Republican Abe Lincoln Used Deceit and Deception to Start the Civil War

[Galileo]

Republican Abe Lincoln Used Deceit and Deception to Start the Civil War



http://books.google.com/books?id=hJGpAT7IWhwC&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231&dq=civil+war+lincoln+john+denson&source=web&ots=KB0kJRWfkn&sig=k92QWieSxzx3wqypEgyqhJYCCK8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result



This is yet another historical example that proves that 9/11 is not the exception to the rule.

[Galileo]

Abe Lincoln is one of the worst presidents in US history. He did more to destroy the Constitution than any other president:

1) He illegally suspended Habeas Corpus

2) He willfully allowed his generals to commit many war crimes against innocent civilians, women, and children.

3) He allowed mass murders of the Indians.

4) He was a racist who believed that blacks were inferior to whites.

5) He orchestrated to start of the Civil War.

6) He arrested newsmen who published editorials that he did not agree with.

7) He promoted corrupting tariff laws and high taxation.

8) He ignored orders from the Supreme Court.

9) He promoted unconstitutional direct taxes and income taxes.

10) He promoted the military draft.

[Zep]

So... Let me get this straight.

1) Abe Lincoln was president of the USA when the US Civil War started.

2) Stuff happened.

3) 9-11 troofers are right??

Dunno about anyone else, but isn't that a precariously long bow you are drawing there? :rolleyes:

[Undesired Walrus]

4) He was a racist who believed that blacks were inferior to whites.


He sure was. But if you and I had been alive back then, I dare say we would have been too. Indeed, I dare say a vast majority of the country was racist at that time. Perhaps Humans do something today that future members of our species will look back in disgust upon.

That said, Lincoln did happen to free an entire people from the bondage of slavery. I'd suggest that his otherwise backward views can be forgiven for that.

[geni]

2) He willfully allowed his generals to commit many war crimes against innocent civilians, women, and children.

We hadn't invented war crimes at that point. The destuction of opposeing infrastucture is a standard tactic in wartime.

[IchabodPlain]

Republican Abe Lincoln Used Deceit and Deception to Start the Civil War



http://books.google.com/books?id=hJGpAT7IWhwC&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231&dq=civil+war+lincoln+john+denson&source=web&ots=KB0kJRWfkn&sig=k92QWieSxzx3wqypEgyqhJYCCK8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result



This is yet another historical example that proves that 9/11 is not the exception to the rule.


Right, this by a guy who claims FDR "let PH happen". Give me a break.

The Civil War was fought over slavery, not states rights, get over it.

"States Rights" arguments are absurd because it takes the form of a concept, a principle. This concept is useless unless it manifests itself in a material, physical way. Read the Declaration of Independence of South Carolina, in which the only state's rights issue raised was the preservation of maintaining slavery. Not Tariffs, not opposition to national infrastructure; slavery, and it's quite lengthy at that.

Not to mention southerners favoring of the Dred Scott case and Fugitive Slave Act as contradictory to their claims of State's Rights. Confederates favored federal measures to maintain and expand slavery, and opposed federal measures that curtailed or expanded slavery.


Back to this Denson fellow, whose position is that Lincoln and his administration goaded and provoked the south into firing first. This is nonsense. Even as South Carolina considered succession, a main point of contention was how to go about evacuating Federal lands. Lands which included Forts such as Ft Moutrie and Ft Sumter, were decided to be blockaded and demanded to evacuate. This blockade prevented supplies such as food, and Lincoln responded with merchant marine ships which were packed with supplies. Denson leaves out the fact that Lincoln notified the Governor of South Carolina this was taking place (Link) (http://books.google.com/books?id=a3nX48n4oeIC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=an+attempt+will+be+made+to+supply+Fort+Sumter+w ith+provisions+only,+and+that+if+such+attempt+be+n ot+resisted,+no+effort+to+throw+in+men,+arms,+or+a mmunition+will+be+made+without+further+notice,+[except]+in+case+of+an+attack+on+the+fort.%22&source=web&ots=LxDJ5Irvb_&sig=_AjMyQ_397W-XA_fK_4BFMagkoA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA272,M1).

Of course Denson leaves this out, because it is contrary to his claim. He instead tries to claim that what Lincoln did by re-supplying the fort was an act of war, which is silly because it is federal land, not state land. The Confederacy was not recognized as a state by anyone, and held no claim to sovereignty. He instead relies on one man, Captain Meigs who "clearly saw this as an act of war that violated a truce between the United and Confederate States of America." This is clearly not true as the Confederacy was not a legitimate state, and as federal land, the US Military can put however many men into a fort as it wishes to. There was no agreement to abandon the fort, and resupplying it was not an act of war. The first shot was fired by the confederacy because Major Robert Anderson refused the ultimatum to surrender and evacuate Ft. Sumter. There was no deception or deceit in the starting of the American Civil by Lincoln.

Though, maybe in your own words, you could elaborate how this is so, instead of linking to a revisionist, Lost Cause author.

[I Ratant]

Well, dig the scoundrel up, drive a stake thru his heart, and re-bury him at the crossroads!
Then worry about real problems pestering us in the 21st Century.

[fuelair]

Isn't that Van Mise org one of the weird economics silliness things - the name sounds familiar.

[fuelair]

Why yes, as Dogpile heads me correctly, yes it is!!!:
http://mises.org/

[Skeptic Ginger]

Republican Abe Lincoln Used Deceit and Deception to Start the Civil War



http://books.google.com/books?id=hJGpAT7IWhwC&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231&dq=civil+war+lincoln+john+denson&source=web&ots=KB0kJRWfkn&sig=k92QWieSxzx3wqypEgyqhJYCCK8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result



This is yet another historical example that proves that 9/11 is not the exception to the rule.Your conclusion does not follow. Not many people doubt the Gulf of Tonkin incident was faked to justify upping the Vietnam War actions, not many people doubt Cheney and Bush used 911 to invade Iraq. In the former incident it was a lie that it occurred, in the latter it was taking advantage of something that occurred. In neither case did the US government kill people to fake an incident.

These and your Lincoln example in no way provide evidence for the plausibility of the 911 inside job hypothesis. So I don't have to waste my time looking into the Mises Institute which is the source of your reference.

[NobbyNobbs]

3) He allowed mass murders of the Indians.

And you've allowed the mass murder of Iraqis.

What? You say you haven't?

Well then, what have you done to stop it?

(Hint: "allowed" <> "caused")

[Zep]

Perhaps someone more steeped in US history can show me the link between Abe Lincoln, the US Civil War and 9-11. Really, that sounds like the punch-line to a bad joke, not an argument.

[fuelair]

A. Lincoln was American and the Civil War, which he was involved in' kept America as a country so when 9/11 happened because American go't people esploded some buildings in nEW yORK, THEY COULDN' HAVE DONE IT IF lINCOLN HADN'T KEPT THE aMERICA THING TOGETHER SO IT'S ALL HIS FAULT. sIMPLE ENOUGH FOR ME!!!*









* :D

[Zep]

A. Lincoln was American and the Civil War, which he was involved in' kept America as a country so when 9/11 happened because American go't people esploded some buildings in nEW yORK, THEY COULDN' HAVE DONE IT IF lINCOLN HADN'T KEPT THE aMERICA THING TOGETHER SO IT'S ALL HIS FAULT. sIMPLE ENOUGH FOR ME!!!*









* :D
Dear Sir,

I enjoyed reading your latest issue, including the splendid illustrations. Please send me a subscription for the following 3 months.

Yours sincerely
:crazy:

[Gazpacho]

Isn't that Van Mise org one of the weird economics silliness things - the name sounds familiar.
The Von Mises Institute is an old-south apologist hangout that happens to have inherited a nice collection of economics books written by dead people who, obviously, have no control over how their names are used today.

[Corsair 115]

So... Let me get this straight.

1) Abe Lincoln was president of the USA when the US Civil War started.

2) Stuff happened.

3) 9-11 troofers are right??

Dunno about anyone else, but isn't that a precariously long bow you are drawing there? :rolleyes:Or, in South Park fashion:

1) Abe Lincoln was a bad president.
2) ???
3) Profit! Er, I mean 9/11 was an inside job!

[kookbreaker]

A
10) He promoted the military draft.

The Confederacy instituted the draft before the Union.

They screwed it up, but there it was.

The South: Wrong about slavery, wrong about everything else, too.

[Alareth]

That said, Lincoln did happen to free an entire people from the bondage of slavery.


Actually, he didn't. The Emancipation Proclimation only applied to states that were not under Union control on January 1st 1863.

Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virgina did not have to free their slaves.

[dudalb]

Isn't that Van Mise org one of the weird economics silliness things - the name sounds familiar.

Yeah, it's Lew Rockwell at it again..he has an obssesive hatred for Abe Lincoln, and an obssesion with whitewashing the Confederacy.
To be fair, a great many admirers of Van Mises and the Austrian Economists have accused Rockwell of distorting Van Mises's teaching for his own ideological ends, and state that Van Mises would be horrified by some of what Rockwell teaches.

[dudalb]

The Von Mises Institute is an old-south apologist hangout that happens to have inherited a nice collection of economics books written by dead people who, obviously, have no control over how their names are used today.


No kidding. A lot of followers of the Von Mises and the Austrian School have attacked Rockwell and the Von Mises institute for exploitating Von Mises reputation to push his political views. They in particular point out that Rockwell's de facto apoligia for the South and Slavery would have horrified Von Mises.

[Gurdur]

Republican Abe Lincoln Used Deceit and Deception to Start the Civil War.


Rubbish. It was the South who started the shooting.

This is yet another historical example that proves that 9/11 is not the exception to the rule.


Utter codswallop.

Abe Lincoln is one of the worst presidents in US history. ..... 2) He willfully allowed his generals to commit many war crimes against innocent civilians, women, and children.


Bollocks. Tripe.

4) He was a racist who believed that blacks were inferior to whites.


Bullcrap. I love how your stance is in favour of the South, who were definitely fighting in favour of racism and slavery. Dearie me, your side lost, get over it, it was over 150 years ago.

5) He orchestrated to start of the Civil War.


Utter nonsense.

9) He promoted unconstitutional direct taxes and income taxes.


Twaddle.

Anything more we can help you with? :)

[Darth Rotor]

Perhaps someone more steeped in US history can show me the link between Abe Lincoln, the US Civil War and 9-11. Really, that sounds like the punch-line to a bad joke, not an argument.
Actually, while fuelair is amusing, the core strain of thought behind all this begins with the CSA being right in seceding from the USA, as right as the Colonies were in seceding from the Crown of Great Britain.

In both cases, push came to shove. Latter case, secession happened, former case, not so much.

Might makes right, in some cases. The meme imbedded in the OP's position is the inherent evil in empire, and thus in the continental sized nationstate empire embodied in the US of A. Funnily enough, the standard Southron will speak great platitudes of the pre Lincoln era president Thomas Jefferson, whilst decrying the evil Imperial presidency of Lincoln.

This is a fine irony, as Jefferson was the first of the great Imperial American Presidents: he bought the Louisiana purchase from Bonaparte, and sent Lewis and Clarke on the journey that sparked Manifest Destiny. He had continental/imperial ambitions. Perhaps his live and let live attitude toward slavery, in practice, is enough to provide him a pass on his imperial designs. Hard to say.

The Civil War was, to some viewpoints, a constitutional test. Once joined in the club, can one leave? The answer so far is: no.

In the amount of time the US has been around -- 1607 to present, I'll include colonies to now -- it is worth noting that any number of nations and empires rose and fell and split up or got bigger. See the various shapes and forms of the Moravian Empire, or for that matter, the HRE, over the course of 400 years.

Nothing new, really, other than the history one does not know. In the OP's case, this is quite a bit. The 16th Amendment wasn't passed until 1913, and Woodrow Wilson, another imperial president, from Virginia as I recall, who Southrons tend to detest. This bit has to do with him getting the US involved in the so called Jewish war to kill white people (WW I) and his obvious victimization by the mysterious, and obviously Jewish, Colonel House, his close advisor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._House). Until he was fired in 1919. (Ya see a trend in the line of thought here? :p ) Note also Wilson's big cover up, after his stroke. (Pre 25th amendment) Such a nefarious plot!
After one of his final speeches to attempt to promote the League of Nations in Pueblo, Colorado, on September 25, 1919[75] he collapsed. On October 2, 1919, Wilson suffered a serious stroke that almost totally incapacitated him, leaving him paralyzed on his left side and blind in his left eye. --snip-- The full extent of his disability was kept from the public until after his death on February 3, 1924.
Wilson was purposely, with few exceptions, kept out of the presence of Vice President Thomas R. Marshall, his cabinet or Congressional visitors to the White House for the remainder of his presidential term.
An important foreign policy advisor and confidant was "Colonel" Edward M. House.
Of course, Woodrow was all about Eugenics, so maybe he ought to be more loved, eh? Wilson supported eugenics, and in 1907 he helped to make Indiana the first of more than thirty states to adopt legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals. Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia law allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927.

And so on. If you really want to see the bile rise up, watch closely as the Southron faction allies with Libertarians in re the horrors of the New Deal. Looking for cover, perhaps.

DR

[ravdin]

1) He illegally suspended Habeas Corpus

"Illegally" how? Lincoln did indeed suspend habeas corpus, but Article 1 of the Constitution states:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Clearly the USA was in a state of rebellion in 1861, when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in Maryland and parts of the Midwest. It was very much in the interest of public safety to quell rioting brought on by Copperheads, not to mention that it would have been beyond foolish to cede the nation's capital to the Confederacy by allowing Maryland to secede.

It's also worth noting the Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus, imposed martial law, and instituted a draft (unless you were wealthy enough to buy your way out of it).

Habeas corpus was suspended across the entire nation in 1863, but as an act of Congress, not by Lincoln. This was in response an order of Chief Justice Taney (staunch defender of slaveowners' rights) to overturn Lincoln's action, which Lincoln wisely ignored.

[hgc]

Or, in South Park fashion:

1) Abe Lincoln was a bad president.
2) ???
3) Profit! Er, I mean 9/11 was an inside job!


Is this a reference to how the underpants gnomes make a profit?

[Galileo]

"Illegally" how? Lincoln did indeed suspend habeas corpus, but Article 1 of the Constitution states:



Clearly the USA was in a state of rebellion in 1861, when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in Maryland and parts of the Midwest. It was very much in the interest of public safety to quell rioting brought on by Copperheads, not to mention that it would have been beyond foolish to cede the nation's capital to the Confederacy by allowing Maryland to secede.

It's also worth noting the Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus, imposed martial law, and instituted a draft (unless you were wealthy enough to buy your way out of it).

Habeas corpus was suspended across the entire nation in 1863, but as an act of Congress, not by Lincoln. This was in response an order of Chief Justice Taney (staunch defender of slaveowners' rights) to overturn Lincoln's action, which Lincoln wisely ignored.

Article one refers to powers delegate to congress. The power is not delegated in article two. You made the same mistake Sarah Palin did. You are in good company.

[Galileo]

Rubbish. It was the South who started the shooting.




Utter codswallop.




Bollocks. Tripe.




Bullcrap. I love how your stance is in favour of the South, who were definitely fighting in favour of racism and slavery. Dearie me, your side lost, get over it, it was over 150 years ago.




Utter nonsense.




Twaddle.

Anything more we can help you with? :)

This is a site for those with a college education. Please try teenbeat or facebook if you want to meet new friends.

[paximperium]

This is a site for those with a college education.
Then why are you here?

Please try teenbeat or facebook if you want to meet new friends.
Nope. Since he was giving completely appropriate response to your nonsense.

PS: You may have missed the massive number of college educated peeps on facebook.

[paximperium]

Article one refers to powers delegate to congress. The power is not delegated in article two. You made the same mistake Sarah Palin did. You are in good company.
You must have missed this part:

Habeas corpus was suspended across the entire nation in 1863, but as an act of Congress, not by Lincoln. This was in response an order of Chief Justice Taney (staunch defender of slaveowners' rights) to overturn Lincoln's action, which Lincoln wisely ignored.

[Gurdur]

Then why are you here?


Indeedy, Galileo, why are you here? Apart from your defence of the racism of the 1860's South, that is. Got anything intelligent to say?

[tomwaits]

This is a site for those with a college education. Please try teenbeat or facebook if you want to meet new friends.


That's pretty funny, considering Randi himself is a high school dropout. A college education is not required, only a rational mindset.

[dudalb]

That's pretty funny, considering Randi himself is a high school dropout. A college education is not required, only a rational mindset.


I have known some people with GED Certificates who are very smart...it' s just a bad set of circumstances kept them from completing High School when they were young.....and I have know some people with PHD's who I would not trust to walk my dog around the block.

[Gurdur]

That's pretty funny, considering Randi himself is a high school dropout. A college education is not required, only a rational mindset.


It's even funnier when you take into account my level of education (me being the one sneered at by Galileo), which I am pretty sure is much higher than Galileo's. But I agree fully with you -- formal level of education proves nothing at all, I've personally known professors who could be real idiots, and I've personally known bricklayers who were damned smart.

But on the whole it seems Galileo only wanted to sneer at me because Galileo simply had no rational answer to make to my refutation of his absurd claims. He's trying what he thinks is a clever bandwagon attack on Lincoln for purely stupid ideological reasons, only to find that everyone else here knows history and logic far better than he does.

Or IOW, Galileo's claims are complete bunkum, and Galileo can't back them up at all. This is not a surprise to those who know his posting history.

This doesn't even need a completion of high school to point out.

[Gurdur]

.....and I have know some people with PHD's who I would not trust to walk my dog around the block.


They don't do vivisections on kidnapped pets any more, you know.

[Corsair 115]

Is this a reference to how the underpants gnomes make a profit?Of course! Their business acumen is well-known. Many are still hunting for the secret behind their ??? of Step 2.

[Travis]

Funny how Lincoln got the war underway while he still wasn't even in office. Sure the first shots of the war were in April but the South had already begun seceding in December and when those first shots did come they were by the Confederates.

Lincoln was crafty.

[IchabodPlain]

Funny how Lincoln got the war underway while he still wasn't even in office. Sure the first shots of the war were in April but the South had already begun seceding in December and when those first shots did come they were by the Confederates.

Lincoln was crafty.

To be fair, neither side wanted to be the first to fire, both because it created a moral hazard, and both thought it would sway border states. But Lincoln *was* crafty. By sending the merchant marines to re-supply Sumter he forced the hand of the southern authority. If they let Sumter be resupplied, the secession movement would be undermined, but to not let them resupply meant the Confederates had to fire.

I have no idea whether he actually sent extra troops, but I tend to think he did not because the troops at Ft Moultrie had already moved into Sumter in anticipation of hostilities. Adding even more would seem difficult, and Sumter was also nearly exhausted of supplies, so whatever was sent over w/ the Marines was about all they had.

ETA: What happened to Galileo? Was he ever going to attempt to demonstrate his claims?

[Redtail]

Republican Abe Lincoln Used Deceit and Deception to Start the Civil War



http://books.google.com/books?id=hJGpAT7IWhwC&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231&dq=civil+war+lincoln+john+denson&source=web&ots=KB0kJRWfkn&sig=k92QWieSxzx3wqypEgyqhJYCCK8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result



This is yet another historical example that proves that 9/11 is not the exception to the rule.

So the yankees flew planes into Atlanta!?!??! Dang yankees!!!!!

[CptColumbo]

He sure was. But if you and I had been alive back then, I dare say we would have been too. Indeed, I dare say a vast majority of the country was racist at that time. Perhaps Humans do something today that future members of our species will look back in disgust upon.

That said, Lincoln did happen to free an entire people from the bondage of slavery. I'd suggest that his otherwise backward views can be forgiven for that.
One thing people often forget is that Lincoln had very little exposure to Africans growing up. With the exception of seeing some slaves on a trip down the Mississippi River he had only read about them in books that tended to regard them as inferior. Once he was President and had meetings with leaders of the Afican American community his attitude began to change.