Posted on 04/13/2017 6:58:51 PM PDT by brucedickinson
Pittman replied, "And if Hitler had won, should the world just get over it? Lincoln was the same sort of tyrant, and personally responsible for the deaths of over 800,000 Americans in a war that was unnecessary and unconstitutional." Pittman did not respond to request for comment from TIME to clarify his remarks.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Despite video movie portrayals of Lincoln,
A) Lincoln bombed the towns where blacks lived. Many would die. That is an act of love or hate?
B) Lincoln did not free the Northern slaves. His declaration only effected 50k of 4 mil blacks. Only 1% of blacks were freed. Love or hate.
C) He declared he wanted to send the blacks back to Africa. If that all is love, it sure is hostile love.
Truth is the Christian Abolitionists freed the slaves, Lincoln followed along reluctantly and took false credit like politicians do. TV & movies are rarely accurate depictions.
I checked out csmusaret's link, and most of it is the usual ridiculous nonsense, reviewed at great length on these threads many times.
But the last one on that list is something close to what Wikipedia now says, with no supporting evidence:
from csmusaret's link: "#16 Lincoln was Commander-in-Chief of an Army whose invasion of the South resulted in the deaths of 50,000 Southern civilians."
from Wikipedia: "The war produced at least 1,030,000 casualties (3 percent of the population), including about 620,000 soldier deaths—two-thirds by disease, and 50,000 civilians."
But when you look for data on just who & where were these alleged 50,000 civilians, there is none, zero, except for statistical extrapolations based on different census results -- one of which, 1870, is fully acknowledged to have been quite inaccurate.
So at least three points to make here:
Bottom line: even though Wikipedia is now promoting the number "50,000 civilian deaths" there is no actual data, none, to support it only statistical analyses, and there's no reason to assume that all of these alleged civilian statistics were Southern.
I am certain, sir, that you well deserve the same praise you give our FRiend DoodleDawg.
It's all ridiculous nonsense which begins by ignoring the fact that Confederates provoked war, started war, formally declared war, waged war in Union states and for four years refused to stop their war on any conditions better than Unconditional Surrender.
The US Constitution recognizes both foreign war and internal rebellion, allowing for suspension of certain liberties (i.e., habeas corpus) in such times.
So, what Lincoln did was perfectly constitutional and also later approved by Congress.
Remember the Constitution's definition of treason:
Of course our pro-Confederates say secessionists were not committing treason because they were then a different country.
But once the Confederacy started (Fort Sumter) and formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861) then any active pro-Confederates in Union states (i.e., Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky) were by definition guilty of treason.
That is why Lincoln had them arrested.
And that alone answers your items #1 through #12, except for #5 where the piece attempts to turn treason logic on its head declaring:
As for Lincoln's emancipation proclamation and confiscation acts, those were practiced during the Revolutionary War and thus were a normal part of a nation's actions during war or rebellion.
What does that leave, water torture against Union prisoners, #15?
That's a new one for me, perhaps somebody knows what this refers to?
It takes a special kind of stupid to assert that it wasn’t treasonous to openly wage war against your own nation while simultaneously asserting that it was treasonous for Lincoln to defend his country.
And yet here we have it in the form of some scribblings on the internet and posted by a fellow FReeper.
On the contrary, here is a link to an article that makes a very good case that the meaning of the phrase is not what you claim: The "Domestic Insurrections" of the Declaration of Independence
That's true. Trump voters North and South, East and West aren't so very different from each other.
There is a split between the "elite" and the "populist" factions of the GOP, but I have to laugh when people are running down the senior senator from South Carolina every day and then start talking about some Northeastern elite within the party.
The Rockefellers, Roosevelts, and the rest are gone. Those who are left are voting Democrat. The average Northeastern Republican has more in common (originswise) with Giuliani or Christie than with the Rockefellers or Bushes.
Meanwhile, country club Republicans are everywhere. If Southerners can't stop electing them to the Senate, it's not the fault of folks up north. As time goes on, you'll see more RINOs -- and even Democrats -- elected in the South. And you'll hear the same voices blaming them on the Yankees.
It’s amazing a serious person (as one would assume an elected Republican to be) would be blathering on about such nonsense instead of working to protect the people of NC by opposing the new commie Governor.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure justifed by the president's war powers. No president had the power to free the slaves in peacetime. It took a constitutional amendment to do that. And Lincoln fought for that amendment until Congress passed it.
In the 1820s and 1830s, when Lincoln was young, if you had qualms about slavery -- if you thought slavery might not be a good thing and looked forward to an end to it -- the odds very much were that you were for "gradual emancipation" and repatriation of freed slaves back to Africa.
That's the way most people who were opposed to slavery or critical of it -- not at all a large percentage of the population, by the way -- thought and that's how Lincoln thought. It was a package deal, and almost nobody believed in citizenship and civic equality for African-Americans.
It took time for him to get over it. He still had hopes of voluntary repatriation well into the war, but the idea that he he wanted to forcibly expel all African-Americans to Africa has no basis in fact.
At the end of the war, Lincoln, in contrast to most Americans, was willing to grant the vote to some African-Americans. How does that accord with the idea that he had a deep-rooted, irradicable hatred of Blacks.
Now imagine if you can that you were alive 150 years ago and were a typical white American. Would you really have thought of blacks as your equals? And have looked favorably on the Confederacy at the same time? Really?
Well said.
In fairness, there are fewer RINO's or Democrats in the South than elsewhere, but Deep South, Upper South or Border South, they are not wholly absent.
You know, I was thinking about that too, and since I have many relatives way up in western NC, and some of them may know some people who know some people who may at some time have produced a certain clear liquid which, ahem, lights up the mind and loosens the tongue...
I'm not sayin'... I'm just sayin'
Of course, it would be odd and ironic if Mr. Pittman from far eastern NC had his tongue loosened by hillbilly fire water, because most of those billies, way back, were rather fond of Republican Mr. Lincoln and not so much of Democrat East-state slave-holders.
The fact is that, the South had no moral right to revolt and there is no legal basis for secession.
The 10th amendment deals with the fact that Federal power was limited to more then just the first 9 amendments, it gave no right for States to secede.
No, I am right, you do the research, I have.
“We didn’t secede from Great Britain, we revolted. “
Well that’s a classic for being a distinction without a difference.
And what exactly do you think was the moral right for the colonials to secede from Britain?
“I am certain, sir, that you well deserve the same praise you give our FRiend DoodleDawg.”
Well, you are as wrong as you are certain. The swine DoodleDawg accused me of supporting slavery. If you want to be “FRiends” with a scumbag who throws around such accusations, that’s on you.
“who would pick our cotton if we didn’t have the people we owned to do that”
The property in question was not the slaves, but the profits from the sale of cotton, tobacco, and other goods.
But then, you knew that, didn’t you?
“A pleasure that I’m willing to forego.”
Yes, I’m sure you enjoy flinging around blood libel with no consequences to yourself.
Sorry, FRiend, but you have the same problem as everybody else who tries to defend the Confederacy, and that is there's no logical way to defend Confederates without also defending the slavery they seceded for & fought to defend, except by lying about it, which of course is what you all do.
That makes you totally worthy of the same praise you lavish on our FRiend DoodleDawg.
I offered no defense of the Conferacy and I made no assertions. You tell me which of those things Lincoln did not do?. And save your nasty, juvenile name calling for the playground.
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.