What Was the Result of the War for Southern Independence?

[gclayjr]

JohhnyL,

Hello Everyone,
This thread has wandered again. "What Was the Result of the War for Southern Independence?" is the topic.
If you want to defend Lincoln, start your thread, or better yet, continue the previous one.
Thanks!

I see, Defending Lincoln is off topic, but attacking him is OK!

I never defended anything that hadn't been scurrilously asserted!

OK... ON topic

Prior to the Civil war, the 1st amendment to the Constitution was interpreted to only apply to the FEDERAL government, and not to the States. That is why Governor Boggs and the state of Missouri, could get away with the extermination order. That is why the President of the United States said "Your cause is Just, but there is nothing I can do". As a result of the Civil war, the 13th & 14th amendments, were added, which not only disallowed the states to hold people in slavery, but they also disallowed the States the right to deny 1st amendment rights to all people including unpopular religious minorities like the LDS Church. This was a requirement in order that the gospel could be spread throughout the U.S, including those states populated with mobs of bigots.

Regards,

George Clay

[Ezra]

I see the results as the door was opened to have a big centralized power government. Opened the door for the federal reserve. Opened the door abusive executive powers being used.

The 13-14 ammendments opened the door to the 15th. The 14ths open the door for a flood of illegal immigrants crossing the border to have children here and then living off wealfare. the effects of the 15th is that the have nots have voted themself in people who will take from the haves. It has directly taken away the right to own property. Because it's taxed you never really own it. Stop paying
Taxes loose your property.
Taxes are needed to support the illegal imagrants who have (natural born citizen kids)
The founders made it to where only property owners could vote because they would maintain their freedoms to truly own it. In essence the government now owns all land and only rents it to us.

D&c 98 the lord says that anything more or less then following the constitutional letter of law would end in evil. God claims authorship of the constitution (first 10 ammendments) I feel that all ammendments past that have done exactly that. Evil. Sure some are packaged to look great. The effect has been the same. Lincoln truly opened the door for the flip in power by the people to power over the people by the government.

[gclayjr]

Ezra,

You are of course looking through 21'st century lenses, and a lot of speculation. However in the 19th Century, when the Lord, needed a relatively "safe" place for his restored Church to grow, the States who were exempt from the first amendment, were using that exemption with the help of Satan , to provide a legal basis for destroying the Lord's restored church before it got the opportunity to grow, and cover the earth. And they were being pretty successful at it. It was only after the 13th & 14th amendments were added that states were denied the right to deny Mormons, the right to live our religion, proselytize, and even live as a community. Satan would have won. Because of the hardheartedness, and inflexibility of those people controlling many states including the slave owning (and fearing that Mormons might interfere with this hallowed institution) states like Missouri, that it could only come about after a bloody civil war.

While I support protecting our borders, and that immigration should only be legal. If you are looking for God's hand, I might point out that we are NOT fulfilling the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, and that this land is also promised to all of the house of Joseph including Manasseh. Maybe if we spent less time living the ""high life", and focused on making and raising large families in righteousness, this judgement would not have to come upon us. Those immigrants, legal, or illegal, will be the future of America.

Tal vez vale la pena para aprender una nueva idioma.

Regards,

George Clay

[Ezra]

Ezra,

You are of course looking through 21'st century lenses, and a lot of speculation. However in the 19th Century, when the Lord, needed a relatively "safe" place for his restored Church to grow, the States who were exempt from the first amendment, were using that exemption with the help of Satan , to provide a legal basis for destroying the Lord's restored church before it got the opportunity to grow, and cover the earth. And they were being pretty successful at it. It was only after the 13th & 14th amendments were added that states were denied the right to deny Mormons, the right to live our religion, proselytize, and even live as a community. Satan would have won. Because of the hardheartedness, and inflexibility of those people controlling many states including the slave owning (and fearing that Mormons might interfere with this hallowed institution) states like Missouri, that it could only come about after a bloody civil war.

While I support protecting our borders, and that immigration should only be legal. If you are looking for God's hand, I might point out that we are NOT fulfilling the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, and that this land is also promised to all of the house of Joseph including Manasseh. Maybe if we spent less time living the ""high life", and focused on making and raising large families in righteousness, this judgement would not have to come upon us. Those immigrants, legal, or illegal, will be the future of America.

Tal vez vale la pena para aprender una nueva idioma.

Regards,

George Clay

Of coarse george by the fruits shall ye know them.

In the moment no one could really say the effects down the road. But it's plain to see now. History is awsome since you can fallow it back.

In a few years time 911 will be common knowledge. The more and more info that comes out. The deeper our understanding will be.

D&c 123 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—

13 Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven—

History on the matter is pretty clear. You can look and see the freedoms once had and lost and follow the info to the source of the loss.

Do you honestly think that our gadianton controlled media would spend so much effort painting him as a hero unless they had an agenda? Why waist their time? they don't want people to wake up. They want then to see this nice picture and ignore the pile of crap it's standing on.

You have been caught hook line and sinker by their tutelage. And you continue to ignore scripture. It's folly George. d&c121 Anyone who uses the least degree of unrighteousness is not on the lords side. In fact vs 38 says they fight against him.
D&c 98 says anything more or less then constitutional law of the land cometh evil.

Lincoln disregarded the constitution.=evil. Lincoln imprisoned with out charge or trial.=evil. Lincoln user unrighteous dominion.= evil.
No commandment was given from God to go to war= evil. Saints were in Utah uninvolved. Removed from danger. Another evidence that it was wrong and unjust.evil.
Bloodiest war in history. Scriptures saying that

1 nephi 22: 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.


Turn upon their own heads. War with its self. Bloody. Historically the most bloody civil war.

Why do you feel so enclinded to agree with the gadianton controlled media? Why ignore the aftermath of lost freedoms and the huge shift in power from the people to the government? Are you one that likes the chains? Feel they are needed?

[ajax]

Result? the Death of federalism and the republic.

Hitler understood that this was necessary for consolidation, concentration and state power:

Hitler promised that the Nazis "would totally eliminate states’ rights altogether: Since for us the state as such is only a form, but the essential is its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else must be subordinated to its sovereign interests. In particular we cannot grant to any individual state within the nation and the state representing it state sovereignty and sovereignty in point of political power." Thus the "mischief of individual federated states…must cease and will some day cease…. National Socialism as a matter of principle must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries."
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/10/tho ... president/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The power of the German central state was threatened by "the struggle between federalism and centralization so shrewdly propagated by the Jews in 1919-20-21 and afterward"

"And so today this [German] state, for the sake of its own existence, is obliged to curtail the sovereign rights of the individual provinces more and more, not only out of general material considerations, but from ideal considerations as well."

"Certainly all the states in the world are moving toward a certain unification in their inner organization. And, in this, Germany will be no exception. Today it is an absurdity to speak of a 'state sovereignty' of individual provinces." - The Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo

Karl Marx congratulated Lincoln on his re-election in 1864. State aggrandizement is the name of the game.

[ajax]

Ajax,

March 4, 1861, Lincoln is inaugurated, April 11, 1861, the South attacks Ft. Sumter

Doesn't look like the South was much in for negotiation with Lincoln

The South would only accept capitulation in regards to secession!

Regards,
George Clay

Let me help you with Fort Sumter:
http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/revie ... ggression/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://mises.org/library/century-war-l ... oosevelt-0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Chapter 2: Abraham Lincoln and the First Shot)

Let me help you George,

In accordance with the resolution of the Confederate Congress, President Davis appointed three commissioners to negotiate with the United States all questions of disagreement between the two governments. The appointments took place on February 25, and reached Washington on March 5, the day after Lincoln’s inauguration. The Confederate government was offering to assume its proportion of any federal debt and pay fair market value for all federal property remaining within the seceding states. It also sought recognition of its independence as a separate government by the Lincoln administration. Davis had stated that the South simply wanted to be let alone and constituted no threat to the existing government in Washington: “We seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind . . . all we ask is to be let alone.”

President Lincoln refused to see the commissioners, refused to negotiate any peace terms, and, furthermore, refused to recognize the Confederate government. - A Century of War, John Denson

Yeah, doesn't look like the South was much for negotiation. Hmmmm.

Lincoln called another cabinet meeting for March 15 and asked for each member of his cabinet to respond in writing about what should be done
regarding Fort Sumter. All the cabinet members opposed in writing any reinforcement of Fort Sumter, except Postmaster General Blair, who offered to resign from the cabinet when the Fox plan was rejected.44 Secretary of State Seward, who was generally considered the number two man to Lincoln, consistently opposed any reinforcement of Fort Sumter because he thought it would initiate a war with the South. His written note to the president contained these words:

Suppose the expedition successful, we have then a garrison in Fort Sumter that can defy assault for six months. What is it to do then? Is it to make war by opening its batteries and attempting to demolish the defenses of the Carolinians? . . . I may be asked whether I would in no case, and at no time advise force—whether I propose to give up everything? I reply no. I would not initiate war to regain a useless and unnecessary position on the soil of the seceding States.

Secretary of Treasury Chase said in his note to the president:

If the attempt will so inflame civil war as to involve an immediate necessity for the enlistment of armies and the expedition of millions, I cannot advise it in the existing circumstances of the country and in the present condition of the national finances.

Secretary of War Cameron advised against reinforcement with these words:

Whatever might have been done as late as a month ago, it is too sadly evident that it cannot now be done without the sacrifice of life and treasure not at all commensurate with the object to be attained; and as the abandonment of the fort in a few weeks, sooner or later, appears to be an inevitable necessity, it seems to me that the sooner it is done the better.

Cameron also stated that:

The proposition presented by Mr. Fox, so sincerely entertained and ably advocated, would be entitled to my favorable consideration if, with all the light before me and in the face of so many distinguished military authorities on the other side, I did not believe that the attempt to carry it into effect would initiate a bloody and protracted conflict.

Secretary of the Navy Wells opposed either sending provisions or reinforcing the fort with troops and stated:

By sending, or attempting to send provisions into Sumter, will not war be precipitated? It may be impossible to escape it under any course of policy that may be pursued, but I am not prepared to advise a course that would provoke hostilities. It does not appear to me that the dignity, strength, or character of the government will be promoted by an attempt to provision Sumter in the manner proposed, even should it succeed, while a failure would be attended with untold disaster.

Attorney General Bates opposed the plan with these words:

The possession of the fort, as we now hold it, does not enable us to collect the revenue or enforce the laws of commercial navigation. It may indeed involve a point of honor or a point of pride, but I do not see any great national interest involved in the bare fact of holding the fort as we now hold it.

-A Century of War, John Denson

[ajax]

Separatist/Ajax is just regurgitating Mises propaganda funded by the elite bankers...

Same folks Ron Paul rolls with...

Same folks who claim to be Constitutionalists yet recommend we go backwards to the miserable failure called The Articles of Confederation....

Tilt at windmills much?

The Articles, though imperfect were just fine. Not so much for the nationalists who wanted a more energetic government, with the power to tax, raise armies etc. So when the time came to revise them a bit, they closed the doors and scraped the whole thing.

Merrill Jensen puts this myth to rest in his book The New Nation, a myth that only benefits those who want a strong central state.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Nation-Histo ... 0394705270" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Synopsis here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2013 ... .html#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[gclayjr]

Ajax,

You never let go do ya. I thought that since I wasn't responding to ridiculous assertions that this thread was done with. But you can't let it go, and apparently you can't read either.

you even quoted me with

The South would only accept capitulation in regards to secession!

I had previously noted that the South was willing to negotiate the TERMS of secession, but not secession itself. You cut and pasted boatloads of crap, of which not 1 word contradicts exactly what I said.

If Lincoln had negotiated with the south, he might have gotten decent terms for accepting the secession, but the country would have been split in 2. So 1 result of the war was the continuation of the Union, which wouldn''t have happened without the war.

I know you don't like that result, but Apparently Lincoln and hundreds of thousands of others did not agree with you.

Regards,

George Clay

[ajax]

George, there is no such thing as half-seceding. Secession is secession. You are on your own, independent. Lincoln wouldn't give up military property in the South, against all advice. He literally was willing to kill hundreds of thousands over it - ask them.

Northern abolitionists were all for it. The North would not longer have to abide by the Fugitive Slave Act, thus accelerating slavery's demise, along with continued industrialization.

The result was an President who acted unconstitutionally for coerced union, who was willing to kill for the idea. The Jeffersonian voluntary union and sovereignty of the states thrown to the trash heap. Consolidated, centralized government the norm. You get what you want.

You, who talk the talk against all sorts of socialism, loves the biggest socialist program of all: militarization, intervention and war. Lincoln personifies it.

Today's statists love Lincoln for his statist policies.

Marxist love his as well:

Eric Foner, the Marxist professor of history who has spent much of his career at Columbia University, has even cited Lincoln on behalf of the preservation of the Soviet Union. DiLorenzo cites a February 1991 article in The Nation called "Lincoln’s Lesson," in which Foner denounced the secession movements in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Georgia, and called upon Mikhail Gorbachev to suppress them with the same ruthlessness Lincoln showed the South. According to Foner, no "leader of a powerful nation" should tolerate "the dismemberment of the Soviet Union." "The Civil War," he explained with approval, "was a central step in the consolidation of national authority in the United States." And then: "The Union, Lincoln passionately believed, was a permanent government. Gorbachev would surely agree." For all the talk about slavery, there it is in a nutshell: the "Civil War" and Lincoln’s legacy involved the violent suppression of independence, exactly what Foner wanted to see in the Soviet Union. What better condemnation of Lincoln could we ask for?
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/10/tho ... president/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Truth is truth. I don't mind jabbering about it.

[ajax]

I'll leave it alone now though. We won't agree.

[gclayjr]

ajax,

George, there is no such thing as half-seceding.

You make my point as you argue that I am wrong. Of course there is no such thing as half seceding.

Maybe you can understand an analogy. Obviously, not logic and facts.

I am... or at least try to be what many here sneeringly call a TBM. As such, I am a Christian. I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord, Savior and master. If Satan came to me and offered to negotiate sweet terms to worship him. I think I would be willing to go to war over that, because no matter how he may make it sound sweet. His premise is unacceptable. I might even be willing to go to war over it, even if 1/3 of the hosts of heaven were to be condemned to hell for it.

Regards,

George Clay

[ajax]

...hundreds of thousands of others did not agree with you.

Trust me, as a non-LDS Mormon libertarian anarchist, I'm used to it.

[Jason]

Separatist/Ajax is just regurgitating Mises propaganda funded by the elite bankers...

Same folks Ron Paul rolls with...

Same folks who claim to be Constitutionalists yet recommend we go backwards to the miserable failure called The Articles of Confederation....

Tilt at windmills much?

The Articles, though imperfect were just fine. Not so much for the nationalists who wanted a more energetic government, with the power to tax, raise armies etc. So when the time came to revise them a bit, they closed the doors and scraped the whole thing.

Merrill Jensen puts this myth to rest in his book The New Nation, a myth that only benefits those who want a strong central state.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Nation-Histo ... 0394705270" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Synopsis here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2013 ... .html#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'll side with Elder Oaks on the history....and not the banker funded crap....

[Jason]

...hundreds of thousands of others did not agree with you.

Trust me, as a non-LDS Mormon libertarian anarchist, I'm used to it.

The contradictions speak volumes....

[Rachael]

What Was the Result of the War for Southern Independence?

Every life touched by the loss of a relative. Constitutional issues. State right's eroded. Draft into the military instituted in the North. Economic collapse in the South. Slavery ended, but the north/feds pulled out of the South, didn't keep their promise of "40acres and a mule" then the South enacted Jim Crow laws, many african american moved norhward and started the music genre the blues (like in Chicago), KKK was popular with a a number of white folks in the South, Rosa Parks rides in the front of the bus, MLK had protests and wanted to keep it peaceful,, Malcolm X-ers/_black panthers didn't. Both get assassinated, including JFK, and 100 years earlier, Abraham Lincoln, but the Civil Rights Act gets passed anyway, intergration and affirmative action, and here we are...

[ajax]

Separatist/Ajax is just regurgitating Mises propaganda funded by the elite bankers...

Same folks Ron Paul rolls with...

Same folks who claim to be Constitutionalists yet recommend we go backwards to the miserable failure called The Articles of Confederation....

Tilt at windmills much?

The Articles, though imperfect were just fine. Not so much for the nationalists who wanted a more energetic government, with the power to tax, raise armies etc. So when the time came to revise them a bit, they closed the doors and scraped the whole thing.

Merrill Jensen puts this myth to rest in his book The New Nation, a myth that only benefits those who want a strong central state.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Nation-Histo ... 0394705270" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Synopsis here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2013 ... .html#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'll side with Elder Oaks on the history....and not the banker funded crap....

Merrill Jensen, an obscure professor of constitutional history, who wrote the book in 1950 and died in 1980 is part of the banker funded crap? You would think ideas funded by such would have bigger influence. But instead, almost everybody believes the opposite, taught to school children throughout the land, without a peep of counter argument. So tell me: What's the real agenda here?

It's nice you agree with Elder Oaks. I'm sure I agree with him on some things too. I used to make sure I agreed on everything with at least somebody who had the designation Elder in front. It's comforting.

[ajax]

...hundreds of thousands of others did not agree with you.

Trust me, as a non-LDS Mormon libertarian anarchist, I'm used to it.

The contradictions speak volumes....

This was tongue in cheek, meant to make fun of myself and have others smile (see the smile I put behind it?)

I figured a man-worshipping mantle-sniffing statist wouldn't get it.

Of course I really don't define myself by any one word. "I'm just a simple man, trying to make my way in the universe."

[ajax]

ajax,

George, there is no such thing as half-seceding.

You make my point as you argue that I am wrong. Of course there is no such thing as half seceding.

Maybe you can understand an analogy. Obviously, not logic and facts.

I am... or at least try to be what many here sneeringly call a TBM. As such, I am a Christian. I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord, Savior and master. If Satan came to me and offered to negotiate sweet terms to worship him. I think I would be willing to go to war over that, because no matter how he may make it sound sweet. His premise is unacceptable. I might even be willing to go to war over it, even if 1/3 of the hosts of heaven were to be condemned to hell for it.

Regards,

George Clay

I guess this means you were for the Brits against the slavery owning colonies. And that Declaration nonsense by that slave owning Virginian is an embarrassment.

[gclayjr]

Ajax,

I guess this means you were for the Brits against the slavery owning colonies. And that Declaration nonsense by that slave owning Virginian is an embarrassment.

You mean the Slave Holding Brits. In 1776, Slavery was still legal and common in Britain. As far as that Declaration Nonsense. It was that thorn in the side of America, that kept pricking everybody with the hypocrisy of all declaring universal rights from God for all, but not giving it to Black people. Without that, few consciences would have been stirred to removed that hypocrisy. Even by war, if necessary.


I thought you were getting smart enough to let go without making further irrational statements!

Go ahead, and opine, about how you think that having no central government is great, even if the states demanded that absolute sovereignty, for the express purpose of enslaving people and persecuting and killing religious minorities, like Mormons. But when you try and connect your ideas to historical events, it would be better if you just checked out your facts first. You wouldn't come across as such an uninformed ideologue.

Regards,

George Clay


REgards,

[ajax]

Ajax,

I guess this means you were for the Brits against the slavery owning colonies. And that Declaration nonsense by that slave owning Virginian is an embarrassment.

You mean the Slave Holding Brits. In 1776, Slavery was still legal and common in Britain. George, you realize that slavery was still legal in the United States in 1861. And when Lincoln decided to invade the already seceded seven deep Southern states, there were still more slaves inside the union than outside. EDIT: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=42758&p=721166#p721166" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; As far as that Declaration Nonsense. It was that thorn in the side of America, that kept pricking everybody with the hypocrisy of all declaring universal rights from God for all, but not giving it to Black people. Without that, few consciences would have been stirred to removed that hypocrisy. Even by war, if necessary. I like the Declaration. The comment was sarcastic.

I thought you were getting smart enough to let go without making further irrational statements! Fighting irrational with irrational is fun. Exposing statism is my public service.

Go ahead, and opine, about how you think that having no central government is great, even if the states that demand absolute sovereignty, do so so that they can enslave people and persecute and kill religious minorities, like Mormons. But when you try and connect your ideas to historical events, it would be better if you just checked out your facts first. You wouldn't come across as an uninformed ideologue. Decentralization is better than centralization imo. And the states did retain their sovereignty, minus what was expressly delegated. And handful of states wouldn't ratify unless this was stated so.

Regards,

George Clay


REgards,

[Jason]

It is comforting!

Another example proving my hypothesis that modern libertarians will either divorce their beliefs of every man is a law unto himself....or separate themselves from the Lord, King, & Savior's kingdom and government.

The philosophies...while appearing to overlap at some points of doctrine....are contradictory.

There are only two sides...and no neutral ground. Either choose to love and serve the one...or lose your agency and be a slave to the other.

[Ezra]

It is comforting!

Another example proving my hypothesis that modern libertarians will either divorce their beliefs of every man is a law unto himself....or separate themselves from the Lord, King, & Savior's kingdom and government.

The philosophies...while appearing to overlap at some points of doctrine....are contradictory.

There are only two sides...and no neutral ground. Either choose to love and serve the one...or lose your agency and be a slave to the other.

I agree on there being only 2 sides. Gods or not.

How does Lincoln actions (unconstitutional) war rate on your scale? And then the consiquenses? Were his chosen philosophies he used good or evil? Gods or not?

Can a government be gods but not use gods methods?

[gclayjr]

Ezra, Ajax and all

Apparently Marion G Romney doesn't have as poor a view of Lincoln's Character as you do. From his 1974 Conference speech.

Abraham Lincoln demonstrated his great integrity in his famous house-divided speech. John Wesley Hill, in his book Abraham Lincoln—Man of God, says: “Lincoln showed his independence and tenacity of purpose when he wrote his address accepting the nomination for United States Senator. … This is known as ‘The House Divided Against Itself’ speech. It embodied the historic declaration that the Union could not exist ‘half slave and half free.’ To his friend, Jesse K. Dubois, Lincoln said:

“‘I refused to read the passage about the house divided against itself to you, because I knew you would ask me to change or modify it, and that I was determined not to do. I had willed it so and was willing, if necessary, to perish with it. I would rather be defeated with this expression in the speech … than to be victorious without it.’” (Abraham Lincoln—Man of God, New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1927, p. 151.)

Now it took real courage for Lincoln to leave that “half slave and half free” sentence in his speech. He was ambitious, and it seemed that through the Senate was the way to the presidency, but the political climate at the time was not ready for the stand he took on that issue. The probability was that the statement would mean defeat in his race for the Senate, and that’s what it turned out to be. All this Lincoln well knew; nevertheless, he had the integrity to act in harmony with his convictions. Although his course did shut the door to the Senate, fortunately for the country, it later opened the door to the presidency.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... y?lang=eng

There are many more, but I know that in your own minds, you all better understand Lincoln's character that any of our General authorities

Regards,

George Clay

[ajax]

George, appeal to authority = fallacy.

FYI, GAs are people too, with opinions just like everybody else. Some good, some not so good, most of which are formed just like everybody else's, from families, friends, school, government propaganda etc.

I used to be a person that before I formed an opinion, I would see what the GAs said, and wallah, I always agreed with them. Over time I figured that was pretty stupid, and they aren't magical crystal balls regarding every topic known to man and that I ought to think things out for myself.

btw, Brigham called Lincoln a scoundrel.

[gclayjr]

Ajax,

You do like to pick and choose. You don't mention that that was an early opinion of Brigham Young, but it changed.

The clinching act of diplomacy that endeared Lincoln to Utah Mormons, Hubbard relates, was an interview that the president provided then-active Mormon T.B.H. Stenhouse in 1863. The thrust of Lincoln's remarks as to the Mormons was to let them have autonomy in Utah. Lincoln, to Stenhouse, said, “You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.”

That advice was manna to Mormon leaders, who had sought without success such a policy for 33 years. From that point on, the Mormon change of opinion on Lincoln was complete. Hubbard writes, “As a result, the Mormon population had become fervent supporters of Abraham Lincoln, and they were looking forward to his re-election.”

http://www.mormonthink.com/glossary/abraham-lincoln.htm

But then you are not trying to express truth, you are figuring out how to selectively select stuff that fits your narrative.

Regards,

George Clay