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.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Union never declared war. It was the position of the United States government that the states had rebelled against the duly elected government of the US.

Yes, that was a carefully crafted legal fiction. Lincoln had his legal argument lined up long before the war started. This is one reason he refused to meet with the Representatives from the South, and instead pawned them off on Seward, I think.

He was working hard to create the illusion of deniability. Also by refusing to call it a war, he didn't have to get authorization from Congress, which in any case he had waited till they adjourned before he sent his war fleet to Charleston to threaten the Confederates.

But to get back to the point, so the Union fought because someone rebelled? Not because they had slavery? So what does that do to "The Union fought to abolish slavery!" meme? Seems like it blows a hole in it.

I know in another thread you state you have only been studying this for a few years. As someone who has studied the civil war, and history in general, both professionally and for pleasure, may I suggest you print and read every rebelling states declarations of succession.

I am familiar with them. My position is simple. The Declaration of Independence asserts that every people have a right to independence, and it does not require them to have a morality approved by others, they possess the right of independence none the less.

Whether the South left for immoral reasons is immaterial to their right to have independence if they want it. The Brits thought the most immoral thing a man could do was to repudiate his natural allegiance to the King, and so the morality of the seceders is therefore irrelevant to their right to do so.

Perhaps that will give you a hint on why the states secceded.

If a woman does not want to remain with her husband, should she be forced to stay with him if we don't approve of her morality?

[DiogenesLamp]

Especially those who had been members of the U.S. Army before the rebellion began?

Here in the United States we have alliances with all sorts of foreign nations. Their Troops come here to train. If we go to war with one of their countries, the fact that they trained in our Army, or even if some of them joined our Army and left, would not make of them traitors because they never owed a primary loyalty to it anyway.

The Nation was founded as a confederation of States, and up until the 1860s, the primary loyalty of most men were to their own state. This was simply accepted and understood, and the fact that they may have previously served in the Federal Coalition did not excuse their expected loyalty to their own state.

But that was back before the Federal government became so powerful and all encompassing.

Needless to say, the North didn't even try that approach.

And that's really all the time I intend to spend on this particular stupid and pointless conjecture.

[DiogenesLamp]

Responding two weeks later to a post that wasn't even addressed to you? You really are obsessed.

I read through threads until I see something to which I wish to respond. What do you do? Only respond to messages addressed to you? Do you never originate any to other people?

That was the most atypical situation imaginable. Britain was the greatest power on the planet. But it couldn't bring all its force to bear on North America. Both the US and Canada could expand westward, rather than into each other's territory. Therefore, there was peace.

We actually did try to expand Northward into Canada, and the British came down and kicked our @$$es. After that, we pretended we were too civilized to invade a peaceful country like Canada, and by the time we eventually developed the Strength to do it easily, it would have been embarrassing to do it.

A division of the US into two countries would have massively complicated things on the continent, with frictions between the USA and CSA, the USA and Canada, and the CSA with Mexico and the Caribbean. Not to mention the problem with the fate of the western territories.

Now i've thought about this for a bit, and one possible scenario that I see is that the Southern confederacy could have become economically dominant in the Mid West by supplying them with goods and services through the Mississippi river.

Economic contact and profit would have eventually resulted in these states joining the orbit of the Southern confederacy.

It all depends on the money capitalization that the South could have gotten from Europe, and how they used it, but the potential threat of them taking over territory that in our timeline became state of the United States is real, and I think the Businessmen of New York, Chicago and Washington DC could see it. I think the threat of the South supplying the Midwest territories with products was one of their motivations for pursuing a war to stop Southern Trade with Europe.

Southern independence would have been also seen as a territorial threat to the United States.

Compared to what came later, the size of government in the late 19th century was still small potatoes.

Yes, but the principle of the Government acting in ways that benefits business was established, and the seeds of crony capitalism were thereby planted. Teddy Roosevelt pruned them back a bit, but Wilson watered and fertilized them.

Nonsense. Some people like to use "mercantilism" as the opposite of some laissez-faire that they imagine exists or existed and label every government economic policy as mercantilist. Historically, mercantilism was something different indeed. Tariffs alone didn't make for anything one could legitimately call mercantilism.

Tariffs were only one piece of the puzzle. There were also public laws favoring certain businesses, (such as the Navigation act of 1817, or the Warehouse act of 1846) there were subsidies such as US Government contracts for mail and shipping (going exclusively to North Eastern shipping companies) and there were other protectionist laws. There were government land grants given to railroad Industries, and so forth.

For that matter, your own thinking -- if that's what it is -- isn't untouched by mercantilist concepts: trade is a zero-sum game, one nation prospers at the expense of others, the goal is a positive balance of payments.

My understanding of trade is that it is synergistic. It is greater than the sum of it's components. That's why so much wealth is tied up in port cities like New York or Los Angeles.

70 years later?

I am thinking between 20 years and 80 years. I think the moral forces fighting it would have continued to gain strength in Slave states, and over time it would have become socially awkward for the rich families to practice it. Social opprobrium was already sweeping through a lot of the wealthy families at that time. It was becoming "declasse" and that trend would have continued.

One only need look at the progression through the Northern States to see that it was a social force that would eventually eradicate slavery anyway. It was just harder in places where it was far more profitable, but that would have changed over time.

There was still the fear Whites had of Blacks. And the planters' need to control their workforce. That wasn't going away, even if you got rid of slavery. There was still going to be some form of control or repression, most likely based on race. Not very conducive to liberty.

I think most people's plan at the time was to give them their freedom and ship them elsewhere. Lincoln certainly explored various possibilities for what to do with freed people.

It was probably impractical, and no matter what else happened, race relations would have probably been difficult for a long time. It might have worked out better, but it also could have worked out worse.

[DiogenesLamp]

For a guy who gets knocked from pillar to post as one of the dumbest people ever to post on these threads you just never learn to shut up, do you?

And you seldom come back with a good rebuttal instead of a childish ad hominem.

[DiogenesLamp]

That part not engaged in rebellion against the U.S., yes.

So if it had only been one, you would have accepted the decision of this newly constituted monarchy?

You really do have flexible principles, don't you? :)

I'm not at all surprised that you could come to that conclusion. I would just point out that the Supreme Court recognized the legality of the creation of West Virginia when they ruled in the case of Virginia v. West Virginia (78 U.S. 39) in 1871.

Yeah they ruled in favor of "gay marriage" too. They simply rule along the lines whatever party appointed them wants them to rule.

The 1871 Supreme court was just a bunch of Sock puppets for official federal policy and part of the effort to justify what they had done.

(1871 Supreme Court sock puppets depicted below.)

[jmacusa]

What ad hominem Lampster? Everybody here knows you're a moron. Nothing penetrates that thick skull of yours. How many times do you need to be embarrassed?

[DiogenesLamp]

Kelo v New London

And here I thought you were a 10th Amendment guy. So that was nothing but a fraud as well? Not at all surprising.

You thought Kelo v New London was a good decision by the Supreme court? What are you, nuts?

Kelo v New London was about a city seizing land from one owner and giving it to a business, but not for any Civic or Municiple minded purpose, but instead to "develop" it financially and make a profit.

Eminent Domain is legitimate only if the property seized is for a necessary government service in support of the community.

Kelo was a bad decision, and I can't believe you are citing that and objecting to it's inclusion in a list of very bad supreme court decisions.

[DiogenesLamp]

What ad hominem Lampster? Everybody here knows you're a moron. Nothing penetrates that thick skull of yours. How many times do you need to be embarrassed?

I'll let you know when you finally accomplish it. :)

[sargon]

The actual cause for which they were fighting appears to be stopping those Southerners from trading with Europe without sending millions of dollars North to Washington DC and New York.

I know this is your oversimplified pet theory, which you tirelessly defend. However, the overwhelming evidence from the time period—in the form of correspondence from countless everyday Americans—illustrates the fact that ending slavery was indeed the "righteous cause". And perpetuating slavery was undeniably the "cause" of the South.

While there were doubtless economic and financial interests involved on all sides, claiming such factors as the primary "cause" for the fighting is simply not the consensus of Civil War historians, nor Americans in general. Your position remains that of a small minority...

[TChris]

Editorials from newspapers of the time.

You're actually serious here? Newspaper editorials taken at face value?

Never mind. You're filling in an agenda with whatever you can find.

[DoodleDawg]

You thought Kelo v New London was a good decision by the Supreme court? What are you, nuts?

For anyone with respect for the U.S. Constitution in general and the 10th Amendment in particular, yes. So that excludes you right off the bat.

In the Kelo decision the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state could use eminent domain to take the property for urban renewal reasons or whatever. Now we can debate all day over the logic behind the state court's decision, and likely agree, but what the U.S. Supreme Court did was to refuse to overrule the state Supreme Court. And I would defy you to show me where in the Constitution the federal government has the right to tell a state what they can use eminent domain for. So clearly it was a 10th Amendment issue and the Supreme Court upheld that. Right or wrong it was the state's decision to make and not the federal governments right to overturn it.

Or maybe you would have it otherwise? Maybe you want the federal government to tell states when they can use eminent domain and when they can't? States like Texas have strict restrictions on what eminent domain can be used for; but obviously you think the feds should step in and tell them whether they are right in that or wrong. I've suspected all along that your claimed support for the Constitution was a sham. Thanks for confirming it.

[Crucial]

I’m no lawyer but it seems the Confederate Constitution went the extra step.

[DiogenesLamp]

I know this is your oversimplified pet theory, which you tirelessly defend.

Because it neatly explains all the actions of all the participants in a manner that makes sense. It is a "follow the money" methodology.

Looking at the money trails will tell you the truth even when everyone is intent on deceiving you.

However, the overwhelming evidence from the time period—in the form of correspondence from countless everyday Americans—illustrates the fact that ending slavery was indeed the "righteous cause".

Overwhelming evidence? What did the ordinary American know of the machinations of their government? Yes, there are letters from people who were all passionate about ending slavery, but how many of these represent a solid cross section of the 20 million people in the North? Anyone can cherry pick pieces of evidence that support their point, and the people who want to justify the carnage that was perpetrated seek out these letters which mention slavery as their motivation, and they deliberately ignore any letters that don't put forth this bit of propaganda.

Today, you can find all sorts of Liberal twits that will scream about "global warming" or "transgender rights", or any of a number of liberal kook bat causes. That they exist does not mean the vast majority of the population are in agreement with them.

Most of the Northerners did not give a crap about the slaves, but they were motivated by the news that the South had fired on their troops in Sumter, and they wanted to teach them a bloody lesson. The "We are going to war to stop slavery" was the province of nuts at the time, and they were a small minority in the ranks of North at this point in history.

And perpetuating slavery was undeniably the "cause" of the South.

They already had slavery. Remaining in the Union would have perpetuated it anyways. This is a fact which you and others simply keep ignoring in your efforts to make the war about Slavery and nothing but Slavery.

The Fact is the war was about Money and Power when it started, and it eventually became about hatred and revenge.

While there were doubtless economic and financial interests involved on all sides, claiming such factors as the primary "cause" for the fighting is simply not the consensus of Civil War historians, nor Americans in general.

After 150 years of propaganda and deliberately articulating the events in the light most flattering to the North, how could it have been otherwise? Most of the books were published in the North, and would you have expected them to favor a different telling?

I used to be one of those "Americans in General" that believed the war was fought for a righteous cause. I was awoken somewhat back in the 1990s when one of my race-obsessed black friends started telling me about how Lincoln cleverly manipulated the Confederates into firing first. My friend was a history major in College, and he was utterly obsessed with all things related to race and especially interested in the History of the Civil War.

It was he who first made me doubt the official accounts of what happened, and it was he who first made me look at the start of the war as a brilliant chess move by Lincoln. He cited names, dates, places, letters and telegrams, and I later verified that these documents of which he spoke, did indeed exist.

He was convinced that Lincoln started it deliberately, and so he convinced me as well. After that, one need merely ask the question "Why?"

What possible motivation would someone have to start the bloodiest and most destructive conflict in American history?

Only one answer made sense. "Money and Power." Somewhere at the root of this must be either a threat to existing money and power, or a potential to acquire money and power.

In the last two years, I found the evidence that demonstrates this answer is correct.

It ties up all the loose ends (such as the blockade) in a clear and easy to comprehend manner. It rings true.

[DoodleDawg]

Your contempt for the judiciary is not surprising, and very much in keeping with Jeff Davis and the Confederate congress.

[DiogenesLamp]

You're actually serious here? Newspaper editorials taken at face value?

If you don't think Newspaper editorials reflect the opinions of a significant portion of the readership of that era, then you have an anachronistic view of the time period. Lincoln himself said the Chicago Newspapers virtually caused the whole war themselves.

Never mind. You're filling in an agenda with whatever you can find.

And you are looking for any weak sauce criticism that you can throw because you can't find anything else to rebut my arguments.

[DiogenesLamp]

And I would defy you to show me where in the Constitution the federal government has the right to tell a state what they can use eminent domain for

Tail end of the fifth amendment.

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

As already noted, the "use" wasn't public. It was private. The City of New London attempted to seize another persons property for the purpose of giving it to another non governmental entity.

Or maybe you would have it otherwise? Maybe you want the federal government to tell states when they can use eminent domain and when they can't?

When it is the state's intention to take away private property and give it to someone else to be their private property, Yes, I want the Federal government to prevent it. That is not how "public use" is intended to work.

[DiogenesLamp]

I’m no lawyer but it seems the Confederate Constitution went the extra step.

Yes they did. Obviously they concluded that Article IV, section II was not clear enough because pretty much every state ignored it (thanks to Justice Story in Prigg v Pennsylvania) and in a manner of speaking, this is exactly what caused much of the friction between the North and the South.

Spelling it out explicitly and numerous times throughout the document was probably their way of trying to make certain that no future Liberal Judges can change it on a whim or through "creative interpretation."

[DiogenesLamp]

Your contempt for the judiciary is not surprising, and very much in keeping with Jeff Davis and the Confederate congress.

I was not aware there were any conservatives who did not hold strong contemptuous views of activist judiciary. Opposition to activist judges has been a hallmark of conservative thinking for as long as I can remember.

Yes, i'm contemptuous of arrogant Judges who believe they can lie to us and twist the meaning of our laws into something they were never intended to be.

Using the 14th amendment to destroy prayer in public schools, to create legalized abortion, to create homosexual "marriage" and to eradicate the constitutional requirements for the Presidency, to give citizenship to illegal aliens, is an example of despotic behavior on the part of the courts.

The 14th amendment was created to grant and protect citizenship for former slaves. It was never intended to create a "right" to abortion or homosexual marriage, and so forth.

This is misrule. This is the opposite of the rule of law, and yes, I am very contemptuous of it.

[DoodleDawg]

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This will no doubt come as a surprise to you, but the Connecticut Constitution contains a clause with virtually the same wording. The first question is what defines "public use". Can a state use eminent domain to acquire land and then turn around and sell it to a private developer? Who gets to say? Neither the U.S. or the state constitution defines the term, and since they don't then shouldn't it be up to the state to do so, based on the will of their people as expressed by act of their own state legislature? Isn't that what the 10th Amendment is all about? You may disagree with their interpretation but a clear reading of the Constitution gives them the power to make that distinction and not the federal government. But I forget, the Constitution isn't of much interest to you.

When it is the state's intention to take away private property and give it to someone else to be their private property, Yes, I want the Federal government to prevent it. That is not how "public use" is intended to work.

By your definition. Let me pose a different scenario to you. Wyandotte County over in Kansas used eminent domain to acquire several private homes so that they could sell the land to people wanting to build a NASCAR track. The county's logic behind their action was that the track might spur commercial development and generate tax revenue for a county that was sadly lacking in revenue sources. So the property was condemned, the home owners received fair market value, and the Kansas Speedway was built. And as an economic engine it has succeeded far beyond the county government's wildest expectations. The boom has been phenomenal with retail, restaurants, car dealerships, hotel rooms, additional sporting stadiums all being built. The amount of tax revenue that this has generated has allowed the county to reduce real estate taxes, personal property taxes, and sales taxes for all the people in the county while at the same time improving services. Everyone has benefitted from it.

Now you would say that the U.S. Supreme Court should have prevented the people of Kansas from making this decision and reaping the resulting benefits. That's your opinion, apparently being a big central government supporter. But I believe the 10th Amendment gives Kansas the right to make that decision. That seems to be one of the many differences between us.

[DiogenesLamp]

Now you would say that the U.S. Supreme Court should have prevented the people of Kansas from making this decision and reaping the resulting benefits.

Yes, because the manner in which it was done trampled on the rights of the owner. The proper way is for the Private enterprise to purchase the land voluntarily, not to use the force of government to deprive people of their rights.

That it was a wonderful economic success is irrelevant. Using government to coerce people for the benefit of a non governmental organization is an example of "crony capitalism" and a too close collusion between government and private enterprise.

This is the fascist model of Nazi Germany.