Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

O Captain! My Tyrant!

February 13, 2012 by  

O Captain! My Tyrant!

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

Lincoln Liked Racial Inequality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln Opposed ‘The Consent Of The Governed’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam Rolley

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

Facebook Conversations

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

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

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

  • Michael J.

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

    • Martha

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

      • bernadine

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

        MAY GOD BLESS THIS COUNTRY AGAIN AMEN AMEN

        • Donald

          You are really nutty!

          • http://liberty Tony

            To Donald:
            Right on!!

          • Joe H.

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

        • Alex

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

        • Liberals-R-Stupid

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

      • Michael in Iowa

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

        • Charlie

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

          • http://google.com Rob Luna

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

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

      • JUKEBOX

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

        • Flashy

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

        • eddie47d

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

        • mark

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

      • TheOtherWhiteMeat

        CALLING JOHN WILKES BOOTH…..!

      • Stuart Shepherd

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

    • wandamurline

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

      • mark

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

        • Joe H.

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

      • skip

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

      • Stuart Shepherd

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

    • Disgusted Vet

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

      • Flashy

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

        • Michael in Iowa

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

        • Les

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

          • Flashy

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

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

            Dear Flashy,

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

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

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

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

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Flashy

            Mr. Livingston:

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

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

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

          • TML

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

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

          • ohoh

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

        • bob

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

          • Flashy

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

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

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

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

          • Opal the Gem

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

            Flushy is still revising history.

          • Flashy

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

          • Opal the Gem

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

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

          • Opal the Gem

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

          • eddie47d

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

          • Opal the Gem

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

          • Opal the Gem

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

          • independant thinker

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

          • Flashy

            Check out …

            Georgia
            Mississippi
            South Carolina
            Texas

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

            Source; Causes of the Civil War

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

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

          • TML

            Flashy… there was another reason for Secession. Executive Orders

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

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

          • Opal the Gem

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

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

          • ohoh

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

          • Average Joe

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

          • TML

            Average Joe,

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

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

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

          • TML

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

          • Average Joe

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

          • Dennis48e

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

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

        • Steve E

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

          • Flashy

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

        • Donald

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

        • TML

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

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

        • OLD STAR PACKER

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

      • JUKEBOX

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

        • Donald

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

        • mark

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

      • mark

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

        • Joe H.

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

    • Shavis

      Well said, Michael!

  • Kerry

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

    • wt

      Obama – martried one woman.

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

      • texastwin827

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

        • wt

          I was counting his mistresses

          • Sapphira Sez

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

          • Joe H.

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

        • Le Beauf

          Actually, Henry Vlll had six wives. Quite sufficient!

      • icetrout

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

        • wandamurline

          Halle juah.

        • Michael in Iowa

          Amen. JWB=tyrant killer!

          • Flashy

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

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

          • Average Joe

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

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

        • Don

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

        • Al Hill

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

      • JUKEBOX

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

        • Donald

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

          • JUKEBOX

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

          • Joe H.

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

    • wt

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

      • icetrout

        More like the Queer Pedophiles of Penn State.

        • JUKEBOX

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

    • wt

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

    • Flashy

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

    • Steve E

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

  • FlaJim

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

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

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

    • wt

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

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

      • Sapphira Sez

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

      • Capitalist at Birth

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

      • JUKEBOX

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

        • eddie47d

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

          • Average Joe

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

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

    • Flashy

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

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

      • Capitalist at Birth

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

        • Flashy

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

      • Opal the Gem

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

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

        • Flashy

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

          The South began the war.

          • TML

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

            NO Union soldier was killed in Fort Sumpter.

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

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

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

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

          • Opal the Gem

            And once again you lie.

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

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

    • DG

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

    • mark

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

      • Average Joe

        Such language for a supposedly winning adventurer…..

        • libertytrain

          No kidding….

      • Nadzieja Batki

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

        • Joe H.

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

    • brkshoe

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

  • wt

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

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

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

    • John H.

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • Capitalist at Birth

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

    • Michael J.

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

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

      • Sapphira Sez

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

        • Chris

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

          • Joe H.

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

    • JUKEBOX

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

      • AK Tom

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

        • JUKEBOX

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

  • Dwight Mann

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

    • Maryland Freestater

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Just saying. Anonymous anybody?

  • Flashy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • wt

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

      • Flashy

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

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

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

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

        One has to wonder….

        • Ted Crawford

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

          • Flashy

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

        • DG

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

          • Flashy

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

          • Opal the Gem

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

      • John H.

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

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

      • JUKEBOX

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

      • Joe H.

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

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

      Dear Flashy,

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

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

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

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

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

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Flashy

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

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

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

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

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

        Respectfully …

        • JUKEBOX

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

          • Flashy

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

            ’nuff said

          • JUKEBOX

            Yes, I believe France did.

          • Joe H.

            JUKEBOX,
            CORRECT!

        • DG

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

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

          • Flashy

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

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

          • libertytrain

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

          • eddie47d

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

          • Joe H.

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

        • Steve E

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

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

          Dear Flashy,

          You write: Last I (sic) looked, Virginia was a member of the Union then and now. A state could not secede…” That would come as a great surprise to Jefferson, Madison and other Founding Fathers. Look at the text of the Declaration of the Independence: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the power of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation… That to secure these rights, Government are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

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

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

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

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

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

          Best wishes,
          Bob

          • Flashy

            Mr. Livingston:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Dear Flashy,

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

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

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

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Sirian

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

          • Joe H.

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

  • JJ SANDLIN

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

  • texastwin827

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

    • Michael J.

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

      • Flashy

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

        • Average Joe

          flashy,

          Historical Outline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          • Flashy

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

          • Average Joe

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

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

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

          • Flashy

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

            Ever wonder why that is?

          • Jay

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

          • Average Joe

            Flashy,

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

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

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

          • Conservative Canadian

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

          • Flashy

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

          • Steve E

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

          • DG

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

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

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

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

            Winners write history. Truth comes later by research.

          • Isaac Davis

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

          • Joe H.

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

  • Supertad108

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

  • Michael J.

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

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

  • Robert Button

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

    • Beverly Price

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

      • Libertytrain

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

      • brkshoe

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

  • wt

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

  • wt

    All men are born equally free.
    Salmon P. Chase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • cawmun cents

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

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

      Take note,and take heart.

      Cheers!
      -CC.

      • Donald

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

    • Isaac Davis

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

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

      Molon Labe

    • Joe H.

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

  • Vulpine

    Just remember. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

  • Rene

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

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

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

  • Robert E.

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

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

    • John H.

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

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

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

      • Flashy

        Liberia, not Nigeria

        • John H.

          Sorry about that, momentary lapse… comes with age.

          • Flashy

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

        • Steve E

          Both countries are screwed up anyway

      • Dixie Suzan

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

  • Norm

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

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

    • Norm

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

      Southern leaders including Davis and Lee should have been hanged.

      • Joe H.

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

    • John H.

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

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

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

    • Sol of Texas

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

    • Steve E

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

  • John H.

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

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

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

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

    • http://personallibertydigest Gottaplenty

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

    • Joe H.

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

  • David Michael Myeers

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

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

    • Flashy

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

      • Joe H.

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

  • Supertad108

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

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

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

    • Flashy

      What part of the Obama quote are you disagreeing with?

      • Average Joe

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

      • cawmun cents

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

        • Joe H.

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

      • Isaac Davis

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

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

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

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

        • Joe H.

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

  • Dens

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

  • RivahMitch

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

  • Marty

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

    • wandamurline

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

      • Flashy

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

        • Average Joe

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

          • Flashy

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

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

          • Average Joe

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

          • Flashy

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

          • Buster the Anatolian

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

          • Average Joe

            Buster the Anatolian,

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

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

    • OBAMA HATER 4 SURE

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

    • Isaac Davis

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

    • Joe H.

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

  • OBAMA HATER 4 SURE

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

  • armyblue

    Latest example of “testing the waters” is his controversial health care effecting Catholic Hospital care. “Two steps forward, one step back.” All the hallmarks of “following Lincoln.”

    • Flashy

      The only thing controversial about it is the far right and the GOP are attempting to make political points out of health care for women and falsely hyping it as an attack against religion.

      It’s currently the law in the majority of states, the majority of Catholic related employers already provide such health care, more than 95% of women of child bearing age use birth control (including Catholic women), and it was made known to be a proposal more than two months ago.

      • Average Joe

        And, it was shot down last week (yes, your glorious mesiah caved under pressure and recinded it)….did you conveniently leave that part out?

        • Flashy

          hmmm…last i heard and read (this morning), the requirement to provide for women’s helath care was still in place. The Catholic Church related employers were relieved of paying for it.

          Mind…This uproar about women’s health is by a religion who places women in a second class tier refusing to allow them to be priests because they are (according to the Church) unable to give orders to men. (Catholic.com)

          Notice they aren’t protesting viagra being covered by health policies.

          • Joe H.

            Viagra is not going to murder an unborn infant!! They have already come up with a FEMALE version of “viagra”, as well!

          • libertytrain

            Flash makes no sense at all. What does Viagra have to do with killing babies, or preventing babies? Perhaps no one told him what it is for…And another peculiar thing is that so many posters for or against the Church, seem to think it is run by the American view point. It’s not.

          • TomP

            I am not Catholic but I do understand my Christian faith unlike you who apply secular understanding to spiritual issues. It’s a reflexion of the Creation order. It’s not about inequality. The apostle Paul reiterates “there is niether Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female”. Jesus was subject to the Father’s will and not his own. And yet He was equal with the Father in position. But there is a difference in function.

            You sound like my brothers who twist Scripture to fit there own idology rather than allow it to change our fallen, rebellious nature. I already can hear your response to this if you even see it.

  • http://www.OlGreyGhost.Blogspot.com Ol’ Grey Ghost

    Lincoln never freed anyone. Even his “Emancipation Proclamation” didn’t free anyone where he had some form of authority to act, like contraband slaves held by his military forces, but was only valid in those places he had no such authority, like the Southern States that were not yet occupied by Northern forces.

    Slavery has never left the shores of America. It has, thanks to Lincoln, merely been collectivized.

    http://olgreyghost.blogspot.com/2009/12/slavery-alive-well-and-perfectly-legal.html

  • Marty

    Wanda you are judging without fact, and strictly by facre. You are trying to label what happened to Obamas a norm which effects every man. I think what you need to do is answer my question, or show fact. Why did Lincoln fill his administration with the biggest anti-slavery influences in the country? Lincoln wrote “every man deserves a chance under the Constitution, even the balck man”. If you are sorry the south lost the war, thats fine, but dont try to re-write history to justify the your decision.

  • Ted Crawford

    I’veng held just these thoughts, but almost never found anyone who shared it. When I was in High School History, one day the thought came to me that this was the moment our Republic began it’s deterioration into this weak Democracy we suffer under today. Saddly it’s very clear that if we don’t put a stop to it, and very, very quickly, it will continue to collapse into a Dictatorship!
    We were warned of exactly this by Alexander Fraser Tyler! Back in 1787

  • Marty

    The “Emancipation proclamation” was a political move which was intended to detour Europe from entering the war on the side of the south, and it worked. Lincoln admitted he did not alone have the power to end slavery in the south, but that was the goal, it was to start by eleminating slavery from expanding with the new territories. Knowing full well the tide against slavery was only a matter of time. Lincoln had every intention of supporting the end of slavery, and that is why he filled his administration with the country’s top anit-slavery men, including Seward, Chase, and Bates. The south brought on their own demise by firing upon Federal troops. Lincoln was not going to fire the first shot, but when the south did, they blew it big time. If you are sorry for that, fine, but dont try to re-write history to justify your decision.

    • Joe H.

      Marty,
      Same question, Then why was he willing to let slavery continue in the northern states??? you seem to ignore that FACT in every post you type!

  • Sam Glionna

    Too bad this can’t be taught in every school….oh, sorry truth is not allowed in communist dictatorship countries with muslim presidents….back to the propaganda.

    • Flashy

      Darn good thing we don’t have a communist dictatorship nor a muslim president eh?

      • Average Joe

        Dang Flashy, you’re just full of yourself today, eh? What are you, the good humor guy? Considering your bloviating comments today, you are unusually ingnorant to the world around you……but, I must admit…I find you to be quite amuzing as well as a mindless (literally) drone.
        As usual, nothing to back up your ridiculous claims (throughout your many posts)….just keep bloviating and maybe, just maybe…you might start to believe yourself ( highly unlikely as you don’t have brain power required)….oh well, back to your finger paints and Jax…..

        • Flashy

          Joe…despite your fervent desires, we have neither a communist dictatorship in this country nor do we have a muslim president.

          Live with it

          • Average Joe

            I see you still haven’t looked into this thing called reality…I really didn’t expect anything of substance to come from you…and neither does anyone else on this site. But, hey…if it floats your boat…remain ignorant. As for your reply above (Historic Outline) …I had already stated that you wouldn’t do the reasearch…because if you had…your fallacies and comments would show you for what you are…an uneducated half wit with no desire to find truth and believe only what you deem to be the truth…without regard to any facts presented to….you are right and the rest of the world is wrong….a legend in your own mind…..your personal motto:

            I don’t believe it. Prove it to me and I still won’t believe it.
            Douglas Adams

          • Joe H.

            Flushy,
            I don’t know about that. We sure as hell don’t have a Christian president!!! not when he promotes and supports partial birth abortion! not when he attends Rev. rights church for twenty years! not when, as a younger man, he admits that he dealt drugs on the street! christian? I think not!

  • Viet Nam Vet 67-68

    While however wrong for what he did he did manage to free the slaves and keep our Country together otherwise we would have not continued on a path we have taken until now. Starting with Roozevelt and continuing up to the Great King Obamination the Half White (not BLACK) for you Black people, we now have Communism with a Congress that backs him. Can’t wait to see how all you Liberals out there get what you want with a Lame Duck America HaterCommunist Radical Muslim Illegal gets a second term all your rights along with ours will be gone and you will live in poverty like the rest of us. If you havn’t noticed there is only two types in Communism that is the POOR and the Ultra Rich.

  • http://Personalliberty Tony

    To Everyone:
    It’s true, Abraham Lincoln wasn’t the great leader that history made him out to be. Also, he wasn’t as enlighten on race matters neither.
    I mean, he did make racist remarks and stated he wasn’t for race equality. In addition, he along with his wife were corrupt. However,
    as the civil war progressed, Lincoln became wiser. He grew to understand that all people have to be included in the republic. I think if he would of survived, the U.S. would of been a better place.
    Next, to the subject of the Confederacy. They’re nothing to be proud about. For the Confederacy believed in tyranny. They wanted to expand the institution of slavery in new territories to keep it from declining. In addition, they wanted to delete the constitution, absolve the Union. Then, create an Aristocracy planter dictatorship.
    Overall, the Civil war on the side of the South was a rich man’s war and a poor one’s fight. Fat, lazy wealthy plantation owners would sit on their backsides drinking mint juleps and send poor white farmers plus their black servants to do battle. Alright, that’s all for now. Thanks!!

    • Craig

      Even though the CSA wanted to expand slavery I think it would have been a moot point. With the coming Industrial Age and the invention of many new agricultural machines, slavery would have eventually become untenable and not cost effective. It would have disappeared in more peaceful manner as in other countries.

    • Sol of Texas

      The south was not as homogenous as some posters seem to believe. Most southerners did not own slaves and didn’t like the “wealthy plantation owners”. I guess “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” is no longer required reading in the government schools.

      However, most southerners disliked the “pasty faced” yankees even more so. They didn’t wish to go in the directions the yankees were taking them. So they largely resisted the north’s attempt to control their lives.

      As the author notes, the result was the creation of a powerful central government. Lincoln’s actions clearly undermined civil liberties both north and south. In so doing, he set dangerous precedents for today’s movement toward a totalitarian form of government.

      • http://Personalliberty Tony

        To Sol of Texas:
        It’s true that there were southerners who were abolitionists. Good examples, Generals Robert E.Lee, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, Jeff Bell
        Hood, and Roger Clegburne were all against slavery. They, even, pushed to have blacks fight in their units. However, the main principle of the Confederacy was to expand slavery into new territories. The reason for this was the slavery institution was dying out. Therefore, new areas were needed to revive it. Again, as mentioned earlier, the major goal of the south was to create an aristocracy planter dictatorship. This was because plantation owners were the richest members of American society at that time. Thanks!!

  • caroline

    This must be why Obama is so enamored with Old Abe. He loves him and wants to be just like him!

  • Marty

    Well Mr. Obama Hater, I am seeing a whole lots accusation in here, but have not seen one ounce of proof. Pro-southern articles, written by Southern sympathizers do not qualify.

  • Marty

    http://lincolnandslavery.com/lsjom/document/complete-lincoln-concerning-slavery-article.html

    Research indeed! Lincon’s writings expose his personal belief that slavery was wrong, in fact, he hated the institution of slavery.

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

      Dear Marty,

      “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.” Abraham Lincoln, debate with Stephen Douglas in Ottawa, Ill., 1858.

      “Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this… We cannot, then, make them equals.” Abraham Lincoln.

      “On at least fourteen occasions between 1854 and 1860, Lincoln said unambiguously that he believed the Negro race was inferior to the White race. In Galesburg, he referred to ‘the inferior races.’ Who were the ‘inferior races’? African Americans, he said, Mexicans, who he called ‘mongrells,’ (sic) and probably all colored people.” Leron Bennett Jr., editor Ebony magazine.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Flashy

        It is clear from the notes of Frederick Douglas made after the famous meeting with black leaders that Lincoln was of the opinion that the races could not then, nor ever, peacefully co-exist.

        Those were the times they lived.

        I believe we are, for the most part, more knowledgable in that regard.

      • http://yahoo.com ted

        bob, ur talking about the 1860s. do u really believe that lincoln should have run around telling everyone the blacks were equal to whites? i dont think he would had to many states left to fight on the norths side if any. it was a very touchy subject. the blacks were considered worse then the dirt under ur toenails. how would tell the people of that time that blacks were equal. i dont think he wanted to be impeached.

  • Rick

    What states did Lincoln create without the consent of the citizens?

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

    How many times in these comments has the term “civil war” appeared? Look up the defintion of that term and you will see that what occurred on this continent in the 1860s does not meet that definition. A “civil war” is a war waged by two opposing factions of the SAME nation attemping to gain control of that nation. The CSA was a duly and legally established sovereign nation with its own constitution and government, duly elected by the people of that nation. Lincoln’s war was in fact an attack against a sovereign nation that desired only peace and to be left to conduct its own affairs in accordance with the wishes of its citizens.
    BTW – That constitution effectively outlawed slavery, unlike the US Constitution that required an amendment to do so. Also, ask yourself a question. How many slaves were brought to these shores on a ship flying the flag of the Confederacy? The answer is NONE! They were brought mostly by ships flying the flag of the US, the flag of slavery.

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

    West Virgnia

  • http://personallibertydigest Gottaplenty

    Ive explained this before , We are all born equal, That simply means we were born with no clothes on. From that day on things changed.

  • Karl Markuson

    This is a shock to me. Although I don’t idolize him, I though him honorable. For the record, I never thought the Civil War was intended to free the slaves.

    My reason for writing is to make a request. I would appreciate having a bibliography to research for myself, the ascertains presented.

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

      Dear Karl Markuson,

      Here is a good place for you to start:

      The Civil War, by Bruce Catton;

      Bruce Catton’s Civil War: 3 Volumes in 1, by Bruce Catton;

      The Civil War: A Narrative (3 vol. set), by Shelby Foote;

      The Real Lincoln, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo;

      The Constitution in Exile, by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Flashy

        I would add

        “Abraham Lincoln and a New Birth of Freedom’ Howard Jones
        “The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery” Foner
        “The Political Economy of Slavery’ Genovese

        And a good fictional work fairly accurate would be “Lincoln”, Vidal

        • Average Joe

          “And a good fictional work fairly accurate would be “Lincoln”, Vidal”

          Good choice there Flashy… yup, that’ll give us an accurate look into the life of Lincoln…..LMAO

          fic·tion (fkshn)
          n.
          1.
          a. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
          b. The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.
          2. A lie.
          3.
          a. A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.
          b. The category of literature comprising works of this kind, including novels and short stories.
          4. Law Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator.

          Flashy, your silliness just doesn’t get any better than this…do you also walk into walls a lot… because your eyes seem to be always closed?
          Dude, you are seriously, one messed up individual….seek proffessional help.

  • Mike T.

    Americans REALLY need to re-take history classes. I’ve known for years that Lincoln intended to send most if not all blacks back to Africa to keep our races separate. Today’s mindset should call him ‘The Great Racist’ instead of ‘The Great Emancipator’. Slaves in the Union border states were not freed until after the war was over. We all have been massively brainwashed.

  • gary

    I see now why Obama says he favors Lincoln.

  • Lyell

    I recall a history class at West Virginia University, taught by Wayne Holliday. Mr. Holliday circulated a copy of Lincoln’s bill of sale from the sale of his slaves (it was dated a few days before the release of the Emancipation Proclamation). If I recall, there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 to 20, who brought $70+ thousand. Remember…Lincoln was a LAWYER but he didn’t invent insider trading.

    The balance of the ‘Lincoln’ section dealt with exactly what’s been covered here. Thanks for posting this…nobody will believe me when I tell them what a complete SOB Lincoln was.

    • Flashy

      Sorry…but there is no record of Lincoln owning slaves. Common sense tells one that if such a document of what you purort did indeed exist, it would be well known and…tellingly, worht millions. Not something one would have at a lecture for students.

      Is there nothing that is out of bounds in trying to make up history to fit some weird wild tale?

      Try again.

    • Dixie Suzan

      L:incoln did NOT own slaves. That is because slave ownership in Illinois was illegal. It was illegal also in Indiana and Ohio and Michigan and Minnesotta as well. It was illegal because these states were formed out of the grant of land from the State of Virginia to the Federal government under a document called the Northwest Ordinance. The Northwest ordance gave all the land of those states with the requirement that NO slavery was to be allowed in them. Those states could never vote in slavery because that would violate their terms of creation. Slave owning Virginia required that of them. In the Revolutionary war the State of Virginia formed its own army of Virginians without the assistance of any other state and marched into the West to free that area from British troops who were also promoting Indian attacks on helpless settlers. Virgina’s army conquered it ALL. It all became part of Virgnia under international law of title by conquest. The central government was short of money. Virginai gave their land to the central government specifically under the Northwest ordinance with all its stipulations and provisions. Minimum of 5 states to be formed and the central government now had a source of income. It was to sell the land to settlers at low price. Populate the west and get funding. The Ohio company was settled by members of the Virginia army who were included as having a right to simply claim lands without money purchase. They had won it with their blood, they got a chunk for their own homes and farms. No charge in money.

      And so Lyell it was people of these states whose existance rested upon a grant of slave holding Virginia and whose lack of slavery within their state rested on a legal requirement of slave holding Virginia who went to war against Virginias because of “slavery” and Virginia secession. Virginia in its ratification of the US Constitution had a expressed specific reserved right to secede if the Federal government became corrupt. No one mentions that anymore. To compell Virginia to remain at bayonet point was an act of tyrannical anti-law.

  • DG

    Mr. Sam Rolley,
    Re: lincoln article on Personal Liberty Digest

    Great work…
    Amazement was my first reaction that someone else has a grasp of what A.L. did prior and during the Civil War. Posthumus charges should be leveled against A.L. who is responsible for millions of deaths, property loss/distruction, rape, thieft etc during that conflict. All members of the fed congress that went along with the illegal conduct should be removed from US soil and buried elsewhere. The judge should have a statue made to replace the one of A.L. in DC. A.L. should be removed from Mount Rushmore as well.

    The current setting pres has stated that A.L. is his personal hero. Well we know what that means when one looks up to a despot…he becomes one.

    Eli Whitney on March 14, 1794 invented the cotton gin. Machines had begun to replace field hands and most slaves had a better life than millions of whites at the time. This information does not make me a slave monger. Just facts.

    When will the real truth of history be taught to americans? I did not use a capital ‘A’ in americans be cause we have not been sovereign citizens since the end of the Civil War.

    I believe Jefferson said that a little revolution every 200 years might be a good thing.

    • Flashy

      As long as you are not teaching it, we know history being taught will be more accurate than whatever tale of fiction you just wrote about.

      Jeesh …

      • DG

        Flashy, who do you think created the cotton gin? Do you understand what history is about? Can you put it into context or just lash out with inane comments. So sorry, I just came down to your level. And I do teach history. You should take a remedial class and stop spending your time on this site until you can be a valid contributor. You really need help.

        • Flashy

          DG…I did not dispute the inventor of the cotton gin. I disputed your contention that it would have led to the end of slavery via economic necessity.

          It was the cause for more acreage and greater cotton production. Now whom do you think worked and harvested those increasing fields, Mickey Mouse?

          I believe the very existence of the Underground Railway as well as numerous personal accounts of life as a slave belies your contention life as a slave was better than the lower class of white.

          As to your calim you teach history…such is the best argument I have heard for implenting competency tests for teachers. What level of history? 3rd Grade?

    • Dixie Suzan

      DG – I would call the “Civil War” the War Between the States. The Civil War implies that it is one nation fighting itself in internecine war. Secession was perfectly legal and lawful. For Lincoln or anyone else to claim it to be illegal is a tremendous perversion of English and Amrican law. What amazes me is anybody would believe secession to be illegal. Especially in 1860 when there were still alive people who had lived at the time the Colonies seceeded from King George III and British rule. The United States, founded on a English legal and lawful ordinance of sucession under law done JUly2, 1776 and explained in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. The whole US Federal government existing because of sucession sustained by successful military force. To then claim no State can seceed is in incredible. Who would believe it??? Yet 100,000′s did. The War Between the States killed or maimed 12% to 15% of the entire population of the country. That includes the civilians whom no one counted at the time. And I see Obama doing exactly what George III was doing in essence. Withdrawing government protection of US citizens against invading gangsters from head hunting drug cartels importing tons of dope and illegal aliens. Obama fighting States to keep them from protecting themselves. Protection and allegiance are linked. It is a mutual contract. One side shatter it and the other side has no duty any longer. The duty of allegiance of the citizen for the absoolute right of protection of life, liberty and property. Severe protection and duty of allegiance is gone. It is history repeating itself with a new batch of idiots.

      • DG

        Correct on the Civil War term. I use it as a reference point only and not a description of the conflict since the term is time placement. My home town was destroyed twice by the aggression of the North and twice by the CSA…we don’t trust anyone because time will tell.

        The truth is out there…

        • Flashy

          If the north was an aggressor and destroyed your home town, what is the rebel army called in its destruction?

      • absolutely amazed

        I cannot – but rather now I can – believe these blogs. This is the most amazing nonsense I have ever read. Most of you are in favor of “states rights,” that there is in fact no basis for the “United States of America” and that any state can secede any time it feels it wishes to. What bull—-! It is now so apparent why Obama has had such a rough time – you all simply consider blacks inferior, period. Disgusting!! But I beg you, and the states you represent, to please secede and get the heck out of the US, and reconstitute the Confederate States of Bigotry and Exploitation, and leave the rest of us alone. Arm yourselves, arm your borders, so the rest of us will not have any wish whatsoever to interact with such a degenerate set of presumed human beings of the type that would author such offensive blogs. God save this nation from the likes of you.

  • Craig

    Also, you should read the book “Lincoln’s Marxists”. It shows how the socialists and Marxists from the failed 1848 European revolutions rallied to Lincoln’s side and fought for him in the Union armies and the reasons why. Goes through explanations why Lincoln thought the War Between the States was necessary. It wasn’t for abolishing slavery!

  • Dixie Suzan

    A very accurate piece here.
    Look up a 2009 book
    Lincoln uber alles (subtitle-dictatorship comes to America)

  • Marty

    http://lincolnandslavery.com/lsjom/document/complete-lincoln-concerning-slavery-article.html

    Mike read this it is enlightening, Lincoln was a realist, he would like to have sent the negros to Africa, but he knew the impractablity of such an action and so ruled it out. He hated slavery, but also realized the mass chaos of turning several hundred thousand negros upon society without training or education. He wanted to end slavery but he wanted to emancipate them slowly, for the ease to themselves and to society. It is amazing, he says these things in his own writing, yet still we see articles like this, those who favored the south of 1860, so try and change history to justify their decision. As if they are so clever, they no more about Lincoln than he did himself obviously, since his writing so opposit their own opinions. What is wrong with that picture?

    • Dixie Suzan

      Marty – It doesn’t matter what Lincoln wanted to do. The powers of the Presidency and the expressed delegated powers of the Federal civil government are plain and clear. The Presidency has no power to free slaves by decree. In fact to claim power to do anything by decree using the public office of Presidency to do it is to encroach on the legislative branch of Federal government. US Constitution; Article I, Section 1 – ALL LEGISLATIVE POWERS HEREIN GRANTED shall be vested in a Congress of the United States—-
      And one may point out that “ALL LEGISLATIVE POWERS HEREIN GRANTED” did NOT include the power to legislate by Congressional bill any freeing of slaves, so even Congress had NO authority to do it unless the Constitution was first amended to extend that granted power. The Constitution is amendable by Presidential decree. The Constitution never claims for itself infalable law, which is why methods of amendment are provided within it. Presidential decree because of Presidential desire is NOT a amendment method contained within the document.

  • Dixie Suzan

    By the way, most folks don’t know it but the Confederacy formed a Constitution. They inserted the word slave in it deliberately and modified a few sentences, but basically it was the US Constitution in 98% format. Two groups of states fighting each other and both essentually using the same Constitution. The War between the States was a war over Constitutional government versus centralized unconstitutional usurped powers concentrated in Washington under a shallow veneer of Constitutional law.

    • http://Personalliberty Tony

      To Dixie Suzan:
      As i told others, i’ll tell you. The Goals of the south, during the
      Civil War, was to abolish the national constitution, delete the union,
      and create an aristocracy planter dictatorship. Nothing more nothing less. Also, i re-emphasize, the Civil war on the South’s side was a Richman’s war, a poor one’s fight/battle. Huge plantation owners would sit in their wicker chairs drinking mint juleps, while dirt poor
      white farmers and black servants were sent to the front lines to catch the Union’s bullets. In addition, not to be facetious,but why would you try to defend the Confederacy. They saw women the same as the black servants, property. Alright, have a good afternoon.

      • Dixie Suzan

        Tony – As with most things of this nature, the issue has many facets. #1 The South was the richest part of the nation. The US was an agricultutal nation, and the big bucks came from the South. #2 95% of the worlds cotton supply came from the South. It went to England where the spinning mills were most promonent, the original origins of the Industrial Revolution. The southerners had some money shipped back, but put much of their profits in English banks. They then ordered and purchased English goods by bank draft. This meant a huge amount of imports of foreign goods into the America. #3 There was a Federal import duty on all imported goods. Most imported goods were done by the richer South. 85% of all the Federal government funds to run the Federal government came from import duties. The South in essence funded the operation of Washington by a large amount over the Northern states. #4 Rich tidewater areas had the big plantations. Upper hill folks were independent yeoman and freehold farmers without slaves. A good slave male fieldhand in 1860 cost $1,000. The 1860 pay of a private in the US army was $8 a month. But the Southern yeomen were heavily Presbyterian and Calvinists. They had a large amount of Scotch-Irish members. That is why the Confederate battle flag contains the corner to corner cross of St. Andrew, which is the cross on the flag of Scotland, St. Andrew being the patron saint of Scotland. #6 Presbyterians and Calvinists were very much attuned to English law and knew all the doctrines against tyrant British kings because many of them had written it. These people were the ones who had come to America to escape British tyranny. They certainly are not going to put up with a wacko Lincoln. #7 Whe Union troops marched through the mountains of the South they often burnt the Prebyterian churches. They recognized where much Confederate opposition came from. #8 To equate the entire mess with rich slave holders is absurd. In Lousiana and especially New Orleans were many blacks who owned large plantations of slaves. To join their club you had to have land worth $25,000 a fortune back then. #9 Many black males bought their own wives from the slave market. That way the women could not just run off. The slave laws allowed them to be returned if they ran away. #10 Not all slaves were black, many were white. In Washington D.C. the sheriff was caught selling new Irish female immigrants right off the boat into brothels as slaves. The law stated the sheriff could arrest any suspected runaway slave. He arreste Irish female immigrants. If no owner appeared to claim them he could sell them to recoop the costs on incarceration. He was a major source of brothel material in Washington. This happened in other places as well.

        And so my lad, not all is one sentence simple answer on this topic. My best.

        • http://Personalliberty Tony

          To Dixie Suzan:
          What you recited, is info. learned back in highschool along with college years. I know all about this. Also, i know about the slave market on white indentured servants in addition to black slave plantation owners. The point i’m getting across that the Confederacy is nothing to write home about. Plus they’re a poor example of state
          hegemony. Basically, for the last time, the South wanted to create a tyranny and expand the institution of slavery. Google on the internet
          , The knights of the Golden circle, and what their goals were. You’ll see what i mean. Farewll!!

        • DG

          Well put.

  • Eagle525

    Understand and live by the words of Thomas Jefferson:
    “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical”.
    Thomas Jefferson

    “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty”.
    Thomas Jefferson

    ………Nuff said

  • Marty

    Dixie, read my article, Lincoln says that himself. He admitted he had no power to mandate an end to slavery, but this article is still a lie, as that in itself is no proof that Lincoln “liked racial equality”, and was not anti-slavery. His own writing prove this article a lie. But Lincoln knew full well that the institution of slavery was doomed in the end. The only ones still supporting it in 1860, were the southern elitists, those who got rich off free labor. Eventually the south would have to give it up from pressure from the people and the Federal Government who placed tariffs upon product put up by slave labor. What you say is correct, but it still has no defense to this article which is a bold faced lie.

  • JSan

    When the United States become ruled by a tyrant, it is not only are right as citizens, but are duty to remove them from office.

  • Marty

    Ooopps that should read racial inequality above.

  • Wyatt

    Interesting comments and discussion . I would however ask,”What the hell does Abraham Lincoln have to do with what is occuring in America today?”, other than Obama likes to compare himself to him and other long dead Presidents, and misquote each and everyone of those he compares himself to.
    Obama is a die hard Communist, raised on Communist rhetoric and ideals. While at Harvard it is well known that he took every course dealing with and or taught by Communist leaning professor and was a card carrying member of the Communist Party. And married or not, in those days he was a known gay and in all probability still is .
    All of that has no bearing on the matter at hand. Obama has but one goal. one agenda that he has steadily been advancing . To Destroy America ! Each attempt to erode our liberties by ignoring any and all parts of our Constitution that impede him in his march to create his own dictatorship. In essence, he is nothing more than a wanna be dictator in a cheap and badly fitted suit. And anyone who cant see that is either blind or a Communist himself.

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

      Dear Wyatt,

      The article is relevant because Lincoln’s tyranny set the stage for the situation we find ourselves in today.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

    • Rhondar

      Lincoln suspended part of the constitution….kind of like today isn’t it

  • Mike

    Excellent article. It should be required reading in every school in America. After reading this there should be no doubt that Lincoln was a murdering traitor who should have been impeached and removed from office for high treason. However he was not the first tyrant to hold the office of President. That dubious distinction belongs to Andrew Jackson. By his defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the Cherokee Nation which led to their forced deporation on the Trail of Tears he set the stage for Lincoln and his unconstitutional actions later on. Lord Acton’s dictom “Power corrupts,and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” has never been more completely proven to be true than in the case of these two dictators. One is responsible for every death on the Trail of Tears and the other is responsible for every death during the War Between the States. (I refuse to call it the Civil War because there was very little that was civil about it.)

  • Steve E

    Lincoln was a tyrant and a mass murderer. John Wilkes Booth sent the bastard to hell.

  • Yvonne Johnson

    If you have read many of Lincoln’s speeches, you would know that he did care deeply about the plight of slaves. He believed that slavery was an abomination, but that the constitution did not give him the authority to end it. He planned to end it by containing it and spoke about this. The South was right in their belief that a Lincoln presidency would effectually end slavery. If they had not seceded it would have just taken a little more time. I am a firm conservative, and I know that Lincoln was a good man and a great leader. In times of war many rights are often trampled, sometimes it is necessary. When fighting a civil war it would be necessary to suspend habeus corpus, otherwise the court system would be overrun with POW’s. I wish that Southerners would get over the fact that they lost, and just admit that it was a good thing to keep the US united.

    • Rhondar

      no he didn’t….that’s a fairy tale….he talked about how inferior they were to whites….wanted to return them to Africa….you don’t know your history.

  • Pappyonline

    It surprises me that so many people are biased and blinded to historical facts.

    Having been born in prewar Europe and lived through WWII, I understand how Hitler gained control over an intelligent and responsible German public.

    Hitler’s planned government although socialistic, was much more like the fascist government of Mussolini’s in Italy.(Obama seems more inclined toward a fascist style of government control than a socialist. Example: control, not ownership, of banking and business by regulation and law.)

    I do NOT consider President Obama a Hitler but there are similarities worth noting. Here are some facts and comparisons. You judge.

    He rose to power by adding to the turmoil that existed in the inflation ridden post WWI Germany. (We have a nation in turmoil and rhetoric aside, the root causes are being fueled not assuaged.)

    Hitler was a charismatic leader, strongly promoting a nationalistic agenda. (Our President is a charismatic leader but he is not promoting a nationalistic agenda – a real weakness as that has little appeal to most people here).

    Hitler planned world domination through war (Mien Kampf). (Obama is opposed to war but he is after power, how much is yet to be determined).

    He did not promise a lot of free stuff but he did promise a better future and a strong Germany. (This is almost identical to Obama except Hitler followed through with solid examples strengthening Germany. Obama is not doing that.)

    Here is a key difference in the two. The US population is strongly dependent on government money, unlike that Germany which believed in individual responsibility. This is a US weakness and the biggest strength for Obama being able to maintain power.

    Hitler appealed to nationalism and racism in his attack on the Jews, although his hidden agenda was confiscation of their wealth. (Obama is using class warfare – the rich against the poor – but the bottom line is similar.)

    Hitler gradually reneged on promise after promise, while building a network of a public army that was eventually able to squash public descent and take over the wealth of the Jewish population. (Obama proposed a civilian army that would rival our military, early in his rise to power but to my knowledge has not acted on it does not have an effective way to galvanize support for it.)

    Summary: Obama’s strength lies in the dependence of 50% of the population being dependent on the welfare state. His weakness is his lack of appeal to a strong nation agenda where people “rally ’round the flag” so to speak. It comes down to whether personal responsibility or a “me first” win out in the next election.

    These are most of the major points. I welcome opinions, pro and con, when they are informed

    • absolutely amazed

      What absolute nonsense – how do you conjure up such irrational thought processes. Obama came to office when the economy was wrecked by the preceding administrations and hyper-kleptocapitalistic excess, when the totally unjustified Iraq war was a leading concern of and rejection by a majority of Americans. To remotely compare Obama to Hitler is dementia – your arguments are tortured, circular, paranoid at best. Get some help somewhere. Sure, there are class differences here that can get people exercised – 40 million with no or totally inadequate health insurance, a higher percentage of people living in poverty than in any developed nation, lack of access to decent education by a huge proportion of the population, highest infant mortality rate in the developed world, more income/wealth inequality in the developed world except for Israel (where the indigenous Arab population is essentially marginalized as the cause) and Mexico, etc. You know and I know that the underlying reason you compare Obama to Hitler or a Marxist etc. is a profound, imbedded sense of racism – it Obama declares the world round, you and your fellow travellers will object and tell us it is flat. And now a lot of the bloggers on this site are demonizing Lincoln. Nutzo!

  • Marty

    Of he course he was Mike, sure he was, lets pay NO attention to what he himself wrote, but lets fall in line with those who will change history to meet their own needs. They offer no proof, it does not coincide with Lincoln’s own writings, but hey, no matter, if it makes you feel all the better about yourself and your country, go ahead, piss all over the truth. Then you can pat yourself on the back and state proudly, I have passed judgment, we can all sleep better tonight. LOLOLOL You betcha. No wonder the country is going to blazes.

  • James Thompson

    The Constitution is in essence a contract between the many States, not to give up their soverienty but to join together for the common good as in any partnership. It is not inviolate and it is possible to negate a contract by one or more of the parties upon notice to the other parties of the contract. This agreement between the States is like any other agreement between parties rgardless of what is being done. If you hire someone to mow the lawn then either party can decline to continue the position and no harm no fowl.

  • william

    if the south had won abest what is now the USA would be 5 second line countries [alaska and hawaii controled by other nations]

  • KenPoland

    “- when Southern secessionists sought control of the U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter, S.C., and so began Lincoln’s tyranny.” Was Fort Sumter a part of the United States military forces? And who fired the first shots? It’s been a long time since I studied history, but as I recall it was the southern states who withdrew and then proceeded to take control of the U.S. installation. Those states withdrew before Pres. Lincoln took office.

    If any political group, whether it be a state or just a subdivision within a state, decides to commandeer one of our military bases, what should we do? If we allow ‘posse’ groups to defy State or National authority we will have effectively surrendered over two hundred years of solidarity of a union of states and peoples that have built the worlds greatest nation. That nation is not perfect, but it is the best.

  • Buck

    I have always held in my heart that Lincoln was insane , but nobody cared what I thought because I am just another nobody citizen .

  • KG

    This article is completly nuts. The gall of the Republicanreligiousright wingfacists to acuse liberals of rewriting history, and then turn around and rewrite history for their own evil agenda- that is the height of hypocrisy. Lincoln was trying to preserve the union of the united states. Did he lie while running for office? Of course he did! ALL POLITICIANS LIE. It’s what they are lying about – that’s what’s important. Our founding fathers struggled with slavery – it’s in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was sure that slavery could be outlawed in his lifetime. However, just like our problems with health care and federal budgets, the issue was deferred until it finally exploded with the civil war. Lincoln saw the United States as a UNITED COUNTRY. And it was “We, The People” that elected him. I think you guys forget that. Who is the government? We are – wether we like it or not. That’s why EVERYONE who is eligible to vote should vote. Believe me, if every eligible voter voted, our government would be very different.

    • ohoh

      I guess we the people are OK as long as we agree with you and Lincoln and, if we don’t, I guess we’re dead meat and that’s what our Founders somehow believed. Wow!

    • TML

      “Lincoln was trying to preserve the union of the united states…”

      …by the barrel of a gun.

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

      “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” – Thomas Jefferson 1st Inaugural Address 1801

      Lincoln was a tyrant, responsible for the deaths of 600,000 American’s, plain and simple.

  • Bill G.

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

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

    Lincoln says “unless my rightful masters, the American people…” then this author says he (Lincoln) had no regard for “consent of the governed”!

    This opinion by the author flies in the face of his own writing, and seems to be highly prejudiced opinion. For an opposing opinion from the Heritage Foundation, go here:
    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/10/lincoln-the-father-of-big-government/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

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

      Dear Bill G.

      The article by Heritage is historical revisionism at it finest and has no basis in fact.

      For a more accurate take on the Lincoln presidency, I submit to you The Real Lincoln, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, http://www.personalliberty.com/suggested-reading/the-real-lincoln/

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • http://yahoo.com ted

        bob u seem to think what u read is correct and everything eles is not true. ive read books about the clintons and reagens and depending on which book u read they are the greatest or the soriest people on the face of the earth. if u dont have anything good to say about someone u should not say anything at all. i dont believe u ever met mister lincoln have u?

        • Sirian

          ted,
          Perhaps you should practice what you preach. That would be only reasonable, would it not?

  • http://www.BibleProvenTrue.com Michael J Surwin

    All that happened was God’s permisive will. God is outside of time and can the end from the beginning. One does have free will. Lincoln fit into God’s plan. We know this by the famous quote from the Bible, that “A House Divided Cannot Stand”. Jesus first gave us this concept this when He was falsely accused of evil. Yes, God used Lincoln to excercise His Judgment on American and the End result is that this Nation repented and became much stronger, ultimately able to defend the World against Real Tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc.

  • 45caliber

    I’m not going to bother to get involved with this today beyond what I put in this single comment.

    When I was in school many, many years ago, I always wondered what the arguments were about and why they were insisting Lincoln was so great. (I will admit, I grew up here in the South.) 300,000+ Southern men did NOT die to protect the right to own slaves so that 1200 plantation owners could own them. Many of my relatives fought in that war (and some died) – most having never even seen a slave until they left to fight.

    The South, by and large, succeeded to prevent control by the Federal government. It was never intended by our founding fathers for the Federal government to have control over the states. The ONLY use for a federal authority was to take care of diplomatic and military problems with other countries, primarily those in Europe. The first Cabinet consisted of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War (not Defense), and the Secretary of Treasury which was obligated only to pay the bills of the other two departments.

    The South succeeded rather than going to war because the merchants in the North were trying to make the South their cash cow – or perhaps I should say, KEEP the South as their cash cow. They had passed laws to forbid the South from dealing with any merchants or ships from Europe – all such business was to go through the hands of the Northern merchants only. Since this was basically keeping the South poor, the people here were justifiably upset.

    And, if the war was really to free the slaves, why is it that the slaves in the North (and there were really more there than in the South) weren’t freed until about ten years later, after the veterans found this practice was continued in the North.

    • Rhondar

      very good comment 45 Caliber….I had never heard that theory. Thanks for posting

  • Rhondar

    Hee hee….and they called Ron Paul a racist for what someone else wrote in that newsletter??? Lincoln was a huge racist. He wanted to send them all back to Africa. Black people should never admire Abe.

  • Rhondar

    are you saying the Lincoln Douglas debate quote is incorrect? Read the debates and see for yourself…he was a racist

  • Eggy

    Kudos to the author of this article ! Our perverted educational system is influenced by politics at all levels. The American public has been/is brainwashed by both it, and the modern news media.
    Obama is correct in his comparisons of himself to Lincoln in most respects (except for the extreme “cronyism” that Obama practices). His oratory skills are highly polished and promote the Communist Manifesto’s agenda of Class Warfare – the “Have’s” against the “Have-Not’s”, not only in the USA, but around the world. Our country has become what exactly what we had fought against for over a century – a dictatorial government run by the Executive Branch with “rubber stamp” Legislative & Judicial Branches. It is the exact opposite of what our nation’s founders had hoped to create. Keeping the wealth of one’s labors and one’s personal liberties intact has become nearly impossible in this current environment. Cronyism, bribery, and intimidation are the tools of our current Mafia-style government.

  • Eggy

    I’ve got news for Bill G. What Lincoln said, and what Lincoln Did are two different things. He ignored the Legislature when he wished, as well as the Judicial. He figured (much like Obama of today) that when he got elected, he could do anything that HE wanted with disregard of the other two branches of government as well as the rights of the States (to which our Constitution gives ALL powers not specifically granted in it to Federal government – in simple terms – almost none – except for foreign trade and interstate trade) READ IT !!!
    TO 45CAL – Right ON !!!

  • OLD STAR PACKER

    Ted…Are you an idiot and still sleep with your mother ?
    Good grief.

  • http://facebbook David H Behrens

    Obama admires Lincoln and considers himself popular like Lincoln.

    If Obama wants to be really like Lincoln and act like and think like Lincoln, watch out America, hell is coming soon !!!

  • Mark K

    Thank goodness someone is repeating the proven, true story of Lincoln’s crimes. He, like so many other presidents, is falsely glorified, perhaps because he won a war of his own making, perhaps because no one wanted to believe that 600,000 men died for no reason or perhaps because the policy of “total war” and the burning of cities, homes and farms needed justification or maybe simply because he was murdered.
    There can be no justification for the acts of the Criminal Lincoln, perhaps someday we will have a trial to impeach him posthumously and record true history.
    Now, have you heard the truth about the crimes of General Sherman?

  • http://yahoo.com ted

    It sounds like to me the south is still a little upset about getting their butts whooped. tell it like it was bro, slavery ended under lincolns watch. thank god the south didnt win, or there still might be slavery today. big things happen when great men make them happen.

    • ohoh

      A lot of good Germans could have said the same thing about Hitler, I suppose.

  • Donald

    Just because opinions differ, does not make everyone on the other side a liar or an idiot. Also, just because someone wrote a book, does not necessarily mean that the author had all his facts straight, or that he,or she, drew the proper conclusions from the data presented.

  • Marty

    Well if any one takes the time to read it it, here it is in Lincoln’s own hand. It is pretty plain what he thought of slavery. Which would prove this article a lie.

    http://www.lincolnandslavery.com/lsjom/document/complete-lincoln-concerning-slavery-article.html

  • Rooster

    This is a grand piece of history that the majority of Americans are either ignorant of or in complete denial about. William Wilberforce, a British politician fought the slave trade for 26 years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1806. It ended the British slave trade. He continued to be involved in the support of the complete abolition of slavery until 1833 when the Slavery Abolition Act was passed. All of this was done peacefully, lawfully and without blood-shed. Lincoln waged a bloody war on his own countrymen and brought in 100+ years of animosity between North and South and blacks and whites; he split the nation in two. Blacks became enslaved for another hundred years in the metropolitan ghettos and continue to be enslaved today by the politics of entitlement. The so-called Civil War and the death of a million Americans was a criminal act. Slavery could have been ended peacefully and a hundred years of enmity could have been avoided. Unfortunately, the victors in war write the history—to hide the truth.

  • James

    There is no provision in the Constitution that says “Once in the Union, always in.” When President Lincoln as Commander in Chief ordered the Army to attack the southern States, the nothern Army generals should have said: “Sorry Mr. President but the southern States have commited no crime.”
    Over 600,000 men died in the Civil War, more deaths than all of our other wars combined.

  • Charles Bill L.

    I* always knew what Abes plan was.To bad this is not taught in our schools and collages the truth i mean about Abe.

  • Marty

    Think back Mr James, the south fired the first shot, they blew it. And there is Mr. Rooster blaming Lincoln for every black welfare case in America, cuz he how do you say Rooster, “Split the country”. LOLOLOLOL The south follows succession but Lincoln splits the country, the south opens fire, but Lincoln started a war. LOLOL And here is the winner, I have submitted Lincoln’s own words to you, from his own hand, denouncing slavery, but he is still labeled a racist, and pro-slavery. You folks beat all. My God you geniuses should all get together and write another book about the Bible, Tell us all about what God was really trying to saying. LOLOLOL Thats was sarcasim, please dont do that. LOLOLOL

    • James

      OK, Jesus said (Mt. 10:34-39): “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.”

  • Chris Bowling

    I am going to say this as politely as humanly possible and with as much diplomacy I can muster in order to get my point across. This is the most repugnant, historically and Constitutionally ignorant article that I have read about a President and Country that fought over the morally devoid institution of slavery and it’s culmination for finally ending it. I ask three questions of the author of this insulting piece of filth and ask all who read this rebuttal to logically ponder these questions.

    1) Who started the Civil War by seceding and invading who, unsuspectingly, slaughtering innocent Americans, Brothers, in cold blood.

    2) What is the ONE Constitutional stipulation under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2. It is important to understand that the suspension of Habeas Corpus does fall under the auspices of Congress, however President Lincoln did take action where Congress did not in leading to the third question…

    3) 0n August 17, 1787 it was decided that the policy for War should be “declared” by Congress but the Executive is vested with repelling sudden attacks as the Commander in Chief of Naval and Army Forces in order to preserve the Union.

    “Mr. BUTLER. The objections agst. the Legislature lie in (a) great degree agst. the Senate. He was for vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it. Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert “declare,” striking out “make” war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.”
    http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=August+17%2C+1787+james+madison+repel+sudden+attacks&fr=aaplw&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=August+17%2c+1787+james+madison+repel+sudden+attacks&d=4900085688568125&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=b6f4550b,5b3b8ecb&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=RBG6fVPKccP4u8ds0aZs_g–

    Question is then, what is missing here and who is revising history? The author should be terribly ashamed of himself for this article.

    • Average Joe

      “Question is then, what is missing here and who is revising history?”

      That depends on who is writing it. However, usually it is the victor who writes history to fit their own agendas. In order to get to the whole of the truth, one must dig deep into all of the available resources…not just the ones they agree with. Personally, considering that I have researched quite thoroughly this particular period of time, I can find nothing factually wrong with the article.
      Maybe it is you that should be ashamed of yourself for not doing more research in matter than you have.

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

      • Chris Bowling

        Yeah, Average is one way of putting it. Maybe, Mr. Joe since you are so versed and educated in this otherwise misunderstood epoch of America you can take the time to answer the questions. Mr. Author gives only the reactionary details of President Lincoln of which in most instances were factual, as per a timeline is concerned, but leaves GAPING holes in the unwarranted reactionary causes of the War by the seceding states.

        Abraham Lincoln, as you should be aware of, stated on numerous occasions that he would not interfere with the institution were he to be elected President although he had signed the newly founded Republican Party platform of which one of the enumerated positions were,

        9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon CONGRESS to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.

        Now, that sounds tyrannical.

        P.S. Both sides of history are told, kind of one of the Great things about America. The stipulations are that the most reasoned and obvious side is taken when facts are presented in a candid and honest way. You should try it.

        • Average Joe

          Chris Bowling,
          It’s obvious that you have a very limited reading list and therefore a very limited opinion concerning the matter.Each of us has our own personal biases. The trouble arises when one clings to the biases and refuses to listen to anything that may in the slightist way refute those biases.

          Minds are like parachutes…they work best when open….and….your chute is not opening.

          It is difficult at best to get a complete view of the world, when you are always looking throught the same window….maybe you should look through a different window for a change.

          • James

            I agree, you can open the Bible, at random, to any page, and odds are you wont read anything that is about the religion one has in his head.

  • Eggy

    Kudos also to Dixie Suzan – You know have a great wealth of Historical knowledge ! Slavery was certainly a side issue of the “Civil War” Any idiot knows it was over secession and States Rights (and Economics) Our Constitution was trampled on and remains so to this day ! And THANKS to Average Joe (@ 9AM) for pointing out most of the long slippery slope of past US government events & presidents who have marched us to a mix of socialism/fascism/communism that rules our country today, and those who are preparing/trying to take over the world using our taxpayer’s wealth and our military force – an ingenious plot indeed – killing off the “best of our best” & bankrupting us at the same time while our citizens sit by and watch in complacency.
    Also anyone out there SHOULD realize that the “equality” mentioned in founding documents refers to “rights” and “opportunities”, NOT to “genetics” or “government entitlements”. We should all know by this time , thanks to DNA research, that that we are NOT genetically equal, and that certain ethnic groups have specific traits they hold in common (or not so) with other groups (It’s your parents/ancestors, stupid !). So we are definitely NOT the physically, mentally, emotionally, or in any other way equal when we leave the womb (or even before.)
    I honestly think that Lincoln meant well, but acted WAY BEYOND the authority granted to the Executive Branch under the Constitution. He certainly blundered by going to war as the only solution to the existing situation(s) of his time. The questions of “What is it going to take ?”and “What if”? apparently were never explored to their fullest extent to come to a peaceful settlement among fellow citizens. Needless deaths on both sides, and dangerous precedents set for our nation’s future ! A total tragedy, including his assassination, and others which came later, contributing to our nation’s downfall !

    • Average Joe

      Very well spoken, Bravo sir!

  • Eggy

    Marty & Chris
    I will give you exactly what God & the Bible are trying to say in a very few words. Use Christian LOVE in all of your dealings in life! That means “Treat your neighbor as yourself” or in other words “Always put yourself in the other person’s place and ASK yourself “How would I want to be treated by those who are in opposition to my views ?” or better yet “What would Jesus / God want me to do !” There are lots of variations on this philosophy, but none would include going to a civil war over these issues – most of which did not concern the entire country’s population (as noted in other posts)!
    We have fought many wars since, which were either “none of our business” or totally unjustified ! Many wasted lives and more tragedies ! A few of our past presidents warned us of these possibilities – that’s the basis of “No foreign entanglements” in our constitution (Jeffersonian & Franklin principles) Eisenhower tried to warn us of our own “Military Industrial Complex” and JFK tried to keep us out of war (Viet-Nam -even created a Peace Corp).
    As far as re-writing History goes. History is basically a written interpretation of events. You can read all of the books you want, but you only get the view of the writer of that particular book, letter, etc. – not those which might be contrary. Current events are even that way (if you think editing does not occur, you are naive) For example , Lincoln’s own words, or R.E. Lee’s own words of the same event may be entirely different – who do you believe ? As for special documents – like our Constitution – the ideas & principles outlined in them are supported by extensive documentation which supports the specifics included and WHY they were included – they are basically undeniable in context. They ARE the supreme rule of law for our country. They emphasized a LIMITED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (with very few responsibilities and powers) with a weak Executive Branch (basically taking orders from the Legislative), a well represented Legislative Branch (more power to the people), an impartial, intelligent, and honest Judicial Branch, and powers not specifically outlined therein were to remain with the States and the People. If you understand those definitive documents, the principles outlined therein, and the reasons for them, you can only come to the conclusion that both Lincoln and now Obama have grossly trampled on them (as have other presidents). Debating the details of Historical opinions and events of the Civil War does not deny these conclusions (and I think that was the basic purpose of the original article / posting) If you think this did not happen (in the 1860s), or has not been happening since, I suggest you re-read the historical documents surrounding the USA’s creation, and the writings of Thomas Jefferson in particular – the chief architect of it all. Then come to your own conclusions concerning if limited government still exists in our country as intended, and who has been most responsible for extending the powers of the Executive Branch.

    • Bladen Kirst

      On the writing of history, in my opinion, it should be written as clearly and factually as possible, supporting details from both sides, with as much evidence as possible, and clearly separating personal and third party opinions from facts and eye witness accounts, and the like, specifying the source of, or reference of each category of all certain and supposed facts as they are listed. However, in today’s “politically correct” society, this can be difficult to find.

  • Neil Swan

    There are certainly a lot of stupid people who don’t cake about people looking at your emails.

    Neil

    • Average Joe

      Don’t ever become a pessimist… a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events.
      Robert A. Heinlein

  • Jay

    Following Lincoln’s threat of invasion if States refused to pay the 52% Morrill tax, ten southern States lawfully secede from the Union between December 1860 and February 1861: “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” – Abraham Lincoln in his Inaugural Address Monday, March 4, 1861

    Against the advice of his generals and congress, Lincoln initiated the so-called “Civil War” in April of 1861, one month after Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated. In his inaugural speech Lincoln promised to do nothing about slavery: “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.” It was only when Lincoln was loosing the war that he issued the emancipation proclamation where he proclaimed that slaves in the Nations of the Confederate States were free. To pay for the ‘civil war, on the 5th of August 1861, Congress passes the first National income tax and by the 21st of that month the first paper currency was issued.

    Lincoln said, “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.”

    In February 1863, Congress established another National Banking system. The bankers were intending to charge between 24% and 36% interest rates for money to finance the war. To avoid the interest, Lincoln ordered the printing of $450 million in bank notes guaranteed by the U.S. government. “The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency. Creating and issuing money is the supreme prerogative of government and is its greatest creative opportunity. Adopting these principles will save the taxpayers immense sums of interest and money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity.” The notes were called ”Greenbacks” and effectively eliminated the interest the private banks charged on notes they issued.

    On April 9, 1865 following Lincoln’s brutal, immoral and cruel scorched earth war policy, Lee surrendered at Appomattox. Johnston’s army surrendered on April 26, 1865.

    On Apr 14, 1865, Lincoln was assassinated and Congress revoked the Greenback Law and enacted, in its place, the National Banking Act supporting privately owned national banks. The associates of the President Lincoln’s assassin were according to many, on the payroll of the Rothschild’s. The Nation was thrown into a state of constant debt, paying interest to bankers who created cash.

    More U.S. citizens died from Lincoln’s war than all the wars combined up to, but not including the Bush’s wars.

    Lincoln was arguably one of the most dishonest and disastrous Presidents this Nation has seen, running tie perhaps with Franklin Delaware Roosevelt and George W. Bush. The Federal government naturally gives Lincoln great importance because it was Lincoln who established large central federal government positions paid for by taxing the people. State run schools go as far as to teach students that Abraham Lincoln was a honest hero.

    • Bladen Kirst

      I am uncertain as to whether the main composition at the top of this page is factual (I would have to sit down, buckle my seatbelt, and do several hours of research to personally confirm), but suppose it is. (This is supposed to have some humor in it). [Refering to your last couple sentences] I suppose Obama doesn’t come close to Lincoln.

      • James

        Obama is FDR all over again. As President-elect, he was interviewed by 60 Minutes. He was shown a new book entitled: “The First One Hundred Days,” which pertained to FDR’s first year, and was asked what he thought of it? He said FDR was his guiding light and would continue on with what FDR started.

  • Deerinwater

    Richard S. Grossman, Wesleyan University
    The National Banking Era Begins, 1863
    The National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864
    The National Banking era was ushered in by the passage of the National Currency (later renamed the National Banking) Acts of 1863 and 1864. The Acts marked a decisive change in the monetary system, confirmed a quarter-century-old trend in bank chartering arrangements, and also played a role in financing the Civil War.

    The Battles of the American Civil War were fought between April 12, 1861 and May 12–13, 1865 in 23 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia[A]) and the District of Columbia, as well as Arizona Territory[B], Colorado Territory, Dakota Territory, Indian Territory, New Mexico Territory, Washington Territory and naval engagements.

    You connect your own dots. The War was fought by many people for many reasons. Something to win, something to lose or prove. Bankers are cleave like that, allowing everyone to play their part while they pull the strings

    There was a book written that put fear in peoples hearts about blacks, that was very popular at the time, there was elected statesmen walking off the House Chamber Floor and going home, basically a vote of “No Confidence” in the preceding. Everybody was unhappy about something and we had a new Green President and few was certain how he would respond. It was all politics until Fort Sumter was fired on.

    I blame the Bankers of the day myself.

    • Jay

      Damn it, deerinwater, you are absolutely correct. The unseen, and rarely mentioned, instigators, and profiteers; the banksters!!! Here’s a little treat that i’m sure you will enjoy.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HbEUnd1iqQ

  • Gabriel A King

    Lincoln instated the income tax, and violated the 10 amendment.

    TWO UNFORGIVABLE SINS! LOL. Yep, not quite the spin on it I got in “public school”. lol. The deification of Lincoln similar to Reagan worship we see so commonly, perhaps a bit overdone?

  • http://Yahoo Dave 6729

    So now we are reduced to rewriting history? Lincoln knew that the ongoing Slave State and Slave versus Free State could not continue. California had to join the Union as a Slave State even without slaves to keep the numbers equal. There was also growing opposition to slavery from Christian sources and even within the South itself. The idea that people were property was abhorrent to many but the main underlying problem was economic with the North and South competing with an unfair advantage for the South…To go along with this article would be to rescind the Bible and particularly the Freedoms of Galatians 3 and to make slavery which was abolished in England even before it was abolished here legitimate here and do away with any Christian Heritage that was our greatest claim!

  • Chad Erickson

    These are very true comments, they are historically correct. However, we must not extend Lincoln’s approval of slavery as a reflection of Northern sentiment. To many, many people the purpose of the Civil War was to end slavery; it just wasn’t Lincoln.

  • http://facebook Johnny Cooper

    I could not have phrased it better and cannot fully believe that other true Americans still exist out there who understand history well enough to know this. God bless you and write on!

  • Jim Polston

    I have always been a student of American history, and the civil war era and the westward expansion that followed are one of my favorite time periods. I read a lot, so the information above was not new to me. That the information was not taught in school and required research on my own is not new either. Many Americans have long been decieved about the greatness of Mr. Lincoln and perhaps it’s time their eyes were opened.

  • charles Walsh

    What planet are you people from? Lincoln did what he had to do to preserve the union. You probably agree with the shays rebellion. Kill those revenuers! This is the united states the south lost the war. Slavery was abolished thank God! I’m conservative not reactionary

  • 45caliber

    The more I learn about the real Lincoln, the more sympathy I have for Boothe.

  • Barbc

    Read the “Politically Incorrect – Civil War” book. It corrects a lot of the misinformation we were taught in school.
    I have heard that Lincoln was a in agreement of Karl Marx. i have yet found much information either way on this idea.

  • http://Yahoo sophillyjimmy

    It amazes me how when Henry Ford I was quoted as saying “History Is Bunk”, he was critisized by the media at that time when in fact, his quote which was taken out of context meant that history was all about the heads of government, generals and anyone of power when history was realy made by the people of the times and not by dignataries.
    It is a fact that Lincoln did not care about the slaves and he did violate the Constitution many in many ways, if he could have kept the Union together by keeping slavery, he would have done so and if he could have kept the Union together by violating the Constitution he did so, his belief was keeping the Union together at all costs but to assume that Obama is violating the Constitution to keep the Union together or even comparing him to Lincoln is like comparing Mother Teresa to Idi Amin. Obama is bent on disolving the Union and causing class warfare. He is purposly destroying the middle class and only have the rich and the poor so America as we know it will be destroyed from within.

  • Bladen Kirst

    Where are the references or bibliography page to this research? I do not wish to sound condemning, however it seems foolishly gullable to believe such a composition. I would like to pose this question, in all sincerity. Why should I believe a statement that paints a completely different picture than we were taught–especially of one of our Presidents, believed to be a great one, who understood the concept of “united we stand, divided we fall” and, as a biproduct of a messy situation, played a part in the Emancipation Proclomation, beginning the near century long process of equal-rights for blacks–when there is not an openly displayed bibliography with specific sentence/reference points? It could be called “dangerous” times, indeed, if we will believe such a composition, portrayed as fact, with such a lack of obvious evidence to support it. ~ Sincerely, An Intrigued Reader

  • Carl

    The emancipation proclamation was put into effect because the Northern troops were getting killed off. It’s purpose was to attract blacks into the Union Army to replace the dead. It worked. Troop replacement was the only purpose.
    The Federal government rarely acts benevolently to help anyone. There is always someone behind the scenes, well connected, who will benefit from the kindness extended to the ordinary person.

  • eggy

    I don’t think anyone on either side of this debate is Pro-slavery. But I also don’t think that was the topic of this article. It was that Lincoln trampled on the Constitution in many different ways, and thus set a precedent for other presidents that followed to do the same – ALL leading up to the mess we have today of an all-powerful Executive Branch which makes it own laws and edicts at will without the “consent of the governed” (re: Executive Orders, etc.) – exactly what our founding fathers fought against when they founded this new nation over 200+ years ago. !!

  • eggy

    In case you folks out there don’t realize it, the Constitution was designed to remedy situations like those which caused the Civil War (If you think it was slavery, new territories / states, secession, or something else, it really doesn’t matter)
    The remedy is called the Amendment process (if the issue involves giving the federal government more authority). And it was designed to protect significant minorities from being forced to accept ideas of rule by simple majorities (ie. rule by populace, or mob rule) READ it in our Constitution, and think about why it’s requirements are so demanding (ie. consent of MOST of the governed) Politicians (Lincoln included) tend to avoid this remedy when they think they can NOT get enough of the States and People to “go along” , or they can not negotiate a solution into this format successfully. THIS was Lincoln’s chief downfall, and the War that followed was the result, causing needless loss of life and destruction of property. Anyone who thinks otherwise, just does not understand what this country was intended to be about. Go back further in history and study Jefferson, Franklin, and the other architects of the USA and you will see that NOTHING was decided or agreed upon unless a super majority of States and their Representatives approved. It was all about reaching a general consensus, not a simple “majority rules” concept. It was also about protecting minorities so they would NOT be persecuted as they had been in Europe. If enough objected, a concept would be either dropped, or reworked until it was acceptable to all. ALL of the States had to accept the original documents before the Union was completed. Lincoln, apparently, did not believe he had to abide by these concepts to grant him more “power by consent”.
    It is a shame that so many officials think that because they are elected, they can do anything that is on their agenda afterwards, when their sworn oath is to the Constitution of the USA, NOT some special interest group, some special issue, or project, etc. If their ideas violate the Constitution’s principles, then the first step they should take is to make the necessary changes to it to get “the consent of the governed” by amending it, before proceeding any further. A nation that lives by the rule of just laws has a chance at succeeding. One that lives by the whims of its leaders has none. The USA was given the blueprint, it has failed to follow it successfully.

  • Marvin

    Today Assad of Syria is killing his oun people.Lincoln of the United states killed his oun people. Nothing new.

  • Duane

    About 2 weeks before Lincoln’s assassination, he was quoted, saying,”We have an enemy and it’s name is Rome”. Books written shortly after his death, (and other accounts), make mention that John Wilkes Boothe was seen speaking with three men outside the theatre. It was later determined that these men were of the Jesuit Order. On another note, there seems to be something fishy about JFK’s assassination as well, when it comes to Rome. I understand that Kennedy had a particular dictator assassinated (supposedly against the will of certain men of a certain Order)…two weeks later, he was assassinated.

    Can anyone explain to me, why EVERY President inaugurated into office, goes to speak with the Pope? And why is it that another particular Order (brothers to the aforementioned Order), are allowed in the R.C.C. when the Catechisms of the Church strictly forbid them to be a part? The Freemasons.

    There are many other things I could touch on, and questions I would like to ask and have answered…but, I sometimes wonder what Lincoln was REALLY up against during his Presidency that he felt the necessity to do the things he did. I do believe there are things going on behind closed doors and in secret meetings that “We the People…” wouldn’t believe if we heard it and saw it with our own eyes, and those who did believe it, would probably run and hide for fear of their lives.

    Lincoln was definitely wrong in his unconstitutional actions, but, I can’t help but wonder if he was “pushed” into it for fear of his life, his wife and child’s lives, and for the sake of actually KEEPING a Constitutional United States free from a REAL tyranny.

    I don’t think Lincoln was trying to become supreme ruler of this country, but then I can’t speak for him…and God saw fit to use Abe, as He did for that time and place in our History.

    I’m personally looking at Ron Paul at the moment…while waiting on the Constitution Party Candidate to be selected this April.

    Let’s just Pray for “We the People…” while we still have the freedom to. A-men?

  • Kevin Beck

    Everyone should read Dr. DiLorenzo’s retelling of the truth about so-called Honest Abe, a president that so demonized all his opponents under the force of the military. Then we might be able to demonstrate the terrible path that the current White House occupier is aiming for.

  • Bryan

    The Confederate States of America could have taken possession of Ft. Sumter without firing a shot. (The actual first shots in the War Between the States were fired on January 9, 1861 by cadets of the Citadel Military Academy. This happened while James Buchanan was the President of the United States.) In the communications between Major Anderson, the Commander of Ft. Sumter and Gen. Beauregard of the Confederate Army Anderson had informed Beauregard that the Union troops would have to evacuate Sumter because they would have been out of food. The Union troops would have been have out of food due to the illegal blockade of Sumter by the Confederates. A blockade is an act of war. The Confederate Army opened fire on Sumter on the orders of Pres. Jefferson Davis. Those orders were given to encourage (force) Virginia to secede from the Union. This information is conspicuously absent from Thomas DiLorenzo book about Abraham Lincoln. Why did DiLorenzo purposely omit this information? He did so because he is a Southern apologist who cannot accept the fact the Confederate States of America started the War Between the States. The fact that the CSA started the war negates most, if not everything he says about Lincoln in his book.

    In regards for the “Jeffersonian” idea of states having the right to secede this comment by Thomas Jefferson shows that he did not believe in secession.
    “I have been happy … in believing that … whatever follies we may be led into as to foreign nations, we shall never give up our Union, the last anchor of our hope, and that alone which is to prevent this heavenly country from becoming an arena of gladiators.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1797
    To “never give up our Union” is not what someone who believes in secession would say.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
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.