Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Books That Tell the Truth About Lincoln

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Books That Tell the Truth About Lincoln

    “History- a lie agreed upon.”
    -Napoleon Bonaparte

    “The Lincoln cult is almost an American religion. It has its high priest in the form of Lincoln “authorities” and its worshipers in the thousands of fans...the Lincoln birthplace in Kentucky, the memorial in Washington, the tomb in Illinois have become national shrines visited by thousands each week.”
    -David Donald Lincoln Reconsidered


    “Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom . . . are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him . . . with rare exceptions, you can’t believe what any major Lincoln scholar tells you about Abraham Lincoln and race.”
    –Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced into Glory, p. 114


    “Lincoln was the most-hated president of all time during his own lifetime...The fact that he is now the most revered of all American presidents is a result of the work of generations of court historians and statist apologists who have literally rewritten American history in the same manner that the Soviets rewrote Russian history to consolidate their political power”.
    - Thomas J Dilorenzo Lincoln The Great Centralizer




    The winner writes the history and here are some great books willing to tell the historical non mythological truth about Lincoln. What if i told you Lincoln was a white supremacist who more than not defended slavery and worked to preserve slavery? What if i told you he supported laws against equality for blacks? What if I said he was not an abolitionist and worked against them within his own party? What if I said he was not the great emancipator and did not free the slaves? What if I told you he supported an amendment to forever protect slavery? What if I told you he was an american Tyrant who did not save the union or Constitution but radically transformed it and destroyed the union of the founders along with the principles in the declaration of Independence? Of course i would be wrong right? we all know the above is false, Lincoln was a friend of blacks and abolitionist fighter of equality and the savior of the Constitution and America. Our greatest president. Read these books and find out you have been lied to and than ask why.



    “Americans have been progressive dubbed down about Lincoln thanks to the avalanche of myths, superstitions, and propaganda produced by generations of “Lincoln scholars.”
    -Thomas j Diolernzo Forward to Lincoln as he really was





    David Donald Lincoln Reconsidered
    https://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Recon...r=8-2-fkmrnull



    The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War

    https://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761526463/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+real+lincoln&qid=155809766 0&s=gateway&sr=8-1


    Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe

    https://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Unmasked-Youre-Supposed-Dishonest/dp/0307338428/ref=pd_bxgy_14_2/133-4072325-6027238?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0307338428&pd_rd_r= e56b7380-78a2-11e9-88a6-43a657414496&pd_rd_w=MJa5E&pd_rd_wg=qgs9N&pf_rd_p= a2006322-0bc0-4db9-a08e-d168c18ce6f0&pf_rd_r=AN1RGEMJ6NJRFMSY8F5E&psc=1&re fRID=AN1RGEMJ6NJRFMSY8F5E


    Lincoln As He Really Was

    https://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-As-He-Really-Was/dp/1947660152/ref=pd_sim_14_23?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1947660152 &pd_rd_r=f120e265-78a2-11e9-91a5-9bf57843c05e&pd_rd_w=eiGV2&pd_rd_wg=p0QLt&pf_rd_p= 90485860-83e9-4fd9-b838-b28a9b7fda30&pf_rd_r=ZAC9GGG3DTV0937EJBSZ&psc=1&re fRID=ZAC9GGG3DTV0937EJBSZ

    The South Was Right!

    https://www.amazon.com/South-Right-James-Ronald-Kennedy/dp/1565540247/ref=pd_sim_14_32?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1565540247 &pd_rd_r=0689fec3-78a3-11e9-a5c7-5965a5328207&pd_rd_w=RCnKt&pd_rd_wg=xQiR9&pf_rd_p= 90485860-83e9-4fd9-b838-b28a9b7fda30&pf_rd_r=7P8XJ1E86P911C21CT94&psc=1&re fRID=7P8XJ1E86P911C21CT94

    Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream

    https://www.amazon.com/Forced-into-Glory-Abraham-Lincolns/dp/0874850029/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=forced+into+glory&qid=15580978 46&s=books&sr=1-3

  • #2
    Nonsense. Lincoln was a great POTUS.
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #3
      Lincoln was the second best president the US has ever had-with Washington being the first. Without Washington there would have been no Lincoln.

      It looks to me that the books listed were written in order to peddle books and not to enlighten. However, I'd have to read them to actually make a judgment about them.

      Two things stand out, though, in the listing-the South was right and the Civil War was unnecessary. Both premises are historically incorrect if you believe the United States should have remained a united nation. I happen to believe that to be the case. The British and French supported the Confederacy in order to weaken the United States and its growing economic power.

      And abolishing slavery was the right thing to do. The North didn't go to war, though, to abolish slavery but to restore the Union. Abolishing slavery was a result of the war and it had to be done. It was an immoral institution that the Founders, at least some of them, wanted abolished when the nation announced its independence from Great Britain.

      So, it appears to me that the revisionist history being peddled here is rubbish, but I'll reserve judgment when and if I actually read them. Lincoln was a great man and a great president and the historical record supports that judgment.
      We are not now that strength which in old days
      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
        Nonsense. Lincoln was a great POTUS.


        I am not at all surprised. I would have said the same 10 years ago. That is the result of indoctrination. The Lincoln you believe in i would agree was the best POTUS. However the actual historical Lincoln IMO is the worst POTUS. We



        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Massena View Post
          Lincoln was the second best president the US has ever had-with Washington being the first. Without Washington there would have been no Lincoln.

          It looks to me that the books listed were written in order to peddle books and not to enlighten. However, I'd have to read them to actually make a judgment about them.

          Two things stand out, though, in the listing-the South was right and the Civil War was unnecessary. Both premises are historically incorrect if you believe the United States should have remained a united nation. I happen to believe that to be the case. The British and French supported the Confederacy in order to weaken the United States and its growing economic power.

          And abolishing slavery was the right thing to do. The North didn't go to war, though, to abolish slavery but to restore the Union. Abolishing slavery was a result of the war and it had to be done. It was an immoral institution that the Founders, at least some of them, wanted abolished when the nation announced its independence from Great Britain.

          So, it appears to me that the revisionist history being peddled here is rubbish, but I'll reserve judgment when and if I actually read them. Lincoln was a great man and a great president and the historical record supports that judgment.

          Once more i would agree, the Lincoln you believe in was our best or second best president. The historical Lincoln was very much different. I am glad to see the silliness in judging a book before you read it.


          I dont think the authors of the south was right would disagree with your conclusion only your premise. The principles of the founders the declaration, liberty and the union they created were the main objection of maintaining for those authors. In fact as the book shows we were not a united nation, we were in fact a federation a true republic [article 4 section 4 of the Constitution] as understood by the majority of Americans prior to the civil war. The goal was not what is best for the national government, but what was best for "we the people"


          The war “Destroyed voluntary union of the founders and made all Americans servants rather than masters of their own government... transformed the American government from a constitutional republic to a consolidated empire”
          -Thomas Dilorenzo author of The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked


          “Liberty became less important than the well being of government”
          -Al Benson Jr and Walter Kennedy Lincolns Marxists


          “The civil war was that the right to govern is paramount over the right to live, that man is made for government, rather than that government is made for man, and that for men to claim the right of self government is to deserve and incure the death penalty”
          -Charles L.C minor The real Lincoln 1928



          The view of the union prior to Lincoln was just that, a union.


          “[After the war] the old decentralized federal republic became a new national polity that taxed the people directly, created an internal revenue bureau to collect these taxes, expanded the jurisdiction of federal courts, established a national currency and a national banking structure. The United States went to war in 1861 to preserve the Union; it emerged from war in 1865 having created a nation. Before 1861 the two words "United States" were generally used as a plural noun: "The United States are a republic." After 1865 the United States became a singular noun. The loose union of states became a nation”
          -James M. McPherson


          “Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself...each party has equal right to judge for itself”
          -Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson


          "That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
          -Virginia Resolutions 1800 Written by James Madison


          “For the Constitution of the union....can never assume any powers, that is not expressly granted by that instrument, not exercise a power, in any manner than is there prescribed. This is indeed, a short, clear, and concise exposition of the principles of a limited government, founded upon a compact between sovereign and independent states.”
          -St George Tucker 1803




          As for slavery I never said it should not have been abolished, I said Lincoln did not do it. He was a white supremacist who multiple times worked to keep slavery or pro slavery policy and worked against abolitionist. He himself was no abolitionist nor the great emancipator. I also would not expect you to accept this history we have been indoctrinated in a very different version of Lincoln, it must be shown this can and has been done.

          Comment


          • #6
            I wouldn’t be surprised by most of what you would tell me. Lincoln was largely racist: he wanted to send the slaves to Africa, wanted to keep them from voting, didn’t want to associate with them personally. He also signed the Emancipation Proclamation and led the effort to pass the Thirteenth Ammendment. I don’t know if he was a “tyrant,” but I don’t like the income tax. He paved the way for the welfare state and overbearing federal government for sure. He also ruined states rights, which was one of the strongest parts of our country. Half the stuff he did could be thrown out and we would be better off.
            "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

            "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by American87 View Post
              I wouldn’t be surprised by most of what you would tell me. Lincoln was largely racist: he wanted to send the slaves to Africa, wanted to keep them from voting, didn’t want to associate with them personally.
              Agreed. Dont forget his fear of whites and black getting married.


              Originally posted by American87 View Post
              He also signed the Emancipation Proclamation and led the effort to pass the Thirteenth Ammendment.
              Indeed he did. He supported the corwin amendment [the original 13th amendment] and pushed for the states to adopt it which read


              No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State,, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

              But what did he do to push the amendment that ended slavery? and was he pushed to push for it? like the emancipation proclamation. What if i told you he was literally forced into doing action against slavery by northern abolitionist whom he had fought against and tried to hold in check. When they gathered and thertened to withhold support for the war Lincoln was forced against his will to take some kind of action.


              “in 1864 he wrote an admirer [about emancipation proclamation] “I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me.”
              -quoted in David Donald Lincoln Reconsidered



              “For a length of time it had been hoped that the rebellion could be suppressed without resorting to it [emancipation] as a military measure”
              -Abraham Lincoln The collective works



              and in fact it was regressive in terms of abolition re-enslaved thousands of slaves and did not free anyone at all. In fact it stopped the abolitionist efforts and plans that would have freed hundreds of thousands of slaves.


              “The proclamation had as its purpose and effect the checking of the radical [abolitionist] program”
              -Lerone Bennett JR Forced into Glory Abraham Lincolns White dream



              Further it did not touch slavery as an institution at all. It was only a military document and only applied to slave owners at war against the government as a military order to help the war.




              Originally posted by American87 View Post
              I don’t know if he was a “tyrant,” but I don’t like the income tax. He paved the way for the welfare state and overbearing federal government for sure. He also ruined states rights, which was one of the strongest parts of our country. Half the stuff he did could be thrown out and we would be better off.

              Agreed. I would add much more than tax like throwing in prison thousands for no reason or over political disputes, shutting down hundreds of newspapers, interference of elections, violating private property and ownership of arms, violating the Constitution among other acts.






              Comment


              • #8
                Have you read this one?

                https://www.amazon.com/Team-Rivals-P...s=books&sr=1-4
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Massena View Post


                  I am assuming this was to me. I have not nor would I purchase it thoe I would read a copy given to me. I new i herd the name before. I am pretty sure Dilrenzo talks of her in his book Lincoln Unmasked naming her among the Lincoln cult. If your interested here are two articles that mention her by Dilorenzo

                  A Plagiarist's Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry

                  https://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/11/...-lincoln-cult/


                  "Doris Kearns Goodwin is a museum-quality specimen of a "court historian" — an intellectual or pseudo-intellectual who is devoted to pulling the wool over the public’s eyes by portraying even the most immoral, corrupt, and sleazy politicians as great, wise, and altruistic men."

                  The Very Model of a Modern Major Lincoln Cultist

                  https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/04/thomas-dilorenzo/lincoln-cultists-love-the-omnipotent-state/



                  But if it is arguing that he was a great politican, I do not deny, that is part of why I hate him. he started the cycle of politicians lying to get elected in our country rather than men serving their country.



                  "Lincoln was a master politician, which means he was a consummate conniver, manipulator, and liar."
                  -Murray Rothbard


                  “The craftiest and most dishonest politician that ever disgraced an office in America.”
                  -Springfield neighbor of Lincolns quoted in David Donalds Lincoln Reconsidered


                  “Those that new Lincoln best, never called him honest Abe”
                  -Richard Smith Presidential Historian George Mason University



                  Part of what is believed about the Lincoln myth is Abraham Lincoln was an honest, good person. The Lincoln myth in some ways started with Lincolns public image. The historical Lincoln was a master politician who used people for his own power and agenda. He was a political opportunist who drifted with the tide “a quest for office” He would lie and mislead people to convince them to support him.


                  “Lincoln was Americas first modern politician”
                  -Al Benson Jr and Walter Kennedy Lincolns Marxists



                  Described as an expert politician able to condone and condemn at the same time. He would say yes, and no, and make listeners believe his intentions were good, a modern politician. His opponent in 1858 Stephen Douglass stated Lincoln “Can trim his principles any way in any section, so as to secure votes.” The Chicago daily democrat press said Lincoln “Provided a kind of loophole for escape if anything he said should not satisfy all kinds of views.” David Donald in Lincoln Reconsidered said “Lincoln, whose one dogma was an absence of dogma”

                  “There is a grand canyon between what Lincoln said and what he did...He ignored the Constitution when he wanted to and hide behind it when he wanted to.”
                  -Lerone Bennett Forced into Glory Abraham Lincolns White dream


                  A propagandist rather than a strict facturalist, metaphorical and abstract rather than specific and practical.”
                  -Charles T Pace Lincoln as he Really was Shotwell publishing 2018


                  Abolitionist who sought to bring Lincoln to their side well knew Lincoln was a politician as Wendall Phillips stated “Lincoln is a Pawn on the political chessboard. With fair effort, we may soon change him for a knight, bishop or queen, and sweep the board.” At the age of 45 Lincoln first spoke out against the extension of slavery out west. He “Rode to glory on the public waves” as the north turned against the Kansas/Nebraska act. Lincoln “reinvented himself” and for the first time he spoke against slavery. Had public opinion never turned against slavery, its likely the master politician never would have. Even his own cabinet did not think him a great president.

                  “In every single stand he took, which superficially might appear to be an original attitude, either substantial or major groups had passed that point before him, and it was only the support that they had gathered and their potential strength that enticed Lincoln to the position”
                  -Thaddeus Stevens Fredrick Douglass 1934



                  “Politics was his life”
                  -David Donald Lincoln Reconsidered









                  “Lincoln was what today would be called a “lobbyist” for the railroad industry”
                  -Thomas J Dilorenzo Lincoln Unmasked


                  In 1843 while running as a whig Lincoln political opponents portrayed him as “the Candidate of pride, wealth, and aristocracy..family distinctions” [marriage to Mary Todd] . S Lincoln remade his image.

                  “Shrewd manufacturer of his public image”
                  -Richard Smith presidential historian George mason University


                  Lincoln was able to Cunningly shape his own public image. He new how to sell himself, he would create a dishonest image of himself to sell to the public. For more see National geographic Top Secrets about Abraham Lincoln

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZWz4iPJZLg


                  While running for president Lincoln sold himself as a poor country rail splitter. In reality Lincoln was a rich powerful rail lobbyist and lawyer. He was a corporate trial lawyer, his clients were from every major railroad cooperation in the west. He subsidized $12 million tax in Illinois to rail corporations that ended in a big failure. But helped him politically become known as a railroad lobbyist. He was a cooperate insider and traveled with his own private rail car with a free pass, around the Midwest.


                  Lincolns powerful industrial interests were always present at political councils. 1862 Lincoln used a bill for the Union Pacific Railroad Tax payer subsidized to pay off northern business for their support of him and the republican party[Republican party still today allied with major industry]. He used government subsidized railroad that involving ethnic cleansing and removal of the great plains Indians from their land to make way for the rail road.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I would be careful if I were you in reading revisionist history. There are two kinds of historical revisionism, one credible, the other not. Credible historical revisionism is when something factual is found that has not been found before and is employed to enlighten and teach. That type of revisionism that is not credible is found in dubious sources usually with an agenda attached. I suspect those books that you are recommending are of the latter type.

                    That you won't read the book I listed unless it is gifted to you leads me to believe that you have an agenda here and are not amendable to reasonable material that you don't agree with. The author of the book I recommended is a credible and recognized historian who thoroughly researches her books. Can the same be said with the material you have recommended?

                    Are you an adherent to the southern confederacy and what they tried to do to the country?
                    We are not now that strength which in old days
                    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Does the local library have inter-library loan?

                      Pruitt
                      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sic Semper Tyran View Post

                        Agreed. Dont forget his fear of whites and black getting married.




                        Indeed he did. He supported the corwin amendment [the original 13th amendment] and pushed for the states to adopt it which read


                        No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State,, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

                        But what did he do to push the amendment that ended slavery? and was he pushed to push for it? like the emancipation proclamation. What if i told you he was literally forced into doing action against slavery by northern abolitionist whom he had fought against and tried to hold in check. When they gathered and thertened to withhold support for the war Lincoln was forced against his will to take some kind of action.


                        “in 1864 he wrote an admirer [about emancipation proclamation] “I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me.”
                        -quoted in David Donald Lincoln Reconsidered



                        “For a length of time it had been hoped that the rebellion could be suppressed without resorting to it [emancipation] as a military measure”
                        -Abraham Lincoln The collective works



                        and in fact it was regressive in terms of abolition re-enslaved thousands of slaves and did not free anyone at all. In fact it stopped the abolitionist efforts and plans that would have freed hundreds of thousands of slaves.


                        “The proclamation had as its purpose and effect the checking of the radical [abolitionist] program”
                        -Lerone Bennett JR Forced into Glory Abraham Lincolns White dream



                        Further it did not touch slavery as an institution at all. It was only a military document and only applied to slave owners at war against the government as a military order to help the war.







                        Agreed. I would add much more than tax like throwing in prison thousands for no reason or over political disputes, shutting down hundreds of newspapers, interference of elections, violating private property and ownership of arms, violating the Constitution among other acts.





                        Lincoln used slavery as a pawn against the South. He encouraged the Border States to adopt gradual emancipation policies, with the federal government paying for lost "property," as a way of bringing them closer to the North.

                        He also passed the confiscation acts, which declared that all slaves employed by rebels in a military capacity could be seized as contraband, and which later declared all slaves possessed by rebels to be free. The Emancipation Proclamation simply declared all slaves in rebellious territory free, which means the slaves of Southern Unionists were included. This laid the groundwork for the advancing Union armies, who would march deeper into Tennessee, Mississippi, Virginia, South Carolina, Florida, and elsewhere, and allow them to liberate the slaves with the legal work already done. Moreover, the EP called for the enlistment of black troops, which meant all the newly freed slaves could be armed and deployed in the field. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave, but it was the capstone of the commander-in-chief's slavery policy. Lincoln knew that on January 2, 1863, Union soldiers could march to the nearest plantation and liberate a potential soldier.

                        Lincoln also pushed Congress to pass the XIII Amendment.

                        Lincoln was an abolitionist at heart, but it is correct to say that the historial record of his presidency indicates he only used slavery as a means to end the war.

                        "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do morewhenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

                        I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."

                        Lincoln to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862

                        "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                        "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Massena View Post
                          I would be careful if I were you in reading revisionist history. There are two kinds of historical revisionism, one credible, the other not. Credible historical revisionism is when something factual is found that has not been found before and is employed to enlighten and teach. That type of revisionism that is not credible is found in dubious sources usually with an agenda attached. I suspect those books that you are recommending are of the latter type.

                          That you won't read the book I listed unless it is gifted to you leads me to believe that you have an agenda here and are not amendable to reasonable material that you don't agree with. The author of the book I recommended is a credible and recognized historian who thoroughly researches her books. Can the same be said with the material you have recommended?

                          Are you an adherent to the southern confederacy and what they tried to do to the country?


                          Thanks for the sound advice. But in this case the history is clear and has been, its simple not hold and deliberate distorted for political/agenda/ purposes. I think if you read those books and the facts contained, it will indeed show the agenda and how the rewrite of history was done. Just because that agenda became the norm, does not make it so historically.


                          I am sorry you came to the conclusion. I do not support what I think are untruths and misconceptions financially but I am more than willing to read her book maybe the library as someone suggested. she has also been taken off the Pulitzer Prize Committee because of the plagiarism. But just what of her book goes against anything I have said and how did she support it?


                          I am an adherent to the founders, the declaration, the Constitution as originally intended and liberty, I am not for what Lincoln and the republicans did to those things nor for modern historians who distort that truth.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by American87 View Post

                            Lincoln used slavery as a pawn against the South. He encouraged the Border States to adopt gradual emancipation policies, with the federal government paying for lost "property," as a way of bringing them closer to the North.

                            He also passed the confiscation acts, which declared that all slaves employed by rebels in a military capacity could be seized as contraband, and which later declared all slaves possessed by rebels to be free. The Emancipation Proclamation simply declared all slaves in rebellious territory free, which means the slaves of Southern Unionists were included. This laid the groundwork for the advancing Union armies, who would march deeper into Tennessee, Mississippi, Virginia, South Carolina, Florida, and elsewhere, and allow them to liberate the slaves with the legal work already done. Moreover, the EP called for the enlistment of black troops, which meant all the newly freed slaves could be armed and deployed in the field. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave, but it was the capstone of the commander-in-chief's slavery policy. Lincoln knew that on January 2, 1863, Union soldiers could march to the nearest plantation and liberate a potential soldier.
                            I think Lincoln used slavery like any other political issue, to keep him in power or to gain power.



                            The emancipation actually freed a negligible number of slaves. Yet Lincoln continues to live in mens mind as the emancipator of the negroes.”
                            -David Donald Lincoln Reconsidered


                            “Never did a man achieve more fame for what he did not do and for what he never intended to do”
                            - Lerone Bennett JR Forced into Glory Abraham Lincolns White dream


                            To forestall a more revolutionary move against slavery...foreseeing he could not resits antislavery pressure much longer...using every weapon at his command to slow down, sidetrack or stop the emancipation flow”
                            -Steven Oates With menace Towards none the Life of Abraham Lincoln



                            The emancipation proclamation was given at a low point for the north near the end of 62. It was not designed to free slaves, it did not free a single slave, Lincoln himself knew it would not make the slaves free. It applied only to confederate controlled areas, not northern slave states or north controlled confederate area/states such as much of LA and VA. In fact all a confederate state had to do to not have this apply was rejoin the union , with slavery intact. The US Secretary of the state William Seward said of the emancipation proclamation “Where he could, he didn't. Where he did, he couldn't”.


                            The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.
                            -London Spectator in reference to the Emancipation Proclamation

                            “It was only on the basis of military necessity that Abraham Lincoln was able to implement the emancipation proclamation”.
                            -The untold civil war National Geographic James Robertson



                            The proclamation was given by Lincoln for a few reasons, the first was as a war measure. “As a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion.” The war was lasting longer than anticipated and northern abolitionist and hard war democrats put tremendous pressure on Lincoln threatening to withhold men, material and support for the war unless Lincoln hit the south where it would hurt them, slaves. Lincoln and his cabinet were concerned a rebellion would start in the north if they did not do something towards emancipation. The proclamation would end with the war and any slave freed by it would become subject to local state laws. The document did not deal with the institution of slavery at all. Lincoln constantly wrote it was “Merely a war measure” and “Have effect only from its being a exercise of war power”. Lincolns stated “It would have no effect upon the children of the slaves born hereafter.” A second reason was To keep England and France out of the war. If the war had a abolitionist objective, that would force England and France to be neutral. Also to encourage slave revolts in the south. This was seen by some in Europe as its clear objective. To encourage slaves to rise up, kill their woman and children masters in a revolt while the men were fighting at the front, was immoral.


                            Cold-blooded invitation to insurrection and butchery.”
                            -Harrisburg Patriot and Union Newspaper Pennsylvania



                            Lincoln said of the emancipation proclamation “I am driven to it.” Close friends said Lincoln “Abhorred” and had “reluctance” about issuing the emancipation. Nathan Stevenson said it was “Not choice” that it was issued by Lincoln, but Lincoln was pressured to do something from the abolitionist in the party such as the Governor of Massachusetts [who threatened to stop support of the war] Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts Representative Thaddeus Stevens etc. Charles Sumner said god and history forced Lincolns Hand. Radical governors had set up a meeting for September the 24th with a plan to withhold war support and some to call Lincoln to resign. Lincoln knowing of this meeting and the growing radical support among congress, governors and the people, issued the proclamation just two days before. Lincoln called the proclamation a “civil necessity to prevent the radicals from embarrassing the government.” In a meeting trying to sell his colonization plan to the border sates representatives, Lincoln said on July 12 “The pressure in this direction [intimidate emancipation] is still upon me, and is increasing”.


                            “For a length of time it had been hoped that the rebellion could be suppressed without resorting to it [emancipation] as a military measure”
                            -Abraham Lincoln The collective works


                            “The patriots of both houses... the American people whipped MR. Lincoln into the glory of having issued the emancipation proclamation”
                            -Diary of Adam Gurowski NY 1862-1866

                            “in 1864 he wrote an admirer [about emancipation proclamation] “I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me.”
                            -quoted in David Donald Lincoln Reconsidered



                            The emancipation proclamation was actually “Regressive” in terms of abolition. On July17 1862 congress passed the second confiscation act. This act freed all rebel slaves “property” within the confederacy to be “forever free.” Later on Sep 22 1862 Lincoln sighed the preliminary emancipation nullifying the emancipation act of congress, re-enslaving slaves. It did not touch the slaves within the slave states in the union, It did not free any slave the confiscation act would not have. It was a conservative reaction to the radical abolitionist in congress.


                            “The proclamation had as its purpose and effect the checking of the radical [abolitionist] program”
                            -Lerone Bennett JR Forced into Glory Abraham Lincolns White dream



                            The D.C emancipation bill in 1862 was given to Lincoln who than held on to it for two days so a friend from KY could leave D.C with his two slaves. Lincoln regretted the intimidate emancipation of D.C slaves instead he wanted gradual release because “That now families would at once be deprived of cooks, stable boys and their protectors without any provision for them.”


                            When he entered his presidency... that before his term of office would expire, he would be hailed as “The great emancipator” he would have treated the statement as equal one of his jokes”
                            -John Hume The Abolitionist NY 1905




                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by American87 View Post
                              Lincoln also pushed Congress to pass the XIII Amendment.
                              How so? could you support this? as I said before he did support the original 13th amendment to make slavery permanent in the US.


                              The original 13th amendment was called the Corwin amendment, one that Lincoln pushed to get passed. It would forever allow slavery in America and would make it unconstitutional for the federal government to abolish it.


                              No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State,, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.



                              In his first inaugural address Lincoln stated on the Corwin amendment


                              Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable".
                              -Abraham Lincoln



                              He then sent a letter to the governor of each state transmitting the approved amendment for what he hoped would be ratification and noting that his predecessor, President James Buchanan, had also endorsed it. He told New York Senator William Seward, who would become his secretary of state, to push the amendment through the U.S. Senate. He also instructed Seward to get a federal law passed that would repeal the personal liberty laws in some of the Northern states that were used by those states to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which Lincoln strongly supported.


                              Lincoln’s first inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, is probably the most powerful defense of slavery ever made by an American politician. In the speech Lincoln denies having any intention to interfere with Southern slavery; supports the federal Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution, which compelled citizens of non-slave states to capture runaway slaves; and also supported a constitutional amendment known as the Corwin Amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering in Southern slavery, thereby enshrining it explicitly in the text of the U.S. Constitution.”
                              -Thomas Dilorenzo





                              Originally posted by American87 View Post
                              Lincoln was an abolitionist at heart, but it is correct to say that the historial record of his presidency indicates he only used slavery as a means to end the war.

                              “I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all.”
                              -Abraham Lincoln 1858


                              “I wish to make and to keep the distinction between the existing institution, and the extension of it, so broad, and so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one, successfully misrepresent me.
                              -Abraham Lincoln 1854



                              Lincoln was never considered a abolitionist, he was against immediate abolition. He never intended to interfere with slavery where it already existed, only the extension of out into the west. He did not want the west to become “An asylum for slaves and niggers,” he also was against slavery's expansion out west so to not interfere with “free white labor.”


                              "The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these [new western] territories. We want them for the homes of free white people."
                              -Abraham Lincoln, October 16, 1854


                              “It is not rather our duty to make labor more respectable by preserving all black competition, [free and slave] especially in the territories”
                              -Abraham Lincoln


                              “Professor Holt quotes Ohio Congressman Joshua Giddings explaining: “To give the south the preponderance of political power would be itself to surrender our tariff, our internal improvements [a.k.a. corporate welfare], our distribution of proceeds of public lands . . .”
                              -Micheal Holt The Fate of Their Country: Politicians, Slavery Extension, and the Coming of the Civil War quoted by Thomas j Dilorenzo



                              “The political and economic implication of agrarian expansion westward were alarming to certain mercantile interests in the east who red the loss of their political and economic control of an expanding America”
                              -Merrill Jensen The New Nation Northeastern University Press



                              The fight over the extension of slavery was not moral, but political. slave trader James De Wolf became anti slavery when he started manufacturing companies. All of a sudden he wanted internal improvements and protective tariffs. Lincoln endorsed slave owning whig Zach Taylor for president.

                              Northern states opposition to the fugitive slave laws masked a much broader political agenda.”
                              -Marshall Derosa redeeming American Democracy Lessons from the Confederate Constitution Pelican press 2007

                              “Lincoln was an abolitionist when it suited him.”
                              -Dr Charles T Pace Lincoln as he Really was Shotwell Publishing Columbia South Carolina 2018



                              Lincoln was said to be “quit” about the issue of slavery unlike the abolitionist in his party. When asked if he minded having abolitionist in his party Lincoln said “As long as I'm not tarred with the abolitionist brush.” Those who knew Lincoln in the white house spoke of Lincolns thoughts about abolitionist. Lincolns close friend General James Wadsworth said the welfare of the negroes “Didn't enter into his policy at all”. Donn Piatt said Lincoln “Laughed at the abolitionist as a disturbing element easily controlled”. Eli Thayer said Lincoln spoke of abolitionist “In terms of contempt and derision”. Abolitionist Sumner said of Lincoln “He does not know how to help or is not moved to help” and “I do not remember that I have had any help from him... he has no instinct or inspiration”. Missouri abolitionist John Hume said of Lincoln “The president was in constant opposition” to the abolitionist movement of Chase, Sumner, Stevens, Greeley and others. Many early historians blame Lincoln for “Ignored the greatest moral question of the time”.

                              “Not a abolitionist, hardly an anti slavery man”
                              -Abolitionist Wendell Phillips of Abraham Lincoln



                              When union general John Fremont emancipated slaves in union occupied Missouri, Lincoln recalled the orders and relived Fremont of his command. When union general David Hunter ordered general order number 11, declaring all slaves in SC/GA/FL to be “forever free” Lincoln revoked the proclamation and also ordered Hunter to disband the 1st South Carolina regiment made up of blacks hunter had enlisted. Late in 62 Lincoln supported in union held territory in VA and LA to continue slavery and allow the slave owners peacefully back into the union. In 1861 Mark Neely JR wrote “He more than once actually forced others who were trying to free slaves to cease doings”. Lincolns wife Mary, was from a slave owning family in Kentucky.


                              He was opposed to slavery more because it was a public nuance than because of its injustice to the oppressed black man”
                              -John Hume

                              “there is such a mixture of political and moral questions, with this subject of slavery that no one can tell by what motives men are influenced in their opposition”
                              -Nehemiah Adams a South Side View of Slavery 1854

                              “Abolitionist activity was rising fast, fueled by northern capitalist and political interests needing an issue to neutralize the agrarian south”
                              -Dr Charles T Pace Lincoln as he Really was Shotwell Publishing Columbia South Carolina 2018

                              “The motive of those who protested against the extension of slavery had always really been concern for the welfare of the white man, and not an unnatural sympathy for the negro.”
                              -William Seward Secretary of State s



                              the agitation concerning African slavery in the South was commenced. This institution was purely sectional, belonging to the South. Antagonism to it in the North must also be sectional. The agitation would unite the South against the North, as much as it united the North against the South; but the North being the stronger section, would gain power by the agitation. Accordingly, after the overthrow of the tariff of 1828, by the resistance of South Carolina in 1833, the agitation concerning the institution of African slavery in the South was immediately commenced in the Congress of the United States. It was taken up by the Legislatures of the Northern States; and upon one pretext or another in and out of Congress, it has been pursued from that day to the fall of 1860, when it ended in the election of a President and Vice President of the United States, by a purely sectional support. The great end was at last obtained, of a united North to rule the South. The first fruit the sectional despotism thus elected produced, was the tariff lately passed by the Congress of the United States. By this tariff the protective policy is renewed in its most odious and oppressive forms, and the agricultural States are made tributaries to the manufacturing States. I....The late tariff passed by the Congress of the United States, was designed to force the Southern people, by prohibitory duties to consume the dearer manufactured commodities of the North, instead of the cheaper commodities of Eurodpean nations. What is this but robbery? Does it not take from one citizen or section and give to another?... the people of the North intervened between us and our natural customers, and forced us by the use of the Federal Government — laying prohibitory duties on the production of foreign nations — to consume their productions
                              -Report on the committee of foreign affairs 1861


                              In 1848 as a congressmen Lincoln voted against a bill along with the entire south and pro slavery men that proposed an end to the slave trade in D.C. In 1849 Lincoln offered a compromise that was rejected. Section 4 of that compromise made clear no slave would be free [one version] until 1914. Section 5 expanded the fugitive slave law. The radical abolitionist at The Liberator editorial on July 13, 1860 Called Lincoln “The slave hound of Illinois” for his effort to expand the fugitive slave law into the district of Columbia. As Lerone Bennett JR argues in Forced into Glory Abraham Lincolns White dream. Lincoln has received the glory that abolitionist white, black, citizens, newspaper editors, churches congressmen, and pastors had worked decades for. Men who Lincolns contemporaries named as the major abolitionist men like Senator Sumner, senator Lymon Trushbull, Congressmen Stevens, Salmon Chase, Wendell Phillips etc they deserve the glory that is falsely given to Lincoln. The 37Th congress were the ones who abolished slavery in the territories and authorized black troops.


                              “The president is indefatigable in his efforts to save slavery”
                              -Adam Gurowski August 1862


                              “Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist”
                              --David Donald Lincoln Reconsidered







                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X