Republican Abe Lincoln Used Deceit and Deception to Start the Civil War

[Galileo]

Republican Abe Lincoln Used Deceit and Deception to Start the Civil War



http://books.google.com/books?id=hJGpAT7IWhwC&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231&dq=civil+war+lincoln+john+denson&source=web&ots=KB0kJRWfkn&sig=k92QWieSxzx3wqypEgyqhJYCCK8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result



This is yet another historical example that proves that 9/11 is not the exception to the rule.

[clambake]

are you serious about that link?

[johnsmith]

Right, because if you write it down, then it has to be true.

[johnsmith]

are you serious about that link?

What, you didn't sit and read through all 232 pages?

How are you supposed to make a logical argument then clambake?

[CubanMustGo]

http://www.someguyontheinter.net/images/truth.jpg

[kwhitegocubs]

Apparently the whole "Fort Sumter" and "states declaring secession" thing was fake too.

[Galileo]

Abe Lincoln is one of the worst presidents in US history. He did more to destroy the Constitution than any other president:

1) He illegally suspended Habeas Corpus

2) He willfully allowed his generals to commit many war crimes against innocent civilians, women, and children.

3) He allowed mass murders of the Indians.

4) He was a racist who believed that blacks were inferior to whites.

5) He orchestrated to start of the Civil War.

6) He arrested newsmen who published editorials that he did not agree with.

7) He promoted corrupting tariff laws and high taxation.

8) He ignored orders from the Supreme Court.

9) He promoted unconstitutional direct taxes and income taxes.

10) He promoted the military draft.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol What little I've read looks pretty dumb. The author pretends that Lincoln was bound to honor informal agreements made by Buchanan with the government of a country he didn't recognize.

If sending more troops to Sumter was such a secret, why did everyone know it was happening?

[Galileo]

Apparently the whole "Fort Sumter" and "states declaring secession" thing was fake too.

Read the article. It is a chapter from a scholarly book from the von Mises Institute.

secession does not equal war.

[clambake]

What, you didn't sit and read through all 232 pages?

How are you supposed to make a logical argument then clambake?

if you let logic get in the way you'll go crazy.

[Galileo]

:lol What little I've read looks pretty dumb. The author pretends that Lincoln was bound to honor agreements made by Buchanan with the government of a country he didn't recognize.

If sending more troops to Sumter was such a secret, why did everyone know it was happening?

you didn't get far enough.

[ChumpDumper]

Read the article. It is a chapter from a scholarly book from the von Mises Institute.

secession does not equal war.If one believes secession to be illegal, it most certainly does.

[ChumpDumper]

you didn't get far enough.Yeah, I did.

[ChumpDumper]

you didn't get far enough.Oh, you're right.

Buchanan tried to reinforce Sumter first!

Thanks!

[Galileo]

If one believes secession to be illegal, it most certainly does.

where in the Constitution does it say secession is illegal? The Supreme Court ruled it was legal. Lincoln supported secession himself when West Virginia seceded from Virginia. Lincoln even got extra electoral votes from that in the 1864 election. Nice, isn't it?

[Jelly]

BOOOOO!! Lincoln.....boooooo!!!!

[ChumpDumper]

where in the Constitution does it say secession is illegal? The Supreme Court ruled it was legal.No, they ruled it was illegal. Texas v. White 1869.
Lincoln supported secession himself when West Virginia seceded from Virginia. Lincoln even got extra electoral votes from that in the 1864 election. Nice, isn't it?It sure is, especially since the Supreme Court of the US declared the formation of West Virginia to be legal in 1871 -- Virginia v. West Virginia.

Here's articles on both:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

http://www.wvhumanities.org/Statehood/virginiavwestvirginia.htm

You're welcome.

[Galileo]

Oh, you're right.

Buchanan tried to reinforce Sumter first!

Thanks!

Buchanan was a doughface. You're right, he did try to reinforce Sumpter. But Buchanan was not a warmonger, nor did he start the Civil War. When shots were fired in January at federal ships enroute to Ft. Sumpter, the ships turned back to Washington.

The Lincoln deception involves much more than just reinforcing Ft. Sumpter. For one thing, he was sending conflicting orders at exactly the same time to the mayer of Charleston, some orders through official channels and others through unofficial channels.

You are just one of those people who likes to disgree with everyone.

[BacktoBasics]

I'm not going to get into tin foil hat conspiracies one after the other but I think its pretty obvious that throughout history there are many many examples of engineered plans put into place to spur radical interest and elite capital gains.

I'm not saying everything should be questioned and everything is a cover up for a larger plan but people who seek power and fiscal gain have manipulated as few as one or two people and as many as a few million. There are hundreds of scam pulled off each year and some right within our own government.

You don't have to dig too deep to find real world or past applicable examples.

Its hard to not lump a poster like Galileo in the conspiracy file but at some point you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that deceit and deception to further a cause for personal interest and financial gain is pretty much the backbone of how the world operates. Outlandish and crazy things do happen and have happened. Not all the claims are true or accurate but you can't simply discount all of them as crazy hoopla.

[BacktoBasics]

You are just one of those people who likes to disgree with everyone.I don't agree with everything Galileo says in fact I agree with very little but that quote above is pretty spot on.

[2centsworth]

all I can say is Galileo when you finally wake up and discover your insanity, give yourself a break, laugh, and live a full life. guns and alcohol are from the devil.

[Galileo]

No, they ruled it was illegal. Texas v. White 1869. It sure is, especially since the Supreme Court of the US declared the formation of West Virginia to be legal in 1871 -- Virginia v. West Virginia.

Here's articles on both:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

http://www.wvhumanities.org/Statehood/virginiavwestvirginia.htm

You're welcome.

That ruling came later. In 1861 it was legal. Also, the White ruling contradicts the 11th amendment.

[ChumpDumper]

Buchanan was a doughface. You're right, he did try to reinforce Sumpter. But Buchanan was not a warmonger, nor did he start the Civil War. When shots were fired in January at federal ships enroute to Ft. Sumpter, the ships turned back to Washington.Buchanan is universally viewed as one of the United States' worst presidents.


The Lincoln deception involves much more than just reinforcing Ft. Sumpter. For one thing, he was sending conflicting orders at exactly the same time to the mayer of Charleston, some orders through official channels and others through unofficial channels.If that mayor is loyal to a government I consider illegal, who gives a shit?


You are just one of those people who likes to disgree with everyone.I like to disagree with people who are wrong.

You are wrong pretty much all the time.

[ChumpDumper]

That ruling came later. In 1861 it was legal.According to which Supreme Court case?


Also, the White ruling contradicts the 11th amendment.So when was it overturned?

Never?

Then it's law.

[Galileo]

are you serious about that link?

dead serious. War is a serious business and people get killed.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't agree with everything Galileo says in fact I agree with very little but that quote above is pretty spot on.I agree with many people much of the time.

I just don't post it.

[Galileo]

According to which Supreme Court case?

So when was it overturned?

Never?

Then it's law.

The 11th amendment limits the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

[Galileo]

According to which Supreme Court case?

So when was it overturned?

Never?

Then it's law.

Once a state has seceded, the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction anymore. The Supreme Court only has jurisdiction over states still in the Union.

[BacktoBasics]

I agree with many people much of the time.

I just don't post it.Out of curiousity do you believe in any of the millions of conspiracy theories or arguments?

[ChumpDumper]

The 11th amendment limits the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.In matters brought by private citizens against states. Neither case fits that description.

[ChumpDumper]

Once a state has seceded, the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction anymore.Secession is illegal. States can't secede.
The Supreme Court only has jurisdiction over states still in the Union.Since they were all legally still in the union, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction.

[ChumpDumper]

Out of curiousity do you believe in any of the millions of conspiracy theories or arguments?Which ones should I believe in?

[BacktoBasics]

Which ones should I believe in?Any chance I could get you to answer the question without a question?

[Galileo]

In matters brought by private citizens against states. Neither case fits that description.

or foreign countries.

[Galileo]

Secession is illegal. States can't secede.Since they were all legally still in the union, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction.

If a state can ratify the Constitution, it can unratify it. The Declaration of Independence spells out the right of secession.

Texas was an independent country, so it can certainly secede.

[ChumpDumper]

or foreign countries.No it says nothing about foreign countries -- just that the court can't preside in cases brought against a US state brought by citizens of a foreign country.

[ChumpDumper]

If a state can ratify the Constitution, it can unratify it. The Declaration of Independence spells out the right of secession.

Texas was an independent country, so it can certainly secede.Not after it joined the union.

Texas v. White.

[ChumpDumper]

Any chance I could get you to answer the question without a question?I'm sure there are a few I could find believable. None that have been discussed at length here though.

[Jelly]

Texas was independent BEFORE it entered the union. It never seceded from the United States. How could you not know this?

[ChumpDumper]

Texas was independent BEFORE it entered the union. It never seceded from the United States. How could you not know this?Of course Texas seceded from the United States. How could you not know this?

[Jelly]

Of course Texas seceded from the United States. How could you not know this?

you mean with the civil war. okay. But a couple spaces up you are making the opposite point. So, which side are you arguing?

EDIT:
never mind. You're right.

[ChumpDumper]

:)

Are we done here?

[Jelly]

:)

Are we done here?

yeppers : )

[ChumpDumper]

I was asking the others, but thanks.

[Bender]

hmmm... I was under the impression that the constitution DID give states the right of succession... but I could be wrong :lol

and schools for ages have never taught "real" history. they have always taught that the civil War was basically the North "good guys" (anti-slavery) vs the South "bad guys" (pro-slavery). It was not that cut and dried.

[Wild Cobra]

I see Galileo is back to promoting false flag operations and conspiracies.

My God. All this was brewing before Lincoln became president. It started three months after he took office and succession was declared before he took office.

Three months with no communications faster than carrier pigeon or horseback.

Right. The plans were made in such short order.

[Das Texan]

Who the fuck is John V. Denson?


Looking at some of the other stuff he has written on lewrockwall.com

he sure the fuck looks like a whack job.

[Galileo]

I see Galileo is back to promoting false flag operations and conspiracies.

My God. All this was brewing before Lincoln became president. It started three months after he took office and succession was declared before he took office.

Three months with no communications faster than carrier pigeon or horseback.

Right. The plans were made in such short order.

You have a lot of nerve, questioning the great Galileo Galilei, the father of Modern Science, the Father of Modern Physics, the Founder of the Scietific Method, and the most brilliant man who has ever lived.

Listen to your elders!

[ChumpDumper]

Right, sometimes I forget I'm conversing with a complete nutjob.

[Tully365]

Apparently the whole "Fort Sumter" and "states declaring secession" thing was fake too.

:lol Many of the slaves were just white actors in blackface too. Their descendants later went on to form Led Zeppelin, Hall and Oates, and The Beastie Boys.

[Galileo]

Right, sometimes I forget I'm conversing with a complete nutjob.

I agree with you on Wild Cobra. You put it quite right.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree with you on Wild Cobra. You put it quite right.Nah, he's just a partisan idiot.

[doobs]

Ibrahim Lincoln was a Muslim.

[johnsmith]

Lincoln planned 9/11

[Galileo]

Lincoln planned 9/11

No, Lincoln planned Ft. Sumpter. 9/11 was later.

[johnsmith]

No, Lincoln planned Ft. Sumpter. 9/11 was later.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that Sumpter was a prerequisite for the collapse of the towers.

[Galileo]

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that Sumpter was a prerequisite for the collapse of the towers.

The collapse of the Confederacy. It was used as a pretext for invasion, even though only a horse and a mule were killed.

[doobs]

Far out, man. If only Lincoln had just said, "it's cool, go ahead and secede." But no, he had to orchestrate Ft. Sumpter as an inside job. To get the South's oil. Man.

[Galileo]

Far out, man. If only Lincoln had just said, "it's cool, go ahead and secede." But no, he had to orchestrate Ft. Sumpter as an inside job. To get the South's oil. Man.

Ft. Sumpter was not an inside job. There were no northern "agents" inside Ft. Sumpter. You are a crazy conspiracy theorist.