• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The Cult of Lincoln

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
It is really interesting to see how many of Lincolns Staff and military were Marxist. How Marxist played a major role in getting him elected. They shared the same ideals a strong central government, states should be mere provinces and the DOI's declaration of government by consent was abhorrent to them. Isn't it interesting to see Lincoln's apologist offer so much of the same support?

Lincoln forever changed the original natural law, common law, and revolutionary reasons for independence from Brittian to the exact opposite.

PS these Marxist revolutionaries failed in Germany fled to the US and Hitler later helped realize their ideals for Germany.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother,to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap—let it be taught inschools, in seminaries, and in colleges;—let it be written inPrimmers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;—let it be preachedfrom the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced incourts of justice. And in short, let it become the political religion ofthe nation-Abraham Lincoln

America's founding was on breaking unconstitutional and unjust laws.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother,to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap—let it be taught inschools, in seminaries, and in colleges;—let it be written inPrimmers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;—let it be preachedfrom the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced incourts of justice. And in short, let it become the political religion ofthe nation-Abraham Lincoln

America's founding was on breaking unconstitutional and unjust laws.

Not to contradict--not at all. To prompt food for thought. The man in the nice chair is actor Paul Scofield, portraying Thomas More. The chain around his neck and shoulders denotes his office as Chancellor of England. The movie won something like five Oscars for 1966:

[video=youtube;PDBiLT3LASk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk[/video]
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
Not to contradict--not all. To prompt food for thought. The man in the nice chair is actor Paul Scofield, portraying Thomas More. The chain around his neck and shoulders denotes his office as Chancellor of England. The movie won something like five Oscars for 1966:

[video=youtube;PDBiLT3LASk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk[/video]

Sir Thomas More lost his head.......literally.

Good find Citizen, and yes he did indeed Grape.

My bad for not being clear, I do believe this was a time and the early Americans being brits themselves beleived in law as a shield and a protection common law, natural law , that breaking the opposite "positive law" was perfectly moral and acceptable. Those evil founding smugglers......;)
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
It is really interesting to see how many of Lincolns Staff and military were Marxist. How Marxist played a major role in getting him elected. They shared the same ideals a strong central government, states should be mere provinces and the DOI's declaration of government by consent was abhorrent to them. Isn't it interesting to see Lincoln's apologist offer so much of the same support?

Lincoln forever changed the original natural law, common law, and revolutionary reasons for independence from Brittian to the exact opposite.

PS these Marxist revolutionaries failed in Germany fled to the US and Hitler later helped realize their ideals for Germany.
But, the Jesuits had him killed.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
sudden valley gunner;2165783 Yet one cannot argue for the constitution and argue against secession and for Lincoln. [/quote said:
One cannot argue for principles of liberty and then support secession for the express purpose of continuing slavery.

I have never supported slavery or the government of the south either.

When "one" claims SC didn't start the war--in an attempt make it appear Lincoln started the way--"one" is supporting the government of South Carolina.

it has already been admitted the war wasn't about slavery. :rolleyes:

I have readily conceded that Lincoln and the North did not fight initially to end slavery. But SC's own secession document is undeniable proof that the war was "about slavery" for SC. "One" ought to concede this, the eyeroll emoticon is a tiresome, childish, indirect insult by those incapable of maturely and civilly expressing their positions.

Quotes of a southerners who didn't want to start a war, does not mean that the southerners who did fire started the war.

It means those literally on the ground at the moment, recognized that firing the first shot at union property and personnel was the start of the war. Lincoln declining to remove union men and to turn over union property may have been provocative, or may have simply been an assertion of property rights...a right that "some" generally support. But it wasn't the start of the war.

Nor did Lincoln blockade Charleston harbor with warships (or singular ship) prior to SC firing on Fort Sumter as "some" have claimed he did. Citations were provided at which point you claimed a "typo" with regard to ships vs ship. You never were mature enough to concede that no blockade occurred prior to SC firing on Fort Sumter.

Someone may want to look into the history of England, ask themselves what King in the 1600's made statues that set in motion for a case in the 1770's that showed that slavery was not legal in England and when a slave owner brought him there he was freed.

YOU--not "someone", but YOU, SVG, have been asked for citations to back up your claim that slavery was ended in England in the 1600s and thus the American Colonists were fighting to continue slavery. Since you lack the ability or courtesy to follow forum etitiquette to provide the requested citation, let me help you out.

The Somersett's case to which you allude was decided in 1772 and was very narrowly decided regarding removing a person (slave or otherwise) from England. It was a major event in the English abolition movement, which eventually, affirmative outlawed slavery in most of the English Empire (including England proper) with the Abolition Act of 1833.

Obviously, had the Somerset case been a definitive end to slavery in England, there would have been far less need for the abolition act of 1833.

The wiki article above notes that "some" historians (an actual "some", not the childish insults used by some as of late on this forum) believe the Somerset decision contributed to the American Revolution. That seems a clear minority position as even some of the leading slave owning southern revolutionaries (ie Jefferson, Washington) struggled with slavery. It seems highly doubtful that they, or their anti-slavery northern counterparts (Adams, Revere) started or waged a brutal 8-year slog in order to continue African Slavery in the colonies.

Notably, you made your claim about the colonies waging the revolution to perpetuate slavery in rebuttal to my claim that the Confederacy had hoped to draw England to their support over England's need for cotton for their textile industry but that the issue of slavery had helped keep England out of the war.

Sudden Valley Gunner, I'm with you when it comes to opposing the false narrative of Lincoln as a great abolitionist or purveyor of freedom. There is no doubt he waged the war to preserve the union. Abolition became a tactical issue to weaken the confederacy and to bolster support for an ever increasingly unpopular war in the North ("...as He died to make men holy let us live to make men free..."). Lincolns use of fiat currency, suspension of habeus corpus and infringement of the freedom of the press, imposition of income tax, and of the draft are all offensive and (with the exception of suspending habeus corpus which can be authorized) clearly unconstitutional. The growth of the federal government and its power relative to the States that came as a result of the War have not generally been good.

But your narrative of Lincoln and the Confederacy is just as full as errors as is that from the public schools to which you objected in starting this thread. And now you're bound and determined not to be wrong on any point including how many warships were sent to Charleston at what time relative to the firing on Fort Sumter. You refuse to address the issue of why SC seceded; You've sidestepped the issue of SC seizing property owned by the union. You've resorted time and again to indirect insults and attacks as you use "some", "one" and "he" to refer to me sideways rather than maturely addressing me directly, or ignoring me if you cannot be civil. You'e refused my requests for citations. Clearly this is all about personality to you. My personality. Lincoln's personality. Factually accurate history is important. You should start with accurate facts, and then work up your narrative, rather than the other way around. And you should learn to discuss the issue civilly, even when "some" disagree with you or present facts that are inconvenient to your narrative.

Charles
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
Secession summary: the secession of Southern States led to the establishment of the Confederacy and ultimately the Civil War. It was the most serious secession movement in the United States and was defeated when the Union armies defeated the Confederate armies in the Civil War, 1861-65.

http://www.historynet.com/secession
Slavery was not unlawful at the time of SC secession and Lincoln had no intention of negotiating to end slavery after secession. In fact he had no intention of negotiating with the southern states before secession.

...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Lincoln was singularly focused on the survival of a government that was not in danger of being dissolved.

Karl Marx - Philosopher

Karl Marx was a philosopher, economist, sociologist, journalist and revolutionary socialist. Born in Prussia, he later became stateless and spent much of his life in London. Wikipedia

Born: May 5, 1818, Trier, Germany
Died: March 14, 1883, London, United Kingdom

Schools of thought: Marxism, Communism, Materialism, Socialism

Influenced by: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Ludwig Feuerbach, More...

Quotes
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.

Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
Secession as history has proved was not for the sole purpose of slavery.

LOL....not supporting a tyrants unconstitutional war to not allow a state to secede is not defacto supporting the state government. Also SC was on state that seceded not all, Virginia joined why?

Except you keep ignoring that the rest of the states and Lincoln himself didn't think of that as starting the war, also ignoring the ample examples given.

I will not concede a false hood :rolleyes:. Slavery was an issue it wasn't the only issue, I wont pander to imperialistic, jingoistic, apologia offering statist. Especially one who can't seem to control his own emotional reactions to an emoticon, while calling others names....hilarious.

So you didn't even read senator Vallandingham's speech? Interesting the adhominem you coninue to engage in while actually ignoring the meat of the matter and concentrating on tangentials.

So you didn't look up the references I referred to and keep insisting that England had slavery until 1833?

Also its fun how the apologist keep concentrating on the bad of others instead of the bad of Lincoln. Purposefully bringing it back to slavery, ignoring all the other tryannical things this d-bag tyrant done and the course he set the new empire he created on.

Hard hitting analogies and facts are completely ignored.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
Slavery was not unlawful at the time of SC secession and Lincoln had no intention of negotiating to end slavery after secession. In fact he had no intention of negotiating with the southern states before secession.

Lincoln was singularly focused on the survival of a government that was not in danger of being dissolved.

+1

Slavery was legal in Washington DC, New Jersey.

It may have been an act of desperation but the confederacy sent envoys to France and England for recognition if they were to end slavery after the hostilities. Napoleon agreed England did not. Yet it was late Lincoln was slaughtering southerners with his inhumane tactics going against the civilized rules of war.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
[FONT=myriad-pro, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Negroequality will be abundant, as every White laborer will have occasionto regret when he is elbowed from his plow or anvil by slave n*****s[/FONT]- Abraham Lincoln

The more I see stuff like this from Lincoln and see how much of a socialist he was, the unions in this nation spent in inordinate amount of time trying to keep minorities out of "their jobs". This is the reason Lincoln fought to keep the territories "free".

I say lets again focus on the tyranny of Lincoln and not the tyranny of others. I will stop responding to the fallacy misdirection in that direction, and the poor attempts at thread closure. We all know slavery bad, and slavery is evil. Well maybe not all....seems some are perfectly fine taking the labor of folks without consent.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
...

Sudden Valley Gunner, I'm with you when it comes to opposing the false narrative of Lincoln as a great abolitionist or purveyor of freedom. There is no doubt he waged the war to preserve the union. Abolition became a tactical issue to weaken the confederacy and to bolster support for an ever increasingly unpopular war in the North ("...as He died to make men holy let us live to make men free..."). Lincolns use of fiat currency, suspension of habeus corpus and infringement of the freedom of the press, imposition of income tax, and of the draft are all offensive and (with the exception of suspending habeus corpus which can be authorized) clearly unconstitutional. The growth of the federal government and its power relative to the States that came as a result of the War have not generally been good. ...

Charles
Lincoln was not the first chief executive and he certainly was not the last chief executive to hold the federal government above the state. Lincoln was the only one to go to war to preserve what was not under threat of violence from a sovereign nation.
 
Top