Obama As The New Lincoln

[bruce leeroy]

I misread this thread, I thought barak went and got himself a new lincoln!

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

If you were me and I were you, then you'd be me and I'd be you

Maybe he will slaughter 600,000 Americans too. We have so much to look forward too.

As a Texan, I don't have to travel north to arrive at the Truth declared by my Founding Fathers. One can never be defeated by this Truth, but is always victorious. Lincoln is great not as a Founder but as an American philosopher because he recaptured lightening in a bottle by leading the people back to revere their Founding Fathers and the signatures that they signed making them accountable under God's judgement.

 

[Aratus]

luv, correct me if i am wrong, however if barack obama does not go into iran in a very militaristic way, we all will be
spared a war in the next decade that could equal the million souls our long & bloody awful civil war had snuffed out.

 

[Bucjason]

The big difference between these 2 presidents is that Abe Lincoln did not go to DC to fundamentally change things. His policy developed as armed conflict was going on. The slavery issue was something to develope as a political necessity for him.

This is completly false. Lincoln had a long record as being anti-slavery long before he even took office . It is documented, and he gave many speeches on the subject before coming to Washington.

This is precisely why the south freaked out, and the majority of the southern states seceded before he was even INAUGARATED ! Then, they proceeded to fire the 1st shot on Fort Sumter, which was Federal property . "War of Northern aggression" my ass, LOL.

It had everything to do with slavery . To Deny this is to ignore history:

"The prevailing ideas entertained by ... most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time.

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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 moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

-Alexander Stephens , Vice President of the Confederacy


Get serious people. The love for the Confederacy on this board makes me SICK...

 

[libertyjam]

This is completly false. Lincoln had a long record as being anti-slavery long before he even took office . It is documented, and he gave many speeches on the subject before coming to Washington.

This is precisely why the south freaked out, and the majority of the southern states seceded before he was even INAUGARATED ! Then, they proceeded to fire the 1st shot on Fort Sumter, which was Federal property . "War of Northern aggression" my ass, LOL.

It had everything to do with slavery . To Deny this is to ignore history:

"The prevailing ideas entertained by ... most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time.

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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 moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

-Alexander Stephens , Vice President of the Confederacy


Get serious people. The love for the Confederacy on this board makes me SICK...

While Lincoln was opposed to the expansion of slavery he was also anti-abolitionist in his years leading up to the white house. Read the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 and reference Lincoln's first inaugural address and various quotes where it can be seen that his stated opinion was not much different from that of Stephens as you quoted. There are also several good books on the subject.

 

[Matt Collins]

Someone needs a history lesson.

This is completly false. Lincoln had a long record as being anti-slavery long before he even took office . It is documented, and he gave many speeches on the subject before coming to Washington.

Lincoln said "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."

they proceeded to fire the 1st shot on Fort Sumter, which was Federal property .

The Union Army was illegally occupying and invading a sovereign country at that point in time which is an act of war against South Carolina / CSA. They had every right to repel the invaders / occupiers.

It had everything to do with slavery . To Deny this is to ignore history:

It wasn't about slavery, it was about federal encroachment upon State governments. Slavery happened to be the catalyst.

"The prevailing ideas entertained by ... most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time.

Absolutely. If they had dealt with it in 1780 then there would've been no conflict midway through the next century. The problem is that they wanted the Union more than they wanted to abolish slavery and the political situation at the time was such that both were not feasible unfortunately.

Get serious people. The love for the Confederacy on this board makes me SICK...

You do realize that Lincoln was a racist and that many Northerners had discriminatory practices too, right?

No one is defending slavery at all, I don't think there is a single person alive in the US today who could legitimately defend that abhorrent and despicable institution. However the People have a right to secede from their political ties if they should so choose. And yes the slaves also had a right to overthrow their masters at first opportunity because slavery did indeed violate their natural rights. In a similar manner the US federal government was violating the rights of Southerners as well, although in a much different capacity obviously. It is not ok to violate one's rights in order to secure the rights of another, especially in the way it was executed in the 1860's. All slave owners were tyrannical by default, but so was the federal government as the result of its actions. Neither however should be elevated to a moral high ground for their actions.


Please read some history before you spout off on things of which you are ignorant. The Mises Institute (specifically Tom Woods and DiLorenzo) have some excellent articles and lectures on precisely this subject. Kevin Gutzman and HW Crocker and Clint Johnson some books out too.


.

 

[Erazmus]

The Mises Institute (specifically Tom Woods and DiLorenzo) have some excellent articles and lectures on precisely this subject. Kevin Gutzman and HW Crocker and Clint Johnson some books out too.
.

Don't forget Napolitano!
http://www.amazon.com/Dred-Scotts-Revenge-History-Freedom/dp/1595552650/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269556081&sr=8-3#noop

 

[Bucjason]

Matt ...you are wrong about Lincoln being a racist . I've already explained his positions in length in the "which Lincoln book" thread . I even used your exact same qoute as proof that Lincoln had no intention of encroaching on the states rights .He was against slavery , but his only immediate goal was to stop it's expansion into the NEW territories , and let the rest of it slowly die . The South could not accept this.

The ironic thing is that Alexander Stephens was against the secession before he became the vice president of the Confederacy , and he even admitted they had no JUST reason to secede:

"We have had sixty years Southern presidents to thier twenty-four, thus controlling the executive department. So of the judges of the supreme court, we have had 18 from the south and but 11 from the north... What reason can you give to the nations of the Earth to justify it ? (secession) What right has the North assailed? What interest of the SOuth has been invaded? What justice has been denied ? And what claim founded in justice and right has been withheld? "
- Alexander Stephens , on the floor of the State Convention in Georgia- 1861.

It was ALL about slavery . I know this because I've researched it , but apparently the extinct of all your research has been one anti-lincoln book.

You are also wrong to claim a state can secede for any reason it wants . This is false. When you have a Union that is a republic , you can not secede just because you lose a free election. This is what the South did. Lincoln did not encroach on thier rights, becuase he hadn't even taken office yet. They seceded simply because they lost the election. If you have a Republic that can't even sustain itself after one of it's free elections , you don't have a Republic at all . You have anarchy.

But let's look at it even closer, in case you aren't a philosophical guy , and only want to go by actual text in the Constitution and historical facts :

The dual soverignty James Madison spoke of in the federalist papers. He said our government is "both federal and national" . Federal is in the original sense of the word meaning soveriegn nations joined together in alliance through treaties. The Articles were only Federal. This means when the states signed on to the new government , they gave up some of thier soveriegnty to the Union. We have DUAL soveriegnty , and are responsible to both under the compact. This responsibility can't be breached unless natural rights are being violated, or the rules of the compact ITSELF are violated.

Although all these states are supposedly completely sovereign , it only took 9 states to ratify the constituion. ( Rhode Island was basically strong-armed into the deal against thier will)

Article 4 section 4: Section 4.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. "
I think when you are denying 4 million slaves any representation at all , it is safe to say you do not have a republican form of government.

The supremacy clause:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Not to mention the suspension clause:

"Clause 2. 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."
rebellion ?? oops !! How did that word get in there if secession is legal ?

The fact is there is no right of secession . There is however a right of revolution, according to Thomas Jefferson . This can only be applied however in a case in which natural rights of life , liberty , and pursuit of hapiness are being obstructed .

Believe it or not , this is the SHORT version of my opinion on this topic. I've tried to explain it to you confederate apologists until I'm blue in the face , but all I get is the same talking points back. Apparently you've all read the same stupid anti-lincoln book...

 

[andrewh817]

It's funny because statists would consider this a compliment, while free thinkers consider this one of the worst insults.

 

[Matt Collins]

Matt ...you are wrong about Lincoln being a racist . I've already explained his positions in length in the "which Lincoln book" thread . I even used your exact same qoute as proof that Lincoln had no intention of encroaching on the states rights .He was against slavery , but his only immediate goal was to stop it's expansion into the NEW territories , and let the rest of it slowly die . The South could not accept this.

Then why did he violate the Constitution and launch an invasion into another country illegally and immorally?

The ironic thing is that Alexander Stephens was against the secession before he became the vice president of the Confederacy , and he even admitted they had no JUST reason to secede:

"We have had sixty years Southern presidents to thier twenty-four, thus controlling the executive department. So of the judges of the supreme court, we have had 18 from the south and but 11 from the north... What reason can you give to the nations of the Earth to justify it ? (secession)

Because neither of which make law, only Congress does.

You are also wrong to claim a state can secede for any reason it wants . This is false. When you have a Union that is a republic , you can not secede just because you lose a free election. This is what the South did. Lincoln did not encroach on thier rights, becuase he hadn't even taken office yet. They seceded simply because they lost the election. If you have a Republic that can't even sustain itself after one of it's free elections , you don't have a Republic at all . You have anarchy.

You obviously don't know what the definition of anarchy is.

And yes States freely entered the Union, that means they can freely exit the Union too.

This means when the states signed on to the new government , they gave up some of thier soveriegnty to the Union. We have DUAL soveriegnty , and are responsible to both under the compact. This responsibility can't be breached unless natural rights are being violated, or the rules of the compact ITSELF are violated.

Incorrect. They delegated some powers to the federal government, but nowhere did they cede their sovereignty.

The supremacy clause:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

Of course. Except that once the South had exited it was no longer part of the same land, nor was it subject to the US Constitution.

"Clause 2. 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."
rebellion ?? oops !! How did that word get in there if secession is legal ?

Rebellion and secession are not one in the same. They have different definitions.

The fact is there is no right of secession .

The colonists obviously ceded from the British government.

There is however a right of revolution, according to Thomas Jefferson . This can only be applied however in a case in which natural rights of life , liberty , and pursuit of hapiness are being obstructed .

If a government is oppressive then it's one's right to abolish, alter, overthrow, or remove oneself from it's jurisdiction.

Believe it or not , this is the SHORT version of my opinion on this topic. I've tried to explain it to you confederate apologists until I'm blue in the face , but all I get is the same talking points back. Apparently you've all read the same stupid anti-lincoln book...

I've actually read several books on the subject with more in queue and I have also listened to many lectures and historians. What are your qualifications? Where do you live? Where are you from?

 

[Bucjason]

Matty Matty Matty...you are not a lover of liberty , you are a lover of "states rights" ... and there is a huge difference.

"In what consists the special sacredness of a State ? I speak not of the position assigned to a State in the Union by the Constitution, for that by the bond we all recognize. That position, however, a State can not carry out of the Union with it. I speak of that assumed primary right of a State to rule all which is less than itself, and to ruin all which is larger than itself. If a State and a county, in a given case, should be equal to extent of territory, and equal in number of inhabitants, in what, as a matter of principle, is the State better than the county? Would an exchange of names be an exchange of rights? Upon principle, on what rightful principle, may a State, being no more than one-fiftieth part of the nation in soil and population, break up the nation, and then coerce a proportionably larger subdivision of itself in the most arbitrary way? What mysterious right to play tyrant is conferred on a district of country with its people by merely calling it a State ? Fellow-citizens, I am not asserting any thing. I am merely asking questions for you to consider."
- Abraham Lincoln , Indianpolis-1861

"Man...must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator... This will of his Maker is called the law of nature... This law of nature...is of course superior to any other... No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force...from this original."
- Thomas Jefferson


Keep studying my friend . One day you will understand what the greats once did...that NOTHING overules that natural right of soveriegnty of the INDIVIDUAL - certainly not a state.

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

3 million, inflation adjusted

lol good god.

May I present, the King Lincoln Archive. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html

 

[KCIndy]

Keep studying my friend . One day you will understand what the greats once did...that NOTHING overules that natural right of soveriegnty of the INDIVIDUAL - certainly not a state.

Sounds great in theory. Too bad there's never been a time in recorded human history when a s/State couldn't simply move in and kick the crap out of any particular individual it wished.

 

[Matt Collins]

Matty Matty Matty...you are not a lover of liberty , you are a lover of "states rights" ... and there is a huge difference.

Bad assumption. States don't have rights, only individuals do. States have delegated (or usurped) powers.

"In what consists the special sacredness of a State ? I speak not of the position assigned to a State in the Union by the Constitution, for that by the bond we all recognize. That position, however, a State can not carry out of the Union with it. I speak of that assumed primary right of a State to rule all which is less than itself, and to ruin all which is larger than itself. If a State and a county, in a given case, should be equal to extent of territory, and equal in number of inhabitants, in what, as a matter of principle, is the State better than the county? Would an exchange of names be an exchange of rights? Upon principle, on what rightful principle, may a State, being no more than one-fiftieth part of the nation in soil and population, break up the nation, and then coerce a proportionably larger subdivision of itself in the most arbitrary way? What mysterious right to play tyrant is conferred on a district of country with its people by merely calling it a State ? Fellow-citizens, I am not asserting any thing. I am merely asking questions for you to consider."
- Abraham Lincoln , Indianpolis-1861

Lincoln was either a liar or an idiot here. Remember the States created the federal government freely, not the other way around. Also each State was independent and sovereign before the Union came to being and they never abdicated their independence or sovereignty. A few powers were delegated, but again, they still remained independent. And when one freely enters a contract one can freely exit a contract. This Constitution does not say that the States are bound in perpetuity.

"Man...must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator... This will of his Maker is called the law of nature... This law of nature...is of course superior to any other... No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force...from this original."
- Thomas Jefferson

I completely agree with this and any law that is unjust is no law at all. Slavery was completely unjust and the slaves had every right to revolt or overthrow their masters.

One day you will understand what the greats once did...that NOTHING overules that natural right of soveriegnty of the INDIVIDUAL - certainly not a state.

I never said it did, quit trying to put words in my mouth


Good try though.

.

 

[torchbearer]

Didn't lincoln get assassinated?
not sure if I'd want his legacy.

 

[SociallyRenderedImage]

Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus, illegally raised a military and invaded a state, kidnapped politicians and held them for ransom, arrested peace democrats to prevent their affect on the political process and conveniently referred to the south as both rebellious and cessationist when it suited his cosmopolitan law. He did all of this under the banner of human rights...

My guess is that Obama is more covert. The oligarchy has learned that overt behavior emboldens opposition, Glenn Beck is there to take possession of the rhetoric and opposition and ensure nothing comes of it. So in a conniving sense, he is a bit smarter than Lincoln.

 

[Bucjason]

Lincoln was either a liar or an idiot here. Remember the States created the federal government freely, not the other way around. Also each State was independent and sovereign before the Union came to being and they never abdicated their independence or sovereignty. A few powers were delegated, but again, they still remained independent. And when one freely enters a contract one can freely exit a contract. This Constitution does not say that the States are bound in perpetuity.




.

Actually, the states 1st declaration of sovereignty from Great Britian was declared as a UNION. No single state would have ever had the power to gain it's independence without the help of the other . The 1st line of the Declaration of Independence says, " The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen UNITED States of America ". There would be NO independence without the Union, and for that we have a responsibility to each other. The 13 states formed a compact, which is the same as the "contract" you mention , and a contract cannot be broken without just cause.( I can't believe you would suggest otherwise) That is what we call the rule of law. No violation of the contract took place because of Lincoln's election. He was elected using the rules laid out in the agreement for electing the executive- ratified by every state.. That is NOT grounds for secession ! Even Alexander Stephens , the Vice President of the Condefederacy , admitted this in the Georgia debates for secession, which I posted a qoute for you to read. The only grounds for a just revolution were laid out in clear terms in our own Declaration of Independence:
"that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it "
None of these natural rights were violated because Lincoln was elected. The south was claiming it's right to abolish, but ignoring the PREMISIS for it !

You claim Lincoln is an idiot , but you never answered his question. What makes a "state" this magically powerful soveriegn that ALONE has the right to be tyrants and/or enslave people , while no one else can?? What makes them better than a single county inside that state, or even a single citizen?? What gave the state of Masschusetts the right to put down Shay's Rebellion, for example , while no other body freely entered in the SAME national compact has the right ?? What you ask for is the recipe for anarchy.
"Our popular government has often been called an expierment. Two points in it our people have already settled - the sucessful establishing and the sucessful administering of it. One still remains -That ballots are the rightful and peaceful succesors of bullets: and that when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no sucessful appeal except to ballots themselves; at suceeding elections"
-Abraham Lincoln.

Let me leave you with another qoute from Jefferson. This is from an letter he wrote from paris during the Constitutional Convention:

" It has been said so often said, as to be generally believed, that Congress have no power by the confederation to enforce anything , e.g. contributions of money. It was not necessary to give them that power expressly: they have it by the law of nature. When two nations make a compact, there results to each a power of compelling the other to execute it. "
-Thomas Jefferson

 

[Bucjason]

Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus.

Article 1 section 9 of the constitution:

"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.

 

[Bucjason]

Incorrect. They delegated some powers to the federal government, but nowhere did they cede their sovereignty.

Oh ...and I had to comment on this ridiculous statement also. Apparently you've never read much James madison ( who by the way pretty much wrote the entire thing).

James Madison 1st said the country was both "national and federal" , not me.
It's obvious simply by studying it . Under the Articles there was no true national government in place. The Constitution created one. When you cede away many of your powers to another body , you are automatically giving up some of your sovereighty .

For Example : When you sign a document that contains Article VI clause 2 , which says:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

...how, after willingly ratififying that ( among other things) , can you claim you are not voluntarily giving up some soveriengty and taking on the DUAL soveriengty that Madison suggested?? LOL

 

[Bucjason]

I completely agree with this and any law that is unjust is no law at all. Slavery was completely unjust and the slaves had every right to revolt or overthrow their masters.


.

nice ... so you are admitting that no state has the soveriegn right to enslave you ??

You have proved my point . It matters not who frees you at this point. Your cause would still be just.

So you can realize how ridiculous your argument is, let me summarize it for you:
An "unjust law is no law at all ", but it is UNLAWFUL for anyone to free you from this non-existing law except yourself, because that law is sovereign.
-Matt Collins

What ??! You are being totally incoherent.