Abraham Lincoln = America's greatest war criminal!

reply to post by Visiting ESB


How was the end of slavery incorporated in the Confederate Constitution? The only limit was regarding slavery was the banning of International slave trading, not internal trading.
And for those who have stated that slavery was on the way out, how do you figure that? Slaves had monetary and physical value, the owners weren't just going to give them away or let them go free. The south needed workers and do you think that slave owners were just going to wake up one day and say "Hey this slavery thing is evil, I'd better free mine".

BTw, from the Confederate Constitution -

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]

[edit on 15-10-2009 by BadgerJoe]

Originally posted by BadgerJoe
And for those who have stated that slavery was on the way out, how do you figure that? Slaves had monetary and physical value, the owners weren't just going to give them away or let them go free. The south needed workers and do you think that slave owners were just going to wake up one day and say "Hey this slavery thing is evil, I'd better free mine".

The rest of the globe was beginning to ban and abolish the slave trade. Many of the willing partners would have gone away.

The cost of owning a slave was increasing and the cost of production/harvest was decreasing due to the industrial revolution.

Perhaps a certain number would have been enslaved for sexual purposes or for extravagance as a novelty due to the ever increasing cost but if slavery was kept uncommon due to cost demands public opinion would have moved to abolish it altogether either through law or through local sanctions.

Slavers may not have accepted that it was "evil" but the natural state of man is free. No man or government can battle nature for too long.

Click here for more information.

This is a very good article to read.


www.daveblackonline.com...

Can this be a society of equality between people of different backgrounds and different colors, different races? That question is still not really answered. As long as that question still remains to agitate our country, as long as there are people who feel aggrieved because they are the descendants of slaves and they have not fully shared in the blessings of liberty that our Constitution promises to everybody, the history of slavery will be relevant to the present society. Not because we're going to relive that history, but because if we don't understand it, we will never really know how the country got to the condition it is in now, on the eve of the 21st century."
- Eric Foner, historian


Civil War Facts:



More than three million men fought in the war.

Two percent of the population—more than 620,000—died in it.

The chance of surviving a wound in Civil War days was 7 to 1

The first organized ambulance corps were used in the Peninsular campaign and at Antietam.



Lincoln did not believe that whites and blacks could live together in peace. He had planned to relocate the entire black population of the United States to Central America.



www.legendsofamerica.com...

I find this a strange statement coming from a man that turned down being in charge of the union army is the war was all about slavery.

"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained."



-- General Robert E. Lee

Paradoxically, the cotton gin, a labor-saving device, helped preserve the weakening arguments for slavery, since cheap (slave) labor was needed to pick cotton. Later, the 20th century invention of the cotton-picker reduced the labor-intensive demands of cotton farming, and brought unemployment to many poor Southerners.

en.wikipedia.org...

You may also want to check into the economy of the north at the time of the civil war you may find that many enlisted in the Union army so they could bring in money for the family since unemployment was high and jobs were scarce.

I believe there were many reasons this war was fought and slavery was not the first one and used when it was needed.

Originally posted by napayshni57
I find this a strange statement coming from a man that turned down being in charge of the union army is the war was all about slavery.

"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained." -- General Robert E. Lee

It's not at all strange if you read my post two pages back that explained Lee's participation in the Civil War. History Books (and Wikipedia) like to simplify complex issues, and there was perhaps nothing more complex than Lee leading the South in a war that he did not agree with.

(To sum up my previous post, he did so intentionally to ensure a Union victory with the least amount of life lost on both sides. He knew that if he sided with the Union, the Confederates would have chosen another to lead their army who would have been as bloodthirsty as Grant, so by choosing to lead the Confederate Army rather than the Union Army as Lincoln had offered him, Lee was able to pick and chose battles and strategies that would minimize casualties and ensure a victory for the Union.)

reply to post by thegagefather


That's exactly why I was comparing Lincoln to Mao. You won't find many works critical of Mao in China and neither will you find anything critical of Lincoln in America. He's also comparable to Hitler because they both killed people in their own countries because of a feeling of super-patriotism. In fact everyone I listed there did.

reply to post by Nosred


You aren't even logical with your arguments. You make bogus assertions that you back up with half quotes that you don't even understand, and the whole while ignoring everything else he said or that anyone brings up. Its useless to debate people that don't even have an open mind to possibly changing theirs. You're like a horse with blinders on...

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by BadgerJoe
And for those who have stated that slavery was on the way out, how do you figure that? Slaves had monetary and physical value, the owners weren't just going to give them away or let them go free. The south needed workers and do you think that slave owners were just going to wake up one day and say "Hey this slavery thing is evil, I'd better free mine".

The rest of the globe was beginning to ban and abolish the slave trade. Many of the willing partners would have gone away.

The cost of owning a slave was increasing and the cost of production/harvest was decreasing due to the industrial revolution.

Perhaps a certain number would have been enslaved for sexual purposes or for extravagance as a novelty due to the ever increasing cost but if slavery was kept uncommon due to cost demands public opinion would have moved to abolish it altogether either through law or through local sanctions.

Slavers may not have accepted that it was "evil" but the natural state of man is free. No man or government can battle nature for too long.

Mainstream history has portrayed the North as a 'haven' for runaway slaves while nothing could be further from the truth.

Many Northern states passed laws forbidding freed slaves from settling within their territory. The white worker did not want even more competition from freed black men.

As stated before the reason the Confederate states did not plan on freeing all their slaves after the war is because they wanted to prepare them for freedom. They did not want to create a permanent group of second-class citizens.

There were political as well as moral reasons for freeing the slaves. Morally, because most Southerners who actually owned slaves (a very small number) did indeed feel it was morally wrong.

Politically, because the CSA was interested in political ties with France and Great Britain. Those two countries however withheld political ties during the war due to the South's "peculiar institution". This is one of the reasons for Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation".

Economically, because as said before with the Industrial Revolution keeping slaves was becoming less and less profitable as time went by.

And for the record, the first abolitionist society was started in the South, and slaves in the South had a much, much better quality of life than slaves in the Caribbean did, for that matter slaves in the South had a much better quality of life than do many people today living in Africa.

Now I'm not defending slavery or racism. I think both of them are vile. I'm simply pointing out that history isn't the black and white (pun intended) picture that mainstream books, classrooms and media portray it as.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by Enigma Cypher]

Abraham Lincoln wanted to send all the former slaves back to Africa.

Make of it what you will.



Ok, that didn't work.
So he tried to send them to Haiti in 1862.

Lincoln,Grant and Sherman did what they had to.Sherman believed in waging total war so, what was he gonna do? his job was to make the South feel the heavy hand of war as he put it and he did just that.Besides as Nixon said "If the President does it that means it's not illegal."

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.

What are you talking about? The South attacked the North first (Fort Sumter) on April 12, 1861. So, the North's response could only be self-defense. Also, since when does a country have to declare war with itself?

source

[edit on 18-10-2009 by andrewh7]

Originally posted by Enigma Cypher
And for the record, the first abolitionist society was started in the South, and slaves in the South had a much, much better quality of life than slaves in the Caribbean did, for that matter slaves in the South had a much better quality of life than do many people today living in Africa.
[edit on 16-10-2009 by Enigma Cypher]

The fact that you consider these so-called "facts" relevant in any way to the institution of slavery makes your true attitude crystal clear. Slavery is slavery, and a gilded cage is still a cage. No man has the right to kidnap another from his home, regardless of the comparative living conditions of the two locations. Unless they were living as slaves in Africa, the United would be in no way preferable to their native lands. And, even if that preexisting slavery was verifiable, the US taking over the reigns would not be a reprieve but rather an extension of the same sentence.

What if I won $100 million dollars and I noticed that your kids were attending a crappy public school and they were only fed cheap but traditional meals as a result of your low income. As a millionaire, would my assurances of a better life in any way justify my kidnapping of your child to give him a better school and better food? Certainly not! It takes a lot of arrogance to look at the world and its people before summarily deciding and enforcing what you think is best for them at the cost of their own freedom and self-determination. There is NO bright side to slavery whatsoever. Slavery doesn't need to be justified or sugarcoated for the country to move on, but it does need to be remembered for what it was - a disgusting chapter in the history of the world and something we can never allow to happen again.

Also, you begin your argument with a comparison of slavery and black rights in the North and South. Then, you suddenly switch to comparing the South to the Caribbean when your selective comparison loses steam.
Let me know when you're finished being an apologist for the the South.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by andrewh7]

reply to post by Nosred


Lincoln spoke against slavery long before the Civil War started. By the way, it was started by the rebel attack on Ft. Sumter.

The South was right all practically all the issues, but slavery. By insisting on slavery and attacking the North, they created our monster federal government. Don't blame the victim.

Think of it in modern terms. Suppose the Federal Government decided to outlaw abortion. Would it make sense for California or New York to start a Civil War over it?

Even though Lincoln had slaves he eventually felt it was wrong and did something about it even if it was a nondirect attempt to end slavery, I respect him for doing so.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fbe3070b160c.jpeg[/atsimg]
SERIOUSLY PEOPLE BE HAPPY SOMEBODY DID A GOOD THING FOR OTHERS PLEASE.

[edit on 10/19/09 by Ophiuchus 13]

"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."

****There was a tax on all goods going North.
So much that it was unprofitable for anyone to start a manufacturing business in the South. A big reason the South stayed poor for so long.
This tax was not repealed until the 1950's!

I tried to find the ref to this again, but seems there has been some "sanitizing" going on.
League of the South used to have a lot of really good info on their site.
Now all gone.....

reply to post by StinkyFeet


Yea, I'd say tha's pretty racist. Funny how we change history so that it paints our Presidents as these amazing people who did these amazing things for the better of the USA. If the founding fathers could see the people we have in office today, no doubt we would be having another revolution real quick.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Slayer you might need to go back a little bit and see where northern blockades fired on southern civilian merchant ships prior to the taking of The fort in Charleston harbor.

This thread did not need to be revived. Don't be a necromancer.