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 ...
I would believe Honest Abe long before I would believe you.
“I would believe Honest Abe long before I would believe you.”
Look it up.
As a self-styled expert on Lincoln’s words and their pretext, how would you interpret the Lincoln quotes from posts #s 415 and 417?
“The North was never going to idly let that stand.”
No they were not. They got busy. And Cain slew Able.
I don't know if I have ever mentioned this, but human bondage was enshrined in the U.S. constitution by an affirmative vote of the states New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maryland.
Oh yes, and Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia.
As for the references to slavery in the US Constitution, Lincoln says, “I believe our government was thus framed because of the necessity springing from the actual presence of slavery, when it was framed.” And you and I know it was to placate Georgia and North Carolina.
On the other hand, jeffersondem, incessantly and ad nausea must refer to the US Constitution as “pro-slavery”. Who should I listen to?
Self-serving.
Ha ha ha! You spelled “Abel” wrong! You ou spelled “Abel” wrong. You anal retentive douchebag. By the way, Abel took the first shot.
Do you make any distinction between subhuman bondage and human bondage?
You are slipping back into dementia.
That’s sad. Too bad for you.
This is actually a point on which I disagree with you.
As I understand it, you contend the states of New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware and Maryland voted to enshrine slavery into the U.S. constitution for the benefit of Georgia and North Carolina. (Most northern apologists say Georgia and South Carolina, but no matter).
It is my view the 13 states voted to include slavery in the U.S. constitution because each state thought it was their own best self-interest.
“It is my view the 13 states voted to include slavery in the U.S. constitution because each state thought it was their own best self-interest.”
Suppose I were to tell you that certain of those 13 states (only northern ones, I assure you) were simultaneously working on their respective state constitutions which nearly unanimously were including at least provisions for the eventual abolition of slavery. The only way that you could rationalize those states serving in their own best self-interests by “enshrining” slavery in the US Constitution, is,....... what?
Jeffersondem misspelled a word and you caught it!
That is something you can carry with you for the rest of your life. No one will ever be able (that word again) to take that success away from you.
That was actually all that I was out to accomplish this fine evening. Thanks for playing along. I just hope you are able to overcome it.
“Suppose I were to tell you that certain of those 13 states (only northern ones, I assure you) were simultaneously working on their respective state constitutions which nearly unanimously were including at least provisions for the eventual abolition of slavery.”
Then I would say you are desperate to make a weak point strong.
Are you aware that in post #412 you spelled “feelings” as “feedlings”? Could you be more specific when you say “in their best self-interest”? I mean, couldn’t one say that about anything? And how do you determine when to use “self-serving” vs “in their best political and economic interests”, and finally, why do you only speak in those vague and abstract terms when referring to the North?
“Then I would say you are desperate to make a weak point strong.”
Au contraire. I am merely trying to demonstrate to you that what you think is a strong point (that the original northern states “enshrined slavery in the pro-slavery US Constitution”) is weak.
I'm guessing the rebellion had something to do with that. Press of issues requiring his immediate attention and all that.
If a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery had passed early, the war, the killings, the destruction, and all the hard feedlings could have been skipped.
How do you figure? The southern states had announced their secession before Lincoln was inaugurated and began their war within six weeks after the inauguration. How would an amendment prevented that?
Sad he didn’t try.
Sad that you blame him. But for the sake of argument, why not lay out a timeline that would have resulted in your happy ending?
There was time to prepare a 13th amendment before Lincoln's War. It fact it was done.
Lincoln even addressed the proposed 13th amendment in his first inaugural address”
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
So there was time before the war for the North to prepare a constitutional amendment to make slavery “irrevocable” but not time to prepare an amendment to abolish it?
It looks like the North didn't seriously consider the advantages of abolishing the slavery they had enshrined into the U.S. constitution.
Of course, history records that once the high casualty figures began pouring in, Lincoln scabbed onto the conflict the notion the North was “fighting to free the slaves.”
But after the southern states had announced their secession.
So there was time before the war for the North to prepare a constitutional amendment to make slavery “irrevocable” but not time to prepare an amendment to abolish it?
Since the southern states had already announced their secession and were preparing for their war then it really didn't matter what amendments were proposed.
It looks like the North didn't seriously consider the advantages of abolishing the slavery they had enshrined into the U.S. constitution.
You are aware that the 13th Amendment was passed and sent to the states while the rebellion was still ongoing, aren't you?
Of course, history records that once the high casualty figures began pouring in, Lincoln scabbed onto the conflict the notion the North was “fighting to free the slaves.”
Of course history does.
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.