It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lincoln: Constituitional Traitor and example of the winners rewriting history to suit their needs.

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Metallicus we both know a moral man would had followed the constitution and worked things out peacefully. As such his law breaking is considered treasonous.

I agree freeing th eslaves was a great move,but it was not due to morals. remember he wtote in his own words that white men are superior to the coloreds. He wasnt moral so much as covering his arse. id rather see Nixons face in his spot on rushmore.




posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Comparing Ghandhi to the likes of Washington, Franklin, and company is...whew, one was a near Buddha level guy who rejected imperialism after experiencing it...the others were very comfy in their station in life. Ben Franklin was notorious for his whoring. Washington didn't get a better deal from the British or else things would have went differently.

The so-called founding fathers were nearly all upper class men that just wanted to make more money. So they used freemasonry and other connections to spread the word that they could convince their workers and other lesser folk to take up arms for their cause while they drank tea in a tent...



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Lincoln: Constituitional Traitor and example of the winners rewriting history to suit their needs

Oh yeah history was rewritten, by lots of people.

Pick your LIES.

The Civil War was fought to free African Americans once that was done. That same government went on to exterminate the Native Americans.

The civil war was fought to keep the union together, and no other reason.

There was not 'noble' cause for it.

Call it what ever you want. False Flag or what ever.

The United States is like the mob. Once your in. You can never leave.

The civil war proved that better than any history book can.

The federal state is the master, and we are the slaves.

Thats right people.

Slavery never ended.

As long as they keep taking our money, and people keep giving them votes.

That is never going to end.
edit on 4-11-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: yuppa
Ladies and Gentlemen of ATS. WE all know how the civil war went,but has anyone ever considered the law breaking of th e lincoln administration while doing so? The audacity of this man is astounding. Anyway the following link will show you some of the laws/amendments broken by this man and his washington machine.

Lincons crimes


I completely agree that the South had every right to secede from the Union and in fact Lincoln did commit crimes of technicality during the Civil War and the months leading up to it, however, he was a moral man who believed in freeing the slaves and holding together the dream that was the United States.

It was a difficult time that tore families and individuals in different ways all at the same time. The issue isn't simple or black and white as it seems. I would have fought for the South, but with a heavy heart much like most of those at the time who had to fight against their brother, father, neighbor and friends.


Not sure what side I would have joined 150 years ago, but lost ancestors on both sides, and in two cases within my family tree, brothers that fought for opposite sides.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Lincoln: Constituitional Traitor and example of the winners rewriting history to suit their needs

Oh yeah history was rewritten, by lots of people.

Pick your LIES.

The Civil War was fought to free African Americans once that was done. That same government went on to exterminate the Native Americans.

The civil war was fought to keep the union together, and no other reason.

There was not 'noble' cause for it.

Call it what ever you want. False Flag or what ever.

The United States is like the mob. Once your in. You can never leave.

The civil war proved that better than any history book can.

The federal state is the master, and we are the slaves.

Thats right people.

Slavery never ended.

As long as they keep taking our money, and people keep giving them votes.

That is never going to end.


If the federal state is so bad in your opinion, why don't you leave for greener pastures elsewhere?



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: the owlbear
a reply to: amazing

Comparing Ghandhi to the likes of Washington, Franklin, and company is...whew, one was a near Buddha level guy who rejected imperialism after experiencing it...the others were very comfy in their station in life. Ben Franklin was notorious for his whoring. Washington didn't get a better deal from the British or else things would have went differently.

The so-called founding fathers were nearly all upper class men that just wanted to make more money. So they used freemasonry and other connections to spread the word that they could convince their workers and other lesser folk to take up arms for their cause while they drank tea in a tent...


Nobody is saying any of the founding fathers were saints but they were all pretty good men in the end. Read "Washington A Life" Forget the Author but that's a really good starting point and then Read some stuff about Franklin. Amazing men really.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: the owlbear

That was a thoughtful post you added. Concerning Europe both England and France were heavily invested in the textile boom brought about by the industrial revolution. Textiles were an important export for both nations. England sympathized mostly with the South initially and feared an invasion of Canada by the North. The North had a large navy while the South had nothing at all. England (rather English ship building companies) sold the South a few ships including the CSS Alabama which proved to be a major headache for the Union as a raider on Northern commercial shipping.

Without Southern cotton Europe lost money but neither could afford to involve themselves in a major war at the time and feared the Union navy which eclipsed England's over the course of the war. Both had to satisfy themselves with watching on the sidelines until the flow of cotton could return. It was also the reason they began growing cotton in places like Egypt and India.
edit on 5-11-2015 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

I'd rather see Jefferson Davis put next to Lincoln on Mount Rushmore.
There is singularly no more misunderstood and maligned American than Davis.
He was a bona fide war hero and did great service for the US and was basically drafted as President of the Confederacy.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
Ladies and Gentlemen of ATS. WE all know how the civil war went,but has anyone ever considered the law breaking of th e lincoln administration while doing so? The audacity of this man is astounding. Anyway the following link will show you some of the laws/amendments broken by this man and his washington machine.

Lincons crimes


I'm confused how any of this is "rewriting history". It may be controversial or illegal, but it certainly wasn't overwritten in anyway. Many of those things are even taught in history classes, and I KNOW history professors acknowledge the controversial things that Lincoln did.

I think you are misusing the phrase "rewriting history" here. Rewriting history would require there to be little knowledge on the subject, with most evidence that it happened having been destroyed or covered up. It can't be public knowledge...



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

HE rewrote his presidencies history by hiding th efact he broke so many laws. then he"freed" the slaves so he could get people to overlook his thoughts on them. then as a final insult rewrote how the civil war started smearing the south as traitors.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

But it isn't hidden. We KNOW about it. It's accepted historic fact.


then as a final insult rewrote how the civil war started smearing the south as traitors.


The only difference is that this is completely false. South Carolina succeeded from the union as soon as Lincoln won the Presidency. They succeeded because they seriously thought that Lincoln intended to free the slaves upon election (he didn't). He WAS against the expansion of slavery into new territories though. So actually, with this thread, YOU are rewriting history.

I'm not contesting that he may have broke some laws while fighting the Civil War, but to pretend like Lincoln rewrote history or that Lincoln caused the Civil War is just dishonest.
edit on 6-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

i mostly agree i guess. ALso I don tthink im rewriting anything i just have a diffrent point of view on this guy.Lincoln was provoking the war. he was taxing them into the ground while th e north was rolling in money from it. He intentionally left troops in fort sumter to provoke a response when they refused to peacefully leave. Lincoln started it.

Lincoln should be called a traitor for breaking his oath of office. its just not right to continue to call th e man a hero.
edit on 15000000ppam by yuppa because: clarification



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Again. The South succeeded from the Union in RESPONSE to his election. How can Lincoln provoke the south if they left the Union before he could even do anything?



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa

Again. The South succeeded from the Union in RESPONSE to his election. How can Lincoln provoke the south if they left the Union before he could even do anything?


At the time it was LEGAL for them to Succeed though. THATS the issue. Back then they actuallu had th eoption to do so under the 10th amendment. SO yes lincoln provoked the south after his election.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

No, the South succumbed to their own rhetoric and fearmongering. Then they LET Lincoln provoke them into war. Again, I'm not saying that Lincoln was a saint during the war or anything, but the South really IS to blame for the start of the Civil War. There is just no other way around it.
edit on 6-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa

No, the South succumbed to their own rhetoric and fearmongering. Then they LET Lincoln provoke them into war. Again, I'm not saying that Lincoln was a saint during the war or anything, but the South really IS to blame for the start of the Civil War. There is just no other way around it.


Lincoln could had NOT declared war so h e bears at least half the blame. Point is Lincoln was scum and not worthy o f his hero status. Maybe they can pu t a asterisk beside his name from now on?

And OK if lincoln isnt to blame for th e war then the US was not responsible for the war with japan by forcing their hands.
Presidents on duty at the time of such things are responsible for what happens then. Lincoln could had told th e troops to leave fort sumter and come back home.

Still you got your opinion an d i go t mine.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa

No, the South succumbed to their own rhetoric and fearmongering. Then they LET Lincoln provoke them into war. Again, I'm not saying that Lincoln was a saint during the war or anything, but the South really IS to blame for the start of the Civil War. There is just no other way around it.


Lincoln could had NOT declared war so h e bears at least half the blame. Point is Lincoln was scum and not worthy o f his hero status. Maybe they can pu t a asterisk beside his name from now on?

And OK if lincoln isnt to blame for th e war then the US was not responsible for the war with japan by forcing their hands.
Presidents on duty at the time of such things are responsible for what happens then. Lincoln could had told th e troops to leave fort sumter and come back home.

Still you got your opinion an d i go t mine.


Your problem is that you are looking back on the decisions of these men who were faced with some tough choices to make and second guessing them based on hindsight. I find that highly dishonest and unfair to these people. Yes, they may have skirted some laws, but what would YOU have done in their places?



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa

No, the South succumbed to their own rhetoric and fearmongering. Then they LET Lincoln provoke them into war. Again, I'm not saying that Lincoln was a saint during the war or anything, but the South really IS to blame for the start of the Civil War. There is just no other way around it.


Lincoln could had NOT declared war so h e bears at least half the blame. Point is Lincoln was scum and not worthy o f his hero status. Maybe they can pu t a asterisk beside his name from now on?

And OK if lincoln isnt to blame for th e war then the US was not responsible for the war with japan by forcing their hands.
Presidents on duty at the time of such things are responsible for what happens then. Lincoln could had told th e troops to leave fort sumter and come back home.

Still you got your opinion an d i go t mine.


Your problem is that you are looking back on the decisions of these men who were faced with some tough choices to make and second guessing them based on hindsight. I find that highly dishonest and unfair to these people. Yes, they may have skirted some laws, but what would YOU have done in their places?


I can honestly say follow the law. I do so every day. I would had let the south do as it wilt if they felt like leaving. I would had dropped the heavy levees and taxes to make it worth staying as well. He could had avoided war but choose th e easy way out.(for him mind you not the soldiers or civilians) no t much of a leader.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Back then the country wasn't even a hundred years old yet, do you honestly think that Lincoln letting this brand new country fall apart within a century of it forming would have looked good on the international stage? Like I said, you are viewing the choices through a lens of hindsight without considering the conditions of the day or the gravity of his choices. It's always easy to second guess a decision after the fact. I mean have YOU ever made a decision you regretted later or a decision that you were dissatisfied with but felt it was the best decision to make at the time?

I don't think you would have what it takes to be the leader of a country if you think you can sit behind your computer screen and second guess the man who prevented our country from falling apart when it was still a new country.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa

Back then the country wasn't even a hundred years old yet, do you honestly think that Lincoln letting this brand new country fall apart within a century of it forming would have looked good on the international stage? Like I said, you are viewing the choices through a lens of hindsight without considering the conditions of the day or the gravity of his choices. It's always easy to second guess a decision after the fact. I mean have YOU ever made a decision you regretted later or a decision that you were dissatisfied with but felt it was the best decision to make at the time?

I don't think you would have what it takes to be the leader of a country if you think you can sit behind your computer screen and second guess the man who prevented our country from falling apart when it was still a new country.


Now now no need for personal attacks on my leadership capability. You also have second guessed leaders before as well.
REgrets? Some but most of the time dont regret anything.

Lincoln could had prevented war by COMPROMISING(you know what the republicansand democrats cant seem to do lately) he didnt want to compromise. the south even said they would not leave if they were treated fairly in regard to taxes and trade. No mr dishonest abe wanted all the monies and taxes for his political machine.

ALso. didnt th esouth say they would basically abide by the constitution back then even if they seceeded? I seem to recall that SO if another country had gotten a idea to try invading they would had helped repel them.

Did you read my previous response though and think about what i wrote? I di d mention two ways lincoln could had held things together peacefully. Too bad the banks owned him.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join