Lincoln and The War of Northern Aggression

I have a way of getting into arguments about the character of Abraham Lincoln, sixteenth President of the United States of America, and the causes of the War of Northern Aggression, A.K.A. the “Civil” War. This happens because they tell me that Lincoln was an honest man, that he was a “great American.” They tell me that he “freed the slaves” and that he believed in racial equality. They tell me that the War was fought to end slavery. They tell me, also, that States’ rights were not the issue, because the States were not, in and of themselves, Sovereign Entities, that in point of fact, it was the Union that held Sovereignty over the individual States. I say that these are lies perpetuated by the real traitors to the United States, and taught as fact to generations of schoolchildren after the War ended.

I say that the “Great Emancipator” was not only a liar, but a traitor to his country, the Constitution, his Oath of Office, and his people. I also say that he was, like many of his time, a white supremacist. I say that he was a man without honor. I say that he perverted and desecrated the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Paris (1783), and the Constitution, the very documents that the United States is founded upon. I say that his invasion of the South was illegal. I say that the Confederacy fought not to maintain the institution of slavery, per se, but for the right of self-determination, and to preserve the Constitution of the United States. I offer the following as proof.

States’ Sovereignty

Action of Second Continental Congress, 4 July, 1776
The unanimous Declaration (of the Independence) of the thirteen united States of America
Final Paragraph

We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do…

Articles of Confederation, 1 March, 1781
Article 2

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

The Paris Peace Treaty of 3 September, 1783
The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783
Article 1

His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States… to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

John Dickinson, Author of the Articles of Confederation, 29 April, 1788

“… a territory of such extent as that of United America, could not be safely and advantageously governed, but by a combination of republics (the individual states), each retaining all the rights of supreme sovereignty.”

The Constitution of the United States of America, 21 June, 1788
Article 4, Section 2, Clause 2

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Tenth Amendment; Bill of Rights

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Lincoln on State’s Sovereignty

Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, 4 March, 1861
Paragraph 6

Resolved, that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”

So…
Our Founding Fathers intended that the individual states should be sovereign entities, and they worded the documents that defined this nation very deliberately to make that point. The final paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, signed 4 July, 1776, does refer to the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” Many take this to mean that the Union is sovereign. However, after this reference is made, the Declaration then states that “these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES… and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do.” This deliberate phrasing speaks to the sovereignty of the individual States. Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation, signed 1 March, 1781, says, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” This particular document was, in all honesty, simply a precursor to the Constitution of the United States, but it does make a point of stating that each state “retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence” before saying, “…and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” It was no mistake that the states’ freedom, independence, and sovereignty were guaranteed before any mention was made of powers delegated to the Federal government.

John Dickinson

The Paris Peace Treaty of 3 September, 1783, the treaty that ended the Revolutionary War, declares the States to be “free sovereign and independent.” These words are nothing less than a direct affirmation of the States’ sovereignty. On 29 April, 1788, John Dickinson, author of the Articles of Confederation, wrote that, “… a territory of such extent as that of United America, could not be safely and advantageously governed, but by a combination of republics (the individual states), each retaining all the rights of supreme sovereignty.” Article 4, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States, signed 21 June, 1788, says, “A Person charged in any State with Treason… [shall be] be delivered up… to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.” I submit to you that if one can be charged with treason against a State, and said State can try that person for treason, then that State, not the Federal government, is therefore sovereign.

The Tenth Amendment, the final amendment in the Bill of Rights, of the Constitution reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” While this is does not declare States’ total sovereignty, it does affirm States’ sovereignty not only in matters not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution, but also in matters not mentioned in the document. Lastly, according to Lincoln himself, each State has the right “to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively” and armed Federal troops engaging in hostile activities against “any State or Territory, no matter what pretext,” is a “lawless invasion” and “among the gravest of crimes.” Clearly, each State was meant to be a sovereign entity, in and of itself.

Right of Secession

Action of Second Continental Congress, 4 July, 1776
The unanimous Declaration (of the Independence) of the thirteen united States of America
Preamble; Second Paragraph

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…

Final Paragraph

… That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do…

Articles of Confederation, 1 March, 1781
Article 3

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

The Constitution of the United States of America, 21 June, 1788
Does not cover the issue of secession
Tenth Amendment; Bill of Rights

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Lincoln on the Right of Secession

Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln’s Speech to the House of Representatives on the War with Mexico,
12 January, 1848
Paragraph 13, Lines 6 through 10

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.”

Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, 4 March, 1861
Paragraph 31, lines 1 and 2

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”

So…
The preamble of the Declaration of Independence, signed 4 July, 1776, contained the first precedence for the Right of Secession in the United States. It is true that the word secession, nor any form of it, is used in the Declaration of Independence. However, the word “secede” means “to separate from,” and by separating themselves from the rule of Great Britain, the colonies were indeed seceding. The part of the preamble that speaks to the right of secession says, “…that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…” When speaking of secession, the key word here is “alter.” Many will argue that this does not “legalize” secession, but it is not the only precedence. The final paragraph of the Declaration of Independence contains the phrase “… and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power… [to do all] Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do.” I submit to you that an independent state may, in fact, secede from any confederation it is a part of, at any time, for any reason. Article 3 of the Articles of Confederation, signed 1 March, 1781, states that, “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other…” A “league of friendship” is certainly not indicative of having a sovereign central government, and could arguably be parted from at any given time.

One of the most used arguments against the legality of secession is that the Constitution of the United States, signed 21 June, 1788, doesn’t allow for it. This is true. However it is only part of the truth. The whole truth is that the Constitution doesn’t mention secession at all, in any way, shape, or form, in which case we must refer to the Tenth Amendment, which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Hence, if the people of a state or states want to secede from the Union, it is perfectly legal from a constitutional standpoint. On 12 January, 1848, Abraham Lincoln himself said, in a speech to the House of Representatives on the War with Mexico, that, “Any people anywhere… have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better… Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” If Lincoln did not think secession was legal, he should have been more careful with his words, especially after the Nullification Crisis of 1832. During his first Inaugural Address on 4 March, 1861, Lincoln said, “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.” As to whether or not the Right of Secession was perfectly legal by a constitutional standpoint, there can be no doubt that is was, and still is, and according to the defining documents of this nation, it was definitely a right of any State.

Lincoln on Racial Equality

Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln’s fourth debate with Stephen Douglas, 18 September, 1858
Paragraph 1, lines 3 and 4

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor 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 I believe will forever 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 favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

So…
The majority of people believe that Abraham Lincoln was a righteous man who believed in racial equality for all, and, perhaps because of this, that he believed that the slaves in America should be free. Nothing could be further from the truth. On 18 September, 1858, during his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas, he said, “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor 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 I believe will forever 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 favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

This statement makes his feelings on the subject perfectly clear. Not only did he have no intentions of giving blacks social or political equality, he did not intend that they should have the right to vote or even sit on a jury, let alone hold a public office. He did not intend to allow them to marry whites, either. He believed that there was some “physical difference” between blacks and whites, and that this “difference” would “forever forbid” the two races of being socially or politically equal. His belief was, that since they could never be socially or politically equal, that there must be positions of “superior and inferior,” and he would have the “superior position assigned to the white race.” This single statement is proof indisputable of Lincoln’s bent toward white supremacy.

Lincoln on Slavery

Excerpts from Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, 4 March, 1861
Paragraph 4

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Quoting Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States
Paragraph 9

No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

Paragraph 32, lines 3 and 4

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution [the Corwin Amendment] – which amendment, however, I have not seen – has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley, 22 August, 1862
Paragraph 3, line 7

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

So…
On the subject of freeing the slaves, on 4 March, 1861, during his first Inaugural Address, he said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” He couldn’t be much clearer than, “I have no purpose… to interfere with the institution of slavery… and I have no inclination to do so.” A few minutes later, in order to back up his stance legally, he quoted Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States, saying “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” Later in the speech, he referred to the Corwin Amendment, the first proposed Thirteenth Amendment, proclaiming, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution… has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service… holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

The Corwin Amendment, which had passed both the House of Representatives and Senate only hours prior to this speech, would have, had it been ratified, made slavery a permanent institution in the states in which it existed at the time, if those states so wished. It read, “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” Lincoln not only had “no objection to its being made express and irrevocable,” he actually supported it. In a letter to Horace Greeley, founder and editor of the New York Tribune, dated 22 August, 1862, he stated, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” The Emancipation Proclamation (issued 1 year, 9 ½ months after the war started) and the ensuing use of abolition as a cause for war were nothing more than moves, albeit wise moves, on the political chessboard. Lincoln cared not one whit about the morality, or lack thereof, of slavery; it was all about politics for him.

Lincoln on War with the Confederate States of America

Excerpts from Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, 4 March, 1861
Paragraph 3, lines 1 and 2

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension.”

Paragraph 20, line 2

The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

So…
In his first Inaugural Address, on 4 March, 1861, Abraham Lincoln claimed that there had never been, and by way of phrasing, was not, “any reasonable cause for… apprehension” on the part of the people of the South that their “property and their peace and personal security” would be in jeopardy because the Republican Party had come into power. Apparently, Lincoln considered Southerners to be too stupid to realize the ramifications of the Morrill Tariff, which had been signed into law two days before by out-going President James Buchanan, and which, being whole-heartedly supported by Lincoln himself, could not be expected to be repealed. Several minutes later, speaking of possible military action against the Southern States, Seven of which had by this time seceded, Lincoln said, “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

Not a word was said about the institution of slavery. What Lincoln attempting to do here was to give his invasion of the South legal substance through the Force Act of 1832, which gave the President of the United States the power to use armed force in the collection of Customs duties from any state in the Union. The problem here is that on in early February of 1861, the seven states that had already legally seceded from the Union had formed a new government for themselves, the Confederate States of America, and on 9 February, had elected Jefferson Finis Davis of Mississippi as Provisional President of the Confederate States of America.

Because the Confederate States were a “foreign” entity, Lincoln had no legal right at all, even by the Force Act, to collect any kind of taxes, Customs or otherwise, by force or any other means, from those states. But invade, he did, and then he let William Tecumseh Sherman and Philip Sheridan wage war on women, children, and the elderly. He allowed them to implement their “scorched earth” policy, raping, pillaging, and murdering, burning homes, towns, and farms, and slaughtering livestock with the intention of starving the civilian population of the South to death in order to fulfill Sherman’s purpose of “extermination, not of soldiers alone… but the people” of the South, as he wrote in a letter to his wife in 1862. Abraham Lincoln was a liar; a man without honor to whom the ends were justified by any means.

Lincoln’s Violation of the Constitution by Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

The Constitution of the United States of America
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (Bill of Rights)
Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So…
Lincoln accused the Southern states of committing treason by seceding, but there is no mention of secession in the Constitution which means that the Tenth Amendment must be referred to, and it states that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” which means, by way of absolutely no constitutional prohibition, secession is indeed legal, and therefore, is not treason. Lincoln, on the other hand, did commit treason, although he was never called on it, let alone charged, and he did it five times, in the same exact way, by suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus. On 10 May, 1861, he issued Proclamation 84, declaring martial law and suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Islands of Key West, Florida. On 2 July, 1861, he issued an Executive Order authorizing General Winfield Scott to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus between New York City and Washington, D.C. On 14 October, 1861, he issued an Executive Order suspending of the Writ of Habeas Corpus between Bangor, Maine, and Washington, D.C. On 2 December, 1861, he issued an Executive Order authorizing General H.W. Halleck to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the State of Missouri. On 24 September, 1862, he issued Proclamation 94, declaring martial law and suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus throughout the United States.

Many will ask, “How was this treason?” It was treason because Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America states that, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it,” but it does not indicate with whom the power to do so lies. However, as previously pointed out, the Tenth Amendment states that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Hence, the Writ of Habeas Corpus could not legally be suspended by any branch of the Federal government. Therefore, by taking it upon himself to suspend the Writ, Lincoln violated the Constitution that he was sworn uphold, which was an act of treason; five of them to be exact. On 15 September, 1863, Lincoln issued Proclamation 104, again suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus throughout the United States, and on 5 July, 1864, he issued Proclamation 113, declaring martial law in, and further suspending of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in, the state of Kentucky, but on these two occasions it was legal. It was legal on these two occasions because, on 3 March, 1863, Congress, probably because they feared charges of treason being called for upon the President in the middle of a war, passed the “Habeas Corpus Suspension Act,” which authorized the President of the United States to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. He had done it so many times that Congress finally passed a law to give him the right to do it, but that does not change the fact that Abraham Lincoln, on five different occasions, committed acts of treason by violating the Constitution of the United States and his Oath of Office.

Proof that the War of Northern Aggression was not About Slavery

Fact #1
The first battle of the War was the Battle of Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, fought 12-13 April, 1861, after President Lincoln made an attempt to resupply an reinforce the Federal forces that were garrisoned there.

Fact #2
On 11 January, 1864, a resolution for a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery was submitted to the Congress of the United States.

Fact #3
The Thirteenth Amendment was passed by the United States Senate on 8 April, 1864, and was passed by the House of Representatives on 31 January, 1865. It was signed by President Abraham Lincoln on 01 February, 1865, but it was not ratified until 6 December, 1865.

Fact #4
On 14 April, 1865, Lincoln was shot in the back of the head in Ford’s Theater in Washington, D.C. at 10:15 p.m. He died of his wound at 7:22 a.m. the next morning, 15 April, 1865.

Fact #5
The government of the Confederate States of America was dissolved on 5 May, 1865, and the war officially ended 2 June, 1865, 48 days after Lincoln was killed.

Fact #6
In the Border States of Kentucky and Delaware, approximately 40,000 slaves were not freed until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified on 6 December, 1865.

So…
The War of Northern Aggression started at 4:30 a.m. on 12 April, 1861 at the battle of Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. On 11 January, 1864, a resolution for a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery in the United States of America was submitted to the Congress of the United States. The Thirteenth Amendment, making slavery illegal in the United States, was passed by the United States Senate on 8 April, 1864, and was passed by the House of Representatives on 31 January, 1865. It was signed by President Abraham Lincoln on 01 February, 1865, but it was not ratified until 6 December, 1865.

Two and a half months after signing the Thirteenth Amendment, on 14 April, 1865, Lincoln was shot in the back of the head and died of his wound the next morning, 15 April, 1865. The government of the Confederate States of America was dissolved on 5 May, 1865, and the war officially ended 2 June, 1865, 48 days after Lincoln was killed. In the Border States of Kentucky and Delaware, approximately 40,000 slaves were not freed until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified on 6 December, 1865.

What does all this mean? It means that President Lincoln and the Federal Government didn’t even start the legal process to abolish slavery until two years, eight months, and twenty-nine days after the first shot of the war, and that it took the Congress of the United States one year and twenty days to pass the Thirteenth Amendment; three years, nine months, and nineteen days after the first shot of the war was fired. The Thirteenth Amendment was not ratified until four years, seven months, and twenty-five days after the first shot of the war was fired, six months and four days after the war ended. There were slaves in Northern States, or Border states, if you will, not only during the war, but for six months and four days after it ended, seven months and forty-five days after the assassination of Lincoln, and ten months and six days after Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment, right up until the day it was ratified… They kept them as long as they legally could. Clearly, the War of Northern Aggression was not about ending slavery in the United States.

In closing, let me say that I do not hold anyone accountable for believing what they were taught about Lincoln in school. However, I do hold them responsible for continuing to believe it once they have been exposed to the truth; ignorance is excusable, stupidity is not, nor is denial. The facts of the matter are that Abraham Lincoln was indeed a liar, a traitor, and a white supremacist. He started an illegal war under false pretenses, leading to the deaths of nearly three-quarters of a million of his countrymen, Blue and Gray, military and civilian. He destroyed the United States that was; the United States as it was meant to be. He was a dishonorable excuse for a man, and he deserved the dishonorable death that was his. What he did not deserve was the divine status that history has accorded him, nor the affection of the American people… Sic Semper Tyrannis!

K. Lance Spivey, 27 July, 2017
Revised 23 September, 2017
Deo Vindice… [><]

Another Take: Lincoln the Dwarf: Lyon Gardiner Tyler’s War on the Mythical Lincoln

Leave a Reply