@@ramieskola7845 He was one faction in a set of others who were pushing big govt on the road to a 1PoIeWorId. Few patriots exist in any given generation, & political competition often turns out to be proxies of different 1poIers against each other (i.e. AL v. Certain Bnkrs, & ultimately OtherFactions v. AL).
One thing I've noticed about historic points of conflict/war is that it perseverates on the battles; who, what, when, where and sometimes a few things of what they were thinking at the time. I've noticed Lincoln during the Civil War - NOBODY talks about his slick speeches except picking out only the good parts, or what he did "behind the scenes" like thwarting the press, arresting protesters and breaking laws left and right to gain more political control.
DiLorenzo himself noted that if you just pick out the best-sounding snippets from his speeches, you can make anybody sound good, no matter what they do or believe.
This man is telling the truth.Abe was trying to and did start a war that cost about a half million lives on both sides,by having brothers fighting against brothers.I think now in this age that we would have most of the yankees on our side.Nobody can tell me that my great granfhather who was dirt poor and went off to fight the yankees so that mr johnson who owned slaves could keep them and took his sons with him to fight the north.I know a lot of yankees who think the same way i do.
“The real issue involved in the relations between the North and the South of the American States, is the great principle of self-government. Shall a dominant party of the North rule the South, or shall the people of the South rule themselves. This is the great matter in controversy.” --Robert Barnwell Rhett (Montgomery, Alabama, 1860) “I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.” --Confederate President Jefferson Davis “I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence.” --President Jefferson Davis, CSA “When the South raised its sword against the Union’s Flag, it was in defense of the Union’s Constitution.” --Confederate General John B. Gordon A little over 10 years later after the South attempted precisely that, Lincoln, when asked, “Why not let the South go in peace”? replied; “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government”? “And, what then will become of my tariff”? --Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861 “As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.” --Major General John B. Gordon, from his book, Causes of the Civil War. ----------------- Yeah, It was all about slavery, not economic control of the south.
***** “The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.” “No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave.” -The Lysander Spooner Reader (p. 49)
***** The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded. On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union. The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure. Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that --- in theory, at least, if not in practice --- our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established. -Lysander Spooner, No Treason, No.1, 1867
This is why they hate a free and open internet. One day you're just minding your own business looking at junk to buy to be a good consumer and next thing you know you've watched every tom dilorenzo talk on how Lincoln was our first dictator and realizing how we've completely lost the plot of America. I also never understood the Hamilton mania until now.
Lincoln had one thing on his mind, maintaining and 'growing' the national government, nothing else mattered, nothing, his administration and those behind the curtain an entirely different discussion however...
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
Imagine, if you will, a married couple. Imagine a woman found that her husband was cheating on her. Imagine further that when she confronted him, he didn't apologize or deny but declared that he would continue doing so, and that he considered his marriage vows worthless--he believed they were outdated, restrictive, and stupid, and indeed felt the same way about her. Imagine further that this woman decided to leave her husband. Imagine that her husband, in turn, told her she could feel free to resume the use of her maiden name, but she would still be required to give him a hefty portion of her paycheck so he could spend it on his various infidelities, and perform her "wifely duties" at his demand, or else he would beat her. Now imagine that, certain the man she had once been in love with would never carry out such a threat, she moved out anyway. Imagine that her husband was--for once in his life--true to his word, and came to her door with a baseball bat... and that forced to defend herself, his wife whipped him soundly, and sent him away bruised and bleeding. Imagine that in response the man hired several friends to help him, used those friends to force several other people to help him, beat the hell out of anybody who told him what he was doing was wrong, and then visited his wife's home again. Imagine that this time, with superior numbers, the husband did significantly better--or, at least, was significantly more successful. Imagine that he had attained his victory by murdering some of her sons and daughters, then thoroughly raped her and her daughters before looting the house of everything valuable and then setting it afire. Imagine further that the husband consummated his victory by locking his wife in his basement, where--in between bouts of repeating his "victory" against his Souix, Commanche, Cheyenne, Crow, Blackfoot, and Nez Perce neighbors--he cleaned out her bank accounts, took out several large loans in her name, and continued to beat and rape her regularly, until she obeyed his demands and "confessed" to him that she was disloyal for ever daring to leave him and grateful that he was "kind and forgiving" enough to take her back. Imagine that now, to this day, the husband displays trophies of his "victory" over his wife, parades his continued infidelities in front of her as he mocks her inability to stop him, refers to his fellow rapists, murderers, thieves, and arsonists as "heroes," and continues to berate her for her "disloyalty" and “treason.” Now imagine that the wife and her children no longer feel guilty at this accusation.
Imagine if you will a political elite takes control of a state through fear mongering propaganda and warmongering tactics in order to incite the uneducated and poor of that state to revolution. Imagine further, they base their political and economic society on racial superiority and undemocratic, anti-American ideals. Should not that movement be stopped at its very inception, even if stopping that movement forces a war?
@@board247 Well, that's quite an odd thing to imagine. Let's imagine instead that none of that happened in the slightest, but the defenders of tyranny make it up in a sad attempt to justify oppression and terrorism by falsely claiming "well, the victims were bad people." Better yet, let's not pretend that, since it's exactly what's happening. Let's also not pretend it worked.
@@kenabbott8585 Except I don't really have to pretend or imagine on my end. The actions of the Confederate secessionist movement was both unconstitutional and aggressive in nature. It is ludicrous to think that "peaceful secession" was even a logical possibility. Their actions would only have served to divide this great nation into two countries -- the Confederate States being built upon a foundation of white supremacy, hatred toward Northerners, and anti-American ideals. History has shown where those kind of fascist movements lead to ...
@@board247 "Except I don't really have to pretend or imagine on my end." mostly since you already know that what you're saying isn't true. "The actions of the Confederate secessionist movement was both unconstitutional and aggressive in nature." "We're going to exercise our rights under the Tenth Amendment" is unconstitutional and "Please let us have peace" is aggressive? Here in the real world, the Constitution means absolutely nothing without the right to secede--without it, America is an empire, not a republic. And the South begged for peace over and over. Lincoln ignored Confederate peace advocates, likewise ignored foreign advocates of peace--and jailed Northern peace advocates without trial in military prisons. "It is ludicrous to think that "peaceful secession" was even a logical possibility." At least, not while someone who wanted war at any cost like Lincoln was in charge. "the Confederate States being built upon a foundation of white supremacy, hatred toward Northerners, and anti-American ideals." That claim was complete bullshit last time you made it, and it's still complete bullshit now. "History has shown where those kind of fascist movements lead to ..." And a little Reductio ad Hitlerum to boot! As if it wasn't already clear that you already know the facts don't support your petty hatreds....
@@kenabbott8585 Sadly, you reveal again and again your lack of understanding of the Constitution or U.S. Political History. At best, there was ambiguity on the issue of secession as the U.S. Constitution does not expressly say anything about it. However, the terms and conditions delineated in the U.S. Constitution make it clear that the states relinquished the right of national sovereignty to the Federal Government which is directly answerable to "We the People of the United States". To drive this point home, read the Declaration of Independence. It points out "free and independent states ... have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce,". These are the express powers [the powers of national sovereignty] that the individual states relinquished to Federal control when they ratified the U.S. Constitution and became the nation of The United States of America. avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp
You misquoted Lincoln in that first one. Here's the real quote: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so" It was also in 1858 at one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
❶ “The purpose of the war was to finally realize the Hamiltonian dream of a consolidated, monopolistic government that would pursue what Hamilton himself called 'national greatness' and 'imperial glory.' The purpose of the war, in other words, was a New Birth
"The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language." - President Jefferson Davis (3 June 1808 - 6 December 1889)
Abraham Lincoln, US Congressman, 12 January 1848 on the floor of the US House of Representatives: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and for a new one that suits them better. *THIS IS A MOST VALUABLE, - A MOST SACRED RIGHT - a RIGHT,* which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it." Abraham Lincoln Presidential Proclamation NO. 81, April 19, 1861, five days after the evacuation of Ft Sumter. "Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States *FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY)* can not be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires *DUTIES (REVENUE TAX MONEY)* to be uniform throughout the United States; and Whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas and in waters of the United States; and Whereas an Executive proclamation has been already issued requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session to deliberate and determine thereon: Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned and to the protection of the public peace and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings or until the same shall have ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States and of the law of nations in such case provided. For this purpose, a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach or shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will indorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize as may be deemed advisable. And I hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the pretended authority of the said States or under any other pretense, shall molest a vessel of the United States or the persons or cargo on board of her, such person will be held amenable to the laws of the United States for the prevention and punishment of piracy. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington, this 19th day of April, A.D. 1861, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth." ABRAHAM LINCOLN. By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State .
President Davis was absolutely correct. Lincoln invaded the South for (in his words) REVENUE TAX MONEY, and the worshipping Lincolnistas hid it using black people as an excuse.
➋ of Empire, one that would hopefully rival the Europeans in the exploitation of their own citizens in the name of the glory of the state." --Thomas DiLorenzo, from “Malice Toward All, Charity Toward None: The Foundations of the American State”
Lincoln on Slavery: "I should like to know, if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal on principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why may not another man say it does not mean another man? If the Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book in which we find it and tear it out. Who is so bold as to do it? If it is not true, let us tear it out." -- July 10, 1858
Lincoln wanted to deport slaves to Africa. He went to the Hampton Rhodes Conference and stated the 13th amendment could be kicked down the road if the south laid down their arms and rejoined the union. He cared about corporate subsidies to Railroads. Stop the nonsense. He said our union was not voluntary but held together by force. The Declaration is about the right to self determination. Lincoln was against this.
❶ "But slavery was far from being the sole cause of the prolonged conflict. Neither its destruction on the one hand, nor its defence on the other, was the energizing force that held the contending armies to four years of bloody work. I apprehend that if all living Union soldiers were summoned
One of the sillier claims I've seen (and the yankees have many!) is that the frequent statements in support of secession in the Declaration of Independence, in the laws and writings of the Founding Fathers, and in the Adoption documents of three states of the Constitution, actually somehow referred to a "people's right to revolution" but not secession. In short, this claim is that the Founding Fathers acknowledged and honored a right to revolt and take over the country, but not a right to peacefully leave. This is obviously not just proven false by history (Such as the putting-down of the Whiskey Rebellion), but also by common sense. It's akin to claiming that you have the right to murder your wife if she cheats on you, but that to divorce her would be a betrayal of your marriage and your wife.
The problem is that secession wasn't carried out within the confines of the U.S. Constitution -- which would have required an amendment as there was no clause in the U.S. Constitution that authorized secession. Instead the Confederate Secessionists opted to use hate propaganda to incite their population to insurrection in combination with illegal and aggressive besiegements and seizures of U.S. Federal property, arsenals, and forts. Their fear-mongering and warmongering approach forced the rest of the Union to react in kind and forcefully suppress there dangerous and violent insurrection.
@@board247 All your claims have already been addressed in a different thread. Your claims are ridiculously false, and you are well aware that they are false. I'm not going to rip them apart point-by-point for the simple reason that I already have, and I already know from experience that you'll simply continue to lie about them. If you come up with any arguments that are *not* a string of gaslighting bullshit spewed in defense of tyranny, then feel free to provide it.
@@kenabbott8585 I have clearly proven that Abraham Lincoln's actions were both warranted and necessary in order to fulfill his duties as President and to preserve the United States and the U.S. Constitution. You have provided no actual evidence to refute those claims. Nor have you provided any evidence (other than unsupported rationalizations and baseless accusations labeling me a liar) to the extensive concrete proof I provided in the other comment string. A common myth perpetuated by pro-Confederates is that the Confederate States could have peaceably seceded. All the evidence indicates otherwise. Just as had happened in Kansas beginning in 1854 with the question of whether it would be a slave state or not, the same sort of violence would have broken out in the Border States (as it did during the U.S. Civil War) and even in some of the Upper South states. Due to the tense climate of the time, fomented by the aggressive and hateful secessionist movement, it would have only taken one such outbreak to incite a full scale civil war. But even supposing the improbability that a "peaceful" convention could have decided the question in each individual state, that still would have still left all the other issues unanswered: the fate of Washington D.C. if Maryland chose to join the Confederacy, how to fairly partition U.S. debt, who retains control of which U.S. territories, navigation of the Mississippi River through the Port of New Orleans, and the question of a Pacific Ocean port for the Confederacy since California owned and controlled the West Coast southern ports. And, of course, nothing would have been solved regarding the issue of runaway slaves, but the issue would only have been exacerbated by the separation. Any one of those issues could have lead to all out war. The only thing that would have been accomplished is that the Slave Power would have consolidated its control over the Confederate States. Due to the nature of the political philosophies embraced to justify its formation, the Confederacy would have been an oppressive state. And by the nature of its economic, political, and social systems that were all founded on institutionalized slavery, it would have been a severely closed off society and a militant state. This is evidenced by the many compromises of civil liberties that were forced upon the United States over the years by the Slave Power; including the adoption of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 -- one of the most unconstitutional and oppressive laws ever passed in U.S. History! avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/fugitive.asp Abraham Lincoln took the right and necessary action when he suppressed the unconstitutional, treacherous, and dangerous insurrection instigated in the slave-holding states.
@@board247 Again, your dishonest claims have already been debunked in another thread. When you lose in one thread, you can't just hop over to a different thread and start over with trying to waste peoples' time (not if you have any integrity at least, and your posts answer that question before it's asked).
@@kenabbott8585 Actually, if you go through the thread you didn't actually provide any evidence to support your claims, you instead spewed exceedingly numerous unsupported rationalizations as well as redundant and baseless accusations of "lies" and "B.S.". There were only two instances you gave any actual related evidence, and both times the evidence disproved your viewpoint. The first was in response to my disclosure that I have not yet been able fully explore the claims that Northern Elections were fixed. You referred me to the authors James G. Randall and Dean Sprague. However, if you actually read their books you find they both believed that Abraham Lincoln's actions were both warranted and necessary. The other time you quoted Mark E. Neely Jr. and from Abraham Lincoln's Corning Letter. You cherry picked or quoted out of context both in order to attempt to make your case that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant. However, if you read both in context, again Lincoln's actions are well explained and justified.
Lincoln's administration was determined to impose strong central government. Over the next 50 years, the London and European bankers worked with American bankers to establish the system that would facilitate nationalization of Americans' productivity, with the Federal Reserve and the income tax. Southern slavery was abolished, in order to enslave every person in the country, regardless of race, creed, or color, under the debtor slavery system of bonds (bondage=debtor servitude). US Treasuries are the mechanism for national debtor slavery. Mercantilism, in the modern usage, is complete bs. The idea that there's only one pie to be divided assumes there are no bakers, baking pies. Production by individuals creates many pies.
12 років тому
CONT. ;Letter to Charles Sumner (last six were all Lysander Spooner); Unitarian minister Henry Bellows' writings deifying the State; Harry Jaffa (Lincoln sycophant); Wilson's War-Powell; Clyde Wilson's works; Article on US Constitution ban on Slave Trade-MisesDOTorg by Norman Van Cott;
➋ to the witness-stand, every one of them would testify that it was the preservation of the American Union and not the destruction of Southern slavery that induced him to volunteer at the call of his country. As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty percent of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in
Lincoln's invasion of the South had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with REVENUE TAX MONEY which is why the South was not allowed to peacefully secede.
Lincoln on Slavery: "Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man-this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position, discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal." -- July 9, 1858
Lincoln said in his fourth debate with Douglas that blacks were inferior to whites, blacks shouldn't live with whites or marry whites. They shouldn't be able to vote or serve in Jury's. He was a damn tyrant that lied to push his agenda of a Powerful Central State. He also was planning to Colonize the slaves to Belize, New Liberia with the British up to the day he died. He also signed the Illinois Constitution that didn't allow blacks to travel through Illinois much less live there. So what is it? He hated blacks. In the South blacks whites lived together for generations in the South. So I can quote Lincoln as well as you can.
@Kurt Sherrick- actually, you MISQUOTE Lincoln, as so many who haven’t read ALL his speeches & letters do. He never said that blacks were inferior to whites and I’ll give you $1000 dollars if you can find any exact quote where he does so unequivocally(he qualifies it with the word “perhaps” on numerous occasions). Lincoln is one the most nuanced thinkers/writers who ever lived, and he was a northern politician appealing to northern white, male voters, 98% of whom were complete racists & white supremacists. He was fighting the allegation of Douglas that he(Lincoln) was not only an abolitionist, but in favor of full/perfect legal, social & political equality between blacks and whites. Lincoln was a master of qualifying his statements(I’m sorry if such sophisticated nuance continues to lose & confuse you and so many others), and his exact words were “I am not NOW ADVOCATING for perfect social and political equality between the white and black races……and inasmuch as there must be a superior and inferior position(his opponents, not his assertion), I am in favor as much as the next man of having the superior position ASSIGNED TO the race to which I belong..” The implication/distinction(which you and others would’ve picked up on if you’d studied the Greek philosophers and/or taken any political philosophy classes in college) in that sentence is that it is CONVENTION, and not NATURE that is being applied to these circumstances of “superior/inferior positions”. Read ALL of Lincoln’s speeches and letters, and you’ll inoculate yourself from the specious sophistry of these myopic snake oil salesmen such as “little tommy de lo can’t see the forest for the trees”, who agree with the “slave power/oligarchs” that slavery was a perfectly acceptable economic system, and they had every right to destroy the Union and go traipsing off all over this continent, spreading it into Cuba, the entire Caribbean, the west, and into more of Mexico & Central America. Little Tommy would have(is) been just fine with that. Lincoln not so much. Thank God Lincoln was at the helm of our ship of state, and not little tommy, during that violent storm….🙏 🎩🇱🇷
@@timothymeehan181 Some qritique #1 He was not misquoting. He was paraphrasing. He represented the essence of Lincolns stance on the issue at that particular debate. #2 Lincoln was a well trained in rhetoric in order to persuade and to convince. That is salesmanship. Perhaps he was also 'nuanced thinker' I don't know nor do I care. #3 Why should someone read ALL Lincolns speeches in order to criticize one? Doesn't one speech/debate contain the essence of that speech/debate? He was after all a master orator now was he? A politician changes his message according to circumstances by time, place and audience. Referring to ALL his speeches and writings allows acolytes to create any wanted impression of his thoughts. #4 You said: ...98% were racists & white supremacists. Who computed that percentage? Or was it just an opinion? #5 In no way did prof. Di Lorenzo advocate slave economy as moral, practical, economical or otherwise feasible. You pulled that out of your ass.
I am agreeing with him most of the way until I looked up Hebeas Corpus. Wikipedia states that the constitution says that Hebeas Corpus can be suspended (and I’m assuming by the President) during times of rebellion. And it can be argued that South Carolina was rebelling by not paying their tariff taxes. Now I do have a problem with Lincoln’s imprisonment of the journalist because of freedom of speech.
The president doesn’t have the authority to suspend habeas corpus. That authority is delegated to congress in the constitution. Lincoln couldn’t get the votes, so he did as he would throughout his presidency subverting congress and the constitution, consolidating executive power, when and where he could. When and where he couldn’t, he’d simply make it up.
Justice Taney wrote that the constitution gives that right to congress, not to the executive, which is why Lincoln had an arrest warrant drawn up against him.
@@robfgard From what you are saying, if Justice Taney did say that the constitution give us the right to the executive branch, he would be giving his opinion which as a justice he has a right to. That is a reason why we several justices to make decisions. A justice is not supposed to just bring up a subject and decide on it. A legal case has to come to the judicial branch to make a decision on whether or not something is constitutional or not. Justice Taney was very controversial all you have to do is look at some of the things he made decisions on. They were big failures. The constitution does say that we are entitled to three branches, it’s in Articles I, II and III. Please read them
I wonder if DiLoenzo looks back, now, and admits he was way over the top on the Bush bashing. Looking back, all of that stuff seems like a huge nothing burger.
Corrupting his students with the kind of myopic, specious sophistry that hundreds of qualified historians & political scientists have more than adequately refuted. Poor little Tommy…🎩🇱🇷
So he didn't save the union, he forced it ?! Wow i didn't know lincoln was such a snake.
Yes, he did.
He ended the union and replaced it with an empire.
@@ramieskola7845
More accurately:, Quothe the Razor: (Lincoln) murdered the voluntary Union of the Founding Fathers & replaced it with a Soviet Union!
Yep.... history has been REwritten... as it still is being today.... Disgusting!
Cheers n have a good day
Kelly.
@@ramieskola7845 He was one faction in a set of others who were pushing big govt on the road to a 1PoIeWorId.
Few patriots exist in any given generation, & political competition often turns out to be proxies of different 1poIers against each other (i.e. AL v. Certain Bnkrs, & ultimately OtherFactions v. AL).
Lincoln sounds like a Big Gov guy. Wanted Centralized power who gave Federal Government too much power and weaken the States power.
Gretchen Whitmer and others like her are modern day Lincolns.
One thing I've noticed about historic points of conflict/war is that it perseverates on the battles; who, what, when, where and sometimes a few things of what they were thinking at the time. I've noticed Lincoln during the Civil War - NOBODY talks about his slick speeches except picking out only the good parts, or what he did "behind the scenes" like thwarting the press, arresting protesters and breaking laws left and right to gain more political control.
DiLorenzo himself noted that if you just pick out the best-sounding snippets from his speeches, you can make anybody sound good, no matter what they do or believe.
Just switch out the name Lincoln with Biden and here we are!!
Amen, Amen, & Amen.!
This man is telling the truth.Abe was trying to and did start a war that cost about a half million lives on both sides,by having brothers fighting against brothers.I think now in this age that we would have most of the yankees on our side.Nobody can tell me that my great granfhather who was dirt poor and went off to fight the yankees so that mr johnson who owned slaves could keep them and took his sons with him to fight the north.I know a lot of yankees who think the same way i do.
“The real issue involved in the relations between the North and the South of the American States, is the great principle of self-government. Shall a dominant party of the North rule the South, or shall the people of the South rule themselves. This is the great matter in controversy.”
--Robert Barnwell Rhett (Montgomery, Alabama, 1860)
“I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.”
--Confederate President Jefferson Davis
“I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence.”
--President Jefferson Davis, CSA
“When the South raised its sword against the Union’s Flag, it was in defense of the Union’s Constitution.”
--Confederate General John B. Gordon
A little over 10 years later after the South attempted precisely that, Lincoln, when asked, “Why not let the South go in peace”? replied; “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government”? “And, what then will become of my tariff”?
--Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861
“As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”
--Major General John B. Gordon, from his book, Causes of the Civil War.
-----------------
Yeah, It was all about slavery, not economic control of the south.
copycat042 beautiful response..
***** Amen brutha!
*****
“The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.”
“No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave.”
-The Lysander Spooner Reader (p. 49)
*****
The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded.
On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.
No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.
Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that --- in theory, at least, if not in practice --- our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established.
-Lysander Spooner, No Treason, No.1, 1867
This is why they hate a free and open internet. One day you're just minding your own business looking at junk to buy to be a good consumer and next thing you know you've watched every tom dilorenzo talk on how Lincoln was our first dictator and realizing how we've completely lost the plot of America. I also never understood the Hamilton mania until now.
Lincoln had one thing on his mind, maintaining and 'growing' the national government, nothing else mattered, nothing, his administration and those behind the curtain an entirely different discussion however...
This is beautiful. I'm buying some books this weekend!
First one ?
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
"We the People" and "we the people" are not the same thing. Everything depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Lincoln's War and its 19th-century intrigue jibes with Bush/Obama's War and its 21st-century intrigue.
Imagine, if you will, a married couple.
Imagine a woman found that her husband was cheating on her. Imagine further that when she confronted him, he didn't apologize or deny but declared that he would continue doing so, and that he considered his marriage vows worthless--he believed they were outdated, restrictive, and stupid, and indeed felt the same way about her.
Imagine further that this woman decided to leave her husband. Imagine that her husband, in turn, told her she could feel free to resume the use of her maiden name, but she would still be required to give him a hefty portion of her paycheck so he could spend it on his various infidelities, and perform her "wifely duties" at his demand, or else he would beat her.
Now imagine that, certain the man she had once been in love with would never carry out such a threat, she moved out anyway. Imagine that her husband was--for once in his life--true to his word, and came to her door with a baseball bat... and that forced to defend herself, his wife whipped him soundly, and sent him away bruised and bleeding.
Imagine that in response the man hired several friends to help him, used those friends to force several other people to help him, beat the hell out of anybody who told him what he was doing was wrong, and then visited his wife's home again. Imagine that this time, with superior numbers, the husband did significantly better--or, at least, was significantly more successful. Imagine that he had attained his victory by murdering some of her sons and daughters, then thoroughly raped her and her daughters before looting the house of everything valuable and then setting it afire.
Imagine further that the husband consummated his victory by locking his wife in his basement, where--in between bouts of repeating his "victory" against his Souix, Commanche, Cheyenne, Crow, Blackfoot, and Nez Perce neighbors--he cleaned out her bank accounts, took out several large loans in her name, and continued to beat and rape her regularly, until she obeyed his demands and "confessed" to him that she was disloyal for ever daring to leave him and grateful that he was "kind and forgiving" enough to take her back.
Imagine that now, to this day, the husband displays trophies of his "victory" over his wife, parades his continued infidelities in front of her as he mocks her inability to stop him, refers to his fellow rapists, murderers, thieves, and arsonists as "heroes," and continues to berate her for her "disloyalty" and “treason.”
Now imagine that the wife and her children no longer feel guilty at this accusation.
Imagine if you will a political elite takes control of a state through fear mongering propaganda and warmongering tactics in order to incite the uneducated and poor of that state to revolution. Imagine further, they base their political and economic society on racial superiority and undemocratic, anti-American ideals. Should not that movement be stopped at its very inception, even if stopping that movement forces a war?
@@board247
Well, that's quite an odd thing to imagine.
Let's imagine instead that none of that happened in the slightest, but the defenders of tyranny make it up in a sad attempt to justify oppression and terrorism by falsely claiming "well, the victims were bad people."
Better yet, let's not pretend that, since it's exactly what's happening.
Let's also not pretend it worked.
@@kenabbott8585 Except I don't really have to pretend or imagine on my end. The actions of the Confederate secessionist movement was both unconstitutional and aggressive in nature. It is ludicrous to think that "peaceful secession" was even a logical possibility. Their actions would only have served to divide this great nation into two countries -- the Confederate States being built upon a foundation of white supremacy, hatred toward Northerners, and anti-American ideals. History has shown where those kind of fascist movements lead to ...
@@board247
"Except I don't really have to pretend or imagine on my end."
mostly since you already know that what you're saying isn't true.
"The actions of the Confederate secessionist movement was both unconstitutional and aggressive in nature."
"We're going to exercise our rights under the Tenth Amendment" is unconstitutional and "Please let us have peace" is aggressive?
Here in the real world, the Constitution means absolutely nothing without the right to secede--without it, America is an empire, not a republic. And the South begged for peace over and over. Lincoln ignored Confederate peace advocates, likewise ignored foreign advocates of peace--and jailed Northern peace advocates without trial in military prisons.
"It is ludicrous to think that "peaceful secession" was even a logical possibility."
At least, not while someone who wanted war at any cost like Lincoln was in charge.
"the Confederate States being built upon a foundation of white supremacy, hatred toward Northerners, and anti-American ideals."
That claim was complete bullshit last time you made it, and it's still complete bullshit now.
"History has shown where those kind of fascist movements lead to ..."
And a little Reductio ad Hitlerum to boot! As if it wasn't already clear that you already know the facts don't support your petty hatreds....
@@kenabbott8585 Sadly, you reveal again and again your lack of understanding of the Constitution or U.S. Political History. At best, there was ambiguity on the issue of secession as the U.S. Constitution does not expressly say anything about it. However, the terms and conditions delineated in the U.S. Constitution make it clear that the states relinquished the right of national sovereignty to the Federal Government which is directly answerable to "We the People of the United States".
To drive this point home, read the Declaration of Independence. It points out "free and independent states ... have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce,". These are the express powers [the powers of national sovereignty] that the individual states relinquished to Federal control when they ratified the U.S. Constitution and became the nation of The United States of America.
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp
You misquoted Lincoln in that first one. Here's the real quote:
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so"
It was also in 1858 at one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Lincoln is like many modern church pastors.
❶ “The purpose of the war was to finally realize the Hamiltonian dream of a consolidated, monopolistic government that would pursue what Hamilton himself called 'national greatness' and 'imperial glory.' The purpose of the war, in other words, was a New Birth
"The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language."
- President Jefferson Davis (3 June 1808 - 6 December 1889)
Abraham Lincoln, US Congressman, 12 January 1848 on the floor of the US House of Representatives:
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and for a new one that suits them better. *THIS IS A MOST VALUABLE, - A MOST SACRED RIGHT - a RIGHT,* which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it."
Abraham Lincoln Presidential Proclamation NO. 81, April 19, 1861, five days after the evacuation of Ft Sumter.
"Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States *FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY)* can not be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires *DUTIES (REVENUE TAX MONEY)* to be uniform throughout the United States; and
Whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas and in waters of the United States; and
Whereas an Executive proclamation has been already issued requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session to deliberate and determine thereon:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned and to the protection of the public peace and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings or until the same shall have ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States and of the law of nations in such case provided. For this purpose, a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach or shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will indorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize as may be deemed advisable.
And I hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the pretended authority of the said States or under any other pretense, shall molest a vessel of the United States or the persons or cargo on board of her, such person will be held amenable to the laws of the United States for the prevention and punishment of piracy.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington, this 19th day of April, A.D. 1861, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth."
ABRAHAM LINCOLN. By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State .
President Davis was absolutely correct. Lincoln invaded the South for (in his words) REVENUE TAX MONEY, and the worshipping Lincolnistas hid it using black people as an excuse.
Iam in chicago and i know the rebellion were the good guys
➋ of Empire, one that would hopefully rival the Europeans in the exploitation of their own citizens in the name of the glory of the state." --Thomas DiLorenzo, from “Malice Toward All, Charity Toward None: The Foundations of the American State”
Lincoln on Slavery: "I should like to know, if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal on principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why may not another man say it does not mean another man? If the Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book in which we find it and tear it out. Who is so bold as to do it? If it is not true, let us tear it out." -- July 10, 1858
Lincoln wanted to deport slaves to Africa. He went to the Hampton Rhodes Conference and stated the 13th amendment could be kicked down the road if the south laid down their arms and rejoined the union. He cared about corporate subsidies to Railroads. Stop the nonsense. He said our union was not voluntary but held together by force. The Declaration is about the right to self determination. Lincoln was against this.
❶ "But slavery was far from being the sole cause of the prolonged conflict. Neither its destruction on the one hand, nor its defence on the other, was the energizing force that held the contending armies to four years of bloody work. I apprehend that if all living Union soldiers were summoned
Patrick Henry
One of the sillier claims I've seen (and the yankees have many!) is that the frequent statements in support of secession in the Declaration of Independence, in the laws and writings of the Founding Fathers, and in the Adoption documents of three states of the Constitution, actually somehow referred to a "people's right to revolution" but not secession. In short, this claim is that the Founding Fathers acknowledged and honored a right to revolt and take over the country, but not a right to peacefully leave.
This is obviously not just proven false by history (Such as the putting-down of the Whiskey Rebellion), but also by common sense. It's akin to claiming that you have the right to murder your wife if she cheats on you, but that to divorce her would be a betrayal of your marriage and your wife.
The problem is that secession wasn't carried out within the confines of the U.S. Constitution -- which would have required an amendment as there was no clause in the U.S. Constitution that authorized secession. Instead the Confederate Secessionists opted to use hate propaganda to incite their population to insurrection in combination with illegal and aggressive besiegements and seizures of U.S. Federal property, arsenals, and forts. Their fear-mongering and warmongering approach forced the rest of the Union to react in kind and forcefully suppress there dangerous and violent insurrection.
@@board247
All your claims have already been addressed in a different thread. Your claims are ridiculously false, and you are well aware that they are false.
I'm not going to rip them apart point-by-point for the simple reason that I already have, and I already know from experience that you'll simply continue to lie about them.
If you come up with any arguments that are *not* a string of gaslighting bullshit spewed in defense of tyranny, then feel free to provide it.
@@kenabbott8585 I have clearly proven that Abraham Lincoln's actions were both warranted and necessary in order to fulfill his duties as President and to preserve the United States and the U.S. Constitution. You have provided no actual evidence to refute those claims. Nor have you provided any evidence (other than unsupported rationalizations and baseless accusations labeling me a liar) to the extensive concrete proof I provided in the other comment string.
A common myth perpetuated by pro-Confederates is that the Confederate States could have peaceably seceded. All the evidence indicates otherwise. Just as had happened in Kansas beginning in 1854 with the question of whether it would be a slave state or not, the same sort of violence would have broken out in the Border States (as it did during the U.S. Civil War) and even in some of the Upper South states. Due to the tense climate of the time, fomented by the aggressive and hateful secessionist movement, it would have only taken one such outbreak to incite a full scale civil war.
But even supposing the improbability that a "peaceful" convention could have decided the question in each individual state, that still would have still left all the other issues unanswered: the fate of Washington D.C. if Maryland chose to join the Confederacy, how to fairly partition U.S. debt, who retains control of which U.S. territories, navigation of the Mississippi River through the Port of New Orleans, and the question of a Pacific Ocean port for the Confederacy since California owned and controlled the West Coast southern ports. And, of course, nothing would have been solved regarding the issue of runaway slaves, but the issue would only have been exacerbated by the separation. Any one of those issues could have lead to all out war.
The only thing that would have been accomplished is that the Slave Power would have consolidated its control over the Confederate States. Due to the nature of the political philosophies embraced to justify its formation, the Confederacy would have been an oppressive state. And by the nature of its economic, political, and social systems that were all founded on institutionalized slavery, it would have been a severely closed off society and a militant state. This is evidenced by the many compromises of civil liberties that were forced upon the United States over the years by the Slave Power; including the adoption of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 -- one of the most unconstitutional and oppressive laws ever passed in U.S. History!
avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/fugitive.asp
Abraham Lincoln took the right and necessary action when he suppressed the unconstitutional, treacherous, and dangerous insurrection instigated in the slave-holding states.
@@board247
Again, your dishonest claims have already been debunked in another thread.
When you lose in one thread, you can't just hop over to a different thread and start over with trying to waste peoples' time (not if you have any integrity at least, and your posts answer that question before it's asked).
@@kenabbott8585 Actually, if you go through the thread you didn't actually provide any evidence to support your claims, you instead spewed exceedingly numerous unsupported rationalizations as well as redundant and baseless accusations of "lies" and "B.S.".
There were only two instances you gave any actual related evidence, and both times the evidence disproved your viewpoint.
The first was in response to my disclosure that I have not yet been able fully explore the claims that Northern Elections were fixed. You referred me to the authors James G. Randall and Dean Sprague. However, if you actually read their books you find they both believed that Abraham Lincoln's actions were both warranted and necessary.
The other time you quoted Mark E. Neely Jr. and from Abraham Lincoln's Corning Letter. You cherry picked or quoted out of context both in order to attempt to make your case that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant. However, if you read both in context, again Lincoln's actions are well explained and justified.
Lincoln's administration was determined to impose strong central government. Over the next 50 years, the London and European bankers worked with American bankers to establish the system that would facilitate nationalization of Americans' productivity, with the Federal Reserve and the income tax. Southern slavery was abolished, in order to enslave every person in the country, regardless of race, creed, or color, under the debtor slavery system of bonds (bondage=debtor servitude). US Treasuries are the mechanism for national debtor slavery. Mercantilism, in the modern usage, is complete bs. The idea that there's only one pie to be divided assumes there are no bakers, baking pies. Production by individuals creates many pies.
CONT.
;Letter to Charles Sumner (last six were all Lysander Spooner);
Unitarian minister Henry Bellows' writings deifying the State; Harry Jaffa (Lincoln sycophant);
Wilson's War-Powell; Clyde Wilson's works;
Article on US Constitution ban on Slave Trade-MisesDOTorg by Norman Van Cott;
While he compares GW'S policies to Lincoln, It seems More Like Those Of Obama and the free ride he is given by the press
True
but still the truth
Obama's tenure was a continuation of those same neocon tactics and policies.
🎯
Garcia Amy Lee Margaret Williams Helen
➋ to the witness-stand, every one of them would testify that it was the preservation of the American Union and not the destruction of Southern slavery that induced him to volunteer at the call of his country. As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty percent of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in
Gordon's numbers were over-estimates. In Texas, only 4% of soldiers owned slaves. Other Southern states likely did not vary much from that percentage.
1:20:00 for me
He always uses that line about jumbo shrimp 🤣😂
28:30 has aged like a fine wine
I was in Iraq on this day lol.
➍ saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union."
- Gen. John B. Gordon, from "Reminiscences of the Civil War," p. 19
Lincoln's invasion of the South had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with REVENUE TAX MONEY which is why the South was not allowed to peacefully secede.
Lincoln vs. slavery.
Lincoln on Slavery: "Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man-this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position, discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal." -- July 9, 1858
Lincoln said in his fourth debate with Douglas that blacks were inferior to whites, blacks shouldn't live with whites or marry whites. They shouldn't be able to vote or serve in Jury's. He was a damn tyrant that lied to push his agenda of a Powerful Central State. He also was planning to Colonize the slaves to Belize, New Liberia with the British up to the day he died. He also signed the Illinois Constitution that didn't allow blacks to travel through Illinois much less live there. So what is it? He hated blacks. In the South blacks whites lived together for generations in the South. So I can quote Lincoln as well as you can.
@@kurtsherrick2066 very good answer!
@Kurt Sherrick- actually, you MISQUOTE Lincoln, as so many who haven’t read ALL his speeches & letters do. He never said that blacks were inferior to whites and I’ll give you $1000 dollars if you can find any exact quote where he does so unequivocally(he qualifies it with the word “perhaps” on numerous occasions). Lincoln is one the most nuanced thinkers/writers who ever lived, and he was a northern politician appealing to northern white, male voters, 98% of whom were complete racists & white supremacists. He was fighting the allegation of Douglas that he(Lincoln) was not only an abolitionist, but in favor of full/perfect legal, social & political equality between blacks and whites. Lincoln was a master of qualifying his statements(I’m sorry if such sophisticated nuance continues to lose & confuse you and so many others), and his exact words were “I am not NOW ADVOCATING for perfect social and political equality between the white and black races……and inasmuch as there must be a superior and inferior position(his opponents, not his assertion), I am in favor as much as the next man of having the superior position ASSIGNED TO the race to which I belong..” The implication/distinction(which you and others would’ve picked up on if you’d studied the Greek philosophers and/or taken any political philosophy classes in college) in that sentence is that it is CONVENTION, and not NATURE that is being applied to these circumstances of “superior/inferior positions”. Read ALL of Lincoln’s speeches and letters, and you’ll inoculate yourself from the specious sophistry of these myopic snake oil salesmen such as “little tommy de lo can’t see the forest for the trees”, who agree with the “slave power/oligarchs” that slavery was a perfectly acceptable economic system, and they had every right to destroy the Union and go traipsing off all over this continent, spreading it into Cuba, the entire Caribbean, the west, and into more of Mexico & Central America. Little Tommy would have(is) been just fine with that. Lincoln not so much. Thank God Lincoln was at the helm of our ship of state, and not little tommy, during that violent storm….🙏 🎩🇱🇷
@@timothymeehan181
Some qritique
#1 He was not misquoting. He was paraphrasing. He represented the essence of Lincolns stance on the issue at that particular debate.
#2 Lincoln was a well trained in rhetoric in order to persuade and to convince. That is salesmanship. Perhaps he was also 'nuanced thinker' I don't know nor do I care.
#3 Why should someone read ALL Lincolns speeches in order to criticize one? Doesn't one speech/debate contain the essence of that speech/debate? He was after all a master orator now was he? A politician changes his message according to circumstances by time, place and audience. Referring to ALL his speeches and writings allows acolytes to create any wanted impression of his thoughts.
#4 You said: ...98% were racists & white supremacists. Who computed that percentage? Or was it just an opinion?
#5 In no way did prof. Di Lorenzo advocate slave economy as moral, practical, economical or otherwise feasible. You pulled that out of your ass.
@@timothymeehan181Wow. The mental gymnastics applied to give Lincoln a pass on his racist views is stunning.
I am agreeing with him most of the way until I looked up Hebeas Corpus. Wikipedia states that the constitution says that Hebeas Corpus can be suspended (and I’m assuming by the President) during times of rebellion. And it can be argued that South Carolina was rebelling by not paying their tariff taxes. Now I do have a problem with Lincoln’s imprisonment of the journalist because of freedom of speech.
The president doesn’t have the authority to suspend habeas corpus. That authority is delegated to congress in the constitution. Lincoln couldn’t get the votes, so he did as he would throughout his presidency subverting congress and the constitution, consolidating executive power, when and where he could. When and where he couldn’t, he’d simply make it up.
Justice Taney wrote that the constitution gives that right to congress, not to the executive, which is why Lincoln had an arrest warrant drawn up against him.
@@robfgard From what you are saying, if Justice Taney did say that the constitution give us the right to the executive branch, he would be giving his opinion which as a justice he has a right to. That is a reason why we several justices to make decisions. A justice is not supposed to just bring up a subject and decide on it. A legal case has to come to the judicial branch to make a decision on whether or not something is constitutional or not. Justice Taney was very controversial all you have to do is look at some of the things he made decisions on. They were big failures. The constitution does say that we are entitled to three branches, it’s in Articles I, II and III. Please read them
The freedom of speech belongs to others as well.
I wonder if DiLoenzo looks back, now, and admits he was way over the top on the Bush bashing. Looking back, all of that stuff seems like a huge nothing burger.
What the hell are you talking about!! Bush was and always will be one of the first presidents we've ever had!
Dilorenzo's Bush bashing was "over the top" bashing compared to what?
This guy found a way to make a living pushing bs.
Corrupting his students with the kind of myopic, specious sophistry that hundreds of qualified historians & political scientists have more than adequately refuted. Poor little Tommy…🎩🇱🇷
Lmao found the lib sheep
Losing the war was the best thing that ever happened to the CSA.