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 ...
Except, he carefully avoided speaking in support of the Confederacy, merely in opposition to Mr. lincoln’s policy (in order to push the envelope on the order.)
Further, the Legislative Branch would not have authority to outlaw speech, let alone a general acting on his own authority.
It means that the rights of black citizens was hardly his foremost concern. It, therefore, was not motivating his war effort.
The language is quite clear. it is applied to “the states now in rebellion.” i.e., the territory he did not control. Nothing else. It only freed slaves in the Confederate-controlled states and not in any place the Union controlled.
Lincoln did it that way quite on purpose.
He had no authority to free a single slave, but he used his pen and whatever was being used instead of a phone and did it anyway.
Had he intended to free the slaves, he would simply have declared them free. But he didn’t.
Far better to place the men who had just spent four years waging a bloody rebellion against the government back into the state legislatures and governors mansions and halls of Congress? Actions have consequences. But even with all that, I defy you to show me another rebellion where the losers suffered less and were returned back to the body politic faster than the Southerners were.
Arguably, the North did this for a very, very important reason - because it was in the North’s economic and political best interests.
Arguably.
Yup.
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.
As bad as conditions for blacks in the north were, and I grant you that they were pretty bad, they were better than conditions for blacks, free and slave, in the south were. In the North they could get an education, could vote in some states, were not legally prohibited from working in some industries, and were looked on as citizens of the U.S. Regardless of what Taney said.
The feds were fighting the rebellion launched by the southern states.
I've never seen a copy of Valandigham's remarks so perhaps you can point me to a copy? All I know is that Burnside charged him with "Publicly expressing, in violation of General Orders No. 38, from Head-quarters Department of Ohio, sympathy for those in arms against the Government of the United States, and declaring disloyal sentiments and opinions, with the object and purpose of weakening the power of the Government in its efforts to suppress an unlawful rebellion."
Further, the Legislative Branch would not have authority to outlaw speech, let alone a general acting on his own authority.
I'm not sure you're right on the "outlaw speech" part. But the Supreme Court did rule that tribunals like the one that sentenced Valandigham were unconstitutional in areas of the country not in rebellion and where the civil courts were operating freely. See Ex Parte Milligan.
And if that is grounds for condemning Lincoln then your opinion of the rebel leadership must be even worse.
And?
He had no authority to free a single slave, but he used his pen and whatever was being used instead of a phone and did it anyway.
Actually he did, if those slaves were used to further the rebellion. The Confiscation Acts gave him that.
Had he intended to free the slaves, he would simply have declared them free. But he didn’t.
And how, under the 12 Amendment Constitution, could he legally do that?
I see you have decided to keep on re-writing history this morning.
Just responding to Fake History posted to me.
Google it and you’ll see the sources.
A blog discussing a Hollywood movie. How can anyone doubt a source like that? </sarcasm>
So in other words you only respect the laws you approve of?
One of the most telling things is that our neo-confederates here are expressing actions and attitudes indistinguishable from the present-day antifa thugs. I wonder if it even occurs to them how anti-American they sound?
“In the North they could get an education, could vote in some states, were not legally prohibited from working in some industries, and were looked on as citizens of the U.S. Regardless of what Taney said.”
This I did not know. I knew all the northern states were slaves states at one time, but I did not realize northerners provided education, employment options, and citizenship to their slaves.
Can you tell us more about the benefits of northern slavery enjoyed by the slaves?
“Yup.”
Yup what?
Yup the north “fought a war they did not want to abolish slavery?”
If that is so, Lincoln was guilty of violently overthrowing the constitution of the United States. Slavery was enshrined in the constitution thanks to the attitudes and actions of the northern states during ratification.
Lincoln could have attempted to peacefully amend the constitution to end slavery but he chose war. I’m sure Lincoln and his financial backers thought long and hard about attacking and destroying the southern states before deciding it was in the North’s best economic and political interests to start the killings.
“I knew all the northern states were slaves states at one time . . . “
To be clear, all the original northern states.
My sister lived outside Oceana WV (south central) There was a long meadow and old shacks on hillside. Her house was on the hill where the slave quarters of the Smith Plantation were. The meadowlands was the main field of the farm. There was an old out building there last time I was there.
There were slaves here at the ed of the war. My understanding is that many places in WV were not strategic and difficult to get to, no train tracks fro instance. So the plantation operated all during the war with slaves.
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.