Sunday, February 27, 2011

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Abraham Lincoln Was A Tyrant!

The first two sentences of the "Dishonest Abe" chapter of The Constitution in Exile are hard hitting: "The Abraham Lincoln of legend is an honest man who freed the slaves and saved the Union. Few things could be more misleading." He then goes on to say exactly what Ron Paul told the Washington Post, and which seemed to mystify and confuse Tim Russert in his "Meet the Press" interview with Congressman Paul: "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." And, as Ron Paul would likely add, all the other countries of the world that ended slavery in the nineteenth century, including Britain, Spain, France, Denmark, the Dutch, did so without a war. This, by the way, included the Northern states in the U.S. There were no "civil wars" to free the slaves in Massachusetts, New York (where slavery existed for over 200 years), or Illinois.

Lincoln's "actions were unconstitutional and he knew it," writes Napolitano, for "the rights of the states to secede from the Union . . . [are] clearly implicit in the Constitution, since it was the states that ratified the Constitution . . ." Lincoln's view "was a far departure from the approach of Thomas Jefferson, who recognized states' rights above those of the Union." Judge Napolitano also reminds his readers that 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 "Virginia Plan."

14 comments:

  1. I knew there was a reason I always said,Stinkin Lincoln !!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't understand the mythology behind this. Does Ron Paul understand history, or does he actually think Lincoln started the Civil War and claimed it was about freeing slaves?

    ReplyDelete
  3. So, Bret, in your confused mind, Lincoln didn't just claim after the fact that it was about freeing slaves, but his aggressive war of massive death and destruction (if Lincoln would have let the South have its independence, there would have been no 600,000 dead Americans, but I guess you think human life so worthless that those deaths were a price worth paying to "free the slaves") was actually all about ending slavery from the start?

    ReplyDelete
  4. From the start, it was about Slave States leaving before Lincoln even took office and attacking US troops, all because they feared what Lincoln might do when he became president.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lincoln proved what a tyrant he was once he took office. The Southern states were right to secede.

    And the Confederacy should have sent assassins to kill the bastard years before the hero John Wilkes Booth put a bullet in his evil brain.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah, they were psychics...

    See, here's the problem. You keep saying, "Lincoln didn't fight the South to free the slaves!" like it means something. Lincoln fought the South because the South fought Lincoln.

    When the first Slave States seceded, Lincoln was not a tyrant... he was not even sworn in. If Lincoln was a tyrant, the South made him into one.

    And your praise of Booth is quite misguided. The South would have been far better off if Lincoln had seen Reconstruction through to the end.

    But a stirring, emotional response there, nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, Bret, you don't get it. Did Lincoln deserve what he got from Booth? Yes, but it was too little, too late. Your comments don't even show the slightest understanding of my points. I said it (Lincoln's assassination) should have been done years earlier, when the South was winning battle after battle against superior forces (ultimately they lost because the were outnumbered in troops three to one). That might well have caused a tired of war Northern public to demand an end to hostilities and peace with the South by letting it go. And that of course is the issue. If Lincoln had said, "Leave the Union, we won't fight you" the war would have ended immediately. The Southern states, after all, weren't out to conquer the North, just to gain their independence from Washington.

    How dense does one have to be to keep missing that over and over?

    And please, your condescending attitude is embarrassing coming from someone so convinced of their superior intelligence, education and reasoning powers, when evidence of those are so lacking in the vast majority of your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So remind me why the South seceded again?

    ReplyDelete
  9. It doesn't matter why the South seceded, what matters is, what motivated Lincoln and the Union? And were their actions Constitutional, moral, or justified?

    ReplyDelete
  10. So, the Slave States somehow knew ahead of time what Lincoln would do, and this caused them to see him as a tyrant... thus leading to the Slave states leaving and attacking Union fortifications?

    If only the Slave States were not fortune tellers, they may have never known what evils Lincoln would commit, and therefore never secede, and thereby prevent the war and maybe even still have slavery to this day...

    ReplyDelete
  11. They wouldn't have had slavery to this day, and you know it. As for Lincoln, you're right about one thing; he had no intention to end slavery when he first decided to wage war on the Southern states, and would have been accommodating on that front if they had remained in the Union.

    But, why are you blaming the victim? Lincoln's tyrannical actions are the South's fault?

    ReplyDelete
  12. They wouldn't have had slavery to this day, and you know it.

    Actually, I don't know it, and neither do you.

    But, why are you blaming the victim? Lincoln's tyrannical actions are the South's fault?

    Every loser in a war sees the conqueroring hero from the other side as a a monster. Your view is hopelessly tainted by your misguided love for states that would rather cause violence than even consider the possibility of slavery not spreading to new states (as was the true situation of the time; the end of slavery itself was not even in sight until the war broke out).

    ReplyDelete
  13. the facts on Lincoln and his disregard for our Constitution clearly indicate he was not any sort of hero. The history books lie and make him into one but the facts have remained for those who are interested in the truth. Clearly, slavery would have been abolished as it was everywhere else in the world during that time. Lincoln used the issue as a political football and we lost 600,000 Americans because of it along with our states and individuals rights. The war between the states was a war exactly like every other war that has ever been fought, it was over economics. The south and the revenue they produced for the federal government were at stake. THAT is why lincoln conducted the war and no other reason. Just for irony sake, it was the north, Boston and NY that controlled the slave trade. We would be better off has the south won.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bret, your devotion to Lincoln is more profound than that which normal people feel for God Almighty. I understand that when you hear the truth it sounds like blasphemy, but just keep telling yourself: Lincoln was a man, not God, and certainly not a saint. The selling of Lincoln is one of the biggest swindles ever put over on decent people by a bloated, grasping, tyrannical government.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts with Thumbnails