Join The Debate!

Lincoln's compassion forced the attack

JT73 writes: “I am weary of hearing Lincoln raked over the coals by those who want to make the point of states rights. ….He was a man of compassion.

I also tend to believe that the reconstruction of the south would have gone much better had Lincoln not been shot.

…… he was a man of and for his times… I believe the results of the south's secession would have proven worse. Though, I did read in one book that the seceeding states would likely have rejoined at a later date.

Would that the political issue (States' rights) had not gotten mixed up with the social and moral issue (slavery).

History is not always to be understood in terms of good guys an bad guys...often it is good guys doing the best they can with the hand they are dealt.”


Lincoln is reviled because of his corrupted character and world view that was in direct contradiction to the Revolution, the founder’s vision and virtue of this country. Here is the vision,

The Declaration of Independence, “…. 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 to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, …...”

It said that there is a God given natural law for animals of association. Except for Lincoln, this still is the AmeriKan vision and we endorse the break up of Russia so that countries can have their independent association, Canada, we had no problem with the split, Taiwan, we keep ships nearby to defend their right of association, Africa nations, Serbia, Bosnia we still have troops there defending the freedom of associations in that region, North & South Korea, we keep troops on hand to defend that right of association. In fact only in AmeriKa when the word secession is spoken do we applaud the Revolution and condemn the nasty South in the War Of Northern Aggression. Lincoln’s world view was to deny folks the freedom of association and by the gun barrel force them to submit. The guy was a lawyer, who understood the Declaration, the Constitution and all the implications and was clever on making up bogus legal arguments to justify his crime. This is a criminal calling the card game and not some unknowing compassionate guardian being dealt a bad hand.

Do you believe a women who’s husband beats her and mentally abuses her should have the right of association or should she be forced to endure him for life at gun point. Should you, by gun point, be forced to spend your working career under an abusive boss or should you be permitted free association. THIS IS A LAW OF NATURE, and men only wants to violate it because they have a corrupt ungodly unnatural worldview and lust for more power.

He is not the saint that revisionist collectivist historians created, just because to the victor goes the right to rewrite history. We recently had a serial rapist as President and after the video, The Man From Hope, he will go down in history as a cross between mother Teresa and the second coming. I can see the historians spin on the Paul Jones affair. Our compassionate president noticing a young woman across the room, clearly crest fallen and sad caught the eye of our great leader. Being a real man, but with a keen sense of discernment he realized her demeanor was caused by her fear that she was so close but yet galaxies away to fulfill her fantasy, that a serf had no right to think, and bed down with the Alpha male. Like Lincoln, being a man who gave direct access to the little people of the public, our great leader willingly sacrificed himself and had her escorted to his bed. My friend get a grip, these guys are sociopaths, that is why they lust for the office.

Lincoln was known as a vile smut mouth and many refused to be in his company. I truly doubt he was a man of compassion or having such other great virtues. Truth be known, I suspect almost all presidents are sociopaths. There is something terribly different in the wiring of somebody who lusts to be ruler over others.

Harvard Professor Pitirim Sorokin, in a survey of rulers throughout history, “the rulers of the states are the most criminal group in a respective population.”

"A bureaucrat is the most despicable of men, though he is needed as vultures are needed, but one hardly admires vultures whom bureaucrats so strangely resemble. I have yet to meet a bureaucrat who was not petty, dull, almost witless, crafty or stupid, an oppressor or a thief, a holder of little authority in which he delights, as a boy delights in possessing a vicious dog. Who can trust such creatures?" -- Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) Roman orator, statesman

Sitting Bull, " Tell them in Washington that if they have one man who speaks the truth, to send him to me and I will listen. I don't believe in a government that has made 52 treaties with the Sioux and has kept none of them."

Thomas Jefferson, “When it comes to matters of power, talk no more of faith in man, but bind him down with the chains of the Constitution”. Kentucky Resolutions 1798

Compassion, morals and behavior are not based on what the deed is but what the yard stick is. Ayn Rand had a code that happened to be similar to the Christian code on concern for your fellow man. Was this atheist moral? No, no different than if a killer leaving the scene happens to stop and buy a kid an ice cream cone is compassionate. They are doing what they feel like doing or what is just in their private world view. Calling Lincoln moral or compassionate is like saying there are 7 billion codes of private morality. Compassion and moral is when you do that yardstick which is set by some outside authority, be it the Bible or Boy
Scout, etc. Living by your own made up code, no matter if identical to the Boy Scouts, does not make you moral, a scout or Christian or anything else. If he abided by the Bible, the Declaration or the Constitution then 600,000 lives would have been saved and he would have submitted his worldview to a yardstick and therefore have been moral and compassionate.

Now to put things in context, states rights actually was a Northern experience before Lincoln came along. When Northern states had started secession, compromises were worked out. Secession was a normal activity going back to the Bible when part of Solomon’s Kingdom seceded upon his death. Secession is a natural law for the minority to have a means of bargaining for fairness rather than be crushed by the majority.

I do agree that reconstruction would have progressed better under Lincoln. I don’t think he was as concerned with punishing the South as he was with merely holding onto the power that the entire geography afforded him. I think he was merely frightened by the thought that the secession would all be attributed to his legacy. All these leaders are filled with themselves and consumed with their image. Have you been working on your legacy today? Of course not, you just want to live a good life in peace.

I truly don’t think Lincoln was a man of his times. I don’t think what he did was inevitable nor could a compromise not have been worked out as had always been the case before. I don’t think subjugating man against his will was even necessary or expected of these times nor consistent with our history. It is like saying Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, were men of their times and that their actions where the appropriate response. I think an argument could be made that they created the times of huge social strive for unsound reasons, being failure to acknowledge the God given natural law of association.

Southern States having experienced their worst fears of signing the Constitution would never have joined with the North again, but rather would have signed a mutual defense treaty. That the South would have not succeeded on its own is certainly questionable, and probably was a great concern of the nanny state, looking out for their welfare and therefore killed 600,000 to help them survive. Love the logic.

However, I suspect they would have had a hard start, but would have become the powerhouse of the world within 30 years. Southern industrious folks not being financially robbed by the North would have come back, considering they started well ahead of Mexico that survived somehow without Lincoln’s compassionate concern. Slavery would have ended in 20 to 30 years as it was just not economically sustainable. Sowell writes on the inverse relation between slavery and states economies, lasting harm existing today. Only free people are really productive. Under slavery you have the master making believe he pays the slave and the slave making believe he is working. Both loose.

States rights had little to do with slavery. Read his opening salvo speech. That is a Lincoln sycophant’s canard. I could accept that argument if under the Just War of St. Augustine, the North would have taken troops into the South, freed the slaves and then return home. That is not what the plan ever was, nor did Lincoln free them in the North or along the Dixie border. That was propaganda to get support up North and try to cause rebellion in the South.

Lincoln wasn’t dealt this hand nor was killing your neighbors the best solution to quell your fears that secession might have proved worse than 600,000 dead. Buchanan and the South were just fine. It was Lincoln upon making his inaugural address that stated he is taking back the South. He called the card game, he dealt the cards, and he made up the rules as he chose. The “with the hand they are dealt” claim is like condemning the raped because the rapist was dealt this unfortunate hand.