Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions

[Mosby]

Lincoln beat the conspiracy.....at tremendous cost as described throughout the posts above.

Jason, are you saying that Lincoln knew about this?

[Mosby]

IIRC Texas v. White was the Supreme Court decision (post civil war) that held that states didn't have the right to secede from the union. So it wasn't as if it was a clear matter of law beforehand.

Of course - it was POST CIVIL WAR

[Jason]

Lincoln beat the conspiracy.....at tremendous cost as described throughout the posts above.

Jason, are you saying that Lincoln knew about this?

Secret service worked for Lincoln didn't they???

[blondenblueeyed]

And that 'war' to return to the saints their properties and their rights has not come to any conclusion just yet. The saints properties still have not been returned to the rightful owners.

blondblueeyed- are you saying that the civil war was because of the mis-treatment of the saints and fought to return their property to them? Am I reading your post correctly?
thanks[/quote]
I believe the civil war is just ONE consequence of the mis-treatment of the saints and the fact their properties were stolen.

[Rensai]

There was a secret combination put in place to split the United States into two separate countries that could be more easily overcome by the European powers. Felix Stidger describes it in his biography "Treason history of the Order of Sons of Liberty, formerly Circle of Honor, succeeded by Knights of the Golden Circle, afterward Order of American Knights."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/929322/Treaso ... of-Liberty
http://www.archive.org/details/sonsofliberty00stidrich

Lincoln beat the conspiracy.....at tremendous cost as described throughout the posts above.

Jason,

That just brings us back to Brian's quote. Even if Lincoln knew there was a conspiracy to split the US, it does not justify the means he used to keep the union together. Lincoln's actions are not justified by this information. In fact, I'm not even convinced this is a case of a "good end" justifying the means. Is keeping the US together a good end? In some ways it undoubtedly was a good end, but you're one of the first here usually to point out the evils the US government has done to the world in our history. So is it even a case of evil means used for a good end or is it just evil means for an evil end? I was raised and taught that the US has been a strong force for good, but more and more I question that as I get older. Either way, I don't think Lincoln was justified, but it is an interesting question to think about.

That's different than what I am talking about.

I should first clarify regarding the end not justifying the means... obviously good means and good ends are good... but we shouldn't use a good end to justify evil means - the Lord doesn't do that and Nephi certainly didn't doing that - he was justified under the law of justice in what he did. (but let's not get this discussion sidetracked). The Lord does not ask us to do anything that violates natural law / God's law... and if anyone thinks that Nephi did something evil or against natural law, then they more to learn regarding that story, and the fact that it wasn't the commandment to do it that made it right.

A good end does not justify evil means.

[Hyrcanus]

Lincoln beat the conspiracy.....at tremendous cost as described throughout the posts above.

Jason, are you saying that Lincoln knew about this?

Secret service worked for Lincoln didn't they???

IIRC the legislation that created the Secret Service was waiting for Lincoln to sign it the night he died, they were only tasked with the counterfeiting problem originally. I don't think the SS (heh) was involved in Presidential Protection until the early 1900's (McKinnley?).

[shadow]

I never argued that the Confederate Constitution makes slavery legal, I only argued that slavery was not the reason for the war.

I'm sure you can understand why so many people think slavery was the cause. Even Joseph Smith, prior to the civil war, prophesied that the cause "may probably arise through the slave question" D&C 130:13.

[creator]

Lincoln beat the conspiracy.....at tremendous cost as described throughout the posts above.

We could theorize about what would have happened if the Southern states were allowed to secede from the Union. We know that there is nothing in the Constitution that says a State can't secede, and any authority not granted to the Federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the States

However all we know is what did happen and what resulted (though the "official" history books only tell their version of it)... perhaps it was better than the alternative? Not saying that justifies any evil actions, but just that I suppose we'll never know if the alternative would have resulted in a better ending.

[Mosby]

Secret service worked for Lincoln didn't they???

Interesting theory Jason.......

I'm sure you can understand why so many people think slavery was the cause. Even Joseph Smith, prior to the civil war, prophesied that the cause "may probably arise through the slave question" D&C 130:13.

Shadow, that is something to think about.......... Can't argue too much with scripture

However all we know is what did happen and what resulted (though the "official" history books only tell their version of it)... perhaps it was better than the alternative? Not saying that justifies any evil actions, but just that I suppose we'll never know if the alternative would have resulted in a better ending

[One of my favorite points Brian, - too bad we will NEVER KNOW that what we have is "better"-

I would wager that what we "have" isn't anything to get too excited about........Given the background of many of the leaders of Confederacy and their lineage to many founders I highly doubt that a Southern victory could have been worse.....

[Jason]

Jason, are you saying that Lincoln knew about this?

Secret service worked for Lincoln didn't they???

IIRC the legislation that created the Secret Service was waiting for Lincoln to sign it the night he died, they were only tasked with the counterfeiting problem originally. I don't think the SS (heh) was involved in Presidential Protection until the early 1900's (McKinnley?).

Felix claims he went to work for the United States Government Secret Service in April 1964 - pg 30. Of course he's referring to them in hindsight (1904) so maybe it started as a unit in the army??? Secret service website doesn't say much.....in doing my research on the book last year when I obtained a copy I found court records in two states that substantiated Felix Stidger and his biography (via court trials at the conclusion).

I recall reading that Felix reported to individuals who reported to Lincoln but I am unable to find that information.....

[gclayjr]

Heber J. Grant "Lincoln and Law," Improvement Era, Feb. 1940, 73, 127.

We honor the man that God honors. We honor Abraham Lincoln because we believe absolutely that God honored him and raised him up to be the instrument in His hands of saving the Constitution and the Union.1

Also Quoted by Ezra Taft Benson

[Jason]

However all we know is what did happen and what resulted (though the "official" history books only tell their version of it)... perhaps it was better than the alternative? Not saying that justifies any evil actions, but just that I suppose we'll never know if the alternative would have resulted in a better ending

[One of my favorite points Brian, - too bad we will NEVER KNOW that what we have is "better"-

I would wager that what we "have" isn't anything to get too excited about........Given the background of many of the leaders of Confederacy and their lineage to many founders I highly doubt that a Southern victory could have been worse.....

Divine guidance would settle the issue wouldn't it?

fwiw - http://www.rexresearch.com/prophist/phf8usa.htm#PHF516

[Hyrcanus]

IIRC the legislation that created the Secret Service was waiting for Lincoln to sign it the night he died, they were only tasked with the counterfeiting problem originally. I don't think the SS (heh) was involved in Presidential Protection until the early 1900's (McKinnley?).

Felix claims he went to work for the United States Government Secret Service in April 1964 - pg 30. Of course he's referring to them in hindsight (1904) so maybe it started as a unit in the army??? Secret service website doesn't say much.....in doing my research on the book last year when I obtained a copy I found court records in two states that substantiated Felix Stidger and his biography (via court trials at the conclusion).

I recall reading that Felix reported to individuals who reported to Lincoln but I am unable to find that information.....

I wasn't trying to debunk the claim generally, I really was just adding a sort of tangential thought.

Just from the reading of historical accounts I've done, it isn't at all unusual for someone who is wholly credible to still mix up dates, names and places when recalling events many years in the past. That is probably the case in the example you're referring to. The big picture details are probably accurate even in some smaller details are off here or there.

Heber J. Grant and I may have to agree to disagree on the motivation of Lincoln's actions I'm not sure they were wholly nefarious, but I seem to recall reading that even he had some doubts as to the morality and legality of his actions (which could be ascribed to the fact that he was human and prone to doubt).

[gclayjr]

Hypercamus...all

I think that agreeing to disagree is a good place to end up on this. There are many intellectuals including the respected economist Walter E. Williams who I admire generally who don't think much of Lincoln. The reason that I felt need to join this thread was that it started off with Mosby saying

I also believe that he is fond of telling little "half-truths" that can lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of government and it's proper role

In regards to Mr Beck which not only indicated disagreement with Mr. Beck's point of view but implied that Mr. Beck was either deilberately deceiving his audiance or not informed. I hope that my contribution to this thread showed that there is plenty of support for his view (and mine) of Mr Lincoln, and that while we may disagree as to what the historical record indicates, that taking either position does not make one either scheming or ill informed

Regards,
George

[Mosby]

Divine guidance would settle the issue wouldn't it?

fwiw - http://www.rexresearch.com/prophist/phf8usa.htm#PHF516

Sounds like an "angel of light to me" Jason - that's a cool story, thanks for posting it.
Ironic that - that Gen McClellan was relived of command by honest Abe, in favor of Grant the butcher- I guess George McClellan was too spritual for Abe!

Heber J. Grant "Lincoln and Law," Improvement Era, Feb. 1940, 73, 127.

We honor the man that God honors. We honor Abraham Lincoln because we believe absolutely that God honored him and raised him up to be the instrument in His hands of saving the Constitution and the Union.1

Also Quoted by Ezra Taft Benson

Although I fully believe that we should honor, support, and sustain the prophet- I think it wise to understand all their "quotes" in context.

President Hinckley said that Kofi Annon was a "good man" he made simliar statements about Bill Clinton and his abilities- does this mean we should follow Bill Clinton and Kofi Annon? Does this mean that President Hinckley supports their wicked actions?

Joseph Smith was in favor of Central Bank- explain that one!

Brigham Young had nothing but distain for "public education"- so why don't all LDS folks homeschool?

Do you see how we can use "quotes" and statements to bolster our point- without the context?

Given his numerous books and his immense knowledge of the Constitution, I highly doubt that Ezra Taft Benson was a great supportor of Lincoln, but's what would a prophet of God say?

"I E.T Benson would like all within the sound of my voice to hear that Abraham Lincoln was a tryant, and an enemy to liberty"

I mean seriously - would a Prophet say that? Even if he knew that with all his heart- he wouldn't say it. Did President Hinckley know that Kofi sits at the head of an evil organization that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all mankind? Sure he did, but what would be the point in telling the saints (and the world) something that they should already know from study of the Book Of Mormon and the Constitution?

"It is not meet that man is commanded in all things"

In regards to Mr Beck which not only indicated disagreement with Mr. Beck's point of view but implied that Mr. Beck was either deilberately deceiving his audiance or not informed. I hope that my contribution to this thread showed that there is plenty of support for his view (and mine) of Mr Lincoln, and that while we may disagree as to what the historical record indicates, that taking either position does not make one either scheming or ill informed

I will stand by my comment that Beck is fond of telling "half-truths" - his own words and actions speak for themselves- "I'm a Libertarian" (Beck) - then the torpedoing of Ron Paul during the election. "there is no Conspiracy" (Beck) - just last week I heard him say that Orin Hatch is a man of honor, and one of the "good guys" in Washington,Huh? Really? So much for all that "Washington D.C Crime Inc" stuff Glenn............

He also never asked him one tough question and he softballed his "interview" with Hatch.

Telling America that Lincoln was a hero and that the Civil War was about slavery - not states rights, IS a "half-truth" at best, actually I'm being kind calling it a half-truth- I think it's an outright lie.

gclayjr, it's obivious that you are a fan of both Beck and Lincoln- that's fine with me, you can learn many good things from both of them. We won't solve the "Civil War" issue here and everyone has their own frame of referrence, I would respectfully ask that you check out the reference link on the Civil War and Lincoln and read a few of those articles - then make up your own mind. I will be glad to do the same with any articles that are posted as well.

[pjbrownie]

Had the South won, they would have enslaved people through the neo-aristocratic nonsense that paraded itself as fighting for states rights, when in reality, they were protecting little feudal kingdoms.

PJ- Can I ask a question? Have you recently read the book "Seven miracles that saved America"? The reason why I'm asking is that is a popular book these days at Desert book and inside I have found the same line of logic that you are using with your quote.

neo-aristocratic nonsense huh? well - I'm certainly glad that since the North won the Civil War that we are all free of all that. As well with the "feudal kingdoms"- I mean none of those exist today either

As a matter of fact we are SO much more "free" since the North won!!!

Here's a challenge PJ- can you give me a list of "freedoms" that came out of the Civil War- because of the victory of the North- that we would NOT have enjoyed if the South won?

Yes, Slavery is the big one- but machinery and culture would have lead to that anyway in time.

Lincoln probably woke up to this fact too late. After the war, he began to see this scheme for what it was and began fighting the bankers. For this, he lost his life--IMO.

I'm glad that you added IMO here PJ, I've heard this theory and actually studied it as well, I find it hard to believe that a man would act as an absolute tyrant for 4 years, murder his own fellow citizens, trample the Constitution, lay the groundwork for an opressive federal government, and then "wake up" to the fact that Federal banks and money manipulation were evil- it simply doesn't make sense to me.

But after all it's just one man's opinion.

Mosby, OBVIOUSLY you have me beat on the facts. You have studied this much more than I have - I'm not certain I'm right. I just can't figure out why he was assassinated. Lincoln may have done may things as a "tyrant" to save the union - even if he misunderstood the voluntary association with that term. Did Lincoln do these things to be a tyrant? He could have remained dictator, but chose instead to reinstate habeas corpus and three freedoms he stole. That makes it a very tough case to judge, Hitler used a similar situations to create a bona fide dictatorship.

I'm uncertain and fairly convinced that had the South won, the miracle of the federal system would have thrown us back into an Articles of Confederation era. But that's just my opinion. We pooh pooh the loss of states rights, but remember that states rights allowed a Missouri governor to exterminate it's citizens over religion, wherein a weak US government under Van Buren "I can do nothing for you," was a statement of fact, not of willingness, IMO. I agree that the Civil War did nothing to really advance the cause of Freedom save the slavery issues, but we have many onion layers here. It overreached to correct a true problem in order to create slavery of another kind. Gotta love those savvy Gadiantons.

[Mosby]

Mosby, OBVIOUSLY you have me beat on the facts. You have studied this much more than I have -

hey if you can't answer questions posted and explain asinine statements like the one below:

Had the South won, they would have enslaved people through the neo-aristocratic nonsense that paraded itself as fighting for states rights, when in reality, they were protecting little feudal kingdoms.

.......then I guess you just go with sarcasm.

[Jason]

Divine guidance would settle the issue wouldn't it?

fwiw - http://www.rexresearch.com/prophist/phf8usa.htm#PHF516

Sounds like an "angel of light to me" Jason - that's a cool story, thanks for posting it.
Ironic that - that Gen McClellan was relived of command by honest Abe, in favor of Grant the butcher- I guess George McClellan was too spritual for Abe!

LOL....perhaps! Interesting story!

[pjbrownie]

Mosby, OBVIOUSLY you have me beat on the facts. You have studied this much more than I have -

hey if you can't answer questions posted and explain asinine statements like the one below:

Had the South won, they would have enslaved people through the neo-aristocratic nonsense that paraded itself as fighting for states rights, when in reality, they were protecting little feudal kingdoms.

.......then I guess you just go with sarcasm.

I explained it as opinion. You seem to have pulled out of your arse some unknown what-if fact had the South won. Guess what, we're both extrapolating. I'm the only one recognizing it as usual with you. Was the South neo-feudal in its economic structure? Of course it was. Tell me how this statement was asinine in your universe. The South wanted to protect this "way of life" and used states rights as its banner.

Lincoln was full of contradictions, yes. Let me know when you have left your little polar world you live in and we can have a discussion.

[leeuniverse]

It was war time..... Of course Lincoln suspended some liberty of the "bad guys" that were causing trouble.

It was a CIVIL WAR people. It wasn't a war with outsiders. Of course things are going to be done differently when it's your next door neighbor being treasonous etc. If Lincoln had been politically correct by today's standards we would likely STILL be having war with the South, or the country would have split and Slavery would still exist.

You can't apply modern sensibility's with yesterday.

It's the same issue with the Nauvoo City Council destroying the anti-mormon press. It was a public nuisance causing violence and otherwise, thus they nipped it in the bud.

BTW.... Glenn Beck DOES NOT tell "half truths". I'm an expert on half truths from dealing with anti-mormons for the last 20 years and liberals for the last 10. Anyone that says that Glenn Beck tells half truths is themselves promoting half truth. Of course, as a human he can error, but making a mistake once out of 1000 comments does not making him a half truth teller. Someone actually needs to watch and listen to Glenn Beck rather than reading whatever idiot is misrepresenting him, like Rush Limbaugh is also misrepresented, and mormonism is misrepresented, and conservatives are misrepresented, even by other so-called conservatives like Alex Jones.

[Mosby]

I won't dignify to your temper tantrum with a response other than to say that any serious student of the civil war would realize how absolutely ridiculous your comments about "the south pretending about states rights and fighting for feudal kingdoms are" why even try to engage in an intelligent debate with you pj? It's obvious that you have bought into the "official story" of the civil war.......instead of doing your own homework

[pritchet1]

Take it up a notch. The "Civil" War was about "Commerce". Power and money flow. Who won in the war? Those who controlled the purse strings. As always is the case in mortal combat. Follow the money.

And yes, the "Civil" War was a punishment for how the "Union" mistreated the Saints.

[pjbrownie]

I won't dignify to your temper tantrum with a response other than to say that any serious student of the civil war would realize how absolutely ridiculous your comments about "the south pretending about states rights and fighting for feudal kingdoms are" why even try to engage in an intelligent debate with you pj? It's obvious that you have bought into the "official story" of the civil war.......instead of doing your own homework

Awww. . . Again, what's your justification, sir. As usual, and again, it's just hyperbole. Of course, those on the forum can view our past comments and see which of us has more intelligent debates.

[Hyrcanus]

This is a pretty interesting topic with lots of potential that can be killed off with Ad Hominem between slung between posters, aside from the fact that its a fallacy in any argument, it kills participation in the discussion for everyone with more restraint. Sorry if this rubs people the wrong way, but as I read through some of the older threads a pattern has emerged and I decided to say something about it.

[blondenblueeyed]

BTW.... Glenn Beck DOES NOT tell "half truths". I'm an expert on half truths from dealing with anti-mormons for the last 20 years and liberals for the last 10. Anyone that says that Glenn Beck tells half truths is themselves promoting half truth. Of course, as a human he can error, but making a mistake once out of 1000 comments does not making him a half truth teller. Someone actually needs to watch and listen to Glenn Beck rather than reading whatever idiot is misrepresenting him, like Rush Limbaugh is also misrepresented, and mormonism is misrepresented, and conservatives are misrepresented, even by other so-called conservatives like Alex Jones.

Thanks for reminding the anti-BECK crowd about Glennn's integrity and constant concern for having
all the facts....the RIGHT facts.