Lincoln and Slavery

From Lincoln On Blacks
"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." (Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858; from Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, 1894, Vol. 1, page 273).

"Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." (Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862, from Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol 5, page 371).

"I will say, then, that I am not nor have I ever been in favour of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favour 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 will ever 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 favour of having the superior position assigned to the White race." (4th Lincoln-Douglas debate, September 18th, 1858; Collected Works. Vol. 3, pp. 145-146).

 

THE PAPERS AND WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN COMPLETE CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION
QUOTE
What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.
UNQUOTE
Abe was not quite the sentimental Left Wing fool that various propagandists would have us believe.

 

Lincoln The War Criminal
QUOTE
The presidential oath of office contains a pledge to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, and by implication the liberties of the American people that the document is intended to preserve. In light of this, can you name which of the delegated powers in the U.S. Constitution allow the president to invade his own country, mass murder his own American citizens, and bomb, burn and plunder their cities? Can you explain how such acts would be consistent with protecting the constitutional liberties of those unfortunate citizens? If you think you can, then congratulations, you are a “Lincoln Scholar.” If not, do not despair. You are in decent company, including the five living past presidents as of 1861, namely, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan. Lincoln’s predecessor, President James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, stated the truth when he said the following:

Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw . . . from the Confederacy [of states]? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection, I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the federal government (Senate Journal, 36th Congress, 2nd Session, 4 December 1860, 15–16).

Unlike Lincoln, James Buchanan was a constitutionalist. His opinion that a president has no constitutional right to invade his own country and murder his fellow citizens has relegated him to the bottom of every ranking of American presidents by the American history profession for generations. This doesn’t mean he was wrong, only that a large segment of the history profession is hopelessly corrupt. Buchanan understood, as did nearly everyone prior to Lincoln, that the states did not give up any of their sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution; they merely delegated several distinct powers to the central government that was designed to act for their mutual benefit.
UNQUOTE
Lincoln was a crook but a crook with power. That is how Bush, Blair, Brown and others got away with it. This piece gets even more damning as it goes on.

 

Hawaii’s 'Bayonet Constitution' - LewRockwell
Was it Trotsky who told men to probe forward with their bayonets and carry on pushing until there was resistance? At all events Lincoln, aka Saint Abraham actually did something of the sort when he took over Hawaii
QUOTE
A Judge Sanford Dole, whose family had long Puritan/Yankee roots in the state of Maine, was put in place as the new head of government.  A paramilitary organization known as the Honolulu Rifles forced the Hawaiian king at gunpoint with the threat of being stabbed to death with bayonets to sign off on a new constitution that came to be known as the “bayonet constitution.”  This was “the party of Lincoln” in all its glory, having just two decades earlier forced the Southern states at gunpoint to accept a new constitutional order that essentially destroyed the system of federalism of the founding fathers and replaced it with a consolidated, monopolistic, bureaucratic Leviathan in Washington, D.C. run by “rich men north of Richmond,” as a popular new country music song describes it.

The ”bayonet constitution” disenfranchised all Asians living in Hawaii as “an inferior race” as well as most native Hawaiians.
UNQUOTE
Was the man an arsehole? Yes.