Abraham Lincoln = America's greatest war criminal!

i don't think you will find too many people with the intelligence, knowledge, or maturity to explore that topic, but i guess talking about it is better than nothing...


Lincoln free slaves though...hahah, that was a good one, keep it up little sheepy

Originally posted by johnny2127

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.

The Civil War was never about slavery. Less than 9% of the people who fought for the South owned any slaves at all. And besides that it is foolish to think that 300,000 people would fight to their deaths simply for the right to own slaves.

Slavery was an issue in the Civil War but hardly the main one. It is seen so today because Lincoln made it an issue to give his war against a legally constituted, foreign government a moral supremacy and also to discourage Great Britain and France from siding with the South.

Slavery is seens as the main issue mostly because of this and because of the politically correct ideology that malignes the South as 'slave-mongers'. What you will never hear of in a public school history class is the horrors of Sherman's march to the sea where he and his Union troops went on a rampage of rape and murder against innocent women, both black and white. You will also never hear of Lincoln's abuse of the Constitution. History (at least mainstream history) is written by the winners.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Enigma Cypher]

Originally posted by chiron613
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]

The Union as described in the Constitution is a free association of sovereign states who delegate certain powers to a larger body- i.e. the Federal government- to do the things that they individually cannot do, such as providing for the common defense. It was understood by all the states as well as the words in the Declaration of Independence that governments are created by the people for certain ends and that when governments cease to accomplish these things it is the right of the people to overthrow it. Secession was nothing new, several states threatened to seceed over the Louisiana Purchase as well as over the admission of Texas to the union. "Preserving the Union" is a useless gesture. The Union is meant to only exist so long as the states freely say that it does.

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


That’s all pretty silly since we know both sides are the same, and work for the same handlers. The only difference between dems and reps is the colour of their ties.

If you want to get right down to it, the US never won the war against the British for they realized it was easier to infiltrate your system and control it than kill their own people. If you think this is false and that a country spread around the world and in control of other countries for hundreds if not thousands of years could not do this you are a fool. The brits supported Lincoln and sent him supplies, troops, and weapons. Everything goes back to Britain...everything. Proof you say... HA! Look around the architecture is everywhere if you can’t see the proof, the wool is truly over your eyes. It only takes one look at the Lincoln memorial to realize it.

The USA thinks they are the only super power but they aren’t, they are just slaves to the elite like the rest of us. A tool to be used and discarded when the crap starts to hit the fan. They spend enough on war to feed the planet for 1000 years. And all work for the same people, all roads lead to Rome.

You can flame me all you want but deep inside you know the truth, and it burns doesn`t it.

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by centurion1211

 

I wasn't trying to use todays morals someone in a previous post told me to prove he was racist. I'm just trying to get the point accross that him freeing the slaves was itself hypocritical, seeing as he didn't actually want them to have rights or be equal. He just saw it as a military tactic to weaken the south.

That's true. It is also true that slaves were abused far more in the North than in the South. It is also true that most US slave traders were citizens of Northern states who sold them to the Southern states, in fact Massachusets was the first US state to do so.

I agree that slavery was an abominable practice that should have ended. However the South had plans to end it themselves. In the CS Constitution there was a clause that banned the international slave trade. CS citizens could only buy slaves from other CS states or from US states where the market was legal. President Jefferson Davis had planned to prepare blacks for emancipation, as had Robert E. Lee, both of whom did not wish to simply free slaves and create a permanent group of second class citizens.

Originally posted by humilisunus
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet

 

That’s all pretty silly since we know both sides are the same, and work for the same handlers. The only difference between dems and reps is the colour of their ties.

If you want to get right down to it, the US never won the war against the British for they realized it was easier to infiltrate your system and control it than kill their own people. If you think this is false and that a country spread around the world and in control of other countries for hundreds if not thousands of years could not do this you are a fool. The brits supported Lincoln and sent him supplies, troops, and weapons. Everything goes back to Britain...everything. Proof you say... HA! Look around the architecture is everywhere if you can’t see the proof, the wool is truly over your eyes. It only takes one look at the Lincoln memorial to realize it.

The USA thinks they are the only super power but they aren’t, they are just slaves to the elite like the rest of us. A tool to be used and discarded when the crap starts to hit the fan. They spend enough on war to feed the planet for 1000 years. And all work for the same people, all roads lead to Rome.

You can flame me all you want but deep inside you know the truth, and it burns doesn`t it.

Great Britain also sold weapons to the Confederacy and hoped that it would win the war making agricultural sales more profitable for them (The US had impsoed a lot of taxes on it).

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Enigma Cypher]

Originally posted by plumranch
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]

Oh? How about this quote then:

"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."
- Abraham Lincoln, from a debate between him and Alexander Stephens in 1858. Lincoln was a shrewd politician and knew how to play for sympathy.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Enigma Cypher]

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by Nosred

 

By the way attacking someone without declaring war first was illegal then and now, this is why he's a war criminal.

Then why say this act resulted in so many deaths? These deaths would have occurred whether or not he legally declared war. Another historical "icon" has been found out? It's almost as if he was HUMAN or something? What's the point in this trivial matter?

Originally posted by Viral
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.

You are using Political Correctness against people who had no idea of the concept. Easy to throw around words such as "determinism", but much more difficult to apply them in a practical sense.

Sorry, but here's another perfect and more recent example.

When I was a kid, we got our mouth washed out with soap for lying or using foul language. NO ONE at the time thought that was child abuse and it wasn't all that long ago.

However, there's an article in Drudge today about a father being arrested for doing the same thing. Should we now go and arrest my parents and all the others for what doing what was considered normal back then? That's my point about using today's morals against people of the past.

You want to talk about slavery in Roman times, do the research I have. It was a quite normal "occupation" of those times. Of course, no one wanted to be a slave, but they were so much a part of life back then that slavery was taken for granted. And today, practically any killing is a murder. Not so long ago many types of killings were understood to be "justified". Even today some muslims and hindus still practice "honor killings", but then we're not allowed to criticize them for that due to PC.

Now I will also ask you. Are you really sure the people of 150 or 2,000 years in the future will view how you live your life as acceptable the way you do? How can you be sure? What if you're wrong? This is the true test.

[edit on 10/14/2009 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by plumranch
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.

The South had legally seceeded according to the same principles and methods by which the thirteen original colonies seceeded from the British Empire. If it was acceptable for the colonies to seceed it was acceptable for the South to seceed. Also secession had been threatened several times long before the Civil War. Several states threatened to seceed over the Louisiana Purchase and again over the admission of Texas to the Union. Nobody called those states traitors then, because it is an American right to seceed from an abusive government. It is only now that secession is looked upon as treason by a Federal government that has long acted as an empire.

The "Civil War" had about as much to do with slavery as the Iraq war has to do with 9/11. Slavery was all but dead at that point in time world-wide. One can even argue that posturing that the Civil War was about slavery actually created the manufactured racism that caused every racial issue since then. Rather than letting it naturally go extinct due to the simple fact that it is unnatural and inhuman it was used to bottle and capture hatred and anger as a scapegoat in an unnatural way fostering decades of misdirected hate.

The man was a monster. Not just for what he did but for the excuses he made.

For a quick start you can read The Real Abraham Lincoln.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The "Civil War" had about as much to do with slavery as the Iraq war has to do with 9/11. Slavery was all but dead at that point in time world-wide. One can even argue that posturing that the Civil War was about slavery actually created the manufactured racism that caused every racial issue since then. Rather than letting it naturally go extinct due to the simple fact that it is unnatural and inhuman it was used to bottle and capture hatred and anger as a scapegoat in an unnatural way fostering decades of misdirected hate.

The man was a monster. Not just for what he did but for the excuses he made.

For a quick start you can read The Real Abraham Lincoln.

Exactly. By the way I can readily recommend The Real Abraham Lincoln as well as The South Was Right and Myths Of American Slavery by James and Walter Kennedy.

Originally posted by Nosred
In conclusion, Abraham Lincoln was just another Republican warmonger.

you serious dude? Look at your freaking history the Republicans & Democrats switched party stances in the early 1900's. Lincoln liked High Tariffs he actually instituted the first income tax. Lincoln was more a Democrat than a Republican.

Yes in some cases he is over rated, but I still think he was one of Americas best presidents. Ending slavery, keeping the union together, you know that's kind of major headway.

If Lincoln was a Warmonger what does that make Jefferson Davis?

Although the guy fails to bring any evidence to the plate, the majority of his claims are indeed somewhat close to the truth.

Lincoln was a Constitution burning fascist...i couldn't argue it any other way.

He had Americans killed. More than any other war in American History.

Oh well, i find it funny how you people will defend his "good guy" image which is based mostly on half truths.

Look, everyone in history has skellys in their closet, no ones perfect. Even Lincoln was a screwed up guy. Washington Franklin you name em, they did something really really messed up.

And who cares anyways, its the past it cannot be changed.

Get over it and start thinking critically. Just accepting things at face value makes you look gullible.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The "Civil War" had about as much to do with slavery as the Iraq war has to do with 9/11. Slavery was all but dead at that point in time world-wide. One can even argue that posturing that the Civil War was about slavery actually created the manufactured racism that caused every racial issue since then. Rather than letting it naturally go extinct due to the simple fact that it is unnatural and inhuman it was used to bottle and capture hatred and anger as a scapegoat in an unnatural way fostering decades of misdirected hate.

The man was a monster. Not just for what he did but for the excuses he made.

For a quick start you can read The Real Abraham Lincoln.

Very well said.

Thank you for making that point clear.

And you are correct, slavery was on the way out naturally.
Can anyone say, Industrial Revolution?
It was 1860 for god's sake.

Very good, rarley heard, arguments are being made in this thread.

Another little known fact about how Lincoln felt concerning the "negroes" was colonization...“There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children, whose ancestors have been torn from her by the ruthless hand of fraud and violence.”


"...From the earliest period of his public life it is easily discernable that Abraham Lincoln was an ardent believer and supporter of the colonization idea. It was his plan not only to emancipate the Negro, but to colonize him in some foreign land. His views were presented not only to interested men of the white race, but to persons of color as well...."

www.dinsdoc.com...

reply to post by Nosred


Indeed. The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery as our modern history books try to make us believe. The southern states felt the Federal Government was getting to powerful decided to break from the union. The slaves were freed in order to punish the south, seeing as they were beyond in industrialization in comparison to the northern states. No one cared, even Lincoln, if the slaves were free and it showed in the next 100 years just by how blacks were treated. They were free, but many ended up going back to where they were because there wasn't many opportunities a black person could do to make it. It does make me wonder, did the right side actually win?

Its really easy for you to scrutinize something that happened hundreds of years ago. There is no way any of us can imagine what it was like to live in such a tumultuous time in American History. The means Lincoln took -- martial law, total war, denying property, suspending habeas corpus, etc -- to get to the end -- preserving the very essence of our country: the union-- were most certainly merited. The division between the north and the south had been boiling since the constitutional convention. The Civil War was unavoidable and the means Lincoln used were what was needed to preserve the union. You should thank Mr. Lincoln because if he didn't do exactly what he did YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN BORN.


Just my 10 cents.

Originally posted by Nosred
Abraham Lincoln attacked the confederate states without declaring war first,

declaration of war would validate that it was a different nation they were attacking...this was simply a police action on a rather large scale...I mean, if I stand outside my house and announce I am no longer part of the united states, does the POTUS have to declare war on my house before police come and slap me for being a idiot? What about my whole neighborhood...hell, if thats all it took, then America would be broken up into 10 thousand small nations

-goes to make the peoples republic of SaturnFX-

Originally posted by Relentless.Dpreserving the very essence of our country: the union

Hmmm...

Really? Would the union be the essence of "these united states" or "The United States"?

There is a difference. To me, what Lincoln did was effectively kill "these united states" to create "The United States™."