Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Dishonest Abe’s Legacy And The 2012 Election

July 11, 2012 by  

Dishonest Abe’s Legacy And The 2012 Election
Republicans worship Abraham Lincoln.

Election Day is right around the corner here in the once-fruited plain. And, once again, the two allegedly “ideologically opposed” candidates are wailing about just how different they are from one another.

Mitt Romney, the supposed “conservative” standard bearer, is regaling the American public with pledges to “repeal and replace” the recently upheld Soviet-style monstrosity known as Obamacare, while neglecting to mention the fact that the healthcare reform plan model implemented in Massachusetts during his term as Governor served as the template for the national plan. And of course, right until Election Day, the usual bloviating conservative talking heads will be regaling us with the need to put a “principled conservative Republican” back in the Oval Office, a dashing character in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and, of course, the vaunted Abraham Lincoln. “If he were alive today,” they’ll moan and whine, “Lincoln would know just what to do!”

Certainly, dear readers, you are familiar with the cartoonish tales crafted around the humble country lawyer who was elected President to free the slaves and reunite our great Nation from sea to shining sea. But as the old saying goes, history is written by the victors. And, thus, under the Lincoln-coined meme “right makes might,” his crushing military victory is invoked as seemingly divine proof that the Civil War “once and for all” determined the supremacy of the Federal government. Before you fall prey to the temptation to pull the lever for “anybody but Barack Obama” (who, like his predecessor George W. Bush, quotes Lincoln to justify his every illegal act), let’s take a brief trip down memory lane and explore the Orwellian precedent set by Lincoln and his beloved GOP corporate cronies.

Claim No. 1: Lincoln believed in racial equality.

Sorry, folks, but this is pure wishful thinking, based upon total ignorance of both Lincoln’s actual words and actions throughout his political career. In countless speeches he spoke in favor of maintaining both slavery in the States where it existed and segregation in the so-called “free States.” In one of his exchanges with Stephen A. Douglass during the famed 1858 Illinois Senate race, Lincoln said the following:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

On the issue of slavery, he made his beliefs plain to see in his First Inaugural Address:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them.

Furthermore, as late as 1865, Lincoln was drafting plans to deport the newly freed slaves to Africa and Latin America. In essence, anyplace but the United States.

Claim No. 2: Lincoln was a champion of the Constitution.

While Lincoln did indeed say, “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution,” his actions speak louder than his flowery rhetoric. If he really did feel that way about the Constitution, he would not have unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus (which under Article I falls under the enumerated powers of Congress), waged total war on the peacefully seceded Southern States without a Congressional Declaration of War (which ultimately led to more than 1 million casualties, including 50,000 Southern civilians), and used the military to shut down opposition newspapers and printing presses. A champion of Constitutional law would not have ordered the military to confiscate all privately owned firearms within the border States and illegally imprison more than 13,000 Northern anti-war protestors in military prisons (the forerunner to Japanese American internment, Guantanamo Bay and the recently authorized 2012 National Defense Authorization Act).

Claim No. 3: Lincoln was an advocate for peace.

Advocates for peace do not conscript hundreds of thousands of impoverished men into the Army while allowing wealthy and well-connected men to buy their way out. A man of peace would not send hundreds of thousands of young men to their deaths while making every effort to insure that his son would remain safely in college. A man of peace would not have authorized homicidal maniacs like Gens. William T. Sherman, Ulysses S. Grant and Philip Sheridan to carry out the burning, shelling and looting of entire Southern cities. (Sherman would later use this style of warfare against the Plains Indians who were “disrupting” the progress of the government-subsidized transcontinental railroad.) Men of peace do not preside over the largest mass military execution in American history, as Lincoln did in 1862 when he ordered the hanging of 38 Sioux Indians. Men of peace would have not rejected peace offers by both Confederate emissaries and Emperor Napoleon III, who offered to arbitrate between the Confederacy and the United States.

Claim No. 4: Lincoln was a God-fearing man.

The Republicans shamelessly promote themselves as being “God’s Own Party” and endlessly point to Lincoln’s use of Scripture in his speeches as proof of this fact. Like most politicians, Lincoln knew full well that appealing to and manipulating the Bible would sway potential voters as it still does today. The reality is Lincoln rarely attended church as an adult and was never known to pray. His closest associates (including both of his White House secretaries and his longtime law partner) claimed that Lincoln was a pantheist at best, or an atheist or agnostic at worst. And even if the claims about Lincoln’s Christianity were true, he would have been an utter hypocrite, as he did not live by the example set by the Prince of Peace in the Gospels.

There you have it, friends. This election season, don’t be suckered in by the hucksters and Lincoln worshipers of the GOP. I myself would recommend abstaining from voting altogether; but if you feel compelled to do so, I recommend you write in Dr. Ron Paul (the foremost and only anti-Lincoln Republican). I also recommend that you read the following two books before heading to the ballot box in November: The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, whose writings I have cited in this article. Keep staying informed. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

–Conor MacCormack

Editor’s note: This article was originally published July 9 on the Brushfires of Freedom blog.

Conor MacCormack

is a freelance writer/blogger who runs Providential Publications, which offers writing/editing/media services. His blog, Brushfires of Freedom, addresses the current political and spiritual turmoil gripping our nation and how a return to America's founding principles will lead to lasting liberty and prosperity. He has also served as an intern for Republican presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul, M.D. in Washington, D.C.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Dishonest Abe’s Legacy And The 2012 Election”

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

  • Jeremy Leochner

    In regards to Abraham Lincoln I will say

    1: Lincoln changed his views on African Americans over the course of his life. Lincoln always believed slavery to be wrong. “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master”. In regards to African Americans yes he said some politically incorrect things and indeed for most of his life Lincoln was what we today would call a racist. But I wish it to be borne in mind that in Lincolns time even abolitionists and African Americans themselves saw African Americans as different from white people and even the most radical often shied away from promoting citizenship and equality for African Americans. Lincoln understood that to promote outright equality would be political suicide. And again for a good portion of his life though Lincoln saw African Americans as human beings who had the same inherent rights as white people he still saw them as socially, politically and economically inferior. It does not justify what he said but it must be understood that he did change towards the end of his life.

    2: Lincoln was a champion of the constitution. As a lawyer and a man of reason he had all his life shaped his profession and his outlook about the world on the constitution. For instance though Lincoln felt the Constitution was lacking in that it dd not outlaw slavery he would never suggest an amendment to abolish slavery until it became necessary for him to do so because of the Civil War. But as he said so often Lincoln forged his political views from the Declaration of Independence. He felt that the nation must be preserved even if it meant altering and evening violating some of the most sacred laws. I disagree with Lincoln in regard to how widely he used his war powers but I feel if anyone was to wield such powers at such a time as Civil War I would trust him. And I believe Lincoln was of the mind that such emergency powers should be gotten rid of once peace came. As he said that he could not believe “that the American people will, by means of military arrests during the rebellion, lose the right of public discussion, the liberty of speech and the
    press, the law of evidence trial by jury, and Habeas corpus, throughout the indefinite peaceful future . . . any more than I am able to believe that a man could contract so strong an appetite for emetics [medicines] during temporary illness, as to persist in feeding upon them through the remainder of his healthy life.”

    3: Abraham Lincoln was an advocate for peace. One of the chief reasons we know this is from his first inaugural address when he said “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of
    affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” Lincoln believed what he said otherwise he would not have said it. And Lincoln was venomously criticized for being to soft on secessionists. Also the conscription was made in response to the secession of the southern states and more importantly the attack on Fort Sumter which signified an act of war against the United States by an internal rebellion. Had Lincoln not called out troops the nation would have split in too and collapsed. And even if Lincoln had managed to make peace it would have been with the preservation of slavery and the promise that states could secede when so ever they wished.

    4: Lincolns views on religion changed over the course of his life. At one time he believed in “Reason Cold Calculating Reason” to paraphrase him. But through the war Lincoln developed a much deeper spiritual side. You say Lincoln was not a god fearing man. Then why in his Second Inaugural would he say” It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.” Does not sound like an ungodly person to me.

    Abraham Lincoln was by no means a perfect man. During his life and presidency he made decisions even his most ardent admirers disagree with. He also made decisions that were cruel to the extreme. The only thing I have ever believed is he was a man like all others. He made mistakes as we all do. I believe Lincoln was a man of deep internal conflict who agonized over his decisions and felt genuinely ashamed of mistakes that he made. I believe he changed over the course of his life and became a better man. He was not a godly saint who could solve our problems if brought back to life. But neither is he a mustache twirling villain. He is a man no more no less. But he does as Stanton was quoted as saying “Belong to the ages”.

    • MAP

      This is total bunk by an obvious Lincoln worshipper and probably a liberal statist. Lincoln was a self-serving monster that destroyed the Constitution, killed more than 6000,000 men, and created the basis for the out of control and oppressive government we live under today. The Southern states would, no doubt, be better off today if they had been allowed to abandon this sinking ship of leftist disaster and tyranny. Lincoln is an example of everything that is wrong with America. Of course, the totalitarian and Stalin-wannabe liberal and leftist will be outraged at this assertion. They will be offended that they must live in the hell-hole they created alone. Who would they have to smugly boss around with their ludicrous self-righteousness and laughable superiority? As a result of Dishonest Abe we went from ‘government by the consent of the governed’ to ‘oppressed by the mentally deranged and deluded’. Long live the Confederacy and what it stood for!

      • TIME

        Dear MAP,

        How right you are, and yet thats the really sad part. T
        he single term old Abe should be rembered for is this; “Martial RULE” -of what brought about “MARTIAL LAW.”

        Of what due to all the {special WARS} we have had since his passing to include even the most mondane WARS – such as the war on DRUGS.

        {Has infact allowed all of the very problems we face to this day} with our DE Facto Criminal Government.

        From that very well spring came the ” RE-CON-Struction” era, that flipped the very fabric of the Constitution and Bill of Rights on their heads.

        Or perhaps better said for the ones here with lacking gray matter, YOU now have OMENS for what you think is a POTUS; of what is nothing more or less than a CEO of a “corporation” known as the UNITED STATES.

        Old Abe’s actions – allowed FDR to complete his role in the “enslavment of the American People Farm” by way of the SS ACT, thus making everyone a “CORPORATION.”

        Peace and Love

      • mark

        “Long live the Confederacy and what it stood for!” Right, racism and slavery. Not that we didn’t already know where you stood on these two subjects. It is also very sad and pathetic to stand up for a such a dead, twisted, and defeated ideology. It is like those loons on the cuckoo left who cry out: “Long live the Soviet Union and what it stood for!” Like the Confederacy and the Third Reich, the Soviet Union is deader than a doornail except to a minority of extremists. The moral judgment of history crushed all three perverted systems – and we live in a better world today as a result.

      • TIME

        Oh Dear Mark,

        You really are soft between the ears, I am Black!
        But hey what differance would that make to someone who is cluelessm so on that note, Learn who your real enemys are before you joust.

        Peace and Love

      • NOBODY

        LINCOLN did not save the union . He changed it. It is still and always will be under attack
        by the left wing liberal progressives

      • MAP

        Mark, I waste my time, but you should realize that the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Red China are ALL Leftist states. They are the real world manifestations of your doctrines and ideologies. Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I admit I do hero worship Lincoln somewhat and I am a liberal. But that dos not change the fact that the confederacy stood for slavery and had it been allowed to achieve its independence the country would have been destroyed. Also Lincoln did not kill 600,000 Americans. The war that the south started by firing the first shots did that.

        • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

          The 600,000 dead was Karmic recompense for America for enslaving the Negroes…nations like individuals have souls & make karma both good & bad….

          If anyone is familiar with the Teachings of the Ascended Masters through the Summit Lighthouse & their Messengers Mark & Elizabeth Prophet, the soul who was Lincoln was the Pharoah who enslaved the israelites in Egypt and this was his embodiment to make up for that transgression. Anyone familiar with Herbert W. Armstrong & his classic book, “America & Britain in Prophecy”, knows that the true Israel is really America & Great Britain (& that the nation in the Middle east right now is really Judah), America is the land that was to fulfill the great blessings promised to Abraham…thus America could only receive its blessings if it rid itself of the scourge of slavery.

          Note also how the Pharoah had the first born males of the Israleites slaughtered & Lincoln lost a son, too. Also, the Summit teaches that Lincoln reembodied as Charles Linbergh (still racist a bit) & we all know what happened to his son! So, you see for all Lincoln’s achievements, he still has not made his Ascension. My guess this soul is a Fallen Angel who is trying to bend the knee to the Christ & come back towards the Light, but has not succeeded yet, but With God, “ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE”

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Also Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were not based on my or leftist ideologies. Nor right leaning ones for that matter. They were the products of deranged megalomaniacs, not people on the left or right.

      • MAP

        Jeremhy, Nazi Germany classed itself a socialist state. That is a leftist state.The USSR was Leftist and needs no comment, since even a total fool is aware of this fact. Your forms of governments enslave, oppress and murder. They are totalitarian. They are pure evil. What you have written is yet more Leftist lies. Don’t you have another name like Flashy? He’s a leftist liar as well.

        • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

          Like Will Rogers said, “Communism (Socialism) sounds good on paper, but it will never work”

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “The war that the south started by firing the first shots did that.”

        While technicaly the South fired the first shots when they fired on Ft Sumter the war actualy started when the north invaded the South and got whipped at Bull Run.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Socialism and Communism are too very different things. Hitler called his party National Socialist to appeal to a broader audience. He did not actually believe in the socialist tenants of his more left leaning members because he considered them too close to communism. Leftism is a broad term encompassing numerous issues and various interpretations. I have certain ideals but I am fairly sure mine do not align with Adolf Hitler or Joesph Stalin.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Actually no. The war did start with Fort Sumter. Up until then Lincoln and others were still trying to make peace. After Fort Sumter Lincoln had no choice but to send troops to suppress the rebellion or the nation would have collapsed. Fort Sumter was the Pearl Harbor of the Civil War.

      • Ted Crawford

        I agree that North Carolina must accept their part in the starting of the War. As Mr. Livingston pointed out, had they delayed a bit, Lincolns true intentions around the disposition of the Slaves would have come out ! That, however might have made it even easier on Lincoln. A lot of the push back he recieved from the Northern States was in regards to the former slaves being loosed on the jobs market .
        His much touted Emancipation Proclamation, was never in his original intent. It was a desperate measure to prevent any other Nations support of the South !
        While Slavery was an enormous fiscal concern to the Southern States, most Southerners had never and would have never owned a slave. They, the rank and file, truly believed in the Nineth and Tenth Amendments
        As to your other post, I totally disagree! Communisim, Socialism, and Marxism were patterened after Plato, More and Hobbs and are CLEARLY left wing Idiologies such as is Progressivism !

      • independent thinker

        Buster is correct and you are wrong Jeremy Leochner. Ft Sumter was incomplete and unoccupied until the union forces fled there in an attempt to avoid surrender to the Southern army an attempt that ultimately proved futile. Lincoln then ordered the invasion of the South resulting in the battle of Bull Run.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I believe Lincolns intent with the proclamation was too prevent foreign recognition of the confederacy but his main purpose was always to free slaves and reunite the country.
        As to the confederate rank and file I believe that. I believe most confederate soldiers and generals went off to battle with genuine desire to protect their homes and land. And to protect their states rights. My issue is that if they had gotten what they wanted it would have meant the destruction of the United States and the continuing of slavery.

        As to those ideologies they are different from each other. Communism is about total and absolute government control of the economy. Socialism is a blending of free enterprise competition with government regulation of the means of production. And progressivism has nothing to do with either. Progressivism is about progress. Being on the left does not make one a communist or socialist. My ideals are on the left but I am not a communist. I admit I am a Social Democrat but that is just because of my individual view of the world. My political views are based on my understanding. I don’t choose what I believe based on my ideas being left leaning. I choose my ideas because they are what I believe. They just happen to be labeled left.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Yes but after the union soldiers fled to Fort Sumter they were attacked and then forced to surrender by the confederate forces. Lincoln then ordered the invasion of the south in response to the Fort Sumter attack.

      • mark

        MAP, Nazi Germany was a right-wing state: fiercely nationalist, anti-communist, racist, and militaristic with a largely capitalist economy. Even high school freshmen knows this. The socialist in the National Socialist Workers Party was a propaganda ploy by Hitler and Goebbels to entice the working class to support it at the polls. Once in power the Nazis crushed all independent unions; outlawed, imprisoned, and murdered all members of the Socialist and Communist parties in Germany. Hitler railed against communism almost as much as against the Jews on virtually every page of Mein Kampf. In June 1941, he invaded the Soviet Union vowing to the world that he would destroy Bolshevism once and for all and calling for right-wing volunteers from all over Europe (the Volunteer legions and later Western Waffen SS divisions) to help him wipe Communism from the face of the earth. Some leftist. I guess you missed all this in history class.

      • independent thinker

        mark Nazi Germany was considered a Fascist state. The only difference in a Fascist state and a communist state is in the Fascist state the people can still “own” property. That property is controlled by the state though. You can only manufacture what the state tell you, when it tells you, and only charge what the state says you can so the state still has almost total control over everything.

      • independent thinker

        Jeremy Leochner that is almost exactly what I said except for the reason Lincoln invaded the South. He did not invade as retalitation for Ft Sumter he invaded expecting a walkover victory that would bring the states back into the union. While the north eventualy prevailed over the South it was anything but a walkover victory.

      • Rose Phelps

        Amen! Lincoln is who twisted the Constitution and allowed it to be willing obliterated by the government and it has followed in his foot steps ever since. When I’m helping in a classroom and they are discussing Lincoln, I always want to jump up and scream “Tell the truth!”

    • mark

      Excellent argument. Unfortunately you are wasting your time with the neo-Confederates and neo-Klansmen on this site. Most of them are totally commited to a distorted and ahistorical view of the Civil War and fiercely opposed to the idea that we sometimes need a strong federal government to right horrible wrongs. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution are Lincoln’s enduring legacy. But many on this site would like to repeal all three – and also the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Acts. That says alot about them.

      • TIME

        Dear Mark,

        You need to do a lot more digging, the 13th Amendment that is on the books, is not the “REAL 13th Amendment.”
        You need to look for the MISSING 13th Amendment, and take note of its value to Personal Liberty.
        Who were the WIGS, where did they come from, – who are they NOW?
        They brought you the bank of Rothschild, and Barry OMEN Bush OMEN, Clinton OMEN and all the rest.

        It was not the issue of Slaves that brought about the Civil War, it was “UNJUST TAX’S” placed on the states below the Mason Dixion Line.
        This was – Not unlike what started the whole 13 states to break away from the rule of the KING. No revision – just the FACTS.

        If you really look into the issue with an open mind you will find that all problems have a starting point, Old Abe was not 100% it but; he sure let the Centeral Bankers have their way.
        Thus why you now have the FED, as his work allowed that very system to foster its growth to what we now all face – {never ending wars}. known as “Indentured Servitude to the state.”

        And is that not the very reason we now have UNIONS? And lets explore the very word UNION, what were the Northern states noted as?
        Thats right, the Union.

        And as UNIONS were later started to aid workers from the abuse of the “COMPANY STORE” (in plain words working 100 hours per week for just enough money to never have enough money,) so they owed the Company Store for all their life and then some.
        And who owned the Company store’s? The Corporation owners who now still own the COMPANY STORE.

        Look we have changed the words meanings to fit the perverted Pretzel Logic that our Masters have used to enslave all of us. But please do keep in mind that – they too are subservient to their Masters who are all of the 13 Blood lines.

        “To Conquer – you must first Divide, then sub divide, then sub divide as many times as you can.”
        “These people, not unlike wild animials will then KILL themselfs to prove their point that they are right.”
        Then you will have “NO RESISTANCE” so you can walk in and pick up the pieces.
        See anything that looks like the Mass Media’s news at 6 PM?

        Its all Political Thearter and its not just a play its YOUR LIFE!

        You can either – Break the chains of bondage of suffer the never ending 5000 year cycle.

        Peace and Love

      • MAP

        You are dead-on Time. The slavery issue is bogus, except that we were all enslaved as a result. You are wasting your time with Mark. He is a fool. A member of the SCV (Sons of Confederate Veterans) is a history teacher in Florida. He is a black man that adores his grandfather who was a proud Confederate soldier. He is a strong advocate of the Confederate’s stand for limited government. The SCV has several black members. You can only become a SCV member if you are a descendent of a Confederate veteran. Leftists are habitual liars.

      • Alex Frazier

        mark, Lincoln was shot on April 14th, 1865. The 14th amendment wasn’t even proposed until June of 1866, and the 15th amendment wasn’t proposed until February of 1869. I realize that they are more or less versions of existing legislation founded during the war, but the amendments themselves are hardly all Lincoln’s work or legacy. If they were, perhaps they’d have all been proposed before his death instead of only one of them.

        I think it’s rude and improper for you to refer to people as klansmen due to their interpretation of the facts. I’m not a neo-Confederate or a neo-Klansman just because I believe that Lincoln wasn’t all the history books have tried to make him out to be.

        The article above, while certainly biased towards a particular point of view, is hardly ahistorical or distorted. Relative to the laws and public mentality at that time, the Federal government acted outside of its Constitutional authority to restrict the states in terms of their property. While we may recognize today the awful thing slavery was and is, at that time there was no difference between a slave and a plough as far as the law was concerned. The war wasn’t fought over slavery. It was fought over property rights and liberties. Slave owners were prohibited from moving into new territories with their slaves, which effectively barred them from partaking in the expanding frontier.

        I, for one, do not want to repeal any of the three amendments. I would, however, love to see the poll tax and literacy exams come back, or at least the literacy exams. I’m all for repealing the Voting Rights Act. There are far too many idiots voting nowadays.

    • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

      BRAVO, Jeremy, I could not agree more !!! Its’ human nature to accent the negative, Lincoln went through absolute HELL, wrestling with this everyday & drawing closer & closer to God at each step trying to save the Union & thank GOD he was Victorious!!!

      Sometimes, there is a higher law that must be followed & Lincoln did just that……Obama’s law-breaking is just political pandering!

    • ArkansasRebel

      Jeremy, you are a result of the teaching of history written by the “winners” of that war. In regard to slavery Lincoln wrote “If I can preserve the Union while keeping slavery, I would.
      If I must abolish slavery to preserve the union, I will”. Does that sound like one who is anti slavery? If not convinced how about this, Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation did not free all slaves, only those slaves in states which had aligned themselves with the Confederacy. Slavery in northern states, those that had remained in the Union, was still permissible.
      Also, after the war he allowed many atrocities to occur. Maybe you are already aware of the problems caused by the “Carpetbaggers”. In that regard did you know the southern states were heavily taxed to pay for the war & that Lincoln told the tax collectors not to accept the appropriate tax from General Lee? He would have only been allowed to pay his tax if he would come to the White House & pay it directly to Lincoln. Lee refused & his estate was confiscated & has now become Arlington Cemetery. I would call Lincoln’s action here “vindictive”.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        My views on Lincoln are not based on what was written after the war. It is based on Lincolns own speech’s and writings and writings of others. Lincoln made his statement about slavery versus the Union out of genuine conflict within himself. Lincoln had always been against slavery. But he was concerned that if he came out as an abolitionist it might push the south to break away from the union. Further when he made that statement it was because Lincoln wanted to fight a war initially to restore the union as it had been. He had no desire to use the war to invoke radical change. He just wanted to return things to the way they were. Lincoln felt the best way to get rid of slavery was for slave owners to themselves realize the injustice of slavery and give it up. It was only when Lincoln realized that slave owners would never see that that he had to act. Yes the emancipation proclamation did not free many slaves but it must be borne in mind that when Lincoln issued it initially it was a way of trying to make peace. Lincoln offered to let the south keep its slaves if they came back into the union by the start of 1863. Again his desire was to restore the union. But when they did not he had to issue this radical proclamation. However as he himself said and I will para phrase that it did help bring about his cherished dream that all people would be free. Because of the emancipation proclamation slaves came to join the army. Lincoln was forced to defend a radical stand he had been reluctant to take. But the more he defended it the more he came to believe it. The more he came to realize that the institution of slavery was what divided the nation and that as long as it continued the nation could never be truly at peace. Thats why towards the end he proposed the 13th amendment to end slavery forever and why in his final speech he advocated the vote for African Americans.

      • MAP

        More total nonsense form Jeremy. The South did not return when offered, because she did not want to belong to a union that was a northern tyranny. And the Emancipation freed NO slaves – anywhere. It only referred to slaves in the seceded states, states he had no control over since they were no longer in the union. It purposely excluded slaves in the states still in the union. The intent of the Emancipation was to create a slave resurrection in the South, endangering the wives and children left alone while the men were serving in defense of their country. The attempt failed. Not a single Southern slave revolted. There is a monument, I believe in TN, erected in memory of the blacks and the great service they did for the Confederate cause.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        The south did not return because again they assumed that Lincoln would take their slaves away. Its interesting that the south decried the tyranny of Abraham Lincoln even though they seceded before he had done anything. His issuing a proclamation to encourage slaves to leave or to refuse to work came because of the war.
        Indeed there were no slave revolts but that was not the point of the proclamation. The point was to get slaves to either run to union lines or refuse to work and therefore deprive the south of their labor. I will not forget or ignore the contribution made to the confederacy by African Americans.

      • Vigilant

        ArkansasRebel says, “Also, after the war he allowed many atrocities to occur. Maybe you are already aware of the problems caused by the “Carpetbaggers”.

        Better get a correct history book. Lincoln was assassinated 5 days after the surrender at Appomattox. He had absolutely NO part in the carpetbagger fiasco. His ideas on reconstruction were very different from what actuallty transpired under the radical Republican Congress later.

      • Vigilant

        Arkansas Rebel also says, “Lincoln told the tax collectors not to accept the appropriate tax from General Lee? He would have only been allowed to pay his tax if he would come to the White House & pay it directly to Lincoln. Lee refused & his estate was confiscated & has now become Arlington Cemetery. I would call Lincoln’s action here “vindictive”.

        “The government acquired Arlington at tax sale in 1864 for $26,800, equal to $398,237 today. Mrs. Lee had not appeared in person, but rather had sent an agent, attempting to timely pay the $92.07 in property taxes (equal to $1,368.12 today) assessed the estate. The government turned away her agent, refusing to accept the tendered payment. In 1874, Custis Lee, heir under his grandfather’s will passing the estate in trust to his mother, sued the United States claiming ownership of Arlington. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Lee’s favor in United States v. Lee, deciding that Arlington had been confiscated without due process, Congress returned the estate to him. The next year, Custis Lee sold it back to the government for $150,000 (equal to $3,174,545 today) at a signing ceremony with Secretary of War Robert Todd Lincoln.” (Wikipedia)

        Now here’s rest of the story: “As the war had heated up in June 1862, Congress passed a law that empowered commissioners to assess and collect taxes on real estate in “insurrectionary districts.” The statute was meant not only to raise revenue for the war, but also to punish turncoats like Lee. If the taxes were not paid in person, commissioners were authorized to sell the land.

        Authorities levied a tax of $92.07 on the Lees’ estate that year. Mary Lee, stuck in Richmond because of the fighting and her deteriorating health, dispatched her cousin Philip R. Fendall to pay the bill. But when Fendall presented himself before the commissioners in Alexandria, they said they would accept money only from Mary Lee herself. Declaring the property in default, they put it up for sale.”

        That last quoted passage was from the Smithsonian website (

        It would seem that the correct version of events is slightly at odds with your story. Robert E. Lee was never expected to show up at the WH to pay his taxes. It was in the middle of the war, for Chrissakes! His wife was an acceptable deliverer of the tax payment, but didn’t show up.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Jeremy says: “Lincoln believed what he said otherwise he would not have said it.”

      Really?!? He was a politician!!! What makes you think he would believe what he said?!?

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Because Lincoln endured unimaginable heart ache from the war. From horrible criticism even from his closest friends to staying up all hours to listen to the telegraph to monitor the war. It was said Lincoln got hardly a wink of sleep during the Sumter crisis agonizing of what to do. Lincoln gave everything and ultimately his life for what he said he believed in. So I believe he was sincere.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        You’re entitled to “believe” whatever you want. I for one, NEVER believe politicians!

        • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

          NEVER? Even a broken clock is right twice a day!!!

      • GaryTraditionalUltraConservative

        Actually, President Abraham Lincoln through his actions did in fact very brazenly, very blatantly, arrogantly, shamelessly and very conspicuously violate the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights right up until the very end of the Civil War or War Between The State. Lincoln was a Realist first and a Conservative afterwards which will explain why President Lincoln had a developing plan in place including detailed logistics and active contemporary international diplomatic negotiations with European nations to reintroduce, to socially transplant and to repatriate all ex-slave Blacks from the southern states in the U.S. back to Africa where they or their first generation Black slave ancestors originated in such as the native indigenous tribal regions contained in the Congo, Nigeria, Cameroon, Liberia(or Liberty), Ghana and Guinea, Angola, British East Africa such as Tanganyika and Kenya, colonial European controlled West Africa, colonial European controlled Central Africa and colonial European controlled South Africa and to Islands in the Caribbean Sea such as Trinidad, which included diplomatic negotiations with European nations who had colonial possessions in Africa and Island colonial possessions in the Carribean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean(the Bahama Islands, Bermuda, etc.) to accept ex-slave Blacks from the southern states to be reintroduced, to be socially transplanted in and repatriated into the African native indigenous tribal territories, European colonial Carribean Islands and if possible, also in the South American and Central American European colonial possessions of those European nations. Abraham Lincoln was not a White racist bigot anymore than the Medieval European Russians, who clearly understood that Genghiz Khanite Mongols and Medieval European Russians are much too racially, socially and culturally different from each other in every way to be able to ever live together in peace and in racial harmony together as citizens of one nation and in that nation. Lincoln was a Realist before he was a Conservative and Lincoln knew and understood that ex-slave Blacks living freely in an alien White culture, living freely in or beside an alien White society, living freely in an alien White civilization, and attempting to co-exist with and live equally side by side in an alien White Society with the Whites, and with the few ex-Confederate southern Whites who actually owned Black slaves, was doomed to failure and a future disasterous catastrophe because all Blacks living in the United States especially those Blacks living in the ex-Confederate southern ex-slave states, as former slaves and later as recently freed Blacks or ex-slave Blacks, was all based on a multi-generational immoral and perverted socially abnormal artificial man made condition called slavery and later followed by freeing an alien Black race in an all White society and culture and then suddenly and immediately and traumatically releasing en masse that entire recently freed alien Black race en masse into an all White society and culture that only accepted different versions and different varieties of alien European foreign national White immigrants into White American society and only very slowly and very gradually through LEGAL and LAWFUL normal immigration followed by LEGAL and LAWFUL normal naturalization and “Americanization” of those alien White European foreign national immigrants into “Americanized” White European society or more accurately into completely “Americanized” White American society in the United States. Lincoln did not want to take the very dangerous and potentially very disasterous catastrophic risk or gamble into the unknown and test and use the United States and White American society, a nation that needed to recover from suffering a catastrophic near genocidal Civil War, as a great social or societal guinea pig laboratory experiment to see if a few million ex-slave Blacks and their millions more of future generations of offspring Black descendants can co-exist and live together equally and peacefully with millions of 19th Century American Whites and their tens of millions or hundreds of millions more of future generations of White descendants and live peacefully and amicably and equally in peaceful and practical social co-existence together and live in peaceful racial harmony together with the contemporary ex-Confederate Whites(most of whom never owned any slaves) and their future White descendants and most mid 19th Century northern Whites and their future White descendants, who had very few contacts if any with any Blacks, and many other mid 19th Century northern Whites who had never even seen any Blacks in their entire Life time and perhaps may have only read about Blacks in books such as the Bible or in novels written by Mark Twain, aka Samuel Clemens. If Lincoln was a racist or if Lincoln was not a racist, then that was based on Lincoln himself comparing the known historical, social, cultural and technological evidence and statistics of the entire Black race and the entire White race comparing both races side by side to each other that Lincoln observed and witnessed during his Life time and was not based on Lincoln’s morality or what Lincoln believed was moral and what Lincoln believed was immoral or not moral. Although Lincoln did understand that any type of slavery and human bondage that is inflicted on any innocent, self determining independent, non-violent, and Law abiding non-criminal people is completely immoral and is completely evil.

    • http://Liberterian Charles Bonomelli

      When the sheeple let the wool grow over their eyes they follow the path of non-reality. Such a shame that they vote the same way. Let us not be led but let us be our own individual and lead our own lives. Abraham LIncoln was a living deception.

    • samuel kalka

      Thank you Jeremy. Well said. The writer of that article is really drawing at straws. Sounds like a total lib to me.

    • David A Deal

      I believe Lincoln was a good man and a strong leader who came into office much like Obama in a tumultuous time when things were worse than anticipated. I believe he is much like Obama too in that he made tough pragmatic decisions that may not have been popular yet necessary. Obama has even been criticized by liberals for trying to compromise too much with Republicans and they slap the hand he reaches out with in seemingly racist disadain! Hoiw else can you describe Republican’s lockstep obstructionism to a President who is doing nothing different than any previous DEMOCRAT President hasn’t wanted or tried to do in supporting the basic Democrat platform. Obama’s temperment and pragmatism should indeed been a uniting force but I believe sadly that his election brought out the closet bigoted sore losers in all their inglory!
      As far as Lincoln’s alleged internment camps, FDR did the same and perhaps it was as much for the protection of the Japanese immigrants as it was anything else.We were an angry and bigoted lot and that is fuel for illogical reactionsmuch akin to many of the hateful attitudes , lies and underhanded shameful acts towards Obama and Democrats by the right over the past 4 years. Times change and so do SOME circumstances, perhaps Lincoln would be a Democrat if he were alive today! Lincoln , like Jefferson especially and some other early leaders had reservations about religion to say the least. In those times one would have to more than today even be careful about what one said publicly. Jefferson was clearly skeptical of religion and he veen composed the Jefferson Bible in which he cites much of the alleged writngs of Jesus on how we should acx especially in how we treat others but he avoided references to God, the trinity, the virgin birth and he avoided the harshness of the Old testamnet fire and brimstone and he clearly questioned the necessity of an omnipotent being or miracles. He saw Jesus as a wise prophet but not necesarly the son of a god.

      • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

        Obama & His corrupt cabal is a Chicago-style thug, who has crapped on the rule of law more than all presidents Dem or Republican in the last hundred years!!! he makes Nixon look like a Boy Scout!! He is either intentionally trying to destroy the country or is the stupidest man on earth, either way he can’t win!!

    • Winddrinker

      “BULL HOCKEY!”

      It is no wonder that Lincoln was shot…! Can’t say that he didn’t deserve what he got!
      The illegal alien likes to compare himself to Lincoln, has already thrown the Constitution in the dumpster and would like to rip the country apart with his own civil war!

      • Eric Jones

        So winddrinker what exactalley are you drinking to come up with that?

    • Stephen

      Boy, did you drink the kool-aid.

    • Kevin Beck

      If Lincoln believed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and held the views about slavery that you mention, he would have recognized that binding the Confederacy to the United States was, in fact, slavery. The Confederacy LAWFULLY seceded from the United States, as they followed the requirements of the Constitution to petition for secession. Instead, Lincoln held to the view of Federal Imperialsim, which did not allow the States to act on their own apart from the Federal Government.

      If Lincoln believed in the Consititution, he would not have committed treason, which was specifically defined as “an attack against (one or more of) the States.” His action of initiating war against the Confederacy WAS de facto treason, whch carried with it the penalty of death.

      • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

        There are times when a higher law must be followed, it’s as simple as that!!!! That Higher Law is written in our hearts & souls!!!

  • colonialrevolutionary

    “But as he said so often Lincoln forged his political views from the Declaration of Independence.”……

    WHAT??? What Lincoln did was so opposite of the principles of the DoI it isn’t funny. What do you think the Declaration was? a document saying secession was illegal? IT WAS THE ULTIMATE SECESSION DOCUMENT!!

    “the attack on Fort Sumter which signified an act of war against the United States by an internal rebellion.”

    Again…WHAT??? South Carolina had already seceded. They were part of the Confederate States. Not the United States. How then could they have been part of an internal rebellion? They had declared themselves free from the Union and joined a different one. Just like the colonies had declared themselves independent States, and joined in a union. If it was okay for the colonies to practice their…..”Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,(government) 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.”…..How was it not okay for the southern States to do the same when they were unhappy with the government they lived under?

    Didn’t Lincoln “hold these truths to be self evident? I guess not.

    • MAP

      This was the agreement Virginnia made when it ratified the Constitution. Lincoln’s war was in violation of that agreement:

      DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.
      Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia, June 26, 1788

      • mark

        You mean the South’s war – not Lincoln’s. Southern armed forces started it by bombarding Ft. Sumter. But then you probably believe that Poland started the Second World War.

      • independent thinker

        Wrong mark the South did not start the war. When the South fired on Ft Sumter they were doing so to effect the removal of occupying forces on Southern soil. The union troops in Ft Sumter fled there in an attempt to avoid surrender to Southern forces an attempt that ultimately proved futile. The war started when the north invaded the South and got whipped at Bull Run.

    • mark

      The Declaration of Independence was also the ultimate anti-slavery document. “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal…” The slaveholding South could not stomach this notion. In this crucial aspect, they despised the Declaration. Many in the South still do on this point: the haters, the racists, the Klansmen, the Confederate Flag wavers. A fervent belief in inequality is their core creed.

      • TIME

        Oh Dear Mark,

        You had better start looking into the Northern States and just how many SLAVES they had as well!

        Oh and just for the record, YOUR a SLAVE today. So what changed?
        Oh yea thats right, Nothing!

        Peace and Love

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        I’ll tell you what’s changed, TIME! Now the slaves come in ALL colors!

      • cawmun cents

        Notice that the document that you refer to makes no reference to what happens after you are created.-CC.

      • mark

        TIME, Nancy, et al, the idea of comparing your situation today that of an antebellum slaves reveals how litttle you know about slavery of that era and what a tenuous grasp you have on rationality. No matter what your economic condition today, your boss cannot randomly have sex with you and with your children at his own pleasure. Your boss cannot whip you bloody on his whim, force you to work 18 hours a day without pay, sell your children and your spouses as slaves to his friends and business partners. He cannot prevent you from marrying, from owning property, from owning a gun, from travelling wherever you want to go in this country. He cannot castrate or roast you alive on suspicion of having sex with a white woman. He cannot cut your Achilles tendon for trying to leave your job. To compare your condition today to that of antebellum Southern slaves is to trivialize slavery. (But of course that is one of your goals) Just as so many on this site trivialize the Holocaust by claiming Obama is doing the same thing to America today as Hitler did to the Jews. With these kind of hysterical, nonsensical analogies, you reveal to the world why your entire movement is a joke and why Ron Paul has about as much of a chance of being president as the Pee Wee Hermann does. You are turning what could be a legitmate movement for smaller government into a complete joke and a laughingstock with such ludicrous ahistorical assertions. But keep up the good work. You are assuring America of another Democratic presidential victory.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Lincoln believed in the freedom and equality of all. But he felt the union was more important then individual states deciding for themselves that the nation could be split apart.
      The chief difference was while the colonies had no representation and were rebelling against a far away country lead by a king the southern states were choosing to split the United States in two because they did not like the guy who won the election of 1860. The south seceded before Lincoln had any power or did anything. They broke away for what they assumed he would do. He did not want to do what they accused him of intending to do. But that did not matter. The south seceded because they wanted to preserve the rights to have slaves. They were in the wrong. Secession is a last resort tactic that the south devolved to out of desperation. What they did not seem to consider was it was not necessary.

      Lincoln held the truth to be self evident that all men are created equal. The confederacy which legalized slavery in its constitution seemed not to hold this truth to be self evident.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Naaaah! He just wanted their money!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Lincoln would not have ordered an invasion if all he want was their money. He wouldnt put forth plans to pay southern slave owners to free their slaves if he cared only about their money. He would not have made Union and Emancipation the only prerequisites to peace talks if all he wanted was their money. Lincoln cared about the Union and Emancipation, not money.

      • Jimmy in Virginia

        Jeremy- The southern states had started to phase out slavery. The south was starting to industrialize. Machines were making slavery unnecessary and southerners knew it. If the South had won slavery would have died out. Lincoln wanted to preserve the tax revenue that was coming from the Morrill tariff and taxes on manufactured goods that were imported through northern ports. When someone in Lincoln’s cabinet once asked him why he wouldn’t let the Southern states go peacefully he said” Who will pay for the government?” The Constitution at that time did not give the Federal government the authority to free the slaves. It was to be done by the states in accordance with the 10th Amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation was done as a war measure. A lot of the blacks who were in the union army were conscripted. They were also paid less than white solders and were in segregated units. Also, the Constitution does not say anywhere that states can’t secede. In fact, New England states threatened to secede after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 because they thought it would upset the power balance between the north and south. When South Carolina legally seceded in 1860 it became a sovereign state and Fort Sumpter became state property. The Federal troops garrisoned there were give an opportunity to leave and they didn’t. Lincoln admitted that he provoked the firing on fort Sumpter be sending the ship Star of the West to re-garrison and supply it. Do you know why Jefferson Davis was never tried in Federal Court after the war even though he wanted to argue his case? The court justices knew that he would have won! US Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney basically admitted it! By the way, Gen US Grant was quoted as saying in Harpers weekly in 1862 “If I ever became convince that I was fighting to satisfy the aims of the abolitionists, I would resign my commission and offer my services to the other side.” The abolitionists were really interested in power and used the slaves as political pawns. They didn’t seem to have much of a problem with the union army killing the Indians!

  • Gary L

    “Abstain from voting altogether”??? Perhaps sir you should abstain from writing. Writing in Ron Paul is a vote for Obama…idiot.

    • kellys

      And voting for Romney, the pro choice, anti gun, pro mandated healthcare candidate is any different? What is the difference between Romney and Obama? There isnt one. I will vote my conscience and not be held hostage by a party. I will sleep well knowing I did the right thing for this country, what will keep me up is wondering why people like yourself do what they do.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        I agree with you, kellys! It is often difficult to do the right thing even when you know that the outcome will not be good. But voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil! Unless we stand up to evil and fight it we will never have our country back! All of those who will go to their polling place and hold their noses while voting for romney will get what they deserve. I will stand on the side that I believe is good and right. And if that means that I will be persecuted, so be it. When the time comes that I face GOD for my judgement, he will know that I did my best. When satan’s minions give you the choice between evil and evil, will you follow evil? I won’t!!!

      • Eric Jones

        I will NEVER understand what is wrong with giving women the abillity to chose if you deny her a choice you are dening her freedom.

    • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

      Gary L. is right…though most big-time pols are puppets of the Power Elite, has there ever been a better puppet than Obozo????

      The Obama administration is going full steam ahead with its Anti-Freedom agenda precisely because they know he might lose & probably can’t influence Romney as easily, so they’re trying to shove all this crap through now!!!

      I’ll take my chances with Romney over Obama, can he be any worse?

      • anonymous


      • GregS

        NOTHING can be worse than Obummer with his ObamaTAXCare! That will be the death of us all, and I will blame the IDIOTS who voted for a third-party candidate, or didn’t vote at all, if Obummer get’s re-elected!

        Divide and Conquer! That’s exactly what Obummer is relying on to get re-elected this fall.

  • Larry

    I agree with eveything you say about Dishonest Abe. However, I do not agree with the message to abstain from voting. To not vote is a vote for obama. I agree that romney is not a great choice but if we are to throw out the liar in chief, we have to vote for romney. He has more of a chance than paul.
    The biggest thing we need is to control the house and the senate. That, I believe, is more important than the oval office.

    • Edi

      Not sure you’re right about congress being more important than thr oval office. If this islamo gets back in regardless of who has congress he will do EVERYTHING by exec. order and can’t or won’t be stopped.

    • Emm

      It is NOT good to vote for the lesser of two evils. Look beyond the Duopoly to The Constitution Party. Voting Republican as the only choice is nonsense. Voting one’s principles is never a wasted vote.

      • kellys

        Thank you!

      • http://None Linor34

        If you are not going to vote for any of the two evils (Obmama and Romney) and vote according to your conscience whom are you going to vote then? Ron Paul is never going to win, no matter how glowingly the author of the article promotes his candicacy. A vote for Ron Paul is a point for Obama. Can you stand another four years for Obama to
        completely ruin our economy and the America n way of life as we know it before Obama took office?

    • Michael

      The Congress and Senate won’t change its descent into a One World Government because they, liike the presidency and Supreme Court, are controlled by a behind the scenes group. Your vote doesn’t count, but enjoy being ignorant while it lasts.

    • Nobody’s Fool

      Larry, we definitely need to take the House and Senate for CONSERVATIVES (not necessarily the same as Republicans!) but they can do absolutely nothing if we do not also toss the Imposter out and elect, I’m sorry to say, Romney. Romney is not the optimal choice, but we’re stuck with him. We need to elect him and then school him. The time of sitting back and letting things happen has passed. I like much about Ron Paul but I also fear much about Ron Paul. Let’s not write in a vote guaranteed to hand us oBlamer as president once again. We cannot survive any more of his Executive Orders, which is how he would rule if conservatives own the House and Senate.

      • GregS

        Excellent points, NF!

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Larry, Larry…you are being deceived by satan. He gives you the choice between evil and evil, and you’re going to accept it?!? You’re going to choose evil?!? Wake up people! You have another choice. Don’t let them trick you into thinking that you have to vote for evil! If your instincts are telling you that romney is not the right choice, then don’t go along with satan’s dirty tricks! Stand up for what is right! Follow your conscience! It’s the HOLY SPIRIT trying to talk to you!

      • GregS

        Even though you don’t think that there is a “lessor of two evils,” the fact is that Obummer will accomplish far MORE evil with his ObamaTAXCare than Romney ever could in a lifetime.

        Admit it, Nancy. Write-in’s have NEVER won a Presidential election, and they NEVER will.

        It’s a two-party system. Get over it!

  • twitters Loud American

    SO … who does THIS article writer think we should vote for? OBAMA? Before I would EVER vote for Obama – I would become a Suicide Vest wearing Islamo – terrorist first! TRUST THIS – that would NEVER happen!

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      There is only one right and good person in this race and that is Ron Paul! Write him in!

      • http://http// sophillyjimmy

        Nancy, I would have loved to see Dr. Paul be the Republican candidate to run against Obama, he is a man of character, he wants to rid Washingotn of lobbyists and special interests and bring sanity back to our government, but both the Democats and the Republicans fear him, they knew if he was president they would have to live on their salaries and would never become mutl millionaires so they did everything in their power to keep him from being nominated including making the media ignore him or even worse make him look like a insane rebel. They were only right when they said he was a rebel, but he is a rebel with a cause and that cause is to correct all that is wrong with our government.
        Now is the time to be realistic Nancy, and writing in Ron Paul would be a protest vote but I refuse to let this Marxist in the White House to get 4 more years to complete his mission of destroying America as it was written in Dreams Of My Father so I cannot with a clear conscious write in Dr. Paul. We hae to get America back on the right course and the only way to do that is to vote for Romney if only to get this corrupt man and his Chicago gangsta’s out of the office.

      • cavalier973

        I, too will be writing in Ron Paul. It will not be a “protest vote”, because I am compelled by conscience to vote for the best man. Romney has declared his support for the NDAA, saying that he would have signed it into law. This means that Romney supports the unConstitutional power of the President to order the military to throw American citizens into prison without granting them the benefit of a trial. Romney is therefore right out.

        As for Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, he stated his support for the Corwin Amendment (which had passed Congress and was waiting for ratification from the states), so saying that Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery is incorrect. He wanted to prevent its expansion into the western territories, based on his white supremicist views (he didn’t want black labor competing with white labor).

        In his first inaugural, Lincoln also laid out very clearly the cause for the Civil War. He said that “no bloodshed would be necessary” except to force states to pay the tariff. If one desires to “read the words of Lincoln and believe what he says”, then one must come to the conclusion that the war began so that Lincoln could collect taxes from the Southern states.

        “Slavery” can account for why the Deep South seceded, but it cannot serve as a reason why the North invaded. The Deep South seceded over the slavery issue, sure. But the states of Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas at first maintained that they preferred to stay with the Union. What changed their minds? It was Lincoln’s call for an invasion of the South, which verified the Deep South’s assertion that Lincoln sought power beyond that granted him by the Constitution.

        The Confederate government was more oppressive than the US Government, if only because it maintained the “right” for people to own other people. But in a grander sense, the CSA wasn’t so much fighting “for freedom” as it was “against tyranny”. Lord Acton (who is the source of the famous quote “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”), writing to Gen. Lee after the war, said that the CSA’s fight against the North was the last best chance the world had to preserve representative government. Lincoln’s victory ensured the perpetual growth of government power going forward.

        There were methods Lincoln could have used instead of provoking a war (and Ft. Sumter was used by Lincoln to provoke the South into firing first; very stupid of them, but they had their reasons). The best way, in my opinion, would be for him to have told the Deep South (before VA, NC, TN, and AR had seceded, remember) that, as they were no longer part of the U.S., then the “Fugitive Slave Laws” no longer applied to them, and that any slave that could escape to any US state or territory would be automatically given his freedom. Then he could have deployed US border agents to receive any and all runaway slaves. The second best way would have been to authorize the US Gov’t to purchase slaves and free them. It would have been dramatically less costly than war.

        • Bob Livingston

          Dear cavalier973,

          You write: “The second best way would have been to authorize the US Gov’t to purchase slaves and free them. It would have been dramatically less costly than war.” And would also have prevented the Republican Whigs from achieving their goal.

          Best wishes,

  • Wayne

    Honestly Conor, I don’t think you like any President from any party and you think you would have done better than them all. Obama is, no doubt, so form of fascist, socialist, communist all mixed into one. And I wouldn’t vote for him if he were the only candidate and I would be executed for not doing so. But you are really off the deep end about America. No one claims any President did everything right. And I’m betting, odds are, you couldn’t either. Your ranting here is as bad as any liberals.

  • jim

    Amazing what one can learn by reading what REALLY happened instead of what the fictional history books say…. my children know the truth.

    • Tim

      Amazing what one can learn by reading what REALLY happened instead of what the fictional history books say…. my children know the truth.

      Jim excellent point. As the often hated and depised Napoleon Bonaparte once stated: “What is history but a fable agreed upon.” I also believe that someone else wrote in a post earlier on the same point. Research, research and more research, then come to your own conclusions about things and stop being a robot that accepts everything as the sole truth that is often being forced fed………… Just one person’s opinion and it maybe in a very small minority.

  • Zack A

    I amby no means a Romney fan but we are stuck with 2 choices and Romney is by far the lesser of the 2 evils. As for Lincoln he is dead and gone. Yes southerners (myself included) would be better off if he had left us alone.

    • kellys

      If you vote for the lesser evil, what do you get? And that is how we got where we are today.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Are you going to let satan trick you into thinking that you have no choice but to choose evil?!?

  • WayneC

    Dishonest Abe’s Legacy And The 2012 Election ?
    I totally disagree with the author Conor MacCormack President Lincoln like any other President had his faults and short comings as did Washington they say gained 35 lb while his men went without food or clothes, How About Woodrow Wilson who give us the League of Nation aka United Nations a corrupt and totally worthless organization.
    Ex-President Carter will always be known as the wimp and his sweaters that he wore in the White House He said it sure is cold in the White House but we are dealing with! Did he ever think that that showed how weak we were the world ? Lastly let forget the standard bearer of high morals and family values Ex-President Bill Clinton for almost a yr and half he had his hatchet men dug up dirt on his enemies like Newt, and others. Costing America Billions of dollars and untold man hrs. But to show President Lincoln as dishonest and a madman I think is very disrespectful

  • dan

    Thankyou for an honest appraisal ,Conor, it’s difficult to refute and correct all of the brainwashing that those indoctrinated in Government Schools receive.

    Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”

    Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864

  • hpw3506

    I don’t agree with all of what Lincoln did. I also think voting for Ron Paul is throwing away for vote and putting the current occupant back in the WH. The better option is putting Romney in as Pres even if you don’t agree with him on all things. It is better to have a true American in the WH rather than a marxist.

    • kellys

      If Obama should win re election maybe everyone will finally wake up after the train wreck. There is no difference between the two candidates because as George Wallace once said, “There is not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties.”.

      • GregS

        The problem with your logic is that after the “train wreck,” NO ONE will “finally wake up,” because we’ll all be DEAD!

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      satan puts before you the choice between evil and evil, and you’re going to choose evil?!? These are the times! Wake up, people. Think about the choices you make and what they may really mean!!! Don’t choose evil!

    • ajtdonahue

      Romney and Obama are the same…I don’t care which one wins…and I am sure I am much more conservative than most. Please watch the following video backing my point:

      After watching, tell me they are not the same.

      Can I please vote for Gary Johnson, if I’m not allowed to vote for Ron Pau?

  • Tim

    Lincoln was not a perfect man nor is any man. War is Hell especially for the man who sends men to their death. He agonized over these decisions. You besmerch his memory for the things required during that terrible war. You do not mention that he was unable to complete his task. The reconstruction of the UNITED STATES and the United States of today would have been very different had Lincoln been alive to lead.

  • http://PersonalLiberty Michael McClure

    2 chronicles 16:9 “For the eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth that he may strongly support those whose heart is completely His.” NASB The context is the king was being scolded by God through the prophet for looking at his circumstances and voting for the lesser of the evil actions. The king is told he should always trust God and do the right thing. Vote for the best servant. You must decide who that person is for yourself. I will vote for Ron Paul as i believe he walks the walk of a true servant of the constitution.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Thank you, Michael. I truly hope that souls can be saved. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil!

  • Dwight Mann

    We aint stuck with Mutt Romney yet. Romney is a loser to Øbamanus.
    Ron Paul is the man in 2012. He has the largest grassroots support of any candidate. At a speech there are thousands there to hear him, at a Romney stump there might be a hundred, including the guards. The military and the youth both support Paul implicitly. Paul wants to cut 1 trillion from the budget in his first year. Now that should be the best news that we have ever heard. I will write in Paul myself, and not vote the lesser of 2 evils. I will vote for the best man.

    And of course no man is perfect.
    Thanks for the history, it was enlightening, as I had always heard tidbits like this.
    I am not a historian.
    I am assuming that Lincoln wrote his speeches, and that says quite a lot.
    A little truth goes a long way. . .
    Great job!
    Ron Paul in 2012. . .
    Get on board little children, get on board!

    • Dwight Mann

      I meant to say that it was a great job of writing, but could not edit. . .

    • SJJolly

      Abe Lincoln was an inperfect man faced with an enormous task — preserving the Union. Had the Southern States succession stood, outside forces, notably France and England, would have encouraged additional successions, and wars between them, as a means of neutrering a competitor. So, the choice was between a strong Union, and a balkanized North America. He took enormous political criticism during his life, and still does.

    • http://yahoo wendell

      Are all you people that say you are writing in Ron Paul’s name, brain dead, Paul never had a chance to win the presidency and never will. So you just gonna shi_ on your vote an threw it in the toilet. Great!! What a bunch of numbskulls.

      • GaryTraditionalUltraConservative

        Yes Wendell, you are correct. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama and Obama truly hopes and prays that there will be many misguided people of good honorable intentions who will vote their conscience and vote for Dr. Ron Paul instead of voting for Romney who at least does have a very legitimate and a very genuine realistic chance to evict Obama from the White House, but only if votes are not wasted and siphoned off to Ron Paul who simply does not have any genuine realistic hope or even the slightest remote chance to win the November 2012 election for President. Romney is a simple minded rodent brained Lemming or Hamster spinning his wheel compared to Dr. Ron Paul and Dr. Ron Paul is an intellectual political scientist mental giant compared to the Lemming or Hamster named Mitt Romney and compared to all the other rodent brained Republican hamster politicians spinning their wheels and all the other Republican so called public servants both combined. Unfortunately, the Republican political money campaign financier corporate fascists are pulling Romney’s strings and the extreme Leftist ultra Liberal progressive socialist/communist/marxist propaganda brainwashing and mind control mincing machine, inaccurately and erroneously known as the so called main stream mass media are doing everything in their immoral corrupt criminal powers to ignore and trivialize Dr. Ron Paul and spread Lies about Dr. Ron Paul so that enough Republican voters and enough Independent voters will be tricked and deceived into believing those Lies are the Truth and will then be unwilling to vote for Ron Paul. However, Obama and his gangster and mobster Chicago, New York and California Tyrannical Thug Communist(aka Democrat) corrupt professional political criminals, shamelessly and arrogantly disguising and masquerading themselves as public servants in the public trust, hope and pray that enough misguided and gullible Republican voters and enough misguided and gullible Independent voters will vote for Ron Paul instead of voting for Mitt Romney who is now currently the only Republican politician who has any genuine, legitimate and realistic chance to evict the Long Form Birth Certificateless and Amateurishly Forged Selective Service Card Presidential Imposter and Presidential Impersonator, Total Mystery Man and Total Snake Oil Salesman Fraud, Stealth Communist/Marxist Tyrant Dictator by Presidential Executive Order Decree or Edict(aka the King’s Royal Decree/Edict or the Emperor’s Imperial Decree/Edict), Manchurian or Kenyan Cadidate and Political Usurper from the White House.

  • Cannon 12pounder

    Lincoln was a dictator plain and simple. He trampled over th constitution to save the northern states from poverty because the tax paying states in the south were footing the tax and spend of the yankee politicos for canals ,railroads harbors and such. The south was not seeing a return on their tax money. You forget that the people of the south voted to leave. Not the state governments decision. Women had the right to vote in the Confederacey. Some of the largest slave owners in the south were BLACK. For the land of the free to put a whole region in bondage to save a union is illogical with the Constitution.

  • Michael McSpadden

    Slavery is wrong. I was borne in Texas and I would have fought for the north and killed any of you obviously insane Lincoln haters on the field any day. My my. How low has our country sank!

  • 2bvictorius

    I was born and raised in rural Kentucky and Lincoln was so hated that most people refused to acknowledge him as a native born son of Kentucky. In fact, he was considered a traitor and John Wilkes Booth was considered a hero. Yankees were still considered the enemy of the south and the constitution and no better than the troops in King Georges army.

  • Dayle

    Thanks for the eye opener.

  • chester

    Cannon, how was the south, with its sole output agricultural goods, paying more taxes than the hundreds,if not thousands, of factories in the north? I know that doesn’t fit your world view, but it is what ultimately defeated the south. With no industrial base to manufacture their weapons and equipment, nearly everything they used had to be imported from somewhere, and those bales of cotton they used as barter were decreasing in value. They could and did feed their troops at least as well as the troops from the north, but that was because of the agricultural background, not anything to do with industry.

    • kellys

      Although the North did have more factories they didnt have that many until after the war started, it was the war that made the North an industrial juggernaut. At the beginning of the war both sides imported arms from England, which should also tell you something about our cousins across the pond.

    • Searcher4851

      If you think about it, it’s not hard to figure a way. All you have to do is tax agricultural products at a higher rate than factory production.
      Same principle as the top 10% of income earners paying 67% of all income tax while the other 90% pay the remaining 33%. There’s a lot more in the 90%, but since so many of them pay NO income tax, it brings their average down.

    • Bob Livingston

      Dear Chester,

      You write: “how was the south, with its sole output agricultural goods, paying more taxes than the hundreds,if not thousands, of factories in the north?” Study the Tariff of 1828, aka the Tariff of Abominations.

      Best wishes,

    • cavalier973

      “The lack of railroad track mileage is another canard against the South. By mid-century, the comparison stood at 112 miles per state in the South and 442 miles per free state. Yet the South in 1860, when it set out to be an independent nation, would have been second in the world in railroad mileage per capita, behind only the North.
      The South had fewer railroads in part because it had less need of them. One-crop plantations generate less rail freight than more diverse Northern farms. And wide, navigable rivers penetrate deep into the South in almost all regions.

      The South was not nearly as poor and backwards as is often assumed: in 1860 it would have been fifth in the world in cotton textile production, behind Great Britain, the North, Switzerland, Belgium, and France. In per capita income, it would have tied with Switzerland for fourth place, behind Australia, the North, and Great Britain. The Southern states of 1860 would have formed the fourth-wealthiest nation in the world, with an inflation-adjusted per capita income not seen in some European nations till World War II. The per-capita-income growth of the South 1840-60 was 1.7 percent per annum — 30 percent more rapid than the growth in the North.”

  • Jim Clark

    Why are you promoting the election of Barack Obama by voting for Ron Paul?

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Why are you blindly following satan by voting for the lesser of two evils?

      • GregS

        It’s not a question of WHO is the “lesser of two evils.” The real isuue is HOW MUCH evil one or the other will accomplish to cause complete ruin of this Country. Obummer will do it single-handily with ObamaTAXCare.

        Nancy, It’s YOU who is misled by satan, if you think you are going to convince others to vote for someone who we ALL know CANNOT possibly win the Presidential election.

  • Ron

    THANK YOU FOR SOME HONESTY. Like Lord Nugent of the chicken-hawkity, draft-dodgery right-wing aristocracy, you’re slowly owning the fact that you want to re-fight the Civil War and this time you want the Kenyan-beatin’, share-croppin’, plantation-overlord South to win.

    You’ll need to tone this down a bit to hoodwink the middle of America into voting you into power, and banging the blunthammer that the Olde Negroes were just happy ol’ beneficiaries of white benevolence, and–little known-fact–the Most Evil Slaveholders of all– might have to be toned down for a little while, but once you install Cheney 2.0 you can restore an America where, if you want our opinion, you’ll waterboard it out of us.

    Do America a favor and SECEDE. Only you don’t get the part that has national parks and the last remaining wilderness areas in it, since you will just drill-baby-drilla-it into destitution, handing America’s wealth over to your corporate plantation-owning overlords to sell it on the world market to the highest bidder, telling you it’s “patriotic”.

    Pollute your beaches, poison your aquifers, soil your air, and when you’ve soiled your nest, blame it on the liberals and Al Qaeda.

    But by all means, go. I hope America won’t stop you this time.

    As Jesus Christ, the America-hating liberal social-worker once said to one of his kool-aid drinking disciples: “What you do, do quickly.”

    • Nobody’s Fool

      Ron, Ron, you’ve got a lot of anger there. You should see a shrink about that, maybe take something for it. Calm down, please. Get that anger under control before it eats your innards up. You’re a sad case.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Sad indeed!

        • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

          Vote for Ron Paul Guy is not a sad case, but he’s passionate & cares deeply about the USA !!!

          With Obama we know he’s trying to destroy the nation, at least with Romney there is a chance he might cut spending & cut down the federal beast !!!!

  • CJM

    The only bloviating fool on this page is YOU, MacCormack…..take your commie obammy and stuff him where you think he will do you the most good. No, I don’t adore Lincoln, never have, never will. But I will say this much—Romney is a darn sight better than that liar in the Oval Office. He is a disconnected lightbulb that is befitting his moniker ‘the dimwit unAmerican, nonAmerican, fraudulent criminal.”

  • Michael

    Time seems to be right on the mark. I would add that the corporations are controlled by the elite.

    • kellys

      You are right, TIME is right on the mark and knows his history well, when will people get it, the North was in possession of Southern soil(Ft Sumter) and refused to leave, thus the shelling of Sumter. This is why it is called the war of Northern Aggression in the South. The bad neighbors did not want to leave the house and had to be shoved out.

  • wandamurline

    The thought of not voting in this years election just escapes me and I cannot fanthom why the author of this article would suggest that. Ron Paul lost….he lost….he did not get enough votes from the different states to be the candidate for presidency….don’t write in his name on the ballot, lest you throw away your vote and give it to another 4 year term for Obama, who resembles Lincoln in the way he treats our rights and our Constitution. Romney was not my choice of candidates, but I will be d a m n e d if I will cast my vote and waste it in such a close election. Go out and vote…..if nothing else, cast your vote AGAINST Obama if that makes you feel better, but don’t waste your vote on Ron Paul who does not have a chance in h e l l of winning the presidential election. America cannot take another four years of Obama….how would you like Eric Holder to become a Supreme Court Justice….if that doesn’t scare you, nothing will. Vote, get your friends to vote, get strangers to vote….vote out Obama by voting for Romney…..ousting Obama will be the start of regaining our country. I think Bob Livingston wants Obama to win….stop it Bob.

    • kellys

      The only way I could throw away my vote is by marking the box for either Romney or Obama, both are such a waste. How long will you let the party bosses hold you hostage, we havent had a decent president since JFK got his brains blown out. Republican or Democrat.

    • Joe Hammond

      My only concern is that Romney doesn’t seem to stand for anything other than lower taxes, attacking Iran because they want nuclear capability to balance out the 300-400 nukes Israel has, and spending whatever it takes to create the biggest military the world has ever seen. Lets see….lower taxes is good…another “no-win war” is very bad and expensive (let Israel fight it out if they want to take on Iran, not US)….and military spending is very, very expensive….and he says he can balance the budget? Hmmmm…. He has no idea about what he is saying. He is a sad representative of the 1%…..

      Vote your soul this time….I vote for Ron Paul! Romney as president isn’t winning…its more Obama….

    • Bob Livingston

      Dear wandamurline,

      You write: “I think Bob Livingston wants Obama to win….stop it Bob.” I see no discernable difference between the two. Both are Bilderberg and bankster approved.

      Best wishes,

      • kellys

        Thanks Bob!

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        I couldn’t agree more! When are people going to wake up and see that it doesn’t matter who’s in office, a democrat or republican? The agenda goes forward!

        • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

          It does matter, the agendas are more easily put in place with the Dems…Remember at least the Repubs are Pro-Life…

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Yeah, they’re pro life. We still have legalized abortion. Yeah, they’re for lower taxes. We still have high taxes. Yeah they’re for less regulation. We still have everything we do being regulated. Yeah, they’re for individual responsibility. Half the people in this country are on the government dole. Yeah, they’re for individual liberty and freedom. Yet they voted for the patriot acts I and II and the ndaa. Wake up!!! You can’t blame everything on the democrats! The republicans contributed or stood by! They have done nothing to restore that which they say they believe in. They are spending our money and bankrupting us the same as the democrats. As long as the two parties can blame each other they can continue to destroy this nation! We need to realize that both parties are different sides of the same coin!!! They do not represent us! They represent those with the power to control us!!! We must be aware!!!

      • GregS

        Nancy in Nebraska says:

        “Yeah, they’re pro life. We still have legalized abortion. Yeah, they’re for lower taxes. We still have high taxes. Yeah they’re for less regulation. We still have everything we do being regulated. Yeah, they’re for individual responsibility. Half the people in this country are on the government dole.”

        For your information, Nancy, whenever any legislation regarding pro-life, lower taxes, or less regulation has been voted down, it has almost ALWAYS been because the Republicans have been overwhelmingly outnumbered by Democrats who voted it down. THAT IS A FACT. I am especially aware of any abortion-related legislation that gets voted on, because I follow it quite closely, obviously more closely than you do.

        So, Nancy, stop ranting on with your blundering generalities. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

        • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

          I agree…there cannot be LIFE, LIBERTY & THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, if there is no LIFE to begin with…..How many Dems are Pro-Life? Maybe Casey that’s it!!!!

  • Robert Greeley

    Lincoln said America could not survive, half-slave and half-free. P.T. Barnum and others pressed him to free the slaves. Lincoln freed the slaves in the rebellious States to wreck their economy; could not free them in the Border States at that time, because those States might have sided with the South. His plan was brilliant. He used the Proclamation because Congress would not act. He gave his life for it.

  • kellys

    The Emancipation Proclamation did nothing. How could it, it only applied to the places it had no control, thereby making itself irrelevant. A bunch of political bombast and if you had read your history, Lincoln knew it.

    • Ted Crawford

      It seemed to have the desired effect to me Kellys ! Prevented any Foreign Governments, I.E. Great Britian, from supporting the South !

  • Vote for Ron Paul, and you vote for Obama

    Unbelievable!!! Those here who declare that they will write on Ron Paul, ARE voting for Obama! THINK!!! For every vote NOT made for Romney, Obama gains a larger margin! There just isn’t enough support for Ron Paul. He cannot win, so why risk putting Obama back in??? Are you THAT BLIND???

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Are you blind to the truth that voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil? satan is giving you the choice between evil and evil and you’re going to fall for it? I agree that if obummer wins this country will go down the drain. But I also believe that if romney wins, his country will go down the drain. They BOTH work for the same people and it isn’t you or me!!! Rebel against the system that will destroy us! Don’t go along with what they’ve offered you. That is what has gotten us into this mess.

      • Ted Crawford

        A little Quixotic don’t you think ? Not a very practical nor very realistic way to further any ideaology is it ?

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        So, what do you want to do, “go along”? We’ve been doing that for years. Where’s it gotten us?!?

      • Ted Crawford

        Going along as you say is just one part of the problems of our Nation. APATHY, I would submit, is an equal or perhaps even greater part! What is wanted is that You, I and many many more should still be as engaged as we are today, on July 11, 2015! No election pending, another Summer to plan, yet we still audit our politicians, hold their feet to the fire, demand they carry out our expressed wishes!
        I would, humbly, add one word to Mr. Jeffersons statement, Not just eternal but also UNRELENTING Vigilance! It’s my opinion that only that will, gradually, allow us to restore our Reperesentative Republic !
        Dr. Paul does have a great many, very sound ideas on Fiscal Policy and I’m encouraged that he has insured himself a strong voice during the Convention !

    • jp

      This phrase you use is so tired now. It is total bull to say that a vote for Paul is a vote for anyone else. A vote for Paul… is just that… a vote for Paul! If all liberty minded folks do just that, many from the left, many from the center and many from the right (to me that seems like a lot of votes… MORE than either of the two evils) Paul can easily win. However, too many folks spend too much time listening to the same folks you obviously listen to. It is a shame.

      Just to be clear… a vote for Dr. Ron Paul… is a vote for… you guessed it RON PAUL!

    • Hossman

      If this election is lost to Obama, the blame can be accurately attributed to Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Candidate, and those who can’t seem to understand that a refusal to vote is a vote for Obama.

      • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

        The lesser of 2 evils is still LESS EVIL !!!!

  • Sol of Texas

    I believe Mr. MacCormack’s article is well based on fact.Those who object to Sheridan, Grant, or Tecumseh Sherman, though understandably outraged, must admit that when a person is in a street fight, there is no win-win situation possible. We’ve been conditioned to an idea that wars can be fought without killing anyone or destroying property. War IS the suspension of conscience and a decision for survival. That has to be understood or there is no meaning to the word “war”.

    Examining Lincoln’s letters demonstrates that he was a bigot (in our sense)
    and he desired that Black’s born and “raised” in America be relocated to Liberia. I am pleased that never happened — we would be a poorer country without the contributions of our African ancestor-ed friends, brothers and sisters. They have enriched us all in uncountable ways.

    The south should have been able to break the bonds of union. This was Lincoln’s hypocrisy. If one can divorce one’s wife, why cannot a sovereign state break its relation with the others?

    If the South had seceded (my speculation) , I don’t believe slavery would have lasted long. With no fugitive slave law to be upheld, when runaway slaves made it to Cincinnati they could have easily made it to Sandusky and by boat to Ontario (Canada). . All but the most sadistic slave owners would have capitulated. Only about 10% of the south even “owned” slaves and it was rare that slaves were beaten. Read Harriet Stowe’s novel “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” to get an approximate idea about slavery.

    Lincoln (sadly, a “Republican”) represented the start of the growth of big government. — through conscription acts, . paper money, ignoring supreme court rulings, and more signaled that “might makes right”.

    We must learn from the lessons of the past, or we are doomed to repeat them.

    Cheers — if that is possible.

  • rick

    I can find very few of our current problems that are not a direct result of how Lincoln misused the power of the Presidency.

    • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

      Methinks most of our problems these days go back to how FDR misused the executive branch, expanded it & the Federal Monster…..FDR was the worst president of all-time!!!

  • speedle

    The writer here is the perpetual whiner who protects his credentials as the “outsider” like a mama bear protects her cub. He must never be on the winning side because if he was he would lose his status as the whiner outside looking in. Why else would he suggest that I “write in” a third party candidate with zero chance to win, instead of working with the candidate that is nearest my ideology in order to affect positive change?

    The only possible answer is that he relishes being a “loser”, and that is exactly what he is.

  • macadamia2010

    Are you seriously writing an article about our 16th President? I can’t believe I wasted my time skimming it. I’m a Ron Paul fan, but this article was completely useless.

    • Bob Livingston

      Dear macadamia2010,

      You write: “I’m a Ron Paul fan, but this article was completely useless.” You are saying you have no use for the truth. You must be a Republican.

      Best wishes,

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Don’t you love it when people don’t read the article but still feel the need to comment on it?

  • Annette Kay

    I’m no student of history and have to take the seemingly cherry-picked evidence against the hallowed memory of Abraham Lincoln as facts, as well as the responses. No point in lying about facts, I suppose, when you could check them out. And then you reach the conclusion – don’t vote for Romney. (Ron Paul is a non-vote). What Lincoln’s virtue or lack of it has to do with this election escapes me, the relationship is too tangential to bother me when we are on the edge of a slippery precipice of spiraling debt awaiting us should we take one step further. We are being led on by the promise of better and cheaper health care by people who should know better. If they really don’t, they are too stupid to lead us and if they do, they are too dishonest. MacCormack, you aren’t an Independent, or even just a nihilist. You are just another subversive Democrat plant in the world of journalism.

    • Ted Crawford

      Thank You Annette ! You get my vote, for what little that is worth!

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      There is a correlation between Lincoln and obummer. obummer keeps talking about how Lincoln is his hero. It is because Lincoln stepped all over the constitution just as obummer is doing. When someone holds someone else up as a hero, you need to look at what the person did and who they really are. Lincoln gives obummer justification to stomp all over the constitution!

      • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

        Lincoln stepped all over the Constitution, because the crisis called for a higher law to be followed! Obozo is doing it for two reasons (1) Destroy the nation (2) get reelected, so he can continue to destroy the nation

  • Tom

    Bob – - Shame on you for publishing this article! All you are doing with this kind of BS is assuring the election of Obama. You trash Repubs. We need to keep a 2 party system! Remember what happens when there is NOT a 2-party system….anyone with a less than half vote gets elected. Hitler is a perfect example…had a small teen-number of votes and was elected and we all know what happened there. I just have two words for this firestorm of baloney created by publishing that hate-article on Lincoln. Here it is….”Remember Perot.” We would NEVER have had 8 years of Clinton(s) without him! Now we have the same situation with the liberterians and their blind love affair with Ron Paul. Here we go again. All those Ron Paul votes are much closer in ideology to Romney anyday than Obama marxism! That’s a fact! Bashing Romney (Republicans) like you do is doing a dis-service to the country which desparately needs a change from Obama and his marxist thugs. Again…”Remmeber Perot.” Tom

    • Bob Livingston
    • Ted Crawford

      Many people, from every ideaology, can become so immersed in their Ideaology that they display the tenants of petulance. Faced with the lose of their ” Perfect” they unintentionally allow their perfect to become the enemy of good ! The results are usually highly undesirable !

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Tom says: “We would NEVER have had 8 years of Clinton(s) without him!”

      No, we would have had 4 more years of bush(s). How would that have been better?

      • speedle

        Nancy, wouldn’t it be easier to just burn yourself with cigarettes or something? Why do you insist on committing societal suicide by refusing to become part of the solution to the leftist agenda? You see, the problem is that when you commit societal suicide by writing in a third party candidate you are also condemning the rest of us.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Speedle, in my opinion YOU are the one condemning us!!!

      • speedle

        Nancy, you make no sense at all, only the same old gibberish. Please prove me wrong. I challenge you or any other writer or poster on this blog to explain in plan logical language how you think writing in a presidential candidate that cannot possibly win somehow is good for this country. Do this with the understanding that Obama and his gangsters represent the most dire threat to the U.S. Constitution and our traditional way of life of public officials since 1776.

        I’m not interested in any of your slogans or mimicked talking points. Please explain how allowing Barack Obama to be re-elected over “any” less radical opponent is a good strategy. I won’t hold my breath.

  • Bruce Storrs

    President Obama seems to being doing just the opposite of what Abraham Lincoln spoke of,
    “You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak be weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”

    • Ted Crawford

      YES, Bruce, YES ! !

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      obummer’s not doing what Lincoln spoke of but he is doing what Lincoln did! He’s stomping all over the constitution!

  • Liberterian

    Lincoln was a politician like the rest, however he made the decisions that had to be made, right or wrong. Succession vertually became an extinct dream and the federal union survived to grow another day.

    • Ted Crawford

      And grow and grow and evolve and grow and grow, ETC. Time to put a stop to that !

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      You say: “Succession(sic) vertually(sic) became an extinct dream”. I don’t think that secession has become an extinct dream. I think that a lot of people are dreaming of secession about now!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I hope not. I don’t think people feel the need to turn to such an extreme step.

  • Dan Mancuso

    I remember reading somewhere that Lincoln was a slave owner himself. That the Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t enacted until after he declared war on the South and only so he could use it to convince all those poor and hungry Irishmen disembarking ships in NY to be recruited. So why was he bumped off? Was it because he had threated to print Greenbacks?

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Lincoln never owned slaves. He was close friends with someone who did. But he did not. The emancipation proclamation was issued for several reasons. The main one was to deprive the south of needed manpower by encouraging slaves to flee to the Union army. second was to full fill Lincolns long held desire to free slaves. A third was to effect positive change, to simply return the Union to its pre civil war status would invite further wars and division down the road. Forth was a political declaration, from this point on where the union army went so too came freedom. The union was now fighting to free slaves while the south was fighting to keep them in bondage. Though would help on the foreign front. Last but not least included in the emancipation proclamation was a provision for recruiting African American soldiers. This would be a new source of manpower for the Union armies and would help to win the war.
      Ironically one thing that made Lincoln hesitate to issue the proclamation was the fear that whites, particularly immigrants would desert from the army. Why would they want to fight just so African Americans can come north and compete with them for the minimal number of jobs.

      Actually Lincoln in his last speech made his most radical step. He became the first president in history to support giving the vote to African Americans. He supported giving it to what he termed the “very intelligent and those who served as soldiers”. It was limited but it was a step forward. And no one had ever done before. John Wilkes Booth heard the speech and turned to a friend and said “That means nigger citizenship, now by god I’ll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make”. So Lincoln wasn’t killed because he destroyed the confederacy or for emancipating the slaves. He was killed because he wanted to give the vote to African Americans.

      • Bob Livingston

        Dear Jeremy Loechner,

        You write: “Lincoln never owned slaves. He was close friends with someone who did.” Like his wife’s family?

        You need to apply for a government job or a job writing for a history textbook company. You are an excellent historical revisionist. Repeat after me: “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.” Congratulations you avoid room 101.

        Best wishes,

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Mr, Livingston Lincoln did not own slaves. That is an historic fact. That is not revisionism. Ask any number of Civil War Historians. Consult the works of James McPherson or Shelby Foote. That is not Orwellian double speak.

        • Bob Livingston

          Dear Jeremy Leochner,

          You write: “Lincoln did not own slaves. That is an historic fact. That is not revisionism.” I did not say that he did. The revisionism reference is directed toward your numerous pro-Lincoln drivel postings of the day.

          Best wishes,

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Marys family did own slaves. But the Lincolns kept none in their home. Nor is there any evidence that Lincoln had ownership over the todd families slaves. There is a difference between association and participation.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Very well. How is what I have said revisionist.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Bob, I like your quote from 1984. I just started re-reading it today.

  • J.D.

    Slavery was fast fading in the South before the War began. The main reason not only Lincoln, but a majority of the North wanted it abolished was that the South was running the congress and senate both. They had massive voting power due to the fact the every slave was worth a half vote. So if you owned ten slaves that gave you FIVE votes besides your own. The northerners want to control the south and its resources but couldn’t with the voting power that the south had. It wasn’t about slavery and never was, our government then was just as lying and deceitful as it is today. They didn’t give two s#@#s for the slaves or anyone else for that matter. It just makes it easier to fool the average retard that votes into thinking it was for a HUMANITARIAN cause, when really it was a power grab. It is that simple. You all can jump up and down and say what a WONDERFUL president old Abe was, but in fact, he can be ranked with Obama, G.W. Bush and old Teddy Roosevelt as some of the top ass-clowns that have stripped us of our liberties and pushed hard to turn this country into a tyranny ridden dump. Anyone who believes otherwise is just some talking head/dancing monkey that is useless, hopeless, and more often than not clueless! Have a nice day, all! :)

    • Winddrinker

      J.D. you just tell them like it is…. When you said the government was just as deceitful then as it is today, Good point. The War was about the North not wanting to lose the ability to tax the highly prosperous South..

  • Bill

    How you describe Lincoln is accurate. Yes, Romney is not the perfect conservative. However, encouraging readers to cast their votes for Paul or any other write-in for president is the same as voting for Obama. Many foolish people voted for Ross Perot and split the conservative vote, resulting in a Bill Clinton presidency. A split vote will result in Obama winning a second term and the ultimate destruction of our country. You need to pull your head out of your backside and take a breath of fresh air. Principles are fine and good things but burning down the barn to control a rat problem is not very sensible.

    • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

      Perfectly Stated!!! What Romney should do (and if he does I guarantee he would get elected) is name Ron Paul his Secretary of Cutting Spending & Reducing the Federal Government , or something along those lines RIGHT NOW & assuming Paul would accept, , Romney should then name Chris Christie his running mate (pump some life into his moribund campaign) and assuming he would accept…, all 3 should cross the country & make it clear they want to start the steps to bring this monster under control. Make this case clear & concise & I have faith the American people would go for it over the alternative. of course, all this assumes Romney wants to bring this monster under control.

      • Ted Crawford

        Perhaps the perfect position would be for him to take over for Timothy, (it wasn’t my fault it was that confusing Turbo Tax) Geithner ! But, would Dr. Paul take the position ?

        • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

          HAHAHA!!! That tax thing always amazed me about Geithner & the few other scoundrels that got confirmed that did the same thing.

          This would be the perfect chance for Paul to put his principles into practice, after all of Obama’s Czars, the next guy deserves to put a couple in place that could really make a positive difference…of course, this is thinking outside the box , not Romney’s strongest point…I’ve actually e-mailed his campaign several times over the last few months telling him to try this…think of all the young voters Paul could bring in.

  • Albert Maslar

    Would Americans today tolerate the Civil War that resulted in over 600,000 deaths when they are up in arms about just 1% of that; 6,000 American deaths in the Middle East wars? The Civil War era population was about 10% of today’s 300+ Million; 22 million in the North, and 9 Million in the South, so that the Civil War devastating effect was beyond comprehension, approximately 2% of the population killed. That would be equivalent to America losing over 600,000 lives in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars; Unthinkable!

    The Civil War was based on the lie of freeing the Slaves when in fact, Lincoln only issued the Emancipation Proclamation in the THIRD year of the Civil War, and he only freed the Slaves he was unable to free; Slaves in the revolting South, and none in the North where Lincoln could hold sway. The Civil War to free Slaves was a lie.

    Albert Maslar

    • AZ-Ike

      Although Slavery was the ultimate issue of the Civil War, Lincoln’s response to the South, and entering the war was for the ‘preservation of the union’–not the freeing of slaves. He made it clear in his First Inaugural Address that he had no intention of doing anything that would impede on the States’ rights to decide on the issue of slavery; that if there was to be war, it would be started by the South.

      Among other reasons, Lincoln did not believe the South had the constitutional right to secede from the Union based on the constitutional ‘prohibitions to the States’ in Article 1, Section 10.’

      If another Civil War becomes necessary, it, too, will be to preserve the union of (what used to be sovereign) States–to restore the Constitution and federal republican form of government–to restore the Authority of the sovereign People and consent of the governed. It won’t be an issue of whether Americans will ‘tolerate’ the war. It will be an issue of freedom vs. government tyranny.

  • sjbbouton

    Republicans worship Lincoln? As for this one, the more I learn about ‘Honest Abe’, the more I want to celebrate the life of John Wilkes Boothe.

    • Winddrinker

      Agreed, Booth deserved a metal for doing this country a favor!

  • RU88

    This article is bunk ! The fact that its author is a Ron Paul supporter is more than enough to consign it to the Round File !!!!!

  • swampfox

    As a loyal born and raised southerner,I was raised knowing the truth about the war of northern aggression and how much of a tyrant he was.
    Oh I am sure I’ll be labled a redneck and such.oh well
    Obamass and Lincoln have a lot in common sure nuff!
    I like ron Paul and would vote for Him in.a heart beat!
    As I have been telling folks for 4 years ,now yall see why we fought that war and why 300,000 southern patriots gave their lives for the cause of freedom,liberty and taxation withoutuu representation,those men who gave their all were heroes and will be forever held in reverance.
    Ovomit is a tyrant and socialistic narrssisstic marxist hell bent on destroying our country,
    What the federal govt did to the south both during the war and during the so called “reconstruction”.
    DEO VINDICE!!!!!

    • swampfox

      Is no different than what ovomit is doing to our nation as a whole!

    • afdbghq

      The south had every right to secede from the union and form their own country. After the south formed the CSA they became a sovereign nation. Lincoln, without either consulting congress or issuing a declaration of war unilaterally invaded the sovereign country of the USA. The main reason for their leaving was the unjust taxes imposed by the north on the south’s exports. While the north paid around 15% export tax the south was forced to pay around 60-70% export tax.

      Even today individual states have every right to secede from the union and when the left pushing their radical agenda I believe many states will leave and form their own country.

      As for slavery, it was an institution that was slowly going the way od the dodo bird because of the industrial revolution.

  • Gangbusters@2012

    I would not liked to have been in Lincolns shoes,nor would anyone else 111tHIS mAN HAD A JOB TO DO,and he did it to the best he knew how,But why cry about water that has long since flowed under the bridge?if anyone wants to talk about Lincoln.maybe they should stop,and take a look at what we have now!!!!!I would take Lincoln over OBomBo any day,so would anyone on this web site!!!!!.

  • Gangbusters@2012

    PS Lets cut The B.S.

  • GregS

    Anyone who claims that he/she is a conservative, but advocates voting for a third party, voting for a write-in, or not voting at all, is probably an Obama shill, and would probably, themselves, vote for Obummer in November. It’s a well-known fact that the Obama campaign is using divide-and-conquer tactics to split the conservatives in the upcoming elections, since it will probably be a very close election.

    Otherwise, those, who truly think a third-party or write-in candidate will win, should take a lesson from Ron Paul himself: He fully realized that the only chance he would have had of winning would be to run on the Republican ticket. I strongly doubt that he would encourage anyone to write his name in, if he doesn’t get the Republican nomination in August by picking up enough delelgates at the Convention. In fact, I would not be surprised if he ends up backing Romney after the Convention.

    The upcoming election is NOT about “the lesser of two evils,” Abraham Lincoln, or any other “talking points” that would indirectly benefit the Obama campaign. Anyone who is even half serious about firing Obummer in November will vote for a candidate who will be most likely to beat him.

    This will probably be the most important election in the history of this Country. All conservatives need to unite as a single force to kick the Obummer out of office, as well as all the rest of those Democrat bums in the Senate and House, who would continue to support ObamaTAXCare, if re-elected.

    ObamaTAXCare will ruin our healthcare system, with all of the rationing and new taxes that it will incur, and it will become a full-blown ENTITLEMENT in 2014 if Obummer is re-elected, as if we didn’t have enough problems with the funding of our other two major entitlements, Social Security and Medicare.

    This is precisely why I’ll be voting for Romney in November. Anyone who tries to associate him with RomneyCare in Massachusetts should realize that it was designed only for a single state, NOT the whole country. Furthermore, Romney didn’t lie and try to cram it down everyone’s throat, like Obummer did (and still is doing) with ObamaTAXCare.

    At least Romney has promised to defeat ObamaTAXCare, if elected, and, since he is the only candidate who has a chance of beating Obummer in November, that’s all I really care about. If he doesn’t do what he has promised, I’ll simply vote him out the next time.

    There are too many serious issues at stake in this election, and this is NOT the year to be concerned about an all-or-nothing approach to the election of purist candidates, who don’t really have any serious chance of winning, and who will ultimately end up giving Obummer an edge.

    Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! ObamaTAXCare’s got to go! Defeat the Dems to make it so!

  • Oldbutnotadumbutt@2012

    I’ll agree with you on that point Greg S!’ll be votting for Mitt in Nov..and anyone with half a brain,will be wise to do so too!!!!!

  • Gangbustert@2012

    I too,agree,and will do like wise in November 2012!!!!

    • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

      Mitt has to be it !!!!! OBAMA’s UNFIT !!!!!

  • Middlemant@2012

    I didn’t care for your Article on “Lincoln”.According to the polls,Lincoln is one of the most respected,and beloved of all the Presidents,I’ll have to agree with Gangbuster,after all”hard times some times calls for Hard choices !!”(I wonder what you would have done,if you were in his place?Its easy to throw stones at some one!!!!I Too Will Vote for Romney!!!

  • JimShoe

    Ok, I didn’t read every post but I didn’t see the real facts about Ft. Sumter. Lincoln was not negotiating in good faith with the South. The Southern states wanted to peacefully go on their way and offered to compensate Washington for Federal property. SC agreed to allow humanitarian shipments to the fort. Instead, Lincoln sent ships loaded with arms and ammunition, not food and substinance. The fort was fired upon in defense of SC and Lincolns treachery. Also, a lot of the Confederate states DID NOT leave the Union until Lincoln’s call for a volunteer force of 75,000 to invade Southern territory. That was what truely started the war. And Lincoln DID NOT FREE the slaves that were in the states loyal to the Union. To do so would have been a disaster. And don’t forget to see who all was in some of those Northern POW camps. There were a number of Union cicilians that didn’t agree with what was going on. And though the North had the resources those camps were death camps yet all we hear about is Andersonville.

  • Mountain Saint

    There is one thing Obama shares with Lincoln. Both of them were tyrants. ..If Obama is reelected, you will see death camps and the end to our liberties…As for Romney, another cultist and Socialist, you will see the destruction of America but at a slower pace….There is nothing but economic, nuclear and social doom for America with either of these two characters.

    • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

      You need to start to pray, nothing is set in stone….look at all the souls writing in here who love Ron Paul & can see the Light of God in him !!!! Look at all the souls in America who can discern the truth & are railing against tyranny. The Age of Aquarius has started, it is meant to be a Golden Age of Freedom….but first there must be a purging of old pardigms & pols, etc…Thoughts are powerful, what you focus on you attract into your world., so, I say to you & all the negative souls out there:

      America is a Victorious Nation, each & everyday!!!!!


    • Eric Jones

      So now Mitt Romney is a socialist huh? yeah and Karl Marx was a capitilist.

  • Dave

    This writer doesn’t even know the difference between an adjective and an adverb (“his actions speak louder than his flowery rhetoric.”) Speak is a verb, therefore it must be modified by an adverb – more loudly.

    Also, where did he get the idea that Lincoln “waged total war on the peacefully seceded Southern States without a Congressional Declaration” If this person would just check his facts,he would learn that South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter, without provocation, which was the beginning of the war. This sort of garbage has no place in an intelligent, informed discussion.

    • cavalier973

      *If this person would just check his facts,he would learn that South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter, without provocation…*

      Without provocation, huh? I think you’d perhaps find profit in consulting a map, and figuring out where Ft. Sumter was. To save you some time, I’ll tell you: it’s in Charleston Harbor. Now, what vital national interest could the U.S. have in maintaining a presence in another nation’s harbor? Oh, that’s right; it’s a strategic point for someone who wanted to collect taxes from incoming ships. The fact that Lincoln kept trying to supply the garrison on the nearby peninsula. Oh, and by the way, the first shots weren’t fired at Ft. Sumter. They were actually fired a couple of days before, when CSA forces chased off a supply ship.
      It’s really unfortunate that they did fire on Ft. Sumter, though; it gave Lincoln the supposed moral high ground to invade the South, and allows the perpetuation of the myth that what the South did was equivalent to invading the North, or something.

      Imagine, if you will, that the USA decided to withdraw from the United Nations. I’d imagine that we’d demand the building and land in NYC back from the UN. Suppose that the UN, instead of handing it over, garrisoned it with troops and supplies. Would you consider that an act of war? Because that’s the situation with Ft. Sumter! I know that there is a myth that this is supposed to be “one nation, indivisible”, but the Founders never saw it like that. Read the Constitution; it’s “The United States are”, not “the United States is”. We could just as well refer to this land as “The United Nations of America”, because that’s what we started out to be.

      • cavalier973

        Please insert the phrase “was an act of provocation” right after “The fact that Lincoln kept trying to supply the garrison on the nearby peninsula”.

        That we were a union of nations rather than a single nation logically means that the Federal Government holds land for military purposes only with a state’s permission. If the state withdraws permission, the FedGov must shove off.

  • Middlemant@2012

    I Agree,Dave!!!

  • Mountain Saint

    We entered the Last Generation in 1948 when Israel (fig tree) became a nation (Matthew 24:32-34). This Terminal Generation will probably end sometime in the time period 2018 to 2028 (Psalm 90:10)…. Before we can have the last forty-two months of this generation (Daniel 9:27), we will have to witness the end of United States and Russia as superpowers in a nuclear missile exchange.(Ezekiel 39;6 and Jeremiah 25:32-33) …Neither nation is mentioned as powers in End Time Eschatology, except, maybe, as one of the ten horns and seven heads of the Beast (Revelation 13:1). Our time is short, thanks to Obama and Romney.

    • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

      You should really read the late George Armstrong’s classic, “America & Britain in Prophecy” for he shows the REAL ISRAEL is America & Britain & the land in the Middle East should really be called JUDAH (as it is made up of Jews)…

      One must realize prophecy is never set in stone, because mankind has FREE WILL & can change at any time!!!!

      It is available for free from the Philadelphia Church of God, phone number:1-800-772-8577

  • Mountain Saint

    Hebert W. Armstrong’s books are being refuted by almost everyone. They are about as accurate as Romney’s book of Mormons when it comes to history and who settled in America.

    • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

      I disagree, I think Armstrong had it exactly right about prophecy, and who is who …..Do you not FEEL that America is Israel? The ancient nation of Israel & the modern one in Middle East were never world powers, or a “Blessing to ALL nations.”…The Founders knew this in their souls, too!!! I believe in Anglo-Israelism!

      Yes, much has been revealed about Armstrong being a flawed man, but his work was not.

  • Mountain Saint

    Before you can have World War Three (Ezekiel 38-39), you will have an Israel that is “safe”, “at rest” and “very prosperous” (Ezekiel 38:11-13). Russia would not bother to invade a relatively poor Israel, like the Holy Land is today, to rob and take great spoil (Isaiah 17:14)…Israel will become one of the greatest and most prosperous nations on earth after the fourth and last Arab v. Israeli war in the near future (Amos 1-2, isaiah 17:1 and Ezekiel 29:12)….Meanwhile, because America is a wicked nation and its leadership godless, our economy will completely crash and our cities nuked (Ezekiel 39:6 and Jeremiah 25:32-33)…. God will be dealing exclusively with the real Israel after the rapture of the saints.

    • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

      I stand by Armstrong !!! No one did it better!!

    • OOOOPPert EEEEpert

      Google; Saint Germain, sponsor of America
      Summit Lighthouse….Mark & Elizabeth Prophet, 2 Witnesses from Book of Rev.

      Age of Aqaurius.

      Then you will know the truth of it all!!

  • Jeffrey

    I remember reading similar books when I was in high school, but it was never in the school books. I told people back in the 60′s that the war had nothing to do with freeing the slaves but to put pressure on England to withdraw their blockades and support for the south and to get them out of the war. (they didn’t believe me because these books were not in their required reading list.) At that time the south was winning. They portrayed him as honest Abe. I suppose that if Lincoln didn’t violate the constitution and the bill of rights the south would of won. I don’t know if that would of been good or bad, look at the US and Canada, we get along very well. I wish historians would be more honest, telling the good with the bad. The old testament is written that way and people learn from their mistakes. Read the last paragraph of this article by Conor if your a christian.


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.