Lincoln and the American System of Economics

[5fish]

the self-coup argument;

It was not a self-coup because power remained in the hands of the people through the vote, but government power had expanded beyond conventional norms and traditions...

 

[LJMYERS]

HMMMMM!!!!!!!!!

 

[TomEvans]

It was not a self-coup because power remained in the hands of the people through the vote,

TOKEN power..... which is NO power, against supreme power.
By law, each state was a separate sovereign nation that was supremely ruled by its respective voters.

And in 1861, the federal government usurped that to the federal officials; thus destroying their right to consent to their government, and instead establishing tyranny-- while likewise suppressing the truth by totalitarian means, to engage in tyranny by deception, to communicate that the US government was the SAME one established by the American Revolution... and voters cannot consent to government, when the

but government power had expanded beyond conventional norms and traditions...

That's the DEFINITION of a self-coup: i.e. when a legitimate government acts illegally to increase its power-- and seizing supreme power (and national sovereignty) definitely qualifies.

Here:

• the international government among 34 sovereign nations, acted illegally to:
• seize de jure national sovereignty over 34 popularly sovereign nations through Total War and censorship;

....thus destroying true democracy for all time; so that never again could people consent to their government; while suppressing the truth so that they would believe that they did consent to it, just by the privilege of choosing their dictators-- and believe that this was what George Washington gave them, and wouldn't know what Abe Lincoln took from them: i.e. government's deriving their just powers by consent of the governed.

 

[TomEvans]

Did you read what you wrote out loud? You repeated yourself...

I was posting the results from Google AI. Speaking of which.

The Federal government expands its powers, and here is a link that will be helpful to you....

1860 Revolution Forgotten...

There was a Revolution in the 1860's America that has gone unnoticed by most of History. Many would say the only Revolt was the Southern state rejecting the union for their addiction to slavery but no there was another. Maybe, it was not a Revolution but a usurpation of power. The revolution or...

www.jggscivilwartalk.online

Thanks but no thanks. If you have something to say, say it here.

 

[5fish]

And in 1861, the federal government usurped that to the federal officials; thus destroying their right to consent to their government, and instead establishing tyranny-

As long as you have honest and fair voting, the people keep the power. You see it playing out today...

That's the DEFINITION of a self-coup: i.e. when a legitimate government acts illegally to increase its power-- and seizing supreme power (and national sovereignty) definitely qualifies.

A self-coup would not have allowed an election in 1864 if your argument held water, but it was Lincoln who pushed for them... read the opening paragraphs of the link below...

The HISTORY Channel Nederland | HISTORY TV Nederland

Kom meer te weten over de tv-series van HISTORY. Hier kan je nog veel meer over jouw favoriete onderwerpen lezen en bekijken. HISTORY is alive.

www.history.com

“[Lincoln thought] if you suspend democracy in the middle of the war, you are basically undercutting the whole purpose of the war,” he continues. “So even when he thought he was going to lose, he never really contemplated suspending the presidential election.” (Lincoln did, however, suspend the writ of habeas corpus and ignore a ruling by the Supreme Court’s chief justice that he didn’t have the authority to do so.)

 

[5fish]

and seizing supreme power (and national sovereignty) definitely qualifies.

You know Lincoln wrote a memorandum in case he lost the 1864 election, which gives your self-coup a death blow... He was willing to leave office...

Lincoln’s Strangest Document: The “Blind Memorandum” of August 23, 1864 - Friends of the Lincoln Collection

Lincoln and his cabinet, LN-2651 Abraham Lincoln’s mature style as a writer and speaker was always terse, with little wastage of words. He loathed blow-hards, and remarked to a legal protégé in Illinois that one Chicago merchant who had turned politician “can compress the most words in the...

www.friendsofthelincolncollection.org

Abraham Lincoln’s “Blind Memorandum” | Timeless

(The following is a guest post by Michelle Krowl, a historian in the Library of Congress Manuscript Division.) Could George B. McClellan have become the seventeenth President of the United States? It certainly appeared to be a possibility as Abraham Lincoln assessed the military and political...

blogs.loc.gov

.

 

[5fish]

was posting the results from Google AI. Speaking of which.

Have you read about the 1862 midterm election where Lincoln's party was swept from power in the House... and had to form a coalition to remain in charge... this would not have happened in your reading of history...

1862–63 United States House of Representatives elections - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

The midterm elections of 1862 presented a challenge for the Republicans. Due to the lack of a quick end to the war, opposition to conscription, and the new income tax, the Democrats made significant gains, picking up 29 seats and eliminating the Republican House majority.
To maintain control of Congress, the Republicans were forced to form a coalition with the Unionist Party (which included War Democrats and border state Unionists), using the "Union" label to imply their opponents were disloyal. Despite the losses, the coalition successfully maintained its majorities in both the House and the Senate.

A midterm referendum on Abe Lincoln

Today’s post comes from National Archives Office of Strategy and Communications staff writer Rob Crotty. History tends to show that midterm elections are never particularly good for the sitt…

prologue.blogs.archives.gov

Following his party’s loss in 1862, 1864 proved much better. Lincoln’s Republican Party swept the House again, more than regaining their losses from two years earlier. In the Senate, Republicans gained six seats. And in the Presidential elections, Lincoln won the electoral vote by one of the largest margins in history, taking every state but three. He won the electoral vote 212 to 21.

https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/14/article/965451/pdf

 

[TomEvans]

As long as you have honest and fair voting, the people keep the power. You see it playing out today...

ONLY if the voters have supreme national authority over their government... this is sort of common sense, so I can see why you don't understand it.

A self-coup would not have allowed an election in 1864 if your argument held water, but it was Lincoln who pushed for them... read the opening paragraphs of the link below...

Elections are NOT consent to government; and thus each state was a separate nation that was SUPREMELY RULED by its respective voters who simply delegated powers to government officials-- and so could also REVOKE them at will, as when the voters of South Carolina opted to withdraw their state from the international union in 1860 on that basis.

And that's ALSO why Lincoln claimed NATIONAL union, because that USURPED this power to the federal officials.

The HISTORY Channel Nederland | HISTORY TV Nederland

Kom meer te weten over de tv-series van HISTORY. Hier kan je nog veel meer over jouw favoriete onderwerpen lezen en bekijken. HISTORY is alive.

www.history.com

“[Lincoln thought] if you suspend democracy in the middle of the war, you are basically undercutting the whole purpose of the war,” he continues. “So even when he thought he was going to lose, he never really contemplated suspending the presidential election.” (Lincoln did, however, suspend the writ of habeas corpus and ignore a ruling by the Supreme Court’s chief justice that he didn’t have the authority to do so.)

"That's why I TOOK AWAY FREE SPEECH!"



So he could DENY the people INFORMED consent to their government-- which is NO consent, resulting in tyranny by DECEPTION.

 

[TomEvans]

You know Lincoln wrote a memorandum in case he lost the 1864 election, which gives your self-coup a death blow...

No, that would require PROVING that the states formed a national union in 1776.
But they DIDN'T, all ignorance to the contrary notwithstanding.

Leaving office is NO disproof of a self-coup, since he knew that he couldn't WIN if the majority was against him, with his COVER blown that he was NOT just "serving the American people--" especially since now the Southern states weren't even VOTING, AND he took away free speech!





Rather, Abe just wanted to COVER HIS ASS with more of his bullcrap excuses and lies, in case he DID lose by some off-chance.

 

[5fish]

ONLY if the voters have supreme national authority over their government...

Why do we vote then... in 1862...

Elections are NOT consent to government;

The vote consents to who governs us...

espective voters who simply delegated powers to government officials-

It's called a Republic...

South Carolina opted to withdraw their state from the international union in 1860 on that basis.

You realize the Constitution is a contract among the states without an out clause, so the agreement is being enforced against the lawless state trying to break it...

 

[TomEvans]

Why do we vote then... in 1862...

The false belief that it's the same voluntary union originated in 1776; when in reality that was an international union; which was destroyed under a self-coup by the international government in 1861, to claim national union where none existed by law.

The vote consents to who governs us...

Not INFORMED consent-- which is therefore NO consent.

It's called a Republic...

So's China.

You realize the Constitution is a contract among the states without an out clause, so the agreement is being enforced against the lawless state trying to break it...

I REALIZE, unlike you, that the Constitution is an international agreement among separate sovereign nations; and the US government does not claim that it formed a national one among such, so that argument is not at issue.

And I ALSO realize, unlike you; that as noted here:

Despite the absence of any superior authority to enforce such rules, international law is considered by states as binding upon them, and it is this fact which gives these rules the status of law.

So the Constitution was only binding on the states as international law; since the US government makes no valid legal argument of national union.

Just THIS one:



So tell us: do YOU claim that the states formed a national union that was their political superior in 1776?

Because that DID NOT HAPPEN.

 

[5fish]

Not INFORMED consent-

WHAT is informed consent? It is not the vote that informs consent

So's China.

China is not a Western state but a Confucian state... with a different history of philosophy and governance...

China describes its system as a "whole-process people's democracy," a unique model centered on the Communist Party (CCP) that emphasizes broad consultation, public participation in governance, and delivering results, differing significantly from Western liberal democracies by maintaining the CCP's absolute leadership and restricting multi-party politics and dissent. While the CCP calls it a socialist democracy ensuring people run the country through extensive consultation, foreign observers often label it an authoritarian one-party state or dictatorship, given the monopoly on power and limited freedoms.
Key Characteristics:

• Whole-Process People's Democracy: A term coined under Xi Jinping, it claims to involve people in all stages of governance, from decision-making to management and oversight.
• CCP Leadership: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is the sole ruling party, seen as the representative of the people, with all political opposition being illegal.
• Multi-Party Cooperation (Under CCP Primacy): Eight smaller legal parties exist, but they must accept the CCP's leadership, functioning within a system of political consultation.
• Consultative Democracy: Focuses on seeking public input through methods like focus groups and surveys to inform policy, rather than through competitive elections.
• "People's Democratic Dictatorship": China's constitution officially defines its system as this, rooted in Mao Zedong's concept.

How it Differs from Western Democracies:

• Power Monopoly vs. Multi-Party: China is a one-party state, unlike liberal democracies with multi-party systems and regular power transfers.
• Elections: Focuses less on universal suffrage for competitive elections and more on consultation and CCP-approved "patriotic" candidates.
• Legitimacy: Draws legitimacy from fulfilling public needs (e.g., economic growth, services) and formal consultation, not competitive elections.

In essence, China's system is a highly centralized, party-led model that incorporates elements of consultation and public feedback but operates under the strict control of the Chinese Communist Party, not as a liberal or multi-party democracy.

 

[5fish]

The West...


There are many forms of democracy, from direct rule by citizens (Direct Democracy) to electing representatives (Representative Democracy), with major variations like Parliamentary (UK, Canada) vs. Presidential (US, Brazil) systems, and conceptual models like Participatory (broad involvement), Pluralist (competing interest groups), and Elite (influential few) democracy, all aiming to empower people, often through elections, but differing in how that power is exercised and distributed.

Core Types

• Direct Democracy: Citizens vote on laws and policies themselves, like ancient Athens or modern Swiss referendums.
• Representative Democracy: Citizens elect officials to make decisions for them (most modern democracies).
  • Parliamentary: Executive (Prime Minister) comes from the legislature (e.g., UK, India).
  • Presidential: Separate election for President (head of government) and legislature (e.g., US, Mexico).

Conceptual Models (Focus on Participation)

• Participatory Democracy: Emphasizes broad citizen involvement beyond voting, through town halls, digital activism, or initiatives.
• Pluralist Democracy: Power is shared among competing interest groups (NGOs, unions, businesses).
• Elite Democracy: A small, influential group (wealthy, educated) holds disproportionate power.

Other Variations

• Constitutional Democracy: Government power is limited by a constitution, protecting individual rights (e.g., US).
• Social Democracy: Combines democracy with social justice, welfare, and strong public services (e.g., Nordic countries).
• Monitory Democracy: Focuses on citizens monitoring elected officials.
• Consensus Democracy: Seeks broad agreement, often through power-sharing.

Key Features

• Popular Sovereignty: Power from the people.
• Universal Suffrage: Right to vote for all adults.
• Checks & Balances: Separation of powers (executive, legislative, judicial).

In essence, while all democracies share the goal of people's rule, they differ in the mechanisms of participation, the distribution of power, and the balance between individual rights and collective will, as seen in these diverse models.

This is an EYE-OPENING read...

Types of democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Types of democracy refers to the various governance structures that embody the principles of democracy ("rule by the people") in some way. Democracy is frequently applied to governments (ranging from local to global), but may also be applied to other constructs like workplaces, families, community associations, and so forth.

Types of democracy can cluster around values. Some such types, defined as direct democracy (or participatory democracy, or deliberative democracy), promote equal and direct participation in political decisions by all members of the public. Others, including the many variants of representative democracy (i.e., constitutional), favor more indirect or procedural approaches to collective self-governance, wherein decisions are made by elected representatives rather than by the people directly.[1]

Types of democracy can be found across time, space, and language.[2] The foregoing examples are just a few of the thousands of refinements of, and variations on, the central notion of "democracy."

 

[TomEvans]

WHAT is informed consent?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA

China is not a Western state but a Confucian state... with a different history of philosophy and governance...

NO government on EARTH today, derives its power by the people's informed consent.... but you don't even know what that IS.

As I've explained frequently to your brick-wall comprehension, the states NEVER consented to a national union-- INCLUDING in 1776, which means that they NEVER did.

 

[5fish]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA

So you do need help in the concept of Informed Consent...

In a political context, informed consent extends the ethical principle from medicine/research to governance, meaning a government's power is legitimate only when citizens understand and freely agree (consent) to be governed, with "consent of the governed" being key, though often debated as fictional or actual, requiring transparency, autonomy, and freedom from coercion for citizens to truly agree to laws/policies.
Core Political Idea

• Legitimacy: A government's right to rule (its legitimacy) stems from the people's permission, not force.
• Autonomy: Citizens, as autonomous individuals, must have the capacity to understand and agree to the rules they live under, reflecting self-governance.

Key Elements (Applied Politically)

1. Information (Informed): Citizens must receive clear, understandable information about laws, policies, government actions, risks, and benefits, much like research subjects.
2. Understanding: Information must be comprehensible, not just provided, allowing for genuine comprehension.
3. Voluntary Choice (Consent): Citizens must freely choose to accept or reject governance, free from undue pressure, fraud, or coercion.

How it Manifests

• Democratic Elections: Voting is a form of consent, but requires informed voters.
• Public Deliberation: Open discussion and transparency build the "informed" part of consent.
• Civil Rights: Protecting rights (like free speech) ensures individuals can deliberate and consent freely.

Challenges in Politics

• Fictional vs. Real Consent: Is consent truly given (e.g., through voting) or is it a theoretical basis for the state (Social Contract theory)?.
• Complexity: Modern governance is complex; truly informing everyone on every issue is difficult.

In essence, political informed consent argues that a just government relies on a well-informed populace freely agreeing to its authority, ensuring power is derived from the governed rather than imposed upon them

 

[5fish]

I've explained frequently to your brick-wall comprehension, the states NEVER consented to a national union-- INCLUDING in 1776, which means that they NEVER did.

I have explained and shown you, over and over, from different political perspectives, and you chose to stay in your fantasy world where states are superior to the federal government... The brick in you...

 

[TomEvans]

I have explained and shown you, over and over, from different political perspectives, and you chose to stay in your fantasy world where states are superior to the federal government... The brick in you...

The states NEVER consented to a national union, let alone in 1776 like the US government claims.

 

[5fish]

The states NEVER consented to a national union, let alone in 1776 like the US government claims.

They were in one as of June 21st, 1788. We have been in a national union for sure... and we voted and consented to it...

 

[TomEvans]

They were in one as of June 21st, 1788. We have been in a national union for sure... and we voted and consented to it...

The US government doesn't claim that, but simply that it CONTINUED the supposed "national union" which was political superior to the states since 1776.
So since you admit that they were NOT a national union BEFORE 1788, and the US government does NOT claim that they first BECAME one in 1788; then your stories don't add up.

 

[5fish]

So since you admit that they were NOT a national union BEFORE 1788,

I did not say that, but ignore the repetition in the argument. I moved the events to a point where a permanent nation was created that has lasted 200+ years, and this cannot be argued. Where states are vassals to the Greater Nation State called The United States... from 1788, states will always be the junior partner...