A Drive-by Posting: Obama IS like Lincoln

When you consider that both men ripped the Constitution to pieces to force their personal will on the whole of America, how can anyone deny that Obama is a modern-day Lincoln?

33 thoughts on “A Drive-by Posting: Obama IS like Lincoln

  1. The only difference between the two is one had the nation’s future in his hand and the other had the nation’s fate at his foot. Lincoln melded the the republic while Obama is splitting it apart. Lincoln’s problem was the southern aristocracy that wanted no one to tell them where and how. Obama’s problem is he it tell everyone where to go. One had a region hating him and the other has a large area of the nation hating him. Lincoln was a uniter. Obama is a divider. Obama is the great pretender!

    • Timothy,

      If Lincoln “united” us, why did it take so long to mend those rifts? Sorry, but Lincoln did not “unites,” he conquered. And he ripped the constitution to shreds in the process. It would have been better had we taken the route Jefferson described and allowed the South to go its own way until its economy failed and it came back to the union of its own accord (and it would have).

      • The rift still exists today. The North still thinks it is morally and intellectually superior to their country cousins in the South (Fly Over Country). Golly Goober that moonshine is sure tasty this time of year.

          • Didn’t know there was gas in your region until I did a job there for Halliburton years ago. You learn something new every day.

            • Triper,

              The Destin Dome? I understand it could go a long way to making an independent State of Florida financially independent. But even more so an independent State of Alabama 😉

              • And they won’t allow drilling in the gulf to recover the majority. That has been in effect for quite a number of years; it didn’t start with the One.

      • Joe: this comment stream reminds me of something from a few years ago.

        I grew up in the south during the integration period of the Sixties and remember the Federalized NG at schools and Universities one Hundred years after the Civil War. I thought that the North was already sporting integrated schools. And ten years later on a trip to Boston to help with Security for the visit of the English Queen; I discovered that segregation was alive and well in the North. At three Am we were at the Old North Church for a meeting with the Secret Service when we were stopped by a vigilante group carrying base ball bats and axe handles protection their neighborhood from ‘blacks’. Then a few years later the press covered the integration of the Pennsylvania Schools. Funny that they started their push for civil rights in the South.

    • What happened to the idea that Each State was A Sovereign State, and that they could make decisions for themselves? What has happened to the idea since the Civil War? The Tenth Amendment is dead at this time, until the Individual States reassert their Rights. Just as the People’s Rights are slowly disappearing.

      • “What happened to the idea that Each State was A Sovereign State, and that they could make decisions for themselves?”

        The progressives (ergo … collectivists), gained a foothold on this once free nation.

  2. You are missing ONE HUGE POINT and I am SICK of people bashing Lincoln for this move… you and I would NOT be in the “United States” today had he not!

    Here is that point!

    Lincoln had Integrity and Character and RESTORED IT!

    So technically you are WRONG. And your comparison with Lincoln and this Shredder n Chief is ABSURD!!!

  3. What part of this was Lincoln’s “personal will”!?

    Where Our Right of Habeas Corpus Comes From
    The right of writs of habeas corpus are granted in Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

    Let me point this out for you; “UNLESS”…

    You are exposing the very DANGER to our republic when “anyone” can post their opinion without logic or proper context in understanding of that time.

    • Poli … He suspended Habeas Corpus in the NORTH…..against those Northerners who just happened to disagree with him but who WEREN’T rebeling….Second he stopped the Papers (again in the NORTH) who criticized him….and in many cases locked up their editors , Reporterts and owners.

      Your last sentence sounds like you are advocating the same……Censorship because of , your words :”the very DANGER to our republic when “anyone” can post their opinion “……of course YOU will determine what is “Logic” and what is “the Proper Context”.

  4. Hello! McFly! I hear silence in here…

    Let me add some more “CONTEXT” for you…

    “At the time, the suspension applied only in Maryland and parts of the Midwestern states.”

    Do you know why or does that narrative fly in the face or your blinding Libertarian-ism?

  5. Here’s some more…

    In response to the arrest of Maryland secessionist John Merryman by Union troops, then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger B. Taney defied Lincoln’s order and issued a writ of habeas corpus demanding that the U.S. Military bring Merryman before the Supreme Court. When Lincoln and the military refused to honor the writ, Chief Justice Taney in Ex-parte MERRYMAN declared Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional. Lincoln and the military ignored Taney’s ruling.

    So Chief Justice Taney was interpreting the Constitution AND we can now see that the Supreme Court are only OPINIONS… the Constitution speaks for itself. Lincoln knew this and did the right thing to keep the states “united”!

  6. Politecs – you just made the case that Lincoln shredded the Constitution, when he refused to honor the Supreme Court Rulings. Way to go.

  7. Politecs – Just like the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the United States. It only applied in those states in “rebellion”. Why was that?
    there were slaves recorded in Pennsylvania up until the 13th Amendment was passed. Begs the question as to whether the Civil War was actually about Slavery?

  8. Hello McFly. Hello. But do you really think that the Union, the Constitution is a Death Pact. Read the Declaration of Independence. It is very clear that the States or the “people” have the right to separate themselves from a political association that they feel is tyrannical.

  9. Politecs – Are you suggesting that we should suspend the First Amendment right to free speech also?

    “You are exposing the very DANGER to our republic when “anyone” can post their opinion without logic or proper context in understanding of that time.”

    And are you the arbiter of that logic and context?

    • Didn’t read down to your post when I posted My comment above Triper….You understand Freedom and the Intent of the Declaration and Constitution……SALUTE !!

      • Sorry now that I didn’t reply to each of the posts individually. Could have made the replies much more voluminous but prefer brevity at times.

  10. I used to be a huge admirer of Abraham Lincoln. My great-great-grandfather (an American Indian who assimilated) was also an abolitionist and a great admirer of Abraham Lincoln.

    But from the perspective of the US Constitution, Lincoln was a tyrant. Yes, he was on the right side MORALLY. I’ll make that point clear at the outset. MORALLY, he was 100% correct. Chattel slavery was not only a horrible system that abused people in ways worthy of hell fire, it was also at odds with liberty. ALL men are created equal.

    That said, Lincoln violated the Constitution he pledged to uphold. He didn’t violate it by declaring that slavery was illegal. He violated through suspension of habeas corpus — which was NOT granted by the Constitution. It was a preexisting God-given right that was PROTECTED by the Constitution. It doesn’t matter that it was only a partial suspension in some regions of the country. It was a violation PERIOD!

    Also, it may be argued that the Civil War was not necessary to bring the Confederacy back into the Union. They got too full of themselves and failed to notice the world around them. They weren’t prepared to be a grown-up nation. Their roads and rails weren’t prepared to take advantage of the Industrial Revolution. Their slave-based economy couldn’t take advantage of it anyway, because machinery requires a literate population of workers who are willing to put forth a lot of effort … and people just are willing to do that when they have no personal stake in it. Moreover Europe was glutted with cotton … which is what eventually ended the War, because the South was starving because they couldn’t eat cotton and they couldn’t buy food with cotton nobody wanted. They had severely miscalculated the level of sympathy that existed in Europe (most nations were moving away from slavery) and they were under the mistaken belief that the North needed their crops. They also, as de Toqueville had noted 30 years before, faced a demographic problem. Blacks vastly outnumbered white people and the population imbalance was getting worse.

    The votes were potentially available in the House to declare slavery illegal, which was one of the reasons the South seceded — the 1860 census was probably going to go against them (if not that one, the next because the Union was growing so fast from immigration) and they feared what the ending of slavery would do to their chosen lifestyle. And make no mistake, it was a frightening prospect because everybody they knew in the South who tried to use wage labor to farm went broke because they couldn’t compete with slave labor — as long as slave labor existed. The Southern planters had good reason to be afraid, because they didn’t know a different way.

    So let’s indulge in a little speculation.

    What if Lincoln and/or Congress (with the remaining states the votes were definitely there) had simply declared slavery illegal in the United States and denied all trade to the Confederacy. What would have happened? The European cotton glut would have happened anyway and the soil depletion that nobody saw coming would also. The Confederacy would have become a hungry place. What happens when a slave population starts to get hungry and they start hearing of better opportunity across the border? Yeah, they run or they revolt. I surmise both would have happened. The Confederacy would have returned to the United States with hat in hand asking for food and reunification. The United States could have done a much friendlier Reconstruction to bring them into the 19th century and we wouldn’t have been so full of seething anger for over a century. And blacks would know for certain that their freedom was CHOSEN by the American people rather than just something we did in revenge against the Confederacy.

    Of course, that didn’t happen and now we have to live with what did. Lincoln was a fine man and MORALLY he was right, but CONSTITUTIONALLY he was wrong and we don’t do ourselves any favors by pretending that’s not so. Separate the moral issue of slavery from the constitutional issue of a president overstepping the checks-and-balances that our Founders knew were essential. Lincoln became a tyrant and I personally am sad about that because I was an admirer.

    • Excellent Post Aurora !!!

      Remember however the French and British wanted the south to win for various and complex reasons……the only reason they didn’t intervene is because the Tsar sent Warships to Both the Atlantic and Pacific Ports of the US. The French and British were then threatened with possible war with Russia if they intercepted on the east coast and a Power grab in the Pacific in which the Russians would have taken their old territory back as far down as Mendicino in Calif. thus the British would have been forced to commit resources to defend their interests in Canada.

      It was all posturing but the warships were there….in fact there are photos. I don’t think the south would have been at a deficit for food at all…..but the rest of your analysis is very good. Remember the bulk of the Confederate Army was made up of NON-slaveholding whites who farmed their own land. We have to be careful to not let the pendulum swing too far in either direction when investigating history.

      I think that a split south would have gotten industrial help from the British exactly like the North did in the 1829-1845 build up of the railroads ( MOSTLY British money)……the Brits would have been only too happy to have a new customer and ally. Lincoln and the Industrial north knew this….and it scared the S–T out of them. I don’t think the south would hacve failed at all if they had been able to leave peaceably as you suggest…..in time they would have become a powerful competitor to the North…….there are many other avenues in their favor at that time. Not the least of which would have been the very real possibility of NEW immigration from Europe to make up for the exodus of Blacks to the North. At that time the North could not have absorbed the Free Black population of the south.

      But I agree with you 100% about Lincoln. I also grew up with the Myth….and I find him mostly abhorent with respect to the Constitution and Liberty……I now view him as the Beginning of the Breakdown of True Consitutional Government, ironically at the same time as the Freeing of Southern Slavery. And I also have a VERY different view of the South’s perspective than what I was taught…….I now understand why they call it…”the War of Northern Agression”………and I am not a native southerner BTW.

      • What if wasn’t, so we’re left with what is.

        The depletion of the soil was a major factor. King cotton was going to crash. The European cotton glut was also a reality. I agree that the North panicked when discretion might have been a better choice. I think that as long as the planters were unwilling to give up their dependence on slave labor and their insistence on railroad tracks that changed gauge at the stateline (just as one example of their lack of cooperation even with each other) they were destined to starve themselves into reunification. At the very least, they would have ended up wanting a very close alliance to protect them from one or more of those foreign powers you mentioned. I think there was plenty of aggression on both sides. It’s best to remember that the Confederacy took over US military property when it seized Ft. Sumter. Even if Lincoln had wanted to sit back and wait, they didn’t give him a lot of choice with that move. The Confederacy spent quite a lot of time invading the North. They were like two brothers fighting over a single blanket to the point of tearing it in half so that it was inadequate to keep either of them warm in winter.

        I believe the states have a right to secede, but I am not convinced that we can go out as 50 separate nations and expect not to be picked off by larger, stronger countries. We need each other. That said, maybe the red regions don’t need the blue regions so much that the blue regions have an excuse to tyrannize us. I think if we do secede, we’ll form regional alliances and those alliances will end up forming up into a United States of America redo.

        Either that or we’ll just gut each other and let other countries pick over what’s left. Because of the more diffuse structure of the current divide, I don’t see one “group” coming out the victor of a war.

  11. (edit: I in no way condone the institution of slavery or minimize the wrongness of slavery. Muslims are continuing the institution of slavery in their home countries. Crime cartels are operating “sex slavery”, even here in Texas today. Other countries held a multiple times more slaves than America did during the same time. Yet the cultural Marxists buried that known history to make America look more poorly than all other countries. I only argue that we should all attempt to look at matters “in context”.)

    Ya’ll should read Jefferson Davis’ and Robert E. Lee’s writings. Careful though, it’s difficult to realize we have all been lied to for decades about “history”.

    Andrew Jackson set the precedent for the President to ignore the Constitution. Jackson was directly responsible for “the trail of tears” and murdered thousands of American Indians. From Jackson’s actions, he apparently enjoyed killing.

    Lincoln took Jackson’s example, and was responsible for murdering over 600,000 Americans. (Later Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Clinton, Bush, and Obama followed their examples of pushing the limits of Executive Authority and bending the “interpretation” of the Constitution. Heck look like nearly everyone…)

    Jefferson Davis and the Southerners understood, Slavery was “dead” and “bankrupt”. The Southern leaders had been discussing freeing the slaves for some time. Even at personal bankruptcy. Modern day economists who have studied the issue, conclude Slavery would have died from bankruptcy within a decade anyway. The Union would have reformed as the North needed the South and the South needed the North.

    However, the Republicans passed laws with a slim majority, which needlessly injured the South, causing anger and hate. Hence, the term, “The War of Northern Aggression”

    The Republicans made the confrontation inevitable in the 1850-60’s. Just as the Progressives are doing now. The Constitution be damned and we’ll do as we please…

    Discussions between the South and France for “support” were speeding the South’s discussions along. Lincoln understood the “politics” of the issue and moved ahead, Un-Constitutionally, I might add.

    The “war of northern aggression” wasn’t about “slavery”, it was about the “north” forcing their vision of America upon the South, and not hesitating to force the South to say “enough is enough”, “we won’t stand for this anymore”.

    • Are you alluding to the tariffs? I remember a course I took on the Civil War in college, that dealt with how the South had used their earlier strength in Congress to erect protectionist legislation for agricultural goods over industrial goods. For more than 20 years, the South had been paying substantially less of the federal budget than the North and the Whig Party support of that inequality was one reason why the Republican Party replaced them. When the Republicans sought to more evenly distribute the tariffs so that states paid what the north considered a fair apportionment, the Southern states complained that it was unfair. The tariffs were certainly part of the reason the South seceded, but I’m not sure I can agree that they were unfair. It’s an imperfect analogy, but the tariffs were the income taxes of their day and as I lean toward the flat tax myself, I can’t really agree that the South should have been allowed to pay less than the North. If I argue for that in the past, then that sort of paints me into a corner in the 21st century.

      • The Constitution calls for apportioned Taxes…..If the south had LESS population as you said in your first post then you better Believe the South had every right to expect to pay LESS…….listen to the words you quoted….”To more evenly Distribute the Tariffs so that states paid WHAT THE NORTH CONSIDERED A FAIR APPORTIONMENT…”

        This is a kind of crude Redistributionist attitude with Elitist overtones….you have to admit.

        • I don’t actually remember the details.A friend who grew up in Georgia says the tariffs were an issue that shouldn’t have been. It still is, he says. He learned they were unfair while he was in school, but then when he studied it in college, he realized that was just southern revisionism. The tariffs were fair but the South insisted they weren’t. The South was using the issue mainly because they were upset that the northern states were allowing black men to vote and abolitionist societies to form in northern states. They were all about states rights for themselves, but not for anyone who might threaten slavery. South Carolina was royally ticked off that New York wouldn’t allow their gentry to summer there and keep their slaves. A large part of the problem, according to Jeff, was that the abolitionists were starting to gain adherents in the south among farmers who were not slave owners. They recognized that they could never compete in a slave-based economy, so they were southerners who wanted slavery to end. The planters could see their lifestyle was threatened. As you noted, some of the political class already saw that on the horizon. Because of the 3/5s rule, the House was swinging against them. Playing games with slave-states and free-states delayed the inevitable, but it was a holding action.

          After the secession, the views of southerners changed, of course. The non-slave-holders saw the fight as over states rights, but only a year before, they would have voted to dissolve slavery if it had come to it.

          There’s been a lot of revisionist history involved in the Civil War. The North deified Lincoln for preserving the union by violating the Constitution. The South invented an unfair tariff system and insisted they could have made it as a nation if only we had left them alone. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. As I said in another post, there was plenty of aggression on both sides and neither side stood on the side of the angels.

          • There is a LOT of Truth in what you are saying…..but then this slips in…

            .”After the secession, the views of southerners changed, of course. The non-slave-holders saw the fight as over states rights, but only a year before, they would have voted to dissolve slavery if it had come to it.”

            The Majority of the South WASNOT slave-owning…..and those that made up the Rank and File saw it as a States Rights issue from long before the hostilities started…….

            The Crucial misconception and error that continually keeps getting replayed year after year, decade after decade ,century after Century is that the South was a Uniform homogeneous Group with One big ‘Group-think” on the War and the reasons for it…..this just isn’t so. Read about Larkin’s Journey through the south on his way to Monterray Calf. You will see a diverse culture there.

            This Simplified view of the South is replayed in the Liberal Press even today …. we ( Conservatives) need to be better than that, smarter than that ( And I am NOT saying you are not Smart…your posts put that to lie many times over ). Just that the Dialogue was complex then (From the internal Southern perspective)…..and it is Complex today. Having lived down here now a littls over 20 years, I see ANYTHING but uniformity. And I like the people and understand the War from an entirely different perspective than that given to us by “The Victors”.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s