United States
0
Was Lincoln a Tyrant?
Lincoln A Murderous Tyrant Who Lied Repeatedly About Secession
Lincoln: “Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.” — First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.
Comment: Plainly, this assertion is utter nonsense and ridiculous on its face. Noah Webster’s 1828 “American Dictionary Of The English Language: defines “anarchy” thusly: “Want of government; a state of society, when there is no law or supreme power, or when the laws are not efficient, and individuals do what they please with impunity; political confusion.” So, there would, necessarily, inescapably, be, in a state that seceded, no government, society, law, or supreme power and all would be confusion? Of course not.
Lincoln: “The principle [secession] itself is one of disintegration, and upon which no government can possibly endure.” — Message to Congress in Special Session, July 4, 1861.
Comment: (A) All “disintegration” is not bad, as “Dishonest Abe” dishonestly implies; we “disintegrated” from the tyranny of King George III. That was certainly a good “disintegration.” (B) “Disintegration” doesn’t, necessarily, mean “no government.” It can mean a different government. But, of course, if you are a tyrant, as Lincoln was, your own government is the only government there is and anyone who disagrees is a seditionist, a traitor, a “rebel.”
Lincoln: “I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must no break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” — First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.
Comment: What a crock! — of untruths, I mean. “Friends”? Lincoln considered the South “friends?” Please! If so, why didn’t he prevent the war he could have prevented? Why did he wrap those “mystic chords of memory” around the necks of his Southern “friends” and strangle them to death because they simply wanted self-government? If this is how he treated “friends” then how much worse could he possibly have treated his “enemies?”
Lincoln: “In all trying positions in which I shall be placed, and doubtless I shall be placed in many such, my reliance will be upon…the people of the United States; and I wish you to remember, now and forever, that it is your business, and not mine, that if the union of these States and the liberties of these people shall be lost, it is but little to any one man of fifty-two years of age, but a great deal to the thirty millions of people who inhabit these United States, and to their posterity in all coming time.” — Indianapolis, Indiana, February 11, 1861
Comment: T’is an astounding display of double-mindedness that a man, while invoking “the people” and “liberty,” could be opposing the efforts of Southerners (part of “the people,” no?) to exercise their “liberty” to secede and govern themselves. And you know what Scripture says about having two minds: “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways” (James 1:8).
Lincoln: “The distinct issue, ‘Immediate dissolution or blood’…embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man the question of whether a constitutional republic or democracy — a government of the people, by the same people — can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether the discontented individuals — too few in numbers to control the administration, according to organic law, in any case — can always, upon the pretenses made in this case or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up the government and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: ‘Is there, in all republics, this inherent and fatal weakness? Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?’” — Message to Congress in Special Session, July 4, 1861.
Comment: George Orwell, call your office! Here’s a guy who could have prevented the shedding of the blood of more than 600,000 human beings — but did not — invoking a specter of bloodshed! And what Lincoln says the issue of secession forced on them at that time is not what he says it forced on them. Forget all the blather about “fate” and “the whole family of man” and survival of “a government of the people, by the same people.” The “inherent and fatal weakness” Lincoln alludes to was within himself. He was the problem — the problem being that he was, as are all tyrants, lawless and intolerant of any disagreement.
Lincoln: “I appeal to you again to constantly bear in mind that not with politicians, not with Presidents, not with office-seekers, but with you, is the question, Shall the Union and shall the liberties of this country be preserved to the latest generations?” — Indianapolis, Indiana, February 11, 1861.
Comment: But what about the “liberties” of those who wanted to secede? And how much of a “Union” do you really have when you are threatening with force — that is, to murder — those who disagree with you on the importance of “the Union?” Not much, I’d say. Lincoln’s position, shorn of its lying verbiage, was, basically, re: Southern secessionists: “You are my friends. So, please support the Union or I’ll kill you.”
Lincoln: “Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We — even we here — hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free - honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.” — Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.
Comment: But, as I say, any “Union” which has to be “saved” by slaughtering, murdering, hundreds of thousands of people is a “Union” that has not been “saved”!! Yes, Mr. Lincoln had “the power” to murder hundreds of thousands of his “friends” in the South. But he had no Biblical or Constitutional authority to do this — which is why he was a tyrant.
http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1114
Abraham Lincoln: Liar, Racist, Tyrant
Abraham Lincoln did not abolish slavery. He had no Constitutional jurisdiction with which to prevent the lawful secession of eleven U.S. States. He was a puppet of "big rail," the prevailing corporate interests of his day.
Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the worst President in the history of the United States of America. Is that hard to believe? Check out some of the following quotes:
"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."
------
Source: Gabor S. Boritt, "'And the War Came'? Abraham Lincoln and the Question of Individual Responsibility," Why the Civil War Came edited by Boritt (1996), pp 3-30.
"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."
-----
Source: Abraham Lincoln said this in a speech he delivered to the people of Charleston, Illinois in 1858.
"I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive—even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept."
-----
Source: Abraham Lincoln wrote this in a letter to James C. Conkling dated August 26, 1863.
http://www.squidoo.com/abraham-lincoln
[YOUTUBE]c3uPX5I6hUc[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]4CwkG2C5sAc[/YOUTUBE]
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Edelmann
Bookmarks