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 ...
The federal government fought the war to remove a state’s ability to secede and establish the federal law as the supreme law of the land. Everything else is just theatre. The states had a right to secede from the union, if the federal government became overbearing. It does not matter if the state is being a bad actor in regards to why it wishes to secede. Now that the feds won the Civil War, it can pass whatever laws it wishes and override any state it wants and no state can secede over it.
That would do it, if indeed true.
Where did you learn faux history? You should get a refund.
Good post. And this transition to a powerful centralized government mirrored a similar rationalization of power around the same time in other countries — like Canada’s confederation in 1867, the unification of the Prussian states under von Bismarck, the establishment of Italy out of the Papal States by Garibaldi, etc.
He also ordered US Naval ships to fire on NYC during the draft riots where democrats didn’t want to be drafted to fight the war.
Yes, it was. 100%. If the North hadn’t wanted to get rid of slavery, the South would never have seceded.
It is a total revisionist myth that the North was against slavery.
Initially intended to express anger at the draft, the protests turned into a race riot, with white rioters, predominantly Irish immigrants,[4] attacking blacks throughout the city. The official death toll was listed at either 119 or 120 individuals. Conditions in the city were such that Major General John E. Wool, commander of the Department of the East, said on July 16 that "Martial law ought to be proclaimed, but I have not a sufficient force to enforce it."[8]New York City draft riots
The riots remain the largest civil and racial insurrection in American history, aside from the Civil War itself.Now tell me again about the myth that the North during the Civil War cared about the plight of Black people.
Lincoln didn't start the war. This argument seems similar to President Obama's repeated claim that terrorism isn't about Islam.
He didn’t start the war. He just provoked a reaction by sending in the troops.
But, but 300 were supposed to be hanged! He commuted the sentence of all but those 38 hanged. Since he did that isn’t Lincoln a “good guy”?
sounds like a little more to the story than just hunting off Indian lands.
Precisely
higgmeister, in case you do not know, the slave states were doing subjugation and oppression to the slaves. It is amazing that the slavers of north west Georgia thought it was OK to do oppression and subjugation to the slaves yet it was not OK for the Union armies to do the exact same thing to the Slavers. One other thing...the Cherokee Tribe was living in north west Georgia and was co-existing with the whites. And look at what the slavers did to the Cherokee. Subjugation and oppression. Stole their land. As a West Rome Chieftain I too know about the history of North West Georgia.
Exactly
So, why did FIVE SLAVE STATES stay in the Union? Some were still slave states after the war and only gave it up after the 13th Amendment was ratified.
Last flag to fly over legal slavery was the Stars and Stripes.
The crap states rights came after the civil war was lost. The Lost Cause and its supporters were democrats and founders of the KKK
I’m sick enough of historical revisionism to support making it a capital crime.
Including the insane assertion that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery.
I’m with you
Author Garry Wills, an admirer of Lincoln, said about the same thing when he wrote: Lincoln at Gettysburg “performed one of the most daring acts of open-air sleight-of-hand ever witnessed by the unsuspecting. Everyone in that vast throng of thousands was having his or her intellectual pocket picked. The crowd departed with a new thing in its ideological luggage, that new constitution Lincoln had substituted for the one they brought there with them. They walked off, from those curving graves on the hillside, under a changed sky, into a different America. Lincoln had revolutionized the Revolution, giving people a new past to live with that would change their future indefinitely.”
The historical revisionism on FR is strong.
The first blood drawn in the Civil War was in Union territory. Pro-slavery forces killed four Union soldiers in Baltimore. See the Pratt Street Massacre.
Furthermore, Union troops had always occupied Ft. Sumter in South Carolina prior to the Civil War. I honestly don't know where you're going with this.
“Including the insane assertion that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery.”
If it is true that the South fought for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
“The crap states rights came after the civil war was lost.”
See amendment IX.
See amendment X.
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.