# Think Tank > History >  Lincoln discussion - split thread

## Travlyr

This myth is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement. 




> That doesn't change the fact that Abe Lincoln was a tyrant and killed more Americans than Hitler.


Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant at all. He stood against all tyrants everywhere and never killed anyone in his life. Slave owners were tyrants. Warriors are tyrants. Lincoln was neither.




> Achilles' heel
> An Achilles heel is a deadly weakness in spite of overall strength, which can actually or potentially lead to downfall.

----------


## dillo

> This myth is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement. 
> 
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant at all. He stood against all tyrants everywhere and never killed anyone in his life. Slave owners were tyrants. Warriors are tyrants. Lincoln was neither.


He was absolutely a tyrant, but what he accomplished was good so it gets overlooked.

----------


## Travlyr

> He was absolutely a tyrant, but what he accomplished was good so it gets overlooked.


No, Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant. The fact that the people in the liberty movement don't know who Abraham Lincoln was is quite revealing. It is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No, Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant. The fact that the people in the liberty movement don't know who Abraham Lincoln was is quite revealing. It is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement.


Whether someone agrees with the way of life of the South is not the issue, they had the constitutional right to secede from the union.  The fact that Lincoln started a war to not allow them to do that, jailed judges who disagreed with him, plundered and pillaged the south and declared martial law, I have a hard time holding him up as some example of virtue and greatness.

----------


## Travlyr

> Did he jail judges who disagreed with him?  yes or no
> 
> Did he declare martial law?  yes or no


Yes, he did. Lincoln was duty bound under sworn oath. The people he imprisoned were enemies of the Union. 

One of the dumbest things that people in the liberty movement do is to not read history and then promote their misunderstanding of history as facts. I have read four biographies of Lincoln. Three of the four biographies were of people who knew Lincoln personally. Henry Ketchum, William Herndon, Nicolay and Hay, and David Donald. I have taken a 26 hour course from Yale University on the Civil War and read many other books on the war. In 1858, the Knights of the Golden Circle had planned on going to war against Mexico and Central America in order to create a slave empire in North America and Lincoln foiled their plans so they went to war on the North instead of taking their war south. Calling Abraham Lincoln a tyrant is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement because it is not true yet it is heavily promoted anyway.

----------


## Travlyr

> Whether someone agrees with the way of life of the South is not the issue, they had the constitutional right to secede from the union.  The fact that Lincoln started a war to not allow them to do that, jailed judges who disagreed with him, plundered and pillaged the south and declared martial law, I have a hard time holding him up as some example of virtue and greatness.


The fact is that Lincoln did not start the war and did not want war. The people in the liberty movement who claim that discredit themselves and the liberty movement.

The distortion of truth is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement. Abraham Lincoln was all about individual liberty.

----------


## Warlord

> The fact is that Lincoln did not start the war and did not want war. The people in the liberty movement who claim that discredit themselves and the liberty movement.
> 
> The distortion of truth is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement. Abraham Lincoln was all about individual liberty.



STFU. Lincoln jailed journalists and tried to imprison a congressman and you think he's about individual liberty?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The fact is that Lincoln did not start the war and did not want war. The people in the liberty movement who claim that discredit themselves and the liberty movement.
> 
> The distortion of truth is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement. Abraham Lincoln was all about individual liberty.


Except for those in the South, judges, and basically anyone who disagreed with his unconstitutional actions.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yes, he did. Lincoln was duty bound under sworn oath. The people he imprisoned were enemies of the Union. 
> 
> One of the dumbest things that people in the liberty movement do is to not read history and then promote their misunderstanding of history as facts. I have read four biographies of Lincoln. Three of the four biographies were of people who knew Lincoln personally. Henry Ketchum, William Herndon, Nicolay and Hay, and David Donald. I have taken a 26 hour course from Yale University on the Civil War and read many other books on the war. In 1858, the Knights of the Golden Circle had planned on going to war against Mexico and Central America in order to create a slave empire in North America and Lincoln foiled their plans so they went to war on the North instead of taking their war south. Calling Abraham Lincoln a tyrant is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement because it is not true yet it is heavily promoted anyway.


A 26 hour course from Yale and you think that makes you the expert on the matter?  Seriously, Travlyr, you should be aware of revisionist history.  The number of books you read of it, or the number of courses you take of it, doesn't make one an expert on the subject.  

Do you believe that the Constitution was written to guard the right of the states to secede from the union?  Yes or no

----------


## Travlyr

> STFU. Lincoln jailed journalists and tried to imprison a congressman and you think he's about individual liberty?


This is exactly what I mean. Misunderstanding and hating Lincoln is the Achilles heel of the Liberty movement because instead of understanding history, the people in the liberty movement promote lies. The people Lincoln jailed were enemies of the Union. He let them go if they would swear allegiance to the Union. People outside of the Liberty movement hear those lies and figure that people in the Liberty movement aren't too bright so their entire message is discredited. The real tyrants, in 1860, were the slave masters and warmongers. Lincoln never personally killed anyone in his life. The warmongering slave owning Jefferson Davis killed and imprisoned plenty of people. When the Liberty movement gets their historical facts straight then they will gain credibility.

----------


## Travlyr

> A 26 hour course from Yale and you think that makes you the expert on the matter?  Seriously, Travlyr, you should be aware of revisionist history.  The number of books you read of it, or the number of courses you take of it, doesn't make one an expert on the subject.  
> 
> Do you believe that the Constitution was written to guard the right of the states to secede from the union?  Yes or no


The Constitution is silent on secession. The people who knew Lincoln, and Lincoln's own documented words, describe a totally different person than what people in the Liberty movement describe. The people in the modern Liberty movement are generally full of crap about the great emancipator.

----------


## Travlyr

From the article in the OP,



> But not long after the applause died down, Mr. Paul was out the door. He skipped an address by his father, former Representative Ron Paul, as well as closing remarks by his own former Senate aide, an ex-radio host *who had once celebrated Abraham Lincolns assassination* and extolled white pride.


Rand Paul's opponents get this fodder from people in the Liberty movement because they don't understand what was going on in the 1850s. John Wilkes Booth was a member of the Knights of the Golden Circle. The Knights of the Golden Circle *planned on a slave empire in North America*. Lincoln foiled their plot. The Lincoln haters are the Achilles heel of the Liberty movement.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The Constitution is silent on secession. The people who knew Lincoln, and Lincoln's own documented words, describe a totally different person than what people in the Liberty movement describe. The people in the modern Liberty movement are generally full of crap about the great emancipator.


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

----------


## Travlyr

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


Again, the South seceded to create a slave empire in North America. If you wish to continue to promote enslavement as a virtue of liberty, then nobody outside of the Liberty movement is going to give you any credibility at all.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No, Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant. The fact that the people in the liberty movement don't know who Abraham Lincoln was is quite revealing. It is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement.


Get your facts straight.  Taking a course from a leftist university does not make you an expert on anything.

*States have historical right to secede*
By WALTER WILLIAMS




> When New York delegates met on July 26, 1788, their ratification document read, “That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same.”
> 
> On May 29, 1790, the Rhode Island delegates made a similar claim in their ratification document. “That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That the rights of the States respectively to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same.”
> 
> On June 26, 1788, Virginia’s elected delegates met to ratify the Constitution. In their ratification document, they said, “The People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.”
> 
> As demonstrated by the ratification documents of New York, Rhode Island and Virginia, they made it explicit that if the federal government perverted the delegated rights, they had the right to resume those rights. *In fact, when the Union was being formed, where the states created the federal government, every state thought they had a right to secede, otherwise there would not have been a Union.*


http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...3bfab9c2e.html

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Again, the South seceded to create a slave empire in North America. If you wish to continue to promote enslavement as a virtue of liberty, then nobody outside of the Liberty movement is going to give you any credibility at all.


No one is promoting slavery.  What we are discussing is the right of the South to secede from the Union.

What you appear to be doing is rationalizing that well, it was ok that Lincoln became tyrannical because it was for a good cause.

----------


## Travlyr

> No one is promoting slavery.  What we are discussing is the right of the South to secede from the Union.
> 
> What you appear to be doing is rationalizing that well, it was ok that Lincoln became tyrannical because it was for a good cause.


What you are doing is giving Rand's opposition more fodder to discredit him. Supporting 1860/61 secession is in fact supporting the institution of slavery. They seceded specifically to create a slave empire in North America. That is a fact of history.

The Constitution is silent on secession. James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Abraham Lincoln and many others did not believe secession was anything other than revolution. Indeed, all the leaders in 1860 called it revolution.




> "Secession is nothing but revolution" - Robert E. Lee





> "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." - Alexander H. Stephens

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What you are doing is giving Rand's opposition more fodder to discredit him. Supporting 1860/61 secession is in fact supporting the institution of slavery.


Excuse me, but you are the only one I see running around here claiming that we are supporting slavery.  That's YOU doing that.  Now, WHY you are doing that is up to the reader to decide.




> The Constitution is silent on secession. James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Abraham Lincoln and many others did not believe secession was anything other than revolution. Indeed, all the leaders in 1860 called it revolution.


Actually, the Constitution wasn't silent at all.  It's called the 10th Amendment.  Read it.  

Furthermore, what Williams said in the article I posted was true.  Very few would have signed onto the Constitution had they not thought they could leave if the federal government was exceeding the powers granted to them by the states.

----------


## Travlyr

> Excuse me, but you are the only one I see running around here claiming that we are supporting slavery.  That's YOU doing that.  Now, WHY you are doing that is up to the reader to decide.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Constitution wasn't silent at all.  It's called the 10th Amendment.  Read it.  
> 
> Furthermore, what Williams said in the article I posted was true.  Very few would have signed onto the Constitution had they not thought they could leave if the federal government was exceeding the powers granted to them by the states.


The word "secession" is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or the Confederate Constitution. There is no specific procedure to secede. Georgia voted against secession but their slave owning leaders seceded anyway. Nine states denied Lincoln ballot access but he won the election anyway. After he won the election Southern secession commissioners went throughout the South warning of a slave rebellion if they did not secede. Because Lincoln won the election the KGC plotted to assassinate Lincoln. *Southern secession is directly tied to expanding the slave empire.* I am not the only one who knows this. Rand's opponents know this and will use this fodder against him as they have already demonstrated in the OP of this thread.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The word secession is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or the Confederate Constitution. There is no specific procedure to secede. Georgia voted against secession but their slave owning leaders seceded anyway. Nine states denied Lincoln ballot access but he won the election anyway. After he won the election Southern secession commissioners went throughout the South warning of a slave rebellion if they did not secede. Because Lincoln won the election the KGC plotted to assassinate Lincoln. *Southern secession is directly tied to expanding the slave empire.* I am not the only one who knows this. Rand's opponents know this and will use this fodder against him as they have already demonstrated in the OP of this thread.


What you won't discuss is that you are justifying the tyranny of Lincoln, because you agreed with what you believe are the reasons for his tyranny.

It's also very curious to me why you believe that something has to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution for that right to exist?  Do you actually believe that?

The Constitution is very clear.

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

The states clearly believed they had the right to secede or they wouldn't have signed the Constitution.

*States have historical right to secede*
By WALTER WILLIAMS




> When New York delegates met on July 26, 1788, their ratification document read, “That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same.”
> 
> On May 29, 1790, the Rhode Island delegates made a similar claim in their ratification document. “That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That the rights of the States respectively to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same.”
> 
> On June 26, 1788, Virginia’s elected delegates met to ratify the Constitution. In their ratification document, they said, “The People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.”
> 
> As demonstrated by the ratification documents of New York, Rhode Island and Virginia, they made it explicit that if the federal government perverted the delegated rights, they had the right to resume those rights. *In fact, when the Union was being formed, where the states created the federal government, every state thought they had a right to secede, otherwise there would not have been a Union.*


http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...3bfab9c2e.html

----------


## Travlyr

> What you won't discuss is that you are justifying the tyranny of Lincoln, because you agreed with what you believe are the reasons for his tyranny.
> 
> It's also very curious to me why you believe that something has to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution for that right to exist?  Do you actually believe that?
> 
> The Constitution is very clear.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The people who have read Lincoln's words for themselves know that Lincoln was no tyrant. He was far from being a tyrant. Lincoln was a peaceful family man who embraced individual liberty. Lincoln found himself defending against warmongers one month after he took the oath of office. 
Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

The slave owning warmongering tyrants were the Southern leaders hell bent on creating a slave empire in North America. 
Knights of the Golden Circle: Secret Empire, Southern Secession, Civil War

People who have done their homework simply dismiss people who call Lincoln a tyrant as someone who has no idea what they are talking about. It discredits them and their philosophy. They are the Achilles heel of the Liberty movement.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> People...simply dismiss people who call Lincoln a tyrant as someone who has no idea what they are talking about. It discredits them and their philosophy.


 Putting aside the issues of historical narrative and Constitutional interpretation, I actually think Travlyr has a pretty good point.  He is correct.  Vocally criticizing Abraham Lincoln (especially if done so vehemently) does cause people to tend towards dismissing you.  You lose credibility in their eyes.  

Not all battles are equally important.  The battle to overthrow the entrenched Civil War narrative and to paint Lincoln as the bad guy may be a battle which does not serve our purpose to focus on.  Our purpose, of course, (I assume) is to bring about liberty.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The people who have read Lincoln's words for themselves know that Lincoln was no tyrant. He was far from being a tyrant. Lincoln was a peaceful family man who embraced individual liberty. Lincoln found himself defending against warmongers one month after he took the oath of office. 
> Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865
> 
> The slave owning warmongering tyrants were the Southern leaders hell bent on creating a slave empire in North America. 
> Knights of the Golden Circle: Secret Empire, Southern Secession, Civil War
> 
> People who have done their homework simply dismiss people who call Lincoln a tyrant as someone who has no idea what they are talking about. It discredits them and their philosophy. They are the Achilles heel of the Liberty movement.


Again, you are attempting to justify Lincoln's tyranny because you agree with the reasons you believe he was being tyrannical.




> They are the Achilles heel of the Liberty movement.


You are the one who attempted to turn this thread into one about slavery and attempt to conflate secession and slavery.  This is the very same thing that the leftists attempt to do with the subject of nullification and you are following suit.

I'm thinking such a lack of judgement is the Achilles heel of the Liberty movement.

----------


## Travlyr

> Putting aside the issues of historical narrative and Constitutional interpretation, I actually think Travlyr has a pretty good point.  He is correct.  Vocally criticizing Abraham Lincoln (especially if done so vehemently) does cause people to tend towards dismissing you.  You lose credibility in their eyes.  
> 
> Not all battles are equally important.  The battle to overthrow the entrenched Civil War narrative and to paint Lincoln as the bad guy may be a battle which does not serve our purpose to focus on.  Our purpose, of course, (I assume) is to bring about liberty.


Thank you helmuth. The truth is that Lincoln was not a tyrant. That is the truth of history. Some of us have done our homework in spite of what we were told. 

If Lincoln was in fact a tyrant then things would be different. People wouldn't have to tell distortions of truth to paint him as one. However, intellectuals and historians know that Lincoln was no tyrant. Calling Lincoln a tyrant simply discredits the liberty movement because *in fact the slaves were liberated during Lincoln's presidency*. The people he imprisoned were actual enemies of the Union. They were undermining the Union effort and perpetuating war. Spies were everywhere. In the first battle of Bull Run Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard actually had a copy of General McClellan's battle plans.  

Lincoln called for peaceful solutions all the way up until April 12, 1861. He was duty bound to support his troops at Fort Sumter. Lincoln was not elected to surrender the Union. People say that the South did not want to occupy Washington when in fact that is what they were trying to do the entire time. Occupying Washington is what would have defined a win for the Confederacy. Jefferson Davis thought it was going to be a walk in the park to occupy Washington and got very upset with Lincoln for what he claimed was an "unconstitutional act" by Lincoln to call up the militias. Davis planned on being in the White House by May 1, 1861, but he couldn't get there before the militias who defended the Union. People claim that Lincoln's actions caused Davis to fire the first shot. The Confederacy did not have to fire on Fort Sumter. They did it to start the war. Lincoln was not ever going to fire the first shot.

----------


## Travlyr

> Again, you are attempting to justify Lincoln's tyranny because you agree with the reasons you believe he was being tyrannical.
> 
> 
> You are the one who attempted to turn this thread into one about slavery and attempt to conflate secession and slavery.  This is the very same thing that the leftists attempt to do with the subject of nullification and you are following suit.
> 
> I'm thinking such a lack of judgement is the Achilles heel of the Liberty movement.


No, LE. Calling Lincoln a tyrant just makes me shake my head. Instead of studying for truth you wish to perpetuate a lie.

----------


## WM_in_MO

> The fact is that Lincoln did not start the war and did not want war. The people in the liberty movement who claim that discredit themselves and the liberty movement.
> 
> The distortion of truth is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement. Abraham Lincoln was all about individual liberty.


Are you really this ignorant?

----------


## Travlyr

> Are you really this ignorant?


I am not ignorant on the Civil War or Abraham Lincoln. I have studied it thoroughly and will gladly debate anyone. The Knights of the Golden Circle were a three tiered governing body made up of Southern slave leaders who planned on creating a slave empire in North & Central America. 

They denied Lincoln ballot access in nine Southern states and when Lincoln won anyway they plotted to kill him.

Anyone can read Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865 for themselves and learn who Abraham Lincoln really was.

----------


## Warlord

> This is exactly what I mean. Misunderstanding and hating Lincoln is the Achilles heel of the Liberty movement because instead of understanding history, the people in the liberty movement promote lies. The people Lincoln jailed were enemies of the Union. He let them go if they would swear allegiance to the Union. People outside of the Liberty movement hear those lies and figure that people in the Liberty movement aren't too bright so their entire message is discredited. The real tyrants, in 1860, were the slave masters and warmongers. Lincoln never personally killed anyone in his life. The warmongering slave owning Jefferson Davis killed and imprisoned plenty of people. When the Liberty movement gets their historical facts straight then they will gain credibility.


You're making excuses for his jailing of journalists which abridged the First Amendment.  Lincoln was the enemy of the Union.  Listen to yourself.  Read Lincoln Unmasked

----------


## Warlord

> The word "secession" is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or the Confederate Constitution. There is no specific procedure to secede. Georgia voted against secession but their slave owning leaders seceded anyway. Nine states denied Lincoln ballot access but he won the election anyway. After he won the election Southern secession commissioners went throughout the South warning of a slave rebellion if they did not secede. Because Lincoln won the election the KGC plotted to assassinate Lincoln. *Southern secession is directly tied to expanding the slave empire.* I am not the only one who knows this. Rand's opponents know this and will use this fodder against him as they have already demonstrated in the OP of this thread.


Except the first states that wanted to secede were northern ones well before the South.  You're embarassing yourself.

----------


## Travlyr

> You're making excuses for his jailing of journalists which abridged the First Amendment.  Lincoln was the enemy of the Union.  Listen to yourself.  Read Lincoln Unmasked


Don't read Lincoln Unmasked. DiLorenzo is a charlatan. Lincoln was no enemy of the Union or individual liberty. 

Read Lincoln's own words for yourself Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

There is no way to read Lincoln's own words for yourself and come away believing he was a tyrant.

----------


## Warlord

> Don't read Lincoln Unmasked. DiLorenzo is a charlatan. Lincoln was no enemy of the Union or individual liberty. 
> 
> Read Lincoln's own words for yourself Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865
> 
> There is no way to read Lincoln's own words for yourself and come away believing he was a tyrant.


Yes, we have read Lincoln's own words and he is a tyrant.  Dilorenzo is no charlatan he is a professor, what the $#@! are you? Go away and stop embarassing yourself.

----------


## Travlyr

> Oh well after reading what this thread has turned into I guess Mr progressive accomplished his mission. Get them fighting whether Lincoln orJohn wilkes Booth was better for all the world to see.


It is not a fight. I am going to link to plenty of evidence and get people to do their own homework so they stop sounding ignorant of history. Lincoln's own words are worth reading for yourself.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yes, we have read Lincoln's own words and he is a tyrant.  Dilorenzo is no charlatan he is a professor, what the $#@! are you? Go away and stop embarassing yourself.


DiLorenzo is an economics professor not a history teacher.

Hey, I am simply trying to point you to some truth because hanging on to the "_Lincoln was a tyrant_" meme in the age of the Internet is rather silly. In 1858, the Knights of the Golden Circle planned on creating a slave empire by conquering Mexico, Central America, Venezuela, Cuba and the Caribbean Islands. At that exact same time Lincoln was touring Illinois debating Douglas on the merits of slavery. Lincoln angered the slave powers with his House Divided speech so they turned their war efforts from empire to the North after Lincoln was elected president.

----------


## Warlord

> DiLorenzo is an economics professor not a history teacher.
> 
> Hey, I am simply trying to point you to some truth because hanging on to the "_Lincoln was a tyrant_" meme in the age of the Internet is rather silly. In 1858, the Knights of the Golden Circle planned on creating a slave empire by conquering Mexico, Central America, Venezuela, Cuba and the Caribbean Islands. At that exact same time Lincoln was touring Illinois debating Douglas on the merits of slavery. Lincoln angered the slave powers with his House Divided speech so they turned their war efforts from empire to the North after Lincoln was elected president.


No, it's not rather silly it's the truth which you don't like to hear. As I said who the $#@! are you? Dilorenzo is a professor and an accredited academic who has wrote two books on the subject.  Lincoln was a tyrant. No other country had a civil war to end slavery.

----------


## Travlyr

> No, it's not rather silly it's the truth which you don't like to hear. As I said who the $#@! are you? Dilorenzo is a professor and an accredited academic who has wrote two books on the subject.  Lincoln was a tyrant. No other country had a civil war to end slavery.


Again, I am simply trying to point you to some truth. When I first read "The Real Lincoln" I believed it. DiLorenzo was very convincing. Then I did my own research. Abraham Lincoln was a very different man than who DiLorenzo portrays. I read four biographies on Lincoln, three from people who knew him, and David Donald's "Lincoln".

The Civil War was not fought to end slavery. The Civil War was fought to nationalize, perpetuate, and expand slavery. The 15,000 member Knights of the Golden Circle planned on a slave empire. 




> Based on years of exhaustive and meticulous research, David C. Keehn s study provides the first comprehensive analysis of the Knights of the Golden Circle, a secret southern society that initially sought to establish a slave-holding empire in the Golden Circle region of Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America. Keehn reveals the origins, rituals, structure, and complex history of this mysterious group, including its later involvement in the secession movement. Members supported southern governors in precipitating disunion, filled the ranks of the nascent Confederate Army, and organized rearguard actions during the Civil War.
> 
> The Knights of the Golden Circle emerged in 1858 when a secret society formed by a Cincinnati businessman merged with the pro-expansionist Order of the Lone Star, which already had 15,000 members. The following year, the Knights began publishing their own newspaper and established their headquarters in Washington, D.C. In 1860, during their first attempt to create the Golden Circle, several thousand Knights assembled in southern Texas to colonize northern Mexico. Due to insufficient resources and organizational shortfalls, however, that filibuster failed. 
> 
> Later, the Knights shifted their focus and began pushing for disunion, spearheading prosecession rallies, and intimidating Unionists in the South. They appointed regional military commanders from the ranks of the South s major political and military figures, including men such as Elkanah Greer of Texas, Paul J. Semmes of Georgia, Robert C. Tyler of Maryland, and Virginius D. Groner of Virginia. Followers also established allies with the South s rabidly prosecession fire-eaters, which included individuals such as Barnwell Rhett, Louis Wigfall, Henry Wise, and William Yancey. 
> 
> According to Keehn, the Knights likely carried out a variety of other clandestine actions before the Civil War, including attempts by insurgents to take over federal forts in Virginia and North Carolina, the activation of prosouthern militia around Washington, D.C., and a planned assassination of Abraham Lincoln as he passed through Baltimore in early 1861 on the way to his inauguration. Once the fighting began, the Knights helped build the emerging Confederate Army and assisted with the pro-Confederate Copperhead movement in northern states. With the war all but lost, various Knights supported one of their members, John Wilkes Booth, in his plot to assassinate President Lincoln. 
> 
> Keehn s fast-paced, engaging narrative demonstrates that the Knights' influence proved more substantial than historians have traditionally assumed and provides a new perspective on southern secession and the outbreak of the Civil War.


You can hold onto your myth if you like. It does not matter to me. My point is that spreading that myth simply discredits the liberty movement as we see in the OP.

----------


## Origanalist

> I have read four biographies of Lincoln. Three of the four biographies were of people who knew Lincoln personally. Henry Ketchum, William Herndon, Nicolay and Hay, and David Donald. I have taken a 26 hour course from Yale University on the Civil War and read many other books on the war.







> Read Lincoln's own words for yourself Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865
> 
> There is no way to read Lincoln's own words for yourself and come away believing he was a tyrant.


Wait a minute, you are asking me to believe a politicians words. You do understand he has made statements that make him look very bad also don't you? That's like saying Mitt Romney really was a good guy, just listen to what he said.

----------


## Travlyr

> Wait a minute, you are asking me to believe a politicians words. You do understand he has made statements that make him look very bad also don't you? That's like saying Mitt Romney really was a good guy, just listen to what he said.


I'm not a badass. I am a liberty loving truth teller. I've done my homework and now I am asking for people in the liberty movement to do theirs so that they don't sound ignorant of history. 

Those statements that make Lincoln look bad were taken out-of-context. When they are read in context they make perfect sense. 

Lincoln was not really as much of a politician as he was a public speaker mainly for the little guy. So, yes, I am asking you to read Lincoln's own words for yourself. There is no better way to get to know who he was than by reading what he spoke and wrote. If you do, you will be surprised by what you find in the man. Lincoln has been mischaracterized by both sides. He was not a god or a devil. He was a liberty loving principled peaceful family man who believed oaths sworn to God were sacred.

Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

It's free if you have a Kindle.

----------


## Origanalist

> I'm not a badass. I am a liberty loving truth teller. I've done my homework and now I am asking for people in the liberty movement to do theirs so that they don't sound ignorant of history. 
> 
> Lincoln was not really as much of a politician as he was a public speaker mainly for the little guy. So, yes, I am asking you to read Lincoln's own words for yourself. There is no better way to get to know who he was than by reading what he spoke and wrote. If you do, you will be surprised by what you find in the man. Lincoln has been mischaracterized by both sides. He was not a god or a devil. He was a liberty loving principled peaceful family man who believed oaths sworn to God were sacred.
> 
> Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865
> 
> It's free if you have a Kindle.


Travlyr, I'm much more interested in what he did than what he said. Politicians/political leaders throughout history have made stirring speeches before they went on to commit travesties.

----------


## FindLiberty

*The robot Ash (in the Alien Movie) had a prime directive to obtain/return the alien life form for use by the company (MIC?):*



> Ash: Bring back life form. Priority One. All other priorities rescinded. 
> 
> Parker: The damn company. What about our lives, you son of a bitch? 
> 
> Ash: I repeat, all other priorities are rescinded.


*The POTUS tyrant Lincoln's prime directive was empire:*



> "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union ... [¶] I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."[183]

----------


## RDM

> No, Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant. The fact that the people in the liberty movement don't know who Abraham Lincoln was is quite revealing. It is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement.


Sure would like YOUR definition of a tyrant.

President  Lincoln, who is                            considered by most historians (or at least  the politically correct ones) to be the best and certainly the most  important U.S.                            President, wielded power in a fashion never  seen before nor since. The fact that he died as a martyr is why history  has viewed                            him in such a kind albeit sanitized light. 

During the Civil War, Lincoln continuously circumvented the law and in many cases suspended the Constitution of the United States altogether. In doing so, Lincoln                            denied the rights of citizens he was sworn to protect. He suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, closed courts by force,                            and arrested citizens and elected officials without cause. Lincoln also raised troops without                            the consent of Congress, closed-down newspapers whose writers displayed any dissent to U.S. policy.

Lincoln's  troops razed the South and doomed to poverty--generations of  Southerners for many                            years to come. General Sherman's "March to  the Sea" was nothing more than a marauding rampage filled with robbery,  rape, and                            murder. These men were lesser than soldiers  on a military mission and more common thugs on a crime spree. Northern  armies                            brought war to women, children, and privately  held property as a matter of official policy (rather than as so-called  "collateral                            damage").

Lincoln                            ordered the arrest of Baltimore  police Chief George P. Kane,                            police commissioner Charles Howard, as well  as fellow commissioners: William H. Gatchell, John W. Davis, and Charles  D. Hinks.                            Baltimore Mayor George W. Brown was arrested  and sent to Fort                            McHenry. The men were incarcerated because they dared to publicly disagree                            with Lincoln and refused to carry-out the President's tyrannical                            orders.

Baltimore was placed under federal control and a military police force was formed.

Both the continents of Europe                            and South America ended the practice of slavery and, unlike the United                            States government, they did so without murdering 700,000* of their own citizens. The abhorrent                            practice of slavery could have and would have been ended in this country, without ever firing a shot.

Contrary  to popular belief--as                            perpetuated by government schools--slavery  was a national institution, it was not unique to the South. Upon his  inauguration,                            Lincoln could have freed the slaves in the Northern states                            which would have put severe diplomatic pressure on the South. However, Lincoln                            besides being a tyrant was also an incredible hypocrite. Lincoln's                            numerous personal letters show his outright disgust for the black man and his truly racist views.

*Consider a few rarely spoken facts:
*
-Northern General U.S. Grant continued to hold a slave for nearly a year after the war. In fact, it took an act of Congress to finally free the man from Grant's possession.

-Northern General Tecumseh Sherman was arrested many times for brutally abusing several of his slaves.

Conversely, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed all of his slaves prior to the start of the war. That act by the military leader of the South truly displays that for the Confederacy, the war was only about states' rights and a just rebellion against tyranny--not about slavery!

Lincoln's War (otherwise known as the Civil War), was much less about freeing oppressed blacks and much more about the federal government exerting complete control over all citizens. Lincoln's actions were a direct assault upon the wishes of our founding fathers. Lincoln cared very little for the rule of law, as evidenced by his numerous suspensions of U.S. Constitutional rights.

I believe that had Lincoln survived his second term--his place in this nation's history would be seen in a much different light. Furthermore, had the Civil War ended with a different outcome, Lincoln and many of his generals would have been deservedly tried as war criminals.

Of course, the victors write the history books--even when they tell lies. See also: What was the Main Cause of the Civil War? A Study of Slavery, States' Rights, Secession, State and Federal Governments, Constitution, Supreme Court, and President Abraham Lincoln and President Abraham Lincoln and War Powers.
- See more at: http://thomaslegion.net/presidentabr....UdiVvm03.dpuf

----------


## torchbearer

> Again, the South seceded to create a slave empire in North America. If you wish to continue to promote enslavement as a virtue of liberty, then nobody outside of the Liberty movement is going to give you any credibility at all.


Slavery existed by law under this flag a lot longer


than it every did under this one:


Want to talk about an empire of slavery?

----------


## Travlyr

This post is a classic example of taking Lincoln's words out-of-context to misrepresent what he was saying. And from Wikipedia no less. 




> *The robot Ash (in the Alien Movie) had a prime directive to obtain/return the alien life form for use by the company (MIC?):*
> 
> 
> *The POTUS tyrant Lincoln's prime directive was empire:*


This letter from Lincoln to Horace Greeley was to inform him that changes were coming. 




> Letter to Horace Greeley
> Written during the heart of the Civil War, this is one of Abraham Lincoln's most famous letters. Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune, had just addressed an editorial to Lincoln called "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," making demands and implying that Lincoln's administration lacked direction and resolve.
> 
> President Lincoln made his reply when a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation already lay in his desk drawer. His response revealed his concentration on preserving the Union. The letter, which received acclaim in the North, stands as a classic statement of Lincoln's constitutional responsibilities. A few years after the president's death, Greeley wrote an assessment of Lincoln. *He stated that Lincoln did not actually respond to his editorial but used it instead as a platform to prepare the public for his "altered position" on emancipation.*

----------


## Travlyr

> Slavery existed by law under this flag a lot longer
> 
> 
> than it every did under this one:
> 
> 
> Want to talk about an empire of slavery?


Slavery was always illegal in State of Illinois.

----------


## Travlyr

> Sure would like YOUR definition of a tyrant.
> 
> President  Lincoln, who is                            considered by most historians (or at least  the politically correct ones) to be the best and certainly the most  important U.S.                            President, wielded power in a fashion never  seen before nor since. The fact that he died as a martyr is why history  has viewed                            him in such a kind albeit sanitized light. 
> 
> During the Civil War, Lincoln continuously circumvented the law and in many cases suspended the Constitution of the United States altogether. In doing so, Lincoln                            denied the rights of citizens he was sworn to protect. He suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, closed courts by force,                            and arrested citizens and elected officials without cause. Lincoln also raised troops without                            the consent of Congress, closed-down newspapers whose writers displayed any dissent to U.S. policy.
> 
> Lincoln's  troops razed the South and doomed to poverty--generations of  Southerners for many                            years to come. General Sherman's "March to  the Sea" was nothing more than a marauding rampage filled with robbery,  rape, and                            murder. These men were lesser than soldiers  on a military mission and more common thugs on a crime spree. Northern  armies                            brought war to women, children, and privately  held property as a matter of official policy (rather than as so-called  "collateral                            damage").
> 
> Lincoln                            ordered the arrest of Baltimore  police Chief George P. Kane,                            police commissioner Charles Howard, as well  as fellow commissioners: William H. Gatchell, John W. Davis, and Charles  D. Hinks.                            Baltimore Mayor George W. Brown was arrested  and sent to Fort                            McHenry. The men were incarcerated because they dared to publicly disagree                            with Lincoln and refused to carry-out the President's tyrannical                            orders.
> ...


Unfortunately, this is the opinion a lot of people who haven't taken the time to read: Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

Once one reads those, there is no way to believe Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant.

----------


## RDM

> It is not a fight. I am going to link to plenty of evidence and get people to do their own homework so they stop sounding ignorant of history. *Lincoln's own words are worth reading for yourself.*


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

-Fourth Debate  with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The  Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III,  pp. 145-146.)

----------


## Travlyr

Again, taking Lincoln's words out-of-context completely misrepresents what he was saying. 



> *Yes they are!
> *
> "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing  about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black  races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or  jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to  intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that  there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I  believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of  social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live,  while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and  inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the  superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I  do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior  position the negro should be denied everything."
> 
> -Fourth Debate  with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III,  pp. 145-146.)


In-context one learns that Lincoln was defending himself against a false political charge and the main point in that introduction was that the general government had no authority over the slave issue and that using government to force equality of the races is impossible.




> Fourth Debate: Charleston, Illinois
> 
> September 18, 1858
> 
> Eleven railroad cars of people from Indiana were among the approximately 12,000 in attendance.
> 
> Answering Douglas' charge made in Jonosboro that he favored racial equality Lincoln explained his views on race. Lincoln then charged that Douglas was plotting to create a constitution for Kansas without allowing it to be voted upon by the people of Kansas. Lincoln gave a detailed "history" of the 'Nebraska Bill' [Kansas-Nebraska Act] and explained a conspiracy existed to nationalize slavery.
> 
> Douglas denied any conspiracy with Roger Taney, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanon and restated the charge that Lincoln favored equality of the races.
> ...


Read the rest here.

----------


## torchbearer

> Slavery was always illegal in State of Illinois.



Didn't address my post.

----------


## Travlyr

> Slavery existed by law under this flag a lot longer
> 
> 
> than it every did under this one:
> 
> 
> Want to talk about an empire of slavery?


The founders under the American flag believed that slavery may eventually end peacefully. That was Abraham Lincoln's argument. 



> Speech at Edwardsville, Illinois - September 11, 1858
> 
> The difference between the Republican and the Democratic parties on the leading issue of this contest, as I understand it, is, that the former consider slavery a moral, social and political wrong, while the latter do not consider it either a moral, social or political wrong; and the action of each, as respects the growth of the country and the expansion of our population, is squared to meet these views. I will not allege that the Democratic party consider slavery morally, socially and politically right; though their tendency to that view has, in may opinion, been constant and unmistakable for the past five years. I prefer to take, as the accepted maxim of the party, the idea put forth by Judge Douglas, that he ``don't care whether slavery is voted down or voted up.'' I am quite willing to believe that many Democrats would prefer that slavery be always voted down, and I am sure that some prefer that it be always "voted up''; but I have a right to insist that their action, especially if it be their constant and unvarying action, shall determine their ideas and preferences on the subject. Every measure of the Democratic party of late years, bearing directly or indirectly on the slavery question, has corresponded with this notion of utter indifference whether slavery or freedom shall outrun in the race of empire across the Pacific---every measure, I say, up to the Dred Scott decision, where, it seems to me, the idea is boldly suggested that slavery is better than freedom. The Republican party, on the contrary, hold that this government was instituted to secure the blessings of freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro, to the white man, to the soil, and to the State. Regarding it an evil, they will not molest it in the States where it exists; they will not overlook the constitutional guards which our forefathers have placed around it; they will do nothing which can give proper offence to those who hold slaves by legal sanction; but they will use every constitutional method to prevent the evil from becoming larger and involving more negroes, more white men, more soil, and more States in its deplorable consequences. *They will, if possible, place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate peaceable extinction, in God's own good time.* And to this end they will, if possible, restore the government to the policy of the fathers---the policy of preserving the new territories from the baneful influence of human bondage, as the Northwestern territories were sought to be preserved by the ordinance of 1787 and the compromise act of 1820. They will oppose, in all its length and breadth, the modern Democratic idea that slavery is as good as freedom, and ought to have room for expansion all over the continent, if people can be found to carry it. All, or very nearly all, of Judge Douglas' arguments about "Popular Sovereignty,'' as he calls it, are logical if you admit that slavery is as good and as right as freedom; and not one of them is worth a rush if you deny it." - Abraham Lincoln


The slave powers fully intended for a slave empire but they lost the war. If they had won the war it is hard telling what would have happened. As it is savery did not really end in the United States until WWII. They just renamed it peonage and convict leasing.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Putting aside the issues of historical narrative and Constitutional interpretation, I actually think Travlyr has a pretty good point.  He is correct.  Vocally criticizing Abraham Lincoln (especially if done so vehemently) does cause people to tend towards dismissing you.  You lose credibility in their eyes.  
> 
> Not all battles are equally important.  The battle to overthrow the entrenched Civil War narrative and to paint Lincoln as the bad guy may be a battle which does not serve our purpose to focus on.  Our purpose, of course, (I assume) is to bring about liberty.


I tend to agree. It's a historical issue that is a bit of a red herring. It's complex, and won't win votes.

That being said, the leftists, socialists, Marxists and big government statists are making it a hard subject to avoid with their current propaganda that uses Lincoln as a figurehead for their big, central government agenda. It eventually gets boiled down to the false smear that if you oppose big, central, all powerful government in any way, you are a racist.

----------


## torchbearer

> The founders under the American flag believed that slavery may eventually end peacefully. That was Abraham Lincoln's argument. 
> 
> 
> The slave powers fully intended for a slave empire but they lost the war. If they had won the war it is hard telling what would have happened. As it is savery did not really end in the United States until WWII. They just renamed it peonage and convict leasing.


The slave powers were the textile owners of the north. They wanted cheap cotton.
The market provided cheap cotton, and they went along with it until the cotton was taken away. Then came the war.

Wanna guess what the union soldiers took from alexandria,la on their barges after burning the town?
not the slaves, but cotton.
Cotton was king. And the textile industrial complex wanted it cheap. (even if they had to steal it at gun point)
If they objected to slavery, they could have bought their cotton elsewhere, boycotting the slave picked cotton.
So get off your high horse.

----------


## torchbearer

Hell the first two years of the war had nothing to do with freeing slaves.
It wasn't until Lincoln saw the northern states waning in support of his mass murder did he "free" the slaves in the southern states that weren't under his jurisdiction anyway.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Unfortunately, this is the opinion a lot of people who haven't taken the time to read: Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865
> 
> Once one reads those, there is no way to believe Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant.


His actions speak one hell of a lot more than his words.

----------


## Travlyr

> His actions speak one hell of a lot more than his words.


Actions do speak louder than words. Yet, words are important. Here are his words.



> Protest in Illinois Legislature on Slavery 
> 
> March 3, 1837
> The following protest was presented to the House, which was read and ordered to be spread on the journals, to wit:
> 
> "Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.
> 
> They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.
> 
> ...


Twenty five years later here is his action.



> The District of Columbia Emancipation Act
> 
> On April 16, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill ending slavery in the District of Columbia. Passage of this law came 8 1/2 months before President Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation. The act brought to a conclusion decades of agitation aimed at ending what antislavery advocates called "the national shame" of slavery in the nation's capital. It provided for immediate emancipation, compensation to former owners who were loyal to the Union of up to $300 for each freed slave, voluntary colonization of former slaves to locations outside the United States, and payments of up to $100 for each person choosing emigration. Over the next 9 months, the Board of Commissioners appointed to administer the act approved 930 petitions, completely or in part, from former owners for the freedom of 2,989 former slaves.
> 
> Although its combination of emancipation, compensation to owners, and colonization did not serve as a model for the future, the District of Columbia Emancipation Act was an early signal of slavery's death. In the District itself, African Americans greeted emancipation with great jubilation. For many years afterward, they celebrated Emancipation Day on April 16 with parades and festivals.

----------


## Travlyr

> Hell the first two years of the war had nothing to do with freeing slaves.
> It wasn't until Lincoln saw the northern states waning in support of his mass murder did he "free" the slaves in the southern states that weren't under his jurisdiction anyway.


This is what I mean by the Achilles heel. What you write is a distortion of what really happened. The age of the Internet is here.

President Lincoln was respecting the rights of the States to determine the slavery issue for themselves. When he saw that the real key to win the war was to free the slaves, he drafted the Emancipation Proclamation and the slaves left their slave masters in droves. Many of them joined the Union army and freed themselves for their posterity.

----------


## torchbearer

> This is what I mean by the Achilles heel. What you write is a distortion of what really happened. The age of the Internet is here.
> 
> President Lincoln was respecting the rights of the States to determine the slavery issue for themselves. When he saw that the real key to win the war was to free the slaves, he drafted the Emancipation Proclamation and the slaves left their slave masters in droves. Many of them joined the Union army and freed themselves for their posterity.


seriously? you invoke superior knowledge by net, then say something stupid?
The slave didn't leave their owners in droves because the local governments were still in control.
The slaves of rapides left the plantations the day the union army occupied the town hall.
most of the slaves gathered there.
from there, the union military leader sent them out to steal the cotton from the plantations and bring it back to them. so the union army wouldn't have to risk its soldiers in such an endeavor.
Once most of the cotton was stolen for the slaves new masters... the slaves looked to the union army and said, 'what now, new masters??'
The union army boss said, 'that is all'. threw out some torches, started a huge fire that engulfed the town, packed up his troops and left the slaves behind for retribution.
the end.

god, that union army was so humane. hey, they had their cotton. and that was all that counted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Louisiana

----------


## Travlyr

> I tend to agree. It's a historical issue that is a bit of a red herring. It's complex, and won't win votes.
> 
> That being said, the leftists, socialists, Marxists and big government statists are making it a hard subject to avoid with their current propaganda that uses Lincoln as a figurehead for their big, central government agenda. It eventually gets boiled down to the false smear that if you oppose big, central, all powerful government in any way, you are a racist.


When in fact, when one really studies the issues leading up to the Civil War, and Abraham Lincoln's own life and words prior to becoming president, one learns that Abraham Lincoln is the leader of the individual liberty movement, prosperity for individuals, and would have much rather been a peacetime president. Others in the Republican party may have been big government warmongering guys but Lincoln was a strict Constitutionalist.

----------


## torchbearer

now to parse out- there were two union military units in alexandria, the army unit was basically decent. the navy unit is the one who did the dirty deeds.

----------


## Travlyr

> seriously? you invoke superior knowledge by net, then say something stupid?
> The slave didn't leave their owners in droves because the local governments were still in control.
> The slaves of rapides left the plantations the day the union army occupied the town hall.
> most of the slaves gathered there.
> from there, the union military leader sent them out to steal the cotton from the plantations and bring it back to them. so the union army wouldn't have to risk its soldiers in such an endeavor.
> Once most of the cotton was stolen for the slaves new masters... the slaves looked to the union army and said, 'what now, new masters??'
> The union army boss said, 'that is all'. threw out some torches, started a huge fire that engulfed the town, packed up his troops and left the slaves behind for retribution.
> the end.
> 
> ...


Toward the end of the war, as soon as the slaves saw the Union army they gathered behind them in droves. Not all the Union soldiers were happy about that but that is what happened. 




> Jan 1, 1863: Lincoln signs Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> Republican abolitionists in the North rejoiced that Lincoln had finally thrown his full weight behind the cause for which they had elected him. Though slaves in the south failed to rebel en masse with the signing of the proclamation, they slowly began to liberate themselves as Union armies marched into Confederate territory. Toward the end of the war, slaves left their former masters in droves. They fought and grew crops for the Union Army, performed other military jobs and worked in the North's mills. Though the proclamation was not greeted with joy by all northerners, particularly northern white workers and troops fearful of job competition from an influx of freed slaves, it had the distinct benefit of convincing Britain and France to steer clear of official diplomatic relations with the Confederacy.

----------


## willwash

> The Constitution is silent on secession.


This is incorrect.  While the concept of secession is not mentioned directly, it is included by proxy among the powers reserved by the States via the 10th Amendment.

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

Secession is not prohibited to the States by the Constitution.  Therefore, that power is reserved to the States.  The argument stops there, but just for S&Gs, further credence is lent to this position by the fact that several states specifically reserved this power in their own State Constitutions as a condition of ratification of the Federal Constitution, including Virginia and New York, the two largest and most powerful states at the time.

The only logical, legal argument against secession I've ever seen (i.e., one that did not rely on emotional catchphrases and buzzwords about the "need for union") is very weak and goes back to the preamble to the Articles of Confederation (as if they had any binding authority whatsoever), because it includes the word perpetuity, or something to that effect.

The question of whether States have a legal right to secede (which is an unequivocal yes--it's simply objective fact) is not the same question as whether Abraham Lincoln is a tyrant--that is, and always will be a matter of opinion.

----------


## torchbearer

> Toward the end of the war, as soon as the slaves saw the Union army they gathered behind them in droves. Not all the Union soldiers were happy about that but that is what happened.


dude, you live in a fantasy land.
I live in that history. IN this area, no slave was given a rifle by the union soldiers. they were left behind.... and then came reconstruction.
Are you ready for the beautiful humane part of history yet?
I wonder where the intense hatred of black people came from...? Was it because they were free? Or was it because they aided an enemy in theft?
Bad blood was made by the way Lincoln "freed" the slaves... and he did it for political convenience to save face in a war he was losing going into 1863.
I've seen people who like lincoln, but until you, i hadn't met anyone who had a fetish for him. to the point of making fantasy.
You should work for Pixar. Really. At the end of the movie, you could have all the slaves and union soldiers marching hand-in-hand at the end of the movie.

----------


## willwash

And just to preempt, while the Constitution does speak of using militia to put down insurrection/rebellion (not sure of the precise phraseology), this is not what secession was.  Secession was carefully considered, deliberated and voted on by duly elected State legislators fulfilling their mandate to look after the best interests of their state.  Secession is an inherently peaceful act, which is incompatible with and precludes it from amounting to insurrection or rebellion.  

The firing on Fort Sumter was a fundamentally defensive act.  The Union in fact started the war.  By retaining federal forces in the newly sovereign territory of the South the Union was committing an act of aggression.  If a foreign power built a military base in one of our harbors and ignored repeated overtures to evacuate it peacefully, it would be considered an act of war.

----------


## Travlyr

> This is incorrect.  While the concept of secession is not mentioned directly, it is included by proxy among the powers reserved by the States via the 10th Amendment.
> 
> The powers not delegated by the Constitution to the United States, *nor prohibited by it to the States*, are reserved to the states respectively.
> 
> Secession is not prohibited to the States by the Constitution.  Therefore, that power is reserved to the States.  The argument stops there, but just for S&Gs, further credence is lent to this position by the fact that several states specifically reserved this power in their own State Constitutions as a condition of ratification of the Federal Constitution, including Virginia and New York, the two largest and most powerful states at the time.
> 
> The only logical, legal argument against secession I've ever seen (i.e., one that did not rely on emotional catchphrases and buzzwords about the "need for union") is very weak and goes back to the preamble to the Articles of Confederation (as if they had any binding authority whatsoever), because it includes the word perpetuity, or something to that effect.
> 
> The question of whether States have a legal right to secede (which is an unequivocal yes--it's simply objective fact) is not the same question as whether Abraham Lincoln is a tyrant--that is, and always will be a matter of opinion.


What procedure was laid out for secession? Georgia voted against it but they lied about the vote and seceded anyway.

----------


## Travlyr

> And just to preempt, while the Constitution does speak of using militia to put down insurrection/rebellion (not sure of the precise phraseology), this is not what secession was.  Secession was carefully considered, deliberated and voted on by duly elected State legislators fulfilling their mandate to look after the best interests of their state.  Secession is an inherently peaceful act, which is incompatible with and precludes it from amounting to insurrection or rebellion.  
> 
> The firing on Fort Sumter was a fundamentally defensive act.  The Union in fact started the war.  By retaining federal forces in the newly sovereign territory of the South the Union was committing an act of aggression.  If a foreign power built a military base in one of our harbors and ignored repeated overtures to evacuate it peacefully, it would be considered an act of war.


Is enslaving people an inherently peaceful act?

----------


## Travlyr

> dude, you live in a fantasy land.
> I live in that history. IN this area, no slave was given a rifle by the union soldiers. they were left behind.... and then came reconstruction.
> Are you ready for the beautiful humane part of history yet?
> I wonder where the intense hatred of black people came from...? Was it because they were free? Or was it because they aided an enemy in theft?
> Bad blood was made by the way Lincoln "freed" the slaves... and he did it for political convenience to save face in a war he was losing going into 1863.
> I've seen people who like lincoln, but until you, i hadn't met anyone who had a fetish for him. to the point of making fantasy.
> You should work for Pixar. Really. At the end of the movie, you could have all the slaves and union soldiers marching hand-in-hand at the end of the movie.


Lincoln was not the monster you want him to be. Jefferson Davis had ties to the Knights of the Golden Circle who *planned on a slave empire*. They hated Lincoln because of his House Divided speech. When he was elected president the KGC plotted to assassinate Lincoln just for winning the election. That should tell everyone something about what was going on in 1861.

My mission is to get people in the Liberty movement to do their own research and learn who Lincoln really was instead of simply believing in myth.

----------


## willwash

> Is enslaving people an inherently peaceful act?


You're implying, I assume, that Lincoln was justified in attacking the South on account of southern slavery.  That's fine, but that makes it a plain old war of conquest and ideology with no bearing on the legality of secession, and my original point that secession is a power that is reserved to the States stands.

EDIT:  I'm not a Lincoln basher, but I'm certainly not a Lincoln worshipper either.  He just WAS.  But the modern culture of dogmatic political correctness requires us to rank him as the top President ever (you might be allowed to put GW first, but no one else).  I don't buy into that for a second.

The question of whether Lincoln was a tyrant is very muddy and speaks to the center of the Machiavellian enigma of whether a just end (ending slaver) validates an unjust means (trampling States' rights).  If you come down too strongly on either side of the question, you're probably missing part of the puzzle.

----------


## torchbearer

> Lincoln was not the monster you want him to be. Jefferson Davis had ties to the Knights of the Golden Circle who *planned on a slave empire*. They hated Lincoln because of his House Divided speech. When he was elected president the KGC plotted to assassinate Lincoln just for winning the election. That should tell everyone something about what was going on in 1861.
> 
> My mission is to get people in the Liberty movement to do their own research and learn who Lincoln really was instead of simply believing in myth.


Davis means nothing to me. Nor any other person.
I'm looking at the actions of the military under direction of Lincoln and what his decisions created.
Racial animosity is just one of the many.

Everything you read was written by the victors. and you parrot it as truth.
He was technically a mass-murderer, who invaded foreign countries... for resources. Sounds familiar.

----------


## Travlyr

The right to secession is just a distraction. Many people at the time believed in the right to secession and many did not. 
Robert E. Lee - "_Secession is nothing but revolution_." January 1861.




> You're implying, I assume, that Lincoln was justified in attacking the South on account of southern slavery.  That's fine, but that makes it a plain old war of conquest and ideology with no bearing on the legality of secession, and my original point that secession is a power that is reserved to the States stands.


No, Lincoln did not attack the South on account of Southern slavery. Lincoln attacked the Confederacy because the Confederate army had Washington city under siege. Jefferson Davis intended to occupy the White House by May 1, 1861 but the Union militia volunteers beat the Confederate army to Washington. By July 21, 1861 30,000 Confederate troops were still camped just 30 miles outside of Washington. The Union could not function. When General McClellan took his militia volunteers out to challenge General Beauregard, Beauregard had copies of McClellan's battle plans. Spies were everywhere. 

The Siege of Washington: The Untold Story of the Twelve Days That Shook the Union

----------


## Travlyr

> Davis means nothing to me. Nor any other person.
> I'm looking at the actions of the military under direction of Lincoln and what his decisions created.
> Racial animosity is just one of the many.
> 
> Everything you read was written by the victors. and you parrot it as truth.
> He was technically a mass-murderer, who invaded foreign countries... for resources. Sounds familiar.


Abraham Lincoln did not even like to hunt because killing animals turned his stomach.

----------


## torchbearer

> Abraham Lincoln did not even like to hunt because killing animals turned his stomach.


right, a coward had other men do his dirty work.
though he was probably just another figure head with big interest running the show. But the buck stops at him.. and not them. so....

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The question of whether Lincoln was a tyrant is very muddy and speaks to the center of the Machiavellian enigma of *whether a just end (ending slaver) validates an unjust means (trampling States' rights)*.  If you come down too strongly on either side of the question, you're probably missing part of the puzzle.


Which is precisely why the left has been using Lincoln. They believe the (stated) ends justify the means. Constitution and rule of law be damned. Of course the corrupt left elite don't tell the truth when it comes to the desired "ends". They lie to their supporters and the ignorant masses about the "ends", while their true agenda is power and wealth for themselves, achieved via crony corporatism.

----------


## Travlyr

Again, you need to read the words of Lincoln because he was no coward by any means. 




> right, a coward had other men do his dirty work.
> though he was probably just another figure head with big interest running the show. But the buck stops at him.. and not them. so....


Lincoln was denied ballot access in nine Southern states. He won the election anyway. Then the highly organized KGC slave powers went throughout the south with secession commissioners warning the Southern states that if they did not secede then there would be a slave uprising. Georgia voted no. They seceded anyway. Then they plotted to kill Lincoln in Baltimore on his way to the inauguration. When they bombed Fort Sumter they plotted to march to Washington and overthrow the Union. 




> The Siege of Washington
> "On April 12, 1861 only hours after Confederate guns opened fire on Fort Sumter in the Charleston harbor, Confederate Secretary of War Leroy P. Walker appeared before a jubilant crowd in Montgomery, Alabama. "No man can tell when the war this day commenced will end," Walker thundered from the balcony of the Exchange Hotel, at the heart of the Confederate capital, "but I will prophesy that the flag which now floats the breeze here will float over the dome of the old capital at Washington before the first of May."


What Jefferson Davis did not count on was Lincoln calling up the militia because he believed that only Congress could call-up the militia and they were not in session. 




> Confederate States of America - Message to Congress April 29, 1861 (Ratification of the Constitution)
> The President of the United States called for an army of 75,000 men, whose first service was to be to capture our forts. It was a plain declaration of war which I was not at liberty to disregard because of my knowledge that under the Constitution of the United States the President was usurping a power granted exclusively to the Congress.


Which really wasn't true because the first service of the 75,000 men was to defend Washington. The militia volunteers went straight to Washington to defend the Union not to South Carolina to invade. And Jefferson Davis pretends that bombing Fort Sumter was not a declaration of war?




> The Siege of Washington: The Twelve Days That Shook the Union
> 
> A Timeline
> *April 14, 1861*	The Union flag is lowered over Fort Sumter in surrender. In Washington, President Lincoln drafts an emergency proclamation calling for 75,000 Union volunteer troops to suppress the rebellion and defend the capital. Lincoln tells his cabinet, “If I were Beauregard, I would take Washington.”
> 
> *April 15*	Lincoln formally issues his emergency proclamation. Americans in both the North and South are transfixed by a single question: Who will reach the capital first? Confederate attackers? Or Union defenders?
> 
> *April 16*	As militiamen begin to mobilize across the North, General Winfield Scott has only 900 U.S. Army troops and 600 District Militia under his command to defend Washington.
> 
> ...

----------


## PierzStyx

> Yes, he did. Lincoln was duty bound under sworn oath. The people he imprisoned were enemies of the Union. 
> 
> One of the dumbest things that people in the liberty movement do is to not read history and then promote their misunderstanding of history as facts. I have read four biographies of Lincoln. Three of the four biographies were of people who knew Lincoln personally. Henry Ketchum, William Herndon, Nicolay and Hay, and David Donald. I have taken a 26 hour course from Yale University on the Civil War and read many other books on the war. In 1858, the Knights of the Golden Circle had planned on going to war against Mexico and Central America in order to create a slave empire in North America and Lincoln foiled their plans so they went to war on the North instead of taking their war south. Calling Abraham Lincoln a tyrant is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement because it is not true yet it is heavily promoted anyway.


The problem with your argument is you're essentially say Lincoln wasn't the bad guy because the slave holding south was a bad place with bad people. And you're absolutely right in that statement about the south. BUT that doesn't absolve Lincoln either. He was a tyrant. The man discarded the Constitution and used the military as a weapon to force people to obey his will. Read Thomas Di Lorenzo's book "The Real Lincoln." He goes over, in excruciating detail just how many times Lincoln violated the law, the Constitution, and the rights of the individual. Lincoln was not a good President. And after taking many classes on US History (being a US History major with a specialty in Colonial Period-Reconstruction) I can say without a doubt that Di Lorenzo is right.

As a matter of studying history, reading biographies by people who knew someone is suspect because their vision of the person and the facts are clouded by their relationship with the person. Herndon's Lincoln biography is especially bad. Of all those you wrote Donald's is the best biography and the only one worth reading. But he doesn't treat Lincoln nicely. He even points out that Lincoln purposefully goaded the Southern forces into firing on Fort Sumter as a justification for starting the war he already though necessary. In our nomenclature it was a "false-flag operation" from the very beginning.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Abraham Lincoln did not even like to hunt because killing animals turned his stomach.


And Hitler didn't eat meat. This tells us nothing about the true character of the man. Hitler ordered the deaths of millions. Lincoln didn't have a problem sending hundred of thousands into the emat grinder to ensure his precious ideal of "Union" was upheld.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Lincoln was not the monster you want him to be. Jefferson Davis had ties to the Knights of the Golden Circle who *planned on a slave empire*. They hated Lincoln because of his House Divided speech. When he was elected president the KGC plotted to assassinate Lincoln just for winning the election. That should tell everyone something about what was going on in 1861.
> 
> My mission is to get people in the Liberty movement to do their own research and learn who Lincoln really was instead of simply believing in myth.


Actually every scholarly history I've ever read, including Donald's Lincoln, believes the Baltimore assassination attempt was more freak out on Lincoln's people than actually a plot to kill him.

If anyone is believing a myth, you are Travlyr.

----------


## Travlyr

> The problem with your argument is you're essentially say Lincoln wasn't the bad guy because the slave holding south was a bad place with bad people. And you're absolutely right in that statement about the south.


That is not what I am saying at all. What I am stating is that the Knights of the Golden Circle had around 15,000 members in 1858. They *planned a slave empire* from the South through Mexico, Central America, Venezuela, the Caribbean Islands and Cuba in order to take control of supplying the world with goods. The slaveholding south was not a bad place with bad people. The slave powers were tyrants not the people of the South.




> BUT that doesn't absolve Lincoln either. He was a tyrant.


That is a matter of opinion. I don't buy it. Lincoln only spent a few months as a Captain of the Illinois militia and the only real action he saw was when one of Blackfoots tribe members wandered into his camp and everyone in the militia wanted to hang him Lincoln stepped forward and let the guy go on his way.




> The man discarded the Constitution and used the military as a weapon to force people to obey his will.


I find no evidence for this at all. Lincoln did what he thought he had to do to win the war. He used military might to win the war just as the Confederacy was using military might to overthrow the Union.




> Read Thomas Di Lorenzo's book "The Real Lincoln." He goes over, in excruciating detail just how many times Lincoln violated the law, the Constitution, and the rights of the individual.


I have read DiLorenzo's books and I am amazed that the Mises Institution has anything to do with him anymore. Mises held himself to the highest standards of ethics and DiLorenzo is discrediting that reputation.




> Lincoln was not a good President. And after taking many classes on US History (being a US History major with a specialty in Colonial Period-Reconstruction) I can say without a doubt that Di Lorenzo is right.


Well, you can believe whatever you want to believe. I read DiLorenzo's book and believed what he wrote until I did my own research. DiLorenzo is a charlatan. 




> As a matter of studying history, reading biographies by people who knew someone is suspect because their vision of the person and the facts are clouded by their relationship with the person.


Reading biographies of people who knew him were quite valuable. As valuable as reading short reading of Thomas Lincoln and Abe's grandfather Abraham. 




> Herndon's Lincoln biography is especially bad.


Herndon was Lincoln's 20 year law partner. Herndon had intimate knowledge of Lincoln. I refuse to dismiss that.




> Of all those you wrote Donald's is the best biography and the only one worth reading. But he doesn't treat Lincoln nicely. He even points out that Lincoln purposefully goaded the Southern forces into firing on Fort Sumter as a justification for starting the war he already though necessary. In our nomenclature it was a "false-flag operation" from the very beginning.


Fort Sumter may have been set-up by warmongers wanting to profit from war. I do not deny that possibility. However, Lincoln faced no other choice. He was not elected to surrender the Union unconditionally, and it is the sworn duty of a president to support his troops.

----------


## Travlyr

> And Hitler didn't eat meat. *This tells us nothing about the true character of the man*. Hitler ordered the deaths of millions. Lincoln didn't have a problem sending hundred of thousands into the emat grinder to ensure his precious ideal of "Union" was upheld.


The part in bold is only partially true. Lincoln lost his mother, his aunt & uncle, his sister, and his first love when he was young. Lincoln was not a fan of death. 

What does tell us something about a man is his words. Read: Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

Hopefully, someone besides me will take the time to read them to understand Abraham Lincoln's character. Comparing Lincoln to Hitler tells me you have never really studied Abraham Lincoln at all.

----------


## Travlyr

> Actually every scholarly history I've ever read, including Donald's Lincoln, believes the Baltimore assassination attempt was more freak out on Lincoln's people than actually a plot to kill him.
> 
> If anyone is believing a myth, you are Travlyr.


The assassination attempt has been documented. The Knights of the Golden Circle. John Wilkes Booth was a member.

----------


## Origanalist

Why does this thread seem so familiar......?

----------


## green73

Trav has family ties to Lincoln, therefore Lincoln can never be bad.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

_No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority_

Sections I, II, III, VI, VIII, X, XIX, and the Appendix are especially enlightening.

The South had every right to secede. The slaves had every right to free themselves, up to and including, murdering their 'owners.' Lincoln wasn't a hero. The man was as great a tyrant as any to ever have lived. His actions practically guaranteed the path we are on. That is, collectivism. Might = right. Majority rule, bull$#@!.

Lincoln was content with slavery so long as his precious Union be upheld. One has every right not to associate themselves with a particular government. The only legitimate government is a government founded upon voluntary consent. Considering that people secretly cast ballots for people who are virtually unresponsible for their actions, who are not legally bound by contract to any given man, no matter their campaign promises and slogans, one can assume, without equivocation, the entire charade is wholly illegitimate. It is a means to dispel people of their rightful property.

You know what I missed, in all this Lincoln-is-great-talk, how come he didn't allow those who did not want his government to live in peace (so long as they weren't encroaching on other's liberty)? Why was that not declared? How did the notion of "Consent of the governed" come to point of casual dismissal?

----------


## torchbearer

> _No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority_
> 
> Sections I, II, III, VI, VIII, X, XIX, and the Appendix are especially enlightening.
> 
> The South had every right to secede. The slaves had every right to free themselves, up to and including, murdering their 'owners.' Lincoln wasn't a hero. The man was as great a tyrant as any to ever have lived. His actions practically guaranteed the path we are on. That is, collectivism. Might = right. Majority rule, bull$#@!.
> 
> Lincoln was content with slavery so long as his precious Union be upheld. One has every right not to associate themselves with a particular government. The only legitimate government is a government founded upon voluntary consent. Considering that people secretly cast ballots for people who are virtually unresponsible for their actions, who are not legally bound by contract to any given man, no matter their campaign promises and slogans, one can assume, without equivocation, the entire charade is wholly illegitimate. It is a means to dispel people of their rightful property.
> 
> You know what I missed, in all this Lincoln-is-great-talk, how come he didn't allow those who did not want his government to live in peace (so long as they weren't encroaching on other's liberty)? Why was that not declared? How did the notion of "Consent of the governed" come to point of casual dismissal?


gotta keep all the slaves on the 'plantation'. that is what Lincoln was trying to 'preserve' by force.
This is no longer a voluntary union, but one built on force and coercion. We have every right to do what you stated above to our masters.

----------


## Travlyr

> Why does this thread seem so familiar......?


It is what disturbed me so much about the liberty movement last year before I quit posting here on RPF for a while. I have the utmost respect for the RPF's members. They are the brightest of the bunch. Yet, I do understand how hard it is to do all the homework necessary to get the big picture and keep food on the table too. I have completed a lot of research in the last year. And I have more to do.

Abraham Lincoln is the liberty role model. Why? Rags to riches through determination, principles, honesty, opportunity, education, and living a peaceful life. Reading Abraham Lincoln's speech in the House of Representatives, in 1848, gives us a look inside his character. Reading his Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

He never really "ran" for president. Others ran him for him because he was so loved by the people who elected him, and he had a strong message of stopping the expansion of slavery.  He captivated his audiences so much so that in one speech the journalists forgot to take notes. Nobody really knows exactly what he said that day even though attempts have been made to recreate his speech.

I am back to ask people to really study the message of liberty given by Lincoln and Mises. They understood it.

----------


## Travlyr

> Trav has family ties to Lincoln, therefore Lincoln can never be bad.


Total baloney. I do not have family ties to Lincoln. My ancestors knew Lincoln because they grew up in the same areas under similar circumstances. I am simply sharing that history because I have studied them.

----------


## Travlyr

> gotta keep all the slaves on the 'plantation'. that is what Lincoln was trying to 'preserve' by force.
> This is no longer a voluntary union, but one built on force and coercion. We have every right to do what you stated above to our masters.


nm

----------


## Travlyr

> _No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority_
> 
> Sections I, II, III, VI, VIII, X, XIX, and the Appendix are especially enlightening.
> 
> The South had every right to secede. The slaves had every right to free themselves, up to and including, murdering their 'owners.' Lincoln wasn't a hero. The man was as great a tyrant as any to ever have lived. His actions practically guaranteed the path we are on. That is, collectivism. Might = right. Majority rule, bull$#@!.
> 
> Lincoln was content with slavery so long as his precious Union be upheld. One has every right not to associate themselves with a particular government. The only legitimate government is a government founded upon voluntary consent. Considering that people secretly cast ballots for people who are virtually unresponsible for their actions, who are not legally bound by contract to any given man, no matter their campaign promises and slogans, one can assume, without equivocation, the entire charade is wholly illegitimate. It is a means to dispel people of their rightful property.
> 
> You know what I missed, in all this Lincoln-is-great-talk, how come he didn't allow those who did not want his government to live in peace (so long as they weren't encroaching on other's liberty)? Why was that not declared? How did the notion of "Consent of the governed" come to point of casual dismissal?


I see this as a total misunderstanding of history. It is clear to me that kcchiefs6465 has never read: Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

kcchiefs6465? What would you have done if you were in Lincoln's shoes on March 4, 1861? That is not a rhetorical question. What exactly would you have done?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I see this as a total misunderstanding of history. It is clear to me that kcchiefs6465 has never read: Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865
> 
> kcchiefs6465? What would you have done if you were in Lincoln's shoes on March 4, 1861? That is not a rhetorical question. What exactly would you have done?


Why would I waste my time reading that garbage?

I don't give a damn if the man poetically married libertarian sentiments to font, he was a tyrant. His war was to preserve economic monopolies. Where do you think the money came from? From the blood of you, you infatuated $#@!. You are still paying Lincoln's debt.

Perhaps that's why I can't be bothered with "Lincoln was misunderstood" sentiments. That $#@! incurred debts to my name under no authority to do so. You see, I see the man as a common thief. Considerations of his most unholy of atrocities nary come to mind.

What would I do on March 4, 1861? I wouldn't read the speech that the bankers prepared for me. 

(no, I don't want to read his speech)

----------


## BuddyRey

So.....Over 750,000 poor and working-class American boys (adjusted for current population, that's more than all the Americans who died in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and the War on Terror combined) had to be maimed and killed to put an end to a quite justifiably condemned and evil practice that only the richest 11% of southerners even engaged in?  And that isn't even accounting for the incalculable misery unleashed by William the Butcher Sherman's forces in Atlanta burning down homes, raping women, and murdering civilians.

That's like chopping your hand off to cure a hang-nail.

Thanks a lot, Heinous Abe.

----------


## Travlyr

> *Davis means nothing to me*. Nor any other person.
> I'm looking at the actions of the military under direction of Lincoln and what his decisions created.
> Racial animosity is just one of the many.
> 
> Everything you read was written by the victors. and you parrot it as truth.
> He was technically a mass-murderer, who invaded foreign countries... for resources. Sounds familiar.


Jefferson Davis was the mass murderer. He was a West Point graduate, a slave owner, the "man" who escorted Blackhawk to prison, a Mexican-American war hero, a Secretary of War, and the chairman of the committee of military affairs. His actions during the war and after the war are very conspicuous. He perpetuated the war beyond any possibility of winning it, he tried to keep it going even after Lee surrendered, he was not tried for treason, and he died in a lap of luxury. His ties to the Knights of the Golden Circle are quite suspect, and his sidekick during the war Judah Benjamin is suspect as well.

----------


## Travlyr

> So.....Over 750,000 poor and working-class American boys (adjusted for current population, that's more than all the Americans who died in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and the War on Terror combined) had to be maimed and killed to put an end to a quite justifiably condemned and evil practice that only the richest 11% of southerners even engaged in?  And that isn't even accounting for the incalculable misery unleashed by William the Butcher Sherman's forces in Atlanta burning down homes, raping women, and murdering civilians.
> 
> That's like chopping your hand off to cure a hang-nail.
> 
> Thanks a lot, warmonger Jefferson Davis.


You got the wrong guy. That is the whole point of this thread.

----------


## Travlyr

> Why would I waste my time reading that garbage?
> 
> I don't give a damn if the man poetically married libertarian sentiments to font, he was a tyrant. His war was to preserve economic monopolies. Where do you think the money came from? From the blood of you, you infatuated $#@!. You are still paying Lincoln's debt.
> 
> Perhaps that's why I can't be bothered with "Lincoln was misunderstood" sentiments. That $#@! incurred debts to my name under no authority to do so. You see, I see the man as a common thief. Considerations of his most unholy of atrocities nary come to mind.
> 
> What would I do on March 4, 1861? I wouldn't read the speech that the bankers prepared for me. 
> 
> (no, I don't want to read his speech)


It is not his speech. It is his life of speeches. It would not do you any good to read it because you are not interested in the truth.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> It is not his speech. It is his life of speeches. It would not do you any good to read it because you are not interested in the truth.


What "truth" is that? You offer no truth.

That $7.19 would buy me three books. That's three excellently enlightening books. Or I could buy Lincoln's (of all people) speeches. This doesn't even factor in the time I'd waste reading that nonsense.

I like a lot of what you post and generally agree with you but damn, how do you argue who's worse? And you take the side that Lincoln was holy and acted with proper intentions!? It's so nonsensical and debased from reality I have trouble responding. Where does one start?

Thieves and murderers, and Lincoln was Chief. And since that time, the Wilson's, the Roosevelt's, the Bush's, the Reagan's, the Nixon's... every one of them can be accredited to Lincoln's school of government. And now secession, or that you have the God given Right to cease association with whomever you please including groups of these evidently apparent robbers, murderers, and thieves of which you call (affectionately, it would seem) the "Union," or "Government." It might as well be the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic so far as the principle is concerned. Yet you reject that Right? Or do you simply reject Lincoln's role in burying it?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> It is not his speech. It is his life of speeches. It would not do you any good to read it because you are not interested in the truth.


God forbid someone reads Obama's speeches in 150 years. They'll think he was Thomas Jefferson.

These people are interested in self-preservation. That means they lie. As sure as the sun comes up, they say things and promise things all the time. Like say, 100% of their speeches. I don't care; many men talked a good talk of liberty. Yet they were brutal slave owners. The inconsistencies annoy me. You know, you say the man is a hero, great emancipator yet he would have gladly sacrificed the black man's freedom had it ensured the Union stay preserved and the cartels in power. He cared not one $#@! about a black person's freedom.

You never answered my question. Why didn't he let people who didn't want to be in the Union, yet didn't encroach on anyone else's liberty alone? You know why. To Hell with his speeches.

----------


## BuddyRey

> You got the wrong guy. That is the whole point of this thread.


Do you blame the signers of the Declaration of Independence for the deaths of the Revolutionary War?  Because by your logic, the Patriots "started it" by daring to proclaim themselves free of Britain, and the invading hordes of Redcoats were just preserving the Union.

Lincoln could have just released the revolting states at first notice of secessionist sentiment, probably even before Fort Sumter and there could have been..._would_ have been *no war at all.*  But no...blame the guy(s) who committed the unpardonable crime of signing a piece of paper.

----------


## Travlyr

> God forbid someone reads Obama's speeches in 150 years. They'll think he was Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> These people are interested in self-preservation. That means they lie. As sure as the sun comes up, they say things and promise things all the time. Like say, 100% of their speeches. I don't care; many men talked a good talk of liberty. Yet they were brutal slave owners. The inconsistencies annoy me. You know, you say the man is a hero, great emancipator yet he would have gladly sacrificed the black man's freedom had it ensured the Union stay preserved and the cartels in power. He cared not one $#@! about a black person's freedom.
> 
> You never answered my question. Why didn't he let people who didn't want to be in the Union, yet didn't encroach on anyone else's liberty alone? You know why. To Hell with his speeches.






> Do you blame the signers of the Declaration of Independence for the deaths of the Revolutionary War?  Because by your logic, the Patriots "started it" by daring to proclaim themselves free of Britain, and the invading hordes of Redcoats were just preserving the Union.
> 
> Lincoln could have just released the revolting states at first notice of secessionist sentiment, probably even before Fort Sumter and there could have been..._would_ have been *no war at all.*  But no...blame the guy(s) who committed the unpardonable crime of signing a piece of paper.


Am I the only one on RPFs who has actually read what Abraham Lincoln said? Abraham Lincoln was an oath keeper and a lover of individual liberty.

Abraham Lincoln stood up to the powers that be. They killed him for it. Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

No BuddyRey. Abraham Lincoln could not just have let the slave owning tyrants have their empire. He took an oath with his hand on the Bible to defend liberty for all.

----------


## William Tell

> Abraham Lincoln was an oath keeper...


  I find that statement amusing, I don't know where you get your definition of oath keeper, but I like the "Orders We Will Not Obey" from oathkeepers.org 

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.  

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people 

 3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.  

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

  5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.  

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.  

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.  

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

  9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.  

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Am I the only one on RPFs who has actually read what Abraham Lincoln said? Abraham Lincoln was an oath keeper and a lover of individual liberty.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln stood up to the powers that be. They killed him for it. Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865
> 
> No BuddyRey. Abraham Lincoln could not just have let the slave owning tyrants have their empire. He took an oath with his hand on the Bible to defend liberty for all.


What does it matter what Lincoln _said_ when his actions are evident for all to see? Obama talks a good talk from time to time. Then he murders innocent civilians and $#@!s on sovereignty.

Ought people be allowed to disassociate themselves with any government? Ought people be allowed to waive any benefits a particular government [allegedly] grants in the form of a cessation of paying taxes? If not, why not? If so, why didn't Lincoln see it that way? There were some who wanted nothing to do with either. That is, the Confederacy _or_ the Union. But because some minority of white [land owning] males [perhaps, as it is impossible to prove with any legal validity] voted one way or another, the Rights of all are bound and subjugated and taxed and disturbed. Can you not see this? How illegitimate it is?

And now people have become so dronish as to relate secession with slavery, as if the man today (and many back then) who simply wishes to [Rightfully] cease association with a government that has overstepped its bounds in the gravest of manners, cares or wishes to own people. And you would justify their murders. You justify their enslavement. So long as this_ glorious_ Union remains intact, the cost be what it may, you would have no qualms of using [the banker's] mercenaries to impose your will. Or the will of "The People" (whatever, or whoever that means). And this will not need be of majority consent. A majority never votes. And while it would still be wholly illegitimate for a majority to impose rule over a minority (think: slavery), we do not even have that! A minority of bankers propagandizes the majority of the most corrupt and lazy of society to vote for either tyrant 'A' or tyrant 'B' (both undoubtedly paid for). And you affectionately call this a Union and glorify the men who preserve it? Where are the signatures? Where is the documentation? Where is any proof reasonable to any logical man that all are contractually bound to be in your Union? I most certainly am not. But should I say, "This is my property!" or defend myself accordingly you would support the mounting of troops, and the forceful taking of my property (up to and including, if need be, my murder). And Lincoln is to thank for that. At least, largely.

----------


## Travlyr

> I find that statement amusing, I don't know where you get your definition of oath keeper, but I like the "Orders We Will Not Obey" from oathkeepers.org 
> 
> 1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.  
> 
> 2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people 
> 
>  3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants or to subject them to military tribunal.  
> 
> 4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a state of emergency on a state.
> ...


Slaves were not allowed to be armed. Slaves had no rights. Slaves had no one to turn to for justice. Slaves had no one in power who would stand up for them until Abraham Lincoln won the presidency. Then Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans took a hard line stance against expanding the slave empire. You don't like it, I do. This nation was founded on freedom. Slaves didn't get their day in 1787. They got their day in 1861.

----------


## Travlyr

> What does it matter what Lincoln _said_ when his actions are evident for all to see? Obama talks a good talk from time to time. Then he murders innocent civilians and $#@!s on sovereignty.
> 
> Ought people be allowed to disassociate themselves with any government? Ought people be allowed to waive any benefits a particular government [allegedly] grants in the form of a cessation of paying taxes? If not, why not? If so, why didn't Lincoln see it that way? There were some who wanted nothing to do with either. That is, the Confederacy _or_ the Union. But because some minority of white [land owning] males [perhaps, as it is impossible to prove with any legal validity] voted one way or another, the Rights of all are bound and subjugated and taxed and disturbed. Can you not see this? How illegitimate it is?
> 
> And now people have become so dronish as to relate secession with slavery, as if the man today (and many back then) who simply wishes to [Rightfully] cease association with a government that has overstepped its bounds in the gravest of manners, cares or wishes to own people. And you would justify their murders. You justify their enslavement. So long as this_ glorious_ Union remains intact, the cost be what it may, you would have no qualms of using [the banker's] mercenaries to impose your will. Or the will of "The People" (whatever, or whoever that means). And this will not need be of majority consent. A majority never votes. And while it would still be wholly illegitimate for a majority to impose rule over a minority (think: slavery), we do not even have that! A minority of bankers propagandizes the majority of the most corrupt and lazy of society to vote for either tyrant 'A' or tyrant 'B' (both undoubtedly paid for). And you affectionately call this a Union and glorify the men who preserve it? Where are the signatures? Where is the documentation? Where is any proof reasonable to any logical man that all are contractually bound to be in your Union? I most certainly am not. But should I say, "This is my property!" or defend myself accordingly you would support the mounting of troops, and the forceful taking of my property (up to and including, if need be, my murder). And Lincoln is to thank for that. At least, largely.


To believe what you write one must also believe two historical lies. 
1. Secession was not for slave empire which is an obvious lie.
2. Lincoln was the aggressor of the war which is also an obvious lie.

There are two sides to every story. On Lincoln, it's what people tell you he said and what he actually said. People read Lincoln's speeches and letters to learn about his character and who he was as a man. They aren't all political speeches. Some letters are to his friends, others to his law partner, and still others are public speeches and political speeches. After reading the words Lincoln spoke while he was alive when someone says "Lincoln didn't care about slavery" all I can do is shake my head and try to convince them to read his words for yourself. He spent his entire life opposing slavery.

----------


## William Tell

> Slaves were not allowed to be armed. Slaves had no rights. Slaves had no one to turn to for justice. Slaves had no one in power who would stand up for them until Abraham Lincoln won the presidency. Then Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans took a hard line stance against expanding the slave empire. You don't like it, I do. This nation was founded on freedom. Slaves didn't get their day in 1787. They got their day in 1861.


If Texas Seceded today, would you support an invasion of my home State? I imagine if Texas did Secede, Obama would try to make it about "same-sex marriage" Who knows, Governor Johnson might join the Union army! And lots of college boys, and beltway 'libertarians' might buy into it 150 years from now.  Lincoln was plenty fine with slavery in Union States.

----------


## Travlyr

> If Texas Seceded today, would you support an invasion of my home State?


Why would Texas want to secede today?




> I imagine if Texas did Secede, Obama would try to make it about "same-sex marriage" Who knows, Governor Johnson might join the Union army! And lots of college boys, and beltway 'libertarians' might buy into it 150 years from now.  *Lincoln was plenty fine with slavery in Union States*.


Lincoln was not okay with slavery in the Union states. You have never taken the time to read Lincoln's words for yourself. Lincoln was against slavery everywhere all his life. However, Lincoln respected the law of the land and the law gave States the right to determine the slave issue for themselves.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

> Slaves were not allowed to be armed. Slaves had no rights. Slaves had no one to turn to for justice. Slaves had no one in power who would stand up for them until Abraham Lincoln won the presidency. Then Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans took a hard line stance against expanding the slave empire. You don't like it, I do. This nation was founded on freedom. Slaves didn't get their day in 1787. They got their day in 1861.


Woah! While I agree somewhat, that libertarians revision of the Civil War has sometimes boardered on holding up Jefferson Davis as a hero, I think you are out of your mind if you think the North went to war to "Free the slaves".

----------


## Travlyr

Slavery was a socialist system. A small group of ruling elite oppressing another group.

----------


## Travlyr

> Woah! While I agree somewhat, that libertarians revision of the Civil War has sometimes boardered on holding up Jefferson Davis as a hero, I think you are out of your mind if you think the North went to war to "Free the slaves".


The North went to war because the Confederates stole Union property, bombed Union soldiers, and then held Washington city in siege for months. They had no other choice but to defend themselves.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> To believe what you write one must also believe two historical lies. 
> 1. Secession was not for slave empire which is an obvious lie.
> 
> 2. Lincoln was the aggressor of the war which is also an obvious lie.
> 
> There are two sides to every story. On Lincoln, it's what people tell you he said and what he actually said. People read Lincoln's speeches and letters to learn about his character and who he was as a man. They aren't all political speeches. Some letters are to his friends, others to his law partner, and still others are public speeches and political speeches. After reading the words Lincoln spoke while he was alive when someone says "Lincoln didn't care about slavery" all I can do is shake my head and try to convince them to read his words for yourself. *He spent his entire life opposing slavery*.


Yet condemned an entire country to slavery varying from chattel only in degree. The principle was the same, and is the same today. That is, Man having dominion over Man (if they be the stronger).

1 and 2 are nonsensical. Secession is a right that all have simply by their being. The right to associate (or not to) with whomever one wishes is granted from God, in a natural way, and has on principle nothing to do with slavery. 

Lincoln goaded the South. He very easily could have let them secede. Lincoln wasn't the one, either, advocating armed revolts on plantations. He wasn't the one trying to adequately arm the slaves. Quite the contrary. John Brown's raid and armed insurrection were "un-republican." A man seizing his natural rights considered to be radical. The war was a political one... Lincoln, a puppet. You have not responded to anything I have asked or written with anything aside from imploring me to purchase a book of what the man _said._

Why could the people who wanted nothing to do with either government, or any government, not do so? Why, today, is that considered an absurd question? What happened to the alleged foundation of, "consent of the governed"?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Slavery was a socialist system. A small group of ruling elite oppressing another group.


What do you think Lincoln was fighting for?

I mean, damn. Are you kidding me?

Who funded the war?!?

And taxes to be paid for eternity.

----------


## William Tell

> Why would Texas want to secede today?
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not okay with slavery in the Union states. You have never taken the time to read Lincoln's words for yourself. Lincoln was against slavery everywhere all his life. However, Lincoln respected the law of the land and the law gave States the right to determine the slave issue for themselves.


Who cares why Texas would want to Secede, lots of my neighbors think it is a great idea, would it be OK for the Union to kill them over it?

If Lincoln was against slavery everywhere, why did he not abolish it in all of the Northern States? On the other side of the coin, if Lincoln: "respected the law of the land and the law gave States the right to determine the slave issue for themselves." how does that fit in with the emancipation proclamation?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Woah! While I agree somewhat, that libertarians revision of the Civil War has sometimes boardered on holding up Jefferson Davis as a hero, I think you are out of your mind if you think the North went to war to "Free the slaves".


I do not believe in Hell, but if there were such a thing, it would be my sincere wish (as a libertarian Civil War "revisionist") that Jefferson Davis burn there forever - right beside Abraham Lincoln.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Am I the only one on RPFs who has actually read what Abraham Lincoln said? Abraham Lincoln was an oath keeper and a lover of individual liberty.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln stood up to the powers that be. They killed him for it. Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865
> 
> No BuddyRey. Abraham Lincoln could not just have let the slave owning tyrants have their empire. He took an oath with his hand on the Bible to defend liberty for all.


Oh bull$#@!.  He declared a war on fellow Americans to stop them from doing what they had a constitutional right to do -- secede from the union.  He jailed newspaper men, judges and basically anyone who disagreed with him and threw out habeas corpus.   At his direction, union troops pillaged, plundered and murdered people who just wanted to be left the hell alone.  Was that individual liberty?  Hell no, it wasn't.   

Lincoln didn't start the war because of slavery.  He started it to stop the South from seceding.  The North had slaves.  But, don't let facts get in your way.

You want to focus on what Lincoln SAID, instead of what he DID.  Actions speak much louder than words.  Always.

----------


## Travlyr

> Oh bull$#@!.  He declared a war on fellow Americans to stop them from doing what they had a constitutional right to do -- secede from the union.  He jailed newspaper men, judges and basically anyone who disagreed with him and threw out habeas corpus.   At his direction, union troops pillaged, plundered and murdered people who just wanted to be left the hell alone.  Was that individual liberty?  Hell no, it wasn't.   
> 
> Lincoln didn't start the war because of slavery.  He started it to stop the South from seceding.  The North had slaves.  But, don't let facts get in your way.
> 
> You want to focus on what Lincoln SAID, instead of what he DID.  Actions speak much than words.  Always.


This is the lost cause myth. Lincoln did not wage war on the Confederacy. There were 30,000 Confederate soldiers camped outside of Washington in July 1861 holding the Union government in siege. In fact, Lincoln did not start the war at all. He called for peaceful solutions as consistent as Ron Paul would have until the Confederates bombed Union soldiers on Union soil and promised invasion of Washington.

----------


## Travlyr

> I do not believe in Hell, but if there were such a thing, it would be my sincere wish (as a libertarian Civil War "revisionist") that Jefferson Davis burn there forever - right beside Abraham Lincoln.


Abraham Lincoln was not a warmongering tyrant. I certainly wish people would put down their myths and read history. The Knights of the Golden Circle were planning on a slave empire. Lincoln stopped them so they killed him. John Wilkes Booth was a KGC member. 




> Based on years of exhaustive and meticulous research, David C. Keehn s study provides the first comprehensive analysis of the Knights of the Golden Circle, a secret southern society that initially sought to establish a slave-holding empire in the Golden Circle region of Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America. Keehn reveals the origins, rituals, structure, and complex history of this mysterious group, including its later involvement in the secession movement. Members supported southern governors in precipitating disunion, filled the ranks of the nascent Confederate Army, and organized rearguard actions during the Civil War.
> 
> The Knights of the Golden Circle emerged in 1858 when a secret society formed by a Cincinnati businessman merged with the pro-expansionist Order of the Lone Star, which already had 15,000 members. The following year, the Knights began publishing their own newspaper and established their headquarters in Washington, D.C. In 1860, during their first attempt to create the Golden Circle, several thousand Knights assembled in southern Texas to colonize northern Mexico. Due to insufficient resources and organizational shortfalls, however, that filibuster failed. 
> 
> Later, the Knights shifted their focus and began pushing for disunion, spearheading prosecession rallies, and intimidating Unionists in the South. They appointed regional military commanders from the ranks of the South s major political and military figures, including men such as Elkanah Greer of Texas, Paul J. Semmes of Georgia, Robert C. Tyler of Maryland, and Virginius D. Groner of Virginia. Followers also established allies with the South s rabidly prosecession fire-eaters, which included individuals such as Barnwell Rhett, Louis Wigfall, Henry Wise, and William Yancey. 
> 
> According to Keehn, the Knights likely carried out a variety of other clandestine actions before the Civil War, including attempts by insurgents to take over federal forts in Virginia and North Carolina, the activation of prosouthern militia around Washington, D.C., and a planned assassination of Abraham Lincoln as he passed through Baltimore in early 1861 on the way to his inauguration. Once the fighting began, the Knights helped build the emerging Confederate Army and assisted with the pro-Confederate Copperhead movement in northern states. With the war all but lost, various Knights supported one of their members, John Wilkes Booth, in his plot to assassinate President Lincoln. 
> 
> Keehn s fast-paced, engaging narrative demonstrates that the Knights' influence proved more substantial than historians have traditionally assumed and provides a new perspective on southern secession and the outbreak of the Civil War.

----------


## Travlyr

> *Yet condemned an entire country to slavery varying from chattel only in degree.* The principle was the same, and is the same today. That is, Man having dominion over Man (if they be the stronger).


That is not what happened. The capitalists won the war against the socialists in 1865. The socialists took it back with a coup d'état in 1913.




> 1 and 2 are nonsensical. Secession is a right that all have simply by their being. The right to associate (or not to) with whomever one wishes is granted from God, in a natural way, and has on principle nothing to do with slavery.


It is a flat out lie that 1860 secession was not to perpetuate, expand, and nationalize slavery. 



> *Confederate Constitution
> 
> ARTICLE IV*
> 
> Section I. (I) Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
> 
> Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
> 
> (2) A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime against the laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.
> ...





> Corner Stone Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.





> Lincoln goaded the South.


That is a tired old myth. Lincoln was duty bound to support Union troops on Union soil.




> He very easily could have let them secede.


No he couldn't. Lincoln was not elected to surrender the Union.




> Lincoln wasn't the one, either, advocating armed revolts on plantations. He wasn't the one trying to adequately arm the slaves. Quite the contrary. John Brown's raid and armed insurrection were "un-republican." A man seizing his natural rights considered to be radical.


Lincoln was not an abolitionist because he did not believe in using violence to free the slaves.




> The war was a political one... Lincoln, a puppet. You have not responded to anything I have asked or written with anything aside from imploring me to purchase a book of what the man _said._


I don't care if you buy the book or get it from a library. It is free on Kindle. If you wish to learn who Lincoln was then read his words. If you wish to misunderstand who he was then believe whatever someone else tells you.




> Why could the people who wanted nothing to do with either government, or any government, not do so?


They pretty much could in 1860 except for the slaves and the native Americans.




> Why, today, is that considered an absurd question? What happened to the alleged foundation of, "consent of the governed"?


The "consent of the governed" went away when The Pilgrims took over in 1913.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Why would Texas want to secede today?


To not be pillaged by the federal government?

Did you miss all of the secession talk from numerous states? Not just Texas. Now there are counties that wish to secede from their states. There have always been individuals who wish to secede from all governance. 

Is it not their right to do so?

----------


## Travlyr

> Who cares why Texas would want to Secede, lots of my neighbors think it is a great idea, would it be OK for the Union to kill them over it?


What matters is HOW would they secede. Would they secede to enslave a group of people? Would they confiscate all Federal property and ports and hold loyal soldiers and Federal employees in siege in order to secede? Or would they hold a referendum and offer to pay for all Federal property prior to declaring secession?




> If Lincoln was against slavery everywhere, why did he not abolish it in all of the Northern States?


Because they remained loyal to the Union and slavery was a State's rights issue. Lincoln did not have the Constitutional authority to tell the States to abolish slavery until the 13th amendment passed. 




> On the other side of the coin, if Lincoln: "respected the law of the land and the law gave States the right to determine the slave issue for themselves." how does that fit in with the emancipation proclamation?


They were no longer in the Union. They no longer had Constitution protections.

----------


## Travlyr

> To not be pillaged by the federal government?
> 
> Did you miss all of the secession talk from numerous states? Not just Texas. Now there are counties that wish to secede from their states. There have always been individuals who wish to secede from all governance. 
> 
> Is it not their right to do so?


If they secede peacefully with proper payment for the property prior to seceding. They can't just confiscate Federal property, hold loyal Federal employees in siege, shoot at them if they don't leave, and offer to pay for it later like the Confederacy tried to do.

----------


## William Tell

[QUOTE=They were no longer in the Union. They no longer had Constitution protections.[/QUOTE]

Wow. Are you saying the Confederacy was an Independent Nation? I don't believe Lincoln would agree.

----------


## William Tell

> If they secede peacefully with proper payment for the property prior to seceding. They can't just confiscate Federal property, hold loyal Federal employees in siege, shoot at them if they don't leave, and offer to pay for it later like the Confederacy tried to do.


King George would agree with some of that sentiment

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> That is not what happened. The capitalists won the war against the socialists in 1865. The socialists took it back with a coup d'état in 1913.


Lincoln was as involved in selling the soul of this country as Wilson. He paved the way.

The six billion to be paid?

How?




> It is a flat out lie that 1860 secession was not to perpetuate, expand, and nationalize slavery.


What I said was, "The right to associate (or not to) with whomever one wishes is granted from God, in a natural way, *and has on principle nothing to do with slavery.*"

Whether or not Southern secession was primarily motivated by intentions to continue slavery was not what I was addressing. Secession in and of itself is a self-evident right. Whether that be from local, state, or federal government, one has the right to reject said benefits of said association if not encroaching on another's liberty. So then the discussion goes from what should have been done? I would like to have read more about slaves rising up themselves, and seizing their liberty. Lincoln's [unquestionably questionable] motives aside, arming and privately funding (in any way one could) slaves to rebel and take their freedom would have been preferable to the death and destruction of the Civil War. John Brown and Lysander Spooner, to name but a few, deserve multiple times the praise of Lincoln.




> That is a tired old myth. Lincoln was duty bound to support Union troops on Union soil.


Not exactly a tired old myth. The tired old myth is that Lincoln was a great emancipator, fighter for human rights, or even a decent human being. That's what's tired.




> No he couldn't. Lincoln was not elected to surrender the Union.


They were, and in fact to this day are, robbers, murderers, and thieves. And now secession is seen as unrealistic or Confederate. What a legacy.

"Surrender the Union"

What "Union"?




> Lincoln was not an abolitionist because he did not believe in using violence to free the slaves.


What does this even mean? One does one not have every right to resist subjugation? Or Lincoln just didn't believe that? 

And the irony of your statement is not lost on me. Hundreds of thousands dead under what is largely considered today to be motivated as a means of ending slavery....




> I don't care if you buy the book or get it from a library. It is free on Kindle. If you wish to learn who Lincoln was then read his words. If you wish to misunderstand who he was then believe whatever someone else tells you.


I am not misunderstanding anything.




> They pretty much could in 1860 except for the slaves and the native Americans.


Right. Taxes were wholly voluntary as well as the Union. Are you serious?

_They pretty much could_ be extorted and if attempted to resist be murdered much the way hundreds of thousands were. This much is clear.




> The "consent of the governed" went away when The Pilgrims took over in 1913.


There was *never* any consent short of the framers of said document. How can one consent when they are not even born? When they have never signed, nor swore allegiance to said organization? How can one draw up debts to their collective posterity? What if said posterity doesn't want to pay?

Lincoln just cemented the notion that for those who wake up to see the before mentioned fact of there being no consent, who wishes to peacefully exclude themselves from said extortionists (known affectionately as the Union, or government), that they be murdered if refusing to comply with said robbery-- and that "the people" (of whom I can only describe as the most corrupt and wicked of society) cheer. THAT, is Lincoln's legacy.

----------


## Travlyr

> What do you think Lincoln was fighting for?


In 1860, the entire federal budget was around $80 million. There were 30 million people. A tax of less than $3 per year per person was not an oppressive government. That's the Union Lincoln defended. 




> I mean, damn. Are you kidding me?


No, I am not kidding you. The Federal government was very small in Lincoln's day. People claim that Lincoln wanted a strong central government. I don't find solid evidence for that claim other than the railroads which every political party platform included in 1860.




> Who funded the war?!?


I don't know for sure. I suspect that the Rothschild family backed the Confederacy. 
Judah Benjamin's picture was on the $2 Confederate bill.



> In her autobiography, Jefferson Daviss wife, Varina, informs us that Benjamin spent twelve hours each day at her husbands side, tirelessly shaping every important Confederate strategy and tactic.


The Union printed Greenbacks.




> And taxes to be paid for eternity.


The high taxes came much later with the income tax after The Pilgrims took over.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> If they secede peacefully with proper payment for the property prior to seceding. They can't just confiscate Federal property, hold loyal Federal employees in siege, shoot at them if they don't leave, and offer to pay for it later like the Confederacy tried to do.


The federal government "owns" over 230,000,000 acres of land. The General Land Office was corrupt as all hell. Backroom deals for "conservation" of waste lands in exchange for publicly paid for prime estate... hundreds of thousands of acres going to barons for their pet projects and vacation homes. Seclusion guaranteed through lobbying efforts to label surrounding areas as conservatories or National Parks.

*This is not the role of the Federal government.*

Proper payment!? I must be losing my goddamn mind. 

How about the federal government return the billions it steals from the state of Texas yearly? How about the federal government quit debasing a currency while prohibiting the usage of gold and silver to transact in?

I understand now why you are a fan of Lincoln. What I don't understand is how you are not a fan of Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Obama, Clinton, Bush, and the rest of the tyrants of the world.

The government, _ESPECIALLY_ the federal government owns not one thing that they haven't stolen or extorted from the people. And you advocate they be paid for what they've already stolen!?

----------


## Travlyr

> Lincoln was as involved in selling the soul of this country as Wilson. He paved the way.
> 
> The six billion to be paid?
> 
> How?
> 
> 
> What I said was, "The right to associate (or not to) with whomever one wishes is granted from God, in a natural way, *and has on principle nothing to do with slavery.*"
> 
> ...


Jefferson Davis intended to be living in the White House by May 1, 1861. He had it all planned out. First they plotted to kill Lincoln before he took the oath of office. When that didn't work, Davis knew Lincoln was a principled man. Davis mistakenly believed that Lincoln did not have the Constitutional authority to call up the militia to defend the Union because that power is written in Article I not Article II. When Lincoln called up the militias to defend Washington there was a race to the nation's capitol. If Lincoln hadn't called up the militia then Jefferson Davis would have marched to Washington and kicked Lincoln out. Jefferson Davis was the aggressor and Lincoln the defender.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> In 1860, the entire federal budget was around $80 million. There were 30 million people. A tax of less than $3 per year per person was not an oppressive government. That's the Union Lincoln defended.


Aside from not everyone paying the taxes, whether a government is or is not oppressive is determined by whether or not they are founded upon consent. Taking three dollars from me even in today's dollars, is a robbery. What authority would I have as the individual to take money from someone who does not wish to give it? Would the courts look down on me with pity, if I just said my 80 million dollar fortune came simply by me robbing _just three dollars_ from 26 million people? Would I be excused?




> No, I am not kidding you. The Federal government was very small in Lincoln's day. People claim that Lincoln wanted a strong central government. I don't find solid evidence for that claim other than the railroads which every political party platform included in 1860.


Well, they were large enough to enforce taxes for services individual may not have wanted, though never having any legal authority to do so. Many would, including I, argue that that is too large.




> I don't know for sure. I suspect that the Rothschild family backed the Confederacy. 
> Judah Benjamin's picture was on the $2 Confederate bill.


I would suspect they backed them both.




> The Union printed Greenbacks.


Debasing a currency is counterfeiting. It is as immoral as theft. There were punishments for such crimes at one point in history. Of course today there still is, certain people and entities are granted exceptions, though.




> The high taxes came much later with the income tax after The Pilgrims took over.


Dominion over Man is what? It only varies in degree. We aren't being literally whipped or chained but our enslavement is no doubt very real. The same as when Lincoln was president. I posted an audio book link a few pages back. It's free and very enlightening. Lysander Spooner utterly destroys any sense of argument with regards in large part to this conversation.

----------


## Travlyr

> The federal government "owns" over 230,000,000 acres of land. The General Land Office was corrupt as all hell. Backroom deals for "conservation" of waste lands in exchange for publicly paid for prime estate... hundreds of thousands of acres going to barons for their pet projects and vacation homes. Seclusion guaranteed through lobbying efforts to label surrounding areas as conservatories or National Parks.
> 
> *This is not the role of the Federal government.*
> 
> Proper payment!? I must be losing my goddamn mind. 
> 
> How about the federal government return the billions it steals from the state of Texas yearly? How about the federal government quit debasing a currency while prohibiting the usage of gold and silver to transact in?


I keep trying to get you to understand that the federal government is controlled by The Pilgrims. They took it over in 1913.




> I understand now why you are a fan of Lincoln.


You don't understand why I am a fan of Lincoln. You don't even know who Abraham Lincoln was. 

Abraham Lincoln grew up in the woods of Indiana in virtual anarchy except for his father's rule. As a young boy his labor was sold to neighbors by his father. It is called "Home Rule" where all the child's earnings go to the father until emancipation at age 21. Abe was a big boy and Thomas put an axe and a hoe in Abe's hand at a young age. When Abe was 19, he and a friend piloted a raft filled with goods down the Ohio and Mississippi rivers to Baton Rouge selling wares along the way. They likely walked back to their home in Indiana and gave his father all his earnings. 

When he was 21 they moved from Indiana to Illinois, built a log cabin, and endured a severe winter storm with snow drifts as high as 20' in some places. That spring, his father and stepmother moved to Coles county and Abe stayed in Sangamon county. Lincoln piloted a raft down the Sangamon, Illinois, and Mississippi rivers to New Orleans again selling wares along the way. He likely witnessed whipping posts and a slave auction on that trip. 

Lincoln spent a few months in the Illinois militia. He began studying law. He tried his hand at business. He did some surveying. He was elected to Illinois State House four times. He was elected to the House of Representatives for one term where he protested against the Mexican war. He spent the next decade denouncing slavery. Lincoln was elected president in November 1860. South Carolina seceded in December, other States seceded in January & February 1861, and by March 4 when Lincoln took the oath of office the country was heavily divided over the issue of slavery. 

Abraham Lincoln understood slavery and free markets as well as anyone because he experienced it first hand.




> What I don't understand is how you are not a fan of Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Obama, Clinton, Bush, and the rest of the tyrants of the world.


It is a myth to believe that Lincoln was anything like Wilson or the others you named. Lincoln was a fan of Washington & Jefferson with a few differences. Lincoln studied "History of the United States, from Their First Settlement As Colonies, To The Period of the Fifth Census, in 1830" to learn his history. Lincoln was a constitutional scholar. 




> The government, _ESPECIALLY_ the federal government owns not one thing that they haven't stolen or extorted from the people. And you advocate they be paid for what they've already stolen!?


You and I have differing views about the government. I am not an anarchist. I understand exactly why government is necessary. However, like Lincoln, I advocate for small government.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You and I have differing views about the government. I am not an anarchist. I understand exactly why government is necessary. However, like Lincoln, I advocate for small government.


You have advocated for suspending the Constitution if you think it is for what you consider a good reason.  One doesn't have to be an anarchist to see that for what it is.

----------


## jmdrake

This is one of those issues that I don't think people will ever agree on and I don't believe most feel are important.  Most Lincoln haters will *never* bring up Andrew Jackson's threats against South Carolina and John Calhoun....unless you call them out on it.  Many are willing to consider Andrew Jackson a "hero" for stopping the banks at least temporarily.  Anyhow, the civil war didn't need to happen.  South Carolina didn't need to fire on Ft. Sumpter.  Lincoln could have taken a defensive posture, blockaded the south, waited them out, and meanwhile offered the following deal: _We will raise tariffs then take 100% of the money and use it for compensated emancipation and southern industrial development._  Now I see someone saying "Raise tariffs?  That's anti-liberty!"  But here's the problem.  Why should the people in state A have to pay for the emancipation of slaves in state B?  Those, including Ron Paul, that cite the historical fact that compensated emancipation happened elsewhere always seem to ignore or be aware of the fact that:

1) Lincoln tried general compensated emancipation for the border states and was rejected both by the congress and the border states.

2) Lincoln succeeded in compensated emancipation for the District of Columbia.

and 

3) There is no record, that I'm aware of, where compensated emancipation was facilitated by tax money from regions that did not own slaves for the benefit of slave holding regions.

So the northern states wanted protection for their industry, the southern states had little to no industry but they had slaves.  This compromise could have worked.  Y'all build me a time machine and I'll go back and pitch it....as long as I don't get captured and sold into slavery.

----------


## Travlyr

> You have advocated for suspending the Constitution if you think it is for what you consider a good reason.  One doesn't have to be an anarchist to see that for what it is.


I don't remember ever saying anything like that. I've always been a strict Constitutionalist. I have advocated repealing the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments and taking the power of judicial review away from the Supreme Court, but I've never been an anarchist.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I don't remember ever saying anything like that. I've always been a strict Constitutionalist. I have advocated repealing the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments and taking the power of judicial review away from the Supreme Court, but I've never been an anarchist.


Lincoln ignored the enumerated powers in the Constitution, ignored the 10th Amendment and suspended habeas corpus and you support him having done it.  No, you are certainly NOT a constitutionalist.

----------


## Travlyr

> Lincoln ignored the enumerated powers in the Constitution, ignored the 10th Amendment and suspended habeas corpus and you support him having done it.  No, you are certainly NOT a constitutionalist.


So, in your mind Lincoln was just supposed to surrender the Union to the slave powers?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

FWIW, JMDrake, while I admire what Jackson did with regards to the Second Bank, I despise him for the Trail of Tears as well as other flagrant atrocities. While I admire the man Jackson was, being in ways similar to myself, I despise many of his actions.

The same could be said of Jefferson. Or most anyone of the period who is touted as a hero of liberty.

You take the good as a means to teach, acknowledge the bad, and accept the truth.

Most of our history is anything but. Some of these tales and supposed history I would seriously question if not flat out reject. Propaganda and years of retelling certainly muddy the waters. I mean, we still celebrate Columbus Day, ffs. That Columbus wished to rape and enslave those he encountered is nary mentioned.

Public schools, of course, have had a hand in this.

----------


## BuddyRey

> Am I the only one on RPFs who has actually read what Abraham Lincoln said? Abraham Lincoln was an oath keeper and a lover of individual liberty.


Just because you repeat that same mantra over and over again does not make it true.  I want to see some concrete examples - not just some flowery lawyer speeches he used to wow a bunch of naive bumpkins and little old ladies into electing him - of this vaunted admiration for individual liberty you say he possessed.  In the aggregate, did he do more to reinforce, or undermine, the idea of consent of the governed?  And if his primary concern was freeing the slaves (which I agree needed to be done), why didn't he use Compensated Emancipation as Lysander Spooner suggested?




> Abraham Lincoln stood up to the powers that be. They killed him for it.


_They?_  You mean Booth and his couple of cronies who couldn't even pull off their plot to seize VP Johnson and Gen. Grant?  Now they're tied into some elite conspiracy somehow?

IMO, if Lincoln really did die at the hands of some shady, NWO-type group, it was only because they no longer needed his services.

----------


## Travlyr

> This is one of those issues that I don't think people will ever agree on and I don't believe most feel are important.  Most Lincoln haters will *never* bring up Andrew Jackson's threats against South Carolina and John Calhoun....unless you call them out on it.  Many are willing to consider Andrew Jackson a "hero" for stopping the banks at least temporarily.  Anyhow, the civil war didn't need to happen.  South Carolina didn't need to fire on Ft. Sumpter.  Lincoln could have taken a defensive posture, blockaded the south, waited them out, and meanwhile offered the following deal: _We will raise tariffs then take 100% of the money and use it for compensated emancipation and southern industrial development._  Now I see someone saying "Raise tariffs?  That's anti-liberty!"  But here's the problem.  Why should the people in state A have to pay for the emancipation of slaves in state B?  Those, including Ron Paul, that cite the historical fact that compensated emancipation happened elsewhere always seem to ignore or be aware of the fact that:
> 
> 1) Lincoln tried general compensated emancipation for the border states and was rejected both by the congress and the border states.
> 
> 2) Lincoln succeeded in compensated emancipation for the District of Columbia.
> 
> and 
> 
> 3) There is no record, that I'm aware of, where compensated emancipation was facilitated by tax money from regions that did not own slaves for the benefit of slave holding regions.
> ...


I don't think there was any way to avoid the Civil War. In 1858, The Knights of the Golden Circle had planned on building a slave empire which would supply the world's goods. They were a very powerful group with more than 15,000 members. It was a three tiered governing body with the Southern political leaders holding the top positions. The lowest group were warriors. While the KGC was not entirely a secret society, the top level was very secretive and even the lower two tiers did not know the plans of the top tier. 

At that same time, Lincoln was debating Douglas for the Senate seat from Illinois denouncing slavery in every speech. When Lincoln gave his "House Divided" speech at the Republican State Convention that was the last straw for the slave powers. Lincoln likely had no knowledge of the plans for KGC's slave empire.




> Springfield, Illinois
> June 16, 1858
> 
> "*A house divided against itself cannot stand*."
> 
> I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.
> 
> I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
> 
> ...


South Carolina began building up arms early in 1860. If Lincoln ever became president they were going to secede, rewrite the Constitution, and in the words of Confederate V.P. Alexander H. Stephens



> "Corner Stone Speech - March 21, 1861
> 
> "The process of disintegration in the old Union may be expected to go on with almost absolute certainty if we pursue the right course. We are now the nucleus of a growing power which, if we are true to ourselves, our destiny, and high mission, will become the controlling power on this continent."

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Most Lincoln haters will *never* bring up Andrew Jackson's threats against South Carolina and John Calhoun....unless you call them out on it.  Many are willing to consider Andrew Jackson a "hero" for stopping the banks at least temporarily.


I am one of the "anti-Lincoln" crowd, and I think Andrew Jackson was a crude, vicious & loud-mouthed brute - his US-bank-breaking notwithstanding. (Among the many things I will gladly and roundly denounce him for was his infamously contemptuous dismissal of the Supreme Court's proper ruling with respect to the vile Indian Removal Act.) I have also never been sparing in my utter contempt for Jefferson Davis (see post #107 in this very thread, for example).

I have no doubt that there are "Lincoln haters" who soft-pedal or apologize for the likes of Jackson, Davis, Calhoun, etc. I have seen them do so - some of them right here on RPFs, more's the pity. However, I have never been one of them and I never will be.

But at the same time, it should not be at all untoward to acknowledge that Lincoln has had a far, FAR greater impact - and a far more deleterious legacy - upon the present fact of overweening federal power than Jackson, Davis and Calhoun all wrapped-up into one. This as much as anything else is why "most Lincoln haters" don't dwell nearly as much on them as they do on Lincoln - not even when they despise Jackson, Davis, etc. as much as I do. IOW: They are simply not as "relevant" as Lincoln is.

----------


## Travlyr

> I am one of the "anti-Lincoln" crowd, and I think Andrew Jackson was a crude, vicious & loud-mouthed brute - his US-bank-breaking notwithstanding. (Among the many things I will gladly and roundly denounce him for was his infamously contemptuous dismissal of the Supreme Court's proper ruling with respect to the vile Indian Removal Act.) I have also never been sparing in my utter contempt for Jefferson Davis (see post #107 in this very thread, for example).
> 
> I have no doubt that there are "Lincoln haters" who soft-pedal or apologize for the likes of Jackson, Davis, Calhoun, etc. I have seen them do so - some of them right here on RPFs, more's the pity. However, I have never been one of them and I never will be.
> 
> *But at the same time, it should not be at all untoward to acknowledge that Lincoln has had a far, FAR greater impact - and a far more deleterious legacy - upon the present fact of overweening federal power than Jackson, Davis and Calhoun all wrapped-up into one.* This as much as anything else is why "most Lincoln haters" don't dwell nearly as much on them as they do on Lincoln - not even when they despise Jackson, Davis, etc. as much as I do. IOW: They are simply not as "relevant" as Lincoln is.


Other than the 13th amendment, what federal power did Lincoln expand?

----------


## Travlyr

> Just because you repeat that same mantra over and over again does not make it true.  I want to see some concrete examples - not just some flowery lawyer speeches he used to wow a bunch of naive bumpkins and little old ladies into electing him - of this vaunted admiration for individual liberty you say he possessed.  In the aggregate, did he do more to reinforce, or undermine, the idea of consent of the governed?  And if his primary concern was freeing the slaves (which I agree needed to be done), why didn't he use Compensated Emancipation as Lysander Spooner suggested?
> 
> 
> 
> _They?_  You mean Booth and his couple of cronies who couldn't even pull off their plot to seize VP Johnson and Gen. Grant?  Now they're tied into some elite conspiracy somehow?
> 
> IMO, if Lincoln really did die at the hands of some shady, NWO-type group, it was only because they no longer needed his services.


Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865 - A Fragment on Slavery. July 1854 - Abraham Lincoln



> If A can prove, however conclusively, that he may of right enslave B, why may not B snatch the same argument and prove equally that he may enslave A? You say A is white and B is black. It is colour, then; the lighter having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule you are to be slave the the first man you meet with fairer skin than your own.
> 
> You do not mean colour exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule you are to be slave to the first man you meet with an intellect superior to your own.
> 
> But, say you , it is a question of interest, and if you make it your interest you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest he has the right to enslave you.





> The difference between the Republican and the Democratic parties on the leading issue of this contest, as I understand it, is, that the former consider slavery a moral, social and political wrong, while the latter do not consider it either a moral, social or political wrong; and the action of each, as respects the growth of the country and the expansion of our population, is squared to meet these views. I will not allege that the Democratic party consider slavery morally, socially and politically right; though their tendency to that view has, in may opinion, been constant and unmistakable for the past five years. I prefer to take, as the accepted maxim of the party, the idea put forth by Judge Douglas, that he "don't care whether slavery is voted down or voted up.'' I am quite willing to believe that many Democrats would prefer that slavery be always voted down, and I am sure that some prefer that it be always "voted up''; but I have a right to insist that their action, especially if it be their constant and unvarying action, shall determine their ideas and preferences on the subject. Every measure of the Democratic party of late years, bearing directly or indirectly on the slavery question, has corresponded with this notion of utter indifference whether slavery or freedom shall outrun in the race of empire across the Pacific---every measure, I say, up to the Dred Scott decision, where, it seems to me, the idea is boldly suggested that slavery is better than freedom. *The Republican party, on the contrary, hold that this government was instituted to secure the blessings of freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro, to the white man, to the soil, and to the State. Regarding it an evil, they will not molest it in the States where it exists; they will not overlook the constitutional guards which our forefathers have placed around it; they will do nothing which can give proper offence to those who hold slaves by legal sanction; but they will use every constitutional method to prevent the evil from becoming larger and involving more negroes, more white men, more soil, and more States in its deplorable consequences.* They will, if possible, place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate peaceable extinction, in God's own good time. And to this end they will, if possible, restore the government to the policy of the fathers---the policy of preserving the new territories from the baneful influence of human bondage, as the Northwestern territories were sought to be preserved by the ordinance of 1787 and the compromise act of 1820. They will oppose, in all its length and breadth, the modern Democratic idea that slavery is as good as freedom, and ought to have room for expansion all over the continent, if people can be found to carry it. All, or very nearly all, of Judge Douglas' arguments about "Popular Sovereignty,'' as he calls it, are logical if you admit that slavery is as good and as right as freedom; and not one of them is worth a rush if you deny it.





> Speech in U. S. House of Representatives on the Presidential Question - July 27, 1848
> 
> THE WHIGS AND THE WAR
> 
> But, as Gen: Taylor is, par excellence, the hero of the Mexican war; and, as you democrats say we whigs have always opposed the war, you think it must be very awk[w]ard and embarrassing for us to go for Gen: Taylor. The declaration that we have always opposed the war, is true or false, accordingly as one may understand the term "opposing the war.'' If to say "the war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President'' be opposing the war, then the whigs have very generally opposed it. Whenever they have spoken at all, they have said this; and they have said it on what has appeared good reason to them. *The marching [of] an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops, and other property to destruction, to you may appear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, unprovoking procedure; but it does not appear so to us.* So to call such an act, to us appears no other than a naked, impudent absurdity, and we speak of it accordingly. But if, when the war had begun, and had become the cause of the country, the giving of our money and our blood, in common with yours, was support of the war, then it is not true that we have always opposed the war. With few individual exceptions, you have constantly had our votes here for all the necessary supplies. And, more than this, you have had the services, the blood, and the lives of our political bretheren in every trial, and on every field. The beardless boy, and the mature man---the humble and the distinguished, you have had them.





> Last night Judge Douglas tormented himself with horrors about my disposition to make negroes perfectly equal with white men in social and political relations. He did not stop to show that I have said any such thing, or that it legitimately follows from any thing I have said, but he rushes on with his assertions. *I adhere to the Declaration of Independence. If Judge Douglas and his friends are not willing to stand by it, let them come up and amend it. Let them make it read that all men are created equal except negroes. Let us have it decided, whether the Declaration of Independence, in this blessed year of 1858, shall be thus amended.* IN his construction of the Declaration last year he said it only meant that Americans in America were equal to Englishmen in England. Then, when I pointed out to him that by that rule he excludes the Germans, the Irish, the Portuguese, and all the other people who have come amongst us since the Revolution, he reconstructs his construction. In his last speech, he tells us it meant Europeans.
> 
> I press him a little further, and ask if it meant to include the Russians in Asia? or does he mean to exclude that vast population from the principles of our Declaration of Independence? I expect ere long he will introduce another amendment to his definition. He is not at all particular. He is satisfied with any thing which does not endanger the nationalizing of negro slavery. It may draw white men down, but it must not lift negroes up. Who shall say, 'I am the superior, and you are the inferior?'
> 
> My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but can not be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration to mean that all men were created equal in all respects. They are not our equal in color; but I suppose that it does mean to declare that all men are equal in some respects; they are equal in their right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' Certainly the negro is not our equal in color  perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man, white or black. In pointing out that more has been given you, you can not be justified in taking the little which has been given him. All I ask for the negro is that if you not like him, let him alone. If God gave him but little let him enjoy.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Other than the 13th amendment, what federal power did Lincoln expand?


It is not so much a matter of what (already existing) federal powers Lincoln "expanded" as it is a matter of the unprecedented things he did - things for which he possessed no rightful authority - or the restrictions & constraints he ignored or violated. By which I mean: things such as suspension of _habeas corpus_, issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, etc. (not to mention his making war upon states in order to prevent their secession). But these are issues upon which you and I disagree strongly, so I will just leave it at that, since I doubt that either of us can convince the other.

Also note that I was specifically referring to Lincoln's "impact" and "legacy" - that is, to his influence upon subsequent generations, which have exalted him as an exemplar of implacable Executive Authority. However much you and I may disagree about Lincoln himself, perhaps we can agree that he has been (ab)used by those who came after in order to "justify" all manner of depredations & usurpations.

----------


## Travlyr

> It is not so much a matter of what (already existing) federal powers Lincoln "expanded" as it is a matter of the unprecedented things he did - things for which he possessed no rightful authority - or the restrictions & constraints he ignored or violated. By which I mean: things such as suspension of _habeas corpus_, issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, etc. (not to mention his making war upon states in order to prevent their secession). But these are issues upon which you and I disagree strongly, so I will just leave it at that, since I doubt that either of us can convince the other.


Interesting. I believe that Lincoln had a right to defend himself and a sworn duty to defend the Union. The plot to assassinate him simply for winning the election is documented. Jefferson Davis plot to march to Washington and overthrow the Union by May 1st is evident. Very likely the only reason the Confederates did not beat the militia volunteers to Washington was because the night before the Confederates seized Harper's Ferry Union Lt. Roger Jones destroyed all the weapons in the armory. 




> Harpers Ferry
> When Virginia passed an ordnance of secession on April 17, 1861, the Harpers Ferry Armory became an immediate target. Lt. Roger Jones of the U.S. Army defended the Armory on the evening of April 18, 1861, with 50 regulars and 15 volunteers. In nearby Charles Town several companies of Virginia militia  360 men in all  assembled and advanced toward Harpers Ferry. Jones, outnumbered and unable to obtain reinforcements, set torches to the Armory and Arsenal buildings before retreating across the Potomac River.


If Jones had not destroyed the 15,000 weapons at Harpers Ferry just 70 miles from Washington, then a well armed Confederate army would have very likely beaten the Union militia volunteers to the virtually defenseless capitol. 
The Siege of Washington




> Also note that I was specifically referring to Lincoln's "impact" and "legacy" - that is, to his influence upon subsequent generations, which have exalted him as an exemplar of implacable Executive Authority. However much you and I may disagree about Lincoln himself, perhaps we can agree that he has been (ab)used by those who came after in order to "justify" all manner of depredations & usurpations.


I agree with all of this. Lincoln has been exhorted by the big and powerful to gain more power and condemned by the liberty movement because he was not an anarchist.

----------


## jmdrake

> And if his primary concern was freeing the slaves (which I agree needed to be done), why didn't he use Compensated Emancipation as Lysander Spooner suggested?


I kind of explained that already in post # 124.  The other countries were C.E. was used were not regionally divided among slave / free lines.  (Or at least I've never seen any evidence of that.)  So to achieve C.E. you would have to take money from regions that didn't have slaves and give it to regions that did.  You may not know this *but Lincoln actually tried to do compensated emancipation in the border states and successfully did it in Washington D.C.!*  In the border states, they didn't want to take the deal, and the free states were willing to fork up the money.  The scheme I have come up with, of actually raising tariffs to pay for compensated emancipation, is the only idea I've heard yet that might have worked.  If you have a scheme that could of worked and explains why it would have worked when Lincoln's attempt for C.E. in the border states didn't work, I'd love to hear it.  That said, arresting journalists was inexcusable.

----------


## jmdrake

> Woah! While I agree somewhat, that libertarians revision of the Civil War has sometimes boardered on holding up Jefferson Davis as a hero, I think you are out of your mind if you think the North went to war to "Free the slaves".


While the North didn't go to war to free the slaves, the southern aristocrats who pushed for secession certainly had the preservation of slavery as one of their major aims.  That's documented.  The poor white dirt farmers, some of whom volunteered but many of whom were forced into "military slavery" by the confederate draft, weren't fighting to preserve slavery.  But most U.S. soldiers don't go to war thinking "Yeah buddy!  I'm going to preserve U.S. corporate interests!"  That doesn't mean corporate interests don't play a role in war.




> The North went to war because the Confederates stole Union property, bombed Union soldiers, and then held Washington city in siege for months. They had no other choice but to defend themselves.


Hmmmmm...interesting point.  I didn't think about the siege of D.C.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Siege-Wash.../dp/0199931186

I'm not sure how long it lasted though.

----------


## jmdrake

> Who cares why Texas would want to Secede, lots of my neighbors think it is a great idea, would it be OK for the Union to kill them over it?
> 
> If Lincoln was against slavery everywhere, why did he not abolish it in all of the Northern States? On the other side of the coin, if Lincoln: "respected the law of the land and the law gave States the right to determine the slave issue for themselves." how does that fit in with the emancipation proclamation?


Lincoln attempted compensated emancipation in the Union states that owned slaves.  He was only successful in Washington D.C.

----------


## Travlyr

> While the North didn't go to war to free the slaves, the southern aristocrats who pushed for secession certainly had the preservation of slavery as one of their major aims.  That's documented.  The poor white dirt farmers, some of whom volunteered but many of whom were forced into "military slavery" by the confederate draft, weren't fighting to preserve slavery.  But most U.S. soldiers don't go to war thinking "Yeah buddy!  I'm going to preserve U.S. corporate interests!"  That doesn't mean corporate interests don't play a role in war.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmmm...interesting point.  I didn't think about the siege of D.C.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Siege-Wash.../dp/0199931186
> 
> I'm not sure how long it lasted though.


From April until the first battle at Bull Run July 21st and since Gen. Beauregard had Gen. McClellan's battle plans the Confederate army sent the Union militia volunteers in full retreat back to Washington.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I agree with those that say compensated emancipation was a bad idea...  justifying a lesser evil (Theft) to prevent a greater one (murder.)  I believe Lincoln should have taken advantage of the fact that the southern states were gone and pushed for a repeal of the fugitive slave act. Beyond that, Confederate slavery was frankly not his business anymore than oppression that goes on in Iraq or North Korea is not the business of the United States.

He had NO right to do the tyrannical things he did including suspending habeus corpus, and killing 600 thousand Americans.

----------


## Travlyr

> I agree with those that say compensated emancipation was a bad idea...  justifying a lesser evil (Theft) to prevent a greater one (murder.)  I believe Lincoln should have taken advantage of the fact that the southern states were gone and pushed for a repeal of the fugitive slave act. Beyond that, Confederate slavery was frankly not his business anymore than oppression that goes on in Iraq or North Korea is not the business of the United States.
> 
> He had NO right to do the tyrannical things he did including suspending habeus corpus, and killing 600 thousand Americans.


Lincoln was not elected to surrender the Union. And if he had what it would have accomplished is a slave empire with tensions still rising by abolitionists. The Confederates controlled the Mississippi river which was the main trade route for the Union river valleys. The Underground Railroad would have continued to free slaves and the Confederates would have retaliated by closing the trade route. Blaming Lincoln for killing 600k Americans, in my view, is nonsense.

----------


## Travlyr

> I kind of explained that already in post # 124.  The other countries were C.E. was used were not regionally divided among slave / free lines.  (Or at least I've never seen any evidence of that.)  So to achieve C.E. you would have to take money from regions that didn't have slaves and give it to regions that did.  You may not know this *but Lincoln actually tried to do compensated emancipation in the border states and successfully did it in Washington D.C.!*  In the border states, they didn't want to take the deal, and the free states were willing to fork up the money.  The scheme I have come up with, of actually raising tariffs to pay for compensated emancipation, is the only idea I've heard yet that might have worked.  If you have a scheme that could of worked and explains why it would have worked when Lincoln's attempt for C.E. in the border states didn't work, I'd love to hear it.  That said, arresting journalists was inexcusable.


I don't blame Lincoln for having these journalists arrested. There may have been others that were arrested unjustly, but these guys were publishing false proclamations and showing it to be signed by Lincoln and Seward.




> Executive Order - Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors
> May 18, 1864
> 
> Major-General John A. Drx,
> Commanding at New York:
> Whereas there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and published this morning in the New York World and New York Journal of Commerce, newspapers printed and published in the city of New York, a false and spurious proclamation purporting to be signed by the President and to be countersigned by the Secretary of State, which publication is of a treasonable nature, designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and to the rebels now at war against the Government and their aiders and abettors, you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, and hold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publication therefrom.
> A. LINCOLN.
> 
> Note: On the morning of May 18, 1864, a forged proclamation was published in the World, and Journal of Commerce, of New York. The proclamation named a day for fasting and prayer, called for 400,000 fresh troops, and purposed to raise by an "immediate and peremptory draft  whatever quotas were not furnished on the day specified.

----------


## PierzStyx

> That is a matter of opinion. I don't buy it. Lincoln only spent a few months as a Captain of the Illinois militia and the only real action he saw was when one of Blackfoots tribe members wandered into his camp and everyone in the militia wanted to hang him Lincoln stepped forward and let the guy go on his way.
> 
> *You can "not buy it" all you want. The man violated the Constitution every which way he "had to' in order to "preserve the Union."* 
> 
> 
> I find no evidence for this at all. Lincoln did what he thought he had to do to win the war. He used military might to win the war just as the Confederacy was using military might to overthrow the Union.
> 
> *Yes because when I plan to invade Washington I always start a war in South Carolina first. Just so I can blow my element of surprise in a meaningless battle against a larger foe.*
> 
> ...


My responses in bold.

----------


## PierzStyx

> The part in bold is only partially true. Lincoln lost his mother, his aunt & uncle, his sister, and his first love when he was young. Lincoln was not a fan of death. 
> 
> What does tell us something about a man is his words. Read: Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865
> 
> Hopefully, someone besides me will take the time to read them to understand Abraham Lincoln's character. Comparing Lincoln to Hitler tells me you have never really studied Abraham Lincoln at all.



Words mean nothing. Actions mean everything. Words are empty air, propaganda. Actions reveal a person's true nature. For all Lincoln hated death he sure ensured many women were left widows, many children were rendered fatherless, and half the entire nation was decimated by war, famine, and destruction. 

As for comparing Lincoln to Hitler, I wasn't. I was making a point that just because Lincoln didn't like to hunt doesn't make him so caring, gentle soul. Hitler hated eating meat and refuse to abuse animals. If your logic is correct we should just ignore the Holocaust and declare Hitler a friggin humanitarian. A leader bears the blood of those whom he leads in war on his hands. If Lincoln had thought more of human life than his ideal of Union then 600,000+ wouldn't have died because of him. He is drenched in blood, covered in it.

----------


## PierzStyx

> The assassination attempt has been documented. The Knights of the Golden Circle. John Wilkes Booth was a member.


Just because a book claims to be history doesn't mean you should believe it. The author has spent most of his life as an attorney, not as a historian. He had a BA in History but then went to law school and spent his entire life practicing law. Not exactly a scholar producing a scholarly work. At least DiLorenzo has been involved in scholarly work and discipline as an economics professor.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I agree with those that say compensated emancipation was a bad idea...  justifying a lesser evil (Theft) to prevent a greater one (murder.)  I believe Lincoln should have taken advantage of the fact that the southern states were gone and pushed for a repeal of the fugitive slave act. Beyond that, Confederate slavery was frankly not his business anymore than oppression that goes on in Iraq or North Korea is not the business of the United States.
> 
> He had NO right to do the tyrannical things he did including suspending habeus corpus, and killing 600 thousand Americans.


Most of the real abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison, had called for Northern secession years before to do just that-rid the nation of the taint of Southern slavery. But you see Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist and he wasn't fighting the war to free the slaves. He was a Unionist. He believed the idea of a unified United States was greater and more important than any state or person's right to self-determination. As history shows he was ready to kill to prevent dis-union.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Lincoln was not elected to surrender the Union. And if he had what it would have accomplished is a slave empire with tensions still rising by abolitionists. The Confederates controlled the Mississippi river which was the main trade route for the Union river valleys. The Underground Railroad would have continued to free slaves and the Confederates would have retaliated by closing the trade route. Blaming Lincoln for killing 600k Americans, in my view, is nonsense.


Killing people because they don't want to associate with you isn't liberty.

What someone is elected for is irrelevant.  Obama was elected to redistribute massive amounts of wealth, but he is still morally responsible for doing it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Most of the real abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison, had called for Northern secession years before to do just that-rid the nation of the taint of Southern slavery. But you see Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist and he wasn't fighting the war to free the slaves. He was a Unionist. He believed the idea of a unified United States was greater and more important than any state or person's right to self-determination. As history shows he was ready to kill to prevent dis-union.


Yep.

----------


## jj-

> Abraham Lincoln was all about individual liberty.


Then why did Lincoln enslave Northerners to fight the South?

Conscription Is Slavery

----------


## jj-

> However, intellectuals and historians know that Lincoln was no tyrant.


"Intellectuals and historians" also consistently rate Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt among the best Presidents, along with Lincoln. Doesn't that give you a clue? What a $#@!ing moron.

And you mention taking a class from "Yale". HAHA. That's a brainwashing institution. They don't teach Economics, they brainwash their kids with Keynesianism, and give the complementary brainwashing in the History courses. That's where freaking Paul Krugman graduated from, and here you're telling us they brainwashed you as well.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Lincoln was not elected to surrender the Union. And if he had what it would have accomplished is a slave empire with tensions still rising by abolitionists. The Confederates controlled the Mississippi river which was the main trade route for the Union river valleys. The Underground Railroad would have continued to free slaves and the Confederates would have retaliated by closing the trade route. Blaming Lincoln for killing 600k Americans, in my view, is nonsense.


It doesn't matter what he was elected to do.  He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and he ripped it to shreds.  What is nonsense and quite horrifying is that you are defending him doing that, while claiming that you are a constitutionalist.  It fails the logic test.  Sorry.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So, in your mind Lincoln was just supposed to surrender the Union to the slave powers?




He was supposed to honor his oath to the Constitution and allow the South to secede.  That doesn't equate to surrendering anything; he didn't OWN the Southern states.  The Northern states would have still been in the vaulted "union".

Again, what you are doing is saying it's fine that Lincoln suspended the Constitution, because you believe it was for a good cause.  It's not fine for a President to do that.  You know that.  I hope.

----------


## Travlyr

The South did not have the right to secede using violence. "Session is nothing but revolution" - Robert E. Lee




> He was supposed to honor his oath to the Constitution and allow the South to secede.  That doesn't equate to surrendering anything; he didn't OWN the Southern states.  The Northern states would have still been in the vaulted "union".
> 
> Again, what you are doing is saying it's fine that *Lincoln suspended the Constitution*, because you believe it was for a good cause.  It's not fine for a President to do that.  You know that.  I hope.


It appears to me that you are making false claims. The Constitution was written for times of peace. During insurrection exceptions were made in order to facilitate peace. According to Constitutional scholars Lincoln was following the Constitution the entire time.

Lincoln's Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: An Historical and Constitutional Analysis

And give me one good reason why Abraham Lincoln should not have imprisoned these journalists. People were getting killed on the battlefield and these jackasses were perpetuating the war.



> Executive Order - Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors
> May 18, 1864
> 
> Major-General John A. Drx,
> Commanding at New York:
> Whereas there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and published this morning in the New York World and New York Journal of Commerce, newspapers printed and published in the city of New York, a false and spurious proclamation purporting to be signed by the President and to be countersigned by the Secretary of State, which publication is of a treasonable nature, designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and to the rebels now at war against the Government and their aiders and abettors, you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, and hold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publication therefrom.
> A. LINCOLN.
> 
> Note: On the morning of May 18, 1864, a forged proclamation was published in the World, and Journal of Commerce, of New York. The proclamation named a day for fasting and prayer, called for 400,000 fresh troops, and purposed to raise by an "immediate and peremptory draft”  whatever quotas were not furnished on the day specified.

----------


## Travlyr

> I want to see some concrete examples - not just some flowery lawyer speeches he used to wow a bunch of naive bumpkins and little old ladies into electing him - of this vaunted admiration for individual liberty you say he possessed.


Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865 - July 1, 1854



> Equality, in society, alike beats inequality, whether the latter be of the British aristocratic sort, or of the domestic slavery sort.
> 
> We know, Southern men declare that their slaves are better off than hired laborers amongst us. How little they know, whereof they speak! There is no permanent class of hired laborers amongst us. Twentyfive years ago, I was a hired laborer. The hired laborer of yesterday, labors on his own account to-day; and will hire others to labor for him to-morrow. 
> 
> Advancement---improvement in condition---is the order of things in a society of equals. As Labor is the common burthen of our race, so the effort of some to shift their share of the burthen on to the shoulders of others, is the great, durable, curse of the race. Originally a curse for transgression upon the whole race, when, as by slavery, it is concentrated on a part only, it becomes the double-refined curse of God upon his creatures.
> 
> Free labor has the inspiration of hope; pure slavery has no hope. The power of hope upon human exertion, and happiness, is wonderful. The slave-master himself has a conception of it; and hence the system of tasks among slaves. The slave whom you can not drive with the lash to break seventy-five pounds of hemp in a day, if you will task him to break a hundred, and promise him pay for all he does over, he will break you a hundred and fifty. You have substituted hope, for the rod. 
> 
> And yet perhaps it does not occur to you, that to the extent of your gain in the case, you have given up the slave system, and adopted the free system of labor.

----------


## FindLiberty

lol, _it's a fluid, living supreme law of the land, subject to the whims of the master_. ROFLOL

No, he was just another tyrant IMO. 

Lincoln fought hard (and 500,000+ Americans died) just so you can have your opinion too (but only in times of peace)!

Just no.

----------


## Travlyr

I believe that Lincoln had a right to defend himself and his family. I believe that he had a sworn duty to protect the citizens of Washington against invasion. It is your right to believe that he is a tyrant for doing so. I disagree.




> lol, _it's a fluid, living supreme law of the land, subject to the whims of the master_. ROFLOL
> 
> No, he was just another tyrant IMO. 
> 
> Lincoln fought hard (and 500,000+ Americans died) just so you can have your opinion too (but only in times of peace)!
> 
> Just no.


Those powers were granted in the Constitution.



> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

----------


## jmdrake

> He was supposed to honor his oath to the Constitution and allow the South to secede.  That doesn't equate to surrendering anything; he didn't OWN the Southern states.  The Northern states would have still been in the vaulted "union".
> 
> Again, what you are doing is saying it's fine that Lincoln suspended the Constitution, because you believe it was for a good cause.  It's not fine for a President to do that.  You know that.  I hope.


1) Where is the secession clause in the constitution?  Sure the Declaration of Independence talks about that natural right to throw off bonds of an oppressive government.  But that's not in the constitution.  Kelly Thomas would have been in his natural right to pull out a gun and shoot the cops that were beating him to death.  But if someone came to his aid and started shooting cops, I'm not sure they could claim they were upholding the U.S. constitution.  Maybe.  Not sure.

2) Considering the south invaded the north didn't that go beyond mere secession?  

3) I've seen some criticize the Union for encouraging the secession of West Virginia.  Do you fit in that category or do you see secession as a universal right and not a "state" right?  The mountainous region of northern Alabama seceded from Alabama as well.  The mountainous region there is not conducive to plantation style, slave managed farms.

----------


## jmdrake

> I believe that Lincoln had a right to defend himself and his family. I believe that he had a sworn duty to protect the citizens of Washington against invasion. It is your right to believe that he is a tyrant for doing so. I disagree.
> 
> Those powers were granted in the Constitution.
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it._


Yeah, suspending Habeas Corpus is a legislative right not an executive one.  It is my understanding the Lincoln suspended the writ without an act of congress.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...-the-civil-war
_
John Merryman, a state legislator from Maryland, is arrested for attempting to hinder Union troops from moving from Baltimore to Washington during the Civil War and is held at Fort McHenry by Union military officials. His attorney immediately sought a writ of habeas corpus so that a federal court could examine the charges. However, President Abraham Lincoln decided to suspend the right of habeas corpus, and the general in command of Fort McHenry refused to turn Merryman over to the authorities.

Federal judge Roger Taney, the chief justice of the Supreme Court (and also the author of the infamous Dred Scott decision), issued a ruling that President Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln didn't respond, appeal, or order the release of Merryman. But during a July 4 speech, Lincoln was defiant, insisting that he needed to suspend the rules in order to put down the rebellion in the South.

Five years later, a new Supreme Court essentially backed Justice Taney's ruling: In an unrelated case, the court held that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus and that civilians were not subject to military courts, even in times of war.

This was not the first or last time that the U.S. federal government willfully ignored its own laws during times of strife. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps following the attack on Pearl Harbor and America's entry into World War II. Some forty years later, a U.S. congressional commission determined that those held in the camps had been victims of discrimination. Each camp survivor was awarded $20,000 in compensation from the U.S. government.
_

Edit: Found the source to the story.  Lincoln's suspension of the writ was a *very* dangerous precedent and cannot be overlooked.  Imagine things going to hell in a handbasket and a president Obama or Clinton unilaterally suspends the writ without the consent of congress and over the objection of the judicial branch.  What we would have is rule by executive fiat.  It's everything we as a movement worry about with regard to the NDAA.  But at least the NDAA had to be passed through congress.  I'm not a Lincoln hater.  But that was an inexcusable act.  Letting the federal courts review the charges against Merryman would not have likely changed the course of the war.  And if Lincoln had time to go make speeches defending his actions, then he had time to call a session of congress to ratify them with a vote.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yeah, suspending Habeas Corpus is a legislative right not an executive one.  It is my understanding the Lincoln suspended the writ without an act of congress.


Lincoln's Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: An Historical and Constitutional Analysis

Constitutional scholars conclude that Lincoln was within his Constitutional limits.

----------


## jmdrake

> Lincoln's Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: An Historical and Constitutional Analysis
> 
> Constitutional scholars conclude that Lincoln was within his Constitutional limits.


You realize those same "scholars" would probably conclude the NDAA, NSA, TSA and a whole lot of other unconstitutional crap is constitutional right?

Edit: I haven't finished reading it yet, but this part *confirms my position as correct.*

_On July 2, just two days before Congress convened, Lincoln issued an order authorizing suspension of the writ of habeas corpus between New York and Philadelphia—friendly territory for the administration. But he didn't suspend the writ, which suggests a lack of urgency. Lincoln could have sought and almost certainly could have obtained congressional authorization before issuing the order, but he didn't do so. He didn't seek suspension authorization in his July 4 message or at any later time. Indeed, when he says in his message that "whether there shall be any legislation on this subject ... is submitted to the better judgment of Congress," Lincoln appears to advise Congress to act with more deliberation than speed if it decides to act at all._

Lincoln, while appearing before Congress to *talk* about the suspension of the writ could have called for a *vote*.  The only reason not to is if you are afraid the answer might be "no".

----------


## torchbearer

> You realize those same "scholars" would probably conclude the NDAA, NSA, TSA and a whole lot of other unconstitutional crap is constitutional right?
> 
> Edit: I haven't finished reading it yet, but this part *confirms my position as correct.*
> 
> _On July 2, just two days before Congress convened, Lincoln issued an order authorizing suspension of the writ of habeas corpus between New York and Philadelphia—friendly territory for the administration. But he didn't suspend the writ, which suggests a lack of urgency. Lincoln could have sought and almost certainly could have obtained congressional authorization before issuing the order, but he didn't do so. He didn't seek suspension authorization in his July 4 message or at any later time. Indeed, when he says in his message that "whether there shall be any legislation on this subject ... is submitted to the better judgment of Congress," Lincoln appears to advise Congress to act with more deliberation than speed if it decides to act at all._
> 
> Lincoln, while appearing before Congress to *talk* about the suspension of the writ could have called for a *vote*.  The only reason not to is if you are afraid the answer might be "no".


I have a feeling another POTUS will have the same arrogance tonight in his SOTU.
and the beat goes on...

----------


## Travlyr

> You realize those same "scholars" would probably conclude the NDAA, NSA, TSA and a whole lot of other unconstitutional crap is constitutional right?


I don't agree. It doesn't make sense to be a power for Congress during insurrection because they take too long to act. 

I believe this statement has merit. 



> Lincoln's Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: An Historical and Constitutional Analysis
> 
> Horace Binney begins his paper by asserting that "the power to suspend the privilege is supplementary of the power to suppress or repel. It is a civil power to arrest for privity or supposed privity with rebellion, as the military power is to suppress by capture for overt acts of rebellion."


Lincoln firmly believed it and he was one of the most knowledgeable constitutional scholars of his time.  

Jefferson Davis believed that Lincoln did not have the authority to call up the militia to defend the Union because it was listed in Article I. 



> "The President of the United States called for an army of 75,000 men, whose first service was to be to capture our forts. It was a plain declaration of war which I was not at liberty to disregard because of my knowledge that under the Constitution of the United States the President was usurping a power granted exclusively to the Congress." - Jefferson Davis - April 29, 1861


Lincoln did it anyway and foiled Davis's plan to be in the White House by May 1st. 

The Siege of Washington



> "Jefferson Davis planned to be living in the White House by May 1, according to the plans of his wife, Varina. On April 17th, New York insurance executive William Holdredge wrote Secretary of State William H. Seward in exasperation, informing him that the "wife of the Rebel President Davis has had the imprudence to send cards to her lady acquaintances at the Saint Nicholas" - a favorite New York hotel for visiting Southerners - "inviting them to attend her reception in the White House at Washington on the first of May."

----------


## LibertyEagle

> 1) Where is the secession clause in the constitution?  Sure the Declaration of Independence talks about that natural right to throw off bonds of an oppressive government.  But that's not in the constitution.  Kelly Thomas would have been in his natural right to pull out a gun and shoot the cops that were beating him to death.  But if someone came to his aid and started shooting cops, I'm not sure they could claim they were upholding the U.S. constitution.  Maybe.  Not sure.
> 
> 2) Considering the south invaded the north didn't that go beyond mere secession?  
> 
> 3) I've seen some criticize the Union for encouraging the secession of West Virginia.  Do you fit in that category or do you see secession as a universal right and not a "state" right?  The mountainous region of northern Alabama seceded from Alabama as well.  The mountainous region there is not conducive to plantation style, slave managed farms.


The 10th Amendment, jmdrake.

----------


## jmdrake

> The 10th Amendment, jmdrake.


Ah.  The "catch all" clause.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't agree. It doesn't make sense to be a power for Congress during insurrection because they take too long to act.


Yeah, except the link you gave me showed that Lincoln had ample evidence to get congressional approval at some point and chose not to.  When he finally got congressional approval in 1863, he didn't use it because he liked the power that he gave himself better.  Again, that's from your link.  Sorry, but there was no excuse for Lincoln to do what he did in this regard.  When he addressed congress in 1861 he could have presented a draft bill for the type of power that he felt he needed and asked for a vote on it.




> I believe this statement has merit. 
> 
> Lincoln firmly believed it and he was one of the most knowledgeable constitutional scholars of his time.


I'm not sure if you are saying the "he" here is Lincoln or Horace Binney.  No matter.  Barack Obama considers himself one of the most knowledgeable constitutional scholars of his time. Ken Woo (author of the torture memos) is considered a constitutional scholar too.  I wouldn't defer to either one of them.




> Jefferson Davis believed that Lincoln did not have the authority to call up the militia to defend the Union because it was listed in Article I. 
> 
> Lincoln did it anyway and foiled Davis's plan to be in the White House by May 1st. 
> 
> The Siege of Washington


Yeah.  Well and good.  But again, why when Lincoln was before congress giving them an update on what he was doing did he not at least ask for a rubber stamp?

----------


## jmdrake

> The 10th Amendment, jmdrake.


Oh, and I noticed you didn't bother attempting to answer these questions.  

_2) Considering the south invaded the north didn't that go beyond mere secession?

3) I've seen some criticize the Union for encouraging the secession of West Virginia. Do you fit in that category or do you see secession as a universal right and not a "state" right? The mountainous region of northern Alabama seceded from Alabama as well. The mountainous region there is not conducive to plantation style, slave managed farms_

----------


## Travlyr

> I want to see some concrete examples - not just some flowery lawyer speeches he used to wow a bunch of naive bumpkins and little old ladies into electing him - of this vaunted admiration for individual liberty you say he possessed.


Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865




> Letter to George Robertson
> 
> George Robertson was a Kentucky lawyer and professor who once served as legal counsel for Abraham Lincoln and other Illinois heirs of Robert Todd, Lincoln's father-in-law. During Lincoln's absence from Springfield, he dropped off a copy of his speeches and writings on slavery and other topics. In his response to this, Lincoln expresses his pessimism about the prospects of gradual emancipation and the way Americans now regarded liberty. The letter closes with the reference Lincoln would use three years later in his famous "House Divided" speech.
> Springfield, Illinois
> August 15, 1855
> 
> Hon. Geo. Robertson
> Lexington, Ky.
> 
> ...

----------


## Travlyr

> Yeah, except the link you gave me showed that Lincoln had ample evidence to get congressional approval at some point and chose not to.  When he finally got congressional approval in 1863, he didn't use it because he liked the power that he gave himself better.  Again, that's from your link.  *Sorry, but there was no excuse for Lincoln to do what he did in this regard.*  When he addressed congress in 1861 he could have presented a draft bill for the type of power that he felt he needed and asked for a vote on it.


Would you have preferred in this instance that Lincoln convene Congress to get their approval before arresting these journalists?



> Executive Order - Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors
> May 18, 1864
> 
> Major-General John A. Drx,
> Commanding at New York:
> Whereas there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and published this morning in the New York World and New York Journal of Commerce, newspapers printed and published in the city of New York, a false and spurious proclamation purporting to be signed by the President and to be countersigned by the Secretary of State, which publication is of a treasonable nature, designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and to the rebels now at war against the Government and their aiders and abettors, you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, and hold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publication therefrom.
> A. LINCOLN.
> 
> Note: On the morning of May 18, 1864, a forged proclamation was published in the World, and Journal of Commerce, of New York. The proclamation named a day for fasting and prayer, called for 400,000 fresh troops, and purposed to raise by an "immediate and peremptory draft”  whatever quotas were not furnished on the day specified.





> I'm not sure if you are saying the "he" here is Lincoln or Horace Binney.  No matter.  Barack Obama considers himself one of the most knowledgeable constitutional scholars of his time. Ken Woo (author of the torture memos) is considered a constitutional scholar too.  I wouldn't defer to either one of them.


Thing is jmdrake, Lincoln never claimed he was a Constitutional scholar.




> Yeah.  Well and good.  But again, why when Lincoln was before congress giving them an update on what he was doing did he not at least ask for a rubber stamp?


He did not need to get their approval. It was an Executive power during times of insurrection.

----------


## Travlyr

> I want to see some concrete examples - not just some flowery lawyer speeches he used to wow a bunch of naive bumpkins and little old ladies into electing him - of this vaunted admiration for individual liberty you say he possessed.


Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

Address in Independence Hall, Philadelphia. February 22, 1861



> The inaugural journey began in Springfield on February 11 and ended in Washington D. C. on February 23, 1861. In between the train made numerous stops and President-elect Lincoln spoke at many of the stops. One of the more memorable stops occurred at Independence Hall in Philadelphia on George Washington's birthday, February 22.
> 
> Source: Neely, Mark E. Jr. 1982. The Abraham Lincoln Encyclopedia. New York: Da Capo Press, Inc.
> 
> *Independence Hall: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 22, 1861*
> 
> Mr. CUYLER: I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing here, in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to the present distracted condition of the country. I can say in return, Sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated and were given to the world from this hall. 
> 
> I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here, and framed and adopted that Declaration of Independence. I have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that Independence. I have often inquired of myself what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is the sentiment embodied in that Declaration of Independence. 
> ...

----------


## LibertyEagle

Talk is cheap.  His actions were of a tyrant who suspended the Constitution.

----------


## Travlyr

> Talk is cheap.  His actions were of a tyrant who suspended the Constitution.


I do not agree that he suspended the Constitution but that does not really matter. I would more likely tend to agree with you if Lincoln had been building up arms before Davis bombed Fort Sumter. 

The Siege of Washington: It is obvious to me that Jefferson Davis intended to overthrow the Union by May 1st. I am glad he was not successful.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I do not agree that he suspended the Constitution but that does not really matter. I would more likely tend to agree with you if Lincoln had been building up arms before Davis bombed Fort Sumter.


The South offered to buy the fort which was located in THE SOUTH.  Lincoln refused.  It wasn't until after Lincoln resupplied the Fort that the South attacked.




> It is obvious to me that Jefferson Davis intended to overthrow the Union by May 1st. I am glad he was not successful.


Yeah, you're all for overthrowing the Constitution for an effort that you approve of.  That is what is clear.

----------


## Travlyr

The Constitution was not overthrown. Lincoln sought both an amendment to nationalize slavery and the 13th amendment. That is hardly overthrowing the Constitution.




> The South offered to buy the fort which was located in THE SOUTH.  Lincoln refused.  It wasn't until after Lincoln resupplied the Fort that the South attacked.
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're all for overthrowing the Constitution for an effort that you approve of.  That is what is clear.


The South first seized the forts, and held Union soldiers in siege for months trying to starve them out, and then they wanted to pay for them later. That is not peaceful secession. Yet, even then Lincoln offered a peaceful solution. _Just don't start bombing_.

Jefferson Davis was fully aware of what he was doing. My personal suspicion is that war powers were behind Davis. See: Judah Benjamin



> To Robert S. Chew
> 
> [War Department.] Washington, April 6. 1861
> 
> Sir---you will proceed directly to Charleston, South Carolina; and if, on your arrival there, the flag of the United States shall be flying over Fort-Sumpter, and the Fort shall not have been attacked, you will procure an interview with Gov. Pickens, and read to him as follows:
> 
> "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, *no effort to throw in men, arms, or amunition, will be made, without further notice*, or in case of an attack upon the Fort''
> 
> After you shall have read this to Governor Pickens, deliver to him the copy of it herein inclosed, and retain this letter yourself.
> ...


Davis's response. Start bombing.

----------


## jmdrake

> Would you have preferred in this instance that Lincoln convene Congress to get their approval before arresting these journalists?


Straw man argument.  A suspension of the writ of habeas isn't needed to arrest someone.  It's needed to detain someone indefinitely.  So the day he issued his orders to his generals he could have immediately set about seeking to convene Congress.  And when Lincoln spoke before Congress *congress was already convened*.  So even if we were to give Lincoln the benefit of the doubt for acting before he had a chance to get congressional approval, there is still no excuse for him not seeking approval once he had the chance and absolutely no excuse for him not using the Congressional authority later given him rather than using his own self appointed executive authority.




> Thing is jmdrake, Lincoln never claimed he was a Constitutional scholar.


Note that I said _I'm not sure if you are saying the "he" here is Lincoln or Horace Binny._  Regardless that's besides the point.  I give Binney no more credit than I give "Congressional scholar" John Yoo.  (Sorry I said Ken Yoo by mistake earlier).  You can always find some "congressional scholar" to agree with your position no matter how wrong it is.




> He did not need to get their approval. It was an Executive power during times of insurrection.


He did need approval because it is not an executive power an has never been deemed so by the Court.  Your "constitutional scholars" are thankfully not binding legal authority.

----------


## Travlyr

> Straw man argument.  A suspension of the writ of habeas isn't needed to arrest someone.  It's needed to detain someone indefinitely.  So the day he issued his orders to his generals he could have immediately set about seeking to convene Congress.  And when Lincoln spoke before Congress *congress was already convened*.  So even if we were to give Lincoln the benefit of the doubt for acting before he had a chance to get congressional approval, there is still no excuse for him not seeking approval once he had the chance and absolutely no excuse for him not using the Congressional authority later given him rather than using his own self appointed executive authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Note that I said _I'm not sure if you are saying the "he" here is Lincoln or Horace Binny._  Regardless that's besides the point.  I give Binney no more credit than I give "Congressional scholar" John Yoo.  (Sorry I said Ken Yoo by mistake earlier).  You can always find some "congressional scholar" to agree with your position no matter how wrong it is.
> 
> 
> 
> He did need approval because it is not an executive power an has never been deemed so by the Court.  Your "constitutional scholars" are thankfully not binding legal authority.


I see your point. It is a very dangerous power which could be easily abused. I don't know if there was any actual abuse of that power during the Civil War. I haven't read any that has convinced me there was actual abuse because people were generally freed upon swearing allegiance to the Union. The difference between Lincoln and Obama is that Lincoln was faced with a self described 'foreign nation' actively seeking to overthrow the Union. Nobody would try that today. 

However, I still agree with Lincoln and Horace Binney. We'll just have to agree to disagree. You do make valid points. However, I don't have any respect for Taney's decisions.

----------


## jmdrake

> I see your point. It is a very dangerous power which could be easily abused. I don't know if there was any actual abuse of that power during the Civil War. I haven't read any that has convinced me there was actual abuse because people were generally freed upon swearing allegiance to the Union. The difference between Lincoln and Obama is that Lincoln was faced with a self described 'foreign nation' actively seeking to overthrow the Union. Nobody would try that today. 
> 
> However, I still agree with Lincoln and Horace Binney. We'll just have to agree to disagree. You do make valid points. However, I don't have any respect for Taney's decisions.


And I think you make valid points as well.  The South invading the North might have been tactically brilliant and yet strategically stupid.  I have yet to see anyone attempt to answer the question "Well if the south had a right to secede does that abrogate the North's right to resist an invasion?  I think Lincoln was a mixed bag.  Neither the vampire nor the vampire slayer.  Lesson for those resisting government overreach today, don't rush into a fight.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

If I was in Lincoln's place, I would have allowed the Southern States to secede peacefully, but I would make it clear to that the Confederates that Kentucky and Missouri will be remaining in the Union.

----------


## Travlyr

> If I was in Lincoln's place, I would have allowed the Southern States to secede peacefully, but I would make it clear to that the Confederates that Kentucky and Missouri will be remaining in the Union.


Unfortunately, Lincoln did not have that option. Lincoln's options were surrender the Union or defend it. Jefferson Davis had plans to live in the White House.




> The Siege of Washington
> 
> "Jefferson Davis planned to be living in the White House by May 1, according to the plans of his wife, Varina. On April 17th, New York insurance executive William Holdredge wrote Secretary of State William H. Seward in exasperation, informing him that the "wife of the Rebel President Davis has had the imprudence to send cards to her lady acquaintances at the Saint Nicholas" - a favorite New York hotel for visiting Southerners - "inviting them to attend her reception in the White House at Washington on the first of May."
> 
> "On April 12, 1861 only hours after Confederate guns opened fire on Fort Sumter in the Charleston harbor, Confederate Secretary of War Leroy P. Walker appeared before a jubilant crowd in Montgomery, Alabama. "No man can tell when the war this day commenced will end," Walker thundered from the balcony of the Exchange Hotel, at the heart of the Confederate capital, "but I will prophesy that the flag which now floats the breeze here will float over the dome of the old capital at Washington before the first of May."

----------


## Travlyr

This impromptu speech by Abraham Lincoln was the last speech he gave before taking the oath of office. There was nothing tyrannical about Lincoln until after the slave powers attacked him with intent to overthrow the government. Read it carefully to learn who he was.

Address in Independence Hall, Philadelphia. February 22, 1861



> The inaugural journey began in Springfield on February 11 and ended in Washington D. C. on February 23, 1861. In between the train made numerous stops and President-elect Lincoln spoke at many of the stops. One of the more memorable stops occurred at Independence Hall in Philadelphia on George Washington's birthday, February 22.
> 
> Source: Neely, Mark E. Jr. 1982. The Abraham Lincoln Encyclopedia. New York: Da Capo Press, Inc.
> 
> *Independence Hall: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 22, 1861*
> 
> Mr. CUYLER: I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing here, in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to the present distracted condition of the country. I can say in return, Sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated and were given to the world from this hall. 
> 
> I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here, and framed and adopted that Declaration of Independence. I have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that Independence. I have often inquired of myself what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is the sentiment embodied in that Declaration of Independence. 
> ...


What Lincoln said was that the Union was based on liberty for all, that it was a model for liberating the world, that he would rather be assassinated than give up on that principle, and force would not be used except in defense. Those are modern day libertarian principles.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> How far back? You do know that Lincoln imposed the first income tax to fund the war against Southern Independence, no?  He also implemented fiat currency like the Founders did during the war for American independence, along with the draft. Maybe you agree with me here. Travlyr will be .  I take it we are going back to before this, yes? Because war has been anything but voluntary from that time to WW2--where people had to ration and barely scrape by. Don't give me this business of war bonds funding it all. So what are we talking about, the aggressive war of 1812 where the US got its aggressive ass handed to them?


I have expressed the date ranges I am speaking of several times over.  None of them reach 1860.

There was a lot more British aggression in terms of trade embargoes and impressment and planning and supplying violent Indian raids on American cities than there was American aggression vs the British ally Tecumseh.  That's certainly _NOT_ to excuse America's push against Tecumseh, nor the propaganda by frontiersmen (falsely) claiming that the Indian raiding parties were being augmented by British troops, but your characterization of the War of 1812 is pretty lopsided at best.  Not to mention Britain invaded _us,_ and oh yeah, we ended up winning that war.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The interesting thing is that anarchy is really predicated upon people taking a deep interest in protecting their rights and safety.
> 
> If people were that interested, our government would not be out of control and there would be no issue.


I've never heard this argument before.  Does anyone have a rebuttal to it?



> How far back? You do know that Lincoln imposed the first income tax to fund the war against Southern Independence, no?  He also implemented fiat currency like the Founders did during the war for American independence, along with the draft. Maybe you agree with me here. Travlyr will be .  I take it we are going back to before this, yes? Because war has been anything but voluntary from that time to WW2--where people had to ration and barely scrape by. Don't give me this business of war bonds funding it all. So what are we talking about, the aggressive war of 1812 where the US got its aggressive ass handed to them?


How in the world did the US start the war of 1812?  Britain was the aggressor in that war.  I agreed with you until you said that.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Exactly right. Even a young Lysander Spooner would have agreed with you.


Some of the people who legitimately consented to the government were still alive.

By 1867, such was not the case.

ETA: And of course, he watched what Lincoln did when the South wished to withdraw from the Union. (as well as other atrocities of the period)

----------


## Travlyr

> Some of the people who legitimately consented to the government were still alive.
> 
> By 1867, such was not the case.


The way I read Spooner is that he was just fine with government until they put him out of business. I don't blame him for turning, but everyone should know by now that the first anarchist in America was a Utopian socialist. Josiah Warren: The First American Anarchist

And of course your Lost Cause revision of Civil War history is a myth and no serious historian believes it.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The way I read Spooner is that he was just fine with government until they put him out of business. I don't blame him for turning, but everyone should know by now that the first anarchist in America was a Utopian socialist. Josiah Warren: The First American Anarchist
> 
> And of course your Lost Cause revision of Civil War history is a myth and no serious historian believes it.


The same "serious historians" worship the ground Wilson walked on. And FDR too. And every other propagandized American tyrant.

Don't get your panties in a bunch because the man you admire was a tyrant. Lysander Spooner, who was living during the period, documented some of Lincoln's greatest atrocities.

----------


## Travlyr

> The same "serious historians" worship the ground Wilson walked on. And FDR too. And every other propagandized American tyrant.
> 
> Don't get your panties in a bunch because the man you admire was a tyrant. Lysander Spooner, who was living during the period, documented some of Lincoln's greatest atrocities.


You have no clue about American history but that does not stop you from embarrassing the liberty movement with ignorance.

It should also be noted that Gunny did try and give you some important information in this thread that you continue to ignore.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> You have no clue about American history but that does not stop you from embarrassing the liberty movement with ignorance.
> 
> It should also be noted that Gunny did try and give you some important information in this thread that you continue to ignore.


What do I continue to ignore? Television thieves, insurance companies, and tyrants oh my!

I apologize if while intentionally ignoring, many, many, many, many, posts I overlooked one that had value. Nothing against Gunny, I like his posts and read the ones that weren't speaking of insurance companies etc. I just found that debate to be a little absurd.

And as far as history is concerned, you'd sooner worship the ground Arthur Link walked on. Your posts regarding this matter are hilariously biased and subsequently are ignored. I like a lot of what you post but this Lincoln obsession is unhealthy.

----------


## Travlyr

> What do I continue to ignore? Television thieves, insurance companies, and tyrants oh my!
> 
> I apologize if while intentionally ignoring, many, many, many, many, posts I overlooked one that had value. Nothing against Gunny, I like his posts and read the ones that weren't speaking of insurance companies etc. I just found that debate to be a little absurd.
> 
> And as far as history is concerned, you'd sooner worship the ground Arthur Link walked on. Your posts regarding this matter are hilariously biased and subsequently are ignored. I like a lot of what you post but this Lincoln obsession is unhealthy.


Why don't you take your hatred of Abraham Lincoln, who was a true freedom fighter, to the thread on Lincoln? Your false Lost Cause myths don't stand a chance there. Laying on the floor beating your hands and feet on the floor screaming "_Lincoln was a tyrant_" "_Lincoln was a tyrant_" without backing up your claim is tiring. 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5410815

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Why don't you take your hatred of Abraham Lincoln, who was a true freedom fighter, to the thread on Lincoln? Your false Lost Cause myths don't stand a chance there.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5389846


I'm good.

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm good.


No you're not. You are a detriment to liberty because you perpetuate lies. 

"_Socialism is liberty_." "_Lincoln was a tyrant_." Your ilk makes people in the liberty movement sound ignorant of history.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> No you're not. You are a detriment to liberty because you perpetuate lies. Socialism is liberty. Lincoln was a tyrant. Your ilk makes people in the liberty movement sound ignorant of history.


What the hell are you babbling about?

If you have any sense of integrity you'd back up what you said and document the reasons for saying it: "Socialism is liberty"? What does that mean and why are you telling me that? Are you attempting to imply I've said anything of the sort? If you have one ounce of integrity you will recant. I do not expect much from someone who idolizes a murderer, though.

I'm as anti-collectivist as one can get. Rights_ are_ rights. Socialists can burn in hell.. next to the ultimate legal positivist: Lincoln.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> No you're not. You are a detriment to liberty because you perpetuate lies. 
> 
> "_Socialism is liberty_." "_Lincoln was a tyrant_." Your ilk makes people in the liberty movement sound ignorant of history.


Now you even provide quotations.

Link the post where I said that, you dishonest $#@!.

----------


## Travlyr

> Now you even provide quotations.
> 
> Link the post where I said that, you dishonest $#@!.





> You are a piece of $#@! for that. I'll remember it too. - kcchiefs6465


I am glad I pissed you off. You claiming that anarchy is liberty and that the most honest liberty President ever elected is a tyrant is some of the dumbest crap ever promoted. It proves that you have not done any serious study into the philosophy of liberty. You and your ilk are a drag on the liberty movement. Do some homework before you promote your crap.

Classical Liberalism



> "The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production... All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand." - Ludwig von Mises

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I am glad I pissed you off. You claiming that anarchy is liberty and that the most honest liberty President ever elected is a tyrant is some of the dumbest crap ever promoted. It proves that you have not done any serious study into the philosophy of liberty. You and your ilk are a drag on the liberty movement. Do some homework before you promote your crap.
> 
> Classical Liberalism


You are the most dishonest, intellectually bankrupt, infatuated, Lincoln fan boy I've ever seen. Hopefully you get butthurt again, this time leaving to never come back. Needless to say, not a one will miss you. I mean that.

Liberty president? He is directly responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, the imprisonment of countless journalists, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, forever indebting America to bankers, and more.

ETA: And I also wish to point out the clarity of your lack of character. Not only do you falsely attribute quotations to me, of things I've never said and about philosophies I detest, but then you further ignore any chance of legitimately saving face. If I had a shred of respect for you before, it is gone.

----------


## Travlyr

> You are the most dishonest, intellectually bankrupt, infatuated, Lincoln fan boy I've ever seen. Hopefully you get butthurt again, this time leaving to never come back. Needless to say, not a one will miss you. I mean that.
> 
> Liberty president? *He is directly responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people*, the imprisonment of countless journalists, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, forever indebting America to bankers, and more.
> 
> ETA: And I also wish to point out the clarity of your lack of character. Not only do you falsely attribute quotations to me, of things I've never said and about philosophies I detest, but then you further ignore any chance of legitimately saving face. If I had a shred of respect for you before, it is gone.


In bold is one of the most stupid things anyone could ever promote. It proves your ignorance of history. Lincoln was not only a fan of liberty, he was a relentless supporter, and defender, of individual liberty and free markets.  

I care not what you think about me. I have done my homework and you are promoting lies. If me pointing out your nonsense BS history bothers you then maybe it is time for you to do some serious homework. Lincoln was not the monster you want everyone to believe he was.

And lastly, I did not leave RPF for a year because I was butthurt. I quit posting because the Lincoln haters and anarchists are not promoting liberty but they are promoting lies. It is the truth that sets us free... not lies.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

"Thorn in your side" Hahahahahahahaha. I have 6,000+ reps and you are wasting what I can only assume to be your miserable life +repping people to have the chance to come back and neg me. Kill yourself.

"Thorn in your side".. That's good.

----------


## Travlyr

> "Thorn in your side" Hahahahahahahaha. I have 6,000+ reps and you are wasting what I can only assume to be your miserable life +repping people to have the chance to come back and neg me. Kill yourself.
> 
> "Thorn in your side".. That's good.


Liars are losers. It is time to stop lying about Abraham Lincoln. Only people who have not studied history believes your lies. 

Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

People who read don't believe your BS.

----------


## Christian Liberty

You know who else thinks/knows Lincoln is a tyrant?  Ron Paul.

The Lincoln cult is absolutely disgusting.  You worship a dictator and you know it.  Most people don't know it, but I know you do.  Grow up.

The anarchy/minarchy debate is one thing.  I think Gunny, and Eric Peters, have showed us that sometimes its kind of tough to tell the difference, but its an interesting debate nonetheless.  Defending a mass murdering, habeus corupus denying, free speech hating, self-determination hating nationalist is another thing entirely.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> The anarchy/minarchy debate is one thing.  I think Gunny, and Eric Peters, have showed us that sometimes its kind of tough to tell the difference, but its an interesting debate nonetheless.  Defending a mass murdering, habeus corupus denying, free speech hating, self-determination hating nationalist is another thing entirely.


Yeah, its hard to believe that you could be on posting on the Ron Paul Forums and be a Lincolnist. It must take a mind-boggling amount of cognitive dissonance.

----------


## Travlyr

> You know who else thinks/knows Lincoln is a tyrant?  Ron Paul.
> 
> The Lincoln cult is absolutely disgusting.  You worship a dictator and you know it.  Most people don't know it, but I know you do.  Grow up.
> 
> The anarchy/minarchy debate is one thing.  I think Gunny, and Eric Peters, have showed us that sometimes its kind of tough to tell the difference, but its an interesting debate nonetheless.  Defending a mass murdering, habeus corupus denying, free speech hating, self-determination hating nationalist is another thing entirely.






> Yeah, its hard to believe that you could be on posting on the Ron Paul Forums and be a Lincolnist. It must take a mind-boggling amount of cognitive dissonance.


It is absolutely STUPID for the liberty movement to degrade Abraham Lincoln. Liars are losers in the 21st century. Lincoln was an absolute libertarian. Read folks. Read. Lincoln wanted freedom for all. Lincoln defended America from expanding chattel slavery. That is a fact of history.

----------


## TaftFan

> It is absolutely STUPID for the liberty movement to degrade Abraham Lincoln. Liars are losers in the 21st century. Lincoln was an absolute libertarian. Read folks. Read. Lincoln wanted freedom for all. Lincoln defended America from expanding chattel slavery.


A "libertarian" he was not. 99% of Americans oppose slavery yet few are libertarians.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> It is absolutely STUPID for the liberty movement to degrade Abraham Lincoln. Liars are losers in the 21st century. Lincoln was an absolute libertarian. Read folks. Read. Lincoln wanted freedom for all. Lincoln defended America from expanding chattel slavery. That is a fact of history.


You've been consumed by the Lincoln cult. There's no other way to explain it.

----------


## Travlyr

> A "libertarian" he was not. 99% of Americans oppose slavery yet few are libertarians.


Just read. Abraham Lincoln was a libertarian. He wanted liberty for everyone in the world.

Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

----------


## Travlyr

> You've been consumed by the Lincoln cult. There's no other way to explain it.


Wrong. You have never read his words. You believe the lies about him.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Wrong. You have never read his words. You believe the lies about him.


Actions speak louder than words.

----------


## Travlyr

This IS who Abraham Lincoln was. ^^^^

----------


## Travlyr

> Actions speak louder than words.


Read and stop sounding ignorant of history. Abraham Lincoln stood against TPTB.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Actions speak louder than words.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Read and stop sounding ignorant of history. Abraham Lincoln stood against TPTB.


Lol.

----------


## Travlyr

> Lol.


It is just the facts. Abraham Lincoln stood up to TPTB and it cost him his life. TPTB are slave masters.

----------


## TaftFan

> It is just the facts. Abraham Lincoln stood up to TPTB and it cost him his life. TPTB are slave masters.


What about the actions he brought up though? Many were very anti-libertarian.

----------


## Travlyr

> Actions speak louder than words.


The actions of Jefferson Davis who wanted to build a slave empire? Yes, you are right. While Abraham Lincoln stood for liberty for all black and white.

----------


## Travlyr

> What about the actions he brought up though? Many were very anti-libertarian.


He had to defend himself, his family, and free blacks in Washington from the warmongering actions of the Knights of the Golden Circle and Jefferson Davis. Why don't you KNOW that? Click the link before you promote your false propaganda again.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> It is just the facts. Abraham Lincoln stood up to TPTB and it cost him his life. TPTB are slave masters.


Lincoln was happy to keep slavery around as long as he could lord over the south with an iron fist. He stands for everything that any worthwhile libertarian should oppose (aggressive warmaking, strong national government, central economic planning, paper money, jailing of dissenters, ripping up of habeas corpus and so on).

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> What about the actions he brought up though? Many were very anti-libertarian.


Murdering those who don't wish to associate with your government is very anti-libertarian. In fact, I could hardly imagine a more anti-libertarian position. Oh yeah, perhaps imprisoning journalists.

You are frankly wasting your time. Travlyr thinks Lincoln was right to imprison the journalists.

----------


## Travlyr

> Lincoln was happy to keep slavery around as long as he could lord over the south with an iron fist. He stands for everything that any worthwhile libertarian should oppose (aggressive warmaking, strong national government, central economic planning, paper money, jailing of dissenters, ripping up of habeas corpus and so on).


All BS. Don't be stupid. Read.

Abraham Lincoln railed against slavery all through the 1850s. Do some homework. Others will do their own homework and you will stand out like a sore thumb.

Abraham Lincoln was a strong defender of individual liberty and free markets all his life.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> All BS. Don't be stupid. Read.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln railed against slavery all through the 1850s. Do some homework. Others will do their own homework and you will stand out like a sore thumb.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln was a strong defender of individual liberty and free markets all his life.


This doesn't sound like the words of a champion of human rights:

"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 am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." - Abraham Lincoln

----------


## Travlyr

> Murdering those who don't wish to associate with your government is very anti-libertarian. In fact, I could hardly imagine a more anti-libertarian position. Oh yeah, perhaps imprisoning journalists.
> 
> You are frankly wasting your time. Travlyr thinks Lincoln was right to imprison the journalists.


Stupid is as stupid does. I've done my homework.

I would have imprisoned these guys too.




> Executive Order - Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors
> May 18, 1864
> 
> Major-General John A. Drx,
> Commanding at New York:
> Whereas there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and published this morning in the New York World and New York Journal of Commerce, newspapers printed and published in the city of New York, a false and spurious proclamation purporting to be signed by the President and to be countersigned by the Secretary of State, which publication is of a treasonable nature, designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and to the rebels now at war against the Government and their aiders and abettors, you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, and hold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publication therefrom.
> A. LINCOLN.
> 
> Note: On the morning of May 18, 1864, a forged proclamation was published in the World, and Journal of Commerce, of New York. The proclamation named a day for fasting and prayer, called for 400,000 fresh troops, and purposed to raise by an "immediate and peremptory draft  whatever quotas were not furnished on the day specified.


They were prolonging the war. They were responsible for killing people.

----------


## Travlyr

> This doesn't sound like the words of a champion of human rights:
> 
> "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 am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." - Abraham Lincoln


Because you have not done your homework. You believe the BS. That quote is taken out-of-context which is unethical and dishonest.

----------


## Travlyr

Liars are losers in the 21st century.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

Saps in 100 years will be talking about how Barack Obama was such a great liberty-loving leader of the Republic. Who cares about indefinite detention and the illegal wars, they will say. Just read his speeches LOL!

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Because you have not done your homework. You believe the BS. That quote is taken out-of-context which is unethical and dishonest.


Wow. Did you really just say that?

So you allege me to have said "socialism is liberty" then refuse to recant knowing full well I never said anything of the sort. You even added quotations.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Tom Dilorenzo has quoted PRO-LINCOLN historians that agree with us about what Lincoln did.  The only issue that's really debated by historians is why the South seceded, and whether or not Lincoln genuinely changed his attitude toward slavery later in life or not.  But the fact that Lincoln was unwilling to let the south secede, that he imprisoned anti--union journalists, that he started the income tax, started the concept of paper money, etc. are not really debated.  Of course, the lamestream historians make excuses for him, but that doesn't change the fact that he did in fact do those things.

I'm sort of inclined to instantaneously dismiss the idea that the POTUS could ever oppose TPTB, but the hypothetical possibility of Ron Paul being elected President restrains me in this regard.  At any rate, Lincoln was never trying to scale back govt.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Good stuff, OB.*  I hate the fact that I can't access resources like this in most face to face conversations, so I usually sort of fail, which leads people (note: non-voluntarists) to question whether I "Really" believe in voluntarism or not.  
> *
> The argument that police departments might shoot at each other used to bother me, until I learned the obvious, that this can really happen anyway.  And the fact that, more often than not, the monopoly-gang are the ones who DESERVE to get shot at, yet are untouchable.


I reckon pretty much everyone here has had a moment like that.  In your case, it's just an instance of being 18, lacking a full knowledge of the material commonly discussed and the abstract philosophical thought underlying an-cap and Voluntaryist arguments.  Just keep reading up on your own interests as well as opposing views.  Probably the greatest weakness of "anti-anarchists" is that they have a very superficial understanding of anarchism and their own avowed philosophies.Aside from standard literature like "Anatomy Of The State", you ought to read Hoppe's "Argumentation Ethics".  Also learn as much about formal and informal logic as possible.  (one of the reasons I defeat you in our debates routinely is I enjoy studying logic as a hobby   )

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Saps in 100 years will be talking about how Barack Obama was such a great liberty-loving leader of the Republic. Who cares about indefinite detention and the illegal wars, they will say. Just read his speeches LOL!


Its probably true.  A pretty darn large minority of the country already calls you "racist" if you dare criticize the Dear Leader.  I'm sure by the time I'm dead, it won't even be questioned.  After all, he was the "first black president."  (Why couldn't that have been Walter Williams?)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I reckon pretty much everyone here has had a moment like that.  In your case, it's just an instance of being 18, lacking a full knowledge of the material commonly discussed and the abstract philosophical thought underlying an-cap and Voluntaryist arguments.  Just keep reading up on your own interests as well as opposing views.  Probably the greatest weakness of "anti-anarchists" is that they have a very superficial understanding of anarchism and their own avowed philosophies.Aside from standard literature like "Anatomy Of The State", you ought to read Hoppe's "Argumentation Ethics".  Also learn as much about formal and informal logic as possible.  (one of the reasons I defeat you in our debates routinely is I enjoy studying logic as a hobby   )


First off, I'm 19.

Second off, you don't ever beat me in debates.  We just don't generally debate.  When it comes to religion, you usually just say "He doesn't understand the Orthodox Church" or something.  We usually don't disagree, at least not substantially, on politics.

----------


## Travlyr

> Saps in 100 years will be talking about how Barack Obama was such a great liberty-loving leader of the Republic. Who cares about indefinite detention and the illegal wars, they will say. Just read his speeches LOL!






> Wow. Did you really just say that?
> 
> So you allege me to have said "socialism is liberty" then refuse to recant knowing full well I never said anything of the sort. You even added quotations.
> 
> The hypocrisy is astounding.


It is sad that both of you are so ignorant of history that you feel it appropriate to spread lies. It wont work. There are too many of us who have studied history who know the truth and don't believe your lies. I understand that you do not believe you are spreading lies, but those of us who have read Lincoln's own words for ourselves KNOW you guys are full of crap.

Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> It is sad that both of you are so ignorant of history that you feel it appropriate to spread lies. It wont work. There are too many of us who have studied history who know the truth and don't believe your lies. I understand that you do not believe you are spreading lies, but those of us who have read Lincoln's own words for ourselves KNOW you guys are full of crap.
> 
> Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865


Sorry, but we're just not as impressed by a politician's empty rhetoric as you are apparently.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> It is sad that both of you are so ignorant of history that you feel it appropriate to spread lies. It wont work. There are too many of us who have studied history who know the truth and don't believe your lies. I understand that you do not believe you are spreading lies, but those of us who have read Lincoln's own words for ourselves KNOW you guys are full of crap.
> 
> Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865


So that justifies you making up a quotation and implying I said it, then chastising someone for allegedly misrepresenting Lincoln's words (that he at least actually did say)?

Tsk tsk. It speaks volumes of your character. And yet you feel content, with instead of recanting, apologizing and saving whatever is left of your reputation, with repeating the same tired statement imploring me to read Lincoln's words. As if that could ever mask his actions. Like I said, whatever respect I had for you, and I did respect you, is gone. The dishonesty, hypocrisy, and your lack of character are going to forbid me from responding again to you. It is a waste of my time. So please, quit telling me to read his speeches. There is no reason to.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> First off, I'm 19.
> 
> Second off, you don't ever beat me in debates.  We just don't generally debate.  *When it comes to religion, you usually just say "He doesn't understand the Orthodox Church" or something.*  We usually don't disagree, at least not substantially, on politics.


...And then go on to explain why you're wrong or refer you to literature.  But those are inconvenient facts, I see. :P

----------


## Travlyr

> It is sad that both of you are so ignorant of history that you feel it appropriate to spread lies. It wont work. There are too many of us who have studied history who know the truth and don't believe your lies. I understand that you do not believe you are spreading lies, but those of us who have read Lincoln's own words for ourselves KNOW you guys are full of crap.
> 
> Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865


Do you guys, who are full of crap, see what I am doing here? I am linking to Abraham Lincoln's words exactly so that readers of truth can understand for themselves who Abraham Lincoln was. Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

Abraham Lincoln was not the monster you liars want to make him to be.

----------


## Occam's Banana



----------


## Travlyr

> So that justifies you making up a quotation and implying I said it, then chastising someone for allegedly misrepresenting Lincoln's words (that he at least actually did say)?
> 
> Tsk tsk. It speaks volumes of your character. And yet you feel content, with instead of recanting, apologizing and saving whatever is left of your reputation, with repeating the same tired statement imploring me to read Lincoln's words. As if that could ever mask his actions. Like I said, whatever respect I had for you, and I did respect you, is gone. The dishonesty, hypocrisy, and your lack of character are going to forbid me from responding again to you. It is a waste of my time. So please, *quit telling me to read his speeches. There is no reason to*.


A Stupid Person.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Do you guys, who are full of crap, see what I am doing here? I am linking to Abraham Lincoln's words exactly so that readers of truth can understand for themselves who Abraham Lincoln was. Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865
> 
> Abraham Lincoln was not the monster you liars want to make him to be.


Why don't I link you to Barack Obama's speeches so you can see what a swell guy he is?

----------


## Travlyr

> Why don't I link you to Barack Obama's speeches so you can see what a swell guy he is?


Quit with stupidity. Obama has nothing to do with Lincoln.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Quit with stupidity. Obama has nothing to do with Lincoln.


They both give one hell of a speech, I heard.

The Patriots.

----------


## Travlyr

> 


Stop being so stupid. Please. Pretty please. Stop with the obfuscation. The people in the liberty movement are not stupid. They are smart people who have studied liberty intensely. Please stop presenting the liberty movement as idiots.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> They both give one hell of a speech, I heard.
> 
> The Patriots.


Great Americans, they.

----------


## Travlyr

> They both give one hell of a speech, I heard.



Down with idiots everywhere.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Down with idiots everywhere.


Yeah, that is why I badmouth Obama and his ideological forebearer Lincoln as much as humanly possible. Now why aren't you doing the same?

----------


## Travlyr

You see, The people in the world who have read the "Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865 find you stupid people to be illiterate people. Do you want to be known as illiterate? Don't be stupid.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yeah, that is why I badmouth Obama and his ideological forebearer Lincoln as much as humanly possible. Now why aren't you doing the same?



Do you want to be remembered as an illiterate person?

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> You see, The people in the world who have read the "Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865 find you stupid people to be illiterate people. Do you want to be known as illiterate? Don't be stupid.


Sorry, but I don't accept the empty rhetoric of politicians. Unlike you, I care more about their actions. BTW I am sure if Hitler won his war of aggression as Lincoln unfortunately did, you would see thousands of books celebrating 'Honest Adolf' too.

----------


## Travlyr

> Sorry, but I don't accept the empty rhetoric of politicians. Unlike you, I care more about their actions. BTW I am sure if Hitler won his war of aggression as Lincoln unfortunately did, you would see thousands of books celebrating 'Honest Adolf' too.


Illiteracy is not a virtue.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Illiteracy is not a virtue.


Indeed, which is why I pay attention to the words of Lincoln. Such as:

 "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 am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

----------


## green73

> Illiteracy is not a virtue.


You missed his point. Lincoln was Hitler's hero.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> You missed his point. Lincoln was Hitler's hero.


They were two peas in a pod.

----------


## Travlyr

> Illiteracy is not a virtue.


The stupid people who want everyone to believe that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant are illiterate people. They promote a lie. An accurate reading of history proves that Abraham Lincoln was a staunch defender of individual liberty and free markets. Hate it or not: those are the facts of history.

----------


## green73

> The stupid people who want everyone to believe that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant are illiterate people. They promote a lie. An accurate reading of history proves that Abraham Lincoln was a staunch defender of individual liberty and free markets. Hate it or not: those are the facts of history.


Your hero was working on deporting all the blacks to Africa and South America until the day he died. What a guy!

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The stupid people who want everyone to believe that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant are illiterate people. They promote a lie. An accurate reading of history proves that Abraham Lincoln was a staunch defender of individual liberty and free markets. Hate it or not: those are the facts of history.


You responded to yourself...

----------


## Travlyr

> You missed his point. Lincoln was Hitler's hero.





> They were two peas in a pod.


Stupid and illiterate white guys promoting lies.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Why is this thread diverted into Lincoln arguments?

Can ya'll take Lincoln to the Lincoln thread?

_This one is: Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Free Markets Require Government_

----------


## green73

> Why is this thread diverted into Lincoln arguments?
> 
> Can ya'll take Lincoln to the Lincoln thread?


It's inevitable with Trav. But I agree. Split!

----------


## Travlyr

> You responded to yourself...


Yes, because I am tired of you idiots promoting lies in the name of liberty.

----------


## Travlyr

> Why is this thread diverted into Lincoln arguments?
> 
> Can ya'll take Lincoln to the Lincoln thread?
> 
> _This one is: Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Free Markets Require Government_


They won't do it because they know they are losers in that thread. Liars are losers in the 21st century.

----------


## green73

> Yes, because I am tired of you idiots promoting lies in the name of liberty.


You're right. Lincoln wasn’t a white supremacist who was against state’s rights and an inspiration to Hitler...

----------


## Travlyr

> You're right. Lincoln wasn’t a white supremacist who was against state’s rights and an inspiration to Hitler...


You are chicken $#@!. You will not debate in the Lincoln thread because you know you are a loser.

----------


## green73

> You are chicken $#@!. You will not debate in the Lincoln thread because you know you are a loser.


That's it! You got me!!!

----------


## Travlyr

> That's it! You got me!!!


That's right. You are a chicken $#@!. If you were not a chicken $#@! then you would respond in the Lincoln thread.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> The stupid people who want everyone to believe that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant are illiterate people. They promote a lie. An accurate reading of history proves that Abraham Lincoln was a staunch defender of individual liberty and free markets. Hate it or not: those are the facts of history.


He was a railroad lobbyist who favored high tariffs. You're not fooling anyone around here by spewing the same tired statist propaganda. You sound even more deranged than the devoted Obama supporters you see nowadays.

----------


## green73

> That's right. You are a chicken $#@!. If you were not a chicken $#@! then you would respond in the Lincoln thread.


Jesus Christ, which Lincoln thread is that? It's not like there hasn't been a 100 of them. Did you start a new one to repeat all your previously debunked bull$#@!?

----------


## Travlyr

> He was a railroad lobbyist who favored high tariffs. You're not fooling anyone around here by spewing the same tired statist propaganda. You sound even more deranged than the devoted Obama supporters you see nowadays.


BS. You are a chicken $#@! too dude. Either respond in the Lincoln thread or give it up. Liars are losers in the 21st century.

----------


## green73

> He was a railroad lobbyist who favored high tariffs. You're not fooling anyone around here by spewing the same tired statist propaganda. You sound even more deranged than the devoted Obama supporters you see nowadays.


Don't forget that he was for a central bank from the onset...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Quit with stupidity. Obama has nothing to do with Lincoln.


I would be genuinely TERRIFIED to have Lincoln as US President in 21st century America.  Obama's one redeeming factor is his total incompetence.  Lincoln was competent AND evil, which really, really sucks.

If you ignore the fact that Obama has a bigger playground because of the century he's in, Obama is not half the tyrant that Lincoln was.  




> Sorry, but I don't accept the empty rhetoric of politicians. Unlike you, I care more about their actions. BTW I am sure if Hitler won his war of aggression as Lincoln unfortunately did, you would see thousands of books celebrating 'Honest Adolf' too.


LOL!



> Your hero was working on deporting all the blacks to Africa and South America until the day he died. What a guy!


I'm pretty sure he stopped the day before he died.  I doubt he was thinking too much about "the blacks" after John Wilkes Booth gave him a millionth of what he dished out against other people.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> BS. You are a chicken $#@! too dude. Either respond in the Lincoln thread or give it up. Liars are losers in the 21st century.


Lincoln was the chicken $#@! and now he is rotting in Hell and deservedly so.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> BS. You are a chicken $#@! too dude. Either respond in the Lincoln thread or give it up. Liars are losers in the 21st century.


I assume you posted this while looking in a mirror?

You're the liar in this thread.  Seriously, you're one of the dumbest people I've ever talked to.  I know a lot of people who like Lincoln but they haven't been confronted with the same facts you have been confronted with.

----------


## Travlyr

> Jesus Christ, which Lincoln thread is that? It's not like there hasn't been a 100 of them. Did you start a new one to repeat all your previously debunked bull$#@!?


Stop playing dumb. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5410815

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Lincoln was the chicken $#@! and now* he is rotting in Hell and deservedly so*.


I won't go that far, I don't know what he believed when he died, and if he repented of his evil works or not.  I do know he was an evil man, but I don't know for sure whether he went to heaven or Hell.

----------


## Travlyr

> I assume you posted this while looking in a mirror?
> 
> You're the liar in this thread.  Seriously, you're one of the dumbest people I've ever talked to.  I know a lot of people who like Lincoln but they haven't been confronted with the same facts you have been confronted with.


Stop playing stupid.

----------


## green73

> Stop playing stupid.


Don't throat punch him, k?

----------


## Travlyr

> I won't go that far, I don't know what he believed when he died, and if he repented of his evil works or not.  I do know he was an evil man, but I don't know for sure whether he went to heaven or Hell.


People in the liberty movement are not stupid. Stop playing stupid.

----------


## Travlyr

> Don't throat puch him, k?


Stop being stupid.

----------


## Travlyr

People in the liberty movement are not nearly as dumb as anarchists.

----------


## green73

> Stop playing dumb. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5410815


You did! You did start another thread to spread all your previously debunked bull$#@!! What a guy!

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> People in the liberty movement are not nearly as dumb as anarchists.


Lol.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Here we are, lovers of liberty all, devouring one another like piranha, even taking joy in the act of our own destruction while Karl Rove, completely unfettered, laughs all the way to the polls. Is it any wonder we can't come together long enough to elect people? Why Rand Paul has to identify exclusively as Tea Party?  It's some kind of mental disease, really.  A self-destructive thing where we all but salivate at the first sign of weakness in our own brothers and literally clamor to eviscerate our own people. Forget allies; our own people. As we continue the march towards abject tyranny, and as we become ever more subjected under the tyrants thumb; when the death squads come, when you son lay dead in your driveway with a bill for the bullet that killed him in your hand, remember at least the fun you had destroying the only people who were here to help stop it, and congratulate yourselves on such a job well done. 

Well done, libertarians. Well done.   :weep:

----------


## green73

> People in the liberty movement are not nearly as dumb as anarchists.


When you say things like this, how can people not fall down at your feet?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by Occam's Banana
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being so stupid. Please. Pretty please. Stop with the obfuscation. The people in the liberty movement are not stupid. They are smart people who have studied liberty intensely. Please stop presenting the liberty movement as idiots.


WTF are you directing that at me for? I was only trying to lighten the mood of the thread with a cute and funny picture.

I have been nothing but respectful towards you - and I did & said nothing to deserve being addressed so rudely and disrespectfully by you.




> Why is this thread diverted into Lincoln arguments?
> 
> Can ya'll take Lincoln to the Lincoln thread?
> 
> _This one is: Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Free Markets Require Government_


What Clyde said.




> Here we are, lovers of liberty all,  devouring one another like piranha, even taking joy in the act of our  own destruction while Karl Rove, completely unfettered, laughs all the  way to the polls. Is it any wonder we can't come together long enough to  elect people? Why Rand Paul has to identify exclusively as Tea Party?   It's some kind of mental disease, really.  A self-destructive thing  where we all but salivate at the first sign of weakness in our own  brothers and literally clamor to eviscerate our own people. Forget  allies; our own people. As we continue the march towards abject tyranny,  and as we become ever more subjected under the tyrants thumb; when the  death squads come, when you son lay dead in your driveway with a bill  for the bullet that killed him in your hand, remember at least the fun  you had destroying the only people who were here to help stop it, and  congratulate yourselves on such a job well done. 
> 
> Well done, libertarians. Well done.   :weep:


What Gunny said x 1000000.

----------


## Travlyr

> Don't forget that he was for a central bank from the onset...


Stupid, stupid, stupid. Lies. All lies.

----------


## green73

> Here we are, lovers of liberty all, devouring one another like piranha, even taking joy in the act of our own destruction while Karl Rove, completely unfettered, laughs all the way to the polls. Is it any wonder we can't come together long enough to elect people? Why Rand Paul has to identify exclusively as Tea Party?  It's some kind of mental disease, really.  A self-destructive thing where we all but salivate at the first sign of weakness in our own brothers and literally clamor to eviscerate our own people. Forget allies; our own people. As we continue the march towards abject tyranny, and as we become ever more subjected under the tyrants thumb; when the death squads come, when you son lay dead in your driveway with a bill for the bullet that killed him in your hand, remember at least the fun you had destroying the only people who were here to help stop it, and congratulate yourselves on such a job well done. 
> 
> Well done, libertarians. Well done.   :weep:


Oh no, it's just idiots like Trav. He deserves what he gets.

----------


## green73

> Stupid, stupid, stupid. Lies. All lies.


Wow, how can I argue with that???

Edit:

Don't throat punch me, k?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Oh no, it's just idiots like Trav. He deserves what he gets.


:weep:

It's some kind of mental disease, really. It has to be. You don't even take this kind of joy at destroying the likes of Lindsey Graham and Nancy Pelosi, but one of our own and you just can't wait to drive the stake. 

Well done Green73. Good job man. Keep this up and we'll be loading the boxcars in no time.

----------


## Travlyr

> Don't forget that he was for a central bank from the onset...


Stop lying. There is absolutely no historical evidence for your lies. Abraham Lincoln was never for an unaudited central bank. The facts of history prove you are lying. Lies. All lies. Sell your fairy tales to children. Adults do not believe lies.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Here we are, lovers of liberty all, devouring one another like piranha, even taking joy in the act of our own destruction while Karl Rove, completely unfettered, laughs all the way to the polls. Is it any wonder we can't come together long enough to elect people? Why Rand Paul has to identify exclusively as Tea Party?  It's some kind of mental disease, really.  A self-destructive thing where we all but salivate at the first sign of weakness in our own brothers and literally clamor to eviscerate our own people. Forget allies; our own people. As we continue the march towards abject tyranny, and as we become ever more subjected under the tyrants thumb; when the death squads come, when you son lay dead in your driveway with a bill for the bullet that killed him in your hand, remember at least the fun you had destroying the only people who were here to help stop it, and congratulate yourselves on such a job well done. 
> 
> Well done, libertarians. Well done.   :weep:


I'd say that anyone who wishes to portray my position as "socialism is liberty" and attempt to act as if those are my words, can $#@! off. The polls be damned. He can take his cultish infatuation elsewhere.

I made a simple point of Lysander Spooner becoming more outspoken after watching Lincoln's war. He got butthurt. Now he can only tell people that liars are losers in the 21st century (lmao) even though he knowingly and dishonestly implied I said something I did not. Then proceeded to -rep me a couple times over a minute like only an immature fool would do. What a joke.

----------


## green73

> Stop lying. There is absolutely no historical evidence for your lies. Abraham Lincoln was never for an unaudited central bank. The facts of history prove you are lying. Lies. All lies. Sell your fairy tales to children. Adults do not believe lies.


You're pathetic. But funny. Thanks for the laughs!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> :weep:
> 
> It's some kind of mental disease, really. It has to be. You don't even take this kind of joy at destroying the likes of Lindsey Graham and Nancy Pelosi, but one of our own and you just can't wait to drive the stake. 
> 
> Well done Green73. Good job man. Keep this up and we'll be loading the boxcars in no time.


I think I agree with green on this one.  It would be one thing if e was taking a minority position and defending it logically, its another thing to just keep sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "can't heart you" all the while calling US stupid when we use little things like "logic" and "facts."  Reminds me of a poster on another forum who used to call me a "bigot" because of things I said about same sex marriage back when I was more conservative.  No arguments, just "you're a bigot and a racist."  (If Tywysog sees this thread he'll know what I'm talking about)

With friends like Trev, who needs enemies?

Oh, and I'd take twice as much joy seeing Lindsey-boy or Nancy-puh-lowsy go down, and then some.

----------


## Travlyr

> Oh no, it's just idiots like Trav. He deserves what he gets.


Except for one thing. I loathe the lies that anarchist tell. I embrace truth. I am a truther because I embrace the truth and hate the lie. You can tell all the fairy tales you wish. I refuse to believe your lies. The truth is of utmost importance to me.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'd say that anyone who wishes to portray my position as "socialism is liberty" and attempt to act as if those are my words, can $#@! off. The polls be damned. He can take his cultish infatuation elsewhere.
> 
> I made a simple point of Lysander Spooner becoming more outspoken after watching Lincoln's war. He got butthurt. Now he can only tell people that liars are losers in the 21st century (lmao) even though he knowingly and dishonestly implied I said something I did not. Then proceeded to -rep me a couple times over a minute like only an immature fool would do. What a joke.


You all already know how angry the Lincoln stuff makes him, yet you keep poking him in it. Why?

hey look, here is something that makes him so angry he can't think straight. I wonder what happens when we gang up on him and keep poking the sore spot?

----------


## green73

> :weep:
> 
> It's some kind of mental disease, really. It has to be. You don't even take this kind of joy at destroying the likes of Lindsey Graham and Nancy Pelosi, but one of our own and you just can't wait to drive the stake. 
> 
> Well done Green73. Good job man. Keep this up and we'll be loading the boxcars in no time.


Oh yeah, that's right. Talking $#@! about Lindsey Graham; that's where it's at. Don't focus at all on the $#@!s in our midsts. What harm could they do?!

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Oh yeah, that's right. Talking $#@! about Lindsey Graham; that's where it's at. Don't focus at all on the $#@!s in our midsts. What harm could they do?!


Travlyr's Lincoln worship is beyond creepy. I was hoping he'd gotten over it upon his return, but unfortunately it's worse than ever.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I think I agree with green on this one.  It would be one thing if e was taking a minority position and defending it logically, its another thing to just keep sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "can't heart you" all the while calling US stupid when we use little things like "logic" and "facts."  Reminds me of a poster on another forum who used to call me a "bigot" because of things I said about same sex marriage back when I was more conservative.  No arguments, just "you're a bigot and a racist."  (If Tywysog sees this thread he'll know what I'm talking about)
> 
> With friends like Trev, who needs enemies?
> 
> Oh, and I'd take twice as much joy seeing Lindsey-boy or Nancy-puh-lowsy go down, and then some.


Everyone has something that pisses them off. When 3-4 people get together and endlessly poke someone in the pisses him off spot what in the world do you think is going to happen?  This is not an accident. People are driving him apoplectic because they think it's fun. This is the same kind of immature crap I watched on the elementary school playground.

----------


## green73

> Except for one thing. I loathe the lies that anarchist tell. I embrace truth. I am a truther because I embrace the truth and hate the lie. You can tell all the fairy tales you wish. I refuse to believe your lies. The truth is of utmost importance to me.


It's not just anarchists who tell the truth about Lincoln. The cat's out of the bag in that regard. Sorry, Trav.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> You all already know how angry the Lincoln stuff makes him, yet you keep poking him in it. Why?
> 
> hey look, here is something that makes him so angry he can't think straight. I wonder what happens when we gang up on him and keep poking the sore spot?


Perhaps you should read what was said before commenting.

----------


## green73

Anyway, can we get yet another split thread. Travlr has once again derailed this one with Lincoln.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Everyone has something that pisses them off. When 3-4 people get together and endlessly poke someone in the pisses him off spot what in the world do you think is going to happen?  This is not an accident. People are driving him apoplectic because they think it's fun. This is the same kind of immature crap I watched on the elementary school playground.


You are going to annoy me. Immature? Like -rep me, plus repping seven people over 15 seconds to neg rep me again? Like lying about what I said? Like calling names, and insulting numerous people?

Let him leave. Good riddance. Lincoln was a tyrant. You haven't even read the last 15 pages yet comment like people are picking on him. He deserves what he gets.

----------


## Travlyr

> You're pathetic. But funny. Thanks for the laughs!


Obviously, you have never bothered to read for truth. Lincoln's words are documented for all to read.

Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

Don't you even see the dumbassness or your own idiocy? Obviously not. Thousands of people will read the words of Lincoln and understand what he stood for. 

You can claim ignorance all you wish. Your ignorance is not my problem.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Oh yeah, that's right. Talking $#@! about Lindsey Graham; that's where it's at. Don't focus at all on the $#@!s in our midsts. What harm could they do?!


How about getting actual bona-fide liberty loving politicians elected for one? No, it's too important to act like a bunch of five-year olds, and guffaw at how angry you can make someone. You probably had a real good laugh at how you made him so angry that he lashed out at Occom who never said a cross word. It's all destruction destruction. No building up. No edification. Just destruction and tearing down. 

You want to know why liberty never makes it past 10% in the polls? Here's a clue-by-four.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You are going to annoy me. Immature? Like -rep me, plus repping seven people over 15 seconds to neg rep me again? Like lying about what I said? Like calling names, and insulting numerous people?
> 
> Let him leave. Good riddance. Lincoln was a tyrant. You haven't even read the last 15 pages yet comment like people are picking on him. He deserves what he gets.


Who here DOESN'T know where he stands on Lincoln? Yet it's all push the buttons push the buttons push the buttons and see what it takes to make him explode. Then you get offended when he actually explodes? Really?

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> How about getting actual bona-fide liberty loving politicians elected for one? No, it's too important to act like a bunch of five-year olds, and guffaw at how angry you can make someone. You probably had a real good laugh at how you made him so angry that he lashed out at Occom who never said a cross word. It's all destruction destruction. No building up. No edification. Just destruction and tearing down. 
> 
> You want to know why liberty never makes it past 10% in the polls? Here's a clue-by-four.


Travlyr was the one throwing most of the insults. If anything, you should be chiding him for his rude and strange posts.

----------


## Travlyr

> You all already know how angry the Lincoln stuff makes him, yet you keep poking him in it. Why?
> 
> hey look, here is something that makes him so angry he can't think straight. I wonder what happens when we gang up on him and keep poking the sore spot?


The thing is Gunny, that Lincoln stood up for freedom in the face of tyranny. These fake 'liberty lovers' don't even know it. They are the most indoctrinated sheep of all.

----------


## Travlyr

> Travlyr was the one throwing most of the insults. If anything, you should be chiding him for his rude and strange posts.


BS. Quote that.

----------


## green73

> Obviously, you have never bothered to read for truth. Lincoln's words are documented for all to read.
> 
> Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865
> 
> Don't you even see the dumbassness or your own idiocy? Obviously not. Thousands of people will read the words of Lincoln and understand what he stood for. 
> 
> You can claim ignorance all you wish. Your ignorance is not my problem.


I stand corrected. Lincoln was a great man who didn't subvert the constitution. Tom DiLorenzo is a liar for pointing out all the horrors that he committed. Thanks for making that clear. Rest assured, your family connection to him, of which you are so proud, is just as you've always imagined it, something of serene majesty.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Who here DOESN'T know where he stands on Lincoln? Yet it's all push the buttons push the buttons push the buttons and see what it takes to make him explode. Then you get offended when he actually explodes? Really?


Are you dim? The $#@! are you talking about. Someone mentioned, as in you, Spooner getting more cynical in his older age. It is because he watched the concept of consent of the governed utterly be $#@!ted on by Lincoln. He watched his fellow countryman be murdered like dogs. He watched his name and the names of American posterity forever indebted under bull$#@! auspices of ending slavery. This was quite simple and I made quite a simple comment.

$#@! him. $#@! Lincoln. His infatuation is creepy. It is annoying, and your defending someone who lies, who is intellectually bankrupt, and who repeats "na na na" bull$#@!, pages on end, and then calling the sane people immature is equally so.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Travlyr was the one throwing most of the insults. If anything, you should be chiding him for his rude and strange posts.


Sometimes you have to account for where people are. That's what being an adult is. I stay away from things I know is going to cause enmity among the people we need to win this damn war. I sure as hell don't pile on and try to make a friendly's head explode.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Sometimes you have to account for where people are. That's what being an adult is. I stay away from things I know is going to cause enmity among the people we need to win this damn war. I sure as hell don't pile on and try to make a friendly's head explode.


He's the problem though. He is intolerant of anyone who isn't a Lincoln bootlicker and attacks anyone who expresses disdain toward him.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Are you dim? The $#@! are you talking about. Someone mentioned, as in you, Spooner getting more cynical in his older age. It is because he watched the concept of consent of the governed utterly be $#@!ted on by Lincoln. He watched his fellow countryman be murdered like dogs. He watched his name and the names of American posterity forever indebted under bull$#@! auspices of ending slavery. This was quite simple and I made quite a simple comment.
> 
> $#@! him. $#@! Lincoln. His infatuation is creepy. It is annoying, and your defending someone who lies, who is intellectually bankrupt, and who repeats "na na na" bull$#@!, pages on end, and then calling the sane people immature is equally so.


It's not about who is right and who is wrong. It's about behavior that should have been grown out of in grade school. You want to find a weakness and keep poking that weakness with a stick? Do it to Karl Rove. Don't do it to people who are 95% likely to vote for our candidates. That's just dumb. Just roll your eyes and move the heck on.

----------


## Travlyr

> I stand corrected. Lincoln was a great man who didn't subvert the constitution. Tom DiLorenzo is a liar for pointing out all the horrors that he committed. Thanks for making that clear. Rest assured, your family connection to him, of which you are so proud, is just as you've always imagined it, something of serene majesty.


This is stupid.




> Are you dim? The $#@! are you talking about. Someone mentioned, as in you, Spooner getting more cynical in his older age. It is because he watched the concept of consent of the governed utterly be $#@!ted on by Lincoln. He watched his fellow countryman be murdered like dogs. He watched his name and the names of American posterity forever indebted under bull$#@! auspices of ending slavery. This was quite simple and I made quite a simple comment.
> 
> $#@! him. $#@! Lincoln. His infatuation is creepy. It is annoying, and your defending someone who lies, who is intellectually bankrupt, and who repeats "na na na" bull$#@!, pages on end, and then calling the sane people immature is equally so.


And this is stupid.

And I agree with your right to be stupid. Unfortunately, stupidity is not what the liberty movement is all about. 

The liberty movement is about truth not stupidity.

----------


## green73

Jezuz christ, Gunny, sometimes i can't take you seriously.

----------


## Travlyr

> He's the problem though. He is intolerant of anyone who isn't a Lincoln bootlicker and attacks anyone who expresses disdain toward him.


And this is stupid too.

----------


## Travlyr

> Jezuz christ, Gunny, sometimes i can't take you seriously.


Your inability to understand truth is not our problem. It is your problem.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> It's not about who is right and who is wrong.* It's about behavior that should have been grown out of in grade school.* You want to find a weakness and keep poking that weakness with a stick? Do it to Karl Rove. Don't do it to people who are 95% likely to vote for our candidates. That's just dumb. Just roll your eyes and move the heck on.


You are so morally superior.

How about you roll your eyes and move on? Why'd you comment to me? Call me immature? Do it to Karl Rove.

And your patronizing tone is getting to be more than I can handle. How about you stop and consider who you are talking to? Or are you not worried about who _you_ run off, so long as you come out as appearing to be morally superior?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> He's the problem though. He is intolerant of anyone who isn't a Lincoln bootlicker and attacks anyone who expresses disdain toward him.


Lincoln is running for which office again? Oh that's right, _he's been dead for 150 years._ There is nobody alive who even knew anybody who was alive that was around to meet the man. It's ancient history. Let it go.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

Even now, the current politicians say 'Lincoln did it' to justify a lot of their unconstitutional, evil agenda. Travlyr going around slobbering over this tyrant constantly is highly counter-productive to liberty and downright offensive.

----------


## green73

> Lincoln is running for which office again? Oh that's right, _he's been dead for 150 years._ There is nobody alive who even knew anybody who was alive that was around to meet the man. It's ancient history. Let it go.


Yeah, the truth about Lincoln has no consequences on modern day politics.

----------


## Travlyr

> You are so morally superior.
> 
> How about you roll your eyes and move on? Why'd you comment to me? Call me immature? Do it to Karl Rove.
> 
> And your patronizing tone is getting to be more than I can handle. How about you stop and consider who you are talking to? Or are you not worried about who _you_ run off, so long as you come out as appearing to be morally superior?


And you are morally inferior because you don't bother to understand the world in which you live.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You are so morally superior.
> 
> How about you roll your eyes and move on? Why'd you comment to me? Call me immature? Do it to Karl Rove.
> 
> And your patronizing tone is getting to be more than I can handle. How about you stop and consider who you are talking to? Or are you not worried about who _you_ run off, so long as you come out as appearing to be morally superior?


I'm not the one getting my rocks off on driving people to madness. We have a damn country to save, in case you haven't noticed. America is dying, and on the verge of box-car tyranny, in case you hadn't been paying attention; and here you are driving some man, who like it or not supports our cause and whom you've never met over the freaking edge, over a guy whose been dead for 150 years. 

You want to re-fight the Civil War? Go invent a time machine. We have real freaking enemies and real freaking battles right here, right now, without pissing in the wind about crap that happened before our great great great grandfathers were born.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I'm not the one getting my rocks off on driving people to madness. We have a damn country to save, in case you haven't noticed. America is dying, and on the verge of box-car tyranny, in case you hadn't been paying attention; and here you are driving some man, who like it or not supports our cause and whom you've never met over the freaking edge, over a guy whose been dead for 150 years. 
> 
> You want to re-fight the Civil War? Go invent a time machine. We have real freaking enemies and real freaking battles right here, right now, without pissing in the wind about crap that happened before our great great great grandfathers were born.


Lmao.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yeah, the truth about Lincoln has no consequences on modern day politics.


You can remain ignorant about Abraham Lincoln, or you can do what other people do and read his words for yourself. 

Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

Stop being stupid and connecting yourself to the liberty movement. People in the liberty movement are not stupid people.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Even now, the current politicians say 'Lincoln did it' to justify a lot of their unconstitutional, evil agenda. Travlyr going around slobbering over this tyrant constantly is highly counter-productive to liberty and downright offensive.


You think I don't know that? Some whack-job mush-headed democrat woman in the NCGA used to keep a picture of Lincoln on her leg desk staring at the Republican half of the caucus like he was accusing them. Worry about the politicians who are justifying this crap. Don't drive off the people who are going to vote for your candidates over something that doesn't even damn matter!

----------


## Travlyr

> Lmao.


Stop being stupid. You are an embarrassment to the liberty movement.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Stop being stupid. You are an embarrassment to the liberty movement.


Lmao.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Lmao.


It really is a mental disease. We devour each other like piranha and take utter joy in our own self destruction. Is it any wonder a liberty candidate can't make it past 10%?

----------


## Travlyr

> Even now, the current politicians say 'Lincoln did it' to justify a lot of their unconstitutional, evil agenda. Travlyr going around slobbering over this tyrant constantly is highly counter-productive to liberty and downright offensive.


Stop being stupid.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> It really is a mental disease. We devour each other like piranha and take utter joy in our own self destruction. Is it any wonder a liberty candidate can't make it past 10%?


Quit preaching to me. You are beyond annoying.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Jezuz christ, Gunny, sometimes i can't take you seriously.


Well maybe you should start. If we can't get our crap together and start acting like adults the neocons are going to walk all over us in 2014 and 2016. Here is our moment of truth. What's more important to us, ending the neocons or purifying our own ranks until we are back to 3%?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Quit preaching to me. You are beyond annoying.


Good. Get annoyed, but for heaven's sake grow up!

----------


## Travlyr

> Lmao.


The entire intellectual world sees you as a dumbass. It is not like people have not read biographies of Lincoln. Don't you know that? You are an imbecile. You are an embarrassment to the liberty movement. Please stop with your idiocy.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The entire intellectual world sees you as a dumbass. It is not like people have not read biographies of Lincoln. Don't you know that? You are an imbecile. You are an embarrassment to the liberty movement. Please stop with your idiocy.


Yawn.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

We actually have the doggone neocons on the ropes going into 2014.  The only thing that can possibly defeat us is ourselves, and damn if we aren't trying our hardest to do it.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> It really is a mental disease. We devour each other like piranha and take utter joy in our own self destruction. Is it any wonder a liberty candidate can't make it past 10%?


I think it has way more to do with the lack of big corporate money and the media coverage than squabbles over the internet.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yawn.


Why don't you imbeciles stop posting BS and do some homework. At a minimum quit aligning yourself with the liberty movement. People in the liberty movement are not stupid people.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The entire intellectual world sees you as a dumbass. It is not like people have not read biographies of Lincoln. Don't you know that? You are an imbecile. You are an embarrassment to the liberty movement. Please stop with your idiocy.


This is not helping.  Lincoln was neither the hero that the worshippers have made him, nor the monster that the haters have made him. He was a man. A flawed man like every other person on this planet. He made some grievous errors while in office like suspending habeas corpus; and only really pursued the liberation of the slaves behind Frederick Douglass's insistence. 

But none of that is really relevant. This all ended 150 years ago. To invest so much emotion into something that ended before our great great great grandfathers even drew breath is not productive when we have people dying TODAY.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Why don't you imbeciles stop posting BS and do some homework. At a minimum quit aligning yourself with the liberty movement. People in the liberty movement are not stupid people.


Should Ron Paul quit the liberty movement because of his views on Lincoln too, Travlyr?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I think it has way more to do with the lack of big corporate money and the media coverage than squabbles over the internet.


It has a lot more to do with unity that you realize. As a movement we abhor unity because more than any other movement that ever lived in America, we have to pick out the flaws in our own people and dig at them instead of picking out the enemies and destroying them. We can't even drag our core base past the apathy to the polls. People who already 100% accord with us, and it's because of stuff like this. If you can't even bring your base to the polls you sure aren't going to bring the squishies.

----------


## Travlyr

> This is not helping.  Lincoln was neither the hero that the worshippers have made him, nor the monster that the haters have made him. He was a man. A flawed man like every other person on this planet. He made some grievous errors while in office like suspending habeas corpus; and only really pursued the liberation of the slaves behind Frederick Douglass's insistence. 
> 
> But none of that is really relevant. This all ended 150 years ago. To invest so much emotion into something that ended before our great great great grandfathers even drew breath is not productive when we have people dying TODAY.


Bull$#@!. Lincoln was the father of libertarian thought. Only people who have read his words know that. He was attacked by slave masters who were the most tyrannical masters of all time. Lincoln opposed them and it cost him his life. Southerners and defenders of the slave economy are the most annoying people on Earth.

----------


## Travlyr

> Should Ron Paul quit the liberty movement because of his views on Lincoln too, Travlyr?


Ron Paul should definitely read Henry Ketchum's "_The Life of Abraham Lincoln_" before he speaks in public about Lincoln again. Abraham Lincoln was the first Ron Paul in American history.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Bull$#@!. Lincoln was the father of libertarian thought. Only people who have read his words know that. He was attacked by slave masters who were the most tyrannical masters of all time. Lincoln opposed them and it cost him his life. Southerners and defenders of the slave economy are the most annoying people on Earth.

----------


## Travlyr

> 


Right back at you my friend. 

People need to know that Abraham Lincoln was the first Ron Paul. Nine Southern States kept Lincoln off the ballot just like they kept Ron Paul off the ballot. Georgia did not vote for secession yet they seceded anyway. Why? Ask yourself, Why?

----------


## Travlyr

Okay, let me tell you why nine Southern states kept Abraham Lincoln off the ballot in 1860. They did not like his politics. Just like most people today, they were not interested in truth. Abraham Lincoln brought too much truth to light. Slavery was, in the words of Abraham Lincoln,  

Abraham Lincoln - 1858



> The Republican party, on the contrary, hold that this government was instituted to secure the blessings of freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro, to the white man, to the soil, and to the State. Regarding it an evil, they will not molest it in the States where it exists; they will not overlook the constitutional guards which our forefathers have placed around it; they will do nothing which can give proper offence to those who hold slaves by legal sanction; but they will use every constitutional method to prevent the evil from becoming larger and involving more negroes, more white men, more soil, and more States in its deplorable consequences. They will, if possible, place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate peaceable extinction, in God's own good time. And to this end they will, if possible, restore the government to the policy of the fathers---the policy of preserving the new territories from the baneful influence of human bondage, as the Northwestern territories were sought to be preserved by the ordinance of 1787 and the compromise act of 1820. They will oppose, in all its length and breadth, the modern Democratic idea that slavery is as good as freedom, and ought to have room for expansion all over the continent, if people can be found to carry it.


Lincoln was all about liberty not just for white folks but for everyone. That is who Abraham Lincoln was. He is demonized today by the liberty movement which is entirely disgusting.

----------


## Travlyr

Perhaps now we can move forward. If all you know about Abraham Lincoln is his actions after Jefferson Davis bombed Fort Sumter, then do some reading. There are plenty of good biographies on him and "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo is NOT one of them. I do not know why DiLorenzo wrote his lies about Lincoln, but he destroys the credibility of the Mises Institute by the unethical behavior of taking Lincoln's quotes out-of-context to make him seem like a monster when he was a principled liberty loving family man. Lincoln was the Ron Paul of his day. That is one reason why I adamantly stand up and defend his character. 

Another reason I defend Abraham Lincoln's character is because I want to see liberty in my lifetime. Lincoln wanted to see liberty for all in his lifetime. TPTB killed him for it.

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm not the one getting my rocks off on driving people to madness. We have a damn country to save, in case you haven't noticed. America is dying, and on the verge of box-car tyranny, in case you hadn't been paying attention; and here you are driving some man, who like it or not supports our cause and whom you've never met over the freaking edge, over a guy whose been dead for 150 years. 
> 
> You want to re-fight the Civil War? Go invent a time machine. We have real freaking enemies and real freaking battles right here, right now, without pissing in the wind about crap that happened before our great great great grandfathers were born.


Do you know why this is so important Gunny? It is because *truth is important*. Jefferson Davis wrote a 1000 page memoir and in it he denied that the Civil War was about slavery. An absolute lie. Jefferson Davis was successful in changing our understanding of history by lying about the causes of the Civil War. Until the age of the Internet we had no opportunity to do all the research necessary to uncover the truth. When I defend Lincoln it is because I read his words for myself. Lincoln's actions after Jefferson Davis bombed Fort Sumter upset some people, yet Lincoln was doing what he thought necessary to keep the fires of liberty lit for everyone black & white.

----------


## Travlyr

> This is not helping.  Lincoln was neither the hero that the worshippers have made him, nor the monster that the haters have made him. He was a man. A flawed man like every other person on this planet. He made some grievous errors while in office like suspending habeas corpus; and only really pursued the liberation of the slaves behind Frederick Douglass's insistence. 
> 
> But none of that is really relevant. This all ended 150 years ago. To invest so much emotion into something that ended before our great great great grandfathers even drew breath is not productive when we have people dying TODAY.


Lincoln was a hero to the slaves. Martin Luther King made that clear with his "I Have A Dream" speech as did newly freed slaves in Charleston, S.C. in 1865 with the first Memorial Day.

----------


## Travlyr

> Even now, the current politicians say 'Lincoln did it' to justify a lot of their unconstitutional, evil agenda. Travlyr going around slobbering over this tyrant constantly is highly counter-productive to liberty and downright offensive.


Lincoln was not a tyrant. That is the whole point. Slave owners were tyrants. Lincoln not only had a right to defend himself and his family from invasion, he had a sworn duty to defend Washington and the free blacks in Washington from being re-enslaved.

----------


## Travlyr

> Actions speak louder than words.


What does this really mean? Are you saying that Lincoln should have given up on liberty for all, turned tail and run, and let the slave powers have their slave empire? Is liberty not an important issue to people in the liberty movement?

----------


## otherone

> Until the age of the Internet we had no opportunity to do all the research necessary to uncover the truth. When I defend Lincoln it is because I read his words for myself.


At the risk of being labeled an imbecile, it has been my understanding, no matter his personal opinions, that it was Lincoln's goal to preserve the Union, that secession was treason, and that the Union may only be dissolved by unanimous consent of the states. 
Lincoln's own words from his first inaugural address:

_Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that--
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.  
_
...and later:

_But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances._ 

Let's be clear....the Civil War was not about Abolition. Rather, 600,000 people died to protect the federal government.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Everyone has something that pisses them off. When 3-4 people get together and endlessly poke someone in the pisses him off spot what in the world do you think is going to happen?  This is not an accident. People are driving him apoplectic because they think it's fun. This is the same kind of immature crap I watched on the elementary school playground.


I see your point but with the level of his blind worship I have a hard time really caring about his support.  Maybe that's my weakness.






> Lincoln is running for which office again? Oh that's right, _he's been dead for 150 years._ _There is nobody alive who even knew anybody who was alive that was around to meet the man_. It's ancient history. Let it go.


I doubt this.  A 100 year old would have been born in 1914.  Such a person could easily have known somebody who knew Lincoln while the man born in 1914 was in his youth.

----------


## familydog

> Rule of law, ideally.


Does the state (who violates the same individual rights it claims to protect) make the law?

Does law have authority when it's established by a mandatory institution which can violate my rights on a whim?

----------


## Travlyr

People who call me a piece of $#@! with a private -rep deserve to be called an imbecile publicly. You have never stooped to such low debate tactics and I would never expect such from you. 




> At the risk of being labeled an imbecile, it has been my understanding, no matter his personal opinions, that it was Lincoln's goal to preserve the Union, that secession was treason, and that the Union may only be dissolved by unanimous consent of the states. 
> Lincoln's own words from his first inaugural address:
> 
> _Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that--
> 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.  
> _
> ...and later:
> 
> _But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
> It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances._


Quotes out-of-context misrepresent what was really going on.

Here is Lincoln's last public speech prior to giving his first inaugural address. Lincoln was all about eventually gaining liberty for all peacefully.




> The inaugural journey began in Springfield on February 11 and ended in Washington D. C. on February 23, 1861. In between the train made numerous stops and President-elect Lincoln spoke at many of the stops. One of the more memorable stops occurred at Independence Hall in Philadelphia on George Washington's birthday, February 22.
> 
> Source: Neely, Mark E. Jr. 1982. The Abraham Lincoln Encyclopedia. New York: Da Capo Press, Inc.
> 
> *Independence Hall: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 22, 1861*
> 
> Mr. CUYLER: I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing here, in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to the present distracted condition of the country. I can say in return, Sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated and were given to the world from this hall. 
> 
> I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here, and framed and adopted that Declaration of Independence. I have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that Independence. I have often inquired of myself what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is the sentiment embodied in that Declaration of Independence. 
> ...


Lincoln did not invade the South. The slave powers attacked the Union.




> Let's be clear....the Civil War was not about Abolition. Rather, 600,000 people died to protect the federal government.


That is a nice cliche, but it is a distortion of the truth. The Civil War was a true Civil War for power. The slave powers were fighting the war to gain control of Washington to nationalize and expand slavery. Lincoln had to defend Washington from invasion.

Lincoln understood that the Federal government did not have the authority to tell the States what to do. Lincoln did not have the authority to end slavery without an amendment to the Constitution.

----------


## Travlyr

> I see your point but with the level of his *blind worship* I have a hard time really caring about his support.  Maybe that's my weakness.


It is not blind worship. It is disdain for lies. You guys want to lie about Lincoln and I won't let you do it. My understanding of Lincoln comes from 100s of hours of study.

----------


## Travlyr

> Everyone has something that pisses them off. When 3-4 people get together and endlessly poke someone in the pisses him off spot what in the world do you think is going to happen?  This is not an accident. People are driving him apoplectic because they think it's fun. This is the same kind of immature crap I watched on the elementary school playground.


Not only that, they gang up & -rep with insults privately.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Again:

Lincoln fought a war that led to 600,000 Americans dying because he did not want the south to be allowed to secede. 

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus.

Lincoln arrested journalists who opposed him.

----------


## Travlyr

> Again:
> 
> Lincoln fought a war that led to 600,000 Americans dying because he did not want the south to be allowed to secede.


That is not true. The South attacked the North because they wanted to force slavery on the North. What would you do?




> Lincoln suspended habeus corpus.


The constitution gave him that authority during invasion.




> Lincoln arrested journalists who opposed him.


Because those journalists were perpetuating war with lies.




> Executive Order - Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors
> May 18, 1864
> 
> Major-General John A. Drx,
> Commanding at New York:
> Whereas there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and published this morning in the New York World and New York Journal of Commerce, newspapers printed and published in the city of New York, a false and spurious proclamation purporting to be signed by the President and to be countersigned by the Secretary of State, which publication is of a treasonable nature, designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and to the rebels now at war against the Government and their aiders and abettors, you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, and hold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publication therefrom.
> A. LINCOLN.
> 
> Note: On the morning of May 18, 1864, a forged proclamation was published in the World, and Journal of Commerce, of New York. The proclamation named a day for fasting and prayer, called for 400,000 fresh troops, and purposed to raise by an "immediate and peremptory draft”  whatever quotas were not furnished on the day specified.


I would have done the same thing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That is not true. The South attacked the North because they wanted to force slavery on the North. What would you do?


This is simply wrong.  The south attacked Ft. Sumter because the North wouldn't LEAVE a fort in southern territory.

I would have taken advantage of the fact that the 7 southern states were now gone, and repealed the fugitive slave act.




> The constitution gave him that authority during invasion.


First of all, Lincoln started the war, which was never declared.  Second of all, even if it did, I don't worship the constitution.  And what you describe is probably the worst thing in the constitution.  I don't make excuses for tyranny, constitutional or not.





> Because those journalists were perpetuating war with lies.


Even if this accusation was true, lying is not a violation of the NAP.





> I would have done the same thing.


Screw you then.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> 1) Where is the secession clause in the constitution?  Sure the Declaration of Independence talks about that natural right to throw off bonds of an oppressive government.  But that's not in the constitution.  Kelly Thomas would have been in his natural right to pull out a gun and shoot the cops that were beating him to death.  But if someone came to his aid and started shooting cops, I'm not sure they could claim they were upholding the U.S. constitution.  Maybe.  Not sure.
> 
> 2) Considering the south invaded the north didn't that go beyond mere secession?  
> 
> 3) I've seen some criticize the Union for encouraging the secession of West Virginia.  Do you fit in that category or do you see secession as a universal right and not a "state" right?  The mountainous region of northern Alabama seceded from Alabama as well.  The mountainous region there is not conducive to plantation style, slave managed farms.


Personally, I believe its an individual right.  But constitutionally it isn't.  So, morally speaking I'm with with WV seceding from Virginia, despite the fact that it was not constitutional.

----------


## otherone

> Quotes out-of-context misrepresent what was really going on.


I provided a link to the complete speech...was there something omitted of consequence?




> Here is Lincoln's last public speech prior to giving his first inaugural address. Lincoln was all about eventually gaining liberty for all peacefully.


I have no doubt that Lincoln, as well as many people of the day, knew that slavery was an evil institution, but again, that has little to do with the conflict.




> Lincoln did not invade the South. The slave powers attacked the Union.


The confederacy had already assumed ownership of other federally "owned" land, with no violence.  Lincoln decided to dig his heels in on Sumter.
from wiki:
_The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents because he claimed the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government.
_ 
In your research, is this excerpt incorrect?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I provided a link to the complete speech...was there something omitted of consequence?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that Lincoln, as well as many people of the day, knew that slavery was an evil institution, but again, that has little to do with the conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> The confederacy had already assumed ownership of other federally "owned" land, with no violence.  Lincoln decided to dig his heels in on Sumter.
> ...


Pretty please?




> Challenge for anyone who hates Abraham Lincoln. Take your hate to the Lincoln thread.

----------


## Travlyr

> This is simply wrong.  The south attacked Ft. Sumter because the North wouldn't LEAVE a fort in southern territory.


That is a myth. After Jefferson Davis bombed Fort Sumter he had plans to go to Washington and overthrow the government. If Lincoln had not called up the militia then Jefferson Davis and the slave empire would have been installed in Washington. Lincoln had a right to defend himself, his family, and he had a duty to defend the free blacks living in Washington at the time.




> I would have taken advantage of the fact that the 7 southern states were now gone, and repealed the fugitive slave act.


So you really don't care about freedom for others just yourself.




> First of all, Lincoln started the war, which was never declared.


Not true. That is a problem. Lying is not a virtue.




> Second of all, even if it did, I don't worship the constitution.


They did and they did for good reason. It was the most liberating document ever written.




> And what you describe is probably the worst thing in the constitution.


When you are under attack it is important to have the ability to defend yourself.




> I don't make excuses for tyranny, constitutional or not.


Then why are you defending the institution of slavery? Slavery is the most tyrannical of all. 




> Even if this accusation was true, lying is not a violation of the NAP.


People were dying because of their lies.




> Screw you then.


Just quit pretending that you embrace liberty as long as you defend slavery.

----------


## mczerone

> 1) *Where is the secession clause in the constitution?*  Sure the Declaration of Independence talks about that natural right to throw off bonds of an oppressive government.  But that's not in the constitution.  Kelly Thomas would have been in his natural right to pull out a gun and shoot the cops that were beating him to death.  But if someone came to his aid and started shooting cops, I'm not sure they could claim they were upholding the U.S. constitution.  Maybe.  Not sure.
> 
> 2) Considering the south invaded the north didn't that go beyond mere secession?  
> 
> 3) I've seen some criticize the Union for encouraging the secession of West Virginia.  Do you fit in that category or do you see secession as a universal right and not a "state" right?  The mountainous region of northern Alabama seceded from Alabama as well.  The mountainous region there is not conducive to plantation style, slave managed farms.


The secession clause is there: The tenth amendment reserved those powers not mentioned in the Constitution to the states and the people. Since there was no mention of a power of dissolution or expulsion granted to the Federal govt, the power to extricate a state from the Union lies with the state.

----------


## otherone

> The secession clause is there: The tenth amendment reserved those powers not mentioned in the Constitution to the states and the people. Since there was no mention of a power of dissolution or expulsion granted to the Federal govt, the power to extricate a state from the Union lies with the state.


_The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not "necessary and proper for carrying into execution" any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution._ 

-James Buchanan

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Please?
> 
> _I brought a NEW MEMBER to our ranks.  He signed up yesterday and THIS THREAD is the one I pointed him to for discussion.  Then I came here and saw pages of a fight over Lincoln.  Now I need to go and try to CONVINCE our NEW MEMBER that every thread will not turn into childishness and ASK that he ignore the childishness._


Why would you do that? This thread is nothing but absurd talks of television thieves and insurance mandates. What a good thread to start off to. Not only that but it is dozens of pages of that. Then it is 20 pages of someone infatuated with Lincoln getting their panties in a bunch, making up quotes and infinite na, na, na, childish retorts. And annoying people who consider themselves morally superior, yet turn to do the same thing they were chastising people for after [actually] reading what a certain dumbass was saying.

I understand why now you may regret sending someone to this thread. I couldn't imagine for the life of me why you'd wish to send them to this thread in the first place. It was painfully absurd from the beginning, with dozens of misrepresentative (and equally absurd) responses.

----------


## Travlyr

> I provided a link to the complete speech...was there something omitted of consequence?
> 
> I have no doubt that Lincoln, as well as many people of the day, knew that slavery was an evil institution, but again, that has little to do with the conflict.
> 
> The confederacy had already assumed ownership of other federally "owned" land, with no violence.  Lincoln decided to dig his heels in on Sumter.
> from wiki:
> _The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents because he claimed the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government.
> _ 
> In your research, is this excerpt incorrect?


Yes. It is incorrect and a distortion of the truth. 

What was omitted was the fact that Lincoln was never going to start the war. Fort Sumter was clearly property of the Federal Government.




> In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

----------


## green73

> Why would you do that? This thread is nothing but absurd talks of television thieves and insurance mandates. What a good thread to start off to. Not only that but it is dozens of pages of that. Then it is 20 pages of someone infatuated with Lincoln getting their panties in a bunch, making up quotes and infinite na, na, na, childish retorts. And annoying people who consider themselves morally superior, yet turn to do the same thing they were chastising people for after [actually] reading what a certain dumbass was saying.
> 
> I understand why now you may regret sending someone to this thread. I couldn't imagine for the life of me why you'd wish to send them to this thread in the first place. It was painfully absurd from the beginning, with dozens of misrepresentative (and equally absurd) responses.


Mission accomplished for uber troll, trav.

----------


## Travlyr

> The secession clause is there: The tenth amendment reserved those powers not mentioned in the Constitution to the states and the people. Since there was no mention of a power of dissolution or expulsion granted to the Federal govt, the power to extricate a state from the Union lies with the state.


The tenth amendment is not a basis for secession. There was no specific procedure for secession. The people from Georgia voted against secession. None of that mattered.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So you really don't care about freedom for others just yourself.


Repealing the fugitive slave act would have led to freedom for any slaves that could reach the northern states.  Of course, you'd probably just invade them.  You probably supported the Iraq War too...

I'm done here.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Why would you do that? This thread is nothing but absurd talks of television thieves and insurance mandates. What a good thread to start off to. Not only that but it is dozens of pages of that. Then it is 20 pages of someone infatuated with Lincoln getting their panties in a bunch, making up quotes and infinite na, na, na, childish retorts. And annoying people who consider themselves morally superior, yet turn to do the same thing they were chastising people for after [actually] reading what a certain dumbass was saying.
> 
> I understand why now you may regret sending someone to this thread. I couldn't imagine for the life of me why you'd wish to send them to this thread in the first place. It was painfully absurd from the beginning, with dozens of misrepresentative (and equally absurd) responses.


The purpose of sending him for discussion to this thread was the "Tower of Babel" syndrome.  Where words and terms are viewed differently by various groups/individuals.  @Occam discussed it very well in the first few pages of the discussion.

I sent my friend, who is running for Trustee and State Delegate, to the discussion early on in the thread (less than 100 posts).  I also convinced him join the forum so that he can have input and see the "members only" areas.

Then I come and see all the crap.......derailment......yuckity yuck..........and now I'm embarrassed by all of the "I know you are what am I?".

----------


## Travlyr

> Repealing the fugitive slave act would have led to freedom for any slaves that could reach the northern states.  Of course, you'd probably just invade them.  You probably supported the Iraq War too...
> 
> I'm done here.


Lincoln did not have the authority to repeal the fugitive slave act and that would have solved nothing. The slave owners were waging war to expand the slave empire.

----------


## Travlyr

> I have no doubt that Lincoln, as well as many people of the day, knew that slavery was an evil institution, but again, that has little to do with the conflict.


Slavery had everything to do with the conflict. Lincoln not only knew that slavery was an evil institution he was instrumental in ending it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Lincoln did not have the authority to repeal the fugitive slave act and that would have solved nothing.


Since when did Lincoln care about whether he had the authority to do something?  The man jailed journalists who disagreed with him.  He didn't have the constitutional authority to do that, either.  




> The slave owners were waging war to expand the slave empire.


Here's the problem with your assertion, THE NORTH HAD SLAVES.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Yes. It is incorrect and a distortion of the truth. 
> 
> What was omitted was the fact that Lincoln was never going to start the war. Fort Sumter was clearly property of the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."


You make an excellent case for why people should despise Lincoln. Keep up the good work.

----------


## Travlyr

> Since when did Lincoln care about whether he had the authority to do something?


All his life. 




> The man jailed journalists who disagreed with him.


So? They were responsible for extending the war and getting people killed. 




> He didn't have the constitutional authority to do that, either.


Yes, he did. 



> The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it


The Union was under invasion.




> Here's the problem with your assertion, THE NORTH HAD SLAVES.


You completely miss the point. The slave powers had plans to nationalize and expand slavery throughout the entire continent. They wanted a slave empire. If Lincoln had not stood up to them, and defended liberty for all, they would have been successful.

----------


## Travlyr

> You make an excellent case for why people should despise Lincoln. Keep up the good work.


Why? Because he wanted peace and liberty for all? We should hate him for that?

----------


## jj-

> Why? Because he wanted peace and liberty for all?


All except the conscripted Northern soldiers?

Their life and liberty, not willingly given, was ok to sacrifice for the liberty of THE REST?

----------


## Travlyr

> All except the conscripted Northern soldiers?
> 
> Their life and liberty, not willingly given, was ok to sacrifice for the liberty of THE REST?


The other option was to accept defeat and allow a slave empire to rule over the continent. Was conscription in the North any worse than conscription in the South?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

If I were Lincoln I would have invited the Confederate leaders to Washington, and negotiate some sort of agreement for setting up boundaries.  The South did not have the ability to invade and occupy the North, they weren't even able to hold the South very well.  After the South had spent some time being independent, I'm sure some of the border states would want to join the Union again.  And with the Southern states gone, as Freedom Fanatic pointed out, legislation like the fugitive slave act could be repealed, and slavery wasn't going to last much longer in KY, MO, MD, DE, and DC anyway.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> All his life.


The facts tell a different story.




> So? They were responsible for extending the war and getting people killed.


There's this little thing called the First Amendment.  Heard of it?




> Yes, he did.


How do you figure that?




> The Union was under invasion.


The North started the war.




> You completely miss the point. The slave powers had plans to nationalize and expand slavery throughout the entire continent. They wanted a slave empire. If Lincoln had not stood up to them, and defended liberty for all, they would have been successful.


You miss the point.  States had the right to secede from the union.  That was  understood when they signed to the Constitution.  Lincoln didn't want them to, so he started a war to prohibit it.

----------


## jj-

> The other option was to accept defeat and allow a slave empire to rule over the continent. Was conscription in the North any worse than conscription in the South?


But then it's not liberty for all. It's liberty for all EXCEPT the conscripted dead Northern soldiers.

----------


## robert68

The pews in your Lincoln church are empty and you have no choir.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Since when did Lincoln care about whether he had the authority to do something?  The man jailed journalists who disagreed with him.  He didn't have the constitutional authority to do that, either.


I'm not sure exactly how many votes Lincoln would have had if he would have wanted to repeal the fugitive slave act.  But something tells me he would have had enough with seven deep south states gone.  Regardless of whether it would have worked or not, the war was wrong, as you've correctly recognized.

----------


## otherone

> You miss the point.  States had the right to secede from the union.  That was  understood when they signed to the Constitution.  Lincoln didn't want them to, so he started a war to prohibit it.


That states could be held captive in a "perpetual" union based on a contract signed by log-dead forebears is ludicrous.  The very notion flies in the face of "consent of the governed".  Am I to be held accountable to a contract my grandfather signed?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

It all could have been averted if the Constitution had set up guidelines for secession.  This is how I'd like to see it worked out:

In order for a state to leave the Union:
-A majority in the state legislature must vote for secession.
-The majority of state voters must chose to secede in a special election.
-There must be sufficient time given for both sides to present their case to the voters of the state (probably a year).

That would have saved a lot of trouble, only the deep South would have majorities voting to secede.

----------


## Travlyr

> If I were Lincoln I would have invited the Confederate leaders to Washington, and negotiate some sort of agreement for setting up boundaries.


Unfortunately, that was not an option. Jefferson Davis was going to march to Washington and throw Lincoln out. He had plans to do it by May 1st. 




> The South did not have the ability to invade and occupy the North, they weren't even able to hold the South very well.


Unfortunately, that is not true. The Confederates had a strong army.




> After the South had spent some time being independent, I'm sure some of the border states would want to join the Union again.


With the Confederates in charge of Washington slavery would have been nationalized.

Confederate Constitution



> Article IV. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.





> And with the Southern states gone, as Freedom Fanatic pointed out, legislation like the fugitive slave act could be repealed, and slavery wasn't going to last much longer in KY, MO, MD, DE, and DC anyway.


Slavery was not dying out in 1860. It had been expanding for several decades and if the Confederates would have won the war slavery would have been expanded & nationalized and slaves would have no hope of ever being free. As it was slavery did not end until WWII. They did not call it slavery, they called it convict leasing and peonage which was worse than slavery. If the Confederates would have won the war we may very well still be living with chattel slavery.

----------


## Travlyr

> But then it's not liberty for all. It's liberty for all EXCEPT the conscripted dead Northern soldiers.


And the slaves.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It all could have been averted if the Constitution had set up guidelines for secession.  This is how I'd like to see it worked out:
> 
> In order for a state to leave the Union:
> -A majority in the state legislature must vote for secession.
> -The majority of state voters must chose to secede in a special election.
> -There must be sufficient time given for both sides to present their case to the voters of the state (probably a year).
> 
> That would have saved a lot of trouble, only the deep South would have majorities voting to secede.


Both of those first two or only one?  At any rate, I'm fine with this idea, but this not being in place does not excuse Lincoln.  The 10th amendment very clearly shows us that whoever was supposed to make the decision, it was not FedGov.

----------


## Travlyr

> The pews in your Lincoln church are empty and you have no choir.


Not yet. But as more and more people learn the truth that the South attacked the North to nationalize slavery, then eventually people in the liberty movement will start standing up for liberty for all like Lincoln did.

----------


## Travlyr

> That states could be held captive in a "perpetual" union based on a contract signed by log-dead forebears is ludicrous.  The very notion flies in the face of "consent of the governed".  Am I to be held accountable to a contract my grandfather signed?


They seceded to conquer the continent and make a slave empire. Jefferson Davis had plans to be living in the White House by May 1, 1861. Lincoln had to call the militia to stop him from overthrowing the Union.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That states could be held captive in a "perpetual" union based on a contract signed by log-dead forebears is ludicrous.  The very notion flies in the face of "consent of the governed".  Am I to be held accountable to a contract my grandfather signed?


I think that argument is ridiculous.  Actually, yes, in a number of cases.  For example, if your grandfather signed a contract with another party about what could or couldn't be done on the land that he owned and he died and left the land to you, I'm pretty sure you would still be held to said contract.  Your option would be to sell the land, I suppose.  

I guess newborns could be put on an island called no man's land and then, they could apply for citizenship to the country of their choice.   

No one is going to redo a country's founding documents every time someone is born.  

You are barking up the wrong tree, anyway.  It was understood by all signers of the Constitution that states could pull out of the union whenever they wanted.  Unfortunately, Lincoln wouldn't allow it.  But, that doesn't surprise me really, as he made it clear that he believed himself above the Constitution too.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Not yet. But as more and more people learn the truth that the South attacked the North to nationalize slavery, then eventually people in the liberty movement will start standing up for liberty for all like Lincoln did.


You can repeat the lie a thousand times, Travlyr, it still is a lie.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Unfortunately, that was not an option. Jefferson Davis was going to march to Washington and throw Lincoln out. He had plans to do it by May 1st.


And Iran has a ship in the Atlantic.




> Unfortunately, that is not true. The Confederates had a strong army.


Foreign intervention would be required for the Confederates to capture Kentucky and Missouri, they couldn't actually take the North.




> Slavery was not dying out in 1860. It had been expanding for several decades and if the Confederates would have won the war slavery would have been expanded & nationalized and slaves would have no hope of ever being free. As it was slavery did not end until WWII. They did not call it slavery, they called it convict leasing and peonage which was worse than slavery. If the Confederates would have won the war we may very well still be living with chattel slavery.


I don't like the Confederacy, similarly, I don't like the Taliban in Afghanistan (who are much worse).  Doesn't justify invading them though.  Even if they did win, I doubt they'd last very long, I could imagine several states wanting to be back in the Union after a decade or two of Confederate rule.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Both of those first two or only one?  At any rate, I'm fine with this idea, but this not being in place does not excuse Lincoln.  The 10th amendment very clearly shows us that whoever was supposed to make the decision, it was not FedGov.


I think all three of those bulleted points should be required for secession.

It doesn't excuse Lincoln, but it kind of made the situation ambiguous.  There were pro-Confederate factions in Kentucky and Missouri, and without any clear guidelines for secession, they took matters into their own hands and tried to violently force the unwilling populations into the Confederacy.

----------


## jj-

> But as more and more people learn the truth that the South attacked the North to nationalize slavery, then eventually people in the liberty movement will start standing up for liberty for all like Lincoln did.


Liberty for all? Don't you mean all EXCEPT the dead Northern soldiers that Lincoln conscripted?

----------


## Travlyr

> The facts tell a different story.


No, the lies tell a different story. And they have been very good at telling lies.




> There's this little thing called the First Amendment.  Heard of it?


There is also something called treason. That is what those newspaper reporters were committing.




> The North started the war.


Lincoln was never going to fire the first shot.




> You miss the point.  States had the right to secede from the union.  That was  understood when they signed to the Constitution.  Lincoln didn't want them to, so he started a war to prohibit it.


No. Not what happened. Georgia voted against secession. The Confederates did not care. They planned on conquering Washington, overthrowing the Union, and creating a slave empire.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The Southern states did not rush headlong into secession. They had enormous grievances against the North that were much greater than even Northern violations of the Constitution. The unfairness of taxation, which had been the huge issue of the Revolution, was worse for the antebellum South because three-fourths of the taxes were paid by the South, while three-fourths of the tax money was spent in the North. It had held down the development of Southern industry for a half-century and Southerners were tired of it. Southerners felt the North was already at war with them in many ways. They saw Northern emissaries sent South to encourage slave uprisings, murder and rapine, then being applauded in the North for their grisly successes, especially John Brown. Southerners saw Hinton Helper's book, The Impending Crisis, which was full of errors on its economics, call for bloody slave revolt yet be enthusiastically adopted by the Republicans in Congress as a campaign document. With the election of Republican Lincoln, Southerners believed those same Republicans would now put into effect the principles of Helper's book, and there was nothing they could do about it. For their own safety, Southern states began debating secession. They did so peacefully and with great intellectual vigor and in the end, the people of the South struck for independence and self-government, just as their fathers in the Revolution had.
> 
>         The North, however, had become wealthy manufacturing, shipping, and financing for the captive Southern market, which was rich itself because of King Cotton. The North could not let the South go without a complete economic collapse that was well underway during the secession winter and spring of 1860-1861. All the noble rhetoric of the Horace Greeleys in 1860 about the "just powers" of the government coming from the "consent of the governed" was cast aside due to the specter of economic collapse and financial ruin, thus the war came.


the right of secession...

----------


## Travlyr

> You can repeat the lie a thousand times, Travlyr, it still is a lie.


It is not a lie. Read: The Siege of Washington and Knights of the Golden Circle.




> "Jefferson Davis planned to be living in the White House by May 1, according to the plans of his wife, Varina. On April 17th, New York insurance executive William Holdredge wrote Secretary of State William H. Seward in exasperation, informing him that the "wife of the Rebel President Davis has had the imprudence to send cards to her lady acquaintances at the Saint Nicholas" - a favorite New York hotel for visiting Southerners - "inviting them to attend her reception in the White House at Washington on the first of May."
> 
> "On April 12, 1861 only hours after Confederate guns opened fire on Fort Sumter in the Charleston harbor, Confederate Secretary of War Leroy P. Walker appeared before a jubilant crowd in Montgomery, Alabama. "No man can tell when the war this day commenced will end," Walker thundered from the balcony of the Exchange Hotel, at the heart of the Confederate capital, "but I will prophesy that the flag which now floats the breeze here will float over the dome of the old capital at Washington before the first of May."





> Based on years of exhaustive and meticulous research, David C. Keehn s study provides the first comprehensive analysis of the Knights of the Golden Circle, a secret southern society that initially sought to establish a slave-holding empire in the Golden Circle region of Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America. Keehn reveals the origins, rituals, structure, and complex history of this mysterious group, including its later involvement in the secession movement. Members supported southern governors in precipitating disunion, filled the ranks of the nascent Confederate Army, and organized rearguard actions during the Civil War.

----------


## Travlyr

> the right of secession...


Again, Georgia voted against secession. That does not seem to matter to anyone. It matters to me.

----------


## Travlyr

> Liberty for all? Don't you mean all EXCEPT the dead Northern soldiers that Lincoln conscripted?


I am not a fan of conscription for any purpose. Yet, Lincoln did what he had to do to keep liberty alive. The Confederates were enslavers.

----------


## jj-

> I am not a fan of conscription for any purpose. Yet, Lincoln did what he had to do to keep liberty alive. The Confederates were enslavers.


But how can you say liberty for ALL? Do you have liberty when you are FORCED TO FIGHT A WAR AGAINST YOUR WILL? I'll be blunt, if you believe that, you're a psychopath.

----------


## Travlyr

> But how can you say liberty for ALL? Do you have liberty when you are FORCED TO FIGHT A WAR AGAINST YOUR WILL? I'll be blunt, if you believe that, you're a psychopath.


I am not a fan of conscription for any purpose. Do you believe that conscription is worse than permanent enslavement.

----------


## jj-

> I am not a fan of conscription for any purpose. Do you believe that conscription is worse than permanent enslavement.


I believe that it's wrong to say Lincoln fought for liberty FOR ALL. At best, he fought for liberty for all EXCEPT the dead soldiers he conscripted.

----------


## Travlyr

> Both of those first two or only one?  At any rate, I'm fine with this idea, but this not being in place does not excuse Lincoln.  The 10th amendment very clearly shows us that whoever was supposed to make the decision, it was not FedGov.


What do you think should happen today if some people in Colorado declared secession, seized Federal property in Denver, and held Federal employees in siege to starve them out?

----------


## Travlyr

> I believe that it's wrong to say Lincoln fought for liberty FOR ALL. At best, he fought for liberty for all EXCEPT the dead soldiers he conscripted


I did not make the claim that Lincoln fought for liberty for all. He fought to defend the Union against invasion exactly as required by his swearing the oath of office. The only reason you can begin to make that claim is because you believe Lincoln started a war that he clearly did not want and was not prepared to fight.

----------


## jj-

> I did not make the claim that Lincoln fought for liberty for all.


I think you made that claim here:




> But as more and more people learn the truth that the South attacked the North to nationalize slavery, then eventually people in the liberty movement will start standing up for *liberty for all like Lincoln did*.

----------


## Travlyr

> I think you made that claim here:


Lincoln did not fight the war for liberty for all. Lincoln stood on that principle all his life. He fought the war to defend against invasion.

----------


## jj-

> Lincoln did not fight the war for liberty for all. Lincoln stood on that principle all his life. He fought the war to defend against invasion.


Ok, so you changed your mind. You no longer claim Lincoln fought for liberty for all.

----------


## otherone

> I guess newborns could be put on an island called no man's land and then, they could apply for citizenship to the country of their choice.   
> No one is going to redo a country's founding documents every time someone is born.


What does "consent of the governed" mean?   I'm in Pennsylvania...does Rick Santorum represent me?

----------


## otherone

dup post

----------


## LibertyEagle

> any member that has acceded to (agreed to) the terms of a compact, can secede from that compact if the terms are broken by one of the other members. Bledsoe produces the writings and statements of the strongest opponents of the Constitution as compact - Daniel Webster and others - who have admitted that if the Constitution is a compact, then states can secede from it; but who deny that the Constitution is a compact.22 Webster was the great spokesman for the North with the credibility and reputation to go along with it. Bledsoe writes:
> 
> Thus, the great controversy is narrowed down to the single question -- Is the Constitution a compact between the States? If so, then the right of secession is conceded, even by its most powerful and determined opponents; by the great jurist, as well as by 'the great expounder' (Webster) of the North.
> The evidence that the North had broken the specific terms and spirit of the compact if it was a "compact," was substantial. As stated earlier, Northern states had statutes on their books nullifying the Constitutional and Congressional law with regard to fugitive slaves. Many other specific breaches of the Constitution by the North existed in areas besides slavery. Many in the North for over two decades believed, as Seward had clearly stated, that they were operating according to a "higher law" than the Constitution. The more radical had long called the Constitution a "covenant with death and agreement with hell."24 So, the North's having broken the compact virtually guaranteed that secession was legal if, indeed, the Constitution was a compact that was "acceded to" by the original makers. Did the original states "accede" to a compact?
> 
> Bledsoe attacks the arguments of Webster and the others one at a time taking on the strongest, most salient parts of their arguments. For example, Webster had said "words are things, and things of mighty influence."25 At one point, in the Senate, Webster had railed against the Constitution as compact. Webster had said that saying "the States acceded to the Constitution" was "unconstitutional language."26 Of course the reason he felt that way, as Bledsoe had said, was because if states had acceded to the Constitution, then it was only logical that they could secede from it. Discrediting the single word, "accede," was very important to Webster, so Bledsoe researched in great detail the words of the founders and finds that in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, "Mr. James Wilson . . . preferred 'a partial union' of the States, 'with a door open for the *accession* of the rest.'" However, "Mr. Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, was opposed to 'a partial confederacy, leaving other States to *accede* or not to accede, as had been intimated.'" Father of the Constitution, James Madison, "used the expression '*to accede*' in the Convention of 1787, in order to denote the act of adopting 'the new form of government by the States.'" Virginia Governor Randolph, also at the Convention of 1787, had said "That the *accession* of eight States reduced our deliberations to the single question of Union or no Union." Patrick Henry had said that if the Constitution "be amended, every State will *accede* to it." Mr. Grayson asks if Virginia will gain anything from her prominent position "by acceding to that paper." Benjamin Franklin, whom Bledsoe says was next in importance at the Constitutional Convention to Washington, later said "Our new Constitution is now established with eleven States, and the *accession* of a twelfth is soon expected." George Washington, as he watched states join the Constitution, said "If these, with the States eastward and northward of us, should *accede* to the Federal government . . .". Chief Justice John Marshall used the word "accede" in reference to joining the Constitution, and even Mr. Justice Story, a staunch opponent of the belief in Constitution as compact, in agreement with Webster, said "The Constitution has been ratified by all the States; . . . Rhode Island did not *accede* to it, until more than a year after it had been in operation;".27


The Right of Secession...

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What does "consent of the governed" mean?   I'm in Pennsylvania...does Rick Santorum represent me?


Was he elected in your state?  No

----------


## otherone

> Was he elected in your state?  No


What state did he represent?

----------


## Travlyr

> Ok, so you changed your mind. You no longer claim Lincoln fought for liberty for all.


I never made that claim in the first place. I have been trying for a long time to get people to read their history. Jefferson Davis attacked. Lincoln defended. Lincoln fought the war because he had taken an oath to defend if invaded.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What state did he represent?


If he was elected by the people of your state, then yes.

Look, if you want to debate this, please start another thread.  We are debating the Civil War in this one.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I never made that claim in the first place. I have been trying for a long time to get people to read their history. Jefferson Davis attacked. Lincoln defended. Lincoln fought the war because he had taken an oath to defend if invaded.


Why Lincoln started the Civil War




> The Southern states did not rush headlong into secession. They had enormous grievances against the North that were much greater than even Northern violations of the Constitution. The unfairness of taxation, which had been the huge issue of the Revolution, was worse for the antebellum South because three-fourths of the taxes were paid by the South, while three-fourths of the tax money was spent in the North. It had held down the development of Southern industry for a half-century and Southerners were tired of it. Southerners felt the North was already at war with them in many ways. They saw Northern emissaries sent South to encourage slave uprisings, murder and rapine, then being applauded in the North for their grisly successes, especially John Brown. Southerners saw Hinton Helper's book, The Impending Crisis, which was full of errors on its economics, call for bloody slave revolt yet be enthusiastically adopted by the Republicans in Congress as a campaign document. With the election of Republican Lincoln, Southerners believed those same Republicans would now put into effect the principles of Helper's book, and there was nothing they could do about it. For their own safety, Southern states began debating secession. They did so peacefully and with great intellectual vigor and in the end, the people of the South struck for independence and self-government, just as their fathers in the Revolution had.
> 
>         The North, however, had become wealthy manufacturing, shipping, and financing for the captive Southern market, which was rich itself because of King Cotton. The North could not let the South go without a complete economic collapse that was well underway during the secession winter and spring of 1860-1861. All the noble rhetoric of the Horace Greeleys in 1860 about the "just powers" of the government coming from the "consent of the governed" was cast aside due to the specter of economic collapse and financial ruin, thus the war came.


the right of secession...

----------


## jj-

> I never made that claim in the first place.


Didn't you make that claim in this post? Look at the highlighted part




> But as more and more people learn the truth that the South attacked the North to nationalize slavery, then eventually people in the liberty movement will start standing up for *liberty for all like Lincoln did*.

----------


## Travlyr

> Ok, so you changed your mind. You no longer claim Lincoln fought for liberty for all.


If you spend ten years denouncing slavery and I decide to attack you, then are you fighting to end slavery?

----------


## Travlyr

> Didn't you make that claim in this post? Look at the highlighted part


Where is the word "fight"?

----------


## otherone

> If he was elected by the people of your state, then yes.
> 
> Look, if you want to debate this, please start another thread.  We are debating the Civil War in this one.


We are debating the causes of the war; the legality of secession being one of them.   My point is "consent of the governed" is a present condition, not a past condition.

----------


## jj-

> If you spend ten years denouncing slavery and I decide to attack you, then are you fighting to end slavery?


If you conscript soldiers, you are no longer fighting for liberty for all. You're no longer fighting for the liberty of the dead soldiers you conscripted.

----------


## jj-

> Where is the word "fight"?


Ok, the words was "stand". How could Lincoln "stand" for liberty for all, considering the dead soldiers he conscripted? He surely didn't stand up for the liberty of the dead soldiers he conscripted, since he took liberty away from them himself.

----------


## Travlyr

> Why Lincoln started the Civil War
> 
> 
> 
> the right of secession...


If Lincoln started the war, then why did the militia first go straight to Washington to defend?

----------


## Travlyr

> Ok, the words was "stand". How could Lincoln "stand" for liberty for all, considering the dead soldiers he conscripted? He surely didn't stand for the liberty of the dead soldiers he conscripted, since he took liberty away from them himself.


There you go Stand =/= Fight.

Conscription did not come for a year after the Confederates started conscripting. I don't like it any more than you, but they did not start conscription until 1863, IIRC.

----------


## Travlyr

> We are debating the causes of the war; the legality of secession being one of them.   My point is "consent of the governed" is a present condition, not a past condition.


I look at consent differently. Did you consent to live under the rules of your parents? Do you consent to live under reasonable rules by default? Reasonable rules being assault, theft, and trespassing. Does everyone have to sign a document for it to qualify as consent?

----------


## jj-

> Conscription did not come for a year after the Confederates started conscripting. I don't like it any more than you, but they did not start conscription until 1863, IIRC.


Ok, but Lincoln then did not stand up for liberty for all, since he took away the liberty from the soldiers he conscripted.

----------


## Travlyr

> Ok, but Lincoln then did not stand up for liberty for all, since he took away the liberty from the soldiers he conscripted.


Lincoln stood for liberty for all throughout the 1850s. His hope was to eventually end slavery peacefully. The Confederates wanted no part of it and waged war to nationalize and expand slavery. Lincoln defended his country from invasion.

----------


## jj-

> Lincoln stood for liberty for all throughout the 1850s..


But he no longer stood for liberty for all in 1863?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If Lincoln started the war, then why did the militia first go straight to Washington to defend?


The North began the aggression.




> The Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12–14, 1861) was the bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter, near Charleston, South Carolina, that started the American Civil War. *Following declarations of secession by seven Southern states, South Carolina demanded that the U.S. Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor.* On December 26, 1860, *U.S. Major Robert Anderson surreptitiously moved his small command from the indefensible Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island to Fort Sumter, a substantial fortress controlling the entrance of Charleston Harbor. An attempt by U.S. President James Buchanan to reinforce and resupply Anderson*, using the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West, failed when it was fired upon by shore batteries on January 9, 1861. South Carolina authorities then seized all Federal property in the Charleston area, except for Fort Sumter.
> During the early months of 1861, the situation around Fort Sumter increasingly began to resemble a siege. In March, Brig. Gen. P. G. T. Beauregard, the first general officer of the newly formed Confederate States of America, was placed in command of Confederate forces in Charleston. Beauregard energetically directed the strengthening of batteries around Charleston harbor aimed at Fort Sumter. Conditions in the fort grew dire as the Union soldiers rushed to complete the installation of additional guns. Anderson was short of men, food, and supplies.
> 
> The resupply of Fort Sumter became the first crisis of the administration of President Abraham Lincoln. He notified the Governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens, that he was sending supply ships, which resulted in an ultimatum from the Confederate government: evacuate Fort Sumter immediately. Major Anderson refused to surrender. 
> 
> Beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, the Confederates bombarded the fort from artillery batteries surrounding the harbor. Although the Union garrison returned fire, they were significantly outgunned and, after 34 hours, Major Anderson agreed to evacuate. There was no loss of life on either side as a direct result of this engagement, although a gun explosion during the surrender ceremonies on April 14 caused one Union death.
> 
> Following the battle, there was widespread support from both North and South for further military action. Lincoln's immediate call for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the rebellion resulted in an additional four southern slave states also declaring their secession and joining the Confederacy. The Civil War had begun.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Lincoln stood for liberty for all throughout the 1850s. His hope was to eventually end slavery peacefully. The Confederates wanted no part of it and waged war to nationalize and expand slavery. Lincoln defended his country from invasion.


Wrong again.




> The North, however, had become wealthy manufacturing, shipping, and financing for the captive Southern market, which was rich itself because of King Cotton. The North could not let the South go without a complete economic collapse that was well underway during the secession winter and spring of 1860-1861. All the noble rhetoric of the Horace Greeleys in 1860 about the "just powers" of the government coming from the "consent of the governed" was cast aside due to the specter of economic collapse and financial ruin, thus the war came.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I look at consent differently. Did you consent to live under the rules of your parents? Do you consent to live under reasonable rules by default? Reasonable rules being assault, theft, and trespassing. *Does everyone have to sign a document for it to qualify as consent?*


Ummm. Yes, you $#@!ing fascist.

----------


## Travlyr

> Ummm. Yes, you $#@!ing fascist.


You signed consent to live under the rules of your parents?

----------


## Travlyr

> Wrong again.


Again, if Lincoln started the war, as you claim, then why was he not building up arms before Fort Sumter? Why did the militia go straight to Washington to defend instead of South Carolina to invade?

----------


## Travlyr

> The North began the aggression.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter


So your claim is that U.S. Major Robert Anderson was the aggressor because he swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and he kept his oath?

----------


## jj-

The FIRST DRAFT EVER in U.S. History. When did it happen? Under LINCOLN! Lincoln took away the liberty of innocent people, many of whom died fighting under conscription!

----------


## Travlyr

> But he no longer stood for liberty for all in 1863?


It is my understanding that Lincoln pardoned all deserters.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Again, if Lincoln started the war, as you claim, then why was he not building up arms before Fort Sumter? Why did the militia go straight to Washington to defend instead of South Carolina to invade?


Perhaps he thought the South would kneel at the feet of the almighty dictator-in-chief.

----------


## Travlyr

> The FIRST DRAFT EVER in U.S. History. When did it happen? Under LINCOLN! Lincoln took away the liberty of innocent people, many of whom died fighting under conscription!


The first draft was in the Confederacy. The second draft was under Lincoln nearly two years after the war started.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> You signed consent to live under the rules of your parents?


The government is not my parents, Lincoln.

You are a collectivist of the worst order. The reasons people despise Lincoln are the reasons you admire him. It's sickening. How you come to call yourself a follower of liberty is boggling. You're sooner a socialist, a positivist, and a collectivist.

----------


## jj-

> It is my understanding that Lincoln pardoned all deserters.


Of what use is the pardon to the soldiers conscripted by Lincoln who already died before the pardon? Did Lincoln stand up for the liberty of these people whose liberty he took away?

----------


## Travlyr

> Perhaps he thought the South would kneel at the feet of the almighty dictator-in-chief.


You mean the South waged war on the North. That's right.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It is my understanding that Lincoln pardoned all deserters.


When did he release the journalists he imprisoned for disagreeing with him?  Do you happen to know if at any point he brushed up on the 1st Amendment?

----------


## otherone

> I look at consent differently. Did you consent to live under the rules of your parents? Do you consent to live under reasonable rules by default? Reasonable rules being assault, theft, and trespassing. Does everyone have to sign a document for it to qualify as consent?


Aren't all men permitted the Right of self-governance?
From the DoI:
_That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 
_

----------


## Travlyr

> Of what use is the pardon to the soldiers conscripted by Lincoln who already died before the pardon? Did Lincoln stand up for the liberty of these people whose liberty he took away?


No. Lincoln did not stand up for the liberty of the dead men who were conscripted. He failed on that.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You mean the South waged war on the North. That's right.


That's not what I said.  The North was the aggressor.  The South just wanted to be left the hell alone.

----------


## Travlyr

> Aren't all men permitted the Right of self-governance?
> From the DoI:
> _That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 
> _


You are going off the assumption that the Confederates just wanted to secede peacefully. That is not historically accurate. Jefferson Davis planned to march to Washington and overthrow the government in Washington.

----------


## Travlyr

> That's not what I said.  The North was the aggressor.  The South just wanted to be left the hell alone.


That is not true.

----------


## jj-

> No. Lincoln did not stand up for the liberty of the dead men who were conscripted. He failed on that.


That's what makes me think it was more about centralization and tariffs money than slavery.

----------


## Travlyr

> When did he release the journalists he imprisoned for disagreeing with him?  Do you happen to know if at any point he brushed up on the 1st Amendment?


He released them when they promised loyalty to the Union. When did the slave master tyrants release their slaves?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> He released them when they promised loyalty to the Union.


So, you would be ok with the U.S. government imprisoning you, until you promised loyalty to them?




> ]When did the slave master tyrants release their slaves?


When did the North release their slaves?

Slavery was never the predominant reason for the war.




> The North, however, had become wealthy manufacturing, shipping, and financing for the captive Southern market, which was rich itself because of King Cotton. The North could not let the South go without a complete economic collapse that was well underway during the secession winter and spring of 1860-1861. All the noble rhetoric of the Horace Greeleys in 1860 about the "just powers" of the government coming from the "consent of the governed" was cast aside due to the specter of economic collapse and financial ruin, thus the war came.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Lincoln is running for which office again? Oh that's right, _he's been dead for 150 years._ There is nobody alive who even knew anybody who was alive that was around to meet the man. It's ancient history. Let it go.


Lincoln's policies and precedents run for office in both parties every year.

----------


## Travlyr

> That's what makes me think it was more about centralization and tariffs money than slavery.


Lincoln spent the entire decade of the 1850s denouncing slavery. When he gave his House Divided speech it pissed the slave powers off because they were planning on a slave empire. When Lincoln was elected that is when secession started. Georgia voted against secession but nobody cared. They immediately formed a new constitution which permanently enslaved Africans. 




> ARTICLE IV
> 
> Section I. (I) Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
> 
> Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
> 
> (2) A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime against the laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.
> 
> (3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.
> ...


If the Confederate army would have beaten the Union militia to Washington then overthrowing the Union would have been simple. Washington was defenseless at the time. It was all about slavery. 

Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens.



> 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, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

----------


## otherone

> You are going off the assumption that the Confederates just wanted to secede peacefully. That is not historically accurate. Jefferson Davis planned to march to Washington and overthrow the government in Washington.


_The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents because he claimed the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government.

_

What resource do you have to dispute this?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

@ Travlyr, does ending slavery justify hundreds of thousands of deaths?  Most countries ending slavery peacefully.

----------


## Travlyr

> So, you would be ok with the U.S. government imprisoning you, until you promised loyalty to them?


I would not undermine a war in order to keep it going.




> Slavery was never the predominant reason for the war.


You have all the lost cause talking points but no facts to back it up. Jefferson Davis planned to be living in the White House by May 1, 1861. That was a direct threat to Lincoln by the Confederate Secretary of War while they were bombing Fort Sumter. Lincoln could not afford to ignore that threat.

----------


## Travlyr

> @ Travlyr, does ending slavery justify hundreds of thousands of deaths?  Most countries ending slavery peacefully.


You are falsely assuming that the war was to end slavery. It wasn't. The war was started to nationalize and expand slavery.

----------


## Travlyr

> _The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents because he claimed the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government.
> 
> _
> 
> What resource do you have to dispute this?


What you are claiming is that peaceful secession includes confiscating federal property, holding Union soldiers in siege, shooting at an unarmed ship, in order to perpetuate the enslavement of an entire race of people. And then make it right by trying to pay for the property. That is not peaceful secession.

Lincoln could not afford to allow the Confederacy under the circumstances they formed. The Mississippi River was the major trade route for the Union. When the Confederates seized the Mississippi River they controlled much of the Union's markets. The Confederates were demanding nationalization of slavery to rejoin the Union.

----------


## Travlyr

> @ Travlyr, does ending slavery justify hundreds of thousands of deaths?  Most countries ending slavery peacefully.


Lincoln tried compensated emancipation. The slave owners rejected it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I would not undermine a war in order to keep it going.


So, any journalists who write articles condemning the war in Afghanistan or the War on Terror, should be imprisoned?  Is that what you believe?




> You have all the lost cause talking points but no facts to back it up. Jefferson Davis planned to be living in the White House by May 1, 1861. That was a direct threat to Lincoln by the Confederate Secretary of War while they were bombing Fort Sumter. Lincoln could not afford to ignore that threat.


Actually, I have posted facts directly from the signers of the Constitution and also from various states who had discussions on ratification.

I have also shown you who first aggressed and it undeniably was the North in their attempt to resupply and reinforce Fort Sumter, after South Carolina had offered to buy it, as it was on their land.   The South wanted to peacefully pull out of the Union.  Lincoln would not allow that because he wanted their wealth.

----------


## Travlyr

> So, any journalists who write articles condemning the war in Afghanistan or the War on Terror, should be imprisoned?  Is that what you believe?


The Civil War was a war for the power of the federal government. If Afghanistan military was in the United States and journalists were aiding and abetting the Afghanistan military with secrets, then yes. They should be stopped.  




> Actually, I have posted facts directly from the signers of the Constitution and also from various states who had discussions on ratification.


What about Georgia voting against secession? 




> I have also shown you who first aggressed and it undeniably was the North in their attempt to resupply and reinforce Fort Sumter, after South Carolina had offered to buy it, as it was on their land.   The South wanted to peacefully pull out of the Union.  Lincoln would not allow that because he wanted their wealth.


The first aggression was South Carolina holding Union soldiers in siege. That was an act of war which Buchanan ignored because Lincoln had already been elected and Buchanan did not want to deal with it. The Confederates were clearly the aggressors.

----------


## brushfire

Travlyr, I must say I respect your willingness to take on such a topic.  I'm sure it takes a great deal of your time, and its clear that your conviction runs deep.

I've done some investigation on Lincoln too.  It was, and still is, a fascinating topic to me.  Initially from the indoctrination standpoint - there was a lot about Lincoln that was never brought up in schools.  It seemed very deliberate, and the more I learned, the more I wanted to know why.  Ultimately, the general topic of "Lincoln" became quite interesting too.  It would be really cool to sit down and have a beer or 2, talking about this topic, but I'll have to settle for a "time out" during my lunch, and some text on the topic.  I've read the many pages of this thread, and a few questions I have that stand out - considering your various studies, I'm wondering if they have lead you to answers to a few questions (I have more, just not enough time to discuss them all right now)

Also, before I get started, I'll make the following disclaimer -  I'm not a fan of Lincoln... Perhaps you may persuade me otherwise (public schools had me thinking he was a swell fellow, well into adulthood)

1. Why was Lincoln opposed to secession of the confederate states, while at the same time fully supported secession of WV from VA?

2.  Why after the WV secession from VA did WV continue to have slavery until after the war?

3.  Was WV exempt from the emancipation proclamation?

4. Lincoln's emancipation proclamation - why did it not free slaves from the Union states?

5. What was the emancipation proclamation's intended effect?
    for ref:
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tm...clamation.html

6.  Is there a good reason as to why the blue states were exempt from the emancipation proclamation?



7.  If Lincoln believed that slaves were equal, deserving "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness", why did he support colonization? (exportation of slaves).
      ref:  http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/i...34&subjectID=3


8. Can it be said that Lincoln had no intention to abolish slavery - when reading his own words?:



> 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.



9. Lincoln supported the "Scorched Earth" policy that was employed by Sherman's march, where many innocent women, children, slaves, and the like had starved and suffered.  What kind of ends are justified by those means?

10.  Why did Lincoln support the Corwin amendment, if he was truly against slavery?
    ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
    ref: http://www.lib.niu.edu/2006/ih060934.html


I can glean 2 things from the answers to these 10 questions

1.  That Lincolns words mean about as much as any other politicians
2.  That the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, and slavery was simply a political tactic (which worked very well for Lincoln)

This is a lot to dredge through, I will not be offended if you choose not to entertain these questions.  Again, I'm impressed at your willingness to take on such a topic.  Myself, I often choose to "walk away" as these threads usually turn into what I'd equate to a "Navajo Sand Painting"... lost to the winds of the internet, and only surfacing again if you run for office, or are on trial for something.

----------


## torchbearer

lots to read.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

I used to be a huge fan of Lincoln, I live in Kentucky, he's a hero here.  I read and enjoyed _Killing Lincoln_ by Bill O'Reilly (which is a very well-written but obviously biased book).  If I was placed in 1860 and had no knowledge of what would happen I would have voted for Lincoln, as the other candidates supported the expansion of slavery.  But I would vote for McClellan in 1864 because by then I would have been dissatisfied by Lincoln.  Even after I started to have serious Libertarian leaning in the fall of 2012 I still liked him.  It was probably less than a year ago that I finally gave up on thinking of Lincoln as a good President and the Union as the great abolitionist Crusaders.

----------


## Travlyr

> Travlyr, I must say I respect your willingness to take on such a topic.  I'm sure it takes a great deal of your time, and its clear that your conviction runs deep.
> 
> I've done some investigation on Lincoln too.  It was, and still is, a fascinating topic to me.  Initially from the indoctrination standpoint - there was a lot about Lincoln that was never brought up in schools.  It seemed very deliberate, and the more I learned, the more I wanted to know why.  Ultimately, the general topic of "Lincoln" became quite interesting too.  It would be really cool to sit down and have a beer or 2, talking about this topic, but I'll have to settle for a "time out" during my lunch, and some text on the topic.  I've read the many pages of this thread, and a few questions I have that stand out - considering your various studies, I'm wondering if they have lead you to answers to a few questions (I have more, just not enough time to discuss them all right now)
> 
> Also, before I get started, I'll make the following disclaimer -  I'm not a fan of Lincoln... Perhaps you may persuade me otherwise (public schools had me thinking he was a swell fellow, well into adulthood)
> 
> 1. Why was Lincoln opposed to secession of the confederate states, while at the same time fully supported secession of WV from VA?
> 
> 2.  Why after the WV secession from VA did WV continue to have slavery until after the war?
> ...


Thank you for asking such reasonable questions. 




> 1. Why was Lincoln opposed to secession of the confederate states, while at the same time fully supported secession of WV from VA?


Lincoln on secession, 



> *First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861*
> 
> Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this.
> 
> I hold that, in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the union of these States is perpetual....It follows....that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I, therefore, consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken.
> 
> We find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
> 
> Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
> ...


The people in West Virginia never wanted to secede in the first place. So essentially he was welcoming them back into the Union. The Confederate Constitution did not specify any method of secession or procedure either.

----------


## Travlyr

> 2. Why after the WV secession from VA did WV continue to have slavery until after the war?


Slavery was a State's rights issue under the U.S. Constitution




> 3. Was WV exempt from the emancipation proclamation?


Yes, because they were not in rebellion so the question of slavery was up to the people of the State of West Virginia. 




> 4. Lincoln's emancipation proclamation - why did it not free slaves from the Union states?


Only an amendment to the Constitution could free slaves from the Union.

----------


## LibertyEagle

There you go again.  




> Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to alter or abolish  by force, if necessary  a despotic government. The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes secession sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming independence.
> 
>   The original 13 states formed a Confederation, under which each state retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence. The Constitution didnt change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were granted and delegated by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government.
> 
>   Even in The Federalist, the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution (largely written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison), the United States are constantly referred to as the Confederacy and a confederate republic, as opposed to a single consolidated or monolithic state. Members of a confederacy are by definition free to withdraw from it.
> 
> Hamilton and Madison hoped secession would never happen, but they never denied that it was a right and a practical possibility. They envisioned the people taking arms against the federal government if it exceeded its delegated powers or invaded their rights, and they admitted that this would be justified. Secession, including the resort to arms, was the final remedy against tyranny. (This is the real point of the Second Amendment.)
> 
>   Strictly speaking, the states would not be rebelling, since they were sovereign; in the Framers view, a tyrannical government would be rebelling against the states and the people, who by defending themselves would merely exercise the paramount political principle of self-preservation.
> ...


http://www.theimaginativeconservativ...to-secede.html

----------


## Travlyr

> There you go again.  
> 
> 
> http://www.theimaginativeconservativ...to-secede.html


Even if the States did have a right to secede they did not have the right to steal Federal property in the process, or hold Union soldiers hostage, or shoot on an unarmed Merchant ship, or bomb Fort Sumter in the process. Georgia also did not have the right to secede because they voted against it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I used to be a huge fan of Lincoln, I live in Kentucky, he's a hero here.  I read and enjoyed _Killing Lincoln_ by Bill O'Reilly (which is a very well-written but obviously biased book).  If I was placed in 1860 and had no knowledge of what would happen I would have voted for Lincoln, as the other candidates supported the expansion of slavery.  But I would vote for McClellan in 1864 because by then I would have been dissatisfied by Lincoln.  Even after I started to have serious Libertarian leaning in the fall of 2012 I still liked him.  It was probably less than a year ago that I finally gave up on thinking of Lincoln as a good President and the Union as the great abolitionist Crusaders.


Lincoln is viewed as a hero almost everywhere, not just there.  I still remember being young and thinking Lincoln was the best President ever because "he freed the slaves."  That said, during Lincoln's time he was much more unpopular than he is now.  He only got 40% of the vote, and his tyrannical overreaches were way more popular.  Kind of like somebody pointed out that Obama (first black POTUS) will probably be hero worshipped in 100 years even though most people know he sucks right now.

At any rate, waking up can take a long time and it can be painful.  I love seeing you do it though, it reminds me that I'm not the only one my age who actually gives a whit.  I know there are others too, all around the country.  We may not win, but we aren't alone.

At any rate, I don't usually argue with people about Lincoln.  But in this particular case I find it somewhat annoying.  Whatever else you can say, the mainstream historians ultimately admit to the same facts about Lincoln as DiLorenzo, the only difference is the authoritarian media LOVES him for those things, whereas being a rational human being DiLorenzo views these as awful actions.

Believe it or not, when I was in 11th grade, I still thought Lincoln was a top 5 President despite disagreeing with him on virtually everything.  That's how deeply ingrained the "Honest Abe" cult is.  I even have a book authored by Christians about Abe, marked under "Heroes of History."  I'd rather change "History" to "Tyranny" but that's just me.The p

ublic schools really, really indoctrinate you.  Heck, I've even had people try to tell me Washington was bad. I disagree with them, though.  He wasn't a perfect man, but he did free the US from the British, rejected monarchy when it was offered to him, and those abuses that occurred under his watch were small.  I view him not as perfect, but as a good man nonetheless.  

Lincoln, on the other hand, there is precious little to like.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> *W**hen the Constitution was adopted by the votes of States at Philadelphia, and accepted by the votes of States in popular conventions, it is safe to say there was no man in this country, from Washington and Hamilton on the one side to George Clinton and George Mason on the other, who regarded our system of Government, when first adopted, as anything but an experiment entered upon by the States, and from which each and every State had the right to peaceably withdraw, a right which was very likely to be exercised.* (Henry Cabot Lodge, Daniel Webster, Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1899, p. 176)





> There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state from peacefully and democratically separating from the Union.  The Constitution doesn’t say that ratification is irrevocable.  Nor does it give the citizens of a majority of states any right to prevent the citizens of a minority of states from withdrawing their states from the Union.  Nor does it say that the Union itself is permanent.  Lloyd Paul Stryker, who opposed secession, admitted the Southern states had an “arguable claim that no specific section of the Constitution stood in their way,” i.e., no section of the Constitution prohibited peaceful, democratic separation (Andrew Johnson: A Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930, p. 447).  Indeed, the right of secession is implied in the Tenth Amendment, which reads,
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to force a state to remain in the Union against its will.  President James Buchanan acknowledged this fact in a message to Congress shortly before Lincoln assumed office.  Nor does the Constitution prohibit the citizens of a state from voting to repeal their state’s ratification of the Constitution.  Therefore, by a plain reading of the Tenth Amendment, a state has the implied legal right to peacefully withdraw from the Union.
> 
> This view is strengthened by the fact that several of the states specified in their constitution or in their ratification ordinance that they should retain all rights and powers that were not expressly granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.  For example, *Rhode Island*:
> 
> We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America. . . .  declare and make known. . . .
> ...


Link

----------


## Travlyr

> Lincoln, on the other hand, there is precious little to like.


Specifically, what is not to like about this man?




> Source: Neely, Mark E. Jr. 1982. The Abraham Lincoln Encyclopedia. New York: Da Capo Press, Inc.
> 
> *Independence Hall: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 22, 1861*
> 
> Mr. CUYLER: I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing here, in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to the present distracted condition of the country. I can say in return, Sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated and were given to the world from this hall. 
> 
> I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here, and framed and adopted that Declaration of Independence. I have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that Independence. I have often inquired of myself what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is the sentiment embodied in that Declaration of Independence. 
> 
> Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world if I can help to save it. If it can't be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But, if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle---I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than to surrender it. Now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there is no need of bloodshed and war. There is no necessity for it. I am not in favor of such a course, and I may say in advance, there will be no blood shed unless it be forced upon the Government. The Government will not use force unless force is used against it. 
> ...

----------


## Travlyr

> Link


Key word being *Peaceful*.




> There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state from peacefully and democratically separating from the Union.


First nine States tried to cheat the election by denying Lincoln ballot access, when that failed they stole Federal property, then they held Union soldiers in siege, fired upon an unarmed Merchant ship, and bombed Fort Sumter before the general government took any action. There was nothing peaceful about 1860/61 secession.

----------


## Travlyr

> 7.  If Lincoln believed that slaves were equal, deserving "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness", why did he support colonization? (exportation of slaves).
>       ref:  http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/i...34&subjectID=3


Colonization was a voluntary compensated program. People in the mid 19th century were struggling with living around people who were different. The Mexicans vs. Indians vs. Irish vs. WASP vs. Germans vs. Blacks, etc. Many people felt that the only way possible for whites and blacks were to separate. Colonization was even funded in part by contributions from individual States. Even the great emancipator Edward Coles believed colonization was the right solution. Thomas Jefferson was on board with colonization as well. Lincoln did hold onto the colonization concept longer than most, but he did eventually believe that blacks should have the right to vote.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Key word being *Peaceful*.
> 
> 
> 
> First nine States tried to cheat the election by denying Lincoln ballot access, when that failed they stole Federal property, then they held Union soldiers in siege, fired upon an unarmed Merchant ship, and bombed Fort Sumter before the general government took any action. There was nothing peaceful about 1860/61 secession.


Actually, that is untrue.

The South offered to buy Fort Sumter.  The North promised not to occupy or fortify it.  Then, the North proceeded to attempt to resupply it and house soldiers there.  You're right, there was not a thing peaceful about what the North did.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Lincoln is viewed as a hero almost everywhere, not just there.  I still remember being young and thinking Lincoln was the best President ever because "he freed the slaves."  That said, during Lincoln's time he was much more unpopular than he is now.  He only got 40% of the vote, and his tyrannical overreaches were way more popular.  Kind of like somebody pointed out that Obama (first black POTUS) will probably be hero worshipped in 100 years even though most people know he sucks right now.
> 
> At any rate, waking up can take a long time and it can be painful.  I love seeing you do it though, it reminds me that I'm not the only one my age who actually gives a whit.  I know there are others too, all around the country.  We may not win, but we aren't alone.
> 
> At any rate, I don't usually argue with people about Lincoln.  But in this particular case I find it somewhat annoying.  Whatever else you can say, the mainstream historians ultimately admit to the same facts about Lincoln as DiLorenzo, the only difference is the authoritarian media LOVES him for those things, whereas being a rational human being DiLorenzo views these as awful actions.


I don't argue very often beyond the whole "Lincoln had some faults."  I rarely go further and I don't think most people are ready for the conversation.  Hard criticism of Lincoln and the Union effort won't make sense to most Americans until they realize that non-defensive war is unjust.  We've got to get at the foundation first.




> Believe it or not, when I was in 11th grade, I still thought Lincoln was a top 5 President despite disagreeing with him on virtually everything.  That's how deeply ingrained the "Honest Abe" cult is.  I even have a book authored by Christians about Abe, marked under "Heroes of History."  I'd rather change "History" to "Tyranny" but that's just me.The p


The real heroes of the Civil War were great in number.  There were people like Robert E. Lee who turned down the offer to lead Union forces so that he could fight to defend his home state of Virginia.  He was fighting for something higher than the politicians in Richmond.  Often ignored are the anti-war activists up North, including almost 45% of voters who cast their ballot for McClellan in 1864.




> Public schools really, really indoctrinate you.  Heck, I've even had people try to tell me Washington was bad. I disagree with them, though.  He wasn't a perfect man, but he did free the US from the British, rejected monarchy when it was offered to him, and those abuses that occurred under his watch were small.  I view him not as perfect, but as a good man nonetheless.  
> 
> Lincoln, on the other hand, there is precious little to like.


Lincoln wasn't bad before 1861, he was a supporter of capitalism and opposed the expansion of slavery.  People might have changed their vote if they new what would happen during his Presidency.

But as you can see here, having anyone besides Lincoln win would be extremely difficult:
(The colors for Republicans and Democrats are flipped on the website this came from)

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Specifically, what is not to like about this man?


What is so hard for you to understand?  His actions did not match his words.  Just like most every other politician.

----------


## Travlyr

> 8. Can it be said that Lincoln had no intention to abolish slavery - when reading his own words?


Lincoln was a slave to his father until he was emancipated at age 21. He knew first hand what slavery was like. 




> Protest in Illinois Legislature on Slavery
> 
> March 3, 1837
> The following protest was presented to the House, which was read and ordered to be spread on the journals, to wit:
> 
> "Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.
> 
> They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.
> 
> ...


Twenty Five years later,



> The DC Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862 ended slavery in Washington, DC, freed 3,100 individuals, reimbursed those who had legally owned them and offered the newly freed women and men money to emigrate. It is this legislation, and the courage and struggle of those who fought to make it a reality, that we commemorate every April 16, DC Emancipation Day.





> 10. Why did Lincoln support the Corwin amendment, if he was truly against slavery?


Lincoln was not a dictator. He went to the people to ask them for permanent enslavement of the African people to determine the will of the people. If there would have been enough support for passage of the Corwin amendment then the Confederates would have been satisfied with the nationalization of slavery and avoided war. Lincoln went to great lengths to avoid war.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Lincoln was not a dictator. He went to the people to ask them for permanent enslavement of the African people to determine the will of the people. If there would have been enough support for passage of the Corwin amendment then the Confederates would have been satisfied with the nationalization of slavery and avoided war. Lincoln went to great lengths to avoid war.


Except for the fact that the largest reason the North wanted war with the South wasn't slavery at all.




> The North, however, had become wealthy manufacturing, shipping, and financing for the captive Southern market, which was rich itself because of King Cotton. The North could not let the South go without a complete economic collapse that was well underway during the secession winter and spring of 1860-1861. All the noble rhetoric of the Horace Greeleys in 1860 about the "just powers" of the government coming from the "consent of the governed" was cast aside due to the specter of economic collapse and financial ruin, thus the war came.

----------


## Travlyr

> Except for the fact that the largest reason the North wanted war with the South wasn't slavery at all.


All lost cause sympathizers want everyone to believe that nonsense. 

Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens - March 21, 1861



> The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. *This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution*.


Read Jefferson Davis's farewell speech in the Senate for similar declarations.

----------


## Travlyr

> I don't argue very often beyond the whole "Lincoln had some faults."  I rarely go further and I don't think most people are ready for the conversation.  Hard criticism of Lincoln and the Union effort won't make sense to most Americans until they realize that *non-defensive war* is unjust.  We've got to get at the foundation first.


Non-defensive war? If the Civil War was not a defensive war by the Union, then why did Lincoln call up militia to go straight to Washington to defend her? 

That fact destroys your entire argument. False premise leads to false conclusions.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Well, at least you now admit that the South had the right to secede.  That's progress.

We can work tomorrow on undoing the rest of your brainwashing.

----------


## Travlyr

> Well, at least you now admit that the South had the right to secede.  That's progress.
> 
> We can work tomorrow on undoing the rest of your brainwashing.


I did not admit the South had the right to secede using violence. I agree they had the right to secede peacefully in convention assembled. You refuse to address the fact that Georgia voted against secession but was forced to secede anyway. 

Cheating, stealing, shooting, holding people hostage, and bombing people to enslave an entire race of people is not peaceful secession.

----------


## Travlyr

> The government is not my parents, Lincoln.
> 
> You are a collectivist of the worst order. The reasons people despise Lincoln are the reasons you admire him. It's sickening. How you come to call yourself a follower of liberty is boggling. You're sooner a socialist, a positivist, and a collectivist.


No I'm not. I am not any of those things. I subscribe to the Mises philosophy of Classical Liberalism.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Non-defensive war? If the Civil War was not a defensive war by the Union, then why did Lincoln call up militia to go straight to Washington to defend her?


Because DC is close to the front lines?

----------


## Travlyr

> Because DC is close to the front lines?


No. Jefferson Davis planned to overthrow the Union. 

The Siege of Washington




> "Jefferson Davis planned to be living in the White House by May 1, according to the plans of his wife, Varina. On April 17th, New York insurance executive William Holdredge wrote Secretary of State William H. Seward in exasperation, informing him that the "wife of the Rebel President Davis has had the imprudence to send cards to her lady acquaintances at the Saint Nicholas" - a favorite New York hotel for visiting Southerners - "inviting them to attend her reception in the White House at Washington on the first of May."
> 
> "On April 12, 1861 only hours after Confederate guns opened fire on Fort Sumter in the Charleston harbor, Confederate Secretary of War Leroy P. Walker appeared before a jubilant crowd in Montgomery, Alabama. "No man can tell when the war this day commenced will end," Walker thundered from the balcony of the Exchange Hotel, at the heart of the Confederate capital, "but I will prophesy that the flag which now floats the breeze here will float over the dome of the old capital at Washington before the first of May."

----------


## Bryan

Let's please follow the Site Usage Guidelines and be respectful of each other, may too many posts here are out-of-line. There is no reason not to be respectful and I'm not sure how casting insults will help support anyones position when debating about history.

Please see my sig for a link to the Site Usage Guidelines. Thank you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't argue very often beyond the whole "Lincoln had some faults." I rarely go further and I don't think most people are ready for the conversation. Hard criticism of Lincoln and the Union effort won't make sense to most Americans until they realize that non-defensive war is unjust. We've got to get at the foundation first.


I agree, most of the time.  No need to bring it up.  But, some hardened neocons will use "Lincoln did it" as an excuse for everything, because ultimately Lincoln did subscribe to ther fundamental, statist philosophy.  If, and when, they do so, you've got to be ready to expoe it.  In my experience they rarely do, but Tom DiLorenzo says he sees it all the time.  At any rate, you're probably a better activist than me anyway.

----------


## Travlyr

> 6.  Is there a good reason as to why the blue states were exempt from the emancipation proclamation?


Yes, the blue states were exempt from the emancipation proclamation because they were not in rebellion. They were subject to the rights under the Constitution which slavery was the right of each State to determine for themselves.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> No. Jefferson Davis planned to overthrow the Union. 
> 
> The Siege of Washington


Davis must have been on an acid trip with Gary Johnson if he thought he would be successful.

----------


## Travlyr

> Davis must have been on an acid trip with Gary Johnson if he thought he would be successful.


West Point graduate and former Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis thought it was going to be a cake walk. He believed that since Congress was not in session, and the constitutional authority to call up the militia was listed in Article I, that Lincoln was in a trap. Davis planned on simply marching to Washington and throwing Lincoln out. 

To his dismay, Lincoln called up 75,000 militia troops the day after Fort Sumter was surrendered and the race to Washington began. If Union lieutenant Roger Jones had not destroyed the 15,000 weapons at Harper's Ferry just the day before the Confederate army seized it, then it is very likely that a well armed Confederate Army would have beaten the Seventh New York and Eighth Massachusetts militia units to Washington. Washington was nearly defenseless prior to the militia units arriving.

----------


## Travlyr

> 9. Lincoln supported the "Scorched Earth" policy that was employed by Sherman's march, where many innocent women, children, slaves, and the like had starved and suffered.  What kind of ends are justified by those means?


I lay the blame for the "Scorched Earth" policy directly at the feet of Jefferson Davis. Jefferson Davis really lost the war on April 25, 1861 when the Union militia beat the Confederate Army to Washington. That did not stop him. He lost the war again at Gettysburg and Vicksburg. That did not stop him. He lost the war again at Battle of Appomattox. Jefferson Davis wanted to continue the war even after Lee surrendered. Jeff Davis was a vicious empire building warmonger.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> I lay the blame for the "Scorched Earth" policy directly at the feet of Jefferson Davis. Jefferson Davis really lost the war on April 25, 1861 when the Union militia beat the Confederate Army to Washington. That did not stop him. He lost the war again at Gettysburg and Vicksburg. That did not stop him. He lost the war again at Battle of Appomattox. Jefferson Davis wanted to continue the war even after Lee surrendered. Jeff Davis was a vicious empire building warmonger.


Do you blame the Jews for the treatment they received in Hitler's concentration camps as well?

----------


## Travlyr

> Do you blame the Jews for the treatment they received in Hitler's concentration camps as well?


No. Lincoln did not want war. Jeff Davis did. Most likely Jeff Davis was funded by the Rothschild banking family. I don't yet know that for a fact, but his advisor, and their connections to the Knights of the Golden Circle is suspect. 

Judah Benjamin




> In her autobiography, Jefferson Daviss wife, Varina, informs us that Benjamin spent twelve hours each day at her husbands side, tirelessly shaping every important Confederate strategy and tactic.

----------


## jj-

> No. Lincoln did not want war. Jeff Davis did. Most likely Jeff Davis was funded by the Rothschild banking family. I don't yet know that for a fact, but his advisor, and their connections to the Knights of the Golden Circle is suspect.


Come on, there is no justification for Lincoln to order the rape of innocent women regardless of what Jeff David did.

----------


## Travlyr

> Come on, there is no justification for Lincoln to *order the rape of innocent women* regardless of what Jeff David did.


I do not believe that is an honest charge against Lincoln. Provide a link.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No. Lincoln did not want war.


Yeah he did.




> The North, however, had become wealthy manufacturing, shipping, and financing for the captive Southern market, which was rich itself because of King Cotton. The North could not let the South go without a complete economic collapse that was well underway during the secession winter and spring of 1860-1861. All the noble rhetoric of the Horace Greeleys in 1860 about the "just powers" of the government coming from the "consent of the governed" was cast aside due to the specter of economic collapse and financial ruin, thus the war came.






> Jeff Davis did. Most likely Jeff Davis was funded by the Rothschild banking family. I don't yet know that for a fact


That's actually laughable.  The large banks were in the North.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yeah he did.


Provide proof of your nonsensical claim. Any writer can write crap.




> That's actually laughable.  The large banks were in the North.


The North of London?

----------


## Travlyr

> I can glean 2 things from the answers to these 10 questions
> 
> 1.  That Lincoln's words mean about as much as any other politicians


The politics of 1860 do not resemble modern day politics by any stretch of the imagination. Lincoln did not even attend the Republican national convention in 1860. 




> 2.  That the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, and slavery was simply a political tactic (which worked very well for Lincoln)


Secession and *the Civil War was all about slavery*. Even a cursory study of 1850s America proves it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Any writer can write crap.


Yes.  This thread is evidence of that.

----------


## Travlyr

> Provide proof of your nonsensical claim. Any writer can write crap.





> Yes.  This thread is evidence of that.


This IS YOUR PROOF? Forgive me if I don't believe your unreliable empty claims and sources of information.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> This IS YOUR PROOF? Forgive me if I don't believe your unreliable empty claims and sources of information.


What about your own claims, Travlyr?  All you have done is post some of Lincoln's speeches and your conspiracy theory of the Knights of whatever.  lol




> This IS YOUR PROOF? Forgive me if I don't believe your unreliable empty claims and sources of information.


I linked to the source earlier.  You don't want to listen to anything other than what you believe, Travlyr.  Throughout this thread you have called people idiots and worse, who didn't agree with you.   Person after person has shown you that what Lincoln DID was totally different than what he SAID.  But, you refuse to admit it.  So, knock your socks off and do your damnedest to whitewash Lincoln's trampling of the Constitution and the murderous rampage through the South done at his behest.  No one is listening.

----------


## Travlyr

> What about your own claims, Travlyr?  All you have done is post some of Lincoln's speeches and your conspiracy theory of the Knights of whatever.  lol
> 
> 
> 
> I linked to the source earlier.  You don't want to listen to anything other than what you believe, Travlyr.  Throughout this thread you have called people idiots and worse, who didn't agree with you.   Person after person has shown you that what Lincoln DID was totally different than what he SAID.  But, you refuse to admit it.  So, knock your socks off and do your damnedest to whitewash Lincoln's trampling of the Constitution and the murderous rampage through the South done at his behest.  No one is listening.



So you actually believe that permanently enslaving African Americans was a liberty thing to do?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So you actually believe that permanently enslaving African Americans was a liberty thing to do?


"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels

Good luck with that.

----------


## Travlyr

> "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels
> 
> Good luck with that.


The *Confederate Constitution* is a lie? Ratified March 11, 1861 just one week after President Lincoln took the oath of office.




> ARTICLE IV
> 
> Section I. (I) Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
> 
> Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, *with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.*
> 
> (2) A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime against the laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.
> 
> (3) *No slave* or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.
> ...


Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens - March 21, 1861



> The process of disintegration in the old Union may be expected to go on with almost absolute certainty if we pursue the right course. We are now the nucleus of a growing power which, *if we are true to ourselves, our destiny, and high mission, will become the controlling power on this continent*.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Sure, they liked having slaves.  So did the North.   That still wasn't the predominant reason why the North started the war.  Lincoln didn't want to allow the South to secede from the union.  Now that you have conceded that the South did indeed have the right to do so, how do you justify Lincoln starting a war to stop them?

----------


## Travlyr

> Sure, they liked having slaves.  So did the North.   That still wasn't the predominant reason why the North started the war.  Lincoln didn't want to allow the South to secede from the union.  Now that you have conceded that the South did indeed have the right to do so, how do you justify Lincoln starting a war to stop them?


I have never conceded that the South had the right to cheat, steal, hold Union soldiers hostage, shoot at unarmed merchant ships, and bomb Union forts to enslave an entire race of people to secede. You are mistaking me with someone else. You have at least two problems with your line of thinking that you keep avoiding to answer.

If, as you claim, Lincoln started the war then why did the militia members he called up go to Washington to defend the Capitol rather than go to South Carolina to invade?Since Georgia voted against secession why were they forced to secede anyway?

----------


## brushfire

This is a painful medium (forum), and I was lucky to even find my post again, beneath all the additional activity.  Bear with me... 





> --- Lincoln quote omitted for formatting purposes --- 
> 
> The people in West Virginia never wanted to secede in the first place. So essentially he was welcoming them back into the Union. The Confederate Constitution did not specify any method of secession or procedure either.


I struggle with that answer, and with Lincoln's view.   So to question 1, it was ok for WV to secede from VA, because it was the will of the WV people.  They were welcomed back, after leaving.  Yet, VA is not permitted to leave the union, even though it is the will of the VA people.
Lincoln claims there was no right to secession, but ignores several facts:

Lincoln's claim that the union existed before the constitution is false.
  In the "Treaty of Paris (1783)", the king recognizes the 13 colonies as "free and sovereign states", submitting its territories and ending the revolutionary war.
Additionally, each of the 13 states had their own ratification committees - why would they if they weren't sovereign?
Also, the process of constitutional ratification was arduous process, so much so that 3 states had explicit conditions in their ratification (NY, VA and later RI), which permitted their legal secession.  

ref: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.asp
NY's Ratification /snip



> That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.


The constitution also binds the "secession clauses" to all states, as all states are entitled to an equal application of the law.  So conditions which permit NY, VA and RI to succeed, would also apply to the other states.

Its interesting to also note that there was at least 1 amendment proposed by congress, which Lincoln also supported, that made secession illegal.  That was in 1861, just before the civil war, and such an action supports the argument that Lincoln (along with congress) knew full well that secession was legal.  Why else would they pursue such legislation?

Lastly, there's an interesting question as to why Jefferson Davis was not given a trial after the civil war.  Some might say that this was deliberate,  as the union did not want to risk bringing secession back into the courts.  Obviously a high risk for the union who just won the war against secession.  There's nothing absolute by pointing this out, but I find it interesting just the same.

Questions 2 - 4



> Slavery was a State's rights issue under the U.S. Constitution
> 
> 
> Yes, because they were not in rebellion so the question of slavery was up to the people of the State of West Virginia.
> 
> 
> Only an amendment to the Constitution could free slaves from the Union.


If I'm correct in my understanding, State's rights and sovereignty are observed when considering slavery, but not with regard to secession?  This recognition on the matter of slavery, comes from the constitution, as "Only an amendment to the Constitution could free slaves from the Union".  So the constitution presented a challenge for Lincoln and his freeing of the slaves - its a wonder he did not encourage secession, so he could remove the constitutional protection, enjoyed by the slave states?  That, of course, would go against the objective of what I'm still convinced the war was really about, that is maintaining the union.





> Colonization was a voluntary compensated program. People in the mid 19th century were struggling with living around people who were different. The Mexicans vs. Indians vs. Irish vs. WASP vs. Germans vs. Blacks, etc. Many people felt that the only way possible for whites and blacks were to separate. Colonization was even funded in part by contributions from individual States. Even the great emancipator Edward Coles believed colonization was the right solution. Thomas Jefferson was on board with colonization as well. Lincoln did hold onto the colonization concept longer than most, but he did eventually believe that blacks should have the right to vote.


I agree that its unfortunate when, like in the case of Jefferson, people try to discard the entire legacy of a man, over what are circumstances of the time.  Previous discussion about Jackson comes to mind - the guy did some very bad things, but he also did some good things too.  My only issue with giving Lincoln an out, is that history has been far too kind.  Despite his own words betraying his views on black inferiority - perhaps we are in agreement on this point.

Lincoln grew up in an era of slavery, and was raised by parents who grew up the same way, where most blacks were considered inferior by society as a whole, and therefore his views were probably skewed by the conditions of the time.  Slavery was a very tough issue, and perhaps the easiest concept for people at that time was colonization?  None of us have known slavery, and many (if not most) of us have grown up viewing blacks, and people of all ethnicity for that matter, as being equals.  So yes,  it is a rather large gap that we dont have to overcome today.

As for Abe knowing slavery, first hand, because of child labor?  Thats still a stretch for me - very different circumstances/conditions.  Child labor wasnt all that unusual  - many children of the proletariat had to work in order to help support their families during that era, previously, and up until the 1900's (even well beyond in poor areas of the country - Jack Cash comes to mind, brother of "The man in black" who died at 15 from a massive injury sustained at work).  So Abe worked while his dad got paid...  Its likely that Abe's dad had to do the same.    Perhaps Lincoln did truly believe that slavery was morally wrong, maybe that is based on his experience as a working youth, regardless, his own words have indicated that he was willing to ignore the issue in favor of maintaining the union:



> http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/...es/greeley.htm
> *My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union*






> I lay the blame for the "Scorched Earth" policy directly at the feet of Jefferson Davis. Jefferson Davis really lost the war on April 25, 1861 when the Union militia beat the Confederate Army to Washington. That did not stop him. He lost the war again at Gettysburg and Vicksburg. That did not stop him. He lost the war again at Battle of Appomattox. Jefferson Davis wanted to continue the war even after Lee surrendered. Jeff Davis was a vicious empire building warmonger.


I wouldn't necessarily agree with you there.  Jefferson Davis wasnt going to surrender.  He knew what fate he likely faced, whether that was the reality in the end or not.  Davis, is not absolved by any means, but Lincoln's support of Sherman's March, and the scorched earth campaign in general, had created a lot of desperation amongst the confederate states.  So much so that children 10 - 14 years old were fighting along side men in their 60's.  Its likely that the Scorched Earth campaign had the reverse effect, and actually prolonged the war.  Much like what we see today with the drone strikes on wedding parties - when innocent civilians are ruthlessly attacked, it builds the ranks of the enemy.  I'm going to disagree on this point, I hold Lincoln fully responsible for this atrocity.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss -   This is quite a topic you're fielding, hopefully I can find a followup post amongst the many others.

----------


## RickyJ

Lincoln tried to find out the truth about the border incident that was used to start the Mexican-American war. He was highly suspicious of the stated "facts" in this case and suspected it could have been a "false flag" event. He was probably right, Mexicans probably didn't cross the border to attack us then. Never mind that, we took over Mexico anyway and only gave back the portion we didn't want.

----------


## RickyJ

> The politics of 1860 do not resemble modern day politics by any stretch of the imagination. Lincoln did not even attend the Republican national convention in 1860. 
> 
> 
> Secession and *the Civil War was all about slavery*. Even a cursory study of 1850s America proves it.


It was all about slavery for the South, but it wasn't all about slavery for the North. The average person in the North, much like the South, did not want this war in anyway. The huge Southern plantation owners were in a state of paranoia about the North freeing their slaves, which were making them extremely wealthy. With wealth comes power, and power mixed with greed and paranoia, as well as financial backing from foreign bankers, is enough to produce action. The Southern plantation owners saw the war as a chance to not only keep their slaves but to greatly increase their power in the South without a "Constitution" to get in the way of their desires. Their paranoia was of course completely unfounded, the North and Lincoln had no intention of taking their slaves away from them. It was secret agents working for foreign banks that convinced them otherwise and that it was important to act promptly before the North got too powerful to defeat.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded.
> 
> *On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.
> 
> The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.
> 
> No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established.* *If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased*; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.
> 
> Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that --- in theory, at least, if not in practice --- our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established.
> ...


--- Lysander Spooner, _No Treason_, Section I

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The North has thus virtually said to the world: It was all very well to prate of consent, so long as the objects to be accomplished were to liberate ourselves from our connexion with England, and also to coax a scattered and jealous people into a great national union; but now that those purposes have been accomplished, and the power of the North has become consolidated, it is sufficient for us --- as for all governments --- simply to say: Our power is our right.


--- Lysander Spooner, No Treason, Section I

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> *In proportion to her wealth and population, the North has probably expended more money and blood to maintain her power over an unwilling people, than any other government ever did.* And in her estimation, it is apparently the chief glory of her success, and an adequate compensation for all her own losses, and an ample justification for all her devastation and carnage of the South, that all pretence of any necessity for consent to the perpetuity or power of government, is (as she thinks) forever expunged from the minds of the people. *In short, the North [*6] exults beyond measure in the proof she has given, that a government, professedly resting on consent, will expend more life and treasure in crushing dissent, than any government, openly founded on force, has ever done.*


--- Lysander Spooner, No Treason, Section I

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> If the successors of Roger Williams, within a hundred years after their State had been founded upon the principle of free religious toleration, and when the Baptists had become strong on the credit of that principle, had taken to burning heretics with a fury never seen before among men; and had they finally gloried in having thus suppressed all question of the truth of the State religion; and had they further claimed to have done all this in behalf of freedom of conscience, the inconsistency between profession and conduct would scarcely have been greater than that of the North, in carrying on such a war as she has done, to compel men to live under and support a government that they did not want; and in then claiming that she did it in behalf of the of the principle that government should rest on consent.


--- Lysander Spooner, No Treason, Section I

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> *What substitute for their consent is offered to the weaker party, whose rights are thus annihilated, struck out of existence, [*16] by the stronger? Only this: Their consent is presumed! That is, these usurpers condescendingly and graciously presume that those whom they enslave, consent to surrender their all of life, liberty, and property into the hands of those who thus usurp dominion over them! And it is pretended that this presumption of their consent --- when no actual consent has been given --- is sufficient to save the rights of the victims, and to justify the usurpers! As well might the highwayman pretend to justify himself by presuming that the traveler consents to part with his money.* As well might the assassin justify himself by simply presuming that his victim consents to part with his life. As well the holder of chattel slaves to himself by presuming that they consent to his authority, and to the whips and the robbery which he practices upon them. The presumption is simply a presumption that the weaker party consent to be slaves.
> 
> *Such is the presumption on which alone our government relies to justify the power it maintains over its unwilling subjects. And it was to establish that presumption as the inexorable and perpetual law of this country, that so much money and blood have been expended.*


--- Lysander Spooner, No Treason, Section II

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> *Notwithstanding all this, that we had learned, and known, and professed, for nearly a century, these lenders of blood money had, for a long series of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the slave-holders in perverting the government from the purposes of liberty and justice, to the greatest of crimes.* *They had been such accomplices for a purely pecuniary consideration, to wit, a control of the markets in the South; in other words, the privilege of holding the slave-holders themselves in industrial and commercial subjection to the manufacturers and merchants of the North (who afterwards furnished the money for the war). And these Northern merchants and manufacturers, these lenders of blood-money, were willing to continue to be the accomplices of the slave-holders in the future, for the same pecuniary considerations.* But the slave-holders, either doubting the fidelity of their Northern allies, or feeling themselves strong enough to keep their slaves in subjection without Northern assistance, would no longer pay the price which these Northern men demanded. And it was to enforce this price in the future --- that is, to monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and commercial control over the South --- that these Northern manufacturers and merchants lent some of the profits of their former monopolies for the war, in order to secure to themselves the same, or greater, monopolies in the future. *These --- and not any love of liberty or justice --- were the motives on which the money for the war was lent by the North. In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for main- [*55] taining dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may.*
> 
> *On this principle, and from this motive, and not from any love of liberty, or justice, the money was lent in enormous amounts, and at enormous rates of interest. And it was only by means of these loans that the objects of the war were accomplished*.


--- Lysander Spooner, No Treason, Section VI

----------


## kcchiefs6465

And for God's sake, everyone read this.





> *And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villanous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest --- enormous as the latter was --- are to be paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be paid still further --- and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid --- by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war.*


Lysander Spooner, No Treason, Section VI

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> *This programme having been fully arranged and systematized, they put their sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war, and charge him to carry their scheme into effect. And now he, speaking as their organ, says, "Let us have peace."*
> 
> *The meaning of this is: Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery we have arranged for you, and you can have "peace." But in case you resist, the same lenders of blood-money, who furnished the means to subdue the South, will furnish the means again to subdue you.* [*56]


Lysander Spooner, No Treason, Section VI

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> *These are the terms on which alone this government, or, with few exceptions, any other, ever gives "peace" to its people.
> 
> The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the president are today the merest tools for these purposes. They are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as rulers, so-called, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money loan-mongers fails.* *They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner. They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have "Abolished Slavery!" That they have "Saved the Country!" That they have "Preserved our Glorious Union!" and that, in now paying the "National Debt," as they call it (as if the people themselves, all of them who are to be taxed for its payment, had really and voluntarily joined in contracting it), they are simply "Maintaining the National Honor!"*


Lysander Spooner, No Treason, Section VI

Where are such truths from Lincoln? No where.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> By "maintaining the national honor," they mean simply that they themselves, open robbers and murderers, assume to be the nation, and will keep faith with those who lend them the money necessary to enable them to crush the great body of the people under their feet; and will faithfully appropriate, from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders, enough to pay all their loans, principal and interest.


Lysander Spooner, No Treason, Section VI

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> *The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery?* Or what government, except one resting upon [*57] the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? *And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general --- not as an act of justice to the black man himself*, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man --- although that was not the motive of the war --- as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle --- but only of degree --- between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.


Lysander Spooner, No Treason, Section VI

Wake up.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> *If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.*


Lysander Spooner, No Treason, Section VI

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is.* Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.*


Lysander Spooner, No Treason, Appendix

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Section XIX of No Treason is where it's at. I'm disappointed no one has posted it on the internet yet.

----------


## Travlyr

> It was all about slavery for the South, but it wasn't all about slavery for the North. The average person in the North, much like the South, did not want this war in anyway. The huge Southern plantation owners were in a state of paranoia about the North freeing their slaves, which were making them extremely wealthy. With wealth comes power, and power mixed with greed and paranoia, as well as financial backing from foreign bankers, is enough to produce action. The Southern plantation owners saw the war as a chance to not only keep their slaves but to greatly increase their power in the South without a "Constitution" to get in the way of their desires. Their paranoia was of course completely unfounded, the North and Lincoln had no intention of taking their slaves away from them. It was secret agents working for foreign banks that convinced them otherwise and that it was important to act promptly before the North got too powerful to defeat.


Spot on!

----------


## Travlyr

Executive Mansion,
Washington, April 4, 1864.

A.G. Hodges, Esq
Frankfort, Ky.

My dear Sir:

You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally said the other day, in your presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows:

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling. It was in the oath I took that I would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. I understood, too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I had publicly declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government -- that nation -- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together. When, early in the war, Gen. Fremont attempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. When a little later, Gen. Cameron, then Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I objected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. When, still later, Gen. Hunter attempted military emancipation, I again forbade it, because I did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come. When, in March, and May, and July 1862 I made earnest, and successive appeals to the border states to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the indispensable necessity for military emancipation, and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. They declined the proposition; and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter. In choosing it, I hoped for greater gain than loss; but of this, I was not entirely confident. More than a year of trial now shows no loss by it in our foreign relations, none in our home popular sentiment, none in our white military force, -- no loss by it any how or any where. On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite a hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and laborers. These are palpable facts, about which, as facts, there can be no cavilling. We have the men; and we could not have had them without the measure.

And now let any Union man who complains of the measure, test himself by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force of arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirty thousand men from the Union side, and placing them where they would be but for the measure he condemns. If he can not face his case so stated, it is only because he can not face the truth.

I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God.

Yours truly,

A. Lincoln

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Executive Mansion,
> Washington, April 4, 1864.
> 
> A.G. Hodges, Esq
> Frankfort, Ky.
> 
> My dear Sir:
> 
> You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally said the other day, in your presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows:
> ...


What a righteous man.

The reasons many despise Lincoln are the reasons you admire him. And to quell your dishonesty in the boot, you know what I am referring to. The passage bolded shows Lincoln's colors as good as his actions do. He was never for blacks taking what was rightfully theirs. That is, their freedom. He was troubled by the notion. While many favored and did arm slaves, Lincoln concerned himself with simply maintaining the Union. And by so at any means. It is disgusting you post his garbage in apparent agreement. May he rot in his own justified Hell.

----------


## Travlyr

How does Spooner reconcile the fact that Lincoln was faced with having to fight a defensive war evidenced by the militia going straight to Washington to defend?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> How does Spooner reconcile the fact that Lincoln was faced with having to fight a defensive war evidenced by the militia going straight to Washington to defend?


I don't think he reconciles such lies. But since you have yet to read No Treason, aside from possibly what I've posted, (of which is what is available on the internet), you'll just have to take my word on it.

He destroys your entire premise though. (and any premise a collectivist may find himself babbling about)

How does Lincoln reconcile not speaking such truth? Not standing for said truth? and not giving one damn about the liberty of _any_ when preserving the _"glorious" union_ found itself opposed to said *evident* Truths?

----------


## Travlyr

> What a righteous man.
> 
> The reasons many despise Lincoln are the reasons you admire him. And to quell your dishonesty in the boot, you know what I am referring to. The passage bolded shows Lincoln's colors as good as his actions do. He was never for blacks taking what was rightfully theirs. That is, their freedom. He was troubled by the notion. While many favored and did arm slaves, Lincoln concerned himself with simply maintaining the Union. And by so at any means. It is disgusting you post his garbage in apparent agreement. May he rot in his own justified Hell.


So working to free the slaves peacefully does not count as trying to win freedom for slaves? I do not understand that position.




> September 11, 1858
> The difference between the Republican and the Democratic parties on the leading issue of this contest, as I understand it, is, that the former consider slavery a moral, social and political wrong, while the latter do not consider it either a moral, social or political wrong; and the action of each, as respects the growth of the country and the expansion of our population, is squared to meet these views. I will not allege that the Democratic party consider slavery morally, socially and politically right; though their tendency to that view has, in may opinion, been constant and unmistakable for the past five years. I prefer to take, as the accepted maxim of the party, the idea put forth by Judge Douglas, that he ``don't care whether slavery is voted down or voted up.'' I am quite willing to believe that many Democrats would prefer that slavery be always voted down, and I am sure that some prefer that it be always ``voted up''; but I have a right to insist that their action, especially if it be their constant and unvarying action, shall determine their ideas and preferences on the subject. Every measure of the Democratic party of late years, bearing directly or indirectly on the slavery question, has corresponded with this notion of utter indifference whether slavery or freedom shall outrun in the race of empire across the Pacific---every measure, I say, up to the Dred Scott decision, where, it seems to me, the idea is boldly suggested that slavery is better than freedom. The Republican party, on the contrary, hold that this government was instituted to secure the blessings of freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro, to the white man, to the soil, and to the State. Regarding it an evil, they will not molest it in the States where it exists; they will not overlook the constitutional guards which our forefathers have placed around it; they will do nothing which can give proper offence to those who hold slaves by legal sanction; but they will use every constitutional method to prevent the evil from becoming larger and involving more negroes, more white men, more soil, and more States in its deplorable consequences. They will, if possible, place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate peaceable extinction, in God's own good time. And to this end they will, if possible, restore the government to the policy of the fathers---the policy of preserving the new territories from the baneful influence of human bondage, as the Northwestern territories were sought to be preserved by the ordinance of 1787 and the compromise act of 1820. They will oppose, in all its length and breadth, the modern Democratic idea that slavery is as good as freedom, and ought to have room for expansion all over the continent, if people can be found to carry it.


Abraham Lincoln was clearly in favor of freeing the slaves.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

http://mises.org/media/categories/23...f-No-Authority

Section XIX will have you applauding, Travlyr. It's about 10 minutes long.

After listening, I hope, please let me know why Lincoln never said as much. Or even closely as much.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> So working to free the slaves peacefully does not count as trying to win freedom for slaves? I do not understand that position.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln was clearly in favor of freeing the slaves.


"peacefully" is a funny adjective. They were forcibly subjected to be the "property" of their "owners." Short of one at least _recognizing_ their Right to rise, armed if need be, and kill their "masters" if need be, I doubt I could subscribe to them or take them seriously as any respecter of human rights and natural law.

God bless those who supplied them the means to overthrow their chains. (i.e. NOT Lincoln)

----------


## Travlyr

> *I don't think he reconciles such lies.*


Lincoln faced with having to defend against invasion is not a lie. It is a fact of history.




> The Siege of Washington: The Twelve Days That Shook the Union
> 
> *A Timeline*
> 
> April 14, 1861 - The Union flag is lowered over Fort Sumter in surrender. In Washington, President Lincoln drafts an emergency proclamation calling for 75,000 Union volunteer troops to suppress the rebellion and defend the capital. Lincoln tells his cabinet, If I were Beauregard, I would take Washington.
> 
> April 15 - Lincoln formally issues his emergency proclamation. Americans in both the North and South are transfixed by a single question: Who will reach the capital first? Confederate attackers? Or Union defenders?
> 
> April 16 - As militiamen begin to mobilize across the North, General Winfield Scott has only 900 U.S. Army troops and 600 District Militia under his command to defend Washington.
> ...

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Right. Right. Right.

Victors, of whom burned books and records, hold sole monopoly of what occurred during said war. The problem occurs with the books and records that survived.

But Arthur Link agrees with your "history."

Well, God bless.

Did you listen?

----------


## Travlyr

> Right. Right. Right.
> 
> Victors, of whom burned books and records, hold sole monopoly of what occurred during said war. The problem occurs with the books and records that survived.
> 
> But Arthur Link agrees with your "history."
> 
> Well, God bless.
> 
> Did you listen?


Yeah, I listened. I disagree with him. I subscribe to "Classical Liberalism" as described by Ludwig von Mises




> National and governmental affairs are, it is true, more important than all other practical questions of 'human conduct', since the social order furnishes the foundation for everything else, and it is possible for each individual to prosper in the pursuit of his ends only in a society propitious for their attainment.


Have you read it?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Yeah, I listened. I disagree with him. I subscribe to "Classical Liberalism" as described by Ludwig von Mises
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read it?


I have not. Not yet but I do intend to get around to it. In any case, I could, and would destroy any argument you attempt to make regarding it of which are in opposition to natural law.

I do believe Lincoln may agree with conscription, correct? With the _will of some for the will of all_? I urge you to make attempt to make such a point. You will only illustrate the portrait of your idol.

Have I read it? The truth is self-evident.

What_ specifically_ do you disagree with?

----------


## Travlyr

> I have not. Not yet but I do intend to get around to it. In any case, I could, and would destroy any argument you attempt to make regarding it of which are in opposition to natural law.
> 
> I do believe Lincoln may agree with conscription, correct? With the _will of some for the will of all_? I urge you to make attempt to make such a point. You will only illustrate the portrait of your idol.
> 
> Have I read it? The truth is self-evident.
> 
> What_ specifically_ do you disagree with?


I believe that government is necessary. It is clear to me that Mises did too. I also believe that Lincoln did not have the option to not defend against invasion. I believe your hatred of Lincoln, and government in general, blinds you to who he was. Have you ever read any biographies of Lincoln? He spoke out against slavery all through the 1850s. Lincoln's "House Divided" speech angered the slave powers. Lincoln was standing up to them.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I believe that government is necessary. It is clear to me that Mises did too. I also believe that Lincoln did not have the option to not defend against invasion. I believe your hatred of Lincoln, and government in general, blinds you to who he was. Have you ever read any biographies of Lincoln? He spoke out against slavery all through the 1850s. Lincoln's "House Divided" speech angered the slave powers. Lincoln was standing up to them.


Yet you don't believe that consent is necessary for government! You are a tyrant. You'd be as bad as any ever were! Robespierre of "liberty".. the collectivized "good." It is more than insulting. You are advocating subjugation.

Mises speculated on forced conscription. A flawed position would be putting it mildly.

You fail to see the illegitimacy of it all. At all. "Might=right," the "will" of "the people"... it's $#@!ing disturbing. Posting flagrantly violating Lincoln quotes... that is why you like him! "But he was justified" I'm insulted with. Spooner saw through it all. Where was Lincoln? (oh, he was arguing against blacks freeing themselves, that's right)

----------


## Travlyr

> "In order for human labor to realize its highest attainable productivity, the worker must be free, because only the free worker, enjoying in the form of wages the fruits of his own industry, will exert himself to the full. The second consideration in favor of the equality of all men under the law is the maintenance of social peace. It has already been pointed out that every disturbance of the peaceful development of the division of labor must be avoided. But it is well-nigh impossible to preserve lasting peace in a society in which the rights and duties of the respective classes are different. Whoever denies rights to a part of the population must always be prepared for a united attack by the disenfranchised on the privileged. Class privileges must disappear so that the conflict over them may cease." - Ludwig von Mises





> "Equality, in society, alike beats inequality, whether the latter be of the British aristocratic sort, or of the domestic slavery sort.
> 
> We know, Southern men declare that their slaves are better off than hired laborers amongst us. How little they know, whereof they speak! There is no permanent class of hired laborers amongst us. Twentyfive years ago, I was a hired laborer. The hired laborer of yesterday, labors on his own account to-day; and will hire others to labor for him to-morrow. 
> 
> Advancement---improvement in condition---is the order of things in a society of equals. As Labor is the common burthen of our race, so the effort of some to shift their share of the burthen on to the shoulders of others, is the great, durable, curse of the race. Originally a curse for transgression upon the whole race, when, as by slavery, it is concentrated on a part only, it becomes the double-refined curse of God upon his creatures.
> 
> Free labor has the inspiration of hope; pure slavery has no hope. The power of hope upon human exertion, and happiness, is wonderful. The slave-master himself has a conception of it; and hence the system of tasks among slaves. The slave whom you can not drive with the lash to break seventy-five pounds of hemp in a day, if you will task him to break a hundred, and promise him pay for all he does over, he will break you a hundred and fifty. You have substituted hope, for the rod. 
> 
> And yet perhaps it does not occur to you, that to the extent of your gain in the case, you have given up the slave system, and adopted the free system of labor." - Abraham Lincoln


Abraham Lincoln and Ludwig von Mises were remarkably similar on economic policy and slavery.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Abraham Lincoln and Ludwig von Mises were remarkably similar on economic policy and slavery.


And conscription.

Which you've yet to denounce.

----------


## Travlyr

> And conscription.
> 
> Which you've yet to denounce.





> No. Lincoln did not stand up for the liberty of the dead men who were conscripted. He failed on that.


I denounced conscription long ago.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I denounced conscription long ago.


As well as Consent of the Governed.

----------


## Travlyr

> As well as Consent of the Governed.


The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,




> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,





> *Independence Hall: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 22, 1861*
> 
> Mr. CUYLER: I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing here, in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to the present distracted condition of the country. I can say in return, Sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated and were given to the world from this hall. 
> 
> I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here, and framed and adopted that Declaration of Independence. I have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that Independence. I have often inquired of myself what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is the sentiment embodied in that Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world if I can help to save it. If it can't be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But, if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle---I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than to surrender it. Now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there is no need of bloodshed and war. There is no necessity for it. I am not in favor of such a course, and I may say in advance, there will be no blood shed unless it be forced upon the Government. The Government will not use force unless force is used against it. 
> 
> My friends, this is a wholly unprepared speech. I did not expect to be called upon to say a word when I came here---I supposed I was merely to do something towards raising a flag. I may, therefore, have said something indiscreet, but I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by, and, in the pleasure of Almighty God, die by." - Abraham Lincoln

----------


## otherone

> If I'm correct in my understanding, State's rights and sovereignty are observed when considering slavery, but not with regard to secession? This recognition on the matter of slavery, comes from the constitution, as "Only an amendment to the Constitution could free slaves from the Union". So the constitution presented a challenge for Lincoln and his freeing of the slaves - its a wonder he did not encourage secession, so he could remove the constitutional protection, enjoyed by the slave states? That, of course, would go against the objective of what I'm still convinced the war was really about, that is maintaining the union.


Buchanan believed secession to be illegal, but acknowledged that the federal government was constitutionally powerless to prevent it.  In reviewing slave-related court cases, it becomes apparent that the role of the scotus had changed after the Civil War; from resolving disputes between sovereign states to fabricating the sovereignty of the federal government. 
Authoritarians have successfully equated "state's rights" with neo-confederacy and racism, thereby neutering a vital check on Washington.

----------


## Travlyr

> As for Abe knowing slavery, first hand, because of child labor? Thats still a stretch for me - very different circumstances/conditions. Child labor wasn't all that unusual - many children of the proletariat had to work in order to help support their families during that era, previously, and up until the 1900's (even well beyond in poor areas of the country - Jack Cash comes to mind, brother of "The man in black" who died at 15 from a massive injury sustained at work). So Abe worked while his dad got paid... Its likely that Abe's dad had to do the same. Perhaps Lincoln did truly believe that slavery was morally wrong, maybe that is based on his experience as a working youth, regardless, his own words have indicated that he was willing to ignore the issue in favor of maintaining the union:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/...es/greeley.htm
> My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union


Lincoln was anti-slavery all his life. He said it enough times, even publicly, in the 1830s and beyond. Like everyone else, nobody had a real good solution. Abolitionists were using violence and Lincoln was not a violent person. Lincoln had hoped that it would die a peaceful death "in God's own good time" but he recognized that slavery had been expanding for decades. He also recognized that while many States abolished slavery quickly after ratification of the Constitution, that none of the slave states had abolished slavery since. 

His view of slavery can't be taken from a partial quote. 

Here is the entire letter to The New York Times



> A LETTER FROM PRESIDENT LINCOLN.; Reply to Horace Greeley. Slavery and the Union The Restoration of the Union the Paramount Object.
> Published: August 24, 1862
> 
> EXECUTIVE MANSION,
> 
> WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.
> 
> Hon. Horace Greeley:
> 
> ...


Lincoln did not really write that for Horace Greeley. He wrote it for the people to let them know to expect some policy changes. When he wrote it the rough draft of the Emancipation Proclamation was on his desk. Greeley had charged Lincoln with not having clear policy and Lincoln wrote back telling everyone there is clear policy.

----------


## Travlyr

> I struggle with that answer, and with Lincoln's view.   So to question 1, it was ok for WV to secede from VA, because it was the will of the WV people.  They were welcomed back, after leaving.  Yet, VA is not permitted to leave the union, even though it is the will of the VA people.
> Lincoln claims there was no right to secession, but ignores several facts:
> 
> Lincoln's claim that the union existed before the constitution is false.
>   In the "Treaty of Paris (1783)", the king recognizes the 13 colonies as "free and sovereign states", submitting its territories and ending the revolutionary war.
> Additionally, each of the 13 states had their own ratification committees - why would they if they weren't sovereign?
> Also, the process of constitutional ratification was arduous process, so much so that 3 states had explicit conditions in their ratification (NY, VA and later RI), which permitted their legal secession.  
> 
> ref: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.asp
> ...


I was not aware of any proposed amendments to make secession illegal. Do you have a link? 

Certainly, it was not set in stone that secession was legal. There was no procedure for it. Georgia voted against secession but as is classic with all votes what matters is not who votes but who counts the votes. I believe the secession argument is a weak one because it was not peaceful secession, there was no clear path for secession, and the secessionists were bullying people who wanted to remain in the Union.

James Madison did not believe secession was legal and neither did Robert E. Lee and plenty of others.




> James Madison in his old age lived through the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833.  He was against nullification and secession, which he saw lurking clearly in the background of the Crisis.  As the author of the Virginia Resolution of 1798 which contended that Congress had no power to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, Madison had his own words thrown back at him, and he took pains in his letters to explain the differences between his Virginia Resolution and the revolution South Carolina was attempting to initiate.  I find his words on secession to be of great interest in light of the battle over the right to secede fought after Madison was long in his grave.  Here is a letter to Nicholas Trist on December 23, 1832 in which Madison makes his position clear.
> 
> More at link.

----------


## jj-

> I denounced conscription long ago.


Yep, I can testify to that.

----------


## fisharmor

So I read page 1 and page 14 and the entire pro-Lincoln argument boils down to "I don't like this, so it must be wrong."
Is there anything on pages 2-13 that says otherwise?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Yep, I can testify to that.


Some 540 posts, at least 50 of which proclaiming "liars as losers", and telling people to "read"; things can be overlooked when intentionally ignoring pages at a time.

----------


## jj-

> Some 540 posts, at least 50 of which proclaiming "liars as losers", and telling people to "read"; things can be overlooked when intentionally ignoring pages at a time.


Dang, this was fun, I didn't even notice it got to 54 pages.

ETA: Although I read the first and last page for sure, I'm not sure I read it all. Maybe I skipped a few dozen.

----------


## Travlyr

> So I read page 1 and page 14 and the entire pro-Lincoln argument boils down to "I don't like this, so it must be wrong."
> Is there anything on pages 2-13 that says otherwise?


Yes.

*Edit*. Yes, for people who understand how government protects liberty, peace, and prosperity. 




> We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state; the rules according to which the state proceeds, law; and the organs charged with the responsibility of administering the apparatus of compulsion, government." - Ludwig von Mises


Abraham Lincoln was a Classical Liberal. Classical liberal philosophy is from where Lincoln drew the power to defend himself, his family, and the free blacks living in Washington in 1860 from invasion, and his devotion to his sworn oath of office to defend his country against all enemies both foreign and domestic is where he drew the power to call-up the militia to come to Washington to help him defend the Union.




> "Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace." - Ludwig von Mises


Slavery has no place in Classical Liberalism.




> "The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production... All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand." - Ludwig von Mises


This thread has no value for anarchists.

----------


## brushfire

> Lincoln was anti-slavery all his life. He said it enough times, even publicly, in the 1830s and beyond. Like everyone else, nobody had a real good solution. Abolitionists were using violence and Lincoln was not a violent person. Lincoln had hoped that it would die a peaceful death "in God's own good time" but he recognized that slavery had been expanding for decades. He also recognized that while many States abolished slavery quickly after ratification of the Constitution, that none of the slave states had abolished slavery since.
> 
> His view of slavery can't be taken from a partial quote.
> 
> Here is the entire letter to The New York Times
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not really write that for Horace Greeley. He wrote it for the people to let them know to expect some policy changes. When he wrote it the rough draft of the Emancipation Proclamation was on his desk. Greeley had charged Lincoln with not having clear policy and Lincoln wrote back telling everyone there is clear policy.


The point I've been trying to make is that Lincoln, despite what we think his views were on slavery,  did not wage war on the confederate states over slavery. Lincoln waged war in order to maintain the union.  Slavery only became a political "cause" later on, to discourage states and the Europeans from coming to the aid of the confederate states. Also,  I cited the link to the entire letter, and just to be clear, I wasn't trying to selectively portray Lincoln's words, out of context.  The letter in its entirety, still supports the point I'm trying make.  This is just one example, I can furnish others if it helps, but I'm still not convinced that Lincoln was interested in taking on the slave problem, until it served his political interests.





> I was not aware of any proposed amendments to make secession illegal. Do you have a link?
> 
> Certainly, it was not set in stone that secession was legal. There was no procedure for it. Georgia voted against secession but as is classic with all votes what matters is not who votes but who counts the votes. I believe the secession argument is a weak one because it was not peaceful secession, there was no clear path for secession, and the secessionists were bullying people who wanted to remain in the Union.
> 
> James Madison did not believe secession was legal and neither did Robert E. Lee and plenty of others.


That's a fair request - I'll look for a link to cite secession legislation that occurred just prior to the war.

I believe Madison did support secession, or that's at least what he'd argued in the federalist papers # 39.  Madison did not want minority states to be subject to majority control.  When the union is voluntary, it allows those individual states to maintain their sovereignty, and it gives incentive for cooperation.  To suggest otherwise pretty much undermines the entire structure.  The avenue to secession is to break the ratification via the same process whereby it was created - via state convention.




> James Madison - Federalist Paper #39
> 
> http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa39.htm
> 
> That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. *Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.* In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.

----------


## brushfire

> Certainly, it was not set in stone that secession was legal. There was no procedure for it. Georgia voted against secession but as is classic with all votes what matters is not who votes but who counts the votes. I believe the secession argument is a weak one because it was not peaceful secession, there was no clear path for secession, and the secessionists were bullying people who wanted to remain in the Union.


I wanted to also add that just because the law does not explicitly permit something, does not make it illegal.  The law doesnt state that I can mow my lawn, but that doesnt mean I'm breaking the law if I do, no?  Your statement tells me that you may be leaning in my direction, we dont have to continue to debate the legality of secession any further - I may turn you into a Lincoln hater yet 

Thanks again, good topic.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> James Madison did not believe secession was legal and neither did Robert E. Lee and plenty of others.





> I believe Madison did support secession, or that's at least what he'd argued in the federalist papers # 39.  Madison did not want minority states to be subject to majority control.  When the union is voluntary, it allows those individual states to maintain their sovereignty, and it gives incentive for cooperation.  To suggest otherwise pretty much undermines the entire structure.  The avenue to secession is to break the ratification via the same process whereby it was created - via state convention.


Insofar as the underlying principles & justifications for secession are or can be related to or associated with those of nullification, Madison was something of a flip-flopper. For whatever it may be worth in this context, here is what Tom Woods has to say about Madison vis-a-vis nullifcation:

Tom Woods: http://www.libertyclassroom.com/objections/
*James Madison spoke against the idea of nullification.*

 More sophisticated opponents think they have a trump card in James  Madisons statements in 1830 to the effect that he never intended, in  the Virginia Resolutions or at any other time, to suggest that a state  could resist the enforcement of an unconstitutional law.  Anyone who  holds that he did indeed call for such a thing has merely misunderstood  him.  He was saying only that the states had the right to get together  to protest unconstitutional laws.

This claim falls flat. In 1830 Madison did indeed say such a thing,  and pretended he had never meant what everyone at the time had taken him  to mean.  Madisons claim was greeted with skepticism.  People rightly  demanded to know: if that was all you meant, why even bother drafting  such an inane and feckless resolution in the first place?  Why go to the  trouble of passing solemn resolutions urging that the states had a  right that absolutely no one denied?  And for heavens sake, when  numerous states disputed your position, why in the Report of 1800 did  you not only not clarify yourself, but you actually persisted in the  very view you now deny and which everyone attributed to you at the  time?  Madison biographer Kevin Gutzman (see _James Madison and the Making of America_,  St. Martins, 2012) dismantled this toothless interpretation of  Madisons Virginia Resolutions in A Troublesome Legacy: James Madison  and The Principles of 98, _Journal_ _of the_ _Early Republic_ 15 (1995): 569-89.  Judge Abel Upshur likewise made quick work of this view in _An Exposition of the_ _Virginia__ Resolutions of 1798_, excerpted in my book.

The elder Madison, in his zeal to separate nullification from  Jeffersons legacy, tried denying that Jefferson had included the  dreaded word in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions. Madison had seen  the draft himself, so he either knew this statement was false or was  suffering from the effects of advanced age. When a copy of the original  Kentucky Resolutions in Jeffersons own handwriting turned up, complete  with the word nullification, Madison was forced to retreat.

In summary, then, (1) the other state legislatures understood Madison  in 1798 as saying precisely what Madison later tried to deny he had  said; (2) Madison did not correct this alleged misunderstanding when he  had the chance to in the Report of 1800 or at any other time during  those years; and (3) the text of the Virginia Resolutions clearly  indicates that each state was duty bound to maintain its  constitutional liberties within its respective territory, and hence  Madison did indeed contemplate action by a single state (rather than by  all the states jointly), as supporters and opponents alike took him to  be saying at the time.

----------


## Travlyr

> The point I've been trying to make is that Lincoln, despite what we think his views were on slavery,  did not wage war on the confederate states over slavery.


True statement. However, no one ever has to wonder where Lincoln stood on slavery. Almost all his words are documented for posterity. He stood against the enslavement of humans his entire life and considered it evil. Lincoln was not an anarchist. He believed that all laws must be obeyed and if there was a bad law, then it needed to be stricken from the books, yet obeyed until it was.




> "The Republican party, on the contrary, hold that this government was instituted to secure the blessings of freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro, to the white man, to the soil, and to the State." - Abraham Lincoln - 1858





> Lincoln waged war in order to maintain the union.


That is a false statement. Lincoln did not want war, did not prepare for war, did not wage war, and was never going to wage war. Lincoln defended, as he was sworn with his hand on the Bible to do, the Union against domestic enemies from invasion.




> "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." - Abraham Lincoln - March 4, 1861





> Slavery only became a political "cause" later on, to discourage states and the Europeans from coming to the aid of the confederate states.


The perpetuation, expansion, and nationalization of slavery was the reason the Confederates waged war on the Union. Emancipation for the slaves in Washington D.C. came from legislation. Emancipation for the slaves in the States in rebellion came from the Emancipation Proclamation which was a military strategy. (Slaves were allowed to leave the plantations and follow the Union army when they saw it, and join the Union army if they so desired. The Union army would protect them from re-enslavement.) Slaves in the States which remained loyal to the Union were freed with the 13th amendment.   




> Also,  I cited the link to the entire letter, and just to be clear, I wasn't trying to selectively portray Lincoln's words, out of context.  The letter in its entirety, still supports the point I'm trying make.  This is just one example, I can furnish others if it helps, but I'm still not convinced that Lincoln was interested in taking on the slave problem, until it served his political interests.


Lincoln did not have the authority to free the Slaves. Freeing slaves required an amendment to the Constitution. When Lincoln understood that the border States were not going to accept compensated emancipation (Spring 1862), he had a choice to make. Either surrender the Union or free the slaves in the South, give them guns, and let them help emancipate themselves. Lincoln accomplished that with the Emancipation Proclamation. It was the slaves who were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation who turned the tide and won the Civil War for the Union. 




> I believe Madison did support secession, or that's at least what he'd argued in the federalist papers # 39.  Madison did not want minority states to be subject to majority control.  When the union is voluntary, it allows those individual states to maintain their sovereignty, and it gives incentive for cooperation.  To suggest otherwise pretty much undermines the entire structure.  The avenue to secession is to break the ratification via the same process whereby it was created - via state convention.


Madison made his position on secession quite clear in 1832. He was not flip flopping. What he said is that people are misrepresenting what he wrote. 



> "As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion." James Madison


It is quite frustrating when people misunderstand what is written, promote that misunderstanding as fact, and then deny the authors claim that they misunderstood what was written. I take James Madison at his word.

----------


## green73



----------


## LibertyEagle

> And a defender of free markets and liberty for all.


I thought Lincoln advocated protective tariffs?

----------


## Travlyr

> at least you admit, Lincoln was a racist.
> In his mind, he was superior to anyone with black skin.


Frederick Douglas liked him.

----------


## Travlyr

> I have done the reading, but I have read much more than the revisionist viewpoint that you apparently believe.
> 
> 
> 
> I find it curious that throughout this thread you have denounced many for harming the liberty movement because they didn't share your belief that Lincoln was some kind of hero deserving of a pedestal.  Yet, strangely, above, you attempt to disparage George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.  Are you thinking this effort of yours is somehow helpful to the liberty movement?  Very curious indeed.


Are you making the claim that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not racists but Abraham Lincoln was?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Are you making the claim that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not racists but Abraham Lincoln was?


I am making the argument that when you stated multiple times early in this thread that the movement was being harmed by people who didn't share your undying love of Lincoln, was disingenuous as all hell.  And you just proved it.

----------


## Todd

We agree on much Travlyr, but this is a subject we part ways.  I also took the civil war course from one of the premier Civil war scholars in the US.  Dr. James Robertson at Virginia Tech.  

There's an old adage that if you want to learn the whole true story about what a war was really about..... ask the vanquished.   

That was my first taste of what the war was really fought over.  Like all wars it was a land and power grab wrapped up ever so nicely through the years of history as a sweet narrative authored by the Victors of that war as the "war to free the slaves"

----------


## Travlyr

> We agree on much Travlyr, but this is a subject we part ways.  I also took the civil war course from one of the premier Civil war scholars in the US.  Dr. James Robertson at Virginia Tech.  
> 
> There's an old adage that if you want to learn the whole true story about what a war was really about..... ask the vanquished.   
> 
> That was my first taste of what the war was really fought over.  Like all wars it was a land and power grab wrapped up ever so nicely through the years of history as a sweet narrative authored by the Victors of that war as the "war to free the slaves"


Explain to me why the Confederate army camped 30,000 troops at Manassas Junction, VA in May, June and July 1861.

----------


## Travlyr

"Jeff Davis in the White House," sung to tune of "Ye Parliaments of Old England," in early 1861




> Jeff Davis in the White House,
> What glorious news it will be;
> Abe Lincoln in an inglorious flight,
> In a baggage car we will see:
> With Seward as conductor,
> Gen. Scott as engineer,
> Old Hicks, our traitor governor,
> Following panting in the rear


Quoted from: The Siege of Washington by John & Charles Lockwood

----------


## Occam's Banana

> It's been archived now
> 
> http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/ve...=310&pid=64022


The 'tube is out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NudnDKjO-wE

----------


## Travlyr

Lincoln spent the first 52 years of his life enjoying and loving liberty and the free markets and protest war.

What changed on April 12, 1861 to make him abandon a lifetime of free market peaceful liberty philosophy, do a 180° turn and decide to invade a country, and make it a socialized hell? If, as the claim is made, that is what happened, then wouldn't it have made more sense for Lincoln to build up arms and hire someone other than an 80 year old General Scott with gout so bad that he could barely walk before he invaded?




> THE WHIGS AND THE WAR
> 
> But, as Gen: Taylor is, par excellence, the hero of the Mexican war; and, as you democrats say we whigs have always opposed the war, you think it must be very awk[w]ard and embarrassing for us to go for Gen: Taylor. The declaration that we have always opposed the war, is true or false, accordingly as one may understand the term ``opposing the war.'' If to say ``the war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President'' be opposing the war, then the whigs have very generally opposed it. Whenever they have spoken at all, they have said this; and they have said it on what has appeared good reason to them. The marching [of] an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops, and other property to destruction, to you may appear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, unprovoking procedure; but it does not appear so to us. So to call such an act, to us appears no other than a naked, impudent absurdity, and we speak of it accordingly. But if, when the war had begun, and had become the cause of the country, the giving of our money and our blood, in common with yours, was support of the war, then it is not true that we have always opposed the war. With few individual exceptions, you have constantly had our votes here for all the necessary supplies. And, more than this, you have had the services, the blood, and the lives of our political bretheren in every trial, and on every field. The beardless boy, and the mature man---the humble and the distinguished, you have had them.

----------


## jj-

Travlyr, if you study the economic though of Lincoln, you'll see he was always in favor of planning and centralization.

----------


## Travlyr

More myth.




> Travlyr, if you study the economic though of Lincoln, you'll see he was always in favor of planning and centralization.





> "In order for human labor to realize its highest attainable productivity, the worker must be free, because only the free worker, enjoying in the form of wages the fruits of his own industry, will exert himself to the full. The second consideration in favor of the equality of all men under the law is the maintenance of social peace. It has already been pointed out that every disturbance of the peaceful development of the division of labor must be avoided. But it is well-nigh impossible to preserve lasting peace in a society in which the rights and duties of the respective classes are different. Whoever denies rights to a part of the population must always be prepared for a united attack by the disenfranchised on the privileged. Class privileges must disappear so that the conflict over them may cease." - Ludwig von Mises





> "Equality, in society, alike beats inequality, whether the latter be of the British aristocratic sort, or of the domestic slavery sort.
> 
> We know, Southern men declare that their slaves are better off than hired laborers amongst us. How little they know, whereof they speak! There is no permanent class of hired laborers amongst us. Twentyfive years ago, I was a hired laborer. The hired laborer of yesterday, labors on his own account to-day; and will hire others to labor for him to-morrow. 
> 
> Advancement---improvement in condition---is the order of things in a society of equals. As Labor is the common burthen of our race, so the effort of some to shift their share of the burthen on to the shoulders of others, is the great, durable, curse of the race. Originally a curse for transgression upon the whole race, when, as by slavery, it is concentrated on a part only, it becomes the double-refined curse of God upon his creatures.
> 
> Free labor has the inspiration of hope; pure slavery has no hope. The power of hope upon human exertion, and happiness, is wonderful. The slave-master himself has a conception of it; and hence the system of tasks among slaves. The slave whom you can not drive with the lash to break seventy-five pounds of hemp in a day, if you will task him to break a hundred, and promise him pay for all he does over, he will break you a hundred and fifty. You have substituted hope, for the rod. 
> 
> And yet perhaps it does not occur to you, that to the extent of your gain in the case, you have given up the slave system, and adopted the free system of labor." - Abraham Lincoln


Abraham Lincoln and Ludwig von Mises were remarkably similar on economic policy and slavery.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> It's been archived now
> 
> http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/ve...=310&pid=64022


Thanks for posting. I'm going to check it out now.

----------


## Todd

> Explain to me why the Confederate army camped 30,000 troops at Manassas Junction, VA in May, June and July 1861.


Because the Union threatened an invasion of Virginia to take Richmond.  If you are trying to imply that the South had plans to invade the North, then I think you are being a bit intellectually dishonest.  We both know that there was no way the Confederate army was capable of that in 1861.  The mean old Southern Confederates didn't just show up in Manassas to pick a fight.  Aggression started many many years earlier.  Anyone who understands history of that war or any other knows that the first shots fired are usually in frustration for years of getting kicked in the face.

----------


## jj-

> Abraham Lincoln and Ludwig von Mises were remarkably similar on economic policy and slavery.


That's one of the most clueless statements I have ever  read. Stop insulting Mises. You have to be clueless or an idiot to make such a statement.




> "Fellow citizens, I presume you all know who I am-I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the legislature. My policies are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance.* I am in favor of a National Bank*, I am in favor of the Internal improvement system, *and a high protective tariff*. These are my sentiments and political principles. If elected I shall be thankful; and if not, it will be all the same."

----------


## Travlyr

> Because the Union threatened an invasion of Virginia to take Richmond.  If you are trying to imply that the South had plans to invade the North, then I think you are being a bit intellectually dishonest.  We both know that there was no way the Confederate army was capable of that in 1861.  The mean old Southern Confederates didn't just show up in Manassas to pick a fight.  Aggression started many many years earlier.  Anyone who understands history of that war or any other knows that the first shots fired are usually in frustration for years of getting kicked in the face.


There is nothing intellectually dishonest about telling the truth.

Unfortunately, what has been hidden for years is that Jefferson Davis had plans to march to Washington in April, kick Lincoln out, and overthrow the government. 




> "Jefferson Davis planned to be living in the White House by May 1, according to the plans of his wife, Varina. On April 17th, New York insurance executive William Holdredge wrote Secretary of State William H. Seward in exasperation, informing him that the "wife of the Rebel President Davis has had the imprudence to send cards to her lady acquaintances at the Saint Nicholas" - a favorite New York hotel for visiting Southerners - "inviting them to attend her reception in the White House at Washington on the first of May."
> 
> "On April 12, 1861 only hours after Confederate guns opened fire on Fort Sumter in the Charleston harbor, Confederate Secretary of War Leroy P. Walker appeared before a jubilant crowd in Montgomery, Alabama. "No man can tell when the war this day commenced will end," Walker thundered from the balcony of the Exchange Hotel, at the heart of the Confederate capital, "but I will prophesy that the flag which now floats the breeze here will float over the dome of the old capitol at Washington before the first of May."


If you were President in 1860, would you have taken this threat of invasion from an enemy Secretary of War seriously? I would.

There was no prior threat of military invasion by Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln - July 4, 1861 special session of Congress



> It is thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of Fort Sumter was in no sense a matter of self-defense on the part of the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the fort could by no possibility commit aggression upon them. They knew—they were expressly notified—that the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison was all which would on that occasion be attempted, unless themselves, by resisting so much, should provoke more. They knew that this Government desired to keep the garrison in the fort, not to assail them, but merely to maintain visible possession, and thus to preserve the Union from actual and immediate dissolution, trusting, as hereinbefore stated, to time, discussion, and the ballot box for final adjustment; and they assailed and reduced the fort for precisely the reverse object—to drive out the visible authority of the Federal Union, and thus force it to immediate dissolution. That this was their object the Executive well understood; and having said to them in the inaugural address, "You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors," he took pains not only to keep this declaration good, but also to keep the case so free from the power of ingenious sophistry as that the world should not be able to misunderstand it. By the affair at Fort Sumter, with its surrounding circumstances, that point was reached. Then and thereby the assailants of the Government began the conflict of arms, without a gun in sight or in expectancy to return their fire, save only the few in the fort, sent to that harbor years before for their own protection, and still ready to give that protection in whatever was lawful. In this act, discarding all else, they have forced upon the country the distinct issue, "Immediate dissolution or blood."
> 
> And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man the question whether a constitutional republic, or democracy—a government of the people by the same people—can or can not maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration according to organic law in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask, Is there in all republics this inherent and fatal weakness? Must a government of necessity be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?
> 
> So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the Government and so to resist force employed for its destruction by force for its preservation.


Read the rest of his speech here.

----------


## Travlyr

> That's one of the most clueless statements I have ever  read. Stop insulting Mises. You have to be clueless or an idiot to make such a statement.


Lincoln said that in 1832. And let's stop with the insults.

----------


## jj-

> Lincoln said that in 1832. And let's stop with the insults.


If you imply that Mises supported printed money by National Banks, among other things, you should expect insults. Even marginalization.

----------


## Travlyr

> If you imply that Mises supported printed money by National Banks, among other things, you should expect insults. Even marginalization.



Lincoln only embraced paper money to win the war. All wars are won with paper money.

Lincoln on the national bank... in times of peace.




> IN THE HALL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
> 
> SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, December 20, 1839.
> 
> FELLOW-CITIZENS:--It is peculiarly embarrassing to me to attempt a continuance of the discussion, on this evening, which has been conducted in this hall on several preceding ones. It is so because on each of those evenings there was a much fuller attendance than now, without any reason for its being so, except the greater interest the community feel in the speakers who addressed them then than they do in him who is to do so now. I am, indeed, apprehensive that the few who have attended have done so more to spare me mortification than in the hope of being interested in anything I may be able to say. This circumstance casts a damp upon my spirits, which I am sure I shall be unable to overcome during the evening. But enough of preface.
> 
> The subject heretofore and now to be discussed is the subtreasury scheme of the present administration, as a means of collecting, safe-keeping, transferring, and disbursing, the revenues of the nation, as contrasted with a national bank for the same purposes. Mr. Douglas has said that we (the Whigs) have not dared to meet them (the Locos) in argument on this question. I protest against this assertion. I assert that we have again and again, during this discussion, urged facts and arguments against the subtreasury which they have neither dared to deny nor attempted to answer. But lest some may be led to believe that we really wish to avoid the question, I now propose, in my humble way, to urge those arguments again; at the same time begging the audience to mark well the positions I shall take and the proof I shall offer to sustain them, and that they will not again permit Mr. Douglas or his friends to escape the force of them by a round and groundless assertion that we "dare not meet them in argument."
> 
> Of the subtreasury, then, as contrasted with a national bank for the before-enumerated purposes, I lay down the following propositions, to wit: (1) It will injuriously affect the community by its operation on the circulating medium. (2) It will be a more expensive fiscal agent. (3) It will be a less secure depository of the public money. To show the truth of the first proposition, let us take a short review of our condition under the operation of a national bank. It was the depository of the public revenues. Between the collection of those revenues and the disbursement of them by the government, the bank was permitted to and did actually loan them out to individuals, and hence the large amount of money actually collected for revenue purposes, which by any other plan would have been idle a great portion of the time, was kept almost constantly in circulation. Any person who will reflect that money is only valuable while in circulation will readily perceive that any device which will keep the government revenues in constant circulation, instead of being locked up in idleness, is no inconsiderable advantage. By the subtreasury the revenue is to be collected and kept in iron boxes until the government wants it for disbursement; thus robbing the people of the use of it, while the government does not itself need it, and while the money is performing no nobler office than that of rusting in iron boxes. The natural effect of this change of policy, every one will see, is to reduce the quantity of money in circulation. But, again, by the subtreasury scheme the revenue is to be collected in specie. I anticipate that this will be disputed. I expect to hear it said that it is not the policy of the administration to collect the revenue in specie. If it shall, I reply that Mr. Van Buren, in his message recommending the subtreasury, expended nearly a column of that document in an attempt to persuade Congress to provide for the collection of the revenue in specie exclusively; and he concludes with these words:
> ...


An Audited National Bank.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> It's been archived now
> 
> http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/ve...=310&pid=64022


Excellent interview, Green. Thanks for posting. I'd recommend everyone check it out.

Ordered The Real Lincoln and Hamilton's Curse.

----------


## Travlyr

> Excellent interview, Green. Thanks for posting. I'd recommend everyone check it out.
> 
> Ordered The Real Lincoln and Hamilton's Curse.


When you get done reading Hamilton's Curse by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, then perhaps you could share with all of us the connection between Lincoln and Hamilton. I can not find any.

----------


## jj-

> When you get done reading Hamilton's Curse by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, then perhaps you could share with all of us the connection between Lincoln and Hamilton. I can not find any.


1. Both were in favor of National Banks.

----------


## Travlyr

> 1. Both were in favor of National Banks.


Hamilton was in favor of an audited National Bank? Please provide a link.




> *Amendment to an Act to Incorporate the Subscribers to the Bank of the State of Illinois* 
> 
> [December 22, 1835]
> SEC 5 The said corporation shall, at the next session of this General Assembly, and at each subsequent general session, during the existence of it's charter, report to the same, the amount of debts due from said corporation, the amount of debts due to the same, the amount of specie in it's vaults, and and [sic] an account of all lands then owned by the same, and the amount for which such lands have been taken: and moreover, if said corporation shall, at any time neglect or refuse, to submit it's books, papers, and all and every thing necessary to a full and fair examination of it's affairs, to any person or persons appointed by the General Assembly for the purpose of making such examination, the said corporation shall forfeit it's charter.


A. Lincoln

Annotation

AD, I-Ar. The amendment was not adopted.

----------


## jj-

> Hamilton was in favor of an audited National Bank?


[deleted]

----------


## Travlyr

> [deleted]


Some people claim that I am an idiot and a piece of $#@! in private messages. 

That was a fair question, IMO. I do not think I am an idiot for asking fair questions. I have researched this question in depth. Have you? Was Alexander Hamilton in favor of an audited National Bank as Abraham Lincoln was?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Hamilton was in favor of an audited National Bank? Please provide a link.


I cannot imagine a scenario where that could go wrong. Moreover I do not know how anyone could possibly confuse the two. I mean, one's "audited National Bank," the other is "National Bank." These people going out of their way to attack Lincoln are despicable.

Did you read the Lysander Spooner quotes?

----------


## jj-

> Some people claim that in private messages. That was a fair question. I do not think I am an idiot for asking fair questions. I have researched this question in depth. Have you? Was Alexander Hamilton in favor of an audited National Bank as Abraham Lincoln was?


You asked for a similarity. I provided it. Both were in favor of National Banks. If Lincoln was in favor of auditing banks or whatever, it doesn't change the fact the both were in favor of national banks, so it doesn't change that's one similarity. By the way, Mises wasn't in favor of National Banks, even if they were audited.

----------


## Travlyr

> I cannot imagine a scenario where that could go wrong. Moreover I do not know how anyone could possibly confuse the two. I mean, one's "audited National Bank," the other is "National Bank." These people going out of their way to attack Lincoln are despicable.
> 
> Did you read the *Lysander Spooner* quotes?


Lysander Spooner was just fine with government until they put him out-of-business. Spooner is not someone who I find to be a legitimate philosopher. Spooner was butthurt cry baby, IMO.

----------


## Travlyr

> You asked for a similarity. I provided it. Both were in favor of National Banks. If Lincoln was in favor of auditing banks or whatever, it doesn't change the fact the both were in favor of national banks, so it doesn't change that's one similarity. By the way, Mises wasn't in favor of National Banks, even if they were audited.


BS. Mises was just fine with audited National Banks.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Some folks were in favor of militias organized locally and held accountable. Others were in favor of militarism. Of a bloated Federal bureaucracy of soldiers.

But the Pentagon is audited. (if that affects your answer)

Now riddle me this, what is the small government position? And what is the crony-corporatist, welfare whoring, position?

----------


## jj-

> Mises was just fine with audited National Banks.


HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. Post of the year.

ETA: OK, this post of Travlyr's finally made me come to the conclusion he [deleted]

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Lysander Spooner was just fine with government until they put him out-of-business. Spooner is not someone who I find to be a legitimate philosopher. Spooner was butthurt cry baby, IMO.


I think he got really "butt hurt" when he watched the North destroy the concept of Consent of the Governed, murder children, and collectively enslave an entire populace's posterity to debt.

It would trouble the righteous.

Others, however, had no such qualms.

----------


## jj-

You know, George Stone was in favor of PINK National Banks, which made him totally different from Hamilton who wanted National Banks painted with a different color.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> "And the men who loan money to governments, so called, for the purpose of enabling the latter to rob, enslave, and murder their people, are among the greatest villains that the world has ever seen. And they as much deserve to be hunted and killed (if they cannot otherwise be got rid of) as any slave traders, robbers, or pirates that ever lived." --* Lysander Spooner*


I wonder what he was talking about.

----------


## Travlyr

> Some folks were in favor of militias organized locally and held accountable. Others were in favor of militarism. Of a bloated Federal bureaucracy of soldiers.
> 
> But *the Pentagon is audited*. (if that affects your answer)
> 
> Now riddle me this, what is the small government position? And what is the crony-corporatist, welfare whoring, position?


Right. The Pentagon is audited. That is Bull$#@!.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRqeJcuK-A

----------


## Travlyr

> I wonder what he was talking about.


Utopia on Earth which is Bull $#@!.

----------


## Travlyr

> You know, George Stone was in favor of PINK National Banks, which made him totally different from Hamilton who wanted National Banks painted with a different color.


Huh?

----------


## Travlyr

> I think he got really "butt hurt" when he watched the North destroy the concept of Consent of the Governed, murder children, and collectively enslave an entire populace's posterity to debt.
> 
> It would trouble the righteous.
> 
> Others, however, had no such qualms.


Propaganda. Abraham Lincoln, at age 52, did not suddenly change his mind as a Classical Liberal and become a dictator. Provide evidence of your claim. The slave powers wanted to keep, expand, and nationalize their slaves. Here is my evidence of that claim. The Knights of the Golden Circle.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Right. The Pentagon is audited. That is Bull$#@!.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRqeJcuK-A


You mean to tell me that a department with that much power ignores Congress (or babbles for five minutes at a time) while claiming (somewhat truthfully) it doesn't have the means to comply with Federal Law (as they quite literally say their books are so cooked you can't tell one purchase from another.. if they are not flat out admitting to _losing_ money [as in, "Where'd it go?"])? Well color me shocked.

Why would an octopus, with its tentacles in every transaction occurring within a country, ever comply? Monopolizing the banks, even if so called "auditing" them is incredibly troublesome. It would be no different than we have now. If not at the moment the banks were nationalized, eventually. There is hardly a more anti-liberty position than nationalizing the banks. You would create a system, as they have done, where they are too big to fail, where they write their own legislation, and where they flagrantly admit that secrecy, or a lack of transparency, is required to operate. Who could or would prosecute them? Who would revoke their charter? It would cause an utter calamity. No one would want it to happen on their watch. They'd keep kicking the can down the road, debasing the currency, and further enslaving "the People's" posterity.

At least admit the man was wrong, ffs. This is ridiculous! You are far too vested in the legacy of Lincoln. It clouds even the most basic of your reason.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Utopia on Earth which is Bull $#@!.


Right.

Having to hunt down and murder robber barons (i.e. money changers, and their henchmen) does not sound too utopian. I think in a Utopia, it could be assumed, there wouldn't be the robber barons. Obviously he recognized there was no Utopia and no chance for a Utopia, or rather, people to live freely. The only concept for legitimate government in the world was $#@!ted on. He describes the evil well.

----------


## Travlyr

> You mean to tell me that a department with that much power ignores Congress (or babbles for five minutes at a time) while claiming (somewhat truthfully) it doesn't have the means to comply with Federal Law (as they quite literally say their books are so cooked you can't tell one purchase from another.. if they are not flat out admitting to _losing_ money [as in, "Where'd it go?"])? Well color me shocked.
> 
> Why would an octopus, with its tentacles in every transaction occurring within a country, ever comply? Monopolizing the banks, even if so called "auditing" them is incredibly troublesome. It would be no different than we have now. If not at the moment the banks were nationalized, eventually. There is hardly a more anti-liberty position than nationalizing the banks. You would create a system, as they have done, where they are too big to fail, where they write their own legislation, and where they flagrantly admit that secrecy, or a lack of transparency, is required to operate. Who could or would prosecute them? Who would revoke their charter? It would cause an utter calamity. No one would want it to happen on their watch. They'd keep kicking the can down the road, debasing the currency, and further enslaving "the People's" posterity.
> 
> At least admit the man was wrong, ffs. This is ridiculous! You are far too vested in the legacy of Lincoln. It clouds even the most basic of your reason.


Or one could completely misunderstand his/her world and not know that it is the counterfeiters who control the world, not government. 

The Pilgrims. Stay in the dark for all your life, dude, if that is your choice. Call me a piece of $#@! privately, if that makes you a proud human being, or understand the world in which you live. I choose to understand the world in which I live because I choose the truth.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

And the only reason I post Spooner is because you have Lincoln spouting half-assed, Reagan-esque double speak. Then you read Spooner speaking truth to God about what is wrong with this world.

And you claim one is a "hero" (based almost completely on words alone) and the other "butt hurt."

All the while justifying what he says! Of wanting a National Bank no less! Or of tolerating slavery! Or of any of the other despicable $#@! Lincoln is well documented to have done. If by no one else, than by Spooner where he concretely describes the concept of Consent of the Governed, why it is fundamental to a free people, and the fact that it was destroyed by the Civil War.

----------


## Travlyr

> And the only reason I post Spooner is because you have Lincoln spouting half-assed, Reagan-esque double speak. Then you read Spooner speaking truth to God about what is wrong with this world.
> 
> And you claim one is a "hero" (based almost completely on words alone) and the other "butt hurt."
> 
> All the while justifying what he says! Of wanting a National Bank no less! Or of tolerating slavery! Or of any of the other despicable $#@! Lincoln is well documented to have done. If by no one else, than by Spooner where he concretely describes the concept of Consent of the Governed, why it is fundamental to a free people, and the fact that it was destroyed by the Civil War.


Nonsense. You are just full of inaccurate historical nonsense.




> "The organization of human society according to the pattern most suitable for the attainment of the ends in view is a quite prosaic and matter-of-fact question, not unlike, say, the construction of a railroad or the production of cloth or furniture. National and governmental affairs are, it is true, more important than all other practical questions of ' human conduct, since the social order furnishes the foundation for everything else, and it is possible for each individual to prosper in the pursuit of his ends only in a society propitious for their attainment." - Ludwig von Mises

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Or one could completely misunderstand his/her world and not know that it is the counterfeiters who control the world, not government. 
> 
> The Pilgrims. Stay in the dark for all your life, dude, if that is your choice. Call me a piece of $#@! privately, if that makes you a proud human being, or understand the world in which you live. I choose to understand the world in which I live because I choose the truth.


I called you a piece of $#@! rightfully because you misrepresented and falsely attributed a quote to me. Then doubled down on said cowardly, dishonest, act. You are a piece of $#@! for that. That you even show up, after doing something so cowardly and evident for all to see is surprising to me. And now you whine on and on about "and someone called me a "piece of $#@!." I wonder, is it because you could never stand to debate me on anything of substance? On anything at all? Perhaps that's why you comically tell me, while I'm three steps ahead of you, "The Pentagon isn't audited!" (after you had to wikipedia to double check) Of course, that being my point, and the fact that they are supposed to be, never occurred to you. Hmm.

You know what Spooner advocated be done to counterfeiters? They be hunted, imprisoned, or killed. You know what Lincoln advocated for counterfeiters? That they be put in the same building, and given legal sanction. What a $#@!ing joke.

You "choose the truth"? You are an inculcated sheep. No insult, no bull$#@!. I mean, this is just incredible. You tell me of "the Pilgrims" as if I need to read it! My bookshelf is quite full, thank you. My internet cache needs not the extra kb. It is so amazing to me that you attempt to educate me, all the while subscribing to a view of creating a Central Bank, ("but they'll be audited!" G.T.F.O.H.) musing about what Consent of the Governed means... I mean, I caught $#@! for calling you a fascist. I double down. Your views are collectivist, exposed by your general musings. Your government, corporatist. And you have the nerve to tell me to read. Not that that isn't funny enough in and of itself, as I read about a book every four days, but what you tell me to read! I mean, Jesus Christ. Lincoln's Speeches? Why?!? You might as well implore me to read Hamilton's speeches. Or Wilson's speeches. Or Reagan's speeches! To hell with that.

----------


## Travlyr

> I called you a piece of $#@! rightfully because you misrepresented and falsely attributed a quote to me. Then doubled down on said cowardly, dishonest, act. You are a piece of $#@! for that. That you even show up, after doing something so cowardly and evident for all to see is surprising to me. And now you whine on and on about "and someone called me a "piece of $#@!." I wonder, is it because you could never stand to debate me on anything of substance? On anything at all? Perhaps that's why you comically tell me, while I'm three steps ahead of you, "The Pentagon isn't audited!" (after you had to wikipedia to double check) Of course, that being my point, and the fact that they are supposed to be, never occurred to you. Hmm.
> 
> You know what Spooner advocated be done to counterfeiters? They be hunted, imprisoned, or killed. You know what Lincoln advocated for counterfeiters? That they be put in the same building, and given legal sanction. What a $#@!ing joke.
> 
> You "choose the truth"? You are an inculcated sheep. No insult, no bull$#@!. I mean, this is just incredible. You tell me of "the Pilgrims" as if I need to read it! My bookshelf is quite full, thank you. My internet cache needs not the extra kb. It is so amazing to me that you attempt to educate me, all the while subscribing to a view of creating a Central Bank, ("but they'll be audited!" G.T.F.O.H.) musing about what Consent of the Governed means... I mean, I caught $#@! for calling you a fascist. I double down. Your views are collectivist, exposed by your general musings. Your government, corporatist. And you have the nerve to tell me to read. Not that that isn't funny enough in and of itself, as I read about a book every four days, but what you tell me to read! I mean, Jesus Christ. Lincoln's Speeches? Why?!? You might as well implore me to read Hamilton's speeches. Or Wilson's speeches. Or Reagan's speeches! To hell with that.


So calling me a piece of $#@! is your way to tell the world that "I win!" I win!" I win!" ???

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> So calling me a piece of $#@! is your way to tell the world that "I win!" I win!" I win!" ???


No.

See, you are dishonest. I quite respectfully can speak to anyone and spoke to you considerately. I've repped some of your posts and admitted I enjoyed a lot of them. (practically any one of them not concerning Lincoln)

You insulted me. And not simply that but then claimed I said something I did not. That was why I called you a dishonest piece of $#@!. Not because you like Lincoln, or any other view you may have. Even with all of your ridiculousness I did not neg rep anything you posted aside from what you dishonestly attempted to portray as my words. Even you calling me a liar for pages on end, annoyingly telling me to read. And now you sit and act a victim.

I provided much evidence on this subject. Philosophical reasoning as well. You lash out at anyone who does not follow lock and step that Lincoln was a hero.

Let's get the conversation back on topic: In your opinion, did Lincoln seal the fate of this government resting on consent? Did he utterly destroy the notion that all Men (the capital denoting humanity) have the Right (God given) not to be governed if they do not wish to? That those who extort, or harass, or badger those who wish to cease association with any person or group are the ones in the wrong (I'm not specifically referring to the Civil War)? Did Lincoln's actions seal that fate? (which inevitably and predictably have led to what we have now) This is the main question I'm concerned of. Lysander Spooner, among others, have proven it to be so.

----------


## Travlyr

> No.
> 
> See, you are dishonest. I quite respectfully can speak to anyone and spoke to you considerately. I've repped some of your posts and admitted I enjoyed a lot of them. (practically any one of them not concerning Lincoln)
> 
> You insulted me. And not simply that but then claimed I said something I did not. That was why I called you a dishonest piece of $#@!. Not because you like Lincoln, or any other view you may have. Even with all of your ridiculousness I did not neg rep anything you posted aside from what you dishonestly attempted to portray as my words. Even you calling me a liar for pages on end, annoyingly telling me to read. And now you sit and act a victim.
> 
> I provided much evidence on this subject. Philosophical reasoning as well. You lash out at anyone who does not follow lock and step that Lincoln was a hero.
> 
> Let's get the conversation back on topic: In your opinion, did Lincoln seal the fate of this government resting on consent? *Did he utterly destroy the notion that all Men (the capital denoting humanity) have the Right (God given) not to be governed if they do not wish to?* That those who extort, or harass, or badger those who wish to cease association with any person or group are the ones in the wrong (I'm not specifically referring to the Civil War)? Did Lincoln's actions seal that fate? (which inevitably and predictably have led to what we have now) This is the main question I'm concerned of. Lysander Spooner, among others, have proven it to be so.


Not by any sense of the word. The secession argument is destroyed by the fact that Georgia voted against secession yet their people were forced to secede anyway. 

Lincoln's actions* did not in any way seal the fate of the republic*. All that nonsense is simply nonsense. 

What we endure now is economic slavery brought about, not by any action of Abraham Lincoln, but by Paul Warburg and his "elastic currency" and his successful passage of the Federal Act of 1913.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Not by any sense of the word. The secession argument is destroyed by the fact that Georgia voted against secession yet their people were forced to secede anyway. 
> 
> Lincoln's actions* did not in any way seal the fate of the republic*. All that nonsense is simply nonsense.


I speak of the individual's right to secede. Those who wanted nothing to do with the government ought be left alone. Those who did, could have reaped the [so-called] benefits. Aggressing against someone simply for them not wanting to associate with a given group is inherently immoral. Now if those individuals seceding violated the Law, they ought be treated accordingly depending the Law they've violated. I'm not saying utter Lawlessness, for example. I'm simply saying that people have the right not to live under a government if that is their choice. Without being expelled, branded a traitor, charged with treason, executed or any of the other crimes committed against them. If they live in peace, why can't they live in peace? That is to say, if they bother no one and commit no crime, why commit a crime against them?




> *What we endure now is economic slavery brought about,* not by any action of Abraham Lincoln, but *by Paul Warburg and his "elastic currency" and his successful passage of the Federal Act of 1913.*


I most certainly cannot argue with that. The Federal Reserve was supposed to be under the oversight of the government. At least, that is how it was sold to the people. "Trust busting" Roosevelt and his ideological progressive counterpart Wilson, breaking up the banking trusts. Slowly but surely the big banks began using their puppets to grant them ever more power. I argue that even auditing the Federal Reserve is not going to do much. It will expose them, their secret deals, and that is welcomed if it turns to their demise, but I doubt that is the case. Eric Holder spoke quite frankly on certain banks being "too big to prosecute." It was inevitable. They have slithered such a way that ending them, revoking their charter or otherwise, will have consequences on the outlying economy. So the question turns to, do we just kick the can down the road, or do we accept, as adults, the mistakes made, attempt to educate the ignorant, and find a better way. The government being uninvolved in money is a great start. Of course, as collective addicts to the illusion of wealth created, things might be uncomfortable for a while. I seek to live morally. The supposed perpetuity is evil.

----------


## Travlyr

> *I speak of the individual's right to secede.* Those who wanted nothing to do with the government ought be left alone. Those who did, could have reaped the [so-called] benefits. Aggressing against someone simply for them not wanting to associate with a given group is inherently immoral. Now if those individuals seceding violated the Law, they ought be treated accordingly depending the Law they've violated. I'm not saying utter Lawlessness, for example. I'm simply saying that people have the right not to live under a government if that is their choice. Without being expelled, branded a traitor, charged with treason, executed or any of the other crimes committed against them. If they live in peace, why can't they live in peace? That is to say, if they bother no one and commit no crime, why commit a crime against them?


What? Like a runaway child? 




> I most certainly cannot argue with that. *The Federal Reserve was supposed to be under the oversight of the government*. At least, that is how it was sold to the people. "Trust busting" Roosevelt and his ideological progressive counterpart Wilson, breaking up the banking trusts. Slowly but surely the big banks began using their puppets to grant them ever more power. I argue that even auditing the Federal Reserve is not going to do much. It will expose them, their secret deals, and that is welcomed if it turns to their demise, but I doubt that is the case. Eric Holder spoke quite frankly on certain banks being "too big to prosecute." It was inevitable. They have slithered such a way that ending them, revoking their charter or otherwise, will have consequences on the outlying economy. So the question turns to, do we just kick the can down the road, or do we accept, as adults, the mistakes made, attempt to educate the ignorant, and find a better way. The government being uninvolved in money is a great start. Of course, as collective addicts to the illusion of wealth created, things might be uncomfortable for a while. I seek to live morally. The supposed perpetuity is evil.


LOL. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a coup d'état. You can pretend anything you wish, but the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was simply a coup d'état against the Union Abraham Lincoln swore with his hand on the Bible to protect and defend, which he did with his life.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> What? Like a runaway child?


This is your response? Seriously?

You said it before, which is what prompted my comment of calling you a fascist, but you seriously equate the government as your parents? THIS is why I despise Lincoln. I mean goddamn, I hope you are trolling me. I know you aren't. I know most everyone (which I guess is all that matters after Lincoln's pillage) thinks, fundamentally, the way you do.

Sigh.




> LOL. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a coup d'état. You can pretend anything you wish, but the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was simply a coup d'état against the Union Abraham Lincoln swore with his hand on the Bible to protect and defend, which he did with his life.


Abraham Lincoln's National Bank would have gone the same way. What was Lysander Spooner speaking of?

I don't even know what to say. You are a fascist. A collectivist. A legal positivist. A would be murderer if ever in a position to exact _your_ grand scheme. You think you are wise enough. I mean I literally could go on and on.

May God not have mercy on this world. Flawed from the beginning. You quite literally are turning me a Christian.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This is your response? Seriously?
> 
> You said it before, which is what prompted my comment of calling you a fascist, but you seriously equate the government as your parents? THIS is why I despise Lincoln. I mean goddamn, I hope you are trolling me. I know you aren't. I know most everyone (which I guess is all that matters after Lincoln's pillage) thinks, fundamentally, the way you do.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's National Bank would have gone the same way. What was Lysander Spooner speaking of?
> 
> ...


I approve of this post.  Well done, sir. ~applauds~

----------


## Travlyr

Lincoln's Lyceum speech goes to the heart of how he felt about liberty in America because of Constitutional governments. Lincoln understood liberty as well as anyone because he lived it. One year when he was 9 years old, he and his 11 year old sister, lost their mother to milk sickness. Abraham and Sarah spent an entire year with their father, and Dennis Hanks in a one room dirt floor cabin. That had to be a very hard year for them one that could never be forgotten. As far as understanding the free markets, there is no freer market than what Abe experienced growing up. People would grow food and make products and Lincoln would take those down the rivers and sell them to people in the communities along the way.    




> The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions:
> Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois
> January 27, 1838
> 
> As a subject for the remarks of the evening, the perpetuation of our political institutions, is selected.
> 
> In the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the American People, find our account running, under date of the nineteenth century of the Christian era.--We find ourselves in the peaceful possession, of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us. We, when mounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them--they are a legacy bequeathed us, by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors. Their's was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves, us, of this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys, a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only, to transmit these, the former, unprofaned by the foot of an invader; the latter, undecayed by the lapse of time and untorn by usurpation, to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This task of gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform.
> 
> How then shall we perform it?--At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
> ...

----------


## silverhandorder

I am just glad that travlyr basically the only person who holds those views. Testament to how crazy he is.

----------


## Travlyr

> I am just glad that travlyr basically the only person who holds those views. Testament to how crazy he is.


So, do you think Mob Rule is better than Rule of Law?

----------


## green73

*California Secessionists . . .* Thomas DiLorenzo 



  						 							. . . are “gaining ground.”  A proposition to  split the “ungovernable” state into six separate new states may make it  onto the ballot for the next election.  Rumor has it that if this  succeeds the Lincoln-worshipping neocons at the Claremont (CA) Institute  will ask President Obama to nuke all the secessionists into submission  before they adopt Nazism, KKK-ism, or something worse.  We are, after  all, “one nation, indivisible,” in the words of Francis Bellamy, the  late nineteenth-century socialist and defrocked Baptist minister who  authored the Pledge of Allegiance to the Omnipotent Lincolnian State.

----------


## William Tell

> So, do you think Mob Rule is better than Rule of Law?


  Some of us don't like being ruled by sniffy, ugly tyrants like Abe, Bush, and Obama.

----------

