Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old October 2nd, 2009 #21
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

To wrap up today's effort on a lighter note, and not being able to restrain my amusement, here's Lincoln - the man who would later deny self-government to half of the citizenry - arguing for regional representation:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...=lincoln2%3A79

Quote:
Memorandum to Zachary Taylor [1]
June [15?] 1849

Nothing in my papers questions Mr. B.'s competency or honesty, and, I presume, nothing in his questions mine. Being equal so far, if it does not appear I am preferred by the Whigs of Illinois, I lay no claim to the office.

But if it does appear I am preferred, it will be argued that the whole Northwest, and not Illinois alone, should be heard. I answer I am as strongly recommended by Ohio and Indiana, as well as Illinois; and further, that when the many appointments were made for Ohio, as for the Northwest, Illinois was not consulted. When an Indianian was nominated for Governor of Minnesota, and another appointed for Commissioner of Mexican claims, as for the Northwest, Illinois was not consulted. When a citizen of Iowa was appointed Second Assistant Postmaster General and another to a Land Office in Minnesota, Illinois was not consulted. Of none of these have I ever complained. In each of them, the State whose citizen was appointed was allowed to control, and I think rightly. I only ask that Illinois be not cut off with less deference.

It will be argued that all the Illinois appointments, so far, have been South, and that therefore this should go North. I answer, that of the local appointments every part has had its share, and Chicago far the best share of any. Of the transitory, the Marshall and Attorney are all; and neither of these is within a hundred miles of me, the former being South and the latter North of West. I am in the center. Is the center nothing?---that center which alone has ever given you a Whig representative? On the score of locality, I admit the claim of the North is no worse, and I deny that it is any better than that of the center.


Annotation

[1] Joseph H. Barrett, Abraham Lincoln and His Presidency, I, 107-108.
See y'all again soon.
 
Old October 2nd, 2009 #22
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

OOPS! One more. Here's Lincoln arguing FOR secession! It might be hilarious but it's just one more example of Lincoln's complete consistency in always doing the opposite of what he said. Now you know how Wilson & FDR got away with their having "kept our boys out of war".

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...=lincoln2%3A95

Quote:
Resolutions of Sympathy with the Cause of Hungarian Freedom [1]
September 6, 1849

Resolved, That in their present glorious struggle for liberty, the Hungarians, command our highest admiration, and have our warmest sympathy.

Resolved, That they have our most ardent prayers for their speedy triumph and final success.

Resolved, That the Government of the United States should acknowledge the Independence of Hungary as [a] Nation of freemen, at the very earliest moment consistent with our amicable relations with that Government, against which they are contending.

Resolved, That in the opinion of this meeting, the immediate acknowledgment of the independence of Hungary by our government, is due from American freemen, to their struggling brethren, to the general cause of Republican liberty, and not a violation of the just rights of any Nation or people.


Annotation

[1] Illinois Journal, September 7, 1849. ``At a large meeting of citizens (at which many ladies were present,) . . . being called to order by S. FRANCIS, Esq., the Hon. DAVID DAVIS . . . was elected President. . . . On motion, the President appointed citizens John Todd, Wm. Carpenter, Abraham Lincoln, E. H. Merryman, Thomas Lewis, and David B. Campbell, [a] committee to draw up resolutions to express the sentiments of the members of this meeting in relation to the war now progressing in Hungary.'' Ibid.
 
Old October 2nd, 2009 #23
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

It just occurred to me why Lincoln was concerned enough to sign a letter of support for the secession of Hungary. The year was 1849 and the Jews' communist revolution was in its death throes in Europe. Whether Austria and Hungary should have separated or not, consider Hitler's opinion. But something tells me it wasn't Hungarians whose "freedom" Lincoln was concerned about.

No wonder the Jews formed the Abraham Lincoln Brigade to fight Franco in the 30s.
 
Old October 4th, 2009 #24
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

Just re-reading that letter makes me know how the champions of Lincoln's "White Nationalism" who read it must be blushing.

Russia sent troops into Hungary in 1849 in order to quash the remnants of the 48er's revolution. This was the type thing that the Jews love to "never forget" and IMO was pivotal in their aim at revolution in Russia.

It's pretty obvious why Lincoln, an obscure congressman from back country Illinois, wanted to go on record supporting the Jewish revolution in Europe. Whether he was a Jew or not, he knew who to salve for political elevation in "the promised land". Yes, even in 1849.

The idea that he cared a whit about the White race, and wasn't a Marxian universalist, or just a cunning politician out to profit, is, contrary to two or three timely political speeches, opposed to the overall historical record - and especially opposed to his actions. But I'll be back to continue an examination of that record, sporadically.

Comments from experts on the time period will be appreciated.
 
Old October 6th, 2009 #25
steven clark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,704
steven clark
Default

The public record is that Lincoln favored emancipation, but he wanted the blacks to go back to Africa. From what I've read, Lincoln never thought both races could live together.

Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote UNCLE TOM'S CABIN, had her freed black character at the end of the book go, not back to the south but to Africa.

There were a few abolitionists who actually urged the white and black races to intermarry so the superior white gene would civilize the black one, but the
overwhelming majority of Americans wanted nothing to do with blacks.

I think Gingerich uses historical quotes to justify whatever the neocons say. He, like a lot of the neocon's lackeys, also quotes Martin Luther King to no end. And like you, Alex, I get tired of hearing men like him call for war here, there, and everywhere, while they never spent a day in uniform.

Like when Iraq was invaded and the neocons were on radio with a shopping list of countries for Bush to invade. North Korea, Sudan, Iran...one after
another. with those Jewish voice droning on. Disgusting.

But Alex, didn't the South really throw away their advantage BY seceding?
They could have kept playing for time since they had much of the government and Congress under control. Open war made them lose these
advantages. War could only have succeeded if they had struck hard and
quick, but they didn't.

Jefferson Davis, for all his skill as a soldier and government experience (and he was much more attuned to industrialism than agriculture), wasn't an effective a war leader as Lincoln.

Perhaps, unlike Lincoln, Davis lacked a killer instinct.
 
Old October 6th, 2009 #26
Alexander M.
Senior Member
 
Alexander M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,236
Alexander M.
Default Abraham Lincoln's Two-Edged Sword

Abraham Lincoln's Two-Edged Sword
Audio; Posted on: 2009-08-10 16:45:02 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be. -- Thomas Jefferson

by Frank Roman

Audio Version

Over the course of several weeks, perhaps even longer, I've been seeing quite a bit of attention being paid to Judge Andrew Napolitano’s book entitled, Dred Scott's Revenge. In case your government school fell down on the job: Dred Scott was a slave in the United States who sued unsuccessfully (in St. Louis, Missouri) for his freedom in 1857. The Supreme Court upheld that America’s black slaves were 'non-persons' who therefore did not qualify for the privilege of freedom. This decision is the centerpiece of Napolitano's book. Fox News pundit and resident clown Glen Beck said Napolitano's book "lays out 150 years of our national experience... and places the blame for much of what’s wrong squarely at the feet of those responsible: the federal government and politicians whose plans, policies, and programs trashed the Constitution." Fellow neocon Geraldo Rivera said about Dred Scott’s Revenge: "In this sharply written narrative, the Judge shows us how race remains the driving force in almost every aspect of American life, from education to law enforcement. Dred Scott, the person, would have appreciated this graphic and honest appraisal.”

Now having related the above: while doing some perfunctory research for this podcast I was amazed at the number of contradictory recorded statements president Lincoln made regarding the very things he is best known for: slavery, the War Between the States and the Constitution.

In fact it almost seems as though Honest Abe either had a split personality or was able to pigeonhole ideas and facts while he ignored reality. On one hand he regarded black slaves as inferior to white Americans and wished them gone, while on the other hand he desired to give them blanket citizenship with all of the same rights accorded their hosts. Moreover, while he claimed to uphold the Constitution as it stood he nevertheless felt it was the government’s duty to do whatever it took, including violence, to keep the South from lawfully seceding. The fact that president Lincoln is held up as a paragon of virtue and tolerance by the majority of people and institutions suggests to me a political agenda rather than a reflection of his alleged morality. We’ll let the historians continue to hash out this paradox, but for our purposes we’ll go with the premise in Judge Napolitano’s book: that Abraham Lincoln was actually a despot who singlehandedly gave birth to the unconstitutional government we have today.

Of course, the premise for the accolades of this book (and others too numerous to list) is the idea that Abraham Lincoln was exposed; exposed for tyrannically using the issue of slavery to decapitate the Constitution in order to crush the South which [under the Constitution] had every right to secede from the Union. Lincoln had to pretend to be against slavery in order to garner support from the north. The "real" Lincoln did not care at all about black slavery, did not think racial equality with blacks was a good idea, and said as much. However, at the core of the "real" Lincoln's ambition—regardless what he thought of slavery and blacks-- was a latter-day Republicrat commitment to a bigger central government within a forced union, secession be damned, and the use of race as a pretext to accomplish his goal. In other words Lincoln talked out of both sides of his mouth and carried a two edged sword to enforce his deception. In short, the bloodiest war in American history could have been avoided. Moreover all the other countries of the world that ended slavery in the nineteenth century, such as Britain, Spain, France, Denmark, the Dutch, did so without provoking a war; Also there were no civil wars to free the slaves in states like Massachusetts, New York (where slavery existed for over 200 years), or Illinois. Slavery would have eventually ended on its own even in the deep south and Lincoln knew that, period.

While we can certainly agree with Judge Napolitano that Lincoln was a demigod and a tyrant, we can also say whites did owe American blacks the rights they would accord any human beings. But not at our expense like we are neither doing now; not for the sake of bogus equality which tears down the best to make room for the worst; nor do we owe apologies or reparations for the institution of slavery as they have been offered in Washington DC. In fact any apologies already given should be rescinded right now. Blathering on about its “injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery,” as the House of Representatives masochistically put it, slavery was still the means that most blacks were able to become Americans. Slavery, not constitutional right, has been and always will be their primary ticket to citizenship no matter what anyone says.



And now that the descendants of slaves are firmly ensconced in the American political social and media landscape-- a race President Lincoln believed could not be assimilated into white society-- we can say with absolute certainty that the marginally black Barack Obama won the election for a number fairly obvious reasons:

1] Aside from the unrealistic notion of immediate free money transfers from the Treasury to their bank accounts, blacks voted for him on racial terms alone -- because he's black. No more, no less. Anything else that happens subsequent to his election is a moot point for these people.

2] Its get-back time for whitey in spite of blacks’ euphoria and phony calls for good will and Napolitano should know this above all else. Practically none of Obama's supporters can articulate one policy Obama has in mind or has ever accomplished with most white supporters I’m sorry to say being just as vapid.

3] The hyper-leftist-Frankfurt-School-white-baiting American media and education system has been prepping and preening the European American psyche for decades in spite of the fact the idea of racial equality, according to Lincoln, is and was sheer absurdity.

4] Many whites not only accepted our recent Obamacide moment but have actually facilitated it via white guilt. We all know people who have admitted as such. There's no use in anyone ever denying it either. The evidence is everywhere in what passes for modern American "culture" and we can see it every day.

5] The apathetic or enthusiastic acceptance of cultural racial identifiers such as rap, FUBU, miscegenation, Affirmative Action, the Congressional Black Caucus, Jackson, Sharpton, etc, signals to us that blacks will never move on to deal with their inherent problems because they will always be waiting for whitey to fix the problems for them.

6] The wizard-of-oz-man-behind-the-curtain American federal government and their diversity mongering corporate donors have contributed by default to Obama's election for decades, often citing Abraham Lincoln's racial egalitarianism and his desire to keep the Union together as an excuse for the imposition of dismal equality and mandated multiculturalism. But don’t look for people like Judge Napolitano to address this issue. Not only would he never again sell a single book, in his mind, and in the mind of his supporters a Haitian populated America would be just as successful and just as patriotic as a European populated America was, say, in the late fifties / early sixties.

7] In terms of tax dollars to non-white pressure groups, along with hate crime legislation directed mostly at European Americans, and politically correct university indoctrination -- also directed at European Americans -- the system effectively scares European Americans half to death with threats of job loss, legal nightmares and even violence. Lincoln did that too in a different age only on a war footing.

These seven reasons [among others] are at the core of Barack Obama’s election as president. So I think we can agree Americans overall have made history, as the dumbest body of voters on earth. Just wait. As Obama’s Lincoln-like nationalized pipe dreams accelerate, as they are now, it might somehow “prove” to be whitey’s fault, like everything else is as far as blacks (as a group) are concerned, and things will simply get worse. (ADL) In conclusion then, Lincoln was a cold blooded tyrant and a dictator as far as the War Between the States goes, and we can agree with Judge Napolitano on that point. Now if those kinds of words, tyrant and dictator, are too harsh for the politically correct crowd, we can still agree that Lincoln violated the Constitutional right of the south to secede; and in order for him to do so required unimaginable force and ice thin justifications among his supporters. Lincoln's motives for the unqualified destruction of the South and the micro managed death of around 350,000 European Americans are clear -- and he should never be forgiven.

That's one edge of the sword.

Now, while we can also agree that President Lincoln often gave conflicting views of slavery, racial equality and the constitution, he nevertheless for the most part was right about the black population; hinting on some level what desegregation and racial equality would eventually bring white Americans: things like affirmative action, anti white hate laws, the rise of violence among black and white activists, loss of freedom of association, the 14th amendment, the 16th amendment, Third World immigration, all of which and more is the other edge of the sword. In fact it would be safe to say president Lincoln would have agreed with the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle David Yeagley when he said: "Therefore, integration tends to mean elimination for the white race. That’s simply the way of the genetic world. That the white race became the most powerful, dominant, ruling race may be attributed to cultural values more than anything else.[snip]Disguised though it may be in moral and religious terms, political terms, or even genetic terms, the case is fairly obvious: “the hated white race” is such for its beauty and power."

Now there’s a thought [white] corporate hacks like Napolitano wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole!

Because Fox News neocons, libertarians [like Napolitano] and leftists act as if race doesn't matter they bend over backwards to make us believe everything is simply a matter of individual rights. Even someone as confused and hypocritical as Abraham Lincoln knew better than that. In fact it now seems blacks in America have taken a cue from Lincoln, the racially prejudiced totalitarian, and are as ethnically attentive as he was; and they are using the same two edged sword he used to cut down our people’s durability and destiny. It is high time for thinking, gutsy European Americans to unsheathe a hardened single edged sword and get to work.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

Abraham Lincoln
Source: September 18, 1858 - Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas
at Charleston, Illinois

News Source: author

http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=7663
__________________
Experience molds perception.
 
Old October 8th, 2009 #27
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...lincoln2%3A263

Quote:
Fragment on Slavery [1]
[April 1, 1854?]


Fragment on Slavery [1]
[April 1, 1854?]

dent truth. Made so plain by our good Father in Heaven, that all feel and understand it, even down to brutes and creeping insects. The ant, who has toiled and dragged a crumb to his nest, will furiously defend the fruit of his labor, against whatever robber assails him. So plain, that the most dumb and stupid slave that ever toiled for a master, does constantly know that he is wronged. So plain that no one, high or low, ever does mistake it, except in a plainly selfish way; for although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it, by being a slave himself.

Most governments have been based, practically, on the denial of equal rights of men, as I have, in part, stated them; ours began, by affirming those rights. They said, some men are too ignorant, and vicious, to share in government. Possibly so, said we; and, by your system, you would always keep them ignorant, and vicious. We proposed to give all a chance; and we expected the weak to grow stronger, the ignorant, wiser; and all better, and happier together.

We made the experiment; and the fruit is before us. Look at it---think of it. Look at it, in it's aggregate grandeur, of extent of country, and numbers of population---of ship, and steamboat, and rail-
Annotation

[1] AD, The arbitrary date assigned to this fragment by Nicolay and Hay has been retained for want of conclusive evidence to the contrary. It seems to the editors probable that this single page is part of a speech composed in 1858-1859. It may possibly have been part of the omitted portion in the speech at Cincinnati, September 17, 1859 (vide infra), or a portion of some one of several speeches in 1858 for which no report or manuscript has been found.
Bold highlights are mine. ~ ohgolly
 
Old October 8th, 2009 #28
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...lincoln2%3A264

Quote:
Fragment on Slavery [b]
[April 1, 1854?]

If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.---why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?---

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter,Page 223 having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly?---You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.
Annotation

[1] AD, The date assigned to this single page by Nicolay and Hay has been retained. Although probably not a part of the same document as the companion fragment, supra, it seems just as likely to belong to a later period.
 
Old October 8th, 2009 #29
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...lincoln2%3A280

Quote:
Speech at Bloomington, Illinois [1]
September 26, 1854

Mr. LINCOLN said:

[snip]

If we admit that a negro is not a man, then it is right for the Government to own him and trade in the race, and it is right to allow the South to take their peculiar institution with them and plant it upon the virgin soil of Kansas and Nebraska. If the negro is not a man, it is consistent to apply the sacred right of popular sovereignty to the question as to whether the people of the territories shall or shall not have slavery; but if the negro, upon soil where slavery is not legalized by law and sanctioned by custom, is a man, then there is not even the shadow of popular sovereignty in allowing the first settlers upon such soil to decide whether it shall be right in all future time to hold men in bondage there.

[snip]

Last edited by ohgolly; October 8th, 2009 at 10:20 PM.
 
Old October 8th, 2009 #30
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,350
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Here's the real thing, Ohgolly - the thing you're trying and failing to make Lincoln into.

The following is contemporary with Lincoln, and I've posted it before: it is Judge Luke Lawless and Usher Linder speaking about Elijah Lovejoy and the abolitionists trying to loose niggers on Illinois.


Judge Luke E. Lawless

Less than a month after the brutal mob retaliation against Frank McIntosh, a grand jury gathered in a small back room of the old St. Louis courthouse. This group heard arguments concerning crimes that had been committed during the past year to decide which offenders deserved to be criminally indicted for their actions. Toward the end of the day, the grand jury turned its attention to the details of the violent mob action which killed the free African-American, Frank McIntosh. Their charge was to decide which person or persons, if any, deserved to stand trial for their actions on April 28th. Not surprisingly, this case sparked a large amount of local interest. Large crowds moved into the courtroom until all the seats had been taken and people were forced to stand in the back of the chamber or outside. Written accounts of the proceedings tell of the uneasiness and excitement the capacity crowd brought with it into the courtroom.

Because the members of the grand jury took their cues from the presiding judge, the key figure in the whole case became the Honorable Luke E. Lawless. Lawless was described as a slender man who nonetheless possessed a strong and wiry frame. His deep set eyes offset the benign appearance of his large and prominent facial features. Lawless had come to the United States from Dublin. He began his career as a sailor in the British Navy, then later returned to Ireland to begin a law career in his home city. His military background and confrontational law practice characterized a man who did not shy away from controversy. In St. Louis, repeated moves to unseat Lawless went hand in hand with letters to the St. Louis Republican attacking him. Still, Lawless held enough political power to retain his seat on the bench.

As a lawyer, Lawless' record was less than spotless. On one occasion, a judge before whom he was arguing a case sentenced Lawless to eighteen months disbarment and twenty-four hours in jail for misconduct. Lawless responded to this with a counter-charge accusing the judge of "tyranny, oppression, and usurpation of power." The case ended in the United States Senate where it was shown that Lawless had suppressed evidence, thereby confirming the judge's original sentence.

Judge Lawless brought all these character traits with him as he sat on the bench to oversee the grand jury proceedings of the McIntosh murder case. In fact, his own opinionated style played the major roll in the jury's decision. Reading carefully from previously prepared notes, the judge offered the following advice to the twelve member jury:

Gentlemen of the grand jury, I would here conclude my observation did I not think my fellow citizens might well expect from the judge of this court special notice the dreadful events that have so recently thrown a gloom over our prosperous and generally peaceful city.

You will at once perceive that I refer to the murder of our respected fellow-citizen, the late deputy sheriff Hammond; to the wounding with an intent to murder him of another meritorious officer, the deputy constable Mull; and lastly to the destruction of the murderer himself, a free colored man whose name I understand was McIntosh, by a force unauthorized by law and by a mode of death forbidden by the Constitution, by a "cruel and unusual punishment" by chaining the prisoner alive to a tree and burning him to ashes. . . Let us hope that the dreadful retribution which he has met with in this world will plead for him in the world to come.

If on a calm view of the circumstances attending this dreadful transaction, you shall be of the opinion that it was perpetrated by a definite and, compared to the population of St. Louis, a small number of individuals separate from the mass and evidently taking upon themselves as contradistinguished from the multitude the responsibility of the act, my opinion is that you ought to indict them all without a single exception.

If, on the other hand, the destruction of the murderer of Hammond was the act, as I have said, of the many, of the multitude in the ordinary sense of those words--not the act of numerable and ascertainable malefactors, but of congregated thousands seized upon and impelled by that mysterious metaphysical and almost electrical frenzy which in all ages and nations has hurried on the infuriated multitude to deeds of death and destruction--then, I say, act not at all in the matter. The case then transcends your jurisdiction, it is beyond the reach of human law.

Because a near insane frenzy gripped the mob responsible for McIntosh's death, Lawless instructed the jury not to single out specific people for being responsible. Try as they might, he said, the jury could never understand the mania which seized the masses that day. Therefore, no legal action could be called for by the grand jury because the courtroom was no place to judge such behavior. In short, there was nothing the legal system could do to protect an individual from a provoked mob action.

Merton Dillon writes that Judge Lawless has frequently been criticized for his position, both by his legal contemporaries and twentieth century scholars. All agree that by ethical legal standards, he was wrong to impose this decision. However, later portions of his speech to the grand jury revealed several interesting insights into the minds of abolitionists and their opponents. As his comments show, he played on the fear of the citizens who believed that abolitionism was sent by religious zealots from New England to stir up trouble in slave holding states.

If the murderer (McIntosh) had been tried by a jury, convicted and executed--the horror at his crimes would have been unmixed with any other feeling. There could have been no reaction, no pretense for the outcry which now, in all probability, will be raised throughout the Union by the misguided or unprincipled men engaged in the anti-national scheme of abolitionism. The public attention in this state would have been concentrated on what, I am much disposed to think, was the exciting cause of McIntosh's crime and of similar atrocities committed in this and other states by individuals of Negro blood against their white brethren.

The abolitionist influence upon the passions and intellect of the wretched McIntosh seems to me to be indicated by the peculiar character of his language and demeanor. His deadly hostility to the whole white race--his hymns and his prayers so profanely and frightfully mixed up with those horrid imprecations seems, I say, to betray the incendiary cause to which I have adverted.

If this be indeed the case, the murderer of Hammond was, morally speaking, only the blind instrument in the hands of the abolitionist fanatics. They, and not McIntosh, would then be responsible in the sight of God and man.

[Abolitionists appear] to labor under a sort of religious hallucination--a monomania--for which it would perhaps be inconsistent with sound reasoning to hold them morally responsible. . . They seem to consider themselves as special agents. . . in fact, of Divine Providence. They seem to have their eyes fixed on some mystic vision--some Zion, as they term it, within whose holy walls they would impound us all, or condemn us to perish on the outside. But, although all this may be very sincere, is it the less pernicious? Are we to be victims of those sanctimonious madmen?

The judge had successfully turned the law upside down and made those guilty of murdering McIntosh the victims of an abolitionist plot. After establishing this fact with the crowd, Lawless then turned his attention specifically to Elijah Lovejoy and his newspaper. And although the Observer had never been guilty of calling for a slave rebellion, public opinion swayed on the words of Lawless and presented a call for action against the publication. The judge continued:

I have adverted to the abolitionist press in this city, and now I would ask who that has observed its course for a considerable time past has not seen in its publications matter abundantly calculated to fanaticize the Negro and excite him against the white man?

After this statement, Lawless held up an edition of the Observer as an example of the destructive force to which he referred. He read several articles from its pages as testimonies to the fact that Lovejoy's paper was not designed to restore the calm amongst the population of its readers. Lawless successfully turned the guilt of the situation around to accuse Lovejoy of the crime of attempting to incite revolts throughout the southern states. Lawless concluded his speech by commenting that, "It seems to me impossible that while such language is used and published as that which I have cited from the St. Louis Observer, there can be any safety in a slave-holding state."


Usher Linder

Usher Linder, the twenty-eight year old Attorney General of Illinois, became one of the most vocal and ardent anti-Lovejoy politicians in the state in 1837. He particularly took advantage of Reverend Beecher's open invitation to all friends of "free inquiry" to attend the October 26, 1837 meeting of the Antislavery Congress in Upper Alton. During the time of the meeting, Linder was the newly elected to the position by the Illinois General Assembly. Linder traced his roots back to the same section of Kentucky as another prominent Illinois politician, Abraham Lincoln. Physically, Linder's tall and lanky appearance also linked him to Lincoln, but these are where the similarities ended between the two men. Linder was a strong and effective speaker, but his crude language and reported heavy drinking plagued his entire career. His opposition to Lovejoy stemmed more from political ambition than any other ideology. Linder chose to ride the growing public sentiment against Lovejoy because he felt such moves would feed his political ambition.

One of the first moves that Linder made against Lovejoy came after the completion of the first session of the Antislavery Congress. He was able to gather a number of his friends around him as he stood on a woodpile at the side of the church. Linder used his great speaking abilities to blast the Abolitionists who had organized the meeting. He denounced the Abolitionists for attempting to silence their critics during the meeting and attacked the societies backed by Lovejoy and Beecher. Linder encouraged all the pro-slavery forces in Alton to attend the Antislavery Congress and stonewall its attempts at passing any meaningful resolutions.

On the final day of the meeting, Linder delivered a highly charged, vicious speech targeted at Beecher and Lovejoy. At the same time, he introduced a resolution "that the discussion of the doctrines of immediate abolitionism, as they have been discussed in the columns of the Alton Observer, would be destructive of the peace and harmony of the citizens of Alton, and that, therefore, we cannot recommend the reestablishment of that paper." Linder's all out pro-slavery resolution argued that slaves were property and that the constitution prohibited taking a person's property. Increasingly, his calls for Lovejoy's opponents to join the conference paid off. They gained a majority and adopted the proslavery resolutions outlined by Linder, effectively making the whole conference a waste of time for Beecher and Lovejoy.

Usher Linder did not end his opposition to the Abolitionist principles after the death of Elijah Lovejoy. In fact, Linder worked with the prosecuting attorney for the city of Alton in the trial of Winthrop Gillman, the owner and one of the defenders of the warehouse where Lovejoy was killed. In a strange form of frontier justice, Linder also turned around and defended those members of the mob who were indicted for their actions on November 7, 1837. Many of the same arguments were used in both cases, and interestingly, neither group of defendants from either case was convicted of any crime.

Linder's once unlimited political future in Illinois came to an abrupt end after the trials in Alton ended. His drinking again became heavy and he developed an unfavorable reputation amongst the people of the state, mostly stemming from his actions during the Lovejoy affair. He did sway enough members of the public to get elected to the Illinois House of Representatives, but his career ended in a cloud of bitterness and unfulfilled promise.

http://www.state.il.us/hpa/lovejoy/Lawless.htm
 
Old October 8th, 2009 #31
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...lincoln2%3A281

Quote:
Speech at Springfield, Illinois [1]
October 4, 1854

[snip]

What natural right requires Kansas and Nebraska to be opened to Slavery? Is not slavery universally granted to be, in the abstract, a gross outrage on the law of nature? Have not all civilized nations, our own among them, made the Slave trade capital, and classed it with piracy and murder? Is it not held to be the great wrong of the world? Do not the Southern people, the Slaveholders themselves, spurn the domestic slave dealer, refuse to associate with him, or let their families associate with his family, as long as the taint of his infamous calling is known?

Shall that institution, which carries a rot and a murrain in it, claim any right, by the law of nature, to stand by the side of Freedom, on a Soil that is free?

What social or political right, had slavery to demand the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and claim entrance into States where it has never before existed? The theory of our government is Universal Freedom. ``All men are created free and equal,'' says the Declaration of Independence. The word ``Slavery'' is not found in the Constitution. The clause that covers the institution is one that sends it back where it exists, not abroad where it does not. All legislation that has recognized or tolerated its extension, has been associated with a compensation---a Compromise---showing that it was something that moved forward, not by its own right, but by its own wrong.

It is said that the slaveholder has the same [political] [3] right to take his negroes to Kansas that a freeman has to take his hogs or his horses. This would be true if negroes were property in the same sense that hogs and horses are. But is this the case? It is notoriously not so.

[snip]
 
Old October 8th, 2009 #32
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,350
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

What I quoted is a highly biased account, as Lovejoy's side won the battle, to the detriment of the future of White Illinois. The state does what it can to smear Lawless and Linder, but the plain truth that emerges from the smears is that out of staters, Christian jackasses, sanctimonious madmen, came to Illinois with the express purpose of creating East St. Louis out of as much of the region as they could.

You can't find one thing Lincoln said that was remotely comparable to the mildest thing a sanctimonious madman like Lovejoy printed daily in his paper before he was ended.
 
Old October 8th, 2009 #33
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

Alex, I understand that you're proud of your ancestor. I've come across quite a few letters to him from Lincoln. But with all due respect, this Lovejoy episode has nothing to do with the character of Abraham Lincoln. I'm not trying to make him into anything that he wasn't. That's why I'm building a case on evidence. With your permission I'll post much more, as I don't think an adequate judgment can be formed without the rest of the record. Unless of course you can contemplate the possibility that the people of the time, especially the ones who had the most to fear from such an individual, actually knew what they were facing (they tried to secede - to leave!). If Lincoln was truly worried about loosed niggers in Illinois, wouldn't he have been glad to separate from the South?

So, what's your opinion of his support for the 48ers' Red Revolution in Europe?

Last edited by ohgolly; October 8th, 2009 at 10:41 PM.
 
Old October 8th, 2009 #34
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,350
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohgolly View Post
Alex, I understand that you're proud of your ancestor. I've come across quite a few letters to him from Lincoln. But with all due respect, this Lovejoy episode has nothing to do with the character of Abraham Lincoln. I'm not trying to make him into anything that he wasn't. That's why I'm building a case on evidence. With your permission I'll post much more, as I don't think an adequate judgment can be formed without the rest of the record. Unless of course you can contemplate the possibility that the people of the time, especially the ones who had the most to fear from such an individual, actually knew what they were facing.

So, what's your opinion of his support for the 48ers' Red Revolution in Europe?
My opinion is it means little.

Post whatever you like. My intent, only half achieved, was to give you a taste of what a REAL NIGGER-LOVER sounded like back then, and it was nothing like Lincoln. At best you have a few equivocations from a lawyer/politician. People back then were both anti-nigger AND anti-slavery, particularly in southern Illinois.
 
Old October 8th, 2009 #35
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,350
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The Doctrines of anti-slavery men (as written in the Alton Observer, December 28, 1837, Elisha Chester, Editor)

1. Abolitionists hold that "all men are born free and equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." They do not believe that these rights are abrogated, or at all modified by the color of the skin, but that they extend alike to every individual of the human family.

2. As the above-mentioned rights are in their nature inalienable, it is not possible that one man can convert another into a piece of property, thus at once annihilating all his personal rights, without the most flagrant injustice and usurpation. But American slavery does this. It declares a slave to be a "thing," a "chattel," an article of personal "property," a piece of "merchandise," and now actually holds two and a half million of our fellow men in this precise condition.

3. Abolitionists, therefore, hold American slavery to be a wrong, a legalized system of inconceivable injustice, and a sin. That it is a sin against God, whose prerogative as the rightful owner of all human beings is usurped, and against the slave himself, who is deprived of the power to dispose of his services as conscience may dictate, or his Maker requires. And as whatever is morally wrong can never be politically right, and as the Bible teaches, and as abolitionists believe, that "righteousness exalteth a nation, while sin is a reproach to any people," they also hold that slavery is a political evil of unspeakable magnitude, and one which, if not removed, will speedily work the downfall of our free institutions, both civil and religious.

4. As the Bible inculcates [impress upon the mind by repetition] upon man but on duty in regard to sin, and that is, immediate repentance, abolitionists believe that all who hold slaves, or who approve the practice in others, should immediately cease to do so.


5. Lastly. Abolitionists believe, that as all men are born free, so all who are now held as slaves in this country were born free, and that they are slaves now is the sin, not of those who introduced the race in this country, but of those, and those alone, who now hold them, and have held them in slavery from their birth. Let it be admitted, for argument's sake, that A. or B. has justly forfeited his title to freedom, and that he is now the rightful slave of C., bought with his money, how does this give C. a claim to the posterity of A. down to the latest generation? And does not the guilt of enslaving the successive generations of A.'s posterity belong to their respective masters, whoever they be? Nowhere are the true principles of freedom and personal rights better understood than at the South, though their practice corresponds so wretchedly with their theory. Abolitionists adopt as their own, the following sentiments expressed by Mr. Calhoun in a speech on the tariff question, delivered in the Senate of the United States in 1833: "He who earns the money - wh digs it out of the earth with the sweat of his brow, has a just title to it against the Universe. No one has a right to touch it, without his consent, except his government, and it only to the extent of its legitimate wants: to take more is robbery." Now, this is precisely what slaveholders do, and abolitionists do but echo back their own language when they pronounce it "robbery."

http://madison.ilgenweb.net/lovejoy.html
 
Old October 8th, 2009 #36
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,350
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohgolly View Post
What's wrong with this?

If the niggers are freed, not only will they destroy White civilization, they will compete with white men for wages. The correct thing to do is prevent slavery from spreading and find a way to get the nigger out of the country.
 
Old October 8th, 2009 #37
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,350
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steven clark View Post
The public record is that Lincoln favored emancipation, but he wanted the blacks to go back to Africa. From what I've read, Lincoln never thought both races could live together.

Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote UNCLE TOM'S CABIN, had her freed black character at the end of the book go, not back to the south but to Africa.
Abolitionists had a range of feelings about niggers. Abos were basically the Society of the Pointed Finger. No one honestly cares about niggers. If one truly cared about them, he would observe they are little more than shaved apes, and design an environment to suit them, hmm something sweaty and vegematated. Not leave them bereft among confusing buildings and frightening auto-mobiles.

Quote:
There were a few abolitionists who actually urged the white and black races to intermarry so the superior white gene would civilize the black one, but the
overwhelming majority of Americans wanted nothing to do with blacks.
Self-righteousness, public preening, moral grandstanding, proudly refusing to be reasonable - all these characterized the Puritan, the New Englander, the Abolitionist. And they still do. The true Puritan has always known how to turn a cold sense-organ to evidence. There's no glory in acknowledging that niggers are subhuman violent apes whose release threatens human life. No, the glory lies in exalting these bonobos to imaginary equality in line with the demands of Jeboo, God and other unicorns.

Quote:
I think Gingerich uses historical quotes to justify whatever the neocons say. He, like a lot of the neocon's lackeys, also quotes Martin Luther King to no end. And like you, Alex, I get tired of hearing men like him call for war here, there, and everywhere, while they never spent a day in uniform.
He is a grade-A shabbes goy putz. Gingrich is simply a WASP facefront. He always toes the jewish party line, always has, always will. His corpulence and eternal-precocious-4th-grader bearing make him positively insufferable.

Quote:
But Alex, didn't the South really throw away their advantage BY seceding?
They could have kept playing for time since they had much of the government and Congress under control. Open war made them lose these
advantages. War could only have succeeded if they had struck hard and
quick, but they didn't.
They let their pride and sense of honor get the better of their calculation. The South has never really understood that the north doesn't even think about the South, beyond jokes about rednecks (which are jewish in origin for the most part).

Quote:
Jefferson Davis, for all his skill as a soldier and government experience (and he was much more attuned to industrialism than agriculture), wasn't an effective a war leader as Lincoln.
I draw the same lesson from the 'civil' war as from NS Germany's defeat. You have to be darn careful before you start wars. You need to have an exit strategy, and you need to make darn sure you're extremely likely to come out in better shape than you went in.
 
Old October 8th, 2009 #38
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
My opinion is it means little.
Oh, come now. Why would an Illinois congressman in 1849 sign a letter of support for the 48ers and consider them the oppressed freedom fighters? I know that you know that Lincoln wasn't a naive housewife. We both know that he knew precisely what their movement was all about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Post whatever you like. My intent, only half achieved, was to give you a taste of what a REAL NIGGER-LOVER sounded like back then, and it was nothing like Lincoln. At best you have a few equivocations from a lawyer/politician. People back then were both anti-nigger AND anti-slavery, particularly in southern Illinois.
And my intent is to demonstrate that Lincoln wasn't an idiot like Lovejoy, but was a shrewd calculator, with the same aims as Lovejoy!

I would guess that the average man in Illinois was indeed anti-nigger, but not at all concerned with slavery. At least not until he was led by the hand of an agitator like Lincoln into thinking about "the big threat". You know, the big threat. It's what American politicians have been pointing to for generations. And the boobs fall for it every generation.
 
Old October 8th, 2009 #39
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
What's wrong with this?

If the niggers are freed, not only will they destroy White civilization, they will compete with white men for wages. The correct thing to do is prevent slavery from spreading and find a way to get the nigger out of the country.
What's wrong with it is that Lincoln did precisely that - freed the niggers. He never lifter a finger to effect any of the things that he said that you admire him for.

Tell me the truth, do you believe that George Bush is a Christian? Don't you think he laughs behind their backs? Well, that's my contention about Lincoln - based on what he did rather than what he said, when they were, as quite often, contradictory.

Lincoln's claimed concern about the spread of slavery was the talk of a slick lawyer representing high finance. The goal was the acquisition and concentration of power, as always. In this case, as in most, it meant deliberate provocation and war.

Btw, I also hope to address the silliness currently swimming in many WN heads about the wartime greenbacks being a reflection of Lincoln's long-term monetary policy so easily contradicted by the National Bank Acts of 1863 and 1864.
 
Old October 8th, 2009 #40
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The South has never really understood that the north doesn't even think about the South, beyond jokes about rednecks (which are jewish in origin for the most part).
Americans (northerners in CW context) are simply perplexed as to why the rest of the world despises them. It must be some kind of illogical obsession!
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13 AM.
Page generated in 0.20117 seconds.