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 ...
>>Slavery was evil. Anyone who supports slavery, or excuses a government which supported or allowed slavery in any way shape or form is human scum.
Depends on how the word slavery is defined and used, who’s doing the enslaving and why, and who’s writing the narrative about it. For example, the government of the the United States of America condoned the institution of slavery for many decades preceding the CW, and four of the first five Presidents owned slaves.
“It is also true that cannons - some on land, some on naval vessels - were deployed. The artillery on land was indeed used, but it is unclear whether there was also a bombarded by sea
Today, Gramercy Park is a quiet place, but in 1863 it was a war zone. Union cavalry and artillery occupied the park, setting up two cannon at the northeast corner to face the rioters.
- Columbia University
Total falsehood, it was illegal in many states prior to the Civil War.
The South was a white supremacist society, their own speeches confirmed that. Ugly.
Lynchings by state, if this is more than selective outrage per what Lincoln did.
http://www.chesnuttarchive.org/classroom/lynchings_table_state.html
Then why did Lincoln offer the slave states an amendment to the Constitution that would guarantee slavery where it legally existed?
Regarding the article, Dakota War of 1862. Lincoln saved 265. The conflict went on until Wounded Knee.
100% wrong. Why did Lincoln offer the slave states an amendment to the Constitution that would guarantee slavery where it legally existed then?
I can only educate one person at a time on the meaning of freedom. There’s just not enough time in a day.
If someone can’t see the harm that came out of the civil war, then they’ve been effectively blinded by the propaganda since.
How many Northern Slaves did that free?
If it had nothing to do with slavery then why would he offer them an amendment guaranteeing slavery?
What better on a thread about historical revisionism than a post from lew rockwell?!
Except for all the rest (excluding perhaps George Washington).
That was a chilling account. Thanks for posting.
I only looked at Georgia and it did reference tariffs (act of 1846)
The American Warehousing Act (act of 1846) remained in place until 1861 when the original version of the Morrill Tariff attempted to repeal it.
None. What’s your point?
FreedomStar3028: If it had nothing to do with slavery then why would he offer them an amendment guaranteeing slavery?
Presuming that you are referring to the original 13th Amendment, Lincoln didn't offer it - congress did. Lincoln merely said that he would go along with it for the sake of keeping the union intact. A terrible mistake in my opinion.
Thing is the Civil War was caused directly by slavery. Maybe not all of the reason. But very much of it.
Secession destroyed the Old Republic. Whatever came next was going to be different.
Be honest. Do you really think that a country divided into two hostile nations was going to be the same as one that largely had a continent to itself?
Military budgets would increase. So would border controls. Internal security and espionage agencies would be formed.
Government would get involved in economic development to prevent each country from falling behind.
The idea that the Civil War gave us big government is an exaggeration. Most functions were still in state hands after the war as before. It would take 50 years or more after the war for that to change.
But do you really think that an exceptionally decentralized form of government would have survived into the 21st century?
And do you really think that country founded on slavery -- whether the US or the CSA -- could be devoted to liberty for very long?
Wouldn't the fear of the slave owners or the rage of the slaves eventually overwhelm constitutional protections?
If you don't get it then anything I might say is a waste of bandwidth. I just had a phone call from a relative that wins every argument with these key words. Dick Cheny, Halliburton, Sara Palin, Roger Ailes, FOX news. You can see he already knows everything there is to know not unlike yourself.
The greatest Barrier to the truth is to believe you already have it.
Chuck Missler
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.