President George Washington was always my favorite. A very good article. Washington vs. Lincoln | Abbeville Institute
It's a shame that Freemasonry was infiltrated by Zionists and is entirely steered by demoniacal elitists who view the rest of the people as "Goyim". Back in the day of Georgie, it was a different ball game.
I really would have liked to see how things might have turned out if Lincoln never existed...damnable traitor.
I don't know if I would call him a traitor but he definitely wasn't the man or President that everyone is lead to believe he was, the one we were taught in school, in films, books, etc. A bit of reading history with your eyes open shows this clearly. He did show genius using the Slavery issue... @techsar But, I am interested, why 'traitor'?
Lincoln trampled the rights of the states clearly in the constitution, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. For his efforts we ended up with a form of government fundamentally different that that originally designed...he destroyed these United States of America, literally.
This is true but he was Commander and Chief so I think we are safe to blame him. I came across a bit of history that I was unaware... Did you know that Lincoln supported the 'Corwin Amendment'? It would have been the 13th Amendment. It passed both the House and the Senate and was in the process of being ratified by every state when war broke out. Lincoln even went so far as to say he would support it in his first inaugural address. It reads: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." Basically, this does three things: 1) protect slavery in each and every state that wants it. 2) pulls the teeth of Congress to get rid of slavery or interfere with it. 3) ensures no other amendment can be made to supersede or undo the Corwin Amendment. I find it's an interesting piece of Legislation that is left out of history classes, at least, it certainly left out of mine. And, it does make one ask, if you can't trust the politician 'Honest Abe' then what politician can you trust? So, was he truly against slavery or was he simply using a piece of political genius with the Emancipation Proclamation, and remember that only freed the slaves in the Southern States during a time of war while also turning the war into a righteous one, one also that the British would have a hard time justifying fighting to support the South due to their stance on Slavery. After the war, he followed through with it to justify the 600,000 bodies in the ground...a very shrewd politician. @techstar "For his efforts we ended up with a form of government fundamentally different than that originally designed...he destroyed these United States of America, literally." Your above statement justifies your reasoning and, to be honest, I agree. This is when it all started and I hold him responsible. And, the United States changed forever...and got worse and worse until now the Federal government has so much power that we barely can raise our voice to it. In fact, don't raise your voice to it...if you know what's good for you.
He suspended the 1st Amendment, closed newspapers, imprisoned publishers and Habeus Corpus acted without consent of the Congress and refused to put the question on state secessional rights to the Supreme Court. He knew he would lose. He raised an army of 90,000 men and marched on the South on his own. Thus eventually causing the death of 600000 citizens. The original form of Republic never recovered.
Actually, 600,000 is battlefield casualties, does not count civilians, or disease. Overall cost of the war war in the millions.
^^^and that my friends is one of the reasons why the south still has the red a_ _ about the war of northern aggression.
Very true, but not entirely. Lincoln was faced with the very real threat of invasion from European armies (such as Napoleon III's troops in Mexico), private banking loans at ridiculous interest, and a fledgling nation divided and at war. He could either accept the fact that there will be no states united at all, or do whatever was necessary to form a United States. He really didn't have a choice if you think about it. The only good thing to come of the war was the creation of the Greenback, which still remains the ONLY debt free currency we've ever had, and the only currency legitimately authorized by Congress and came without interest and not under private control. Even years after studying this, I am in awe at how all of these events unfolded to create (literally) the perfect proving grounds for a monopoly entirely controlled by private corporations. Lincoln was not in league with the money changers, he did not sell out his nation, he was perhaps the one person who ever lived to be faced with such a disparaging situation as watching everything Americans fought for die because of the persistent subterfuge within government carried out by Europeans who wanted nothing more than to hand over this land to the British Crown. The terrible truth is, what England couldn't gain militarily, it got by utilizing their assets to divide the country and employing simple economics. If the South had won, England would have got what it wanted, only more quickly. For example, the South would have moved for bank loans from the European money changers and the control would have been immediate for them. However, since the North won, they had to drastically inflate the money supply as much as possible (which took quite a bit of wrangling even with the war debt) and their counterfeiting operations had to go into high gear to further debase the Greenback (which is not an easy thing to do when you're trying to debase a debt-free currency). Unfortunately, Lincoln couldn't do much concerning the National Banking Act of 1865, as he would soon be assassinated. Convincing Americans to once again adopt the gold standard would inevitably follow, and the banking cartel which subsequently took control of the member banks was disguised as your "Federal" Reserve System. In hindsight, it was a lose-lose situation no matter what. Once you comprehend the role that money plays, it should change your perspective slightly.
I respectfully disagree. Washington faced rebellion as well, and played it like the Statesman he was, with no loss of innocent life.
Whoever said lives are innocent in war? Washington had one enemy, the British. Lincoln had his own countrymen to the South, the whole of European monarchists and their wealthy banking collective, armies from Napoleon III, and infiltrators deep within government to contend with. Washington didn't have to decide to either give up the dream and prospect that was a united nation outside the hands of the very tyrant they've escaped or accept a role as a dictator just to unite the country in the hope to breathe enough life into it to keep it alive somewhat. I'm not trying to compare Washington's plight to Lincoln and the Civil War because they were different times and under very different circumstances. I believe Lincoln long knew the nation was doomed. The European money lenders, the banking families had deep roots in America by the time Lincoln came around. Previous to Lincoln, President Andrew Jackson routed out a good number of the banking elite, it was even one of his outspoken platforms to remove them from our government. But, much like a malignant cancer, they came back with a vengeance. I understand and acknowledge the terrible loss of life attributed to the struggle between States rights and the mighty fist of resolve that the Union Army held, but the war wasn't just about slavery, it wasn't just about States keeping their sovereignty, it was spurned by the embers of greed and jealousy, and the European banking interests held a mighty fine forge blower. The English, whose manufactures competed with those of the North, who were dependent on Southern cotton, and who still smarted from the American Revolution, were hardly objective observers. Lincoln knew if the South was victorious, there would be absolutely no chance for a unified nation. The Southern States pushed for secession, and it was very soon (about a month) after his election to office when it began. Secession would have destroyed the only Democracy in the world at the time, a republic turned to ashes over the secession of the South. Monarchs and tyrants all over the world celebrated hearing about the end of the American Democracy. With the war looming, he was faced with the death of many thousands upon thousands more, or perpetual tyranny and the death toll as a result of losing it. Lincoln always pushed for a Union, a unified country for a very good reason. "Secession would destroy the only democracy in existence and prove for all time - to both future Americans and the world - that a government of the people could not survive." --Abraham Lincoln There's a really good book on the economics of the war by Charles Adams: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0847697223 and it raises some excellent points about the Southern secession that many may not even recognize because of all the talk about slavery and such. And another good source for the Civil War finance, here: Abraham Lincoln and Civil War Finance - Abraham Lincoln's Classroom Simply put, the answer is the same as with most things --money. By drawing the line between the dots, it isn't too difficult to see which side the European banking interests favored, and to that end, how the distension was so easily fueled between the two sides.
Quoted from above article..... Washington faced a “rebellion” on the frontier, and while he eventually agreed to send troops into Western Pennsylvania (at the insistence of Alexander Hamilton), he spent nearly two years exhausting all other means to reach a settlement on the issue. Washington tolerated dissent. He looked the other way when John Jay was burned in effigy and the press excoriated him for supporting the awful Jay’s Treaty with Great Britain in 1794. Even the Whiskey Rebels were treated with kid gloves. The press and elections both remained free. Lincoln faced an open crisis as president and marched hundreds of thousands of troops into the Southern States to put down a “rebellion” when other options were available. He could have chosen peace but chose war and never negotiated or sought compromise with those who opposed his administration. He rounded up dissenters, shut down newspapers, and barred free elections. Washington’s Union tolerated differences between the Northern and Southern States, and even Washington himself appealed to their common interests in maintaining a common bond.
You're once again comparing two completely different situations. Lincoln didn't have the luxury of time and being "tolerant". Many are aware of the legality and meaning of "necessity", as this rule preempts all other laws, even Constitutional ones. For example, it's an inalienable right to possess firearms, an individual liberty as a sovereign Citizen. But, it's an absolute necessity to use a firearm in a self defense situation when your life is in immediate danger. Lincoln was well aware of the Constitutional abuses he was committing and commented on it, particularly when faced with choices he had to make that he otherwise wouldn't have if he wasn't in the situation he was in. The Southern States were not exactly trying to compromise in any way. He had European interests moving in, rampant debts owed and overdue, no way to pay an army after a certain point, a nation divided against itself with the wolves salivating to devour what remained of the American democratic experiment. Yes, he moved. He moved and he attacked because to do otherwise would have meant certain defeat. Everybody loses if he had taken the "George Washington" approach.
