|
This blog has received a lot of attention and I thank those of you who have linked to this site. I have received questions I'll deal with tonight. One recurring one is, didn't Lincoln have to put the Constitution on hold because America was fighting on its own soil? This is a fascinating question to me for two reasons: first, what is the point of the Constitution that guarantees us the rights we are born with, if those rights can be taken away if we are under threat? If we accept the idea that the Constitution is a nuisance under hard times, then we have to ask ourselves why hasn't President Bush gone all the way with putting the Constitution on the back burner?
![]() Birds of a feather..... Clearly he hasn't tried to arrest the head of the Supreme Court, he hasn't shut down newspapers that disagree with him, he hasn't jailed reporters who disagree with him without trial, he has not had troops fire on unarmed protesters, he hasn't even jailed comedians who tell jokes about him. All of those things and far more, Lincoln did. Support Lincoln, you must support President Bush. After all, 911 happened on our soil!
Yet oddly, the same people who say Bush is our worst President ever often support Lincoln's actions! This is philosophically a contradiction, and when faced with a contradiction it must mean that one side of the argument is wrong. If you support Bush and Lincoln, you are at least sound in your beliefs, though you should be pressing for Bush to go much farther. If you don't support Bush, there is no logic in supporting Lincoln. It makes no sense. Second, shouldn't the Constitution and Bill Of Rights have the most importance during times of strife? If it is so fragile that it must be put away in times of war, civil rights, suffrage, peace movements then what good is it? Couldn't one argue that the initial government resistance to all those movements was a result of Lincoln and his crushing of protest during the war? Once you have put people in jail for disagreeing with the government, haven't you set precedent?
Over time we have come to believe that our rights are granted to us, and can be withdrawn in case of emergency. Our founding fathers believed we were BORN with those rights. The change in meaning happened because of Lincoln.
For those looking for the LINCOLN: MAN VS MYTH speech the link is below, then on to the questions:
The speech I gave that has sparked this blog you should keep in mind was written to be spoken, not read. I am swamped with film and play work and don't have time to make it a reading copy, perhaps I can later. Please keep in mind it is written for spoken emphasis, but so many people asked me to put it on the web I agreed to:
If you came here for the Lincoln speech you can find it by clicking on here: http://lincolntruth.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-02_cy-2008_m-02_d-11_y-2008_o-0.html QUESTION: Excuse me, but you neglect to mention that the South fired on Northern troops at Fort Sumter, didn't it? That was what started the war! ANSWER: Many historians believe that the sending of thousands of Northern troops into the South after it had left America was an act of war baiting. The troops were to re-supply the forts, supposedly, but that action is seen as an act of aggression. Unfortunately that act would lead to other Presidents mimicking Lincoln to get us into war: the sinking of the Maine without revealing to the American public that the passenger ship was carrying arms and money illegally- and the public wasn't told for almost 50 years! That led to our entry into World War 1. FDR also ran arms and money illegally to Europe for years before we entered World War 2- Japan was baited into attacking us with a blockade, but that was because Lincoln had set precedent. LBJ created an attack to justify his actions in Vietnam- don't believe me? Read this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman24.html Those troops surrounding forts all over the South I believe were there to start a war. Lincoln's actions opened the door to allowing Presidents to set up situations to start wars. Support our actions in Vietnam, our treatment of protests during that war- it makes sense to support Lincoln. If you don't however....... QUESTION: Do you think Lincoln was gay? ANSWER: I don't care. I do, however, wonder if his problems with depression, suicidal tendencies and what is now called a bi-polar personality played a role in his drastic actions. QUESTION: My teacher says that if Lincoln had lost the war the South would have united with Germany in World War 2 and we'd still have slavery. ANSWER: The buying and selling of slaves was outlawed in the Southern Constitution. Canada at one time was made up almost entirely of people who rejected our Revolution and were against the direction this country took. Did Canada fight with Germany or against it? They joined with us to fight, and I think if our continent was under attack the North and South would have united the same way. Now, would the South have joined in all the wars the North would later get involved in from World War 1 to Vietnam? Some yes, some no. QUESTION: If the South had won and been allowed to go off on its own, wouldn't it still be segregated? ANSWER: Segregation, along with the banning of Blacks in industrialized states, originated in the North. Before the war! Coming soon- the Northern plot to kill Jeff Davis, the assassination of Lincoln, President Grant and his reversal of the positive parts of Reconstruction, The Indian Wars. QUESTION: I always thought revisionist historians and buffs were racists and anti-Semites. It blows me away that you are looking at such a volatile period and I have yet to find one racist or religious hatred filled polemic of any kind. I wish we could look at history like this all the time! ANSWER: Thank you. Holocaust revisionists dirtied the word up, and they were wrong as well. Just months ago classified documents were finally released and even David Irving was forced to admit they proved the National Socialists and Hitler were actively killing Jews. We now know Hitler along with the Grand Mufti of the Middle East received monthly updates on the killings! But sadly, the deniers destroyed the word "revisionist". Napoleon once said that history was written by the winners. But that was before the internet!
|
| Leave a Comment: |