Jeffersonian vs Lincolnian America

[Separatist]

And the real reason the South seceded. Our problems today began with Lincoln's version of America. Excellent talk. Not taught in your public schools.

[JohnnyL]

Read Thomas DiLorenzo's work on Lincoln.

[Separatist]

I have. Watch the talk.

[ChristopherABrown]

Why did Lincoln say this in a 1859 speech in Ohio?

"The people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the constitution."

[ajax]

Superb talk.

[ChristopherABrown]

I have. Watch the talk.

I wish I could, but extensive deprivations of justice have me posting on a phone, so I cannot watch the video.

Does it explain Lincoln's profound words at the Ohio speech?

"The people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the constitution."

[Separatist]

Ok? Not sure I follow. The irony is that Lincoln was the greatest perverter of said Constitution.

[ChristopherABrown]

Ok? Not sure I follow. The irony is that Lincoln was the greatest perverter of said Constitution.

If that is true, why did he say this?

"The people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the constitution."

[Ezra]

Lincoln was a very well spoken quotable man.

He said great things about the constitution. But disregarded it entirely during his presidency.

Not only that but he shifted the balance of power from the people being over the state who was over the government. To the government being over the state who is over the people.

The shift in power from the people to the government caused by Lincoln is what inspired Francis Bellamy a devote socialist to write the pledge of allegance. To commemorate the great leaps and bounds we as a nation took towards socialism. You will have to look up his early editions of that pledge to see that as he revised it quite a few times so that it would catch on and gain popularity. His earlier editions did not have God in them at all.

[Ezra]

Ok? Not sure I follow. The irony is that Lincoln was the greatest perverter of said Constitution.

If that is true, why did he say this?

"The people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the constitution."

Saying and doing are completly different things.
You need to take a good long look at what he did as president. Look up how many ways disregarded the constitution and laws he broke during his presidency.

And if you think he was justified because he freed the slaves. Look up Joseph smiths party platform for when he ran for us president. That was gods intended way for slavery to end. Compare that to the what Lincoln did.

Compare what Lincoln did comparied to every other nation in the world that ended slavery.

You will start to see a little more clearly the man Lincoln was.

1 nephi 22:
13 And the blood of that great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall turn upon their own heads; for they shall war among themselves, and the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood.

Civil war the most bloody war in our history. They had war among themselves. Civil war turning on themselfs, sword falling on their own heads.

But the lords people had nothing to do with it. They were off in Utah minding their own business.

If that above scripture was talking about the civil war that Joseph smith also prophesied about befor he died.

Then Lincoln was the leader of the great and abominable church at the time. Ponder on that one.

[ChristopherABrown]

Ok? Not sure I follow. The irony is that Lincoln was the greatest perverter of said Constitution.

If that is true, why did he say this?

"The people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the constitution."

Saying and doing are completly different things.

Correct, and what I've asked separatist to do is define what he meant by this part of his speech in Ohio of 1859.

"The people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the constitution."

History has been revised so much, we today have little to refer to that reflects the greater truths of what was going on.

What did Lincoln mean? Why did he say that? What was he trying to do?

[Separatist]

Reality vs Rhetoric

[ChristopherABrown]

Reality vs Rhetoric

Lincoln really said this, and people really do not know what it means.

"The people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the constitution."

What else is not known about Lincoln and the time he was a part of?

Why did the act of 1871 happen? Would the same guy that said what you don't understand do that? Well, if you knew what he meant, you might realize the act of 1871 was what he was against.

I did not understand that quote at first either.

Any who cannot agree and accept this inquiry defining prime constitutional intents, are bound to suffer what the country suffered that Lincoln was trying to stop.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

[Separatist]

I really don't know what you are getting at. Perhaps you could explain as if I were a child. And how it relates to the OP.

[ChristopherABrown]

I really don't know what you are getting at. Perhaps you could explain as if I were a child. And how it relates to the OP.

The Jeffersonian aspect of this;

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Is that agreeing and accepting those definitions the people create the basis in law for their authority for the peoples lawful and peaceful revolution every 20 years as Jefferson envisioned. That authority makes them "the rightful masters", per Lincoln's word.

"The people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the constitution."

History barely records the fact that the press mostly did not publish his speeches in metropolitan areas, the big cities. Instead they published anti Lincoln rhetoric. They were largely controlled by Tory influence and wanted the war. Lincoln did not want the war and was trying to push the people to understand their role in an Article V convention. Such is the only thing that makes the quote sensical.

He was trying to get the southern and northern states to peacefully negotiate the end of slavery in a fully constitutional fashion. He was completely overpowered by the congress and senate after being elected by the people because they knew he was 100% for the constitution.

The purpose of free speech was abridged then as it is now resulting in his inability to share with the people their lawful way to peacefully resolve the issues.

Lincoln's information on the true history of the south and slavery was deficient as is ours of WHO financed the union army. English financiers bought control of America by financing the army. That same type control existed over congress, and still does. That is why the failure to agree with and accept prime constitutional intent adequate to control states at Article V will cause America to again suffer loss of the constitution.

[ChristopherABrown]

Then there is the origin of southern society that Lincoln did not know of. This I suspect is the tail end of it.

http://www.slideshare.net/mjgds/fort-ca ... -new-world" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A full 46 years before Plymouth rock, a French fort was destroyed by the Spanish. There is some evidence that there was a pre existing French society in the Gulf and around the coast of Florida. Just the fact of the Caribbean occupation by French pirates and the Cajun roots indicate that since the first crusades in Europe, refugees from that who went west across the Atlantic give the south a much earlier societal origin than history records.

I have found results for a very early maritime society referred to as the "Brotherhood of the Coast". The original links I found were lost on a failed hard drive, but the islands they occupied had records that began as far back as 1250.

All this gives dynamics to the conflict Lincoln was trying to manage that change the position of the south logically, to one of temporal seniority, which is completely left out of history. However, when we regard the southern position or mentality, there appears a constant attitude, "We were here before you" relating to the north. There are reasons this information would be squelched and kept out of books, but still, the position is held by the people.

[Ezra]

I really don't know what you are getting at. Perhaps you could explain as if I were a child. And how it relates to the OP.

The Jeffersonian aspect of this;

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Is that agreeing and accepting those definitions the people create the basis in law for their authority for the peoples lawful and peaceful revolution every 20 years as Jefferson envisioned. That authority makes them "the rightful masters", per Lincoln's word.

"The people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the constitution."

History barely records the fact that the press mostly did not publish his speeches in metropolitan areas, the big cities. Instead they published anti Lincoln rhetoric. They were largely controlled by Tory influence and wanted the war. Lincoln did not want the war and was trying to push the people to understand their role in an Article V convention. Such is the only thing that makes the quote sensical.

He was trying to get the southern and northern states to peacefully negotiate the end of slavery in a fully constitutional fashion. He was completely overpowered by the congress and senate after being elected by the people because they knew he was 100% for the constitution.

The purpose of free speech was abridged then as it is now resulting in his inability to share with the people their lawful way to peacefully resolve the issues.

Lincoln's information on the true history of the south and slavery was deficient as is ours of WHO financed the union army. English financiers bought control of America by financing the army. That same type control existed over congress, and still does. That is why the failure to agree with and accept prime constitutional intent adequate to control states at Article V will cause America to again suffer loss of the constitution.

Ya buddy Lincoln did not try to peacefully get the north and south to end slavey.

Slavery was not the issues of why the left the union. Taxes were. The south had 20% of the population and had 45% of all the taxes. (During )as in the war was already started. he (only) freed the slaves in the south hopeing they would raise up aginst their masters and help turn the tide of the war. And then spent the rest of his presidency trying to deport them. He didn't like black people at all.

Lincoln arrested and imprision the Delaware delegates with out trial or charge so they could not vote to succeed from the union. He also did the same for over 2000 people many news reporters and anyone in opposition to him.

He tried to have a 80 year old man killed without charge or trial for being openly in opposition and very verbal about it.

Congress did not vote Lincoln into war.

Lincoln in fact could have had congress come in for an emergency vote. But instead he took it upon him self to start the war. And told congress to stay away for a additional 3 months longer then they were supposed to.

again look up how Joseph smith intended to end slavery to know what the lords way was. And look up all the ways Lincoln broke the law and didn't follow the constitution.

He spoke highly of it and pretty much used it for toilet paper during his presidency.

[ChristopherABrown]

I really don't know what you are getting at. Perhaps you could explain as if I were a child. And how it relates to the OP.

The Jeffersonian aspect of this;

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Is that agreeing and accepting those definitions the people create the basis in law for their authority for the peoples lawful and peaceful revolution every 20 years as Jefferson envisioned. That authority makes them "the rightful masters", per Lincoln's word.

"The people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the constitution."

History barely records the fact that the press mostly did not publish his speeches in metropolitan areas, the big cities. Instead they published anti Lincoln rhetoric. They were largely controlled by Tory influence and wanted the war. Lincoln did not want the war and was trying to push the people to understand their role in an Article V convention. Such is the only thing that makes the quote sensical.

He was trying to get the southern and northern states to peacefully negotiate the end of slavery in a fully constitutional fashion. He was completely overpowered by the congress and senate after being elected by the people because they knew he was 100% for the constitution.

The purpose of free speech was abridged then as it is now resulting in his inability to share with the people their lawful way to peacefully resolve the issues.

Lincoln's information on the true history of the south and slavery was deficient as is ours of WHO financed the union army. English financiers bought control of America by financing the army. That same type control existed over congress, and still does. That is why the failure to agree with and accept prime constitutional intent adequate to control states at Article V will cause America to again suffer loss of the constitution.

Ya buddy Lincoln did not try to peacefully get the north and south to end slavey.

Slavery was not the issues of why the left the union. Taxes were. The south had 20% of the population and had 45% of all the taxes. (During )as in the war was already started. he (only) freed the slaves in the south hopeing they would raise up aginst their masters and help turn the tide of the war. And then spent the rest of his presidency trying to deport them. He didn't like black people at all.

Lincoln arrested and imprision the Delaware delegates with out trial or charge so they could not vote to succeed from the union. He also did the same for over 2000 people many news reporters and anyone in opposition to him.

He tried to have a 80 year old man killed without charge or trial for being openly in opposition and very verbal about it.

Congress did not vote Lincoln into war.

Lincoln in fact could have had congress come in for an emergency vote. But instead he took it upon him self to start the war. And told congress to stay away for a additional 3 months longer then they were supposed to.

again look up how Joseph smith intended to end slavery to know what the lords way was. And look up all the ways Lincoln broke the law and didn't follow the constitution.

He spoke highly of it and pretty much used it for toilet paper during his presidency.

Ezra, your points are well made and true, but still, the meaning and timing of this is important and you have not addressed the fact of it.

1859
"The people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the constitution."

I notice there are no dates associated with the malicious unconstitutional deeds you cite. I believe they were all after the war started. At that point no states were making applications for Article V because the people of the cities did not know his Article V plans. The press did not publish his plans and the people of the rural areas lacked all means to organize. It's quite possible he was angered by the peoples failure to support Article V.

Meanwhile he had a bloodthirsty Tory controlled congress while he was also determined to preserve the union, which was also what the Tories wanted. So he forced it to remain together with war like the Torys wanted, and there were no where near enough people to oppose what was expected of him by congress and others.

But I will research some of your points to see if they change my mind.

Did he not have a saying about keeping some of the people happy, but not all of them?

The point of my posts in defense of Lincoln is to point out what he tried to do, not deny what he ended up doing. However, none of it was his idea. He worked for Article V first and I've proven that.

Somehow it seems possible that if we do not use Article V now, it could end up far worse than the civil war, and there will be none to blame but ourselves.

[Ezra]

I think all you have proved is he spoke highly of the constitution but action speak louder then words.

You might find this artical interesting

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref ... t.html.csp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A prophet calling him a scoundrel.

[ChristopherABrown]

I think all you have proved is he spoke highly of the constitution but action speak louder then words.

You might find this artical interesting

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref ... t.html.csp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A prophet calling him a scoundrel.

His failed efforts to get the people to support Article V could have easily made him very angry, (he had a temper) whereupon he gave the people what they asked for, under conditions, by default.

There are complexities to the situation that are not recorded well, particularly with the English support for the union army, and those elements would choose to make him a scapegoat in the future. For all we know he might have made a deal, "if I can't get the people to save the constitution I'll do your war." My impression of Lincoln is that he didn't do things halfway and changed his mind radically depending on conditions. It does look like that because that 1859 quote reeks of sincerity to conform to the constitution. Actually one of the most insightful of the peoples power through states I've ever seen.

Interesting perspective on the times and political/religious differences from your link. Actually it is about what I would expect from all involved.

And Article V is the ultimate tool for constitutional defense, but the people must become active defining constitutional intent in their states.

[Ezra]

Agree on artical 5.

Still does not change what Lincoln did. Action speak louder then words.

What Lincoln did was aginst God. There is no exception for going aginst the constitution.

It's just lip service he gave to the constitution since he didn't walk the talk.

When God clearly says in D&c 98 4-7

Anything more or less then following the constitution as God created it. Will cometh evil.

And evil is what we got in the deaths of so many for nothing.

I say nothing because Joseph smith revealed gods plan for ending slavery. Which would have been completly peacefull. And gotten rid of the federally own land at the same time that is causing so many problems today. Which again that government land ownership is not constitutional.

[creator]

A modern constitutional convention is a dangerous thing. It would only further destroy America.

[Obrien]

A modern constitutional convention is a dangerous thing. It would only further destroy America.

No, a modern Con Con would be the end of America, as envisioned by the delegates to the 1789 Convention.

[Ezra]

A modern constitutional convention is a dangerous thing. It would only further destroy America.

No, a modern Con Con would be the end of America, as envisioned by the delegates to the 1789 Convention.

Wouldn't it be nice though if we could do one an go back to the basics. And then put a heavy heavy very short leash on the government.

Currently impossible I know.

What I wish the government would hurry and spend themselfs into oblivion. Or everyone would stop paying taxes. Tank it. So we can rebuild. But we would still have the same problem with a concon. Not enough good constitutionally educated men and women.

The lord will have to cleans this church and nation to be able to have a constitutional government that protects the rights of all Mankind.

[creator]

A modern constitutional convention is a dangerous thing. It would only further destroy America.

No, a modern Con Con would be the end of America, as envisioned by the delegates to the 1789 Convention.

You're not wrong.

Wouldn't it be nice though if we could do one an go back to the basics. And then put a heavy heavy very short leash on the government.
Currently impossible I know.

Yep, impossible currently. The problem today is not with the Constitution but with the people. What good is a Constitution if those in power (and those who vote them into it) don't care what is written in it.