The Cult of Lincoln

[OC for ME]

The more remote the pol, the more powerful, and power corrupts absolutely. All politics is local, and we need to keep it that way.

Home rule towns, sovereign states in a confederation of sovereign states.

Now now...some folks don't take too kindly to talk like that...you you...dissolutionist you.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

When was the last time you went to your federal level representative and had a face to face to voice a grievance?

I have visited my local (town/county/state) reps. Heck, my alderman lives across the street. So, the opportunity to hold him (they) to account for his (their) acts is very close indeed. I find, via my experiences, that the state is far more likely to do as we bid vs. the federales, and less likely to screw it up due to this close proximity.

Even the DMV drone can be held to close account.

Hmm, history says obtaining redress for grievances is very difficult.

The more $ on the table, the harder it becomes.

YMMV, and yes I've rubbed elbows with many levels of elected officials on a social playing field. A bureaucrat is a bureaucrat is a bureaucrat -- with few notable exceptions

 

[OC for ME]

When was the last time you went to your federal level representative and had a face to face to voice a grievance? ...

Hmm, history says obtaining redress for grievances is very difficult. ...

When?

Most days I see a local critter, drone or elected, Ic an document and then forward the "evidence" along to the central committee...with copies to choice local media outlets. If they prefer to be uppity about not getting a chance to make things right I tell them "you had your chance before I caught you or the drone screwing up."

If you do your job right the first time there is no reason to film you or the drone.

A great many critters after Lincoln have "cult of" status to mostly lesser a degree. Sadly, the acts of critters is typically not going to benefit the citizenry, let alone restore liberty. Lincoln laid the foundation for the early 1900th century presidents and their efforts to separate liberty from the citizenry.

 

[acmariner99]

The Civil War was, I think the greatest travesty that has ever befallen our nation. My opinions about individuals on either side is irrelevant. I believe that both sides had legitimate grievances - both were right and both were wrong. It cost us half a million good men to answer some of those questions.

It is well documented that many of the southern states seceded from the union to protect the institution of slavery under the guise of state's rights. Fighting to protect an institution which makes human beings the property of other human beings is grotesque.

I liked the analysis that utbagpiper wrote - if the property of US forts and other properties in the south were legally purchased, the south was morally and constitutionally in the wrong to demand them back at gunpoint. The North is within its rights to not relinquish the property it legally holds.

The north was in the wrong to unilaterally raise an army without government oversight - this action prompted some of the border states to join the confederacy.

The principle of Total War that the Union engaged in especially in the war's later years left a stain on the south that in some ways hasn't fully healed. The morality of total war is one question, but the north fought to WIN; it stopped the threat - "avoid a fight at all costs. If you find yourself unable to avoid one, win at all costs and cheat if necessary." We as people who carry deadly weapons are well aware of this fact.

The north treated the south as a conquered nation after the conflict ended - military occupation, forced acceptance of the new status quo, governments controlled from DC. In many ways I think this prolonged the racial and political tensions that still exist today.

In hindsight, I am glad the north won. If it hadn't, I easily see the 19th and 20th centuries plagued with sectarian conflict (open warfare). I don't think we would've been in position to affect the outcomes of the conflicts in Europe and Asia or keep other empires from encroaching on the western hemisphere.

 

[Aknazer]

When was the fort fired upon? When did the North start putting warships into Southern waters? That alone will answer for me who started the war. You can't threaten someone and then blame them when they call you on it. In regards to the federally owned property it's rather simple. Once the South became their own country (regardless of if the North recognized it or not) they can simply deny Northerners access to the land. So sure you own it, but we're not going to let you resupply it with troops/equipment, nor will we let those who leave reenter it. Then what can the North do except withdraw from it?

 

[OC for ME]

We are property of the fed.gov.

16A...try to escape and await the slavers response.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

In hindsight, I am glad the north won. If it hadn't, I easily see the 19th and 20th centuries plagued with sectarian conflict (open warfare). I don't think we would've been in position to affect the outcomes of the conflicts in Europe and Asia or keep other empires from encroaching on the western hemisphere.

The United States has excelled at sectarian conflict over the last hundred years. We just don't often call it a 'war.'

We can't hardly stop.

We're addicted to it.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The Civil War was, I think the greatest travesty that has ever befallen our nation. My opinions about individuals on either side is irrelevant. I believe that both sides had legitimate grievances - both were right and both were wrong. It cost us half a million good men to answer some of those questions.

This is true. Not condoning the unconsitutionality and the tyranny of the north does not equate to condoning the evils of the southern States.

It is well documented that many of the southern states seceded from the union to protect the institution of slavery under the guise of state's rights. Fighting to protect an institution which makes human beings the property of other human beings is grotesque.

It's also well documented that Lincoln and the Republicans would have kept the institution of slavery intact if the south didn't secede. It boiled down to pay a 42% tariff and keep your slaves. The south said well pay a 10% tariff and keep the slaves.

I liked the analysis that utbagpiper wrote - if the property of US forts and other properties in the south were legally purchased, the south was morally and constitutionally in the wrong to demand them back at gunpoint. The North is within its rights to not relinquish the property it legally holds.

Yet this ignores the fact that many northern Senators and Congressmen were drafting up and preparing to make deals on the federal property in the south and recognizing the secession. Invading and blockading before the deals can even be talked about shows us this wasn't the motivation for Lincolns acts he did without approval of congress.

The north was in the wrong to unilaterally raise an army without government oversight - this action prompted some of the border states to join the confederacy.

Absolutely and invasion prompted others.

The principle of Total War that the Union engaged in especially in the war's later years left a stain on the south that in some ways hasn't fully healed. The morality of total war is one question, but the north fought to WIN; it stopped the threat - "avoid a fight at all costs. If you find yourself unable to avoid one, win at all costs and cheat if necessary." We as people who carry deadly weapons are well aware of this fact.

I disagree, Lincoln and the northern army totally abondonded the rules of combat. I carry a deadly weapon I will not go on the offensive and destroy a persons house, kill his family and wipe out his families means of living. It is immoral.

The north treated the south as a conquered nation after the conflict ended - military occupation, forced acceptance of the new status quo, governments controlled from DC. In many ways I think this prolonged the racial and political tensions that still exist today.

That is my feelings too. Those who lost blamed those whom the north claimed to free.

In hindsight, I am glad the north won. If it hadn't, I easily see the 19th and 20th centuries plagued with sectarian conflict (open warfare). I don't think we would've been in position to affect the outcomes of the conflicts in Europe and Asia or keep other empires from encroaching on the western hemisphere.

If Britian had one and had kept all its colonies the same thing could be said. I don't see us at open war with Canada and Mexico. US never should have been in Asia. They should have avoided Europes war too, Wilson's having a hand in ww1 set up ww2.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

When was the fort fired upon? When did the North start putting warships into Southern waters? That alone will answer for me who started the war. You can't threaten someone and then blame them when they call you on it. In regards to the federally owned property it's rather simple. Once the South became their own country (regardless of if the North recognized it or not) they can simply deny Northerners access to the land. So sure you own it, but we're not going to let you resupply it with troops/equipment, nor will we let those who leave reenter it. Then what can the North do except withdraw from it?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/01/john-v-denson/why-did-lincoln-invade-the-south/


Finally, in order to bring into clear focus the significance of the Hampton Roads Conference, it should be recalled that on April 4, 1861, before the start of the war on April 12, the Secession Convention in Virginia, which had convened in February of 1861, sent a delegate to visit President Lincoln in the White House to discuss the results of the action recently taken in Virginia. When the State of Virginia originally voted on its ratification ordinance approving the U.S. Constitution, it contained a specific clause protecting their right to secede in the future. The delegate was Colonel John B. Baldwin, who was a strong opponent of secession by Virginia, although he recognized the right. His message communicated privately to the president on April 4, was that the convention had voted not to secede if President Lincoln would issue a written pledge to refrain from the use of force in order to get the seceded states back into the Union. President Lincoln told Colonel Baldwin that it was four days too late now to take that action. Unknown to all except a few insiders of the administration, meaning that members of the Congress did not know, the president had already issued secret orders on April 1, to send a fleet of ships to Fort Sumter in order to provoke the South into firing the first shot in order to start the war. (For more details see my chapter "Lincoln and the First Shot: A Study of Deceit and Deception" in the book Reassessing the Presidency.) Lincoln stated that he could not wait until the seceded states decided what to do and added:
"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery? Am I to let them go on?"
Baldwin replied:
"Yes sir, until they can be peaceably brought back."
Lincoln then replied:
"And open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten percent tariff . . ." (as opposed to the much higher forty percent Federal tariff). "What then would become of my tariff?"

 

[Dave_pro2a]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/01/john-v-denson/why-did-lincoln-invade-the-south/


Finally, in order to bring into clear focus the significance of the Hampton Roads Conference, it should be recalled that on April 4, 1861, before the start of the war on April 12, the Secession Convention in Virginia, which had convened in February of 1861, sent a delegate to visit President Lincoln in the White House to discuss the results of the action recently taken in Virginia. When the State of Virginia originally voted on its ratification ordinance approving the U.S. Constitution, it contained a specific clause protecting their right to secede in the future. The delegate was Colonel John B. Baldwin, who was a strong opponent of secession by Virginia, although he recognized the right. His message communicated privately to the president on April 4, was that the convention had voted not to secede if President Lincoln would issue a written pledge to refrain from the use of force in order to get the seceded states back into the Union. President Lincoln told Colonel Baldwin that it was four days too late now to take that action. Unknown to all except a few insiders of the administration, meaning that members of the Congress did not know, the president had already issued secret orders on April 1, to send a fleet of ships to Fort Sumter in order to provoke the South into firing the first shot in order to start the war. (For more details see my chapter "Lincoln and the First Shot: A Study of Deceit and Deception" in the book Reassessing the Presidency.) Lincoln stated that he could not wait until the seceded states decided what to do and added:
"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery? Am I to let them go on?"
Baldwin replied:
"Yes sir, until they can be peaceably brought back."
Lincoln then replied:
"And open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten percent tariff . . ." (as opposed to the much higher forty percent Federal tariff). "What then would become of my tariff?"

It's like the Italian mafia meeting MS-13.

The gov. Separating money from victims via threat of force.

A racket to be protected at all costs. 800,000 dead Americans, no big deal = revenue stream protected.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It's like the Italian mafia meeting MUS-13.

The gov. Money, sperating money from victims via threat of force.

A racket to be protected at all costs. 800,000 dead Americans, no big deal = revenue stream protected.

There's interesting observations by other histories that Lincoln wanted the war to cement his party of big government otherwise it wouldn't last.

I think much like the Federalist they would have been wiped after Lincoln if the war wasn't fought.

Yep it was all about the dinero.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

There's interesting observations by other histories that Lincoln wanted the war to cement his party of big government otherwise it wouldn't last.

I think much like the Federalist they would have been wiped after Lincoln if the war wasn't fought.

Yep it was all about the dinero.

Speaking of Dinero,

I hope race relations improve.

Then we can really split people split into just the rich versus the poor.

Which might lead to the real conflict: the powerless versus the powerful.

And possibly after the rich fall, instead of a totalitarian or dictatorial regime maybe everyone will decide to once again embrace real individual liberty and freedom.

I'm going to sleep, dreaming of a better tomorrow.

 

[Grapeshot]

Speaking of Dinero,

I hope race relations improve.

Then we can really split people split into just the rich versus the poor.

Which might lead to the real conflict: the powerless versus the powerful.

And possibly after the rich fall, instead of a totalitarian or dictatorial regime maybe everyone will decide to once again embrace real individual liberty and freedom.

I'm going to sleep, dreaming of a better tomorrow.

You're already dreamin'

 

[solus]

Speaking of Dinero,
I hope race relations improve.
Then we can really split people split into just the rich versus the poor.
Which might lead to the real conflict: the powerless versus the powerful.
And possibly after the rich fall, instead of a totalitarian or dictatorial regime maybe everyone will decide to once again embrace real individual liberty and freedom.
I'm going to sleep, dreaming of a better tomorrow.

Dave, while you were sleep'g and a dream'g, a phenomenon occurred...

quote: ...a study found that – on current trends – by next year, 1% of the world’s population will own more wealth than the other 99%. unquote. http://www.theguardian.com/business...-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland

do not see the rich/poor conflict or the rich falling anytime soon tho...

ipse

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Speaking of Dinero,

I hope race relations improve.

Then we can really split people split into just the rich versus the poor.

Which might lead to the real conflict: the powerless versus the powerful.

And possibly after the rich fall, instead of a totalitarian or dictatorial regime maybe everyone will decide to once again embrace real individual liberty and freedom.

I'm going to sleep, dreaming of a better tomorrow.

IMHO a titanic, deliberate effort is maintained to keep this sort of unified thinking from taking hold. Divided and conquered we are.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Dave, while you were sleep'g and a dream'g, a phenomenon occurred...

quote: ...a study found that – on current trends – by next year, 1% of the world’s population will own more wealth than the other 99%. unquote. http://www.theguardian.com/business...-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland

do not see the rich/poor conflict or the rich falling anytime soon tho...

ipse

What they fail to note is that the standard of living for the poor will more than likely increase too.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Speaking of Dinero,

I hope race relations improve.

Then we can really split people split into just the rich versus the poor.

Which might lead to the real conflict: the powerless versus the powerful.

And possibly after the rich fall, instead of a totalitarian or dictatorial regime maybe everyone will decide to once again embrace real individual liberty and freedom.

I'm going to sleep, dreaming of a better tomorrow.

You're already dreamin'

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I am not the only one"-Lennon

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Václav Havel wrote The Power of the Powerless

English on-line http://vaclavhavel.cz/showtrans.php?cat=clanky&val=72_aj_clanky.html&typ=HTML

I includes notably:

Interesting quote and lots of truth in it.

 

[solus]

What they fail to note is that the standard of living for the poor will more than likely increase too.

has to or the masses' discontent will escalate exponentially...

but instead of the wafers, might i take a glass of 150$ strawberries when you get a chance...

Oh, you been so much more than kind...

ipse

PS: and nightmare, quite apropos...thanks for sharing, you can keep the dime!

 

[Dave_pro2a]

What they fail to note is that the standard of living for the poor will more than likely increase too.

Well duh. Free the slaves, then ensure they become dependent upon the state.

Free minimum benefits must increase, or else.

Which means taxes must increase, or else.

Jobs? Eff'em, let's export those for profit. Instead we'll reward laziness and dependence.

Hey, a mandatory, state funded educational system sure could bolster that plan.

Crap, it didn't work. I'm going back to bed. :/