Lincoln: Constituitional Traitor and example of the winners rewriting history to suit their needs.

Ladies and Gentlemen of ATS. WE all know how the civil war went,but has anyone ever considered the law breaking of th e lincoln administration while doing so? The audacity of this man is astounding. Anyway the following link will show you some of the laws/amendments broken by this man and his washington machine.

Lincons crimes

originally posted by: yuppa
Ladies and Gentlemen of ATS. WE all know how the civil war went,but has anyone ever considered the law breaking of th e lincoln administration while doing so? The audacity of this man is astounding. Some would say that anything passed after the 14th amendment is null and void due to this. BUT I think its only the 14th that needs to b e repealed. Anyway the following link will show you some of the laws/amendments broken by this man and his washington machine.

Lincons crimes

A few questions occur from your title and OP.

1. Did Mr. Lincoln write history books?

2. How is Lincoln responsible for the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified in 1868) as he was assassinated in 1865?

3. If the Fourteenth Amendment were illegitimate (it isn't) why would that affect subsequent Amendments passed in their own times and their own rights under the guidelines of the Constitution?

Thank you kindly.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: yuppa
Ladies and Gentlemen of ATS. WE all know how the civil war went,but has anyone ever considered the law breaking of th e lincoln administration while doing so? The audacity of this man is astounding. Some would say that anything passed after the 14th amendment is null and void due to this. BUT I think its only the 14th that needs to b e repealed. Anyway the following link will show you some of the laws/amendments broken by this man and his washington machine.

Lincons crimes

A few questions occur from your title and OP.

1. Did Mr. Lincoln write history books?

2. How is Lincoln responsible for the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified in 1868) as he was assassinated in 1865?

3. If the Fourteenth Amendment were illegitimate (it isn't) why would that affect subsequent Amendments passed in their own times and their own rights under the guidelines of the Constitution?

Thank you kindly.

Lincoln was able to get rid of all negative opinions of him by tossing people in jail,and deporting them. SO even if he didnt write it personally they FEARED being deported or silenced by him or his supporters. SInce the south LOST all th epapers they had were also seized and burned leaving only the northern record.

!4th amendment whoops. let me remove that. I meant the 10th was violated by lincoln. Sorry. So question 2 and 3 are moot. thanks for pointing it out.

Removed as you had the wrong amendment!!

a reply to: yuppa

originally posted by: flammadraco
Removed as you had the wrong amendment!!

a reply to: yuppa

I fixed it. how about be on topic instead of pointing out mistakes? What do you hink about Lincoln breaking th elaws to enforce his will?

originally posted by: yuppa
Ladies and Gentlemen of ATS. WE all know how the civil war went,but has anyone ever considered the law breaking of th e lincoln administration while doing so? The audacity of this man is astounding. Some would say that anything passed after the 14th amendment is null and void due to this. BUT I think its only the 14th that needs to b e repealed. Anyway the following link will show you some of the laws/amendments broken by this man and his washington machine.

Lincons crimes

Just reading the source page you give, which is a discussion board, shows more thoughtful responses at the bottom of the page and one poster being warned for racism by a mod. We were at war, on our own soil. I would fall on the side of executive powers being expected then.

a reply to: yuppa

how about be on topic instead of pointing out mistakes?

Don't be a plonker now!!

My original post was in connection to the 14th Amendment but as you had already said you meant the 10th Amendment in your 2nd post, meant my original post was off topic thus I deleted it.

Your mistake, not mine dude, roll your neck in!!

The benevolent savior of the Union is as false an image as ever was. All things being equal why would the North not allow the South to become their own country? The answer to that lies in the very causes of secession; namely taxation without representation. Import duties were so high that Southerners were forced to buy Northern manufactured domestic goods rather than from Europe. Export tariffs from Southern agriculture were responsible for the vast majority of funding for the Federal government along with their pet projects mostly being built in the North (canals, roads, rail lines, etc) using "Federal" funds.

The addition of new states from territories in the West threatened to tip the balance of power forever to the North - a situation unacceptable to Southern interests. There in a nutshell were the reasons for the birth of the Confederacy.

Lincoln's view was that there was no Confederate Nation, only states in rebellion so he had to wait for Fort Sumter to have the excuse of saying "they fired on us first". Of course Fort Sumter was on South Carolina land but like many other Federal military installations in the South Lincoln refused to removed troops from them hoping to provoke a war.

Long before Bush and Cheney the idea of the "unitary executive" was used by the Lincoln administration to jail Northerners for daring to speak in defense of secession, close down papers not 100% loyal to the North, confiscate guns from Marylanders even though they were still a Northern state and even arrest the entire State legislature of Maryland forcing them to sign loyalty oaths as condition of their release.

The slavery issue would wait 2 years before the Emancipation Proclamation which did nothing more than free slaves in Southern states under Union military occupation. It was a military move designed to instill fear of slave revolts tying down more Southern troops to guard their home states while allowing freed slaves to join the Union army doing non-combat work which freed more men to fight at the front. Those who believe it was a great humanitarian gesture are deluding themselves.

Lincoln disregarded the Constitution he swore to uphold and when Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney declared violating the writ of habeas corpus unlawful Lincoln's response was to threaten Taney with arrest. No President since has broken as many laws as Lincoln. He made his declarations at the point of the bayonet, more the actions of a dictator than President IMO.

a reply to: reldra

We were According to the constitution ILLEGALLY AT WAR though. Thats my point. Lincoln was a traitor and the points laid out are all verified. The Mod there in that location i quoted from apparently needs to learn the diffrence between racist remarks and the OP of that threads points he laid out.

This is ATS BTW so what another sites mods thoughts dont count. Appreciate your thought none the less reldra.

a reply to: yuppa

Near the end of the war the north was politically unstable, but economically, military, and pretty much all other fields it was in a forward motion.
He did what he did to stay in power, win votes, because the people who were against him would have done a lot more wrong than right if he was out of office. He was lucky that Lee and his army was in shambles and the North had pretty much won before his death.

a reply to: Asktheanimals
It wasn't just Lincoln's view that there was no confederate nation, the senate voted that the states could not secede.
There was a lot of voting and resolutions and it wasn't all just decided by an out of control dictator.

source

"The author of the resolution, New Hampshire’s Daniel Clark , urged his colleagues to pass the resolution and “deny here, on the floor of the Senate, the right of any State to secede,” by expelling Southern members “from the councils of the nation.” The Senate approved Clark’s resolution on July 11, 1861, expelling 10 absent members by a vote of 32-10."

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: reldra



This is ATS BTW so what another sites mods thoughts dont count. Appreciate your thought none the less reldra.

I know where I am. If you are going to use a discussion board as a source, I would think mod comments on it would be relevant to the topic at hand.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: yuppa

Near the end of the war the north was politically unstable, but economically, military, and pretty much all other fields it was in a forward motion.
He did what he did to stay in power, win votes, because the people who were against him would have done a lot more wrong than right if he was out of office. He was lucky that Lee and his army was in shambles and the North had pretty much won before his death.

How ar e we to know the people against him would had don emore wrong though? Judging from actions previous to the war the only diffrent thing would had been a seperate nation but both following the constitution. Slavery was on the way out and would had eventually ended because the cost was too high versus reward. Lincoln pandered to the bankers and corporations and didnt want the money from th e south to dry up.

But yeah he was lucky. Till Karma in th e form of john wilkes booth. lol.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Asktheanimals
It wasn't just Lincoln's view that there was no confederate nation, the senate voted that the states could not secede.
There was a lot of voting and resolutions and it wasn't all just decided by an out of control dictator.

source

"The author of the resolution, New Hampshire’s Daniel Clark , urged his colleagues to pass the resolution and “deny here, on the floor of the Senate, the right of any State to secede,” by expelling Southern members “from the councils of the nation.” The Senate approved Clark’s resolution on July 11, 1861, expelling 10 absent members by a vote of 32-10."

A senate controlled by the NORTH,and Lincoln. The facts pointed out speak for themselves. Lincoln was a traitorious dog who was put down eventually. ANd expelling absent members is dirty pool btw,and against the law becaus ethey didnt even impeach them.

And I used to MOD too on a few forums so trust me each forum is diferent. The mod you refeer to is to be kind.....I cant say anything really he just dosent matter.

originally posted by: yuppa
Ladies and Gentlemen of ATS. WE all know how the civil war went,but has anyone ever considered the law breaking of th e lincoln administration while doing so? The audacity of this man is astounding. Anyway the following link will show you some of the laws/amendments broken by this man and his washington machine.

Lincons crimes

I completely agree that the South had every right to secede from the Union and in fact Lincoln did commit crimes of technicality during the Civil War and the months leading up to it, however, he was a moral man who believed in freeing the slaves and holding together the dream that was the United States.

It was a difficult time that tore families and individuals in different ways all at the same time. The issue isn't simple or black and white as it seems. I would have fought for the South, but with a heavy heart much like most of those at the time who had to fight against their brother, father, neighbor and friends.

a reply to: Metallicus

The south would have failed even if they won the military campaign. They were not looking to dominate or take control of the north, but simply just break apart as a stand alone nation.
They had plans to go on a conquest of Mexico and beyond, and their main source of income was cotton, and slave labor, which was quickly losing traction on the world stage.

Even Lee didn't 'agree' with Davis, he was only in the struggle because Virginia was part of the south.

How ar e we to know the people against him would had don emore wrong though? Judging from actions previous to the war the only diffrent thing would had been a seperate nation but both following the constitution. Slavery was on the way out and would had eventually ended because the cost was too high versus reward. Lincoln pandered to the bankers and corporations and didnt want the money from th e south to dry up.

Because his opposition wanted to keep slavery a 'thing'. Back then it was the same as today, the rich got out of conscription by how many slaves you owned, or how much industrial power you had to feed the war effort. Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery all together, and he did just that.
And there was no money in the south, hence why they printed notes only valued in the south. And Europe didn't even recognize the south as a stand along nation, even when they cut off nearly 90% of the cotton going to Europe.

Lincoln was a great orator. Not an actor reading speaches ala Reagan, but a man that penned nearly all of his words solo.
He was in a tough place. The bankers of the North and the South which held tight to the slavery thing that he personally thought was abhorrent.

He couldn't win. He tried to do what he felt was right in his heart. He wanted to keep the nation together. I applaud him for his courage, but feel he did cave to the northern bankers too much.

From its inception from wealthy landowners that didn't want to pay taxes to England, the rich have always found a way to coerce common folk into fighting to make themselves wealthier at the cost of their lives. The war between the states was no different. Except the less than wealthy fought each other in their backyards. The northern bankers won.

If Lincoln hadn't been killed, the disgruntled Southern states could have gained a certain kind of sympathy from commoners everywhere. His death solidified the notion that the North won. The whole era is peculiar. The real world powers at the time were just watching and waiting...I find it strange they never really got involved. They were involved with everything.

a reply to: yuppa

You're just mad he helped free the slaves.

Get over it.

originally posted by: real_one
a reply to: yuppa

You're just mad he helped free the slaves.

Get over it.

No.... it wasnt about the slaves. get over it. It was about MONEY and POWER and LINCOLN didnt want to give up his cashcow. No i do think that is the ONLY saving grace of That traitor lincoln. HE Freed them though a s political cover for his mis deeds before hand. Lincoln personally according to his own words was a racist.

Yes you can technically break laws and still be an amazingly moral, world class Hero Lilncoln. One of our finest presidents. An amazing man.

You forget that those Heathen thugs, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and and the rest of their criminal gang broke many, many laws. LOL

Snowden also comes to mind. What a hero this guy was/is but technically he broke laws as well.

Ghandi broke some laws, non violent laws but man he should have been killed..oh he was.

Many of the finest people that ever lived broke laws. Jesus broke laws! It says so right in the bible!

Oh and let me throw this in real quick.. yes the Civil War was fought over Slavery. That was the core concept. You can whitewash it anyway you want but I've posted before...I don't have my notes all in one spot here but most of the states breaking away had slavery as a core concept in there letters. I forget what they called the ruffians that tried to sway new states into adapting slavery clauses into their articles and slavery was an unfair labor practice giving the south unfair advantages in labor costs...and it just goes on and on and on, including Lincolns own words about wanting to do away with Slavery before he was even elected president and then you had the growing abolution movements...so say waht you will about states rights and everything but at every issue you bring up..the core issue was always slavery. That's what the Civil war was fought over.