Tomorrow is Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. Familiar Lincoln idolaters will gather to celebrate the birth, on Feb. 12, 1809, of the 16th President of the United States, and finesse his role in “the butchering business”—to use Prof. J. R. Pole’s turn-of-phrase. Court historian Doris Kearns Goodwin is sure to make a media appearance to extol the virtues of the president who shed the blood of brothers in great quantities, and urged into existence the “American System” of taxpayer-sponsored grants of government privilege to politically connected corporations. On publication, in 2002, of the book “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War,” the “Church of Lincoln” gave battle. The enemy was the author, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, who had exposed Lincoln lore for the lie it was — still is. DiLorenzo had dared to examine the “Great Centralizer’s” role in sundering the soul of the American federal system: the sovereignty of the states and the citizenry.
Steeped as they were in the Lockean tradition of natural rights and individual liberty, the constitutional framers held that the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property were best preserved within a federal system of divided sovereignty, in which the central government was weak and most powers devolved to the states, or to the people, respectively, as stated in the 10th Amendment. If a state grew tyrannical, competition from other states — and the individual’s ability to switch allegiances by exiting the political arrangement — would create something of an agora in government. This was the framers’ genius.
The concentrated powers Lincoln sought were inimical to the founders’ loose constitutional dispensation. To realize his expansionist ideals, Lincoln would have to crush any notion of the Union as a voluntary pact between sovereign states and individuals. By Lincoln’s admission, he prosecuted the war between the Union States of the North and the Southern Confederate States in order to maintain the Union; he vowed to so do “by freeing all the slaves or without freeing any slave,” as Mark Bostridge conceded uncontroversially in the Times Literary Supplement (December 10, 2010). Duly, Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” guaranteed that slaves were freed only in regions of the Confederacy still inaccessible to the Union army. Union soldiers, for their part, were permitted to seize slaves in rebel territory and put them to work. In areas loyal to the North, slaves were not emancipated. After the war, Lincoln offered little land to the freed men; parceling off the spoils to his constituent power-base: the railroad and mining companies.
The North was no more fighting to abolish slavery than the South was fighting to preserve it: A mere 15 percent, or thereabouts, of Southerners owned slaves.
The “pseudo-intellectuals who [are] devoted to pulling the wool over the public’s eyes” have a lot to answer for. Lincoln’s violent, unconstitutional revolution took the lives of 620,000 individuals (including 50,000 Southern civilians, blacks included), maimed thousands, and brought about “the near destruction of 40 percent of the nation’s economy.” “The costs of an action cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to morality,” wrote the Mises Institute’s David Gordon in “Secession, State & Liberty.” Almost every other country at the time chose the path of peaceful emancipation. Yet today’s Americans look upon the terrible forces Lincoln unleashed as glorious events, the native appetite having habituated to carnage over time.
Lincoln lovers like to claim that the Constitution ratified in 1788 forbade peaceful secession, and authorized a federal government of so-called limited, delegated powers to invade and occupy any seceding state; declare martial law, subdue secessionists by force, burn and ransack entire cities, and then establish a military dictatorship over those states lasting a dozen years.
Suppose this indeed is the case, and that it was perfectly constitutional to intentionally wage war on civilians, to imprison without trial thousands of Northern citizens, jail—even execute—people who refused to take an oath of loyalty to Lord Lincoln, declare martial law, confiscate private property, censor telegraph lines, and shut down newspapers for opposing the war, incarcerating their editors and owners. Say, for the sake of argument, that it was indeed lawful to suspend the Bill of Rights, the writ of habeas corpus, and the international law.
If it endorsed, or even accommodated, what Lincoln did, including his disregard for the Ninth and 10th amendments, and his violation of the Second — then the Constitution is categorically evil and self-contradictory.
The more plausible explanation is that, in 1861, Lincoln kidnapped and killed the Constitution. The Jacobins who lionize Lincoln’s actions (by referring to his billowing prose) have been covering up his crimes and ignoring the consequences of his coup ever since.
Ilana Mercer is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). She's been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column, begun in Canadian newspapers, since 1999.
I've read some on this subject and don't know what to believe. I would like to know why you guys discount the notion his overarching intentions were good and he just wanted to preserve the union even at such a high cost.
These threads always revolve into a debate about slavery so I’ll jump right there. Let’s assume for a second that the South really did want to endlessly propagate slavery and left the union solely for that purpose. So what? How does that change the essential elements of what happened? They tried to leave, the federal government invaded them, destroyed their industries and property, killed large numbers of them, occupied their territories with military forces, installed military governments and then hand picked civilian governments for them, forced them to pass amendments to the Constitution before it would let them fully rejoin the union.
I liken it to a marriage in which the wife cheats on the husband and runs off. She was wrong, but that doesn’t give the husband the right to track her down, beat her up, drag her back to the home kicking and screaming, and then lock her up as a virtual hostage. And if he does, whatever they have in that house is no longer a marriage.
Whatever we have in this country after 1865, it’s no longer a constitutional republic.
Written during the heart of the Civil War, this is one of Abraham Lincoln's most famous letters. Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune, had just addressed an editorial to Lincoln called "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," making demands and implying that Lincoln's administration lacked direction and resolve.
President Lincoln wrote his reply when a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation already lay in his desk drawer. His response revealed his concentration on preserving the Union. The letter, which received acclaim in the North, stands as a classic statement of Lincoln's constitutional responsibilities. A few years after the president's death, Greeley wrote an assessment of Lincoln. He stated that Lincoln did not actually respond to his editorial but used it instead as a platform to prepare the public for his "altered position" on emancipation.
Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley: Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
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 every where could be free.
These threads always revolve into a debate about slavery so I’ll jump right there. Let’s assume for a second that the South really did want to endlessly propagate slavery and left the union solely for that purpose. So what? How does that change the essential elements of what happened? They tried to leave, the federal government invaded them, destroyed their industries and property, killed large numbers of them, occupied their territories with military forces, installed military governments and then hand picked civilian governments for them, forced them to pass amendments to the Constitution before it would let them fully rejoin the union.
I liken it to a marriage in which the wife cheats on the husband and runs off. She was wrong, but that doesn’t give the husband the right to track her down, beat her up, drag her back to the home kicking and screaming, and then lock her up as a virtual hostage. And if he does, whatever they have in that house is no longer a marriage.
Whatever we have in this country after 1865, it’s no longer a constitutional republic.
These threads always revolve into a debate about slavery so I’ll jump right there. Let’s assume for a second that the South really did want to endlessly propagate slavery and left the union solely for that purpose. So what? How does that change the essential elements of what happened? They tried to leave, the federal government invaded them, destroyed their industries and property, killed large numbers of them, occupied their territories with military forces, installed military governments and then hand picked civilian governments for them, forced them to pass amendments to the Constitution before it would let them fully rejoin the union.
I liken it to a marriage in which the wife cheats on the husband and runs off. She was wrong, but that doesn’t give the husband the right to track her down, beat her up, drag her back to the home kicking and screaming, and then lock her up as a virtual hostage. And if he does, whatever they have in that house is no longer a marriage.
Whatever we have in this country after 1865, it’s no longer a constitutional republic.
More like the husband tracked her down, killed her and threw her corpse back in the bedroom and has been screwing her ever sinse.
What was it that Gen Cleburne said? "If we lose this War those people will be telling us how to live for the next 500 years". 157 down and only 343 to go
Never a serious student of the Civil War, I ask this question honestly and without bias. How would a panel of the best qualified Constitutional scholars view the war in retrospect? Was it legal? Or was it Mr Lincoln and supporters, saying, no, I'll kill you before I let you divorce me?
I always find it humorous that blacks believe Lincoln was their hero. Lincoln was a divisive racist and didn’t want freed blacks to remain in the US after the CW. Further, he only used the Emancipation Proclamation to free Southern backs in an effort to further erode the South’s power.
Before he was elected, Lincoln promised to preserve slavery as a constitutionally mandated permanent reality. Lincoln’s own words are an inconvenient truth that most Americans wish to ignore:
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists,” he said, vowing never to defy what was “plainly written” in the Constitution. “I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Further, during the war he continued to view slavery only as a tool to achieve victory over the South.
Written during the heart of the Civil War, this is one of Abraham Lincoln's most famous letters. Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune, had just addressed an editorial to Lincoln called "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," making demands and implying that Lincoln's administration lacked direction and resolve.
President Lincoln wrote his reply when a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation already lay in his desk drawer. His response revealed his concentration on preserving the Union. The letter, which received acclaim in the North, stands as a classic statement of Lincoln's constitutional responsibilities. A few years after the president's death, Greeley wrote an assessment of Lincoln. He stated that Lincoln did not actually respond to his editorial but used it instead as a platform to prepare the public for his "altered position" on emancipation.
Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley: Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them.
If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
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 every where could be free.
Yours, A. Lincoln.
In regards to his Presidency, Lincoln tread all over the US Constitution by suspending habeas corpus unilaterally. He ignored Congress and proceeded to arrest thousands of political opponents and suppressing the free press and free speech to a degree unmatched in U.S. history before or since. When Chief Justice Roger Taney of the Supreme Court held that the suspension was unconstitutional, Lincoln ignored him.
Lincoln should not be exalted by either side of the aisle. He should have been impeached for his actions.
This contortion of history is almost as bad as the 1619 project and cancel culture's interpretation of history. History is not to be interpreted it is to be taught as a historical fact. Fact is Lincoln tried concessions to the Southern Oligarchs, but it didn't work. The great debate wasn't necessarily about the southern states having slavery but about the New Territories that the South was hell bent on making slave states. Lincoln was not the only person in government and in the North that wanted America to abandon Slavery. Our Constitution demanded it and still does if you can read. Tremendous growth and fundamental economic differences between the North and South had as much to do with it as anything else. The north had manufacturing and industry established and the South was largely agrarian with large scale farming that depended on slave labor. They wanted slavery's extension into the new territories. In 1854 the us congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act which opened up all new territories to slavery by asserting the rule of popular sovereignty over congressional edict. The North was violently opposed and The Republican Party was formed based on the principal of opposing slavery's extension into the western territories. After the Supreme Court's decision in 1857 (Dred Scott) confirming slaveries legality hatred simmered until the abolitionist John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859 was the start of what would become the greatest disaster in American History. Over 600K people would die in the bloodiest war in our history. Lincoln's election in 1860 was the last straw and within three months the South seceded. Who attacked who? In March 1861 confederate forces attacked Fort Sumpter in SC. The war was on. John Wilkes Booth sealed Reconstruction's fate by murdering the only person in American Government that wanted to forgive and forget. Lincoln would have made Reconstruction much easier and less painful. As it was it took almost a century to get over the effects of Reconstruction and in some ways we have not made it yet. People on this forum still complain about North vs South and relive the war as much as they can. Leave our Honored dead in peace and understand that the only way America has survived as a Nation; a Union to this day is because we were not allowed to tear ourselves apart forming little island nations on the same soil. Take a clue from Europe's many wars over centuries that "a Nation divided cannot stand".
Lincoln was a statist pig who got what he had coming.
Lincoln's death resulted in the failure of his plan to resettle freed blacks to Central and South America. Further, his death was used as a tool to empower the abolitionist movement.
If Lincoln had not been assassinated, this country would look a whole lot different that it does today.
Lincoln was a statist pig who got what he had coming.
Lincoln's death resulted in the failure of his plan to resettle freed blacks to Central and South America. Further, his death was used as a tool to empower the abolitionist movement.
If Lincoln had not been assassinated, this country would look a whole lot different that it does today.
No doubt it would, but if everyone were to believe you, America wouldn’t be a better place.
I don’t consider your analysis as entirely correct, and I also don’t see Lincoln as the monster you have painted him.
Never said he was a monster. I said he does not deserve the heaps of praise based on the revisionist High School version of his actions before and during his presidency.
Lincoln clearly viewed slaves as nothing more than property and a means to an end - to preserve the Union. He also committed Impeachable acts while President, again all under the excuse to preserve the Union.
The ends does not justify the means and Lincoln epitomizes this POV.
Never a serious student of the Civil War, I ask this question honestly and without bias. How would a panel of the best qualified Constitutional scholars view the war in retrospect? Was it legal? Or was it Mr Lincoln and supporters, saying, no, I'll kill you before I let you divorce me?
It was not legal, since each state was always, prior to the war, considered to be free to separate from our voluntary union (which notion was one of our nation's founding principles, see, e.g., the Declaration of Independence). That ever-present possibility was one of the built in checks against centralized tyranny intended by the Founders and Framers. In fact, the threat of secession had been already successfully used several times to moderate proposals for the concentration of national power in the decades prior to the Civil War.
I've read some on this subject and don't know what to believe. I would like to know why you guys discount the notion his overarching intentions were good and he just wanted to preserve the union even at such a high cost.
Any one care to give an opinion on the above?
Also, while at it, is the notion Lincoln came to believe later in the war that slavery was immoral and without abolishing it the country would never fully fulfill its inherent promises?
Never said he was a monster. I said he does not deserve the heaps of praise based on the revisionist High School version of his actions before and during his presidency.
Lincoln clearly viewed slaves as nothing more than property and a means to an end - to preserve the Union. He also committed Impeachable acts while President, again all under the excuse to preserve the Union.
The ends does not justify the means and Lincoln epitomizes this POV.
You continue to judge him by your 21st century standards, not knowing what it was like to live in 1861 America.
I've read some on this subject and don't know what to believe. I would like to know why you guys discount the notion his overarching intentions were good and he just wanted to preserve the union even at such a high cost.
Any one care to give an opinion on the above?
Also, while at it, is the notion Lincoln came to believe later in the war that slavery was immoral and without abolishing it the country would never fully fulfill its inherent promises?
Because they simply don't want to understand that Lincolns view on Negroes evolved during the War. Mostly because of his friendship with Frederick Douglass. They like to believe here that 1860 Abraham Lincoln was 1865 Abraham Lincoln
This contortion of history is almost as bad as the 1619 project and cancel culture's interpretation of history. History is not to be interpreted it is to be taught as a historical fact. Fact is Lincoln tried concessions to the Southern Oligarchs, but it didn't work. The great debate wasn't necessarily about the southern states having slavery but about the New Territories that the South was hell bent on making slave states. Lincoln was not the only person in government and in the North that wanted America to abandon Slavery. Our Constitution demanded it and still does if you can read. Tremendous growth and fundamental economic differences between the North and South had as much to do with it as anything else. The north had manufacturing and industry established and the South was largely agrarian with large scale farming that depended on slave labor. They wanted slavery's extension into the new territories. In 1854 the us congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act which opened up all new territories to slavery by asserting the rule of popular sovereignty over congressional edict. The North was violently opposed and The Republican Party was formed based on the principal of opposing slavery's extension into the western territories. After the Supreme Court's decision in 1857 (Dred Scott) confirming slaveries legality hatred simmered until the abolitionist John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859 was the start of what would become the greatest disaster in American History. Over 600K people would die in the bloodiest war in our history. Lincoln's election in 1860 was the last straw and within three months the South seceded. Who attacked who? In March 1861 confederate forces attacked Fort Sumpter in SC. The war was on. John Wilkes Booth sealed Reconstruction's fate by murdering the only person in American Government that wanted to forgive and forget. Lincoln would have made Reconstruction much easier and less painful. As it was it took almost a century to get over the effects of Reconstruction and in some ways we have not made it yet. People on this forum still complain about North vs South and relive the war as much as they can. Leave our Honored dead in peace and understand that the only way America has survived as a Nation; a Union to this day is because we were not allowed to tear ourselves apart forming little island nations on the same soil. Take a clue from Europe's many wars over centuries that "a Nation divided cannot stand".
Frick you and the horse you rode in on. This entire GD mess we have today is because of GD Lincoln and his GD war that saved this glorious union so it could continue to oppress us to this very fricking day. Every godless Democrat, statist pig, and communist [bleep] is his spiritual descendant. Frick him and his rotting corpse and frick anyone who has anything good to say about him.
I just so tired of people getting on here and elsewhere glorifying that bastard and everything that has come since when it has so clearly led us to this point where we are today. We are probably the most corrupt nation on earth with regard to our government. We have endless foreign wars and are about to get in some conflict with THE ONE power on earth who could kill damned nearly everyone one of us about what? Who the frick knows? At home we are besieged by communists who control this leviathan and inundated with third world foreigners from around the globe against our will. Today, there are people rotting in federal jails under absolutely inhuman conditions who MIGHT AT THE MOST, be guilty of trespassing.
And yet, we still have to endure the cult of Lincoln. The man who made all of this possible and established the principle that no matter what, the federal government is supreme and can and will use the ultimate force to demonstrate and enforce that supremacy. Everything that is happening now is possible ONLY because of the actions he took in the 1860s.
Never a serious student of the Civil War, I ask this question honestly and without bias. How would a panel of the best qualified Constitutional scholars view the war in retrospect? Was it legal? Or was it Mr Lincoln and supporters, saying, no, I'll kill you before I let you divorce me?
It was not legal, since each state was always, prior to the war, considered to be free to separate from our voluntary union (which notion was one of our nation's founding principles, see, e.g., the Declaration of Independence). That ever-present possibility was one of the built in checks against centralized tyranny intended by the Founders and Framers. In fact, the threat of secession had been already successfully used several times to moderate proposals for the concentration of national power in the decades prior to the Civil War.
Thanks, I guess the evidence was always there, it just went over my head. No matter anyone's opinion on this national divorce....is war ever the best solution? Other than the obvious people like Hitler, Stalin, Xi who believe in world domination and genocide on an epic scale. I often wonder today, what would this nation look like now if PTG Beauregard hadn't ordered that attack? A 600,000 man gene pool of maybe the best and bravest...gone to the worms.
Some people misunderstand Lincoln’s reluctance to cede federal territory in Fort Sumter. The fort was only secondarily placed there for defense of the harbor. The main reason it was there was to collect import duties and tariffs which were almost the sole means of funding the federal government in those days. Keeping the fort and keeping it garrisoned demonstrated an intent to continue to dominate the harbor and collect duties. In fact Lincoln even said South Carolina could do whatever they liked as long as duties continued to be collected. Obviously, no nation could allow a foreign power to collect import duties in its harbors.
I just so tired of people getting on here and elsewhere glorifying that bastard and everything that has come since when it has so clearly led us to this point where we are today. We are probably the most corrupt nation on earth with regard to our government. We have endless foreign wars and are about to get in some conflict with THE ONE power on earth who could kill damned nearly everyone one of us about what? Who the frick knows? At home we are besieged by communists who control this leviathan and inundated with third world foreigners from around the globe against our will. Today, there are people rotting in federal jails under absolutely inhuman conditions who MIGHT AT THE MOST, be guilty of trespassing.
And yet, we still have to endure the cult of Lincoln. The man who made all of this possible and established the principle that no matter what, the federal government is supreme and can and will use the ultimate force to demonstrate and enforce that supremacy. Everything that is happening now is possible ONLY because of the actions he took in the 1860s.
You can’t have it both ways. The Republican Party was formed to fight the notion that men and women can be legally enslaved. If you are a Democrat wear that racialism proudly. Quit trying to fight a war that was lost over a century ago. It was fought and won to free men from slavery. If you like the deprivation that the democrat leftists have put on us then you deserve what you voted for.
You can’t have it both ways. The Republican Party was formed to fight the notion that men and women can be legally enslaved. If you are a Democrat wear that racialism proudly. Quit trying to fight a war that was lost over a century ago. It was fought and won to free men from slavery. If you like the deprivation that the democrat leftists have put on us then you deserve what you voted for.
Frick you, Yankee. Carry your arse out of Texas you statist [bleep].
I've read some on this subject and don't know what to believe. I would like to know why you guys discount the notion his overarching intentions were good and he just wanted to preserve the union even at such a high cost.
A very long list, but I'll start with a few.
1. The southern states had a right to secede from the Union. He refused to evacuate Ft. Sumter. 2. He was a lawyer 3. He graphically disrupted the Judicial Branch and violated the Constitution with a variety of executive orders 4. The Emancipation Proclamation? Right, this is the wanker that wanted to send the slaves back to Africa. His Indian name was "Talks from both sides of mouth". 5 6 7 8 9 10
I grew up in Kentucky and had Lincoln crammed down my throat as a kid. When I was old enough to figure things out it became evident what a [bleep] the man was. He destroyed the Union so that it could be rebuilt as a progressive nation.
My in laws are from Minnesota and Michigan. My wife’s maternal grand father thought Lincoln was just below Jesus in stature. I don’t miss a chance to point out what the bastard did to this country and the legacy that he left in a bastardized government.
Those who state Lincoln was indifferent to slavery ignore his masterwork completed in the last year of his life even though the war was still on; the 13th Amendment to the Constitution banning slavery everywhere.
Those who state the War Over Secession had nothing to do with slavery ignore the entirety of US politics up to that point and the compromises made to appease the South and avoid secession.
They also ignore the fact that slave-grown cotton was the backbone of the Southern economy to the point that the great majority of their elected politicians, for decades prior to and during the war, were from the slave-dependent Plantation Aristocracy and made their policy decisions accordingly.
Lincoln was on record as opposing slavery and the expansion of that institution as a freshman member of Congress as early as 1847 when he was one of the few who would question the motives and constitutional validly (ironic I know) of our entry into the Mexican War.
This unpopular stance on principle cost him reelection, and the memory of his stance thirteen years later likely made his election as President in 1860 an exceptionally bitter pill to the South.
I think it safe to say that, without slavery, the War Over Secession would never have happened.
Surprise the Judicial branch has defied the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution at will many times throughout our history. Lincoln and many others have the slaves a choice to go back to Africa. Specifically Liberia but many declined because they considered themselves Americans. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/liberia
Those who state Lincoln was indifferent to slavery ignore his masterwork completed in the last year of his life even though the war was still on; the 13th Amendment to the Constitution banning slavery everywhere.
Those who state the War Over Secession had nothing to do with slavery ignore the entirety of US politics up to that point and the compromises made to appease the South and avoid secession.
They also ignore the fact that slave-grown cotton was the backbone of the Southern economy to the point that the great majority of their elected politicians, for decades prior and during the war, were from the slave-dependent Plantation Aristocracy and made their policy decisions accordingly.
Lincoln was on record as opposing slavery and the expansion of that institution as a freshman member of Congress as early as 1847 when he was one of the few who would question the motives and constitutional validly (ironic I know) of our entry into the Mexican War.
This unpopular stance on principle cost him reelection, and the memory of his stance thirteen years later likely made his election as President in 1860 and exceptionally bitter pill to the South.
I think it safe to say that, without slavery, the War Over Secession would never have happened.
Who cares? The South still had the right to leave and Lincoln still destroyed the Republic.
You can’t have it both ways. The Republican Party was formed to fight the notion that men and women can be legally enslaved. If you are a Democrat wear that racialism proudly. Quit trying to fight a war that was lost over a century ago. It was fought and won to free men from slavery. If you like the deprivation that the democrat leftists have put on us then you deserve what you voted for.
Lincoln and his radical yankee northeastern supporters and their descendants murdered a republic based on liberty and consent of the governed, then replaced it with a yankee empire.
Your problem is that you were born into a cage, so cannot even perceive the bars.
The “free men from slavery” argument is Bu llshit.
Rain shot.
Would YOU die to give freedom to people that you didn’t know? How many people do you know who would sacrifice their life or even consider sacrificing their life for people that they didn’t know? How about lining up several million Americans who would sign up for that gig.
With William Wilberforce having defeated slavery within the British Empire we have further evidence that a war was not needed. Please, save your stupid arguments for the ignorant masses who don’t possess the ability to string 10 neurons together in thought.
Such sore losers still. It all sounds like 400 years of slavery. what's next, reparations?
Slavery, as an institution, was on its way out for other reasons anyway. It was becoming increasingly unpopular, even in the South. The best solution would have been to declare a certain date after which no one could be born into slavery, and continue the ban on importing them (which had already been long in place), while providing incentives for freeing slaves already in captivity.
Who cares? The South still had the right to leave and Lincoln still destroyed the Republic.
Did Lincoln fight that war all by hisself?
You might think that from listening to his detractors.
There were some hundreds of thousands of men, including more’n a few from the South, who thought preserving the Union was a cause worth dying for.
Who gives a frick? There have never been shortages of people willing to enslave and conquer others. May as well argue that Ghengis Kahn was a good guy because plenty of people were willing to help him out and fight for him.
Your problem is that you were born into a cage, so cannot even perceive the bars.
The “free men from slavery” argument is Bu llshit.
Rain shot.
Would YOU die to give freedom to people that you didn’t know? How many people do you know who would sacrifice their life or even consider sacrificing their life for people that they didn’t know? How about lining up several million Americans who would sign up for that gig.
With William Wilberforce having defeated slavery within the British Empire we have further evidence that a war was not needed. Please, save your stupid arguments for the ignorant masses who don’t possess the ability to string 10 neurons together in thought.
I might if I believed I would one day stand before God Almighty in judgement and account for my life.
Your problem is that you were born into a cage, so cannot even perceive the bars.
The “free men from slavery” argument is Bu llshit.
Rain shot.
Would YOU die to give freedom to people that you didn’t know? How many people do you know who would sacrifice their life or even consider sacrificing their life for people that they didn’t know? How about lining up several million Americans who would sign up for that gig.
With William Wilberforce having defeated slavery within the British Empire we have further evidence that a war was not needed. Please, save your stupid arguments for the ignorant masses who don’t possess the ability to string 10 neurons together in thought.
I might if I believed I would one day stand before God Almighty in judgement and account for my life.
So what advice did Paul give slaves? There were probably ten times more of them at that moment in the Roman world than there ever were in America.
Such sore losers still. It all sounds like 400 years of slavery. what's next, reparations?
Slavery, as an institution, was on it's way out for other reasons anyway. It was becoming increasingly unpopular, even in the South. The best solution would have been to declare a certain date after which no one could be born into slavery, and continue the ban on importing them (which had already been long in place), while providing incentives for freeing slaves already in captivity.
There were more Slaves in this Country in 1860 than at any point in history thanks to the cotton gin. There is no historical evidence slavery was dying out. Only evidence that it had become unpopular in England and in the northern States
Your problem is that you were born into a cage, so cannot even perceive the bars.
The “free men from slavery” argument is Bu llshit.
Rain shot.
Would YOU die to give freedom to people that you didn’t know? How many people do you know who would sacrifice their life or even consider sacrificing their life for people that they didn’t know? How about lining up several million Americans who would sign up for that gig.
With William Wilberforce having defeated slavery within the British Empire we have further evidence that a war was not needed. Please, save your stupid arguments for the ignorant masses who don’t possess the ability to string 10 neurons together in thought.
I might if I believed I would one day stand before God Almighty in judgement and account for my life.
So what advice did Paul give slaves? There were probably ten times more of them at that moment in the Roman world than there ever were in America.
He didn't tell them to work for their freedom and then to buy their own slaves. Your question is idiotic at best.
Your problem is that you were born into a cage, so cannot even perceive the bars.
The “free men from slavery” argument is Bu llshit.
Rain shot.
Would YOU die to give freedom to people that you didn’t know? How many people do you know who would sacrifice their life or even consider sacrificing their life for people that they didn’t know? How about lining up several million Americans who would sign up for that gig.
With William Wilberforce having defeated slavery within the British Empire we have further evidence that a war was not needed. Please, save your stupid arguments for the ignorant masses who don’t possess the ability to string 10 neurons together in thought.
I might if I believed I would one day stand before God Almighty in judgement and account for my life.
So what advice did Paul give slaves? There were probably ten times more of them at that moment in the Roman world than there ever were in America.
He didn't tell them to work for their freedom and then to buy their own slaves. Your question is idiotic at best.
He's also wrong. Rome at its peak had between 5-10 million slaves. The United States in 1860 had 3.75 million slaves
There were more Slaves in this Country in 1860 than at any point in history thanks to the cotton gin. There is no historical evidence slavery was dying out. Only evidence that it had become unpopular in England and in the northern States
"Within the South, slave ownership was becoming concentrated into a smaller number of hands. The proportion of southern families owning slaves declined from 36 percent in 1830 to 25 percent in 1860. At the same time, slavery was sharply declining in the upper South."
Your problem is that you were born into a cage, so cannot even perceive the bars.
The “free men from slavery” argument is Bu llshit.
Rain shot.
Would YOU die to give freedom to people that you didn’t know? How many people do you know who would sacrifice their life or even consider sacrificing their life for people that they didn’t know? How about lining up several million Americans who would sign up for that gig.
With William Wilberforce having defeated slavery within the British Empire we have further evidence that a war was not needed. Please, save your stupid arguments for the ignorant masses who don’t possess the ability to string 10 neurons together in thought.
I might if I believed I would one day stand before God Almighty in judgement and account for my life.
So what advice did Paul give slaves? There were probably ten times more of them at that moment in the Roman world than there ever were in America.
I find it interesting that you use your religion to defend the institution of slavery.
There were more Slaves in this Country in 1860 than at any point in history thanks to the cotton gin. There is no historical evidence slavery was dying out. Only evidence that it had become unpopular in England and in the northern States
"Within the South, slave ownership was becoming concentrated into a smaller number of hands. The proportion of southern families owning slaves declined from 36 percent in 1830 to 25 percent in 1860. At the same time, slavery was sharply declining in the upper South."
- The Economics of Slavery
But what was happening to the total number of slaves in The South during that same time period?
Your problem is that you were born into a cage, so cannot even perceive the bars.
The “free men from slavery” argument is Bu llshit.
Rain shot.
Would YOU die to give freedom to people that you didn’t know? How many people do you know who would sacrifice their life or even consider sacrificing their life for people that they didn’t know? How about lining up several million Americans who would sign up for that gig.
With William Wilberforce having defeated slavery within the British Empire we have further evidence that a war was not needed. Please, save your stupid arguments for the ignorant masses who don’t possess the ability to string 10 neurons together in thought.
I might if I believed I would one day stand before God Almighty in judgement and account for my life.
So what advice did Paul give slaves? There were probably ten times more of them at that moment in the Roman world than there ever were in America.
He didn't tell them to work for their freedom and then to buy their own slaves. Your question is idiotic at best.
I’m not the one who brought up the point that killing people to free their slaves would get one some kind of brownie points with God in Judgment Day.
Such sore losers still. It all sounds like 400 years of slavery. what's next, reparations?
Slavery, as an institution, was on its way out for other reasons anyway. It was becoming increasingly unpopular, even in the South. The best solution would have been to declare a certain date after which no one could be born into slavery, and continue the ban on importing them (which had already been long in place), while providing incentives for freeing slaves already in captivity.
Slavery was not a good business model, and the invention of the cotton gin would have been the nail that finally ended that 'peculiar institution'. Witness the other nations that ended slavery peacefully without a bloody civil war. Witness slavery being legal in Saudi Arabia until the 1960's (and is still an underground institution there). No, the Civil War was all about Lincoln consolidating unconstitutional power under the hammer of FedGov no matter the literal cost in lives. Good riddance to him, he had it coming when he became a live test model for the effectiveness of a small caliber derringer pistol at close range.
The Cotton Gin actually increased the need for slaves. There were more slaves in the hands of fewer owners. And the South, even the non slave owning majority, were definitely fighting to keep the slaves on the Plantation. Can you imagine what the sudden release of 3.75 million negroes meant for Southern culture? It would be ruined overnight. And it was
The 3/5ths clause was a compromise rule because of Slavery. Counting the Slaves would've given the South unfettered rule of the Union forever. https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/6/three-fifths-clause Obama loved to harp about it never bothering to tell the truth about just why it was there in the first place. Slaves were not taxed nor had the right to vote. Why then would they be counted in appointing delegates in the first place? At present the Democrats are flooding our Nation with illegals with the same intent they had during Slavery with one caveat; they will be allowed to vote.
Slavery likely would've died had it not been pushed so hard by the Southern Oligarchs; Big Plantation owners that largely funded the Civil War without actually fighting in it. They insisted on spreading it to the new territories which was opposed by Republicans. Most people on both sides never owned a slave and could've ever afforded to purchase one. Most people that fought did so because they were told it was a territorial dispute and they were defending their own territory. Lee fought for the South because he was from Virginia. I hold no animosity toward anyone on the other side of the debate but defending the idea of slavery is untenable. It is against our own Declaration of Independence, and I agree concessions were made in order to get southern slave states to sign but it was debated and always considered that in time they would abandon the idea of slavery. holding on to the idea of legalized slavery is just wrong and the arguments for it and against the war are not unlike those poor tortured soles that destroy our Confederate Monuments and Monuments of our Founding Fathers.
Your problem is that you were born into a cage, so cannot even perceive the bars.
The “free men from slavery” argument is Bu llshit.
Rain shot.
Would YOU die to give freedom to people that you didn’t know? How many people do you know who would sacrifice their life or even consider sacrificing their life for people that they didn’t know? How about lining up several million Americans who would sign up for that gig.
With William Wilberforce having defeated slavery within the British Empire we have further evidence that a war was not needed. Please, save your stupid arguments for the ignorant masses who don’t possess the ability to string 10 neurons together in thought.
I might if I believed I would one day stand before God Almighty in judgement and account for my life.
So what advice did Paul give slaves? There were probably ten times more of them at that moment in the Roman world than there ever were in America.
I find it interesting that you use your religion to defend the institution of slaver.
That would be what your stupid ass takes from that.
Did Lincoln say on 18 September 1858, "“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
He was a White Supremist and his statements, made to get elected, (as the people of Illinois had a two tired system relative to the black race) are proof of that. Like most politicians he would say and do anything for a vote, sentiments be damned.
Would Russia still hold the strategic reserves located in Alaska? Would there even be a Russia without American intervention in WW II?
Would the United States have had the industrial might to rescue Britain as they fought the Germans in the late 30s and early 40s? And could we have also stopped Japanese Imperialism in the Pacific?
With a broken America, there is a good chance German would be the national language of Britain. And Japanese delivered genocide would be the standard of life from New Zealand to Hawaii to Korea to Vietnam, and across most of mainland China.
If Germany had conquered England, what would have become of Canada? Would we today have Nazi Fascists across our Northern Border?
You can’t have it both ways. The Republican Party was formed to fight the notion that men and women can be legally enslaved. If you are a Democrat wear that racialism proudly. Quit trying to fight a war that was lost over a century ago. It was fought and won to free men from slavery. If you like the deprivation that the democrat leftists have put on us then you deserve what you voted for.
Frick you, Yankee. Carry your arse out of Texas you statist [bleep].
JoeBob, are you for or against slavery? Honest question.
You can’t have it both ways. The Republican Party was formed to fight the notion that men and women can be legally enslaved. If you are a Democrat wear that racialism proudly. Quit trying to fight a war that was lost over a century ago. It was fought and won to free men from slavery. If you like the deprivation that the democrat leftists have put on us then you deserve what you voted for.
Frick you, Yankee. Carry your arse out of Texas you statist [bleep].
JoeBob, are you for or against slavery? Honest question.
You can’t have it both ways. The Republican Party was formed to fight the notion that men and women can be legally enslaved. If you are a Democrat wear that racialism proudly. Quit trying to fight a war that was lost over a century ago. It was fought and won to free men from slavery. If you like the deprivation that the democrat leftists have put on us then you deserve what you voted for.
Frick you, Yankee. Carry your arse out of Texas you statist [bleep].
JoeBob, are you for or against slavery? Honest question.
What kind of dumbass question is that?
Nothing dumb about the question, it’s a question. I’m not compelling you to give an answer, feel free to keep your opinions on this subject to yourself if giving an answer offends you so obviously.
You can’t have it both ways. The Republican Party was formed to fight the notion that men and women can be legally enslaved. If you are a Democrat wear that racialism proudly. Quit trying to fight a war that was lost over a century ago. It was fought and won to free men from slavery. If you like the deprivation that the democrat leftists have put on us then you deserve what you voted for.
Frick you, Yankee. Carry your arse out of Texas you statist [bleep].
JoeBob, are you for or against slavery? Honest question.
You can’t have it both ways. The Republican Party was formed to fight the notion that men and women can be legally enslaved. If you are a Democrat wear that racialism proudly. Quit trying to fight a war that was lost over a century ago. It was fought and won to free men from slavery. If you like the deprivation that the democrat leftists have put on us then you deserve what you voted for.
Frick you, Yankee. Carry your arse out of Texas you statist [bleep].
JoeBob, are you for or against slavery? Honest question.
What kind of dumbass question is that?
Nothing dumb about the question, it’s a question. I’m not compelling you to give an answer, feel free to keep your opinions on this subject to yourself if giving an answer offends you so obviously.
You can’t have it both ways. The Republican Party was formed to fight the notion that men and women can be legally enslaved. If you are a Democrat wear that racialism proudly. Quit trying to fight a war that was lost over a century ago. It was fought and won to free men from slavery. If you like the deprivation that the democrat leftists have put on us then you deserve what you voted for.
Frick you, Yankee. Carry your arse out of Texas you statist [bleep].
JoeBob, are you for or against slavery? Honest question.
You can’t have it both ways. The Republican Party was formed to fight the notion that men and women can be legally enslaved. If you are a Democrat wear that racialism proudly. Quit trying to fight a war that was lost over a century ago. It was fought and won to free men from slavery. If you like the deprivation that the democrat leftists have put on us then you deserve what you voted for.
Frick you, Yankee. Carry your arse out of Texas you statist [bleep].
JoeBob, are you for or against slavery? Honest question.
What kind of dumbass question is that?
Did you not use your bible to defend it?
You’re a real dumbass.
Didn’t take me 3 posts to answer one question, dumbass.
You can’t have it both ways. The Republican Party was formed to fight the notion that men and women can be legally enslaved. If you are a Democrat wear that racialism proudly. Quit trying to fight a war that was lost over a century ago. It was fought and won to free men from slavery. If you like the deprivation that the democrat leftists have put on us then you deserve what you voted for.
Frick you, Yankee. Carry your arse out of Texas you statist [bleep].
JoeBob, are you for or against slavery? Honest question.
What kind of dumbass question is that?
Did you not use your bible to defend it?
You’re a real dumbass.
Didn’t take me 3 posts to answer one question, dumbass.
It took you one to ask an idiotic question, retard.
You can’t have it both ways. The Republican Party was formed to fight the notion that men and women can be legally enslaved. If you are a Democrat wear that racialism proudly. Quit trying to fight a war that was lost over a century ago. It was fought and won to free men from slavery. If you like the deprivation that the democrat leftists have put on us then you deserve what you voted for.
The democrat leftists only have the power to put deprivation on us cause Lincoln destroyed the concept of sovereign states not answering in all things to the federal govt.
You can’t have it both ways. The Republican Party was formed to fight the notion that men and women can be legally enslaved. If you are a Democrat wear that racialism proudly. Quit trying to fight a war that was lost over a century ago. It was fought and won to free men from slavery. If you like the deprivation that the democrat leftists have put on us then you deserve what you voted for.
Frick you, Yankee. Carry your arse out of Texas you statist [bleep].
JoeBob, are you for or against slavery? Honest question.
What kind of dumbass question is that?
Did you not use your bible to defend it?
You’re a real dumbass.
Didn’t take me 3 posts to answer one question, dumbass.
It took you one to ask an idiotic question, retard.
I have felt for many years that Lincoln was the father of the huge federal government we have today. The war gave him what he needed to implement it. He the same as admitted it when he made the statement that freeing the slaves was not it's purpose. It's purpose was to preserve the union. So ever since we have been taught that he was a great president and that he saved the union. That has been a diversion, in my eyes, to what the real purpose was. Never ever forget how near sighted most of us are. We view our world within the course of our own lifetimes. Men that form the future, whether for good or bad, do not. Lincoln was part of a master plan that is still playing out. This plan was forged in hell by the devil himself. There are no party lines in this. There is only good and bad. The Founders were on the side of good. They modeled this nation with God's approval. Any leader that goes against that has only one side to be in league with. Lincoln has also been portrayed as a man of God. I need to see evidence of that.
At the same time, slavery was sharply declining in the upper South."
- The Economics of Slavery
No worries, there was a ready market for selling slaves to meet the demands of the cotton and sugar cane growers. Families commonly broken up and sent in shackles to the slave markets down south.
Decline or not, the surreal situation in both South Carolina and Mississippi was that the enslaved population actually outnumbered the entire free populations in those states.
Anyhoo, any decline in Virginia slavery notwithstanding, no Black person, either escaped slave or legally free, was safe in the path of the Army of Northern Virginia under Lee when they went north into Pennsylvania in ‘63. All the Black people they could catch were sent to Virginia placed into slavery.
Lincoln was a victim of the circumstances of the time. States rights do not include defying the declaration or the constitution. The slavery issue was one that festered for years and grew into a derision that apparently could be cursed no other way except to destroy a generation of Americans. Lincoln lost his life protecting American sovereignty. We are still suffering the effects of Lincoln’s murder and the terrible reconstruction period that could’ve been much less painful had he been allowed to live. The democrat party still embodies the principles that led us into slavery and eventually civil war.
I have felt for many years that Lincoln was the father of the huge federal government we have today. The war gave him what he needed to implement it. He the same as admitted it when he made the statement that freeing the slaves was not it's purpose. It's purpose was to preserve the union. So ever since we have been taught that he was a great president and that he saved the union. That has been a diversion, in my eyes, to what the real purpose was. Never ever forget how near sighted most of us are. We view our world within the course of our own lifetimes. Men that form the future, whether for good or bad, do not. Lincoln was part of a master plan that is still playing out. This plan was forged in hell by the devil himself. There are no party lines in this. There is only good and bad. The Founders were on the side of good. They modeled this nation with God's approval. Any leader that goes against that has only one side to be in league with. Lincoln has also been portrayed as a man of God. I need to see evidence of that.
Well said.
Both slavery and Lincoln were tools for evil IMO. I certainly do not like slavery. Our country would have been best off to have never brought them here in the first place. Even Lincoln said something to the effect that Africans were not compatible with the white race that founded this country and we’re still paying that price. Having said that Lincoln paved the way for the destruction of the US a country founded with Gods blessing.
The very name of our country should give a pretty good clue as to what our founders intent was. The United States of America. A state in the traditional sense and as known at our founding was a nation state… A country. The idea of the United States of America being that we were to be a group of independent countries within North America united for national defense and a handful of policies but otherwise independent and free to do as each state (country) saw fit.
The very name of our country should give a pretty good clue as to what our founders intent was. The United States of America. A state in the traditional sense and as known at our founding was a nation state… A country. The idea of the United States of America being that we were to be a group of independent countries within North America united for national defense and a handful of policies but otherwise independent and free to do as each state (country) saw fit.
"...united for national defense and a handful of policies..."
Policies, right, like life, LIBERTY and etc. etc. etc.
Given that slavery was LEGAL at the time of our founding and the writing of our Constitution and that many of our founders, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington ect were slave owners. It would seem pretty clear that they thought slavery to be legal and fall within the Constitution… It’s also fairly clear that they believed that the US should be a country for Caucasians to govern.
You can like that or not. You can apply your 21st century ideas how you like but those would seem to me to be obvious historical facts and did not give Lincoln or any President thereafter the right to violate our Constitution.
The very name of our country should give a pretty good clue as to what our founders intent was. The United States of America. A state in the traditional sense and as known at our founding was a nation state… A country. The idea of the United States of America being that we were to be a group of independent countries within North America united for national defense and a handful of policies but otherwise independent and free to do as each state (country) saw fit.
I have felt for many years that Lincoln was the father of the huge federal government we have today. The war gave him what he needed to implement it. He the same as admitted it when he made the statement that freeing the slaves was not it's purpose. It's purpose was to preserve the union. So ever since we have been taught that he was a great president and that he saved the union. That has been a diversion, in my eyes, to what the real purpose was. Never ever forget how near sighted most of us are. We view our world within the course of our own lifetimes. Men that form the future, whether for good or bad, do not. Lincoln was part of a master plan that is still playing out. This plan was forged in hell by the devil himself. There are no party lines in this. There is only good and bad. The Founders were on the side of good. They modeled this nation with God's approval. Any leader that goes against that has only one side to be in league with. Lincoln has also been portrayed as a man of God. I need to see evidence of that.
So let me get this straight...............you think Lincoln got rid of the evil of slavery to usher in a new evil of a huge federal government?
I'm reminded of this:
“How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end” (Mark 3:23-26).
To Washington and Jefferson though, slavery was at best a necessary evil. Both men were worried about the effect of owning slaves would have on their legacy. IIRC, Washington put it in his will that they were to be freed upon Martha’s death. (There was no way to run the plantations without them) Martha, fearing foul play after his death, freed them immediately. I don’t really remember if I read a biography of Jefferson, or if I did, I don’t recall what was done with the slaves on Monticello after his death. I do recall that he was deeply in debt, but what became of the slaves escapes me. 7mm
To Washington and Jefferson though, slavery was at best a necessary evil. Both men were worried about the effect of owning slaves would have on their legacy. IIRC, Washington put it in his will that they were to be freed upon Martha’s death. (There was no way to run the plantations without them) Martha, fearing foul play after his death, freed them immediately. I don’t really remember if I read a biography of Jefferson, or if I did, I don’t recall what was done with the slaves on Monticello after his death. I do recall that he was deeply in debt, but what became of the slaves escapes me. 7mm
Jefferson wasn't legally permitted to free all of his slaves in his will, because he died deeply in debt, so, as property, they had to go to his creditors. He did free two while alive and five in his will.
If things don’t change, I feel that in about a 100 years one will be able to simply copy much of this rhetoric about slavery and slave owners and just substitute “guns” and “gun owners”.
I things don’t change, I feel that in about a 100 years one will be able to simply copy much of this rhetoric about slavery and slave owners and just substitute “guns” and “gun owners”.
I'd like to think abortion will be the slavery in 100 years but you're probably right
Jefferson wasn't legally permitted to free all of his slaves in his will, because he died deeply in debt, so, as property, they had to go to his creditors. He did free two while alive and five in his will.
Thomas Jefferson was a remarkable guy, we owe him a great deal.
Jefferson also took up with his late wife’s enslaved teenage half sister, the result of his father in law having taken up with an enslaved teenager himself. After their return from France we get the bizarre occurrence of John Adams and his wife congratulating Jefferson when Sally Hemings bore a child, presumably by Jefferson but possibly by Jefferson’s dissolute brother, who spent much time around the slave quarters, for music if nothing else to play music with them..
How does one congratulate a man for the birth of his enslaved child one wonders, is it like his dog having puppies or what? Not living in those times, I guess we’ll never know for sure.
Jefferson DID eventually free Sally Hemming’s children, which were either his or his brother’s own kids.
Despite his own misgivings about the institution, Jefferson, who gave us the wonderful line We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal... never found the moral courage to free his more than one-hundred regular slaves during his lifetime.
Lincoln was a victim of the circumstances of the time. States rights do not include defying the declaration or the constitution. The slavery issue was one that festered for years and grew into a derision that apparently could be cursed no other way except to destroy a generation of Americans. Lincoln lost his life protecting American sovereignty. We are still suffering the effects of Lincoln’s murder and the terrible reconstruction period that could’ve been much less painful had he been allowed to live. The democrat party still embodies the principles that led us into slavery and eventually civil war.
The Declaration was not and is not law and never has been law.
Secession is a power of the States as found in the 10th Amendment.
Not all the slaves in the South were worth the bones of one Illinois rifleman, let alone a generation.
Lincoln was killed after he destroyed the republic and ushered in the American Empire. Caesar, but without the physical courage and military accomplishments.
Lincoln was a victim of the circumstances of the time. States rights do not include defying the declaration or the constitution. The slavery issue was one that festered for years and grew into a derision that apparently could be cursed no other way except to destroy a generation of Americans. Lincoln lost his life protecting American sovereignty. We are still suffering the effects of Lincoln’s murder and the terrible reconstruction period that could’ve been much less painful had he been allowed to live. The democrat party still embodies the principles that led us into slavery and eventually civil war.
The Declaration was not and is not law and never has been law.
Secession is a power of the States as found in the 10th Amendment.
Not all the slaves in the South were worth the bones of one Illinois rifleman, let alone a generation.
Lincoln was killed after he destroyed the republic and ushered in the American Empire. Caesar, but without the physical courage and military accomplishments.
The south destroyed the republic when they seceded.
That's true, in a way. Think about how much worse it would be if the southern States had immediately complied. At least there was an attempt to to retain the republic.
Ok, my feelings about Lincoln and the role slavery played in the war are no secret here, so I’m not gonna go into that. But just for fun, let me pose a question to the ‘fire’s historians and wannabes! Who holds the title of bigger azzhole, Lincoln or FDR? My own feelings are that as much damage as Lincoln caused, FDR’s policies are really what got the ball rolling towards socialism. Thoughts? 7mm
In order for Lincoln’s position about the right of secession, the following is what the states agreed to when they signed on.
1) No state may ever secede for any reason. 2) If a state does secede, the federal government may suppress the secession with military force. 3) The federal government may coerce all states to provide militias to suppress the seceding state. 4) After suppressing the seceded state, the federal government may govern that state with a military dictatorship until the state accepts the supremacy of the federal government. 5) After the suppression, the federal government may force the state to adopt a new constitution imposed on it by military force, which happened in reconstruction. 6) The president may unilaterally suspend the Bill of Rights and the writ of habeas corpus.
Now, if it took the inclusion of a a written bill of rights to get some of the states to ratify the Constitution, do you think any of them would have signed on if they had believed those six points?
I think a big issue in the whole issue of the expansion of slavery was that the slaves were reproducing so rapidly that some states main export was slaves. Forward thinking white southerners realized they would soon be drastically outnumbered by Negro and Mulatto slaves. Haiti's successful slave rebellion with its attendant horrors weighed heavily on their minds. If the slave states could be cordoned off and not allowed to expand the southerners realized they were the next Haiti and could not only expect no help from the national government but might instead likely get steady agitation of their slave population from the northern abolitionists. The import of Negro African slaves is the worst thing ever done to the U.S. but by 1776 the situation was well entrenched.
Never a serious student of the Civil War, I ask this question honestly and without bias. How would a panel of the best qualified Constitutional scholars view the war in retrospect? Was it legal? Or was it Mr Lincoln and supporters, saying, no, I'll kill you before I let you divorce me?
How about this for an answer. How many Confederate military or civilian officials were convicted of treason after the war? Note that the vast majority of the Confederate military officer corps that survived the war, both the Confederate president and vice president, the majority of the Confederate presidential cabinet, senators, congressmen, etc., etc., were either captured or publicly available. Both the president and vice president were held as prisoners for a time. NOT ONE, NONE, NADDA of them were tried for treason nor even for disturbing the peace. NONE. The U.S. Supreme Court warned that if any were so charged, they would likely be found not guilty and therefore the war waged on the seceding states would have been found to have been illegal. That is historical FACT.
In order for Lincoln’s position about the right of secession, the following is what the states agreed to when they signed on.
1) No state may ever secede for any reason. 2) If a state does secede, the federal government may suppress the secession with military force. 3) The federal government may coerce all states to provide militias to suppress the seceding state. 4) After suppressing the seceded state, the federal government may govern that state with a military dictatorship until the state accepts the supremacy of the federal government. 5) After the suppression, the federal government may force the state to adopt a new constitution imposed on it by military force, which happened in reconstruction. 6) The president may unilaterally suspend the Bill of Rights and the writ of habeas corpus.
Now, if it took the inclusion of a a written bill of rights to get some of the states to ratify the Constitution, do you think any of them would have signed on if they had believed those six points?
I think a big issue in the whole issue of the expansion of slavery was that the slaves were reproducing so rapidly that some states main export was slaves. Forward thinking white southerners realized they would soon be drastically outnumbered by Negro and Mulatto slaves. Haiti's successful slave rebellion with its attendant horrors weighed heavily on their minds. If the slave states could be cordoned off and not allowed to expand the southerners realized they were the next Haiti and could not only expect no help from the national government but might instead likely get steady agitation of their slave population from the northern abolitionists. The import of Negro African slaves is the worst thing ever done to the U.S. but by 1776 the situation was well entrenched.
The Southern States wouldn't have been able to export any significant number of slaves to the newly entering states because they didn't have the kind of economy that could use them in any large numbers. The whole issue with maintaining a balance between "Slave States" and non "Slave States" had to do with faction blocks in the Federal Government. The South was aware that the North had interests in conflict with their own, and sought to dominate and exploit the Southern States, and this conflict over whether the new states would be free or slave had to do with that alone.
"...united for national defense and a handful of policies..."
Policies, right, like life, LIBERTY and etc. etc. etc.
Given that slavery was LEGAL at the time of our founding and the writing of our Constitution and that many of our founders, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington ect were slave owners. It would seem pretty clear that they thought slavery to be legal and fall within the Constitution… It’s also fairly clear that they believed that the US should be a country for Caucasians to govern.
You can like that or not. You can apply your 21st century ideas how you like but those would seem to me to be obvious historical facts and did not give Lincoln or any President thereafter the right to violate our Constitution.
I don't know about Washington but Jefferson inherited slaves at the age of 14 when his father died. That never seems to be mentioned in these conversations and both men promoted legislation to free them. Another fact that is always omitted.
I have felt for many years that Lincoln was the father of the huge federal government we have today. The war gave him what he needed to implement it. He the same as admitted it when he made the statement that freeing the slaves was not it's purpose. It's purpose was to preserve the union. So ever since we have been taught that he was a great president and that he saved the union. That has been a diversion, in my eyes, to what the real purpose was. Never ever forget how near sighted most of us are. We view our world within the course of our own lifetimes. Men that form the future, whether for good or bad, do not. Lincoln was part of a master plan that is still playing out. This plan was forged in hell by the devil himself. There are no party lines in this. There is only good and bad. The Founders were on the side of good. They modeled this nation with God's approval. Any leader that goes against that has only one side to be in league with. Lincoln has also been portrayed as a man of God. I need to see evidence of that.
So let me get this straight...............you think Lincoln got rid of the evil of slavery to usher in a new evil of a huge federal government?
I'm reminded of this:
“How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end” (Mark 3:23-26).
What I am saying is that before Lincoln we were being governed by people that seemed to understand our founding as men like Adams, Monroe, Madison and others envisioned. During the war Lincoln moved away from that, in my opinion. This war allowed things to be done in regard to individual rights that had not been done. Instead of moving away from that after the war was over it was carried on to what we see today. It doesn't matter to me that he was a republican either. I truly think he had a vision before going into office and using slavery as a way to influence people to move that direction was something he took advantage of. He likely was one of the first to use Rahm Emanuel's idea of never let a good crisis go to waste. Slavery gave him the crisis and a crisis it was and still is today. I doubt many believe we absolutely had to have a war to free them but that's what he chose when he invaded Virginia. He chose a war to force people to stay involved in something they wanted out of. He was no different than the British after they read the Declaration of Independence. I agree our nation should be united but not under the heavy hand of an over reaching federal government but under the loving leadership of God through his Holy Spirit and the Bible. That is exactly what motivated the Founders to do what they did but I cannot see it as being what motivated Lincoln to start a war. The fruits of our out of control government are easily traced to Lincoln. Many since have built on that. He should have made his plea to the people to free the slaves as William Wilberforce did. He truly would have preserved the nation in doing so. Yet he chose a war.
One would think the proof of the fact that our Civil War was completely unnecessary and a total waste of lives, money and needless destruction is no other slave holding country had to resort to war in order to abolish slavery.
One would think the proof of the fact that our Civil War was completely unnecessary and a total waste of lives, money and needless destruction is no other slave holding country had to resort to war in order to abolish slavery.
Although it might seem like states can do anything they want there is limits on what they may do. The Constitution could not address any scenario that might have developed. The Founders made concessions as to slavery hoping that it would eventually die on the vine. The South was not willing to just keep what they had because Lincoln and the Republicans did offer concessions to them. They refused. They wanted to expand slavery to the new territories. No matter what the arguments about whether it was proper to fight the war the issue will forever remain the same. Slavery was wrong and will forever be wrong. Enslaving your fellow man is against those "Inalienable Rights". Those Rights don't just apply to certain people. They apply to all people.
One would hope that you people that are so passionate about States Rights and The Constitution would at least apply that thinking to current events. You apparently have no problems for State AG's and Governors usurping election law from their Legislatures in the last election in order to steal it. So far there has been no wailing and gnashing of teeth about Pence and McConnell allowing Biden to be confirmed illegally but you sure can find ways to defame the only president in history that had the fortitude to address our greatest national disgrace. The war was prosecuted whether we like it or not and the issue has been decided. Reliving old grievances only creates turmoil again. Instead of opining about what we think should or might have taken place and dead people's motives we would do well to just take a hard look at History. What did happen. We know what happened at Gettysburg but trying to get into the heads of the participants is a mistake. Let our honored dead rest in peace. Embrace each other as fellow Americans instead of territorial enemies. One of Trump's greatest achievements in office was to bring people of all colors and nationalities together. He did more for black Americans than any other president since Lincoln.
Jefferson wasn't legally permitted to free all of his slaves in his will, because he died deeply in debt, so, as property, they had to go to his creditors. He did free two while alive and five in his will.
Thomas Jefferson was a remarkable guy, we owe him a great deal.
Jefferson also took up with his late wife’s enslaved teenage half sister, the result of his father in law having taken up with an enslaved teenager himself. After their return from France we get the bizarre occurrence of John Adams and his wife congratulating Jefferson when Sally Hemings bore a child, presumably by Jefferson but possibly by Jefferson’s dissolute brother, who spent much time around the slave quarters, for music if nothing else to play music with them..
How does one congratulate a man for the birth of his enslaved child one wonders, is it like his dog having puppies or what? Not living in those times, I guess we’ll never know for sure.
Jefferson DID eventually free Sally Hemming’s children, which were either his or his brother’s own kids.
Despite his own misgivings about the institution, Jefferson, who gave us the wonderful line We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal... never found the moral courage to free his more than one-hundred regular slaves during his lifetime.
Moral courage..???
I question if his reasons were a lack of moral courage...
Got to wonder what freeing "his more than one-hundered regular slaves" at their market worth back then along with the dollar loss in productivity via their labor would amount to total in today's dollars ?
Some people misunderstand Lincoln’s reluctance to cede federal territory in Fort Sumter. The fort was only secondarily placed there for defense of the harbor. The main reason it was there was to collect import duties and tariffs which were almost the sole means of funding the federal government in those days. Keeping the fort and keeping it garrisoned demonstrated an intent to continue to dominate the harbor and collect duties. In fact Lincoln even said South Carolina could do whatever they liked as long as duties continued to be collected. Obviously, no nation could allow a foreign power to collect import duties in its harbors.
Also, It was only federal territory in the sense that it was leased from the state of South Carolina. South Carolina leased the island to the federal government for a dollar a year in perpetuity for as long as they remained in the union. When they seceded they told the federal government they were canceling the lease and offered to pay for any improvements the federal government had made. When they fired upon it they did not view it as attacking the United States but rather reclaiming what was theirs. Jefferson Davis explains this in his book "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government".
Ok, my feelings about Lincoln and the role slavery played in the war are no secret here, so I’m not gonna go into that. But just for fun, let me pose a question to the ‘fire’s historians and wannabes! Who holds the title of bigger azzhole, Lincoln or FDR? My own feelings are that as much damage as Lincoln caused, FDR’s policies are really what got the ball rolling towards socialism. Thoughts? 7mm
One would hope that you people that are so passionate about States Rights and The Constitution would at least apply that thinking to current events. You apparently have no problems for State AG's and Governors usurping election law from their Legislatures in the last election in order to steal it. So far there has been no wailing and gnashing of teeth about Pence and McConnell allowing Biden to be confirmed illegally but you sure can find ways to defame the only president in history that had the fortitude to address our greatest national disgrace.
You’re such a dumb schit. Without Lincoln, Texas, Florida, and whoever else would have left this chickenschit outfit over that bullschit. But because, as you say, the issue has been decided then we are limited to petitioning a corrupt and venal Supreme Court.
Hilarious thread. Lincoln was a moderate. Very much a moderate. Just look at Reconstruction, and the way it ended. All 13 colonies signed onto the Constitution, so the only way to have a divorce legally would have been by Amendment, Constitutional Convention, Supreme Court decision, etc.. But this wouldn't have benefitted the powers that be on either side. The South was very much interested in expansion of Southern slavery westward and southward(Cuba.) The war was about protecting the ruling classes of both sides.
...Slavery was wrong and will forever be wrong. Enslaving your fellow man is against those "Inalienable Rights". Those Rights don't just apply to certain people. They apply to all people.
Do you even read, Bro?
Preamble COTUS
Originally Posted by https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
No slaves and no one of African descent signed COTUS. The founders wrote the COTUS for their benefit and their posterity, not for some obsolete farm equipment or even poor escaped white bondsmen making their way in the wilderness (see whisky rebellion). And we have learned that applying COTUS to anyone not of the same ancestry of the founders has been a grand failure.
Slavery
Originally Posted by EphesiansCh6NIV
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
God, the arbiter of morality, understands slavery is one of the natural conditions/stations of men. So much so that He elicidates rules on how they are to be treated and how they are to act. In addition, the patriarchs held slaves and were not counted immoral because of it.
================
Originally Posted by rainshot
One would hope that you people that are so passionate about States Rights and The Constitution would at least apply that thinking to current events. You apparently have no problems for State AG's and Governors usurping election law from their Legislatures in the last election in order to steal it. So far there has been no wailing and gnashing of teeth about Pence and McConnell allowing Biden to be confirmed illegally but you sure can find ways to defame the only president in history that had the fortitude to address our greatest national disgrace.
If we has the COTUS applied as it was written, other state AGs would not be a problem. Other states could secede and be done with them and their putrescent system.
And speak for yourself, I have written plenty against Pence & McConnell and their cowardice.
Lincoln is our greatest national disgrace. He traded a relatively decent yeoman middle class republic for a mess of imperial pottage that rules for the benefit of the rich and dishonest and has evolved into a plutocratic oligarchic golbalist homosexualist empire.
================
Originally Posted by rainshot
The war was prosecuted whether we like it or not and the issue has been decided. Reliving old grievances only creates turmoil again. Instead of opining about what we think should or might have taken place and dead people's motives we would do well to just take a hard look at History. What did happen. We know what happened at Gettysburg but trying to get into the heads of the participants is a mistake. Let our honored dead rest in peace. Embrace each other as fellow Americans instead of territorial enemies.
Your civic nationalism has been tried and is a failure. Because it is completely at odds with human nature and has been foisted on us by hateful outsiders. Or have you been in a coma for some years?
Originally Posted by rainshot
One of Trump's greatest achievements in office was to bring people of all colors and nationalities together. He did more for black Americans than any other president since Lincoln.
You cite this as a good thing. I see it as a betrayal of white Americans who have their own collective interests. Trump was so busy smoking the snipped sausage and pouring silver, gold, and Platinum (Plan) over blacks that he forgot that the majority of Americans may be tired of subsidizing the livelihood of predatory and/or feral minorities.
Hilarious thread. Lincoln was a moderate. Very much a moderate. Just look at Reconstruction, and the way it ended. All 13 colonies signed onto the Constitution, so the only way to have a divorce legally would have been by Amendment, Constitutional Convention, Supreme Court decision, etc.. But this wouldn't have benefitted the powers that be on either side. The South was very much interested in expansion of Southern slavery westward and southward(Cuba.) The war was about protecting the ruling classes of both sides.
Ahem:
Originally Posted by 10thAmendment
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
POWERS, baby. Not given to the fed.gov or prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states & people. That would include the POWER of secession, which is not delegated to fed.gov and not prohibited to the states & people.
Stop vomiting forth the lies you were fed. Sure, not your/our fault that for over 100 years we all have been fed vile, self-serving lies and propaganda. But we can all read and see the plain meaning. Time to grow up, push aside infantile gruel, and start eating the real meat that grown men eat.
Interesting thread. It would appear that the South erred by ever joining the Union in the first place. It is clear that the issue of slavery was a contentious one from the get-go, and unlikely to ever have been resolved peacefully. A separate Confederacy established at the same time as the Northern Union might have prevented the War. Was this ever under consideration at the time that the Constitution came into being?
Interesting thread. It would appear that the South erred by ever joining the Union in the first place. It is clear that the issue of slavery was a contentious one from the get-go, and unlikely to ever have been resolved peacefully. A separate Confederacy established at the same time as the Northern Union might have prevented the War. Was this ever under consideration at the time that the Constitution came into being?
It is amazing how every time the subject of this time in our country's history is discussed, in the end everyone comes to complete understanding and agreement as to the true version of events. It is too bad that there are always folks arriving who are new to the topic and such time and effort needs to be put forth to enlighten them.
And never mind the fact that had the south been allowed to leave peacefully, slavery almost could not have existed on a large scale. A north with no slavery would not have even had to give any lip service to fugitive slave laws or anything else. The northern border states would have soon been inundated with refugees fleeing slavery. That, of course, would have made it more difficult to secure capital for slaves in south, particularly in the border states. The slaves that remained would have been both more expensive and less secure making the whole thing much more difficult and less desirable.
One sometimes gets the feeling that states like Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio fought as much to make sure that the South kept its slaves as they did to free them.
One would think the proof of the fact that our Civil War was completely unnecessary and a total waste of lives, money and needless destruction is no other slave holding country had to resort to war in order to abolish slavery.
Most don’t appear to be able to grasp this inconvenient truth.
Economic disputes between the North and South go way back, even before the Civil War, but taxation sowed the first seeds of the Civil War. The Tariff of 1828 was created to help pay the national debt after the War of 1812. The North greatly benefited from that, as the South paid about 75% of all the country’s taxes.
The Great Compromise of 1833 reduced some of the South’s taxes until the Force Bill came along and allowed the government to collect federal tariffs from the states by any means available. Before Lincoln took office, Buchanan signed the even harsher Morrill Tariff, which taxed imports at over 45%.
Southerners countered by offering lower import taxes. Taxes didn’t seem to be worth dying for, but the issue of slavery soon changed all that. Both sides fought for economic reasons, but slavery gave the North the moral high ground advantage which rallied the troops. The human rights Plan B was a “better” reason than economics to fight and die for.
Even after the Civil War, the 13th Amendment conveniently left a (slavery) loophole:
“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.”
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.
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.
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
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.
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 knowing when a certain courthouse burned) 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.
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?
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.
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.
How is this newly discovered information, assuming that it is true/correct, going to change anything?
It chips away at the clay feet of their false god.
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.
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”
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?
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.