You’re always amazing with your musings. I’m an avid reader and love history but you surpass or add to my personal studies so much. Thank you. I am born and reared in the South and we were always taught State Rights was the cause of the Civil War. And , it had a lot to do with cotton which the South cultivated with hard work, innovation and many farms used slaves. The North then sold it to Europe through their shipping ports and made most of the profit while locking the Farmers out of it. The slavery issue was meant to punish the South for daring to try and by pass the North mercantile trade and develop their own markets. Books on the Cotton Revolution detail that history. Someone threw slavery in as a way to justify the war. It’s amazing to me the lack of curiosity people suffer from but won’t even allow those with it to share their learning for any discussion. Fear of change is my guess.
I’m weary of the reframing of history that is so prevalent today. The narrative today seems to favor re-examining all that we’ve been taught about historical figures so that we can understand that none were heroes because of their mortal flaws. The ones who want to do this feel a need to re-educate us with all the truth. So here’s what I think is being missed by most all re-framers today. We know they weren’t perfect. We know they had flaws. In light of all this, is it possible that some of their acts were worthy of greatness? Is it possible that they were led by God? Is it possible they were worthy of praise rather than bringing them down to the lowest common denominator? My answer to these questions is YES.
Conner isn’t “re-framing history” he’s using facts to explain what an absolute tyrant Lincoln was There have been many books written that use Lincoln’s own words, action and legislation that document this You should read them instead of being intellectually lazy by attacking the messenger
There’s a lot of good points raised here. Lincoln, I think, is a bit of a mixed bag. I do think this video ignores some key factors and sets up a bit of a straw man argument as a result. Regardless of all the nuance, before Lincoln there was slavery, and after him, there was none. The video overlooks why the South seceded from the Union: Lincoln wanted to ban slavery expansion in the west. That’s what he ran on. Even after Lincoln offered this alternate thirteenth amendment mentioned in the video the South was not willing to have slavery opposed one bit. I think Lincoln was instrumental in the ending of slavery much like Trump is responsible for ending Roe v. Wade. Both may have not been particular passionate about the topic, but the political expediency pushed the issue more than what many might have supposed. One other point, Heber Grant may have pushed prohibition more than I would’ve liked, but he was spot on with his dislike of FDR and the New Deal.
Sadly Abraham Lincoln's reputation is mostly undeserved. The man started the war of Northern Aggression, and we are lucky that abolitionists co-opted it to stop slavery once and for all. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't free Union slaves (yup, there were four Union slave states throughout the entire war), and Lincoln was willing to preserve union by making slavery permanent.
“The Living Lincoln” by Angle and Mier is a book of Lincoln’s actual writing and speeches during his life, but highly focused on his time as President. Lincoln’s own writings and speeches absolutely destroy the narrative of “Lincoln the Great Emancipator.”
I used to revere Lincoln bc of being brainwashed by modern education. When I woke up to the current conspiracy in government (secret combinations), I had to revisit history and learned just how bad & oppressive & tyrannical Lincoln was (i do give him props for the green back). The Saints in those days did not like, or support Lincoln. Abe had plenty of chances to stop the persecution of the Church, but refused.
Thanks so much for getting this truth out there for all to learn! I always cringe when people put Lincoln on a pedestal because they show they don't know the true history about him. Justice is the Lord's and he knows what his motivation was. His fruit of taking states individual strength away and giving power to Fed gov says it all. Keep up the truth telling even though public educated people won't understand it without unlearning the narrative.
While I personally don't revere lincoln, I am worried about some people adopting the "lost cause" myth. Checkmate lincolnites is a great youtube show discussing these ideas while still not conforming to neo confederate ideals.
Also, it is interesting that you only quoted part of the Greeley letter. Here is the rest of the letter. "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."
Yes. As long as they weren’t here. Which is why he favored deportation and setting up colonies in “their native clime”. Of course you won’t read about in the court historian history books.
@@taylorgifford7406 I guess that is true. One thing to note though. Now that Connor has stated that saying two different groups of people cannot be living together is wrong, I will critize him whenever he mentions how different groups of people cannot inherently get along.
This musing is about something much broader, much more significant than Abraham Lincoln. The 2005 movie, The Upside Of Anger, illustrates the danger, the mistake, the immaturity, the self-righteousness of drawing conclusions before all the facts are in. Collectively, we have drawn conclusions about Lincoln, Columbus, the Japanese High Command, Atila, King Herod and our next door neighbors without knowing 'all the facts'. Connor instructs us about some negative 'facts' regarding Lincoln that I did not previously know; and he warns us about complicity in the White Wash of history. Alternately, the 'bad guy' in The Upside Of Anger turned out to be the good guy, which the audience realizes, at the movie's end, once all the facts were in. Consider Judas Iscariot; some people think that Jesus instructed Judas to identify him to the Roman guards, as a priesthood assignment, to accelerate Jesus' mission as Redeemer. The bad guy might actually be the good guy. Lucky for us, the person governing our Final Judgement will have All The Facts.
The facts are there on Lincoln In his own words- on record His evil unconstitutional actions are facts too Problems is - most have never taken the time to find the facts Im guessing from your comments, you fall into that group
thats why citing quoting others who quote cite others who cited others etc…is highly problematic and can easily entangle authority into falsehoods and misleading sheep that fails to see or look any further but the butt and tail of the next sheep over, as the herd moves closer to the detrimental ravin. The metaphor for people who take other people’s word for truth that was only based however on false stories passed down.
7 28 24 Connor! One of Your best and absolutely terrific content! I'm a Virginian (roots to early 18th cent), who happened to grow up (attend government schools) in the heart of Ohio. Your clarification and bold stating of what I've always understood to be actual is oddly a relief. Having lived here in SC for a while now, and living the ongoing and intensifying crumble of these United States, I've noted the referenced books for "storage" for the darker times to come.📕 Btw, I hav to smile at Your omitting those middle initials😉. Do You have a suggested reading list?
Here is the first thing Libertarians get wrong: there is an objective right and wrong. We are moral creatures who perceive right and wrong to differing degrees. However, there is an average opinion that the majority agree to. The majority does have the power and the right to force the minority to comply. We can make laws against bad behavior and enforce them. The second thing you got wrong is that Lincoln was hiding his priorities. His first priority was Union and his second priority was to limit the spread of slavery that a minority, the Slave holders kept trying to force on the rest of the country. The truth about the Confederate South is that it was ran by a small minority that foisted its values over the values of the majority. There were far more slaves than slave holders and if you believe in the rule of majority than you have to re-establish it when it’s broken. That’s what he did. Right wrong or indifferent he did it. He was flawed. He was sympathetic to Karl Marx and he didn’t help the church at all. Yet, he did save the Union. It was the confederate elites running the south like it was their personal property is what tore the Union apart.
I don't revere any US president in the second half of the 19th century who did not defend the LDS First Amendment right to practice their religion in regards to polygamy. They were all cowards.
@@littled6698 that is unless section 132 wasn't a lie. Regardless passing a law against what someone thinks is there religious beliefs are that doesn't hurt anyone is wrong.
@@littled6698 what good is a Republic and freedom if we don't have either one. The idea that anyone government or otherwise can tell you how to live your life when you're not hurting anyone is ridiculous. And is why we're in the situation that we're in today. As soon as you support bondage you have lost everything, and frankly don't deserve anything else
@@littled6698I don't believe The Church's narrative about polygamy being ordained by God, either. But I've also never understood why the government should have a problem with a man why is "married" to multiple women but not have a problem with a man having multiple "girlfriends." And vice versa. Why do women/people have a right to "choose what to do with their body" but can't choose multiple spouses? Or prostitution? I believe it's a moral issue and as such cannot and should not be regulated by government.
Great musing! The victors truly do get to write the history books. I came across the true Lincoln many years ago as well. Thus nation needs more of the spirit of 76! So many ironies with this and the church.
The only thing that is weird about this video is that I didn’t hear the word “Libertarian.” Crazy complicated topic. I’m glad I don’t pretend like I know how God judges people like Lincoln.
Conner, fantastic stuff. My mother has read at least 10 very well written/researched books on Lincoln and still reveres him. I've studied enough libertarian and self determination to know that he made some very poor decisions based on very misled principles. I HAVE A REQUEST. A friend and I are studying the garment. Its hard to find history on it's revelation, original shape and construction and even it's early understood purpose. I can't find anything about the topic on your website . We would LOVE if you would apply your brain and research recourses to this topic, or someone please direct me to where you already have.
What would have become of "these United States" if Lincoln had not used his government power authoritatively (and in some cases extra-legally) to combine neighboring states under one government? I can't see a case where the people living in North America would be better off had Lincoln not done so. Yes, history is murkier than our textbooks paint it out to be, and I'm not arguing against the facts Connor presents (for they are all true). But I believe we can see the reality of Lincoln's story and still hold him up as a righteous figure of America's past for his ambition to "preserve the union," at whatever cost, even if it was only geographical. God could use that to his advantage.
Agree. It was also a relatively still new nation. Not the super power we have known in our lifetimes. Preserving the union seems of utmost importance considering had they broken apart they’d have been prime pickings and easier targets for those who would have loved to conquer them. A matter of physical preservation.
The “union” of the states was NEVER meant to be enforced by the sword Its a VOLUNTARY union What would have happened if Lincoln didn’t use the power of government to form a “union” Well…. 1. The current United States would look a whole lot more like the one the founders envisioned 2. We would have less government 3. We would be more free 4. States would be their own masters 5. The South would not have been crippled for over 100 years
@@l7846 no, I just don't agree with the entire definition he set forth. "Abraham Lincoln didn't preserve the Union in any *meaningful* way". Really? You mean the last 160+ years of American history haven't been meaningful at all?
For context: AMENDMENT XIII Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th Amendment.
Thank you for this musing Connor. I have been pilloried by members of the church and non-members alike for my criticism of Lincoln. In addition to the books you recommended I would recommend the best book I've read on the subject, "A Constitutional History of Secession" by John Remington Graham. The nonsense about comparing Lincoln to Captain Moroni is ridiculous especially in light of the fact that arguably Lincoln wasn't even a Christian. He used the language of Christianity for political purposes. The War for Southern Independence was his war, and what he allowed His generals, especially Sherman and Sheridan to do in waging total war on the South is his responsibility. Nothing Christian about rape, murder and pillage of innocent civilians, including black slaves.
@@braydenweese1407- are you saying “Trump is willing to use the full force of the United States Government to start a war that kills over 600k Americans to enforce his view on abortion”? Not sure I’m Tracking your thought process here
@@braydenweese1407 Quite possibly. Trump is an opportunist, and in my opinion has no well grounded moral principles. He, like Lincoln knows how to tap into populist sentiment. I don't trust him. But, I don't trust any politician. The founders tried to limit presidential power, but it's out of control now.
A dear friend and I are complete ballet history nerds. About 10 years ago he told me he was doing temple for for Anna Pavlova, Serge Diaghilev, George Balanchine, Vaslav Nijinski and several others. I wasn't sure what to think at the time. I guess they have been offered the gift in their next life and they can choose to accept as they are ready.
Thank you for this overview of Lincoln. Someone in a comment on a video about "other lives" said that he was Lincoln's stand-in when the stress was too much for Lincoln to bear. So I asked him why he didn't simply purchase the freedom of the slaves instead of embroiling the whole nation in such a destructive war? His reply was something along the line of: why are you still bothered by what Lincoln didn't do all those years ago? I was gob-smacked by his non-answer.
An interesting perspective. I really enjoy your musings. It is difficult to fully comprehend history from our modern lenses. It’s very easy to judge looking back. As we judge Lincoln regarding slavery, we’ll be judged harshly regarding abortion for example. Your research is compelling though. No doubt Lincoln was a very imperfect man as we all are. He was also a politician, who are almost impossible to trust. Only God will know his heart.
Really appreciate the perspective here. I’ve read stuff in high praise of Lincoln, and super angry about him. I don’t fully embrace the libertarian mindset (self-determination at all costs, all else be damned), because it has to be a balance - at least to a degree. That kind of approach is more easily corrupted with evil than more firm approaches. Not saying it’s inevitable, but human nature, etc. I like to think of different scenarios of how it might have gone differently, if Lincoln failed, or if he even succeeded in his original poorer positions. God works with what He has, and who are we to so firmly say that we’d be better off now if the states had seceded? If the argument is, we shouldn’t revere blindly, 100% agree. But this was super helpful, so thank you.
@@marianneknight822 I’m sorry, but if you think the libertarian mindset is “self determination at all costs, all else be damned”, you don’t know anything about libertarianism. Maybe read something by Murray Rothbard, for example, before you make comments like that.
@@taylorgifford7406 I’m sorry, but I think and say a lot of things based on my experience and perspective that may not be totally accurate. Turns out I can do that. As can you.
there was some overlap but only like half the time the saints were in nauvoo was he in the state legislature...so not the second half during the really bad stuff... when lincoln was a state rep in Washington he would have been outta state a lot and given travel of the time he wouldnt have much if anything to do with nauvoo. some think he may have met a few mormon s and that there is a chance joseph and he might have been at 1 social party at the same time but no one knows if they really met/spoke/knew eachother really. he didnt go after the saints during brighams time when asked and that was big the lds church just really wasnt on his radar or importance or personal circle
Lincoln had opportunity to help the saints during their oppression, both in Ohio and in DC....but he did nothing. There's a reading Brigham couldn't stand the guy. Lincoln was not a friend.
Yes. Secession was caused by slavery. The war against secession was not - the war was to preserve union. The union had 4 slave states that never freed their slaves until the 13th amendment was passed. If the war was to end slavery, they would have ended it in those 4 slave states before invading the other states.
@@JereKrischel- no, secession was not solely caused by slavery Slavery was a component of the secessionist movement - but not the main one, it’s too easy to use slavery as the cause Its way more complicated and takes far more study to really explain the factors “Slavery” is the public school answer to the “cause of the civil war” But that simply ain’t the truth
@@southwestrunner6384 Let's put it another way - the south definitely included slavery as part of their reasons for secession. But the north definitely did NOT include slavery as part of their reasons for starting a war over secession. Secession happened *before* the civil war. It did not *cause* the civil war - Lincoln's fort sumter hoax was the lie used to start the war, but it was started to preserve the union, not free the slaves.
@@JereKrischel- ok, I get you The fact that you said “Lincoln’s Fort Sumpter hoax “ leads me to believe that you and I could have a great conversation- and agree mostly on the issues from that time period Thx
The Saints in the 1800's escaped the United States as they left for what is now called Utah. Shortly after, the US conquered the saints. And we, to this day, are proud to be US citizens. We had our Kingdom and lost it.
Let me see into the future. In a coming time will we see the reason why Connor Boyack wrote this exposé about Lincoln to bring out the truth or to make money on his u-tube channel? Will it change the results? No, only what people think of him.
Because the American Empire he created eventually annexed the Republic of Hawaii, and I'm grateful that I was therefore born in the United States. Without Lincoln, and the bad things he did, I don't think we get Alaska or Hawaii. So, maybe "revere" is the wrong word, but I appreciate that Hawaii was kept out of the hands of either the British, or the Chinese, or some other imperial power, by the imperial america created by Lincoln's tyranny.
Two points: you downplay his opposition statements to slavery, while accentuating his “wallowing along with the general public.” Second, was his main focus to abolish slavery as the abolitionists wanted, or was it to preserve the Union and keep it from breaking apart? Obviously the latter. That single point explains much of the issue you have. He wanted to preserve the states sovereignty which also explains the bad version of the 13th…let the states decide. He had to maneuver thru the slavery issue and preserve the Union. Plus, there was zero basis or legal foundation for unity or slavery at that time. What was he supposed to do with no foundation? He had to make things up as he went. Lincoln was not perfect, but he isn’t quite what you outline given the state of the country at that time.
That's nonsense. There is NO excuse at all for him invading the south. We all have the right to leave the "union" whenever we want to. Your thinking is very collectivist.
"Preserving the Union" simply meant to Lincoln preserving the taxes collected from the South. The Morrill Tarriff clearly was an unconstitutional tax on the South because of the entirely lopsided effect it had on the southern economy. Article1 section 8 grants Congress the authority to levy taxes on the condition that they are equal in effect upon all the states. Being an agricultural economy the south depended on the higher quality and lower cost products imported from Europe in exchange for their cotton and other agricultural exports, but the North desired to stifle that trade to protect northern manufacturers. As all wars ultimately are, it was about $$$, control of resources and political power--the power to rule over others. To add insult to injury Lincoln used the Declaration of Independence--a document that justifies secssion!-- as the justification for the slaughter of the war and at Gettysburg in the most famous of political gobbledygook, the Gettysburg Address. It makes absolutely no sense whatever but is hailed as political genius. Lincoln was destroying government of, by, and for the people, not establishing it--if you grant that the population of the South were people. They had most certainly exercised the inalienable rights Jefferson outlined in the Declaration by seceding and forming a new government for themselves, but Lincoln came along and would not permit that. He was King George III all over again. What is remarkable is the the South lasted as long as they did in their struggle for liberty. This is not to excuse the South for their slavery, which was also hypocritical, and recognized as such by all. Perhaps the war was the consequence on the country for their killing of the prophets and expulsion of the Saints from their borders. That is the definition of "ripe for destruction" as found in the scriptures.
@@katykristensen302 Yes, that's point. Ft. Sumter was a tax collection facility-in the middle of the harbor to monitor and collect tariffs from all shipping traffic. Were the colonists responsible for starting the Revolution because of the Boston Tea Party? They were simply responding to the oppression of the British in an act of secession, and we say that was justified. What's the difference?
@@cboyack Okay. Thanks for your patience with me. I listened whole episode this morning; I understand why you've chosen to continue using the name Mormon. Still ... I'm hesitating.
It isn't surprising that history as taught doesn't match history as it happened. There is likely some psychological or sociological phenomenon at play, and what we are seeing is human nature playing out, not some evil deception that must be condemned, nor that those who innocently go along are somehow to be despised or mocked for it. I have heard a case made that the Church couldn't have moved forward as it has without the changes that occurred during Lincoln's tenure. When President Van Buren told Joseph Smith that he couldn't help the Saints, he apparently was telling the truth, as the federal government had no authority to enforce the Bill of Rights in individual states. So even though some dislike the transfer of authority to the federal government that Lincoln helped bring about, it may have been necessary in order for the Church to progress when it was returned to the United States. You may have peeled a layer from the onion, but there are likely more layers to be peeled. Maybe history is like science - we can never say we know the whole truth, just that we think we know this much and expect it to be altered or proven wrong at some future date.
@@nonrepublicrat- Patrick Henry was incredible, my ancestors are linked to him through marriage- which as a kid who grew up in Richmond Va makes me very happy ( I just found this out through family tree a few months ago) PH was a MAN to be envied and a template for a patriot But TJs intellect and foresight is unparalleled A few historians consider him “the preeminent figure over the last 500 years
This is one I wish they would use..."You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled - doubled - since we were children. We know the statistics - that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it."
The Southern states were willing to die on that hill, a hill to preserve slavery. Nothern abolitionists seemed indifferent to the fact that Southern succession would remove southern states from the Union, placing them outside of our political boundaries, unable to enforce any law, be it abolition or pro-slavery. A politicians number 1 job is to get elected. He is not a prophet or a priest. It matters not his own preferences or opinions or his elloquence in speech. If not elected then his political power is irrelevant. Lincoln walked a fine line between two extreme political views at the time. Pro-slavery and Anti-slavery. What resuled was an estimated 3/4 million Americans lost their lives fighting over the two politically extreme views. A wise man walks the fine line between extremes. It is only between the fine line that persuasion is productive, for outside of that line is where violence reigns. Jesus didn't free slaves or the Jews from oppression by Rome. He walked that fine line perfectly where his words would have the most effect. Lincoln was just as flawed as any mortal man, but his ability to lead a nation at a time when extremes in passion erupted into bloody battle - it is amazing to me that he remained moderate even after the war was won, when retaliation and retribution was king in the minds of northerners who sought to punish southerners with slaughter. You are right. Lincoln was a dull man. But at a time of extremes of heated passions - a dull leader is exactly what is needed.
Please don't praise the articles of confederation. They were woefully ineffective. The concept of confederation of states voluntarily joined would never have held together long. The results of the civil war at least gave us a country where we could do the work before the end. The mess of a union as we now have it is not Lincoln's fault-it is the fault of the constant pressure of most national politicians for more and more power to themselves, as we see everywhere else in the world. Clearly Lincoln was a typical politician, careful to say things that would not offend. Those who actively opposed slavery in his day were a minority. Stopping slavery was a fairly new idea. Slavery had been the way of life for countless centuries, however evil it was.
Connor, you’re really stretching with explanation on why Lincoln didn’t actually free the slaves. Without Lincoln slavery would have continued for who knows how long. His priority was maintaining the Union but I don’t think you give him credit for his part in getting rid of slavery, even if he wasn’t the big abolitionist many believe.
Pov. If his aim was in any significant way, to free slaves, he'd have done so, across the board--- all states, and on any situation, by Christmas 1861.
@@cboyackConnor you really should do a deep dive on adultery. People will hate you but I believe you'll be doing good. For you being an influencer and the good job you do I think you'd be doing God and everyone a favor doing it.
@@cboyack valid, but the entire American experiment was pretty unique beginning with the constitution. Not sure it’s an apples to apples comparison on why other nations didn’t have their own Lincoln. The difference between American and French Revolution comes to mind to illustrate the day difference.
It helped a lot that Abraham Lincoln promised to leave the Saints alone and then actually kept his promise. This was a big deal considering what the early Saints had endured.
Your wrong. He signed the bill that started the war against the Mormons dealing with polygamy. Freedom of religion was taken from them by Lincoln. Morrill act of 1862.
A contrarian take on Lincoln? But what if Lincoln was actually the great emancipator. Would you change your tune? Or are subtle factors pre-determining your foregrounding of certain facts
Honest Abe and Justin Smith Morrell from Vermont declared war on polygamy and slavery and tarrifs. The saints sent their children to govt school . That's why they revere the tyrant.
@@utahjustinslaves were never set free as men. They went from being private property to us citizens subject to the jurisdiction of Congress. Read the 14th amendment. Read 13 and the rest during Reconstruction. Americans deserved Lincoln. The wicked punish the wicked.
The virtue i see in Abraham Lincoln is his innate understanding of structure preserving transformations. Also known as the fundamental “living process”. The structure preserving part always appears conservative and regressive and can always be criticized as such from the point of view of the radical transformations.
Lincoln took six or seven times to get into office because the people of his day knew he was a communist. Big bankers donating to his campaign. Much is kept hidden about Lincoln to support the narrative he was freeing the slaves and someone we should all look up to.
King Nebuchadnezzar was an instrument in the hands of god, even though he was a horrible person, and an unrighteous King in many ways. To think that Abraham Lincoln was not a servant of God in God's purposes, even if lincoln was not following the intent of the Constitution is a narrow way of thinking. God's supreme government is a monarchy and theocracy. As wonderful as the US Constitution is, it is not above God, nor is an eternal system of government.
So it is your position that if one or more of the States today decided to make slavery legal again they should be allowed to do so without any federal government interference because their freedom to make those choices for themselves, even if you disagree with them, overrides all other considerations. This is what you stated as I understand it, repeatedly. Is this not a tail wagging a dog? A libertarian idol distracting you from more fundamental ethical principles? Surely the Confederate States knew that the tide was turning against them and did not trust Lincoln's offers of caveats to be slave owners in perpetuity if they agreed to continue as members of the union rather than your interpretation that they must have had less offensive primary reasons for their succession. They weren't fools. They knew they had to take desperate measures to maintain their slave economy as the Emancipationist momentum was building at home and abroad. They had already doubled down on it decades after the British Empire abolished slavery in 1830/31. It wasn't an afterthought or lesser issue. I worry that your zeal for libertarian purism leaves you not as astute about real history as you think you are. But as always thank you for another very thought provoking episode tackling aspects of Mormon thought that active members are usually too scared to, and the fascinating contrast with more peaceful efforts to end slavery by other nations. Remember though that the British Navy struggled proactively and very expensively for years to try and shut down the transatlantic slave trade it had once protected. It was still a long, hard and messy struggle to actually stamp it out involving the full might of the British military. But also one of the few redeeming moments in the history of our glorious British Empire. If your politics and culture war continue to go tits up in the USA, you are always welcome to rejoin the Commonwealth! We are very forgiving people these days. 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Tell me you know nothing about the root causes of the civil war - without telling me you know nothing about the root causes of the civil war… Whenever someone cites “slavery” as the root cause of the civil war, you can rest assured that they are either: 1. An activist 2. A university professor ( see #1) 3. Have spent less than 10 minutes studying the subject My guess is you are #3
As for preserving the Union, he did much like Captain Moroni did when raised the title of liberty and compelled all Kingmen to swear allegiance and fight with him or they would be put to death. If you are going to criticize Lincoln do you similarly criticize Moroni?
By your comparison- God would have “Enforced the 1/3 of Heaven” to stay together “to form a more perfect Zion (union) Nice try- but huge intellectual swing and a miss😂
I think you're taking this a little too far. Lincoln's first and prioritized goal was to keep the country together. That was the most important goal for him. However, he didn't believe slavery was moral. When the opportunity to end slavery arose that is the decision he made. Additionally, you claim he didn't preserve the union, but he did. He made the best decision given the circumstance; the south was seceding was he supposed to let them? He kept the country together. Finally, you say that he wasn't politically savvy, but I don't think that is supported by evidence... some of his speeches, political actions, cabinet assignments demonstrate some wise and tactful decisioning. I agree we don't need to whitewash history and glorify flawed people, but I think you let the pendulum swing too far on this one. Your libertarian political views lead you to oppose any powerful federal leaders. Lincoln wasn't an evil tyrant, he was a good man for his day who had common flawed racist ideas, but who ultimately did hold the country together and who did end up doing what was right in forwarding the end of slavery.
Nope- Lincoln WAS atyrant who imprisoned his political enemies and critics, and used the power of the government to start a war that killed 600k Americans How can that be a “good man” For the record Lincoln wasn’t going to and stated explicitly that he wasn’t going to free the slaves Until it became a political tool Once again…ignore the public school teaching you got - and read Lincoln OWN words - and you will have a different opinion
You're absolutely right, that was Lincoln's goal. But you're missing Connor's point. Sometimes divorce is necessary in an abusive marriage. If a wife is being abused by her husband and she files for divorce, but he forces her to stay in the marriage at gunpoint I guess you could say "he saved the marriage". There were irreconcilable differences between these two sections of the country. The Southern agrarian economy was being pillaged by the industrial north. Which is why they chose to leave and had constitutional grounds for doing so (but no one was ever taught that in government schools). Just look at the devastation that took place during "Reconstruction". But hey, Lincoln did "save the union"!
@@taylorgifford7406 I understand his argument but fundamentally disagree. We had the revolution and established the country and that revolutionary sentiment just kept persisting except without the just cause of the founders. Any small tax or law and immediately groups would attempt to secede. We didn’t know how to be a united country. If Lincoln wouldn’t have stopped the division then states, counties, peoples would have just kept dividing and dividing at every dispute. We would have been a bunch of weak un-united countries like South America. We would have been weak and left ourselves open to attacks and conquest by other counties. We would have no impact on WW1 and WW2. I think it’s hard to dispute the results of Lincoln holding the country together. America is the most advanced free country ever. Instead of the husband wife analogy (designed to invoke sensitive emotions) you could just as easily use an analogy of a parent and child relationship. A young teenage child wants to make bad decisions and leave the family. The father sees this would destroy the entire family and doesn’t allow the child to leave. Analogies can be manipulative lol
@@taylorgifford7406 Lincoln also openly and repeatedly claimed states had no rights to secede according to the constitution for a number of reasons: 1. Physically the states cannot separate. 2. Secession is unlawful. 3. A government that allows secession will disintegrate into anarchy. 4. That Americans are not enemies, but friends. 5. Secession would destroy the world's only existing democracy, and prove for all time, to future Americans and to the world, that a government of the people cannot survive. You don’t have to agree but I don’t think it’s as black and white as Connor asserts (btw I love Connor even if I don’t agree with his every point lol)
@@dinocollins720He didn't save the "union". He MADE a "union". This is the point of the musing. He didn't think blacks were equal. There are lots of quotes about this. He wanted power. You could maybe use the word Gadianton............or at least Kingman.
Although your musing may have a mixed truth, to paint Lincoln in such a way, is disingenuous at best. Seems to be a historical trend with those wanting to set straight some purity need.
Before attacking the messenger- at least put in the work to study Lincoln You might be surprised at his own words, works, and actions I’ve read 5+ large books on him- nothing Conner says is wrong
@@southwestrunner6384 True but I do think he's painting the story in a way to support his message. In reality Lincoln was a flawed man with typically racist ideas of the time; however, he was progressive and believed slavery was immoral. His main goal was to keep the union together. He the opportunity arose he did make the best decision to help the country move towards ending slavery. Connor is right that he was flawed, but I think he took it a little too far saying he was some evil tyrant. Connor is extremely passionate about his libertarian views and so cannot like anyone that used or strengthened federal government powers.
@@southwestrunner6384 that’s not my point, a need to pull down Lincoln is a need for purity when absolute fully interpreted in order to bring some unnecessary agenda to make Lincoln seem like a scoundrel isn’t necessary. I get add nuance but not ugliness. Lincoln was part of a necessary puzzle piece in our countries development, deeply flawed or not. The same thing is happening in our politics working flawed people who will in the end bring mostly positive results. Connor is a good guy with a need to purify the future by vilifying the past.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
You’re always amazing with your musings. I’m an avid reader and love history but you surpass or add to my personal studies so much. Thank you. I am born and reared in the South and we were always taught State Rights was the cause of the Civil War. And , it had a lot to do with cotton which the South cultivated with hard work, innovation and many farms used slaves. The North then sold it to Europe through their shipping ports and made most of the profit while locking the Farmers out of it. The slavery issue was meant to punish the South for daring to try and by pass the North mercantile trade and develop their own markets. Books on the Cotton Revolution detail that history. Someone threw slavery in as a way to justify the war.
It’s amazing to me the lack of curiosity people suffer from but won’t even allow those with it to share their learning for any discussion. Fear of change is my guess.
One of the best Sunday Musings ever! Thank Connor for all you do and stand for. We appreciate your efforts.
The title should probably read "most Mormons" or at least "many Mormons." Some of us are awake and have been for a while.
✔️😉
True:)
Agreed terrible president. Who is sick of being ruled by tyrants? 🙋Or better yet being ruled at all….
I’m weary of the reframing of history that is so prevalent today. The narrative today seems to favor re-examining all that we’ve been taught about historical figures so that we can understand that none were heroes because of their mortal flaws. The ones who want to do this feel a need to re-educate us with all the truth. So here’s what I think is being missed by most all re-framers today. We know they weren’t perfect. We know they had flaws. In light of all this, is it possible that some of their acts were worthy of greatness? Is it possible that they were led by God? Is it possible they were worthy of praise rather than bringing them down to the lowest common denominator? My answer to these questions is YES.
As for Lincoln, my answer is HELL NO.
@@rodman4250 absolutely!
Conner isn’t “re-framing history” he’s using facts to explain what an absolute tyrant Lincoln was
There have been many books written that use Lincoln’s own words, action and legislation that document this
You should read them instead of being intellectually lazy by attacking the messenger
Facts!!!
@@southwestrunner6384 Ultimately, the people who deserve the credit are the abolitionists who co-opted Lincoln's war.
There’s a lot of good points raised here. Lincoln, I think, is a bit of a mixed bag. I do think this video ignores some key factors and sets up a bit of a straw man argument as a result. Regardless of all the nuance, before Lincoln there was slavery, and after him, there was none. The video overlooks why the South seceded from the Union: Lincoln wanted to ban slavery expansion in the west. That’s what he ran on. Even after Lincoln offered this alternate thirteenth amendment mentioned in the video the South was not willing to have slavery opposed one bit. I think Lincoln was instrumental in the ending of slavery much like Trump is responsible for ending Roe v. Wade. Both may have not been particular passionate about the topic, but the political expediency pushed the issue more than what many might have supposed.
One other point, Heber Grant may have pushed prohibition more than I would’ve liked, but he was spot on with his dislike of FDR and the New Deal.
Sadly Abraham Lincoln's reputation is mostly undeserved. The man started the war of Northern Aggression, and we are lucky that abolitionists co-opted it to stop slavery once and for all. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't free Union slaves (yup, there were four Union slave states throughout the entire war), and Lincoln was willing to preserve union by making slavery permanent.
It was the war of Southern Rebellion in order to keep slavery.
Have I seen you on Checkmate Lincolnites? Let me guess, "This time the war will be spiritual this time it will come from space."
“The Living Lincoln” by Angle and Mier is a book of Lincoln’s actual writing and speeches during his life, but highly focused on his time as President. Lincoln’s own writings and speeches absolutely destroy the narrative of “Lincoln the Great Emancipator.”
I used to revere Lincoln bc of being brainwashed by modern education. When I woke up to the current conspiracy in government (secret combinations), I had to revisit history and learned just how bad & oppressive & tyrannical Lincoln was (i do give him props for the green back).
The Saints in those days did not like, or support Lincoln. Abe had plenty of chances to stop the persecution of the Church, but refused.
Thanks so much for getting this truth out there for all to learn! I always cringe when people put Lincoln on a pedestal because they show they don't know the true history about him. Justice is the Lord's and he knows what his motivation was. His fruit of taking states individual strength away and giving power to Fed gov says it all. Keep up the truth telling even though public educated people won't understand it without unlearning the narrative.
While I personally don't revere lincoln, I am worried about some people adopting the "lost cause" myth. Checkmate lincolnites is a great youtube show discussing these ideas while still not conforming to neo confederate ideals.
Also, it is interesting that you only quoted part of the Greeley letter. Here is the rest of the letter.
"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."
Yes. As long as they weren’t here. Which is why he favored deportation and setting up colonies in “their native clime”. Of course you won’t read about in the court historian history books.
@@taylorgifford7406 I guess that is true. One thing to note though. Now that Connor has stated that saying two different groups of people cannot be living together is wrong, I will critize him whenever he mentions how different groups of people cannot inherently get along.
@@taylorgifford7406 Also, did you watch Checkmate Lincolnites? It is hilarious. "And AntiFa you take the Far left."
This musing is about something much broader, much more significant than Abraham Lincoln. The 2005 movie, The Upside Of Anger, illustrates the danger, the mistake, the immaturity, the self-righteousness of drawing conclusions before all the facts are in. Collectively, we have drawn conclusions about Lincoln, Columbus, the Japanese High Command, Atila, King Herod and our next door neighbors without knowing 'all the facts'. Connor instructs us about some negative 'facts' regarding Lincoln that I did not previously know; and he warns us about complicity in the White Wash of history.
Alternately, the 'bad guy' in The Upside Of Anger turned out to be the good guy, which the audience realizes, at the movie's end, once all the facts were in. Consider Judas Iscariot; some people think that Jesus instructed Judas to identify him to the Roman guards, as a priesthood assignment, to accelerate Jesus' mission as Redeemer. The bad guy might actually be the good guy. Lucky for us, the person governing our Final Judgement will have All The Facts.
In the Tennis Shoes ong the Nephites book, Thorns of Glory, he has a facinating portrayal of Judas as well. I recommend giving it a read.
The facts are there on Lincoln
In his own words- on record
His evil unconstitutional actions are facts too
Problems is - most have never taken the time to find the facts
Im guessing from your comments, you fall into that group
This was very interesting. Thank you
thats why citing quoting others who quote cite others who cited others etc…is highly problematic and can easily entangle authority into falsehoods and misleading sheep that fails to see or look any further but the butt and tail of the next sheep over, as the herd moves closer to the detrimental ravin. The metaphor for people who take other people’s word for truth that was only based however on false stories passed down.
7 28 24
Connor! One of Your best and absolutely terrific content!
I'm a Virginian (roots to early 18th cent), who happened to grow up (attend government schools) in the heart of Ohio. Your clarification and bold stating of what I've always understood to be actual is oddly a relief.
Having lived here in SC for a while now, and living the ongoing and intensifying crumble of these United States, I've noted the referenced books for "storage" for the darker times to come.📕
Btw, I hav to smile at Your omitting those middle initials😉.
Do You have a suggested reading list?
Wow... I had no idea. Thank you for opening my eyes to this
Here is the first thing Libertarians get wrong: there is an objective right and wrong. We are moral creatures who perceive right and wrong to differing degrees. However, there is an average opinion that the majority agree to. The majority does have the power and the right to force the minority to comply. We can make laws against bad behavior and enforce them.
The second thing you got wrong is that Lincoln was hiding his priorities. His first priority was Union and his second priority was to limit the spread of slavery that a minority, the Slave holders kept trying to force on the rest of the country. The truth about the Confederate South is that it was ran by a small minority that foisted its values over the values of the majority. There were far more slaves than slave holders and if you believe in the rule of majority than you have to re-establish it when it’s broken. That’s what he did. Right wrong or indifferent he did it. He was flawed. He was sympathetic to Karl Marx and he didn’t help the church at all. Yet, he did save the Union. It was the confederate elites running the south like it was their personal property is what tore the Union apart.
I don't revere any US president in the second half of the 19th century who did not defend the LDS First Amendment right to practice their religion in regards to polygamy. They were all cowards.
Except polygamy WASN'T "part" of the religion. At least not ordained by God.
@@littled6698 that is unless section 132 wasn't a lie. Regardless passing a law against what someone thinks is there religious beliefs are that doesn't hurt anyone is wrong.
I don't think 132 is on the up and up. I don't disagree that Government should be able to make a law about that though.
@@littled6698 what good is a Republic and freedom if we don't have either one. The idea that anyone government or otherwise can tell you how to live your life when you're not hurting anyone is ridiculous. And is why we're in the situation that we're in today. As soon as you support bondage you have lost everything, and frankly don't deserve anything else
@@littled6698I don't believe The Church's narrative about polygamy being ordained by God, either. But I've also never understood why the government should have a problem with a man why is "married" to multiple women but not have a problem with a man having multiple "girlfriends." And vice versa. Why do women/people have a right to "choose what to do with their body" but can't choose multiple spouses? Or prostitution? I believe it's a moral issue and as such cannot and should not be regulated by government.
Great musing! The victors truly do get to write the history books. I came across the true Lincoln many years ago as well. Thus nation needs more of the spirit of 76!
So many ironies with this and the church.
The only thing that is weird about this video is that I didn’t hear the word “Libertarian.”
Crazy complicated topic. I’m glad I don’t pretend like I know how God judges people like Lincoln.
Conner, fantastic stuff. My mother has read at least 10 very well written/researched books on Lincoln and still reveres him. I've studied enough libertarian and self determination to know that he made some very poor decisions based on very misled principles.
I HAVE A REQUEST. A friend and I are studying the garment. Its hard to find history on it's revelation, original shape and construction and even it's early understood purpose. I can't find anything about the topic on your website . We would LOVE if you would apply your brain and research recourses to this topic, or someone please direct me to where you already have.
There is a fair amount about garment history in "The Development of LDS Temple Worship" available at Amazon.
@@lynnsmith9526 thank you.
What would have become of "these United States" if Lincoln had not used his government power authoritatively (and in some cases extra-legally) to combine neighboring states under one government? I can't see a case where the people living in North America would be better off had Lincoln not done so.
Yes, history is murkier than our textbooks paint it out to be, and I'm not arguing against the facts Connor presents (for they are all true). But I believe we can see the reality of Lincoln's story and still hold him up as a righteous figure of America's past for his ambition to "preserve the union," at whatever cost, even if it was only geographical. God could use that to his advantage.
Agree. It was also a relatively still new nation. Not the super power we have known in our lifetimes. Preserving the union seems of utmost importance considering had they broken apart they’d have been prime pickings and easier targets for those who would have loved to conquer them. A matter of physical preservation.
Ummm. Did y'all miss the parts where "unuion" is explained?
The “union” of the states was NEVER meant to be enforced by the sword
Its a VOLUNTARY union
What would have happened if Lincoln didn’t use the power of government to form a “union”
Well….
1. The current United States would look a whole lot more like the one the founders envisioned
2. We would have less government
3. We would be more free
4. States would be their own masters
5. The South would not have been crippled for over 100 years
@@l7846 no, I just don't agree with the entire definition he set forth. "Abraham Lincoln didn't preserve the Union in any *meaningful* way". Really? You mean the last 160+ years of American history haven't been meaningful at all?
This is what I think Trump does in regards to abortion. Is that a correct assessment?
For context:
AMENDMENT XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th Amendment.
Try the book "seven miracles that saved America". For more info on Lincoln
Thank you for this musing Connor. I have been pilloried by members of the church and non-members alike for my criticism of Lincoln. In addition to the books you recommended I would recommend the best book I've read on the subject, "A Constitutional History of Secession" by John Remington Graham.
The nonsense about comparing Lincoln to Captain Moroni is ridiculous especially in light of the fact that arguably Lincoln wasn't even a Christian. He used the language of Christianity for political purposes. The War for Southern Independence was his war, and what he allowed His generals, especially Sherman and Sheridan to do in waging total war on the South is his responsibility. Nothing Christian about rape, murder and pillage of innocent civilians, including black slaves.
So would Trump be another example of this?
@@braydenweese1407
Would Trump be an example of what? I'm not sure what point I made that you're referring to.
@@taylorgifford7406 Do we see the same parallels between Lincoln and slavery versus Trump and abortion
@@braydenweese1407- are you saying “Trump is willing to use the full force of the United States Government to start a war that kills over 600k Americans to enforce his view on abortion”?
Not sure I’m
Tracking your thought process here
@@braydenweese1407
Quite possibly. Trump is an opportunist, and in my opinion has no well grounded moral principles. He, like Lincoln knows how to tap into populist sentiment. I don't trust him. But, I don't trust any politician. The founders tried to limit presidential power, but it's out of control now.
A dear friend and I are complete ballet history nerds. About 10 years ago he told me he was doing temple for for Anna Pavlova, Serge Diaghilev, George Balanchine, Vaslav Nijinski and several others. I wasn't sure what to think at the time. I guess they have been offered the gift in their next life and they can choose to accept as they are ready.
Thank you for this overview of Lincoln. Someone in a comment on a video about "other lives" said that he was Lincoln's stand-in when the stress was too much for Lincoln to bear. So I asked him why he didn't simply purchase the freedom of the slaves instead of embroiling the whole nation in such a destructive war? His reply was something along the line of: why are you still bothered by what Lincoln didn't do all those years ago? I was gob-smacked by his non-answer.
An interesting perspective. I really enjoy your musings. It is difficult to fully comprehend history from our modern lenses. It’s very easy to judge looking back. As we judge Lincoln regarding slavery, we’ll be judged harshly regarding abortion for example. Your research is compelling though. No doubt Lincoln was a very imperfect man as we all are. He was also a politician, who are almost impossible to trust. Only God will know his heart.
Yes our posterity will be horrified at what we are doing.
@@KippChurch-z1d finally someone with some perspective in this thread.
Really appreciate the perspective here. I’ve read stuff in high praise of Lincoln, and super angry about him. I don’t fully embrace the libertarian mindset (self-determination at all costs, all else be damned), because it has to be a balance - at least to a degree. That kind of approach is more easily corrupted with evil than more firm approaches. Not saying it’s inevitable, but human nature, etc. I like to think of different scenarios of how it might have gone differently, if Lincoln failed, or if he even succeeded in his original poorer positions. God works with what He has, and who are we to so firmly say that we’d be better off now if the states had seceded? If the argument is, we shouldn’t revere blindly, 100% agree. But this was super helpful, so thank you.
@@marianneknight822 there are no states currently. No state has been part of any union since June of 1861 when Congress adjourned sin die
@@marianneknight822 I’m sorry, but if you think the libertarian mindset is “self determination at all costs, all else be damned”, you don’t know anything about libertarianism. Maybe read something by Murray Rothbard, for example, before you make comments like that.
@@taylorgifford7406 I’m sorry, but I think and say a lot of things based on my experience and perspective that may not be totally accurate. Turns out I can do that. As can you.
Wasn't Lincoln also an Illinois Congressman when the saints were in Nauvoo? I guess he wasnt their Congressman so he had nothing to say
there was some overlap but only like half the time the saints were in nauvoo was he in the state legislature...so not the second half during the really bad stuff...
when lincoln was a state rep in Washington he would have been outta state a lot and given travel of the time he wouldnt have much if anything to do with nauvoo.
some think he may have met a few mormon s and that there is a chance joseph and he might have been at 1 social party at the same time but no one knows if they really met/spoke/knew eachother really.
he didnt go after the saints during brighams time when asked and that was big
the lds church just really wasnt on his radar or importance or personal circle
Lincoln had opportunity to help the saints during their oppression, both in Ohio and in DC....but he did nothing. There's a reading Brigham couldn't stand the guy. Lincoln was not a friend.
Very good. Thank you.
Steph Pratt had a lesson on Lincoln. It’s still on RUclips. He tells it how it is. Quotes original sources.
If you read the articles of succession most of the state cited slavery as a big reason to secede..
Yes. Secession was caused by slavery. The war against secession was not - the war was to preserve union.
The union had 4 slave states that never freed their slaves until the 13th amendment was passed. If the war was to end slavery, they would have ended it in those 4 slave states before invading the other states.
@@JereKrischel- no, secession was not solely caused by slavery
Slavery was a component of the secessionist movement - but not the main one, it’s too easy to use slavery as the cause
Its way more complicated and takes far more study to really explain the factors
“Slavery” is the public school answer to the “cause of the civil war”
But that simply ain’t the truth
@@southwestrunner6384 Let's put it another way - the south definitely included slavery as part of their reasons for secession.
But the north definitely did NOT include slavery as part of their reasons for starting a war over secession.
Secession happened *before* the civil war. It did not *cause* the civil war - Lincoln's fort sumter hoax was the lie used to start the war, but it was started to preserve the union, not free the slaves.
@@JereKrischel- ok, I get you
The fact that you said “Lincoln’s Fort Sumpter hoax “ leads me to believe that you and I could have a great conversation- and agree mostly on the issues from that time period
Thx
Well done.
Rush Limbaugh use to call that news guy, "George Stuff'n-envelopes" because that's all he was really qualified for in the Clinton years.
The Saints in the 1800's escaped the United States as they left for what is now called Utah. Shortly after, the US conquered the saints. And we, to this day, are proud to be US citizens. We had our Kingdom and lost it.
Let me see into the future. In a coming time will we see the reason why Connor Boyack wrote this exposé about Lincoln to bring out the truth or to make money on his u-tube channel? Will it change the results? No, only what people think of him.
I make zero money from my RUclips channel.
You did well!
Where are my Brion McClanahan fans at?
Why does ANYBODY revere Abraham Lincoln??? 🤔
@@littled6698 because they are mindless sheep
Because they were brainwashed in government schools.
Because the American Empire he created eventually annexed the Republic of Hawaii, and I'm grateful that I was therefore born in the United States.
Without Lincoln, and the bad things he did, I don't think we get Alaska or Hawaii. So, maybe "revere" is the wrong word, but I appreciate that Hawaii was kept out of the hands of either the British, or the Chinese, or some other imperial power, by the imperial america created by Lincoln's tyranny.
So because it "benefited" you, it's alright?
@@littled6698 I like how my comments get taken down because they hurt someone's feelings
Um... This video title is extremely misleading. Mormons don't revere Ab Lincoln, the mormons this dude knows revere Ab Lincoln. Big difference
Does anyone know which book he alluded too? I really want to read it... I'll listen to it again, but if anyone knows it would help me a lot lol
The "One Nation, Indivisible?" book?
Perpetual union simply meant the document had no express expiration date.
Two points: you downplay his opposition statements to slavery, while accentuating his “wallowing along with the general public.” Second, was his main focus to abolish slavery as the abolitionists wanted, or was it to preserve the Union and keep it from breaking apart? Obviously the latter. That single point explains much of the issue you have. He wanted to preserve the states sovereignty which also explains the bad version of the 13th…let the states decide. He had to maneuver thru the slavery issue and preserve the Union. Plus, there was zero basis or legal foundation for unity or slavery at that time. What was he supposed to do with no foundation? He had to make things up as he went. Lincoln was not perfect, but he isn’t quite what you outline given the state of the country at that time.
That's nonsense. There is NO excuse at all for him invading the south. We all have the right to leave the "union" whenever we want to. Your thinking is very collectivist.
"Preserving the Union" simply meant to Lincoln preserving the taxes collected from the South. The Morrill Tarriff clearly was an unconstitutional tax on the South because of the entirely lopsided effect it had on the southern economy. Article1 section 8 grants Congress the authority to levy taxes on the condition that they are equal in effect upon all the states. Being an agricultural economy the south depended on the higher quality and lower cost products imported from Europe in exchange for their cotton and other agricultural exports, but the North desired to stifle that trade to protect northern manufacturers. As all wars ultimately are, it was about $$$, control of resources and political power--the power to rule over others. To add insult to injury Lincoln used the Declaration of Independence--a document that justifies secssion!-- as the justification for the slaughter of the war and at Gettysburg in the most famous of political gobbledygook, the Gettysburg Address. It makes absolutely no sense whatever but is hailed as political genius. Lincoln was destroying government of, by, and for the people, not establishing it--if you grant that the population of the South were people. They had most certainly exercised the inalienable rights Jefferson outlined in the Declaration by seceding and forming a new government for themselves, but Lincoln came along and would not permit that. He was King George III all over again. What is remarkable is the the South lasted as long as they did in their struggle for liberty. This is not to excuse the South for their slavery, which was also hypocritical, and recognized as such by all. Perhaps the war was the consequence on the country for their killing of the prophets and expulsion of the Saints from their borders. That is the definition of "ripe for destruction" as found in the scriptures.
The South fired on Fort Sumter
@@katykristensen302 Yes, that's point. Ft. Sumter was a tax collection facility-in the middle of the harbor to monitor and collect tariffs from all shipping traffic. Were the colonists responsible for starting the Revolution because of the Boston Tea Party? They were simply responding to the oppression of the British in an act of secession, and we say that was justified. What's the difference?
How about calling them Latter-day Saints? Not that difficult is it?
You apparently missed the musing on this a few weeks back.
@@cboyack
Yes, apparently, I did. Which one was it and I'll go watch it. (Perused through your video list and wasn't sure which one it was.)
@@veeschayI’ll save you the time. “The word ‘Mormon’ works. Stop controlling my speech.”
Nelson’s Anti-Mormon Campaign. 4 weeks ago
@@cboyack Okay. Thanks for your patience with me. I listened whole episode this morning; I understand why you've chosen to continue using the name Mormon. Still ... I'm hesitating.
It isn't surprising that history as taught doesn't match history as it happened. There is likely some psychological or sociological phenomenon at play, and what we are seeing is human nature playing out, not some evil deception that must be condemned, nor that those who innocently go along are somehow to be despised or mocked for it.
I have heard a case made that the Church couldn't have moved forward as it has without the changes that occurred during Lincoln's tenure. When President Van Buren told Joseph Smith that he couldn't help the Saints, he apparently was telling the truth, as the federal government had no authority to enforce the Bill of Rights in individual states. So even though some dislike the transfer of authority to the federal government that Lincoln helped bring about, it may have been necessary in order for the Church to progress when it was returned to the United States.
You may have peeled a layer from the onion, but there are likely more layers to be peeled. Maybe history is like science - we can never say we know the whole truth, just that we think we know this much and expect it to be altered or proven wrong at some future date.
No one asked me. I don't, I know some problematic things that cause me concern. No revering here!
I revere Thomas Jefferson
As we all should
And Patrick Henry even more than Jefferson.
@@nonrepublicrat❤
@@nonrepublicrat- Patrick Henry was incredible, my ancestors are linked to him through marriage- which as a kid who grew up in Richmond Va makes me very happy ( I just found this out through family tree a few months ago)
PH was a MAN to be envied and a template for a patriot
But TJs intellect and foresight is unparalleled
A few historians consider him “the preeminent figure over the last 500 years
Oh well I love people who rewrite the bible. It seems you do too.
How long before the Brethren start quoting our God-King Barak Obama?
This is one I wish they would use..."You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled - doubled - since we were children. We know the statistics - that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it."
Never he killed amairacins
Also, you're watching Trump supporters' video
Just because Obama lied about the gays doesn't mean lincoln lied about the blacks
One could analyze another man of these times with a similar fervor that could arrive with a much more negative assessment - Joseph Smith.
The Southern states were willing to die on that hill, a hill to preserve slavery. Nothern abolitionists seemed indifferent to the fact that Southern succession would remove southern states from the Union, placing them outside of our political boundaries, unable to enforce any law, be it abolition or pro-slavery.
A politicians number 1 job is to get elected. He is not a prophet or a priest. It matters not his own preferences or opinions or his elloquence in speech. If not elected then his political power is irrelevant. Lincoln walked a fine line between two extreme political views at the time. Pro-slavery and Anti-slavery.
What resuled was an estimated 3/4 million Americans lost their lives fighting over the two politically extreme views.
A wise man walks the fine line between extremes. It is only between the fine line that persuasion is productive, for outside of that line is where violence reigns. Jesus didn't free slaves or the Jews from oppression by Rome. He walked that fine line perfectly where his words would have the most effect.
Lincoln was just as flawed as any mortal man, but his ability to lead a nation at a time when extremes in passion erupted into bloody battle - it is amazing to me that he remained moderate even after the war was won, when retaliation and retribution was king in the minds of northerners who sought to punish southerners with slaughter.
You are right. Lincoln was a dull man. But at a time of extremes of heated passions - a dull leader is exactly what is needed.
Please don't praise the articles of confederation. They were woefully ineffective. The concept of confederation of states voluntarily joined would never have held together long. The results of the civil war at least gave us a country where we could do the work before the end. The mess of a union as we now have it is not Lincoln's fault-it is the fault of the constant pressure of most national politicians for more and more power to themselves, as we see everywhere else in the world. Clearly Lincoln was a typical politician, careful to say things that would not offend. Those who actively opposed slavery in his day were a minority. Stopping slavery was a fairly new idea. Slavery had been the way of life for countless centuries, however evil it was.
Connor, you’re really stretching with explanation on why Lincoln didn’t actually free the slaves. Without Lincoln slavery would have continued for who knows how long. His priority was maintaining the Union but I don’t think you give him credit for his part in getting rid of slavery, even if he wasn’t the big abolitionist many believe.
And yet, other countries didn’t have a Lincoln and did just fine phasing it out without a massive bloody war.
Pov. If his aim was in any significant way, to free slaves, he'd have done so, across the board--- all states, and on any situation, by Christmas 1861.
@@cboyackConnor you really should do a deep dive on adultery. People will hate you but I believe you'll be doing good. For you being an influencer and the good job you do I think you'd be doing God and everyone a favor doing it.
@@cboyack valid, but the entire American experiment was pretty unique beginning with the constitution. Not sure it’s an apples to apples comparison on why other nations didn’t have their own Lincoln. The difference between American and French Revolution comes to mind to illustrate the day difference.
It helped a lot that Abraham Lincoln promised to leave the Saints alone and then actually kept his promise. This was a big deal considering what the early Saints had endured.
Your wrong. He signed the bill that started the war against the Mormons dealing with polygamy. Freedom of religion was taken from them by Lincoln. Morrill act of 1862.
A contrarian take on Lincoln? But what if Lincoln was actually the great emancipator. Would you change your tune? Or are subtle factors pre-determining your foregrounding of certain facts
@@DaveGarber1975 the Morrill act of 1862
Honest Abe and Justin Smith Morrell from Vermont declared war on polygamy and slavery and tarrifs. The saints sent their children to govt school . That's why they revere the tyrant.
@@utahjustinslaves were never set free as men. They went from being private property to us citizens subject to the jurisdiction of Congress. Read the 14th amendment. Read 13 and the rest during Reconstruction. Americans deserved Lincoln. The wicked punish the wicked.
The virtue i see in Abraham Lincoln is his innate understanding of structure preserving transformations. Also known as the fundamental “living process”. The structure preserving part always appears conservative and regressive and can always be criticized as such from the point of view of the radical transformations.
Lincoln took six or seven times to get into office because the people of his day knew he was a communist. Big bankers donating to his campaign. Much is kept hidden about Lincoln to support the narrative he was freeing the slaves and someone we should all look up to.
“Virtue” in breaking the constitution?
Interesting
King Nebuchadnezzar was an instrument in the hands of god, even though he was a horrible person, and an unrighteous King in many ways. To think that Abraham Lincoln was not a servant of God in God's purposes, even if lincoln was not following the intent of the Constitution is a narrow way of thinking.
God's supreme government is a monarchy and theocracy. As wonderful as the US Constitution is, it is not above God, nor is an eternal system of government.
Why are you dead naming Latter-day Saints?
Haha!😂
I needed that.
Revere Abraham Lincoln - that's new to me.
I put Lincoln on an A- or B+. But if I revere any presidents, it’s Washington and Grant.
Grant? Please DM me what brand you're smoking!😂
Grant? Lol
That’s rich my man
That’s rich…
1) Calvin Coolidge.
2) George Washington
So it is your position that if one or more of the States today decided to make slavery legal again they should be allowed to do so without any federal government interference because their freedom to make those choices for themselves, even if you disagree with them, overrides all other considerations. This is what you stated as I understand it, repeatedly.
Is this not a tail wagging a dog? A libertarian idol distracting you from more fundamental ethical principles?
Surely the Confederate States knew that the tide was turning against them and did not trust Lincoln's offers of caveats to be slave owners in perpetuity if they agreed to continue as members of the union rather than your interpretation that they must have had less offensive primary reasons for their succession.
They weren't fools. They knew they had to take desperate measures to maintain their slave economy as the Emancipationist momentum was building at home and abroad. They had already doubled down on it decades after the British Empire abolished slavery in 1830/31. It wasn't an afterthought or lesser issue. I worry that your zeal for libertarian purism leaves you not as astute about real history as you think you are.
But as always thank you for another very thought provoking episode tackling aspects of Mormon thought that active members are usually too scared to, and the fascinating contrast with more peaceful efforts to end slavery by other nations. Remember though that the British Navy struggled proactively and very expensively for years to try and shut down the transatlantic slave trade it had once protected. It was still a long, hard and messy struggle to actually stamp it out involving the full might of the British military. But also one of the few redeeming moments in the history of our glorious British Empire. If your politics and culture war continue to go tits up in the USA, you are always welcome to rejoin the Commonwealth! We are very forgiving people these days. 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Tell me you know nothing about the root causes of the civil war - without telling me you know nothing about the root causes of the civil war…
Whenever someone cites “slavery” as the root cause of the civil war, you can rest assured that they are either:
1. An activist
2. A university professor ( see #1)
3. Have spent less than 10 minutes studying the subject
My guess is you are #3
As for preserving the Union, he did much like Captain Moroni did when raised the title of liberty and compelled all Kingmen to swear allegiance and fight with him or they would be put to death. If you are going to criticize Lincoln do you similarly criticize Moroni?
Wow. Now this comment has taken a turn.
G'd "turned out" 1/3? So.... did you think He should have enforced a "union"?
Using the force of the state to threaten people for the cause of liberty?? LOL How do you not see how absurd that is?? You make me laugh!!
Horrible comparison!!
By your comparison- God would have “Enforced the 1/3 of Heaven” to stay together “to form a more perfect Zion (union)
Nice try- but huge intellectual swing and a miss😂
Facts, love Connor, but his libertarian mindset automatically turns him against any powerful federal leader
I think you're taking this a little too far. Lincoln's first and prioritized goal was to keep the country together. That was the most important goal for him. However, he didn't believe slavery was moral. When the opportunity to end slavery arose that is the decision he made.
Additionally, you claim he didn't preserve the union, but he did. He made the best decision given the circumstance; the south was seceding was he supposed to let them? He kept the country together.
Finally, you say that he wasn't politically savvy, but I don't think that is supported by evidence... some of his speeches, political actions, cabinet assignments demonstrate some wise and tactful decisioning.
I agree we don't need to whitewash history and glorify flawed people, but I think you let the pendulum swing too far on this one. Your libertarian political views lead you to oppose any powerful federal leaders. Lincoln wasn't an evil tyrant, he was a good man for his day who had common flawed racist ideas, but who ultimately did hold the country together and who did end up doing what was right in forwarding the end of slavery.
Nope- Lincoln WAS atyrant who imprisoned his political enemies and critics, and used the power of the government to start a war that killed 600k Americans
How can that be a “good man”
For the record Lincoln wasn’t going to and stated explicitly that he wasn’t going to free the slaves
Until it became a political tool
Once again…ignore the public school teaching you got - and read Lincoln OWN words - and you will have a different opinion
You're absolutely right, that was Lincoln's goal. But you're missing Connor's point. Sometimes divorce is necessary in an abusive marriage. If a wife is being abused by her husband and she files for divorce, but he forces her to stay in the marriage at gunpoint I guess you could say "he saved the marriage".
There were irreconcilable differences between these two sections of the country. The Southern agrarian economy was being pillaged by the industrial north. Which is why they chose to leave and had constitutional grounds for doing so (but no one was ever taught that in government schools). Just look at the devastation that took place during "Reconstruction". But hey, Lincoln did "save the union"!
@@taylorgifford7406 I understand his argument but fundamentally disagree. We had the revolution and established the country and that revolutionary sentiment just kept persisting except without the just cause of the founders.
Any small tax or law and immediately groups would attempt to secede. We didn’t know how to be a united country. If Lincoln wouldn’t have stopped the division then states, counties, peoples would have just kept dividing and dividing at every dispute.
We would have been a bunch of weak un-united countries like South America. We would have been weak and left ourselves open to attacks and conquest by other counties. We would have no impact on WW1 and WW2.
I think it’s hard to dispute the results of Lincoln holding the country together. America is the most advanced free country ever.
Instead of the husband wife analogy (designed to invoke sensitive emotions) you could just as easily use an analogy of a parent and child relationship. A young teenage child wants to make bad decisions and leave the family. The father sees this would destroy the entire family and doesn’t allow the child to leave. Analogies can be manipulative lol
@@taylorgifford7406 Lincoln also openly and repeatedly claimed states had no rights to secede according to the constitution for a number of reasons:
1. Physically the states cannot separate.
2. Secession is unlawful.
3. A government that allows secession will disintegrate into anarchy.
4. That Americans are not enemies, but friends.
5. Secession would destroy the world's only existing democracy, and prove for all time, to future Americans and to the world, that a government of the people cannot survive.
You don’t have to agree but I don’t think it’s as black and white as Connor asserts (btw I love Connor even if I don’t agree with his every point lol)
@@dinocollins720He didn't save the "union". He MADE a "union". This is the point of the musing. He didn't think blacks were equal. There are lots of quotes about this. He wanted power. You could maybe use the word Gadianton............or at least Kingman.
This reminds me of an anti-Mormon videos about Joseph Smith! Your videos get weirder and weirder bro.
Although your musing may have a mixed truth, to paint Lincoln in such a way, is disingenuous at best. Seems to be a historical trend with those wanting to set straight some purity need.
Before attacking the messenger- at least put in the work to study Lincoln
You might be surprised at his own words, works, and actions
I’ve read 5+ large books on him- nothing Conner says is wrong
@@southwestrunner6384 True but I do think he's painting the story in a way to support his message. In reality Lincoln was a flawed man with typically racist ideas of the time; however, he was progressive and believed slavery was immoral. His main goal was to keep the union together. He the opportunity arose he did make the best decision to help the country move towards ending slavery.
Connor is right that he was flawed, but I think he took it a little too far saying he was some evil tyrant. Connor is extremely passionate about his libertarian views and so cannot like anyone that used or strengthened federal government powers.
@@southwestrunner6384 that’s not my point, a need to pull down Lincoln is a need for purity when absolute fully interpreted in order to bring some unnecessary agenda to make Lincoln seem like a scoundrel isn’t necessary. I get add nuance but not ugliness.
Lincoln was part of a necessary puzzle piece in our countries development, deeply flawed or not.
The same thing is happening in our politics working flawed people who will in the end bring mostly positive results.
Connor is a good guy with a need to purify the future by vilifying the past.
Man, my respect for you goes down more and more when I hear you.
Have you done any follow up research on his musings?
And mine goes up! But not everyone loves truth, I guess.
That’s probably because you don’t actually do the reading & research it takes to respect the work Conner does…