Good for you.
Do you think that “preserve, protect, and defend” would somehow not include protections against enemies foreign and domestic?
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
January 20th 2025 - Donald Trump is BACK!
- Thread starter Man_in_the_Middle
- Start date
Do you think that “preserve, protect, and defend” would somehow not include protections against enemies foreign and domestic?
Lincoln did a lot of unnecessary damage to the Constitution.
I’ll just leave it there.
It doesn’t matter what I think. On this matter, it’s irrelevant.
I’m merely stating what it doesn’t say. It says what it says. It’s irresponsible to extend the text. We can argue over what it means, but not over what it says. In this instance, someone was adding to the text. I was merely correcting it.
True. We don’t disagree. But it comes down to intent as well. Did he do it maliciously, or with the justification of preserving the Union?
The Constitution was made for man, not man for the Constitution. In times of great National challenge, suspension of elements of the Constitution can be justified temporarily. Lincoln died too early for us to know how he would have unraveled all of that. We do know that he ignored the Constitution and didn’t promote prosecution of Jeff Davis and company for treason, even if it was justified. Many of them even made their way back into Congress!
BHO and 95% of the Democrats/leftists see Trump as an existential threat to the Constitution and America. In their minds, Trump is Hitler. And if he is, then they do what they do in protection of their ideals (including preserving their corrupted swamp) because nobody wants another Hitler. BHO will argue it wasn’t treason or insurrection or any of that. His intent was to preserve and protect the Constitution against a threat, according to his oath. It won’t be his opening argument, but it’ll be his closing argument to gain sympathy.
Lincoln was a tyrant, and single-handedly destroyed the Republic. Read Tom DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln for facts you won't hear from the revisionist Lincoln-idolators.
Among other things, he turned the Constitution into a roach motel, where States are not able to remedy breach of that contract by withdrawal (Texas, seeing that, insisted on a provision to the contrary.)
Robert E. Lee was not a traitor. He was offered command of the Northern forces, but said instead, after a night of prayer, that he must serve his COUNTRY (Virginia) - not what amounted to the United Nations of the day.
Trouble is, theirs is another AmeriKa. And they never so much as read the Constitution, but utterly despise the Bill of Rights anyway.
Some of us probably know "xtians" who see trying to read the Bible as a threat to their religion.
Part of the reason to try them for treason is so that the insanity they foster is defeated. Otherwise, they WILL do it again.
Irrelevant.
He is one of US leaders of contra Davos elite. Current Vice President is basically his man.
I prefer effective leadership of gays stopping globalists that "conservatives" who conserve nothing and surrender to globalists.
If he was willing to preserve union he would talk about preservation of slavery, not abolishing slavery.
This is simple case of moralizing. North, having no slaves telling South they are evil/impure while South will suffer all consequences of abolition.
LOL. Union was voluntary, that's why states have even entered into it. That's why they had right of seccession.
Lincoln would lost all honest court cases.
At what costs? If you are trying to keep incompatible people together, only solution is dictature.
What is your plan for dealing with unruly progressives who refuse to behave conservative? Reeducation camps, exile, taking citizenship away? See, you will soon need dictator or someone very close.
He did, and his comments are well-documented in that regard. But the "emancipation proclamation' was nothing but a political stunt to keep Europe (primarily Britain and France) from openly declaring support for the Confederacy. It did not 'free' a single slave where he had any pretense of jurisdiction. (And, indeed, Grant had slaves AFTER the war. History acknowledges him as the last US president to own slaves - unless you ask ChatGPT, I suspect.
)
To the thread topic:
A big part of the discussion amounts to "history is written by the victors," at least too often. And Obama et al are the worst traitors in the history of the USA. Which will only be written accurately if the victors prosecute the Destroyers. That is, if there ends up being any history written at all, otherwise.
A big part of the discussion amounts to "history is written by the victors," at least too often. And Obama et al are the worst traitors in the history of the USA. Which will only be written accurately if the victors prosecute the Destroyers. That is, if there ends up being any history written at all, otherwise.
Agree on all but one point.He did, and his comments are well-documented in that regard. But the "emancipation proclamation' was nothing but a political stunt to keep Europe (primarily Britain and France) from openly declaring support for the Confederacy. It did not 'free' a single slave where he had any pretense of jurisdiction. (And, indeed, Grant had slaves AFTER the war. History acknowledges him as the last US president to own slaves - unless you ask ChatGPT, I suspect.
I am nearly certain that Grant’s slaves were actually his wife’s slaves that she brought to the marriage. I don’t believe he ever purchased any.
This is what so few understand, so I’m going to take the opportunity to double-down.
The much vaunted Emancipation Proclamation ONLY declared freedom for the slaves in the states that were attempting to leave the Union.
It did NOTHING for the slaves in the states that weren’t attempting to secede. They were still considered owned by their owners until it was later amended.
I’m a student of history as well. I’m not blind or ignorant to the transgressions of Lincoln. I largely give him a pass, however, due to the circumstances. FDR gets no such pass in my book because his circumstances were much different. The Constitution was his toilet paper. He should garner your ire much more than Lincoln.
Lincoln was a student of history and scripture. He understood the frailty and brevity of nations. A kingdom divided against itself could not stand. He understood the synergy of unity and necessity of united strength. People forget that the Monroe doctrine was still very much necessary at the time of our civil war. The confederacy was cozying up to Europe. Mexico was essentially a European outpost at our doorstep (France invaded Mexico at this time). Had the confederacy succeeded in breaking away, North America could very well have been another Africa (European colonial outposts plundering our resources).
Regarding Lee, he may have fought for Virginia in his heart, but he served under the confederate presidency of Jeff Davis that was composed of more than just Virginia.
To bring this back to the Trump presidency, I don’t think for a moment that he wants to prosecute Obama…unless there is a straight line from the Russia conspiracy to the assassination attempts. If that connection is made…it’s a whole new ballgame. Private citizen Obama could be implicated and prosecuted.
Glad to have disagreements with you in an agreeable fashion.
I’d do a little more research into Thiel. His work on information technology and creating databases of personal information on a global scale should frighten all of us. It’s leading to Antichrist in my book. If Vance is his man, then maybe Vance and his Hindu bride don’t need to be in power in 2028.
And his sexuality is not irrelevant. If he preaches Christ, yet has has multiple gay alliances and marriages, then he worships a different Jesus than I do.
Lincoln was a great politician. This proclamation was a psyop, with practical implications. What better way to bring terror to your opposition than to essentially call to arms a population living within their borders that massively outnumbered them! Lincoln was essentially conscripting a Black army.
He merits much ire; he put a wooden stake in the Constitution that Lincoln started, and was AmeriKa's first truly fascist president, while Lincoln, as DiLorenzo the economist-historian notes, was a mercantilist, and thus a predecessor, in the public-private partner sense. (Look at his crooked railroad deals.) It's a bit like comparing the effluent of bulls to that of chickens...
Lincoln did the Greenbacks, while FDR stole American's gold outright, and initiated the 'emergency' that has enabled dictatorship by expediency ever since.
PS> Most 'conservatives,' however, seem to recognize the Evil of FDR, but too many still drink the Lincoln-cult Kool-Aid.
And we mustn't forget Wilson and LBJ. But Obama's three terms were intended to utterly destroy the USA, and he may yet have succeeded.
Last edited:
It was simply grandstanding. Southerners didn’t release their slaves until they were defeated and Lincoln was again their president.
I’m sure that it did encourage more runaways.
Interestingly, many owners sent slaves to fight against the Union, which the slaves actually did with distinction, as opposed to running away.
I know of Lincoln’s many non constitutional transgressions but I still give him that benefit of the doubt on much of it due to the circumstances. I just don’t think he would have done most of what he did if the war wasn’t his preoccupation.He merits much ire; he put a wooden stake in the Constitution that Lincoln started, and was AmeriKa's first truly fascist president, while Lincoln, as DiLorenzo the economist-historian notes, was a mercantilist, and thus a predecessor, in the public-private partner sense. (Look at his crooked railroad deals.) It's a bit like comparing the effluent of bulls to that of chickens...
Lincoln did the Greenbacks, while FDR stole American's gold outright, and initiated the 'emergency' that has enabled dictatorship by expediency ever since.
PS> Most 'conservatives,' however, seem to recognize the Evil of FDR, but too many still drink the Lincoln-cult Kool-Aid.
And we mustn't forget Wilson and LBJ. But Obama's three terms were intended to utterly destroy the USA, and he may yet have succeeded.
Wilson was a hack and FDR was cut from demonic cloth. We agree.