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 ...
Good to remember the Dakota of Minnesota
Hung for hunting? That seems tyrannical to me.
Their guilt was not in doubt. There was a much larger number that they wanted to hang. Lincoln made solid efforts to find the ones guilty beyond any doubt.
These treacherous SOBs took advantage of the distraction of the civil war to attack innocent settlers. They murdered and raped their way across the area. They left 450-800 dead depending on the source. 77 soldiers died too.
The revisionist view is that the Sioux did nothing wrong by murdering their way from farm to farm.
They were hunting white people.
During the Dakota Uprising, the Dakota warriors killed between 450-800 civilians.
303 were convicted and sentenced to death. Lincoln commuted the sentences of all but 38.
I’m sick enough of historical revisionism to support making it a capital crime.
Whoever wrote this article needs to refer to the southern states’ Articles of Secession if he doesn’t think the Civil War was about slavery. Bizarre revisionism.
During the Dakota Uprising, the Dakota warriors killed between 450-800 civilians.
303 were convicted and sentenced to death. Lincoln commuted the sentences of all but 38.
Ya I’m not sure why people on FR say the Civil War wasn’t about slavery.
Yes, it was. 100%. If the North hadn’t wanted to get rid of slavery, the South would never have seceded.
ordered to be executed by Abraham Lincoln for treaty violations (IE: hunting off of their assigned reservation).
Bullcrap. The first hunting trip involved stealing eggs from a homestead.....and murdering 5 settlers.
It was one of the largest indian depredations and mass murders of white settlers in one uprising in US history.
Lincoln was right to hang those guys.
I am shocked by the number 38.
What kind of record is that?
Tin pot dictators in obscure little countries can beat that before breakfast in the morning.
So, on December 26, 1862, the “Great Emancipator” ordered the largest mass execution in American History,
If he wanted to, Trump could beat that easy...there sure are enough deserving candidates around.
As for the Civil War not being about slavery, you might want to check with the declaration of secession.
“.. increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery ...” is listed as the main cause. It goes on at length about the north not enforcing the return of fugitive slaves, and of working to eliminate slavery.
Tariffs and taxes are not mentioned in the declaration.
Lincoln is an enigma for me. For example:
Lincoln’s Presidential Warrant to Arrest Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ‘A Great Crime’ or a Fabrication?
Frederick S. Calhoun, the Chief Historian for the United States Marshal’s Service, at the Department of Justice, recently wrote a 200 year history of Federal Marshals, entitled, The Lawmen: United States Marshals and their Deputies, 1789–1989 (Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. 1989). This historical study gives a detailed account of an arrest warrant, signed by President Abraham Lincoln, in the early days of his administration. The warrant was to arrest the Chief Justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, following his opinion in the case of Ex parte Merryman (May, 1861). The account is found in the chapter entitled, “Arrest of Traitors and Suspension of Habeas Corpus.” It was taken from the private papers of the Federal Marshall, Ward Hill Laman, at the Huntington Library in Pasadena:
Taney’s opinion seriously embarrassed Lincoln and his advisers. Southern sympathizers and Northern opponents of the war praised Taney as a partisan of civil liberties standing alone against military tyranny. Taney’s opinion exacerbated the delicate situation in Maryland, a border state yet undecided in its commitment to the Union. According to Marshal Lamon, “After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice.” Lincoln issued a presidential arrest warrant for Taney, but then arose the question of service. “Who should make the arrest and should Taney be imprisoned?”
It was finally determined to place the order of arrest in the hands of the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia. Laman then recalls that “Lincoln gave the warrant to him, instructing Lamon to “use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders.”
The account of the warrant to arrest the Chief Justice cannot be found in any of the innumerable Lincoln biographies or accounts of the early days of the Civil War. Since it only recently surfaced, Lincoln historians and biographers have never mentioned the story, probably because it has been outside the main stream of historical information, and hence has not been known. Once it surfaced, Lincoln apologists and Civil War gatekeepers, have been quick to attack the account as a fabrication, because Lincoln would never have done such a thing; and, it would have set off “a political firestorm,” so they say; and hence, it is just too preposterous to be true.
It does seem too preposterous to be true, probably because of all the grave errors and wrongs allegedly committed by Lincoln’s administration, this would rank at the top of the list. ...
I was going to respond to the article, but then I read this comment and realized there was no need.
So much for states' rights, too.
Thanks for that link.
I don’t understand why this KKK nonsense is allowed to be posted on FR. It undermines the credibility of the site.
The Sioux went on a rape/murder rampage, after being starved by corrupt Indian agents. Lincoln reviewed the trial transcripts and pardoned most of the Sioux, allowing the executions of only the actual rape-murderers.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/300-santee-sioux-sentenced-to-hang-in-minnesota
“300 Santee Sioux sentenced to hang in Minnesota”
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.