SHOULD WE WONDER WHY TRUMP WANTED TO RETURN TO THE “LEGACY OF LINCOLN?”

Regardless of how corrupt or tyrannical the republicans become in today’s political arena, they truly believe all they have to do to remain relevant is to demonize the democrats for promoting slavery and being the party of white supremacy. The very reason they love the moniker: “The Party of Lincoln” and still have “Lincoln Day Dinners” and why the gay branch of the Republican party refer to themselves as “Log Cabin Republicans.”

The problem is: the truth of history throws them a 100mph, unhittable, hard biting slider on an 0-2 count in the bottom of the ninth.

Let’s use some facts of history to dispel the myth. The very definition of a White Supremacist is one who believes the white race to be superior. What does this quote from 1858 tell us about its author? If you were to state this publicly today, what would you be called? Try putting it on social media and see how it works for you!

“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 . . . . I as much as any man am in favor of the superior position assigned to the white race.”~ Abraham Lincoln, First Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Ottawa, Illinois, Sept. 18, 1858, in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln vol.3, pp. 145-146.

“I as much as any man am in favor of the superior position assigned to the white race.” Is this not the very definition of a white supremacist? Were these words not uttered by the very first Republican President in this country’s history? Please also remember these words were spoken publicly in Illinois, not in the South.

Some, in a pitiful defense of these documented facts try to tell us that Lincoln didn’t really believe this but only said these words in order to garner votes in the upcoming election between himself and democrat Stephen Douglas. If that is true, one must admit that Lincoln was an unprincipled liar willing to say anything at all in order to be elected. Of course, such actions have become commonplace among all political candidates whether they be D’s or R’s.

“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.” Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

Of critical importance is this admission by Lincoln, in his First Inaugural Address, that slavery, as it then existed, was in fact, constitutional:

Next, we are continually assaulted with the false narrative that Lincoln began the war to free the slaves; what a wonderful load of poppycock. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Had Lincoln initiated the war to abolish slavery his war would have been against the Constitution he swore to uphold and defend, just as he admitted in his First Inaugural: “I believe I have no lawful right to do so…” And he didn’t have any lawful right to do so when he militarily invaded the Border States and then the South and became a traitor by definition according to the Constitution he swore to “uphold and defend.” (Article 3 Section 3)

Even more egregious, Abraham Lincoln was willing to enshrine the institution of slavery into American law forever if it would just save his precious union. You want proof, you say? Let us look at Lincoln’s first 13th Amendment. This proposed amendment was known as the “Corwin Amendment,” named after Ohio Republican Congressman Thomas Corwin. It passed both the Republican-controlled House and the Republican-dominated U.S. Senate on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration, and was sent to the states for ratification by Lincoln himself, proof of which was discovered in 2006 in a museum in Allentown, PA. This critical piece of history is available in the records of the U.S. House of Representatives, 106^th Congress, 2^nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America, Doc. No. 106-214.

The Corwin Amendment would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. It read as follows:

“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.”

“Person held to service” is how the Constitutional Convention of 1787 referred to slaves, and “domestic institutions” referred to slavery. Lincoln announced to the world that he endorsed the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address:

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — 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 . . . . [H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable”

So, please tell me again how Lincoln invaded the South to abolish slavery and how those damned democrats were responsible for it all! Had the Corwin Amendment passed, even congress could not have outlawed slavery.

Lincoln was very much involved in getting this proposed Thirteenth Amendment through Congress more than merely endorsing it in his first inaugural address and in his letter to the governors. Doris Kearns-Goodwin on page 296 of her book “Team of Rivals” explained how it was Lincoln who, after being elected but before the inauguration, instructed New York Senator William Seward, who would become his secretary of state, to get the amendment through the U.S. Senate. He also instructed Seward to get a federal law passed that would repeal the personal liberty laws in some of the Northern states that were used by those states to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which Lincoln strongly supported. (The Fugitive Slave Act forced Northerners to hunt down runaway slaves and return them to their owners)

As Goodwin wrote: “He [Lincoln] instructed Seward to introduce these proposals in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they issued from Springfield [Illinois]. The first resolved that “The Constitution should never be altered so as to authorize Congress to abolish or interfere with slavery in the states.’” The second proposal was that “All state personal liberty laws in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law be repealed.”

The possibility Lincoln himself could have been the author of the Corwin Amendment can be found in Lincoln’s official papers. On December 21, 1860, Lincoln sent the following to Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull “[expect] “three short resolutions which I drew up, and which, on the substance of which, I think would do much good.”

The huge elephant in the room here is, had the Southern states simply retracted their Secession documents, rejoined Lincoln’s precious Union and ratified the Corwin Amendment, they could have had slavery in perpetuity. This totally exposes the lie the Southern States seceded to preserve the institution of slavery.

Now, let us deal with that pesky little bit of specious propaganda called the Emancipation Proclamation. First off, there is nothing in the Constitution which provided Lincoln with the authority to issue any proclamation as law; making laws is placed only in the Congress. You can find proof of this in Article 1 Section 1.

The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in parts of the South in which the Union Army did not have control. In all areas under Lincoln’s immediate control, the slaves were left in bondage. Lincoln’s own Secretary of State, William H. Seward acknowledged Lincoln’s duplicity reference the Emancipation Proclamation with the following:

“We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.” (Source: Randall and Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction p. 371)

Had Lincoln not issued the Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, perhaps all of the slaves being held in the border states and Union held parts of the South would have been freed the next day by the “Second Confiscation Act.” According to Black historian, former editor of Ebony Magazine and author of “Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream,” Lerone Bennett Jr., the Emancipation Proclamation actually re-enslaved 500,000 slaves who were about to be freed by the Second Confiscation Act. But it must also be considered that Lincoln and the Republican dominated Congress could have freed the slaves at any time, which they failed to do until 1865, after the South was in ruins and hundreds of thousands were dead and wounded.

Lincoln’s actions and a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, many of them civilians, both black and white, a war to ensure a country indivisible, were praised by Karl Marx–need I say more?

I am certainly no Democrat and consider the modern day Democrat Party to be one of immense evil. That being said, I have grown tired of watching Republicans continue to lie through their teeth and try to camouflage their corruption, unconstitutional acts and ineptitude with their false claims of being the savior of the black race. Instead of blaming others, why don’t you Republicans get off your holier-than-thou Trojan Horse and adhere to your sacred oath to uphold and defend the Rights of the people, and while your at it, change your name from the Party of Lincoln to something far less duplicitous? How about The Party of Rightful Liberty, and act accordingly?