Abraham Lincoln’s Execution .: Knowledge Base… (“Unless historians or other scholars can refute what Professor John Chandler Griffin has reveale in Abraham Lincoln’s Execution, the history not only of the administration of the 16th President of the U.S. and his death at the hands of John Wilkes Booth will have to be rewritten, but also that of the American Civil War.”) « AMERICAN BLOGGER: GUNNY.G ~ WEBLOG.EMAIL
Unless historians or other scholars can refute what Professor John Chandler Griffin has reveale in Abraham Lincoln’s Execution, the history not only of the administration of the 16th President of the U.S. and his death at the hands of John Wilkes Booth will have to be rewritten, but also that of the American Civil War.
Griffin, professor emeritus at the University of South Carolina, has revisited what happened in the 1860’s for two basic purposes: first, to demonstrate that members of Lincoln’s cabinet were implicated with the Confederate Secret Service in the murder of Lincoln (which is why Griffin calls it an execution in lieu of an assassination); and, second, to demolish the standard mythology re the character of Lincoln and his motives in instigating the military action that metastasized into all-out civil war.
Rather than “The Great Emancipator,” Lincoln appears in Griffin’s book as “The Great Dictator.” Blocking the South’s secession in order to establish and maintain a centralized government, Griffin writes, was the true motive behind Lincoln’s instigation of civil war, and not the elimination of slavery. In fact, Griffin documents, Lincoln repeatedly expressed his view of whites as superior to blacks, opposed equal rights for them, wrote to Illinois legislators that “eliminating every black person from American soil would be a glorious consummation,” appropriated taxpayer money to fund his plan to export freed slaves to a variety of countries; and, despite his famous Emancipation Proclamation, engaged in manipulations so that only slaves in the south would be freed and not those in the north. Lincoln’s prejudices also showed up, Griffin points out, in Lincoln’s support of the war on American Indians unwilling to move to reservations, resulting in their systematic extermination.
watching MSNBC‘s Hardball | January 11, 2013 | Seizethecarp
Posted on Friday, January 11, 2013 5:46:16 PM by Seizethecarp
Chris Matthews opened Hardball with video from the past two days of Jim Yeager, Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh defending the second amendment. David Corn says Rush is “inviting John Wilkes Booth…” Matthews says Rush should know better.
Right before Hardball, Martin Bashir said that the report that the armed officer assigned to the school that were the latest shooting occurred wasn’t there because he was snowed-in “proves” that armed officers at schools are not the solution.
He came to the conclusion that none could. He continued and asked, “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected?
I answer if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by the sword.”Clearly. Mr. Lincoln foresaw Barack Hussein Obama. November 6, 2012 might just be the most important day in our history.
Perhaps the biggest question I’ve ever had about a remarkable president, Abraham Lincoln, centers around his faith. Or lack of faith. Who really knows what America’s “Father Abraham” thought about God?
Stephen Mansfield does. The great biographer has produced a wonderful new work, “Lincoln’s Battle With God,” in which he sheds important light on what role faith played in Lincoln’s stay in the White House.
Lincoln, a figure still shrouded in some mystery – as iconic persons should be – was at times anti-religion, even anti-God. Yet a ghastly war and the deaths of two young sons forced him to consider unearthly realities.
It is against this backdrop that Mansfield opens “Lincoln’s Battle With God.” He includes a completely fascinating legend that is evidently something more than legend.
“I Saw John Wilkes Booth Shoot Abraham Lincoln (April 14, 1965)” – 1956 I’ve Got A Secret on YouTube
YouTube ^ | February 9, 1956 | I’ve Got A Secret
Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:39:31 PM by DogByte6RER
Lincoln Assassination Eyewitness appears on television’s “I’ve Got a Secret” on February 9, 1956.
On a 1956 game show, a man appeared who had been present at Ford’s Theatre on the night of April 14, 1865.
(Note: Link over to the YouTube site provided to watch this amazing historical video.)
Abraham Lincoln’s Execution .: Knowledge Base « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL
Unless historians or other scholars can refute what Professor John Chandler Griffin has revealed Abraham Lincoln, Republican candidate for the …in Abraham Lincoln’s Execution, the history not only of the administration of the 16th President of the U.S. and his death at the hands of John Wilkes Booth will have to be rewritten, but also that of the AmericanCivil War……….
Unless historians or other scholars can refute what Professor John Chandler Griffin has revealed Abraham Lincoln, Republican candidate for the …in Abraham Lincoln’s Execution, the history not only of the administration of the 16th President of the U.S. and his death at the hands of John Wilkes Booth will have to be rewritten, but also that of the American Civil War.
Unless historians or other scholars can refute what Professor John Chandler Griffin has revealed
in Abraham Lincoln’s Execution, the history not only of the administration of the 16th President of the U.S. and his death at the hands of John Wilkes Booth will have to be rewritten, but also that of the American Civil War.
THAT HORSE IS DEAD
…..I continue to hear the interminable and irksome braying that the nation will be saved by men from a rapidly approaching collapse and that the Constitution will be restored to the state of being created by the founding fathers.
I am pounded with this wearisome babble every minute of every day and it grates on the nerves like a screech of nails across a blackboard.
People that horse is already dead and has been for a century and a half; the Constitution was spiked through the heart by the uncompromising Hamiltonian enemies of federalism, interred by Abraham Lincoln amid the killing grounds of the civil war, and settled in the grave by the dirt poured upon it by a long succession of dimwitted political centralists. You are now, and always have been, subject to totalitarian control.
THE KILLING OF THE CONSTITUTION
If you do not know James Madison as the father of the U.S. Constitution you should…at the birth of the nation it was his conceptions in regard to an ascendency of personal liberties and a sovereignty of the people that prevailed against all arguments for a monarchy or a totalitarian central government. No one had a greater role in shaping American Constitutional theory and in framing the particulars of representative government than James Madison.
“Sic Semper Tyrannis”, latin for “Thus Always to Tyrants,“ is the rallying cry against tyranny dating back to the Roman Empire with the utterance of this phrase by Marcus Junius Brutus upon the assassination of Julius Caesar. This simple phrase has been used by countless European nationals as a cry to arms for independence from their oppressive monarchs, as well as others down through the ages since first spoken two thousand years ago.
To give an American context to this phrase, John Wilkes Booth immortalized it as he leapt to the stage from the Presidential Box after mortally wounding Abraham Lincoln at Fords Theater 147 years ago, and it is the motto for the state of Virginia.
Throughout history, man has always sought self-determination as a God-given or natural right as they struggled against the rule of man through kings, royalty, and monarchs. This nation was founded upon the principle that man, given the ability, the will, and means to do so, could flourish under self-rule and the rule of law. Flourish, we have; the amount of economic growth and wonders this nation has seen in its short existence of only 236 years is astounding and has not been rivaled in history.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Did John Wilkes Booth survive?
Theory is that Lincoln’s killer had escaped to Tennessee
By Dick Cook Staff Writer
SEWANEE, Tenn. — A signature in the Franklin County Courthouse and a mummy last seen in 1975 convinced two Tennessee men that John Wilkes Booth, the killer of Abraham Lincoln, escaped capture, traveled South and lived into the 20th century.
Now one of those men is hoping to use DNA evidence to prove it.
The other man, Arthur Ben Chitty, a historiographer at the University of the South who died in 2002, spent 40 years amassing anecdotal evidence that Mr. Booth married a Sewanee woman and lived there for a time, said his daughter Em Turner Chitty.
And there was one piece of physical evidence: the signature of “Jno. W. Booth” and his bride, Louisa J. Payne, recorded Feb. 24, 1872, in the marriage license records office of the Franklin County Courthouse.
Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever
Having read quite a few books on Lincoln including most recently, David Herbert Donald‘s masterful biography, I found this tome lacking. Bill should stick to autobiography and political punditry. He will bring people to the subject that haven’t been there before, and that’s all good. But, Lincoln has been covered and covered, and if you’re going to write about him, you should have something really new to impart – if there is anything left to be said at all.
Sic Semper Tyrannis:
It’s not just Monroe. Every time citizens anywhere in the country have voted on such traffic-ticketing cameras, they’ve said, “No!” Yet, politicians in city after city attempt to install the cameras to fleece citizens without their consent.
When challenged in this unpopular endeavor, in localities in which citizens enjoy initiative and referendum rights, the politicians work to overturn the applecart of democracy.
Thus it always is, with tyrants……………
What You Didn’t Know About John Wilkes Booth & Jesse James
The outlaw Jesse Woodson James killed the actor John Wilkes Booth at the Grand Avenue Hotel in Enid, Oklahoma in 1903 after Booth continually reneged on his oath to never talk about his secret membership in the Masonic-oriented Knights of the Golden Circle (KGC) and to never mention the murder of Abraham Lincoln.
John Wilkes Booth did not die in Garrett’s tobacco barn in 1865 as is commonly supposed. Booth was saved by his brother Knights and spirited immediately down into Texas after the assassination. He lived and worked for many years in Granbury under the alias ‘John St. Helen.’
His own granddaughter Izola Forrester affirmed in her 1937 book This One Mad Act that Booth had been aided and abetted in his escape from Washington by the KGC. It was common knowledge in the Booth family that he never died in the barn.
The man shot and killed in Garrett’s barn was James Boyd, a former confederate agent working for the War Department. He bore a passing resemblance to Booth aside from his red hair and moustache. Booth’s hair was jet black and he had shaved off his moustache at the home of Dr. Samuel Mudd shortly after escaping from Washington.
Not a single friend of Booth was called to the inquest to identify the body. A Washington doctor named John May had removed a tumor from Booth’s neck several months prior to the Lincoln assassination and was summoned to view the corpse. When the blanket covering the body was removed May stated, ‘There is no resemblance in that corpse to Booth, nor can I believe it to be him.’ May later changed his statement to conform with the official proclamation that Booth had been captured and killed.
National Detective Police agents Andrew & Luther Potter had been on the trail of Booth from the beginning. They were called in to identify the corpse. When the blanket was removed they commented, ‘He sure grew a moustache in a hurry. Red, too.’
Each of the 26 detectives that worked on the case received several thousand dollars apiece after signing quitclaims, stating that they had no further interest in the case. This was a big payday 150 years ago.
In 1922 two Civil War veterans swore an affidavit stating that the body removed from the Garrett farm was not Booth. Joseph Zeigen and Wilson Kenzie said that they had served with the cavalry troop which had surrounded the barn. The man dragged from the barn wore a Confederate uniform and on his feet were yellow brogans, the service footgear of Johnny Reb. The two veterans were sworn to secrecy.
There are other testimonies that can be recited, each refuting government lies.
In reality, John Wilkes Booth was taken to Texas immediately after the assassination where he lived and worked for many years under the alias of John St. Helen.
Posted on Monday, September 27, 2010 4:27:31 PM by RandysRight
This article gives another perspective on liberals, libertarians and conservatives. The history both Lincoln and Sherman has been written by the victors and beyond reproach. Do we want to restore honor in this country? Can we restore honor by bringing up subjects over 100 years old? Comments are encouraged.
Randy’s Right aka Randy Dye NC Freedom
The American Lenin by L. Neil Smith email@example.com
It’s harder and harder these days to tell a liberal from a conservative — given the former category’s increasingly blatant hostility toward the First Amendment, and the latter’s prissy new disdain for the Second Amendment — but it’s still easy to tell a liberal from a libertarian.
Just ask about either Amendment.
If what you get back is a spirited defense of the ideas of this country’s Founding Fathers, what you’ve got is a libertarian. By shameful default, libertarians have become America’s last and only reliable stewards of the Bill of Rights.
But if — and this usually seems a bit more difficult to most people — you’d like to know whether an individual is a libertarian or a conservative, ask about Abraham Lincoln.
Suppose a woman — with plenty of personal faults herself, let that be stipulated — desired to leave her husband: partly because he made a regular practice, in order to go out and get drunk, of stealing money she had earned herself by raising chickens or taking in laundry; and partly because he’d already demonstrated a proclivity for domestic violence the first time she’d complained about his stealing.
Now, when he stood in the doorway and beat her to a bloody pulp to keep her home, would we memorialize him as a hero? Or would we treat him like a dangerous lunatic who should be locked up, if for no other reason, then for trying to maintain the appearance of a relationship where there wasn’t a relationship any more? What value, we would ask, does he find in continuing to possess her in an involuntary association, when her heart and mind had left him long ago?
History tells us that Lincoln was a politically ambitious lawyer who eagerly prostituted himself to northern industrialists who were unwilling to pay world prices for their raw materials and who, rather than practice real capitalism, enlisted brute government force — “sell to us at our price or pay a fine that’ll put you out of business” — for dealing with uncooperative southern suppliers. That’s what a tariff’s all about. In support of this “noble principle”, when southerners demonstrated what amounted to no more than token resistance, Lincoln permitted an internal war to begin that butchered more Americans than all of this country’s foreign wars — before or afterward — rolled into one.
Lincoln saw the introduction of total war on the American continent — indiscriminate mass slaughter and destruction without regard to age, gender, or combat status of the victims — and oversaw the systematic shelling and burning of entire cities for strategic and tactical purposes. For the same purposes, Lincoln declared, rather late in the war, that black slaves were now free in the south — where he had no effective jurisdiction — while declaring at the same time, somewhat more quietly but for the record nonetheless, that if maintaining slavery could have won his war for him, he’d have done that, instead.
The fact is, Lincoln didn’t abolish slavery at all, he nationalized it, imposing income taxation and military conscription upon what had been a free country before he took over — income taxation and military conscription to which newly “freed” blacks soon found themselves subjected right alongside newly-enslaved whites. If the civil war was truly fought against slavery — a dubious, “politically correct” assertion with no historical evidence to back it up — then clearly, slavery won.
Lincoln brought secret police to America, along with the traditional midnight “knock on the door”, illegally suspending the Bill of Rights and, like the Latin America dictators he anticipated, “disappearing” thousands in the north whose only crime was that they disagreed with him. To finance his crimes against humanity, Lincoln allowed the printing of worthless paper money in unprecedented volumes, ultimately plunging America into a long, grim depression — in the south, it lasted half a century — he didn’t have to live through, himself.
In the end, Lincoln didn’t unite this country — that can’t be done by force — he divided it along lines of an unspeakably ugly hatred and resentment that continue to exist almost a century and a half after they were drawn. If Lincoln could have been put on trial in Nuremburg for war crimes, he’d have received the same sentence as the highest-ranking Nazis.
If libertarians ran things, they’d melt all the Lincoln pennies, shred all the Lincoln fives, take a wrecking ball to the Lincoln Memorial, and consider erecting monuments to John Wilkes Booth. Libertarians know Lincoln as the worst President America has ever had to suffer, with Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson running a distant second, third, and fourth.
Conservatives, on the other hand, adore Lincoln, publicly admire his methods, and revere him as the best President America ever had. One wonders: is this because they’d like to do, all over again, all of the things Lincoln did to the American people? Judging from their taste for executions as a substitute for individual self-defense, their penchant for putting people behind bars — more than any other country in the world, per capita, no matter how poorly it works to reduce crime — and the bitter distaste they display for Constitutional “technicalities” like the exclusionary rule, which are all that keep America from becoming the world’s largest banana republic, one is well-justified in wondering.
The troubling truth is that, more than anybody else’s, Abraham Lincoln’s career resembles and foreshadows that of V.I. Lenin, who, with somewhat better technology at his disposal, slaughtered millions of innocents — rather than mere hundreds of thousands — to enforce an impossibly stupid idea which, in the end, like forced association, was proven by history to be a resounding failure. Abraham Lincoln was America’s Lenin, and when America has finally absorbed that painful but illuminating truth, it will finally have begun to recover from the War between the States.