Friday, December 12, 2008

Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant.

What?! I responded when my 14 year-old made this suggestion. "Where did you get that idea?" Not from the Bob Jones history book you are studying this year?"
"No, from ____(a friend of his)" he replied.
"Well don't take ____ as an authority on that. Lincoln kept the Union together. Otherwise we would be living in the 'Divided States of America' And we would say our pledge like this:
I pledge allegiance to the flags of the Divided States of America and to the republics for which they stand, two nations, under God, divisible, with liberty and justice for some."


Elisabeth said...

Ahem... Actually, Lincoln WAS a tyrant who took states rights away from America. Now we have a pledge that lies. Because we have liberty and justice for no one.

Sarah said...

So you would have rather had states rights that allowed states to go on in the sin of slavery? Come on... I think that is a little naive. Lincoln wasn't out to be a tyrant...he was trying to make sure people...ALL people...were treated as created by God. Relying on the south to somehow realize that there was another way to manage those crops (= make money) besides on the backs of slave labor or that human rights were more important than state's rights is relying too much on some false sense of man's goodness.

By the way "now we have a pledge that lies"?? The pledge was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892 AFTER the civil war...he focused on "ONE NATION, INDIVISIBLE" because of what the civil war was fought is a quote from some research on him:

"What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:

It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?"

Student of American History said...

Sorry -- you got it backwards.

The South actually hated "states rights" and didn't use that excuse at the time. You lunatics dreamed up that excuse later.

The South actually detested states rights on two important things

1) States Rights to decide slavery in new states.

2) States Rights to decide trials for accused run away slaves.

The South detested any states rights that didn't promote slavery.

Also the South detested human rights -- slavery is the example.

Plus the South denied all rights to speak against slavery, and to have any books or printed material against slavery. White men were whipped and jailed just for having a book that could "dissatisfy" slaves. Black men or women could be hung if they were found with such a book.

Many brave honorable people in the South hated the Confederates and fought against them.

The South were Nazi like -- even Taliban like. No freedom of speech -- even for whites. No elections either - most Southern states simply refused to allow any candidate on the ballot that didnt support slavery. Lincoln and the REpublicans were not allowed on the ballot in 10 southern states.

Read the South's own declaration of Causes -- which the South has hidden for 150 years, along with much of the Nazi like documents and writing from that time.

Learn the truth about the South -- how many brave people in the SOuth hated the Confederates, how the South hated anything -- including states rights - that meant less slave profit and power.

Student of American History said...

Another huge example of the South hating states rights.

The South ended up hating Douglas for his "popular sovereignty" idea that said new states decide for themselves to allow slavery or not.

The South detested that concept and said no new state had a right to decide on slavery or not.

Got that? States had NO right to decide for themselves if they wanted slavery or not.

So tell me again how South was for States rights.

Here is a clue - the South didnt even PRETEND to be for states rights at the time. Thats nonsense you dreamed up later. At the time, the SOuth was very much against State's rights to decide anything against slavery.

Remember - every Southern leader said slavery was from God Almighty -- God gave us slavery. God ordained slavery.

They also said their nation was FOUNDED on the "great moral truth" that 'Almighty God" ordained the white man to enslave the black.

That was literally the FOUNDATION of the South.

The South said slavery was protected in the Consitution. Thats right - -to them, slavery was so fundamental, that everyone had a right to enslave blacks, and NO new state, no Congress, NO ONE no way, could limit slavery in any way.

Slaves were propoerty - NOT human -- to the South. Dred Scott decision said blacks were not human at all in the eyes of the law.

Blacks had no more rights than a dog or a stove. Therefore, the South logic was, and the Southern led USSC said -- no new state could prevent slavers from taking the slaves into new states.

Thats what caused the Civil War. That's what Jeff Davis said and Lincoln. Apparently they didnt teach you that.

The main thing is -- South detested states rights, freedom of speech, ANYTHING that might limit or question slavery.

Slavery in other words was their guiding light, their God.