It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Abraham Lincon:Liberator or Stratagist?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 08:59 AM
First off I'm a history buff, who grew up in mississippi. Growing up in the south. You get, what I consider, a more accurate view of the civil war.

I'm not saying the confederates were right. Just that In the south both sides are told. Where in the north it's treated more like a good vs. evil war. Similar to how we all look at WW2.

One of the major discrepincies is that the civil war was fought over slavery. When, as with all wars, it was really fought over taxes. Slavery was the rallying cry to get the northern population behind the conflict. A propaganda tool really.

Ok, so here's my thought.

Was Abraham Lincon actually a civil rights champ. Or was he a military Stratagist for whom winning the war was the major motivation for the things he is glorified for today?

The first common misconception about Lincon is that he ended slavery. This is false. What Lincon actually did was free the southern slaves. The north was still allowed to keep slaves till after his death. Was this actually for the betterment of African Americans? Or was it really about causing disruption behind enemy lines? It's was harder to fight a foreign enemy with revolution and unrest behind your own friendly lines. Also I'm pretty sure the freed southern slaves were required to fight for the union if freed.

Then there's the way grant and Lincon ended the prisoner exchange program. The south was out numbered. So the Lincon administration refused to exchange prisoners making it a war of attrition. Leading to the Andersonville prison horrors.

There are other points that I don't recall well enough to write out. But what do y'all think? Was Lincon Mother Teresa or sun tzu?

posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 11:00 AM
reply to post by ArtemisE

I just finished watching this little bit of history that I am sure will make some squirm and throw flames but I think is a reasonable assessment of Abraham Lincoln

Did you know that Abraham Lincoln was abandoned by his father and was suicidal for many years? Do you know the hidden story behind how Lincoln became president? What is the truth about Abraham Lincoln?

posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 11:58 AM
Good afternoooon! (well it is here!). Im not a history buff, but I watched a few doc's, and read a bit on the civil war ( and I'm always willing to learn). I think you have good point/view on this matter, ive had the same thoughts as you, but I haven't made a post about it, through fears of being classed a racist, ive discussed this subject on other forums, in a perlite manner, in no way prejudice toward against Africa Americans , only to be reported and banned from said forum for spreading racism and racist propaganda!. I think more people should look into both sides of the civil war, as most of the opinions of it are of the point of view from the north. I think abe Lincolns motives and strategies were purely political and a means to the end. I need to read more on civil war, as its something that been of interest to me for many years, but something has always derailed me!!. Thanks for getting my brain ticking again!!

All the best.

posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 01:52 PM
I study military history, as it is something I am greatly interested in, and I tend to stick to pre-WWII conflicts for the most part. And I am convinced that Lincoln freed the slaves mainly in an attempt to hurt the South. But he did NOT want it to be seen that way, thus why he waited until the victory at Gettysburg to deliver the speech. I think he was worried that overseas powers could come to the aid of the South, given that until Gettysburg, the Union was losing the war from a military perspective. They were getting either outmaneuvered at every turn, or the incompetence of their leaders gave the Southern forces something to exploit.

So once Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclomation, there was virtually no chance that any other nation could endorse the Confederacy, as Lincoln's address had virtually drug slavery into the war immediately. Of course it was an issue before, but not the sole issue. There was all the commotion about free states vs slave states, states' rights, etc. The war had been brewing for a long time.

So when I think about Lincoln, I see him as the right man for the job, in the right place at the right time to win the war, but I also see him as a person who only freed the slaves because it was convenient. He had said himself, many times, that he would allow the slave states to remain slave states. He didn't want to upset the balance it seemed. But I am convinced that anyone else being president at that time could have resulted in an earlier end to the war, possibly through compromise.

We also must remember that Lincoln broke the Constitution as well, assuming powers he was not vested with. So I definitely do not view him as a hero from a moral perspective, because he was not freeing the slaves out of a sense of moral obligation, but rather because it was convenient for his cause, as well as highly inconvenient for his enemy. But that is not to say he supported slavery by any means. I don't think he really did.

posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 07:31 PM
He did it as a strategic move of convenience. Lincoln did not believe in slavery, but he also did not believe in the equality of blacks. What he really wanted was to resettle all the former slaves in Liberia.

The deep issue to the Civil War was states' rights among other things and it explained why so many fought to hard for the South when so few of them actually owned slaves. Slavery was the issue that brought states rights to a head. It was the excuse, but not the reason.

It would as if we plunge ourselves into a new Civil War over the increasingly dictatorial powers the Feds were taking over the states that pushed states to secede, but the issue that finally brings it all to a head is a new federal gun bill or maybe something to do with Obamacare, and in the future all historians simply teach that we all rebelled solely over that.

But, this is a lesson is how history gets to be written by the victors.

Something else I've learned in my study of the history surrounding the Civil War is that the 14th Amendment is the only one in the COTUS that was not ratified in the normal manner. The Southern states were held hostage and forced to ratify it as part of their readmittance to the Union. Now, we can argue whether or not this was necessary, but look at where so much of the abuse of society comes from in the name of social justice which is really just government penalizing some in the attempt to artificially advantage others to try to achieve an equal outcome, and most of it is done in the name of the 14th Amendment.

So, I guess you could call Lincoln the first Big Government Statist.

new topics

top topics

log in