It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Will We Have Another Civil War and/or A Racial War in American Under Obama?

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 05:36 AM

Originally posted by treemanx

You want to know where the paranoid fears of a police state were when Bush was in office? NO WHERE! You and I have been safer than anyone else on the planet for the last eight years, thanks to President Bush, so there was no need for that fear.

Obama hasnt been sworn in yet, and we're already declairing him a facist? Well, that couldnt possibly be because of all the red flags that his history sends flying in our face? If you actually researched this guy without your rose colored glasses on, you may have the same fears! My dad always used to say, "If it walks like a duck, and qwacks like a's probably a duck!" There is a reason that people have these fears.

I guess if you just completely forget about that little incident which happened to be the greatest loss of American lives on American soil since Pearl Harbor, yeah, Bush did a great job keeping us all safe
You're right, the largest scale terrorist attack in the last 8 years IN THE WORLD, HAPPENING ON AMERICAN SOIL is definitely keeping Americans safe. You are completely right!

Can I have some of what you are smoking??

And apparently you have absolutely no comprehension of the word "fascist."

Here, I'll let my friend Merriam Webster EDUCATE you..

1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 05:45 AM
lol one persons name comes to mind recently with all the taser stun gun deaths and now this talk about civil war or racial war and his name is John Tittor............

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:00 AM
reply to post by redhatty
A racial war, I doubt. The hip hop crowd would have already started up by now with all the (former) minority power and all that crap, the nazi crowd, well there is probably one decent mind among 400. Civil.. well we have been heading to that for a long time. Our problem is America is too easily side tracked. Yes we could amass millions, black white, whatever. Then the media throws on a "BUY ME I"LL CHANGE YOUR LIFE" commercial, and everyone forgot what they were doing. We know there is a bad guy and we do not know why the bad guy are, (yes bad guy as in a group of people)But we are too lazy to look. That and we might miss an episode of Heroes

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:11 AM
reply to post by AgentMoulder

How dare you belittle his intentions and the intentions of all those who died freeing the slaves. Show me your proof.

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:27 AM

Originally posted by SailorinAZ
reply to post by AgentMoulder

How dare you belittle his intentions and the intentions of all those who died freeing the slaves. Show me your proof.

He's probably refering to this quote:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that 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 living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the 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. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln-Douglas debates

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:37 AM
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

In 1841, Lincoln had a flatboat trip down the Mississippi, and he saw sitting on board another boat a group of slaves chained together. He described the sight in a letter to Joshua Speed in 1855: “You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border.”
Though a gradualist, Lincoln hated slavery. “I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself,” he declared. “I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world; enables the enemies of free institutions with plausibility to taunt us as hypocrites.” [7] In 1855, writing to his friend Joshua Speed, he recalled a steamboat trip the two had taken on the Ohio River14 years earlier. “You may remember, as I well do,” he said, “that from Louisville [Kentucky] to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border.” [8]
Lincoln often penned fragments on slavery. He would begin it by starting a hypothetical vested interest in slavery, and end it with the only logical conclusion, that is was a great moral wrong.
If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.—why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?
You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.
You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.
But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest; you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you. (Fragment on Slavery, April, 1854)
Lincoln was elected on a platform which pledged no interference with slavery where it had already existed, and he was hesitant to adopt an abolitionist policy. He was concerned about the reaction of the border states should such a policy be enacted. He was concerned about four million newly-freed blacks being incorporated into the country’s social, economic, and political life. Some individuals, such as General John C. Freemont, made it a point to proclaim freedom in districts which they had conquered; Lincoln revoked those proclamations. In a letter to Horace Greely, Lincoln plainly stated
"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."
Lincoln was willing to play a major part in removing slavery altogether during the war. He first proposed an idea in which slaves were to be freed gradually by the actions of the states, with the federal government sharing the cost of compensation. None of the border states were willing to implement it, and no prominent African-American leader was willing to see newly-freed blacks sent to Africa, as part of the idea called for.
But with the victory at Antietam in September 1862, Lincoln brought out an idea which he read before his cabinet, that slaves held in the Confederate States were declared to be free. He would declare it formally with his Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. Although it did not include those areas under Union control, and officially it was a war measure, it had a great deal of significance as a symbol, and European countries who had toyed with the idea of recognizing the Confederacy abandoned it and supported the Union.
Lincoln also felt that the freed slaves would be put back in chains at war's end, as the Proclamation itself was not constitutional. But Lincoln was prepared for something else: he drafted the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which stated slavery was illegal except for crimes committed. He also urged the Republican Party to add the proposed amendment as a plank to the 1864 presidential campaign, stating slavery was the cause of the war, and that the Proclamation had aimed “a death blow at this gigantic evil;” only by a constitutional amendment could slavery be rendered extinct. After the election, Lincoln did not wait for the new Congress. He got the two-thirds needed for ratification before the year was over, and rejoiced when his state of Illinois led the way.
"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free - honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless." Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.


posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:38 AM
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

That was politics and a different time and was trying to win the election. Seriously, you need to look at the bigger picture of what was going on.

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:58 AM

From the time he entered politics in 1832, Abraham Lincoln aspired to such a position. That is why he became a Whig, the party of the moneyed elite. Lincoln was one of the most money- and power-hungry politicians in American history. (Indeed, this would seem to be a prerequisite for anyone who is capable of being elected president).

As soon as he entered the Illinois legislature he led his local delegation in a successful Whig Party effort to appropriate some $12 million in taxpayer subsidies for railroad and canal-building corporations. In his landmark book, Lincoln and the Railroads, first published in 1927 and reprinted in 1981 by Arno Press, John W. Starr, Jr. noted how one of Lincoln’s colleagues in the legislature said "He seemed to be a born politician. We followed his lead . . . " And they followed Lincoln down a road that would nearly bankrupt the state of Illinois. The $12 million was squandered: Almost no projects were completed with it; much of the money was stolen; and the taxpayers of Illinois were put deep into debt for years to come.

Lincoln’s "internal improvements" fiasco in Illinois promised to build "a railroad from Galena in the extreme northwestern part of the state." Above St. Louis, in Alton, "three [rail]roads were to radiate"; "There was also a road to run from Quincy . . . through Springfield"; another one "from Warsaw . . . to Peoria"; and yet another "from Pekin . . . to Bloomington" (Starr, pp. 25–26). The first road mentioned was to become the Illinois Central, which would later employ Lincoln for more than a decade as one its top lawyers.

Then there was the little problem that building railroads requires land. Eminent Domain was used and back in the day no compensation was given for property taken that was determined to be undeveloped. In the end the railroads all got through and if you look closely there is a direct connection between Lincoln and the lobbies that got him elected (railroad).

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:38 AM
I don't believe there will be any "Race War" or anything like a civil war.

The races would have to hate each other more than they do. There would have to be a burning, loathing, violent kind of hatred in the heart of the majority of the people at lease for a real war.

A civil war needs territory, geographic separation. Over the last few decades Americans have made a lifestyle out of moving long distances frequently. One state won't go to war with another because people have too many relatives spread out amongst the states.

War requires organized forces. So pretty much any "____ War" amongst Americans will not happen. Localized riots are possible due to harsh economic conditions, especially in urban areas where people depend on the government for literally ever aspect of living, and these can be racially charge but they are NOT wars. Poor people tend to be ignorant and prone to scapegoating.

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:49 AM

Originally posted by andre18

He'll be sworn in with the same Bible that Lincoln used,

This is fairly off topic but I never knew until now how much of Christian nation America really is

and what is wrong with this?
thus being the true religion, one based on truth and hope!!!!

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:07 AM
Watching the Inauguration right now. Obama is stumbling a bit, I guess it's nerves.

So far, no indication of any plot to do anything untoward. It's all going off without a hitch. Massive crowds.

OK, now it's official Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th President. Now he's giving his speech.

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by Alpha_Magnum

Dude, where is your reference?

Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was the sixteenth President of the United States. He successfully led the country through its greatest internal crisis, the American Civil War, preserving the Union and ending slavery. Assassinated as the war was drawing to a close, Lincoln had been the first Republican elected to the Presidency. Before his presidency, he was a lawyer, an Illinois state legislator, a member of the United States House of Representatives, and twice an unsuccessful candidate for election to the Senate.

Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States of America serving from 1861 to 1865. He led his country through its greatest crisis, the American Civil War, abolished Slavery and built a Republican Party coalition that dominated the Third Party System.


he resulting Kansas-Nebraska Act would do nothing more than provoke violent opposition; a border war would result between Kansas and Missouri as both pro and anti-slavery forces would cause much bloodshed; and voters in the Old Northwest, Illinois among them, would react vehemently against it, resulting in the destruction of the Whigs as a political party, and the birth of the Republicans, of which Lincoln quickly became a member.


As the leading member of the Republican Party in Illinois, Lincoln was nominated for the Senate seat held by Douglas at the Republican State Convention in Springfield on June 16, 1858. The acceptance speech he gave has been called the House Divided speech, after the opening lines, which were based upon Matthew 12:25:


Lincoln on the other hand knew Douglas was in a war of his own with President Franklin Buchanan's administration over acceptance of the Kansas constitution which barred slavery from the state, further alienating Southern Democratic support; the fear was that Douglas would be more appealing to moderate Republicans in the east. Lincoln's strategy therefore was to point out and use the vast difference between the moral indifference to slavery as embodied by Douglas's popular sovereignty, and the moral wrong that slavery actually was as embodied by Republican opposition to it.


In his Cooper Union Address, Lincoln spoke of the sectionalism which was fracturing the country as a result of slavery; the Republican Party was new in 1859, and a serious threat to slavery's existence. Lincoln and his party were called radical and destructive, but he counted himself among the earliest defenders of conservative principles, which was in essence a defense of time-honored, traditional values. Lincoln said that out of the 39 framers of the Constitution, 23 of the 39 voted on whether to prevent the spread of slavery, and that 21 of the 23 voted in favor of doing so. Lincoln therefore said that it was the pro-slavery South that was radically breaking with the tradition begun by those that created the Constitution.

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:27 AM
Before all of you cream your jeans when thinking of what a "Great Man" Lincoln was, perhaps you'd like to state what his plan was for the blacks after the civil war?

No? If not, why not?

[edit on 20-1-2009 by sir_chancealot]

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by sir_chancealot

I think that Lincoln honestly wanted the slaves to be free and be equal to whites. However, because of the way things were in that point in time, he could not speak completely freely as to how he wanted to. He would never have been elected and would have not got anywhere. That is what I think.

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:50 AM
reply to post by SailorinAZ

Those rusty things that criss cross the USA (rails) have these machines that ride on them called TRAINS. The first trains were owned by PRIVATE Corporations. In order to place the tracks for these TRAINS to ride land needed to be acquired. It was LINCOLN that was placed in the best position for the railroads to be allows access to privately held land with governmental eminent domain.

I can't remember the link I got that snip from but I searched Google using "Lincoln was a railroad lawyer" and it was on top of the list. I must say that it is sad that you believe that the North waged war with the South over slaves. All wars are waged over RESOURCES and in this case it was LAND.

The President was brilliant since the 13th Amendment...

Section 1:

"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, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2:

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

has a clause that is bolded above that reads, "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" There is now an EXCEPTION and the GOVERNMENT CAN HOLD SLAVES. Believe what you like though!

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:52 AM
I don't think you have to look very far to see that America could be on the verge of a race war. . . Looking at the crowds gathered to watch his swearing in most, not all, were blacks who see Obama as the next step in righting hundreds of years of racial unfairness. I just wonder what would happen if some southern rascist managed to assassinate him?

Sorry America, but, heaven forbid, Obama was murdered I can see your proud cities reduced to rubble as whites fight blacks, whites and blacks fight the government and the police, etc.
It just takes one moron with a gun. . .
Let's just pray god looks after him.

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 12:18 PM

Originally posted by SailorinAZ
reply to post by sir_chancealot

I think that Lincoln honestly wanted the slaves to be free and be equal to whites. However, because of the way things were in that point in time, he could not speak completely freely as to how he wanted to. He would never have been elected and would have not got anywhere. That is what I think.

In 1862 at the White House Lincoln told a group of black leaders, including Fredrick Douglas, that though slavery was a great wrong inflicted on their people the race would only suffer trying to live as equals in the superior white culture. Lincoln admitted that the Negro deserved a chance to prove themselves as equals and capable of bettering themselves. Unfortunately it was unlikely that they would get that chance here in America. Lincoln's solution was colonization. Central America was one of the selected territories. Through colonization the US could be freed of the inferior Negro in a sort of National enema.

It was 3 yrs into the Civil War when the Emaincipation Proclamation was given. It ONLY freed the Southern Slaves in states not under Union Control. It didn't affect northern slaves nor did it affect border states' slaves.

Lincoln understood that the Proclamation was a war measure, and, as such, it could apply only to the Confederacy. Lincoln adhered to the conventional wisdom that the Constitution did not permit the federal government to exercise its sovereign power to abolish slavery in any state. But once a state sought to leave the Union and went to war against the United States, Lincoln came to believe that as commander in chief he could abolish slavery in that state as an exercise of the United States' war powers under the international law of war.

Lincoln's reasons for emancipation were to disrupt the Southern workforce by promoting migration of slaves to the North and insurrection in the South; to prevent France and England from entering the Civil War in support of the Confederacy by pacifying abolitionists in those countries, and to enlist blacks in the Union army.

It was a tactical maneuver designed to cripple the southern states. Remember, Lincoln had represented a Slave owner in court in his fight to retrieve "lost" slaves.

It wasn't until 2 yrs later that the 13th Amendment was passed which completely abolished slavery.

There is plenty of documentation of all of this in history books. Lincoln had no problem openly expressing his views, his major concern was that the Supreme Court would shoot down the Emancipation Proclamation.

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Cio88
I believe it will be a war between

Liberals + MSM vs Normal people who have brains.

the ^^^^^ want brains .... put it together .. a Zombie war!

The normal people who voted for failure pile the 43rd???

Just checking... Maybe you should examine who it is that posses the brains.

What is the terror threat level today???

Thanks, I'm gonna go eat my fellow zombies

Have fun YALL

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 12:42 PM
reply to post by redhatty

Ok Alpha, Red, and other well educated liberals.
The world would have been a better place if Lincoln would have never been born and he was indeed a racist and a bad man.

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 12:45 PM
TPTB want ANY type of internal civil strife. Black vs. White, Black vs. Hispanic, White vs. Hispanic, Conservative vs. Liberal, Convervatives and Liberals vs. Libertarians, Urban vs. Rural.

ANYTHYING. So long as it isn't "Rich versus Poor". They truly fear a Haves vs Have-nots civil war.

You see, the "Haves" usually do not own guns, and have their lapdogs (security/police) do their dirty work. The "Have-nots" usually own guns, and are used to getting their hands dirty.

Many, many, many rich heads were separated from rich bodies in the French Revolution (not that the French Revolution was entirely a good thing, but I'm digressing). This they seek to prevent. Any other civil war is just fine, and gem-dandy with them.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in