ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S AMERICA

[Seth Doty]

Washington was a good president, but he had his faults. Among other things he was involved in horse racing and cockfighting, and while he would attend church regularly he was careful to avoid taking communion, which would tend to imply that he wasn't right with God in his own heart and knew it.

[Wilchbla]

Allegedly George Washington was baptized by Rev. John Gano.

http://www.therestorationmovement.com/gano,john.htm

Washington also had a diary of prayers in which he wrote:

"Pardon, I beseech Thee, my sins, remove them from Thy presence, as far as the East is from the West, and accept me for the wonder of my character which is the marvel of all of the world"

"Accept of me for the merits of Thy Son Jesus Christ."

"I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of sins, but so coldly and carelessly, that my prayers are become my sin and stand in need of pardon. I have heard Thy holy Word, but with such deadness of spirit that I have been an unprofitable and forgetful hearer."

"Cover my sins with that absolute obedience of Thy dear Son that those sacrifices which I have offered may be acceptable by it to Thee, in and for the sake of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, offered upon the cross for me. Direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the Lamb. And purge my heart by Thy Holy Spirit from the dross of my natural corruption. Increase my faith in the sweet promises of the Gospel. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me,"

"That my sins that pass over my head, my sins and my iniquities are heaped up against me. If I should cast up an account of my good deeds done this day, how few and small they would be. But if I reckon my miscarriages, surely they would be many and great. O Blessed Father, let Thy Son's blood wash me from all impurities and cleanse me from the stains of sin that are upon me. Give me grace to lay hold upon His merits,"

"that my soul watch for the coming of the Lord Jesus. Let my bed put me in mind of my grave and my rising from there on my last resurrection. O Heavenly Father, so frame my heart that I may ever delight to live according to Thy will and command that holiness and righteousness before Thee all the days of my life. Look down upon Thine unworthy servant who prostrate myself at the footstool of Thy mercy and confessing my own guiltiness and begging pardon for my sins. What Thou hast done for me, what more would Thou hast done for me or what could I have done more against Thee. Pardon me,"

"for the blood of Thy Son, Jesus! Christ."

"I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear son, my only Saviour, Jesus Christ."

"Pardon my sins for the sake of Thy Son, my only Saviour, Jesus Christ,"

http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/washdjk.html

[irishman]

Doesn't the Bible tell both good and bad things about people? Doesn't it even tell the true bad things people did in their life even after their death?

If a man has lived his life, why is it we are suppose to only speak of good things he did? Are we suppose to make dead people who have died into good people they were not?

I know many preachers seem to do this at funeral services, as if they're trying to preach them into heaven.

Once I had a pastor friend who had been asked to preach the man's brothers funeral service. The pastor asked him having not known his brother, 'Would they be something you would like me to say?'

The brother replied, "Just don't talk about how good of a person my brother was, if you do none of his friends will think its my brother laying in the coffin and or think you knew nothing about him, and will get the idea anyone can go to heaven, even bad people like my brother. He was and always has been a thief, drunk, and never thought about anyone but him self and his sorry friends. He deserted his wife and children when his children were quite young, never spending a cent on them. He declared there was no God and it was fine for him to do what ever he chose to do that felt good to him. His neighbors hated him because he would walk off with anything they had that was not tied down. Brother, preach the truth, only the truth, that such people as my brother will go straight to hell, there will be lost people here who have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ and what you say may just save a soul from hell."

Jerry, thanks fpr posting that. i wonder though...hpw woould you like us to spread your "dirty laundry" all over the world on the internet? You don't have to be famous to have a past.

As for the funeral stuff, any preacher worth his salt will explain the way to heaven, and though he praises (somewhat) the dead man, he still should make it clear that you go to heaven by faith in Christ. I see nothing wrong with telling the good things a man did in this life, especially if he went above and beyond the call of duty.

How many if us will come close to achieveing anything really great (in the secular world of course)? We need to let the old "heroes" die in a cloud of glory, that may be all they have now.

Finally, God can expose sin in the heart, which is something we cannot do;
He can judge their sin, which is somethign we should not do;
He can forgive their sin, which is something we ought to do.
He shows their humanity so that we do not worship them, and think too highly of them. :2cents

[HappyChristian]

Sure, I understand. My only point was that much of what is said about G. Washington falls into the category of "legend." He was a legend in his own time; think about how much more of a legend he is today. No matter who one is talking about, it is often difficult to separate fact from fiction. This thread got my attention because my kids and I are actually studying G. Washington in detail right now. He was a great man and an inspiring leader--no doubt about it. But it is obvious that some of the material written about him falls into the category of "legend," such as the story about the cherry tree.

Yes, he was a legend in his own time. But it was due to his strength of character, which was formed in him by his dad. Have you read the book The Making of George Washington? It's an excellent book. http://www.amazon.com/Making-George-Was ... 0912530022

And then, there's the rules of civility and order that he had to memorize and use for his penmanship practice:
http://www.amazon.com/Making-George-Was ... 0912530022
Some of them seem almost laughable now, but I think those who read it will see some of what went into forming his character.

Seth - I have never heard that Geo Wn. passed up communion, but I can almost believe it. One must remember the time in which he lived. Those who believed in transubstantiation were barred from holding any office. Even though he was raised Episcopal, he may have avoided communion to avoid any kind of linkage between that and the Catholic communion. I think it's a stretch to assume that because he didn't take communion he knew he wasn't right with God!!!

Yes, Geo. Wn was a mason - as were the majority of men at that time period. Check out the formation of the city of Washington and you will see a masonic symbol. Coincidence? Perhaps, but not likely. Then, there is the Washington monument - an obelisk. That's also a masonic symbol. Masonry is definitely a bad group to be in - and it makes me wonder why he would be! I agree, Jerry, it's amazing how many pastors and Christians are members of the lodge...the only thing I can think is that they don't know what it's really all about!

No, God didn't stretch the truth. And neither did every single writer of Washington and others. Interesting thing to note - it was a minister that promulgated the lie about the cherry tree, as an object lesson of truth telling!!!! But that is known fact, and those who really want to know the truth of our founding fathers and others who helped this country become what it is (was) can find that truth.

[JerryNumbers]

Jerry, thanks fpr posting that. i wonder though...hpw woould you like us to spread your "dirty laundry" all over the world on the internet? You don't have to be famous to have a past.

As for the funeral stuff, any preacher worth his salt will explain the way to heaven, and though he praises (somewhat) the dead man, he still should make it clear that you go to heaven by faith in Christ. I see nothing wrong with telling the good things a man did in this life, especially if he went above and beyond the call of duty.

How many if us will come close to achieveing anything really great (in the secular world of course)? We need to let the old "heroes" die in a cloud of glory, that may be all they have now.

Finally, God can expose sin in the heart, which is something we cannot do;
He can judge their sin, which is somethign we should not do;
He can forgive their sin, which is something we ought to do.
He shows their humanity so that we do not worship them, and think too highly of them. :2cents

Confees it, them you will have no fear, hide it, and you will live in fear always wondering when it will surface.

[Seth Doty]

Seth - I have never heard that Geo Wn. passed up communion, but I can almost believe it. One must remember the time in which he lived. Those who believed in transubstantiation were barred from holding any office. Even though he was raised Episcopal, he may have avoided communion to avoid any kind of linkage between that and the Catholic communion. I think it's a stretch to assume that because he didn't take communion he knew he wasn't right with God!!!

Well, read this page from this book and see if it seems that he was avoiding a linkage to catholics or if he knew it was something a believer should do and yet wished to avoid it anyway for one reason or another.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=_xISAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA394&dq=sprague+annals+abercrombie+washington

[HappyChristian]

Read it. Thanks. I have no idea of his reasons - especially since the senator who allegedly dined with him didn't give one. As I said, we don't know the reason, so to assume it was because he knew he wasn't right with God is not a just thing to do. I do appreciate the link.

[Seth Doty]

As I said, we don't know the reason, so to assume it was because he knew he wasn't right with God is not a just thing to do.

I don't think I was being unfair to him. It was said that his wife always took communion, he is said to have admitted that the preacher was just for rebuking him about avoiding it, yet his response seems to have been to avoid church on communion Sundays rather than start doing the right thing. I have seen people do the exact same thing in our modern day. Considering it is a biblical command for the believer to take part in the Lords supper I don't think it is unfair to say that christians who ALWAYS avoid it are not right with God and know it. From what he is said to have said it seems he was worried what others would think more than anything else. The fear of man bringeth a snare...

As I have said I think he was a good president and an honorable man, but it is a fact that great political leaders and great men of God are rarely one and the same. King David was one of the very few exceptions... That was so rare that God has decided to put David back on as a king in Israel during the thousand year reign of Christ.

[HappyChristian]

I agree with you, mostly. The thing is, though, this senator was unnamed, so can we be sure it's truth or another urban legend. Again, "what he said" is hearsay...it could be, it could be made up. So I guess we'll have to wait til we get to Heaven to know the truth of it. :Green Isn't it something - David was a great man...and he was guilty of murder and adultery - something Geo. Wn. wasn't!

[John81]

February 20, 2009

The Truth About Abraham Lincoln
John Lofton & Pastor David Whitney / The American View Radio:

Beware! We are awash in a tidal wave of lies about the murderous tyrant Abraham Lincoln: On this program, John Lofton and "Institute On The Constitution" Senior Instructor Pastor David Whitney refute many of those lies. You'll also hear: Pat Robertson's preposterous praising of Lincoln (where is that "word of knowledge" when Robertson needs it most?); part of a pro-suicide poem by Lincoln when he was 29; and you?ll hear several sound-bites from the History Channel?s 3-hour program about Dishonest Abe.

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1253

[Invicta]

John
On what could prove to be a very interesting and even promising note, however, is the fact that more than twenty states have recently proposed (or are in the process of drafting) resolutions advancing their individual state sovereignty. What do these states see coming? Do they see Socialism's twin sister, Oppression, lurking around the corner? Are these states looking into the future and preparing to take a stand for freedom and independence? What an exciting prospect! Perhaps the great country that George Washington birthed is not dead after all.

Would it be possible for any state(s) to leave the union if they wished?

Without another civil war, that is.

Just a thought.

[John81]

Would it be possible for any state(s) to leave the union if they wished?

Without another civil war, that is.

Just a thought.

Such would depend upon the timing, exactly which states and how many states.

Did anyone ever imagine the Soviet Union would break apart as it did?

[John81]

FEBRUARY 18, 2009

The truth about the founding father of big government in America
Being Honest about Abe

BY JACK HUNTER

Originally celebrated as George Washington's birthday, the holiday morphed into Presidents' Day in the 1980s, in part to honor Abraham Lincoln. Today, our first president has taken a backseat to the 16th, and the election of Barack Obama has only further increased Lincoln's legend. Many are asking if Obama will govern like Lincoln. He will, just as each president who inherited an America of Lincoln's making has done.

With the recent observation of Lincoln's 200th birthday, it might be worth looking at what the last two centuries have wrought. Washington's vision of a humble constitutional republic, decentralized and debt free, has been replaced by an imperial superpower, where U.S. influence not only spans the globe, but the globe foots the bill, as presidents and Congress hastily pass "bailouts" and "stimulus packages" in the hopes that China and other foreign nations will keep America financially afloat. Washington's farewell address, in which he urged a young republic to avoid "foreign entanglements" has been rejected by an America forever searching for foreign nations to tangle with. With the nationalization of significant parts of our economy, the Founders' attempt at republican democracy further descends into empire. Perhaps it is time Americans were honest about their Caesar?

Saying Lincoln was a great president is like saying Ike Turner was a great husband. Many contend that Lincoln did what was necessary to save the marriage between North and South, and if he had to resort to immoral, illegal, and gruesome tactics, the ends justified the means. Like Ike to Tina, Lincoln beat a nation into submission.

Forget the unconstitutionality of his suspension of habeas corpus or censorship of the northern press ? consider the inhumanity of Lincoln's war strategy as explained by his favorite general, William Tecumseh Sherman: "There is a class of people (in the South) ? men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order."

Today, we call this genocide. In his day, Lincoln called it "saving the union," a voluntary union he ultimately destroyed to make way for the centralized system we have today, in which big government colludes with big capital to maximize profits by minimizing liberty.

Leftist Kirkpatrick Sale recently pointed out that comparisons of Obama to Lincoln were accurate in ways most don't consider, noting that "Obama seems to promise: government subsidies for the larger corporations and banks (as Lincoln pushed in his day, especially for the railroads), refurbishing of the infrastructure (ditto), nationalization of the financial system and reckless printing of currency, increased centralization of the government and its hold on the economy, continuation and expansion of warfare and the war machine."

But didn't Lincoln abolish slavery? Lincoln made clear his loyalty was to his concept of the union, not abolition, writing in 1862, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."



War is often couched in moralistic terms to obfuscate the non-benevolent, self-aggrandizing intentions of those who wage them. Few critics of George W. Bush believe the invasion of Iraq was due purely to the president's concern for democracy and human rights. When noting the many corporate and government interests who benefit from the Iraq occupation, Bush's critics are often shouted down as unpatriotic, as Saddam Hussein's genocide, rape rooms, and other ghastly examples are brought up to justify the invasion. To criticize Bush is to excuse Hussein, say many. To criticize Lincoln is to excuse slavery, say many.

Were Southerners who were disenfranchised or resistant during Reconstruction so different from the millions of disgruntled Iraqis today, who simply want occupying armies out of their country? Many Americans consider these Iraqis unappreciative cretins who simply don't know what's good for them. And too many Americans continue to view yesterday's Southerners in the same unsympathetic light.

America's bloodiest war gave birth to the modern state we live under today. From intrusive drug laws to Roe vs. Wade, the income tax to the Patriot Act, foreign intervention to market intervention ? these and so many other aspects of American life exist due to the ever-increasing centralization of power kick-started by Lincoln.

It's safe to say Washington would not have included Lincoln amongst the "greatest" presidents for his accomplishments. And whether it's Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Bush, or Obama, it is a tragedy that being a "great" president has now come to mean betraying everything America's first president ever stood for.

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyro ... id%3A63490

[Seth Doty]

"My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to ?lay it on well,? an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee?s agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetary on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement.

?Testimony of Wesley Norris (1866); reprinted in John W. Blassingame (ed.): Slave Testimony: Two Centuries of Letters, Speeches, and Interviews, and Autobiographies Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press (ISBN 0-8071-0273-3). 467-468."

[Seth Doty]

SOME DOUBTS ABOUT THE CONFEDERATE CAUSE
By Richard Shedenhelm

One can sympathize with those whose ancestors fought and died in the American Civil War. In our eyes, the attempt to show that they fought well can easily turn into the desire to find a just cause for the struggle itself. Unfortunately, this has led some people to propound the view that the Confederacy did not leave the Union for the sake of slavery, but instead for such things as the North?s tariffs and taxes.1 The foremost document of the new nation, the Confederate Constitution, confutes this historical revisionism. The clearest articulation of a society?s philosophy of law is a written constitution. The Confederate Constitution explicitly upheld the institution of slavery. In Article I, Section 9 we read ?No...law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.? In Article IV, Section 2 it is written that ?The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.? Finally, Article IV, Section 3 states that for all newly acquired territories, ?The institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.? The framers of the Constitution desired to make the institution of slavery sacrosanct. According to Robert H. Smith of Alabama, an important member on the Permanent Constitutional Committee, We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel. Now, is there any man who wished to reproduce that strife among ourselves? And yet does not he, who wished the slave trade left for the action of Congress, see that he proposed to open a Pandora?s box among us and to cause our political arena again to resound with this discussion. Had we left the question unsettled, we should, in my opinion, have sown broadcast the seeds of discord and death in our Constitution. I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution; we have sought by no euphony to hide its name--we have called our negros ?slaves,? and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property. 2 If it is indeed the case that the South seceeded due to Northern tariffs and taxes, not in defense of slavery, the Confederates would have fallen into two classes: a) those who did not know what was in the Confederate Constitution, and hence did not know they were upholding the institution of slavery, or those who did know they were upholding the institution of slavery, but thought that it was a ?necessary evil? to be borne in the cause of opposing the North?s tariffs and taxes. Either alternative does not make secession look like a just cause. For those of the first class, they would have very little notion of what their government legally stood for, including those aspects of the Constitution which constrained the federal government from protective tariffs and redistributionist taxation. For the Confederates who regarded slavery as a necessary evil, where is their sense of priorities? I?ll agree with them that tariffs and taxation may be tyrannical. But when compared to the enslavement of a large percentage of the population, how could the Confederate States presume to throw stones? We are left with more mundane or less inspiring motives as operating in the Confederate States: non-ideological bases for secession (e.g., hubris, duty, paranoia, war-hysteria) and/or the overt defense of slavery.


http://summa.myweb.uga.edu/conconst.doc

Do you want to keep this up John or should we leave well enough alone? :frog