[WrigleyMike]

When Abraham Lincoln launched his military invasion of the Southern States to prevent their peaceful and democratic assertion of independence, he ushered in a radically different Union than the one the Founders intended.

Whether it was slavery, tariffs, or a redefinition of Federal powers matters little. The question of whether we live in a voluntary government or a compulsory one, enforced at gunpoint, was answered with the death and maiming of almost a million Americans from 1861 to 1865.

At the heart of the ever-encroaching State that we find ourselves living under is the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. Every tyrant, from Karl Marx to Woodrow Wilson, FDR to Adolf Hitler, George W Bush and Barack Obama, have embraced the Lincoln mantle in both their writings and their actions.

For Liberty to reemerge, the Lincoln myth must be shattered and exposed.




Link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOA-S72e5Pk&hd=1

[propolo]

Yet Lincoln was able to keep the House of Rothschild from sneaking into the divided country under the guise of 'loans' for War. The same with Russia at the time. The only 2 developed Nations that werent in the hands of the dirty Zionist Banksters. This is why Russia came to the aide of the North and had her entire Navy in the Northern Ports.

The Southern uprising was a British Ploy using States Rights as a divide and conquer methodology. People hate when i say this but 'States Rights' = DEMOCRACY. Wake up !!!!!

Im not a fan of Lincoln. He was basically a backwoods hick farmer who was allowed to become President. He wasnt the brightest man, and this is why they chose him. They thought he would follow orders and go along. He proved them WRONG. He wouldnt accept 35%+ loans on money to fund his answer to what he called a 'Rebellion'. You see Lincoln NEVER referred to the Civil War as a 'War'. All his congressional statements, all of his speeches he always used the term 'insurrection' or 'rebellion'. In his mind it was not a war, and he openly said that the goal was to 'Preserve the Union'. Now we can argue all day, but it seems he was trying to keep America together, without having to go to outside (Rothschild) funding that would put him and his people under the most despotic debt the nation had ever seen.

Just saying there are 2 sides to every story. There isnt 1 member here who doesnt understand that nations are divided using war to get them into debt. When we apply this logic to the Civil War, we see a much different picture than what we were taught. Even by so called 'Patriots'.

[aaaaaaahabbbby]

Lots of confusion when it comes to Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists came out with the Federalist Papers first, promoting a strong National central government. Actually in practice they were Nationalists but chose the Federal label ... probably (in my opinon) to confuse the uneducated. When the opposing view (weak national government strong state governments) was presented the Federalist label had already been pre-empted and all they could call themselves was Anti-Federalists. Rather than being pro Federalists they were against Federalists. But they couldn't really call themselves Nationalists because there could be no central Nationalist party when you were dealing with 13 independent countries called the several States.

So no wonder this confusing state of affairs was carried over into an (un)civil war. The war was actually an international war rather than civil. The several States have always been independent countries. If in doubt you can look up Cherokee Nation vs Georgia 6 Peter 1 from 1831 where the dicta states that the several States are foreign to each other EXCEPT FOR those domestic relations established by the U.S. constitution (they forgot to mention the Articles of Confederation though ... the only place where the word "perpetual" appears.... the constitution makes a "more perfect" union so incorporates the less perfect Articles in this respect).

Democracy ... that would be Congress. The 535 members of congress actually vote as in a true democracy. If a citizen has full voting rights then this only applies to congressmen. I don't see the federal government beating around asking the opinion of anyone else.

I don't doubt that Lincoln was as fully of tricks as the congress he associated with. Even back then these professional politicians were pettyfogging shysters, all of them, without exception.

[searkibia]

Even back then these professional politicians were pettyfogging shysters, all of them, without exception.

I like that... "pettyfogging shysters"

[WrigleyMike]

Yet Lincoln was able to keep the House of Rothschild from sneaking into the divided country under the guise of 'loans' for War. The same with Russia at the time. The only 2 developed Nations that werent in the hands of the dirty Zionist Banksters. This is why Russia came to the aide of the North and had her entire Navy in the Northern Ports.

The Southern uprising was a British Ploy using States Rights as a divide and conquer methodology. People hate when i say this but 'States Rights' = DEMOCRACY. Wake up !!!!!

Im not a fan of Lincoln. He was basically a backwoods hick farmer who was allowed to become President. He wasnt the brightest man, and this is why they chose him. They thought he would follow orders and go along. He proved them WRONG. He wouldnt accept 35%+ loans on money to fund his answer to what he called a 'Rebellion'. You see Lincoln NEVER referred to the Civil War as a 'War'. All his congressional statements, all of his speeches he always used the term 'insurrection' or 'rebellion'. In his mind it was not a war, and he openly said that the goal was to 'Preserve the Union'. Now we can argue all day, but it seems he was trying to keep America together, without having to go to outside (Rothschild) funding that would put him and his people under the most despotic debt the nation had ever seen.

Just saying there are 2 sides to every story. There isnt 1 member here who doesnt understand that nations are divided using war to get them into debt. When we apply this logic to the Civil War, we see a much different picture than what we were taught. Even by so called 'Patriots'.

While I agree with you on that, Lincoln still violated the consent of the governed and forced the south back into the union at the barrel of a gun.

[searkibia]

"no longer a government by the consent of the governed, but a Union secured only by the threat of violence" ....and there it is.

[mortgrhhh]

There isnt 1 member here who doesnt understand that nations are divided using war to get them into debt. When we apply this logic to the Civil War, we see a much different picture than what we were taught.

So let's apply some logic.

No Lincoln = no war = no war debt = no foothold for Zionists.

How, exactly did Lincoln help?

[propolo]

So let's apply some logic.

No Lincoln = no war = no war debt = no foothold for Zionists.

How, exactly did Lincoln help?

He stopped the Rothschild Banking Cartel from setting up shop 50+ years before they did so anyway. You and I would have had a MUCH different life had the Zionist Central Bank been setup in the 1860's. There would have been NO Industrial Revolution, NO explosion of wealth for the individual, and certainly NO way this country would have made it as long as it has.

Again, Im not a fan of Lincoln. But i am a fan of the TRUTH.

[Dwemadayday]

I might add, If one studies history of that period, Not only was Britain eager to see the US collapse into two entities., Britain,France and a few others would have seen this continent as easy pickings for re-colonization without a strong US presence. See Mexico under Maximillian for an example, that crap down there wouldnt have happened either if the US would have not had been distracted.

[crumoursegemo]

I think Lincoln was put in a bad position. He did what anybody here would of done under the circumstances. It's much easier to Monday morning someone's decisions after the fact, never mind 100+ years later.

[WrigleyMike]

I think Lincoln was put in a bad position. He did what anybody here would of done under the circumstances. It's much easier to Monday morning someone's decisions after the fact, never mind 100+ years later.

I disagree, I would of let the south rise or fall on their own. You cannot force someone to stay in a relationship no more than can you force nation states to stay in a union. It's equivalent to putting a gun to their head and saying if you leave I'll blow your head off.

Does the person/state stay because they want too, or are forced too with the threat of violence? Which one is more beneficial and beneficial to who?

[Mark_NyB]

I disagree, I would of let the south rise or fall on their own. You cannot force someone to stay in a relationship no more than can you force nation states to stay in a union. It's equivalent to putting a gun to their head and saying if you leave I'll blow your head off.

Does the person/state stay because they want too, or are forced too with the threat of violence? Which one is more beneficial and beneficial to who?

Again, applying a simple solution to a complex problem never works. What makes you think the South would remain alone? The South would of made a great proxy for the British Empire. There's evidence that the British were already involved deeply in Southern affairs before and during the war. You don't think Lincoln was aware of the ole' divide and conquer tactics employed by Britain in the past? Like I said, there was no easy choice.

[WrigleyMike]

Again, applying a simple solution to a complex problem never works. What makes you think the South would remain alone? The South would of made a great proxy for the British Empire. There's evidence that the British were already involved deeply in Southern affairs before and during the war. You don't think Lincoln was aware of the ole' divide and conquer tactics employed by Britain in the past? Like I said, there was no easy choice. It is a simple solution and the problem was NEVER complex. What part of "Government by consent" do you not understand? The south withdrew their consent. Preservation of the union was utter bullshit, a power play to enact tyranny. So now we have a government that threatens violence if you attempt to leave, be that if you're an individual, or a state. They made it very clear back in the 1860's YOU are PROPERTY, and you'll do as you're told.

Freedom and independence, just made up words. We haven't known freedom or independence since before the civil war.

[compiit]

For Liberty to reemerge, the Lincoln myth must be shattered and exposed. It'd help to further the Red Commie agenda as well.

Liberty will work just fine with all the "myths" in place.

[mortgrhhh]

For better or worse, he acted as though he took his oath to protect preserve and defend the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic, seriously.
His was a sworn duty to protect it from what he obviously saw as insurrection by domestic forces.

Really? Kindly point out where in the constitution it says the president is to go to war to capture neighboring countries who wish to remain independant.

If the Confederacy had tried to overthrow or capture the US government you would have a point. They did not. They simply wanted to withdraw from the union and leave the US government intact, albeit with less territory to rule over.

[mortgrhhh]

He stopped the Rothschild Banking Cartel from setting up shop 50+ years before they did so anyway. You and I would have had a MUCH different life had the Zionist Central Bank been setup in the 1860's. There would have been NO Industrial Revolution, NO explosion of wealth for the individual, and certainly NO way this country would have made it as long as it has.

Again, Im not a fan of Lincoln. But i am a fan of the TRUTH.

If Lincoln hadn't started the war, there would have been no opportunity for the zionists and, therefore, no need to stop them. I thought everyone here understood that war is their favorite tool for distracting and stressting a people and taking over an economy. Without war, you greatly limit what the zionists are able to accomplish.

[compiit]

The only thing achieved by trying to destroy Lincoln's history here is a forum civil war.

[Aniplinipsync]

manifest%2520destiny.jpg

Manifest Destiny was the 19th century American belief that the United States was destined to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic Seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico; the concept was denounced by Whigs, and fell into disuse after the mid-19th century.

[mortgrhhh]

I'm not saying whether it was right or wrong, I was just stating how it was viewed by Lincoln. ie as a rebellion.

Can you not say that he obviously took his oath to the Constitution seriously?....be it for better or for worse?
ie look at it from his point of view for a moment.

I looked at it from HIS point of view for years. In the public schools, all you get is HIS point of view. But when you start to think for your self, and read something other than the government approved textbooks, you form a different picture.

Lincoln was a corporatist from the beginning. His hero was Henry Clay, the biggest supporter of plundering the masses to enrich self and friends that early America had seen. The "American System" was just gaining steam and some people (those who were being exploited) didn't like it and wanted to leave. Of course, if your entire system of political graft is based on exploiting one group of people for the benefit of others, you just can't let a large portion of the first group leave can you? Besides the practical loss, it might set a bad example for others. So you invade their country and force them back into the corral. This sets the tone that the sheep exist to be sheared and any attempt at escape will be dealt with severely. Does this sound at all familiar to you? It should. It's the way American politics is run today. It's the government/banking/military complex and it all began with Lincoln.

[propolo]

This is a very good thread. We all need to realize that reality has many layers, many dimensions and many points. To take things at face value is a road to being deceived. An educated man is one who has learned to analyse, to criticize and to discern.

One thing we can ALL AGREE on is history is written by the victors. It is obvious we have all been lied to about the history of this country. To try and uncover the actual facts now, over 150+ years later, can be a daunting task. If not impossible. To say the least.