Judge Napolitano On Lincoln

[Cancelled Membership]

I don't know why no one told me about this before.

I went to our public library and discovered Judge

Andrew Naplitano's book, "Constitution In Exile",

with Chapter 4 in particular: "Dishonest Abe".

 

I read about other's condemnation of Lincoln in

"The South Was Right" by James Ronald Kennedy

and Walter Donald Kennedy. It's a great resource

listing numerous indistputable references from

Northern university and college documents (long

before they became liberal-run institutions) not to

mention newspaper editors and religious leaders

who condemned Lincoln's policies and deception

before and during the War Between The States. *

 

*footnote: I never use the term "Civil War" anymore

because there was nothing "civil" about it!

 

Some of those news editors ended up arrested on

Lincoln's order's and were either held without a trial

(and denied legal counsel) or deported (again, without

legal justification) for having questioned his policies

regarding the War.

 

The only criticism I have about this duel-Kennedy book

is at certain points, while making a point, they become a

bit emotional and say things like "...lies!....(profanity) lies!"

Other than that, they do have a very valid argument and

if I may say, scathing indictment against Lincoln.

 

So does Judge Napalitano.

 

To wit, (and to borrow a phrase from our blessed Founding

Fathers) "Let the facts be submitted to a candid world":

 

Judge Napolitano ruled:

 

(1): "In order to increase his federalist vision of centralized

power, 'Honest' Abe misled the nation into an unnecessary war.

He claimed that the war was about emancipating slaves, but he

could have simply paid slave owners to free their slaves...the

bloodiest war in American history could have been avoided."

 

 

(2): "Lincoln's 'actions were unconstitutional and he knew it.' "

 

(3): "...the issue of using force to keep a state in the union was

in fact debated -and rejected- at the Constitutional Convention

as part of the Virgina Plan".

 

(4): Lincoln's Confiscation Act of 1862"  under which any slaves

behind Union lines were captives of war who were to be freed

and transported to countries in the tropics. This was in keeping

with Dishonest Abe's lifelong position (his "White Dream",

according to Ebony Magazine managing editor Lerone Bennet, Jr.

author of "Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream") of

deporting all blacks from the U.S. "Colonization" was the euphemism

that was used for this.

 

footnote: In case some in here may not be familier with Ebony,  it's

an stylish urban black magazine created written, photographed and

editorialized for sophisticated black men and women. It would be

catagorized as liberal because let's face it: it's not meant for people

who go to church, but it is certainly encouraging that a publication

like this would be so bold as to expose the corruption of Abe Lincoln.

 

(5): Lincoln did not have any concern for the welfare of blacks and whether

they derserved a place in American society. He was the epitome of a sadist

and a hypocrite! In the 1858 Lincoln/Douglas debate, Lincoln said:

 

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing

about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black

races- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or

jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry

with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical

difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever

forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there

must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other

man, am in favor of having the superior assigned to the white race. I say

upon this occassion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have

the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

 

You do the math.

[HappyChristian]

The Judge is a good thinker.  I'm going to look into that book.  I have always disagreed with people who claim Lincoln was one of the best POTUS' we've had and that he held the union together.  He did so much harm to this country and too many people don't realize it.

[Cancelled Membership]

[Cancelled Membership]

The United States of America ceased as a

Representitive Republic during and after

the Lincoln adminstration.

 

It has never been restored since.

[HappyChristian]

Oh, my son's gonna love this!     We homeschooled him through sixth grade, and one of the things we looked into was Lincoln and the constitutionality of a lot of his actions.  When he went to school, his American history teacher liked Lincoln.  They butted heads (politely) quite a bit over the issue. There was only one other student in his class who agreed with him.

[HappyChristian]

The United States of America ceased as a

Representitive Republic during and after

the Lincoln adminstration.

 

It has never been restored since.

Absolutely.

[John81]

I've been called a racist, un-American, and anti-Christian for pointing this truth out since I first found out about it over 30 years ago.

 

It's good to see more people who prefer the truth over politically correct lies.

[ThePilgrim]

Like you John, I am glad to see I am not alone here.  I am pretty much alone in my community.

 

God bless,

Larry

[Cancelled Membership]

This ought to get the word out Larry, and God bless you as well brother!

[ASongOfDegrees]

The Judge was being dishonest on point one. Lincoln never claimed the war was about emancipating slaves. To Abe it was about preserving the Union from the beginning. Even in the Emancipation Proclamation Lincoln admits emancipation was a military tactic. 

 

Remember, at this time Europe was still very interested in getting her hands back on the "New World". America was still not as strong as Europe in 1860 and as a still fledgling nation could have easily fallen back into the hands of Europe. This is what Lincoln was most worried about and any "unconstitutional" actions he committed  (ex. the suspension of Habeas Corpus) was for this reason. 

 

Most Presidents end up breaking the Constitution during a time of war. FDR was probably the most notorious. This is why Presidents are given powers of Executive Decision. During war preservation becomes more important than rights. 

 

Also, I wouldn't totally trust Judge Napolitano. He's a man who believes it's unconstitutional for the United States to have borders and prevent anyone (legal or illegal) from entering or leaving whenever they want.

[HappyChristian]

True - he actually used the issue of slavery. He told Greeley:

 

 

The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."

That statement (by Lincoln) is a bald-faced lie.  The federal authority was NOT a national authority.  We do not have (or at least we didn't have) a national authority. Federal and national are not one and the same, and our founders knew that, which is why they gave us a federal republic.  And, by "restoring" national authority, the union has never again been as it was.

 

And he used slavery as an excuse to "restore" national authority.  Many, many blacks adore the man. If only they knew how he really thought of them.

[Ukulelemike]

Not a disagreement, but how many of us have wondered what would have become of the country had the south seceeded,(sp?), and we had become 2 countries, rather than one? Would we have been immediately attacked by England? Or some other country? There were plenty of counties out there hoping the country would fall, who were, in fact, backing the South, to make it happen. Why? To weaken them? The Confederates lost because they had nothing backing their money-much like the country today. had they succeeded in seceeding, they would not have continued long, particularly with any sanctions and official separation that would have been in place from the North.  

 

Again, I don't dispute the truth of this, and have heard it before, but what would have become of America? Certainly we are pretty much non-existent today, but might there have been a violent takeover, had the country officially split? Would the one have brought about more splits? Would this country have become numerous small countries, like Latin America or Europe? Some good leaders, with dictators right next door, continually warring against one another? Where would each of those small countries been once WW1 or WW2 came about? A quick take-over, split by the Soviets and the Nazis or Japan?

 

Just not sure the alternet possibilities would have been any better.

[HappyChristian]

I think we would have come back together as a nation  - especially if another country attacked us.  Jackson said that the war was actually our second war for independence. 

[John81]

Not a disagreement, but how many of us have wondered what would have become of the country had the south seceeded,(sp?), and we had become 2 countries, rather than one? Would we have been immediately attacked by England? Or some other country? There were plenty of counties out there hoping the country would fall, who were, in fact, backing the South, to make it happen. Why? To weaken them? The Confederates lost because they had nothing backing their money-much like the country today. had they succeeded in seceeding, they would not have continued long, particularly with any sanctions and official separation that would have been in place from the North.  

 

Again, I don't dispute the truth of this, and have heard it before, but what would have become of America? Certainly we are pretty much non-existent today, but might there have been a violent takeover, had the country officially split? Would the one have brought about more splits? Would this country have become numerous small countries, like Latin America or Europe? Some good leaders, with dictators right next door, continually warring against one another? Where would each of those small countries been once WW1 or WW2 came about? A quick take-over, split by the Soviets and the Nazis or Japan?

 

Just not sure the alternet possibilities would have been any better.

Had there not been a push for war it's very possible only 7 Southern States would have seceded. It wasn't until the federal government determined to invade those States and force them to remain in the Union that the others seceded.

 

England would not have invaded America. Had they intentions and the ability to do so, she would have quickly backed the Confederacy and provided assistance.

 

France was in debt and bogged down in their failing attempt to occupy Mexico.

 

Had there been a peaceful separation of the 7 Southern States there is a good chance there would have either been a reuniting or at least a very close and mutually supportive relationship between the two. Even before that point was reached, had Lincoln not dismissed out of hand attempts to reconcile the situation diplomatically, it's possible an agreement could have been reached and the 7 Southern States remaining in the Union.

 

For myself, whatever the outcome could have been or would have been isn't a major factor (especially since we can't know for sure), but rather the point that we've been purposefully lied to for 150 years; and that to great harm.

[swathdiver]

There's a reason that Communists, inluding Karl Marx himself and Martin Luther King, adored Lincoln.  

 

The South was right.