Well, as long as we're being over the top silly...
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 ...
So given that you clearly support the Confederacy, does that mean you were/are pro-slavery?
And lets be clear. The Civil War was primarily about slavery, no matter what the revisionists say.
Pittman created a slight breach of Godwin’s Law by skipping the preliminaries and going right for the throat.
If one truly reads the history of Lincoln’s actions with an open mind, one finds Lincoln not the rosy honorable President that the school history books made him out to be. He did make some monumental decisions during a turbulent era in our Nation’s history that changed the interpretation of the Constitution.
The 10th amendment would,cover it, at least before it died after the C.W. since it granted states the rights not covered by the first nine.
So, the worst that you can say about Abraham Lincoln, is to compare him to the scum of the South?
The issue is not whether people admire, like, dislike, disdain or hate Abraham Lincoln. The guy in the article compared Lincoln to Hitler. (facepalm)
nonsense...
Well, as long as we're being over the top silly...
You're a NYer - put yourself in the position of leadership. Calif was a state; you knew the Panama isthmus would be breached; the rail system was already extending west; there were virgin resources (forests, coal, and oil) to be exploited.
In other words, if you were a forward thinker, you could foresee what was to USA become: a global empire.
Now, consider for a moment a founding document comprised of mere words. Who would enforce it? No one. Only retards and fools would think it had any standing. As usual, right comes down to might.
The Union had the power, and they used. The result is not only history, but the fantastically wealthy families that resulting from industrial consolidation.
History records the same tale over and over again: believers get hosed, realists take home the pot.
” The 10th amendment would,cover it, at least before it died after the C.W. since it granted states the rights not covered by the first nine.”
I believe the 10th Amendment addresses powers, not rights.
If you favor a large centralized federal govt ...then Lincoln is your man. But even then he ran a poor war campaign. His mismanagement of the war caused needless suffering and death.
OTOH, if you favor States rights then Lincoln was one of the worst...if not the worst President of all time.
Distain for Lincoln?
It only cost us...how many hundred of thousands of lives? Many of them young poor men. How many mothers cried over their dead sons?
Why? because Lincoln didn’t believe in States Rights. And the North wanted the $$$ and the cotton
Another way of saying, “Slavery (and racism) are southern problems, not global problems; and certainly not “American” problems.
Just to be clear: of the 13 original states that formed the United States, 13 of those states voted to adopt a Declaration of Independence that protected slavery, and voted to adopt a constitution that provided for slavery.
And of the 13 slave states, 9 of them ended up fighting for the Union; four of them fought for the Confederacy.
At the time of Lincoln's war, the Union's constitution provided for slavery. Lincoln twice swore an oath to defend the Union's pro-slavery constitution.
Please correct me if I have misstated anything.
These “neo-confederates” as you call them are more conservative than ANY Republican except the handful in the Freedom Caucus. You may recall Sen. Jesse Helms? That kind of conservative, Constitutional conservatives and great students of history. In NC it was just such local politicians that delivered the NC House and Senate to the Republican control in over 100 years. And how? By identifying the democrat identity politics of queers, queer marriage and the great underground of pedophiles within the state democrat machine— then, linking this information with the traditional black churches, religious conservatives who recognized that the queer agenda was further eliminating the male role model for young black males, and eroding the political and cultural stability of their community. By linking this breakdown with the democrat party perpetuating it— it separated this voting bloc from the democrat machine of welfare, abortion, dope and fatherless rootless families. They removed major, white liberal machine dems and replaced them with white and black conservatives.
The northern so-called republicans just do not get the South-— in any fashion. And probably never will, with the attitude of somehow “knowing better” and a holier than thou self aggrandizing ivy league arrogance. Mr. Trump would not have won the South, were it not for Southerners of the legacy of Jesse Helms and yes, Richard Russell. (not, however LBJ/CLinton).
People need to read their history— not some PR movie crap from Spielberg. Get down to the level of people, regular people of the day-— who knew he was just a manipulative politician from Kentucky, whose type they were quite familiar with. Deo Vindice.
Dante was right - Brutus is at the bottom of hell, being chewed apart by Satan along with Judas. And John Wilkes Booth is right there with them. Traitors all.
I’d recommend reading the old book, “Gangs of New York” to get the sentiment and reality of 1850-1865 in New York City— where the city itself, the population and much of the intelligentsia were pro-Confederate (that would be to say, the moneyed class and Wall Street, had been making millions off the cotton trade, indigo, commodities for export to Great Britain and the Far East)whose northern kinfolk and industry had been making millions off the slave trade (black and white slaves/indentured servants by the merchant class)for generations. Lincoln and his railroad buddies were outsiders to this old clique.
Lincoln isn’t to be hated, but rather put in the correct political perspective as to why he got into office and who put him there. Because, if instead John Breckenridge of KY had won... there never would have been a war, and within a generation with industrial revolution at hand, slavery would have become uneconomical, as it was already becoming.
It is important to see Lincoln in a world view the mainly untold alliance between Lincoln and Tsar Alexander II, which by many scholarly accounts was key to the North winning the Civil War, preventing and sealing the defeat of the British strategic design(yet another attempt to peal off a few of the original colonies and get them back in the Empire). Many have no idea about the Russian Eastern Fleet anchored in San Francisco and NY harbors in 1863. The Tsar had “freed his serfs” and was the Tsar Liberator friend of the the Great Emancipator.
Interesting discussion here:http://services.rbth.ru/arts/2013/09/12/when_the_russian_navy_sailed_into_new_york_29761.html
Weak comparison. Where is Octavius / Augustus to kick off the reign of the emperors?
People need to read their history— not some PR movie crap from Spielberg. Get down to the level of people, regular people of the day-— who knew he was just a manipulative politician from Kentucky, whose type they were quite familiar with. Deo Vindice.
If that’s your thinking, you condemn the Republican Party, founded on anti-slavery with Lincoln as its first candidate.
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.