Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Lincoln Lied and People Died

The myth of Lincoln is the foundational lie of our system. Lincoln is lionized more than Washington or any other of the founders. Just ask any of the official court historians and they’ll always rate Lincoln as the number one president. And that fact right there shows us the real truth and gives lie to the idea that Lincoln saved the republic. No, in fact Lincoln completely remade it into something else entirely and as such, he is the true founding father of our current system and is venerated above all others.

Precisely right.

Lincoln’s wife’s family were from the south and had slaves and her brothers fought for the south I rank Lincoln as #1 worst president and the current #2

I doubt any historically significant resources will be contacting you about your take on Lincoln.

I hesitate to post this because of the usual suspects will blow a gasket but there is a book coming out that will allege Lincoln owned and sold slaves. It seems that he inherited them through his wife. And instead of setting them free, he eventually sold them.

It’s been hinted at because as someone mentioned n this thread, his wife’s family were the largest slave holders in Kentucky. But there were no records. Literally, no records. Like where there should be records of probate or there might have been records of slave sales, there were pages ripped out of registers or files just missing. So the author of the new book finally figured out (I think by figuring out when the records had been transcribed into the new books) that the records had to have been taken sometime in the 1920s. And from that he deduced that the culprit was one of Lincoln’s foremost biographers. And knowing that, he went to the library where the guy’s papers were donated after his death and in a dusty box in the attic found a bunch of records pilfered from various courthouses showing that he owned and sold slaves.


https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...n-owned--and-sold--slaves-301475375.html

No unheard of. The govt of the state of Pennsylvania deliberately burned all the record of indented laborers and other bondsmen & bondswomen to hide their complicity in human trafficking and unwilling bondage.

The govt of hte State of Pennsylvania and the despicable Quakers always made pious noises against slavery of blacks in their domain. But they had no problem with the bondage of whites (mostly poor Irish, Scots, and English) who were indented against their will. Of whom, 90+% died during their indenture up to the year 1700 and abut 50% thereafter.

In John Prebbles study of the Highland clearances he hammers on the affiliation of Harriett Beecher Store ( Uncle Tom’s Cabin) and her association with the Marquis of Sutherland. And her known treatment of her crofters ( sheep before people!) both before and during the clearances.

Apparently Stowe spent a lot of time with her in Scotland. Quite possibly composing some of her famous book while at her estate.

Which brings up a thought I have often heard concerning abolitionist. That the reason most of the major leaders and shakers of that movement were anti-slavery because the were anti black. They did not want them on this continent. Anyone else run across this sentiment?

How is this newly discovered information, assuming that it is true/correct, going to change anything?

That’s really interesting, thanks. I don’t know that I’d heard that before.

It ain’t.

It chips away at the clay feet of their false god.

If anyone is interested in this thread I suggest going to civilwartalk.com

No need for a big pot of word soup. We did not have a Civil War. The Confederacy was not fighting the Union over the control, molding and changing of this nation. The Confederacy fought to be free of and from the Union. This was the Second American Revolution. It was both legal and moral to do so; just as much as was the First American Revolution.

Way before my time. I do know politics were involved. Enough said. Truth is the first to die. Time don't change that.

Okay, Lincoln lied. Lincoln was a politician. Many, maybe most, politicians lie to get elected and reelected so that they can use the power of the position and champion their agenda.

JRB, Jr. promised to reunify our Country, to forgive educational loans, and give anyone who wanted to attend 2 years of post-high school education free tuition when he was running for office. How has that worked out for anyone?.

No matter which side you agree with the South had most of the dynamic personalities in leadership.

Lee, Jackson, Stuart, Forrest among others. The South was loaded with talented men and passionate personalities full of conviction. It was after the war that a lot of lesser known men mostly from the South made their way out West and we’re apart of what we think of as the Wild West.

Grants greatest talent was recognizing that he could sacrifice more men and still win a war of attrition.

So, how does that square with Lee at Gettysburg where he lost more men and lost the war of attrition?

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/abraham-lincoln

Different times. Different tactics. Same racism and bigotry.

Lincoln managed to hold the Union together. The south fought for many reasons. It’s main objective to preserve Slavery and expand it was and will always be a failed objective.

Like democrats you can change the argument. You can shout down and demoralize your perceived opposition but you are essentially fighting a lost cause.

You can call him names. You can dehumanize him any way you wish but you cannot change who he was and what he did to cement our future as a United States of America.

You will never change the fact that the South suffered needlessly and much more painfully because of his murder. He had far different plans for reconstruction than those that were executed after his demise. Much of the bitterness of reconstruction is misplaced. You can blame him for everything under the sun but the fact remains he had no part in the painful reconstruction the South suffered.

War is not pretty. Victor Davis Hanson has some interesting reading in his book “The Savior Generals”

Easy. Grant had a fundamental strategy of being okay with losing more men in order to win a war or attrition. That was never ever an option for Lee. Lee was on the other side of the coin so to speak. That Grant realized an obvious advantage while those before him seemed to have missed it speaks well for Grant and being a solid General but it wasn’t brilliant leadership or strategy. Far from it. Grant was known for being often drunk but well liked.