AN EXPLANATION OF THE FACTIONS  
 

[ DONATE TO RMN ] [ Archive Search Page ] [ RMN Reading Room ] [ CGI Media News Room ] [ SUBSCRIBE TO RMN ]

RMN is Reader Supported

Our Goal for
MAR 6 - APR 5:
$1,500

Powered by FundRazr

Click Widget
or Click Here to contribute.

Checks & Money Orders:

Raye Allan Smith
P.O. Box 95
Ashtabula, OH 44005


Users Online:
118

Who Founded RMNews?


Dewitt Jones' Video
"Celebrate What's Right
With The World"


"When the
Starships Fly!"

Listen at YouTube


The Theme for The Obergon Chronicles

Listen at YouTube


The Obergon Chronicles ebook


RUMOR MILL
NEWS RADIO


CGI ROOM
Common Ground
Independent Media


WHAT ARE
THE FACTIONS?


THE AMAZING
RAYELAN ALLAN


BIORHYTHMS

LOTTO PICKS

OTHER WAYS TO DONATE





RUMOR MILL NEWS AGENTS WHO'VE BEEN INTERVIEWED ON RUMOR MILL NEWS RADIO

______________

NOVEMBER 2008

Kevin Courtois - Kcbjedi
______________

Dr Robin Falkov

______________

Melinda Pillsbury Hr1

Melinda Pillsbury Hr2

______________

Daneen Peterson

______________

Daneen Peterson

______________

Disclosure Hr1

Disclosure Hr2
______________

Scribe
______________

in_PHI_nitti
______________

Jasmine Hr1
Jasmine Hr2
______________

Tom Chittum Hr1
Tom Chittum Hr2
______________

Kevin Courtois
______________

Dr Syberlux
______________

Gary Larrabee Hr1
Gary Larrabee Hr2
______________

Kevin Courtois
______________

Pravdaseeker Hr1
Pravdaseeker Hr2
______________

DECEMBER 2008

Tom Chittum
______________

Crystal River
______________

Stewart Swerdlow Hr1
Stewart Swerdlow Hr2
______________

Janet Swerdlow Hr1
Janet Swerdlow Hr2
______________

Dr. Robin Falkov Hr1
Dr. Robin Falkov Hr2
Dr. Robin Falkov Hr3

JANUARY 2009 ______________

Patriotlad
______________

Patriotlad
______________

Crystal River
______________

Patriotlad
______________

Dr. Robin Falcov
______________

Patriotlad

FEBRUARY 2009

Find UFOs, The Apocalypse, New World Order, Political Analysis,
Alternative Health, Armageddon, Conspiracies, Prophecies, Spirituality,
Home Schooling, Home Mortgages and more, in:

Rumor Mill News Reading Room, Current Archive

PART OF THE ARCHIVES ARE WORKING AGAIN: 'LINCOLN'S SPEECH FROM 1860' RETRIEVED

Posted By: Patriotlad
Date: Tuesday, 24-Feb-2015 01:26:51
www.rumormill.news/11514


The Great Mr. Lincoln's Fraud -- February 27, 1860

Posted By: Patriotlad ~ Monday, 26-Feb-2001 15:57:05

[ BEGINS ]

From The Crittenden Proposition, or Joint Resolution, of 1861:

Article 7. Section 1.

"The elective franchise and the right to hold office, whether
Federal, State, territorial or municipal, shall not be
exercised by persons who are, in whole or part, of the African race."

Comprising Joint Resolutions to change the Constitution for the United States, the seven sections of amendment known as the Crittenden Proposition (or compromise), were soundly defeated in the House of Representatives just a few days before the President-Elect was to take his oath of office.

The vote was 113 to 80 on February 27th, 1861.

That man who was then the President-Elect, was of course, Mr. Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, a one-term Congressman who had obtained a pretty good reputation as a calculating and clever politician -- despite being rather well-known as a railroad lawyer.

It was very nearly the final act in a period of dramatic change and turmoil, one which had begun, both literally and precisely, just one year before on that day.

February 27th of 1860 was Mr. Lincoln's introduction to the intelligentsia of New York City; and furthermore -- it was as triumphant an hour of political discourse as has ever been recorded in these United States.

Virtually every word he said was recorded verbatim in the New York Times, which reported that a "large and enthusiastic assemblage" greeted Mr. Lincoln at the Cooper Union. The chairman of that event was William Cullen Bryant and their host that evening was David Dudley Field, Esquire ( a prominent New York lawyer ).

"Does the proper division of local from Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control Slavery in our Federal Territories? Upon this Senator [Stephen A.] Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative." He was received with such raucous enthusiasm that night, that both men of business and young men of ideals began to consider him as a serious candidate for the presidency.

It was a very dramatic development.

"As I would not be a slave," said Mr. Lincoln in a famous speech to an Indiana regiment of militia, in 1858, "so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." No doubt, many of the idealistic young men who heard him speak that night at Cooper Union were aware of his political views.

They had been popularized in the debates he had held with his opponent for the Senate, in 1858, that self-same Democratic leader, Mr. Douglas. The principal argument he made, constructing it from those points where he could rely on an original understanding of the Constitution ?- was that the federal government had and would always have jurisdiction over slavery in the new territories. He also alluded to the known writings of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, "the most noted Anti-Slavery men of those times," these founding fathers.

Mr. Lincoln argued from the Constitution for the supremacy of this federal power, but he made an assertion in the midst of his speech -- in fact, he made it several times -- that there were only twelve articles of amendment to be considered besides the original body and text, as drafted in Philadelphia. Bloody Kansas was among those new territories, and was itself in the process of seeking Statehood: but a close examination of the Territorial laws of Kansas, as issued in 1855, shows that there was a Thirteenth Amendment among those articles -- and that it had been a part of the Constitution since at least 1819! And what did it say, exactly?

Article 13

If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease
to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

Thus, this amendment -- found in the law books of the Territory of Kansas -- reads precisely the same way it did when it was published in "The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, As Revised and Enacted By The General Assembly in May 1821", and again and again, even as late as 1839, at the time of the case of La Amistad! It can be found in the Territorial Laws of Florida, and Iowa, and in the State Laws of Missouri and Maine ( also from the 1820s ).

That's right, citizenship in these United States was construed as being entirely under the control of the Congress and thus defined -- constitutionally -- as being contrary to all titles of nobility and to titles of honor ( sometimes spelled honour ).
Furthermore, the prohibition on accepting presents, pensions ( i.e., land or properties that pay an annual stipend ), offices or emoluments "of any kind whatsoever" could not be more clear or precise.

he men who gave the United States leadership in the Napoleonic era were, many of them, patriots and veterans of the Revolutionary War. Their experiences in the new, and only partly democratic, federal union of States led them to augment their law. their fundamental foundation of all laws, with a provision to stop spies, saboteurs and agents-provocateur from corrupting our elections. They sought, as well, to prevent royalist conspirators from buying our public officials with promises of land and noble or honorary titles. A similar proviso was offered when the Bill of Rights was drafted, but it was not deemed necessary at that time.

They were brilliant men, these fellows from Connecticut, Delaware and Georgia, who voted together to approve this Amendment, when they had almost nothing else in common! Their counterparts in the frontier States were enthusiastic for this article of amendment, considering that the Legislatures of Ohio and Georgia both passed it by unanimous votes. It was and is today, in its essentials, the last plank of the platform erected by The Bill of Rights. It has the same parentage.

It is the guarantee of free, fair elections.

Each category listed there has a specific meaning in law, and those have not changed much: emoluments were, and still are defined as including contributions to political campaigns. The question has been raised, often, about membership in the Knights of Columbus or the Knights of St. Patrick or of Lithuania. Are these memberships considered to be Titles of Honour? The answer is, according to a laborious inquiry conducted over the past four years, that they are not titles of honour (or honor).

To be a Knight of St. Patrick is to exercise the rights of free association, and as individuals, those persons who form such a society have and retain their rights of free speech, assembly, petition and redress. Neither the Knights of Columbus nor of Lithuania create any special standing in the State or federal courts of this union, no property rights are invested in those members which are not available to other citizens, and their membership roles do not confer immunities on the group or as a collection of individual citizens. Nor are their memberships, under law, hereditary privileges subject to primogeniture.

Having been charged with the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" Congress can obviously grant its consent to citizens who want to work for foreign-owned businesses, who conduct trade with foreign governments and agencies, or who might want to sail under another flag either as merchants or naval officers. And this can be codified in law, or it can be denied under federal law. Article I, Section 8 also charges Congress to make "an uniform Rule of Naturalization," and thus the original Thirteenth Amendment is grounded quite clearly in those varied and enumerated powers.

The question as to whether or not being a member of The Knights of the Hospital of St. John, otherwise known as the Knights of Malta, is a Title of Honour, is another subject entirely.

The modern usage in these United States does not seem to fit into the prohibited category, as it was created in 1810.

When the Knights of Malta were the dominant military power in the central Mediterranean, and when they had sovereign status under both a patent from the King of Spain and a Papal Bull, they were clearly in possession of Titles of Honour. That is the point of a military society, to create ranks of distinction amongst men who are otherwise equal in their origin and military prowess.

In many respects, the early organization of the Knights of Malta was as near to being republican, as anything in the world at that time! Certainly in their early years in the Holy Land and then when ensconced on Rhodes, their organization was a Christian brotherhood where the individual had certain rights and where some forms of wealth were pooled in a "mutual" association.

The Knights gained tremendous powers and new honors following their successful resistance to the Turkish onslaught, in the so-called Great Siege of 1565. They turned back a force of more than 40,000 men and 180 ships because the 9,000 or so defenders were willing to fight to the death for their castles and their order ( although many historians have noted that their vows of chastity and poverty were frequently honored in the breach ).

By the time Napoleon Bonaparte took Malta, in 1798, the Knights' powers had declined dramatically and they seemed to be more interested in fine silks and fine books, than in the fineries of war. They moved their headquarters operation to Rome and that is where the Order has remained since, although some sources claim that there was a definite split. Some parts of these Maltese Knights are said to have fled to Great Britain (but that is something for further research). Both the Knights of St. John and the Knights of the Temple have been associated, historically, with chivalry. That is honorable but not a Title of Honour.

At the time the Constitution was created, following the revolutionary war and the disturbances which accompanied life under the Articles of Confederation, Titles of Nobility were despised in this new country. Perhaps moreso than any other influence, the moral principles which kept George Washington in the vanguard of "republicanism," and Alexander Hamilton's crafty propaganda missives on his behalf, made all Titles suspect.

The history of the first twenty years of the union created by our constitution led the men who assembled in 1809 to seek to further expand a constitutional set of protections for their sovereign States, with particular regard to Titles of Honour and to foreign emoluments and "pensions," i.e., grants of land and quitrents. They knew that the British were stirring up rebellion on the western frontier and looking to create traitors in the States.

The War of 1812 intervened in the ratification process, once this article of amendment was issued by the Eleventh Congress, and the burning of the Library of Congress and the records of the House of Representatives -- in August of 1814 -- looks very much like an attempt to eradicate the republican government by fire! Yet the issue was left on the table in South Carolina, which did not reject the original Thirteenth Amendment, and so Virginia ratified it by including the legislation in a package of laws which had been "pretermitted" -- and which were passed en bloc.

By 1820 the federal Congress was caught up in new controversies over slavery and in disputes over the Bank of the United States. A report on the ratifications of this amendment was apparently never completed, although that does not change its lawful status. The TONA research committee has obtained proof that the Department of State -- charged with the responsibility of keeping track of all things constitutional from April of 1818 onwards, was duly notified of Virginia's action no later than 1823. But State publications of the Titles of Nobility Amendment were in progress -- as in Connecticut, which rejected the amendment -- and can be found in dozens of publications over fifty-plus years.

It was accepted as being the law in two of the three States which had turned it down, Connecticut and Rhode Island, and it was printed frequently by all six of the States which joined the union after 1812! Their original books of law, for the States of Illinois, Indiana, Missouri and Maine, contain this Article 13.

Why then, was this lawful article of amendment suppressed by pro-slavery lawyers, beginning in the late 1840's? Why do local or municipal Bar Associations ignore it in their publications of the Constitution, while the legislatures of Ohio (1848), and Kansas ( 1861 ), repeat their previous publications of it as being proper? And more to the point who has the lawful jurisidiction over the text of the Constitution, private groups of lawyers or sovereign State Legislatures and their conventions?

In fact, the State Legislature of Illinois passed resolutions to have their laws printed, at public expense, in six different editions throughout the 1820s and ?30s, with this original Thirteenth article included among the Amendments! So why would Abraham Lincoln, who served in that legislative body during that very era, say to that crowd at Cooper Union, "the present frame of Government under which we live consists of that original [instrument] and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since."

The U.S. Constitution had contained an Article XIII since 1819. But why? Why would he lie about it?

Could it be because he was in New York City, which was the center of the cotton brokerage business which was the very place where many hundreds of well-heeled lawyers were employed by the ship owners and financial agents who had been taking 'emoluments' from Spanish slavemasters for decades?

What was the dirty little secret of the legal establishment in those great cities where cotton was traded, where it was financed, and where both the crops and the ships that would carry cotton to France and England were insured? And as the slaves on certain southern plantations and on Delaware's and Maryland's farms were insured?

The secret is known today. Just as many fortunes in this country have been obtained by running illegal drugs, in the 20th Century now past, so in the mid-1800s there were fortunes to be made by running slaves. One of the other provisions of the Crittenden Proposition declares that "all State laws which conflict with the fugitive slave acts" be rendered "null and void." Not only that, the supporters of this compromise -- seeking to save the union -- wanted to act to augment the fees paid to commissioners who were charged with settling disputes over fugitive slaves. Thus they were willing to create a new bureaucracy to keep and protect slavery in those States where it was in existence, while continuing to restrict and prohibition the importation of new slaves! It was an impossible idea.

The original Thirteenth was not written to help abolish slavery as such, nor to promote the economic interests of the slave-owning States. It was passed by the Eleventh Congress, in 1810, for several specific purposes. First, it was created to help stop foreign agents from buying votes in State and federal elections, and secondly, it was written to stop spies and saboteurs from promising rich lands and hereditary titles to officers in the military, thus preventing the manufacture and preservation of American traitors.

There were many Federalists among the distinguished patriots and Senators who helped craft the exact, even Madisonian language of this amendment: and Connecticut's Senators Chauncey Goodrich, and James Hillhouse voted for it. They helped to create a lop-sided approval of 26 to 1 for these provisions, which were then sent to the House of Representatives. Animosity between those who followed the Federalist line based on George Washington's political views as understood by his former allies and the Democratic-Republicans, was intense.

Yet, with very little rancor or debate, the Representatives adopted this Joint Resolution to Amend by a tally of 87 to 3. One of those three negative votes came from Representative Killian Van Rensselaer, as did the sole vote against it in the Senate -- which was cast by John Smith, also of New York. Not surprisingly, then, the legislature of New York State rejected this article of amendment in its deliberations of 1812, and again in 1813. By then, the anti-Madison Federalists were gaining in strength, as they dominated both Connecticut and Rhode Island.

A comprehensive review of all the available State publications from that era, or the Jacksonian era as we now call it, reveals that even the Territory of Florida published this article of amendment as being correct and proper ( 1823 ). But when Florida becomes a slave-holding State in the union on March 3rd, 1845 its leaders of law acquire a mysterious case of amnesia. They cannot remember what their Territorial legislature voted to approve in the previous twenty-two years, when it comes to the fundamental laws of the union, the Constitution.

They can't even remember what they voted to publish in their law books in 1838!

It is worth noting that Joseph Anderson of Tennessee, who voted to approve the original Thirteenth in the Senate, later served as the Comptroller of the Treasury for twenty-one years, or from 1815 through 1836. He served eighteen years in the U.S. Senate before going to work for James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson at the Treasury.

He was one of the framers of the constitution of Tennessee; a soldier, a lawyer and a judge. In fact, it is not until the great Federalist lawyers like Timothy Pitkin, Junior, of Connecticut and their Jacksonian counterparts begin to die off, that pro-slavery members of the Bar can move to dispense with this Amendment, which they simply deleted, and which they simply "ignored to death."

Anderson dies in 1837. Timothy Pitkin, who voted for the original Thirteenth Amendment, serves as a delegate to the Connecticut constitutional convention of 1818, followed by eleven years in the State legislature. He was, therefore, well aware of his State's publication of the Constitution for the United States containing this article intact and in its proper place in both 1821 and 1824. There is no record of him ever complaining.

As a practicing lawyer in New Haven he would have found it in State books of law issued in 1835 and 1839: thus, it was in print in the books of the local lawyers who made certain that the case of La Amistad entered American history, by their actions taken at that time in the middle of 1839 and into '40.

"No one who has sworn to support the Constitution," said Lincoln, returning to that February evening in 1860, "can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it". Yet it is clear that in seeking the votes required by the use of the restricted general ticket for Electors -- otherwise known as 'winner-take-all,'

Mr. Lincoln had no such scruples. He was in the wealthiest city in the country, presented to them as being the "gallant soldier of the political campaign of 1856." Yet he set about describing our Constitution in the terms established by the pro-slavery lawyers and the cotton-bound politicians of Louisiana and New York, who had propelled James Buchanan into the presidency in that previous campaign.

As the President in 1860, James Buchanan, who was once deemed "the greatest jurist of the age" was, in fact, the man who engineered the subversion and the "disappearance" of this lawful Amendment -- by a series of clever actions taken in 1846. It was James Buchanan who, after becoming Secretary of State, subsidized and approved the most comprehensive new edition of the Constitution then available, ostensibly by one William Hickey, Esquire. It was endorsed by him and Roger Taney.

Magnificently printed and organized, this copy of the Constitution differs so dramatically from those being published by State and Territorial legislatures: in this volume ( which goes through several editions through 1854 ), the seventy-seven words of the original Thirteenth Amendment are omitted. Furthermore, despite having a complete analysis of the other twelve amendments, any reference to the votes of 1810 or to the ratifications of the several State legislatures are omitted as well and yet there is an excellent analysis of the Bill of Rights. All of this represents the social earthquake called "the case of La Amistad."

"Those who now insist that Federal control of Slavery in Federal Territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates;" said Lincoln, "and, as I understand, they all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles and not in the original instrument."

But what trick of fate could have given The Great Emancipator, Lincoln, a case of constitutional amnesia, the same malady afflicting those lawyers and law-givers who controlled Florida and Louisiana, in 1846 ?

Was it the power of money? Cotton-brokerage money?

Of course, Lincoln was absolutely right the federal charter did provide for its jurisdiction over slavery in the territories, when acquired by treaty or by the cession of land from the original States ( like Mississippi ). The amnesia can only be explained by understanding this: in New York City, the "boss lawyer" of all that gentry and of the legal establishment was one Charles O'Conor, the leader of their Bar Association, a virulent racist and a leading opponent of Negro suffrage.

"These children of the West, my friends," said William Cullen Bryant as he introduced Abraham Lincoln that night in 1860, "form a living bulwark against the advance of Slavery, and from them is recruited the vanguard of the armies of liberty." By this rhetorical device did the great Bryant present Lincoln to an audience which was prepared to receive him. Prepared to endorse him, prepared to promote him and the brand-new Republican Party but which among its elders was completely unprepared and unwilling to let go of the profits that slave-trading with Spanish agents from Cuba could also provide. That was unwilling to risk severe fluctuations in their supplies of cotton, and thus, their profits.

And there was no question that men like William Seward of New York understood that winning the Presidential election, in 1860, would not happen unless they were adept at engineering a flood of money into their new Party, and to their office-hungry masses in the western States.

Nearly every strong proponent of the Republicans, and all of the prominent abolitionists, knew that southern Senators had picked the most easily controlled candidate for 1856 James Buchanan of Pennsylvania over one of their own, John A. Quitman. He was a Jacksonian-style hero and the former Governor of Mississippi, and he hated the Spanish even more than he despised those meddlesome northern preachers. Those same Senators, like Judah P. Benjamin of Louisiana, had helped muscle votes in the southern States, while as a Democrat, James Buchanan carried California, Illinois and Connecticut, outright. That campaign was fueled by money which had to come from the titans of the cotton business in the genteel south, and from their financiers in the northern cities (the ones who routed their bribes and their 'emoluments' through the attorneys-at-the Bar), men who were, even then, the elite or dominant social forces in New York, Providence and Boston.

That means, explicitly and precisely, that Spanish gold and British silver -- the profits of illegal slave-running and of the legal cotton trade -- bought the election of 1856 and put a weakling named James Buchanan into the presidency. Tom and John Slidell of New Orleans, on behalf of Senator Benjamin, pushed the irascible John Quitman out of the competition at their Democratic convention.

He had been exonerated of federal charges in a controversial trial in 1850, where he had accused the prosecuting attorney ? Judah P. Benjamin of accepting a bribe of $25,000 in Spanish gold. That case of "the Cuban Filibusters" involved a failed rebellion in Cuba, which was then (as it was at the time of the Amistad), the center of slave trafficking. And for his troubles, Congressman John A. Quitman, former Governor of Mississippi -- a State which published the original Thirteenth Amendment three different times, was poisoned at an inaugural dinner given in James Buchanan's honor, and died miserably six months later in 1857.

Four years passing, eighty Republicans and Democrats voted to approve all seven sections of the Crittenden Proposition. As it happens, Daniel Sickles and John McClernand ( who, like Lincoln, was from southern Illinois ), cast their two votes for the compromise Proposition, which was one of the last acts of the much-beleaguered Second Session of the 36th Congress. Both men would later serve Mr. Lincoln with great distinction as general officers in the Union army. But that day -- the compromise they sought, to help keep the federal union together, was voted down in the House of Representatives, by a tally of 113 to 80.

So what was the outcome of the events which Lincoln had helped set into motion at Cooper Union exactly one year before? Crittenden was defeated, so who actually won? Civil War stalwarts like McClernand and Sickles were so desperate to save the union, that they were willing to disenfranchise every future generation of those "persons who are, in whole or in part, of the African race." Then what?

The answer to that question comes in the text of the Corwin Amendment: it is the replacement proposal which advocates of John J. Crittenden's constitutional changes adopted in their last hours, and which had been sneaked past their Committee in the House. Passed on March 2nd, 1861, it reads exactly this way:

"Article Thirteen: 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."

It is the only amendment ever issued by Congress which contains -- in its actual text -- a numerical designation! This thing, the Corwin Amendment, was taken up by Illinois (where it was badly fumbled), and then ratified by only two States before it passed into obscurity. Thomas Corwin's Ohio was one of them. It was, like the previous versions kicked around by those who opposed the Crittenden proposals, designed to protect forever the laws governing slavery as they existed in the fifteen slaveholding States. It is still an active or pending, lawful amendment.

Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio, who was the author of that amendment in the House, was rewarded quite well by Abraham Lincoln. He was later sent to Mexico as our ambassador. In the Senate the resolution was presented by Mr. William Seward, of New York, and it passed. Nowadays, millions read about Abraham Lincoln every year, in the hundreds of books and papers which cover every detail of his life. Some have come to think of dear old "Honest Abe" with such reverence that he has become a secularized demi-god, a living political saint.

He was neither.

Abraham Lincoln lied to the massive crowd at Cooper Union on that February night in 1860, when he claimed that there were only "twelve amendatory articles" attached to the Constitution.

Why?

If the argument is made that Mr. Lincoln was just misinformed, how did he get that way? He was in the Illinois legislature! And why did Corwin's supporters, both Republicans and Democrats and many of them lawyers -- approve a new section for the Constitution which would have permanently displaced the original one? It was not necessary to assign it a number in its text!

There can be no other explanation for their actions on February 27th, 1861, and in the next few days thereafter: British silver and Spanish gold was floating everywhere in our Congress.

Mr. Lincoln was seeking the presidency when he crafted a message which was exactly what the young men, and the prominent leaders of New York City, wanted to hear.

To the young zealots, he preached the doctrine of a federal supremacy over Slavery, one which everyone knew would, in time, act to dissolve and abolish it. To the elders, who controlled the monies his Republicans would need to win in their States (with the restricted general ticket for Electors), the message could be heard even more clearly. The attorneys and cotton factors understood:

* That the Constitution as amended would be ignored wherever it was "inexpedient" to enforce all of its provisions. The parts suppressed by stealth would remain that way. The society mavens and the cotton brokers and their phalanx of lawyers and attorneys -- all of them having been corrupted by Spanish gold, itself washed in the blood of African and mulatto slaves -- would never be called to an accounting.

They were risk-protected.

* They understood that there would never be a hostile Congress, where angry free blacks or "the coloreds" would demand that the true costs of slavery be lawfully evaluated. One where the provisions of genius, the hard political rules established by the leading men of James Madison's era, would force them to choose between their rich mansions, their money, and their very citizenship and franchise.

Mr. Lincoln told the Cooper Union "assemblage" what they wanted to hear, and almost all of it was right and proper and constitutionally-based. But he lied deliberately, about the Constitution for the United States. He lied boldly and calmly.

Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer. Did he somehow practice law without ever reading from the Illinois Statutes? He had to know that the Illinois State law books of the 1820s, '30s and on through 1845 contained the original Thirteenth Amendment, in its proper place. What else can be deduced from his self-inflicted amnesia, which was the same mental sickness which was afflicting all of the great leaders of the Democratic Party, like Henry Clay, in that day and age?

The whole country descended into a kind of madness secessionism was more than a political calling, it became a normative social standard after Mr. Lincoln was the clear winner in the four-way race for president. The wise men of Texas rejected the counsel of their greatest leader, Sam Houston, and bitterly attacked him, the last patriot of Jackson's coterie. The history of the final months of the 36th Congress attest to a kind of intellectual panic, one that made ideas which had almost no components of reason, or reasonableness, seem acceptable.

Abraham Lincoln's lie concerned a "clearly written constitutional right," which is the right to free and fair elections, and one whose loss would surely "justify revolution" - as he himself said when he was inaugurated on March 4th, 1861. Can Americans still think of 'Dishonest Abe' as the great Emancipator?

Perhaps the answer is, yes. But was he willing to lie about the fundamental laws and the structure of this free and democratic republic, to win the presidency? Yes, he was -- and that in itself should be a moral caution to all citizens, and it should be subjected to an intensive scrutiny "by persons who are, in whole or in part, of the African race."



RMN is an RA production.

The only pay your RMN moderators receive
comes from ads.
If you're using an ad blocker, please consider putting RMN in
your ad blocker's whitelist.


Serving Truth and Freedom
Worldwide since 1996
 
Politically Incorrect News
Stranger than Fiction
Usually True!


Powered
by FundRazr
Click Widget
or Click Here to contribute.


Organic Sulfur 4 Health

^


AGENTS WEBPAGES

Provided free to RMN Agents

Organic Sulfur 4 Health

^


AGENTS WEBPAGES

Provided free to RMN Agents



[ DONATE TO RMN ] [ Archive Search Page ] [ RMN Reading Room ] [ CGI Media News Room ] [ SUBSCRIBE TO RMN ]

Rumor Mill News Reading Room, Current Archive is maintained by Forum Admin with WebBBS 5.12.

If you can't find what you're looking
for using our RMN search, try the DuckDuckGo search below:


AN EXPLANATION OF THE FACTIONS