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.

 

Abraham Lincoln = America's greatest war criminal!

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 





I just wanted to show how freeing slaves didn't play as big a part in the civil war as most people think.


Causes of seccession- Wiki



Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said[13] that slavery was the chief cause of secession[14] in his Cornerstone Speech shortly before the war. After Confederate defeat, Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause.[15] There was a striking contrast[14][16] between Stephens' post-war states' rights assertion that slavery did not cause secession[15] and his pre-war Cornerstone Speech. Confederate President Jefferson Davis also switched from saying the war was caused by slavery to saying that states' rights was the cause. While Southerners often used states' rights arguments to defend slavery, sometimes roles were reversed, as when Southerners demanded national laws to defend their interests with the Gag Rule and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. On these issues, it was Northerners who wanted to defend the rights of their states.[17]


To this day as many think it was a slavery issue as think it was a states rights or a taxation issue.

Apparently Lincoln thought it was very important:




Abraham Lincoln said, "this question of Slavery was more important than any other; indeed, so much more important has it become that no other national question can even get a hearing just at present."[

And finally




Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.


So by Gettysburg, I think we can say that Lincoln was NOT A RACIST!

[edit on 13/10/09 by plumranch]




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
I thought it was established already in our history books that the Civil War was not about slavery. Slavery didn't become a big issue in the war until later on when Lincoln was trying to find something to tell his soldiers and the American people WHY they were in a war. He wanted something inspirational to boost morale. Not to mention each side needed men......

If you want proof, find the closest U.S. history book and actually read it. Need I not mention that history is written by the victor. Only recently has the truth come to light little by little.


Yes, ending slavery was a brilliant strategical move by Lincoln but don't mistaken his actions to be ones motivated by kindness and justice.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Lincoln was a very conflicted man, morally speaking. I've done quite a bit of research into it and he himself worried that he was becoming too much like a tyrant. Did you know for a time Habeas Corpus was suspended under Lincoln?

Originally Lincoln believed that States Rights held the key to slavery, it would be up to each state to decide whether it wanted slaves but by the time he was in office Slavery was splitting the nation in two. Lincoln was determined to save his country and felt that the Southern Secession was hasty and uncalled for (since he had no desire to ban slavery in the South).

In a way Southern Secession forced his hand, he had to make up his mind about Slavery and he decided that both morally and strategically freeing the slaves was the right thing to do.

I don't think he was a War Criminal though I do think he could have done things a little differently. The more I read about him though the more I have to feel for him, he had a damn tough time, having to decide what to do with a nation that was torn asunder. I'd like to hear how YOU would have handled it OP, we'll see if that's any good before you start bashing him as a terrible war criminal.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
We went over alot of this in my American history class in college. The professor, who was a Lt. colonel from Barksdale AFB and former B-2 pilot, taught class once a week. He did his best to dispel the myths surrounding the war.

We went over Lincoln and Liberia. How slaves were really treated in the south. How Irish immigrants were treated in the south. How many people actually owned slaves. Who owned them. Why the war wasn't over slavery.

I know it angered alot of people. There is this idealized fantasy we are taught in grade school about the civil war and it is mostly crap. Very few people in the south owned slaves. Not all of the owners were white either.

The war itself was a power struggle, between Northern culture and industry and Southern culture and industry. It was a war whose origins go all the way back to the founding of the country. It heavily involved both political parties on opposite sides. Both the North and the South had their hands dirty leading up to the war. The secession only served as a spark to ignite the long standing animosity between the North and South into a full fledged conflict.


edit for correction: My professor was a Lt. Col at the time of the class. He made selection for Colonel in June.

[edit on 14/10/09 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
did anyone care to realize that at a time todays democrats were in fact yesteryears republicans? the party based did a 360 right around Lincoln's time? at least that is true with party issues of the era



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by conspiracyrus
 


Yeah, political parties are a lot like religions, they usually come from the same roots but for some reason can't get along.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Who keeps starring the OP...hehe

I think that is even worse than his wild ass conclusions….



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
I encourage the OP to go back and double check his facts. Much of what he said is inaccurate.

Abraham Lincoln didn't attack the Confederacy, nor did he attack civilians. The Confederacy began hostilities by firing on Ft. Sumter. This was soldiers firing on soldiers.

Lincoln was faced with one of the most severe crises the US has ever faced, the potential secession of several Southern states. He was bound to protect the Union. That's what presidents are for. It's in their job description. Uphold the laws, preserve the Union, all that great-sounding stuff.

Now, Lincoln was probably a racist, because everyone in the US at the time was a racist. Even abolitionists generally viewed Negroes as an inferior race that needed their protection. Slave owners, of course, viewed them as chattel. Lincoln was a product of his time.

Lincoln freed the slaves for political and military reasons, not out of compassion. He hoped that the freed slaves would rebel or at least run away, further depriving the South of manpower and supplies. I don't see that it was very effective, but hey, it was worth a shot.

I agree that Lincoln was not the saint he was painted to be in school. But he was no war criminal, either. And technically, we've got something called ex post facto. Darned if I know what that means, but you can't prosecute someone for doing something that wasn't illegal at the time he did it.

Atrocities were committed by both sides during the Civil War. Neither side was innocent. Civilians were often robbed, raped, and murdered by soldiers making their way through enemy territory. Prisoners of war were routinely abused and murdered. This was an ugly part of our history.

BTW, I would like to add that in general, some soldiers do these things in every war, but we don't usually see them because the US hasn't had many wars fought on its land. It's not that there were more atrocities in the Civil War than in others; it's just that we saw them up close and personal. This is what war is about.

[Edit:] Oh, yeah. One more thing. "Look it up" is never an appropriate thing to say when you make a claim. If you say it, you back it up. Give the link or reference to some source. Otherwise I could say, "Abraham Lincoln was actually Jesus Christ in disguise. Look it up". Of course you'll never find it. The burden of proof is always on the claimant.

[edit on 10/14/2009 by chiron613]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by Nosred
 





Abraham Lincoln attacked the confederate states without declaring war first,


The south was part of the then United States. Why would the president declare war on itself. How exactly would that happen?


Because there are concepts such as treason and sedition for a reason I assume.

OP

If Lincoln did not do what he did we would not be the nation we are now, this is a case of crying over spilt milk.

Yes, part of the reason Lincoln freed the slaves was to discredit the confederacy in the eyes of France and England who were VERY close to recognizing such as a new nation.
Might we still have slaves now??? Who knows...



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 





Because there are concepts such as treason and sedition for a reason I assume.


So what you are saying is that treason and sedition are basis for the United States to declare war on one or several of it's states?

A country can only declare war on another country not itself.

Now you could say that the South had already seceded and thus was a seperate nation but the Union had not recognized it as a seperate nation so why would it declare war?

Any conflict would then be a police action/ internal conflict. No need to declare war.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
Now before you start arguing over slavery take this into consideration; Lincoln was a self proclaimed racist who didn't believe in equal rights. He didn't want to free slaves out of the kindness of his heart, he viewed it as a war tactic. He thought if he freed slaves it would result in an uprising from past slaves that would weaken the confederacy. The primary cause of the civil war was disputes over land.

Continued below.


Ummm, the Civil War was fought because of SEDITION, not 'slavery'.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet

So this has been since the civial War lets count int up shall we i count 8 Dem Presidents 7 Repub Presidents


So um who is the War Mongers?



Pretty simple really:
Governements, Politicians etc, in fact all those that would rule us and use us to further their own agenda's.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
I agree with you. He used slavery to launch a war that wasn't even over that. He wanted more governemnt control and the southern states didn't and that is what happened with that war. Of course the history books only teach you 1 thing not all of the other important things. I certainly never heard in school how Lincoln wanted a large government all I heard was that he wanted to free the slaves. It is the same typical mind control the schools only teach what they want people to believe. I have read about Lincoln and I do think he is a war criminal and karma is a beatch, that is why he met his demise.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
How can you even try to debate logically with someone that makes such ridiculous and conflicting statements as:



The south succeeded legally


and then



He invaded his own country


If the south succeeded legally then he wasn't invading his own country since they weren't in the US any longer. If they didn't succeed then it is legally impossible to invade your own country. Thats like saying you stole from yourself. Then the OP declares that the Lincoln started the war while admitting that the South fired the first military shots.

To me this seems like a classic case of someone influential in his life filling his . with these ideas, and now the blinders are on and he won't listen to anything not fitting within these ideas of his. Even the quotes he posts to support his claims he doesn't understand the meaning of. I am sincerely perplexed by this member...... flat out mind boggling.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Ummmm, the south SUCCEEDED due to slavery and the fear of the north abolishing slavery. So you can say it was about the south succeeding, but then you ignore why they succeeded. At a bare bare minimum, the civil war has ist roots in slavery.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Like someone already posted, Lincoln faced a complex constitutional issue over the 10th amendment known as state rights. However once there was a secession, was the constitution applicable? I think he moved on to the issue of saving the union and he could then deal with the north's abolition sentiments.

I have read Carl Sandburg's work on Lincoln and Lincoln was widely criticized in his day. At the opening of the war one quarter of the US army surrendered before any battles. He worked through the frustrations of the US military to get the war moving. Perhaps freeing the slaves was a tactic, but it also was the moral thing to do.

So an imperfect man preserved the union and ended the institution of slavery in the south.

Lincoln came up with the fiat currency, greenbacks, which aided in the expansion of government spending to finance the war.

The union split because the balance of power had shifted from the south to the north. When the south no longer ran the country, they lost interest in being part of it. They wanted to keep slavery going.

It's hard to imagine the south giving up on slavery without force. Then again, industrialization made slavery obsolete and it lost comparative advantages.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by A52FWY]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Historical determinism is never an adequate argument to justify the crimes of the past. Were the Roman gladiator shows moral and justifiable back in the day, because most perceived it to be good entertainment? I'm sorry, but I believe in certain fundamental truths that are unchanging throughout time, as is our human nature. Killing is wrong, so is lying, etc., no matter what time period you are in.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
What's is your point in this bash against Pres. Lincoln. The U.S. I believe has only declared war a few times in it's history, and look at all the wars we have actually been involved in. It's been a a while since my political science day's but I believe the Pres. has the power to do this. With that said he was a better Pres than most.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Nosred
You might be surprised to know that one of countries most beloved presidents was indeed a war criminal. Abraham Lincoln attacked the confederate states without declaring war first



First off get your time line correct. Who attacked whom first?

Continued below-
Time Line of The Civil War

January 1861 -- The South Secedes.

When Abraham Lincoln, a known opponent of slavery, was elected president, the South Carolina legislature perceived a threat. Calling a state convention, the delegates voted to remove the state of South Carolina from the union known as the United States of America. The secession of South Carolina was followed by the secession of six more states -- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- and the threat of secession by four more -- Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. These eleven states eventually formed the Confederate States of America.

February 1861 -- The South Creates a Government.

At a convention in Montgomery, Alabama, the seven seceding states created the Confederate Constitution, a document similar to the United States Constitution, but with greater stress on the autonomy of each state. Jefferson Davis was named provisional president of the Confederacy until elections could be held.

February 1861 -- The South Seizes Federal Forts.

When President Buchanan -- Lincoln's predecessor -- refused to surrender southern federal forts to the seceding states, southern state troops seized them. At Fort Sumter, South Carolina troops repulsed a supply ship trying to reach federal forces based in the fort. The ship was forced to return to New York, its supplies undelivered.

March 1861 -- Lincoln's Inauguration.

At Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, the new president said he had no plans to end slavery in those states where it already existed, but he also said he would not accept secession. He hoped to resolve the national crisis without warfare.

April 1861 -- Attack on Fort Sumter.

When President Lincoln planned to send supplies to Fort Sumter, he alerted the state in advance, in an attempt to avoid hostilities. South Carolina, however, feared a trick; the commander of the fort, Robert Anderson, was asked to surrender immediately. Anderson offered to surrender, but only after he had exhausted his supplies. His offer was rejected, and on April 12, the Civil War began with shots fired on the fort. Fort Sumter eventually was surrendered to South Carolina.


[edit on 13-10-2009 by SLAYER69]


The CS government had demanded the removal all Federal troops from their soil. The US government under Lincoln had agreed but then done nothing, purposefully provoking the CS into firing first.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by A52FWY
Like someone already posted, Lincoln faced a complex constitutional issue over the 10th amendment known as state rights. However once there was a secession, was the constitution applicable? I think he moved on to the issue of saving the union and he could then deal with the north's abolition sentiments.

I have read Carl Sandburg's work on Lincoln and Lincoln was widely criticized in his day. At the opening of the war one quarter of the US army surrendered before any battles. He worked through the frustrations of the US military to get the war moving. Perhaps freeing the slaves was a tactic, but it also was the moral thing to do.

So an imperfect man preserved the union and ended the institution of slavery in the south.

Lincoln came up with the fiat currency, greenbacks, which aided in the expansion of government spending to finance the war.

The union split because the balance of power had shifted from the south to the north. When the south no longer ran the country, they lost interest in being part of it. They wanted to keep slavery going.

It's hard to imagine the south giving up on slavery without force. Then again, industrialization made slavery obsolete and it lost comparative advantages.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by A52FWY]


No, the South left because it was being abused by the North in the form of tariffs that favored Northern industry over Southern agriculture and forced the South to pay a large burden of the taxes.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join