# Think Tank > History >  Judge Napolitano: Lincoln Set About On The Most Murderous War In American History

## jct74

Fox Business - The Independents 2/14/14



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zy9D-0IkQM

----------


## torchbearer

in before Travlyr.
The judge is just a racist neo-confederate slavery apologist with no credibility.
Lincoln freed the universe and loved everyone as his children.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

OP is clearly a racist neo-confederate.  Reported to Big Sister.

----------


## otherone

> in before Travlyr.
> The judge is just a racist neo-confederate slavery apologist with no credibility.
> Lincoln freed the universe and loved everyone as his children.

----------


## Travlyr

Judge Andrew Napolitano, "Slavery was dying a natural death all over the Western world."
Unfortunately, that is a false statement. As we know, the Knights of the Golden Circle were planning on a slave empire throughout North America, Central America, and part of South America along with the Caribbean Islands and Cuba. Slavery was growing in the South.

Total Slave Population in United States, by State

Judge Andrew Napolitano, "The Southern Plantation owners were on the cusp of it dying here." 
That statement is not supported by the facts.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, "Instead of allowing it to die, helping it to die, or even purchasing the slaves and freeing them which would have cost a lot less money than the Civil War cost, Lincoln set about on the most murderous war in American history."




> "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.





> "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." - Abraham Lincoln


Judge Napolitano should give credit where credit is due. Lincoln did want slavery to end a natural death "In God's Own Good Time" and he tried as he might to pay slave owners and free the slaves. The slavers wanted no part of it. 

Lincoln was given an ultimatum. Either surrender the Union or face war. Lincoln had a sworn duty to *defend the Union*.

*The Confederate argument is essentially*, 
*Confederates*: We have the right to own other people. 
*Lincoln*: Yes, you do have the Constitutional authority to own slaves under State's rights but it is wrong, and it is evil, and while we will not stop you from owning slaves, we do not have to allow it to expand.
*Confederates*: We are going to expand slavery throughout the continent.
*Lincoln*: No, this country was formed to eventually liberate everyone.
*Confederates*: You are powerless to stop us.
*Lincoln*: I was powerless, but now I am president, so no longer are we going to bring a slave State into the Union with a free state. We are going to allow the people of each new State to determine that issue for themselves. You can keep your slaves even though it is an evil to the negro, the white, the soil, and the State, you have the law on your side, but we do not have to allow it to expand if the people in America choose otherwise.
*Confederates*: Yes you do or we are going to kick your ass.
*Lincoln*: Bring it on. 
*Confederates*: Okay, see that Abe. We bombed Fort Sumter and there is nothing you can do about it. As a matter of fact we are going to march to Washington and throw you out. 
*Lincoln*: I have 75,000 militia volunteers who will stop you from entering Washington.
*Confederates*: Well that isn't fair. You don't have the Constitutional authority to call up the militia.
*Lincoln*: Yes, I do. The Militia Act of 1792 specifically gave me that authority.
*Confederates*: Well then we will come to Washington and hold you in siege so that you can't function.
*Lincoln*: You really should just go home because you can't win this war.
*Confederates*: Bull$#@!. One Confederate can kick the crap out of 10 Union men.
*Lincoln*: We really don't want war, but if you want war to destroy the Union then so be it. War it shall be. No one can destroy the Union designed to bring liberty, peace, and prosperity to the world.

----------


## Origanalist

> No one can destroy the Union *designed to bring liberty, peace, and prosperity to the world.*


And the world loves us for it. Really Travlyr, that's some first class neo-con $#@! there.

----------


## otherone

> *Lincoln*: Bring it on.




America, $#@! yeah.

----------


## otherone



----------


## Carson

Individuals holding slaves is wrong and a government enslaving States of people is okay?

----------


## FloralScent

> ...As a matter of fact we are going to march to Washington and throw you out.


You're making $#@! up.  Your avatar is the Josey Wales, hardly a friend of Lincoln.

----------


## green73

> You're making $#@! up.  Your avatar is the Josey Wales, hardly a friend of Lincoln.


Trav(liar)

----------


## Travlyr

> And the world loves us for it. Really Travlyr, that's some first class neo-con $#@! there.





> America, $#@! yeah.





> 





> You're making $#@! up.  Your avatar is the Josey Wales, hardly a friend of Lincoln.


Do any of you have any idea why 75,000 people *volunteered* to defend Lincoln? Any clue at all?

----------


## Travlyr

> Trav(liar)


Have you ever read a history book in your life? That's an honest question. You don't seem like you have any idea why America was formed to produce liberty, peace, and prosperity for individuals. All you ever do is criticize.

----------


## Travlyr

> Individuals holding slaves is wrong and a government enslaving States of people is okay?


If a man smashes you in the face do you have a right to defend yourself and fight back? Essentially that is what the Confederates did to the Union. They bombed a Federal fort with Union troops in it. Then they marched to Harpers Ferry to confiscate weapons so they could march on Washington and throw him out. Fortunately, on April 18, 1861 Union Lieutenant Roger Jones destroyed all the weapons at Harpers Ferry Armory, so when the Confederates confiscated the weapons the next day the weapons were not usable. If those 15,000 weapons had not been destroyed, then a well armed Confederate army would have easily been able to beat the Union militia to Washington and overthrown the Lincoln administration. If the Confederates would have been successful, then the institution of slavery would have been extended much longer than it was.

----------


## otherone

> Do any of you have any idea why 75,000 people *volunteered* to defend Lincoln? Any clue at all?



GB recruited 500,000 idiots in ONE MONTH in August of 1914 in defense of Belgium....another 500,000 by the end of the year.

Patriotism is man's blind spot, and Leviathan knows it.


HUZZAH!
HUZZAH FOR LINCOLN!!!!!!

----------


## Travlyr

You are using emotion generated by a picture to misrepresent why 75,000 militia members defended the Union. You misunderstand. Those 75,000 militia men were already defenders of the Union because they understood that enemies of liberty would use force to enslave them. Jefferson Davis was a prime example. Davis was a West Point graduate, who escorted Blackhawk to prison for wanting to keep his land, a hero of the Mexican War, a former Secretary of War, Chairman of the committee on Military Affairs, and a slave owning tyrant. Those 75,000 Union militia volunteers knew that if Jefferson Davis ever was able to wrest power from the liberty loving people their own enslavement would be next. They loved their liberty and defended against tyrants to keep it.




> GB recruited 500,000 idiots in ONE MONTH in August of 1914 in defense of Belgium....another 500,000 by the end of the year.
> 
> Patriotism is man's blind spot, and Leviathan knows it.
> 
> 
> HUZZAH!
> HUZZAH FOR LINCOLN Davis!!!!!!

----------


## Travlyr

- rep communication from Liberty Eagle



> Complete fiction. No one believes this crap you are dishing out.


Yes, almost everyone understands that Jefferson Davis waged war on the Union and Lincoln was forced to defend it. The fact that you can't face the truth is your problem not theirs.




> Judge Andrew Napolitano, "Slavery was dying a natural death all over the Western world."


That simply is not true. There were 750,000 more slaves in America in 1860 than there were in 1850. Slavery was not only not dying out, the slavers fully intended to expand it throughout the entire continent and they were willing to wage war to do it.




> 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. - Confederate Vice President Alexander 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. - Alexander Stephens


They waged war with full intention of kicking Lincoln out of office.



> "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 capitol, "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."

----------


## Travlyr

This is a clear misunderstanding of the words I've written. 




> 


I do not mythologize Abraham Lincoln. I post his words for people to read so that they have the opportunity to get to know him by the words he spoke, and I defend Lincoln against people who lie about him to promote their agenda. Abraham Lincoln understood individual liberty, the free markets, and he was a peaceful man until he was attacked. Lincoln was a defender all his life and never an attacker. If you think that makes him a saint, that is your deal not mine.




> Kathy - "Judge Andrew Napolitano is the author of Theodore and Woodrow how two presidents destroyed constitutional freedom."





> Judge Andrew Napolitano - "I am a contrarian on Abraham Lincoln and I bemoan the fact that he has been mythologized, since the Progressive era, since the era of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and particularly by the public school establishment in the United States which almost would have you believe he is the fourth member of the blessed trinity."


I agree with Judge Napolitano on this. The PR firms in the United States know how to use people to promote an agenda. Abraham Lincoln was a man not a saint. I have often posted about how the Progressive Era destroyed liberty not Lincoln.

The Progressive Movement Fundamentally Changed America

----------


## CCTelander

Poor, poor Lincoln. All he did was "defend" himself, his family and the "sacred" union.

Making total war upon a civilian population is NOT s defendive act.

Sherman's March, fully sanctioned by Lincoln, was IN NO WAY defensive. Stealing and destroying crops, causing widespread hunger and even starvation CANNOT.be classified as defensive. Raping innocent women is NOT defensive. Murdering non-combatants, men, women and children alike, DOES NOT qualify as defense.

And yet Sherman and his merry little band of thieves, rapists and murderers were lauded by Lincoln as heroes.

Lincoln was a tyrant. Any claim to the contrary is total bull$#@!.

----------


## LibertyEagle

That's really just superfluous nonsense, Travlyr.

The fact still remains that if Lincoln had allowed the South to secede from the Union, the Civil War would not have happened.  

But, Lincoln would have none of it.  Oh no, because the North benefited way too much financially by keeping the southern states captive and continuing to financially rape them.




> 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.


link

----------


## Travlyr

> Poor, poor Lincoln. All he did was "defend" himself, his family and the "sacred" union.
> 
> Making total war upon a civilian population is NOT s defendive act.
> 
> Sherman's March, fully sanctioned by Lincoln, was IN NO WAY defensive. Stealing and destroying crops, causing widespread hunger and even starvation CANNOT.be classified as defensive. Raping innocent women is NOT defensive. Murdering non-combatants, men, women and children alike, DOES NOT qualify as defense.
> 
> And yet Sherman and his merry little band of thieves, rapists and murderers were lauded by Lincoln as heroes.
> 
> Lincoln was a tyrant. Any claim to the contrary is total bull$#@!.


This reminds me of a bully who smacks a kid in the face and the kid beats the crap out of the bully leaving him in a pool of blood. Then the bully runs home to mama and complains about getting beat up. The Confederates committed their share of atrocities as well. 

Nobody is saying the war was good. I am pointing that it was Jefferson Davis's war of aggression. Davis could have ended the war at any time while Lincoln had no choice but to keep defending, as he swore an oath to do, until the aggressors were subdued. It took total war to end it, and even then, when Lee surrendered, Davis went for days trying to figure out how to keep fighting.

----------


## Travlyr

> That's really just superfluous nonsense, Travlyr.
> 
> The fact still remains that if Lincoln had allowed the South to secede from the Union, the *Civil War would not have happened*.  
> 
> But, Lincoln would have none of it.  Oh no, because the North benefited way too much financially by keeping the southern states captive and continuing to financially rape them.
> 
> 
> link


Right, if Lincoln would have just surrendered the Union the war that had been predicted for 87 years would have never happened. lol.

----------


## otherone

> You are using emotion generated by a picture to misrepresent why 75,000 militia members defended the Union. You misunderstand. Those 75,000 militia men were already defenders of the Union because they understood that enemies of liberty would use force to enslave them.


How is this statement different then ANY other time this government (or any other, for that matter) manipulates it's young men into dying for them?



ZOMG!!!!
PEARL HARBOR!
REMEMBER THE MAINE!
THE COMMIES!
THE GERMANS!
THE REBELS!
THE CARTELS!
TERRORISTS!
ROGUE NATIONS!
THE TEA PARTY!
ENLIST
ENLIST
ENLIST
ENLIST
ENLIST 

And I'm misrepresenting by using emotion?  War IS death, Trav.  All the ballyhoo and glory is deodorant designed to mask it's STENCH.

Here's an ACTUAL example of manipulation by emotion:



Never mind that Obama is the guy who ran a lawnmower over that chump's head.  But hey, "thumb's up, sucka".

----------


## pcosmar

> Yes, almost everyone understands that Jefferson Davis waged war on the Union and Lincoln was forced to defend it. The fact that you can't face the truth is your problem not theirs.
> 
> 
> .


No, Not hardly. And I am a Yank, born and raised.

Lincoln was no Hero, and not the demon he is made out to be.

I have no idea how much he was manipulated into that war by TPTB,, but I suspect it was considerable.

And it was his realization of that and his turning against them that got him killed.

The war was unpopular and should have never been started,, 

It was a bankers war (as they usually are) and the Bank profited from it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> This reminds me of a bully who smacks a kid in the face and the kid beats the crap out of the bully leaving him in a pool of blood. Then the bully runs home to mama and complains about getting beat up. The Confederates committed their share of atrocities as well. 
> 
> Nobody is saying the war was good. I am pointing that it was Jefferson Davis's war of aggression. Davis could have ended the war at any time while Lincoln had no choice but to keep defending, as he swore an oath to do, until the aggressors were subdued. It took total war to end it, and even then, when Lee surrendered, Davis went for days trying to figure out how to keep fighting.


Lincoln started the war.  He refused to let the South secede.  The Civil War would not have started if he had.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Right, if Lincoln would have just surrendered the Union the war that had been predicted for 87 years would have never happened. lol.


It had nothing to do with surrendering the Union.  That is complete BS.  The South wanted to be allowed to secede.  Lincoln wouldn't allow it!

----------


## thoughtomator

The key fallacy in the mainstream Civil War narrative is that Lincoln and the northern states actually wanted to end slavery. The bottom line is that the North was both willing and able to impose its will the South - and did so. How this imposition was not in and of itself a form of slavery - and worse - is something that the history books seem to gloss over. 

The northern states have always loved to go to war, and the South was simply the first of many to fall to its military dominance. Since then those same northern states have brought us into military interventions in over 100 nations. You look at their representatives - no matter whether they were of one party or another, they almost uniformly support going into every war possible. The problem here is threefold: Northern hyperaggression; the fact that they are good at winning wars; and the fact that winners write the history books.

Were the Southerners a bunch of angels? No. There's no getting around that slavery was a big deal for them, just read the pronouncements of each state as they seceded. Slavery is at the top of their priority list in every one of them. Would the story have been the same 10 years later as technology (cotton gin) conspired to make slavery economically unfeasible? We can't know, because that story was not allowed to unfold.

Often enough history is not a right party and a wrong party, but two wrong parties having at it with each other.

----------


## Travlyr

> No, Not hardly. And I am a Yank, born and raised.
> 
> Lincoln was no Hero, and not the demon he is made out to be.
> 
> *I have no idea how much he was manipulated into that war by TPTB,, but I suspect it was considerable.*
> 
> And it was his realization of that and his turning against them that got him killed.
> 
> The war was unpopular and should have never been started,, 
> ...


I don't believe that Lincoln was manipulated by the bankers at all. Other members of the Republican may have been, but Lincoln was his own man. Nobody ever told him what to do after he was emancipated from his father. He was duly elected as president, swore an oath to defend the Constitution, and that is exactly what he did. When the Confederate army headed to Washington to invade, Lincoln called up the militia to defend.

That is why I keep trying to get people to read the words he spoke throughout his life to learn who he was for themselves. Lincoln has to be one of the most misrepresented people in all of history. 
Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865

Lincoln never had harsh words for anyone, he was not a fighter, he was not afraid of a fight, but he was not an aggressor. He liked free markets, liberty, and he was a peaceful man. He wanted prosperity for everyone because he grew up in squalor and through hard work and determination overcame poverty. The Homestead Act of 1863 was passed with the specific intent of giving people some land where they could call home and carve out a life for themselves.

Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, I believe was constantly manipulated by the TPTB. 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.

----------


## Travlyr

> And the world loves us for it. Really Travlyr, that's some first class neo-con $#@! there.


The world loves us for spreading Democracy as forced on them by the Progressive Movement. That has nothing to do with Constitutional government.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The world loves us for spreading Democracy as forced on them by the Progressive Movement. That has nothing to do with Constitutional government.


Who needs Constitutional governance when as proved by Lincoln, and all of his war mongering successors, you can manipulate the public, declare a war, and do whatever the $#@! you want?

Such as, suspending Habeas Corpus.

And history will be generous to your antics. They'll justify how the "good outweighed the bad." They'll speak of the leader as conflicted. Or, as proven by certain particularly indoctrinated sheep, they'll worship the ground DL walked on.

----------


## Travlyr

> The key fallacy in the mainstream Civil War narrative is that Lincoln and the northern states actually wanted to end slavery. The bottom line is that the North was both willing and able to impose its will the South - and did so. How this imposition was not in and of itself a form of slavery - and worse - is something that the history books seem to gloss over. 
> 
> The northern states have always loved to go to war, and the South was simply the first of many to fall to its military dominance. Since then those same northern states have brought us into military interventions in over 100 nations. You look at their representatives - no matter whether they were of one party or another, they almost uniformly support going into every war possible. The problem here is threefold: Northern hyperaggression; the fact that they are good at winning wars; and the fact that winners write the history books.
> 
> Were the Southerners a bunch of angels? No. There's no getting around that slavery was a big deal for them, just read the pronouncements of each state as they seceded. Slavery is at the top of their priority list in every one of them. Would the story have been the same 10 years later as technology (cotton gin) conspired to make slavery economically unfeasible? We can't know, because that story was not allowed to unfold.
> 
> Often enough history is not a right party and a wrong party, but two wrong parties having at it with each other.


Lincoln did want to end slavery. He believed that slavery would eventually die out if it was not allowed to expand. The Knights of the Golden Circle, however, wanted to expand slavery radically. 




> Abraham Lincoln - September 11, 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.


The North was not trying to impose their will on the South. They were defending against invasion by the Confederacy. That is why Lincoln's mantra was "Save the Union."

----------


## Travlyr

> Who needs Constitutional governance when as proved by Lincoln, and all of his war mongering successors, you can manipulate the public, declare a war, and do whatever the $#@! you want?
> 
> Such as, suspending Habeas Corpus.
> 
> And history will be generous to your antics. They'll justify how the "good outweighed the bad." They'll speak of the leader as conflicted. Or, as proven by certain particularly indoctrinated sheep, they'll worship the ground DL walked on.


Lincoln did not declare war on the Confederates. Lincoln defended the Union against invasion by the Confederates. The lost cause lies will not pass muster in the age of the Internet.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Lincoln did not declare war on the Confederates. Lincoln defended the Union against invasion by the Confederates. The lost cause lies will not pass muster in the age of the Internet.


"Liars are loosers."

Go back to sleep.

----------


## Travlyr

> "Liars are loosers."
> 
> Go back to sleep.


Do you agree that 30,000 Confederate troops camped 30 miles from Washington until the first battle of Bull Run? Is that not aggression? Would that be allowed anywhere even today? Why didn't they just go home? Lincoln had stated that he would not aggress against them and everyone knew that Lincoln was a man of his word. They didn't go home because they wanted to invade. Don't you see that Jefferson Davis, a lifelong warmonger, wanted war?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> ...There were 750,000 more slaves in America in 1860 than there were in 1850. Slavery was not only not dying out, the slavers fully intended to expand it throughout the entire continent and they were willing to wage war to do it.


And today that would be the US Chamber of Commerce, fighting hard to import slaves. So much easier to just (barely) pay slaves instead of having to provide food, housing and medical care. Even better to force the mundane taxpayers to cover those costs!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Making total war upon a civilian population is NOT s defendive act.
> 
> Sherman's March, fully sanctioned by Lincoln, was IN NO WAY defensive. Stealing and destroying crops, causing widespread hunger and even starvation CANNOT.be classified as defensive. Raping innocent women is NOT defensive. Murdering non-combatants, men, women and children alike, DOES NOT qualify as defense.
> 
> And yet Sherman and his merry little band of thieves, rapists and murderers were lauded by Lincoln as heroes.
> 
> Lincoln was a tyrant. Any claim to the contrary is total bull$#@!.


Perhaps the inevitable progression from Marxism to tyranny?

----------


## Travlyr

> And today that would be the US Chamber of Commerce, fighting hard to import slaves. So much easier to just (barely) pay slaves instead of having to provide food, housing and medical care. Even better to force the mundane taxpayers to cover those costs!


I agree 100%. The slavers lost in 1865, but they won their power back with the Progressive movement. Once again most people have to live like slaves because liberty is only talked about not defended. 

Judge Napolitano: How Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson Destroyed Constitutional Freedom

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Do you agree that 30,000 Confederate troops camped 30 miles from Washington until the first battle of Bull Run? Is that not aggression? Would that be allowed anywhere even today? Why didn't they just go home? Lincoln had stated that he would not aggress against them and everyone knew that Lincoln was a man of his word. They didn't go home because they wanted to invade. Don't you see that Jefferson Davis, a lifelong warmonger, wanted war?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Who needs Constitutional governance when as proved by Lincoln, and all of his war mongering successors, you can manipulate the public, declare a war, and do whatever the $#@! you want?
> 
> Such as, suspending Habeas Corpus.
> 
> And history will be generous to your antics. They'll justify how the "good outweighed the bad." They'll speak of the leader as conflicted. Or, as proven by certain particularly indoctrinated sheep, they'll worship the ground DL walked on.


The lesson of Lincoln in today's America is that "the ends justify the means". It might as well be the first commandment of modern Marxist descendants, crony corporatists and tyrants everywhere.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Judge Andrew Napolitano, "Slavery was dying a natural death all over the Western world."


Travlyr, thanks for that post and accurate, entertaining summary of dialogue between Lincoln and the south.

One thing that stands out separate from that, supporting it, is Lincoln's 1859 speech and utterance of this, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts".  Which can only be Article V.  Meaning he was trying to get the states to settle it.  The only constitutional way to settle it without war and breaking up the union.

That message is deeply needed now, but there are elements seeking to make Americans afraid of their first constitutional right.

Now to the issue needing dynamic critical thought.  I will combine such with a fact not recorded well
In history that works with the rest of Lincoln's 1859 statement, "not to overthrow the constitution but to overthrow the men that would pervert the constitution".

The fact not recorded well in history is that England provided massive funding and an arms manufacturing industry to the north.  That fact was well kept from written history, but to confuse the issue, as arms manufacturers will, England openly also sold arms to the south.

At the time the shipping of the arms to the north was kept quite secret from the south, making it completely logical for them to think they would prevail in war.  Lincoln new the arms were coming, and that the English worked to entice Irish fighters to join the north.  Keeping the English out of the history in critical ways.

Ways which worked to enhance their control over America after the norths victory.

At this point another dynamic needs introduction.  It relates to the painful fact of brothers fighting each other on opposite sides of the war.  It relates to the ferocity and animus of the entire conflict.

This fact is perhaps as deeply buried on written history, or even existent by inference.

Plymouth Rock of written history was by no means the beginning of European settlement of America.  The Carribean and southern states had European populations starting in about 1150.

They were primarily French refugees from the crusades.  Seafaring traders and merchants which formed a society first recorded as "the brotherhood of the coast".  Their settlements by the time of Plymouth Rock had spread as far north as the Carolina's.  

Now, inherently the refugees of the crusades in the south, had religious differences with the Pilgrims to the north so did not help them and thereby integrate into written history.  However, the eventual joining of the union by the southern states had those difference secretly set aside.

Those differences still existed in the hearts and minds of both sides, but by that time were mutually removed from the known history of both sides.

Therein is the potential explanation for the murderous ferocity of our civil war which had brothers fighting each other.

And, perhaps joined in that is an explanation of why gov education propagated by the northern victors has failed to teach the facts of Article V, and the purpose of free speech.  Not to mention the fragmenting of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" from the First Amendment.

----------


## ProIndividual

Anyone who carries water for, makes excuses for, or looks up to Lincoln at this point is willfully ignorant, over-nostalgic, and/or a closeted statist. His speeches were like all other political speeches...bull$#@!. His private letters and such reveal what his actions betrayed...that he was a tyrant and didn't respect the Constitution at all. He violated it at every turn, and admitted his 'ends justifies the means' bull$#@! in many letters. The same people who overly celebrate the 4th of July as the founding of a free country (which can't persist if a state exists), are the same people who overly celebrate Lincoln. Most people take both for what they are...a consumer holiday and a deified politician.

There is no retro-fitting morals to Lincoln...his actions and private thoughts show his other words (public or private) were bull$#@!. Maybe if he just had killed all the witnesses to his darker side and destroyed all evidence of his writings about his true intentions and ideals...maybe then we could all worship him with wings on. Hail 'Merica, the Lincoln is with Thee...

The Union only existed because secession is a natural right (voluntary association and voluntary disassociation). The fact they were using that natural right to perpetuate a violation of other natural rights (like not being a $#@!ing chattel slave) isn't a logical, rational, and/or moral reason to deny that (first) right. That's simply an 'ends justify the means' argument. The right thing to do when one natural right is used to thwart another natural right (when the one being limited isn't creating a victim first) is to address the issue via self defense ONLY (not invasion and occupation of the $#@!ing South) and then ostracism.

Instead of watching slaves escape into the Northern nation from the Southern nation, with no Fugitive Slave Law between them to stop it, instead Lincoln basically caused a genocide-size problem and trampled natural rights of all kinds to solve the problem. Slavery was economically unsustainable...it would have ended in 10-20 years on its own anyways. Instead of killing what in today's population would be like 7-8 million Americans, and taking away their ability to make children, who would then never make grandchildren, and so on, Lincoln could have instead allowed slavery to last a bit longer, which would have reduced the human toll dramatically.

People act as if trading 700+ thousand lives to free a few million from slavery is a good trade. Neither is a great choice, but death is permanent, and slavery is not (even if you die a slave, your child is free). Had the slaves revolted, and the South tried to invade the North to stop the mass exodus north during the revolt, then war would have been self defensive. Lincoln had no concern for self defense (as evidenced by his writings, and thanks, to the man in charge for getting the South to fire the first shot via maneuvers designed to provoke them), nor did he have any concern for morals (especially slavery). He was a white supremacist and a tyrant...and he merely freed slaves to preserve his precious suicide compact (the Union). If the South would have seceded over a bag of donuts, Lincoln would have still tried to provoke a war and subsequent invasion and occupation.

Lincoln stood against the purest manifestation of the natural right of voluntary association that founded this country...secession (collective civil disobedience). He was against individual civil disobedience as well...except when he was practicing it to ignore the Constitution.

----------


## Carson

I was taught all through school that Abraham Lincoln was a great president.

Now I wonder if others came up with better solutions to slavery in other places through diplomacy.


I'm still haunted by my Grandmother saying that the war was about something else. She was saying that the slavery issue was invented after the war by the press.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I was taught all through school that Abraham Lincoln was a great president.
> 
> Now I wonder if others came up with better solutions to slavery in other places through diplomacy.
> 
> 
> I'm still haunted by my Grandmother saying that the war was about something else. She was saying that the slavery issue was invented after the war by the press.


I was taught the deified version too...and then I realized how bad schools are at teaching history in an objective way. I then read on my own, and noticed no other country in the Western Hemisphere required a Civil War to end slavery (most ended it when they won their independence from colonial power), and a majority of countries all over the world ended it peacefully. Only we and Haiti in the Western Hemisphere had a war about it (ours a Civil War, and theirs a revolution that grew out of a slave revolt). 

The Judge is right about the government buying and freeing the slaves too...it worked for a multitude of nations, and the aftermath was more peaceful and less racist than our attempt. Much of the racial strife we deal with and dealt with is directly related to the way slavery ended...the slave owners were never given an economic reason to surrender their slaves or beliefs, and instead were left without their slaves that they spent money on, and left with no remuneration when they were freed. Now, I say $#@! those dicks...but remuneration to slavers wasn't for the slavers...its stemmed the tide of massive widespread lynching (retaliatory measures and terrorism) and racism meant to maintain a social construct the slavers did not give up willingly. The ex-slaves in many other countries faced far less violence and ostracism than did the ex-slaves here, precisely because the slavers here felt robbed and wronged, and no attempt was made (beyond military force) to quiet them or their grievances.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

A question.  Do you know what your first constitutional right is that you can use?




> Anyone who carries water for, makes excuses for, or looks up to Lincoln at this point is willfully ignorant, over-nostalgic, and/or a closeted statist. His speeches were like all other political speeches...bull$#@!.


The second constitutional right you can use is Freedom of speech.  Do you know what its root definition of purpose is in the realm of natural law?

Accountability is vital in political discussion if progress is to be made.  Of course perceptions of the past are important in order to know the conditions of the present and how they arrived.

----------


## ProIndividual

> A question.  Do you know what your first constitutional right is that you can use?
> 
> 
> 
> The second constitutional right you can use is Freedom of speech.  Do you know what its root definition of purpose is in the realm of natural law?
> 
> Accountability is vital in political discussion if progress is to be made.  Of course perceptions of the past are important in order to know the conditions of the present and how they arrived.


1. I don't actually believe in "rights". Only natural law and natural rights people believe in those things. Utilitarians don't, and either do I (my theory in ethics is not utilitarianism, but it also views rights as made-up concepts to describe sacrosanct aspects of individual autonomy/sovereignty). That said, I can speak in the language of rights, and often do, as the majority of people are deontological ethics believers, not consequentialists (or circumstantialists, like me).

2. There is no such thing as constitutional rights. The state doesn't grant or invent those rights, nor can it repeal them justly. Those rights are merely constitutionally protected (and it does a $#@! job at it). They are natural rights, if you will, and thereby are yours by virtue of being a human individual capable of consent and not a victimizer of others.

3. I'm not sure what that has to do with Lincoln lying in political speeches, like most of the jerks with personality disorders we elect (or who lose the elections). I wasn't arguing for or against any freedom of speech (although I'm clearly for it). I was just pointing out the cult of Lincoln is pervasive, and some here are in it. The man's private writings betrayed what his actions did...that he was tyrant, white supremacist, and mentally ill individual. 

4. You're right in your main points though. Accountability is vital in political discourse if we are to make any progress as a society....hence we should hold Lincoln accountable, not deify the freak.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> 1. I don't actually believe in "rights"..


Your lack of sincerity towards accountability by not answering the question means there is no point in discussion about constitutional defense.  You can't do it.  Might not want to.

----------

