Posted on 06/17/2017 6:14:26 PM PDT by plain talk
People think that Abe Lincoln was such a benevolent President. He was actually a bit of a tyrant. He attacked the Confederate States of America, who seceded from the Union due to tax and tariffs. (If you think it was over slavery, you need to find a real American history book written before 1960.)
This picture is of 38 Santee Sioux Indian men that were ordered to be executed by Abraham Lincoln for treaty violations (IE: hunting off of their assigned reservation).
So, on December 26, 1862, the “Great Emancipator” ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailycheck.net ...
As I wrote above, the United States was a slave nation for 92 years. The CSA was for four years.
You act like I am defending slavery with my comments. I am only looking for some wisdom and understand of the issues at the time. It seems easy for some shortsighted people to look back over 150 years and apply our modern mores and attitudes to long dead ancestors. It seems shallow and foolish to me.
“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.
You believe that morality changes over time?
Let’s see, the Civil War began 156 years ago and according to you in people in the 22nd century should not judge the mortality of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.
After all, how could they judge the morality of those who lived in the 20th century?
Let’s see, the Civil War began 156 years ago and according to you in people in the 22nd century should not judge the mortality of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.
After all, how could they judge the morality of those who lived in the 20th century?
With the state of the world right now it is easy to think that one or all of the three, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot may be seen by those in the 22nd century as the greatest of all time. That is if we don't win against the Godless Globalists or Devilish Islam.
You or I can have no idea what the future may think just as we should temper our understanding of the 19th century with the standards and views of their time.
The historical reference all these discussions lack, IMHO, is they never look to what comes after. Look at the conditions of laborers in the decades following 1865. Grinding poverty in agricultural and industrial settings for the vast majority of Americans. So if the war WAS about slavery, seems to me, the only appropriate historical perspective has to be “both sides lost”.
The way I see it, it was about slavery to those fighting and dying, just as Occupy Wall Street was about corporate corruption.
The thought I come back to again and again is “Would the 18 year old who shares my name and is buried at Gettysburg consider, at this point, was his sacrifice ‘worth it’”?
#29. I wish we could arrest the Maryland Legislature of today, for treason, stupidity, racism, economic destruction and corruption, and that would also include Brian Frosch, the State’s Attorney General and destroyer of the U.S. Constitution.
Hey snarky one try reading the founding documents of the confederacy....they don’t list those issues
Too bad the southern secession didn’t bother to use that as the reason for their action.
The Confederate Constitution also prohibited laws that interfered with someone’s “right” to own slaves and prohibited its states from interfering in the ownership of slaves or restricting slavery.
Despite the heroism of the soldiers on both sides, here is the summary - it was a colossal blunder and failure of both sides’ leaders to avoid:
- the deaths of ~1/30 of the population (over 1 million, out of 31.4 million)
- the acceleration of tyrannical federal authority, leading to what we have today
A re-write of history.
There’s a lot of that going on these days...
Neo-Confederate revisionism, that bit about taxes and tariffs has been shown to be a big lie.
I’m on many Far West history sites. The image that plains Indians were nothing more than Gaia-loving, earth-worshipping, peace-loving hunter-gatherers is hard to shift in the Howard Zinn age. But if you study in-depth, you’ll see just how unbelievably cruel they were to the pioneers and settlers. One of the reasons the 7th Cavalry never got a day’s rest.
Articles for secession for every state, Mississippi, Texas, Carolinas explicitly mention that they are fighting for slavery. Why didn’t they mention they were fighting against taxes and tariffs? Neo-Confederate revisionism is a joke.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html
I believe West Virginia at the time was just a part of Virginia that broke off. It then became WV.
Indentured servitude was voluntary; one of my ancestors got here that way.
He wanted to come to America, but could not afford the passage; so he agreed to work for someone for seven years in exchange for the cost of transatlantic transportation.
He was a skilled tradesman (blacksmith), and was obligated to work in the smithy as required for room and board. The story (which I heard from my great grandfather when I was 6 or so, about HIS great grandfather!!) ended with his staying on at the forge for another year for pay, to raise enough to set up in farming.
Pretty good deal, seems to me!
Another ancestor was transported as punishment for a crime. Had a rough go and a short (but obviously reproductive) life. Could have been worse; hanging at Tyburn was the other option.
Hurrah for white privilege.
NO ONE had it EASY in those days.
Or you just need to read the speeches and writings of the Southern leaders of the time.
"The South had always been solid for slavery and when the quarrel about it resulted in a conflict of arms, those who had approved the policy of disunion took the pro-slavery side. It was perfectly logical to fight for slavery, if it was right to own slaves." [John S. Mosby, Mosby's Memoirs, p. 20]
You forgot the very end of the letter, perhaps you could post that also?
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.