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.

 

If We Never Fought A Civil War - Lincoln The Racist

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Before I begin, it's important we cover a few facts:

-Confederate General Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." He also said "the best men in the South" opposed it and welcomed its demise.

-President Abraham Lincoln wanted to send the slaves back to Africa and was a racist bigot. He frequently used the "N" word and made disparaging remarks about blacks.

-Confederate General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was also an abolitionist. While his family had slaves, they were basically treated like hired workers. Jackson said he wished to see "the shackles struck from every slave."

-Union General Ulysses S. Grant and his wife held personal slaves before and during the War Between the States. Grant's excuse for not freeing his slaves was that "good help is so hard to come by these days."

-Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves of the North. They were not freed until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed after the conclusion of the war. (Think about that - the 'union' did not abolish slavery until AFTER the war.)

-Lincoln supported the Fugitive Slave Act and "Black Laws" that were designed to strip the rights of black people.

-Battlefield letters compiled of Confederate troops show that almost all of them were fighting because they felt the federal government was violating their state's rights in numerous ways. The institution of slavery itself is almost never mentioned. The federal government had aggressed against the South in numerous ways unrelated to the slavery issue.

-Lincoln provoked the attack on Sumter by sending a hostile fleet there as 'reinforcements' and his generals positioned themselves in a threatening stance.

Tulane University's site on the attack states:


Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln's order sending a "hostile fleet, styled the 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. "The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time-- one in front, and the other in the rear." The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in "self-defence," rendered necessary by the actions of the other side.


~700,000 Americans died fighting the Civil War.



---------------------------

Now, the question is would slavery have gone away in the South without a civil war?

Of course it would have. Every other nation on the planet ended slavery without firing a shot. The South would have become a pariah among nations to the point where external pressure would have forced them to abolish it.

Further, if the North would have repealed the fugitive slave acts and fully abolished slavery (which they didn't do before the war), slavery in the south would have become unprofitable because slaves would have fled to the north in large numbers. This very situation is what caused slavery to collapse in Africa.

So we can say that today, the south would be slave free.

Would the US have entered into WWI if the south had not been occupied by northern aggressors?

I think its entirely debatable that neither the north nor the south would have involved themselves in WWI.

If the US had not involved itself in WWI - would Hitler have come to power? Highly unlikely. The Germans wouldn't have been oppressed to the point that made Hitler's rise possible.

In fact it's very likely that the north wining the US Civil War has resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people due to the repercussions of nationalist statism that resulted. Is it better that 700,00 Americans were killed and potentially tens of millions more were killed or is it better that we fought a violent war that brought about an end to slavery and state sovereignty?

For a real history of the US Civil War that isn't taught by a communist indoctrinator that holds up a racist statist bigot as the second coming of the Christ, look here: Thomas DiLorenzo is a professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland





The Lincoln Memorial in Washington is a slap in the face to blacks. We put a racist bigot mass murder up on a pedestal and then have our public school indoctrinators tell the black kids they should hold this man up as a hero.

It's a sick joke.

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it…what I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union” -Abraham Lincoln

He didn't give a crap about slavery.

He cared about maintaining political power over the south.

He was looting them through tariffs and wanted to keep looting them.

Southern secession meant the criminal Lincoln lost tax loot for his cronies and himself.



[edit on 13-8-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I hope the silence in this thread is because you are all watching the videos.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Either watching the videos or just because the choir is the first to the sermon.

Star and flag.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


i was watching the videos sorry. S&F for you!

I think it is good to wonder what could have happen if a certain war or situation hadn't happened



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

You mean.. History was re-written?! Impossible!

I have this feeling that many events in US history were re-written.

And now think; if you questioned the facts in public, you could pretty well have a new testament to write based on your persecution by the public.. Due to the extreme indoctrination we were given in schools.


Land of the free.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


I wonder what black would think if their teachers actually taught them the truth about the racist tyrant Lincoln.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Some more real history from DiLorenzo






posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
More real history.

In this epic 10 part lecture series, author and professor Tom Woods covers states rights, the great depression, American labor history, and the presidency.

Watch at your own risk.

You will be shocked and angered about the lies you have been told.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
more real history.

Tom Woods gives a 15 part lecture on the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
[edit on 8/13/2010 by Jovi1]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


This here is typical of what confederate apologists do in order to justify the confederacy and its actons at the time. They try to water down slavery as an issue at the time by pointing out that the North was just as guilty or that slavery was just apart of the fabric of the nation. They try to justify the practices of the South at the time by pointing fingers at the many other 'injustices' done to the South. Really the post from the OP is a clear as day example of a 'two wrongs make a right' argument. Somehow they feel that this will prove that Southern sucession was not its core about slavery, but that still does not change the facts of history.

To start, why don't we just ask the Confederates themselves?

Georgia Declaration of Secession

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.


Mississippi Declaration of Secession

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.


South Carolina Declaration of Secession

For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed


Texas

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.


Somehow there is this idea that by insisting everybody else is guilty of either supporting slavery or justifying it at that time, somehow this discounts any arguments that the South left at core because of slavery. But when you hear it from the mouths of the first Southern states themselves, the fact still remains. Its interesting that when it became apparent Lincoln and the Republicans were going to win the election, the first batch of Southern states decided to split of. Confederate apologists insist this coincidence was just that, coincidence, that slavery had little to do with it, but thats really all that comes out of their mouths. True, Lincoln did not intend to abolish slavery immediately inorder to gain southern support and prevent war, but the southerners were insistent their precious human resource was to be taken away. I love it how some confederate apologists insist this war started in part due to some other law passed by congress in 1828, over 30 years prior. Yep that explains southern sucession.
The south was getting a free ride off the backs of enslaved hard working americans and yet the law of tariffs from 1828 was the great injustice that lead to South Carolina taking the stand? Right.

As for General Robert Lee's letter, I fail to see how this changed his official stance on slavery? In addition to this considering this was a private letter written away from the faces of his confederate apologists at the time and considering the entire letter if read showed that he felt slavery was a right and a necessity from God for the white man, the staement does not change a damn thing.

As for the North? No doubt the North benefitted from slavery but that did not change the fact that atleast Northen states banned slavery in that time, regardless of how many apologists existed in those states. I also fal to see how the inevitability of slavery ending changed a damn thing about the reasoning behind the confederacy splitting at its core? Yep, watching some tea parties proudly wave the confederate flag and cry and whine about the injustices of this government over freedom and liberty, what utter hypocrites.


So we can say that today, the south would be slave free.


For somebody who has continued to call this government fascist and a danger to your liberties and freedom you certainly put much more faith on a bunch of states that actually enslaved American citizens at the time. States that held its independence on the basis of preserving the institution of slavery. You are to give so much confidence that those states 'would have ended slavery anyway' but this government today is 'taking away your rights and freedom' and is on the path to enslaving american citizens. Are you a prophet??

More and more hypocrisy from your end but should I be surprised? No not really.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
The Civil War was as much about freeing the Blacks as WW2 was about the Holocaust. It was a byproduct. The CW was a war about economics and the south had the edge at the time.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
The Civil War was as much about freeing the Blacks as WW2 was about the Holocaust. It was a byproduct. The CW was a war about economics and the south had the edge at the time.


Slavery was a core factor to the economy of the South so you are right in arguing this was about Southern ecoomics. The most valuable resource, that of enslaved americans, was in danger of been taken away. It is fact that the only reason Lincoln declare all those slaves free at the time was to take an advantage over the South and gain more potential soldiers. Lincoln looked down upon the blacks as lesser beings no different from anybody. But reagrdless of Lincolns motives or other factors in the war, the sucession of the confederacy was spurred on by slavery being in danger of being abolished. The South ran scared despite repeated insistence by Lincoln that action would not be taken in the immediate future and they decided to split for that reason.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Before I begin, it's important we cover a few facts:

-Confederate General Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." He also said "the best men in the South" opposed it and welcomed its demise.


Irrelevant if he was an abolitionist or not. He chose to to take up and defend the cause of the Confederacy which according to their own letters of cession was to protect slavery. If anything this makes him a man incapable of following through on his own convictions.



-President Abraham Lincoln wanted to send the slaves back to Africa and was a racist bigot. He frequently used the "N" word and made disparaging remarks about blacks.


Just how does this make him any different than the majority of white people of the day? Just because the abolitionists of the day while finding slavery wrong and distasteful did not particularly care for the idea of blacks living next door. Really at this point it shouldn't be about who felt or thought what. It should be about reaching for the principle and doing our best to live by it. The things that should define us as a nation is knowing that we have not quite yet reached the lofty ideas that we formed under yet continue to strive to.



-Confederate General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was also an abolitionist. While his family had slaves, they were basically treated like hired workers. Jackson said he wished to see "the shackles struck from every slave."


Again irrelevant when the chips were down he chose to defend it.



-Union General Ulysses S. Grant and his wife held personal slaves before and during the War Between the States. Grant's excuse for not freeing his slaves was that "good help is so hard to come by these days."



Grant married into a slave owning family, it is generally believed that the one personal slave he actually owned was given to him by his father in law. Grant freed this one slave in 1859 at a time when he could have really used the money from the sale of said slave.

His wife's four personal slaves while under Grants supervision and direction are believed to have been owned by his father-in-law making it impossible for him to free them.



-Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves of the North. They were not freed until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed after the conclusion of the war. (Think about that - the 'union' did not abolish slavery until AFTER the war.)


At the time of the Emancipation Proclamation there would have been no need to free any northern slaves as the states either in their state constitution, or through the enactment of emancipation legislation on their own had already done so. The only northern state to have legally owned slaves at the outbreak of the war was New Jersey.

The Emancipation Proclamation however did not free any slaves in southern states that were at the time under for all intents and purposes Union control they were not freed until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed.

Please if your going to raise a point be sure to get your facts straight.


-Lincoln supported the Fugitive Slave Act and "Black Laws" that were designed to strip the rights of black people.


Of course he did, he never had any intention of freeing the slaves, The South jumped the gun started a war and paid the price for it. There was no way he could change either without causing the south to break form the Union, somehow you seem to forget the reason for the North marching to war was to preserve the Union and not to free the slaves, that was a consequence of the war not the reason.


-Battlefield letters compiled of Confederate troops show that almost all of them were fighting because they felt the federal government was violating their state's rights in numerous ways. The institution of slavery itself is almost never mentioned. The federal government had aggressed against the South in numerous ways unrelated to the slavery issue.


Irrelevant what the soldiers themselves thought they were fighting for. It is quite clear in the letters of secession issued that the only "States Rights" the Confederate states were concerned over was slavery. The typical southern soldier had no stake in slavery and were primarily concerned with defending their homes. It pretty much boils down to the same old story in the south the rich white guy says its the right thing to do so we must do it because he is rich and he knows better than me. Kind of funny how that is still playing out politically in the south to this day.



-Lincoln provoked the attack on Sumter by sending a hostile fleet there as 'reinforcements' and his generals positioned themselves in a threatening stance.


Lets see a Federal fort manned by Federal troops in need of resupply, having received letters of intent. And you expect them to not setup to defend themselves in the possibility of eventual hostilities? What was he thinking? How about the whole defending a Federal facility thing that you seem to have conveniently forgotten.

The sad part is half the people that would agree with this tripe are oh so eager to go bomb any country that dares rattle their sabers at us. Amazing.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant!

LOL

Oh by the way, Grant could have freed all his slaves and chose not too.

He was in charge of all the slaves on White Haven.

www.nps.gov...

He was a racist tyrant tard just like his boss.



[edit on 13-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
But reagrdless of Lincolns motives or other factors in the war, the sucession of the confederacy was spurred on by slavery being in danger of being abolished. The South ran scared despite repeated insistence by Lincoln that action would not be taken in the immediate future and they decided to split for that reason.


Slavery was secondary to the issue of states rights, as an unending amount of civil war letters can attest too.

The Confederacy never would have been able to muster a serious army if the only motivating factor was the protection of slavery.

Their top generals were opposed to slavery and would not have fought for just that cause alone.

Without Jackson, Lee, and a large portion of troops, the civil war would have been over before it started.

Make no mistake, the civil war was about states rights. They could just as well have fought over tariffs, gun regulations, or healthcare today if they felt the feds were crapping in their backyard. It just so happened it was slavery that caused the confrontation.



[edit on 13-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I expected a better response that the above and was actually looking forward to it
. Looks like you don't have the energy for actually arguing anything anymore.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
Irrelevant!


Indeed. I do not know what one off personal statements from the major figures of that time change the reasoning for Confederate independence for the first place? You read the declarations from the Confederate states right? There should be more declarations from other confederate states in that link might I add.


He was a racist tyrant tard just like his boss.


So essentially your arguing that Lincoln and other Union leaders were racists at the time just as the confederate leaders, and? This changes the core reasoning behind confederate sucession how? I still fail to see where it changes anything.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


First off there is nothing in the link you yourself provided that says in any way shape or form he could have freed said slaves. It does reference the one that was his personally that he did free, and his desire to free the other slaves that he managed for his father-in-law, who owned the farm and the slaves. It would be like your father-in-law giving you a job working on his farm and you giving away his tractor, you just can't up and do that.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
i think the silence mainly comes due to the fact that this thread is, in its essence, ridiculous.

you're going against the grain on Lincoln, and have proven nothing. Literally, you've not proven anything. You've put your opinions in text in hopes that people will take them seriously.

A man is remembered for what he leaves behind him when he dies.

Lincoln? Fought to free the slaves. Whether or not he felt it was a noble cause is irrelevant and can never be proven.

And why doesn't it matter?

I love my dog like any dog owner can love a dog. But in the end, my dog is a dog, and if it came down to it, ill chose the life of my wife over the life of my dog. How does this relate to Lincoln? lets be honest, Black people weren't highly regarded back in Lincolns day. Lets not kid ourselves to fit an agenda mmmkay?

After saying that, someone like you, 100 years from now, would come along and create a thread that says "Snarf hated Dogs!"

Get a clue


[edit on 13-8-2010 by Snarf]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jovi1
 


Ok.

Article from the Washington Times
www.civilwarhome.com...

Many knew Lincoln had little love for enslaved blacks and didn't wage war against the South for their benefit. Lincoln made that plain, saying, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Like Gen. Ulysses Grant's slaves, they had to wait for the 13th Amendment, Grant explained why he didn't free his slaves earlier, saying, "Good help is so hard to come by these days."




top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join