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 ...
For every state? Are you absolutely sure?
Can we see your data for Florida?
Oh yes, and Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia.
Yes, those were Sargon's words that I had copied and placed in italics when I replied to him.
Scroll up about 270 posts or so and you’ll see a couple of your fellow Lincoln opponents posting quote after quote about how Lincoln had no problem with slavery, hated black people, yadda, yadda, yadda. No problem with slavery, no liking for black people, no need to start a war to end it. So we’re back to wondering why Davis and his cohorts felt the need to start a war to defend slavery?
Two questions. If the South consumed two-thirds of the imports then why were over 90% of all tariff revenue collected in Northern ports? And what was it that the South imported in such massive amounts that accounted for two-thirds of the tariff revenue?
I will never forgive Abe for what he did to my beloved South. I spit on his name.
What happened to your beloved South was self-inflicted.
Demojeff is a one-trick phony.
Sure there was. It just wasn't run by Republicans (yet). The question of slavery was itself an economic question, at least for the South.
“Yes, those were Sargon’s words that I had copied and placed in italics when I replied to him.”
Thank you for the clarification. I did get myself confused for a moment.
My point is this: Doing the math, as you suggest, reveals that President Lincoln simply did not have the votes necessary to abolish slavery peacefully through the U.S. constitution's amendment process.
If Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, he would have to do it through force of arms - in other words, use violence to overthrow the pro-slavery U.S. constitution and to kill or imprison anyone who opposed.
For that he would need a pretext for war which he found in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I meant to say the Fort Sumter incident.
It seems odd that each state had to be individually readmitted to the Union then, doesn't it?
Below is a list of the 11 states that seceded from the Union
during the American Civil War, along with the date of secession
and when they were readmitted.
State Seceded
from UnionReadmitted
to Union1. South Carolina Dec. 20, 1860 July 9, 1868 2. Mississippi Jan. 9, 1861 Feb. 23, 1870 3. Florida Jan. 10, 1861 June 25, 1868 4. Alabama Jan. 11, 1861 July 13, 1868 5. Georgia Jan. 19, 1861 July 15, 1870 6. Louisiana Jan. 26, 1861 July 9, 1868 7. Texas March 2, 1861 March 30, 1870 8. Virginia April 17, 1861 Jan. 26, 1870 9. Arkansas May 6, 1861 June 22, 1868 10. North Carolina May 20, 1861 July 4, 1868 11. Tennessee June 8, 1861 July 24, 1866
Great Britain did not need a Civil War to end slavery. As a matter of fact no other civilized country did.
“Great Britain did not need a Civil War to end slavery. As a matter of fact no other civilized country did.”
You are right. And in his first inaugural address, Lincoln did not say that he would fight to “free the slaves” although at Gettysburg he implied the war all along was for that purpose.
Lincoln and the north may very well have been fighting for something that, to them, was more important than “freeing the slaves”. And that “something” was what they considered their own economic and political best interests.
But you said they seceded due to the economic war waged on them by Lincoln and the Republicans.
And yet that's exactly what they did.
If Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, he would have to do it through force of arms - in other words, use violence to overthrow the pro-slavery U.S. constitution and to kill or imprison anyone who opposed.
Lincoln entered office with the goal of preventing the spread of slavery. It was the South who forced the war upon Lincoln in their goal of furthering their secession, which they did in defense of slavery.
For that he would need a pretext for war which he found in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I meant to say the Fort Sumter incident.
The ever popular "We wuz so stoopid we done fell into Likum's trap" defense.
Not really. The dates in question was when their delegations were readmitted to Congress, not when the states were readmitted to the Union. Which makes sense since the states were never out of the Union to begin with. Read the Reconstruction acts.
The proof of this is that a state is admitted to the U.S. through passage of an Enabling Act. No such act was passed post Civil War for any of the Southern states.
“And yet that’s exactly what they did.”
Such words, in this context, must have been written in jest.
Because I like you I will express a disproportionally large laugh.
“Which makes sense since the states were never out of the Union to begin with.”
Still, history students know the United States denied southern states representation in Congress, abolished state and local governments, divided the South into military districts (not states) and appointed military governors to rule the South like conquered territories.
Arguably, the North did this for a very, very important reason - because it was in the North’s economic and political best interests.
Is it your testimony that the north fought a war they did not want to abolish slavery that the states of New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware and Maryland voted to enshrine into the U.S. constitution?
Like you, I would jump at the chance to believe this exculpatory explanation if I did not know of the mistreatment of black people in northern states before Lincoln's War.
And during Lincoln's War.
And after Lincoln's War.
I often go by Stand Watie’s grave on my way to Grove, Oklahoma. It is not far from here.
In actual fact, it was. Otherwise, why were hte Feds fighting it.
The Supreme Court has vastly exceeded its proper authority. So saying that a decision is “the law of teh land” is improper.
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.