Obama and Lincoln

9-3-2010 [Lincoln] [LAW]

States do not have the right of Disunion by force of arms; any sweeping unlawful act by the federal govt (by branch, whole, or branch and compliance of the whole) would be an act of disunion on the Fed Govt.'s part not the states.The civil war was started by a series of illegal acts by slave holding states reacting to the lawful  election of an Anti Slave Republican Party member who ran on a [legal & constitutional] gradual end to slavery, ticket. 

The Confederacy's attempt of disunion was pre-emptive to any unlawful action by Govt. [any prospect of said action itself being a phantom of ignorance born of democrat party newspapers propagandizing against Lincoln contrary to his actual stances] Lincoln did not start the war.

The entire history of war shows that the seizure of property is 'lawful'. The Emancipation Proclamation was effective against "States in Rebellion" and thus a war act, Presidents holding special powers during a Civil War.
The current 100 year drift has been towards a disparate treatment comparable to those inequitable laws oppressing 'Englishman' laid upon the American Colonies by King George III.

King George and Jefferson Davis violated the letter of the law. Wilson Obama and Progressives in between, have so manipulated the perception of the law as to render it unrecognizable to the original spirit/intent. "The intention of the lawgiver is the law" -A. Lincoln [The lawgivers being the Founding Fathers]

Obama is not Lincoln, nor even Jefferson Davis, Obama is Wilson
One of Wilson's Men was Bernays who LITERALLY wrote the book "Propaganda".
Obama taught Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals".
[its ideology not conspiracy] Implementing "Positive Rights" being the epitome of progressivism and the antithesis of Constitutional libertarianism. 'Positive rights' [to house job medical etc] necessarily indenturing any person of any means demonized as the oppressor to the servitude of the deified victim to the aggrandizement of Governmental powers.

Not all that is legal is just.

Notes on Secession by Asderathos [Lincoln]

 It is held that the Confederacy's attempt of disunion was pre-emptive to any unlawful action by Govt. and lacking any such sited responsible illegal cause for action, their Provocations and Usurpations cannot be defended. 
Necessary lawful and Unanimous steps for disunion NOT Being necessary, based upon Acts (Exampled in history by The Stamp Act) as Illegal Self-Contradictory and Tyranical. 


The question becomes what is Illegal when laws contradict; particularly in regards to Constitutional Amendments as well as modern legislation presuming the position that Govt. is the source of Individual Rights rather than their mere protector (which impunes the justification for the American Revolution); 


Governments being instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, all men being created equal, that their being endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among them being Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (Property Excluded solely to avoid endorsing slavery)

 That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Should not the dismissal of founding documents of law by officialdom; having not been changed by due process but reinterpreted, demand by those very documents' logic an abolition or secession? 

Emancipation was disallowed by necessitous due process of law until the formation of and attack by the Illegal Confederacy, it being deemed necessary as a Wartime Measure; The 13th Amendment being the domestic change in rule of law; & the Emancipation Proclamation (Having no power of law within them) merely deemed escaped slaves from the Seceded States to be freed.