PREVIEW: Obama, Clinton take centre stage in Potomac primary

PatriotFeb 11th, 2008 - 17:30:22

As an example of truth: President Lincoln was not in favor of the freedom of slaves, thus his first speech:
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. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that '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.' Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

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.'

His second speech still did not include the saving of slaves, thus another american slip of the tongue. Lincoln was not a great president, he was like all the others, but not quite, thus he was shot!


The American Republic will not be sold or bartered for the People.

Report this comment

SP4: Perhaps but...Feb 12th, 2008 - 16:02:11

...Lincoln also ramrodded the Emancipation. Discerning motives is a full time job for historians. Consider Bush:

Did Bush mislead congress on Iraq i.e. WMD's.

...or did Congress manipulate Bush on Iraq i.e. 'he'll get Saddam for us...and then we can hang him'?

Now, if you believe Bush mislead congress, it requires you to come to the conclusion that they were ALL, dems and republicans, fools.

If, however, you believe that Congress manipulated Bush, it requires you to believe that ALL of Bush's people were fooled.

Think about that, professor, and, by all means, get back to us!

Report this comment