How come Lincoln got away with shutting down hundreds of newspapers and jailed journalists

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How come liberals Live in50-150 years ago Plus engage in the fallacy of putting today’s lenses of more advanced perspective on a time when such perspectives did not exist?

But, only when it is convenient to their arguments.

 

[bripat9643]

"

Then, Jefferson was wrong when he stated that the original 13 colonies were "free and independent" states?

"Perpetual" as used in the Articles of Confederation could not have meant never-ending without the ability to reform or dissolve. It only meant that the union did not have a sundown on it, nor a need to renew it. If "perpetual" meant what you say, the Constitution could not have been enacted. There is no such language in the Constitution.

Either way, none of this nonsense justifies the actions of Lincoln. None of it. Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of the "good intentions" behind such tyranny.

Scholars view the Civil War as the final determination between Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian philosophies.
Jefferson lost.

So might makes right, eh, douchebag?

Yes..fool. In history..and on the battlefield. The United States won..the Confederacy lost. In the end, that's all that matters. The rest is just self-justifying BS.

As a patriotic American, I'm OK with the outcome. If a modern analogue to the Civil War should arise, I know what side I'm on..the side my family has always been on..The United States.

If that's all that matters, then why are we still discussing it?

You have just enunciated the moral code of Adolph Hitler. Your mother must be so proud!

You are OK with executing people without a trial, putting people in concentration camps, shutting down any newspaper the criticizes the dictator, arresting the entire legislature of the state of Maryland, issuing an arrest warrent for a Supreme Court justice, deliberately starving confederate prisoners and killing thousands of American citizens and destroying their property?

Really?

Most people would be ashamed to make such an admission.

Gad..you're such a fool. This conversation was about a historical event..and the whys and wherefores of it..not a discussion as to the ethics..and in any event, you come ill-equipped to a real historical/ethical debate..as your conclusions are already preformed...and not amenable to actual historical facts.

It happened..it's over. draw the lessons you need to and move on.

Yes, it is a discussion of the ethics of it, douchebag. My conclusions were formed by reading dozens of books on the subject, unlike your which were formed by being an absorbant sponge being bathed in Lincoln cult propaganda. It's funny that you claim my views are
"not amenable to actual historical facts." My views are based on the historical facts, not myths and fantasy as your views are based on.

Yes, we know it happened. We need to learn from it and quit falling for the demogoguery of aspiring dicatators.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

"

Scholars view the Civil War as the final determination between Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian philosophies.
Jefferson lost.

So might makes right, eh, douchebag?

Yes..fool. In history..and on the battlefield. The United States won..the Confederacy lost. In the end, that's all that matters. The rest is just self-justifying BS.

As a patriotic American, I'm OK with the outcome. If a modern analogue to the Civil War should arise, I know what side I'm on..the side my family has always been on..The United States.

If that's all that matters, then why are we still discussing it?

You have just enunciated the moral code of Adolph Hitler. Your mother must be so proud!

You are OK with executing people without a trial, putting people in concentration camps, shutting down any newspaper the criticizes the dictator, arresting the entire legislature of the state of Maryland, issuing an arrest warrent for a Supreme Court justice, deliberately starving confederate prisoners and killing thousands of American citizens and destroying their property?

Really?

Most people would be ashamed to make such an admission.

Gad..you're such a fool. This conversation was about a historical event..and the whys and wherefores of it..not a discussion as to the ethics..and in any event, you come ill-equipped to a real historical/ethical debate..as your conclusions are already preformed...and not amenable to actual historical facts.

It happened..it's over. draw the lessons you need to and move on.

Yes, it is a discussion of the ethics of it, douchebag. My conclusions were formed by reading dozens of books on the subject, unlike your which were formed by being an absorbant sponge being bathed in Lincoln cult propaganda. It's funny that you claim my views are
"not amenable to actual historical facts." My views are based on the historical facts, not myths and fantasy as your views are based on.

Yes, we know it happened. We need to learn from it and quit falling for the demogoguery of aspiring dicatators.

So..You're an Anti-Trumper then. I must say, I'm surprised!

 

[gipper]

This has been gone over before and never refuted, so, of course, it is forgotten and we have to go over it again for the obtuse.
It has to do with language and the meaning of words and actions. It was so discreet, so intertwined that later people missed it, but it was there at the time.
The Articles of Confederation formed a Perpetual Union, and all the States signed. Those signing were educated people (all white male landowners, by the way) who understood English well, quite well compared to most of what we see in threads here.
Some time later, it was judged wise to modify the agreement and form a 'more perfect Union'. Notice that "more" is a comparative term. The Union that existed was being improved, not abrogated. It was not another union, it was a logical continuation of the Perpetual Union, as all at the time understood. Otherwise, these astute, educated men would have mentioned creating a new union.
Now, the only reason to reject this is the argument that the new Constitution was not legal because it was not really approved in the fashion described in the original articles. In that case, the Perpetual Union was and is in effect because the later document is null.
It is an insult to the intelligence of those who wrote and approved the documents to maintain they didn't understand what they were doing.
P.S. link:Our Federal Union! It Must Be Preserved! - Dictionary definition of Our Federal Union! It Must Be Preserved! | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary
"OUR FEDERAL UNION! IT MUST BE PRESERVED!" was President Andrew Jackson's volunteer toast delivered at the annual Democratic Jefferson Day dinner on 13 April 1830 in response to the South Carolina senator Robert Hayne's pronullification speech. Hayne's speech and the toasts that followed were intended to display a united front for states' rights within the party. Jackson became aware of the plan before the dinner, and he decided to pronounce finally his position on nullification and win back the initiative. To the attendees' shock, Jackson, often identified with states' rights, declared his opposition to nullification and proclaimed his belief in a supreme, perpetual Union. This episode foreshadowed Jackson's successful confrontation with the South Carolina nullifiers, led by Vice President John C. Calhoun, in 1832–1833.
Jackson, an otherwise "states rights" Southerner said this because he understood the spirit, original intent and the very words that established the Union.
People can rebel, and often have. People can break their words and promises, and often have.
Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't.

Then, Jefferson was wrong when he stated that the original 13 colonies were "free and independent" states?

"Perpetual" as used in the Articles of Confederation could not have meant never-ending without the ability to reform or dissolve. It only meant that the union did not have a sundown on it, nor a need to renew it. If "perpetual" meant what you say, the Constitution could not have been enacted. There is no such language in the Constitution.

Either way, none of this nonsense justifies the actions of Lincoln. None of it. Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of the "good intentions" behind such tyranny.

Scholars view the Civil War as the final determination between Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian philosophies.
Jefferson lost.

So might makes right, eh, douchebag?

Yes..fool. In history..and on the battlefield. The United States won..the Confederacy lost. In the end, that's all that matters. The rest is just self-justifying BS.

As a patriotic American, I'm OK with the outcome. If a modern analogue to the Civil War should arise, I know what side I'm on..the side my family has always been on..The United States.

The thinking of the statist...on display for all to see. They will gladly kill their fellow countrymen to keep a criminal state in place.

I wonder...without statists, would the ruling class exist? The statists are the brown shirts that keep the criminal ruling class in power.

 

[there4eyeM]

Would "anarchists" kill for their goals?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Spooner for the win.

 

[my2¢]

I wouldn't say Lincoln got away with anything, unfortunately.

​

 

[bripat9643]

I wouldn't say Lincoln got away with anything, unfortunately.

​

Too bad it wasn't done 4 years earlier.

 

[gipper]

Would "anarchists" kill for their goals?

Only if attacked.

 

[gipper]

I wouldn't say Lincoln got away with anything, unfortunately.

​

He certainly got what he gave...too bad it was after he murdered 850k of his countrymen and destroyed half the nation.

 

[gipper]

Spooner for the win.

Slavery ended everywhere in the West, without bloodshed...except for you know who. Thanks to Dishonest Abe.

Slavery would have ended in the US peacefully too, if only Dishonest Abe hadn't existed.

 

[Votto]

and trump cant whine about fake news without being accused of being a tyrant? Lincoln actually WAS a tyrant.
Geez, americans are so disingenuous
America's Greatest President: Abraham Lincoln
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fall09.pdf
Im not even going to get started on lincoln sending out sherman to rape, murder pillage and kill livestock and all of his other unconstitutional acts
Im very interested. TIA

You're not playing the game right.

Lincoln was one of the greatest Presidents ever, even if he would have allowed slavery to become a Constitutional amendment if the South had returned to the Union.

Also on the list, FDR. Just a swell guy who locked up innocent Japanese Americans and tried to overturn SCOTUS rulings by trying to force those he did not to resign and then appoint a bunch of young stooges because SCOTUS had said his New Deal was Unconstitutional.

Trump, on the other hand, is just so terrible, don't ya know.

 

[JoeB131]

and trump cant whine about fake news without being accused of being a tyrant? Lincoln actually WAS a tyrant.
Geez, americans are so disingenuous

When you are trying to save the country, you get a little lattitude...

Im not even going to get started on lincoln sending out sherman to rape, murder pillage and kill livestock and all of his other unconstitutional acts
Im very interested. TIA

Then why did you bring up the legitimate tactic of destroying an enemy's infrastructure during wartime.

Are you upset we bombed Germany and Japan in WWII?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Spooner for the win.

Slavery ended everywhere in the West, without bloodshed...except for you know who. Thanks to Dishonest Abe.

Slavery would have ended in the US peacefully too, if only Dishonest Abe hadn't existed.

That's true. Every other country ended slavery without a so-called civil war.

There was actually a constitutional amendment introduced to abolish slavery prior to the warm but it didn't get support from Lincoln. Around 1860, I think it was. Nobody ever talks about that, though.

There's a really good book out there that I think many could benefit from reading. The Real Abraham Lincoln, by Tom DiLorenzo.

The Real Lincoln - Wikipedia

 

[JoeB131]

That's true. Every other country ended racism without a so-called civil war.

which countries were those?

 

[Natural Citizen]

That's true. Every other country ended racism without a so-called civil war.

which countries were those?

Ha. I meant to say slavery.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Spooner for the win.

Slavery ended everywhere in the West, without bloodshed...except for you know who. Thanks to Dishonest Abe.

Slavery would have ended in the US peacefully too, if only Dishonest Abe hadn't existed.

That's true. Every other country ended racism without a so-called civil war.

There was actually a constitutional amendment introduced to abolish slavery prior to the warm but it didn't get support from Lincoln. Around 1860, I think it was. Nobody ever talks about that, though.

There's a really good book out there that I think many could benefit from reading. The Real Abraham Lincoln, by Tom DiLorenzo.

The Real Lincoln - Wikipedia

Nobody cares..Lincoln is dead..The Civil War is over. The South lost. It's now 2018.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Nobody cares..Lincoln is dead..The Civil War is over. The South lost. It's now 2018.

Except, of course, that the Union was no longer voluntary after 1865. Prior to 1865, the Union of the Founders was voluntary.

The humor of it is that they faught the war to ''save'' the Union. lol.

 

[JoeB131]

Ha. I meant to say slavery.

But you didn't.

Okay, let's look at that. Agreed, most countries were able to avoid civil war to end the slavery issue, but only because the US is the place were slavery was so prevalent. while the UK and other countries were tapping down on the practice,the rise of the cotton industry in the US meant we doubled and tripled down on it

It would have been nice if the racists in the south had shown some decency and ended slavery on their own... but shit,t hey are still putting up statues to the traitors.

 

[Natural Citizen]

...

But you didn't.

Yes I did. I corrected it .It was just a typo.

Okay, let's look at that. Agreed, most countries were able to avoid civil war to end the slavery issue, but only because the US is the place were slavery was so prevalent. while the UK and other countries were tapping down on the practice,the rise of the cotton industry in the US meant we doubled and tripled down on it

It would have been nice if the racists in the south had shown some decency and ended slavery on their own... but shit,t hey are still putting up statues to the traitors.

About 1% of them owned slaves. In fact, poor Southern whites hated and resented the slave owners because they couln't compete with them.

Thing about 'racism' as a word is like I said in the other thread. It's just an ugly form of collectivism. People are viewed and judged as members of groups rather than Individuals. Which is precisely how people get away with lumping the whole south together as 'racists' as a consequence of the actions of the smallest 1%.

There's a lot of hstory out there to be read which never sees a textbook in a government school. Just reading the large majority of the available letters written by confederate soldiers clearly indicates tha tthey were fighting against an oppressive government. Not for slavery.