Steven Spielberg's movie about Lincoln is pure bullshit !!!!!!!

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, brainwashed drones such a gipper do not have a basic level of understanding about such basic matters as the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, and the role of race in America.

As such as gipper learn, they will become better Americasn and more positively involved in our country's narrative.

Lets see...I have posted the views of EXPERTS, who agree with me about the tyrant Dishonest Abe, while you have posted nothing backing your belief in the Lincoln Myth.

Believing Lincoln right in murdering 800k Americans is fundamentally the belief in the unlimited power of the Central State. It is frightening that so many Americans continue to believe the big lie.

Is it any wonder we now have an out of control central government?

gipper, my boy, they are not experts, merely people with strange opinions unsupported by the evidence: much like you, in fact.

The folks of the southern states wanted to continue trafficking in human flesh: that was states right to them.

They, and no one else, are responsible for the Civil War.

All the central government required was their submission to legal and constitutional and electoral process, keeping slaves out of the free territories, and respecting federal property in their states.

Instead, the southern states tried to murder the union, and were executed instead.

 

[gipper]

Yes, brainwashed drones such a gipper do not have a basic level of understanding about such basic matters as the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, and the role of race in America.

As such as gipper learn, they will become better Americasn and more positively involved in our country's narrative.

Lets see...I have posted the views of EXPERTS, who agree with me about the tyrant Dishonest Abe, while you have posted nothing backing your belief in the Lincoln Myth.

Believing Lincoln right in murdering 800k Americans is fundamentally the belief in the unlimited power of the Central State. It is frightening that so many Americans continue to believe the big lie.

Is it any wonder we now have an out of control central government?

gipper, my boy, they are not experts, merely people with strange opinions unsupported by the evidence: much like you, in fact.

The folks of the southern states wanted to continue trafficking in human flesh: that was states right to them.

They, and no one else, are responsible for the Civil War.

All the central government required was their submission to legal and constitutional and electoral process, keeping slaves out of the free territories, and respecting federal property in their states.

Instead, the southern states tried to murder the union, and were executed instead.

Apparently you would not know an expert if they hit you in the face.

You still have yet to reconcile the disconnected beliefs you hold. You find Waco and Ruby Ridge reprehensible, but are cool with the War of Northern Aggression. But then, you might not be intelligent enough to see the disconnect.

 

[JakeStarkey]

gipper, you are no expert, not even an informed layman on this subject.

I am not cool with the War of Southern Aggression. But I understand why it happened and who carry the blame for it.

Please don't hesitate to drop by, but don't think you will get a passing grade on the subject anytime soon.

 

[gipper]

gipper, you are no expert, not even an informed layman on this subject.

I am not cool with the War of Southern Aggression. But I understand why it happened and who carry the blame for it.

Please don't hesitate to drop by, but don't think you will get a passing grade on the subject anytime soon.

More deflection and ignorance from you. I never stated I was an expert, but I did post several columns written by experts. I suspect you do not understand this.

Are you capable of answering a direct question? Answer the question.

Why do your fail to support your position with anything other then your foolish opinion?

Is it that since Dishonest Abe was an R, you support him, while posting consistently against the actions and beliefs of Ds. Are you that simple minded that your belief system is Rs good Ds bad?

 

[paperview]

White supremacists and white nationalists are only "experts" at being white supremacists and white nationalists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

gipper, you are no expert, not even an informed layman on this subject.

I am not cool with the War of Southern Aggression. But I understand why it happened and who carry the blame for it.

Please don't hesitate to drop by, but don't think you will get a passing grade on the subject anytime soon.

More deflection and ignorance from you. I never stated I was an expert, but I did post several columns written by experts. I suspect you do not understand this.

Are you capable of answering a direct question? Answer the question.

Why do your fail to support your position with anything other then your foolish opinion?

Is it that since Dishonest Abe was an R, you support him, while posting consistently against the actions and beliefs of Ds. Are you that simple minded that your belief system is Rs good Ds bad?

Beating down the nonsense from your "experts" is the opposite of deflection.

The facts did not fit the foolish opinions of you and your supporters.

I support Lincoln because he understood that all Americans must support constitutional and electoral process. He acted appropriately: (1) no slavery in the territories, (2) recognition and protection of federal properties in the South.

If the far right of my Republican Party acted as did the secessionists in the Democratic Party to dismember the country, I would expect our sitting president to act the same way as did Lincoln.

We the People as a whole are sovereign to the individual and several states.

 

[oldfart]

I support Lincoln because he understood that all Americans must support constitutional and electoral process. He acted appropriately: (1) no slavery in the territories, (2) recognition and protection of federal properties in the South.

You might want to re-read Lincoln's First Inaugural Address.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

Lincoln explicitly recognized a right of revolution, but notes that he is bound by oath to oppose it.

The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor....
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

Of course, although Lincoln did not mention it; recourse to arms to separate the Union was treason under the Constitution. Those who venture to exercise that "right of revolution" must be prepared for the consequences if they fail. Many in Congress in 1865 favored mass execution of rebel officers and officials, and there is no Constitutional guarantee that the penalty for treason could not be death for each and every traitor. A few historians have speculated that a more bloody Reconstruction might have created a stronger and better Union. While I don't spend too much time on counterfactual history, I think there is a good book in what would have happened had Booth struck earlier, before Appomattox, and had the Vice President not been from Tennessee but from Ohio or Massachusetts.

Personally I think it is a mistake to lionize soldiers such as Napoleon or Robert E Lee; their military exploits do not compensate for the blood on their hands. Lee's redemption came for his behavior after the War, which is conveniently forgotten by virtually every "Southern Nationalist".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lincoln was trying to ease the Southern States back into the Union, but was also setting them up for failure if they fired the first shot.

Brilliant! When the secesh fired on Fort Sumter, the northern Democrats, who had been screaming for conciliation with would be traitors, began screaming rightfully for the blood of those who began the War of Southern Aggression. Lincoln knew he needed Republicans and Democrats in the North and the West to combat the traitors

He sealed when the secesh fired on Old Glory and traduced the memories of Washington and the Patriots.

Genius.

 

[gipper]

White supremacists and white nationalists are only "experts" at being white supremacists and white nationalists.

You are a complete idiot. Walter Williams is black.

Can't fix stupid.

 

[gipper]

gipper, you are no expert, not even an informed layman on this subject.

I am not cool with the War of Southern Aggression. But I understand why it happened and who carry the blame for it.

Please don't hesitate to drop by, but don't think you will get a passing grade on the subject anytime soon.

More deflection and ignorance from you. I never stated I was an expert, but I did post several columns written by experts. I suspect you do not understand this.

Are you capable of answering a direct question? Answer the question.

Why do your fail to support your position with anything other then your foolish opinion?

Is it that since Dishonest Abe was an R, you support him, while posting consistently against the actions and beliefs of Ds. Are you that simple minded that your belief system is Rs good Ds bad?

Beating down the nonsense from your "experts" is the opposite of deflection.

The facts did not fit the foolish opinions of you and your supporters.

I support Lincoln because he understood that all Americans must support constitutional and electoral process. He acted appropriately: (1) no slavery in the territories, (2) recognition and protection of federal properties in the South.

If the far right of my Republican Party acted as did the secessionists in the Democratic Party to dismember the country, I would expect our sitting president to act the same way as did Lincoln.

We the People as a whole are sovereign to the individual and several states.

You have no idea of what you speak. The Founders and our Founding documents granted secession. Lincoln ignored the Founders and waged war against fellow Americans solely to promote the expansionist state.

To think Lincoln was following the Constitution and the Founders by killing Americans, is utterly ignorant and undeniably false.

And you like to condemn the statist actions of today's Dems and Obama, while commending the actions of a tyrant in Dishonest Abe. You are most confused.

Rs good....Ds bad...duh!

 

[JakeStarkey]

gipper, the Founders and our Founding documents did not grant the power of secession. Lincoln followed the Founders' intent and waged war against traitorous Americans solely to preserve the Union.

To think Lincoln was not following the Constitution and the Founders by putting down treason and preserving the Union is utterly ignorant and undeniably false.

And you like to condemn the honorable actions of today's Dems and Pubs, while condemning the actions of a tyrant in Dishonest Abe.

You are most confused.

 

[oldfart]

Lincoln was trying to ease the Southern States back into the Union, but was also setting them up for failure if they fired the first shot.

The definitive study of this is Russell McClintock's "Lincoln & the Decision for War" (2008) published by my alma mater, UNC at Chapel Hill Press. It's a masterful scholarly work, very readable by the armchair historian, and only 280 pages.

Brilliant! When the secesh fired on Fort Sumter, the northern Democrats, who had been screaming for conciliation with would be traitors, began screaming rightfully for the blood of those who began the War of Southern Aggression. Lincoln knew he needed Republicans and Democrats in the North and the West to combat the traitors

He sealed when the secesh fired on Old Glory and traduced the memories of Washington and the Patriots.

Genius.

Lincoln actually had three goals which drove his actions in the period between the election and the first call for troops.

First, because of Buchanan's unwillingness to act, Lincoln inherited a situation where separation of the Deep South was almost accomplished. Virtually all of the arsenals, forts, and public buildings in those states had been turned over to state governments or had been seized by state forces. Only two main forts remained in the hands of the federal government: Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens. If they fell before the North mobilized, there would be no base from which to assert national authority such as the collection of tariffs.

Second, Lincoln had a difficult political situation in the North. You correctly refer to the Peace Democrats, but the Republicans were also divided. If it was to come to war, Lincoln needed as broad support as he could muster for a war effort. Invading the South before a major provocation was not politically possible.

Finally, and most crucially, was the problem of the border states. A number of them (Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee) had strong Unionist sentiments which for the time being were ascendant. With nine states on the edge, Union victory was impossible if he did not retain a substantial number of them. Until First Bull Run Lincoln tried everything to retain the border states, especially Kentucky and Maryland. He ended up with Deleware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and half of Virginia.

 

[JakeStarkey]

White supremacists and white nationalists are only "experts" at being white supremacists and white nationalists.

You are a complete idiot. Walter Williams is black.

Can't fix stupid.

Walter Williams called John C. Calhoun his hero: fuck them both, I say.

gipper, read oldfart and learn.

 

[oldfart]

You have no idea of what you speak. The Founders and our Founding documents granted secession.

Generally I avoid intellectual combat with an unarmed opponent as unsporting; but in your case I think an exception is warranted. What is your basis for the above claim? Have you read the Articles of Confederation and Lincoln's First Inaugural Address?

I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever—it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

Pray tell what is your response to this reasoning?

Lincoln ignored the Founders and waged war against fellow Americans solely to promote the expansionist state.

Poppycock and balderdash. You embarrass yourself. Come back when you locate a brain.

 

[gipper]

You have no idea of what you speak. The Founders and our Founding documents granted secession.

Generally I avoid intellectual combat with an unarmed opponent as unsporting; but in your case I think an exception is warranted. What is your basis for the above claim? Have you read the Articles of Confederation and Lincoln's First Inaugural Address?

I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever—it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

Pray tell what is your response to this reasoning?

Lincoln ignored the Founders and waged war against fellow Americans solely to promote the expansionist state.

Poppycock and balderdash. You embarrass yourself. Come back when you locate a brain.

Oh my...another foolish lover of the murderous Dishonest Abe.

If you don't know that secession was ALWAYS a right of the states, you don't know much. Up and until they murderous tyrant started the War of Northern Aggression, every state in the Union thought it could secede. Secessionist movements had even existed prior to the war. No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede. Most of the Founders agreed with secession. The states WERE sovereign.

To think the Founders would have sided with Traitor Abe, is utterly and completely ignorant.

Read my posts and all the experts opinions I posted within them, in this thread, and get educated.

 

[oldfart]

Poppycock and balderdash. You embarrass yourself. Come back when you locate a brain.

If you don't know that secession was ALWAYS a right of the states, you don't know much. Up and until they murderous tyrant started the War of Northern Aggression, every state in the Union thought it could secede. Secessionist movements had even existed prior to the war. No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede. Most of the Founders agreed with secession. The states WERE sovereign.

It's nice to know that your grasp of history and argument is as vapid as your drivel-driven writing style. You present no evidence or logic to support your allegations whatsoever. For example, you state " No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede. " Could you give me a single example of where a ratifying convention asserted this point? Many had reservations about individual liberties which were addressed in the Bill of Rights, and some even tried to make ratification contingent on those amendments. But none of them asserted a right to unilaterally leave the Union. No such debate even occurred at any of the ratification conventions. It seems that as your credentials come out of a Cracker Jack box, your evidence comes on moonbeams from Mars.

As to Lincoln's argument that the Union pre-exists the Constitution (and the Revolution!) , beginning with the 1774 compact, you have no comment. Nor can you explain the repeated phrase "perpetual" in the Articles of Confederation. Even Lincoln's argument that under the law of contracts (assuming the Union to be a voluntary association) the association cannot be dissolved unilaterally.

Three strikes; you're out.

Read my posts and all the experts opinions I posted within them, in this thread, and get educated.

I have read your posts, and quite a tedious task it was. May I suggest that you hire an editor until you learn how to write. Add a fact-checker or researcher while you are at it. These are the most basic still sets of a historian. As for your "experts", my nose still hurts from spewing coffee through my nostrils at your citations. Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck would be an improvement. I see no evidence that you have read a single source document or primary source in this discussion and have no clue where to find either. You obviously have no familiarity with the body of Lincoln scholarship and couldn't tell Roy Basler from Bill O'Reilly. One's a respected Lincoln scholar and the other is a crackpot who wrote a bad book about Lincoln. Do you know which is which?

 

[mudwhistle]

You have no idea of what you speak. The Founders and our Founding documents granted secession.

Generally I avoid intellectual combat with an unarmed opponent as unsporting; but in your case I think an exception is warranted. What is your basis for the above claim? Have you read the Articles of Confederation and Lincoln's First Inaugural Address?


Pray tell what is your response to this reasoning?

Lincoln ignored the Founders and waged war against fellow Americans solely to promote the expansionist state.

Poppycock and balderdash. You embarrass yourself. Come back when you locate a brain.

Oh my...another foolish lover of the murderous Dishonest Abe.

If you don't know that secession was ALWAYS a right of the states, you don't know much. Up and until they murderous tyrant started the War of Northern Aggression, every state in the Union thought it could secede. Secessionist movements had even existed prior to the war. No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede. Most of the Founders agreed with secession. The states WERE sovereign.

To think the Founders would have sided with Traitor Abe, is utterly and completely ignorant.

Read my posts and all the experts opinions I posted within them, in this thread, and get educated.

I have a better idea......


.....go fuck yourself.

 

[gipper]

Generally I avoid intellectual combat with an unarmed opponent as unsporting; but in your case I think an exception is warranted. What is your basis for the above claim? Have you read the Articles of Confederation and Lincoln's First Inaugural Address?


Pray tell what is your response to this reasoning?


Poppycock and balderdash. You embarrass yourself. Come back when you locate a brain.

Oh my...another foolish lover of the murderous Dishonest Abe.

If you don't know that secession was ALWAYS a right of the states, you don't know much. Up and until they murderous tyrant started the War of Northern Aggression, every state in the Union thought it could secede. Secessionist movements had even existed prior to the war. No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede. Most of the Founders agreed with secession. The states WERE sovereign.

To think the Founders would have sided with Traitor Abe, is utterly and completely ignorant.

Read my posts and all the experts opinions I posted within them, in this thread, and get educated.

I have a better idea......


.....go fuck yourself.

Can't fix stupid...no truer words could be applied to you.

 

[tjvh]

Had the Union been more successful in countering the rebellion of the South in the early years of the Civil War, Lincoln would never had brought out a desire to free the slaves, it was only when he was losing support for his cause did he decide to make things about freeing slaves. History has proven that fact time and time again.

 

[gipper]

Poppycock and balderdash. You embarrass yourself. Come back when you locate a brain.

If you don't know that secession was ALWAYS a right of the states, you don't know much. Up and until they murderous tyrant started the War of Northern Aggression, every state in the Union thought it could secede. Secessionist movements had even existed prior to the war. No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede. Most of the Founders agreed with secession. The states WERE sovereign.

It's nice to know that your grasp of history and argument is as vapid as your drivel-driven writing style. You present no evidence or logic to support your allegations whatsoever. For example, you state " No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede. " Could you give me a single example of where a ratifying convention asserted this point? Many had reservations about individual liberties which were addressed in the Bill of Rights, and some even tried to make ratification contingent on those amendments. But none of them asserted a right to unilaterally leave the Union. No such debate even occurred at any of the ratification conventions. It seems that as your credentials come out of a Cracker Jack box, your evidence comes on moonbeams from Mars.

As to Lincoln's argument that the Union pre-exists the Constitution (and the Revolution!) , beginning with the 1774 compact, you have no comment. Nor can you explain the repeated phrase "perpetual" in the Articles of Confederation. Even Lincoln's argument that under the law of contracts (assuming the Union to be a voluntary association) the association cannot be dissolved unilaterally.

Three strikes; you're out.

Read my posts and all the experts opinions I posted within them, in this thread, and get educated.

I have read your posts, and quite a tedious task it was. May I suggest that you hire an editor until you learn how to write. Add a fact-checker or researcher while you are at it. These are the most basic still sets of a historian. As for your "experts", my nose still hurts from spewing coffee through my nostrils at your citations. Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck would be an improvement. I see no evidence that you have read a single source document or primary source in this discussion and have no clue where to find either. You obviously have no familiarity with the body of Lincoln scholarship and couldn't tell Roy Basler from Bill O'Reilly. One's a respected Lincoln scholar and the other is a crackpot who wrote a bad book about Lincoln. Do you know which is which?

I have cited the works of several experts including the PhD Walter Williams, PhD David Livingston, PhD Thomas DiLorenzo, and the Great PhD Ludwig Von Mises. All men devoted to individual liberty and the rule of law. Of course, these great man know Lincoln was a tyrant, as do I. You have cited no one but your ignorant opinion and fall for the Lincoln Myth.

Once an American comes to realize the truth about Dishonest Abe, that American recognizes tyranny when they see it. Those incapable of comprehending the truth, will never understand tyranny in America.