Posted on 12/18/2020 8:15:29 AM PST by Onthebrink
Abraham Lincoln didn’t do enough for black lives, according to militant proponents of the woke revolution.
In October, the San Francisco Unified School District School Names Advisory Committee suggested a list of school names to be replaced in the city. On that list was a school named after Lincoln, the Great Emancipator.
In just a few years, the discussion about history and monuments has gone from whether we should keep Confederate monuments to erasing the president who orchestrated the Confederacy’s destruction.
Regarding Lincoln, it seems the woke and John Wilkes Booth are now in alignment.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysignal.com ...
Thank You Nimrata Randhawa
The woke crowd might be on to something, now. Lincoln was a tyrant. As just one example, he did not issue the Emancipation Proclamation until two years after the war started. Why did he wait two years if he believed that slavery was such a stain on our republic? He also had no qualms about suspending habeas corpus or sending Sherman to decimate GA civilians and their property when the war was practically over and clearly the north was winning.
Finally, history is written by the victors.
If you doubt this is true, read The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
https://bit.ly/2WqHuV0
“..read The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo..”
I have two of his books!😀
If the weirdos go after Abraham Lincoln’s reputation, they will hit a brick wall. Lincoln was a man of impeccable credentials. He is looked upon almost with a reverence. They will almost be starting another civil war if they try. Furthermore, they will be proving who and what they are.
What do they want. If Lincoln hadn’t started the war of northern aggression, slavery would still be in existence.
Gettysburg was that victory. Sherman understood that to bring the war to a swift conclusion he need to destroy the means and logistics that supplied the Southern war effort.
“Well is cruel. The crueler it is the sooner it's sooner it's over’’. The war is over. Tough shit for the South.
Instead of crying over events that happened 150 years let's deal with the present and march on DC and start throwing the Democrats down the capitol steps and run them out on a rail.
“Instead of crying over events that happened 150 years...”
No one is crying, just stating facts. A wise man once said, “Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It.” As I said, the victors won that war and they tell the story of history — truth be damned.
If you read any history and look at an electoral map, you can see relics of patterns of our past. It was primarily the northeast that wanted to dictate their beliefs on the rest of the country. That is when for the most part, we were an eastern nation (geographically speaking). And, no, it was not only about slavery. There were significant philosophical and even cultural differences that went all the way back to England (at that point we were still primarily an Anglo country).
Sherman would be tried as a war criminal today. There was no reason he should have destroyed civilian homes and take away their right to sustain themselves. You can have your warped view if you wish.
That phenomenon is still in play today (philosophical and cultural differences). The difference is the same groups have migrated mostly westward, and to a lesser extent southward, and picked up the black population in the process in addition to other non-Anglo cultures (with their own beliefs and folkways).
So Lincoln sent over 700,000 soldiers to their death for a belief that the states did not have the right to succeed. Now, I’m sure we both understand it was more complex than that, but that is what it boiled down to. That would be the equivalent of 9M to 10M dying today. Was it the right choice? That depends on your point of view.
So now we face another split, which is expected based on history (about every 80 years). It is not at all clear how this one will unfold since it is far from over. We lost about 300,000 in the last major conflict (WWII).
Hopefully, we’ve learned from our past (but I doubt it).
Sherman would not be tried as a war criminal by any standard. “War is cruel’’, he said. “The crueler it is the sooner it’s over’’. No one tried any of the American generals of WW2 for bringing the fight to the German people and Germany.
I don’t have a ‘’warped view’’. You do.
The South undertook a violent(and illegal) secession in order to preserve an economic system based on the use of slave labor and lost.
“Sherman would not be tried as a war criminal by any standard. “War is cruel’’”
Sherman marched from Atlanta to Savannah and burned small family homes and farms (not necessarily slave plantations), burned crops, and killed livestock (that was not taken as war booty). In other words, taking away the citizen’s ability to sustain themselves.
According to:
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF WAR
AND THEIR TARGETING IMPLICATIONS
“The principle of distinction between civilian and military targets is enshrined in article 48 of Protocol I:
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives, and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.”
Those families were not tools of war, but tools of living.
Sherman should have been hung!
War is hell. I get that, but in a sane world, there are rules. Of course, all of the players are not sane. Hitler was not sane, either — unless you view what he did as “war is cruel.”
By the way, slavery was a world-wide blight. You are attempting to apply 2000 thinking to a world of 200 years ago. The United States had around 10% of the African slaves in the world. The rest were all over the world. The north had no hesitation in using children to work 12 and 14 hours for a pittance in a mill that generated significant profits for the owners and taxes for the states. Which is worse — slavery or forced labor?
No one can deny that slavery was a bad thing. It ended in all other countries without killing 700,000 people (except where it still exists in a few African countries). The only thing the south did was bomb an enemy fort in SC (not civilian homes) and then tell Lincoln they were leaving. Lincoln did not like it and launched the most deadly conflict humanity had seen up to that point.
That is not a warped view, but reality.
By the way, our society is in the same place today. Not necessarily for the same reasons, but one side has a set of facts and beliefs and the other side has a set of facts and beliefs and they are dug in. You and I probably agree on our current dilemma (or we would not be on FR) - we just disagree about something that happened in 1860 — and leading up to 1860 (just as or more important).
There is nothing new under the sun.
“Sherman denied the South the means to continue to wage war. Tough sh!t for the Confederacy.”
Exactly how did burning small family farms, burning their fields, and killing the livestock (or taking it) of civilians who had no part in slavery or were any threat to the war serve any legitimate war purpose.
I guess in your mind it was okay to lock up and burn around 6,000,000 jews in Germany or kill and massacre thousands of Albanians in the Balkan wars.
War is hell and from your comments success by any means possible is legit. Okay. It might be you the next time. Let’s see what you think, then.
“Hitler exploited the conquered peoples of Europe and their natural resources”
Believe what you wish. That’s your choice. That does not make it true. History is written by the victors and your view happens to be the story that was written by those who won. I get that. I fully understand that many are sticking to it to this day. It is not that much different than the media of today refusing to even discuss that election fraud occurred and, further, they severely condemn anyone who supports such an idea.
Sherman also “exploited the conquered peoples.” His march to the sea from Atlanta to Savannah was a war crime. Your belief that he simply marched his troops on the highway from Atlanta to Savannah without stopping along the way to live off the backs of the subsistence farmers, who were barely able to support themselves and their families, is just wrong from what I have read and heard from those whose relatives lived it.
My relatives lived in south GA and as late as the 1960s and 1970s (four or five generations from the war) had heard stories all of their lives about the carnage Sherman poured out on their relatives from that March. By the way, they did not own slaves like 95% of the citizens of the south.
The reason for my comment on this topic is not to relive the CW. It is over and done (at least that one is). The point I am making is that we are living in a similar time. That is, there are two sides of belief on just about any topic and neither side is budging. That’s the way it was in 1861 and the period leading up to 1861.
From my perspective, the divide was very deep then and there should have been a divorce. After all, 700,000 died. For what?
It is not that different from today. Only the issues are different.
What neither of us knows is how this one will end.
Go learn some real history ok? You can’t make up your own.
“Go learn some real history ok? You can’t make up your own.”
So, make it up as you have done! Okay. Will do.
You probably believe the election of 11/3 was not stolen, either.
No smart ass. I’m not making up any history. You smack of a typical Lost Causer. And point of fact the election was stolen. Every Democrat dirt bag ought to be swinging from a lamp post right now.
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.
