Posted on 02/23/2014 6:39:53 PM PST by grumpa
Few people understand how lawless Abraham Lincoln was in propagating our country’s biggest nightmare—the Civil War. And not enough people sense the parallel of Obama’s emerging lawlessness.
Lincoln achieved his political aims by bullying—rather 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 Lincoln’s suspension of the writ unconstitutional, amazingly, Lincoln ordered Taney arrested! But the United States Marshal’s 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 Johnson’s 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.
A lot of this is pure ignorant modern jackassery. Its a fact that Civil war veteran of both sides held reunions at Gettysburg in 1913. They re-enacted Pickett’s charge, only when the sides met at the end of the charge, they hugged and clasped hands in friendship. There were night raids of union forces into Confederate encampments that resulted in all night parties, bonfires and parades.
If they can get over the struggle, be friends, and be Americans first again, who the hell alive today has a right to get red-assed about the conflict? Silliness.
Oh no . . . here we go again!
He suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a law that prevents people from being imprisoned without due process.
The Constitution actually doesn't totally forbid the suspension of habeas corpus but says it may not be suspended without compelling reasons. Meanwhile, J. Edgar Hoover allegedly wanted to suspend habeas corpus for the Korean War. I suppose that was different from Lincoln because Hoover was a conservative while Lincoln allegedly was not?
And slavery, which was clearly on its way out anyway
Now just hold on one minute, Sunshine! You mean after the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Law, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Dred Scott decision, and the caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks that slavery was "on the way out???"
You neo-Confederates disgust me. I'm proud of my Southern Unionist ancestors.
Lincoln was a Whig in the Hamiltonian Federalist/Whig political tradition. Which, by the way, was universally recognized as America's authentic conservative political tradition while the Democrats were radicals.
I suppose you think Alexander Hamilton was a "progressive" as well?
.
How do Lincoln lovers/ Obama get around this:
‘OK, so Lincoln was an astute master politician and did whatever his political objectives demanded. But what about his personal attitude toward the blacks? Alas, he left no doubt as to his disdain for the slaves and his firm belief in the inferiority of the black race. Here is his famous quote from a debate with Sen. Steven Douglas, from “The National Park Service website’s “Lincoln Home Historical Site’s Page,” entitled “Fourth Debate Charleston Illinois”:
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
Sounds pretty unambiguous to me. And so it did to Lerone Bennett, Jr., executive editor of Ebony and author of several books on African-American history. He scathingly criticized Lincoln in 1968 in an article he published in his magazine titled ‘’Was Abe Lincoln a White Supremacist?’’ “His answer was a resounding Yes,” ruefully writes The New York Times.
Lincoln believed blacks inferior to whites, Bennett insisted; he supported segregation in the North, told darky jokes, and used the N-word in public and private. He reluctantly embraced Emancipation halfway through the Civil War only after Congress enacted it and slaves voted with their feet for freedom by escaping to Union lines, and he persisted to the end of his life in the belief that ‘’deportation’’ of blacks was the best solution to the race problems that would follow.
To sum it up, Lincoln was an out-and-out racist. Actually, as the flagship mouthpiece of the liberal left put it, quite correctly, he “did share the racial prejudices of his time and place.” But so did the Founding Fathers, didn’t they? And if liberals view them as bigoted miscreants and want to put them on trial for the crime of racism, Lincoln definitely merits a prominent place in the dock. Otherwise, the accusers would be guilty of another grave sin in their own playbook: disparate treatment.’
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/that_dirty_rotten_racistabraham_lincoln.html#ixzz2uDMwb49z
.
They didn't used to. Lincoln was universally admired after the war until the rise of neo-Confederate revisionism, which seems to have come along at about the same time as "gay rights" and the idea that owning pets is immoral.
I can't believe I actually agree with you on something (though, Hamiltonian that I am, I also agreed with Buchanan in The Great Betrayal).
“he was really trying to destroy states rights”
A states right to do what?,,,,exactly?
The Southern states could have prevented the Civil War by not seceding. They knew good and well that Lincoln had no intention of interfering slavery where it already existed, but their plot to spread slavery into every US state and territory was thwarted and they pitched a hissy fit.
And the South could have remained in the Union and Lincoln would never have interfered with them. But they wanted to spread slavery. When they were thwarted in the US they seceded and set their sites on the Caribbean and Latin America.
Cf. Dakota War of 1862 ... "In the end, Lincoln commuted the death sentences of 264 prisoners, but he allowed the execution of 38 men."
Except that slavery was demonstrably on the way out because of the industrial revolution, and they all knew it at the time. Northern States were criminalizing slavery because the slave owners needed and escape mechanism so they could industrialize and not go bankrupts having to take care of all their slaves.
Which means, of course, that if this process was left to its natural conclusion, the States rights issue would have never arisen, or at least would never been able to use slavery as a flashpoint into Civil War. So there would have been no union to have to preserve, because it would never have been threatened.
No, I believe TPTB needed the Civil War to justify passing the 14th Amendment (which they still couldn't pass, so they faked it). And in the name of freeing the slaves, the FedGov declared everyone a slave.
And that's not mere hyperbole. Changing rights to privileges is the legal definition of changing freedom to slavery.
Lincoln made all this happen. He was a bastard, because he knew WHY he was doing what he was doing the whole time.
~Abraham Lincoln, Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
Well, try to imagine what it would be like if each and every state could leave the Union over any issue that some politician got the populace jacked up about?
First would be the Confederacy, but then other states would withdraw from the “Union”, and the Confederacy also.
Then, North America would have many smaller states with different ethnic concentrations being agitated by politicians; similar to the Balkans.
How’s that working out for them? I believe the outcome is knowable to most people.
As Lisa Simpson said:
“Jebediah Springfield was .......... great.!”
Lincoln was America’s first socialist dictator. Unfortunately, he won’t be the last.
Maybe because he beat them? Badly?
George Pickett hanged 22 Union soldiers in North Carolina in February 1864. That seems like a mass hanging to me.
I don’t understand your question.
Hoover wasn’t a “conservative”, he was a nut-case.
Or at least by not blowing up that fort.
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.