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 ...
There were many more supposed to be hung...many more. Lincoln saved many Indians that day. The premise of this story, make that premises, is entirely bogus.
That was an abolitionist compromise. The abolitionists wanted slaves to count for exactly ZERO. Slave holders wanted them counted 1:1. Why?
When you can articulate that answer correctly, I’ll know you are an honest man.
I'll bet he also never knew that Jefferson Davis ordered the second largest MASS HANGING IN US HISTORY of Union POWs in 1864: Link
Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot weren’t Americans.
Analogy fail.
BTW...happy memories of visiting Timpanagos Cave in Utah as a child. Long hike up the mountain though!
South Carolina already had more slaves than white settlers at that time.
Some sneer at the problems that cities like Chicago or Detroit have. The truth is, all of the blacks should have stayed in the South to make the white settlers the minority and let’s see now, if these people would be insisting on no voting rights for blacks, etc. Except they did have people like Nathan Bedford who massacred slaves, you don’t hear about this.
One of the first slave revolts happened in 1708 and that was in NY state.
There would have been many more; and owning slaves was going to see uprisings.
Because it isn't true. Roger Taney has been the subject of a number of biographies by different historians written decades apart. In none of them did the authors - men like James F. Simon, Bernard Steiner, Alvin Schumacher and Dirk Gringus - find any evidence that Lincoln had issued an arrest warrant against Taney. None of them mention any such warrant. None of them detail any threat to Taney from Lincoln. Wouldn't you agree that is strong evidence that no such threat existed?
Then why the need to secede in the first place?
There were fifteen slave states. If all had opposed the amendment it would have taken 46 states to ratify it. Do the math.
He did not. Which you would know if you relied on other sources than "Gangs of New York".
Or not clear at all.
“Articles for secession for every state, Mississippi, Texas, Carolinas explicitly mention that they are fighting for slavery. Why didn’t they mention they were fighting against taxes and tariffs? Neo-Confederate revisionism is a joke.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html “
Why do the Southern states articles of secession not reflect that they were fighting the North over tariffs and taxes? This is shown to be a big lie.
https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm
The North had over 3,000 Native Americans fighting on their side, yes, the South also had Native Americans and African Americans fighting on their side, the latter, often, could obtain freedom by doing so.
Later
Read the South’s articles of confederation—nearly every line and paragraph concerns slavery.
But..."Red Lives Matter"
Hang all murderous vermin (or shoot them in self-defense). MAGA.
“did a quick look: I see in the confederate succession of Georgia they talked about the act of 1846 which lead to the Morrill Tariff.”
The Ordinances of Succession:
South Carolina: References slavery six times; taxes once, and tariffs none.
Mississippi: References slavery three times; taxes or tariffs, none.
Florida: No references to slavery, taxes, or tariffs.
Alabama: References slavery once; taxes or tariffs, none.
Georgia: References slavery 35 times; taxes or tariffs, none.
Louisiana: No references to slavery, taxes, or tariffs.
Texas: References slavery 22 times; taxes or tariffs, none; one references to the seizure of private property.
Virginia: References slavery once; taxes or tariffs, none.
Arkansas: No references to slavery, taxes, or tariffs.
North Carolina: No references to slavery, taxes, or tariffs.
Tennessee: No references to slavery, taxes, or tariffs.
Missouri: No references to slavery, taxes, or tariffs; one reference to the seizure of private property.
Kentucky: No references to slavery, taxes, or tariffs; two references to the seizure of private property.
In summary, out of the thirteen Ordinances of Succession, slavery is referenced 68 times; taxes once; and tariffs none.
Ok, so you are equating my ancestors that lived in the 19th century South with Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin. You forgot Mao. I think I have enough of that bull sh!t for a lifetime. Have nice car wreck.
PS:You must really hate the uber racist Lincoln. LOL. After reading some of his writings on race it seems he could have been a Grand Dragon in the KKK.
I was thinking the same thing...who posts crap like this and then disappears?
DoodleDawg, you're a veteran of these Lost Cause Debates, so it surprising to me that you forgot this important rule:
If Lincoln (or the Union) did something, it was tyranny but if Davis (or the Confederates) did the same thing, they were just doing what they needed to do.
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.