If only Abraham Lincoln had understood and obeyed the Constitution

There were two phases to the Civil War: the first was secession, and then Lincoln, with his emancipation, turned it into slavery.
Lorenzo had his asss handed to him several times, by Jaffa, by Anastaplo, by John Mckee Barr and esp by Thomas L Kranawitter.
Hate always oversteps truth if you give it time.
 
"There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868

I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation' as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.

Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.

Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'. Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'. Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs: he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.

Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
:

Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views

What If There Was No Civil War?

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." ... Faulkner.
The best ever attempt to do that thoroughly disagrees with you.
Even Harry Jaffa said it was the best

1699712877784.png
 
"There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868

I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation' as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.

Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.

Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'. Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'. Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs: he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.

Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
:

Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views

What If There Was No Civil War?

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." ... Faulkner.
So, you are not aware that he got his thought (via Sumner) from John Quincy Adams
JQA
-- A President during a Civil War can free slaves (1836)
-- He also based everything in his anti-slavery speeches on the Declaration of Independen
-- and he had a Natural Law reading of the Constitution

All in the PhD dissertation of Justin Dyer Buckley , now in a book Natural Law and the Anti-Slavery Constitutional Tradition
 
"There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868

I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation' as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.

Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.

Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'. Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'. Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs: he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.

Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
:

Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views

What If There Was No Civil War?

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." ... Faulkner.
It is a pleasure to rebuke a fool but a lazy fool, pure ambrosia

Lincoln's relligous views culled from the entire Collected Works --- yup, just published


Abraham Lincoln and the Bible: A Complete Compendium Paperback – April 17, 2023​

by Gordon Leidner
5.0 5.0 out of 5 stars 5 ratings

and William Herndon DEBUNKED
 
"There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868

I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation' as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.

Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.

Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'. Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'. Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs: he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.

Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
:

Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views

What If There Was No Civil War?

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." ... Faulkner.
.

Your shitty opinion(s) -- noted.

Now let the rest of us read up on, and deal with the facts, minus your Lost Cause bs.
 
Nothing that you wrote demonstrates that DiLorenzo is wrong about anything he wrote in his book.
Which book? "The Real Abe Lincoln" ?

great review:

How accurate is DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln"?​


In all honesty, not very. This is a classic case of a "metanarrative" history, i.e., a historical work written to push a particular agenda (I will get to in a minute; want to address his arguments before I address his bias). It comes out strongly throughout the work.

DiLorenzo's main point is that Lincoln was just as bigoted as anyone else at the time and never had any inclination to end slavery on its own terms. Rather, Lincoln's primary concern was consolidating the economic power of the north and the federal government. DiLorenzo picks certain aspects of Lincoln's speeches and personal correspondence to back this up. Here are the problems with that:

There are more problems but I won't dive into them here, as I would suggest you find a more balanced piece to read.

Now, here is DiLorenzo's agenda: DiLorenzo is a libertarian economist. Not a historian. Economists tend to view history, and its events etc., with money as the primary mover of men. DiLorenzo's agenda in writing his constant anti-Lincoln screeds is to try to remove the moral high ground from things such as the 14th Amendment, which DiLorenzo views as stripping the states of their power.

Try Team of Rivals. It is a more balanced approach to Lincoln's legacy. Goodwin does not sugarcoat Lincoln's use of power to achieve his ends, but she also does not have an agenda.

 
Last edited:
Interestingly your response doesn't provide any evidence that any of his claims are false.
quotes:
DiLorenzo has a very bad habit of cherry-picking quotes from Lincoln and either not completing them or putting them in context. For example, Lincoln frequently stated that (in as many words) that the country would have been better off with no Africans on American soil. Standing alone, that sounds pretty bad.

But when you actually read it in context, his point was that the creation of the institution of slavery and the enslavement of Africans had brought crisis on America. That's kind of hard to argue with.

His point was not "I hate black people," which is what DiLorenzo wants the reader to think. His point was that the South had created the conditions that were precipitating a national crisis.




How accurate is DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln"?​

https://www.reddit.com/ r/AskHistorians/comments/1qyydb/how_accurate_is_dilorenzos_the_real_lincoln/

quotes:
DiLorenzo is guilty throughout the book of the same thing he accuses other historians of, that is, he ignores everything that doesn't back up his own opinion.

For example, southern leaders were absolutely adamant that slavery was the root cause of the Civil War. See Jefferson Davis' speeches on the topic for an example. You will not find a single southern leader who does not mention slavery (with terms like "our institutions") as a cause of the war.

If it was all about economics, as DiLorenzo suggests, it does not follow that southern leaders would discuss slavery so prominently.
 
quotes:
DiLorenzo has a very bad habit of cherry-picking quotes from Lincoln and either not completing them or putting them in context. For example, Lincoln frequently stated that (in as many words) that the country would have been better off with no Africans on American soil. Standing alone, that sounds pretty bad.

Do you have a specific example of this?
But when you actually read it in context, his point was that the creation of the institution of slavery and the enslavement of Africans had brought crisis on America. That's kind of hard to argue with.
So once you get me an example you can then provide the context that shows that DiLorenzo is cherry picking.

His point was not "I hate black people," which is what DiLorenzo wants the reader to think. His point was that the South had created the conditions that were precipitating a national crisis.

How do you know what DiLorenzo was thinking?
 
Do you have a specific example of this?

So once you get me an example you can then provide the context that shows that DiLorenzo is cherry picking.



How do you know what DiLorenzo was thinking?

I doubt you know what you're talking about. Your reading and comprehension skills are in the toilet. Why do I say this?

Because I post a link to an article/review. I use a few quotes. Then you ask me questions that should be asked of the author.

also, The author writes: "Now, here is DiLorenzo's agenda: DiLorenzo is a libertarian economist. Not a historian."

and before you go with a tired old programmed attack -- The author mentions an agenda, not a bias.
 
I doubt you know what you're talking about. Your reading and comprehension skills are in the toilet. Why do I say this?

Because I post a link to an article/review. I use a few quotes. Then you ask me questions that should be asked of the author.

also, The author writes: "Now, here is DiLorenzo's agenda: DiLorenzo is a libertarian economist. Not a historian."

and before you go with a tired old programmed attack -- The author mentions an agenda, not a bias.
So you have nothing besides an ad hominem attack. Typical.
 
"There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868

I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation' as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.

Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.

Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'. Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'. Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs: he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.

Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
:

Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views

What If There Was No Civil War?

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." ... Faulkner.
The greatest Constitutional lawyer to examine Lincoln on this found you wrong on every count.
George Anastaplo -- and he was seconded by the greatest Lincoln scholar of this gereration Harry V Jaffa

Slavery did not exist Prelapsarian in the BIble and came inPostLapsarian so you are wrong there.

and stupider than normal for you to quote Faulkner

He actually had nothing to say about slavery. Yet did imbibe the South’s “Lost Cause” mythology, that there was something noble in their fight, though what, exactly, is never very clear. He definitely considered the Northerners the bad guys, unjustified invaders. That too elides much historical reality.
Faulkner actually endorsed racial equality. But not right away. Urging the civil rights movement — then just starting — to go slow. He was “strongly against compulsory integration.” Seemingly, he didn’t want Southern racists to gain the sympathy that underdogs accrue. Saying they’d come around eventually. (But after a century . . . )

This is your usual unthinking cut-and-paste response but consider what a review said about Anastaplo's book

"Consider the following three choices: 1. Accepting and by default condoning the existence and continuation of slavery INDEFINITELY, thereby placating the South and maintaining unity (in other words, do nothing), 2. Rejecting the obvious moral evil of slavery but allow the South to secede and destroy the United States (in other words, accept the Southern arguments for "states rights"), or 3. Reject and abolish slavery AND reject the idea that a group of states want to secede from the United States because its their "right" to, among other things, enslave people. If YOU were forced to make the decision between one of these, which would you choose? Now what if I told you the only way to accomplish number three was to do things you otherwise wouldn't ever do (like, say, fight a war and kill your fellow countrymen by the tens of thousands, engage in very unsavory political tactics that called into question your own motives and provided precedent for future abuse, etc.)? Some might consider this characterization over-simplification, but these three choices truly capture the essence of the reality Lincoln faced, given the context."

Read Harry Jaffa's two books and grow up.DO you want to be the hate-filled person TOm DiLorenzo has become ???
 
"There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868

I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation' as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.

Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.

Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'. Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'. Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs: he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.

Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
:

Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views

What If There Was No Civil War?

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." ... Faulkner.

Under the Constitution, the Southern states were obligated to honor the results of the 1860 presidential election. The seven Deep South states refused to do so. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to see how he would govern.

As for Lincoln's religious views, he became a believing Christian later in life. See Stephen Mansfield's book Lincoln's Battle with God: A President's Struggle with Faith and What It Meant for America.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top