If only Abraham Lincoln had understood and obeyed the Constitution

[Libby von H]

I recommend "The Real Abe Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo.

as big a fool as there is , a true Lincoln hater
A well-known anti-Black ...this is actually a well-defined group that you seem grossly ignorant of, that won't do

 

[LeroyDumonde]

If treason could only be based on truth then everybody would be guilty, right ??

I have no idea what you're trying to express here.

 

[Libby von H]

I have no idea what you're trying to express here.

True, you don't

 

[Libby von H]

"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.

Only people lazier than you will buy this

Lstl's prove you are a lazy fool, okay

You quote Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868
Anyone who has studied Lincoln knows Stephens' CORNERSTONE SPEECH

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government," ---And you support this man

and say Lincoln agreed ????


YOU ARE A RACIST

 

[Libby von H]

An excellent source.

Most scholars of Lincoln (Jaffa, Guelzo, Burlingame, Schaub, etc) consider Thomas J. Dilorenzo a fool, number one villain in that great study of why he's a fool

 

[Libby von H]

I recommend "The Real Abe Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo.

much of the points are denounced by Jaffa, Guelzo, Burlingame -- the big names in Lincoln scholarship

From Amazon review
This book is pure GARBAGE! Why don't you ask Mr. DiLorenzo why he won't debate Mr. Allen C Guelzo or any other Lincoln scholar in a public forum???

 

[Libby von H]

The US had nothing to do with "winning"---sick fucking thought) WW2
They just tested a couple really cool bombs on the civilians of Hiro and Naga to prove they had a bigger dick. Russia took care of Hitler. FACT

Nowhere near a fact . FACT !
Without US no chance. And you being the assshole you are think the Japanese who were killed were decisive. IDIOT

" Japan came under increasing pressure when the Soviet Union formally declared war on August 8 [ 2 DAYS AFTER BOMBING } and invaded Japanese-occupied Manchuria in northeastern China. With his Imperial Council deadlocked, Japan’s Emperor Hirohito broke the tie and decided that his country must surrender. At noon on August 15 (Japanese time), the emperor announced Japan’s surrender in his first-ever radio broadcast.

 

[Libby von H]

An excellent source.

a highly-despised false and insight-less Lincoln detractor, in a long line of such

This is the slavery revival crowd
He is not 'new' , he is a remaining straggler from the Glorious South tradition

 

[Libby von H]

The OP is anti-American, racialist, and in favor of a white ethno-state.

That is not helpful at all. He is just plain wrong, you needn't go that extra length ,it discredits the TRUTH

 

[Libby von H]

I have no idea what you're trying to express here.

Then do these 3 things
1)Make sure you don't ask about what puzzles you
2) Don't offer your own opinion so people can see what they are addressing
3) and don't give any help so we can tell why this question is important to you

 

[Libby von H]

So Lincoln needed to save the First Amendment by destroying the First Amendment.

NO, Lincoln needed government over general rebellion or we would have No Amendments.

At 28 in his Lyceum Speech he made this clear:

" good men, men who love tranquility, who desire to abide by the laws, and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country; seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose. Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocractic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed--I mean the attachment of the People. Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last"

I am not a Trumpie but you can see what AL warns against in the disregard of law enforcement by Biden Why are gun sales exploding? Even among groups long known as anti-gun?Because the cities are lawless, riots are not met with force, shoplifters do what they want. Justices are threatend, and no protection. A 71-year old lady quietly praying outside an abortion clinic is sent to Jail. all from the demon Biden

 

[Hector12]

Lincoln made it clear that he did not intend to outlaw slavery in states where it was legal. He wanted to keep slavery out of the territories. He also warned of what he called "a second Dred Scott Decision." This would have been a Supreme Court Decision finding that laws against slavery in free states and in the territories were unconstitutional.

In doing so he intentionally appealed to two very different constituencies. There were the abolitionists. There was the much larger number of whites who wanted to keep slavery out of free states and the territories because they wanted to keep Negroes out of the free states and the territories.

The third constituency Lincoln appealed to was the constituency of factory owners. They wanted tariff protection. At the time European factories produced better goods at lower prices, even when the price of transporting their goods across the Atlantic Ocean were factored in.

In the 1860 presidential election Lincoln won 39.8 percent of the vote. In a two way election that is considered to be losing by a landslide.

The slave states caused the Civil War by seceding, even though slavery in the slave states was not threatened. If cooler heads had prevailed in the South there would have been no secession, and no Civil War. Negroes might still be slaves. They would almost certainly be restricted to second class citizenship.

 

[Hector12]

"There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side,..

Sundance508, as of 1860 the Constitution was silent on the subject of slavery. How did Lincoln violate the Constitution?

 

[Libby von H]

Sundance508, as of 1860 the Constitution was silent on the subject of slavery. How did Lincoln violate the Constitution?

It as always silent

 

[Libby von H]

As I understand it, many people at that time sincerely felt that a state had a right to secede, for the Constitution is silent on this issue.

I personally feel that President Lincoln should have come to some compromise with the South in order to avoid what turned out to be four years of terrible suffering: many Northerners lost husbands and sons; many Southerners saw their cities destroyed.

I agree that many of our social problems today stem from the consequences of the Civil War.

It was not silent at all and LIncoln did more than a human can do.
Take the Crittenden Compromise , what happened and who's fault

"President-elect Abraham Lincoln vehemently opposed the Crittenden compromise on grounds that he opposed any policy permitting the continued expansion of slavery. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate rejected Crittenden's proposal."

You see, the issue was not slavery, it was the continued expansion of slavery.,
As Lincoln brilliantly saw "slavery is legal, but they won't be satisfied until we agree slavery is a good"
Just like homosexual 'marriage' and abortion, it has nothing to do with legality and everything to do with how loathed those things are. People sense it.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

NO, Lincoln needed government over general rebellion or we would have No Amendments.

At 28 in his Lyceum Speech he made this clear:

" good men, men who love tranquility, who desire to abide by the laws, and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country; seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose. Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocractic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed--I mean the attachment of the People. Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last"

The newspaper editors that he jailed weren't rioting. They were exercising their inalienable right to freedom of the press. If Lincoln had wanted to avoid war he would have withdrawn federal troops from Southern lands and let the South purchase the forts, like they offered to.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

It was not silent at all and LIncoln did more than a human can do.

Quote the part of the Constitution which says that states cannot secede.

 

[Libby von H]

The newspaper editors that he jailed weren't rioting. They were exercising their inalienable right to freedom of the press. If Lincoln had wanted to avoid war he would have withdrawn federal troops from Southern lands and let the South purchase the forts, like they offered to.

Wrong and silly.
First of all, you are wrong that every citizen in those states supported slavery, separation, or renouncing their INALIENABLE right to citizenship in both the state and the federal !!!!!!!!!!!!
As Lincoln often said: People live in states with citizens of opposing views because their inalienable rights under the FEDERAL law keep them safe from reprisal

WE have many examples to the contrary of yours.

"One such incident was the suppression of the Chicago Times by General Ambrose Burnside on June 2, 1863 — after the paper. The Times, under editor Roger Storey, had become progressively more anti-war and harshly criticized Burnside’s arrest of former Congressman Clement Vallandigham the previous month. Popular opinion in Chicago was inflamed – both for and against Burnside’s action. Fearing street violence, a group of Chicago civic leaders sent a petition to the White House. Congressman Isaac Arnold alienated much of his German-American constituency by joining Senator Lyman Trumbull in asking that President Lincoln to reverse Burnside’s action — which the President did on June 4. Roger Waite wrote that President “Lincoln swiftly decided to act in the situation. Having received the petition from Chicago, being endorsed by two prominent politicians, Lincoln telegraphed orders suggesting that the order be lifted, to which Burnside followed with an order to revoke General Order 84 on June 4, 1863. However, soon, Lincoln also wrote stating: ‘I have received additional dispatches which…induce me to believe we should revoke or suspend the order suspending the Chicago Times. However, as Burnside had already issued the revocation, he let it stand.” "

 

[Libby von H]

An excellent source.

a terrible source as constantly proclaimed by Harry Jaffa ,who wrote the 2 most celebrated Lincoln books of the last 100 years (excepting the Burlingame bio)

 

[Libby von H]

Quote the part of the Constitution which says that states cannot secede.

Quote the part of your mortgage that says you can unilaterally decide to cancel it