13

Happy Worst President’s Day

Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 1 week ago to Government
64 comments | Share | Flag

Excerpt:
"Here is what the state tells you to celebrate today, Lincon’s birthday: Lincon destroyed the voluntary union of the Founding Fathers and replaced it with a union held together by war and the mass murder of Southern civilians (at least fifty thousand according to Princeton historian James McPherson), turning it into something resembling the old Soviet Union more than the original American union.
Brion McClanahan
Best Price: $3.84
Buy New $8.21
(as of 06:45 UTC - Details)


The uniquely American system of federalism was destroyed along with the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and the states’ rights of nullification and secession, and Americans became the servants rather than the masters of their own government. Government’s “just powers” no longer came from the consent of the governed, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, but from the barrel of a gun. Are you beginning to get why the state celebrates Lincoln’s birthday?"
----------------------------------------------
D.C. NIFO

All Comments

  • Posted by mccannon01 1 month, 3 weeks ago in reply to this comment.
    I finished reading this book on my Kindle from the download you supplied. VERY glad I did as it clearly illustrates where/when things started to go terribly wrong. As a Civil War re-enactor (mostly Confederate) for over 22 years I read a great deal on the subject and was aware of many things in this book, but the book gathers up many Lincoln topics and fleshes them out for an even greater understanding. I strongly recommend Gulchers take advantage of the link you supplied and read this book. The parallels to and effects on contemporary times is stunning. The book sheds a lot of light on the Whig/Hamilton/Jeffersonian conflicts still going on today. Although much joined into a Uniparty it seems Reps and Dems have switched positions in many respects making the historical record more confusing. This book will make you think of much more than what's in the book.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    I once knew a man who "contracted" from time-to-time.
    He told me that in order to be in the FBI you have to be smart and in order to be in the CIA, you have to be crazy.
    Add manipulative to that and perhaps all are currently prerequisites for all potential hires ?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    Biden's battle (with us and with Trump) was a four year tyranny, but we survived as a country despite all the tyrannies we have undergone.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    Finally got it to download and will send to Kindle. Thanks! I have a train trip coming up and this should make a good read on board.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    Tyrannical examples had already been set in the presidency by John Adams and arguably, Andrew Jackson. Tyranny was inevitable, as predicted by Jefferson and most of the founders. That is why Jefferson said that blood would need to be shed every 20 years or so.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    On that we disagree. imo, none of the others would have had the path to such power if Lincoln hadn't set the tyrannical example and destroyed states rights, not to mention the murder of 600,000+ innocent Americans and destruction of civilian private property. Yes, someone would likely have set that example somewhere eventually, but it should never have been in America.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    On that point, we can agree. That is why Lincoln ranks low on the presidential list, but not the lowest. There have been a number of power-mongering traitors amongst the presidents, several of whom were worse than Lincoln.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    But there was no need for the Confederacy to exist if Lincoln had held to the spirit of the Constitution, but instead he chose to serve the industrialists who wanted to bleed the South and enrich themselves.
    Lincoln was a power mongering traitor and his choice was to pursue power by going to war against his own countrymen.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    How the FBI got such a sterling reputation is unclear to me. They have always had their dark side. With the CIA, you expect a dark side at least.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    No doubt in my mind.

    At least we are now sophisticated enough to realize that there are other players involved in running and ruining our government.

    That's changing rapidly for the better.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    In the 19th century, there was a much higher premium on "manifest destiny" than there is now. By allowing the Confederacy to exist, the United States would have a VERY long border to defend.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    The British instead aided the Confederacy via trade, rather than invasion. Certainly, the United States looked ahead to an eventual war with the Confederacy. Their main purpose in maintaining Fort Sumter was to prevent the British from using the South in a proxy war.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    Sure, we have all heard the history as written by the north, and that was my point.
    Potential invasion was just another propaganda excuse by historians. There was no danger of invasion from European powers. This was 85 years after the revolution and the ability of the people and industry of the States united was so much stronger than in 1776 that no European power would even consider such a foolish thing. If they had, they would have directly assisted the South during the war, but they knew how foolish that would be. No doubt there were powers that wanted to see fighting between the north and south, but an invasion was not any danger even in Lincoln's warped criminal mind.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    Lincoln chose the path of corruption and destruction of individual liberty when a real leader would have chosen not to make war on his brothers.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    Indeed, they were given that choice, and I know that. However, Fort Sumter was the property of the United States, not the Confederacy. They were not an invading force; they were a defensive force, primarily not against the Confederacy, but to protect the port of Charleston. Charleston had been invaded successfully by the British in the Revolutionary War and was a foothold for them. The soldiers at Fort Sumter had been there for quite a long time before the war. If you take tours of Charleston, you will get a surprisingly unbiased view of what happened. There was plenty of blame to go around on all sides.

    Charleston and Savannah's ports were critical to defend long before there was adequate protection for them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    Lincoln really had a thorny situation to navigate through. Is America better off as one country, or would it have been better off as two? My parents moved from the north to Texas just before I was conceived. Slavery is an affront to Galt's oath, but the use of force is as well. Life is complicated.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    Your comments illustrate that the history was written by people who were not "Southern".
    At that time the military in the fort inside seceded SC had been given the chance to leave peacefully and Lincoln would not even talk to the representatives of the south to negotiate peaceful withdrawal from what was SC territory.
    So the people holding the fort were an invading force in Sumter who was ordered by Lincoln to stay there (from the point of view of the Confederacy, which is rarely considered.)
    The contemporary history was written under 'reconstruction' which is a propaganda description in itself. Where were the predominant publishers and who did the editing?
    The South was under occupation by an invading army and nearly everyone has been brainwashed about the war.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    It has taken 160 years for the winners lies to come to light for only a few people. For most the false history is still their 'truth.'
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    During the time after the war, Lincoln was not viewed nearly as well as he is in the 20th and 21st centuries. U.S. Grant, on the other hand, was viewed very well during the vast majority of his life, and only modern historians changed that perspective. At the time of his death, U.S. Grant's memoir kept his family out of destitution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually, most of the history about the "Civil War" has been written by Southern historians. This is the exception to the rule: "Those who win the war writes the history". I certainly would agree to call this "The War Between the States". The War of Northern Aggression is a stretch. After all, the first weapons fire was toward Fort Sumter by the South Carolinian militia.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 3
    Posted by $ jbrenner 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm certainly not claiming that I am without error. +1 on "Even the best of us has imperfections."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    Ironically, Abaco and I had BBQ lunch together, but I left Woody's make it.

    LBJ is definitely at least close to the worst president ever. We may soon know that he came to the presidency in a coup as nefarious as Biden did.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    IMHO:
    LBJ is by far the worst president ever.

    Not only did he institutionalize the corrupt welfare system, he destroyed black families and then (never-to-be corrected) laid the foundation for white guilt and unfettered self-destrucion of those who would be intelligent (instead of emotionally reactive).

    We now have an increasingly expanding subculture of the 'hood' and a Superbowl halftime show celebrating cultural decline.

    I long for the days of romance and uplifting culture.

    Thank you, President Johnson.
    May you enjoy your own BBQ.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo