Skip to comments.Lincoln and Obama: Two Tyrants
Posted on 02/23/2014 6:39:53 PM PST by grumpa
Few people understand how lawless Abraham Lincoln was in propagating our countrys biggest nightmarethe Civil War. And not enough people sense the parallel of Obamas emerging lawlessness.
Lincoln achieved his political aims by bullyingrather than effective, innovative solutions and negotiations. Here are some facts:
Lincoln closed more than 300 newspapers that disagreed with him.
He arrested members of state legislatures, preventing them from debating the secession issue.
He ordered military trials for citizens when civilian courts were available. Many of these trials resulted in hangings.
Operating as a military dictator, Lincoln spent millions not authorized by the Congress.
He suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a law that prevents people from being imprisoned without due process. This suspension, along with the military tribunals, resulted in the imprisonment of 14,000 war opponents illegally. (For comparison, Mussolini is reported to have jailed around 2,000 people.)
When Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney ruled Lincolns suspension of the writ unconstitutional, amazingly, Lincoln ordered Taney arrested! But the United States Marshals office refused to make the arrest without a valid arrest warrant. However, due to the political situation at the time, the writ was never officially restored until Andrew Johnsons tenure.
The cruelty of the Northern generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan was authorized by Lincoln. The wanton cruelty toward civilian life and property made Lincoln clearly guilty of war crimes.
His dishonorable prosecution of the war is responsible for the failure to re-assimilate the South after the war, and left bitterness for a hundred years. The Ku Klux Klan is certainly a result of this bitterness.
Lincoln signed the order approving the hanging of 39 Sioux Indians, for dubious reasons. This was the only mass hanging in American history.
Lincoln was a liar, changing his message to suit the audience and his political objectives.
This is all presented in an amazing book by Charles Adams entitled, When in the Course of Human Events. Adams concludes, as any reasonable man would, that Lincoln should have been impeached. The war would thus have not progressed to its devastating conclusion. And slavery, which was clearly on its way out anyway, would have ended without the loss of 630,000 American lives.
So, how is this relevant today? Is it not ironic that a black president is potentially taking us down a path of a constitutional crisis not seen since Lincoln? History never repeats itself exactly. But the parallels should be apparent to anyone willing to see them.
Not sure I agree with this criticism of Lincoln.
I will wait to see what everyone else thinks.
Believe I read somewhere where Obama called himself a Lincoln scholar. Getting pointers, maybe?
True, but it won’t make a difference. The Lincoln worship in this country is too widespread at this point. Any criticism of him is viewed as crazy talk.
There are legitimate reasons to criticize Lincoln but people who equate him with Obama are unworthy of wasting my time dealing with.
All he cared about was saving the union and he said he didn’t care about slavery.The union was his goal at the expense of states rights.
Well, I understand that southerners have a thing about Lincoln. Without getting into all that, I’ll just say that there is one major difference that deserves emphasis. Lincoln wanted to save the Union. Obama wants to destroy it.
I used to think that Arkansas was the bottom of the barrel when it came to politicians but I have changed my opinion to Illinois.
Lincoln was a progressive. The overriding motivation of all progressives is control.
>> Not sure I agree with this criticism of Lincoln.
Fair enough, but it’s mainly a laundry list of data offered as facts, with a couple of (IMO reasonable) opinions thrown in.
Which of these do you dispute, and why?
every time bammey the boy pulls another sneaky attack, someone always has to pull out some pub somewhere that did something that somebody didn’t like....just to cover their asses....
>> The union was his goal at the expense of states rights.
Thank you for that. Succinct, and important.
I don’t know.
It just seems a bit like a smear.
Maybe I’m wrong. He was a Republican, and held America together through a terrible war.
I would give me a bit of slack. That is just me however.
Your opinion may differ.
‘I really do not want to find out what this man is really made of.’
I’ve heard that he has a caramel center.
Why? How was Lincoln better? Asking for my own edification.
Thank you for setting the records straight on Lincoln. From day one in school he is lionized, but the real truth is never presented and the average American is totally unaware.
I think it is a pile of manure.
One of the biggest errors of anti-Lincoln propaganda is the ignoring of the far greatest abuses carried out by Jefferson Davis.
You stepped in it now! You are not permitted to criticize St. Abraham!
If you don’t know the difference I can’t help you and won’t waste your time.
I will tell you this, you don’t help yourself by painting with a wide brush. You only drive allies away.
This is heresy. This is the same as pointing out the hidden elements of Martin Luther King’s life.
But many in the Union didn’t want to be saved. What about what they wanted? What about what we want now? I would love to see this country divided into two separate countries.
>> He was a Republican, and held America together through a terrible war.
Yes, I would agree with that. (I realize you mean “Republican” in the sense of “defender of the concept of the Republic” rather than “zealot of the party”.)
I would add, the future BENEFIT of his holding together the *United* States as a nation-entity outweighs the DAMAGE to that same nation-entity he may have caused by his methods. That’s in my opinion, but it seems obvious.
Still, I’d encourage you to weigh precisely which of the facts mentioned you don’t agree with. As an exercise, even if you don’t post the result of your analysis here.
Or robert e lee’s
“Lincoln signed the order approving the hanging of 39 Sioux Indians, for dubious reasons. This was the only mass hanging in American history.”
Winfield Scott hanged 30 San Patricios.
The South wanted to secede. Lincoln was determined to not let them. Civil war, lots of people dead.
How Lincoln Could Have Prevented Civil War
by Sanderson Beck
Abraham Lincoln was an extraordinary man with many wonderful qualities. He is greatly admired by many and is generally considered one of Americas greatest Presidents. Since the era of the founding fathers, he is certainly one of the most influential Americans. Yet he was President during a brutal Civil War in which an estimated 625,000 Americans died. This is nearly as many as all the Americans who have died in all the other wars of the United States. Although Lincoln was obviously not the only cause of the Civil War, he was probably more responsible for the nature of the war than any other individual.
I appreciate your post.
I admire Lincoln. Always have.
There are things about what happened which probably are even worse than what is listed.
I just think he was a leader during a very critical time for America.
It was a terrible time, and many many Americans died. Lots of those Americans were in the south, and have never really forgiven the north in some ways.
FReegards right back.
Nor do I. Thank you for sharing this post, grumpa. God Bless.
I ponder whether Lincoln would have taken any of those steps if it had been different times. No war, etc.
Barry, on the other hand, is doing his best to rule as king...when he doesn’t have to.
Lincoln just prolonged the war because today the north and south are like night and day.The union has never been more divided as it is today.
Lincoln was a “raysess” . The guy freed the slaves in the south in the “emancipation proclamation” but left them slaves in the north! He did that to fight the war!! not some altruistic moment on conscience. He was a joke! A total joke.
This list is a series of allegations, and the burden of proof rests with the accuser.
It’s a fool’s errand to go chasing down the evidence for/against the allegations of another, and then debating the weight of each detail of each allegation.
A civil war is the most ugly of wars, and the American civil war was the first Industrial Age war.
I don’t doubt that many un- and extra- Constitutional acts were perpetrated, and the emperical evidence seems to indicate that Lincoln’s preservation of the Union was a better outcome than it’s dissolution.
And Lincoln saved the nation.
I have read a lot about President Lincoln. From what I have read, he was kinda fake. He really did not care about slaves because he wanted to send the Blacks to an African country. He had separate policies for the Blacks in different parts of the country. I honestly do not know what to think about him. He did a lot to totally destroy the South. Some of that was unnecessary and don’t say, “that is war.”. If he were for holding the country together, then why destroy part of it? In my opinion that alone caused many, many people to hate him. I am into genealogy and tons of records were destroyed by this. I have a few ancestors I think were dropped off by space aliens with no previous records or none that can be found. : )
Lincoln was a tyrant who ignored the will of the people and Constitutional limits whenever either interfered with his vision for the U.S.
Odd how these GREAT leaders get so
No one was killed in the bombardment of Fort Sumpter. Lincoln and his cronies could have let the South go its own way and avoided 600,000 deaths.Note the South did not invade the North until months into the war.
We have arrived at a point in history where we must examine and challenge our previous understanding and interpretation of history.
It once was unchallenged dogma that FDR brought the US out of the Depression, and not long ago some conservatives tactically accepted this theory.
Now that Obama seeks to associate himself with Lincoln’s legacy, an objective reappraisal of Lincoln is well justified.
Then you don't really "love Sarah" as much as your screen name tries to suggest. She'd never say what you just said.
More correctly you must love Obama, because that seems to be exactly what he's trying to do.
Get a grip, will ya.
And Lincoln saved the nation.
For better or for worse, he did so by transforming it from a loose union of states with genuine rights into a centrally-controlled, powerful monolith that survives to this day.
The pretext was that he was doing it to save the union.
The question few people ask is, did the union exist for the benefit of the people, or the other way around?
I would suggest that saving the union destroyed our republic and no doubt removed the basic concept of self government that our founders were so careful to protect.
The blatantly unconstitutional actions of Lincoln, such as suspending the writ of habeas corpus is inexcusable.
Our nation is too vast and diverse to meaningfully be represented by a powerful central government and lawless president.
States have got to get their power back, if it is not too late. I have little doubt we would be better off today if Lincoln has not interfered with the right of the people in the south to self government.
The comparisons between Lincoln and Obama are fair, and not just because of Illinois.
If Obama tries to do any of the following:
suspend the writ of habeous corpus;
close down media outlets critical of him;
deprive us of civilian trials with full Due Process, etc. then the next civil war will break out.
We don't exist to serve the government. We created the government to protect our God given rights.
Lincoln was one of the best politicians ever. He understood Machiavelli and the importance of controlling the perceptions of the masses.
All politicians have to manipulate and do evil things to gain power-—otherwise, they will never win—ever.
That said....he is nothing like Obama. He was not self-serving and an arrogant narcissist.
He worked for the best interest (in his eyes) for the US and its unity. He loved the concepts of the Founding Fathers and knew that the USA was a true experiment for freedom, unlike any nation in the history of the world. He worked to see the Union and this splendid experiment preserved by any means necessary.
Human histories are dismal-—war and tyranny. USA still is the shining city on the hill. Not perfect. Can’t be. But certainly brilliant men like Lincoln, helped move it in the Right direction, even if he did it using Machiavelli methods. It was times to try man’s souls. It was necessary.
The little secret is.....all politicians have to-—but some people’s motivation for power is superior to the evil diabolical, demonic people like Obama and Clinton, and Hillary who are totally corrupted by power. Lincoln wasn’t. He kept his Soul and belief in God.
bad correlation.... and though popular with some folks really misses the point
Really? He was feckless, but but I know of no abuses. What are you referencing?
Would be nice if you could actually cite something rather than just pulling something out of the air.
O is NOT a scholar in any way, shape, or form.
He claimed to be a constitutional scholar as well and we see how true that is
I would love to live in a conservative country. I love the south. North and west, not so much. And I love Sarah but I don’t worship her. I pray for this country to be divided into two seperate countries.
It isn’t as if Georgians didn’t have criticism of Jeff Davis and his tyranny.
and that is the most distorted view of Lincoln I have ever read.
Have you ever even read the Lincoln - Douglas debates???
I think it is accurate
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.