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: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Slavery was secondary to the issue of states rights


Oh yes, states rights. The rights of states to enslave american citizens. Yep, that is what the war was fought over you argue? No?


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


Really? So are you to say slavery was not a core factor to the economy of the South at the time? You do know the bulk of the Southern economy was based over cotton at the time and you do know that slaves were essential in working in those cottom fields? Do you have any idea how much of a fincial burden it was for the South to have those Slaves freed? And you are to argue to me that surely, surely the south could not have gathered that army for that reason?

Mind you I heard the argument that the core of he war was based on the 1828 tariffs. Yes, it took the confederate states more than 30 years and just prior to the election of the first Republican president to then decide to leave and make the issue about that law. Yes, that makes sense. That must of been some planning over 30 years right?


Their top generals were opposed to slavery


And yet the declarations of the Confederate states say otherwise.
You down play the economic power and influence the slave holder had on the South at time. But yes the generals fought for the South that made it clear this was about preserving the institution of slavery, but they opposed slavery. Straight from the horses mouth.


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


Because whats the lives of white americans to the lives of enslaved black americans for the previous 150 years? Oh I understand your issue now mnemeth. I get it.




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Further, if the North would have repealed the fugitive slave acts and fully abolished slavery (which they didn't do before the war), slavery in the south would have become unprofitable because slaves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.


Right. Suppose you owned a plantation. You had 100 slaves working your fields. The North fully abolishes slavery, and your slaves start to run off to the North.

You mean to say you'd just stand by and watch that happen? Hundreds of dollars of your property just up and leave?

How come I doubt that?


Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.


You've got to be kidding me.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


and and and we have a massive stone monument in Washington erected to a racist bigot who killed more Americans than any other president in US history.

Of course, this is perfectly acceptable to "liberals" who believe Lincoln is the second coming of the Christ because he destroyed state sovereignty.

I'm sure you have no problem with the publik skools leaving Lincoln's racism and his heinous actions out of their lesson plan.


[edit on 13-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Many knew Lincoln had little love for enslaved blacks and didn't wage war against the South for their benefit.


Oh here we go again with this excuse. Lincoln was a slave apologists and this is just more proof that the confederacy did not leave because of slavery. Right.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



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.


As of today, i can finally say i know for a fact that you find any random main stream topic, find the public opinion on it, and purposely take the opposite point of view, just to feel special.

Its kind of a relief actually, because before today, i would have thought you out to be someone who actually believes the garbage i just quoted from the OP

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Snarf]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Many knew Lincoln had little love for enslaved blacks and didn't wage war against the South for their benefit.


Oh here we go again with this excuse. Lincoln was a slave apologists and this is just more proof that the confederacy did not leave because of slavery. Right.


YOU are the one doing the excusing around here!



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


and and and we have a massive stone monument in Washington erected to a racist bigot who killed more Americans than any other president in US history.

Of course, this is perfectly acceptable to "liberals" who believe Lincoln is the second coming of the Christ because he destroyed state sovereignty.


Jeeze where does all this venom come from? Considering the declaration of the confederacy was clear, about the preservation of the institution of slavery, all you care is about how horrible Lincoln was. You spend the bulk of your time whining and crying about this government and how fascist it is but you care to justify the confederacy and their practices at the time.

Something tells me your issue with this government and lincoln has little
to nothing to do about freedom.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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."


No one here has debated that Lincoln cared one iota for the slaves, it was never his desire to free them. It was simply said that his personal views were no different from your average abolitionist of his day. It is horrible to enslave someone else, but i do not want them living next door to me. This was the social norm. It does not make them vile and disgusting, it makes them human. The only thing that matters is that inspite of his own personal views and opinions he did free many slaves. His motives for doing so are debatable and the fact he did not free every single one at the time was something that is questionable. It could logically be reasoned the reason for not doing so was to ensure those regions under Union control stayed quelled. It does not change the fact that it was the right thing to do.


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."


You have failed to provide a historical reference and so does the author of the article you present as your proof of this statement as being true. There is no context given, you have no idea as to the nature or the audience of this comment, yet expect us to accept it as factual and accurate.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I imagine many people at that time used the 'N' word.

This isn't a complete picture of the man Lincoln. He was under a lot of pressure from both sides and even though he was sympathetic to the plight of blacks, he couldn't have shown that to gain the presidency in the beginning. More research would show what kind of man Lincoln really was.

I can imagine the Gettysburg Address was not an easy speech and not much was thought of it at the time. Today, it's considered one of the greatest speeches ever given. Lincoln had to walk a delicate line. His main concern was keeping the Union together and even though slavery was always an issue, it was not the main reason for the Civil War in the beginning.

"His political genius," Ms. Goodwin writes, "was not simply his ability to gather the best men of the country around him, but to impress upon them his own purpose, perception and resolution at every juncture." It has become somewhat fashionable of late to try to debunk or at least de-idealize Lincoln. Michael Lind's book "What Lincoln Believed," published this year, is only the latest volume to assail the 16th president as a racist and segregationist. Douglas L. Wilson's 1998 book "Honor's Voice" depicted the young Lincoln as an expedient pol with a mean streak in dealing with rivals. And David Herbert Donald's 1995 biography emphasized what he called the "essential passivity" of Lincoln's nature.

www.nytimes.com...

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Onboard2]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Miraj
 


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




I wonder what they would think if taught about how they were sold into slavery by other blacks in Africa? Or if they even realize that free blacks owned slaves during this period?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
People need to take into account this time period in our history. Blacks were not called Blacks and slaves were considered property. Even though they were slaves, many of them were like family members and not mistreated, but were provided with food, clothing and medicine. Even though we do see the horrors of slave life in hollywood, it wasn't like that for all of them. After the Civil War was over, many of them had no idea how to provide and support themselves.

I'm not at all racist, but trying to paint a more sympathetic side. The South was willing to compromise and the cotton gin would have made life much easier, because it could do the work of ten slaves. The South was being charged higher taxes or tariffs for their goods. The North knew they couldn't survive without the rich South. Of course, it had to come to an end. It's not morally right to keep people as property and England had just freed their slaves, but were still waiting to invade, if they had to. Noone was going to keep Southern exports from reaching their ports.

As President, Lincoln's struggle to end the Civil War and preserve the nation left him deeply sympathetic to the plight of the slaves and increased his belief in the need for racial equality in America.

After seeing over 200,000 African-Americans volunteer and fight alongside Union forces, Lincoln dropped his support for plans to colonize freed slaves to Africa after the Civil War. In an 1863 speech, Lincoln stated, "there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation, while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they have strove to hinder it."

On April 11, 1865 Lincoln delivered an address in which he became the first president to advocate extending voting rights to African-Americans who fought for the Union when he stated, "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers." By this statement, Lincoln indicated his belief that African-Americans should have full political equality.


If Lincoln wasn't sympathetic to blacks, I don't think he would have accomplished so much.

To apply 20th century beliefs and standards to an America of 1858 and declare Abraham Lincoln a "racist" is a faulty formula that unfairly distorts Lincoln's true role in advancing civil and human rights. By the standards of his time, Lincoln's views on race and equality were progressive and truly changed minds, policy and most importantly, hearts for years to come.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Onboard2]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


and and and we have a massive stone monument in Washington erected to a racist bigot who killed more Americans than any other president in US history.

Of course, this is perfectly acceptable to "liberals" who believe Lincoln is the second coming of the Christ because he destroyed state sovereignty.

I'm sure you have no problem with the publik skools leaving Lincoln's racism and his heinous actions out of their lesson plan.


[edit on 13-8-2010 by mnemeth1]


I hate to tell you that educated black men, myself included DO KNOW that Lincoln was a racist bigot who thought of blacks as sub human. It is not a mystery or suprise to anyone who has studied even an inkling of American history outside of the indoctrination they teach in schools.

Do you see blacks making pilgrimages to the Lincoln memorial, for our so called Savior? Of course not!

In fact if you took 100 blacks and 100 whites of the same education level the numbers would be similar as to those who know the truth about Lincolns personal beliefs.

The fact of Lincolns misrepresentation in history in no way changes the facts of cession. And while most of the time your arguments are well thought out and arguable, you are getting hammered in this thread, and rightfully so. No one is fooled and your choir is at one pew and dwindling.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Onboard2
 


You have to understand the politics of why Lincoln wanted voting rights for blacks AFTER the war.

This was due to southern integration back into the congress.

Lincoln needed the black votes to washout the votes cast by the southern whites.

If he could have helped it, he would have kept the blacks from voting.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Freedom from slavery is the direct result of the accomplishments of Lincoln and the Civil War!

This is a long read, but very good.

www.historycooperative.org...



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Onboard2
 


No kidding.

So why didn't the rest of the world wage civil wars to abolish slavery?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Onboard2
 


You have to understand the politics of why Lincoln wanted voting rights for blacks AFTER the war.

This was due to southern integration back into the congress.

Lincoln needed the black votes to washout the votes cast by the southern whites.

If he could have helped it, he would have kept the blacks from voting.



Not ALL Blacks at first. Only the educated ones or those that fought alongside the North. I don't at all think he would have kept the blacks from voting. When lincoln made up his mind to do something, he never backed down.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Onboard2
 


No kidding.

So why didn't the rest of the world wage civil wars to abolish slavery?


Because there wasn't that great division that came about from North and South. The South wanted to seceed from the Union.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Onboard2]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Onboard2

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Onboard2
 


No kidding.

So why didn't the rest of the world wage civil wars to abolish slavery?


Because there wasn't that great division that came about from North and South. The South wanted to secceed from the Union.


LOL

sure dude.

The war was fought because the criminal racist Lincoln refused to accept the states right to secede from a union of their own creation.

To put it another way, if the states had decided to nullify federal law that ordered slavery to be abolished instead of total secession, Lincoln would not have attacked them.

Thus, the war was not fought over slavery, it was fought over states rights.

Lincoln only attacked the south because they tried to leave all federal control, not just the slavery laws.



[edit on 13-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Onboard2

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Onboard2
 


No kidding.

So why didn't the rest of the world wage civil wars to abolish slavery?


Because there wasn't that great division that came about from North and South. The South wanted to secceed from the Union.


LOL

sure dude.

The war was fought because the criminal racist Lincoln refused to accept the states right to secede from a union of their own creation.

To put it another way, if the states had decided to nullify federal law that ordered slavery to be abolished instead of total secession, Lincoln would not have attacked them.

Thus, the war was not fought over slavery, it was fought over states rights.

Lincoln only attacked the south because they tried to leave all federal control, not just the slavery laws.



[edit on 13-8-2010 by mnemeth1]


You are correct, but slavery was always an issue that would have eventually exploded, which it did. What would have happened if the South had been allowed to secceed?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
To prove the last point I just made:

“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]




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join