Posted on 02/15/2010 3:29:27 PM PST by central_va
Went right to the bottom of the deck. Typical Statist Yankee
Glenn Beck was basically saying he comes on the side of Lincoln calming to have heard the other side, the anti-Lincoln side. and while he talks with a guy from the Lincoln institute about Lincoln they both like get it down to a half truth.
I uses to love Lincoln and idealizes him as I was taught about him in school. But what they did not teach to me or any of the other kids in school was the true magnitude and reality of what Lincoln did. As well as of Lincoln’s own hypocrisy in the matter.
As I later learned more and more of theses other details and their implications, and I think about it. The historic truth about Lincoln leaves nothing to love.
Glenn just skirted over theses facts in utter contradiction with the previous assertions of tyranny of the Unconstitutional lawless majority now being in practice just as them and the practical incapacity of the minority(politically) to protect themselves without the right to in anyway separate themselves from the rule of that hostile and lawless majority.
Lincoln himself was a hypocrite, and he was pro-secession before becoming president, not just for entire States but for any subdivision of any State. This was as Lincoln and our own Declaration of Independence held a natural and inalienable right of the people! A right that was critical to the preservation of constitutional law, and freedom.
Lincoln and the other pro-secession because he was an abolitions that did not want to have to return escaped slaves to the south. That’s all fine and good, but he did a 180 after achieving power and thou he himself admitted again and again he could not end slavery, and had no desire to. His denial of the people of the South of their Equal right to revolutionize and separate themselves from the hostile majority of the North is in retrospect tyrannical and in utter-contraction with our foundation as a people in the Deceleration of Independents.
A document in which We as a people, in Actual defiance of actual British law, not just a theoretical abstraction of law (an abstraction which is itself contradicted by the 9th and 10th amendments) did exactly the same thing with regard to the British Empire.
An unconditional union is the chains of slavery, as there can be no practical way for the minority(politically) to protect their rights.
Lincoln knew this, and acknowledged it before becoming president when the Northern abolitionist were in the minority. Lincoln CHOOSE to ignore theses Rights when he and the other Northern abolitionist became the majority. That singular choice in my opinion is what made him wrong. All other issues are in the grand scheme of things of 2ndary importance. The ends don’t justify the means.
Very few of our people ever face theses unavoidable facts. History at least the version they tend to want to teach in schools, if any at all at this point, is written by the victors who tend to want to show themselves in the best light. But there is far more record of our history then that which they teach in schools out there for the reading.
One of the main proposes of freedom of speech and reasons for the condemning of “book burning” as it is said is to help keep rulers from trying to rewrite history, in addition to reality.
In this respect with the unprecedented access to information for everyone in the information age afforded to us by the internet, the truth will eventually come out.
Even then in that age which was very much depended upon news papers, books and memory to teach people, those who were willing. Theses who were not blinded by ideology and 50 years of political rivalry and hate could learn of and remember the truth about freedom, and our union.
Why did they not get the north to respect and protect the rights of their political enemies?
Well even that is written of out in the open in our history, if you bothered to read them.
At the time, in the North when and where theses issues of natural right of secession were brought forth in argument against Lincoln’s War effort, Lincoln and his supporters first claimed that the Southern vote was ridged, and when that argument proved to be clearly fictions given the Southern peoples willingness to mobilizes and fight for their rights, Lincoln then proceeded to shutdown the news papers that dare speak of it.
In short Lincoln robed the people of their right to free speech and in doing so robed them of their only chance to realizes the magnitude of the crime that they were committing on Lincoln’s behalf. A crime that continues to haunt and enslave them as much as it haunts and enslaves the people they allowed themselves to be used in conquering.
In short nobody except the power brokers of Washington D.C. won the “Civil War”, everyone else particularly the rights of the people lost the war.
Google “Lincoln on slavery”. regards.
The same man who closed his letter by saying, "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." As opposed to Southern leaders who believed all black men everywhere should be slaves.
Lincoln was never pro-secession. Lincoln did uphold the principles of revolution as put forth in the Declaration of Independence.
So you want a wild-eyed anti-Lincoln loony to balance Lewis Lehrman? Isn't that tilting things a little towards the foaming mouth side if things?
“The men of the north could not be forced against their sovereign rights to tolerate the hideous monstrosity of human slavery. You’d have to kill them first....”
You know absolutely nothing of the “men of the north” when it comes to the issue of slavery. The fact is, had the “men of the north” thought for one minute that the war was to free the slaves they never would have participated in the fight. Hell, even US Grant said that. You obviously never read any Lincoln, either, as he said he didn’t care a whit about slavery, and would leave it alone if that would keep the Union intact (which right there destroys any argument that the war was to free the slaves). Aside from a small handful of firebrand abolitionists, the north didn’t care one way or another about slavery; in fact, slavery was still legal in a few states outside the confederacy, including the Yankee state of Delaware.
The KKK faded away decades ago. The Left needs to find another straw man.
The closest historical figure to Lincoln that I can come up with would be Julius Caesar. There are many parallels there.
“You deserved every particle of it and worse. And you can have the like again for the asking. Now cry some more, whining little snot...”
Where are you from, boy? You sure talk some smack.
It is history that James Madison, James Monroe, Thomas Jefferson all regarded the quasi-secessionist Hartford Convention during the War of 1812 as treasonous.
Robert E. Lee; whose father was one of Washington’s generals and who was married to Martha Washington’s granddaughter, opposed Virginia’s secession in 1861, pointing out that Southern statesmen had always considered secession treason.
Actually, there were thousands of black slaveowners.
No they didn't. They believed in their right as a state to have slavery and felt they had the right to secede and do what they wish. If there was another issue they disagreed with the North about there would have been the same result. It was all about states rights.
oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free unless they want to leave the Union. For them their is no freedom; only death and destruction under the Federal heel. Have a nice day.
BS. What a load of garbage. They attempted to secede and the federal government forced the south's hand and succeeded in getting the South to make the first move so they could squash the rebellion - a very smart tactic by Lincoln I might add. The South just wanted to be left alone. A lesson for Texas should it get any ideas.
In recent decades the Left has been trying to transform the Confederacy into the nineteenth-century version of Nazi Germany and Robert E. Lee into an American Hitler. There are even some Freepers who have drunk that Koolade.
A lot more northern guys died than southern guys by the way, if we want to talk about whipped who. The south just ran out of bullets and men.
If the damned yankees elect obama again we ought to try leabing again. Northerners now sure don’t have the stomach for stopping it.
Lincoln quite possibly could have ended the slavery and preserved the Union without war.
State conventions in both Virginia and North Carolina, which by far were the center of gravity and ended up supplying the lion’s share of men for Confederate forces, voted AGAINST secession the first time it was proposed.
It was only AFTER Lincoln demanded that these states supply a large number of soldiers for use in conquering the deep south states who wanted to leave the Union that Virginia and North Carolina decided to secede.
States like New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania were all SLAVE states at one time. The outlawed slavery by law using sunset provisions.
This same sentiment to outlaw slavery by sunset provision saw increasing popularity in Virginia and North Carolina after the Revolution and the establishment of the Constitution.
It is quite possible that if Lincoln had held his horses for war and played his hand more intelligently, he could have managed to hold Virginia and North Carolina (Kentucky and Tennessee would have followed suit). In that case, the Union would have been much more powerful than the deep south states and after a period of time the deep south might have been cajoled back into the Union with sunset provisions to end slavery. All without war and the deaths of millions.
their = there
If that's all they wanted, why didn't they just stay in the Union?
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.