As we celebrate Presidents Day today, we may observe that there have been no shortage of people attempting to link themselves to the legacy of the greatest President of these United States. This includes the current President of the United States, who commented on Honest Abe’s example in a February 12, 2009 AP story:
Lincoln “could have sought revenge,” Obama said, but he insisted that no Confederate troops be punished.

“All Lincoln wanted was for Confederate troops to go back home and return to work on their farms and in their shops,” Obama said. “That was the only way, Lincoln knew, to repair the rifts that had torn this country apart. It was the only way to begin the healing that our nation so desperately needed.”
That’s great and it obviously speaks to the “let’s forget about ideologies and principles and just all get along” message that is a central theme of the Obama administration. Nothing would please the President more than for us crabby conservatives to shut up and go back, both figuratively and literally, to our farms and shops.
But, with all due respect, Lincoln’s desire to “bind up the nation’s wounds” after a momentous conflict was not something that made Lincoln great, nor did it make him unique. It made him American.
After all, his successor, Andrew Johnson, shared exactly the same desire and no one in the history of our nation has ever used Andrew Johnson as an example of greatness. It’s an unremarkable part of Johnson’s character, because – as Americans – we expect our leaders to be gracious and fair in victory. That’s what we do.
Wilson tried desperately to mitigate the draconian terms that Versailles imposed on Germany after World War I. John Adams supplicated himself to King George after the Revolutionary War was concluded. Harry Truman championed the Marshall Plan, helping to rebuild (among other nations) Germany, after that country had ignited the most destructive war in history.
So no, Lincoln’s capacity to forgive and forget didn’t make him great. What made Lincoln great was that he stood for something, that he had principles, and he didn’t give a damn if sticking to those principles made him popular or unpopular. Indeed, for most of the war, he was tremendously unpopular – an incompetent boob from the backwoods who was in way over his head, according to the opposition party and a good portion of his own. We often forget that Lincoln faced ferocious opposition from the Copperhead Democrats; this cartoon depicts Lincoln as callously asking for “something funny,” while ignoring the wounded and dying men on the battlefield:

Lincoln was also a conservative, in the true meaning of the word, a fact that many people conveniently forget today. In one of his best speeches, an address before the Cooper Union in New York, Lincoln took the people who said he was a revolutionary (for daring to oppose the extension of slavery) to task.
“What is conservatism?” he asked. “Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;” while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new.”
Later, in same speech, he warned Americans against the contrivance that we call “moral relativism” today, asking his audience to reject the notion that there are not absolute rights and absolute wrongs.
“Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored – contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man – such as a policy of “don’t care” on a question about which all true men do care … reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance – such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.”
If a politician were to utter such words today, he would be labeled a “fanatic” by a good deal of the mainstream media. Lincoln demanded that Americans choose a side. The current President, no doubt, would call such ideas divisive, and he would be right. Those were divisive words. They were words that implored men to stand for something, as he himself did.
And what he stood for was very clear: preservation of the Union and putting a halt to the extension of slavery. The two issues were intertwined, he saw. Left on its own, relegated to a few southern states, the “Peculiar Institution” would eventually die out of its own ponderous weight. But if the cancer were allowed to spread, it would fester and the Union would not survive “half slave and half free”.
He never deviated from this course, from these principles. Indeed, he lead the nation into a war that cost more American lives than all of its wars before or since – added together – in his single-minded desire to do what he knew to be right.
Few other Presidents in our history have had that kind of courage, or that kind of moral certitude. Today, Lincoln’s refusal to compromise would be viewed as “stubbornness” and “fanaticism”. Liberals today love gray. They take solace in it. Gray keeps them from having to take a stand and worse, from having to fight to defend a principle.

Lincoln should be admired for wanting to forgive and forget, once the conflict was over. But, if we are to truly honor the legacy of the Sixteenth President of the United States, let us not forget how we got into that conflict in the first place, and why. For that was the true measure of the man.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
260 Comments
FYI and FWIW:
It is not "Presidents Day," it is George Washington's Birthday.
5USC Sec. 6103(a)
And so, we catch foreign terrorists whose aim is to kill Americans, and do what? Don't punish, just send them home? Is this the underlying hypothesis in dealing with terrorists? I shudder at the thought of this. The Confederates were Americans; the goal was met and that was to re-unite America. Lord, how America misses Abraham Lincoln; how it misses Ronald Reagan.
Actually, it is Presidents Day. Feb. 15th is Wasfington's B-day, observed. George Washington was born on Feb. 22nd. ;^) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
Lincoln was a pragmatist- not an ideologue…
The whole Emancipation Proclamation thing was just Frederic Douglass harping on him until he complied. Lincoln was committed to keeping the Union together. Pragmatist…
Obama, contrary to his protestations ("I an not an ideologue- I'm not") sees everything through a left wing prism, and you can't be magnanimous to the defeated. They will come back after you.
If that's what you deserve. Lincoln knew the South was not going to be a problem- unless they were occupied.
Obama and his minions, on the other hand, know that their foes will not rest until the country is taken back safely.
That's why their invective is SO nasty…
Rich, did you mean WW I? (regarding Wilson trying desperately to mitigate the Draconian terms of the Versailles treaty)
Most of the politicos today aren't good enough to carry President Lincoln's Stove pipe hat and that goes for both parties.
Du-oh! I hereby blame a sticky keyboard, rather than operator error.
editing error, now corrected. thanks.
With all due respect, Lincoln was far from the "greatest President of these United States." He is second only to FDR in empowering the federal government at the expense of the states. All the praise heaped upon him is due largely to the fact that he was assassinated, much in the same way people remember JFK as a "great president" despite having accomplished nothing while in office.
If making war and consolidating power for the central government are the criteria for "great presidents," then our problems today can be traced to one single cause: we've had far too many "great presidents."
Lincoln wasn't a conservative in the true meaning of the word. I am simply offended by that. He had no repsect for the Constitution. His letter to Horace Greely showed he didn't care about blacks. He only cared about keeping the union together, and he stomped on the Tenth Amendment in doing so. Lincoln was more Stalin like than he was great.
Lincoln was a tyrant that enslaved every American by destroying the Constitution. The Devil works by deception so it should come as no surprise he is spun as an "Emancipator."
His greenbacks plan to get us off the foreign banking system (run by you-know-who) was a good one, though. So was his plan to repopulate the Blacks.
Yes, indeed, "if we are to truly honor the legacy of the Sixteenth President of the United States, let us not forget how we got into that conflict in the first place, and why". Yes, "we" got in the conflict because the Union had to be preserved. I never understood the logic behind that, but I suppose that expansion was a lot more popular back then than contraction.
It seems that most of the federal leaders have been bad for the people – like how many people died in that conflict? and what were the economic costs"? Such legacies have been with us constantly as our development into the current warfare-welfare state continues unabated.
People have unfortunately come to deify Lincoln, so your words will most likely fall on deaf ears.
gb8898 and Clay,
What President hasn't stomped on the Constitution in war time? The man's actions, writings and speeches leave no doubt that he was a strict supporter of, and defender of the U.S. Constitution and loathed the institution of slavery.
If you fail to see President Lincoln's greatness I truly have pity for you.
Excellent piece, Mr. Trzupek!
Lincoln sought to preserve the union — after he did his best to successfully divide it. He killed 20% of white southern males in that disaster. He should be spit on, not honored.
Well, Feb 11th according to the Julian calendar, which was in effect until 1752 in the British Empire.
Ol' Honest Abe.
Another slick, Progressive, big mouthed attorney from Illinois.
Obama is much more in the mold of Wilson. An arrogant progressive who cared nothing for the Constitution, nor the people of this nation. The most arrogant assertion is Obama trying to lay claim to Lincoln's legacy.
And how many black males and females had those white southern males and their adherence to slavery caused, Robert? Lincoln did not as the South to secede, nor did he want the war, but he was the right man for the difficult and horrific task the South thrust upon him. Sounds like you still haven't gotten over the fact that the better man won.
Interesting words:
"He never deviated from this course, from these principles. Indeed, he lead the nation into a war that cost more American lives than all of its wars before or since – added together – in his single-minded desire to do what he knew to be right.
Few other Presidents in our history have had that kind of courage, or that kind of moral certitude. Today, Lincoln’s refusal to compromise would be viewed as “stubbornness” and “fanaticism”. Liberals today love gray. They take solace in it. Gray keeps them from having to take a stand and worse, from having to fight to defend a principle.
I could insert Robert E. Lee into those paragraphs, and the words would be more appropriate. Lee did more toward reconciliation after the war, than any man alive. Robert E. Lee was truly the unsung hero of the age, and those unfamiliar with his history are unaware.
"caused" should be "killed"
Lincoln privately spoke of blacks as inferior to whites. In addition, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free slaves in all of the states. If slavery were the real issue, why not free all slaves?
"Preservation of the union"–not respect for the constitution or righteous anger over slavery–is what was behind the Civil War. Translated, "preservation of the union" meant "authority of the federal government over the states." If you fail to see President Lincoln's true motivation for the war, I truly have pity for you. But that's what generations of public education does to the citizenry.
Southern males died because they chose or were enlisted in to a bad cause, poorly thought out and miserable executed.
Confederations don't work – and a confederations based on slavery was doomed from day 1.
Get a grip. Don't take the "Civil War Reenactor" stuff so seriously. You might catch a Federal mini-ball in the gut.
I don't reckon I'd want the assignment of writing a "Save the Planet" essay, on Earthday, anymore than I would want to do a "Global Warming" essay to commemorate Algores birthday. Sometimes, some things just don't ring true anymore. The Lincoln myth is one of them. The systemic gutting of the Constitution began with Lincoln. It has continued unabated.
I wonder how many critics Lincoln has pining away for slavery and the antebellum South? I hope they're just Axelrod's plants trying to make this site look bad. I hope they're not for real, but I fear they are sincere.
Btw, that is not factually true, if Obama said it.
They hung the general who ran andersonville. i mean deservedly so, but there you go.
Lincoln was so wonderful.
After tearing the Nation apart, all he wanted was healing.
Awwwwwwww
How great!
Lincoln the greatest!? I don't think so, that would be Washington.
Pointing out how anti-Constitutional Lincoln and his actions were is exactly the same as wanting slavery.
Yes it is.
Axlerod plants?
I do not really believe in this day and age that ANYBODY is pining away for slavery, or the Antebellum South. That suppositioun is simply ludicrous and preposterous. Nevertheless, Lincoln isn't the deity than many of you would be led to believe.
The only dignified thing Honest Abe did, was upon hearing of the surrender at Appomatox, he ordered the band to play "Dixie", to honor his vanquished enemies. That at least showed a modicum of class from the bi-polar, manic depressive crazy President.
That is the defense of Lincoln's actions-there was a war on. But, you neglect to mention that Lincoln's actions brought on that war. You also find his actions of stomping on the Constitution to be the very reasons to idolize him.
If you fail to see the tyrant that President Lincoln was I truly have pity for you.
There was no reason for Lincoln to ask the South to secede– because, as individual states, that was their right.
People forget that we are not a single entity known as "America;" we are a grouping of individual states, each part of that group voluntarily. If folks can't opt to leave the group, that doesn't say much good about the group, does it?
Actually, the North came close to losing many times.
Crazy is as crazy….uh…marries?
This article is sickening, another unresearched, go with the flow, puddle of mainstream Lincoln worship.
There were no shops and farms for the working age men who were not dead, disabled, or shell-shocked
to go home to. The South was pillaged and plundered to such a degree that most has never fully recovered.
Why do you think so many southern men come off as sissy and effete? Because all the brave men died.
Their seed was lost forever. My family only survived by getting the hell out of there and coming to Texas.
God Bless Texas.
Mr Breitbart, next year when Pres Day comes around, please find someone more qualified on this subject to
do your articles. We southerners have eaten about all the feces sandwiches we will tolerate. This new un-
willingness of ours to eat what we are served may be directly related to tea party activism. We have been
silent for 145 yrs, NO MORE. Get IT right or STFU!!!!!!!!!!
For the love of God, don't equate states' rights with slavery. Northern states like Wisconsin rightly invoked the idea of states' rights to nullify abominations like the federal Fugitive Slave Act which was meant to return runaway slaves to their "owners."
Yes, that's right: states' rights were also used in the name of the abolition of slavery.
People quite obviously can't wrap their heads around the fact that so-called good intentions often have bad consequences. As a result of Lincoln, states are now disempowered in the extreme.
Exactly. There is nothing in the constitution that says "In case of war, please disregard this document in its entirety." Yet that's what Lincoln did, and his defenders cheer that action.
I want to ask these people something. Is the president allowed to do whatever he wants just because he shouts the word "war?"
Crazy Abe.
Crazy Mary.
Perhaps they were kissin' cousins thrice removed…………..
so many ignoramuses,……………… so little time !
Wow. I never expected this little post to stir people up. I understand the dissenters here, but we’re going to disagree here. I remain an unapologetic fan of the 16th POTUS. Did Lincoln trample of the constitution? Yeah, he did. He had legislators arrested, he ignored habeas corpus and all the rest. People typically argue that either: a) he could have preserved the Union without taking such actions, or b) the Union was not worth preserving if such actions were necessary to preserve it. I don’t find either argument compelling.
Lincoln believed, and I agree, that there is a difference between acting extra-Constitutionally in defense of the Constitution, and doing so to attack the Constitution. Had he not preserved Union, the then still young experiment in representative government would have been undermined, probably fatally so. In my book he remains (as does George W. Bush, by the by) a courageous man who was willing to do whatever it takes to defend and preserve the nation he served.
I tend to agree with you.
Those left in my family after the War of Northern Agression all wrote "GTT" on their doors and gates, and left. All Gone To Texas.
Now, all those years later, we are getting tired of eating crow, and feces………..
No SLOPPY JOURNALISM will go unpunished.
Lincoln expanded the power of the Federal government by war
FDR expanded the power of the Federal government by war
Bush expanded the Federal government by war
See a pattern here?
One of the main reasons we have high taxes is because of withholding. And the reason we have withholding is because of war. And because of war we get even more taxes. Where does it end….oh, that's right, in bankruptcy.
Public education, here here!
"cheer that action and similar actions taken by presidents ever since"………..until GWB & the
WAR on TERROR!
Ah yes… George W. Bush, the guy who had to toss free market principles out the window to defend the free market.
This has never been a good argument. Ever. Like, in the history of arguing. If someone has to disregard the constitution or any other set of principles in order to supposedly "defend" the constitution or any other set of principles, I'd wager that person doesn't actually respect those things all that much.
By the way, you're inadvertently making a good case in defense of every leftist who ignores the constitution. After all, they're just doing it because it's "the right thing to do."
x 1000
Mr Trzupek, I am more interested in the consequences of Lincolns actions, rather than his intentions.
The road to HELL is paved with GOOD intentions!!!!!!!!
The feedback on this post is interesting. It appears that some have gone beyond what was taught in school and now question some of the things Lincoln and others did. If that helps us to stay off the track we've been on for the last 100 years, good, but who knows how different things would be if those leaders had not done the things they are now criticized for? Lincoln deserves credit for LEADING and I believe his motives were pure.
@ Rufus,
Read the letter Lincoln wrote to Horace Greely. These are not the words of a great leader. Lincoln’s presidency is full of contradictions, just like that other president from Illinois.
@ Rich,
Please consider the true history of Lincoln that isn't taught in public schools.
http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2009/12/real-...
I once saw Lincoln as a great man, but after I read the Horace Greely letters, I began to see how the revision of history has made him great.
Very true, but the tide turned at Gettsburgh and the War was never againg fought on Northern soil. Losing New Orleans crippled the South more than people remember because the Southern economy was built on King Cotton. It became impossibe to export it, thus economic starvation – quickly follwed by actual starvation.
I am truly mystified by what I am seeing on this thread. I am with you huckle….
Great speeches yes–beautifully sculpted rhetoric that mirrored Jefferson at Gettysburgh, but it doesn't cover the ugliness of the man. When you read the Horace Greeley letter and realize this, it's hard to see the side of the Lincoln in the same light we celebrate. http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2009/12/real-...
Lincoln wasn't a great man. He was conflicted inside. Lincoln turned out perfect republic into a nation paving the way for more federal power.
Sir, Obama is attempting to LEAD……………are his motives pure?
Thanks Rich for all of the articles you have written on Lincoln lately. I appreciate them and your statement of "there is a difference between acting extra-Constitutionally in defense of the Constitution, and doing so to attack the Constitution."
is something I have to agree with. I do not believe Lincoln had the desire to destroy the Constitution…it would have been interesting to see how he would have led during the reconstruction period of the south. But we will never know.
Lorben you are mystified?……denotes curiosity. Good, now read from sources that are not mainstream,
and learn. We do not wish to reverse the outcome, as relates to slavery. We wish to obtain the acknowledg-
ment of the horrible cost this war, Lincolns war, exercised upon this nation, North & South. Consequences
that are plain to see, by those of us who have been awakened to them.
I understand your point. I also know there are two different kind of men in this world. Good or evil. I do not believe Lincoln was evil and that his intent was NOT to take over as a despot. Obama is evil and his intent IS to take over as a despot. I know it does not excuse Lincoln's actions against the Constitution. But I also know we cannot not really know what he was up against. It was a dicey period. I think that we have great issues at hand to worry about than this…It is all very difficult for me to take in….might be a woman thing…I am a woman….
While no-one knows what would have happened if the Confederate states had been allowed to peacefully withdraw from the union, I do not believe it would have ended the Union. Neither did Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, for that matter. I think rather it would have placed the necessary limits on the powers of the federal government that are missing today precisely because of what Lincoln did.
After looking at the end results: the death of 650,000 Americans, the widescale destruction of property and crops by the Union soldiers, the carpet baggers that came in and victimized what was left of the South, the loss of productivity that lasted for years afterwrards, and to top it all off, this completely out-of-control federal government, I'd have to think the outcome would have been better if the Confederates had succeeded.
Surely a nation as great as ours could have come up with a peaceful way to end the practice of slavery.
Bravo! The Lincoln supporters can't run from the truth in the documents Lincoln signed his name to and the actions he performed against Americans.
Agreed cornpone….I have an appointment I need to get to. I think you have hit on the issue for me here and why I am struggling with this, "We do not wish to reverse the outcome, as relates to slavery. We wish to obtain the acknowledgment of the horrible cost this war…" I feel very strongly about slavery, it was an awful part of our history and all of this talk makes me struggle….
I'm seeing a pattern:
1) Slave owning separatists defeated by war, reuniting country.
2) Genocidal racists defeated by war, saving Europe
3) Homicidal fundamentalists being beaten in Iraq, fought hard in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Results pending.
There could be a post on the mating patterns of honey bees and Fonz would find a way to inject Israel into it.
Well, since you also support Hamas's plan to repopulate Jews into the sea, I suppose you'd think that was pretty swell.
So, would you have preferred a United States partitioned in two?
And also, is there anything the Jews aren't in charge of, and what kind of energy drinks do they consume and where can I buy them?
The justice or injustice of Lincoln's actions turns upon one question and one question only: did the States possess a right to secede at will? If not, then the South was in the wrong and Lincoln was right. But if so, Lincoln was a tyrant and a demon.
Contrary to what people like to think because it keeps them from having to study and…well, to think, that is not a slam-dunk question for either side. Ultimately, the South has the better, more convincing argument, but Lincoln, building upon the groundwork laid by John Marshall, Joseph Story, and other early American lumenaries, made a good show of standing on their authority for the support of his historical sophistry (in particular, the notion that the Union preceded the States). If the Union preceded the States, and in essence created them as States, then the States were not sovereign entities and had no right to secede without the approval of the rest. If, on the contrary, the States were originally sovereign, delegating only such authority to the Union (the federal government) as was spelled out in the Constitution, then they retained the right to reclaim their authority whenever they felt that authority threatened.
The argument from there on gets rather intricate and murky, but the point is that those who blithely mouth platitudes like, "if you don't see that Lincoln was obviously right I feel sad for you" literally don't know what they're talking about. They're posturing, based upon a pack of fairy tales they've been spoonfed by people seeking to manipulate them. The actual case is much more difficult than that to make.
Cowboy: Very engaging reading your point of view on Lincoln. While I don't share your dislike of him and have no wish to re-fight the Civil War this red hot. My attention is on the Clear and Present Danger of Obozo right now. I do share your enthusiasm and respect for Bobby Lee. If there was ever a man that deserved to have a honest Bio- movie made about his life it's him. I know some chance of that but still. He was a unsung Giant as you stated and overlooked but a Giant none the less and a Champion for and of the South for sure.
My family rode off in their Conestogas leaving behind a fortune in land. That was their penance for being
slaveholders. Their workers begged to accompany them to Texas, however being barely able to feed their
own they were forced to decline.
As for the peaceful way to end slavery, we would have innovated our way out, just as we have done in all
major industry, since the inception of this Nation. Agriculture was THE major industry at that time. The
South has a mean inhospitable growing season. Slaves were not able to keep up the work out-put needed
to meet the demand of the fabric mills of the North. Good old American ingenuity would have made owning
slaves obsolete, just as owning mules for farming is now. When the 'drag' on productivity becomes obvious,
American farmers have always, and will always innovate our way through the obstacles.
Thank you for your input, I concur.
I apologize Lorben, my question about Obama was meant for huckle. I should have been more clear.
Man or woman we must all be strong upstanding patriots, now!
You apparently support the Zionist plan to commit ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
So, would you have preferred a United States partitioned in two?
Funny, since the US seems happy with that solution with Vietnam, Korea, Germany, etc…..
Wouldn't have been a US partitioned in two, it would have been the US and the CSA.
A better person to write this article would have been Thomas J. DiLorenzo who authored the book "The Real Lincoln". A much less fawning of Lincoln and more to the historically accurate portrayal. Lincoln was a Whig, through and through, stopping at nothing to consolidate power in Washington D.C. If he had not been assassinated, he would most likely set himself up as King of the United States, something George Washington detested with a passion. I celebrate Washington's birthday not Lincoln's.
Cowboy: I find your posts on Lincoln very engaging. While I don't share your dislike of him and have no wish to re-fight the Civil War this red hot. My attention is on the Clear and Present Danger of Obozo and his administration right now. I do share your enthusiasm and respect for Bobby Lee. If there was ever a man who deserved an honest Bio -Movie of his life it's him. I know some chance but still. He was a Giant an unsung one as you stated and overlooked but a Giant none the less.A true Champion for and of the South and an American who loved his State and his Country and that no one can take from him.
Excellent post, gb. Thanks for speaking Truth.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
The Ring of Truth, once again. Two excellent posts, Clay and gb.Drats, Lincoln was born on my birthday! ;^)
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
Damn fonz, you had me going for a second. Your point about Lincoln restoring 'greenbacks' was excellent( as JFK wanted to), then you drove off the cliff. Oh well, at least you're consistent.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
Nice retort, Ewald, fonz strikes once again. I personally like Monster lo-carb. It rocks my world. ;^)
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
I believe the military casualties exceeded 600,000, the civilian casualties were terrible as well.All this at a time when, of course, our population in no way approached the numbers of today.The economic costs to the South alone lasted for generations, as well as the animosity. Certain leaders in the North couldn't wait to wholly destroy the South.The people of the South lost property rights, as well as property held in their family's hands for generations, they lost the right to vote, and then the 'carpetbaggers' descended upon them. The North had a system of patronage, resultant draft riots, etc., etc. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
Afterall, wasn't the Constitution essentially 'born' in a time of war? The FF's didn't see the need to abandon the Constitution, ever. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
If Lincoln didn't want the war he certainly did a damn fine job of hiding the fact. Remember Ft.Sumter?Remember the Suthern Blockade, blustered about and being enacted before Ft.Sumter? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
Your families responsibility to their former workers is admirable, Dave.
Good point, although I view BHO as a cross between Wilson and FDR(engaging in FDR's 'Facist economics'), without the intellectual capacity.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
How true, Cowboy, well said.You could also insert Jefferson Davis into those paragraphs.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
2 LCR……he responded, see pg 1
Sloppy journalism with a good dose of revisionist history by some of the posters(hint, hint).,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
It's also thought Lincoln suffered from mongloidism, as one can see from his photos.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
Remind me to never vote for Mr.Trzupek if he runs for President.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
Well Lorben, the more you delve into the truth about Mr.Lincoln, his background, his life growing up, his motivations in his career, his motivations in politics, the more alarming and astounding the truth becomes. There is no doubt he trampled on the Constitution, ignored States Rights and eventually used Slavery as a justification for the Civil War, after the War was underway.His letter to Horace Greely and the terms he uses to describe the black people of the time are eye opening, indeed.Quickly, Lincoln didn't believe Blacks were equal to Whites and he went so far as to support the purchase of the African country of Liberia in order to repatriate the Black population. Disturbing, for sure. He also had opponents of the War jailed without due process(newspaper editors, etc.) and presided over a system of patronage which resulted in draft riots in the North, for starters.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
How were his motives pure in starting the War, trampling the Constitution, suspending the Rights of due process, etc., etc.?Who else, besides FDR, even approached this level of tyranny? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
Ahh…that's just it. The Civil War wasn't instigated to end Slavery, that issue came in to play after the War was underway. The main thrust of the War, to Mr.Lincoln, was to preserve the Union and not allow the Soutern States their Right to Seceede. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
Or on the proper techniques to compost bat Guano. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
I agree. However, I also must state my belief that John Marshall(attempting to legislate from the bench) did not have the Constitutional authority or proper Judical Intent to inject his misleading opinion on the States Rights Issue. Funny how some people today will claim the Issue of States Rights(10th Amendment) is an issue of States "Power" to Seccede, because the 10th Amendment uses the word 'power', not Rights.
Statesmen from Jefferson to JFK to Reagan have addressed the issue as 'States Rights', believing that States Rights is the vanguard to an overbloated, overpowering, all encompassing Central Government. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
Thank you Clay, I went to the blog and it is very eye opening. I feel like a fool for being my age and not knowing this information. I will make sure my grandchildren know it and any other truth I can find. Damn, and I really like the Lincoln Memorial. I guess it is only fitting that he sit facing the great concentration of power that he thought was necessary. I still wonder if he had any real idea of just how corrupt it would become.
This obviously is all new to me. My fear is how do I know what is revisionist history and what is not. I am so frustrated with everything….Pray tell then what was the motive for the Civil War if it wasn't to free the slaves? I did know Lincoln used what we call derogatory language of the blacks….or was it a cultural thing? I did know he suspended Habeas Corpus….I admit I haven't read anything on Lincoln for ages…so just drawing on what I was taught. To much to study and to little time.
Mr. Cornpone, I am the first to admit that this has been a learning experience for me for which I am grateful and exactly why I frequent this site along with the other BIGS. Further down Clay provided a link to the Horace Greely letters. You are right, this was never taught in any school I attended and it truly hurts that I was wrong about a national icon and hero to many. I did know that the motivation for the Southern states was states rights and slavery just happened to also be an issue with some. I did not know about the unjust taxation of southern crops, the arrests of political enemies and closure of newspapers that were critical of his policies. This information, of course, casts a new light, (or should I say darkness), on the Lincoln presidency. I am very sorry that he was not the man I thought he was but I am pleased to know the truth and I plan to try to learn more.
The crux of the Civil War was to preserve the Union and deny the South their lawful Right to Seceede from said Union. I added a P.S. to my above reply, after your own reply to me.
The Confederate Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, explicitly forbids the Importation of Slaves. The South was trying to abolish Slavery before the hostilities were really underway.
Don't be frustrated and don't let it deter your motivation to return to a proper form of Governance under the Constitution. I understand your frustration, you will also encounter hostility as you attempt to teach those who don't know all you are finding out. Look at it as enlightening. We didn't get to this state of affairs overnight. When you begin to put all the pieces together it starts to make sense how we have arrived to our current morass.It is overwhelming at times, the betrayl, the lies, the deceit perpetrated upon us, but the truth is here.
The adage~"The victors write History" rings so true.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
I was just like you Peter but took at look at this link provided by Clay. http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2009/12/real-...
I recommend it for you.
Rufus, did you know that the Confederate Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, explicitly forbids the importation of slaves? The South was attempting to abolish Slavery essentially before hostilities began. Interesting.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
When last I looked, Germany and Vietnam are not partitioned in two. North Korea proves the point that partitioning does not better a nation, and that if a country does not have the will to fight a hard and brutal war when it must, the end result is a backwards North Korea locked permanently in poverty. Vietnam follows up on that rule, but we didn't give South Vietnam the support it needed because of isolationist Democrats. At least South Korea eventually embraced democratic institutions and has a prosperous economy.
And the last part defies logic. If the United States included Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia at its inception, then the CSA being allowed to exist as a separate political entity is a partitioning of our country.
And finally, if the Zionists are trying to ethnically cleanse their country of Arabs, then they are doing a damn horrible job of it.
Population of Israel: 7 million.
Arab Citizens with voting rights: 1.44 million or 20%
So much for those Jewish supermen. Can't even ethnically cleanse their own neighborhood, sheesh….
Glad to know. I knew the Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy had to have a secret weapon, but if it turned out to be Red Bull then I'm definitely turning in my membership. Can't stand the stuff!
You must be logged in to post a comment.