I Never Knew That Abraham Lincoln Ordered The Largest MASS HANGING IN US HISTORY, Or Why He Did It

The Daily Check ^ | May 29, 2017

[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.

[DoodleDawg]

Or have you started to walk it back already?

Misstatement on my part due to my not reading your statement carefully enough. For the record I do not believe that Lincoln and the Union pursued the war that was forced upon them for the purpose of ending slavery. Nor does anyone who has studied the rebellion in any depth. Except, perhaps, you but then I have no idea how much time you have spent looking into the history of the rebellion. Since you insist on referring to it as Lincoln's war then I'm thinking not much.

[DoodleDawg]

Maybe it’s because he said he likes you.

Yeah maybe we'll get married.

[rockrr]

That made me gag a little...;’}

[jeffersondem]

“So if you rob a bank and the police arrest you and take your gun without compensating you then that's a violation of the 5th Amendment?”

Bad analogy at all levels.

For one thing, people who are accused of bank robbery and then never charged with any wrong-doing, should always have their personal property returned, or at least fairly compensated.

[jeffersondem]

“For the record I do not believe that Lincoln and the Union pursued the war that was forced upon them for the purpose of ending slavery.”

That is the only answer a knowledgeable northerner can give when there is an interest in claiming Lincoln loved the union and the constitution he twice swore to uphold.

If Lincoln was found to be fighting and killing to “free the slaves” he would have been guilty of the violent overthrow of the U.S. constitution - which enshrined slavery. And I don't think you want to go there. The supporters of John Brown gladly go there, but I don't think you want to go there.

That said, there is actually evidence that Lincoln did intend to violently overthrow the constitution. Reminds me of Barack Obama who famously ran for president as a “strong advocate that marriage is between one man and one woman” and later “evolved” into the opposite. Who can really say for sure what the intent of Lincoln was other than to get power and keep power for the purpose of advancing the economic and political best interests of the North.

[jeffersondem]

“Try the truth, in the first place. That way you won't have to cover up your lies with more lies . . . and so on and so on and so forth . . . Colonies are not the same as States.”

That is an interesting comment that, as an old country boy, I have no idea how to respond other than to refer the matter to our founding fathers.

“Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America.”

When in the Course of human events . . .”

Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; . . .”

. . . of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

. . . the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers . . .”

He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; . . .”

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States;”

. . . so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies;”

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America . . .”

by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States . . .”

And so forth and so on.

It seems to me the founding fathers were using the terms colonies and states interchangeably. And by the close of business on July 4, 1776 the colonies were states.

And on that date all 13 of the states were slave states.

But if you have evidence that DoodleDawg and I are wrong about this let's see it.

[HandyDandy]

Leastwise, we now have our timeline. Your cut-off for the existence of "colonies" is the end of business day July 4. 1776. Just prior to that, one could apply the term "colony" or "state" to those entities that where thenceforth only known by the term "states". What had been called the United Colonies, then and there, became the United States. At that point, those free and Independent states commenced drafting their individual constitutions. Every Northern state began writing the abolition of slavery into their state constitutions. These things don't happen overnight. No Southern state was writing the abolition of slavery into their respective constitutions. In point of fact, Massachusetts had declared its own independence from the British Monarch in May of 1776. Massachusetts then commenced hammering out its anti-slavery "state" constitution which went into effect in 1780.

For you to harp on bashing Northern slave states without even bothering to mention slavery in the South is most disingenuous. You are driven by hatred of the North, hatred of Lincoln and will twist and distort whatever facts in order to put the North in a bad light. Nobody is saying the northerners were saints. No one is saying the North became enlightened to the horrors of the peculiar institution in the South and decide to wage war to free the slaves. You are setting up a straw-man and then over-arguing it to unleash your bias.

Remember, for future reference, when the people of today discuss Colonies, they are talking about the "states" prior to Independence Day and we refer to them as "states" since Independence Day. At least that is how it works here in the States. Now please tell me what is the distinction you make between "northern states" and "original northern states". To be clear, and so forth and so on and forth and on.

[jeffersondem]

“Leastwise, we now have our timeline. Your cut-off for the existence of “colonies” is the end of business day July 4. 1776. Just prior to that, one could apply the term “colony” or “state” to those entities that where thenceforth only known by the term “states”. What had been called the United Colonies, then and there, became the United States. At that point, those free and Independent states commenced drafting their individual constitutions. Every Northern state began writing the abolition of slavery into their state constitutions. These things don't happen overnight. No Southern state was writing the abolition of slavery into their respective constitutions. In point of fact, Massachusetts had declared its own independence from the British Monarch in May of 1776. Massachusetts then commenced hammering out its anti-slavery “state” constitution which went into effect in 1780.
For you to harp on bashing Northern slave states without even bothering to mention slavery in the South is most disingenuous. You are driven by hatred of the North, hatred of Lincoln and will twist and distort whatever facts in order to put the North in a bad light. Nobody is saying the northerners were saints. No one is saying the North became enlightened to the horrors of the peculiar institution in the South and decide to wage war to free the slaves. You are setting up a straw-man and then over-arguing it to unleash your bias. Remember, for future reference, when the people of today discuss Colonies, they are talking about the “states” prior to Independence Day and we refer to them as “states” since Independence Day. At least that is how it works here in the States. Now please tell me what is the distinction you make between “northern states” and “original northern states”. To be clear, and so forth and so on and forth and on.”

I leap to the conclusion you agree with DoodleDawg. And me.

[HandyDandy]

I didn't think that you would understand. Your bias blinds you. Consider this: each and every "original northern state", at the very first opportunity, which was provided by the Declaration of Independence, when they could make their own constitutions, independent of Britain, undertook immediate steps toward the abolition of slavery. Those same northern states that you love to say "enshrined slavery in the US Constitution" were at the same time beginning to abolish it at home. You know they weren't "enshrining" it for themselves, but in deference to Georgia and South Carolina.

Now, you seem to have half a brain, so think of it this way. Suppose you were thinking of getting into a business in 1777 that relied on slave labor. Would you be looking to open up shop in the North or the South?

Meanwhile, can we get back to my previous question to you? Please tell me what is the distinction you make between "northern states" and "original northern states". To be clear, and so forth and so on and forth and on.

[jeffersondem]

“Please tell me what is the distinction you make between “northern states” and “original northern states”.”

Here’s an example. Michigan is a northern state - fought for the union. But it was not one of the original 13 states - like, say New York.

[jeffersondem]

“Your bias blinds you.”

I don't think you are being very fair to DoodleDawg and me. Just because we disagree with you, you don't have to turn it into a personal attack.

[HandyDandy]

So what you first referred to as the "northern states", and then (to be clear) you changed that designation to "the original northern states", you are now referring to as "the original 13 states". The original 13 states, prior to the end of business day July 4, 1776 are today referred to as the original 13 colonies, like, say Georgia. Some were in the North and some were in the South.

Don't think that the original 13 states weren't thinking about the land called Michigan. For example, from the inter-webs: "As the Continental Congress discussed the Northwest Ordinance, a Massachusetts delegate suggested adding a provision banning slavery in the Northwest Territory, which included the future states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan. The Ordinance, including this measure, was adopted on July 13, 1787. It was the first time the federal government set limits on the expansion of slavery."

[HandyDandy]

If I say to you that your bias blinds you, how is that being unfair to DoodleDawg? That was directed specifically at you.

Just a point of FRetiquette. You are supposed to include a poster that you refer to in a post, in the “to” address. You are the one who has been being unfair to DoodleDawg by continually referring to him without enshrining him in your “to:”.

[DoodleDawg]

For one thing, people who are accused of bank robbery and then never charged with any wrong-doing, should always have their personal property returned, or at least fairly compensated.

Rebellion is no more legal than bank robbery is. Criminal charges may not have been applicable but there is no doubt what the South did and that they paid a penalty for their actions.

[DoodleDawg]

That is the only answer a knowledgeable northerner can give when there is an interest in claiming Lincoln loved the union and the constitution he twice swore to uphold.

That is the only answer supported by the evidence.

If Lincoln was found to be fighting and killing to “free the slaves” he would have been guilty of the violent overthrow of the U.S. constitution - which enshrined slavery. And I don't think you want to go there.

I don't want to go there because there is nothing to support the claim.

That said, there is actually evidence that Lincoln did intend to violently overthrow the constitution.

That evidence being?

[jeffersondem]

“Just a point of FRetiquette. You are supposed to include a poster that you refer to in a post, in the “to” address. You are the one who has been being unfair to DoodleDawg by continually referring to him without enshrining him in your “to:”.”

In post 357 (this thread) I was mentioned by name and not listed in the address line.

And you said nothing.

I thought I was following your approved protocols.

[HandyDandy]

There. You just did it again for about the fifth time. Let me know when he does it five times.

I haven't explained to you my protocols.

[jeffersondem]

“There. You just did it again for about the fifth time.”

Everything that could be done was done to calm HD’s irrational anxieties.

Still, he persisted.

[jeffersondem]

“Rebellion is no more legal than bank robbery is. Criminal charges may not have been applicable but there is no doubt what the South did . . .”

Actually, there were a lot of questions in the minds of serious people both before and after Lincoln's War about the South's course of action.

Look no further than the archetype Republican D. D. Eisenhower. It was he who wrote to a South-hater in 1960: “I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.”

The supposed criminal offense of secession is not quite the picture you paint.

While there may have been room for men of goodwill to disagree at one time about intended limits on the the size and scope of the federal government, it is now too clear to deny the South was right in opposing corrupt, incompetent federal overreach and deadly tyranny.

[jeffersondem]

“That evidence being? “

Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

Admittedly, that can be countered by any number of other Lincoln utterances over the years that implied the opposite.

Lincoln was an absolute master at making one audience believe he meant one thing, while making another audience believe he meant something different. He was every bit as good a retail politician as President Clinton, and perhaps better than President Obama. Very slick.

My best guess about “Lincoln fighting to free the slaves” - this was a scabbed-on justification for the war after the casualty rate could no longer be justified by the North's need to collect taxes on Southern wealth, some of which was based on slave labor. “Freeing the slaves” was a way to freight the killings with meaning.