If This Is True All References To Abe Lincoln Must Be Scrubbed From Our History
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Great article. BTW, now the monument busters are targeting statues of Jesus and the Blessed Virgin outside Catholic churches.
Have read The Real Lincoln and it pretty much stated that the War Between The Ststes was not fought about slavery. Going to have to get this book and read it. Doesn't surprise me though that the punk ass lying liberal bitches teaching history or writing history books have been blowing smoke up everyones ass for 100's of years.
As an aside good thing that idiot mayor of New Orleans spend hundreds of thousands of dollars removing confederate statues, when pumps that are suppose to pump out excess water from a city below sea level, aren't working properly. Sure somehow though that's Bush's fault. Have a nice time swimming to higher ground imbeciles. Deserve what you vote for.
As an aside good thing that idiot mayor of New Orleans spend hundreds of thousands of dollars removing confederate statues, when pumps that are suppose to pump out excess water from a city below sea level, aren't working properly. Sure somehow though that's Bush's fault. Have a nice time swimming to higher ground imbeciles. Deserve what you vote for.
Last edited:
Let's ignore the emancipation proclamation.
At the time, he wasn't going to admit to saying African Americans should be equals to white men.
But by the time the war came around, he was definitely anti-slavery which was a huge step for the nation
At the time, he wasn't going to admit to saying African Americans should be equals to white men.
But by the time the war came around, he was definitely anti-slavery which was a huge step for the nation
Everyone likes to romanticize but the civil war wasn't some noble endeavor. Sorry. It just wasn't as simplistic as it is made out to be.
Splitting hairs. To make a hard stance because states didn't secede solely because of slavery but because slavery infringed on state rights is like saying The revolutionary war wasn't about becoming an independent nation, it was because they didn't want to be ruled by Britain.
They are one in the same and infect the slavsry/state rights is even more inclusive of an idea.
Plus I rly don't care why the south seceded other than what Lincoln was able to accomplish in war time and post war.
It wasn't a noble endeavor yet eventually resulted in millions of freed slaves. The south reasoning for seceding and Lincolns desire to keep country together were just the start and the fact he issued the immancipation proclamation and changed the course of the country was very NOBLE ENDEAVOR.
Both I and the authors of the articles are individualist libertarians. As such we view slavery as the most evil of enterprises. No one is questioning the freeing of slaves was a good thing. The authors are arguing against the "fake news" as the history of the Civil War is presented. di Lorenzo in particular is dismayed because he sees the naked power grab by the national government, and the complete disregard shown by Lincoln to defend the Constitution, as required by the oath to which he swore. Our liberty has been on a steady downhill slide ever since.
It was so noble it only freed slaves in the states that were no longer part of the union. Those in the union were allowed to keep their slaves. Noble indeed.
Very convenient to leave out the fact that Emancipation Proclamation was based on war powers which only applied to the states in rebellion. Full emancipation had to wait, not on Lincoln, but on passage of the 13th Amendment...
Really interesting how some ignore the facts to fit their agenda of romanticizing the Confederacy by denigrating Lincoln. I suppose if this kind of crap gets repeated often enough people actually start to believe it.
"...fit their agenda by romanticizing the Confederacy by denigrating Lincoln." If by that you are referring to the linked articles I would ask that you reread (or read) what they say. I don't think you will find any "Confederacy romaniticizing" unless you are so beholden to your particular viewpoint that you'll find it no matter what it says. These are historians who are showing that the Constitution was ignored by Lincoln and the Republicans as they began a national government power grab that continues unabated to this day.
My comment is in reference to the now fashionable sentiment "the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the confederacy - Lincoln was such a hypocrite"...
Read the articles. Would suggest you consider your own statement in regards to the authors who appear "so beholden to their particular viewpoint."
This is why you don't give liberals an inch.
It was northern traders who first brought African slaves to our shores, and the last states to legally have slaves were federally-controlled and did so up until passage of the 13th Amendment. American slavery began and ended in the North.
I suppose the authors are beholden to their viewpoints because they have spent the last 25-30 years intently studying the subject. DiLorenzo's viewpoint in his article, in particular, was colored by the actual quotes attributed to Lincoln himself. If anyone today said those things they would be condemned (rightfully so) and hung in effigy.
No one romanticized shit (except maybe you), nor was anything conveniently left out. The goal was to incite a slave rebellion within the confederacy, it failed. Had Lincoln tried to apply the proclamation to union slave holding states he risked losing them as well. Let's not act like Lincoln gave a shit about the constitution. He could have just as easily applied the war powers to union states as he did the confederacy.
Oh, and speaking of romanticizing shit, Abe Lincoln is continuously romanticized. There's so much hooha bullshit about the man it's not even funny.
Last edited:
You do realize that slavery had long ago been eliminated in nearly every "union" state by the time the Civil War started don't you? For example, New York had abolished slavery in 1799.
Delaware was in affect the only state in the Union were slavery remained legal, yet there were only about 300 or so slaves in Delaware when the war ended. Of the black population of Delaware, 97% of them were "freedmen" before the war started. Even then, Lincoln had offered to slave owners in Delaware a pragmatic solution to the problem, he had offered to basically "buy" the freedom of anyone sill enslaved in the state during the war, with a $500 offer per slave.
So basically, you are saying that Lincoln didn't do enough to solve a problem which in reality didn't really exist.
Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, Kentucky, and the Western part of Virginia (now known as West Virginia) were all slave states that remained in the Union during the Civil War. That's a fact.
I just can't believe that 150 years isn't enough time to move on from slavery as an issue, and that we are still discussing it today. I mean, there have to be more relevant problems in today's society than trying to determine how 'evil' any 19th century American (Union or Confederate) really was because their beliefs failed to fit into today's era.
1. The states that formed the Confederacy had already started seceding from the Union before Lincoln was even sworn into office.
2. Not a single secession document from any Confederate state gives any real reason for their secession other than an attempt to preserve slavery.
3. Slave ownership was much more prevalent in the South than most think. According to the archived records of southern states once housed at Univ of Virginia, census and other records showed that about 1/3 of all households in the south owned at least one slave.
4. The "Northern" States had all (but for one or two exceptions) long since abolished slavery in their states. New York had done so in 1799. One of the things the southern states was so PO'd about was the refusal of the Northern States to actively participate in the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Given that it was solely a "Federal Law" nearly every Northern State told the Federal Govt that they would not commit state law enforcement or resources to enforcing the Act. Ironically, it was a claim about "State's Rights" that so many in the South claim the war was about, but it was the Northern States who were engaged in the practice of "State's Rights" in their refusal to go along with the return of slaves to the Southern States.
5. The historical record has long shown that Lincoln's primary concern was "preserving the Union" not about trying to free the slaves. But the fact that the reason the Union was being torn asunder was because of the Confederate States fear of losing control over the slaves in their states. The same reason they had been opposed to allowing new states into the Union for fear it would dilute their political power and them losing slavery. So it really doesn't matter that Lincoln wasn't trying to free the slaves, but is was a side affect of the Confederacy secession.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
This is a portion of the famous "Cornerstone" speech delivered by Alexander Stephens, who was the VP of the Confederacy, delivered by him on March 21, 1861 in Savannah, GA in which explains the reason for the Confederate State's reasons for seceding and the foundational reasons behind the adoption of the "new" Constitution for the Confederacy:
"The prevailing ideas entertained by him (Thomas Jefferson) and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Not tariffs (which had actually been dealt with by agreement some 30 yrs earlier, not "State's Rights" but rather Stephens makes no bones about it, the decision to secede (and engage the North in war by attacking Union forces at Ft Sumter) was primarily about slavery. So it doesn't really matter that Lincoln's decisions were about slavery or not, it really only matters what the motivations and reasons of the Confederate States was completely entwined with the preservation of slavery.
2. Not a single secession document from any Confederate state gives any real reason for their secession other than an attempt to preserve slavery.
3. Slave ownership was much more prevalent in the South than most think. According to the archived records of southern states once housed at Univ of Virginia, census and other records showed that about 1/3 of all households in the south owned at least one slave.
4. The "Northern" States had all (but for one or two exceptions) long since abolished slavery in their states. New York had done so in 1799. One of the things the southern states was so PO'd about was the refusal of the Northern States to actively participate in the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Given that it was solely a "Federal Law" nearly every Northern State told the Federal Govt that they would not commit state law enforcement or resources to enforcing the Act. Ironically, it was a claim about "State's Rights" that so many in the South claim the war was about, but it was the Northern States who were engaged in the practice of "State's Rights" in their refusal to go along with the return of slaves to the Southern States.
5. The historical record has long shown that Lincoln's primary concern was "preserving the Union" not about trying to free the slaves. But the fact that the reason the Union was being torn asunder was because of the Confederate States fear of losing control over the slaves in their states. The same reason they had been opposed to allowing new states into the Union for fear it would dilute their political power and them losing slavery. So it really doesn't matter that Lincoln wasn't trying to free the slaves, but is was a side affect of the Confederacy secession.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
This is a portion of the famous "Cornerstone" speech delivered by Alexander Stephens, who was the VP of the Confederacy, delivered by him on March 21, 1861 in Savannah, GA in which explains the reason for the Confederate State's reasons for seceding and the foundational reasons behind the adoption of the "new" Constitution for the Confederacy:
"The prevailing ideas entertained by him (Thomas Jefferson) and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Not tariffs (which had actually been dealt with by agreement some 30 yrs earlier, not "State's Rights" but rather Stephens makes no bones about it, the decision to secede (and engage the North in war by attacking Union forces at Ft Sumter) was primarily about slavery. So it doesn't really matter that Lincoln's decisions were about slavery or not, it really only matters what the motivations and reasons of the Confederate States was completely entwined with the preservation of slavery.
You do realize that it wasn't because the north had some noble agenda don't you? It was because the need for slaves was much lower. The agricultural south had a much higher need. For example, the north's industrial need for things such as cotton.
You do realize only like 1.5% of the entire southern population even owned slaves right?
I'm of the belief that Lincoln handled the whole thing embarrassingly and horrifically bad
Who cares, let them go. A precedent by a previous president had already been set for when states wanted to secede as a result of an election. His response was not to wage war.
And Lincoln's war had nothing to do with actually wanting to free them. Had he handled things differently they would have been forced to free the slaves to survive economically.
First I've ever seen of this. I've always seen less than 2%. Will have to research further.
As to the rest of your points, how do they refute the fact that old Abe wasn't what he's painted to be?
11% of african americans in the union states were slaves, the rest free. In confederate states that was >90%.
Many 'slave' african americans were given their freedom by their owners by serving in the union army (see Maryland civil war history). And all were eventually freed by the 13th amendment which passed congress during the Civil War in 1965.
Confusing where things 'were' at the start of the war and during is completing ignoring the result of the war and related changes to our nation..
1860 # of Slaves in US 3.9 MILLION
Abe Lincoln elected 1860
Civil War began 1861
Emancipation Proclamation 1863
13th Amendment passed congress Jan 1865
Robert E Lee surrender April 9 1865
Lincoln Assassinated April 14 1865
Civl War final battle May 1865
13th amendment ratified Dec 1865
1867# of Slaves in US : ZERO
You can claim Lincoln was romanticized or portrayed a savior by certain historians or the left or how he didn't follow the constitution but the man helped change America for the better. Even if he held some 'old ways' of thinking about equality, he was pivotal in changing America for the better. He could've resolved the war much quicker had he not taken a stand on slavery.
Last edited:
Again, the census and other records from the era show that about 1/3rd of all southern households owned at least one slave. Not the 1.5% your are claiming.
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html?fref=gc
Towards the very, very end of the war -- albiet when all was lost -- the Confederacy said it would free every slave within its domain if it could leave the union. Lincoln's government would not agree to that at all.
Marshal,
You are correct, in most of my other posts I used "Northern" states, not "Union" states. I mistakenly used "Union" when I should have used "northern."
Yes, slavery existed in some of the "border"states until after the Civil War. I don't count Delaware as "border" state as the state of Maryland serves as a "buffer."
LOL
Way to cherry pick numbers.Ever hear of Plantations?
43% of the Confederate States population were Slaves!
Compared to 0.45% of population were slaves in the Union.
In fact, Maryland was really the only state in the Union (removing Missouri split which had an internal state civil conflict) with significant # of slaves.
If you really believe that 1.5% # (which is still way low to what I've researched on 1860 consensus), then that means each of those 1.5% familes who owned slaves on average owned ~252 slaves.
So Lincoln's hopes were to not only abolish slavery (emancipation, 13th amendment) but to also preserve the Union as one nation (resistance to just let states secede)? Man sounds like a great leader...
but let's not ROMANTICIZE the guy or allude that he had some type of NOBLE intentions.
Nah, lets just talk about how he made some ordinary political comments for the time about how whites shouldn't be equal to african americans during his election or how he didn't stay within the constitution. That sounds logical
August 1862, Lincoln letter to Horace Greeley -
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
Regrettably the intent of the original post has been lost. The intent of the original post was to suggest if our society is going to dismantle and destroy all statuary and other artifacts of the South during the Civil War because of its rampant racism then it is only proper that we do the same with A. Lincoln. The quotes provided leave us no choice. The man was obviously as racist as a person can be. What's good for the goose ...
Shhhh.... it doesn't fit into the storyline
He could have let them secede and slavery would have likely ended sooner, with much less death, and possibly we would have seen less racial tension through our history .
I'm not confusing anything. You're justifying the war without ever considering, had he followed precedent, how it could have turned out.
Last edited:
You do realize there is a lot of evidence pointing to Lincoln being the author of the Corwin Amendment.
But romanticize on. Please.
I haven't yet read the article or this thread, and will later, but for now.... My initial gut reaction is this is just another twist on:
anyone that enabled white supremacy in the old south = sympathetic and honorable.
anyone that attempted to dismantle white supremacy in the south = evil tyrant
How far off am I?
Thor, I think you are mistaken. I believe Sys will read the articles and that is exactly what will be his take away. He's one of those people that are going to believe what he believes no matter what evidence he sees to the contrary.
