Lincoln - quite a piece of crap

Rightio? Righteo.


Sorry guys, but this "debate" was ended more than 140 years ago when the U.S. government established the precedent of murdering hundreds of thousands of American citizens and imprisoning thousands of Northern-state political dissenters without any due process. In fact, neocons like Frum, McCain and Graham often celebrate this fact. I refer, of course, to the mass murder of between 350,000 and 450,000 citizens (according to new research) of the Southern states by the Lincoln regime. Lincoln never conceded that secession was legal; therefore, he considered all Southerners as U.S. citizens and orchestrated the waging of total war on them for four years. He was famous for his devilish experimenting with bigger and better weapons of mass destruction --the "drones" of his day-- to be used on his own fellow citizens.

He rewarded generals like Sherman and Sheridan for supervising the pillaging, plundering, murdering, and raping of Southern civilians during the "March to the Sea" and the burning down of the entire Shenandoah Valley after the Confederate Army had vacated it. For this the cowardly and barbaric Sheridan has been portrayed as a "great war hero." And of course for doing this generations of state propagandists have deified Lincoln, memorialized him with monuments, museums, and Mount Rushmore, and perpetually urge every national politician (and all of the school children) to be more like him.

After the war, many of the exact same individuals commenced a 25 year campaign of genocide against the Plains Indians, eventually murdering about 45,000 of them, including thousands of women and children, and placing the rest in concentration camps called "reservations."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/133532.html

 

Well the South should not have thrown their lot in with the bloody vampires should they

 

Lincoln the Vampire Wanker is quite a piece of propaganda. Not as bad as the Blockbuster Hollywood mythology of America's mass murdering president. Every nation has one.

 

Could you point out Australia's example please

 

Well done, Ozzie, Ozzie, Ozzie, Oi Oi Oi. I bet you hate that chant?

I was just speaking in exaggerated fashion there. Many or most nations have one. The Aussies have been pretty obedient servants of the Queen.

 

Lol...Wrongo.
Lincoln saved the United States from the treasonous actions of the southern rebels.
The historical consequences of breaking the US up into a gaggle of weak states would have been disastrous.
WW2 would have likely turned out quite different.
This debate did indeed end more than 140 years ago, and you people lost.
Get over it or move to some other country that better fits your ideology.

 

What do you mean? Lincoln was a great man who only went to war to free the slaves. It says so in any middle school history book...nevermind the fact that slavery remained perfectly legal in Washington, DC even after the Civil War started. Forget the fact that slavery remained legal in slave states that remained a part of the Union. Overlook the fact that Lincoln had no objections to the Corwin Amendment which would have made it impossible for the federal government to abolish slavery. I'm sure these were just simple oversights on the part of the Great Emancipator.

 

I'm sorry, but didn't the South wage war with the North by firing on Fort Sumter just weeks after Lincoln was elected President?

I'm saying this even though three in my family fought for the South in that war, including my Great Grandfather.

 

He didn't go to war to free the slaves, although that was the outcome of the war. He went to war to preserve the union.

 

I think a lot of serious student of the period lay a pretty solid claim at Buchanan's feet for not doing enough in the preceding years to head off what Lincoln had to deal with

 

Lincoln was going to allow the South to keep their slaves if he could keep the South from breaking away.

 

Indeed, he even supported a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would have forbidden the federal government to ban slavery.

But...why are we talking about all of this. I prefer the Lincoln as the great humanitarian myth. It makes for shorter books.

Washington chopped down a cherry tree, Paul Bunyan created the Grand Canyon, and Lincoln freed the slaves.

 

Well as it turned out, he did free the slaves. But he also saved the union which most people don't give him credit for. Shoot, I still have my Confederate flag.

 

Big whoop

 

Thanks for contributing to the conversation. I bet that took a little thinking on your part.

 

Amen!!

 

Technically, he didn't free "the" slaves. He granted emancipation to some slaves over which he didn't have control. The Emancipation Proclamation only declared the emancipation of slaves held in Confederate states that weren't under Union control. In states that were still part of the Union, slavery remained legal after the Proclamation. Slavery wasn't abolished until years later and after Lincoln was already dead.

 

The federal government was created by the States signing the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution which says that the federal government has the power to prevent states from dissolving their contract with the other states.

The US wouldn't have been broken up into a "gaggle of weak states". It would have been broken up into two different countries of united states.

Basless speculation. You don't even know if WW2 would have happened.

Obviously it didn't end if it's still going on today.

Which one?

 

Oooh, see that's your problem right there.

The Southern States attempted secession was illegal. They did not take it to Congress or gain a majority support from the United States states.

Nor did they secede from the Federal Government, which means the moment they took up arms and refused to adhere to their tax obligations and Federal responsibilities, the Federal government was within its rights to restore order.

The Southern secession was entirely illegal. Had they taken it to Congress and been approved to leave, the Federal government would've had absolutely no right to intervene.

You keep (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing as much as you want but if a small town in Texas decided it didn't want to adhere to Federal or State law, took up arms and fired at any State or Federal officials or officers that tried to restore order then the same illegality of that towns actions would apply. The Southern states refused to comply with the law. The Southern states took up arms. That gave the Union every right to respond with military force against an equal military force.

No amount of complaining changes history or reality. Hell, if the South had won any historian worth a damn would be writing about the Souths having no claim in relation to the Constitution of the United States to secede as they did.

 

Thread does not meet guidelines for thread creation. Please see forum rules

Shangrila
Site Moderator