The Cult of Lincoln

[papa bear]

Thanks for the thread SVG, I like it. history is not what it is cracked up to be. I have always said Lincoln was a tyrant

read some articles by JOHN SILVATUS C/O back woods home magazine. he had a good article of rating the presidents according to how they followed the constitution

I think Lincoln was 2nd or third right after Wilson and Roosevelt.

WW, there was some talk of annexing Mexico right after the war with them. just before the war of the states. but they didn't want the brown people in the Union

another fact about Lincoln, he was instrumental in setting up Lybia to send the blacks there.

 

[Grapeshot]

Koskalaka

Indeed there are many aspects/facets to peoples personalities and what motivates them.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

The point being, for those that cannot or wont see it, is that we do not need to further divide ourselves into separate camps.

You divide the world into two camps.

1) Those who are 'right,' because they agree with you.

2) Everyone else, who is wrong.

Your comments on this thread, and many others, provide ample evidence. That's "imho," others will surely decide for themselves what kind of person you are.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

As a young boy I was fascinated and thought Lincoln was the greatest president, after all he freed the slaves what a great man!

Also we were taught how evil the south was the war was all their fault etc.

In fifth grade we moved to a new school in Washington, as a newcomer I was outcast the other outcast was a black kid so we hung out. A few months later a kid from Georgia moved up being new and having this strange accent he was the other outcast. The three of us became friends while at school. One day some other kids were picking on Andy because he was black. I shamefully did nothing to interfere fearing they would move to pick on me next. This southern kid from Georgia did not let it continue, and jumped in to help our friend enduring racial slurs and actually getting into a physical alteration with the other kids. I swore to myself that day I would never stand by and let something like that happen again, I have kept my word to myself never wanting to feel that sense of shame again.

This opened my eyes though, and I started asking the kid from Georgia about the south and about the war, he told me things I never learned and so I started researching it and to my horror Lincoln was not the person I was mislead to believe. That we were not supposed to be one nation, he freed no blacks, he was a tyrant and a racist bigot.

I also knew that I was never going to be a democrat, my mother was a welfare mom and I saw the damage that philosophy and that system did to us as children. So I assumed I sided with the republican/conservative side of things.

Years ago I realized I did not. I considered myself a constitutionalist but could see how the republicans mouthed words about the constitution yet failed to uphold it on so many levels. Reminding me of the scripture about "faith without works is dead."

After years of research I realized like other tyrannies they the state need their "champions" their "cult of personality".

Both democrats and republicans revere Lincoln who singlehandedly did the most to destroy constitutionally federated government and to centralize control and power. A revolution founded upon the right of secession was destroyed by a war to end that right.

The republican party was the original party of big government, high tariffs, corporate subsidies, centralized control, keeping America free for "free white labor" (the reason they opposed slavery at all, it competed with white labor, not the altruistic propaganda indoctrinated into young children), big military. Lincoln was a corporate lawyer lobbyist, who was given his own car for railroad use.

The democrats, not just those of the south, contrary to some belief there were anti slave, abolitionist democrats and classical liberals in the north. Were the ones for less government, more liberty, less tariffs, less interference, and more constitutional control. The Republicans were the progressives, another hero liked by them is Roosevelt (Teddy), who also did a lot of damage to liberty and increased the powers of government. Wilson run against him opposing him, opposing war, opposing big government spending, he then turned around and acted just like him. Since then the Democrats and the Republicans have been virtually the same. This is easy for anyone who steps outside the fake left right paradigm to see, but one has to step outside that paradigm.

So despite the ability to readily research Lincoln and to present facts about him, the cult followers like all good cult followers, will condemn any anti Lincoln statements as heretical against this god of the state.

Hard to argue with truth, so the liberals use false accusations of racism instead.

Keep staying on the path SVG.

 

[Grapeshot]

You divide the world into two camps.

1) Those who are 'right,' because they agree with you.

2) Everyone else, who is wrong.

Your comments on this thread, and many others, provide ample evidence. That's "imho," others will surely decide for themselves what kind of person you are.

Have I just been insulted? :lol:

Not hardly me thinks as the basis for agreeing may be found in the Forum Rules and the limitations imposed by the site owners. Life is good when people get the message.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Have I just been insulted? :lol:

Not hardly me thinks as the basis for agreeing may be found in the Forum Rules and the limitations imposed by the site owners. Life is good when people get the message.

It was an observation.

 

[Grapeshot]

Have I just been insulted? :lol:

Not hardly me thinks as the basis for agreeing may be found in the Forum Rules and the limitations imposed by the site owners. Life is good when people get the message.

It was an observation.

Accepted it as that. No problem.

 

[OC for ME]

Not much has change since 1864...the feds really don't like being told to "shove it" by a uppity state.

http://classroom.synonym.com/caused-split-between-northern-southern-democrats-1860-10766.html

http://www.confederatepastpresent.o...ouse-dec-20-1837&catid=41:the-gathering-storm

It is amazing that the "preservation of the union" really only solidified geographical boundaries. The security of commodities and natural resources.

All you "unionists" need to read up on what the good citizens of Charleston did for the beleaguered soldiers cooped up in Ft. Sumter.

The dissolution of the then union did/does not mean that a "new" arrangement would/will not have been agreed to....typical shallow end of the pond thinking.

 

[Grapeshot]

Not much has change since 1864...the feds really don't like being told to "shove it" by a uppity state.

http://classroom.synonym.com/caused-split-between-northern-southern-democrats-1860-10766.html

http://www.confederatepastpresent.o...ouse-dec-20-1837&catid=41:the-gathering-storm

It is amazing that the "preservation of the union" really only solidified geographical boundaries. The security of commodities and natural resources.

All you "unionists" need to read up on what the good citizens of Charleston did for the beleaguered soldiers cooped up in Ft. Sumter.

The dissolution of the then union did/does not mean that a "new" arrangement would/will not have been agreed to....typical shallow end of the pond thinking.

Lots of fish been caught in the shallow end, particularly under the shade tree and the worm can still be drowned there......jus' sayin'

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Just had a discussion with a liberal friend about Lincoln that moved into talking about slavery. When I asked if the North had the right to force the South to stop slavery he tried to evade the question by talking about the immorality of slavery itself. When I wouldn't allow him to evade the question by redirecting the discussion into an area he wanted giving him control of the conversation and pressed him to stick to the topic and answer the question he accused me of shutting him down and not listening to his answer.

Again I pressed him to answer if the North had the right to force the South to stop slavery he became quite irate and said that yes, the North had the right. But when I asked him why he said he answered my question and wasn't going to talk about it anymore.

Ahhhhh.... liberals. Do exactly what they accuse you of and then.... feel.. so self righteously vindicated.

And yes, that conversation actually happened just about a half hour ago in my kitchen.

It is intriguing to see where peoples minds are.

Personally if it was for the altruistic yet unconstitutional invasion to end slavery, there would be a reason to support the state version of history.
It doesn't take much to show it wasn't.
I have had several arguments with both R's and D's on this, they insist it was about slavery because it was about slavery for the south. No matter what facts you throw at them they will hold true even after admitting it wasn't about slavery for the north or for Lincoln.
They have fail to logically refute that even if it was about slavery, and there is evidence that for some Southern Leaders it was, the south did not start the war, they simply seceded. The north invaded over the secession so no matter how one cuts it the war was a war to destroy the right of self determination and self governance spelled out in the DOI.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Thanks for the thread SVG, I like it. history is not what it is cracked up to be. I have always said Lincoln was a tyrant

read some articles by JOHN SILVATUS C/O back woods home magazine. he had a good article of rating the presidents according to how they followed the constitution

I think Lincoln was 2nd or third right after Wilson and Roosevelt.

WW, there was some talk of annexing Mexico right after the war with them. just before the war of the states. but they didn't want the brown people in the Union

another fact about Lincoln, he was instrumental in setting up Lybia to send the blacks there.

LOL....its almost as if you take the approved list of great presidents and turned it backwards to get the truly better presidents, the ones who left the people alone.

I like Gutzman's take on the best first lady's ....Jefferson and Buchanan.....

 

[sudden valley gunner]

This is a speech worth reading.

Thanks for posting the link!

Thank you, it is a great read from a democratic northern politician who was an abolitionist, which puts to lie so many assumptions of the cult of Lincoln.

Hard to argue with truth, so the liberals use false accusations of racism instead.

Keep staying on the path SVG.

Yes they do, lately been called a white nationalist, as if somehow my non support for tyrannical north means I somehow support the tyranny of the southern confederation.
The race card is hilarious.....I am repeatedly called anti semite by some supposed libertarians because I don't support US involvement in zionism....odd though because I also find the past manifest destiny and German lebensraum horrendous state policies too.

 

[solus]

run w/torch ya'l be do'n good...

know my hero myths are being shattered but...keep'n up...

ipse

 

[Dave_pro2a]

It is intriguing to see where peoples minds are.

Personally if it was for the altruistic yet unconstitutional invasion to end slavery, there would be a reason to support the state version of history.
It doesn't take much to show it wasn't.
I have had several arguments with both R's and D's on this, they insist it was about slavery because it was about slavery for the south. No matter what facts you throw at them they will hold true even after admitting it wasn't about slavery for the north or for Lincoln.
They have fail to logically refute that even if it was about slavery, and there is evidence that for some Southern Leaders it was, the south did not start the war, they simply seceded. The north invaded over the secession so no matter how one cuts it the war was a war to destroy the right of self determination and self governance spelled out in the DOI.

You cause the death of up to 850,000 Americans, and suddenly you need to invent a 'higher moral cause.'

You adopt tactics that rely on starvation, murder and rape in order to win, and suddenly you need to invent a 'higher moral cause.'

George Washington + Cherry tree = country founded on lies and myth.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Perhaps George's Ferry Farm cherry tree is not so mythical as to bolster your contradiction. Parson Weems did guest at Ferry Farm when Washington was 56 and may have told stories of his childhood, including the barking of a cherry tree.

It is telling that Woodrow Wilson, the most progressive of all presidents, was among the first to call the tree cutting into question, desperate to damage the provenance of the nation.

http://i2.wp.com/carlanthonyonlined...ingtons-boyhood-home-photographed-in-1926.jpg

 

[sudden valley gunner]

run w/torch ya'l be do'n good...

know my hero myths are being shattered but...keep'n up...

ipse

I felt angered at a school system that promoted the false hood and held people to be hero's that weren't.

Lincoln could have been a Jefferson a person of his times that held racist ideologies but worked to better them. He cared less about slavery and more about central control, and where he did fight against slavery it was for "free white labor", the biggest problem is that we are taught he was this abolitionist and a person who fought for black rights when the exact opposite is true. He destroyed liberty and while a side effect of his war was the abolition of chattel slavery he chained a tremendously greater amount of people into political slavery.

Jefferson too, was a bigot/racist by our current standards, yet Jefferson did great things to try to end slavery even mentioning it as a grievance in his original draft of the DOI.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

From my study of history it seems that the North tended to be more racist than the south in many ways.

Tocqueville seemed to have come to the same conclusion - [FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"the prejeudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known."[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Also an interesting thing I found black and white marriage were more common in the south than the north. Lincoln didn't like mixed blood inf fact he called Mexicans "mongrels" because of the Spanish and Indian mix.[/FONT]

In fact a southern Governor of Texas had a black wife in the late 1800's and was reelected. That would have been unheard of in the North up until maybe late this last century.

 

[utbagpiper]

... Lincoln was not the person I was mislead to believe. That we were not supposed to be one nation, he freed no blacks, he was a tyrant and a racist bigot.
...
So despite the ability to readily research Lincoln and to present facts about him, the cult followers like all good cult followers, will condemn any anti Lincoln statements as heretical against this god of the state.

In other threads, you've utterly failed to demonstrate that Lincoln was any more racist than any of his contemporaries. By today's standards, almost everyone in 1860s USA was racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, xenophobic, and so. This "despite the ability to readily research Lincoln and to present facts" that should back up your claims about him being a horrible racist, if, in fact, he was.

I don't much care whether someone loves Lincoln or hates him. My own feelings on him are mixed. He kept the union together which I consider a good thing. Whatever the motives of Union and Confederacy, Lincoln or Davis, at the outset, the War Between the States ultimately brought an end to legal slavery in this nation...which is an unquestionable good. On the flip side, Lincoln's tactics both in the War and on the domestic front were horrific, the shift in power to the federal government has created serious problems and eroded constitutional checks and balances, and there is no doubt the nation paid a horrible price in the war. Perhaps slavery would have ended without the war. Maybe England would have eventually granted us independence without the Revolutionary war.

What I do find terribly annoying, however, is when someone holds himself up as some kind of expert in real history, but lacks the ability to properly balance between two conflicting truths such as to paint complex historic figures as one-dimensional.

On the one hand, morality is not relative. On the other hand, all men are greatly influenced by the society in which they are born and live; to make simplistic judgments about the past based on current standards leads to a wholly warped view of history. From recent "graduates" of government run day cares (some call them high schools), such ignorance as might manifest by claiming all "Rebels" were bad people while all "Yanks" were freedom loving emancipators is sad. From someone professing to know the "real" history and who has clearly read enough outside the usual grade school curriculum to know better, it moves from sad to something more like blind religious dogma.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

J When I asked if the North had the right to force the South to stop slavery he tried to evade the question by talking about the immorality of slavery itself.

By natural law as we understand it today, any individual has a right to render aid to any other individual whose rights are being abridged.

The same right that you have to render aid to an innocent third party being dragged against her will into the bushes by a rapist, enables you to also render aid to a man held in slavery.

Similarly the same right that allows you to render aid to a man who is being robbed of his rightful property by an armed hoodlum.

By natural law, the man and woman held in slavery has every right to free himself, to request or accept aid in doing so. And every man has a natural right to render the aid necessary to effect the slave's freedom.

Perhaps, what you intended to ask about was whether the federal government had any constitutional authority to force the South to end slavery. THAT may well be a different answer, being a different question. But I think whether you intended to or not, you asked the appropriate question for this group to consider. Doubly so for those who assert a nation has no more proper powers than an individual in that nation has, or who consider the constitution itself to be racist (slavery explicitly permitted, blacks counted as 3/5ths of a person for representation purposes), anti-liberty, and statist.

The companion question to your question is, "By what right did slave owners or their government, presume to hold men in slavery? To force from them the fruit of their labors? To use women as mere objects for sexual gratification without any consent whatsoever? To buy, sell, trade, and profit in another man's life, liberty, family, blood, sweat, and work?"

I love most of Southern culture. And while there are fine aspects of New England Puritanism, in total, I find the know-it-all busybodiesm distasteful. I abhor what Reconstruction did to the South. The same men who effected that, persecuted my ancestors for their peaceful, consensual religious marriage practices. I recognize the hobson's choice the South faced with slavery by the mid 19th century.

But no thinking, rational, moral person today can justify or sugar coat slavery in the least. If every slave in the nation had actually be treated twice as well as Southern propagandists claimed they were, slavery would still have been an unspeakably horrific institution at complete odds with the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. It had to come to an end.

Would that it could have done so peacefully. But it didn't. Perhaps had Lincoln lost the election. Perhaps had Southern forces not fired on Fort Sumter but instead appealed to their brothers in the North for a peaceful resolution. Perhaps....

But at the end of the day, no man, no nation, has a right to hold others in slavery.

What a shame your liberal friend and you both failed to see that with any clarity.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

From my study of history it seems that the North tended to be more racist than the south in many ways.

Hardly surprising on several counts.

1-The South had far more interactions between the races. Black household help and even wet nurses commonly raised white children for southern women considered too delicate for the task. It is much easier to segregate factory workers from upper society than household and farm laborers from the owners and families on the Plantation. I've read several Revolution-era slave owner who complained about how one of the great evils of slavery was the forced interactions between the races.

2-There was a much higher proportion of blacks in the South than in the north, with over 30% of the Southern population being slaves.

3-In the North, blacks represented cheap labor that competed with poor whites directly. In the Southern agrarian culture, this was less so. Poor white farmers were not looking for work on the Plantations of rich white owners anyway.

Lincoln expressed a common Northern sentiment when he said that just because he didn't want to keep a black woman a slave didn't mean he had any desire to have her for a wife. Slavery was seen as a moral wrong simultaneously with miscegenation also being a moral wrong.

Charles