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.

 

Abe Lincoln was a tyrant, and should've been impeached!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Let me preface the statement by saying I am a Black male.

We have all been taught in school of a man named honest Abe who freed the slaves, but what we fail to realize is how honest Abe set forth the autocratic rule of presidents to come. Linconlns pre-emptive strike on the south was illegal and unconstitutional. The Confederacy had a right to succession from the Union because they were sovereign states when they ratified the constitution. This was not a war about freeing slaves because Lincoln himself stated "I will say, then, that I am not now, nor never have been, in favor of
bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white
and black races. I am not now, nor never have been, in favor of making
voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor
of intermarriage 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 living together in
terms of social and political equality. 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 man." Does this sound like a man wanting to free slaves? We must also consider when was the Emancipation Proclamation written. It was written well after the start of the civil war. It was the Unions General Grant who said before the war "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my
commission, and offer my sword to the other side." Why were so many Blacks and white non-slave owners so quick to fight for the south? For the hope of one day having the right to own slaves themselves, even Blacks. According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly
4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million
of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks
residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689
lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian,
Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New
Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free
Negroes in that city. So what were the other alternatives to freeing slaves? Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. This act gave all
slaves in the British Empire their freedom. The British government paid
compensation to the slave owners. The amount that the plantation owners
received depended on the number of slaves that they had. For example,
the Bishop of Exeter's 665 slaves resulted in him receiving 12,700. In that era, that was a fortune. So Britian wiped out slavery without a single shot being fired. Lincolns war has only caused an evolution of eroding individual and states rights, and tyranny by every U.S. President in the 20th century and beyond.




posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   
True enough, the southern states had the right to pull out of the union and form their own confederacy, but they did not do the paperwork in accordance to the Laws of Nations, and that makes all the difference between legal and illegal. They dropped the ball, simple as that. That made their activities a rebellion, which is quite different.
Lincoln was elected as an autocrat due to the fact that the legislative form of government fell into collapse, dissolved due to Sine Die. They failed to convene at the appointed time. This occured because the Southern states failed to show up for Congress because Lincoln was elected. What the idiots should have done was show up and work on the problems instead of dissolving any decent chance of the states' rights issue being resolved.
Because Lincoln was basically elected king, a position he did not want, he set about the task of bringing the union back together. The Emancipation Proclamation act was not to free the slaves, but to remove the assets of the rebellious plantation owners and reassign ownership to the government. There is a world of difference between the two. Even the 14th amendment didn't "free" them, but reassigned most citizens to a position of chattel property of the federal government, but that is a different topic.
After the Civil Police Action was complete, Lincoln had intentions of bringing the southern states back into the union in a good and proper way, and then recind martial law. To powerful entities, this was a bad idea, and Lincoln was prevented from this righteous act by a dolt scramble his brain.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Let me point out that I am a white male of the South (Alabama), but the facts are the facts, no matter how moronic it makes the South appear. During the revolutionary war, our founding fathers had an average grade level of 25. I doubt it was that high by the Civil Police Action. Judging by the attempts of the Southern leadership, I'd say evidence points to a much lower level of education.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I wonder if in Lincolns statements about equality, if they were his true feelings or the fact that if he went to far no one would be on his side. Just a thought.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
True enough, the southern states had the right to pull out of the union and form their own confederacy, but they did not do the paperwork in accordance to the Laws of Nations, and that makes all the difference between legal and illegal. They dropped the ball, simple as that. That made their activities a rebellion, which is quite different.



Can states still pull out and form their own confederacy without a war?-



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 07:12 PM
link   


Can states still pull out and form their own confederacy without a war?-



I dont think so.

I also think that there would have been war no matter how the south went about it.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   
the south attacked first i do believe, bombarding fort sumpner(sp)

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by KrazyIvan]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join