Northern Loyalty - Slavery . . . . .

[redcliffsw]

[Wake-up!]

Interesting that an English paper would have published this. To me, it infers the Lincoln administration was tolerating continued slavery in other States and/or Territories. I haven't heard this before. Do you know what the London Spectator is referencing?

[redcliffsw]

It's nothing new.  The Republicans and yankees have not told the truth about their War to change America.  That's why the Republicans created and implemented their government education system after their military victory over America in 1865.  Nowadays, the modern Democrats are in cahoots with their Republican comrades to "save" their government education system.  They argue among themselves about "education" but regardless, government education is a socialist victory either way you look at it.

I'm thinking that the London paper is referencing the Emancipation Proclamation.  Read it.  You'll see that Lincoln did not free slaves in the north.  The northern slaves were not freed until the 14th Amendment which was later on - after the War.

[Wake-up!]

Well, it's a terrible read, horrible sentence structure, especially for the day. But, I hadn't read it before. However, I think the London paper missed the point. Lincoln did this under his executive power as commander-in-chief. He did not have the power to free all slaves (the British, of course, would not understand the separation of powers). That power resided with Congress, and they eventually acted on it.

Lincoln was pretty much a scumbag. His earlier political agenda was to free the salves AND return them to Africa, as he believed the black and white cultures would never peacefully co-exist. So, here I assume, he felt little remorse in using the slavery issue as a tool of war. I wonder how the 'border state's' slaves felt in not being freed. All the way around, an unjust situation with an unjust remedy (war).

[redcliffsw]

Lincoln was not in line with the Founders - the South was.  Lincoln did not save the Union, he changed the Union.  Lincoln is the father of this new country, not George Washington.  Keep in mind that both parties, Republican and modern Democrat, claim to be the "party of Lincoln".  Obama, Hillary and the Republicans all agree on that and they certainly act acccordingly even though they debate and argue for their own social programs.

No, the London newspaper did not miss the point.  Why would they disagree with executive power?  Isn't that why we threw out the British in the first place?  Lincoln was their kind of man.

Republicans and modern Democrats look to Lincoln, not to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Jefferson Davis. 

How are you seeing it?

[Wake-up!]

No, the Brits wouldn't mind the exercise of executive privilege at all. The point I tried to make is that Lincoln did not free all the slaves with an EO. He knew the 16th amendment was in the works, and he feared alienating Congress if he took action on his own. He wanted the 16th Amendment (and he wanted deportation/repatriation of freed slaves). The London paper missed that, or didn't care to address it. Lincoln had method behind his madness.

I take issue with a handful of events that changed government and harmed liberty.  Of course, none of them happened in short order, all evolved through years of Presidential and Congressional actions.
- 1789: Freedom gained a foe in centralized government when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution FOR the United States.
- 1791: First federal bank was chartered when George Washington went against his gut-feeling.
- 1816: The charter for the Second National Bank was authorized after the first charter expired in 1811.
- 1861-65: Then I heap a bunch of blame on Lincoln as you do. I consider him a war criminal. The death toll from the War Between the States is greater than the sum of all the other wars the US has fought. All because he denied a group of people their inalienable right to leave the jurisdiction of a government they disliked.
- Lincoln signed National Banking Acts in 1863, 1864, and 1865. Those acts basically created worthless greenbacks with no gold backing. Then he taxed people's income and borrowed from foreign countries/banks.
- 1871: The next snafu, and a huge one, is on President Ulysses Grant. He signed the Act of 1871, aka the Organic Act. On the surface, it changes several cities into the official District of Columbia. But at also created a United States of America, Incorporated.
- 1913: Secretary of State Knox announced that the (illegally ratified) 16th Amendment was being placed in affect, creating the IRS.
- 1913: The Glass-Owen Act authorized the Federal Reserve.
- 1944: The Bretton Woods Acts essentially put the economies of all the countries of the world under the control of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
- 1963: President Kennedy was assassinated. We have reports that say he was going to withdraw all troops from Viet Nam. We have his Executive Order #11110 where he issued the continuance of Silver Certificates, and the issue of the same in larger denominations (We also have insistence that it was merely a stop-gap measure until the country could shift to 100% Federal Reserve Notes). We have a statement he made in a public speech at Columbia University just 10 days before dying; "The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizens of this plight." Certainly he was killed for one or more of those stances.
- 1971: Tricky Dick Nixon destroyed our monetary system when he directed Secretary Connally to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the American dollar except in amounts and conditions determined to be in the interest of monetary stability and in the best interests of the United States." It remains 'temporarily' suspended. Since then, we've had one hundred percent fiat currency. And talk about susceptible to speculation; it has since been susceptible to political maneuvers, interest rate changes, inflation, absolute devaluation by American money presses printing, and relative devaluation from improved economic conditions and currencies of foreign countries.

It isn't all on Lincoln. I have no doubt many, many more events could be highlighted, validly; and points from other than an economic view made. If I could eliminate one of the above, it would be the first, the change from a Confederation of Nation-States to a Federation of United States. However, getting a President to issue an executive order (no matter how unconstitutional his authority to do so) to rescind the Act of 1871 would be a real load of buckshot in the backside of Socialism.

I tend to follow the money, since money is power, power created out of thin air by fractional reserve banking. A bank opens with $500 and over the next 12 months makes $50 loans to 1000 clients, each with a debt, note, or IOU, and monthly payment. At the end of the year the bank claims assets worth $50,000 from the original $500, when they have nothing close to that in the till. What they have is $50,000 worth of debt, plus the interest owed, minus the total of monthly payments received. Power manifests when nine more zeros are added to those numbers. They also have legal power over the debtor, to collect and forfeit property if the debt is not paid. So debt is continually passed off as money and power is gained by the banking cartel. Hell, we even carry IOUs, notes, as in Federal Reserve Notes, around in our billfolds and purses. Most people call them dollars, and believe they have value. They are debtors' notes.