Nuff said.
Posted on 09/27/2010 1:27:31 PM PDT by RandysRight
This article gives another perspective on liberals, libertarians and conservatives. The history both Lincoln and Sherman has been written by the victors and beyond reproach. Do we want to restore honor in this country? Can we restore honor by bringing up subjects over 100 years old? Comments are encouraged.
Randy's Right aka Randy Dye NC Freedom
The American Lenin by L. Neil Smith lneil@lneilsmith.org
It’s harder and harder these days to tell a liberal from a conservative — given the former category’s increasingly blatant hostility toward the First Amendment, and the latter’s prissy new disdain for the Second Amendment — but it’s still easy to tell a liberal from a libertarian.
Just ask about either Amendment.
If what you get back is a spirited defense of the ideas of this country’s Founding Fathers, what you’ve got is a libertarian. By shameful default, libertarians have become America’s last and only reliable stewards of the Bill of Rights.
But if — and this usually seems a bit more difficult to most people — you’d like to know whether an individual is a libertarian or a conservative, ask about Abraham Lincoln.
Suppose a woman — with plenty of personal faults herself, let that be stipulated — desired to leave her husband: partly because he made a regular practice, in order to go out and get drunk, of stealing money she had earned herself by raising chickens or taking in laundry; and partly because he’d already demonstrated a proclivity for domestic violence the first time she’d complained about his stealing.
Now, when he stood in the doorway and beat her to a bloody pulp to keep her home, would we memorialize him as a hero? Or would we treat him like a dangerous lunatic who should be locked up, if for no other reason, then for trying to maintain the appearance of a relationship where there wasn’t a relationship any more? What value, we would ask, does he find in continuing to possess her in an involuntary association, when her heart and mind had left him long ago?
History tells us that Lincoln was a politically ambitious lawyer who eagerly prostituted himself to northern industrialists who were unwilling to pay world prices for their raw materials and who, rather than practice real capitalism, enlisted brute government force — “sell to us at our price or pay a fine that’ll put you out of business” — for dealing with uncooperative southern suppliers. That’s what a tariff’s all about. In support of this “noble principle”, when southerners demonstrated what amounted to no more than token resistance, Lincoln permitted an internal war to begin that butchered more Americans than all of this country’s foreign wars — before or afterward — rolled into one.
Lincoln saw the introduction of total war on the American continent — indiscriminate mass slaughter and destruction without regard to age, gender, or combat status of the victims — and oversaw the systematic shelling and burning of entire cities for strategic and tactical purposes. For the same purposes, Lincoln declared, rather late in the war, that black slaves were now free in the south — where he had no effective jurisdiction — while declaring at the same time, somewhat more quietly but for the record nonetheless, that if maintaining slavery could have won his war for him, he’d have done that, instead.
The fact is, Lincoln didn’t abolish slavery at all, he nationalized it, imposing income taxation and military conscription upon what had been a free country before he took over — income taxation and military conscription to which newly “freed” blacks soon found themselves subjected right alongside newly-enslaved whites. If the civil war was truly fought against slavery — a dubious, “politically correct” assertion with no historical evidence to back it up — then clearly, slavery won.
Lincoln brought secret police to America, along with the traditional midnight “knock on the door”, illegally suspending the Bill of Rights and, like the Latin America dictators he anticipated, “disappearing” thousands in the north whose only crime was that they disagreed with him. To finance his crimes against humanity, Lincoln allowed the printing of worthless paper money in unprecedented volumes, ultimately plunging America into a long, grim depression — in the south, it lasted half a century — he didn’t have to live through, himself.
In the end, Lincoln didn’t unite this country — that can’t be done by force — he divided it along lines of an unspeakably ugly hatred and resentment that continue to exist almost a century and a half after they were drawn. If Lincoln could have been put on trial in Nuremburg for war crimes, he’d have received the same sentence as the highest-ranking Nazis.
If libertarians ran things, they’d melt all the Lincoln pennies, shred all the Lincoln fives, take a wrecking ball to the Lincoln Memorial, and consider erecting monuments to John Wilkes Booth. Libertarians know Lincoln as the worst President America has ever had to suffer, with Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson running a distant second, third, and fourth.
Conservatives, on the other hand, adore Lincoln, publicly admire his methods, and revere him as the best President America ever had. One wonders: is this because they’d like to do, all over again, all of the things Lincoln did to the American people? Judging from their taste for executions as a substitute for individual self-defense, their penchant for putting people behind bars — more than any other country in the world, per capita, no matter how poorly it works to reduce crime — and the bitter distaste they display for Constitutional “technicalities” like the exclusionary rule, which are all that keep America from becoming the world’s largest banana republic, one is well-justified in wondering.
The troubling truth is that, more than anybody else’s, Abraham Lincoln’s career resembles and foreshadows that of V.I. Lenin, who, with somewhat better technology at his disposal, slaughtered millions of innocents — rather than mere hundreds of thousands — to enforce an impossibly stupid idea which, in the end, like forced association, was proven by history to be a resounding failure. Abraham Lincoln was America’s Lenin, and when America has finally absorbed that painful but illuminating truth, it will finally have begun to recover from the War between the States.
Source: John Ainsworth
http://www.americasremedy.com/
There was no Southern rebellion.
Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Jay and a few others would have understood secession since they did the very same thing from England.
You guys can argue all day long about slavery and the need to hold the Union together, but what it always comes down to, and why so many hundreds of thousands died, is because the Southern States believed they had the right to secession from on over-bearing northern centralized government and form "a more perfect union" once again.
Google Thomas Jefferson quotes if you want more about the right of man to dis-establish tyrannical governments.
If you look at modern day States' Rights and their legislative resolutions/laws, State constitutional amendments, and numerous lawsuits against the Fedgov regarding obamacare and illegal immigration, it is very similar to the Southern States fighting for their rights back in the 1800's. Slavery was obscene and we all give kudos to Lincoln for making that an issue. However, the "civil war" was actually more about the economics of the North and the South, and how the North kept dictating to the South. What is the noun for the verb "dictating"? It is dictator.
Once again, STATES' RIGHTS are at the forefront for restoring our Constitutional Heritage. The Fedgov must go down in the trash heap of history.
Long live the 9th and 10 Amendments!!!
No it doesn’t. Not even close. Weak example. Sorry.
Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Jay and a few others would have understood secession since they did the very same thing from England.
You guys can argue all day long about slavery and the need to hold the Union together, but what it always comes down to, and why so many hundreds of thousands died, is because the Southern States believed they had the right to secession from on over-bearing northern centralized government and form "a more perfect union" once again.
Google Thomas Jefferson quotes if you want more about the right of man to dis-establish tyrannical governments.
If you look at modern day States' Rights and their legislative resolutions/laws, State constitutional amendments, and numerous lawsuits against the Fedgov regarding obamacare and illegal immigration, it is very similar to the Southern States fighting for their rights back in the 1800's.
Slavery was obscene and we all give kudos to Lincoln for making that an issue. However, the "civil war" was actually more about the economics of the North and the South, and how the North kept dictating to the South. What is the noun for the verb "dictating"? It is dictator.
Once again, STATES' RIGHTS are at the forefront for restoring our Constitutional Heritage. The Fedgov must go down in the trash heap of history.
Long live the 9th and 10 Amendments!!!
Good stuff. Thank you.
Um, what was I saying?
Hey Non, long time no see. Remember this old thread on this subject?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1898013/posts
Some words have totally become defined by spans of time in which specific events take place. Now long ago there was a time period wherein a land called Egypt held slaves. AND if one reads the account as provided what constituted ‘slavery’ in that time period mimics darn near spot on what has come to be in this nation.... And ‘the people’ voted for ‘government’ owning us and our property.
Anyone out there think for one moment that when you pay the banker for your mortgage that you own your property???? NO, we the people have hired for ourselves lords and ladies with the notions and ideas they are our modern day task masters that own US. Lincoln did not start this nor did he end the timeless idea that one person could have ownership over another human being.
A Lincoln Ping. What we were talking about yesterday during history.
Actually, I am one of those Freepers that have been here over 10 years and I don’t call non-seq “squirter troll”. I stay off the civil war threads—have seen non-seq on some contemporary threads, and seen some of non-seqs voluminous responses in the latest posts preview. Non-seq has encyclopedic knowledge about the civil war...but I could tell it was one-sided...however, IN THIS THREAD, I felt that non-seqs responses to me were reasoned and polite enough, hence I did not respond like I would to a troll.
I’m not here to criticize—I’m here to post my opinions, read other peoples, find information and work on critical analysis skills. If someone else has a different agenda, so be it. But I won’t call someone a troll who hasn’t acted like one in a reasoned discussion. Perhaps non-seq has with you (as I said, I really don’t post on the civil war threads) and your opinion is valid...I just haven’t seen it in this thread. (Not from non-seq...thebigIF on the other hand.....)
My posts may be a little strong headed and and unkind to libertarians but this thread itself made itself an attack itself on conservatives by libertarians in the OP. It also went way over the top with it’s praise for a political assassin as well.
And there is nothing wrong with my observations about the connections between libertarians and the Marxist progressive movement. Libertarians have marched side by side with Marxists during the counter-culture movement and again today during the war against terrorism and dictatorships as well. Libertarians are also known to side with progressive Marxists on issues such as homosexulity rights, prostitution as a right, the right of drug dealers, etc.....
This thread likes to make the claim that libertarians are more in line with the Founders and yet their legacy is one of being more in line with the progressive movement. Is it a coincidence that the KKK was formed by Confederate soldiers and then later championed by the progressive movement? Same political party even. Same disdain for the Constitution as well.
Conservatives generally seek to uphold and conserve the Constitution but for the Confederates, the progressives, and other radical left-wing types are always talking about revolting. The libertarians and progressives use revolution and rebellion time and time again throughout their history as being their aim.
Then why is there a whole section limiting the power of the states in it?
2)Name another war where it's happened on this scale in the US
Name another rebellion the U.S. has gone through.
3)Sorry, was placed under martial law
And? The laws in place allowed for it and again, the legislators in question were advocating joining an armed rebellion against the government. What should the government have done?
John Merryman, for one--although, I agree, can't find much that supports Lincoln having Taney arrested.
Merryman was arrested for plotting to blow up the rail line through Baltimore. In modern terms he would be considered a terrorist and an enemy combatant and possibly locked up in Gitmo. Would you have a problem with that?
And you won't find much support for the Taney arrest claim. Not from any of his biographers.
Of course--ex parte Milligan was during Reconstruction....but it was the closest the Supreme Court came to directly ruling on Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus...except for ex parte Merryman.
Ex Parte Milligan was handed down in the spring of 1865. Reconstruction didn't start until 3 years later. The decision didn't touch on the suspension of habeas corpus. Finally, Ex Parte Merryman was not a Supreme Court decision.
Specifics on just how Lincoln expanded the government beyond its intended limits would be nice.
And? Are you condemning Lincoln because he was a racist? If so, you must really be down on greater racists like Jefferson Davis or Robert Lee. Oh wait. I forget. Southern hypocrisy won’t allow you to judge others by the same standards as you judge Lincoln. You people are soooooo predictable.
They worked perfectly if you believe in anarchy. And for all we know you do.
Nuff said.
Probative case, sorry. You lose.
The differences leading to the Nullification Crisis were economic and financial and outlined the naked desire of the Northern business class to enrich itself using government policy at the expense of the rest of society.
Open and shut.
The Northern Millocracy and their banker and merchant allies wanted to eat out the substance of the whole country, and the South objected. That is the whole argument, and it prefigures the Civil War perfectly and shows the "slavery" issue to have been a false one picked up and used by the same Northern business interests 30 years later as a wedge issue to split the West from the South, and engage a mindless, predatory "crusade" against the South.
Your vaunted failed slave empire failed and you can't resurrect it. You can't whitewash it. You can't co-opt the present states rights fight anymore than the gays can co-opt the civil rights movement. Same mentality and equally flawed.
Complete crap, but Lincoln did support voluntary colonization. So what? Monroe supported it. Robert Lee supported it, going do far as to pay passage for some of his former slaves to Liberia. Thomas Jefferson didn't support it; he was a mandatory deportation kind of guy. But I suppose all of them were motivated by a WHITE mecca as well?
So what exactly was wrong with colonization given the times and the beliefs prevalent? What was the alternative? Slavery for life for themselves and their descendants? That was the future preferred by Lee and Davis and Jackson and others but it's kind of hard on the slave. Life as free men and women in the U.S.? Where the Supreme Court ruled that you were not and could never be citizens? And that you had no legal rights a white man was bound to respect? Where you faced virulent racism in the North and even worse racism in the South? Is that the kind of life someone like you would prefer? Or would you want an opportunity to carve out a life for yourself, free from racial oppression and legal restrictions, and able to run your own show as you wished? Be honest now, MJ, if you are even able to. Which life would you prefer? Oppression? Or independence?
His Emancipation Proclamation was simply a war measure, designed to cause riots in the South, to cause blacks to rebel and strike down their “evil” Southern masters.
I read posts like that and I swear to God you must be dumber than a box of rocks. There is no other explanation possible.
“In Saving the Union, I have destroyed the Republic, before me have I the Confederacy which I loathe, but behind me have I the bankers which I fear”. Even in his own words, Lincoln the tyrant admitted he destroyed the voluntary Union of our Forefathers, and instituted an EMPIRE.
Except that Lincoln never said that. It is a figment of Southron imagination which you poached off some Lost Cause website. It's clear that most of your Southern Culture is a myth, supported by lies and fantasy.
Some of you seem to think that being anti-Lincoln = being pro-slavery. The opinions are exclusive. Lincoln destroyed State’s Rights and killed anyone who disagreed with him.
I notice you didn't deny the pro-slavery part, did you?
The 'coloreds'? How 19th century of you, MJ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.