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: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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]


Okay, dude, but i don't think you're looking at the total picture. You can believe that Lincoln was unsympathetic to the plight of blacks, if you choose to, but we still see what was accomplished.




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Onboard2
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,
[edit on 13-8-2010 by Onboard2]


Of course being sympathetic to slavery based on the time period is quite popular yet utterly indefensible. Human beings are nobody's property. And yes there were a few house niggaz but that's like comparing movie stars and pop icons to the modern day wage slave peasant worker. A few tolkens are always held up to the rest as examples. But if these few got out of line they were still beaten, thrown back in the field or killed, yeah that's family for you.

As to slaves not being able to support themselves that's another slippery slope. Many frees slaves did support themselves. As for the majority they knew how to farm, make clothes, raise animals they did it all day for free, so yea they had a good idea of how to support themselves. What stopped them was that in most states black's could not own land, and it was against the law to teach them how to read. So being unable to read or own land or speak any real English, well you do the math.

The south was willing to compromise? Really why must you all keep ignoring the articles of cession and what they state?

Lets not forget who invented the cotton gin (hint: a black man) and what the motivation for its invention was.

Now let me give you a suggestion. Go see a lynching exhibit look at the pictures, you will not see humans surrounding these corpses you will see beasts and devils. Looking into their eyes, it was obvious there was no humanity there. That was what struck me the most was not the black corpse on the tree sometimes gutted or with various appendages missing, but the look in the eyes of the men in the photographs it was eeriely always the same, and it was not human.

Ever seen Charles mansons eyes, then you know what I mean these people were possessed psychopathic killers and no amount of cultural acceptance can minimze that fact.

A human being inherently knows that slavery is wrong no matter who its applied to, and no matter what time period were talking about. That is why the abolitionist movement was so large, and why the undergound railroad was so massive and organized. And last but not least why so many whites NEVER OWNED SLAVES.

These large plantation owners are akin to elite and CEO,s today who care nothing for their employees only profit and control. They are the modern day subhuman monsters.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Onboard2
we still see what was accomplished.


700,000 dead american's that didn't need to die?

quite the accomplishment.

I can see why you revere him.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ISHAMAGI
 


Thanks Ishamagi, I have no doubt you are correct. I didn't intend on making the South sound like a surrogate parent to their slaves. I was only going by some of the articles that I read. Slavery in any form is horrendous and I don't even like to watch movies that involve lynchings or hangings during that time period, because I put myself in the victim's place and feel pain.

I was only trying to be objective, but I would like to say that if it wasn't for many whites, the blacks would have had a much harder struggle and were not without compassion.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Onboard2
 


That we can agree on. Ive taken underground railroad tours and understand that courageous whites risked their lives to help in the cause.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ISHAMAGI
reply to post by Onboard2
 


That we can agree on. Ive taken underground railroad tours and understand that courageous whites risked their lives to help in the cause.


Lincoln would have had those whites jailed.

He argued in favor of enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act.

*spits on Lincoln's grave*



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Oh, good. Someone else on ATS who hates Lincoln as much as I do. For a while there I thought I was alone.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Oh, good. Someone else on ATS who hates Lincoln as much as I do. For a while there I thought I was alone.


You must be a racist that hates America.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What?! I thought we were on the same page here. Did I miss something?


I'm certainly not racist and I don't hate America, I hate the people who run it.



Edit for spelling

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Nosred]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What?! I thought we were on the same page here. Did I miss something?


I'm certainly not rascist and I don't hate America, I hate the people who run it.


Sir, this is the internet.

According to your last post, it's clear you hate blacks, want to see slavery come back, and are rooting for a neo-confederate takeover of the government.

Anyone that hates Lincoln must be terrorist.

Let me guess, you want to see Mt. Rushmore blown to pieces as well.




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Well said and greatly explained Sir.

Lincoln is the same man that ordered federal troops to surround the Maryland statehouse, as they voted on the idea of seceding from the Union - telling the head of the legislature that they would never leave the statehouse alive, if they voted to secede.

Lincoln was no friend of the Constitution or of Democracy.

Again, my appreciation.



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.

-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]


[edit on 13-8-2010 by mydarkpassenger]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Oh noes! My a racist has been blown! They're not gonna let me come to the secret racist meetings anymore! I guess I learned the racist handshake for nothing
.


Seriously though, you're joking right?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Oh noes! My a racist has been blown! They're not gonna let me come to the secret racist meetings anymore! I guess I learned the racist handshake for nothing
.


Seriously though, you're joking right?


Sir, if you keep asking if I'm joking I'm going to lose all respect for you.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well it's hard to tell on the internet. There's a lot of crazy people on here.


Now if you'll excuse me I'm late for my meeting with the reptilians.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Lincoln was a racist and a bigot.

Somehow he has won the mantle of a freedom fighter when the truth is exactly opposite; he wanted to control all the states, and that is what the civil war was about - Jefferson and Madison's nightmare of a central government taking over.

Slavery would have ended as simple economics took over in the industrialized age and rendered that horrid practice unsupportable in the face of automation.

Lincoln wanted to be God. His vanity launched the civil war.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
Lincoln was a racist and a bigot.

Somehow he has won the mantle of a freedom fighter when the truth is exactly opposite; he wanted to control all the states, and that is what the civil war was about - Jefferson and Madison's nightmare of a central government taking over.

Slavery would have ended as simple economics took over in the industrialized age and rendered that horrid practice unsupportable in the face of automation.

Lincoln wanted to be God. His vanity launched the civil war.


I wouldn't go so far as to say Lincoln wanted to be God.

I'd say he wanted the tariff loot and the power that he derived from it.

His followers are the ones that see him as God.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Racist..............


Funny OP, I saw your blatant sarcasm off the bat, I guess people that do not know you, will see your sarcasm as something else.

Anyway, Lincoln did NOT want any individual freedom. Let alone state freedom.

That was his underlying feeling. Period.

A totalitarian that is held up by people for the feelgood politics that further federal power.

They use the slavery component to further the fallacy that states should NOT have any power. Because the states will of course further tyranny.

Your reiteration of the intolerable act of slavery seems to go unnoticed.

Anyway, I really do not ever look to history, since it is SO easily manipulated. I tend to look at trends. Seems to be the easiest format or studies to understand the meaning behind actions.

The power of the jury, deciding ones fate by our peers is and will always be the vehicle to our freedom. If you have bigots of course in the peer group, you will have unfair decisions. Be it in a jury or a country.

Knowledge has ALWAYS been the vehicle for freedom.

Force has ALWAYS been the vehicle for tyranny.

This is basic human nature. If one is ignorant, one becomes a tyrant.

If one is knowledgeable, one becomes righteous.

Let there be knowledge in my time. Peace and God Bless.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



LOL

sure dude.


"dude"?


Are we on the set of Bill & Ted?

You've danced around every counter argument presented. You've given ZERO FACT to back the premise of the OP.

You're trolling for stars. No proof + bold accusations = trolling.

Bottom line.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


Zero proof?

How bout the WORDS of the involved?

I thought his evidence was pretty damning.

Maybe just me though. I tend to like sources DIRECTLY from the source, instead of someone else's interpretation of what they meant or could be inferred by someone else's prejudices.

Maybe because I do not like to BELIEVE other's interpretations.

Especially when I can see history from one year ago being rewritten.

160 years ago was a long time. Much rather watch the video of the characters than watching the commentary of the video.

From the horse's mouth so to speak.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream is one such book that goes proving Lincoln was a racist. I am not too suprised as racism was the prevaling view at the time. We have all been sold a false history.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join