Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
Recent Comments
- Bob G on NASA Sea Level
- Allan Shelton on NASA Sea Level
- Disillusioned on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Ulric Lyons on Technology Advances
- oeman50 on NASA Sea Level
- Gordon Vigurs on NASA Sea Level
- Lasse on NASA Sea Level
- Scott Allen on “getting smaller”
- Greg in NZ on NASA Sea Level
- arn on “getting smaller”
Lincoln’s Scorched Earth Policy For The US
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
The death of the Republic. And for what?
who gave the idea to Sherman?
Out of the 43 actual Presidents ( 41 counting those that are Constitutionally qualified ), almost all of which flaunted the Constitution in some way, Lincoln is clearly the hands-down winner for destroying the entire purpose of the Constitution in the first place.
He’s literally condoning scorched Earth policy which is like intentionally killing the Cancer patient with radiation and chemo so he doesn’t die of Cancer ( insert crude analogy of your choice ).
It is quite a quandary he found himself in arriving in DC in 1861 with states already succeeded and war brewing. The question he forcibly answered was this: Can there be such a legal thing as a Constitution where states voluntarily join but cannot get a divorce from? That itself is not a “Union” but instead another form of servitude. It’s more like the Mafia, organized crime. Or a roach motel.
Imagine a marriage you cannot leave, a job you cannot resign. And then he suspends important parts of the Constitution to wage war unimpeded by restrictions. And this is not even including the draft which was invented during these times and there is no clearer case of involuntary servitude imaginable.
It is very difficult to rationalize Lincoln away. His precedents led to Wilson and FDR’s crimes using soldiers on American soil against civilians and veterans. Just wait for what comes next thanks to all these earlier precedents.
“War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery”
Steve, where did that Lincoln quote come from?
Avery
The link is just below the article
It is interesting seeing this neo-confederate strain on your site. I have done a good bit of reading on Lincoln and my conclusion was he was first movitated by keeping the union together, as George Washington implored, and later to abolish slavery. The Constitution does not give the right to states to come and go as they please. Andrew Jackson settled that issue when South Carolina threatened to leave the union 30 years earlier. Lincoln had family that were southerners. He was not an angry or vengeful man. He was simply determined to win the war. The myth of his anger and vengefulness does not stand up to the extensive volumes of his recorded words and actions. Even if you read the nuance of the newspaper article you posted, it speaks of a determination of our greatest president to keep the union together, not of a petty tyrant.
This is an 1862 news article from an Australian newspaper. Perhaps you should take up your complaint with the publisher.
First of all, that slanderous “neo-confederate” statement is even below you leftist bottom-feeders. But since “your side” has been so long wallowing in Anti-Americanism, Neo-Communism and Socialism it would explain your descent into madness.
It doesn’t take a genius, as you have proven, to figure out Lincoln’s goal was to preserve the Union, he said it himself. These discussions hinge upon what is allowable in a representative republic by a President to accomplish that. Your inability to even question violations of those dangerous things demonstrates your natural ability to bleat, like all sheeple. Lincoln would have left slavery intact were it possible to keep the Union intact. He said it.
Your worst educational error is in not knowing that the Constitution doe NOT grant any rights, period. All it was designed to do was create a federal government to accomplish the tasks that states could not do and to also set bright line limits so it cannot mutate into another tyranny. Hence the context of all the Lincoln discussions.
Your worst logical error is saying that states cannot come and go as they please. True, but it also does not say they cannot. In fact it says nothing at all about this. So the interesting thing is how liberals and sheeple in general like yourself reflexively take the side of government over the people. You are the among the worst kind of enablers, the kind that would give up the car keys to a drunk so you don’t have to risk a fight with him. Scale up the cost of that acquiescence from a car crash to an all-powerful DC tyranny and realize you are a big part of the problem.
Let’s hear some examples of things that people or states can voluntarily join but not obtain a divorce from? The closest thing that springs to mind is armed services enlistment, but even that is do-able with some minor effort. The concept of joining something willingly and being forced to stay under threat of death and annihilation is so far from America as to be laughable. Yet you choose to defend this very thing.
Fast forward to the current time, I do know why so many leftists believe in this captive concept. It is because the USA to them is not a collection of united states at all, but one continuous landmass to be ruled by DC bureaucrats. If the good states today were able to depart leaving the cesspools of liberalism to crash and burn under the weight of their crazy welfare, ponzi schemes and Socialism, you would very quickly have a USA of free people and a USSA degenerating to Rwanda-like misery.
It is not a complaint, just that I think your intent in the way you use it is misguided.
This was linked as a “related post” today. Reading elsewhere in the 1862 NZ newspaper, it seems that this New Zealand paper is rather in favor of the Confederate side in the war. Also, this article appears to be the sole source for that quote, which described Lincoln as attending a meeting, not setting that policy — if in fact it was a policy that was set, and not just a “resolved” assertion by a majority of attendees at this “very large” meeting, and of course if this statement was not entirely fabricated or distorted by a Confederate source.
In the same article, references to “the President” prior to this point all referred to Jefferson Davis, not Lincoln. This is clearly talking about Lincoln, but with a great deal of negativity. A bit suspect, it seems to me.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Australia part of the UK which at that juncture had every reason to want to see the US weakened. Lincoln is the only President that faced a major insurrection. I guess it comes down if you believe that the Constitution was intended to be a death pact for the Federal government. If so, I would like someone, anyone, to please post for me the founding documents for the government of any other nation in history intended no to be provisional, where the very mechanism for it’s own dissolution is provided.
Fact is the first call for troops by the Federal Government for the Civil war was responded to with voluntary enlistments and the formation of companies far outstripping the ability of the government to equip and arm them. My own home state of Indiana raised over twice the number of companies requested. So many that the Governor at the time borrowed money personally to help arm outfit those units because it was beyond the ability of the Federal Government to do so.