Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I Never Knew That Abraham Lincoln Ordered The Largest MASS HANGING IN US HISTORY, Or Why He Did It
The Daily Check ^ | May 29, 2017

Posted on 06/17/2017 6:14:26 PM PDT by plain talk

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 561-576 next last
To: sargon

The Emancipation Proclamation was issued three years into the war, and it only applied to the territory Lincoln’s government didn’t control. It did nothing to free a single slave.


141 posted on 06/17/2017 9:36:32 PM PDT by TBP (0bama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: higgmeister
It is a total revisionist myth that the North was against slavery.

The North wasn't a monolithic entity, so of of course it wasn't "against slavery" in terms of total unity.

But it's the height of deceit to assert that the abolotionist movement wasn't growing in strength—particularly in the North—in the decades leading up to the Civil War, and it's outright absurd to think that Northern parents would send hundreds of thousands of their young men to die in a Civil War, absent a "righteous cause" to unite them.

By the time the Civil War was well underway, there can be no doubt that the abolition of slavery was that righteous cause, and it's absolutely ridiculous to assert otherwise.

While very few wars are fought over only a single issue or concern, any attempt by Confederate apologists to minimize the importance of maintaining slavery as a Right (in the South), or to dismiss the desire to abolish slavery as a righteous cause (in the North) is patently ludicrous.

142 posted on 06/17/2017 9:37:22 PM PDT by sargon ("If we were in the midst of a zombie apocalypse, the Left would protest for zombies' rights.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: wideminded
“You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.”

--A. Lincoln. 1862

143 posted on 06/17/2017 9:38:10 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: sargon

Had the slavery clause not been removed from the Declaration of Independence, South Carolina and some of the other Southern states would have voted against independence, and the Continental Congress had adopted a rule that it required a unanimous vote.


144 posted on 06/17/2017 9:38:53 PM PDT by TBP (0bama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: wideminded
“And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”

“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…

--A. Lincoln.

145 posted on 06/17/2017 9:41:55 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Segregationist!


146 posted on 06/17/2017 9:42:37 PM PDT by TBP (0bama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Lincoln was the original proponent of Jim Crow!


147 posted on 06/17/2017 9:44:07 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

Little Crow was the chief of the Santee-Dakota Sioux in Minnesota. He was a Christian convert, attended church, and lived quietly on the reservation land given his people by treaty. They were sold an allotment of rations by the U.S Bureau of Indian Affairs agent Andrew J. Myrick. The costs of the rations began to increase, be delayed, and eventually his band was sold nothing but rotting meat and mealy grain and flour at inflated prices. When his band was starving and he complained to the agent there in charge (who was getting rich skimming profits) Myrick reportedly told Little Crow his people could “eat grass”. On August 17, 1862 that agent was one of the first to die in the uprising that followed, and was found with his mouth stuffed full of grass. Minnesota records state that 644 citizens and 757 U.S. troopers died in the fighting. Little Crow was killed a year later by deer hunters in northern Minnesota while the surviving Santees fled west to the Teton-Dakota Sioux.


148 posted on 06/17/2017 9:47:03 PM PDT by W.Lee (Lackland AFB Alumni 1972)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
It’s about “saving the Union”, not about slavery.

That was Lincoln's opinion, and he was the Commander-in-Chief.

But that doesn't change the fact that there were coiuntless other Northerners—military and civilian—who adopted a significantly more zealous attitude than Lincoln's comparatively mild one.

Many of those people did think the conflict was about slavery—as the South itself also clearly did, as evidenced by the plethora of references to slavery which were included in the justifications for secession which were promulgated by many Southern states...

149 posted on 06/17/2017 9:49:02 PM PDT by sargon ("If we were in the midst of a zombie apocalypse, the Left would protest for zombies' rights.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
This is how liberals are working to rewrite history.

And if they can get it posted in news/current events on Free Republic, so much the better. < /sarc>

150 posted on 06/17/2017 9:56:09 PM PDT by lonevoice (diagonally parked in a parallel universe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: TBP

West Virginia which stayed with the North. Session from pro Confederate Virginia.


151 posted on 06/17/2017 9:56:25 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: higgmeister
I think you are being intentionally obtuse. These two excerpts are not identical:

U.S. Constitution (since repealed by 13th Amendment):
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Confederate Constitution:
No ... law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The two excerpts don't come close to conveying the same meaning.
152 posted on 06/17/2017 10:00:30 PM PDT by SSS Two
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: sargon
The desire to own other human beings as property—not to mention actually codifying slavery as a Right(!) in the founding documents which were establishing a new government—cannot be construed as anything other than a "malicious motive".

The fact that many middle class, non-slave-owning Southerners were manipulated into shedding their blood so that wealthy elites could buy, sell, rape, and kill other human beings—without incurring any legal liability—is a crying shame.

That is not to cast aspersions on your ancestor(s). They doubtless fought honorably and bravely—something to be proud of—but the cause for which they fought—and "right of property in negro slaves" which was codified into the Confederate Constitution—should certainly be sufficient to induce sober-minded reflection...

Finally some logic and sanity. I would only add that there was probably not even an ounce of manipulation in convincing Southerners to fight against Northern Invaders. Put it in reverse. If Rebel butternut soldiers had taken over Northern Cities and States what wild madness would that have instilled in people no matter the reason they were there?

As for codifying slavery in the Confederate Constitution, Our Constitution did not need to in 1787 because it was fully understood by all at the time and documented in the three fifths of a person apportionment in Article. I. Section. 2. What is the greater "malicious motive?"

153 posted on 06/17/2017 10:01:49 PM PDT by higgmeister ( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: TBP

would you happen to know the names of those internal tariffs


154 posted on 06/17/2017 10:03:14 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: W.Lee

Burke, (On The Border With Crook) stated that the real problem was with Indian Agents who cheated the Indians at every chance.
J R Dunn jr (Massacres of the Mountains) had nothing good to say about Indian agents at that time.

Custer exposed the later Indian “Rings” of Grant’s cronies stealing from the Indian allotments.


155 posted on 06/17/2017 10:03:26 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Judging by the Lincoln quote you cited, it's clear that Lincoln harbored some breathtakingly ignorant and misguided opinions regarding separatism. The quote amply exposes one of Lincoln's glaring flaws.

It was John Adams who opined that the U.S. Constitution was inadequate to the governance of any other than a moral people, and—while Adams's point might be debatable—it at least suggests that perhaps morality is a more legitimate distinction to be considered when considering separation—not the arbitrary consideration of what might be the color of one's skin...

156 posted on 06/17/2017 10:03:52 PM PDT by sargon ("If we were in the midst of a zombie apocalypse, the Left would protest for zombies' rights.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: sargon

You cannot judge the people of the 19th century with 21st century knowledge, hindsight and sense of morality. That applies to both Confederate and Union citizens of the 19th century.


157 posted on 06/17/2017 10:11:40 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

Stupid.

Thwt ain’t what happened and removing content to create new context is dishonest...to Abe...


158 posted on 06/17/2017 10:12:10 PM PDT by Vendome (I've Gotta Be Me - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-pk2vZG2M)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va
You cannot judge the people of the 19th century with 21st century knowledge, hindsight and sense of morality.

Of course not. But we can judge them while taking into consideration the mores which prevailed during their time period, as well as according to Christian principles which have existed for over 2000 years.

To say that people who lived in the past are completely immune to our evaluation is simply a gross oversimplfication—indeed, it's a copout, IMHO.

I'm not saying we need to impose the harsh strictures implied by applying the mores of our time period to theirs, but I am saying that it's possible to subject people of the past to fair-minded analysis without being guilty of blatant ethnocentrism.

159 posted on 06/17/2017 10:19:52 PM PDT by sargon ("If we were in the midst of a zombie apocalypse, the Left would protest for zombies' rights.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: TexasTransplant

LOL...


160 posted on 06/17/2017 10:45:46 PM PDT by Vendome (I've Gotta Be Me - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-pk2vZG2M)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 561-576 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson