Lincoln - The tyrannical traitor

I encourage everyone to watch this video!

I encourage you to add more to the op.....whats it about??? What do YOU think about it......any thoughts?

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
I encourage you to add more to the op.....whats it about??? What do YOU think about it......any thoughts?

Yes, I think Lincoln was a tyrannical traitor.

He is responsible for the dead of hundreds of thousands, the loss of freedoms, and the blatant disregard of the constitution that still continues to this day.

The only reason he ''free'd the slaves' is to keep England out of the war; he did it for political gains and nothing else.


The way government education props his status up to the illiterate to take as gospel really tells us a lot about our government and education system.

I've been preaching this for years, but this video conveys the point which I can't express in words.

Make no mistake, it wasn't "the civil war"; it was our second war of independence, and we lost it.

Originally posted by xstealth

Yes, I think Lincoln was a tyrannical traitor.

He is responsible for the dead of hundreds of thousands, the loss of freedoms, and the blatant disregard of the constitution that still continues to this day.

The only reason he ''free'd the slaves' is to keep England out of the war; he did it for political gains and nothing else.


The way government education props his status up to the illiterate to take as gospel really tells us a lot about our government and education system.

I've been preaching this for years, but this video conveys the point which I can't express in words.

Make no mistake, it wasn't "the civil war"; it was our second war of independence, and we lost it.

It was not Lincolns fault.

Tell me, why do you think he was assassinated? And don't tell me cause the south was mad, because that is unproven nonsense.

We lost our freedoms at the beginning of America. My Proof, Benjamin Franklin. He was a Lawyer, an esquire. Lawyers have BAR cards, BAR stands for British Accredited Reagency. He worked for the Queen of England! It's why he is on the 100 Bill instead of George Washington.

Lincoln was killed because he was going to pay off the Civil War debt with paper dollars, which are worthless. Paper is paper is paper....its why its worthless....Gold and Silver is what is valuable. Metals can be used for certain stuff.

Thousands lost their freedoms, yet he freed the slaves...yeah that makes sense....

We have all been slaves to Bankers, black, white, brown, everyone is a slave to the banks.

There is no Government, never has never will...Its always been corporate, from the beginning.

Lincoln was a good man, he died trying to free this Republic from the banksters that control the world we live in today, just like JFK tried and look what happened to him.

You seriously need to do more reading...

reply to post by Quickfix


Really, so Lincoln didn't wage an economic war on the southern states that led to there attempted secession from the Union? Did he not lead the Union army to kill the Confederate soldiers(Americans)?
Not buying your version of his assassination either, paper money wasn't worthless at that time, it was backed by gold and silver. If he tried to pay off the debt using the worthless paper money we have today, I could see that as motive.

Very informative video that most probably don't know about.

Lincoln was against freeing slaves if it meant the union would be dissolved.
Definitely take time in your day to watch this video.

It sums up alot of misunderstandings about the Civil War.


Which was fought over secession.
Not slavery.

(although the History books would have you think otherwise...)

Tyrant to some hero to others? Is that not the way it is? A matter of opinion? That is all the video is conveying to me. Opinions vary on Lincoln's performance as President during the Civil War. Who am I or any of those commentators to say how to effectively govern a nation in throes of widespread rebellion? I just love revisionist history, and all the yahoos that recline in their comfy chairs deciding how things should have been rather than how they were. The Civil War is what it is, and it is a bloody period in American history.

Families split up, atrocities were committed on both sides, the highest elected leader had to resort extraordinary measures, and many people lost their lives. It is quite a stretch to label Lincoln as a tyrannical traitor. Were some of his decisions controversial and unpopular? Of course they were, but when has a President's decisions ever truly been accepted by all. If I recall, Union troops did not fire the first shots of the Civil War, but the Confederates in South Carolina when they bombarded and seized Fort Sumter. The causes and the Civil War is a complex issue, and so is Lincoln's Presidency. It will take more than a YouTube montage to sway my opinion about Lincoln being a tyrannical traitor or not. Just my two cents. Thanks for sharing the video!

You won't find this taught in schools. They don't want you to know the truth. Lincoln was a traitor to the Constitution, but he wasn't the first president to betray us. That "honor" goes to Washington. At the behest of Alexander Hamilton(a major proponent of the first US central bank), Washington used American troops against American citizens. Washington and Hamilton both should have been stood up against the wall and shot for treason.

Originally posted by Quickfix
Paper is paper is paper....its why its worthless....Gold and Silver is what is valuable. Metals can be used for certain stuff.

Thousands lost their freedoms, yet he freed the slaves...yeah that makes sense....

edit on 20-1-2012 by Quickfix because: (no reason given)

maybe you are the one that should do more reading.

Paper is paper, you're right. It's worthless now, but then it was backed by gold and silver. All a currency note was, was a guarantee the paper was redeemable for gold and silver.

And he didn't free the slaves, did you watch the video?

The Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

IT WAS A POLITICAL STUNT TO KEEP ENGLAND OUT OF THE WAR, IT DIDN'T FREE ANYONE!

Don't tell me to read more, you clearly don't know anything about this topic and have no credibility to spread your worthless opinion any further.

reply to post by Jakes51

What caused the civil war? The north was trying to compete with Europe in the sales of "industrial based products", the south sold mainly agricultural based products. The north wanted the US to adopt tariffs on European products in order to level the playing field and give them a chance to compete with Europe's already established industries. The south did not want such tariffs because they knew that Europe would retaliate and institute tariffs on American products which would overwhelmingly hurt the south. Now other causes were involved, state rights vs federal power(especially the rejection of state's right to nullification regarding federal laws). Seven states had seceded before Lincoln was even in office. IMO, Lincoln's actions were nothing short of a naked power grab forever diminishing states rights. Slavery was a part of the civil war, but not the major part current historians would have you believe. Remember, the victors write the histories.

Originally posted by Jakes51
If I recall, Union troops did not fire the first shots of the Civil War, but the Confederates in South Carolina when they bombarded and seized Fort Sumter.

That's because the official union taught history is the revisionist one. The first shots were fired by union ships that where blockading the Confederates so they couldn't leave port to trade. The Confederate ship USS Merrimac headed out on the James River and was fired upon first by the USS Cumberland and then other ships. The Merrimac was a sloped ironclad vessel that was designed to deflect cannon balls and to ram the wooden ships.
So there you go, it was economic terrorism by the union that kicked off the war.

Why is it, in times of strife and bad economics, people come out of the woodwork to trash our national hero's
They are what they are, and leave them in their graves the way we honored them then.

None of us lived during those times, and if we did, i am sure we would have all seen things differently then to presently put them under a microscope and expose their heritage to conspiracy theories that they cannot defend.

Leave our hero's alone, and put the energy toward making sure our new leaders have the where-with-all to establish a place in history that these honorable people were able to accomplish. We needed them when they were alive, and probably would not be here if they never existed.

The video is pretty dead on. Calling Lincoln a "tyrannical traitor", though, does more to hurt your point than to help it. People are going to come into this thread with a angry intent to debunk/counterpoint those words and will therefore be less open minded about what they are hearing.

In a sense the words are valid. Lincoln abused the power of the Executive branch more thoroughly than any President before him (inc. Andrew Jackson). He suspended Constitutionally garanteed liberties in a way no other President did before (Jon Adams' Sedition Act was VERY shortlived and ineffective).

Regardless of whether or not you like Antebellum Southern society, those states voted to separate from the Union in a very representative and democratic manner. With much more unity behind it than existed for the Revolutionary War and separation from Britain almost a century earlier. And while a conflict was expected, they proposed to do so peacefully. Then, of course, the Union invaded a state that considered itself a sovereign territory (Virginia), after trying to forcibly occupy another state that considered itself sovereign(South Carolina). The North was most certainly the aggressor, without question.

Truth is, it wasn't technically a civil war. The 2 sides were NOT fighting over control of the same government. One side was fighting for its independence. The other was fighting to ensure that the other's independence was not achieved.

Slavery was a major factor in the war. Morality of slavery was NOT a consideration, though, for any but a tiny minority of abolitionists. Western expansion was part of an economic battle between 2 different economic models that required very different national policies. Expansion of slavery meant that the Southern agrarian aristocracy maintained an advantage in Congress , hence policy, over the Northern industrial barons. Abolotionists were nothing more than pawns in a much bigger power play. Large banks financed both sides, of course.

The Northern Industrial model was better served by a highly centralized governmental system while the agrarian model was better served by a more Jeffersonian, decentralized model (Whether one likes it or not, the South was waaaaaay more in line with the Constitution and the Founding principles).

I think Lincoln truly believed he was doing the right thing and most people in today's society agree with him. However, Lincoln absolutely did destroy the Republic and cement a highly centralized system that has been consistently degrading the Constitution to the point where it is today -- largely defunct.

Even though the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave and ensured the slaveholding property rights of the border states and conquered territories, the Civil War did result in the freedom of black Americans. That is a result, while unintended at the beginning, one can't dispute. Unfortunately, the antebellum world was only a haven for freedom and liberty if you happened to be white and male.

The winners write history, so the feelgood, "free the slaves" propaganda has been endorsed as the real story of the war. The truth is, while many Americans (ones who helped build this country against their will) were freed, we all began on a path to slavery as the alliance between the Industrial barons, the centralized federal government, and the banks has continued to escalate.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

Originally posted by Jakes51
If I recall, Union troops did not fire the first shots of the Civil War, but the Confederates in South Carolina when they bombarded and seized Fort Sumter.

That's because the official union taught history is the revisionist one. The first shots were fired by union ships that where blockading the Confederates so they couldn't leave port to trade. The Confederate ship USS Merrimac headed out on the James River and was fired upon first by the USS Cumberland and then other ships. The Merrimac was a sloped ironclad vessel that was designed to deflect cannon balls and to ram the wooden ships.
So there you go, it was economic terrorism by the union that kicked off the war.

Huh... Is there a source available to verify your information? I have always been led to believe that the blockade of southern ports began after the attack and surrender of Fort Sumter. April 19, 1861? About the USS Merrimack, and it being fired upon? The Merrimack was originally a Union vessel that was intentionally sunk by its crew to evade capture by the Confederacy as it left the Norfolk Navy Yard.

Merrimack

The day before the firing on Fort Sumter, Welles directed that “great vigilance be exercised in guarding and protecting” Norfolk Navy Yard and her ships. On the afternoon of 17 April, the day Virginia seceeded, Engineer in Chief B. F. Isherwood managed to get the frigate’s engines lit off; but the previous night seccessionists had sunk lightboats in the channel between Craney Island and Sewell’s Point, blocking Merrimack. On the 20th, before evacuating the Navy Yard, the U.S. Navy burned Merrimack to the waterline and sank her to preclude capture.

The Confederates, in desperate need of ships, raised Merrimack and rebuilt her as an ironclad ram, according to a design prepared by Lt. J. M. Brooke, CSN. Commissioned as CSS Virginia 17 February 1862, the ironclad was the hope of the Confederacy to destroy the wooden ships in Hampton Roads and to end the Union blockade which had already seriously hurt the South.

Despite all‑out effort to complete her, Virginia still had workmen on board when she sailed out into Hampton Roads, 8 March 1862, tended by CSS Raleigh and Beaufort and accompanied by Patrick Henry, Jamestown, and Teaser. Flag Officer F. Buchanan, CSN, commanding Virginia, singled out as first victim sailing sloop Cumberland, anchored west of Newport News. In taking position, Virginia passed Congress and exchanged broadsides, suffering no injury while causing considerable damage. She crossed Cumberland’s bow, raking her with a lethal fire, before finishing off the wooden warship with a thrust of her iron ram. Gallantly fighting her guns as long as they were above water, Cumberland sank taking one‑third of her crew, 121 men, and part of Virginia’s ram down with her.

With all due respect, but what the heck are you talking about?

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
The video is pretty dead on. Calling Lincoln a "tyrannical traitor", though, does more to hurt your point than to help it. People are going to come into this thread with a angry intent to debunk/counterpoint those words and will therefore be less open minded about what they are hearing.

In a sense the words are valid. Lincoln abused the power of the Executive branch more thoroughly than any President before him (inc. Andrew Jackson). He suspended Constitutionally garanteed liberties in a way no other President did before (Jon Adams' Sedition Act was VERY shortlived and ineffective).

Regardless of whether or not you like Antebellum Southern society, those states voted to separate from the Union in a very representative and democratic manner. With much more unity behind it than existed for the Revolutionary War and separation from Britain almost a century earlier. And while a conflict was expected, they proposed to do so peacefully. Then, of course, the Union invaded a state that considered itself a sovereign territory (Virginia), after trying to forcibly occupy another state that considered itself sovereign(South Carolina). The North was most certainly the aggressor, without question.

Truth is, it wasn't technically a civil war. The 2 sides were NOT fighting over control of the same government. One side was fighting for its independence. The other was fighting to ensure that the other's independence was not achieved.

Slavery was a major factor in the war. Morality of slavery was NOT a consideration, though, for any but a tiny minority of abolitionists. Western expansion was part of an economic battle between 2 different economic models that required very different national policies. Expansion of slavery meant that the Southern agrarian aristocracy maintained an advantage in Congress , hence policy, over the Northern industrial barons. Abolotionists were nothing more than pawns in a much bigger power play. Large banks financed both sides, of course.

The Northern Industrial model was better served by a highly centralized governmental system while the agrarian model was better served by a more Jeffersonian, decentralized model (Whether one likes it or not, the South was waaaaaay more in line with the Constitution and the Founding principles).

I think Lincoln truly believed he was doing the right thing and most people in today's society agree with him. However, Lincoln absolutely did destroy the Republic and cement a highly centralized system that has been consistently degrading the Constitution to the point where it is today -- largely defunct.

Even though the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave and ensured the slaveholding property rights of the border states and conquered territories, the Civil War did result in the freedom of black Americans. That is a result, while unintended at the beginning, one can't dispute. Unfortunately, the antebellum world was only a haven for freedom and liberty if you happened to be white and male.

The winners write history, so the feelgood, "free the slaves" propaganda has been endorsed as the real story of the war. The truth is, while many Americans (ones who helped build this country against their will) were freed, we all began on a path to slavery as the alliance between the Industrial barons, the centralized federal government, and the banks has continued to escalate.

I commend your response, and you are right on.
My view, above, is the 30,000 ft view, which I hold as very valid.
Yours is down here deep in the dirt, with a reverence for truth in american history.
What you have said, should be in current history books, because it explains facts that todays American does need to know. I do, however think that those in power in those times did what they did in response to circumstances which we have no real reference today. We tend to look at those days through the eyes of what we know presently, and there is ultimate distortion. No one then could have known the result of actions that have built our today.

Originally posted by charlyv
Why is it, in times of strife and bad economics, people come out of the woodwork to trash our national hero's
They are what they are, and leave them in their graves the way we honored them then.

Well, when our current leaders thrive to be like him, then we have a problem.

He wasn't a hero, and frankly doesn't deserve the honor he has been given.

reply to post by pierregustavetoutant


Good points!
Thanks for the vid OP though I am embarrassed how ill informed I am regarding Abraham Lincoln.
My old azz needs to be reprogrammed.

reply to post by charlyv


Thanks!
I do think that having National heroes in your history is important to a culture. And in addition to Lincoln, I would include Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, etc in that Pantheon.
I like to look at them warts and all, though. See them as real people who did extraordinary things.

I do think there are some very negative ramifications of Lincoln's Presidency, but he was under more intense pressure than any other Prez in history, including FDR. As a Constitutionalist, I deplore some of those ramifications and i disagree with some of his solutions and actions.

That being said, it is very difficult not to respect and admire Mr. Lincoln. Put under a microscope, he comes across as one of the most principled men in our history. Lots of warts (both literally and figuratively!) but his personal strengths outshine them.
While he might have been a "racist" by 21st century standards, it is certain that as the war dragged on and he was exposed to educated, former slaves such as Frederick Douglass, his views on race became more progressive. It is a shame that he was killed when he was, because Radical Republican policy during Reconstruction was one of many factors that ensured the race problem would endure for 100 years and more.

I mourn what was lost in the Civil War and I do believe slavery would have ended, albeit in a more slow and gradual way, but I certainly don't think Abraham Lincoln is worthy of villainizing.

In history, spit happens. We have to deal with the consequences.

reply to post by Jakes51


South Carolina's soldiers fired on the fort because of the attempted replenishment of supplies by Lincoln. Lincoln promised Virginia that he would not replenish the fort if they agreed to stay out of the war. He then proceeded to send a ship full of supplies any way. He did this after a peace delegation from the CSA had come to Washington. They offered negotiations and reimbursement for all federal forts "reclaimed" by the CSA. Lincoln refused to meet with them.

Lincoln also told the legislature of North Carolina to send him soldiers or be prepared to be treated as enemys. At the time NC was firmly opposed to joining either side of the war. They simply wanted to stay out of things. Lincoln told them it was not an option.

There is a lot about the civil war and the early days that is glossed over.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Oh, I agree with you that early parts of the Civil War are glossed over. Most of what you said is indeed true, and how it happened. I am familiar with the CSA sending a delegation to reimburse seized federal property. However, by acting on this, and if the appeasement offering had been accepted? It would have opened a whole new can of worms for the Union. The Confederacy would have had victory without firing a shot.

From what I gather, Lincoln's sole goal was to preserve the Union through peaceful circumstance or open warfare should the event arise.

American President A Reference Resource

Hoping to show his peaceful intentions, Lincoln prepared his inaugural address with an eye to keeping the upper South from joining the secessionists. His speech, delivered on March 4, 1861, was firm but conciliatory. He reaffirmed his promise not "to interfere with slavery" where it existed, and he assured the Confederate states that he would not "assail" (violently attack) them for their actions at Montgomery. On the other hand, Lincoln made it clear that he would "hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government . . ." He pleaded with the southerners: "We must not be enemies." He reminded them that no state could leave the Union "upon its own mere motion" and pledged to enforce the laws, "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not mine, is the momentous issue of civil war."

There was a lot of stuff going on before the events at Fort Sumter to bring the situation under control peacefully. Some of it involved back channel communications, congressional sessions, compromise and diplomacy, and other alternatives. None of the alternatives seemed favorable to the parties involved, and we all know what happened later.