Abe Lincoln

[nate895]

I think Dr. Paul needs to address this Abe Lincoln thing.

He has done it satisfactory for me. He doesn't like him, neither do I.

 

[0zzy]

I think Dr. Paul needs to address this Abe Lincoln thing.

Ron Paul believes in States' Rights, as did Jefferson and most of the founding fathers. They believed people could peacefully leave the Union if they felt that their rights were violated.

Lincoln believed he was above the Constitution. He defied Supreme Court Justices when they said he couldn't suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Instead of a peaceful solution of ending slavery he decided hundreds of thousands of deaths (including women and children) was the answer. He stated publicly that if he could save the Union with slavery he would (or without it). He was a white supremacist who didn't believe African-Americans had the same rights as Americans and believed they should have been shipped to Africa (so the War, again, was to "save the union").

etc.

 

[sratiug]

Sounds like you haven't really read any books on Lincoln or the Civil War. Again this is a stupid quote to prove your any point. This is a very subjective interpretation of what Lincoln meant. Hell for all we know he could have meant most slaves would be happy going back to live in their continent of Africa where they came from.

I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.

Lincoln in his speech to Charleston, Illinois, 1858

 

[sratiug]

Sounds like you haven't really read any books on Lincoln or the Civil War. Again this is a stupid quote to prove your any point. This is a very subjective interpretation of what Lincoln meant. Hell for all we know he could have meant most slaves would be happy going back to live in their continent of Africa where they came from.

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.

Lincoln's Inaugural Address

We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North and become tip-top abolitionists, while some Northern Men go South and become most cruel masters.
When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter.

I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.

The point the Republican party wanted to stress was to oppose making slave States out of the newly acquired territory, not abolishing slavery as it then existed.

Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Old movements of the past become legal precedents that threaten the Union.

Ron Paul believes in States' Rights, as did Jefferson and most of the founding fathers.

After American movements served their purpose by creating agendas to reestablish and strengthen the Constitution, the measures aged quickly to become out dated legal precedents that endangerd the Constitution. As the 2 party system worked for a time in favor of the people, so did States' Rights, the Whig Party, the creation of a robber baron economy, the American movement called transcendentalism, Unions, New Deal Economics, the Civil Rights movement, amongst others. These assorted movements of the past need constant refurbishment into becoming parts of a fresh new movement, rather than their being reused as old, can - of - worms legal precedents as was the case during the false movements of the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations when they dug up old, can-of-worm legal precedents from the Civil Rights and Reagan years respectively.

They believed people could peacefully leave the Union if they felt that their rights were violated.

Why would one leave a system of "self evident" truths written "inalienable" on the conscience of every human soul? Just because a portion of a nation leaves peacefully doesn't mean that it won't have to suffer being subjected to that nation later on economically speaking -- as Mexico is subjected to the economy of the United States.
The Africans in Western Africa lived peacefully together within their primitive caste systems with the master and slave classes sitting at different dinner tables. The problems with such tribalism though is that each chief in each caste system fought with the others for control. This fighting would devalue each member of the slave class if they were captured by the opposing tribe to become slaves to the slaves and untouchables or outcastes to the master class.
So, these old primitive caste systems in which our ancestors governed themselves were quite peaceful internally with the master and the slave sitting at different dinner tables.
The Civil Purpose of our "positive" constitutional government was to bring us all together to sit at the dinner table. Such a government is constantly under pressure even to the piont of violence because such Democracies when deceived by tyranny erode naturally back to the old caste system.

Lincoln believed he was above the Constitution.

President Lincoln didn't expand Presidential powers beyond the Constitution but above the paradoxical precedents set by President George Washington. As the Administrative part of the 3 branches was created by our founding fathers to be a powerful position, the greatness of George Washington was that he didn't desire to expand those powers. So, Abraham Lincoln, America's equivalent to Gandhi, expanded Presidential powers to keep the master and slave classes sitting at the same dinner table.

He defied Supreme Court Justices when they said he couldn't suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

The Supreme Court Justices defined themselves when they began sitting over the Constitutionality of laws. Before then they started off just writing Writs of Mandimus. The way the President and Congress can keep the Supreme Court from making judgements that keep us all from sitting at the dinner table is to
control the limits of their numbers. The fact that the Supreme Court has 9 members and sits over in judgement of the Constitutionality of laws are just legal precedents that have been set. If it were decided that the best interests of the people would be best served by expanding the numbers of the Supreme Court to 500 members, so be it. It is my feeling that the Supreme Court would function better for the people if they would adopt a new legal precedent of judging only over matters dealing with the Civil Purpose of Constitution -- the agenda to sit master and slave at the same dinner table. the Constitution that the master and slave sit at the same dinner table, so be it.

Instead of a peaceful solution of ending slavery he decided hundreds of thousands of deaths (including women and children) was the answer.

We would rather live violently as Americans while sitting at the same dinner table than live peacefully as masters and slaves eating at seperate tables. This is the "self evident" and "inalienable" Civil Purpose in the Constitution. Talks of legal precedents, mindless liberty & freedom and the spread of world wide Democracy has only served to get our nation into places like Vietnam and Iraq.

He stated publicly that if he could save the Union with slavery he would (or without it). He was a white supremacist who didn't believe African-Americans had the same rights as Americans and believed they should have been shipped to Africa (so the War, again, was to "save the union").

The enslaved Africans brought to and sold into freedom in America were more racist than the white people who bought them as property. They were either owned as property or treated even less as captive property by tribes who later sold them for as little as 12 souls for a single horse.
To ideally sit the master class and the slave class down together at the same dinner table requires the painful process of both freeing the slave and binding the master. The process we tend to ignore is the part about binding the master. The southern plantation owners did lose their wealth during the Civil War as did the robber barons who were later propped up by the government to create new industries. These robber barons lost wealth to the "New Deal" economic measures set up by FDR during the Great Depression. Unions and the Civil Rights movement also worked to keep the middle of the dinner table from eroding away into seperate master and slave classes in our society.