'One of Abraham Lincoln's little-noted accomplishments has become his most unlikely legacy. He helped create the modern international rules that protect civilians, prevent torture, and limit the horrors of combat, the body of law known as the laws of war. Indeed, he was probably our most important law-of-war president,'

bullshit. he stands as exemplary model of tyrant willing to suspend the founding laws of this country to accomplish his goals of enriching himself and his whig (republican) backers.

'But Lincoln dismissed "the law of nations," as international law was then called, as a curiosity that country lawyers like him knew little about.'

yes he did... he was so backwoods hick a lawyer, he was the railroad robber baron's 'go to boy'.

read up on this in gustavas myers'

great american fortunes (free in toto/online; hattip to yamaguchy for webhosting this and many other hard to find online publications)

<link>

'As the code's Confederate critics noticed immediately, the laws of war Lincoln announced in 1863 were far tougher than the humanitarian rules McClellan had demanded a year earlier. The code allowed for the destruction of civilian property, the bombardment of civilians in besieged cities, the starving of noncombatants, and the emancipation of civilians' slaves. It permitted executing prisoners in cases of necessity or as retaliation. It condoned the summary executions of enemy guerillas. And in its most open-ended provision, the code authorized any measure necessary to secure the ends of war and defend the country. "To save the country," the code declared, "is paramount to all other considerations." Lincoln's code was a body of rules not for McClellan's gentleman's war but for Sherman's March to the Sea.'

'For the past seven years, America has repeated the journey Lincoln completed in 24 grueling months. Strong majorities of Americans now call for the dismantling of detention facilities at Guantanamo. Even stronger majorities oppose the use of torture in interrogations. As a nation, we have walked in Lincoln's footsteps, down an uncertain path from skepticism about the laws of war to a rediscovery of their pragmatic mix of toughness and humanity. President Obama, in his inaugural address, pledged to reconcile our interests and our ideals. This is precisely what Lincoln's laws of war sought to accomplish, rejecting lawlessness while relentlessly pursuing threats to our way of life.'

reject lawlessness????

you conveniently forget to mention, tyrant lincoln's code suspended the consitution & habeus corpus, brought the first government sanctioned outright war on civilians, shuttered the free press, imprisoned dissenters of both the us & confederacy, forced conscription of 'just off the boat' immigrants (non comformance was grounds for repatriation to country of origin).

the great emancipation proclamation at first, only released slaves in the southern states, while keeping slaves in the north in bondage.

you're going to try to feed me this line? all this was done to avoid total destruction of the south.. you are truly delusional.

all this death & destruction for what...? to stop destruction?

tariff monies from southern imports to pay for lincoln's transcontinental railroad and canal system; southern monies paying for northern infrastructure.

you did get one thing half-right... for the past 8yrs the executive office has followed only too closely in the steps of tyrant lincoln...

bush & his admin; with sweeping backroom legislation has hacked away at the very principles of personal property and individual freedoms this country was founded on. Patriot Acts I &II wherein (natural born citizens) civilians deemed solely by the executive or his minions to be a 'terrorist' as vaguely defined, can be imprisoned without charge indefinitely, brought before a court of admiralty (military), have their citizenship revoked and renditioned out of the country.

witness again, the death of habeus corpus.

troops which have been prohibited by posse comitatus since the 1870's from use on US soil are now by law able to be mustered by the executive (circumventing any state governor's authority) to any area of the country for any reason under the auspices of 'national emergency' or 'health emergency'.

witness the death of posse comitatus.

witness the death of this country, we all once proudly called home.

"...the great emancipation proclamation at first, only released slaves in the southern states, while keeping slaves in the north in bondage..."

You are full of nonsense. Go read a history book- or just check wikipedia.

All US slaves were freed by Congress in 1862. By 1860, the only "Northern" state with any slaves was Delaware with a couple of thousand. The other Northern states had all banned slavery by then.

wikipedia... that explains it, mrperson.

you need to go read the doc for yourself i guess...by all means take wiki's word over gov archives. :)

<link>

The Emancipation Proclamation

President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states.

The reason it says that is because Lincoln was following the law. Slaveholders in the Northern states weren't at war against the government, hence Lincoln had no authority to free their slaves. But Congress did free them and a Constituional amendment was passed so they went free anyhow.

So contrary to your black faced bolding, Lincoln was a law abider. And if you're going to rant about lawlessness, consider the Southern states who left the Union without any kind of vote of the people and without any kind of negotiation regarding Federal property. From the Federal government's point of view, the South stole Federal property and cititzens of the United States who opposed seccesssion were left stranded in the Southern states with their rights violated and unenforced. Now that's lawlessness.

And that's not even getting into how the Southerners treated their slaves, which was of course shameful.

"witness the death of this country, we all once proudly called home."

No; it was the death of a horror, kikz; the a cauterization of a threatening infection, or the removal of a cancer. But it's all - to borrow a Southern phrase - 'gone with the wind,' and rightfully so; long gone before you or I were born. Try living in America today.

Look at it this way: instead of secession, the slaveowners could just as easily have invoked "eminent domain" and demanded payment for their slaves. It would have spared the country in general and the South in particular (peculiar?) the devastation which followed.

But they didn't, did they? No; control of the black race was paramount; even the pre-1865 Southern newspapers said as much. That habit endured even after war and liberation of the slaves. And forget about the supposed "Yankee economic strangulation;" No one mentioned that before the war, either; it was wartime propaganda for European consumption, and one which the South nursed its ego for the century after.

Don't try to lecture about liberty or rights, kikz. If the South was right, the North was all the righter; if the North was wrong, the South was all the wronger.

Nerdnam - yes, technically the 1862 emancipation freed Northern slaves- but there were hardly any left by that time - almost all of the Northern states had banned slavery several decades earlier.

what/which law? at the time slavery was still legal in the south, as well as a few in the north.

and... were the slaves in the north less deserving of freedom, simply because their state had not seceded from the union?

lincoln had assumed dictatorial powers, he could do as he wished and did.

from the federal gov's (pov) the south stole federal property?

what property (s)?

secession was not expressly forbidden by any founding document federal or state - and by the by, various northern states threatened secession on occasion prior to the civil war, to get their way..

NY being one such.

i'm not defending the indefensible (slavery, black or white). that would be silly.

how do you know that southern slaveholders treated their slaves any worse than northern slaveholders?

but, if you wish to talk of treatment of slaves, even from a purely economic point,

slaves were expensive, if a businessman who utilized slave labor or plantation owner wished to remain in business he could not have done so, if mistreatment of his slaves was a matter of course.

silly camry.. :) can't you follow along?

guess you shouldn't try out for 'are you smarter than a fifth grader'.

i was not referring to slavery.

for anyone reading over camry's shoulder....

what i referred to as the death of this country..... was legislation passed during the bush administration, (PATRIOT Act I & II and others) and the outright shredding of our constitution and its amendments by that administration and its unlawful and unconstitutional acts at home and abroad. we live in a police state. make any kind of fuss sometime at the airport, don't even have to be in 'no-man's land'... see how strong your rights are then...

and no, i don't think 'reparations' for slaveholders' lost property would fall under eminent domain. demanded payment? lincoln was already raping them for cash? like that would've happened....

no one mentioned the tariff which rose in excess of 15% in the 1820's, upward to 32%, and finally 47% through the outbreak of war??? oh really....

get a grip...................... you need to read:

Dilorenzo's Archive or look up the the tariffs if you're not too lazy.

'...in 1860 Southerners were paying a disproportionate share of the federal import tariff, which at the time accounted for 95 percent of all federal revenues (See U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970). '

the 1824 Tariff Act

1828 Tariff of Abominations

1850's Morrill Tariff

wronger????? that's not even a word. eyeroll.

slavery wasn't even an issue w/lincoln when he started the war, and had said if 'it' remained in perpetuity in the south - no matter, as long as the union was maintained, he didn't care. don't you get it? you don't even know your own country's history? you've been sold a bill of goods.

you've been sold propaganda.

slavery issue aside, in leiu that it was ended peacefully in all other countries of the west w/diplomacy and the advent of the industrial revolution; cotton gin (black inventor) and farm equipment.

the southern states had every right to secede, (but were inadequately prepared to face the consequences) and refuse to pay exorbidant taxes, for which they saw no benefit - the tariff monies went to pay for northern infrastructure, northern businesses.

still don't get it do ya?

we they not also deserving of their freedom because of miniscule numbers?

Again, you don't get it. Lincoln had no authority to free slaves in the North. He could free slaves in the South because the South was fighting a war against the US. Lincoln abided by the law, whether you believe it or not. And the South did not abide by the law.

The EP had nothing to do with whether slavery was just or not. It was a war measure aimed at cutting down Southern resistence, just like the blockades and the rest of it.

And all of your tarrif nonsense is just that, nonsense. The war was caused by Southerners stealing about a third of the nation, including the vital port of New Orleans.

what law? which law?... you still haven't cleared that up?

if lincoln could suspend the constitution, what couldn't he do?

stealing a third of the nation??? so by your logic... there was a nation in existence before there were states? as in... united ...States

that's hilarious :)

obviously you've never read the declaration of independence, nor the articles of confederation.

<link>

'...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;'

<link>

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

The American colonies won their independence, the South won nothing.

Lincoln didn't suspend the Constitution, he fought a war to preserve it. The Southern states all signed that Constitution, then didn't want to live by it when they didn't like the election results. They broke the law and then they failed to win their independence, hence they suffered the consequences.

So again, by not freeing the Northern slaves, even while hating slavery, Lincoln showed his respect for the law. Slavery was legal in those Union states and slaves consituted property. He didn't take that property--no law gave him the right to take it. He only freed the slaves in the states that were in rebellion, and he did it as a war measure. So your contention that Lincoln was 'lawless' is just the purest bullshit. He was not.

believe what you want to believe, no facts will change your beliefs..

lincoln fought.... right. name one battle he took part in.... hmmm?

fought... to protect the constitution?

<link>

'Lincoln launched a military invasion without the consent of Congress and blockaded Southern ports without first declaring war. He unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of his administration and had his military arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents. A secret police force under the direction of the secretary of state carried this out.

The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, ruled Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus to be unconstitutional (only Congress has such power), but he was ignored by Lincoln as the mass arrests of political dissenters continued. As described by Dean Sprague in Freedom Under Lincoln (p. 161): "The laws were silent, indictments were not found, testimony was not taken, judges did not sit, juries were not impaneled, convictions were not obtained and sentences were not pronounced. The Anglo-Saxon concept of due process, perhaps the greatest political triumph of the ages and the best guardian of freedom, was abandoned." Thousands of political prisoners languished in Fort Lafayette in New York harbor, which came to be known as "The American Bastille."

Dozens of Northern newspapers were shut down and their editors and owners were imprisoned if they opposed the Lincoln administration. On May 18, 1864 Lincoln sent the following order to General John Dix: "You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce . . . and prohibit any further publication thereof . . . you are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers."

All telegraph communication was censored, the railroads were nationalized, and federal troops were ordered to interfere with Northern elections to ensure Republican victories. Lincoln won New York state by 7000 votes "with the help of federal bayonets," wrote Pulitzer Prize–winning Lincoln biographer David Donald in Lincoln Reconsidered. Several dozen members of the Maryland legislature were thrown into military prison along with the mayor of Baltimore and Congressman Henry May of Maryland so that they could not meet to discuss secession.'

.

aha... so the states did exist prior to signing the declaration.

no, the south wasn't thrilled w/the 'bought' election of '60 nor w/lincoln's declaration of invasion; from dilorenzo's book,

the real lincoln <link>

'After the election and just before Lincoln’s inauguration, the House passed the Morrill tariff which elevated the rate to 47.06 percent--an extortionist rate. Remember that the tariff was the primary source of federal revenue in those days and the South, which wanted free trade with the world, was paying 80 percent of the total federal revenue, according to Frank Taussig’s authoritative history.

Lincoln’s inaugural address underscored the point that he wasn’t going to back down against demands from the South that tariffs be lowered, as Andrew Jackson had done. Lincoln said it was his duty to “collect the duties and imposts and so long as the South paid, “there will be no invasion.” Northern newspapers were calling for a bombardment of Southern ports, a first strike to prevent the threat that the South would ignore the new tariffs and institute free trade. '

again, WHAT LAW?

the law that said, pay 80% of the federal revenue, see no benefit from it, and smile...

or we invade? is that THE LAW?? i'd love to see that one in print.. oh do tell me where i can see it for myself....

lincoln didn't hate slavery, black or white.

he is on record as being a staunch supporter of black repatriation to liberia/monrovia .

<link>

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway 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; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois" (September 18, 1858), pp. 145-146.

<link>

Abraham Lincoln, as cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.,: Rutgers University Press:

"Send them to Liberia, to their own native land. But free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit this."

Abraham Lincoln, as cited in "Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings," Roy Basler, ed. 1946, New York: Da Capo:

"Some ten years later, in his December 1, 1862, message to Congress, Lincoln reiterated that 'I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization."

and by the by, another point which the author of 'a history lesson' fails to offer other than a sole source, with figures so low they are questionable, northern desertion.

The Confederate War, Gary Gallagher, 1998, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press:

"The Emancipation Proclamation caused a desertion crisis in the United States Army. At least 200,000 Northern soldiers deserted; another 120,000 evaded conscription; and another 90,000 Northern men fled to Canada to evade the draft, while thousands more hid in the mountains of central Pennsylvania 'where they lay beyond the easy reach of enrolling officers.'"

Wow, a Civil War 'truther.'

still no cititation of that 'pay up or we invade' law.. hmmm..

so, do you think the pursuit of knowing truth is a negative thing? if you do, that in and of itself speaks volumes as to the core nature of your being.

yea, i'm a truther, in all things...

the american UNcivil war is just one minor point, on a very long line extending from the 'now' back to the creation of the universe :)

if one doesn't know truth, one necessarily operates from a perspective of ignorance. :)