.
            13. a limitation on all governments and a mention of a power to Congress.
            14. a set of limitations on all governments and the word right appears with the object “to vote” and the subject of “male inhabitants of at least 21 years”
            15. “…The right of citizens of the United States to vote…”
            16. The word “right” does not appear. The word POWER does and that power is delegated to Congress.
            17. The word does not appear.
            18. The word does not appear and it was repealed anyway.
            19.”..The right of citizens of the United States to vote…”
            20. “…the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them. …”
            21. The word “right” does not appear.
            22. The word “right” does not appear.
            23. The word “right” does not appear.
            24. “…The right of citizens of the United States to vote…”
            26. “…The right of citizens of the United States….”
            27. The word “right” does not appear.

            And there you have it. The ONLY rights I found ANYWHERE in the entire Constitution that belonged to anyone other individuals, individually and or collectively was granted to the House of Representatives to choose a President and the Senate to choose a Vice President. And since it was granted by the constitution it is a privilege not a right.

            Governments have no rights. Only the powers we delegate to them. That would be the “consent of the governed” part of the Declaration of Independence.”

          • smilee

            vicki says:
            February 13, 2011 at 12:27 pm

            Your Funny and a ot of work on your point for proving nothing.

            You do not have to use the word rights to define them and Article 1, section eight does define them, some may call them limits but those not limited are delegated to the Congress and they then possess the power and the right to make laws within these limits and the 10th ammendment makes clear if the power, rights limits however you describe it belongs to Congress then it does not belong to the States or the people. Never the less the right to make laws within these limits does exist. The first amendment does not use the words separation of church and state but that is what it actually means and the SC has made that very clear as well.

          • Vicki

            Smilee I trust you realize you just declared state income tax to be unconstitutional. Mr Brown is going to be really annoyed with you.

          • Average Joe

            OK, we get it smilee…you are the only intelligent being in the Universe…you see all, you know all….a legend in your own mind.
            I am glad that you have convinced someone….even if it is only yourself. I frigured out long ago that it was a waste of my time responding to you. Regardless of any statements made by anyone…your mind is set (like concrete) and nothing is going to change it…so I figure…why bother…let him spout off….let him waste…his time….rather than wasting mine.
            I have my “truths”….you have yours….end of story….

            The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
            Robert A. Heinlein

          • vicki

            Average Joe writes to Smilee:
            “frigured out long ago that it was a waste of my time responding to you.”

            The reason those of us do respond to smilee is to protect others from the logic fallacies presented by smilee and other liberals. I have little doubt that I can not change smilees opinions but I CAN show others a new path. Who knows. Smilee might find one of the paths useful too.

        • Dan az

          I would guess not showing any proof would be easier for you and smelly than actually proving your point with facts,Isn’t that the way that all liberals work by not working just making statements for others to prove their point?
          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.

          • Dan az

            For your last and final statement.
            Since W.W.II those “fruits” have increasingly become evident of a dictatorial government controlled business, which is the very definition of Fascism. Could we have possibly won the battle (W.W.II) but lost the war? History shows, in 1944, under political pressure to turn the tides of the war, the corporation known as the, “United States Government” was quitclaimed to the International Monetary Fund (hereinafter “IMF”) in the Bretton Woods Agreement. When our soldiers came home victorious, they did not recognize ‘the New Deal’ government with its authoritarian controls as Fascism because when they fought Fascism in Europe, it had the face of soldiers with uniforms, airplanes, tanks, grenades and guns. The patriotic environment of victory made the sacrifices to achieve it seem like the ‘The New Deal’ was necessary. After all, government control provided jobs and a new way of living for their families, though the silent enemy (IMF) had replaced our Constitutional Republic’s limitations with the authoritarian controls of Fascism. The people allowed it because they knew no better and because (in a time of need) it provided them the idea of job security with future Social Security support (see: Myth 22 on our Patriot Mythology page).

            It used to be, a father could provide for his family from his own labor and the mother could stay home and nurture the growing family. Back then, Myth 22 was not in place; and, only 30% to 40% of the population ever needed employment. Mothers could stay home nurturing and taking care of their family’s needs—they had time to prepare fresh nutritious food for mealtime, when the family was always home together. Children went to school and didn’t have to work outside of the home to have sufficient funds to buy their clothes, schoolbooks, etc. And, most importantly, government had no right to control the people; rather, the people and the law of the Republic controlled the government.

            Today, politicians focus on the approach of 100% employment as if it was a good thing. What it really means, to most families, is everyone in the home that can work for wages outside of the home must do so to be able to afford the necessities of education and family life. Ironically, such employment separates families and has the tendency to destroy family life in many ways. The result of this trend is increased divorce and destruction of the family unit and value based parental examples.

            Team Law provides answers and solutions through self-education. You can learn how to assert your rights and lawfully: take control of government, secure your domain with Land Patents, and legally protect your family. Learn the law and the history of this nation – The United States of America; and, we can show you how we (the people) can take our nation back legally, lawfully and peacefully, which will not happen by people ignorantly and foolishly jumping on bandwagons filled with Patriot Mythology, silver bullets and frustration.

            We do this work as an elemental obligation to preserve our Liberty, honor our covenants with our Creator and to provide our families with freedom. Accordingly, we raise this Title of Liberty, as a symbol of our dedication:

          • Vigilant

            Your long and boring regurgitation of the Team Law talking points means nothing.

            I note very forcefully that you did not answer my challenge. For the last time, give me ANY direct quotation from the Organic Act that does anything more than establish a MUNICIPAL corporation identical in nature to the thousands of cities and villages in the USA.

            You will receive an abject apology from me if you can. I’m confident you won’t find anything of that nature. I question whether you have even read the Act.

          • Dan az

            The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 describes its venue as: “all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia”. The District of Columbia was originally provided for in the Constitution for the United States of America (Sept. 17, 1787) at Article 1 Section 8, specifically in the last two clauses. Then, on July 16, 1790, in accord with the provisions of those clauses, the Territory was formed in the District of Columbia Act, wherein the “ten mile square” territory was permanently created and made the permanent location of the country’s government, that is to say, the “territory” includes the actual government. Under the Act Congress also made the President the civic leader of the local government in all matters in said Territory. Then on February 27, 1801, under the second District of Columbia Act, two counties were formed and their respective officers and district judges were appointed. Further, the established town governments of Alexandria, Georgetown and Washington were recognized as constituted and placed under the laws of the District, its judges, etc. The popular names for this “Charter Act” are the, “District of Columbia Organization Act” and the “District of Columbia Act ”, which Act the Supreme Court has recognized was the incorporation of the “municipality” known as the “District of Columbia”. Then on March 3, 1801 a Supplementary Act to that last Act, noted here, added the authority that the Marshals appointed by the respective District Court Judges collectively form a County Commission with the authority to appoint all officers as may be needed in similarity to the respective State officials in the states whence the counties Washington and Alexandria came, those being Maryland and Virginia, respectively.

          • Dan az

            this will be my last reply on the subject.
            Knowing the government of the District of Columbia was already “created into a government” and so formed into a municipal incorporation in 1801 under the District of Columbia Acts, we wonder, even with Congress’ constitutional authority to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District, how do you create, or incorporate, for the first time a municipal government that has already been in existence as a municipal corporation for over 60 years? The obvious answer is, “It’s impossible!” There is no way to pass an “Organic Act” when the Charter Act is already in place, because the two words (organic and charter) have the same meaning—The First Act. Even Congress cannot change history; though historians can make it appear to change by rewriting it for those unwilling to study the past from the records. The records speak for themselves only if we study them.

            When you consider the historical facts, the only meaning left for the terms given in the opening paragraph of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 (and that which follows) is, the “municipal corporation” that was created is a private corporation owned by the existent municipality. And the only government created in that Act was the same government any private corporation has within the operation of its own corporate construct. Thus, we call it Corp. U.S. We also note Congress reserved the right, granted them in the Constitution, to complete dictatorial authority over their Corp. U.S. construct, without regard for its internal operations or officers. Thus, Congress can use it within the ten mile square as they see fit to both govern the municipality as if it were the municipal government and to use it to do things the Constitution did not grant them the privilege of doing.

          • Vigilant

            Well, Dan, don’t think I didn’t catch on to what you were trying to do. You have put a lot of narrative together, of which NOT ONE WORD quotes anything in the Organic Act that challenges my assertion.

            Ergo, you receive no apology from me.

            May I offer that same challenge to anyone else on this site who believes the Organic Act somehow replaced the Constitution and that we are now governed as a corporation?

      • Carlucci

        Great article. My mom is from Mississippi and used to tell me while I was growing up that the school history books were wrong – Lincoln was a tyrant and a terrible president. The South thought he was just as bad as the war criminal Sherman.

        As for Andrew Jackson, he was not a bad president. He got rid of the central bank (what we now know as the Federal Reserve), and miraculously survived an assassination attempt. See for yourselves in this award winning documentary, “The Secret of Oz”

        • Jim Harrison

          Another interesting note: I asked my grandson who was born and raised in Mississippi, “Who do you believe was the greatest president?” He replied, “I don’t know, Abraham Lincoln?” I said, “WHAT?!! You are supposed to say Jefferson Davis!” He answered, “I don’t even know who that is.” This confirms Chip Wood’s assertion that the victors write the history books. But they can only hold out for so long. The truth about everything will ultimately prevail.

          • Carlucci

            That’s terrible – !! Jefferson Davis was awesome. Has anyone on this blog read that fantastic book “Dirty Crimes”? It’s about the manhunt for Jefferson Davis after the Lincoln assassination. The dummies thought he had something to do with it.

          • JUKEBOX

            In Alabama, we have celebrated Jefferson Davis’ Birthday for over a hundred years, before Congress gave it over to MLK birthday.

          • Vigilant

            Looks like you folks from the South hold the record for being the longest poor losers in history. You think a man who advocated slavery was great? Get real!

        • Granny Mae


          I’m sure that the native Americans would take issue with your thoughts that Andrew Jackson was a great president. I do also. Any president that sets out to kill off a group of it’s country’s citizens is no better than Marx in my opinion. He tried to wipe out all native Americans and it is a sad time in our history, just as slavery was.

          • Vigilant

            Granny, you’re so right. Jackson violated a Supreme Court ruling to drive the Native Americans from Florida and Georgia, and thousands of them died. Some great president!

      • Dave

        So you why isn’t GWB on your list? Because he was a Republican? Are you a patriot or a right wing radical? They’re not the same thing. Please give me the name of the prefect Republican president. Also, please give me the date that you thought America was perfect. I’m curious as to what time you want to take us back to.

      • Anthony

        I take you mean Andy (by god) Jackson makes the List by virtue of what he allowed to happen to the American Indians? Otherwise, Andrew Jackson KILLED THE BANK … and he is to be considered a HERO in my book.

        If you study history on the American Indian, you will find it was more than Jackson who did wrongs to their People. It virtually started at the beginning of settling on Plymouth Rock… Doesn’t lessen the damage. Still, claiming he should be signaled out… is a bit much.

        • Vigilant

          Anthony, he’s singled out because in his hatred of the Native Americans, he drove them out of the SE even after John Marshall ruled he couldn’t do it. He violated the Constitution to do it. And it resulted in thousands of innocent deaths.

    • dan

      Marx loved Lincoln…the Soviet loved Lincoln…a little known hack pol
      from Illinois who slipped into office by dividing the electorate ….
      sound familiar?

      • http://donthaveone Beberoni

        Havent quite found a politician from Illinois yet that was in it for the people. Not yet. Dont know if it will ever happen there. Its quite a mess, and will take a long time to clean it up.

        • Vigilant

          Ever heard of Everett Dirkson?

          • Vigilant

            Apparently you haven’t.

      • Dave

        Where do you even get this stuff. I bet someone else later will say to their friends “I heard Marx loved Lincoln. I read that somewhere.” What is wrong with you?

        • Anthony

          DITTO … somebody here needs to bring proof to back up their assertions.

    • UncleOtto

      Nancy: History is written by those left standing. I read it as HIS-STORY. Tariffs imposed on foreign goods to protect the northern products was very much a cause of secession.

    • John W Goerger

      Agree with you Nancy 110%! Long Live the UNION…President Lincoln Forever!

      • http://donthaveone Beberoni

        I worked for organized labor for 13 years sir, and it is the worst thing that ever happened to American business. It was the unions that sunk GM and Chrysler and cost us billions to prop them up. It is the unions that have bankrupted the U.S. Postal service. It is the unions that have the public school systems in trouble. And more damning than all that, it is the unions that cost companies millions of dollars and make it hard for them to compete with their foreign counterparts, because of the “thats good enough” mentality of the union worked. I know pal, I was there for 13 years, and it was terrible.

        • Dave

          One last thing to Beberoni then I need to get back to work because I have a job unlike many of you. And it’s not Union. What facts do you have to support the fact that Unions brought down GM? Isn’t it a fact that GM made cars that didn’t last as long as foreign cars. They even intentionally used parts that wouldn’t last to make more money in selling replacements. They also ran the company without any fiscal solvency. They just thought they were invincible. Why did the executives make so much money when they didn’t manage well and didn’t actually make any of the products? Would there be a middle class if there were never unions? Unions, like everything else, are not perfect but you’re only looking at one side. I agree that the unions got out of control but it was hardly their fault that GM collapsed.

          • JUKEBOX

            That’s like saying that the bad cut on your leg didn’t cause you to die, it was the loss of blood. The unions have slowly bled GM for the last 50 years, until they collapsed from a lack of blood.

          • Vigilant

            JUKEBOX is right. The billions in GM liabilities to the Unions is what forced the company into bankruptcy. The “obscene” bonuses, etc., of the executives pale into insignificance when compared with the truly obscene benefits the UAW got over the years.

        • Granny Mae


          Thank you very much for that statement. I too was in the union and saw first hand the crap that goes on and yes they are the downfall of the auto industry. You will not get anyone to see or understand that though that hasn’t had an inside look at things the way you and I have. I give up trying to explain it to most people because they really don’t want to honestly see they just want to argue. They have limited vision. Unions started out as a good thing, ( may be ) but when it comes to organizing and power it quickly turns to corruption and that is exactly what happened. People forget all about Jimmy Hoffa and how he tried to run the unions from prison and then when he got out, it didn’t take long for the bosses to kill him and get rid of his body! Yep ! Unions are a real good thing !! They take your money every month and you get very little of it in return. They negotiate a new contract with the company and get the worker higher wages and bigger retirements and better insurance, and the only thing that really stays so far is the insurance ! Many of the retirement programs from unions have gone by the wayside, in some companies the insurance went first, as for higher wages you get to pay higher income taxes. Then you have the non-auto industry people that have to still get by on their regular wages that didn’t go up when the auto industry wages did. As soon and the contract was ratified , the prices in the stores went up. Auto workers could afford it but the non-auto workers now struggle just a little more. Of course the auto worker doesn’t see it but he is also paying more for everything he buys too. His big raise hasn’t given him much but he won’t see that for a long time. Now you come back to the union and they just increased their dues with the new contract so you are now having a larger union deduction on your paycheck but they won’t complain because they will rationalize that the union got them a raise so they deserve it ! All this is costing the company huge amounts of money and trying to get the return for their product that they need to cover all this they start cutting corners and end up with an inferior product. Now business starts going down hill and it continues to go down hill year after year. Company see’s the hand writting on the wall so they start taking measures that will protect their own interrests and their own pockets. Everyone is greedy! Everyone wants more all the time. Companies lie to workers and so workers form unions, unions see opportunities to get money from the workers and at times from the companies. It goes in a circle and nobody wins! Companies fail and governments jump to their aid so the unions can continue to bilk them and the workers for more and more money so they can continue to buy politicians and presidents so they can improve their power in the world. Do they have the workers best interrest in mind? Not in your life time ! What is the role of the union in a one world government? Why are they so interrested in what is going on in Egypt? What is in it for them to get into China ? $$$$. Dollar signs turn into power !

          • JUKEBOX

            They will fail in Egypt, because they don’t have any auto plants, steel mills, etc.

          • Granny Mae


            But there are other companies that they can organize and Egypt is ripe for the taking. They all want more money for their labor and the unions will promise them that. They will start to organize the teachers and hospital workers and shop workers and the port and dock workers and there is always the oil companies. Where ever there are people that are dissatisfied there will be a union rep. ready to promise them the moon ! But I fear there is another reason behind the sceens and I can’t figure it out. Mainly because of the muslim population. If they gain control, how do they (the unions) fit in ?

    • Marten

      History by itself nails you at the end………

    • DaveH

      Actually, Nancy, the left benefits from Lincoln’s ignoring of the Constitution and abuse of Government power.
      Why don’t you try reading Chip’s recommended books and see if they make sense, instead of swallowing the sugar-coated version taught by public schools? One example is the common propaganda that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Yet, four of the states that fought on the side of the North were slave states. Read the books and use your brain, Nancy.

  • Nancy

    I have happily unsubscribed!

    If want trash like this to read, I’d sign up with NYT, alphanbet networks or Mother Earth.

    • Bob Livingston

      Dear Nancy,

      Sorry to see you go, but I understand that the truth is often tough to swallow and that it’s easier to just run away from it than examine for yourself as to whether what you have heard all your life–conventional wisdom–is, in fact, flawed. Buy you are wrong about where else you might get this information. The New York Times, alphabet networks and other liberal publications worship at the alter of Lincoln–he was for a powerful centralized government, after all–and Lincoln apologists pervade our public education system, our higher education system and mainstream “historians.”

      We can never really learn anything if we are unwilling to have our beliefs challenged. And we can never learn how to defend our arguments if we automatically dismiss counter arguments as trash. Calling something trash is not a successful debating tactic–though it is often employed by those unable to defend their own beliefs.

      I wish you all the best,

      • ceberw

        You act as if this is all some big secret the mainstream historians have been hiding. I studied history at a public university (the University of Akron) about three decades ago. There was nothing in your article that I did not already know. Lincoln was human, and therefore flawed. But, unlike your propaganda piece implies, he also had many virtues.

        • Granny Mae


          So you got all this information in college huh? Well lucky you! Hate to say this but the majority of the people in this country didn’t get to go to college. If the truth wasn’t in our history books in junior high and high school we were left in the dark. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to hear any of this. Many would say well you could have looked it up on the internet but I say to them, if you have no knowledge of there being a discrepency in information , why would you even bother to examine the history ! I was lead to believe that Lincoln was a great man and perhaps he was , but he had thoughts and agendas that were never brought out in history class and they should have been. This kind of information should not be privey only to the gollege educated, this should be everyday knowledge for everyday people.

          • independant thinker

            How true Granny how true. There is a world of difference in what is taught in college and what is taught in high school and below. Until I got to college I found history to be rather steril and boring. In college we started getting some of the “jucey tidbits” of history that made it much more interesting and made it history instead of just “such and such happened on this date”.

          • libertytrain

            Not in my high school. We had intelligent, thought-provoking women teaching us our history. Loved the nuns. Always made us think.

          • DaveH

            I also attended Catholic school, 1st-9th, and learned more in the ninth grade than I did in any subsequent year in a public high school.

          • Granny Mae

            Oh how I wish I could have gone to Catholic school. I begged my mom but it never materialized. It was public school all the way for me ! And get this, there was a big difference in the schools in the city and in the county! If you switched because of a move you could spend half the semester trying to catch up! None of them ever taught the same thing so you couldn’t just slide from one to the other ! Our schools could use a lot of fixing !

          • DaveH

            The only way to achieve that, Granny, is to give the parents School Choice. Otherwise the bureaucrats have no reason to strive to excell.

          • DaveH

            Here is how the bureaucracy handles parents who want a better education for their children:

            Can you imagine how much of our money they wasted to prosecute this woman? Unbelievable.

          • libertytrain

            Well Dave, we were fortunate. And Granny, while I have heard a few “horror” stories, that I’ve come to believe were more exaggerations than anything else, my nuns were incredible women. I’m sorry you missed the opportunity but it sure seems you are one bright lady so I think you did just fine.

      • Bob

        Bob Livingston,

        I’m not leaving, even though this site, censored one of my email addresses. This site, shows the true abhorrent ideology, of extreme Republicans, and Libertarians—which I admit—the exact opposite can be found on extreme left sites.

        I’m not leaving, this site is just too amusing!

        Moreover, Chip Wood, who, or what, are keeping some powder dry for?

        • http://donthaveone Beberoni

          Evidently to protect us all from idiots like you that have no clue. Thats why I am keeping mine dry. Wow. Scary thought people like you running around, that dont want people to be allowed to express their opinion if it is different than yours. I think in most places, that is called a communist.

          • Marten

            good one Beberoni…..way to go….

        • libertytrain

          Perhaps the automatic spamming filters on the site read you as spam. That does happen to the best of us if we post too much at any one time. Has nothing to do with human beings. But if you need to feel that you were special and singled out. Go for it.

        • Al Sieber

          Bob, “keep some power dry”, means many things, figure it out.

        • DaveH

          “abhorrent ideology …. of Libertarians”? How about you name me some?

          • DaveH

            Big Government lovers on both sides of the political spectrum fear Libertarian philosophy for a very good reason. We would shrink Government dramatically. Anybody feeding at the trough, whether directly or indirectly, does not want smaller government.
            Read this and learn:

          • DaveH

            Go here for more:

        • JUKEBOX

          You may find out the answer to your question when it’s too late to save yourself from the liberals.

      • Jimmy Joe

        Might doesn’t make right;The Pen is mightier than the sword;Everyone is right in his own eyes.Just seek the truth,and the truth shall set you free.Bottom line is this.Anyone who does nothing.When people are being murdered,raped,tortured,and terrorized.yesterday,today,or,,or abroad,have no morals,or humanity for anyone but themselves.Our greatest failures is being repeated right now in egypt.Freedom is an inheirant right for all human beings.But those we try to deliver must want,and expect the same.And be educated what true liberty,and independence requires.America abandoned that principal no 200 yeas ago.But 100 years ago beginning with social security,to Affirmative action,to multi-culturalism.Which promotes,and subsidizes seperatism,and segregation.pitting,and dividing groups against each other.”A nation divided from itself cannot stand”Abe lincoln,understood what happens when we don’t assimilate all who seek to live here.Though abe lincoln may have done habeous corpus.It had to be done.Those with the most blood on their hands.Are those who promote,or refuse to do anything about social liberal issues in this country.That are seperatist,and segregationist.Who believe they are above god,reproach,law,and humanity.Which are about two thirds of america today.Bye bye ms.american pie.If we don’t learn from the past we are condemned to repeat it;But we are in the hear,and now.That is where our focus should be.So anyone who breaks the law,regardless your opinion of it.Until that law is changed.Give to caesar what is caesar.And to god what is gods.Unfortunetely every problem we have today.Is directly related to social liberal programs.And those on all sides.don’t,and won’t deal with these truths that are self-evident.Its facing reality,and finding the truth.It’s about one’s character stupid;And as the character goes so goes the nation.The truth,and the facts are out there.Each of us has the duty to seek just that.even if it doesn’t tell us what we want to hear.Do this,and that will set you free.Not comment lines,blogs,or their political,and ideaological guru’s.Jimmy Joe”The Liarfryer”

      • Biff

        Bob Livingston sez: “…I understand that the truth is often tough to swallow and that it’s easier to just run away from it than examine for yourself as to whether what you have heard all your life–conventional wisdom–is, in fact, flawed..”
        What I Sez: What if you replaced –conventional wisdom- with the Bible?
        Bob Livingston sez: “We can never really learn anything if we are unwilling to have our beliefs challenged. And we can never learn how to defend our arguments if we automatically dismiss counter arguments as trash. Calling something trash is not a successful debating tactic–though it is often employed by those unable to defend their own beliefs.”
        What I Sez: Remember Mr. Livingston’s second quote when you respond.

        • http://donthaveone Beberoni

          That is one thing sir, that I never will allow to be challenged, my belief in Jesus Christ. Just as when I drive a car, and the light turns green, it means go, and everyone knows green means go. Jesus Christ has called me, came to me, revealed Himself to me, and that is not up for debate, from anyone. And its not conventional wisdom, its more like a cosmic revealing, from the Lord to me, and to all that He has called who have accepted Him into their lives. But all that man says and man does, we should challenge, and offer different opinions, and find out what is right. But the One that made me, is always right, and there is no challenging that. My arms are not long enough to box with Him. If someone else wants to, thats between them and Him. But Im not going to question it.

          • Jimmy Joe

            Ditto Beberoni;All else is dribble if not biblically principled.Too many agnostics,and so-called athiest.That buy into ol’nazi,and ol’marxist proffesor evolution theory.That their is no god.Its ok;for now though,God doesn’t believe agnostics,and athiest exist either.And as they say their are no athiest in fox holes.When pure evil enters their backyard.They won’t be talking about what abe lincoln did wrong.Only why isn’t there an abe lincoln here to save my ungrateful hiney;

          • Granny Mae


            I agree with you and you did a wonderful job of distinguishing between the two. One is up for discussion and the other is not ! All people should know the difference !

      • Dave

        It’s one thing to challenge beliefs and another to say write them off completely for your own version. I think i9t’s ironic that people like you want to adhere to strict interpretations of old writings except when it doesn’t serve you. Have your opinion but honor others and stop taking advantage of people.

    • greg

      Happily ignorant, Nancy. Do some studying, and use your logic and you will see Chip is correct in his history lesson.

    • dan

      Nancy…the earth is not your mother….and the public education/indoctrination system that you were brainwashed in is at
      fault,not you.Please check out the facts with objective /critical-
      thinking ….and ,good luck.

      • Biff

        Nancy… Eve is not your great-great grandmother and the religion/indoctrination system that you were brainwashed at is the problem, not you. Please learn to check out the facts with objective /critical-thinking and good luck.

        • http://donthaveone Beberoni

          I disagree with Nancy’s statement, but yes, Eve is her far distant relative. And yours also. Walk in darkness if you like, that is your opinion and your entitled to that, but you dont need to insist that the rest of us arent allowed to understand that there is a God that created all of us, especially after He has already revealed Himself to me, and there is no doubt to me of His existance. I have had my eyes and ears opened, and even though Im still just a stupid flawed human being that messes up quite often, I do know who I am, what I am, and where I came from and where Im going, and if one doesnt know that, its time to do some searching.

    • JIBBS

      Nancy, to each his own I believe. But you sound as if things can only be a “one way street” and the street is yours. Well, I feel very sorry for you. Seems like you only want to hear what you like, but the world doe’s not revolve around you. There are two side’s to every coin, and each is entitled to his thoughts and blieve’s, that is what makes us a great country. Maybe you should try voicing your thoughts on a street corner in some third world conutry and demand that it be “your way”, I bet you would long for the freedoms we have in the USA.
      Thank you and good luck

    • Warlord X

      Nancy, good riddance. I’m sick of reading the ignorant, idiotic opinions of people who relish their stupidity. The rest of you libercrats could follow; none of us who actually think will miss you, despite most of us appreciating interesting, factual counter-arguments.

      • Warlord X

        I’d like to add, for all of us who were educated in ‘government schools’ that you must read the very interesting and informative book entitled “LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME”, by James W. Loewen. If it doesn’t surprise, shock, and piss you off, read it again. Then follow that up with his second book, ‘LIES ACROSS AMERICA”, which discusses the erroneous and misleading facts established on monuments and memorials across the United States. Good reading and God BLESS America.


        • Carlucci

          You rock, Warlord X. I’m going to check into those books you recommend.
          They sound fascinating. Thanks.

        • http://donthaveone Beberoni

          And it is getting worse and worse, as the liberals have taken the school systems to an all new low, and now they are even re-writing history books so that they can read the way they wish things would have happened. Its unbelievable what they are doing. Its also pathetic and sad. And some wonder why our school system is in such trouble. Pretty evident to me.

          • eddie47d

            I agree our public schools aren’t perfect but teachers are overwhelmed in all the information that has to be taught. In the “good old days” education was fairly cut and dryed. It wasn’t always a bad thing but alot of history was left out or distorted back then. I would say more so than today. It was all victory over the vanquished and certain cultures were better than others. The world has changed and books should reflect that.

          • Dan az

            Keep it up Eddie and some one might mistake you for a conservative!lol!

    • Carlucci

      Farewell, Nancy – !! Go live in your (at least for now) cozy little bubble, and believe all of the lies from Fedzilla and its lap dog poopaganda machine, the lame stream media.

      It is people like you who are a huge part of the problem in this country.

    • Average Joe

      Sorry to see you go, a word of parting wisdom:

      I never learned from a man who agreed with me.
      Robert A. Heinlein

  • Keno

    Your article is factual, but it is also true that Lincoln became president in, as far as I know, a free and fair election. At the risk of oversimplifying, it seems that secession was a case of “I don’t like the way the game is going, so I’m going to take my ball and go home.”
    It would be like the people of Massachusetts saying in 1984, “we don’t like that Ronald Reagan, we’re leaving the U.S” — come to think of it, maybe that wouldn’t have been so bad!
    And while I agree that the war wasn’t “all about slavery,” I get a little miffed when people reduce it to a peripheral or non-issue. Don’t take my word for it, read the South Carolina secession ordinance.
    That said, I’m conflicted. I have nothing but respect for those who fought for the CSA, and I do agree that a lot of their ideas were a lot closer to the ideals of the Constitution than what we as a nation ended up with. But I’m still glad we didn’t end up a mishmosh of independent, balkanized republics.

    • Mike


      Actually, Mass didn’t much care for TJ or James and seriously proposed doing just that which you question. They boycotted while Washington burned. The South had every right to say this isn’t working and we’re going to try something different. 350,000 dead later they quit trying. Stubborn sumbetches weren’t they.

      Anybody watch the news today. Funny what people do when things are not working.

    • Haggard

      I may be totally out to lunch on this, but it seems to me read where some if not all of the original states had in their Constitution the right to secede from the union.

      As for the slaves, that issue is addressed in the Constitution. All they had to do was tax it out of existence.

      I think there are other underlying reasons for the war that few will ever know or acknowledge if and when it comes to light. I also think we are getting ripe for another shot at it if we do not get out heads out of the sand start doing what we should be doing.

      thanks for the great article Chip.

    • Dave

      I like many people drank the kool-aide of child-hood hero worship of Lincoln. If the man were alive today he would be wanted for crimes against humanity. Lincoln was put in office using Railroad funds and placed a taxes on the South to pay for the trans-continental railroad – so they withdrew from the union. Yes, it wasn’t about slavery, it was about kick-backs – simple fact. Lincoln swore before he took office that he would use the military to decimate any state that tried to succeed – and based on his actions he kept his promise – in that aspect he was indeed honest. When you look at th murderous nature of Lincoln you can understand why Booth shouted ‘death to all tyrants’ after shooting Lincoln. So its time for us to grow up in this nation and call a spade a spade. Lincoln turned brother against brother, abused federal power and laid waste to the South then used lies and subterfuge to cover his trail.

      • http://donthaveone Beberoni

        It isnt so much we drank the Kool-Aid Dave, its that we were brought up to be respectful of our elders, and to listen and learn in school, much unlike today. However, how were we ever to know, that the schools were lying to us, pushing their lying agenda all the way back then. And it is much, much worse now. The liberal think tank is running it into the ground, and instead of teaching, they are indoctrinating our youth, and without our youth, we are going to be in trouble.

        • Granny Mae


          It is going to be interresting to see what the history books say about Obama! Do you think they will ever tell about his citizenship being in question? Maybe they will someday tell how he never really did have a college education from the colleges he claimed he did, because there is no record of it and there is no-one that even remembers him being in class with them. Humm. Now that is strange !

          • http://donthaveone Beberoni

            Im sure that towns will name bridges after him, and he will be protrayed as a great leader of the black nation and an inspiration to all black people. What a crock. He is a black eye to them, nothing more than a head peace of the democratic party who blindly does what they tell him to do, a puppet, at best.

    • Jimmy Joe

      Keno,Adolph hitler was elected,in free,and fair elections.Are you sure you want to go there.The people in their desperation of seeking a master to lead them around by the nose,dividing them in groups,based,on their beliefs,gender,and culture.with empty promises.Did so through socialism.The same as,Mao se tung,Iranian mullahs,Saddam hussein,Hugo chavez,fidel castro.Hezbollah,and hamas,etc.The same happened in europe,and america.Now promoting,a new world order,and social justice.(SOCIALISM)And divide,and conquer tactics to again own people.Their minds,bodies,lives,property,loved one’s,and freedom.Involuntary servitude/Slavery/socialism.And it was free,and fair elections,and lazy,uninformed despots.That was shouting”yes we can,and hope,and change”Bowing at the alter to yet another dictator.Barack Insane Obama.And he,and his underlings,and false prophets,like george soro’s,and the clintons that is working along side.These same radical mullahs to promote socialism,and divide,and conquer tactics as the answer in egypt,and throughout the middle east.As islam,nazi’s,and communist were in cahoots with each other under hitler.Until hitler decided he didn’t need to share power with the soviets,and threw them under the bus.Socialist marxist communist,and islam are repeating history as we speak.”Under the guise of A new world order”Throwing america,and our allies under the bus.People have a desperate addiction,that will always destroy them in the end.They vote for their leaders like the clintons,and obama’s,for the same reason,they love going on the oprah winfrey show.They worship people who tell them what they want to hear,Promote vanity,Give justification for their addictions,obsessions,glutony,selfish,and immoral characters.And supply them with free hand-outs,and tell them they are smarter,and more special,than everyone else.

    • DaveH

      So, Keno, are you saying that when one party breaks a contract, the others involved should just suck it up and continue?

  • http://none Gil Zealey

    Chip, I’m afraid you have been led astray by Southern propaganda. During the period before 1860, there was no intent nor plan by Southerners to release slaves, neither in the long-term nor in the short-term. To say they wanted to gradually prepare slaves for free life is a total fabrication by people who cannot stand their own acceptance of evil. My evidence is the period following the CIVIL WAR when white Southerners had every opportunity to help the newly freed people but did everything in their power to restrain and hobble and kill them. This is true of the entire Southern white culture to which I was exposed while growing up. Do not be so accepting of someone else’s moral deficits.

    • Dick Gazinia

      Also: the South fired first – Fort Sumpter. Your article implies that the Union just marched right to war with no provocation other than the declaration of secession.

      At the time there were two great cultural divides based on two distinct economic systems, one depended on agriculture supported by the institution of slavery. As in most wars, failed foreign policies, stubbornness, poor communication, and clinging to belief systems that were based on injustice to human beings, and delusions of medieval chivalry led to the deaths of many thousands, the destruction of property, and a bitterness that survives to this day.

      The stupidity of military tactics relying upon frontal assaults against artillery and lines of men standing so close together that enemy fire was sure to kill someone was borrowed from Europe where the Nobility comprised the officer class and commoners were considered cannon fodder waisted countless lives.

      The lesson to be learned from the Civil War is to communicate honestly with our neighbors and to try to find common purpose and build upon that. Today our country is divided into two basic cultural and political cultures. Some here advocate armed “rebellion” against a government they perceive to be tyrannical. This is insanity. To kill one’s neighbors over a political squabble can only lead to countless more deaths and destruction. Circumstances change, cultures evolve (yes, creationists, even cultures evolve), and what seemed so important once becomes a quaint sideline in history.

      Let’s chill out and stop hating and dedicate our energy to positive endeavors that can restore our country to the greatness is has demonstrated. That greatness can best best achieved by working together rather than tearing each other down.

      • dan

        since you appear to appreciate tactics…would you acknowelage that an under-weigh flotilla to support the barricade/control of Charleston Harbor by Ft.Sumpter necessitated the removal of the garrison (attempted
        peacefully by the town fathers) …provcation/first-shot is a matter
        of perspective and unverifiable in most objective courts.

        With the invention of the cotton-gin and advances in farming techniques and machinery,slavery was fast becoming uneconomically feasible for the
        south just as it had in the industrial north which had already converted to wage-slavery.

        • Dave R.

          Not quite correct. Although invention of the cotton gin was motivated in part by a desire to reduce or eliminate the economic need for slave labor, it had the unintended opposite effect. Because the cotton gin made it possible to clean much more cotton in a given time with far less labor, it resulted in encouraging growth of more cotton and thus need of more labor in the fields.

        • LES

          The South was so destroyed there were no jobs for blacks. So they had to go north where they simply became slaves again. The North did not want them up there and they should have thought about that before they went to war instead of trying a peaceful solution first.
          After the Union army destroyed the south they went west and did the same thing to the Indians who actually owned the land first.
          The Civil War destroyed States Rights and we are paying for it today.

        • independant thinker

          At the time South Carolina left the union Fort Sumpter was not completed and unoccupied. A union General (Anderson I believe) moved his troops from a mainland fort to the island of Fort Sumpter. As someone else stated they were given many chances to leave but General Anderson refused.

      • Terri

        The South fired when they were invaded by damned Yankees & they had every right to do so!

      • DaveH

        A good first step, Dick, would be for you and the other Big Government lovers to get your hands out of our pockets. It takes two to get along.

        • Dick Gazinia

          you would benefit from a chilled suppository.

      • CW Farms

        The South fired at Fort Sumter, only after the US committed 2 acts of war against her. They had a treaty with Buchanan and Anderson and were feeding Anderson’s men at Fort Moultrie. The South had men in Washington at the time to purchase the property, and to pay the South’s portion of the national debt. Eleven such forts had already been turned over to the South. The Treaty was specific, that no reinforcements were to be made, and that they were to stay right where they were. The first act of war was for Anderson to abandon Ft. Moultrie and to occupy Ft. Sumter. This was a deliberate act of war. The 2nd act of war was when Lincoln sent 12 Military vessels as an escort to a cargo ship to re enforce Ft Sumter with a year’s supplies and 200 more men. The South had no choice as Charleston Harbor provided 80% of the movement of goods for South Carolina, but to defend herself after being provoked to. No one was killed and Anderson surrendered. The 12 naval ships remained just out of reach, and did not help Ft. Sumter during the battle.

        Also the North had slaves even after the war, Sherman and Grant were slave owners, 7 northern states had slaves, and many of the people fighting in the North were slaveowners, just as the vast majority of the Confederates did not own a slave.

        Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Missouri, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and West Virginia held their slaves until the passage of the 3rd 13th amendment.

        Ohio and Illinois passed the 2nd 13th amendment stating that slavery could continue forever without interference from the government.

        The families of the people who had the Bank of England helped Lincoln finance the war, and for the 1st time, the US had a large national debt.

    • Bob Livingston

      Dear Gil Zealey,

      Most Southerners were too busy just trying to survive reconstruction and save their own lives and what little property they had left to worry about helping “the newly freed people” in the aftermath of the Civil War. You need to study a little more closely how four years of war and the predations of Northern armies devastated the economic condition of the South and put great hardships on the citizens and how the policies of reconstruction enriched the Northern banksters, politicians, carpetbaggers and scalawags who stole the property and livelihoods of Southerners and disenfranchised them.

      Best wishes,

      • Granny Mae

        Bob Livingston,

        You are so right. It only takes some common sense to realize that trying to come back after a war any where, takes years and life is very difficult for a very long time ! I believe there were recovery difficulties on both sides. Northern farmers lost young family members that were depended on to help work the land and make a living and when they were killed the family suffered greatly. War is hell on everyone involved ! I just wish there were a way to insure that we got the truth of history from now on, but something tells me it is going to be more of the same old same old !

        • Granny Mae

          Another thing is I wonder if we had, had the communications back then that we have today if that war would have been what it was? I think a lot of people in the north got bad info. that stirred them into joining the army for patriotic reasons that if they had, info. that was up to the minute things might have been very different all the way around. Just another case of WHAT IF ?

          • libertytrain

            What if’s can’t be answered can they? Picture a lot of our kids today holding their cells, texting away, everywhere – stores, cars, schools – I don’t think these kids would be capable of enduring anything that those young folks had to endure. So the war probably wouldn’t have happened, not if it depended on folks doing much personal suffering.

        • Average Joe

          Granny Mae,

          “I just wish there were a way to insure that we got the truth of history from now on, but something tells me it is going to be more of the same old same old !”

          Just as “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”,…History is in the hands of the writer…However, truth is always in the hands of those who truly seek it….by whatever means nessesary.

      • independant thinker

        “the policies of reconstruction enriched the Northern banksters, politicians, carpetbaggers and scalawags who stole the property and livelihoods of Southerners and disenfranchised them.”

        And this was the origins of the KKK it was not originaly an anti-black orginazation but unfortunately became one especialy in modern times.

    • Jack Bates

      I think somewhere along the line you have been fed the liberal kool aid, Many freed slaves did not leave the plantations and farms of the old home place, but continued, many as share croppers and hands of some pretty scarce resources during the reconstruction period and were still mostly respectful to their former masters and I say this not to paternalize any one but in my own family, they were mostly trying to help those blacks that were around during hard times, by sharing whatever meager resoursces that were available.

    • Limestone Freedom

      To Gil: “This is true of the entire Southern white culture to which I was exposed while growing up.”

      Just as with any subject, you cannot lump everyone into one group. My own ancestors had slaves in the early 1800′s. Even though they were well taken care of, the family had decided before 1860 that it was not right, and told the slaves they were free to go or if they stayed would be paid a wage in addition to their housing and food. Most all stayed. There were a lot of families that did the same or similar things is TN and MS where my folks lived.

      Bottom line to me… the right of secession has always been just that, and should still be today. Lincoln was the first big power grabbing president, even though I think he truly had good intentions.

      • JJM

        While growing up in the ‘Show Me’ state I read extensively about the war and believed that Lincoln, Grant, etc were very wrong.
        As a Libertarian, my opinion has not changed and in fact is stronger. I recognize the unconstitutional power-grab, violation of ‘contract’ with the states and total disregard for States Rights.
        I am glad that the US did not fall apart but also recognize that the ‘Big Government’ that exists today is a threat for Civil War II. So yes, we are being forced to keep the powder dry, just in case.

      • D.L.O.

        There is a truism that is oft misquoted as a cliche’. If EVERY generation were inculcated with this truism we would all live in greater freedom. We must all remember:

        The road to hell (slavery) is paved with good intentions.

    • Ted Crawford

      While what you say Gil seems true , it ignores other issues within the North itself! Opon issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, Free Blacks and escaped slaves in the north were beaten, shot hung and otherwise injured and killed by northerners concerned that they might lose their jobs to these “freed” slaves!
      Slavery is clearly a heinious institution, however given that it was at the time “legal”, its desolution could have, and should have been handled in a much different manner! That being said I do believe that Lincoln acted as he believed to be correct!

      • JIBBS

        It’s funny how we are always looking back and saying that this and that, should have been done or handled in a different way. If that is the case, the Chicago Bears should have won the Superbowl, all I’m saying is, why do we always say these things and wish it had been handled in some other way or fashion? All humans have many faults, myself included.
        And yes Chip, the powder is dry !

        • independant thinker

          It’s called “arm chair quarterbacking” or “hindsight is 20/20″. If we learn from the disection and evaluation of the past and the “should have-could have-would have” then there is nothing wrong with it.

          • Vicki

            If we do not study history we will not learn from it. If we do not learn from history we WILL repeat it.

            A smart man learns from his mistakes
            A wise man learns from the mistakes of others

            Both require remembering history.

          • Granny Mae


            Maybe it is because hind sight is always 20/20 !

      • Haggard

        If that is adequate, just doing what he thought was correct or best, I guess Hitler and all of his ilk, Obama, can be excused for their actions as well. I am sure they are just doing what they think is best also. The issue is, we have a law, the constitution that is supposed be followed, not just trampled on because we think it best. Why not just toss it and let those with the crisp lip and the weight of the club and gun run the show of those who think it is best? Or how about “I was just dong my job”. Those excuses do not fly.

    • ValDM

      Your premise doesn’t hold water. It was the Northern carpetbaggers who held the purse-strings during reconstruction. The white Southerner came home to farms destroyed/confiscated, wives and children dead and long buried, penniless and defeated. Pray tell, where would the Southerner have come up with the wherewithal to help anyone but himself? Look to the Northerners that had all the money and DID NOTHING.

      • Granny Mae


        Where in the cat hair did you ever get the idea that northerner’s had all the money? My family was in the north and there were none of them that had money! They lost family members too and their farms also suffered greatly. Wives lost husbands and mothers lost sons and fathers lost sons and helpers for their land ! People were poor and had to get by on what ever they could , there were some that caught the rats in the barns and cooked them to eat. There was northern property destroyed too. The south was not the only suffer in that war and you can bet that when all was said and done there were fat cats in the south and the north that came out just fine while while the poor soul just trying to live and raise his family suffered greatly. So all you Johny rebs. just jump off that old poor me wagon, Ya’ll !

        • independant thinker

          Granny Mae, the money was with the northern industrialist and bankers who profited greatly from the war. The little man suffered greatly on both sides.

          • Granny Mae

            independant thinker,

            I’m sure the money was with the fat cat politicins and most of that was sitting in Washington and the original colony states. But when it came to the everyday joe, whether he came from the north or the south, he was the guy that lost everything and Washington never came to any of their aid. It is always thAat way, I just don’t like being lumped into the term northerners. There is a big difference between those in power and the rest of us, north or south, that simply want to make a living and have no problem getting along with anyone! People lost everything on both sides and there were some of my family members that were in that situation! You have to know that we all lost greatly and it is gone forever.

    • http://donthaveone Beberoni

      On the topic of slavery, just so you know, in case you dont. Slavery was started by blacks in Africa, owning other blacks. And these blacks sold their fellow blacks, to white men to bring over here to work their fields. Many, and I mean the majority, had coming over here, better housing provisions, better meal provisions and better working conditions than they did before they came over. This bit of history gets hidden away somehow, and I dont fully understand it. I guess its all part of the demonization of the white man, that you seem to be leaning towards.

      • Granny Mae


        You are right and guess what? It is still going on in Africa today! Those people are still selling their own people into slavery and the majority of those being enslaved are women ! I have friends in several places in Africa and they all say that it is going on ! There is a lot of it going on in the Sudan by the Muslims selling the blacks into slavery to the places where they are mineing or drilling for oil etc. But any time you hear talk about the slavery of the past in the states it is always the bad white man that did it ! It was tribal wars that brought the captured people to the docks and sold them to the Dutch who in turn brought them to the New World because there was much work needing to be done.

        • http://donthaveone Beberoni

          Evil white bastards, owning business’s and giving people jobs to support their families. They should be jailed.

  • David

    Thanks for another good article.
    Another resource, from Southern viewpoint:
    A Defense of Virginia and the South by RL Dabney
    Link to PDF download in Wikipedia article about Dabney

    A Southern patriot told me that he wrote another book that dealt more with politics than slavery. I don’t know the title.

  • Rick

    I have argued for many years that instead of being glorified as Lincoln was he should have been impeached. It would have been interesting to see what the coountry would have been like if he had not been assassinated. He had all the earmarks of someone who would not have been happy with just restoring the union. When a man tries to have the Chief Justice of the US arrested because the justiced ruled against him, it is a strong indication that the man is unstable and power hungry. IUt does make an interesting comparision. Lincoln didn’t like the Chief Justices rulings and he tries to havehim arrested. Obama doesn’t like the Courts ruling and he berates teh court during the state of the Union.

    • Granny Mae

      Humm, maybe they are related !

  • J.M.R.


    • Chris

      Better be careful, JMR. Some fellows with initials on their bullet proof vests may be knocking on your door soon.

      • Bob

        I hope they are already, knocking on his door!

        • ValDM

          You would really wish this on someone? And they say the “left” is so much more in tune and “feel” so much more than the rest of us neanderthals. Please, please, go gabk under your rock and pull it in oever you.

        • http://donthaveone Beberoni

          Thats because you on the left are full of hate Bob. Why dont you try praying for the guy, if you care at all. Im praying for you, that your eyes and ears will be opened that the truth may be revealed to you, because its obvious by most of your posts, that your missing it.

  • tomm

    An interesting and informative article. Thank you.

  • The General

    I was raised in the South (although born in NE), and in our schools, Lincoln was revered much as he was in yours. We were taught the same things about him, and I can still recite: “Fourscore and seven years ago, our Fathers brought forth on this continent a new Nation ….”
    What was probably different, was the take on the South. Lee and Davis were also respected; although slavery was taught as a reason for the “War Between the States” (we never thought it was “civil”), so were states rights, legal secession, and defense of liberty/property. We were also taught that carpet-baggers sucked, and the Republicans of the 1870′s were evil hoodlums. That may explain why many Southern states still have a “Yellow Dog Democrat” majority, even though it is made up primarily of conservatives.

  • Sapphira Sez

    When I arrived at college in 1962, I was seated next to a young man from New York. He asked where I was from, and I told him “Texas”, to which he responded, “Oh youse guys are still fighting the Civil War.” Astounded, I replied that I had not thought of the “Civil War” since sophomore American History class, so it must be HE who was obsessed with that war. BTW, we were taught from the same history books that you had in Cleveland, but being a person with a brain, I was skeptical that we Southerners could be such horrible people so I did my own research. Turns out, Lincoln was not the Messiah, anymore than the Kenyan is. What I say is, Beware when you’re told over and over that someone is fabulous, not a flaw anywhere. It’s most likely a lie. It pays to be skeptical.

    • Biff

      Sapphira Sez: “What I say is, Beware when you’re told over and over that someone is fabulous, not a flaw anywhere. It’s most likely a lie. It pays to be skeptical.”
      What I Sez: If this applies to Lincoln, does it apply to Jesus and the Bible? Mohammed and the Quran?

      • http://?? Joe H.

        you compare apples and Oranges!!! Lincoln was a man while Jesus was a perfect being!! BIG DIFFERENCE!! I revere NO man on that level!!

      • http://donthaveone Beberoni

        Jesus Christ is perfect. Flawless, without sin. The only one ever Biff. And He beat death, and never went into the ground to rot and bet eaten by worms. Mohammed is dead and his bones are still in the grave he was buried in, as is John Smith and the creator of every religion known to man. Only Jesus Christ is alive. Now that is a Saviour worth of my praise. If a so called god cant beat death, Im not following them. My God lives, and He is, the only one. And also, it is written, No one has the Father, without the Son. If you dont have the Son, you do not have the Father. So without Jesus, good luck. Im just sayin…………

      • Average Joe


        A.D.D.? I only ask because you seem to have trouble staying on subject. The discussion at hand is about Abraham Lincoln….and not about Religion in any way,shape or form.
        In the future, please take your meds before commenting…..then…try to stay “on subject”.

        To be matter-of-fact about the world is to blunder into fantasy – and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful.
        Robert A. Heinlein

        • DaveH

          Strange, yes, but Wonderful I’m not so sure.

  • John W Goerger

    Well, we now see the communists attacking a beloved and honored President–poor dumbminded closeminded folks—just what the communists wanted; Long Live the UNION!
    In reading this article can see there are still ‘red’necks (now we know what a real ‘redneck’ is a commie-wannabe) who hate this Nation, called The United States of America and want to see it break apart!President Lincoln was one of this Nation’s Greatest President’s!

    • Vic Bailey

      John W Goerger, as usual you are mistaken, I have NEVER met anyone in these great UNITED STATES that wants to break up the Republic, BUT I have met quite a few that would like to do away with this Greedy, Warmongering, Lying, Stealing, Killing, Oversized Government, and rightly so. This government is no more Constitutional than a pack of mad dogs. They will step on, tramp down, undermind, and do any other deciteful thing to get whatever THEY want. Lincoln was NO different. As long as the government keep their nose out of OUR business we will prosper, but the minute they start getting in OUR business and stealing from us, WE LOSE. It’s not our country that is bad it’s the government, just like Egypt, we have a government problem NOT a country problem. Semper Fi.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Vic Bailey,
        Best way to say it is with the words of Mark Twain. Respect your country ALWAYS! Respect your government when they earn it!!!

    • JIBBS

      I think you might be close-minded. Why do you call us “rednecks”? I don’t call you “yankee”. I think you should go read up on history and educate youself before you open your mouth next time. And if you still want to call us rednecks, come on down south and say it to our faces, I think you might be surprised by the education you will recieve, it won’t be in the form of an a#$ beating, but rather in the form on a tongue lashing. I’d give anything to see you walk away with your head way down betwwen your legs, completely insulted by your own words being ripped apart and throw in you lap.

      Life’s tough, even tougher if your stupid – John Wayne

      • John W Goerger

        Guess I really ticked off the commies in this conversation and that is good thing! By-the-Way my term “UNION” is what was called the North—AMERICA! Redneck equals a closeminded, commie/facists!
        Amazes me how many love to Hate this wonderful Nation yet try and take a Excellent President as President Lincoln and try to by “hook and crook” to find illogical and unreasoned (half-truths) thought processes to somehow try to link him with the people who are in the White House whom I never voted for!

        • DaveH

          It amazes me that your comments amount to not informing anybody with your facts but rather personally attacking those who you don’t agree with.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          John W Goerger,
          I’d be willing to bet you didn’t vote for Lincoln either!!!

    • LES

      Do you know what a “REDNECK” is ? Back in the 20s when the union members were fighting the people brought in by the companies to break up the unions, the union members wore red scarfs so the groups would know which side you were on.

      • James Reeves

        Gee I am learning. I always thought redneck was from our sunburn from working out in the sun.
        James from Alabama

        • independant thinker

          james, I have heard both your and Les’s origins of the term now here is another I have heard. The term redneck comes from the red clay dust that flew up and settled on the necks of the farmers in certain areas of the South. There is probably some truth to all three origins.

      • libertytrain

        I don’t think many bother to Google it cause they always “assume” they know the origins.

      • independant thinker

        Les, Seems like I heard this occured in the West Virginia coal fields.

    • http://donthaveone Beberoni

      That is what I was taught growing up, but after investigating it, Ive found it not to be so. Just as I investigated this guy named Jesus, and Ive found it all to be true. One can find answers and the truth to all things, if they just look. Its all there. Now I dont believe all the bad things I hear, even in these posts, but I do believe things I have read about, that I can see happened without a doubt, and put 2 and 2 together to get the answer. He wasnt as rosy as we were taught in school. And to think growing up, I actually thought everything Walter Cronkite said was true, and when I started examing things later in life, boy was I ever let down when I found out he was a huge liar also. So research things, to get answers. Dont accept everything people tell you. Dont believe everything a Pastor tells you. See if the scriptures back up what he says. If they do, then its great, if they dont, you need to confront him and find out why he is saying what he says. But seek the truth, and you will find it.

  • Dale

    In the twenty five years after 1865 congress passed laws to make Lincoln’s actions during the war legal. Lincoln broke more laws than we can discuss. However, those federalists who supported the “need to preserve the union” so that the federal government could force the states to comply with “its” will, over the next 75 years re-wrote history and changed the “motivation” for a war that should have never been fought. They perpetuate this false “the greatest president” myth. Someday, maybe in a few hundred years, the history books will be re-written. Only then will we begin to recognize the truth, and the truth is that, without doubt, Lincoln was the worst president this country ever had. He has the blood of 750,000 people on his hands. A percentage of the total population greater that the percentage that Stalin killed in his “purges”. And we perpetuate the idea that a democracy is the best form of government ever because we all get a vote, but as George Carlin said “if our vote counted for anything, they wouldn’t let us”. We are all “slaves” to the establishment inside the beltway, and they are going to keep it that way whether they are Republicans or Democrats, because they are all the politically elite.

    • Hank, MO

      I hate it when someone’s argument leads to an affirmation of the statement: We’re all helpless, and there’s nothing we can do– we’re going to remain helpless.
      That’s absurd. We’re not helpless except when we ALLOW ourselves to be subjects of some government, person or ideology. As long as a person has a mind and is willing to use it, he is not helpless. Try using yours to liberate yourself from the common mind-set that the government is all-powerful; from your subjugation to the idea that you are a victim of your circumstances without power to change them; and from the apparent conclusion that being helpless is a virtue.

  • James T Sparks

    Many people don’t realize that some free black own slaves. Also the blacks in New Orleans fought against the union army. I am not defended slavery at all but the war between the states was not about that. Also New York city almost left the Union. Stuff that you don’t read about in most history book. Lincoln violated the constitution by disobeying it,

  • Mac

    On the narrow subject of States Rights, I believe the Confederate states were denied their right to secede from the Union. I think Nancy went a little overboard in thinking that Chip has gone to the Dark Side for expressing these facts and opinions.

  • Theresa Curran

    Well done, Chip. A recent European visitor to my home was curious as to our Civil War and the preoccupation with it that is so prevalent here in the South. He was surprised that I felt that slavery was made an issue to legitimize the invasion of the South by Northern forces and that Northerners were really not quite so noble when it came to slavery.
    As you so clearly point out, chasing the dollar bill is what is left after you distill the other factors out of the mix. It always comes down to that. Nothing has changed in 150 years. P.S. I am a Yankee raised on the same canards about the war as you were.

  • GenEarly

    If you win the war, you get to write the history. As a Southerner, I still feel the taste of defeat and the respect for my great grandfather from NC, who was a poor farmer,with no slaves, who fought with the general I am named after.
    States Rights was destroyed by this war and the 17th Amendment in 1913.
    The War was a failure of elected leaders North & South and THAT is the lesson for us to understand today.Politicians will not avert disasters, either Financial or Constitutionally.
    Progressives progress,so Lincoln,Wilson,Teddy Roosevelt,FDR,LBJ,Carter,Bush,Clinton,Obama are a continuum of less freedom and more Federal Government; less Constitution, more Tyranny.

    • Vic Bailey

      GenEarly, I totally agree, being from GA. it’s still the same thing going on now, the DemocRATS want Big government and higher taxes and steal from the taxpayer and take their retirement and anything else they can steal and when they die they will be heroes, WRONG. Anytime you step on the Constitution you ARE a TYRANT, as Lincoln was, the only good thing he did was get rid of a central banking complex. Everything else was questionable. Semper Fi.

  • Vic Bailey

    As usual when someone dies they become a hero no matter how bad a person they were. The South was mad because they were paying 5 times more taxes than the north because of all the ports in the south. They tried to level the taxes but the indrustrial North wasn’t going to change anything. Lincoln was a tyrant and a shyster lawyer and that is the reason this United States are so screwed up is because of so many Greedy Shyster Lawyers in too many offices in Washington. They make the laws and they know how to break them. Lincoln was NO hero, he was a typical shyster lawyer of the times. As far as being honest Abe wrong again, he was like Bama in ONE respect, he was born somewhere else and said he was from a totally different state, see, ALL LAWYERS LIE, it’s in their blood, just like TV Preachers. Semper Fi.

    • JIBBS

      So what, Lincoln was from a different state, nobama is from a different country. Please go check your facts again.

  • Billy Cooper


  • Dean

    The Lincoln that exist in the revisionist history books of this nation is a complete fantasy character! It was Lincoln that brought us “Washington D.C. is superior to the States”, which is totally contrary to our Constitution. Lincoln had no respect for blacks and if you’re looking for someone of that era that was concerned for the well being of blacks, look up Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson!

  • Jwoop

    Every argument between the states before the war was about slavery and its expansion into new territories. The war was not started by directly refering to slavery, but all the issues about secession were within two degrees of the issue of slavery. The war, indirectly, was about slavery. If there was no slavery, there would not have been a civil war. There were no other major disagreements.

    The south’s economy was based on cotton and tobacco. These products were produced by slaves. There wasn’t going to be any mass “freeing of slaves”. All the wealthiest citizens of the south were plantation owners. They were not going to give up any competitive advantage and start paying for labor.

    • Bruce D.

      I grew up in RI and the history books taught that the Feds were making slavery in the territories illegal. The South felt that eventually the North would dominate the South because of this if the territories became States. So I think you are right. States rights and slavery were intertwined as it was creating a divide and a power struggle between the North and the South.

    • dan

      I would hope that you would consider what the electoral college would have had to do with NEW states admitted…and the preconditions that
      precipitated their admission and the rights of the ESTABLISHED states
      to determine their business /economic practices….although I can tell by your post that you have been to public school…sigh

  • Walt Chandler

    The North is so sanctimonious on the race issue. There were thousands of slaves in the North. Northern business men were responsible for most of the slave trade. By far; most people did not own slaves in the South. Check out the history on how racist the North were to Jewish people — even up until the 1970s! Another interesting fact is the number of Free Blacks that owned slaves for economic gain AND also another uncomfortable fact for many is that there were thousands of Free Black citizens in the South that were combat soldiers for The Confederacy.Yes, the holier than thou Northerners makes me sick.

  • John F. Tashjian

    I, also, was brought up to “revere” Abraham Lincoln; and, as is the case with you, Mr. Wood, I wound up finding that Honest Abe was/is just as flawed as everyone else. About the only difference between Lincoln and Obama is that, barely a week after the end of the American Civil War (beg pardon: “The War Between The States…[SNEEZE]), John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln. Were that to happen today, Team Obama would retaliate by ordering everyone of the Right into either re-education camps or (however unlikely it seem nowadays) gulags.

  • Robert

    what you forgot to mention is that president Buchanon had made agreements with the southern states on the seperation of the states including that fort sumpter was to the souths property. no one tells you about that fact and that lincoln had no right to have troops stay on that post. that was an act of war by lincoln which he had no right to do since only congress can declare war. what disregard to the constitution of the united states. Lincoln thought of himself as dictator. what else could you think of his actions. He and roosvelt are in my mind the worst.

  • Justin

    Funny how some people think Lincoln was great. He had one of the most corrupt campaigns, created income tax (one of the most corrupt actions by any government) and created the draft (USA defense was voluntary until Lincoln…why fight for a cause you don’t believe in?)
    On the other side he preserved the union (I still wonder if this is good or bad) had a hand in freeing slaves…but never changed the constitution that stated indians and slaves counted as less than one person and I think created the first national park (this is very admirable). Presidents like all people have flaws and some more than others!!

    • independant thinker

      ” I think created the first national park”

      Nope, Grant created the first national park (Yellowstone) in 1872. The first federaly protected area was what is now Hot Springs National park which was protected in 1832 and became a national park in either 1912 or 1921.

  • L. Banks


    Thank you for a very thought provoking article. I grew up in Illinois, the Land of Lincoln and visited Springfield and Lincolns home and tomb at age 11 on a class trip. I moved at 15 to Virginia and then went to college in North Carolina as a History and English major. I had two very wonderful professors for History who taught us both sides. One point they made was on the economics of the war and who stood to gain. The North was becoming more industrial and needed cheap labor to work in the factories. The South had slaves and much of the production of cotton and other staples came from the South. The economy in the South was sound and envied. The Civil War destroyed the South and their economy and lead to the total domination by the North and the release of slaves who traded one way of life for a another life of “slavery” working in the Northern factories (If they were truly free how come it didn’t come until th 60′s). We treated the British better than our own brothers in the South. The North did nothing to stop the continued raping of the South by unscupulous men both in business and in government even after the war. Women were left to defend and work the farms and many of the former slaves stayed because they were family to many of the owners and they wanted to help as family sticks together. The North continues to dominate and belittle the South, but these places are now facing bankrupcy and the Southern states are flourishing. Southerners fought for their land and for their right as free men. Slavery was a tool used to incite, but the real issue was economics…follow the money and you will often find the real reason.

  • Donald

    Just so Chip will know, we live in the Unied States, not the Divided States. Taken to his logical conclusion, we could gradaully disintegrate into 50 separate Nations as each State, for its own reasons, decided that they didn’t like any given piece of legislation passed by the Congress.

    Chip is leading us into the Balkinization of America. Then we could fight each other right here on the Continent. At least, we would no longer be able to invade other countries. Maybe some states could become part of Canada. I doubt that Canada would want them, since they might then want to quite Canada.

    Chip needs to be reminded, “United we Stand, Divided we Fall”.

    • Bitter Libertarian

      Donald, You can stand with politicians (not citizens) who violate Human Rights as laid out in the Bill of Rights..hope that works out for you..I will not, and if my judgement and division against these “politicians” defines me a Divider..then so be it. History will define those who stand for Freedom & Liberty do draw lines, and the last time I checked if those lines werent “drawn”..there’d be no United States.
      Liberty & Freedom dont always come about by standing with rulers who are wrong. :)

    • dan

      It’s almost as if you just read the constitution for the first time.
      Sovereign States rights ring a bell?Try the federalist papers or what the founding fathers had in mind before you strain yourself…
      Sovereign citizens derive there rights not from government ,but from the Almighty Creator,and the States are the government of their people
      before the feds….WE ARE A REPUBLIC….

      • smilee

        Boy , are you ever confused

        • Dan az

          So smileeeeee how so, can you explain or show us what you mean?

          • smilee

            The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, States rights fall outside these laws as Amendment ten makes clear. It does not appear you are very knowledgeable of the Constitution so you should not accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of.

          • Dan az

            There is no such thing as, “constitutional rights”. The Constitution grants no rights. Our Rights do not come from the Constitution, rather the Constitution recognizes our Rights are God given and inherent. Crafting a Constitution does not change the fact that people cannot create rights or give rights they do not have to others. Further, the Constitution does not, and cannot be amended to, limit the sovereign people of the United States of America. The Constitution for the United States of America is the document the people used to create their government. It is a Trust Indenture, wherein the delegates of the college, with the creative authority from the People, formed the Indentured Trust called “government”, wherein the officers of said government are the collectively assigned the capacity “Trustee” and the People are the Beneficiary. The Bill of Rights was attached to The Constitution for the United States of America to form The Constitution of the United States of America, which binds government officials to the limited operations of government as specified in the contract and limits them from violating the God given inherent rights of the people. These constitutions neither prescribe nor claim to prescribe any rights to anyone. Instead they grant privileges to officers of government and restrict those officers from any action that would violate The Constitution of the United States of America. Our Constitutional Republic government, only governs itself as it is limited by its Constitution and Law; it has no authority to control the sovereign people of this nation; the people govern themselves. Again, the Constitution grants no rights; our Rights are God given, inherent and unalienable.

            Therefore, though most rights in The United States of America are constitutionally secured, there is no such thing as a “Constitutional Right”.

          • smilee

            GO SOBER UP AND THEN TRY IT AGAIN!! Like I said before you have no understanding of the US Constitution what so ever, SAD!!!

          • Vicki

            smilee says:
            “The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, States rights fall outside these laws as Amendment ten makes clear.”

            Since amendment 10 says powers and not rights I must presume that it is not Dan az who is confused as to the meaning and content of the Constitution.

            smilee says to Dan az:
            “GO SOBER UP AND THEN TRY IT AGAIN!! Like I said before you have no understanding of the US Constitution what so ever, SAD!!!”

            What a wonderfully thought out response Smilee. I hope you didn’t take long working on the wording.

            States have NO rights. Only powers. People have rights AND powers.
            Read the Constitution. Read WHO has rights and WHAT has powers. (See my long post to smilee above)

          • smilee

            Vicki says:
            February 14, 2011 at 2:26 am

            Your play on words is so silly and childish, Power=rights=authority, all Synonyms meaning the same thing fact that is says power does not mean they DON’T have rights and authority TO EXERCISE THAT POWER, the key is it does not change the meaning as your silly take implies. UNLESS YOUR TOTALLY STUPID AND I DON’T THINK YOU ARE, I REALLY DO BELIEVE YOU DO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE AND ARE JUST PULLING MY LEG!!

          • Vicki

            smilee says to me:
            “Your play on words is so silly and childish, Power=rights=authority, all Synonyms meaning the same thing fact that is says power does not mean they DON’T have rights and authority TO EXERCISE THAT POWER, the key is it does not change the meaning as your silly take implies. UNLESS YOUR TOTALLY STUPID AND I DON’T THINK YOU ARE, I REALLY DO BELIEVE YOU DO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE AND ARE JUST PULLING MY LEG!!”

            Well I have looked up the definitions of power and rights and authority and while they are clearly NOT equal each has so many uses as to make it almost impossible for them not to be confused as being equal. Just one example

            Power is a noun, a verb and an adjective. In it’s noun form 1 of the definitions is
            1 b : legal or official authority, capacity, or right
            Since we are discussing the law (Supreme law of the land) smilee would appear to be correct that power=right. And indeed that is what I used to believe before studying the Constitution.

            Principles of Constitutional Construction

            5. Rights and powers are complementary. Every right recognized by the Constitution is an immunity, that is, a right against a positive action by government, and is equivalent to a restriction on delegated powers. Conversely, every delegated power is a restriction on immunities. An immunity may be expressed either as a declaration of the right, or as a restriction on powers.”

            since something that is complementery can not be equal I assert that the claim in the dictionary and in smilees statements is, for the purpose of Constitutional law, false. Remember that English is annoyingly context sensitive so the dictionary is not actually in error.

            10. Powers are narrow, rights broad. The entire theme and tenor of the ratification debates was that delegated powers were to be interpreted as strictly as possible, consistent with the words, and rights as broadly as possible, with the presumption in favor of the right, and the burden of proof on those claiming a power. Potestas stricte interpretatur. A power is strictly interpreted. In dubiis, non præsumitur pro potentia. In cases of doubt, the presumption is not in favor of a power.

            Clearly the framers understood that power is not equal to rights or they would not claim one is narrow and the other broad. Thus I assert my words are not a “play on” but the actual words as understood by the founders.

            People have rights and powers. Government has only the powers the people delegate to it. The Constitution prevents the people from delegating certain powers to the government even if a democratic majority wants to.

          • Vicki

            smilee says:
            “Power=rights=authority, all Synonyms meaning the same thing”

            If they were to mean the same thing then and now then the following
            statements would make sense.

            The Bill of Powers.
            1. …the power of the people peaceably to assemble…
            2. …the power of the people to keep and bear arms.
            4. The power of the people to be secure in their persons, houses…
            6. …the accused shall enjoy the power to a speedy and public trial…
            7. …the power of trial by jury shall be preserved…
            9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain powers,
            shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
            by the people.

            The Bill of Authorities
            1. …the authority of the people peaceably to assemble…
            2. …the authority of the people to keep and bear arms.
            4. The authority of the people to be secure in their persons, houses…
            6. …the accused shall enjoy the authority to a speedy and public trial…
            7. …the authority of trial by jury shall be preserved…
            9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain authorities,
            shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
            by the people.

            Interesting that amendment 9 does make sense thus confirming that though the assertion that power=right=authority can not be substantiated with the above experiment the assertion that people have rights and powers is substantiated.

          • Vicki

            smilee says:
            “Power=rights=authority, all Synonyms meaning the same thing”

            Lets try another experiment just for fun.

            “That to secure these powers, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just rights from the consent of the governed” (Declaration of Independence).

            “That to secure these authorities, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just rights from the consent of the governed” (Declaration of Independence).

            “That to secure these powers, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just authorities from the consent of the governed” (Declaration of Independence).

            Well the last one is close but all in all I was unable to validate the assertion that power=rights=authority.

        • Hank, MO

          I think it is you who are confused, Smilee. The Constitution and resulting government are systems created by man to assist him in the conduct of his affairs. He retains the right to amend those systems, however, if they become inefficient in that endeavor– even to the point of non-existence, if necessary. Your mistake has been made thousands of times throughout history– People have set up various forms of government; those governments have then come to think that they are all-powerful and above the will of the people; the people then destroyed those governments, either through peaceful means or by violence. In every case, I would bet there were people such as yourself who tried to convince others that the established system was almighty and above the power of the people. In every case, they were eventually proven wrong, as you are. The people created it; they can destroy it. It will only remain so long as the benefits it provides are generally perceived to be preferable to the mayhem which necessarily prevails while another system is developed and constructed. But, as in Egypt, when the system becomes so abusive or its regulations become so onerous that mayhem is generally perceived as preferable to the continuation as subjects of such a government, the subjects rise up once again and assert their power over the system– they “amend” it out of existence. The process may take many years and may or may not be violent, but it has proceeded inexorably throughout history and will continue to do so.

          • Vicki

            From the Declaration of Independance.
            “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

            It is clear by this that the founders did indeed understand the need to watch any form of government and be ready, should government become destructive of the ends for which government is created, to alter or abolish said government. It is even listed as “The RIGHT of the people” to do so. People have rights and powers. Governments only have powers.

          • smilee

            Hank, MO says:
            February 13, 2011 at 6:49 pm

            CONFUSED!! Your post is the definition of confused you make no sense to normal people.

          • Vicki

            smilee says apparently to Hank, MO:
            “CONFUSED!! Your post is the definition of confused you make no sense to normal people.”

            Do you have the common definition of “normal” people there Smilee. I.E. people like you? I had no trouble making sense out of his writing. Then again I would not expect you to consider me in your set of “normal” people.

  • Justin

    The cotton gin and technologies were making slavery obsolete!!

    • John Degges

      The cotton gin was making slavery obsolete? Until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, the separation of the seeds from the cotton fibers was a time-consuming job (have you ever tried it?). The cotton gin made slavery profitable, for its use greatly reduced the labor necessary to remove the seeds from the fibers.

      • dan

        there’s a point I hadn’t considered…you little cotton picker :)

      • Al Sieber

        John D, I worked in a cotton gin over 30 years ago here in Arizona, tell me your experience, ever picked cotton?

  • Norma

    I, too, was taught to revere Abe Lincoln, mostly because of his honesty. I think he, who began from humble beginnings, was truly honest in general, but there are things I didn’t know about him personally. But I think you could say that about all presidents; there was a little bad and a lot good, or there was a lot bad and a little good. What we need to be interested in is the primary things he believed in and stood for. I do not think our current president is a Christian and does not taut the Christian ideals. With him, anything goes, such as abortion, same-sex marriage, getting support from whomever you can, no matter their morality. I think his wife is a steadfast racist. I know that the black people were mistreated in the old days, but I think it has gone overboard, and the white man is the one mistreated in the present days. Reagan was a good man and that made him a good president. I think he believed in God, and believed in living a moral life. He believed in our country and protected it in any way he could. Some of my friends through the years were black people and they were good and moral. The same goes for some white people. Race doesn’t really have anything to do with it now, but a few blacks have been “raised” to think differently, and the same goes for white. The important thing to believe in, although many, many disagree, is to believe in God. To live a godly life is more important than your station in life or your race. Some people won’t find that out until it is too late.

    • Bible Betty

      Do not refer to President Reagan as a Christian president. It’s a well-known fact that Nancy Reagan manipulated the president’s schedule based on her astrologer’s predictions. True Christians know God’s work and true Christian know that astrology is a false religion and an insult to the one true God.

      • Vicki

        Since Nancy allegedly went to astrologers and not Ronald you have not shown that Ronald was NOT a Christian. Further please cite chapter and verse where astrologers can not be Christian.

        • Bible Betty

          I found this online:
          ‘The book of Genesis says: “God made two great lights: the larger one to govern the day and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set these lights in the sky to light the earth.” (Genesis 1:16-17 ) Clearly, God created the heavenly bodies to light the earth, but not to function as a therapist, oracle, or god. The idea that the sun moon and stars have a mind of their own has been disproved by modern science, so there is no need to perpetuate it with a belief in astrology.’

        • Bible Betty

          I found this too:
          ‘Horoscopes, sun signs, and psychics all operate on the premise that heavenly bodies and celestial events determine what will happen in people’s lives. However, the Bible says that only God determines our lives: “You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your Book.” (Psalm 139:16)’

        • Bible Betty

          It’s NOT ALLEGED it’s a FACT that Nancy used astrology to try to protect the President after he was shot. It’s a fact and that’s why Donald Regan was fired as Chief of Staff. He tried to stand up to Nancy so Ronald Reagan fired him. Read Donald Regan’s book, it’s all there. Or why don’t you go to and buy “What Does Joan Say?: My Seven Years As White House Astrologer to Nancy and Ronald Reagan” by Joan Quigley.

          You asked for proof? Do you need more? Have you lived most of the last 30 years under a rock? Why do I have to prove FACTS to you?

          • Vicki

            Bible Betty writes:
            “You asked for proof? Do you need more? Have you lived most of the last 30 years under a rock? Why do I have to prove FACTS to you?”

            Ad hominem attack noted. Your name is new so I will presume ignorance.
            You do not have to prove facts you have to prove assertions WITH facts.

            You have asserted that Ronald Reagan can not be a Christian because his wife went to an astrologer. You provided hearsay evidence that tries to imply that Ronald Reagan was into astrology. That evidence is not sufficient proof of your claim.

            You provided quotes from the bible that did not in any way indicate that belief in astrology is un Christian so you have also failed to prove your assertion that Nancy was not a Christian.

            You (Bible Betty) made this interesting assertion:
            “The idea that the sun moon and stars have a mind of their own has been disproved by modern science, so there is no need to perpetuate it with a belief in astrology.’

            Is this the same modern science that tries to prove that God does not exist? Also where is “need” relevant to someones belief?

            Bible Betty writes:
            “..the Bible says that only God determines our lives:..”

            If only God determines our lives and God also set the stars in motion why again should I NOT believe there is a co-relation between where the stars are and what God is doing with our lives?

          • independant thinker

            I have not looked up the exact scripture but the Bible also mentions knowing when to plant by using the signs of the heavens.

      • L. Banks

        I am amazed at the thought that astrology is evil. Astrology is extremely difficult to learn since it is really based upon mathematics. Astromony and Astrology were considered the same science until the 2nd century AD. Astrology itself can be divided into two camps: “Natural astrologers” (i.e. astronomers) study the motions of the heavenly bodies, timing of eclipses, etc. “Judicial astrologers” study the supposed correlations between the positions of various celestial objects and the affairs of human beings. Thus, the Magi who came to find the “new King” were astonomy/astrology followers and used this information to bring their gifts to the new king.

        The premise of astology being that the sun, moon and stars influence the tides and currents the seasons, etc. Thus, the position of the stars at your birth also has influence on charactistics or traits in common with those also born during this time. As the planets, sun and moon continue to impact the earth they also continue to impact us.In our current time. The premise being that the sun, moon and stars influence the tides and currents the seasons, etc. Thus, the position of the stars at your birth also has influence on charactistics or traits in common with those also born during this time. As the planets, sun and moon continue to impact the earth they also continue to impact us. Those who were considered astonomers or followers of astroloy in their day are: Nostradomus, Chaucer, Milton, Louis the XIV, Galileo, Johannes Kepler and Augustine of Hippo also known as St. Augustine. A distinction must be made between the science of astology and the commercial practice of making predictions found in the newpapers, magazines,etc.

        • independant thinker

          Astrology and witchcraft (the practice of the ancient art of Wicca) are not evil in and of themselves. However, both can be considered evil to the extent they distract or draw people away from Christanity.

  • JR

    Excellent article. Thank you. I come from a family that lives in the north, and fought for the union. However, over the years I have become less and less enamoured of what Lincoln did. Perhaps not an evil man, but a man with incomplete presuppositions that has led to evil things occurring. It is a testament that anything is left of this country after Lincoln and FDR. However, we still CAN and must take this country back to its origins.

    We can, and we will.

  • Dan

    Wasn’t the Lincoln-Douglas debate over the expansion of slavery into the free territories? Thus Lincoln was opposed to slavery but was content to allow the south to maintain slavery. I think he did claim that there was a conspiracy by the south to expand slavery and eventually he took a hard line position against slavery everywhere.

    It’s also interesting to note that 6 states succeeded from the Union as soon as Lincoln took office. Where the southern states in the right legally to succeed? I believe so. But it was the south who fired the first shots wasn’t it? Thus started a civil war. Never did understand that phrase “civil war” since there is nothing civil about war. Was Lincoln right to fight this war and preserve the union as a whole? Just think how things would be if it hadn’t occurred.

    Would a group of small countries been able to win WWII? Even though the world and the US in particular totally screw up in the peace accords the same as they did after WWI.

    Chip’s article does open up the mind to different thoughts and cause one to ponder different ideas and most importantly for us to do our own research.

  • peter robison

    Hating American Presidents seems to be a national pastime. “Hate” is also a word that is popular with many of your readers. These sentiments do nothing to improve the national discourse. I suppose it is too much to expect,for you and your readers to look for positives that made this country great, and to offer constructive solutions. This country used to be the envy of the world, it is a shame that so many look for ways to divide us, rather than bring us together.

    • JIBBS

      We use to produce everything we needed, right here in the USA, thanks to all the tax’s and corruption from Washington DC, they are now made in China and sold to us and the profits go back to China…..and you wonder why the word HATE come into play so often, 20,000,000 Americans without a job. Did I mention the banking scandals, ect, ect. I hate the fools in DC.
      And there you have it !

    • Karolyn

      Thank you for your post, Peter. There are indeed many haters among those who post here.

    • DaveH

      We wouldn’t be divided, Peter, if half the population didn’t think it was okay to impose their personal preferences on the other half of the population through the force of Big Government. The only way back to a civil society is to cast aside the belief that one size fits all, and Shrink our meddlesome Federal Government back to its Constitutionally mandated size.
      Government doesn’t create Wealth. Government consumes Wealth.

  • Jayd

    As you said; “While it may not be true that might makes right, it is definitely true that the winners write the history books.”

    Any fool can express their ill informed opinions just as any fool can believe them. (e.g. Al Gore and his minions)

    What I see in many of these responses is a bunch of closed minded foolish sycophants who refuse to even look at the truth.

    Very much like the “hopetards” of today’s society.

  • Arminius9

    I once read in an editorial fifteen years ago (don’t remember the author), that Lincoln said the South could secede if they let the North keep the tariffs collected on outgoing cotton.

    Have you ever heard this? Can you provide a cite?

  • Martin Gorelick

    Why do Bob’s responses to people and his weekly posts read so differently from old letters of his I’ve read? It’s almost as if somebody else is writing them.

    • Bob Livingston

      Dear Martin Gorelick,

      This was written by Chip Wood, and this is a different forum from my Letter.

      Best wishes,

  • Mark

    Lincoln said slave owners should be kicked to death.

    You never mention that.

    Lincoln said any black man or woman is equal to any white man.

    LIncoln spoke in an era when demagogues had inflamed hate and fear to a fever pitch. Stephen Douglas sought fame and fortune by being being part of that demagoguery.

    Lincoln’s goal of course, was to first just stop the SPREAD of slavery. And he had to somehow deflect the hate mongering to do it.

    Douglas and others tried to paint Lincoln as “N-Lover” who wanted chaos, race wars, slave rebellion, and worse — white women to “be with” black men.

    So when Lincoln got up to speak, in Charleston or Quincy or Peoria, or later in Washington, he had to be careful. Lincoln had to placate the crazies, because he was running for office, not giving sermons. He was trying to win votes.

    It is not astonishing that Lincoln had to measure his prose, to be careful how he said things — the astonishing thing is how powerful Lincoln’s speeches were against slavery.

    Lincoln haters today simply pick out the parts where Lincoln would validate his opponent’s position. For example, Lincoln would say “blacks and whites may not be equal.” but then in the next sentence, Lincoln would say what they are not equal in . We are not equal in color, he would say. PERHAPS we are not equal in intelligence- Lincoln haters quote that, often leaving out the “perhaps”. But whites and blacks are equal in all rights in the declaration of Independence.

    But then Lincoln haters never quote the next part — where Lincoln would emphaticallly declare we are ALL equal in the rights in the Declaration of INdpendence, and any black man or woman is equal to Judge Douglas or myself.

    Lincoln even said slave owners (those who see blacks as merchandise) should be kicked to DEATH.

    Not kicked to unconsciousness, not kicked to stop slavery — kicked to death. An astonishingly brutal metaphor. It’s revealing about Lincoln that as soon as he could — that is exactly what he did, kicked slavery to death.

    Lincoln could have ended the war sooner, many wanted him to. The South sent Blair back and forth between Lincon and Davis, Davis hoping for an end to the war, just keep slavery.

    Lincoln would not do it. Lincoln did discuss buying off the slave owners, as late as March of 1865!! At the Hampton Roads Conference, Lincoln brought up compensating the slave owners.

    But Lincoln would not stop kicking slavery until it died.

    Lincoln could have left 13th Amendement fail, and without him, it would never have passed Congress. Without his death, it would never have been ratified in the states.

    Lincoln could have done what many wanted him to — end the war, and let slavery be decided “later”.

    It is simply wrong of the Lincoln haters to run away from Lincoln’s full quotes, but that is a routine and well practiced art by the haters.

    For example, they tell you about the EP “not freeing a single slave” (utter nonsense, it freed about 4 million). But they do not tell you that Lincoln simulateously was working as fast as possible on the 13th Amendment

    For a profoundly wise explanation of Lincoln, and what he was up against, see Frederick Douglass speech of 1876. Douglass said ” measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined. ”

    And Lincoln haters know it. That is why they hate Lincoln. He was swift, zealous, determined– and successful.

    • Bob

      Mark, good post.

      • eddie47d

        It’s good that the pros and cons of all Preidents are debated whether Lincoln,Bush, Obama or even Reagan. It also shows that our history is not as charming as we would like it to be. There does seem to be quite a bit of overkill in belittling our Presidents too. Obviously no one on this site could or would run for political office. They (we) couldn’t handle the real heat of constant negativity.

    • chuckb

      i don’t know where you arrived at your information, the history books i have read all agreed on one thing the slavery issue was mute, the civil war was fought over states rights, both the north and south had slaves. lincoln did not condone or accept slavery, he belonged to the society that advocated sending the slaves back to africa, he did not think they could assimilate into this country.

      • Dan Burke

        A bunch of all this is very interesting to read.

        Based on what I have read and heard here as well as over the past year as I have become more engaged in all this political stuff:

        1. President Abraham Lincoln is responsible for his breach of the Constitution.

        2. The southern states did not break away because of violation of their state rights (this is part truth) but rather because of slavery. Apparently if you wanted to be part of this new “South” you had to have slavery…. Interesting bit that supposedly was in their “Constitution.”

        3. Everything is tainted by what we want to believe. If we want to justify the South, then we will see point one and accept it as truth. If we want to see this was all about slavery, then we will see point two and accept this as truth. Note: both could be truth! There is no conflict except that which we choose to see. Now it is possible that one or both statements are also false.

        As for myself, I believe that if slavery had been put off, the nation would have foundered and died. If this nation was inspired in its creation and founding (The Constitution), then God would abhor slavery. The Lord would forgive us for a season, but if we persisted in failure to repent of our mistreatment of our fellow men then God would have us suffer consequences or destroy this nation just as several times God suffered ancient Israel to be “destroyed” on several occasions as consequence for their failure to follow after righteousness. Our have we all forgotten that the prophets so long ago discouraged Israel from having a king, yet it was the people who kept asking to have a king so they could be like all the nations around them…. If we had kept slavery, we would have eventually rid ourselves of slavery but only to be like the rest of the world. And if that was the case, we would have also adopted marxism, communism, or some other form of tyranny long before now? And would this have destroyed our nation as it has so many others?

    • DaveH

      The other side of the story:

      • DaveH

        From the above article:
        As Lincoln stated in a famous, August 22, 1862 letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

        • Hank, MO

          But having invested so much blood in the conflict, how could Lincoln then have ended it without resolving the very question about which much of the justification for the war had revolved? I think slavery was really of little economic consequence to the South by the time the war began but was more of a pretext for the North to impose its will (and taxes) upon the South. Power and greed were far greater motivators than was any inclination toward the humanistic treatment of the slaves (not that there weren’t many who genuinely hated that institution and all the evils pertaining to it). The fact that the issue of states’ rights still enters current political discourse is evidence that it was the struggle for power more than humanism which prompted these two forces to war, and that issue was not totally resolved by the war. The economic advantages to those who would hold political power were the true motivators for the Civil War, just as they are for the “PC Civil War” that is swirling around us at this very moment. Under our constitution, I believe the issue of states’ rights will never be finally determined but will always emerge at that point when the federal government becomes abusive in the exercise of its powers. We will be fortunate, indeed, if that government can again be brought back within its limits at each such occurrence without the enormous bloodshed which attended our first Civil War. May God be with us and guide us in that purpose.

  • Justin

    Since many states are richer than third world countries independence by a state seems not only possible but desirable when conditions by the federal government are not favorable for the state. If I were part of a group which gave me little benefit and deteriates my wealth and standard of living then I should either leave the group or stop contributing to the group. Even in the stock market you must know when to sell for a loss and not lose all your investment when corrupt or leaderless company CEOs are destroying your wealth.

  • Harry

    Many times, in my 70 years, I have heard a Southerner say words to the effect that “The War Between The States” (they never use the term “The Civil War”) was not about slavery, but rather about states’ rights.”

    In the Declaration of Independence, we read “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

    Having been endowed by the Creator (not by govenment at some level) it is necessary to abrogate this fundamental statement in order to condone slavery. Neither states nor the Federal Government had the right to breach or ignore this self-evident truth. So, in my humble opinion, the “States’ Rights” argument cannot stand with regard to slavery. It was and is a cop-out.

    I would commend to you thethoughtful writing of Ken Blackwell on this subject “The Constitution did not condone Slavery” which can be found at – I think it will alter the way you see this issue.

    I don’t attempt to condone the means by which Lincoln achieved his ends, but given the myopia regarding slavery that existed in the South, I have to ask myself, “What else could he have done?”

    But Lincoln’s transgressions pale by comparison with our present President, who tramples the Constitution daily, with no fundamental issue such as slavery on the line.

    • Bob

      Harry, dubya didn’t trample any rights?

      • Harry

        I didn’t realize dubya was on the docket here.

      • Anthony

        Bob – Tell us again about the Patriot Act(s)

        • Vicki

          Bob tell us about Obama’s and the Democrat Congress RENEWAL of the Patriot Act.

    • Arminius9

      Actually, here in the South I have never heard it called anything but “The War of Northern Aggression”. We do not call it the War Between the States.

      • Bitter Libertarian

        Another funny thing is Most Southerners were democrats & most Northerners were republican. What a twist since then!

      • Harry

        Most of my contact regarding the subject is with Virginians. Maybe they’re not “real” Southerners…

    • Hank, MO

      That is exactly why I contend that the fundamental issue then and now is political power. Slavery was ancillary; it simply provided a means of inciting the general public to the North’s cause. Just as “30 million uninsured” provides a posture of righteousness to those who would impose Obamacare on the nation today, so was slavery used then to disguise the real intent of the behind-the-scene manipulators of that day.

  • Monte Poitevint

    The truth at long, long last! Thanks you for this hnonest commentary. Let the statist gnash their teeth in vain! The facts will out.

  • Bitter Libertarian

    If you watch the Documentary “The Money Masters” there is more information that Chip isnt mentioning regarding the British troops to the north, French troops to the south and the Russian Tsar threatening War in England of France got involved in the US Civil War.
    Note that the Rothchilds (Central Bankers)were very upset that Lincoln was financing the war using Fiat currency at Lincolns Descretion aka Treasury Notes (Lincoln Greenbacks) AND that Jackson had thrown the Last Central Bank out! The Rothchilds Controlled the English & French Govt and the goal was to split the US and install a Central govt & central Bank in the North & South of the North American Continent.
    To the average Northerner & Southerner it was about other issues, slavery, trade, etc..JUST like today where the media is now a tool to manipulate peoples understandings of whats really going on. In about 100 years people will see how the US was manipulated and distracted with all the Media Blitz issues (terrorists, Muslims, Islam, Gun laws, abortion, race) and divided against each other.

    Only those aware can respond differently to the elites efforts.

    • Aix Sponsa

      Amen, it is all deeper than it appears. Especially today.
      I often tell this story:
      I take one white pen, and one colored. I say, these are both pens. Each is different. Both write with ink. Each has differnt words on them. I hold them out and ask someone to “pick one”. When they pick one, I ask them, “Who picked that?” They always answer, “me”. I say, NO, I DID. They look at me strangely. I say, “NO, I gave you the choice. I chose the ultimate outcome. Republican or Democrat, what’s the difference.”
      Sometimes you can see the lights come on in their heads.

    • Dan az

      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.

      • Vicki

        Dan Az writes:
        “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.”

        Doesn’t that rather limit what the President can do? The Constitution is after all a set of limitations on government power.

  • Loyd

    Again, thanks for the TRUTH….Lincoln appeals to those people who want to justify themselves for all the blood that was spilled in the Civil War… for the North, they celebrated the blood on their hands…. while we the South buried our dead….we all lost….

  • Robert

    Dan the south fired after the north refused to leave the fort that was in southern territory as agreed to by president Buchanon the president of the united states. the south had left the union and the president had agreed to leave sumpter, but lincoln became president of the united states of the north not the south which had already left the union. lincoln is the one who violated the law and declared war on the south which had the right to leave. sumpter was in the carolinas. deep south.

  • watcher

    Is it news that Lincoln wasn’t divine? The author od the articles has read some books… Ok. Who hasn’t?

    Lincoln did have some outstanding character strengths, and some flaws as well. Like most white Americans at the time, he was a racist. But his views on that also began to evolve and change via Frederick Douglas.

    Yes he went to war to preserve the Union – and technically the States did (and do) have the right to tear away from the Union (according to the Founders). HOWEVER, the cancerous hypocricy of slavery in a Nation that proclaims that “all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..” must not be overlooked either.

    America payed a bloody price (highest death toll of any American War) for this astounding moral failure.

    Long after the Civil War (or whatever you call it) was over, the mistreatment of blacks continued for generations. Hard to think of a more infantile sin than racism.

    Seriously, can anyone explain why they should feel pride or shame for the ONE THING they had absolutely NOTHING to do with? (the color of their skin). If you want to feel proud of yourself, do good deeds. Be a good person.

    • Loyd

      Well written……AMEN

      • smilee


    • DaveH

      Today the racists sport a different color.

  • Aix Sponsa

    White, conservative, born and raised in Chicago, lived in south 40 years. My people came over from Europe in 1908: Having decades ago done my own study about Lincoln, I say there is lots of truth in the commentary. Also. 1) Look up the country of Liberia in Africa. The USA established it to ship blacks back to Africa. Lincoln did not advocate blacks staying here as free men. 2)The south was basicly facing taxation without representation. DC was sucking money out of the south and funding northern projects. PORK? 3)Lincoln was mentally ill, and suicidal. Many people felt he was psychotic and schezophrenic while POTUS. 4)News media was almost non existent. And most voters couldn’t read anyway. Sheeple? Lemmings? 5)The worst north/south war mongers I have met are native Texans. They are serious. 6) John Wilkes Boothe was no worse than many today who advocate violence against O and DC. 7)Lawyers are lawyers because they have been lying and stealing since they could crawl. Frog and Scorpion. 8) Presidential history is ususally distorted beyond recognition. Open your mind, but don’t let your brains fall out.

  • Ray J.

    This is truly sad; I encourage everyone to learn what they can about Mr. Lincoln and the political movers of his day. Lincoln was indeed a flawed man. If Lincoln were here today, he would be the first to admit his flaws. But why should I not revere the flawed man? As one pointed out earlier, an election was held, he won the election, his goal was no secret: to keep the union together. What I see is a man who was just that, a man. But he was a man devoted to keeping this union as one.

    I do not see any counts on the number of slaves who were brutalized, killed, ripped from their families, etc. And I find the thought that the South was ‘just getting ready to release the slaves at the judgement of the owner’ to be questionable; correct me here, but didn’t they already have that right to free their own ‘property’? And while the war was definitely an economic war, do not pretend slavery was largely in the foreground.

    The south fired the first shot…yes, at SC…true, union troops were still there, but there was no provocation and preparation was underway to move the troops and materials out; winter provided challenges…

    Border states were invaded…to this day St. Louis police is under the control of our governor, for fear they may defect to the south during the conflict…

    I honor the men and women who lost lives, loved ones, and suffered on both sides. I have no problem with those who honor Lee and Jackson; great leaders of the South. Lincoln even asked Lee to lead his army…but Lee had married into a Virginia family who had a plantation and needed slaves to run same; while no fan of slavery, he did what he felt was best for his family and personal interests. Was he flawed? Absolutely, but he was a great leader and great military mind.

    I advise those who hate Lincoln to note the changes that occurred in the man; the death on both sides weighed heavily on him; he pushed forward and did what he felt was right for this union. I personally admire him for that. He created a cabinet that was not a rubber stamp group, but had different opinions. When one examines the turning points of history, his assassination appears to be something that was needed at that point to maintain the union and keep the peace; many were not yet satisfied the war should be over, but as the train with Lincoln’s body headed toward Springfield, public opinion changed and the country had something to rally around. We did. We remain an inperfect union, much blood was spilled…Lincoln was far from perfect, that’s part of what makes the man and the story special. I see the divine hand of God in much of our history; remember, not all of our founding fathers were altruistic, either. Thank you.

    • DaveH

      Where does this idolatry of the “Union” come from? So, it’s okay to murder people to preserve the “Union”? It’s always been amazing (and scary) to me how many immoral things that people can rationalize if they think they will benefit.

      • Ray J.

        You make a great point, Dave; I can’t believe how many were willing to go to war and occupy territory so they could keep their slaves; it’s appalling so many were willing to kill to maintain their standard of living at the expense of others. It’s just as appalling how many were willing to kill to get tax relief from England. Just because people have different points of view…shots were fired…Absoluately stunning. If only Lincoln would have apologized…

  • John Degges

    A civil war occurs when two entities vie for the government of one country (think of the English Civil War in the seventeenth century; there were others in England that were not so called). The Confederate government was not attempting to take control of the United States of America, but to survive as the government of a separate country. “War for Southern Independence” is a better name for that war; “War of Northern Aggression” is acceptable; “Civil War” is not at all a proper name.

  • http://mozillafirefox RJG

    My ancestors fought for the south and now i’m presently married to a yankee from massachusettes,Since she has now been here a number of years in alabama she herself has seen and heard enough to know that the whole premise for the civil war was a lie.And as far as slavery goes she often wonders why the north is never mentioned as having them?you see only half the truth is told to the northern children to cover the hypocritical doings of Lincoln and the northern army.And when she hears now a black person use slavery to try to get by even in this day and age,she wants to school them to the fact that slaves were also owned by the north and slaves haven’t been allowed in over 150 years so why keep using it as a crutch? And what really is frightening is the north only keeps using something that ended way back then to still push their hypocritical agendas to this day.Well the south may have lost the war back then but the truth will never be defeated.And I did what my ancestors could’nt ,I captured me a yankee and exsposed them to the truth.

    • DaveH

      To the contrary, RJG, Slavery is alive and well. We are all slaves to the Government.

  • 1 Son of Liberty

    I have always thought that the history books in school had been written to suit someone’s point of view not actual events. I do consider myself a Republican but have always questioned the rewriting of civil war events by the victors. I had relatives on both sides of the war between the states and what I was told by relatives that was handed down through only a generation was quite different than was published in books. Slavery was not the motive I learned at a young age. It was more about rights and free trade and control. Everyone likes the idea of a nations hero’s. One of mine is General George Patton with all his flaws he was and will always be one great American to me and many others. We as a nation must overcome and learn from the past. We may have some dark days ahead of us darker and more challenging than those days in the 1860′s. God Bless the Republic is all we can hope for.

  • tracy

    I am wondering if we are watching the events in Egypt with the thought that it could,no SHOULD happen here. All we have to do is “peacefully protest” for the removal of BO! Eighteen days is all it took. Obviously the powers that be in the congress are not going to instigate impeachment proceedings. Lets throw the bum out!!!!!!!!!!!! We CAN do it!!

    ** Funny, too, how the imposter is for the protesters :)

    • armyvet

      People would be dancing in the streets here as well, if the Usurper presently occupying the WH would step down as they are in Egypt.

      • Karolyn

        I don’t think so.

      • Anthony

        The people taking over in Eqypt, right now, are still aligned with the same people running the show, that Mubarik had allegiance for. In fact, the Israelis were working towards having the Vice President take over – as he was the one person they really wanted — as it is even the General and the Defense Sec in that Country still understand who holds the reins of power to egyptian currency…. Do you?

        This is off-topic, slightly … only slightly…

        Egypt is being used by the Money Masters as a Test Case for the take down of America… It is completely scripted by both the USA and ISRAEL … their Leaders, not their Peoples.

        The real problem is that most people, like yourself… turn and look away instead of looking deeper – they drop their vigilance after winning one small conflict, as opposed to the War for True Freedom.

    • DaveH

      It’s not just BO, Tracy. As long as we have Big Government we are going to have a large portion of upset people. We are each unique human beings with unique needs. As long as one side or the other controls Big Government there will not be happiness. We need to cut Government back to its 1950s size, at the very least, if we want to get peace back.



  • Mark

    It is interesting that when “SLAVE OWNING” colonies in North America declare and then fight for their independence we are supposed to remember their actions with great reverence.The American colonies were owned by the British Empire.Fast forward roughly 80 years and history repeats itself.With this exception.Not one article in the U.S. Constitution can be construed as having conveyed ownership of the states to the Federal government.Quite the contrary as evidenced by the need of only 9 states ( not 13) to ratify the constitution.The ratification of 9 states did not bind the remaining 4 states to the union.Even after joining the union all the states retained their right of independence.King George III had far more justification using force to keep the colonies than Lincoln did trying to preserve the union for his own sake.

    • smilee


      The Constitutional Convention of the Second Continental Congress meeting in the summer of 1787 consisted of all 13 states and they agreed to be bound by it if 9 states voted to ratify this Constitution so it is incorrect to say that they would be outside the UNITED STATES, if you were right then those that did not ratify it would then never have been a part of the US and then succession would not have been necessary for them to leave the United States further they had representatives and senators in the US Congress up until they succeeded and since ratification yhey were a part of the US and participated in its government. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS OR IS IT YOU HAVE NO QUALMS TO SPINNING IT AS YOUR POST MOST CERTAINLY IS SPIN.

      • D.L.O.

        Article VII – Ratification

        The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

        Ok, that seems to VERY clearly state that ONLY those states whose Conventions ratify the Constitution are joined together under the Constitution. It also VERY clearly states that any number of States LESS THAN 9 is insuficient to establish the Constitution. It DOES NOT state that if 9 States ratify the Constitution that the remaining 4 States are subject to it weather they like it or not.

        Nice of you to try to SPIN Article VII. You SPINNING SPINNER from SPINVILLE.

        • smilee

          You ought to know your the expert at spin, you do it very well and your post is a totally wrong take on reality!

          • Vicki

            Smilee. From previous conversations with you in this very thread we know that you don’t know the difference between powers and rights. D.L.O. provided an actual quote where you provided nothing but your assertions. His reading of the Constitution (which he provided) matches our reading. Only the 9 or more that voted for ratification would be bound by ratification.

            Now if you happen to have some actual documentation that says otherwise please present it. Your assertions based on your demonstrated understanding of what you read is not enough.

            I will however now provide evidence that D.L.O. is explicitly correct and that Smilee is in error.

            “The first State to ratify was Delaware on December 7, 1787. By terms of Article VII, the Constitution became effective with the ratification by New Hampshire on June 21, 1789. A new Constitutional government was formed in March, 1789. The States of North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified, and so were not initially part of the new order.”

      • Hank, MO

        Smilee, I think you mean secession instead of succession and seceded instead of succeeded, don’t you? One mistake, okay– but two indicates purposeful intent. For one who would have us believe that he has superior knowledge of the Constitution, the War Between the States and all things governmental, I would think that you would be better acquainted with the terms pertinent to that discussion.

        • smilee

          So I misspelled, I am a poor speller but you got the message anyhow and being a poor spelled has no effect on my being able to understand the Constitution so do not assume what is not in fact

  • An Idealistic Gentleman

    Yin Yang
    Everybody and everything has two sides, whether we accept it or see it.
    So, how about extrapolating the other side of things.
    What would the Northern Hemisphere (our world) be like today if the North had NOT been successful in reining in the South?
    I have never thought about it before!
    I’d like to see some comments on what would things be like toady.

    • Karolyn

      I saw a tongue-in-cheek movie about the US today after the south won the war. I wish I could remember the name of it. It is made like a documentary, with commercials for different types of slave things. a main character is a white politician, who, finding out he has African American blood, kills himself. There was also a movie about how it would be if the Germans had won the war.

      • Karolyn

        The movie is from 2004: “CSA: The confederate States of America”

        There are a lot of articles online about how history would have changed.

    • Karolyn

      Here’s a link to The Confederate Digest for a story of what would have happened if the South had won the war. VERY interesting!! Things such as China and Cuba would not be Communist.

      • smilee

        Quite the imagination never the less sheer speculation

  • armyvet

    What happened during Lincoln’s administration, can be examined from all sides, correct or incorrect. However, preserving the Union has served this country well. Divided, we would not have had the strength to have survived WWI or WWII. We would probably be speaking Japanese at this time. We all have 20/20 hindsight.

    The crisis today is socialism. It has slowly been creeping in, so slowly that people are unaware it is happening. Social Security was a major step in that direction (under FDR), but even before. Pubic schools is an early form. Schools existed long before the government took over. Many intelligent people came from those original schools. The government imposed so many regulations over time, and the cost increased with each. The inefficient government running everything (with our tax dollars)is the reason for the horrific national debt. We should be doing most of these things on a local level, instead of asking or allowing the government to do it.

    We are returning to slavery! We expect the government to provide all of our needs, which they will dole out to us in a measure they decide (just as as Obamacare) in which we have no decision. We will work for the government. Already the 1st 5 months of our labor goes to the government. Under Obamacare, and by the massive government borrowing, we will work longer to pay for it, we will have less and the more dependent we will become. The government decides how much of our wages they will take. Not us.

  • The Resolute Voice

    So …. let’s destroy another image and trample on it for selfish motives. Why not? That’s the trend of our times, isn’t it? I’m surprised he hasn’t attacked George Washington and the signers of the Declaration or those who managed to get the Constitution written and signed. So go the motives of those who don’t have the integrity to stand up and “do”, but would rather stay behind the scenes and “opinionize.”

    Lincoln did what he had to do to save the Union in difficult times. In truth, the South didn’t have to secede and fire on Fort Sumter. The South could have rid itself of slavery, a European institution that was foisted on the colonies by British rule, some 80 years earlier when the Constitution was signed, but it wouldn’t do that then. To get the Constitution and the nation in place, the Southern states had to be placated. To save the Union, Lincoln had to do what he did. Without the decisions Lincoln made, the U.S. would be two nations today and never a super military and economic power. WWII might have ended differently and/or the USSR might still be around and in control of Europe.

    The South was stupid to start the Civil War no matter what their grievances over states rights or slavery were. The region didn’t have the economic base and military industrial complex to win. In fact, Robert E. Lee’s decision to “invade” the North and have to fight at Gettysburg was as stupid a military decision, considering the situation of the South at the time, as Hitler’s decision to invade Russia and fight the battle of Stalingrad. Both decisions doomed the parties to lost wars.
    If Lee wanted the South to survive and gain recognition as its own country, he should have used his skill and troops to protect the South from invasion by the North, not run off on fruitless attempts to prove the South’s prowess by invading the North. He simply didn’t have the horses to pull it off. Worse still, at Gettysburg in the disastrous Pickett’s charge, Lee ordered 15,000 gallant Southern soldiers to fight a 19th century battle using 18th century military tactics. It was doomed to become the disaster that it did, a disaster that led to the South’s eventual defeat. After Gettysburg, the South had no more true bargaining power to attain a settlement of the war and remain its own nation.

    Lincoln did what he had to do during civil insurrection within a nation. Right or wrong, to judge him from our perch today some 150 years later is both aimless and arrogant and serves no real purpose except to diminish a great President.

    • CJM

      In the first place, the South did not start the Civil War; that was done via the North through unfair taxation in commerce along with a few other agendas. Where, in the Constitution, does it say that any State attempting to leave the Union is in violation? It does not; consequently, there was no legal violation whatsoever. In the second place, there was still slavery in the North until after the Civil War; for those who were considered ‘freed men’, the treatment of these people was less than desireable and certainly not equitable. You also say nothing about the slave owners who happen to be black plantation owners and held more slaves than their white counterparts. You also ignore the fact that slaves owned white indentured servants because their slave owners gave the indentured servants to their favored black slaves. If you really want to study history, you also need to accept what is there…you cannot change what was. The archives have even more information than some history books are willing to show.

      • Al Sieber

        CJM, I agree with you, good post. also the southern army was starving.

      • DaveH

        Add to that the fact that 4 of the states that fought for the North were slave states. Slavery was just an excuse for the Government to pursue their desired war.

  • bobbi henderson

    Just want to say….great article, really enjoyed reading it. I have always loved Lincoln, so I’ll, this once keep my opinions to myself.

  • Aix Sponsa

    No major anti-government/ anti-president protests will be allowed in the US today, as they are in Egypt, etc. I believe that WHEN the inevitable economic collapse occurs and hyper inflation begins, the American public will deteriorate from looting riots to massive government protests. WHEN things get hectic here, marshall law WILL be declared and ALL Constitutional Rights will be suspended. THE FED will bring the public to our knees by killing not only the news/communications, but electricity in general. Dictatorship will prevail and then we will see what these FEMA camps are all about.

    • eddie47d

      Go to any big city in America and you will see someone protesting about something every week. You seem to ache for our destruction for vocal rights are out there loud and clear. You seem to be doing a pretty good job of expressing yourself too.

    • smilee


      It would be more fitting if you handle was Henny Penny

  • B. Leonard

    I was born and raised in the south. When I was in high school history class, my teacher was the first person to explain that the Civil War was more about economics than slavery. I was astounded to learn this (what an ignorant child I was). However, I must say that this teacher was greatly respected by his students. He always showed both sides of the story.

    There are bigots in the north, as there are bigots in the south. But, not all people are bad anywhere. And, Lincoln did something positive in a negative way. I do not approve of his trampling of the Constitution, but I do believe that we are a greater nation as a whole today – not divided.

  • Tim L.

    When you say worst president that ever lived, G.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan come to mind. However, Reagan did one good thing in his life, he died.

    • Aix Sponsa

      “As you have spoken, so be it unto you.”

    • DaveH

      Coming from the peace loving left?

    • Vicki

      Would Tim L be willing to follow Reagan’s example?

  • http://Illinois'17th Old Henry


    Good article. I too, was “educated” about Licoln in the 50s and was subject to the same clap-trap. In the last 20 years I had begun to wonder about Lincoln’s trampling of the Tenth Ammendment.

    However, unlike yourself, I did not sleep thru Gammar class I learned, and remembered, that the word “but” is NOT used to begin a sentence. If you had not stated that you attended grade school in the Fifties I would have thought you were a recent graduate from our current schweal system…..

  • Southern Patriot

    I am so tired of the term “hater” and “hate” just because someone disagrees with you or a principal! It is used everywhere and is used mostly politically.
    I feel Lincoln was wrong in invading the South and allowing his Generals to totally destroy families and their farms (as in Sherman’s march to the sea). Most of those people were just trying to keep alive; most of their livestock and other resources had already been stolen.
    Slavery was morally wrong and it is still wrong today. Our federal government has the common folk almost at the point of slavery, taking from 20-40% of what we have earned to give to someone else either here or abroad. The feds want to tell us which light bulbs we can use, what foods we can eat, whether we can build a house on our own land (local government), and the list goes on. All of this is “for our own good” evidently because we are not intelligent enough to decide such matters on our own. My fear is that the federal government is becoming so oppressive that our citizens will rise up against the government and AK-47′s and AR-15′s are no match for tanks, remotely guided drones and the many other tools of the federal army. There would be another “un-civil war” and again the people will be the losers and the “elites” in power will still be there.

  • Mike

    When it comes to Lincoln I often wonder… what’s worse? Oppression or death? He helped to eliminate slavery, but at what cost? 700,000 deaths.

    • smilee

      Are you saying you would prefer slavery be legal yet today???

      • DaveH

        It is legal today. Government spends 40% of our GDP (and wastefully). Even the pre-civil-war slaves had some time to themselves.

        • smilee

          CRY ME A RIVER!!!!

          • DaveH

            Spoken like a post-civil-war Slave owner.

            Thanks, Sleepee, for revealing your contempt for others to the readers.

  • Dave R.

    What our country really needs are new leaders that resemble Washington many of the other founding fathers of our nation. If you read much of Washington’s own statements and learn of his self-sacrificing actions, you will see a truly great person who had the best interests of his fellow citizens and country at large in mind, in marked contrast to Lincoln and especially our current president who lacks substance, sincerity, leadership, integrity, morality and character when compared to Washington. Our current president is in it for himself and implementation of his socialist and eventually one world government agenda. Can anyone imagine Washington not revealing his original birth certificate and other personal information if questioned?

    I grew up in rural southwestern Pennsylvania. Each year, the 8th grade class took a bus trip to Gettysburg, and Lincoln was also honored. But later due to personal reading and law school, I learned much the same information related in Chip Wood’s article above. Lincoln violated Constitutional principles and rights in many ways in order to save the [northern] union. Conscription as first initiated by him.

    • DaveH

      There is no man alive who can intelligently and morally micromanage our lives as modern Government presumes to do. Even Washington did not possess that wisdom (nor would he presume to have that wisdom probably).
      And make no mistake — the leaders are in it for themselves, not us.

  • Oliver Woods

    Congratulations Skip. Now that your eyes have been opened to the “Real Lincoln” you need to turn that same critical spotlight on George Washington. Let’s see how open-minded you really are — try this for starters: There is more, much more.

  • http://com i41

    I went to country school in the 60′s and the diffferent teacher I had, always were praising TR, Wilson, Lincoln,and FDR. After school, at supper time my folks would ask what I learned, and when mentioning these Pres. I usually got a discussion between my parents pointing out what slubs the men were. When my grandparent showed up, it really got things going. As I have gotten older and did my own checking, these clowns weren’t the fine examples of school propoganda. Even though the same crap is being taught to kids now maybe slanted even more left. Timl. are you a government employed or a union jackass, I Reagan and Gw did alot of things we don’t like, but jackwagon dems and rino, sure can not compare to this crossbred marxist muslim moron we have in office now, Wilson and FDR are Onumnutts lite at best. With Reagan and GW, a lot of people were working and getting pay check, not government do nothing pay checks.

  • Henry Arnold

    Read your Constitution.

    Article I, section 9

    “The Privilage of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in the Case of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it”

    Lincoln has the Constitution on his side and you have done your part in tearing down America.

    • D.L.O.

      Hmmmm, just a thought

      Does Succession = Rebellion? If so, why?
      The north invaded the confederate states, and the constitution
      mentions nothing about who invades whom for this to apply. So
      Lincoln had the “invasion” box checked off.
      Public Safety would never have been in jeopardy if Lincoln had
      not gone to war. Still, he gets to put a checkmark in that
      box as well.

      Just because an individual has the Constitution/Law/Science/WHATEVER on “their side” does NOT mean that they have the INTENT of that codification on “their side.” Lincoln perverted the intent of the power vested in the constitution. One other small, tiny, insignificant detail really, The Power listed in Section 9 is a LIMIT placed on CONGRESS and so, even though President Lincoln had those “boxes” I listed checked off he DID NOT have the the power to suspend Habeus Corpus since that power belonged to CONGRESS!

      Just something to think about.

  • Buddy

    From what I understand, Lincoln’s great mission was to preserve the US Union. One might wonder why? Seems as if people in smaller political divisions (nations) are happier and more productive (except in military products) than are people in larger political divisions. So what’s this about preserving the Union? An ego trip for a central government?

    • DaveH

      Not an ego trip necessarily, but certainly the road to enrichment and power for those leaders.

  • Bart

    Pfft. Al Gore. Yeah Al, that climate change stuff, I’ll believe that when the water pipes in Arizona freeze. HehHeh, I’ll believe that when there’s snow in Dallas.

    • Carlucci

      There was snow in Dallas last week.

  • http://N/A Steve

    First Obama is not The worst president, He comes in after Bush Jr. and Carter (who may have been the worst), and Hoover. Also from all that I have read I would say that Washington was the best. Reagan wasn’t bad, but not as good as some think (and he was a lousy Govenor). I think they all need to remember what Slick Willy said “It’s the economy stupid”

    • http://PersonalLibertyDigest vieteravet

      Sorry to inform you, Obama is equal to Carter, At least Carter actually had responsibity of office before he became pres. Obama never held a supervisory position in his life(hell, he held a job). Wilson third from the bottom and FDR 3rd runner-up. Clinton-even to me a die-hard – wasn’t that bad(after the 1996 election).


    It is always, always, always about the money. History is written, rewritten, and taken out of context, quotations are made, distorted and quoted, but in the end the money and the money changers make the path of history and those who write the story of history only learn of the true factors which shape history too late to change the path.
    The manipulation of those in power by those money changers who wield the power purchased with the money gained from the puppets in power who perceive themselves to be the decision makers is the same since the money changers were cast out of the temple.
    Outrage, patriotism, honor to the fellow man, love of country, right, compassionate are all words and emotions spoken and felt by the people of the country, but the money makes and shapes history.
    The George Soros’s of this world are jerking the strings of the jerk in the office of the POTUS today and we the people are allowing it to happen because it is all about the MONEY!!!!!


    President Abe had the distinct honor of presiding over a full fledged insurection over a country knotted with growing pains. One may think that wars are glorius, rightgeous and that the healing all takes place over time, many who have lived under the circumstance of war are in agreement with man generals, they are hell, since armies are made to kill people and break things, they may be somewhat neutral, following orders is niether pretty or popular but it is done all through out history for God, country also economics. The winner gets to write the books, first.

    I am a fan of Carl Sandberg ardent historian and one who wrote a great deal about Lincoln, from time to time I reread his observations and still find them full of thought and valid opinion. So much of what takes place is full of holes and it is up to us to go back and look to fill these blank spots and correct a misplaced thought or a politically enforced misconception. The idea of the truth hurting is not so bad, quirky as it may be it is more useful in spite of the pain.

  • Patriot 777

    Do you think Lincoln was a MORAL man who wanted the best for ALL mankind? If you were President how would you have handled the situation? I would think that you would side with the South, because that’s where your roots are either originally or acquired. I think all the comments somewhat relate to the origin of your birth. Jesus was persecuted, scourged and died at the hands of the leaders of his day as well. Anyone can sit back and attack someone else, especially when they are dead. But the real question is that there is ONLY ONE UNIVERSAL STANDARD OF TRUTH, BOTH WITH REGARD TO THIS AND TO THE BIBLE. So the real question is knowing EVERYTHING that was going on in that day AND WITH JESUS SITTING AT YOUR SIDE, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY (FORGETTING YOUR ORIGIN), BUT BASED ON THE WORD OF GOD AND HOW WOULD YOUR DECISIONS HAVE IMPACTED ALL OF US IN THE FUTURE!!!

    • home boy

      i was just curious. do you know GOD’S name ? if you do why don’t you use it so others will know?

      • john t regrut sr

        gods name is adam, noah, moses, so on and so forth throught time. what was the reason for your question?

        • home boy

          the reason is that people don’t use his name .they only use his title ‘ where do you think your name originates . why would god give his first human beings a name and he not have a name . his name is in the bible over 7000 times and yet people don’t use it. why? people use your name when they talk about you don’t they. so why not use his name unless you don’t know it. yes his name is jehovah .some say yehweh

        • Karolyn

          God as known by Christians is made in man’s image, so to Christians he would have a name. The Real God has no name and cannot even be called a “he.”

      • john t regrut sr

        actually his name is johova.

        • ValDM

          Close, but not quite. In the Torah, it’s spelled without any vowels. The reason being that we were not supposed to speak the name of God. Only in modern times have we added the vowels.

          • YahCoyote

            YAHWEH HE spoke it to Moses: I AM that I AM. Theologians have deciphered that HE meant to convey HIS SELF EXISTENCE, HIS EVER PRESENCE, and HIS SIMPLE UNASSUMING WAY compactly in this short meaningful name.

  • Curtis

    It is called The Civil War because that’s what it was by definition.

    1. Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens: civil duties.
    2. Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state:

    There have been a multitude of Civil Wars throughout the ages… some have even seen more death and destruction than the “US Civil War”. To recap… it doesn’t matter what YOU call it, it doesn’t matter WHO started it or WHY it started… it was a “Civil War” because it was “a war between organized groups within the same nation state”.



  • john t regrut sr

    as the main article stated. lincoln saved the union, not only did he save only the union. but, he saved the whole country.. there were outside influences that a lot of people do not remember like other countries selling weaponry to the south. france for one. this is the type of things that put a monkey on lincolns back and it stuck there for almost 5 years. and in response to mike says, i had two great great grandfathers from pennsylvania that were pow’s in southern prisons. yes a lot of people died both union and confederate. their names are james knulph and joshuah platt… most of this knowledge was passed down to me by my grandmother.. and yes they came home at the end of the war and later told of the atrocities in the prisons of the south and that the south was so addiment in their beliefs, as was the north. that they had so little food, that they would eat anything rats, flies grubs. even their own excrement to survive the prisons of the south.. this was told my grandmother and she told me. so if anyone thinks that the civil war was not hell for both sides think again… these were the types of thoughts that lincoln had to endure as our 16th president. and that great sigh of relief was felt across the nation when lee surrendered at apomatox.. i have put enough in this post….i hope

  • Palin12

    Happy 47th Birthday today to Sarah Palin. Keep up the good fight against the libtards.

    • http://gunner689 gunner689

      Happy Birthday Sarah !!! We love you and may God Bless you and your family.

      • Norm

        She’s living proof that retardation doesn’t shorten life spans.

        • ValDM

          And you’re further proof of same.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          and you are living proof that a$$holes exhist!!!!

        • http://gunner689 gunner689

          Oh Norm, you’re such a scumbag. You really are a pathetic excuse for a human being. Do the world a favor and eat a bullet.

      • Curtis

        Happy Birthday Sarah… I hope the weather is nice for your birthday, maybe you’ll Russia!

        • libertytrain

          I realize you were trying to be clever but did you forget some words or does that last sentence mean something?

        • Palin12

          Hey Curtis,
          check out “Diomedes Islands” on wikipedia (or whereever). They are 2 islands in the Bering Sea between Russia and Alaska. One belongs to Russia and the other belongs to Alaska. They are 2.4 miles apart. Obviously you can see one from the other. That was what Sarah was referring to when Tina Fey made her joke about it.

    • Pete

      Happy birthday Sarah ! and we all know your either lieing about your age (a woman’s right) or your just an alien from the “PLANET OF HOT BEAUTIFUL WOMEN”. The name “Sarah” means “She who looks babe-o-liscous all the time” (That’s in the Bible) or the modern translation for Sarah is paraphrased “Babe-o-liscous wife of blessed husband”.

      So have a Happy Birthday and consider donating some of your genes for the betterment of “mankind” ….

      Personally I think you look 27 ……

  • Ben

    So, I see that this is a neo-confederate website and organization after all. Lincoln correctly understood that this nation was not created as a contract between states, but as a social contract by the people. The 1863 language of “Four score and seven years” dates the creation of the nation in 1776. The argument that “states” are sovereign is contrary to the ideal that “all men are created equal,” which is the basis for a belief in the sovereignty of “the people.” It is ultimately a statist doctrine which militates against the people as sovereign. Because the state powers set forth in the constitution (which were general and not delegated like those of the federal government) are constitutionally derived, the South had no constitutional right to secede, as they argued. They still retained, however, the natural right of revolution. However, any rightful appeal to God in their quest for independence from the Union (which they did not make as they stuck with the constitutional argument) falls flat and was not justified before God because it was inarguably– though it seems to the be argument by much of this crowd– based on denying the natural rights of a large portion of a race of human beings to eat the bread of their labor. The entire build-up to the Civil war and the ultimate reason for it was that the South wanted to continue the legal status of specified human beings as chattel property in their state laws and they could see the nation as a whole turning against that abominable and ultimately freedom destroying doctrine. Abraham Lincoln clearly saw– and said as much– that a doctrine which justifies the enslavement of a group of people based on race ultimately undermines the natural yearnings for freedom in the hearts of the slavers themselves and it militates against any moral argument for the freedom of any other group from the authority of government. Abraham Lincoln correctly identified slavery as just a different manifestation of the argument for the “divine right of kings.” God be thanked for raising up a man like Abraham Lincoln to play an important part in saving the Union and promoting the freedom of our land. Sadly, the statist doctrines of the Southern states were promoted and and maintained in the academy and have largely formed the basis for the Constitution bashing of the late 19th Century and the early 20th century that the modern liberals and socialists of the latter part of the 20th century have adopted in their largely successful attempts to minimize state government authority under the constitution and to socialize the nation’s economy under the authority of the federal government. A Lincolnian constitutionalism would remain a bulwark of strength against the federal incursions that have been taking place now for many years.

  • Rikk

    My great-grandmother who lived during the War Between the States always called it the War for Southren Indepentance She would tell about the horror of the occupation troops from the north. they burn homes, looted homes and thousand of southern men, women, and children died as a result. Here in Texas there were few slaves. the governor Sam Houston was trying to ban slavery in Texas before the war started. My great=grandmother said that when Union troops came to loot and burn homes, they would ask, where are your alaves, since few Texans ever had slaves, they would reply that they didn’t have any and the entire family would be excuted on the spot. She said they learned quick to say that their slaves run off during the war. Few armies in history were any worse then the Union troops occupying the south.

    • libertytrain

      I don’t think people realize or care about the truths of what all happened during that time.

  • Willie

    We need someone to write a Lincoln book for fifth graders that tells the truth. Imagine the look on the teachers face when he’s giving his book report on the messiah of the republic! Kids need to get exposed to the truth.

    • home boy

      truth is a dirty word in this world.

      • http://none BobM

        Truth is a maligned word in this world. All parties, GUILTY!

    • Norm

      One man’s truth is another man’s lies. You’d probably want to teach creationism to the the poor kids.

      • ValDM

        A lie is the absence of truth. Just as darkness is absence of light. Your thoughts could use just a wee bit more light.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    As a student of the Civil War I have always admired President Lincoln. However I have always tried to be open minded to faults the man had as I believe its more respectful to a man to recognize his faults rather than gloss over them out of hero worship. So I hope to present a good argument against this article. The first thing I wish to point out is that while Lincoln did indeed suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus he himself never trully say it as morally justified other than to compare it to a sick man having to take a bitter medicine until he got better in which case there would be no further need of it. The second is in regard to Lincolns quote on revolution. A rather common idea taught in schools is of Lincoln the Great Emancipator. What is often overlooked is that Lincoln was a conservative for most of his life. This applied to his views on reason and emotion. While Lincoln always championed the right of the people to revolt against their government in the case of he United States while Lincoln recognised their right I believe Lincoln would have been opposed to the idea if it could be avoided. Lincoln was a man of law, afterall he was a lawyer, so he always championed the rule of law and reason above emotion and anger. The third point I wish to make is Abraham Lincolns election is what sparked the secession of the southern states. Countless times he was refered to as an abolitionist who would destroy slavery and place blacks at the equal of whites. Also on issues of states rights one of the fundemental rights of a state fought over was the right to legalize slavery. So I disagree on slavery not being a central cause of the war. In addition on the matter of the Emancipation Proclamation Lincolns great love was always the Union. Even his most admiring fans admit Lincoln had to change before he became a fighter for black peoples rights. Even when he issued the proclamation he still focused on the Union. The goal was to save the Union not to change the war to one of slaves and freedom, though that would then be a goal. Finally I disagree on the issue of secession and its justification. While I agree the states have a right to oppose what they wish the states dont represent the republic, the people do. If secession had suceeded the Union would in my opinion have been destroyed and the republic we know and love would have been lost forever. While perhaps the states would have gotten what they wanted I think in the long term the lose of The United States Republic would have been catastrophic.

  • john t regrut sr

    in response to ontime this nation is still growing and still in it’s infancy. we might very well see another civil war. a war to end all war for this young nation of ours and it will be a war of the races. the civil war was one of father against son brother against brother. the next will be black against white, hispanic, muslim, all races of this country. if all the peoples of the world cannot become inhebriated in knowledge instead of self pity and greed, then the human race as we know it will cease to exist by our own hands. i will give it 40 years, and i will be long gone by then and will not give a damn. but, for now the world needs to waken and smell the flowers not where the next drop of oil is coming from. try looking for the future of all, not just one..

    • http://none BobM

      I’ve had enough of ‘wars that end all wars”.

  • john t regrut sr

    if anyone would like to reply directly to me, here is my email

  • home boy

    it would be nice if this country had a president and congress that really cared but since they are crooks that will never happen, so tolabel who is better is like saying the bonomo family is better than the gambino family. once a thief always a thief.

  • http://gunner689 gunner689

    it is interesting to contemplate what would have happened if the South had won the War of Northern Aggression. We would have been (2) seperate but interdependent nations; an Agrarian South and an Industrial North. Most of the freed slaves would have been returned to Africa which may have had a civilizing affect on those nations.

    If anything came close to the horrors of the War it was the period of Reconstruction with rule by northern troops and the corruption of the carpetbaggers. The GW Griffin movie, “Birth of a Nation” was far more truth than fantasy. To learn the true prospective of the War you need to also read the Southern accounts, many of which were published by Mockingbird Press.

    • Norm

      Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and all the traitorous leaders of the Southern Insurrection should have been lined up and shot for their acts of treason. Lincoln was very kind in his treatment of the elitist scum.

      • Royce Latham

        So Norm, I guess a people do not have a right to be governed by a government of their choice. I have no doubt which side you would have been on in our War for Independence. How do you feel about the Revolutionary scum in Egypt? Should they be shot as well?

        • http://gunner689 gunner689

          Norm would have stayed home and made a fortune selling rancid meat to the Army.

        • http://gunner689 gunner689

          Wonder how Norm feels about those lowly Colonists rebelling against the Crown.

      • pete

        They weren’t traitors. They were loyal Americans. The Northern Yankees were Americans. The Southern Johnny-Rebs were Americans.

        No side really “won” the war. It was American fighting American, brother against brother …….


    “Honest” abe lincoln is one of the reasons we have the new world order taking shape!!! Damn his civil war or more accurately “the war of northern aggression and warmongering”!!! The only result of the civil war was to establish that the FEDs know best over the states.

    • Anthony

      It gets more intriguing than that, partner….

      Research ALBERT PIKE.

  • Norm

    The Foundry:
    February 12th marks the birthday of Abraham Lincoln. There is much that we can learn today from this great champion of the Constitution and of the principles of the American founding.
    This is especially true today, when our founding principles are under relentless attack. Even in Lincoln’s time, these principles were “denied, and evaded, with no small show of success,” as Lincoln himself put it . Lincoln dedicated all of his public life to the preservation of these principles, and we should aspire to live up to his example.
    Lincoln knew that the eternal truths of the Declaration must be guarded by the carefully balanced republic of the Constitution. His beautiful analogy for the relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution, where he likened the former to a golden apple and the latter to a “picture of silver, framed around it,” is well worth quoting: “The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple-not the apple for the picture.”
    It fell upon Lincoln, as a matter of historical circumstance, to guide the nation through a bloody civil war to eradicate the evil of slavery and to forge the two divergent regions into “a more perfect Union.” It is easy to underestimate the gravity of the choices Lincoln had to make, treading carefully between the Scylla of letting the Union fall apart, and the Charybdis of maintaining it at the cost of the Constitutional Republic.
    Lincoln wanted freedom for the slaves, but he was no progressive. He was a prudent statesman, as Allen C. Guelzo points out in a First Principles essay, and in this prudence lies the essence of his conservatism. He recognized the inherent flaws and limitations of human nature. He did not want to somehow “supersede” or “go beyond” the Constitution, as progressives do. He instead wanted to see his beloved country live up to its founding principles, while upholding the Constitution.
    We are not alone in the fight to preserve the self-evident truths that are the foundations of this nation. Nor is our fight new, or unique. We are but the newest carriers of the torch of American liberty in the midst of the darkness of despotism. It is a sometimes daunting but always honorable duty, one in which we have Honest Abe as a most shining example. So let us act as he did, with the goal “that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken.”
    The Foundry is published by The Heritage Foundation

  • Royce Latham

    The biggest lie in American history is that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves. Any serious student of the Antebellum period would be brain-dead to believe that. Yet I have heard many, otherwise intelligent and notable persons, express that very sentiment. It is commendable that slavery is no longer part of our culture, but it does not excuse the horror that was perpetrated on American people, known as the Civil War. Now we face another civil war, one much more significant and far reaching than the first. Are we to allow foreign potentates to install our leader, a foreign ideologue, to dismantle our monetary system, enslave our people, ignore our Constitution, cripple our energy production, promote disdained religions and forms of governance, repudiate our friends, embrace and kowtow to our enemies, and mock us with his alternative life style?

    • john t regrut sr

      i agree obama needs to go like egypts mubarek we all can see where this ass is heading this country toward but, nobody wants to actually get this monkey off our nations back before it is to late and all the major damage has been done. we have all seen 14 trillion reasons so far.

    • http://none BobM

      NO! I suggest that we as Lincoln rail and FIGHT against the tearing apart of our union!!!

  • http://None J.B. Williams

    I memorized the Gettysburg Address when I was in the 8th grade in Springfield Illinois in 1956. When I taught U. S. History in high school in 1998 I was told that memorizations were out dated and did not work, thus we were not allowed to teach our kids to memorize anything. The real problem was that it did not work because we were not allowed to use that method anymore, there was and is nothing wrong with the method. It was and IS all politics. Part of the dumming down process, woops, I forgot it not Dummin Down, it is called Education Reform. All veteran teachers know the real story.

    • http://gunner689 gunner689

      The public school system is a disgrace. My grandson, who is nine years old, doesn’t know who Daniel Boone or Davy Crockett were but he knows all about MLK and that Indians are to be called Native Americans.
      I only see him a couple of times a year; he’s a straight A student and his Mom is a public school teacher. I’ve got my work cut out for me to educate the lad.

      • Karolyn

        Gunner – Don’t you think they have a lot more history to learn than we did?

        • http://?? Joe H.

          don’t you think that the most important people in our history, regardless od era, should be taught??

        • http://gunner689 gunner689

          not at the expenses of the rest of history. There is a big difference between education and indoctrination.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            If you read it again, I think you will find my post is agreeing with what you said!!

        • http://none BobM

          Evidently they have a lot more to forget!

  • Henry Arnold

    Unfortunately, Americans stopped reading books a hundred years ago. We have instead rely on, and feel that we Americans are well informed, reading the newspaper or listening to the nightly news. So, as a result, very few have any grounding in our history, economics or politics in order to cut through the superficial and misleading information that we call news.

    This article was wanting in depth and intellect. And it’s obvious that most responders don’t read books. My advise, quit reading the newspaper and get into books.

    • john t regrut sr

      true, newspapers are full of conflicting nonsense. and should not always be considered as truth. i likewise are an old schooler and appreciated the ways we were taught back then. the kids being taught history today, really are not learning history just bits and pieces of the past. we had civics classes, american history classes, and world history. not today. now you have to take these courses in college. ok, for instance. you walk up to a high school kid and ask who surrendered to who at the end of the civil war, it was lee to grant. and they just look at you and say i don’t know. or who built the parthanon. these are just examples of how poorly educated our kids are today compared to the 50′s and 60′s

  • marsupial

    After slogging through all these comments I find woefully little cogniscience of the 800 pound primate in evidence.
    As usual sheeple amuse themselves with endlessly rehashing the various aspects of the figurehead they give us rather than seeking enlightenment about the entities behind the curtain.
    Why, for instance, should we believe that a poor lawyer from the midwest could rise to prominence due to his own strength of character in 1860 any more than one can today?
    You had best believe that the royalists who have always run this country (covertly since 1776) are not going to allow their slaves to determine their own leaders insofar as they have a choice in the matter.

    • http://none BobM

      YOu’re answer of course would be a more Henry David Thoreau like existence? You will clarify for us his ruminations on this subject?

  • Michele

    I basically agree with Chip, but think this issue is much more complicated than we know. Overall, I am glad Lincoln preserved the Union — otherwise we might be 50 separate state/countries by this time; breaking up into ever smaller “unions” every time we had a serious disagreement. However, the reason we ended up in a civil war to begin with had to do with the economy: between the northern industrial states and the southern rural agrarian states AND between the southern states and European trade and how that affected everyone’s trade imbalances. The south traded with Europe because Europe wanted their cotton and Europe had better made, cheaper goods than the inefficiencies of the north provided. The north got mad at losing out to the Europeans, so they got higher tariffs put on imports, etc. End point, everyone was losing out economically because the north refused to compete with Europe and make their production more efficient. When the north began to lose out, the “money trust” (BANKERS) acted. Bankers and their interests are almost always behind wars — it is when they make the most money (read “THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND” to get a full understanding of how we are all manipulated by international central banking). Also, with the developing tensions between the northern and southern states, England and France saw an opportunity to agitate the tensions and profit from our dissolution. England placed thousands of troops on our northern border and France moved into political union with Mexico (Maximillian) so they would each be ready to divide the spoils of the United States — England taking the northern half and France taking the southern half.
    Only a fool thinks history is ever dead. Countries and the powers that be are always shifting, looking for ways to further empower and enrich themselves and one must always be on guard to protect both your country’s self interest and your own self interests from being controlled by others. States were weakened by Lincoln’s actions, but I do not feel irrevocably should the need arise. On the other hand, Lincoln made us stronger as a whole to withstand the rest of the world’s thrusts.

    • Anthony

      It gets more involved than even that, Michelle….

      It is said that GW Bush (2) is directly related to William of Orange – it goes that far back. Others within that group also claim to be related to the Pharoahs of Egypt. I cannot prove it personally, but I have ready several files which link everything together.

      Do little more homework .. you’re on the right track.

    • http://gunner689 gunner689

      According to BO it’s 57 States.

    • http://none BobM

      More so we would be unifying and breaking up and unifying and breaking up as the wind blows chaff, for all the world to suffer a vaunting (boastful) inconsistency, no progress against the ails that press down on our hearts, minds, souls and bodies. A human rabble with no anchor, vacillating boarders and capricious allegiances. There remains those of us that put little quarter in the soul of a nation than the heart of a God. It is we that remain your compass.

  • Flying Eagle

    We are a united family, there is no North, South or slavery, that is a thing of the past we are only the United States of America.We are in 2011 the age of twitter, face book, etc. Bashing lincoln now doesn’t make any sense, he is gone, probably God has already judged him, the war between the grey and blue is over.

    One way or the other, We’ve learned a lot from him and on February 12th we should be celebrating his birthday with respect. Nobody’s perfect, the only perfect being is Jesus Christ who sacrificed his life for our sins.

    The Founding Fathers weren’t perfect, Thomas Payne was a deist, Thomas Jefferson did not proffess a religion and so on. Let’s celebrate Abe Lincoln’s birthday remembering him as another american who dedicated his life to unite and serve “We” the People.

    February 12th marks the birthday of Abraham Lincoln. There is much that we can learn today from this great champion of the Constitution and of the principles of the American founding.
    This is especially true today, when our founding principles are under relentless attack. Even in Lincoln’s time, these principles were “denied, and evaded, with no small show of success,” as Lincoln himself put it . Lincoln dedicated all of his public life to the preservation of these principles, and we should aspire to live up to his example.
    Lincoln knew that the eternal truths of the Declaration must be guarded by the carefully balanced republic of the Constitution. His beautiful analogy for the relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution, where he likened the former to a golden apple and the latter to a “picture of silver, framed around it,” is well worth quoting: “The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple-not the apple for the picture.”

  • Flying Eagle

    We are a united family, there is no North, South or slavery, that is a thing of the past we are only the United States of America.We are in 2011 the age of twitter, face book, etc. Bashing lincoln now doesn’t make any sense, he is gone, probably God has already judged him, the war between the grey and blue is over.

    One way or the other, We’ve learned a lot from him and on February 12th we should be celebrating his birthday with respect. Nobody’s perfect, the only perfect being is Jesus Christ who sacrificed his life for our sins.

    The Founding Fathers weren’t perfect, Thomas Payne was a deist, Thomas Jefferson did not proffess a religion and so on. Let’s celebrate Abe Lincoln’s birthday remembering him as another american who dedicated his life to unite and serve “We” the People.

    This is my comment.

    • CJM

      I agree with your sentiments about unity; however, it matters not that a founding father was a deist or otherwise–what matters is that these few men carved out a document that is sustainable in the protection of the people living under that document. I don’t think anyone is bashing Lincoln, but they are coming to terms that even those who have been revered for so long are not lacking in faulty thinking–even when that thinking has been detrimental to many. It is about time that the historical truths come out. Have no worry, Lincoln will not be removed from his pinnacle but he will be seen for what he really was. George Washington, Ben Franklin, etc were no saints, but they do deserve to be honored. Personally, I have never honored Lincoln but I think George Washington is pretty darn special.

  • American Citizen

    A nation divided cannot stand. It’s time corporations and other business entities realize that by moving out of this country, they are not only hurting this country, they are hurting themselves. If people don’t have jobs, they can’t afford to buy their products.

    • Anthony

      These Corporations do not care about selling any more of theori products… They alrady have the ability to print all the money they ever need. This is about something else, a lot worse.

      • Rooster

        You’re right. It’s about government control and taxes. Companies move abroad to find lower taxes and less restriction. The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. What else can you expect from companies struggling to stay afloat. Add the EPA and Big Labor to that equation, and I’m surprised that anyone wants to do business here at all. Defund the EPA and Big Labor, cut corporate taxes to zero, and watch how fast business and manufacturing flourish in the U.S. Businesses do not pay taxes, they collect them from us and pass them on to Big Gov. When taxes become outrageous, consumers quit buying, and businesses go out of business or move to a more friendly environment. They are seceding from Big Government just like the Souhern State tried to do … for the same reasons.

  • Royce Latham


    You are a true student of history.

  • hrandym

    The War Between the States was initiated over excesses levied on Southern trade with Europe. The North wished to create an advantage for their own trade with the South, and tariffs were the answer. The South naturally became weary as the tariffs continually increased (to the Federal Treasury). That was the initial cause for the War. The Emancipation Proclamation did not appear until 1863, after the War was well under way. A careful reading shows that the document freed slaves only in rebellious states. If a state then ceased to rebel, they could keep their slaves. It appears to me to be a way to bring the war to a close, but again the war was not about slavery.

    “Abraham Lincoln, Political Tyrant” is a reasonably consistent description of Lincoln. He was slick, as shown during the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Douglas found it difficult to counter a moving target as Lincoln was constantly shifting his position on matters.

    Thanks for the book tips. I like reading a broad spectrum for perspective.

  • David Burkhardt

    Read “The Real Lincoln” several years ago! What an eye-opener! “The South Was Right” is another great book. The problem was that Lincoln was successful in goading the South into War at Fort Sumter, SC. The demographics and industry were against the South in 1860 mainly due to immigration from Europe; mainly Irish and German! Had they seceded in 1850 might have been a different outcome?? Lincoln, like his mentor Henry Clay was a supreme Mercantilist Federalist highly opposed to Jefferson-Jackson-Madisonian ideals and policy. Lincoln not only crafted freeing the slaves for political purposes, but in the middle of the War had West Virginia secede from Virginia due to his secret police in Ohio and Pennsylvania! Only by harsh & violent intimidation did he keep Maryland and Kentucky (birthplace of both Jefferson Davis & Lincoln) from seceding!!

    The Biggest irony is that 150 years later, the chickens have come home to roost! The South has most of the Military bases, very high % of troops from the South, is increasing in economic power; just ask BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Nissan, Toyota, NASA. And many Yankees are moving from the imploding tax heavy, big gov North to the South (no income tax in TX, FL, & TN!)(Why do you think George HW Bush moved to TX when his daddy was a US Senator from CT. And the South is gaining in political power with the gains of House of Representative from NY, OH, MI etc.
    If they needed to secede today it would be no contest!! But why bother
    with increasing gains in political, demographic and economic power while the ole unionized, socialist North will continue to wither away!!

    • Pete


      I have to let you in on a little Yankee secret. Those military bases are the Yankee Union Occupational Forces (YUOF-USA) ….

      Those carpetbagging Yankees are part of the YUOF but they are undercover security forces. All them Yankees get a small check directly deposited to their bank account. Heck, when I was going to college in Oklahoma (I’m a Yankee) I qualified .. and took the money.
      I served in the YUOF – Undercover for 2 1/2 years even though all college women I was chasing were daughters of Johnny Rebs !

      Strangely I have no regret (when I should). But I’m a Yankee, and we aren’t that smart…. but the Southern women sure look better than the Northern girls ….

  • Michael Hardy

    The one independent country that the United States force into the Union against the will of the people was the Confederate States of America. THAT is not taught in the history books. Thanks for a great article.

    Michael Hardy
    Yankee by birth, Southerner by choice.

    • Buddy

      Yes, Michael, you are right. From what I have found out, the civil war was actually a war of conquest. The spoils of the war went to the victors, which was the usual procedure. It’s a bit different now, as the bill for the expenses go to the victor taxpayers.

      (Raised in the north, and told that one of my forebears was a Union general and hero).

  • CJM

    I have always felt that the South did no wrong when they pulled out of the Union and that the North had no right to attack them. The Constitution does NOT state that a State must remain within the Union forever. As far as slavery is concerned, so much has been said about how the North (under Lincoln) freed the slaves it has tarnished the true reasons for the Civil War. First of all, the Southern States had already begun a process to end slavery but the North, who did not treat their “freed men” equitably and still had slavery in some Northern areas, cut this process short. Lincoln did not want to free anyone, let alone abolish slavery, but he needed an issue to hide the truth behind the scenes. Many scholars cite the fact that the issue of whether or not the United States would be an industrial or agrarian nation (an issue that began during the Revolutionary War) and that the Civil War was to settle the question once and for all. If you really look at how the US developed as a nation, I think the scholars are correct. The Civil War DID establish the United States as an industrial nation once and for all…at the expense of the South. As for Sherman, in the South he is considered a butcher.

    • Anthony

      Do you know what the one difference was in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America?

      • mark

        Yes, it made Negroes legal property. Just like a piece of land is legal property!

    • mark

      Like Sherman said,”the South started it and I finished it”. The SOuth was stupid to got to war against the North. The North ahd more troops, a navy and more industry, which provided the Union Army of better weapons. The true Southerners (the ones who have the Confederate Flag on the back window of their pick-up truck that I have meet here in Florida are basically hotheads, poorly educated and racist .

    • http://none BobM

      Soooo…we still have slaves and, we reluctantly embraced tractors?

  • Battlehammer

    Lincoln ignored the Constitution, y’say, when he suspended habeus corpus? What am I missing? I see Article I, section 9, second paragraph: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

    OK, you’re President Battlehammer and you just got word that Confederate forces had fired (like, with real cannons, gunpowder and cannon balls) on Fort Sumpter. What do you do? Go to the Confederate powers and try to get a promise that they won’t be naughty any more, then come back to Washington waving a piece of paper and proclaiming Peace in our Time? Or perhaps the Confederates weren’t really engaged in “Rebellion” but were just administering a dose of attitude adjustment therapy?

  • Allan Halbert


    I have read some history on Lincoln as well. I feel you and Bob L second guess Lincoln. I see few, if any, leaders in modern times that could have walked in his shoes. Frankly, I am not sure what you’ve accomplished with this article. There is certainly plenty of other stuff going now on to think about. People who want to criticize Lincoln seem to rationalize his impact on the termination of slavery, but in my opinion do not appreciate the legal, social, and inter state realities he had to deal with. I’ve read most of his words on the subject, and it is obvious it was transformational for him as it was for the country. I’m sure there are things you have done and ideas you have changed you mind about, and hopefully feel good about doing. How will someone in the future judge you? On a selective freeze frame? Anyway, the man gave his life in service of his country, and I think he is not on the penny for nothing. Respectfully, Allan Halbert

  • Helen

    When obama took office, I dug out one of my grown homeschooled son’s history books when obama was comparing the two, The Real Lincoln by Th DiLorenzo. The comparisons truly blew my mind, almost predicting which new liberty trampling ploy obama would copy next. It was eery.

    I also heard Glenn Beck say he was reading it on his radio show once…guess it didn’t take, because he still praises the tyrannt. That so many like Sarah, Hannity, Rush & Beck are ignorant of lincoln’s devices is appalling. They would learn so much by studying true history.

    Although my Mississippi parents never spoke ugly of lincoln, they did roll their eyes some, choosing to leave us in our blissful ignorance and conformity, but our kiddos will be taught the Truth.=)

    A Southern Patriot, Helen

  • Charles Payne

    Absolutly. Dystroy the CSA,Southern “Grayback”, and make the Northern US, “Greenback”, the main monetary system, and you win the war.
    Only 10% of people in the South had slaves, and I think the same was in the North, wich was more populous.
    Money, trade, and states rights,caused the War Between the States.

  • Tom P

    Interesting the opinions stirred by this article. There is no doubt that war was not about slavery. It was about freedom. Freedom from an oppressive federal government. Lincoln was a war criminal who I will burn in effigy tonight when I go back to my bunker (in Georgia). We could have had two great nations instead of one pitiful corrupt bankrupt one. The United States of the North would have released freedoms to the people or loose population to the Confereracy. The slaves were headed to freedom without Lincoln’s war. He just used his power to slander the South and cut off their international support. The Confederacy would have established a nation based on limited central power. Just look at where we are 146 years later. We live under an oppressive Federal Government that has no regard for the Constitution (Pelosi when questioned on the constitutionality of socialized medicine “Are you serious?”). Yes, we are in deep pooh pooh. Example: ABC, CNN, NBC, FOX all parrott Obama, Democratic revolution in Egypt today, yeah right, the situation is we have a new Islamic state, you don’t want to be a woman there or how about gay? I have some moist (swamp) land in Georgia you can buy if you believe there is any chance for Democracy in the Middle East. Morons in control of our government. Perpetual political posturing, zero substance, amoral. Lincoln started the slide to this situation. Wilson, FDR, Nixon, Carter all greased the ramp. I am proud of my ancestors who fought against tyranny, the Crown and the opressors from the North. Fortunately I don’t care what you “progressives” think. You are the “regressive” party in this struggle. There is a possibility that the core of the American spirit that requires freedom is alive, we will see.

  • Idylewylde

    Why don’t people ever tell the truth about Lincoln?

    He had to put down the Copperhead riots in New York before he could even deal with the South. Those good old New York bankers were getting filthy rich off of corporate slavery on the big Southern plantations .. they were financing them.

    Those good old new York bankers had a huge fleet in their harbor .. bigger than the government Navy. That’s why Lincoln had to send in the Army and Marines to seize the port facility.

    Lincoln had to crush the greedy New York bankers before he could even think about crushing Southern slavery.
    It wasn’t just a war betwen the North and South .. it was a war between the corrupt money elites and the American Constitution.

    So .. who’s behind all of the current political and financial corruption?
    It couldn’t possible be the same New York bank cartel, now could it?

  • James Seigfreid

    Thank you Chip. Excellent article, right-on take. Di’Lorenzo is scalpel-sharp in his books and essays, also. A lot of eyebrows go up when I mention my absolute disgust with Lincoln, and start explaining the reasons why…and as you mention succinctly, there are MANY. Consider also the latest revelations concerning the subversion of our Constitution in 1867, where the 14th Ammendment was never properly ratified, and the United States declared a CORPORATE ENTITY. We’ve been operating completely illegally ever since then. The destruction of liberty that was begun by Lincoln has continued unabated ever since.

  • Robert

    Ben I have a great suprise for you. when the states ratified the constitution they also reserved the right to leave the nation if they are not satisified . read the constitutional records of the signings, new york, virgina, the carolinas, and rhode island. they would not have signed if they did not think that they could leave whenever. read the constitutional convention.if only one state had said that then all the states had that same right. no state had any more rights than any other state.

  • Robert

    Norm I hope you have read the constitution. and the deliberstions. also that the states when signing the constitution several signed with the reservation that they could leave if it did not work for them. so if one state had a right to cede from the union all the states had the same rights. new york, virgina, rhode island and a couple other states reserved the right to leave so all the states had the same right. that is why president Buchanan made agreements with the southern states of what land on the borders and islands off the shores were to be granted to each side. and sumpter was the souths property. and that was signed by the north{pres Buchanan and south Davis}. You better Read a little more about this before you jump to conclusions.



  • newspooner

    Another good article, Chip! I have followed essentially the same academic research path that you describe, and have come to similar conclusions.

    Our old friend, the late Alan Stang, also researched this topic and came to the conclusion that Abraham Lincoln was the first Communist President. His articles can be researched at his website archives.

  • Daniel Bender

    First off I will start by saying I will not discredit this story nor will I give it credit. I do not know as much about Lincoln as I do about our founders. What I will say though is many people have tried to discredit the founders and appear to be morons in the process. Many of them rely on sources that come from the 1960′s and not the 1780′s. There is no way that you can find truth in literature written in the 1960′s without paying minds to supportive literature of the 1780′s. Now when referring to this information the writer in this article only references a 2008 title. This is a very unintelligent stance to take and makes the reader look like a moron. If you want to discredit Lincoln trace your references back to that time period.

    • libertytrain

      Do you seriously not think that the book written in 2008 utilized information from the types of sources that come from the time period in question?

  • OldSully

    The Lord Jesus Christ came to redeem fallen man. The Civil War showed all men North and South at their worst. The north because of their greed, the south for the illegal enslavement of their fellow human beings.

    The Bible defines three forms of enslavement: through war (national defense), voluntary servitude. and man stealing (kidnapping).

    The U.S. was never at war with the Africans and they were never a threat to the U.S. In the Bible enslaving a captured population was a form of mercy as opposed to killing them {national defense}.

    The Bible form of welfare was voluntary servitude. A man who was having financially hard times could sell himself and his family to a rich man and receive food and shelter in exchange for work. He could pay his debt and be freed or be freed in seven years.

    According to God’s law those guilty of man stealing and those who purchased the victim were given the death penalty(See Exodus 21:16). This was the sin of slavers and those who purchased slaves from them them. Lincoln was a different man later in his presidency, he came to view the war as judgment from God on the country because the whole nation was guilty before Him. He often fasted and prayed for its end. He also called the nation to a time of fasting and prayer several times. There is no record of Jeff Davis ever having repented of the sin of promoting illegal slavery.

    The sin of abortion ranks the same in God’s sight as a slaver, those who commit abortions and those who promote abortions are under the sentence of eternal punishment and the nation as a whole has the blood of the innocent upon it (See Exodus 21:22-25).

    • Pete


      That’s exactly what we need TODAY ! BIBLICAL SLAVERY ! No discrimination based on looks….

      Wouldn’t that be great to see a Black Man owning 5000 or so WHITE SLAVES ! Based on the Biblical model of course ….

      Do what the good book says ! Do what the good book says !

  • Idylewylde

    The South never started the war???
    History vindicates the South???

    I’ve never heard so much bunk in my life.
    Here are the words of Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the Confederacy on the eve of the war. And these words were stated before the international press corps:

    The new [Confederate] constitution has put to rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar [unique] institution, African slavery, as it exists among us, the proper status of the Negro in our form of civilization.
    This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
    (Thomas) Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this as the ‘rock upon which the old Union would split’.
    He was right. What was conjecture with him is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood, and stands, may be doubted.
    His ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of the races. This was an error.
    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests 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.

    When he was asked later to explain his statement, this is what he said:

    I admit that the Fathers, both of the North and South, who framed the old Constitution, while recognizing existing [pre-existing] slavery and guaranteeing its continuance under the Constitution so long as the States should severally [enough to block a congressional amendment to end slavery] see fit to tolerate it in their respective limits, were perhaps all opposed to the principle (of slavery).
    Jefferson, Madison, (and) Washington, all looked for its early extinction throughout the United States.
    But, on the subject of slavery .. so called .. which was with us, or should be, nothing but the proper subordination of the inferior African race to the superior white (race) .. great and radical changes had taken place in the realm of thought; (thus) many eminent later day statesmen, philosophers, and philanthropists held different views from the Fathers.

    Do any of you know the ‘great and radical’ changes that Stephens was referring to?
    Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, all subsidized by the New York bank cartel, put forward something called Aryanist race theory, a racist spin-off of Darwinism.
    Between 1859, when Darwin published his book, and 1861, when the South opened fire on a Federal post, in two short years, this ‘scientific’ theory was used to justify the belief that the Negroe was sub-human.
    In two short years, the South went from objecting to anti-slavery political trends in Congress to justifying a ‘revolution’ based on unproven, and unprovable, pseudo-science.
    Adolph Hitler used the exact same ‘science’ about a half century later.

    Stephens used the word REVOLUTION …. anyone who rejects the notion that the South did not find a convenient excuse to question the foundation of the Constitution in order to start a war is delusional.

  • Marten

    Hello Everyone….You can’t understand US History-and its future- witho knowing this Story…one third of US History is CLASSIFIED….Please check this out

  • Ridge Runner

    I have spent hours reading these comments and some are good,some are bad,some are indifferentand a lot show no thinking or diversity.There is several different religeous beliefs around the world but i don’t recall any that doesn’t belive in a supreme being only variations in beliefs.I was raised to belive in the christian bible writen in egypt.It may be a fairy tale but if so i think a good one.I don’t think you can find abetter way to live and live in peace with your neighbor. I don’t care if you think jesus is a frog and his father a rat i won’t try to kill you for that if you don’t try to kill me for my beliefs.If god made man in his own image why do we have white humans, black humans,yellow humans,red humans also brown humans.if we were created in his own image why arent we all the same color.This is a hard question to answer and there has been things that has happened in this world that just can’t be explained.I read a story of a man that had a serious illness that caused his brain to swell and he was neer death for some time and never realy recovered and became a minister later.He was supposed to be able to read a book blind folded. He had bouts of severe head aches until he died.Humans are animals (a herd animal)most like to be around their own kind and like both domesticated and wild animals and fowls have a pecking order.That is what i like about the christian religon it law and order base.We have laws and enforcers to keep these bullies in check and protect the weaker people.There is always some one that thinks they are the biggest and best they won’t to abuse you and tell you how to live,where to live and what to live on.That is what our government is doing now.These lying thieving politicans have ruined our country and have the u.s. on its knees if we don’t get these thives out of the government it will be flat on its back and it had better be soon.If wedon’t stop them they world will be under a one world government and run by abunch of elites and their hand picked croneys(thives)and what they let live will have to support them in their state resort U.S. of America.It can be done if we can wake the people and get them to see the light.

  • Ridge Runner

    I have read several comments say that social security was a misstake but i want to differ with these prople. The misstake was done by the people that elected these lying thiveing politicans.It was started by the liberal democrats that seen all the money that was accumulating in the social srcurity fund and they couldn’t get thieving hands on it.It isn’t all the demorats be cause if there wasn’t enough thiveing rot pots voted with the demorats it wouldn’t have been put in the general fund for them to steal.These thiveing sobs have used the money to buy votes to keep them in power.And they have used it to finance their pork barrel projects.It should have been left by it self as intended it could have been managed as a retirement fund like all the other retirement funds are and these old people retired wouldn’t be facing what they are looking at,loosing their homes and starving.All of these thives should be treat as madoff was in jail for stealing .

  • http://gunner689 gunner689

    The institution of slavery would have ended on it’s own in a few years without the Civil War. The soil was wearing out and industrial innovations were replacing labor. It is largely a falicy that slaves were beaten and mistreated to the extent that the abolishinists in the North propagandized. Slaves were extremely expensive to buy and own. The old photos that exist showing signs of abuse were of habitual runaways. In todays world it would be like buying a Porche and taking it on Jeep trails. The greatest tradgedy of slavery was the breaking up of families and possibly destroying the family unit system in the black world as it exists today. That would make a good socialoligists PHD thesis, if the truth could be told. Blacks are as much slaves today as they were then; just to a diffrent Master. Todays Master is the Fed. Gvt. and the welfare system that keeps them in bondage. Many just traded their chains for a subsistance check.

  • Chad Woodburn

    I was a staunch Union supporter until I was 50. After all, I had ancestors who fought and died for the North, I’m rabidly against the slavery our country had, and I’ve always been a conservative Republican. But then I came to see that the Constitution nowhere authorizes the Federal government to keep States from seceding. The right to leave the Union is one of the many rights guaranteed by the 10th Amendment. I also came to see that it was Lincoln who changed our country from having a federal government to having a national one. And if the war were fought to end slavery, why did slavery continue in 5 of the Northern States until after the war?

    Now as I look back over our history, I have come to see that the only Republican president that was really in line with “tea party” patriots was Reagan. Lincoln was more like Roosevelt and Kennedy.

  • eric Siverson

    Yes I too in my old age have switched my thinking on Honest Abe . Actually the republican and democrat party have swapped sides since the Civil war . I have been promoting voluntarly breaking the United States into three seperate countries . Now I think the west coast states and the east coast states should be two seperate countries , Fly over country could be the third country . I believe we would still be three of the most powerfull countries in the world ,but should lose the reputation of being a big super power Bully , which we have been . I believe we would all be much happier going our seperate ways . This way we could have three supreme courts . We could even have three currancies and three presidents .

  • Joe Vaught

    Chip mission accomplished.
    Even the shallower thinkers (I’ll include me), got some good doses.
    Many are quoted identifying the signs of intelligence but one of the best remains the ability to change one’s mind.

    • http://gunner689 gunner689

      Joe: congrads. it takes a hell of a man to admit and recognize when he’s wrong. you have my respect.

  • jopa

    Kate8; Have to agree with you on this one also.All the different ideas about Lincoln the North and the South.The people who have written posts on this site basically believe the way things were not how they actually were but how they were percieved in the eyes of the author of the book they were resding.There isn’t anyone alive today that could give the real facts so we will never know if what was written is true or not.So much is in the perception of the reader there are always two sides.

  • jopa

    eric Siverson;Uncle Sam is not only seen as the big Bully but also the rich uncle.Like in can you spare me a billion or so.What the world needs to think and know is sorry son were all tapped out, go see Ahab the Arab or the Pillsbury doughboy their rolling in dough.

  • JP

    Lincoln not perfect. At one time during the war, he threatened to suspend operations (to contain Indian uprisings)- however, before passing judgment on he or the Indians, (of the now known plight of their cause!), would ask the reader to assess his/her current position in this country, as to where they would be today w/o Mr Lincoln’s ” .. winning the war; freeing the slaves; preserving the union.” Amen

  • Whereisgodinit

    “What about manifest destiny? What about solidarity” Makes me wonder what your opinions about the whole subject would be if the “slaves” had been White instead of Black?

  • jeffnnc

    Chip, excellent article! I was born and raised here in the South and feel blessed by it. In our “public” schools here we were taught Lincoln was a saint along with his political hacks and miltary appointees. However, the Confederate leaders and in my thinking, as humble as i am, the CSA’s military commanders were taught as if they swept along in matters out of there control. That may be as things turn out to be not of our will anyway but of a much higher plain of power and authority. I am of course speaking of Gods will which will over ride ours at all times. Amen!

  • Charles C

    I found this interesting. It’s the last paragraph of the general definition of Habeas corpus on wikipedia.

    The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the “extraordinary”, “common law”, or “prerogative writs”, which were historically issued by the English courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari. The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of non-authority. The official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.

  • mark

    It is amazing, how conservatives can defend “The Confedercy” and its life blood SLAVERY. When I see the Confederate Flag, which is still flown down here in Florida, it reminds me of a flag that represents TRAITORS AND LOSERS! Sherman had every right to burn the Traitors property and it is a shame that the proposal of hanging Lee, Davis and all of the ither Confederate Officers did not take place! Blacks are still treated as second class citizens down here. You conservatives are just CLOSET RACISTS!

    • Rooster

      Interesting piece of hate. Obviously you must be an Obamanation supporter since you believe the Constitution does not matter. The real truth is in the article, but you must have missed it. Slavery would have come to an end peacefully. It did not require a bloody war.

      William Wilberforce headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act 1807. The slave trade ended peacefully in Great Britain. Why would Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee support the secession while recognizing that slavery had to come to an end? Because the War of Northern Aggression was not about slavery. When France and England appeared to be moving to support the South (the war was already fully engaged), Lincoln made a speech to connect slavery with the war to put off that support — and it worked.

      I live in the South. I’ve seen conditions that were bad for blacks, but the worst I’ve ever seen were in the slums of Harlem and Cabrini-Green. When the slaves escaped to the North, they were segregated and herded into places like these were to become. Don’t talk about Southern prejudices. I have a picture of a black man hanging from a lamp post in New York City. Nobody wants to talk about the kinds of things that went on in the North. When it comes to slavery and prejudice, no one has clean hands.

      As for Sherman, he should have been tried for war crimes and hung.

      • Marten

        Very, very good points……Thumbs-up

      • libertytrain

        Well-said. I witnessed 100′s of racist events in the North and none to date in my 20 plus years in the South

    • JeffH

      It’s really tough to teach an old dog new tricks…especially a hairlipped dogs…mark, mark, mark! lol

  • annnort

    Thank you for this article. I was born and raised in Charlotte NC way back in 1936. We were never taught anything bad about Lincoln, but we were taught to revere Robert E Lee and all our ancestors who gave their lives for the southern states. Your esaay helped me discover why. I knew the war was not fought over slavery, but states rights. However, you are the first “Yankee” I have heard say anything nice about the south! Thank you!

    We in the USA have been losing our rights for years. Especially at the hands of Wilson, FDR and now, Obama. I am sure that is why we southeners now vote for Republicans. We certainly do not live in the “land of Lincoln” down here!! But we do not dig those progressive/liberal/marxists! Come on down and visit us sometime. I think you will like us.

  • http://com i41

    gunner, you got that correst about being trapped for a check from the government. Go check out any welfare rabbit warren. Some single mothers have kids of every blend. Try and get the mothers to vary 49 hour weeks earnings. The wage was $9 a hour for 4 ten hour work shift. Any mother on their days off would get a $1 a child to take care and feel the children while mothers worked, the company furnishing food and day care spot. Of the assembly jobs and over 500 contacts you know how many agreed to try it, had 1 that only would consider the job. We have raised city welfare rats, and in the rural areas for 3 decades landowners collect on average of at least 49,000 – $several millions a year, and don’t do a damn thing. We have Congress senators and representatives that have been getting government money freebies off of taxpayers, a few to remember Loyod Wright, Sam Donaldson, Denny Haster, in just in the last 3 decades. if younotice mentioning getting rid of the DEpt of Agriculture, another socialist program modeled after USSR AGRiculture Land and Food Production plan under communal farming. It was created under FDR and his first Sec of Ag an avowed communist along with the former 72 democrat presidental canidate George McGovern a registered communist. Now we are importing the basic food grain wheat. Try talking to any elected slub in Congress nd they haven’t a clue where and how we are choking our own food supply, betweenlawyers, envior idoits, wildlife and senic lands put off of any thing beingdeveloped. The samartest President Andrew Jackson paid off the massive debt after the Civil War, by selling of federal lands which brought on the industerial revolution, which we need to do again.

  • Mike

    Lincoln was like so many famous musicians, like Hendrix, Duane Allman, and Hank Williams, whose untimely deaths made them well loved legends, and would have been great career moves if they had anything to say about it. Most of the unwarranted adulation would be gone if he had served out a second term.
    I’ve read a lot of history and have said in conversations, the Civil war wasn’t fought over slavery, and first I get a confused look which changes quickly to a smug look. They know that the civil war was fought over slavery, because they learned it in 7th grade, so you must be setting them up or you might just be an idiot, or a terrorist. Today they get all their “facts” from Fox news. So what are you gonna do?
    It wasn’t fought over slavery, that’s for sure. The only good explanation I’ve seen is that the industrialized north was flooding the south with cheap manufactured goods, leading to high unemployment. The blood is on the hands of Lincoln and the republican party, which was brand new, and was doing the bidding of the big industrial robber barons. They were using tax and tariffs from all regions of the country to build up the infrastructure of the northeast, which is where the mills and factories were. It was also the part of the country where the new immigrants were flooding in, to work for pennies a day.
    Gee, if you take out the regional references, that almost sounds like the country today.
    You study history because it repeats itself over and over. I would guess that most of the cheer leading for the north came from men who bought their way out of the draft so they could profiteer on human misery by selling supplies to the army. Today, the same kind of men, draft dodgers and heavily invested in military industrial businesses, have led the US to military occupation and financial ruin in the middle east. They, much like Lincoln, have shown little regard for the constitutional limits of governmental power, unless, of course, you’re fantastically rich.

  • StringRunna

    Lincoln seen the UNITED States as the last best hope of freedom on earth and therefore deemed it worth extreme measures and sacrifice.
    There were serious economic disputes, but it was the issue of slavery that ignited the war. Lincoln was considered anti-slavery and his election sent certain Southern states seceding. South Carolina did not even wait for him to reach Washington and take office. And he was vilified by the other extreme, the abolitionists, as being too soft on slavery. He had many critics during his life, but upon his death the North groaned, the Blacks cried, and even many Southerners recognized the merciful Lincoln would have been better than what they got.
    Though I wouldn’t agree with all of his decisions, I recognize that he was a man of principle and character; in fact one of the greatest leaders I can find in history. He did what he could to end slavery and it cost him his life. Yet today he is called a racist. Don’t judge him by today’s outlook. He lived in a different world with different challenges. And you don’t know that the divided states would have accomplished as much if he had not held the union together. The pressures of his job and life, I believe, drove him to a closer walk with God. Consider his 2nd Inaugural address.
    Personally, I think our three greatest Presidents were all born in February. Washington, Lincoln, Reagan.

  • Richard L. Dixon

    An Open Letter to Chip Wood

    It is with great disdain that I read your piece on Abraham Lincoln. First let’s agree to disagree. The history, pageantry, and aura surrounding Abraham Lincoln as I will readily admit have been greatly exaggerated. In signing the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln was using it as a political opportunity to forestall England’s entry into the war. Lincoln was indeed no friend to slaves because if it meant keeping the institution of slavery in order to preserve the union than he would. He stated that publicly in in an open letter to Horace Greeley who was the editor of the New York Tribune in 1862.
    “Dear Sir. I have just read yours of the 19th addressed to myself through the New York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
    As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
    I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I don’t believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be error; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
    I have here stated my purpose according to my view of Official duty: and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”
    One abstract statement by General Robert E. Lee’s wife does not constitute the real fact that the South had no intention of releasing slaves. It was that same logic that allowed the institution of apartheid to exist in South Africa for over a century before it was dismantled. The whole institution of Slavery that existed in the South was based on Free Trade. The South had invested money, capital, material, equipment, and most of it human trafficking in building the institution of slavery as it primary economic engine. . “But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery.”
    We find that during the height of the Industrial Revolution in England, the British needed a cheap source of cotton for their textile Mills and established trade with the Confederacy during the Civil War. Both the Confederacy and the British Empire were similar in nature in that they both relied on the exploitation of human beings for Cheap Labor to produce their product and dump on other countries at gunpoint. In the case of the south it was the evil institution of slavery which drove its agrarian economy.
    “The most telling aspect of what this free trade based system produced, however, is in the character and condition of labor in the south. Given the principle, that was central to doctrine of “American System” political economy, that the most essential of all resources is the productive capacity of labor, the productive potential of a nations citizens, as the basis for the development of all other resources, it is here that the most damning indictment of the results of free trade policies on the south are found. A system based on the enslavement of the productive capacities of the bulk of its labor force is itself a statement of the bankruptcy of such a system, and would undoubtedly mean conditions that were barbaric and brutal, not only for the black slave, but for its supposedly free labor, as well. Descriptions of the conditions that existed for black slaves in the south are legend as to the brutal and inhuman way in which they were treated under this system. Prior to the War, descriptions by both northern and southern writers of the conditions of the black slave had circulated throughout the North.”
    The old saying that “Birds of a feather flock together” can best characterize the cozy relationship that the British Empire had with the Confederate South when it came to the production of cotton by oppressed means. Yet the enforcement of slavery also had adverse effects on the Southern economy in that development was not allowed to take place and the slave owners developed a feudal landowner system. “Such a labor system would not only degrade labor, but would bestialize those who owned, or controlled such labor. Despite the southern propaganda praising the benefits of such a system, and southern assertions of the power of King Cotton, southern planters were themselves chained to such a primitive system, through indebtedness to outside finance, total dependence on the British and British allied New England textile manufacturers, who turned their raw cotton into finished products, and outside suppliers for almost all consumer and capital goods. The need to justify and defend such a system had horrid consequences for what they would become. In this context, the shear violence of southern society is a telling fact, with homicide among southerners, particularly those as a result of dueling or “gentlemen’s homicide” reaching frightening rates.”
    It was the great Frederick Douglas who characterized the predatory nature of both slavery and free market unregulated capitalism as one and the same. “But what does it mean? Who does it bless or benefit? The answer is already more than indicated. A moment’s thought will show that cheap labor in the mouths of those who seek it means not cheap labor, but the opposite. It means not cheap labor, but dear labor. Not abundant labor, but scarce labor; not more work, but more workmen. It means that condition of things in which the laborers shall be so largely in excess of the work needed to be done, that the capitalist shall be able to command all the laborers he wants, at prices only enough to keep the laborer above the point of starvation. It means ease and luxury to the rich, wretchedness and misery to the poor.
    The former slave owners of the South want cheap labor; they want it from Germany and from Ireland; they want it from China and Japan; they want it from anywhere in the world, but from Africa. They want to be independent of their former slaves, and bring their noses to the grindstone. They are not alone in this want, nor is their want a new one. The African slave trade with all its train of horrors, was instituted and carried on to supply the opulent landholding inhabitants of this country with cheap labor; and the same lust for gain, the same love of ease, and loathing of labor, which originated that infernal traffic, discloses itself in the modern cry for cheap labor and the fair-seeming schemes for supplying the demand. So rapidly does one evil succeed another, and so closely does the succeeding evil resemble the one destroyed, that only a very comprehensive view can afford a basis of faith in the possibility of reform, and a recognition of the fact of human progress.”
    What it all boils down to my friend, is some 150 years later since the proclamation by the South of their intend to succeed from the union, the defenders of the Southern Agrarian system of slavery still hold firm to the false notion the Civil War was about states right and not about eradicating and dismantling that evil institution which continues to leave a dark stain on the pages of our country’s history to this very day. It was the very same south that erected the stringent system of Jim Crow and passed a series of statutes during the reconstruction period called Black Code Laws that disallowed blacks from owning property, voting, or buying guns for personal protection (early forerunners of the present day Gun Control laws that are advocated by those who want to restrict the 2nd amendment).
    Using Abraham Lincoln as a scapegoat, who destroyed the Southern economic system, is just a smokescreen and caters to the extreme elements in our society on both sides of the political spectrum.

    Richard L. Dixon

  • Pete

    One thing good ol Abe said that I’ll always remember ! Good advice for Mr. Obama and any future Presidents … like Porter Stansberry (?)…

    Abe’s son Tad (on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party)had “tossed” the British Ambassador’s (the Honorable Earl Grey) silver teapot into the Potomac.

    Tad, being somewhat of a simpleton, felt no fear in confessing to his crime. “Didn’t George Washington confess to chopping down the cherry tree and escaped a flogging?” thought simple Tad Lincoln…

    When Earl Grey queried young Tad on the whereabouts of his silver teapot the lad said “I cannot tell a lie, I tossed your silver teapot into the Potomac ” said he with a smirk..

    Ambassador Grey, realizing that the silver teapot was a present from Queen Victoria, asked Tad why he would do such a thing !

    Tad’s reply – “In memory of the Boston Tea Party that happened fourscore and seven years ago” .

    The Ambassador told Mary Lincoln. Mary Lincoln took the young simpleton out to the woodshed and flogged him – considerably.

    After the flogging simple Tad Lincoln ran to Ol’ Abes office to protest his mother’s most unpatriotic action.

    Abe’s reply to simple Tad was (drum roll please !)

    “Honesty is the best policy…
    a little dishonesty is good foreign policy”

    Let this be a lesson to all of you who misjudge good Ol’ Abe !

    • Vigilant

      The story sounds like a tall tale. The key is in Tad’s alleged reply: “In memory of the Boston Tea Party that happened fourscore and seven years ago.”

      The obvious reference of “fourscore and seven years ago” was from Lincoln’s own Gettysburg Address, given in 1863. At that time, fourscore and seven years ago was 1776, the year of our nation’s independence.

      The Boston Tea Party occurred in 1773, so the correct reference would have been “fourscore and ten years ago.”

  • Robert

    When all men of truth read the constitution and the signing of the constitution when 4 states said that they reserve the right to leave the if the wish. if only one state had reserved the right to leave the union then all the states had the same rights, because they were all equal and being equal meant all of the states could leave if they wanted to. Futher the 9th and 10th admendments made the states above the federal, because the states created the union granting only limited powers to the union. they preserved the superior power to themselves. Lincoln unlike Buchanan wanted more power and so perverted the constitution. the federal government was meant to deal with forign countries. and keep peace between the states. thats why buchanan started to make agreements with the southern confereration as he did understand the constitution.every state was free to do what they wanted, as long as they did not violate the laws of the land. Lincoln was a power hungry person and he proved it when he violated the laws and agreements of the union snd the constitution as well as giving the finger to PRESIDENT Buchanan.

  • Ithamar

    Thanks, Chip. I am a son of the South and was raised with contempt for Lincoln based upon the evil he and other New Englanders perpetrated upon the South. But now, the same corrupt history taught in the north is also taught in the South, except for private and home schools. I am convinced that the Republic will not be salvaged until the country reconciles the wickedness inflicted upon the South, until the truth is thoroughly vetted and the South vindicated. Another great book about the tyrant is one written by another man from Illinois, “Lincoln the Man” by Edgar Lee Masters. Jeff Davis’ “The Raise and Fall of the Confederate Government” is essential reading for those who want to know the truth, and “A Defense of the Virginia” by Robert L. Dabney to put the slavery question in perspective. Once again, you have my gratitude.

    • Vigilant

      Another one who thinks everything in print MUST be true. No wonder the South lost the war.

  • Dennis

    My biggest pet peeve about Lincoln was people forget he wanted the blacks gone after being freed.He said it many times which everyone conviently over looks.That he wanted them gone back to africa or another place of there own.He knew that we could not live side by side but all the liberals never discuss that part

    • http://?? Joe H.

      “He knew that we could not live side by side”, I hope YOU don’t believe those words. I have many Black friends and I am almost pure bred white. I do have a little Native American in my bloodline.

  • Elvira

    Him speak with forked-tongue. Him NOT the saint he is portrayed as. He become dictator if not shot in head.

  • jopa

    Lincoln has been gone for some time now so I believe it is time to get over it .

    • Pete



      Right ? Henry Fonda AND Raymond Massey would agree !!!

  • Carl Francis

    I’m certainly no authority on the subject, but it seems to me that the giant hero of the Civil War, in the immediate aftermath of that war, was General Grant. That’s partly why Grant’s tomb is the massive structure that it is. But through time, as quick judgement through VISUAL impression came to dominate our nation’s thinking, Lincoln became the giant that matched his physical size, including top hat and full beard. And Grant became the stubby, cigar smoking alcoholic that he was. As a nation, we’ve come to match Abe’s worth to his photogenic power. Right or wrong, tall people have the edge.

    • Pete


    • Vigilant

      Carl, it may be of interest for you to know that, for Americans who lived in the 19th century, Grant was the most popular president, hands down.

  • sonja

    I am southern and proud to be. We are not perfect and don’t claim to be. My family fought in the American Revolution and for the Confederate. We owned slaves and that was the way of life THEN. A slave cost quite a bit and were treated well because they were the life of the “industry” of plantation farming. There were slave owners that truly took care of their slaves and treated them well because they were smart business men who understood that without the healthy slaves, they would not be profitable. I am not saying slavery was right…it is the way life was at that time. I am saying that the story depicted in movies such as Roots is not accurately portraying the typical plantation lifestyle. There are black families in the Atlanta area today that have my family name because when they became free, they were given land by my family and took our name. They didn’t flee to the north. They became sharecroppers and gentlemen farmers and made a life for themselves and their families. They were given opportunities that are not ever mentioned in the movies or history books. It is easier and more sensational to paint a horrible picture of what may have happened in a small percent, than to show the true generosity of so many southerners. That is why to this day there are more blacks in the south than any other part of the USA. They didn’t flee, but stayed where they had opportunities! Northerners didn’t offer anything but a place to run…not land or jobs. The TRUTH hurts and is not in this instance always accurately portrayed. Slavery dates well into Biblical times. It is dictated by the times and accepted practices. Southerners gave many slaves opportunities never seen before in history and should not ALL be seen as is reflected by the atrocities of a few!

    • Vigilant


      You said, “It is easier and more sensational to paint a horrible picture of what may have happened in a small percent, than to show the true generosity of so many southerners.”

      With all due respect, HOGWASH!

      Tell me how generous it is to prevent a person from voting, as the Democrats did to the blacks (not a “small percent”) for a century.

      How noble is it to deny the blacks adequate schools, prevent them from using shared facilities and putting them in the back of the bus/train?

      How utterly sensitive it was to summarily lynch a black man on mere suspicion (or not even that) of even a minor crime.

      Oh, and how great it was when white men who were proven to have murdered a black man went to court and were acquitted by a “jury of their peers.”

      People like you gladly accept the smoothings over and the denial of what really happened, to make themselves feel better about the terrible injustices of the times. And in your comfort, you will remain blind to reality.

  • mark

    Only a Racist would try and defend slavery. The Southern Pride is such a joke. Proud in what Being a traitor, a racist and a loser. The Union kicked your racisr butt!

    • Denniso

      I’m a little surprised to read a good Republican like Chip Wood putting down Lincoln,when for the past 70 ys the party has held up Lincoln as the great stalwart of the party. If the Repubs dump Lincoln who do they have remaing as heros? Only the divine Reagan.

      For Chip Wood to say that slavery should have ended w/ the free will of the slave owners is about the biggest joke in the article…they weren’t about to give up their ‘property’ and the luxury made possible
      voluntarily…silly and it downplays the horrors of slavery that lasted for hundreds of yrs.

    • JeffH

      I can hear that hairlipped dog barking again…mark, mark, mark…

  • http://N/A r a goodspeed

    As a Black in America, I continue to be amused at the notion being put forth that portends that white southerners would have eventually freed the slaves, maybe this is true but when. I am no lover of Abraham Lincoln as far too many Blacks are, especially Black conservatives. This is the same as the modern day argument that we needed no civil rights movement, again put forth by some black conservatives, because whites would have eventually allowed us to have equal rights. Had this been true, I feel that Blacks would still be riding the back of the bus and drinking hot water from segregated drinking fountains. I am glad that many people from all persuations of good will and justice came forth during both times in our history and stood tall for human rights and dignity.

    • Denniso

      It wasn’t all persuasions who fought against slavery and for civil rights…almost all conservatives and most southerners fought for the staus quo in both cases,and almost all liberals fought to change things for the better.

      • Vigilant


        “It wasn’t all persuasions who fought against slavery and for civil rights…almost all conservatives and most southerners fought for the staus quo in both cases,and almost all liberals fought to change things for the better.”

        I’m truly beginning to think you have never read a history book. If you had, you would revise your statement to read, in part, “almost all Democrats and most southerners fought for the status quo in both cases, and almost all Republicans fought to change things for the better.”

        That, sir, is the gospel truth.

        • Denniso

          I’m not calling the southern Democrats, Democrats in belief. They fought for the status quo over civil rights,and then left the party over the issue and became Republicans. They were totally opposite the northern Demcrats.

          • Denniso

            What I meant to say is that ‘conservatives’ fought for the status quo
            w/ slavery and civil rights,and ‘liberals’ fought for the change that most of us agree was right. Southern Democrats abandoned the party when Kennedy and Johnson pushed for civil rights for Blacks.
            ‘Conservatives’ are still fighting against civil rights in the battle for equal rights for gays.

  • JeffH

    I know this has nothing to do with Chip’s article but thought I’d share it anyway.

    Independent CBO Says Health Care Law Will Destroy 800,000 Jobs
    Posted by Don Seymour on February 10, 2011

    Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf confirmed for the House Budget Committee today that the Democrats’ health care law is a job-destroyer. When asked by Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) to clarify that ObamaCare will stifle job creation, Elmendorf testified that the health care law will reduce the number of full-time jobs by 800,000.

  • Boo Ewald Taylor

    In my short life, I have relearned alot of things I had been spoon fed as a kid and young adult. Politics is one of them.

  • Tom Snyder

    But slavery was a major part of both the Southern states’ secession resolutions and the Confederacy’s Constitution. We should remember this.

    • Denniso

      Slavery was an aspect of the division between the north and south,despite the rightwing wanting us to believe it was only about commerce and states rights. There were fierce political battles between the sides over slavery in new states as the country grew in size. The south wanted to keep the status quo going since it kept many slave owners in wealth and out of the fields themselves. Everyone who knows anything knows that slavery was a large part of what lead up to civil war.

      • Vigilant

        Denniso, for once we agree.

  • Mike

    The final result of the civil war is that now, the Federal Government is your lord and master. That was what they call the slippery slope and its been a long downhill slide since then. You can’t live and let live with it. You do what it says or it will literally send the union army after you to either break you or send you to jail. And after the last ten years, I can’t believe that people are still delusional enough to think one political party is better or worse than another.

    • Denniso

      Some voters have allowed more and more of a police state to exist over the yr. When we allow the gov’t to privatise prisons and then hear that judges get bribed by the private companies to send more kids to jail,that’s how we get abuse. When we vote for those who favor sending non violent drug users to prison for life,we are allowing a police state. Vote for candidates who favor too much surveilance of citizens and we have another step along the path to a police state. These things don’t happen in a vacuum,voters and non voters allow and support them…then the rightwing, who support most of this stuff,look up when we have a Democrat in office and say that we suddenly have a police state.

      Anyone who voted for Nixon for his second term,after we knew what he was up to using the CIA for spying on his political enemies,voted for police state policies.

  • Robert

    I am not a democrat or a republican, I am a constitutionalist. The democrats are the marxists that I despise, and the republicans are the business men who can not see the the forest for the trees. neither one is concerned with liberty or rights and duties. Taxes are for the services {police,courts,roads,national defence,and making only gold and silver the money of account of the United States of America as directed by the constitution of the united states of America. If you can not do your job as dictated by the constitution, then leave office and let constitutionalists and businessmen take over the job. they at least will get the job done and maybe the people will see a real change for the better. then we can move forward to a better country and a richer counrty. we also would have a better platform makeing a better people.

    • Denniso

      Being a ‘constitutionalist’ is a figment of your imagination. The constitution has how many ammendments? How long did nonwhites and women live as virtual indentured servants under the original constitution? 100 yrs? 150? The constitution was a flawed document from the very beginning,written by the white elites at the time…the tea party would be calling for the necks if they were alive today.

      Being a so called constitutionalist would be like being a religious
      fundamentalist…stuck to an old set of rules w/ no hope of progress. It would be different if either the bible or the constitution was perfect,which neither was nor is.

      • Vigilant

        Denniso, you missed the boat again. A Constitutionalist believes in the rectitude of the Constitution and its place as “the law of the land.” And what is the Constitution? IT’S THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT PLUS AMENDMENTS.

        This faux argument, so often posed disingenuously by the leftists, hopes we make the assumption that Conservatives think we should have stayed with the original document and never amended it! Sorry to say, this BIG LIE has been around for many years.

        Flawed? Of course it was, and no one denies it! But its beauty is that it holds the means for its own correction by amendment. Why that simple fact eludes the left is a deep mystery (not really, they know it’s true but it doesn’t serve their devious purposes).

        The question is NOT, “How long did nonwhites and women live as virtual indentured servants under the original constitution?,” the question is, after we made enlightened humane corrections to the document, why does the left persevere in the warped assumption that we must concentrate on the ills and shortcomings of it BEFORE it was amended? Denniso, we’re living in the year 2011, NOT the year 1789. Apparently you’ve missed much of what has happened since then.

        The apples and oranges comparison between the Bible and the Constitution is ridiculous. Last I checked, the Bible doesn’t contain provisions for its amendment through time, but the Constitution does.

        • Denniso

          any people hold up the Bible as divine, and many do the same w/ the constitution,rather than looking at it as a work of men who did a fair job w/ it,but certainly not a perfect or ‘divine’ result.

          The main problem with the writing of the constitution is that it was written by white male elitists…they were blindered by their own narrow focus and experience. No women,Blacks,Indians,non land owners…considering that, they did a pretty good job, with some major exceptions though.

          • Denniso


    • JeffH

      Robert, good for you. You are a patriot. Just ignore the liberal extremist that “Being a ‘constitutionalist’ is a figment of your imagination.” The liberals think they can read minds to. ROFLMAO!

    • JeffH

      Robert, I thought this was fitting, here’s what Herman Cain says of liberals, it especially fits the extreme liberals.

      Herman Cain – “When Liberals Answer Conservatives, They’re Guilty of SIN”
      When a liberal tries to reply to a question posed by a conservative, he commits a SIN. SIN is an acronym and I’ll explain what the letters stand for.

      “S” stands for “Shifting the blame.” When a conservative points out something that the Obama Administration does is wrong, or what Congress did is wrong, a liberal is quick to shift the blame. “If it weren’t for the mess that Bush left us….”

      “I” stands for “Ignoring the facts.” That’s the next step in a liberal’s argument. The liberals say that Bush raised the National Debt by $3.2 trillion, but there were two wars being fought and this increase happened over the course of 8 years. Obama will have raised the National Debt by 1.2 Trillion on the healthcare bill alone. He’s only been in office less than a year!

      “N” stands for “Name calling.” Finally, when liberals see that they’re getting nowhere with their conservative friends, they resort to name calling. Fear-mongerer, war-mongerer, greedy-capitalists…..

      How true. How true

  • Robert

    by the way schools, hospitals and other services are state and local concerns. assistance to poor and elderly, unwed nothers and unemployeed people are the responsibility of churches, and people who are concerned to help those who will work if they had a chance. illegal aliens have no ligimate claim for aid for they broke the law in the first place. sending troops to anywhers outside the united states without a state of war being declared is also wrong. the constitution is the law of the land. obey it. if you do not like the constitution either change it legally or leave this country.

  • Robert

    dinnoso the constitution of the united states had but 2 admendments add to it prior to the civil war. that was a long time. but lincoln had 4 admendments in 4 years, but he had to do it without all the states represented, because he would not allow the southern states to vote on the admendments unlill the states sent representavies that would vote for it. and the only passed by 1 vote. the southern states had appointed represenatives not elected ones.

    • Denniso

      Don’t you think there should have been more ammendments earlier? Like the right of women to vote? Like the one outlawing slavery? Why did we have to wait 150 yrs to ammend the constitution to allow only 2 presidential terms?

      My point is that the original constitution was greatly flawed w/ huge gaps in the rights for Blacks,women and non land owners. How good a job did the founders do by omitting so much? If the constitution was flawed in the beginning and had to be ammended 27 times to get to a better document,then isn’t there a chance that it has yet more flaws that will be changed over time? So, is a ‘constitutionalist’ going to hold true to the original document or modify his positions as more ammendments come along?
      We should look at the constitution as an evolving document that gives us guidelines for our governance,but never was nor will be anything like ‘divine’ or perfect.

      • Vigilant

        Denniso, your arguments have no traction whatsoever. Whether or not the amendments should have been effected earlier or later is a mute point. You make the common and egregious error of bemoaning the fact that our ancestors did not have the enlightened morality of today. It’s so very easy (and unarguable) to say what “should have been” as an Monday morning quarterback.

        The truly IMPORTANT thing is that, guess what, we DID make the necessary revisions to the Constitution as time passed. To the unmuddled mind, that’s a testament to the wonder of the Constitution, NOT a condemnation of it. And it’s a resounding compliment to the Founders that they created such a document, something you seem to reject.

        Your ludicrous question, “So, is a ‘constitutionalist’ [sic] going to hold true to the original document or modify his positions as more ammendments [sic] come along?” is an obvious attempt to paint Constitutionalists as ones who only believe in the original unamended document. That’s an argument for children to play with, not adults who know that the Constitution is, as I said before, “the law of the land” that is comprised of the basic PLUS AMENDMENTS.

        As for term limits on the presidency, you should read a history book sometime. No limits were set by the Constitution, as the Founders felt our leadership was of sufficient moral fiber to even attempt a dynasty. George Washington could have stayed another term, had he so chosen, but didn’t. His action of relinquishing the office after two terms became a wonder to the rest of the world, and formed a simple convention of a 2-term limit to the presidency.

        It was not until that socialist Roosevelt, taking advantage of the the Constitutional vacuum, tried to extend his socialist regime beyond a reasonable time period, that the country decided to formalize the presidential term limits via amendment.

        And to answer your question, “If the constitution was flawed in the beginning and had to be ammended [sic] 27 times to get to a better document,then isn’t there a chance that it has yet more flaws that will be changed over time?,” the answer is YES! Whatever made you think you would get an argument out of a Constitutionalist from that question?

        And then you say, “We should look at the constitution [sic] as an evolving document that gives us guidelines for our governance,but never was nor will be anything like ‘divine’ or perfect.” Number one: no one has ever claimed that it is a perfect document. Number two: The Constitution is a damn sight more than a set of “guidelines.” IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. Only those who would destroy our country have ever looked at it as a set of “guidelines.”

        • Denniso

          The constitution is the ‘law of the land’ as interpreted by a bench of 9 people,not usually absolute,and until it is changed by amendment…just like other legislative action.

  • Robert

    every one of us needs to read the constitution, the declaration of independence, and the writing of our founding fathers. note you will find that 4 states signed it and were worried about it so these 4 states signed with the understanding that they wrote they could withdraw from it if they did not like at any time. Virgina, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island. Someone With a power trip ignored this, even though the preceding president Buchanon {15} {lincoln was {16} was signing agreements with the southern President Davis on what lands were The souths and what lands were the Norths. If someone signs a document and makes note that if he does not like what he is signing at a later date that can recind the agreement. so what is so hard to understand? Lincoln was a power grabber. He did not care what was right he just was going to have what he wanted like a spoiled child.

  • Steve Simms


    Does the fact that the South initiated the War by attacking Fort Sumpter mean nothing?

    Steve Simms

    • Pathfinder

      @ Steve Simms : Does the fact that refusing to leave southernh territory (Namely the aforementioned Fort Sumpter) mean nothing to you. The so called “attack” was no more than an attempt to evict an unlawful occupant from southern territory.

      • Denniso

        The South was part of the nation…Ft Sumpter was a Federal fort. Just because the Southerners wrote up seccession papers didn’t automatically mean the Ft was suddenly the property of the ‘South’. Whatever constitutional rights they may have had to begin a sessesion process,they didn’t have an automatic right to seize a Federal Ft just because they said they could do it.
        I’m all in favor of letting the South leave the Union,as they’re mostly a drag on the country as a whole and most there don’t seem to want to evolve and grow into anything better than they were back in 1861.

        • libertytrain

          You must not travel much.

  • Sam

    As a former American History teacher, I will affirm much of what you’ve written. Ol’ Abe wasn’t a saint by any means.

    • Vigilant

      And who was? And who’s claiming Lincoln was?

      You need to get away from socialist histories like Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” and concentrate on the things Lincoln did that advanced the causes of equality. Like it or not, and no matter how he went about it, Lincoln was responsible for the greatest advancement in human rights and the self-evident truths of Natural Law embodied in the Declaration than any president before him.

  • Pathfinder

    Although born and raised in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; I do not consider myself a yankee, but rather a copperhead. Thus I feel that the correct name for the conflict over which Lincoln presided is “The war of northern aggression.” The terms “civil war” and even “war between the states” do not adequately describe the injustice of this assault on the south.

    • Vigilant

      And how would you describe the injustice of Southern assault on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness vis-a-vis the slaves (8 million of them)?

      • Vigilant

        Correction: 4 million slaves in 1860.

  • Rick

    I grew up in Birmingham Al. and attended the gov. schools. In 66 to 78. I was taught that Linclon and FDR were Gods. And that the south were all evil slave owners.
    It all makes sence to me that the Gov schools are not going to teach the truth realating to our freedom. Do we really think that the governmnet school system or government accredited colleges are going to teach any FACTS that could illustrate anything other than the progressive socialist veiw. If we found out the truth we may accutally become disobedaint children like those guys in 1776 and we just cant have that now can we.
    One intesting FACT – You can go to the archives at the Bham public library and see that all the pictures of blacks who served in the confederate army as soldiers have been expunged from the record. Hummm ?? makes you wonder.

    • Denniso

      Sorry, but that sounds dubious to me. There were many Southerners who didn’t want war,just as there were many who didn’t want war w/ the Brittish 100 yrs earlier.

  • http://donthaveone Beberoni

    After further review, I have decided that the civil war, slavery, and all unjust things were the fault of Bush, Cheney and Halliburton. I mean it has to be, everything else is their fault.

    • YahCoyote

      Beberoni you have learned to speak progressive. Are you planning an infiltration of the Democratic Convention in 2011 and want to be in practice to speak undetected?

  • http://internetexplorer George Mazes

    You have nothing better to do then to dig up dirt on a president who has been gone over 150 yrs. We have enough problems today with all the turmoil in this country that should be brought to the forefront Do I have to list it all. We as parents are more concerned for our childrens and grandchildrens futures, not the past. Wake up for gods sake. You can’t be serious. He was a great president, one whom Obama could never match up to. This country has no backbone any more. History is history. Leave it alone. Live with it or get out. This the greatest country in the world you bunch of spineless ingreats.

    • Vigilant

      George Mazes, BRAVO!!


      Isn’t it reasonable that to know from whence you come aids in charting the course for the future? Learn from your mistakes ~

  • Robert

    ninety percent of the problens we have today enamate from the violation of the constitution. courts because of fear of the federal government adjucate based on the political whim. governments rule as though the constitution is dead, and for all actions i see it is. when the federal government dictates to the states instead of the states dictate to the federal government you have the ability of the progressives to make a one world government that eleminates the constitution. how far we have strayed. I am sorry that the founding fathers were corredt in saying if we can keep it. Franklin was a prophet.

  • Rick

    Dubious??? when some one invades your country you have no choice but to fight.
    “Democracy broke down, not when the union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituents states, but when it was upheld, like any other empire, by force of arms”—The London Times 1865 – Lincolns’ invasion of the south

    regarding history –Robert is correct. The study of the constituion and how it has been violated is history. If you dont know where you came from then you will have no idea where you are going.
    We will either be a nation ruled by law, or one ruled by men.

    • Vicki

      A smart man learns from his mistakes.
      A wise man learns from the mistakes of others

      BOTH require studying and remembering history.

  • http://none BobM

    The Reconstructions acts that imposed military occupation and other draconian measures on the south were not passed until 1867. Had Lincoln continued in office, it is likely that those acts would never had passed. For that matter, it’s unlikely that the Black Codes would have been implemented in the south and, thus, there would not have been a need for the 14th amendment. With Lincoln as President through 1868 at least, I believe that a return to national unity and prosperity would have ensued.

    • Vigilant

      I agree with your assessment of Lincoln, but a 14th Amendment was necessary to establish citizensip for the newly-freed slaves. Had it been left to the Southern states to establish citizenship, the black would not have had the right to vote.

      It’s amazing to see the number of posters to this site who blame Lincoln for the excesses of Reconstruction. Lincoln was dead when the radical Republicans in Congress imposed the Draconian measures on the South. Lincoln was a compassionate man who wanted a minimum of pain to the South in their “repatriation.”

      His place as the first Republican president, standard-bearer of a political party that fought for civil rights from the beginning, made him a great president. It was the Democrats in gov’t who fought all means to enfranchise the former slaves, and who consistently thwarted Republican efforts for a hundred years in bringing justice, equality and dignity to the African-Americans.

      • http://none BobM

        Which as yet at the hands of Democrat Demagogic institutionalization of historic platitudes of suffering and disdain, still alludes my black brother.

  • http://none BobM

    Human life is a journey of travails, Socrates’ shadows on the cave walls. Without ideals we have no inkling of choice or path. The truth is; we have too little of either. The South over time felt little or no allegiance to the North, falling prey to its own vices for luxury and separation of powers. While the North gasped for survival without the South’s mercantile allegiance. Since the Declaration and rancor surrounding the first writing of the Constitution, the South saw and believed the North had little interest in their way of life, but compelled the constitution delete the abolition of slavery. This conciliation from the Northern Colonies codified the Force majeure needed to depose a King. Jefferson, himself a slave owner, remarked that slavery would be ‘the dog that would come back to bite us’, and as he foresaw….it certainly did, and has in a big way. By default our Constitution declares a preservation of the Union. While no other nation on earth that partook in that evil suffered as we have, it is because our Judeo-Christianity, conscience and remorse, that we begged providences’ punishing retribution. Essentially the US paid the price for the soul of the world at the expense of family and fortune, but most certainly not our future. A debt paid is a debt forgiven. In this sense, “An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” was modern man’s unlearned lesson, learned. Where now does the rest of the world turn for Democracy?

    The dissolution of the Union guaranteed perpetuation of slavery at least until the industrial revolution’s mechanical productivity would serve as suitable substitute for slavery to the agrarian economies. The South would most certainly not have forfeited this practice had its growing relation with Europe continued to flourish.

    Lincoln saw many things about Europe and France in particular that were ‘unhealthy’ for Americans. He saw, for instance, a ruling class and aristocracy developing between the Southern States and Europe. History is not above all else, isolated from itself. The French Revolution was seen throughout the world as a bellwether or turning point for humanity that had worldwide ramifications, our revolution being one. But its eventual secularism was in conflict with the mores of our Union. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on August 26 1789 held that “the source of all sovereignty is located in the NATION; no body, no individual can exercise authority which does not emanate from it expressly” (Noll, 2000, p.247).

    (I put forth to you Chip Wood, this confrontation was a legitimate and codified ideological war ruled by the tenets of our Constitution, signed to by all parties concerned). Winner takes all! Once elected, Jefferson Davis gathered those states that opted in to secession a month before Lincoln took office, then struck the first blow at Ft. Sumter, all this for the want of a ‘French Doily’.

    Now I offer you Chip Wood’s isolated Lincoln quote: “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, which 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 their territory as they inhabit.”
    Mr. Wood… revolutions have outcomes.

    Just more food for thought before one engages in the condemnation of Mr. Lincoln.

  • http://none BobM

    Mr.Wood is a provocateur.

    • Vigilant

      BobM, you have my concurrence on both counts above. Thanks for cutting through the BS and telling it like it is/was!

  • Aut Rajus

    The post by StringRunna dated 2-12-11 is exactly how I see it. But let me add:
    Lincoln as a young man witnessed a black family ripped apart to be sold to different owners. This gave him a lifelong hatred of slavery and a desire to destroy it, not a popular sentiment in those days for a southerner. However he probably felt the institution would die soon anyway, and considered his primary duty as President was to sustain the experiment in freedom known as the United States. To Lincoln, America was the fortress against tyranny in the world. If it fell, all the efforts and inspiration of our founders was in vain. He felt the only choice was to fight to preserve the union. He claimed “not to have controlled events, but that events have controlled me.” Though it has faults, the U.S.A. has been a force for good in the world since the Uncivil War. We resisted German, Japanese, and communist would-be conquerors. And our free enterprise system has produced the greatest prosperity levels in the history of the world.
    The Democrat party has always been on the wrong side of history. They started under a lie by Old Hickory and gang and then stood for slavery and against Lincoln. Who joined the KKK? Democrats. Who treated Blacks as non-citizens even after slavery was abolished? Democrats. Who fought against Civil Rights? Southern Democrats. And who enslaved the Black race again with their nanny-state welfare system? Democrats. Who now wants to enslave us all by dictating how much money we can make, how much of our money we can leave to our children, what food we can eat, what insurance and health care we can have, what kind of car we can drive, what your thermostat is set on, and even what kind of light bulbs you can use? Democrats.
    This essay may be an effort in futility. If many actually think that Lincoln was an evil tyrant, then i don’t have much confidence in our spiritual eyesight. This nation is doomed. The infallible Word of God warns against believing a lie. Yet the masses have swallowed several, hook, line, and sinker. It is commonly believed that man’s carbon emissions have caused global warming. The most educated and scientific among us almost unanimously believe in the ridiculous and unscientific theory of evolution. And i would guess over 90% believe we actually sent men to the moon in 1969. I know this will shock and choke most of you but at least pause and consider the evidence. I leave you with another reminder from Scripture: “…let no man deceive you.”

  • Robert

    well I am a constitutionallist, and I want a government that governs best and that is not a Democrat, nor a Republican,because Freedom and liberty are most needed, and neither Democrat nor Republican believe that the people know what is best for them. A liberterian is closer to what I want, but they have as much chance of winning as a snail beating a chetah. the people today can not agree on anything unless someone they know tells them, but if you do not know what the problem is or know how to fix something you have no reason to vote..if he does vote it is the same as a blind man following another blind man. neither one where he is going and neither will get to their destination. Our Founding fathers would have had to live to 2oo years to prevent what has happened to the United States of America. They would have been able to explain the pitfalls and the roadbocks ahead and how to follow the constitution. We were not lucky enough to have them to guide us so we were doomed to the disaster we are headed into now. It is a terrible future with one to lead.

    • Vicki

      Robert writes:
      “They (the founders) would have been able to explain the pitfalls and the roadbocks ahead and how to follow the constitution. We were not lucky enough to have them to guide us so we were doomed to the disaster we are headed into now. It is a terrible future with no one to lead.”

      But they DID explain the pitfalls and the roadblocks ahead and how to follow the Constitution. They wrote the words of the Constitution with great care. They wrote the federalist and anti-federalist papers. They wrote thousands of letters. They wrote pamphets they wrote articles in news papers. They wrote books. They knew they would not live forever and they did everything they could to teach us what we needed to know to survive. It’s all there. History written by the people who created it. It’s in the Library of Congress. ( All we have to do is read and understand.

  • Robert

    the last four words should be {no one to lead.

  • jim s

    Most of the northern view of slavery was through a book of fiction-Uncle Tom’s Cabin- H B Stowe. She was a northern abolitionist that only traveled through the South. In the county in which my great-grandfather lived, in 1861, a slave cost $ 1,000.00 Now you have
    a new Lincoln, BMW, or Rolls that cost less than the updated version of the $ 1,000.00. It doesn’t work so immediately you get a sledge hammer and beat it. Of course the BMW works better after a good beating, right. Same then, now you have to pay to have the BMW fixed.
    Same then only also you are out of the possible labor, but you have to
    pay for the medical care to bting the slave (BMW) back to working status. You have to pay for the gargage (housing) fuel (food) etc

    When it hits your checking account, you can understand a problem or
    the lack of. Slavery was not a economic future, but how to pay the
    owner for his investment was. England and France had basicaslly
    bought the slaves freedom (paid owners for slaves’ freedom). Lincoln
    not only was responsible for stealing the slave but burning down the owner’s home, stealing his horse, killing the owner, and raping his wife and daughters. I can’t see why Southerners still hate yankees.

    • Vigilant

      Such a great depiction of Southern life: you merely reinforce why the war should have come sooner rather than later.

      We can only pray that some day you will come to recognize, along with all rational people, that the slaves were not property, they were human beings. And human beings who were denied the promise of the Declaration of Independence relative to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

  • Robert

    Just think the north violated the constitution and no cared. when you violate promise and are rewarded you get a shaft where the sun does not shine. everyone is ctying and complaining, but they do not look at themselves. voting for people who promise you the world but never intend to deliver, because you forget the promises but your man got in and that is all that counts. when things really g0 bad its to late they got you where they want you. you are defenceless. there are very few dems and a little more repubs that that are good but the majority are just plain rotten. both parties are out for themselves and look out for themselves. the few who are for the people are tared and feathered by the people that voted for them. it started before lincoln, but accellerated under lincoln and with teddy rosevelt and fdr it was off and flying. LBJ set it rocketing. there is no stopping this tidal wave of destruction but I do not care any more because I have a very short time left, and frankly I do not give a dam.

  • Charlie Tall

    I am greatly amused by Vigilant’s learned misinterpretations of just about everything.

    I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but Vigilant has gotten so much wrong that I could not help it. It was a “target-rich” environment.

    Let’s talk about the Confederate Constitution, which I keep on my Favorites Bar. First, the founders of the Confederacy noted the beginnings of the abuse of the US Constitution and set about to prevent them in the South. For example, the US acquired the Louisiana Purchase even though the power to do so is not contained in the Constitution; the Confederate Constitution provided that power in its constitution.

    The Confederate Constitution also provided that slavery be extended into lands purchased by public money paid by slave owners. The North had attempted to prohibit slavery in land purchased by monies contributed by the South, and thereby force the South to finance a change that would reduce their political representation.

    Vigilant talks about the immorality of slavery. By his values in the 21st Century, he is correct. By the values of the United States in the 19th Century, he would have been considered a dangerous idiot.

    Remember that slavery was protected, not just by the Confederate Constitution, but by the US Constitution. Indeed, Lincoln endorsed a Constitutional amendment which would have made this very clear: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

    The Confederate Constitution stated that “No …law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed.”

    As with Lincoln’s proposed amendment, that exclusion applied only to the federal government, not the individual states; they were free to do whatever they wanted with their slaves.

    Most of the Confederate states already had working laws controlling the emancipation of slaves. Typically, these laws provided that the owner must educate the slave, insure that the slave would have a craft or skill, or provide support for the freedman after emancipation. Unlike the Union at the end of the war, the Confederate states did not just throw the newly-freed slaves out on their own to survive or starve.

    While northern states had ended slavery in their territories during the first three decades of the 19th Century, they did it in such a way as to assure that yankee slave owners would not lose a cent of their investment. The majority of northern slaves were “sold South” by their owners. In some states, the emancipation process took so long that slaves were still being held in New Jersey when the Civil War started.

    Before the South seceded, the Union was levying a 20% tariff on imports. The Confederacy established a 10% tariff. New Orleans was the gateway port to the Mississippi River, and thus controlled all imports into the middle of the continent. No sooner was the 10% tariff introduced than all imports destined for the midwest began flowing through New Orleans. Northern papers predicted that “grass would grow in the streets of New York” if this were allowed to continue.

    Lincoln, when asked by Raphael Semmes why the North should not let the South go, replied, “Let the South go? Let the South go? Where then shall we get our revenues?”

    On March 30, 1861, the New York Times published an article which concluded with these words: “With us it is no longer an abstract question – one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad…We were divided and confused until our pockets were touched.”

    The Manchesteer, New Hampshire, Union Democrat wrote this: “The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No – we MUST NOT ‘let the South go’”

    “From these statements and the facts, we can see that the North’s true motive for launching an invasion into the South was not one of high moral principles, but one of greed and fear of economoic loss.”

    As to the freedoms allowed blacks in the North, this by Alexis de Tocqueville: “The prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the States that have abolished slaves than in the States where slavery still exists. White carpenters, white bricklayers, and white painters will not work side by side with the blacks in the North, but do it in almost every Southern state…”

    Incidentally, many northern states passed laws barring former slaves:
    “The North also passed exclusion laws to forbid free blacks from coming into it states. New Jersey passed one of the first of these laws. It prohibited free blacks from settling in that fair state. Masachusetts passed a law that allowed the flogging of blacks who came into the state and remained for longer than two months. In 1853, Indiana’s constitution stated that ‘…no negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the state…’ Illinois in 1853 enacted a law ‘…to prevent the immigration of free negroes into this state…’ In 1862, and while its boys in blue were pillaging the South, Illinois passed by overwhelming popular vote an amendment to the state’s constitution declaring that ‘…No negro or mulatto shall immigrate or settle in this state.’ Oregon’s 1857 constitution provided that ‘…No free negro or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of adoption…shall come, reside, or be within this state’ In December 1862, Lincoln addressed Congress with these words, “But why should emancipation South send free people North?…And why in any event cannot the North decide for itself whether to receive them?”

    During the war, a proposal to move a number of escaped slaves to Massachusetts for refuge was rejected by the governor who stated, “The Northern States are of all places the worst possible to select for an asylum for negroes.”

    Think the North was only anti-Negro? Not so. The arrogant and racist Northern attitude extended to my ancestors, as well. In 1862, Gen. John Pope was sent to Minnesota to quell and uprising. In one of his orders to his troops, he described Indians with these words: “They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromises can be made.” This after the white man had broken all of his promises, vacated all of his treaties, stolen the “eternal” Indian lands, and dishonored all of his vows.

    Why? For the same reason the North made war on the South: greed. Gideon Wells addmitted that war against the Indians was waged because “Indians [in Minnesota] have good land which the white men want and mean to have.”

    And the South had the revenues that the North wanted and meant to have.

    Irony: in forcing the South back into the Union, the North destroyed the source of the revenues they were so willing to kill for, created a huge population of dependents, and replaced mutual co-existence with murderous hatred.

    • Vigilant

      Well, Charlie, in the smugness of your ignorance you certainly managed to stretch that posting out. In the interests of bandwidth, I’ll attack your ludicrous assertions one at a time.

      PART ONE: “Vigilant talks about the immorality of slavery. By his values in the 21st Century, he is correct. By the values of the United States in the 19th Century, he would have been considered a dangerous idiot.”

      Your obvious lack of historical kinowledge throws everything else you say into serious doubt. I assume you learned your Civil War “history” in the South.

      Slavery was considered an abominable institution long before the 19th century, as witnessed by the debates surrounding both the Declaration and the Constitution.

      Jefferson was going to include a passage in the Declaration of Independence (1776, in case they didn’t teach you that in school), to blame King George for slavery, but it was excised from the final document in clear recognition that this brutal practice was enthusiastically embraced by the Americans, primarily the Southerners.

      Now tell me, sir, why would you ever want to include slavery in a list of charges against a tyrannical King if you didn’t think it was a blameworthy practice? Cat got your tongue?

      The Quakers of Pennsylvania formed the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery in 1775. It was originally formed as The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. The Society not only advocated the abolition of slavery, but made efforts to integrate freed slaves into American society.

      Now why did the Constitution prohibit the importation of slaves after 1808, if it was such a widely accepted and honorable practice? Cat got your tongue again?

      Due to the efforts of William Wiberforce, Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in most of the British Empire. Now a little simple math (again, if they taught that in your school) shows that the evils of slavery were recognized a full 28 years before the Civil War.

      So, my fine ignorant friend, you must consider Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, many other Founding Fathers and the entire Quaker population of Pennsylvania, all who were concerned about the immorality of slavery, as “dangerous idiots.”

      We just might have an intelligent, logical conversation if you’d just put down those “histories” by Southern apologists who have done everything but admit the evils of slavery.

      • Vigilant

        For Charlie Tall

        PART TWO:

        “For example, the US acquired the Louisiana Purchase even though the power to do so is not contained in the Constitution; the Confederate Constitution provided that power in its constitution.”

        You conveniently forgot to mention the rest of that article in the CSA Constitution, i.e.,

        “The Confederate States may acquire new territory, and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States lying without the limits of the several States, and may permit them, at such times and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government, and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and territories shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

        Some fine document, that.

        • Charlie Tall

          Vgilant posted: “You conveniently forgot to mention the rest of that article in the CSA Constitution…”

          Why, no I didn’t, Vigilant. I clearly stated, “The Confederate Constitution also provided that slavery be extended into lands purchased by public money paid by slave owners. The North had attempted to prohibit slavery in land purchased by monies contributed by the South, and thereby force the South to finance a change that would reduce their political representation.”

          It was “hidden” in the very next paragraph.

          Add poor reading comprehension to dangerous idiot.

      • Vigilant

        harlie says, “Let’s talk about the Confederate Constitution, which I keep on my Favorites Bar.”

        That should tell you everything you need to know about his sentiments.

  • coal miner

    I am back.

  • Herb1949

    “Pete says:
    February 12, 2011 at 11:59 pm
    Y’all should read Ward Moore’s book “Bring the Jubilee” on what would have happen if the Confederacy “won” the Battle of Gettysburg. Here is the wikipedia article hyperlink

    That is so much hokum. The south only wanted their freedom from the north and would have agreed to peace with seperate countries, at any time. The leap of faith that this book requires is beyond reasonable comprehension.
    I was born and raised in Oregon, with the northern brainwashing that was/is common. But when I learned that Lincoln didn’t free the slaves at the start of the war, or the slaves that were in the non-rebelling areas, I knew I had been had on the reason for the war.
    I agree with the author about what lincoln really was.
    BTW, the greatest president was George Washington. He set the precedent that the president would step down when he was not re-elected.

  • Charlie Tall

    Poor Vigilant, he cannot keep track of a discussion and so introduces idiotic, irrelevant arguments.

    “I assume you learned your Civil War “history” in the South.” Wrong. I learned it in public schools in the North. I subsequently researched it and discovered that what the Northern public schools taught was far from the truth and incommplete, as are your arguments.

    For what it’s worth, while the Constitution prohibited the importation of slaves as of 1808, Virginia had already done so in 1788, somewhat before, I believe, the Constitution was written. Georgia did it in 1798. Other Southern states, followed suit and passed similar ordinances prior to the Federal ban taking effect.

    In fact, Virginia had first tried to prohibit the importation of slaves around 1750, but they were thwarted by the Royal Governor, i.e., The King of England.

    By 1827, three-fourths of all the abolition organizations and four-fifths of their members were from the South. [THE COMING OF THE GLORY, Tilley, pub 1949.] In 1828, the governor of Mississippi tried to have the sale of Northern slaves banned, but was blocked by, of all things, radical abolitionists: i.e. more dangerous idiots.

    Jefferson? The Declaration of Independence? That’s what he meant by “he has prostituted his negative” [inhuman use of the royal negative]. Where was Jefferson from? Virginia.

    But I stated that Vigilant would have been viewed as a dangerous idiot, and he would have. Why? Because the entire nation, North and South, was making its money from the Southern produce, and that was, for the time, based on slavery.

    (As they say, one does not flood one’s own gold mine, and that is essentially what Vigilant would have been recommending with his 21st Century values in the US of 1860.)

    At the same time, the industry of the North was based not only on slavery, but on the exploitation of poor immigrants and child labor. So much for the nobility of Yankees.

    The cotton produced by the South was shipped in Northern bottoms, processed in Northern factories, and sold back to the South, the transactions handled by Northern bankers.

    Southern planters naturally wondered about the honesty and sincerity of Northerners who condemned the South while their textile mills, shipping, and banks earned huge profits from the slave-grown produce.

    (Those bankers are probably the ancestors of the Northern bankers who so willingly launder drug money today)

    So, Vigilant, this required a little thought of your own, which you were not able to summon: abolishing slavery would have put both the North and the South out of business, and you would have been thought an idiot by those same Northerners and Southerners.

    (Vigilant, probably couldn’t find that idea in a Northern mythology text.)

    Vigilant mentions the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, which was passed in England some 100 years after Virginia had first tried to stop the importation of slaves but had been frustrated by the English king in the interests of the profits of English slave traders. See: Royal Negative above.

    The Quakers, by the way, established their Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, and adjourned after one or two meetings. They weren’t heard from again for another ten years, by which time Southern states had done something besides talk.

    Here’s another item that few fanatics like Vigilant ever think about: the total value of the approximately four million slaves held in the South was the single, greatest category of wealth in the South. It exceeded the value of all privately held real estate. The uncompensated abolition of slavery that Vigilant espouses would have been literally bankrupted the South.

    That would have been the act of a dangerous idiot.

    Why, I wonder, were the Northern abolitionists so careful to assure that 1) Northern slave owners were either compensated (as were English slave owners) or 2) allowed to sell their slaves to the South. I mean, if slavery was an abomination, and the Northern states recognized this and abolished slavery in their territories, what the hell were they thinking when they sold their slaves through proctors in Louisiana?

    They were thinking hypocrisy, typical Northern hypocrisy of the type exhibited by Vigilant.

    Thus another reason for calling Vigilant a dangerous idiot.

    Vigilant wrote, “Now tell me, sir, why would you ever want to include slavery in a list of charges against a tyrannical King if you didn’t think it was a blameworthy practice? Cat got your tongue?”

    Hell, Vigilant, give me a chance to answer before you crow.

    I did not assert that slavery was not “a blamworthy practice.” Only an idiot would assume that from what I wrote, but, hey, that’s my point.

    Now the final nail in the dangerous idiot’s coffin: At the time under discussion, the negro was not considered to be the equal of the white man. The negro was not believed to be able to successfully live in association with the white man.

    These beliefs were held in both the North and the South of the United States, as well as in Europe, South America, the entire British Empire, the French and Spanish colonies, just about everywhere.

    Even Lincoln believed that and stated it on at least one occasion.

    I have dozens of citations if anyone cares to read this old tripe.

    When your ideology conflicts with the general consensus, you are considered to be an idiot. So once again, Vigilant would have been considered a dangerous idiot because his 21st Century beliefs would have been totally at odds with those of the early 19th Century.

    Vigilant would have been seen as a dangerous idiot. Q.E.D.

    • Vigilant

      Poor Charlie Short-on-Brains,

      I have to laugh at your infantile overuse of “idiot.” That’s the sign of a real thinker.

      Your change of heart, from one extreme (Nerthern education) to a Southern point of view, reflects the classic profile of the true believer. You should read Eric Hoffer some time, if it’s ever published in comic book form for your comprehension.

      The true believer is never convinced (by logic and fact), but easily converted.

      By your logic, all visionary thinkers of their time would have been labeled as “idiots.” I repeat, so you consider Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Washington and others who saw the evil and destructive nature of slavery “idiots?” Sonny, your argument doesn’t wash.

      You decry the hypocrisy of the times, and so should anyone, anytime. But then you throw out the baby with the bathwater, to the extent that, in your feeble mind and the feeble minds of the Southern apologists, slavery was not much worse than a simple matter of economics, a business proposition, and one that you imply was substantiated by the necessities of the times. That, and nothing else.

      Yes, the general white public felt the Negroes to be inferior, but the main difference between the decent people (far in the greater number in the North) and the Southern cretins was that the South persisted, from the Constitutional convention onwards, to view the slave as an animal, a possession, not a human being. Tell me who the idiots were.

      What you don’t realize, my friend, is that your rantings, unrelated as they may be to the issue of Natural Rights, give aid and comfort to those who would still say the Negro (it’s capitalized , by the way) is inferior. The ancillary facts you give about how people handled the problem of slavery expand our knowledge not a whit when it comes to the basic concept of Natural Rights.

      And, as I have shown, the knotty problem of slavery was recognized (and railed against) for almost a century before the Civil War.

      I’m glad to be in the company of our visionary Founders if that would have made me an idiot in those times. It’s lamentable that we must suffer the dangerous idiots of 2011, such as yourself. Under your wise leadership, blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus.

      • Vigilant

        Oh, and in your mission to ameliorate the effects of slavery in a Constitutional Republic, I would like to ask you, when would have been a right time to emancipate the slaves? 1880? 1920? 2011?

      • Charlie Tall

        Hey, I got me a real, live hypocrite and bigot here.

        Enter Vigilant, stage left.

        Vigilant says: “…the smugness of your ignorance…”
        Vigilant says: “…your ludicrous assertions…”
        Vigilant says: “…my fine ignroant friend…”
        Vigilant says: “…comic book form for your comprehension…”
        Vigilant says: “…your feeble mind…”
        Vigilant says: “…Negro (it’s capitalized, by the way)…”
        Vigilant says: “…your overuse of idiot…”

        Damn, Vigilant, we have seven different insults from you, one from me.

        About the spelling of Negro: it’s William Wilberforce you stupid Yankee, not Wiberforce.

        Vigilant says, “What you don’t realize, my friend, is that your rantings, unrelated as they may be to the issue of Natural Rights, give aid and comfort to those who would still say the Negro (it’s capitalized , by the way) is inferior.”

        I’m not talking about today, Vigilant. Lincoln has been dead for nearly a century-and-a-half. Slavery has been gone (at least in the South) for the same time.

        The subject, fool, is the past.

        Both the North and the South were at fault. The North was no less culpable then the South, just a little more duplicitous.

        If you think there were more decent people in the North, I would have to agree because there were more people in the North. There were also more greedy, materialistic, dishonest, venal, treacherous, criminal, brutal, ignorant, and just plain foolish people in the North, as you prove by your postings.

        The objective observer would have looked at my first reply and said, “Wait a minute. This guy knows a few things. Maybe he’s not trying to justify slavery or denigrate the North.”

        But, no, you just dig your feet in and dish out another helping of your bigotry. Vigilant says, “The South was bad, the North was good; I know that because they taught me that in Northern school.”

        Vigilant. Throw away everything you were taught and try to think for yourself. The fact is that both the North and the South were sucking everything they could get out of the institution of slavery. By our standards, there were no good guys, neither North nor South. And certainly not Abraham Lincoln.

        • Vigilant

          Hypocrite my ass. You started the whole thing off with calling me a dangerous idiot.

        • Vigilant

          “About the spelling of Negro: it’s William Wilberforce you stupid Yankee, not Wiberforce.”

          Spelling of Negro? No, son, it was spelled correctly, it’s called “capitalization.” Perhaps your failure to capitalize is a Freudian slip? Re “Wilberforce:” that was a typo, cretin.

          • Charlie Tall

            Okay, for you it’s a typo, for me it’s my great ignorance. Does that make you feel better, young man?

        • Vigilant

          “There were also more greedy, materialistic, dishonest, venal, treacherous, criminal, brutal, ignorant, and just plain foolish people in the North, as you prove by your postings.”

          Now sonny, you better make up your mind whther you’re talking about the past or the present. Logically, how does a current posting prove a past surmisal?

          • Vigilant

            Yes, I know it’s spelled “whether.” Abject apologies that my typos don’t stand up to your rigid standards of perfection (LMAO)

        • Vigilant

          “The objective observer would have looked at my first reply and said, “Wait a minute. This guy knows a few things. Maybe he’s not trying to justify slavery or denigrate the North.”

          …and then “There were also more greedy, materialistic, dishonest, venal, treacherous, criminal, brutal, ignorant, and just plain foolish people in the North…”

          I rest my case

          • Charlie Tall

            Perhaps the most dishonest act a person can commit in the course of an exchange is to take a statement out of context and represent it as a separate and independent thought.

            My full statement was, “If you think there were more decent people in the North, I would have to agree because there were more people in the North. There were also more greedy, materialistic, dishonest, venal, treacherous, criminal, brutal, ignorant, and just plain foolish people in the North, as you prove by your postings.”

            So Vigilant is dishonest. He misinterprets or pretends to misunderstand for his own purposes. This is a straw man argument, and it is indicative of a weak argument by Vigilant.

        • Vigilant

          “Vigilant. Throw away everything you were taught and try to think for yourself. The fact is that both the North and the South were sucking everything they could get out of the institution of slavery. By our standards, there were no good guys, neither North nor South. And certainly not Abraham Lincoln.”

          Yes, you’re right. The 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution were just accidents. Perhaps you should get away from your programming and try a little logic for a change.

          • Charlie Tall

            Huh? How’s that again? Amendment XIII is straight-forward and benign, but Amendment XIV is a travesty, both in its contents and its non-ratification.

            The Northern Republicans had to play fast and loose to achieve the questionable ratification they claim. In truth, the XIVth is not legitimate.

            There were 37 States in the Union at the time; ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it, so it failed of ratification.

            Originally posted by Charlie Tall: “Vigilant talks about the immorality of slavery. By his values in the 21st Century, he is correct. By the values of the United States in the 19th Century, he would have been considered a dangerous idiot.”

            Vigilant later wrote, “I was countering your false claim that the blameworthiness of slavery was not recognized by people prior to the 21st century.”

            Hope you hat tastes good.

            I did not claim that slavery was NOT blameworthy. Sorry if I was a little too subtle. Vigilant’s prior arguments, before I corrected him, basically posited that the South should have freed its slaves because of morality considerations. I believe he posted this:

            “And to say ‘it would have ended no matter who won,’ the immediacy of the war and the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution considerably foreshortened the life of that terrible and brutal practice. It would have been a poor substitute to say to a family of slaves in 1860, ‘just wait another 10 or 20 years and you’ll have your freedom.’”

            I took that to mean that Vigilant approved of “the immediacy of the war” and all of its brutality, destruction, and death because it ended “that terrible and brutal practice” … “10 or 20 years” sooner than it would have ended on its own.

            That sure does sound like a harsh judgement based on Vigilant’s personal moral and ethical values, values which would have had him judged to be a dangerous idiot prior to 1865.

            I find it ironic that when the noble Northern states (e.g., New Jersey) abolished slavery, they did indeed make their slaves “just wait another 10 or 20 years” or forever. Vigilant had no complaint about that when it was the North doing it, but Lord, if it came to that in the South, then burn ‘em out!

            In fact, Vigilant didn’t even mention the fact that the North accomplished abolition in the most painless way possible for themselves. He simply continued telling us how noble the North was by selling their slaves into the sugar cane fields of Mississippi.

            The Noble North abolished slavery. But instead of freeing their slaves, they sold them South or made them work out their value. Somehow, that doesn’t sound like abolition to me. It sounds more like Yankee greed and duplicity.

            Just more slave trading by the same Yankees who were responsible for bringing the Negroes to America to begin with. Consistency, you gotta give ‘em credit for consistency. Once a greedy yankee, always a greedy yankee, and Vigilant is there to lead the chorus.

            I have posted many facts that Vigilant has chosen to ignore because he cannot rebut them. As this discussion continues, Vigilant is reduced to fighting over ever smaller bones. Now he’s down to “I said, you said” and “it’s not spelling, it’s capitalization” nonsense.

            When it comes to the question of slavery, the North has no virtues to hide behind. When it comes to the Civil War, the North conducted its campaigns in a manner that can only be described as criminal and inhuman. If you want to find someone to blame for the Civil War, look no farther than the greedy Yankee businessman.

            [Aside: In scanning some of Vigilant's previous posts, I found this: "...are many more blacks in the South than there are in the North (duh!)." Return to my comment about the number of greedy people in the North and see if you can figure out my point aout population.]

          • Vigilant

            “That sure does sound like a harsh judgement based on Vigilant’s personal moral and ethical values, values which would have had him judged to be a dangerous idiot prior to 1865.”

            Talk about belaboring a pointless point. Are you reduced to repeating assumptions that I have roundly disproven? Once more, dude, by your reckoning, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Wilberforce, the Quakers, abolitionists, Harriet Beecher Stowe, thousands of decent citizens, et. al., were are to be judged as “dangerous idiots.” Your failure to even address this assertion makes you not a dangerous idiot, just a harmless one.

            The selectivity with which you choose to ignore factual points makes you disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

        • Vigilant

          Charlie blathers as follows:

          “Vigilant wrote, “Now tell me, sir, why would you ever want to include slavery in a list of charges against a tyrannical King if you didn’t think it was a blameworthy practice? Cat got your tongue?”

          Hell, Vigilant, give me a chance to answer before you crow.

          I did not assert that slavery was not “a blamworthy practice.” Only an idiot would assume that from what I wrote, but, hey, that’s my point.”

          And if you can quote me where I made that assumption I’ll eat my hat. If you had an ounce of comprehension, you would have seen I was not accusing you of anything, I was countering your false claim that the blameworthiness of slavery was not recognized by people prior to the 21st century. Read over my posting a few times if you have to, to understand my plain English.

          With your penchant for missing the mark so widely, you must be a progressive.

          • Vigilant

            “Vigilant wrote, “Now tell me, sir, why would you ever want to include slavery in a list of charges against a tyrannical King if you didn’t think it was a blameworthy practice? Cat got your tongue?”

            Hell, Vigilant, give me a chance to answer before you crow.

            I did not assert that slavery was not “a blamworthy [sic] practice.” Only an idiot would assume that from what I wrote, but, hey, that’s my point.”

            Never did I assert such a thing. You might check an English book to examine sentence structure (and that darn logic again, which seems to elude you). Any cretin would understand that when I said, “why would you ever want to include slavery in a list of charges against a tyrannical King if you didn’t think it was a blameworthy practice?,” I was talking about Jefferson. If it satisfies your “it’s all about me” paranoia, I’ll assure you I don’t believe you were personally there in 1776 to insert a slavery provision in the Declaration.

          • Vigilant

            At any rate, screw it. I’m finished trying to talk sense and logic to a fool. This has turned into a personal pi$$ing contest, and I have better things to do.

  • libertytrain

    1911 “up North” wasn’t too great either for those poor folks who were still being exploited up there in the ‘Big Apple’ or is that in the South? —

  • Andy From Arizona


  • Robert

    is it over yet?

  • LongBoat

    Not quite yet.

    Lincoln had to be shot. After the South was defeated he dictated that the South would be restored/rebuilt and Southerners would retain their property and rights and be fully restored as citizens.
    This was going against all the real economic reasons the war had been fought, which was to allow Northern industrialist to rape loot and pillage the raw materials and commodity riches of the South. The Industrial North had the industry but did not have the raw materials to feed it.
    Thus Lincoln stood in the way of the Northern industrialist and had to be done away with. A Northern conspiracy indeed.

    As far as slavery you would have to agree with Armstrong Williams, a black American economist, who after personally viewing the death, destruction, cheapness of life and absolute destitution that is Africa today and watching bodies float down the river stated that he thanked God that his ancestors were slaves or that might be him.
    Instead he is well educated and successful because of America and due to slavery. Randomly take any picture of people in the raw destitution and despair that is predominately Africa today and then randomly take a picture of any group successful wealthy African Americans and realize that the deciding difference was and is slavery. Quite a blessing from such evil?

    • Denniso

      Armstrong Williams is a fool if he said that. There is no such thing as a blessing from slavery…that’s disgusting and stupid. Maybe he could realize that millions of slaves died under tortuous conditions and that those millions therefore had no descendants. Of course,his ancestors survived,but millions didn’t,and it wasn’t him who had to live enslaved like an animal.

      A big reason that Africa is struggling is the effect from colonialism by the West. Western powers wrecked the native societies and their culture/religions for economic gain,installing dictatorial gov’ts that continue to rape the people. You can’t remake a continent in another foreign model and expect everything to be fine when you walk away.

      • http://gunner689 gunner689

        It was called Darkest Africa long before the colonial powers tried to make them civilized. It worked, sort of, while the colonial powers were there; jobs, education, medical care, ect. When the Communists infiltrated into Africa in the 50′s and 60′s they stirred up populist movements that drove out the colonial powers and the nations slid back into savegery. Zimbabwe, formely Rhodesia, is a classic example. Sub- Saharan Africa is mostly Darkest Africa again, with all the inter-tribal feuds and blood-letting.
        Armstrong Williams is 100 % correct. i doubt any black American would trade what they have here to go back to their homeland. In most cases it was slavery that brought them here and it was slavery that delivered them from barbarism.

        • Denniso

          It was called Darkest Africa because white men had not been deep into the continent.
          Saying that slavery delivered slaves from barbarism is absurd. Slavery WAS barbarism!! Millions of slaves,men,women and children died as a result of it.Barabarism saving the ancestors of slaves, who were often tortured and lived mostly miserable lives, is like saying that the atomic bomb ‘saved’ the the people who survived it. Plainly ridiculous!

  • Robert

    well it is over

  • James

    Let’s remember, also, that the national debt was tripled while President Reagon was in office.

  • mosescats

    We know more about Lincoln than any other President/person (good info on line i.e. Vanity Fair archives, Library of Congress, bio’s by men who knew him personally)yet there is so much error in the media concerning this man and particularly the real cause behind the Civil War. I wonder if anyone (inc. well known historical writers) is being checked for creditability anymore, before things are published.

    I’ll answer that NO!

  • Robert

    Yes, only the problem is if it is a liberal, conserative, of or a true objectivist historian. Most historians are biased and will cave into the most popular side at the time of writing.

  • mark

    Any person that would defend Slavery, should have to be a Slave for one month, then let that person defend Slavery! Only a Racist can defend slavery and I feel sorry for that person

    • Vigilant


  • YH

    To say that the south was legally right to secede is up for debate. To say that they were morally right fundamentally kills this idiot authors article.

  • http://BobLivingston John

    This is a very biased article against Lincoln. You can take anybody in history and if you look only at one side you can make him or her a tyrant. Lincoln did some things wrong, but Chip you just did too with this terrible article.

  • a Genie

    It is so sad that so many are still trying to make it look like it is still going on!
    Having grown up in the South in the 40′s and 50′s, I can truly say that the people in our town were very kind and trying to help the “colored people”. We had them in our life, daily, and we treated them like they were a part of the family. “Uncle Joe”, worked in my Daddy’s business, and we respected him when he would come to the house to help Mother. We obeyed him, just like we would an Uncle. “Aunt Lou” was the lady that cooked for our family on Sundays when all the family would get together at my Grandmother and Grandfather’s house. We would help her wash the dishes when we were finished with dinner, and had fun talking with her. She lived behind us, and she taught me about gardening, and I have always loved it because of what she taught me. We had them for babysitters, house keepers, anything they were capable of doing.
    I did hear the N word occasionally, in society, but never used it, and our parents always taught us to treat all people as we would like to be treated. My children never heard us use that word either.
    One of the things that was a great influence to me was when I read an article in the Readers Digest when I was in the ninth grade, that told about two men who had to be in the same hospital room, because one was badly burned, and the other was hurt somehow. They did not get to see each other, because they had coverings on their heads and bodies. Both became good friends from their lengthy stay in the hospital room, and did not discover that they were of the two different races, until time to leave the hospital! This was a great thing to read, and it made me realize that skin color was not important!
    I believe that the main reason people did not associate much with them back then was because they were afraid of catching something. The colored people then, were not educated, and having come from the jungle, did not know much about taking care of their health. We had always been taught to choose our friends carefully, and this was another reason. This is important for young people to be aware of, but we were not told this, because of skin color. There was another “colored” lady in our neighborhood whom I will never forget, that was so special. Her name was “Loffalena”, and there are so many stories about her life that are just amazing.
    Today, there are many who I have talked to, who have lived in California and other states, who have said that they just wanted to come back “home” to Mississippi!!! The Southern people have always tried to do things the right way, and I witnessed it as I grew up in Mississippi. The people then, whether “white” or “colored” were very aware that they were blessed to be in America, and there are many now, who still believe this. It takes a while to change from what you experienced in life in the jungle, and the growth and learning continues. It is so important for children to be taught the truth, and help them to better themselves. It has been wonderful to talk and visit with many in our State now, and see how many in their race have grown and become responsible Americans. They have been a blessing in many ways.
    I studied a History book recently, that was a Public school book, from another State, that implied that the reason that Lincoln was assassinated, was because after the War, he began to try and help the Southern States!
    I believe that the main reason that the War began was because when the Northern people breought them here, to the South they were making money from slavery. Then when the South started becoming rich, from having these people working for them, the North could not stand this! They acted as if it were wrong to have them as slaves, but there were states in the North who would not even let “colored” people even cross their state lines!!
    Just think how hard it would be to come from the situation that they had lived in, and to try and teach them how to work in a different way than they had in the jungle, and how to adjust to a different kind of life. It would be like taking a grown-up physically, person, and trying to teach them, a different way of life. Many were glad that they had this opportunity, and let themselves be taught. Many were glad to be in a place where they were being cared for, and having a routine of work, and good food, and being safe, and were NOT happy about the war, because they were NOT ready to take care of themselves!!
    Many were so happy with their “Masters” that they protected the wives and children of their plantation owners, while they were in the war!!! Many stayed with their plantatioan family, even after the war!!
    I have had good experiences from growing up in the South, and it will always be home, because it is comfortable, and because people mostly respect each other, just as God says to do! There would be real peace, if people just obeyed this one golden rule!!! We all need to grow up, and realize that God created all people in His image, and thus, we are all to treat each other, as He says! “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” We are all here by God’s grace, and we should all realize this, be thankful, and obey Him.
    Thank you

  • Art Ward MD

    One of the really strikingly diabolic things Lincoln did to the South was to transmogrify the word SECESSION, a legal act in 1860 to REBELLION, usually illegal.
    In SECESSION, South Carolina was obligated to remove hostile foreign troops from her forts since they were there illegally unless and until SCOTUS ruled secession unconstiutional or a treaty were made with the rump US. But, being the magnificent orator he was, ABIE BABY made seceeders into rebels, thus enabling him to bypass both the truth and the US Constiution. I don’t recommend assassination for anyone but note it is more likely to occur in cases of tyranny. As John Wilkes said: Sic semper tyrannis.

    • Patrick

      Fancy word there ‘transmorgify’ The truth is, seeing through your sleight of hand, that the South did illegally secede. The federal government did nothing before secession took place: imposed no policies, took no political action, no military action. The South seceded by reason of Lincoln’s fair and constitutionally won election. They did not like the voting results, and feared the possibility of an executive order to release the slaves, so they seceded. If your defending that course of action, then you, and others who think like you, are not only the real tyrants, but true enemies of freedom, constitutional democracy, and truth. Sic Semper Tyrannis

      Addressing attacks against Abraham Lincoln:

  • Patrick
  • Brady

    Abe Lincoln said the statement about Texas because Texas wanted to secede from Mexico due to unfair rule… The South wanted to secede because of the disliking and banning of slaves moving south from the North… The practice of slaves is morally unnaceptable… Abraham Lincoln fought the south to save millions of African- Americans that would have been born into slavery for who knows how long…. Bye hundreds of thousands of people dying Abe saved millions. This article is ridiculous. The union treated the south during the war just how the south had treated there slaves for years. Abe had every right to do what he did and we should all respect and be thankful for him.

  • CW Farms

    Look, slavery was wrong, and it indeed was being talked about on how to solve the problems. Most blacks were treated as family, protected by the master, just like his family, and were took care of when children, sick, old, etc. Hiring labor would have been much cheaper. Freedmen, slaves, etc served with distinction in the Confederate Army, no separate companies, just right there beside everyone else. That didn’t happen in the US Army until Korea. Trusted Slaves protected the plantations, the women and the children the best they could. Most slaves lived in the same type of home as the owner, and worked right there beside them in the fields. Out of the 5% of whites that owned slaves, over 50% of them owned 1 to 3 slaves, and farmed small acreages. The designation of a plantation was if you owned 6 slaves.

    Slavery was wrong, but it was just as wrong for the North as it was for the South. Virtually all of the slaves in the US were brought here by New England boats. The South wanted to end importation of slaves at the writing of the Constitution so to increase the value of the slaves they already had, but the North wanted 20 years to transition to other venues. Thus the 1808 compromise. The North kept trading slaves even after the War of Northern Aggression, only the transported them to other markets instead of here

    The states that had started the gradual emancipation sold their slaves to the south generally. Most Northern states had constitutional amendments keeping blacks from living in their states.

    This was about labor. They didn’t want the blacks to compete with the white men for jobs. The north’s labor problem was met mostly by the Irish immigrants. They worked cheap, and they were plentiful. The conditions they lived through were generally much much worse than what the slaves had to do.

    There were 20 different succession conventions held before 1860. They were all in the North. New York wanted to succeed from both the state and the nation. They wanted to be their own country. The vote was to stay as they were. The New England states held succession conventions and wanted to leave this voluntary union after the Louisiana Purchase, just before and after the war of 1812, and after allowing Texas into the Union.

    Had the vote went to succeed, no one would have cared, and allowed them to leave the union.

    After the Articles of Confederation and during the passage of the Constituton, North Carolina went over a year along with New Hampshire as separate Countries not affiliated with the US until they ratified the Constitution. No one threatened to invade them either.

    To Force a voluntary union at the point of a bayonet is awful.

  • http://yahoo ldav

    The money changers were involved in invoking our civil war. The Rothchilds to be exact.
    Jackson vetoed the renewal of the “Second Bank of the United States.” A war would
    need funding making America once again dependent on the foreign money changers (the Rothschilds) . You see when you have foreign entities controlling our monetary riches they don’t like it very much when we pull out leaving them high and dry and plus this would encourage the other nations to do the same. They had to get the United States back under control. A war would do this. Thomas Jefferson was against the First Bank of America for this very reason. It does not benefit a nation it only benefits the few fat cats at the top that yield a huge, huge profit. Beware of Banks that are run by foreign countries and beware of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is the worst thing that ever happened to the United States of America. This article is correct there were many ways to get rid of slavery in a peaceful way, there was no need for us to war about it but it was encouraged by foreign entities.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.