The Trial of President Abraham Lincoln

Hendryk

Banned
I don't know anything about that DVD, but when I looked up the website you linked to, a number of things jumped at me. Its mission statement especially:

Mission Statement

“For the nation and kingdom that shall not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.” — Isaiah 60:12.

As Christians, we are commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ to teach all nations — including ours — to observe all things He has commanded (Matthew 28:18-20). This means bringing into captivity to Christ all areas of life and thought. This means destroying arguments that are against the knowledge of God (II Corinthians 10:5). In obedience to these commands of our Lord, this Web site is established. We covet your prayers for our success in obeying Him.

We are seriously concerned about, deeply grieved by and lament the fact that far too many of today’s so-called “Christian leaders” are a sinful embarrassment and are responsible for the cause of Christ being mocked and ridiculed. By being, first, cheerleaders for the Republican Party, they have dishonored their Lord and sold their Christian birthright for a mess of partisan political pottage. These individuals and organizations are Christian in name only, “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” From such, it is added, we must turn away.

Secular, Christless conservatism — even when it is supposedly “compassionate” — will not defeat secular, Christless liberalism because to God they are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and, thus, predestined to failure.

More than 100 years ago, speaking of the secular, Christless conservatism of his time, the great Southern Presbyterian theologian, Robert L. Dabney, observed:

“[Its] history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It tends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth.”

Amen! And what Dabney says has been proven with a vengeance in modern times, under recent Republican Administrations and Congresses who were supported enthusiastically by individuals and organizations who called themselves “Christian” but who, alas, when judged by their fruits, were not.

To those who will accuse of us of desiring and trying to bring about “a Christian America,” we unashamedly plead guilty though the accusation is far too modest and somewhat muddled. To be sure, we desire a Christian America, and a Christian world, a Christian galaxy and a Christian universe. And, over time, by His grace, we hope to demonstrate that all these things already belong to the Lord Jesus Christ because He created them all and they are His property. This is why all knees must bow to the Lord and all tongues confess that He is the Lord — because He is!
Click to expand...

Lest one think this is mere rhetoric, the website explicitly endorses R.J. Rushdoony, a key advocate of Christian Dominionism.

The religious significance of the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is well known. But, what is not so well known is the sense in which Christ’s birth is “the most important single political event in history,” as Dr. R.J. Rushdoony has observed and documented in many of his books. For example, in his book “The Foundations Of Social Order: Studies In The Creeds And Councils Of The Early Church” (1968), Dr. Rushdoony, referring to the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), calls this an event that “handed Statism its major defeat in man’s history” because it established God as “the true sovereign and the true source of law.” He notes: “Western liberty began when the claim of the State to be man’s savior was denied. The State then, according to Scripture, was made the ministry of justice. But, wherever Christ ceases to be man’s Savior, there liberty perishes as the State again asserts its messianic claims. Man is in trouble, and history is the record of his attempt to find salvation. Man needs a savior, and the question is simply one of choice: Christ or the State? No man can choose one without denying the other, and all attempts at compromise are a delusion.
Click to expand...
 

Hendryk

Banned
As for me and my house, we will support and vote for a Presidential candidate that is pro-life without exceptions, who will not capitulate to the militant sodomites, and who will constrain themselves to the Constitution upon which our nation was founded.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess that's clear enough (link).

He's right, "Gay Agenda" sounds too mellow. "Militant sodomites", now, there's a phrase to get the old juices flowing!
 

lothaw

A president put on trial? The ramifications of that are... wow. That would set an insane precident. For what? Treason, incompitence?
 

Zyzzyva

robertp6165 said:
This is a DVD recently released. It tells the story of the war crimes trial of Abraham Lincoln, set in the AH universe of MacKinlay Kantor's IF THE SOUTH HAD WON THE CIVIL WAR. Sounds interesting...has anybody seen it?

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=836
Click to expand...

War crimes? The US civil war (apart from the fact that the concept of "war crimes" was pretty vague back then) was a clean war as such things went. Stomping on the constitution, sure*. But not war crimes.

*Although if the US civil war doesn't qualify as "rebellion or invasion" I'll eat my hat.
 

paddbear

Hendryk said:
Well, I guess that's clear enough (link).

He's right, "Gay Agenda" sounds too mellow. "Militant sodomites", now, there's a phrase to get the old juices flowing!
Click to expand...

Is that what we're using now? Jeez...since we moved from San Francisco to East Overshoe Vermont, I've been so out of it. Time to update my documents with "Militant Sodomite"...
 

edvader

WTH?I read the Article when it came out in Look magazine by Kantor.Probably the trial was created for a DVD.There was certainly no trial in the article.
 

Kyronea

Given the disgusting biases shared by the creators, I doubt it has much in the way of merit in terms of examining history from an ahistorical perspective.

In fact, it's probably more along the lines of "Lincoln sucks! Boo!" than anything else.
 

robertp6165

Hendryk said:
I don't know anything about that DVD, but when I looked up the website you linked to, a number of things jumped at me. Its mission statement especially:

Lest one think this is mere rhetoric, the website explicitly endorses R.J. Rushdoony, a key advocate of Christian Dominionism.
Click to expand...

Hendryk said:
Well, I guess that's clear enough (link).

He's right, "Gay Agenda" sounds too mellow. "Militant sodomites", now, there's a phrase to get the old juices flowing!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure exactly what your point is, Hendryk. I only discovered the website in question because I have an automatic search set up on Yahoo to send me emails about any article related to the Civil War. I never bothered to read their "mission statement," as it is irrelevant to whether or not the DVD is worth watching from an alternate history standpoint.
 

robertp6165

edvader said:
WTH?I read the Article when it came out in Look magazine by Kantor.Probably the trial was created for a DVD.There was certainly no trial in the article.
Click to expand...

No, there wasn't. Lincoln was imprisoned for a short while in Castle Thunder, but not tried. This is, if you will, an alternate history within an alternate history.
 

robertp6165

lothaw said:
A president put on trial? The ramifications of that are... wow. That would set an insane precident. For what? Treason, incompitence?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the DVD, but my guess is he would be tried for war crimes, and for waging an illegal war.
 

robertp6165

Zyzzyva said:
War crimes? The US civil war (apart from the fact that the concept of "war crimes" was pretty vague back then) was a clean war as such things went. Stomping on the constitution, sure*. But not war crimes.

*Although if the US civil war doesn't qualify as "rebellion or invasion" I'll eat my hat.
Click to expand...

Well, the Civil War was a "clean" war by 20th century standards. It was not so much by 19th century standards. Indeed, IIRC, Henry Halleck had, just previous to the war, authored standards for the U.S. Army which labeled conduct which was engaged in by a number of Union generals during the war as criminal. Of course a lot of that conduct happened from late 1863 onward, and the war ended in July 1863 in the ATL on which the DVD is based, so it would be interesting to see what particular conduct they singled out for the trial.
 

Hendryk

Banned
robertp6165 said:
I'm not sure exactly what your point is, Hendryk. I only discovered the website in question because I have an automatic search set up on Yahoo to send me emails about any article related to the Civil War. I never bothered to read their "mission statement," as it is irrelevant to whether or not the DVD is worth watching from an alternate history standpoint.
Click to expand...
Actually if a website with such a blatant ideological agenda endorses the DVD, it is relevant as to probable biases in the DVD itself. Have you read where they stand about Lincoln? Here they call him a "murderous tyrant". Don't tell me they don't have an axe to grind.

But I'm not accusing you of anything. This is about the Dominionist nutcases at that website, not about you.
 

NKVD

Those Dominionist maniacs are worse than Nazis. Atleast Nazis don't hide their urges to commit state-sanctioned mass-murder.
 

Kursk

paddbear said:
Is that what we're using now? Jeez...since we moved from San Francisco to East Overshoe Vermont, I've been so out of it. Time to update my documents with "Militant Sodomite"...
Click to expand...

I think you guys are confused. I'm pretty sure they don't mean gays; rather, they're referencing the extremist militants in Sodomitistan, where, as you know, the insurgency against US military occupation rages uncontrolled.
 

robertp6165

Hendryk said:
Actually if a website with such a blatant ideological agenda endorses the DVD, it is relevant as to probable biases in the DVD itself. Have you read where they stand about Lincoln? Here they call him a "murderous tyrant". Don't tell me they don't have an axe to grind.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you didn't point this out in your first post, rather than going ballistic over their views on Gays and religion. The points you cite above might be a valid reason to attack the DVD and the motivations behind it. Their views on religion and homosexuality are really irrelevant, or should be. There might well be Gay athiests who hate Lincoln too, you know. Lincoln-hating is by no means limited to straight Christians. Its an equal opportunity sort of thing. :D

Hendryk said:
But I'm not accusing you of anything. This is about the Dominionist nutcases at that website, not about you.
Click to expand...

I understand, and appreciate the clarification.
 

Susano

Banned
Zyzzyva said:
War crimes? The US civil war (apart from the fact that the concept of "war crimes" was pretty vague back then) was a clean war as such things went. Stomping on the constitution, sure*. But not war crimes.
Click to expand...
Uh, Shermans March to the Sea? Thats often cited as very atrocity-heavy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top