If We Never Fought A Civil War - Lincoln The Racist

What a GREAT String! I think this string should be archived and posted in Wikipedia as a perfect example of Revisionist History - and the absurd twists of logic, select omission of facts, embellishment of others, and just plain embarrassing hatred thinly veiled as honest argument, that persons will use in an attempt to conjure up a reality that conforms with their internal delusions.

Lincoln and the northern leadership as the real Racist? Robert E Lee and the southern leadership as the true abolitionist? HaaaaaH! Can anyone seriously be trying to argue this? What next, that Hitler was actually trying to save the Jews from all those oppresive governments throughout Europe?

Others on this String have done a most elequent job of providing factual refute to this idiocy. Reading various biographies of Lincoln along with his own writings, one gains a sense of a man that is so honorable that he almost seems Saintly. And funny, in all that time I have never read anything he wrote referring to slaves as 'Nxxx'. In fact, nearly every bio makes point of noting that Lincoln did not use profanity, derogatory terms, or approve of those that did. FACT!

Ive learned in school that one of Lincoln's best friends was Frederick Douglass.

It suck when you don't know what History to believe Edit: anymore .

On page 2 there was talk about WW1 IMO

Woodrow Wilson's war-machine helped Hitler and the Nazi learn about Four minute man and how to use it to take power. So if we never got into WW1 I don't know if the Nazi would have been able to go as far as they did.

They issued 6,000 press releases. They also had 75,000 four-minute men. What are four-minute men? These guys delivered 7.5 million speeches, spoke in front of 300 million people all controlled by these guys.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by cosmo740]

Originally posted by ISHAMAGI

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

Of course being sympathetic to slavery based on the time period is quite popular yet utterly indefensible.

I would like to clarify something, ISHAMAGI. I realize I came across as sympathizing with the South. I do not sympathize with the South, as far as, the issue of slavery and never will.

Are you familiar with Henry Louis Gates Jr.?
www.washingtonpost.com...

Since I don't have a thorough knowledge of the Civil War and that time period, I'll stay off this thread now.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Excellent thread mnemeth!

sandf

I was amazed that you werent called a "nazi, racist, baby eating scum"....until southern apologist signed on.

Southern, your name. Is that a joke?

Mnemeth, you are coming to the same conclusion that many people have also arrived at... at least those that are intellectually honest and dont care if they are called the names above.

I'm considering a Tshirt this on the back.

WHITE, racist, homophobe, islamophobe, jew hater, neo-con looking for further insults to add to this shirt....because I just dont give a shiznit!

[edit on 14/8/10 by felonius]

i was just thinking about this recently. while i havent read any of the replies. i believe this is one of the most important topics we could have a discussion about. because it has obviously shaped us policy for the last 150 odd years. all policies afterwards affected.

reply to post by Sashromi


thank u sir for your propagandized federalist viewpoint. all those pitiful racist southerners fighting a war for slavery. maybe you should look into how many southerners actually owned slaves. maybe you should consider things are not as they seem. 1855 to now. maybe the federalist machine controls you. great my friend, by that way of thinking why question anything. its pointless right.

dont question anything friends, do as your federal masters tell you.

it is your duty to THE state.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


zero proof? im sorry i see you were taught well in your federalist elementary school. i suppose the native celts view of their roman invadors should be discounted also, seeing as they were "simple" people themselves. i agree with you we should take the great conquerers acount of what happened in any historical matter. because after all thats who write the history.
thank you salt, i was almost inclined to think for myself.

HAIL THE STATE.

reply to post by godsenddeath


Read my comments again. You must have misunderstood.

Let me know where you think I stated that I do not read the words of those involved.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


my sincere appologies salt. obviously i have misplaced my aggression. upon re-reading your post i find we are in agreement. WoW i retract my attack. i probably shouldnt have even read this post due to the fact it is already widely known by anyone with the thought capacity to anylize the facts. so again i appologize.

I guess if we're going to point the finger at less than stellar language for a variation of the 'N' word, we could also look at John F. Kennedy, another great president.

Kennedy voted aginst the Civil Rights Act of 1957. the Kennedy brothers were not terribly interested in Civil Rights when they gained power. Nor did they feel they could do very much about this situation. Robert pointed out in an interview given in 1964 that JFK was only elected because of the deals they had done with racist politicians from the Deep South such as Richard Russell, James Eastland and Helman Talmadge. This was an agreement not to get involved in civil right issues in their territory. Another part of the deal was to tackle the power of the labour unions in the South. Make no mistake, there was nothing liberal about the Kennedy brothers in 1960.

RFK later confessed that JFK was forced into taking action on civil rights. This happened because of the actions of the Freedom Riders and people like Martin Luther King and James Meredith. Behind the scenes JFK and RFK did what they could to persuade these men and women to call off their campaigns. They refused and forced the Kennedy administration into taking some difficult decisions.

Let's not leave anyone out, while we're tearing down the moral fiber of presidents that did more for humanity than any other.

i think that sir is the point. to question the moral fiber of all Presidents/Leaders/Elite. to accept the published account of any historical event would undermine any attempt at reasonable, logical discussion.

i should not be thinking these STATE unnaproved thoughts.

-strike this from the discussion-

HAIL THE STATE

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


good posts. also, like your name. give my best to thomas covenant and linden avery and high lord mhoram.

Originally posted by Carseller4

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?

probably wouldn't care. I am black and I don't care. Fascism is fascism.

America was at one time a post-colonial imperialist state. People are greedy and selfish. If they can make a dime on someone else's blood and sweat then so be it. Human beings are pretty predatory,selfish,narcissistic, and greedy. They'll use any "excuse" be it race or religion to gain an edge on their prey.

I mean if they don't have the guns to kill you or the troops to defend their land we can just take and use the other tribe for our needs. The Globalist bank mob,the Builderberg group and the Rothschilds see the cattle(us) the same way racial fascists/bigots see an exploitable group as a means to gain or secure thier power.(turks,jews,blacks,mexicans koreans poles drau, gnoll,klingon etc whatever the country's racists have focused on lately).

MSM is using the race tool to manipulate(or better deflect) blame from the elite to the cultural strawman(blacks,arabs,mexicans,ninjas, Brett Farve). They get us emotionally excited and then deflect. Repeat. Its just racist people don't know they are emotional marionettes for the bank mob's domination of the known world.

Slavery was about greed. Modern Chinese favor of slavery is about greed but guess what they are Chinese so they don't matter lol hypocrisy.The illuminati destroying several continents,engineering eugenics campaigns(bill and melinda gates african genocide pre-fascism dept)and wrecking nations(Guatemala,Afghanistan,Iraq,Haiti etc), but so what they have the media on a leash.Corporations have spend ALOT of money in suppressing descent. They want their %10,000 profit margins so they can give back to their owners the TLC,Council on foreign aid,CIA,builderberg group, rothchilds,bushes,the saudi royal family,the british royal family, Club of rome, etc.

Stop being a stupid emotionally manipulated slave!

Originally posted by Onboard2
I guess if we're going to point the finger at less than stellar language for a variation of the 'N' word, we could also look at John F. Kennedy, another great president.

Kennedy voted aginst the Civil Rights Act of 1957. the Kennedy brothers were not terribly interested in Civil Rights when they gained power. Nor did they feel they could do very much about this situation. Robert pointed out in an interview given in 1964 that JFK was only elected because of the deals they had done with racist politicians from the Deep South such as Richard Russell, James Eastland and Helman Talmadge. This was an agreement not to get involved in civil right issues in their territory. Another part of the deal was to tackle the power of the labour unions in the South. Make no mistake, there was nothing liberal about the Kennedy brothers in 1960.

RFK later confessed that JFK was forced into taking action on civil rights. This happened because of the actions of the Freedom Riders and people like Martin Luther King and James Meredith. Behind the scenes JFK and RFK did what they could to persuade these men and women to call off their campaigns. They refused and forced the Kennedy administration into taking some difficult decisions.

Let's not leave anyone out, while we're tearing down the moral fiber of presidents that did more for humanity than any other.

So let me guess this thread is about " Look how much the black's civil historical heroes were greedy,selfish and racist. Man those African American people are so going to cry if they knew the truth". Yawn. Boring. You racists are like the "u mad" Miami heat fans that jumped their bandwagon just to parrot to each other for 12-20 pages about how much dwayne wade or lebron is going to be MVP and HOF or win 80 nba titles. Same boring sheeple herd-think mentality.

Go ahead and parrot more. I want to see how long can a bunch of bigots/losers can parrot to either before they all get bored and make another thread just to parrot again for 8 pages. Sh-- is funny as hell.

People can say whatever they want on either side of this issue and bend any quote or heresay to make any conclusion. The fact is, the Civil War was not a war about the liberation of slaves until history was rewritten for the modern age to make us stomach our past a bit better.

It does not seem logical that America killed off an entire generation of its young men in order to end slavery. Slavery, as a whole, was dropping in the world as young voluntary laborers from Europe immigrated all over. Also, the rest of the western world managed to end it without having to stoop to the level of full scale war.

Was Lincoln racist? Sure.... but you could probably find only a handful of people in his day that wasn't. Today's standard of racism is, historically, very strict and very recent.

If we never fought in the Civil War, America would look a lot different geographically, but I have no doubt that slavery would have ended in the American South on its own.

Would we be better off? No one can say.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
People can say whatever they want on either side of this issue and bend any quote or heresay to make any conclusion. The fact is, the Civil War was not a war about the liberation of slaves

From the declarations from the Confederates themselves. They left the Union inorder to preserve the 'blessings of slavery'. Now you can by all means argue that Lincoln was a racist or that the North had no intention of aboloshing slavery at that immediate time, but the facts still remain the same, the South left because of fear the Feds would force them to abolish slavery.

until history was rewritten

No, im sorry but that will not happen. The facts of history will remain.

It does not seem logical that America killed off an entire generation of its young men in order to end slavery.

No ofcourse not, infact Lincoln insisted he would not abolish slavery if the South did not attempt to leave. The South did not believe Lincoln during his election run and just a month before he was elected, before the Republicans were elected for the first time in history, the South declared independence with other states to soon follow. The declaration of those Southern states were clear over their motives for leaving.

Slavery, as a whole, was dropping in the world

Yep, and the South including the powerful influencial slave holders feared they'd be next. Slavery was core to the economy of the South at that time and they were not going to just drop it because that was the movement around the world. They left in an attempt to avoid that change.

If we never fought in the Civil War, America would look a lot different geographically, but I have no doubt that slavery would have ended in the American South on its own.

No doubt. That reasoning alone still does not excuse their reasoning for the South attempting to break off over that reason.

Nope, slavery was not the main reason the South wanted to seceed.

There were two factors about the election of 1860 which disturbed the Southerners so badly that Southern states subsequently seceded. First was the Republican-party platform for 1860. Basically, the Northern capitalists wanted the U.S. government to tax (only) the South deeply, to finance the industrialization of the North, and the necessary transportation-net to support that. In those days, there was no income tax. The federal government received most of its revenue from tariffs (taxes) on imported goods. The Southern states imported from England most of the manufactured goods they used, thus paid most of the taxes to support the federal government. (The Northerners imported very little.) In 1860, for example, just four Southern-states paid in 50% of the total tariffs.

In 1860, the averaged tariff-rate was 18.84%; the Republicans spread the word that they were shooting for 40%--which could bankrupt many Southerners and would make life much harder for most of them. The Republican platform included a transcontinental railroad (following a Northern route); extensive internal-improvements to extend the transportation net for the Northern manufacturers; a homestead act which would eliminate the only other important source of federal funding, etc.

IF the Republicans somehow managed to gain control of Congress AND the White House, they would then be able to use the federal government to enact and enforce their party platform--and thus convert the prosperous Southern-states into the dirt-poor agricultural colonies of the Northern capitalists. And given the trends in demographics, the Southern states would never be able to reverse that process. The intent of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would then have been subverted completely: the Southern states would no longer be governed with the consent of the governed--but instead bullied mercilessly by the Northern majority. Why, then, remain in the Union?

The South was like the little boy who was forever crying "wolf." Southern states had been threatening to secede ever since the Tariff of Abominations and the days of Calhoun; the North no longer took those threats seriously. But with the South now gone, there would be no federal funding to industrialize the North--for the Northern citizenry would certainly never agree to be taxed to pay for it. And far worse than that, the many, many Northern-capitalists who had been earning fortunes factoring the Southern cotton-crop, transporting the cotton, and buying the cotton for New England textile-mills now faced financial ruin. The South normally bought its manufactured goods from Britain, anyway. Now, as a sovereign nation, the South could easily cut far better deals with the British financiers, ship owners, and textile mills to supply the South with all of the necessary support-services--leaving the Northern capitalists out in the cold.

Originally posted by Onboard2
Basically, the Northern capitalists wanted the U.S. government to tax (only) the South deeply, to finance the industrialization of the North, and the necessary transportation-net to support that.

Source?

The federal government received most of its revenue from tariffs (taxes) on imported goods. The Southern states imported from England most of the manufactured goods they used, thus paid most of the taxes to support the federal government. (The Northerners imported very little.) In 1860, for example, just four Southern-states paid in 50% of the total tariffs.

You are talking about the 1828 tariffs that were more harder on the Southern states as opposed to the Northern states. The happened over 30years prior to the civil war. In addition to this the Confederate states declaration for independence did not mention this as the core reasoning behind leaving.

The South was like the little boy who was forever crying "wolf." Southern states had been threatening to secede ever since the Tariff of Abominations

The did not suceed until 30 years after the 1828 tariffs. Your claim that the North 'was' going to do that or this and thats why they left has no basis really.

I anycase the US invaded and took land from Mexico and following that the Feds reclaimed the South. Thats life.

" "My paramount object in this struggle is to save
the Union, and is not to either to save or to
destroy slavery. If I could save the Union
without freeing any slave I would do it,"

Abraham Lincoln

Originally posted by Xenopathic Investigator

Originally posted by Onboard2

So let me guess this thread is about " Look how much the black's civil historical heroes were greedy,selfish and racist. Man those African American people are so going to cry if they knew the truth". Yawn. Boring. You racists are like the "u mad" Miami heat fans that jumped their bandwagon just to parrot to each other for 12-20 pages about how much dwayne wade or lebron is going to be MVP and HOF or win 80 nba titles. Same boring sheeple herd-think mentality.

Go ahead and parrot more. I want to see how long can a bunch of bigots/losers can parrot to either before they all get bored and make another thread just to parrot again for 8 pages. Sh-- is funny as hell.

In what way have I stated anything that's led you to believe I'm racist, because I am certainly not! Maybe you should go back and read the entire thread. Maybe you'll learn something, besides the words 'bigot' and 'parrot' and 'loser'!

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Onboard2]