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.


Abraham Lincoln = America's greatest war criminal!

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:26 PM
Born and raised in the South, I was probably in high school before I discovered that "damn" and "Yankees" were two separate words.

One of the biggest shocks of my life occurred at about age five when I noted that though the photograph was in black and white, the uniform of my grandmother's grandfather was dark.

Come to find out, he was a Yankee (damnedYankee if you prefer.)

Lincoln and the Congress did some awful things to the Constitution. I don't care what his logic was, but our Constitutional problems that are mirrored in what the Federal Government is doing today that is in fact ruining the US, can be traced right back to Lincoln.

In essence, the Tenth Amendment was butchered forever by Lincoln. Thus this highly corrosive intrusion into our lives by the Fed.

Technically, we're still an occupied country down here, in spite of the influx of Yankees.

Be great to conclude what was started in 1861, and once again, get the Fed off our backs, and the power back to the States.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:43 PM
Every US president has done something very very very baaad during their presidency.

1776-1863- They all had slaves

1863-Now- Hypocritical, corrupt, never stopped fighting, took away rights, showed no sign of respect to other nations, expanded overseas empires,

how much time do you have

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:56 PM
Wow, I missed a lot of posts. Just to clarify, I called Lincoln America's GREATEST war criminal not because he was the worst in America's history but because he is oftentimes viewed as our greatest president. Other than that keep up the debate!

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:01 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

The forts that were fired upon were in the Confederate States. A bunch of foreigners were holed up there and refused to leave. They were then forced out. I don't see any problem with that.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:22 PM
The slave traders also made a big profit selling native American Indians to Europeans before the black slave trade started. Christopher Columbus rounded up 500 Indians to be taken back as slaves.
The Indians have been treated just as bad as the Blacks have.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:04 PM
reply to post by daddio

I agree that Lincoln was the first President to enact war powers, and send us into a state of perpetual war and martial law. These are facts, but I think that he was trying, in the end, to set things right again. He had planned to bring the southern states back into fold, without holding them responsable for the war. He was against the plans that were later implemented after his death, which essentially created a slave colony out of the South and destroyed the Bill of Rights, supplanting these sacred rights with the 14th Amendent, turning us all into the unwitting slaves of the bankers. What he did with the greenback was the correct course to take, and it ended up being his death nail. In the end, I don't blame Lincoln for the war. The whole thing was being manipulated by the European powers long before he took office. Like everyone else, he was an unwitting participant in the evil plans of the banking elite of the world. I think that he realized this, thus his quotes above point to the fact that he had caught on to their plans and tried to thwart them. That's why he had to go. The historical evidence suggests that there were a lot more participants involved in the planning and demise of Abraham Lincoln than John Wilkes Booth.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by HothSnake]

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:22 PM
Lincoln's presidency marked the end of the limited government that existed in the early years of our country. Even many of the things we discuss here on ATS can be traced back to him.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:58 PM
reply to post by HothSnake

That's right, blame it all on those pesky Europeans.

Of course some European countries tried to manipulate or influence events, (with little success], and some tried to profit, (a common practice throughout human history), but at the end of the day it was an 'American' thing between American people.

Despite what some wish, you can not blame us for all of the world's ill's!

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:18 PM
As stated before the Civil War was never about slavery. The South's leaders, including President Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee believed that slavery would fade away naturally, probably not long after 1880.

Prior to the Civil War there were basically two groups opposed to slavery: abolitionists and radical abolitionists.

Abolitionists believed as Davis and Lee did, that slavery would fade away naturally, that it was indeed an abusive institution. They advocated the education of slaves to prepare them for an independence where they would be self sufficient. They were opposed to simply freeing the slaves into a world that they were not prepared to live in, thus creating a permanent group of second-class citizens.

Radical abolitionists like John Brown advocated the immediate end to slavery by violent means if necessary (recall Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry). They repeatedly attacked the South in the most abusive terms and tried to foment slave rebellions.

It is radical abolitionism that is responsible for a great deal of the political tensions of the years leading up to the Civil War.

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

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Nosred
Lincoln's presidency marked the end of the limited government that existed in the early years of our country. Even many of the things we discuss here on ATS can be traced back to him.

Exactly. And ever since the end of that war, the term "state's rights" has become synonymous with "slavery" and "racism".

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:26 PM
Hey, what happened to all of the people who were arguing with me? Did they just give up or did they change their minds?

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:33 PM
reply to post by Freeborn

I don't blame the European people per say, but the controllers of said society. You can't ignore the manipulation of America and its wars by the European money powers. Even a cursory examination of history shows their behind-the-scenes manipulation of just about every major conflict, including the American war for independance, which was mostly a sham.

You have the first Bank of the U.S., the second BUS, and now the Federal Reserve system, whose major share holders were affiliated with the Bank of England and its corolaries. You have WWI, WWII, etc., all European conflicts fought for European interests.

We Americans have never really controlled our own destiny. Even today we are all over world fighting phony wars to secure oil rights for BP and the opium trade, just like the European contrived and manipulated opium wars of old, where the Eastern American establishment was used to fight. Truth be told that the whole slave trade of the world was created and funded by the British for the very purpose of maintaining the opium trade in India and China. The Southern slave-owning establishment was instrumental within the British scheme of dominating the economies of the world.

Remember, it wasn't me that said it, but that European Otto Von Bismarck. I don't blame all Europeans, just their controllers.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Nosred
Lincoln belongs in category with Hitler, Lenin, and Mao. They all killed their own countries people and left their nations in ruins. You only find glorifications of Lincoln nowadays but would you have found anything critical of Hitler in Nazi Germany? You still won't find any truth on Mao in China. In conclusion, Abraham Lincoln was just another Republican warmonger.

First of all, you're ignorant for comparing Adolf Hitler to Lenin and Zedong. Obviously you don't know anything about what you're talking about.


Hitler wasn't fighting a civil war, Hitler was was committing genocide of the highest degree, and really if you think the two have a lot in common why dont you point some of these common grounds out?


You honestly think there wasn't people who were "thinking critically" of Hitler in Nazi Germany? Once he began his mad slaughter of his own and all other people free thinking wasn't on option. Should the people who realized what he was doing was the worst type of atrocity walked up to the Nazi regime have said "stop doing this, Hitler?" No, because if they weren't brutally slaughtered on the spot they would have been sent to a Death Camp. Or maybe they should have formed a militia and have been gassed, bombed, or burned to death.

And lastly...

(Taken from wikipedia)

"Mao remains a controversial figure to this day, with a contentious and ever-evolving legacy. He is officially held in high regard in China where he is known as a great revolutionary, political strategist, military mastermind, and savior of the nation. Many Chinese also believe that through his policies, he laid the economic, technological and cultural foundations of modern China, transforming the country from a backward agrarian society into a major world power. Additionally, Mao is viewed by many in China as a poet, philosopher, and visionary, owing the latter primarily to the cult of personality fostered during his time in power.[3] As a consequence, his portrait continues to be featured prominently on Tiananmen and on all Renminbi bills."

On a final note, if Abraham Lincoln had anything in common at all with Mao or Lenin it was seeing the possibility to change a nation for the better and acting on it from a leadership position. You should do some research before you condemn a President as a war criminal.

You're a fool.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by thegagefather]

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:15 PM

Originally posted by StinkyFeet


That sounds pretty racist and hateful to me. Our anestors were pieces of work. Yikes!

Consider the source. That site is owned by European (read WHITE) Americans United. A white supremacists group.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:33 PM
reply to post by Nosred

I do not defend Lincoln, nor ANY OTHER President, HOWEVER, he would not be required to 'declare war' because it would be considered a 'police action'. Upon the event a civil uprising occurred, martial law would be enacted by executive action as a matter of course.

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:39 AM
To say slavery wasn't that big an issue is wrong.
Roughly 4 million people were slaves at the time of the Civil War and IIRC, 11 or 12 of the Confederate State Articles or Ordinances of Secession specifically cite the right to keep slaves as a cause of secession.
To say it was the only reason is wrong also.

Not a complete list, I'm feeling lazy right now.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by BadgerJoe]

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by Nosred

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:

[edit on 13/10/09 by plumranch]

yeah just like Bush thougt it was very important to invade Irak to find weapon of destruction and free Iraki people...

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by Nosred

I couldn't agree more

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:18 PM

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, resulting in thousands of innocent civilian deaths. His presidency ended the limeted-powered government of the past to replace it with this horrible controlling government we have now and he ended America's neutrality in foreign matters resulted in America's occupation of over 144 countries today.

Continued below-

Thank you for this great thread. Lincoln was indeed a war criminal and a tyrant. It is high time the myth surrounding the beast come to an end.

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Enigma Cypher
As stated before the Civil War was never about slavery. The South's leaders, including President Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee believed that slavery would fade away naturally, probably not long after 1880.

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

The end of slavery was incorporated into the Confederate constitution. Lincoln wanted to make sure the U.S. empire would flourish and continue westward. The South was a critical part of that plan.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in