Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.
>>rockrr wrote: “I don’t require your pings - unlike you I can follow a discussion just fine.”
Why did you talk behind my back, you back-biting little punk?
LOL! I think not.
I am referring to historical fact that you keep trying to cover up, about Lincoln’s behind-the-scenes promotion of the first thirteenth Amendment that would have made slavery permanent.
But it was an amendment without hope of ratification. A desperate attempt to keep the Southern states who had already adopted a constitution that protected slavery to an extent the Corwin amendment never dreamed of. More important than that is the actual 13th Amendment and Lincoln pushed for that far harder than his tepid support for Corwin's mistake.
Admit it. Lincoln and the “republicans” didn’t give a hoot about slaves, except as political pawns.
I think it would depend on the Republican. Some had more concern than others. Lincoln's concern for slaves was far outweighed by his concern for the country as a whole, I will grant you that.
Yes, racial hatred in the South began in the North and by the “republicans.”
LOL! Racial hatred in the South existed long before the rebellion and grew worse after the rebellion was over. And before you get all huffy about it, I will also freely admit that racial tolerance in the north was not a whole lot better than that in the south. Again, before the rebellion and after.
The bottom line is, the 19th-century “republicans” were the Clinton Mafia of those days, and Lincoln was their Mob Boss, followed by the just as greedy and corrupt, U. S. Grant.
Yada yada yada, blah blah blah.
I can never get a straight answer out of you (nor can anyone else.) Which question are you referring to?
Let's begin with what your issue with voluntary emigration for free blacks, a program that began before Lincoln was born and which was supported by prominent people north and south, really is? You seem to believe that Lincoln invented it and was its sole supporter.
So, your patron saint was a lying politician. Imagine that? What else was he lying about? The Emancipation Proclamation, perhaps? Freeing the slaves?
*****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "More important than that is the actual 13th Amendment and Lincoln pushed for that far harder than his tepid support for Corwin's mistake.
I cannot find any sources that confirm your statement. Where are you sources?
*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Admit it. Lincoln and the “republicans” didn’t give a hoot about slaves, except as political pawns."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "I think it would depend on the Republican. Some had more concern than others. Lincoln's concern for slaves was far outweighed by his concern for the country as a whole, I will grant you that.
From what I have read, Lincoln could care less about the plight of blacks, free or slave. But if you have evidence that he truly cared about black people, then please present it.
*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Yes, racial hatred in the South began in the North and by the “republicans."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "LOL! Racial hatred in the South existed long before the rebellion and grew worse after the rebellion was over."
Show your sources.
*****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "And before you get all huffy about it, I will also freely admit that racial tolerance in the north was not a whole lot better than that in the south. Again, before the rebellion and after."
There was no rebellion; and racial intolerance was far was worse in the North before the secession. The Lincoln gang promoted racial hatred in the South both during the war, and afterward when Grant took over the gang leadership.
If you have sources that contradict what I wrote, please provide them.
*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "The bottom line is, the 19th-century “republicans” were the Clinton Mafia of those days, and Lincoln was their Mob Boss, followed by the just as greedy and corrupt, U. S. Grant. >>DoodleDawg wrote: "Yada yada yada, blah blah blah."
Blah, blah, blah. You have the empathy of a Carpetbagger.
*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "I can never get a straight answer out of you (nor can anyone else.) Which question are you referring to? >>DoodleDawg wrote: "Let's begin with what your issue with voluntary emigration for free blacks, a program that began before Lincoln was born and which was supported by prominent people north and south, really is? You seem to believe that Lincoln invented it and was its sole supporter."
You are lying, again. I never said Lincoln invented it. To the contrary, in another Lincoln thread, in post #92, I said the opposite:
"In fact, Lincoln was a white supremacist who was in favor of returning all blacks to Africa (as did Thomas Jefferson, and others)"
Now, quit lying, and show us your sources.
Mr. Kalamata
LOL! Your characterization, not mine.
I cannot find any sources that confirm your statement. Where are you sources?
Maybe you might try reading up on the man you insist on trying to diminish? Any decent Lincoln biography covers it. David Herbert Donald's "Lincoln" on pages 553 and 554. Ronald C. White, Jr.'s "A. Lincoln" on pages 653 and 654. Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" on pages 686 to 690.
From what I have read, Lincoln could care less about the plight of blacks, free or slave. But if you have evidence that he truly cared about black people, then please present it.
He worked to end slavery. That had some benefit to enslaved blacks. But perhaps if you would provide some indication of what constitutes "truly cared about black people" in your eyes then I might be able to come up with an answer for you.
Show your sources.
How about two examples? Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia adopted in 1851, Section 19: "Slaves hereafter emancipated shall forfeit their freedom by remaining in the commonwealth more than twelve months after they become actually free, and shall be reduced to slavery under such regulation as may be prescribed by law." Section 20 read, "The general assembly may impose such restrictions and conditions as they shall deem proper on the power of slave-owners to emancipate their slaves; and may pass laws for the relief of the commonwealth from the free negro population, by removal or otherwise." So constitutionally Virginia tried to rid itself of freed blacks.
In South Carolina, a law provided that any ship calling in any port in the state which had freed blacks among its crew was required to deliver those crew to the local authorities where they would be jailed for the duration of the port call, and the captain billed for their food and lodging. If the captain refused then the crewman would be sold into slavery. In 1832 Roger Taney, while Andrew Jackson's Attorney General, wrote a brief for the Supreme Court defending this law.
Add to that the fact that every Southern state had laws restricting the ability of blacks to get an education, work in some industries, move from state to state, or even be emancipated in the first place. All which predate the rebellion and are evidence of the Southern hatred and fear of blacks.
There was no rebellion...
Yes there was.
...and racial intolerance was far was worse in the North before the secession."
Your opinion is duly noted.
The Lincoln gang promoted racial hatred in the South both during the war, and afterward when Grant took over the gang leadership.
If you have sources that contradict what I wrote, please provide them.
I'm not sure what I could provide that would change your opinion, for that's all that is.
Blah, blah, blah. You have the empathy of a Carpetbagger.
Sometimes that's all your crap deserves.
"In fact, Lincoln was a white supremacist who was in favor of returning all blacks to Africa (as did Thomas Jefferson, and others)"
Wow. James Monroe was a white supremacist. Robert Lee was a white supremacist. James Madison was a white supremacist. John C. Breckenridge was a white supremacist. John Randolph and Bushrod Washington were white supremacists. Well at least Lincoln was in good company.
Now, quit lying, and show us your sources.
LOL! You are the last person to accuse others of lying.
He’s plunged below the level of even dilorenzo or stormfront.
He does seem to have gone off the deep end in his hatred of Lincoln. Maybe he got bit by a Union reenactor as a baby or something?
How would you characterize him, as Father Abraham? That is how Marxist historians characterize him.
*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "More important than that is the actual 13th Amendment and Lincoln pushed for that far harder than his tepid support for Corwin's mistake."
>>Kalamata wrote: "I cannot find any sources that confirm your statement. Where are you sources?"
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Maybe you might try reading up on the man you insist on trying to diminish? Any decent Lincoln biography covers it. David Herbert Donald's "Lincoln" on pages 553 and 554."
According to Donald, freeing the slaves was Lincoln's 2nd choice. This is from earlier in Donald's book:
"In Washington government officials could not agree on how to deal with the increasingly serious crisis. The President, along with many other conservatives, favored calling a national convention to amend the Constitution so as to redress Southern grievances. The House of Representatives created the Committee of Thirty-three, with one congressman from each state, to deal with the crisis. After much debate the committee proposed admission of New Mexico as a state, more stringent enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, repeal of the personal liberty laws enacted by Northern states to prevent the reclamation of fugitives, and adoption of a constitutional amendment prohibiting future interference with slavery…"
"Lincoln believed the real object of the secessionists was to change the nature of the American government. In his view there were only two ways that could be done. One was through amending the Constitution, a right that everyone recognized. He himself did not desire any changes in that document, but if the people wanted a constitutional amendment, even the one forbidding interference with the domestic institutions of states—meaning slavery—he would not oppose it…"
"He had always accepted the constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Law and now, to please the Southerners, he said he was willing to see it more efficiently enforced, provided that it contained "the usual safeguards to liberty, securing free men against being surrendered as slaves." The personal liberty laws were enacted by the state legislatures, not the Congress, but if such laws were "really, or apparantly, in conflict with such law of Congress," they should be repealed. As for Southern concern over the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia or interference with the interstate slave trade, he wrote Seward, "I care but little, so that what is done be comely, and not altogether outrageous." He was even willing for New Mexico to be admitted without prohibition of slavery, 'if further extension were hedged against.'"
[David Herbert Donald, "Lincoln." Touchstone, 1996, pp.268, 269]
There is more:
"But on one point [Lincoln] was immovable: the extension of slavery into the national territories. He continued to fear that Republicans might abandon the Chicago platform in favor of Douglas's popular-sovereignty doctrine. "Have none of it," he wrote Trumbull. "Let there be no compromise on the question of extending slavery." Over and over, he repeated the message to Republican congressmen: "Stand firm. The tug has to come, and better now, than any time hereafter."
"Lincoln knew that any compromise permitting the spread of slavery into the national territories would disrupt the party that had elected him. Opposition to the extension of slavery, perhaps the only issue on which all Republicans agreed, was the central plank of the 1860 Republican platform, which Lincoln had pledged to uphold. He vowed, "By no act or complicity of mine, shall the Republican party become a mere sucked egg, all shell and no principle in it." What is more, he had a visceral objection to rethinking a conclusion that he had reached by laborious reasoning. As Mary Lincoln observed in a different context, "He was a terribly firm man when he set his foot down... no man nor woman could rule him after he had made up his mind." His Springfield friends were familiar with that inflexibility. Some thought it showed that he had backbone, but, as William Jayne said, 'some of our folks think he is stubborn.'"
[Ibid. p.270]
Like I said earlier, Lincoln was no abolitionist. He was ALL politics.
*****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Ronald C. White, Jr.'s "A. Lincoln" on pages 653 and 654.
Did you also read this part?
"Old John J. Crittenden, the unobtrusive seventy-three-year-old senator from Kentucky, offered compromise legislation that he hoped could stop the secessionist impulse. Born during the Constitutional Convention and first entering the Senate at the inauguration of President James Monroe in 1817, Crittenden, an old-line Henry Clay Whig, had seen it all. With his still-erect angular frame, sparkling dark eyes, iron-gray hair, and a tobacco quid in his jaw, he was calm and thoughtful in demeanor. He shone not in speeches on the Senate floor but in the art of private negotiation…"
"Crittenden rose in the Senate on December 18, 1860, to offer a comprehensive package of six constitutional amendments that would remove slavery from federal jurisdiction for all time. The Kentucky senator believed that all agreements since 1787 had been legislative compromises that were always subject to overturning by later Congresses. The first amendment would reinstate the Missouri Compromise all the way to the Pacific Ocean with the effect of protecting slavery south of the line. The second amendment would prohibit Congress from abolishing slavery in slave states. He also called for a congressional resolution on the fugitive slave law that would recognize the law as constitutional but amend it to take out some clauses "obnoxious" to citizens in the North."
"Lincoln watched from Springfield as what became known as the Crittenden Plan gathered momentum. Petitions poured into Congress supporting it. Business interests in the North and some Republican leaders believed it could provide a way out of the mounting crisis."
"Lincoln opposed the Crittenden Plan because it would permit slavery to expand into the West. Congressman Elihu B. Washburne and Senator Lyman Trumbull were Lincoln's eyes and ears in Congress during these critical months. Washburne wrote from Washington, "The secession feeling has assumed proportions of which I had but a faint conception when I saw you at Springfield, and I think our friends generally in the west are not fully apprised of the imminent peril which now environs us." Lincoln, aware that anxiety would push some in his own party toward compromise, wrote to Trumbull, "Let there be no compromise on the question of extending slavery. Stand firm. The tug has to come, & better now, than any time hereafter." Three days later, Lincoln wrote to Washburne, "Prevent, as far as possible, any of our friends... entertaining propositions for compromise of any sort.... hold firm, as with a chain of steel."
"Despite popular support for the Crittenden Plan, including the backing of some Republicans, Lincoln won high marks for steeling Republicans in the Senate to back away from the illusory compromise."
[Ronald C. White Jr., "A. Lincoln: a biography." Random House, 2009, pp.360-361]
I am puzzled how White was able to imagine Lincoln to be the hero of the plot, since Lincoln's white separatist views had been on record for many years, from which he clearly invoked a doctrine that he didn't want any blacks in the new territories. But, then again, Ronald White has an unnatural affection for Lincoln, insinuating Lincoln was some sort of 'Second Coming of Christ':
Abraham Lincoln's Sermon on the Mount: The Second Inaugural Address
Insane.
*****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" on pages 686 to 690."
The plagiarist Goodwin also exposed Lincoln's "win at all costs" political strategy:
"Though [President-elect] Lincoln remained inflexible on the territorial question, he was willing, he told Seward, to compromise on "fugitive slaves, District of Columbia, slave trade among the slave states, and whatever springs of necessity from the fact that the institution is amongst us." Knowing that two parallel committees in the House and Senate were set to address the sectional crisis, Lincoln relayed a confidential message to Seward that he had drafted three short resolutions. He instructed Seward to introduce these proposals in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they issued from Springfield. The first resolved that "the Constitution should never be altered so as to authorize Congress to abolish or interfere with slavery in the states." The second would amend the Fugitive Slave Law "by granting a jury trial to the fugitive." The third recommended that all state personal liberty laws in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law be repealed."
"Seward agreed to introduce Lincoln's resolutions without revealing their source, though he was of the opinion that they would do nothing to stop the secession movement. The best option, he told Lincoln, was to focus on keeping the border states in the Union, though he feared "nothing could certainly restrain them" short of adopting the series of proposals authored by Kentucky's John Crittenden. The Crittenden Compromise, among other provisions, offered to extend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, thereby initiating the very extension of slavery into the territories Lincoln had pledged to prevent."
"Lincoln's clear resolve never to accept any measure extending slavery prevented the wavering Seward and other like-minded Republicans from backing the Crittenden Compromise. As one Southern state after another withdrew from the Union, Seward came to believe that only conciliation could save the Union. With Lincoln's iron hand guiding the way in this matter, however, Seward conceded that there was not "the slightest" chance that the Republican side would adopt the Compromise. Still, Seward retained his characteristic optimism, assuring Lincoln that with the passage of time, "sedition will be growing weaker and Loyalty stronger."…
"Listening [to Seward] from the packed galleries, a Boston reporter confessed that it was "difficult to restrain oneself from tears, when at the allusion of Seward to the great men of the country now dead and gone, and at his vivid portrayal of the horrors and evils of dissolution and civil war, we saw the venerable Senator Crittenden, who sat directly in front of Seward, shedding tears, and finally, overcome by his feelings, cover his face with his handkerchief."
"As he moved into the second hour of his speech, Seward offered the concessions he hoped might stem the tide of secession. He endeavored "to meet prejudice with conciliation, exaction with concession which surrenders no principle, and violence with the right hand of peace." He began with Lincoln's resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to prevent any future Congress from interfering with slavery where it already existed and suggesting a repeal of all personal liberty laws in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law. He then added several resolutions of his own including the prospect of a Constitutional Convention "when the eccentric movements of secession and disunion shall have ended" to consider additional changes to the Constitution. When, after nearly two hours, he concluded his emotional remarks, the galleries erupted in thunderous applause..."
"Seward retained his equanimity amid the onslaught due largely to his belief that Lincoln not only endorsed but had covertly orchestrated his actions, for Lincoln himself had confidentially suggested several of the compromises that Seward had offered. Furthermore, in a private letter, Lincoln encouraged him: "Your recent speech is well received here; and, I think, is doing good all over the country." Meeting in the Capitol with Charles Francis Adams a few weeks after the speech, Seward confided that 'he had heard from Mr. Lincoln, who approved his course, but was so badgered at Springfield that he felt compelled to keep uncommitted on it at present.'"
[Doris Kearns Goodwin, "Team of rivals: the political genius of Abraham Lincoln." Simon & Schuster, 2005, Chap.10]
The consummate politician, Abraham Lincoln, certainly knew how to play a crowd, even through a surrogate. Did you notice he personally congratulated Seward?
*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "From what I have read, Lincoln could care less about the plight of blacks, free or slave. But if you have evidence that he truly cared about black people, then please present it. >>DoodleDawg wrote: "He worked to end slavery. That had some benefit to enslaved blacks. But perhaps if you would provide some indication of what constitutes "truly cared about black people" in your eyes then I might be able to come up with an answer for you."
That is not evidence.
*****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "LOL! Racial hatred in the South existed long before the rebellion and grew worse after the rebellion was over."
>>Kalamata wrote: "Show your sources."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "How about two examples? Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia adopted in 1851, Section 19: "Slaves hereafter emancipated shall forfeit their freedom by remaining in the commonwealth more than twelve months after they become actually free, and shall be reduced to slavery under such regulation as may be prescribed by law." Section 20 read, "The general assembly may impose such restrictions and conditions as they shall deem proper on the power of slave-owners to emancipate their slaves; and may pass laws for the relief of the commonwealth from the free negro population, by removal or otherwise." So constitutionally Virginia tried to rid itself of freed blacks. >>DoodleDawg wrote: "In South Carolina, a law provided that any ship calling in any port in the state which had freed blacks among its crew was required to deliver those crew to the local authorities where they would be jailed for the duration of the port call, and the captain billed for their food and lodging. If the captain refused then the crewman would be sold into slavery. In 1832 Roger Taney, while Andrew Jackson's Attorney General, wrote a brief for the Supreme Court defending this law."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Add to that the fact that every Southern state had laws restricting the ability of blacks to get an education, work in some industries, move from state to state, or even be emancipated in the first place. All which predate the rebellion and are evidence of the Southern hatred and fear of blacks."
Those are not examples of racial hatred. This is:
"The nature of restrictionist legislation varied from state to state. Several states required from incoming Negroes certificates proving their freedom and attesting to their citizenship in another state. Connecticut forbade, without the approval of civil authorities, the establishment of any educational institution for the instruction of non-resident Negroes. Most of the new states, particularly those carved out of the Northwest Territory, either explicitly barred Negroes or permitted them to enter only after they had produced certified proof of their freedom and had posted a bond, ranging from $500 to $1,000, guaranteeing their good behavior. If enforced, this requirement alone would have amounted to practical exclusion. Violators were subject to expulsion and fine, the non-payment of which could result in their being whipped, hired out, or, under the Illinois statute of 1853, advertised and sold at public auction. Residents, white or Negro, who employed such persons or encouraged them to remain in the state were subject to heavy fines.
Three states – Illinois, Indiana, and Oregon – incorporated anti-immigration provisions into their constitutions. The electorates, voting on these provisions separately, indicated their overwhelming approval at the polls. Voters indorsed the Illinois constitutional clause barring the further admission of Negroes by a margin of more than two to one, most of the opposition coming from northern counties in which there were few Negroes. Indianans gave a larger majority to the restriction clause than to the constitution itself, and Oregon approved exclusion by an eight-to-one majority. The popular mandate thus seemed clear. "The tendency, strong and irresistible, of the American mind," an Indianan declared, "is finally to accomplish a separation of the two races."
[Leon F. Litwack, "North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860." University of Chicago Press, 1965, pp.71-72]
And this:
"It is forgotten that Sherman, and not only Sherman, was violently opposed to arming Negroes against white troops. It is forgotten that, as Bell Irvin Wiley has amply documented in The Life of Billy Yank, racism was all too common in the liberating army. It is forgotten that only the failure of Northern volunteering overcame the powerful prejudice against accepting Negro troops, and allowed "Sambo's Right to be Kilt"—as the title of a contemporary song had it.
"It is forgotten that racism and Abolitionism might, and often did, go hand in hand. This was true even in the most instructed circles, and so one is scarcely surprised to find James T. Ayers, a clergyman and a committed Abolitionist acting as recruiting officer for Negro troops, confiding to his diary his fear that freed Negroes would push North and "soon they will be in every whole and Corner, and the Bucks will be wanting to galant our Daughters Round." It is forgotten that Lincoln, at Charlestown, Illinois, in 1858, formally affirmed: "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." And it is forgotten that as late as 1862 he said to Negro leaders visiting the White House: "Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race.... It is better for us both to be separated."...
"Brooks Adams, with his critical, unoptimistic mind, could not conceal it from himself, but many could; and a price was paid for the self-delusion. As Kenneth Stampp, an eminent Northern historian and the author of a corrosive interpretation of slavery, puts it: "The Yankees went to war animated by the highest ideals of the nineteenth-century middle classes.... But what the Yankees achieved—for their generation at least—was a triumph not of middle-class ideals but of middle-class vices. The most striking products of their crusade were the shoddy aristocracy of the North and the ragged children of the South. Among the masses of Americans there were no victors, only the vanquished." And Samuel Eliot Morison has written of his own section. New England: "In the generation to come that region would no longer furnish the nation with teachers and men of letters, but with a mongrel breed of politicians, sired by abolition out of profiteering."
[Robert Penn Warren, "The Legacy of the Civil War." Harvard University Press, 1961, pp.59-66]
I have never heard the horrors of crony-capitalism explained more eloquently.
*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "There was no rebellion..."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Yes there was."
Can we assume you believe those who tried to escape from behind the Berlin Wall were rebellious?
You have been Lincolnized.
*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "...and racial intolerance was far was worse in the North before the secession."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Your opinion is duly noted.
I was not there, so I can only take the word of historians. A good example of racial hatred would be the Black Codes that permeated the antebellum North. Check out this excerpt from a review of a book on the Jim Crow North:
"The book ultimately dispels the myth that the South was the birthplace of American racism, and presents a compelling argument that American racism actually originated in the North."
History books are loaded with examples of racial hatred throughout the North.
*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "The Lincoln gang promoted racial hatred in the South both during the war, and afterward when Grant took over the gang leadership. If you have sources that contradict what I wrote, please provide them."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "I'm not sure what I could provide that would change your opinion, for that's all that is.
Are you claiming that after Lincoln failed in his original strategy of slavery compromise, that he did not change his strategy to pit Southern blacks against Southern whites ("divide and conquer") -- a strategy that lasted throughout the next decade of pillage and plunder of the South? Perhaps you are only reading revisionist history books.
*****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Yada yada yada, blah blah blah."
>>Kalamata wrote: "Blah, blah, blah. You have the empathy of a Carpetbagger."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Sometimes that's all your crap deserves."
I didn't have to live through Lincoln's reign of terror; and you do not seem to care about those who did.
*****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Let's begin with what your issue with voluntary emigration for free blacks, a program that began before Lincoln was born and which was supported by prominent people north and south, really is? You seem to believe that Lincoln invented it and was its sole supporter."
>>Kalamata wrote: "You are lying, again. I never said Lincoln invented it. To the contrary, in another Lincoln thread, in post #92, I said the opposite: "In fact, Lincoln was a white supremacist who was in favor of returning all blacks to Africa (as did Thomas Jefferson, and others)"
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Wow. James Monroe was a white supremacist. Robert Lee was a white supremacist. James Madison was a white supremacist. John C. Breckenridge was a white supremacist. John Randolph and Bushrod Washington were white supremacists. Well at least Lincoln was in good company."
All that to avoid admitting you lied?
*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Now, quit lying, and show us your sources."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "LOL! You are the last person to accuse others of lying."
All you are doing is helping the rulers of this world remain in protected darkness, rather than exposed to public scrutiny.
Mr. Kalamata
>>rockrr wrote: “He’s plunged below the level of even dilorenzo or stormfront”
You still playing the role of the childish, back-biting little punk?
Mr. Kalamata
rockrr back-bit: “He’s plunged below the level of even dilorenzo or stormfront.”
>>DoodleDawg sniped: “He does seem to have gone off the deep end in his hatred of Lincoln. Maybe he got bit by a Union reenactor as a baby or something?”
I believe you two got bit by the “raping, plundering, pillaging and burning is FUN” bug. Lincoln, Sheridan and Sherman certainly thought it was fun. Sick.
Mr. Kalamata
>>rockrr whined: “He’s plunged below the level of even dilorenzo or stormfront.”
It has not escaped our notice that you cannot seem to string two sentences together. The consensus is, you are one of those Soro’s Bots.
Mr. Kalamata
>>rockrr whined: “That’s Mr. Punk to you.”
I thought Soros Bots were gender-neutral?
Mr. Kalamata
Aren’t you up past your bedtime grampa? Best get them teeth to soakin!
rockrr mocked: “Aren’t you up past your bedtime grampa? Best get them teeth to soakin!”
Another one-liner? Just as I suspected, a Soros Bot.
Sure grampa - just like you’re a RussBot. Now go take your metamucil and go to bed.
rockrr protested: “Sure grampa - just like you’re a RussBot. Now go take your metamucil and go to bed.”
Yep, you are a Soros Bot. If I had been paying attention to you, I would have noticed sooner.
I believe that you are in full blown, mouth-foaming, arm-waving, facts-be-damned, Lincoln hatred mode. Amusing.
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “I believe that you are in full blown, mouth-foaming, arm-waving, facts-be-damned, Lincoln hatred mode. Amusing.”
You need psychological help, kid. No one in their right mind would support a blood-thirsty terrorist like Lincoln.
The definition of Marxist historians being any historian that doesn't follow your rabid hatred of Lincoln? IOW any reputable historian?
According to Donald, freeing the slaves was Lincoln's 2nd choice. This is from earlier in Donald's book:
Read Donald's later book.
Did you also read this part?
Yes.
I am puzzled how White was able to imagine Lincoln to be the hero of the plot, since Lincoln's white separatist views had been on record for many years, from which he clearly invoked a doctrine that he didn't want any blacks in the new territories.
LOL! So I guess then by your asinine definition any person who opposed slave imports was a white supremacist who didn't want blacks in the U.S.
That is not evidence.
That is not an answer. What constitutes "truly cared about black people" in your eyes?
Those are not examples of racial hatred. This is...
Well then you prove my point since such laws existed in every Southern state before the rebellion and to a different extent after the rebellion as well.
Can we assume you believe those who tried to escape from behind the Berlin Wall were rebellious?
Can we agree that's a moronic analogy?
Rebellion is defined as open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or opposition to an established government. That's an accurate description of the Southern actions between 1860 and 1865. Especially the 'unsuccessful' part.
History books are loaded with examples of racial hatred throughout the North.
And throughout the South as well. Both before the rebellion and afterwards.
All that to avoid admitting you lied?
And you're admitting you're avoiding the question? What's your beef with the program?
I'm in good company then, Pops. The tiny minority who call Lincoln "blood-thirsty terrorist" are more likely those not in their right mind.
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.