Im already aware of Lincolns views , I was raised in a home that attempted to keep us educated about our history, ancestry, etc

its so obviously simple to do to just about ANYONE,,

but such a turnoff to a voter like myself,,,


how are you the BETTER choice,, that's what I want to know,, not how much you devote to tearing down someone else,, but how much reason I have to support YOU,,,


there is so much less of that in media today, its all about how negative and dirty it can get,,,

The media would crucify Lincoln on two points.

1. That ludicrous stovepipe hat.
2. The "Honest Abe from Illinois" drivel. Dishonesty, seein's how he was really from Kentucky.

Oh sir, plenty more is a vast understatement. The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, that issue had already been resolved and slavery was on it's last leg, it was just the logistics that needed to be resolved. It was all about taxes, taxes the Southern states refused to pay to a Northern government in which they felt they had no say. Lincoln was but the last straw.

And we can also thank Lincoln for the unconstitutional 14th Amendment which curtailed the States rights. This Amendment as a whole was rejected by the Southern (and other) states and was not ratified. But Lincoln blocked all the Southern States from Congress and had overthrown all the Southern state governments with military rulers. Lincoln kicked all the Southern States out of congress until they the states agreed to ratify the 14th Amendment. By the way they had voted to ratify the 13th Amendment.

The only good thing about Lincoln is he hated Bankers. Too bad his prized industrialist were not strong enough to protect him. But then they too paid a price.

Statism

The brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the right to kidnap, imprison, harass, steal from and kill people, so that we can be protected from people who kidnap, harass, steal and kill people.

A statist is an individual who erroneously believes that there is such a thing as "authority" vested in certain human beings magically giving them the "right to rule" over other people. This "authority" means that certain people who we call "government", have the "moral right" to issue commands to those whom they rule (those under their "jurisdiction"), and that their "subjects" (slaves) have a "moral obligation" to obey the arbitrary dictates set by their masters. Most simply put, a statist is someone who believes in the legitimacy of slavery.

But Why?

Authority

An illusion of a diseased psyche, based entirely in violence and built upon the erroneous and dogmatic belief that some people are masters who have the moral right to issue commands, and others are slaves who have a moral obligation to obey the masters. Slavery
The belief in the legitimacy of "authority" is the belief in the legitimacy of slavery. Ultimately, "authority" is the idea that man can become God and through "jurisdiction" dictate the law.

"One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. The latter procedure, however, is disagreeable and therefore, not popular." - Carl Jung

The greatest enemy may not be ignorance, but rather the illusion of knowledge.

Civil War:3/4 of a million Americans died!

WWII:405,399 American dead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

I know, that's why I used them

I Wasn't raised with the pompous idea that everything is an absolute,,,,

we 'attempt' many things which have no quantifiable measure,,,

Is THAT why he printed Money like the best of your Fed-Chairs today?

Hazard Circular - London Times 1865 From this extract its plan to see that it is the advantage provided by the adopting of this policy which poses a threat to those not using it. 1863, nearly there, Lincoln needed just a bit more money to win the war, and seeing him in this vulnerable state, and knowing that the president could not get the congressional authority to issue more greenbacks, the money changers proposed the passing of the National Bank Act. The act went through. From this point on the entire US money supply would be created out of debt by bankers buying US government bonds and issuing them from reserves for bank notes. The greenbacks continued to be in circulation until 1994, their numbers were not increased but in fact decreased. "In numerous years following the war, the Federal Government ran a heavy surplus. It could not (however) pay off its debt, retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply."

John Kenneth Galbrath The American economy has been based on government debt since 1864 and it is locked into this system. Talk of paying off the debt without first reforming the banking system is just talk and a complete impossibility. That same year Lincoln had a pleasant surprise. Turns out the Tsar of Russia, Alexander II, was well aware of the money changers scam. The Tsar was refusing to allow them to set up a central bank in Russia. If Lincoln could limit the power of the money changers and win the war, the bankers would not be able to split America and hand it back to Britain and France as planned. The Tsar knew that this handing back would come at a cost which would eventually need to be paid back by attacking Russia, it being clearly in the money changers sights. The Tsar declared that if France or Britain gave help to the South, Russia would consider this an act of war. Britain and France would instead wait in vain to have the wealth of the colonies returned to them, and while they waited Lincoln won the civil war. With an election coming up the next year, Lincoln himself would wait for renewed public support before reversing the National Bank Act he had been pressured into approving during the war. Lincoln's opposition to the central banks financial control and a proposed return to the gold standard is well documented. He would certainly have killed off the national banks monopoly had he not been killed himself only 41 days after being re-elected. The money changers were pressing for a gold standard because gold was scarce and easier to have a monopoly over. Much of this was already waiting in their hands and each gold merchant was well aware that what they really had could be easily made to seem like much much more. Silver would only widen the field and lower the share so they pressed for...

The article quoted below...may throw a wider view ....while not exactly being off topic....!!!

Heal The Money System, Heal Society

by Suzanne Phillips




World Bank's former Chief Economist William Stiglitz was interviewed following his recent resignation in dissent of the bank's policies which cause economic devastation around the world. Under Commentary - The Globalizer Who Came In From The Cold ) At the end of his interview journalist Greg Palast concluded "the solution to world poverty and crisis is simple: remove the bloodsuckers."

To do this, it's necessary to understand how those who wield destructive financial might accumulate their power. Herewith a brief description of how a cleverly devised banking system robs the average person of the right to a decent life while providing enormous wealth for its corporate owners and stockholders:

Henry Ford, Sr., staunch member of the United States' business community, once said "If the people of the nation understood our banking and monetary system, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

How did such a system get started? How do they keep it going? In 1935 during the Great Depression, the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency questioned the role of money as a basic cause of nationwide bank failures. To explain the workings of our monetary system they called Robert Hemphill, a former credit manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Georgia. Hemphill told the august committee a fable -'The Temple of the Thirteen Suns'.

The essence of this fable is that a rich man going on a journey wanted a way to pay expenses without having to haul his unwieldy supply of gold. The goldsmith agreed to store the gold at 10% interest and gave the traveler a receipt - an I.O.U. or letter of credit. After the traveler left, the goldsmith offered to lend this gold to any local merchant who would pledge all his possessions to him as security. In each case, the new borrower asked the goldsmith to keep the gold and give him a paper receipt. Thus the goldsmith still had all the gold - not to mention mortgages on the possessions of everyone who had borrowed from him! With each loan and payment of interest the goldsmith's fortune grew until he became wealthier than everyone in town. Reflecting upon this state of affairs he said, "What a lead-pipe cinch! I can collect just as much usury on this phony money as on the real gold."

So began the banking business. Money is based on credit. To be used equitably, money must be issued and its value controlled by governments for the general welfare of the nation and its people.

There is no need for money to be created as interest-bearing notes. However, it's still being issued this way worldwide by private banks against the security of people's own personal wealth or the wealth of other nations. The 'money' you borrow from them is created 'out of thin air.' It's a piece of paper that indicates you have pledged your possessions in exchange for your promise to repay the lenders of this money - with interest!

The crucial point to understand is that the way money is created and issued determines the workings of the marketplace. Money issued at interest by private banks, such as the United States Federal Reserve Bank, brings with it an overwhelming debt which has devastating effects on its own people and around the world. In contrast, money issued by a government without interest would benefit everyone. Instead of creating artificial shortages and causing horrendous suffering, interest-free money would simply be a medium of exchange and could release the abundance of human production.

According to authors Fraser and Morse in Tomorrow's Money: "The money of modern civilization is credit.[which] represents real wealth (goods and services}. But -- all our credit-tokens have been issued at-interest or as debt-tokens. First we had goldsmiths issuing credit-at-interest money to individuals. Next we had private banks issuing credit-at-interest money to individuals and the State. Now we have a Credit-Cartel issuing credit-at-interest to the entire world. Today, our wealth - your credit, and mine and the Nation's - is monetized in this way." (1)

"In England the goldsmith's method of issuing money was legalized under the Bank Act of 1694. [British] William of Orange needed money and [the Rothschild family] offered King William their gold - $6,000,000 - at 8% if he would give them a charter for a bank. And Permit them to issue an equal amount in paper notes at interest to themselves!" (2)

What's the matter with private banks issuing the nation's money? "The interest system enables private corporations to regulate and control the Nation's money supply - for their benefit instead of Society's" (3) (Does this remind you of the 2001 scarce energy crisis in California which suddenly turned into a glut, or the way gasoline prices rise and fall at the will of the oil barons?)

Not only is the total debt from interest physically impossible to repay -especially if based on scarce precious metals - but "The interest tribute increases our taxes, lowers our buying power, depresses and oppresses the Nation's production and business.The power and privilege to issue and regulate money are Sovereign Rights. They belong to the Nation - to us -and have been usurped and stolen from the people and the Nation to whom they rightfully belong." (4)

The American colonies' 1776 War of Independence against Britain was largely an effort to break free from the financial stranglehold placed upon them by the Bank of England. Space doesn't permit details of the struggle between Jefferson and Madison on the people's side vs. Alexander Hamilton representing a privileged group desiring to start a similar bank in the American colonies. Hamilton won and the private Bank of United States was chartered in 1791. "In all transactions, the Nation was to be jointly responsible with the bank - but was not - to receive any of the bank's profit's. Many other benefits accrued to enrich the bank and its stockholders, including a comprehensive tax exemption." (5)

Many government and other leaders in the U.S. have understood the power that money issuance gives to those who control it.

* In 1787 John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson "All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in the Constitution, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as down-right ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."

* President Abraham Lincoln: "By Government creation of money, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest." Lincoln tried to change the system by having the Treasury Department issue "Greenbacks" which were non-interest bearing notes. He was assassinated in 1865.

* President James A. Garfield: "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states "The Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States...and to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin." But since the beginning of our country, bankers have been exercising de facto power in issuing the nation's money. In 1913, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act which consolidated the power to issue and regulate the nation's money and handed it over to the Federal Reserve Corporation, a consortium of private bankers. Understand that the Federal Reserve Bank is "federal" in name only.

* Congressman Charles A. Lindberg, Sr.: "This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this bill the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."

* Congressman Louis T. McFadden (for 22 years Chairman of the U.S. Banking Currency Commission): "The Federal Reserve (privately owned banks) are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen."

The U.S. public, taught to believe that our money is based on gold, becomes alarmed when someone reports that gold is missing from the Treasury. This no longer matters. Our money hasn't been backed by gold since 1935 when the Roosevelt administration took us "off the gold standard". The paper money issued by the Federal Reserve Bank reads: 'THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.'

* President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 in 1963 giving the Treasury Department power to issue silver certificates as the base of U.S. money. Once sufficient silver certificates existed it would eliminate the demand for Federal Reserve notes. JFK was assassinated five months later.

Others who championed the return of money issuance to the government included Congressmen Jerry Voorhis of California and Wright Patman of Ohio. These men understood what Mayer Anselm Rothschild, patriarch of the banking House of Rothschild, stated so clearly: "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws"

Workers around the world have vastly increased their productivity, yet their standard of living has fallen drastically. How many people work two jobs to pay back money created 'out of thin air' using their own personal credit? How many millions in this country die premature deaths because 'there's no money' for food and doctor's bills? How many people in the 'Third World' starve to death because their countries are burdened with enormous debts to international bankers? (In mid-2001, foreign debt owed to Western bankers was $3,000,000,000,000 - three trillion dollars!)

Human corruption has devastated the Earth to the point where many experts fear it's impossible to restore a healthy environment. A change in consciousness is absolutely necessary. We need to stop exploiting each other. We need to act in a kindly and beneficial way toward the Earth and each other. Returning the power of issuing each nation's money to its own government is one step that will ease financial burdens and stop massive genocide against our fellow beings.

well, that could be one of MANY definitions of authority

here is another explanation




There is a fine line of difference between power and authority, especially as bases for LeaderShip.

JamesHunter writes in TheServant (pp.29-34) that "If leadership is about influencing others, how do we go about developing that influence with people?

How do we get people to do our will? How do we get their ideas, commitment, creativity, and excellence, which are by definition voluntary gifts? ... To better understand how one develops this type of influence, it is critical to understand the difference between power and authority. ...


Power: the ability of a person or a group to influence the beliefs and actions of other people. It is the ability to influence events. Power can be personal power.

A person gets his personal power from his personality or from his expert knowledge. Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, Programmers, etc. get their power from their expertise and professional knowledge. Power can also be legitimate or official power.

This power comes from a higher authority.


Authority: the right given to a manager to achieve the objectives of the organisation.

It is a right to get the things done through others. It is a right to take decisions. It is a right to give orders to the subordinates and to get obedience from them. A manager cannot do his work without authority.


... Authority cannot be bought or sold, given or taken away.


Authority is about who you are as a person, your character, and the influence you've built with people [it is one's expression of one's self, which is treated thoroughly by WarrenBennis in OnBecomingaLeader]. ...


power erodes relationships. You can get a few seasons out of power, even accomplish some things, but over time power can be very damaging to relationships. ... there are times when we must exercise power ... in firing a bad employee [for example - but] we had to resort to power because our authority had broken down


[WattsHumphrey also acknowledges the risks of power]."
Needless to say, good LeaderShip leads by authority and not by power.


http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PowerVersusAuthority


Note: if it is not obvious, the above is just one of thousands of descriptions online about the virtues and/or atrocities of 'authority'

Thank you for the citation. There is a reason I ask for citations...and a reason I ask for citations to legitimate sources.

Assuming Wikipedia IS a "legitimate" source, I was interested to see how the numbers would be interpreted; I was also curious how the deaths 'caused by Lincoln' vs. the deaths 'caused by Hitler/Tojo' were going to be defined.

I see they weren't.



(Per your own chosen-to-provide citation) 214,938 "Americans" (presumably you mean those people residing in the US and not those in Canada, Mexico, and South American countries) were killed via combat in the Civil War. 291,557 "Americans" were killed via combat in WWII.

291,557 is a greater number than 214,938. Ergo, you've proven yourself to be factually incorrect when making your presented-as-fact statement that "...Lincoln killed more Americans than Hitler and Tojo combined........
Plenty more......"


To boot, nowhere in the citations does it clarify how many "Americans" were killed by/because of Hitler's/Tojo's rule; it's simply a number of "American" casualties during the whole of WWII.


Furthermore, the Civil War was fought strictly on U.S. soil; save Pearl Harbor (which occurred before U.S. declared-war involvement), WWII was fought on foreign soil. Casualties (i.e., those not directly attributed to combat) of any homegrown, home-fought war will be higher than wars in which the home team participates in someone else's backyard to ensure higher casualties/higher (and ongoing and residual) costs of war remain elsewhere.



Thanks for the citation; it proved all I needed to know about the veracity of the entire post.

u are beyond,,, take it up with Webster,, or perhaps write your own dictionary,,,lol

to make an effort to do, accomplish, solve, or effect




an attempt can be successful or not,, but it has to happen before anything gets 'done'

Facts, what facts, not yours, the original poster was correct. 750,000 for Civil War compared to 405,399 for WWII as per the original claim, Americans killed. Changing the criteria to your own liking just to try and disprove another doesn't really disprove anything other than malice.

*gigglesnort*

Speaking of "class"...