REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

My reasons to not like Lincoln

POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Sunday, April 19, 2015 16:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3549
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, February 21, 2015 5:06 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I have two related ones that are about the Civil War.

He felt he had to keep the south. Somebody should have been there telling him - shake it off, man. Walk it off. You can get by without them. And the US - would have been far, far better off. In fact, I'm hoping someone invites the south to leave right now. Let it make amends for past errors.

But failing that - he failed to make it VERY clear - it was about slavery. It wasn't about 'northern aggression' (aside from the fact that southern idiots don't seem to realize the south fired the first shots - but that's another story). Slavery should have been front and center. Ultimately, that's what it was about. There should be no question at this point that the south is STILL pissed off - that they can't own slaves anymore.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 21, 2015 5:11 PM

THGRRI


Russia Downgraded To Junk By S&P




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:31 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



And here I though you LIKED Matthew McConaughey.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 21, 2015 8:04 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

And here I though you LIKED Matthew McConaughey.


Oh c'mon now, everybody likes Matthew McConaughey. I mean, what's not to like, especially when he's so damn sincere about why he drives a Lincoln.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:29 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Lincoln Schmincoln! The Ford Motor Company haz NEVER made a good automatic tranzmission. To this day they shift like a drunk monkey in a Russian mobile missil launcher!

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 22, 2015 5:12 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


My current FORD > my old Dodge.

For what ever that's worth.

As for the President Lincoln... he certainly was a different cat.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 22, 2015 5:59 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Chinese Guy At The Eye Doctor


Eye Doctor: "After reviewing the test results I can now tell you why your vision is blurred in your left eye."

Chinese Guy: "Okay Doc, what's wrong with my eye?"

Eye Doctor: "It seems you have a cataract."

Chinese Guy: "No Doc, I drive a Rincoln."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 22, 2015 6:09 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Crassic

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:23 PM

THGRRI


In deed, I am now driving a Civic.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 22, 2015 10:04 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I have two related ones that are about the Civil War.

He felt he had to keep the south. Somebody should have been there telling him - shake it off, man. Walk it off. You can get by without them. And the US - would have been far, far better off. In fact, I'm hoping someone invites the south to leave right now. Let it make amends for past errors.

If Lincoln let the Confederates leave, the Confederacy would have made even bigger and uglier problems for the USA than a Civil War.

The Confederacy would not have allowed the state of West Virginia to exist. As for the 15 states that have since been added to the Union, the Confederacy would have claimed those, too. And California and Oregon. The people of today living in the Confederate States are still a belligerent bunch.

Old states like Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware would have been taken away by force from the United States almost immediately after the Confederacy got organized. Luckily for the USA, the Confederacy never gave itself enough time to get properly armed before it started invading the North.

Lincoln did not have a free hand because the Northern States, some with no slavery and some with slaves like Kentucky & Maryland & Delaware & Missouri, hated blacks. It would have been impossible to sell a war to a majority of Northern congressmen that all slaves be freed in the North and the South in 1862. Lincoln could not start selling that notion until 1863. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 22, 2015 11:55 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I have two related ones that are about the Civil War.

He felt he had to keep the south. Somebody should have been there telling him - shake it off, man. Walk it off. You can get by without them. And the US - would have been far, far better off. In fact, I'm hoping someone invites the south to leave right now. Let it make amends for past errors.

But failing that - he failed to make it VERY clear - it was about slavery. It wasn't about 'northern aggression' (aside from the fact that southern idiots don't seem to realize the south fired the first shots - but that's another story). Slavery should have been front and center. Ultimately, that's what it was about. There should be no question at this point that the south is STILL pissed off - that they can't own slaves anymore.


Well, you sort of have a point where the evil Democrats controlled the media (press) then just as they still do today, and they controlled the lies back then as well as now, and the majority of the uneducated citizens believed then and now what the Democrats tell them.

There is nothing Lincoln could have done to get the truth through the liberal blockage of media (now known as the "media bubble"), just as the truth is not allowed to be exposed via the likes of Brian Williams, Dan Blather or Scott Pelley.

And yes, the Democrats are still ticked off that they can't keep their slaves anymore.

But be honest, you just dislike Abe because you hate the honest, the brave, the honorable, the patriotic, and the Republicans - but I repeat myself.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 23, 2015 12:13 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
-- but I repeat myself.

You got that fact right. Your other "facts" were blatter.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 23, 2015 12:26 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Thanks Second.

My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I appreciate your reply.

I know that the areas that were up for statehood were in dispute - slave v free? I'm not sure how that would have been resolved otherwise.

I do think, though, that those southerners still ticked-off that they lost don't have the internal integrity to admit to themselves that it was truly about slavery. And that they're pissed-off on behalf of a slave-owning cause.




SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 23, 2015 12:39 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Thanks Second.

My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I appreciate your reply.

I know that the areas that were up for statehood were in dispute - slave v free? I'm not sure how that would have been resolved otherwise.

I do think, though, that those southerners still ticked-off that they lost don't have the internal integrity to admit to themselves that it was truly about slavery. And that they're pissed-off on behalf of a slave-owning cause.

The USA has problems for obvious reasons. "Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole."
-- www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2015/02/ta-nehisi-coates-honored-
with-2014-george-polk-award/385536
/

http://fenchan.deviantart.com/art/Malcolm-Mal-Reynolds-515141850

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 26, 2015 8:45 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Thanks Second.

My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I appreciate your reply.

I know that the areas that were up for statehood were in dispute - slave v free? I'm not sure how that would have been resolved otherwise.

I do think, though, that those southerners still ticked-off that they lost don't have the internal integrity to admit to themselves that it was truly about slavery. And that they're pissed-off on behalf of a slave-owning cause.

The USA has problems for obvious reasons. "Two hundred fifty years of slavery.


Supported by Democrats and ended by Lincoln, the first Republican President. That means the first opportunity the Republicans had to weigh in, they ended it.
Quote:


Ninety years of Jim Crow.


Supported and enacted by continually racist Democrats, after they got rid of Lincoln. Key point: Lincoln was dead before the onset of Jim Crow laws in 1876.
Quote:


Sixty years of separate but equal.


Supported and enacted by perpetually racist Democrats, under Louisiana law of 1980. Key point: Lincoln was still dead in 1890.
Quote:


Thirty-five years of racist housing policy.


Supported and created by perpetually racist Democrats such as LBJ and the other Dixiecrat opposition to Civil Rights, and including Obama's ACORN debacle. Key point: Lincoln was still dead in the 20th Century, and Republicans were still enacting every Civil Rights Bill of the 50's and 60's, and Republicans were organizing all the Civil Rights marches, and Republican Martin Luther King, Jr continued to oppose the racist Democrats.
Quote:


Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole."
-- www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2015/02/ta-nehisi-coates-honored-
with-2014-george-polk-award/385536
/




The name of the post is "My reasons to not like Lincoln"

Can somebody connect reality with this thread?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 27, 2015 11:16 PM

JONGSSTRAW


You know what Lincoln said when awakened after a three-day drinking binge?

"I freed the WHAT??"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 1, 2015 3:05 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Thanks Second.

My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I appreciate your reply.

I know that the areas that were up for statehood were in dispute - slave v free? I'm not sure how that would have been resolved otherwise.

I do think, though, that those southerners still ticked-off that they lost don't have the internal integrity to admit to themselves that it was truly about slavery. And that they're pissed-off on behalf of a slave-owning cause.

The USA has problems for obvious reasons. "Two hundred fifty years of slavery.


Supported by Democrats and ended by Lincoln, the first Republican President. That means the first opportunity the Republicans had to weigh in, they ended it.
Quote:


Ninety years of Jim Crow.


Supported and enacted by continually racist Democrats, after they got rid of Lincoln. Key point: Lincoln was dead before the onset of Jim Crow laws in 1876.
Quote:


Sixty years of separate but equal.


Supported and enacted by perpetually racist Democrats, under Louisiana law of 1980. Key point: Lincoln was still dead in 1890.
Quote:


Thirty-five years of racist housing policy.


Supported and created by perpetually racist Democrats such as LBJ and the other Dixiecrat opposition to Civil Rights, and including Obama's ACORN debacle. Key point: Lincoln was still dead in the 20th Century, and Republicans were still enacting every Civil Rights Bill of the 50's and 60's, and Republicans were organizing all the Civil Rights marches, and Republican Martin Luther King, Jr continued to oppose the racist Democrats.
Quote:


Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole."
-


The name of the post is "My reasons to not like Lincoln"

Can somebody connect reality with this thread?


I had forgotten to mention that Republican Martin Luther King, Jr. also opposed the racist
segregationist Democrats, following a long line within the Party of Lincoln.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/martin_luther_king_was_rep
ublican.html


http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2013/01/martin-luther-king-jr-was-a-r
epublican
/

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrBTv6CavNUxW8AyCLrFAx.
;_ylu=X3oDMTByNW1iMWN2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--?qid=20080827033031AA3iTc4

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2015 4:38 PM

BYTEMITE


I don't like him because the Banking Act was drafted on his watch and was passed into law after his death, and I don't like his connection to the Pinktertons.

Him trying to keep the union together when the tenth amendment was supposed to allow for states sovereignty and secession was wrong headed, but I can maybe buy he thought it was the right thing to do at the time, especially what with the chance to end slavery. The war resulted in a lot of death and one hell of a Federal power grab though, so it's hard to judge - more deaths caused by slavery, or more deaths caused afterward by imperialism?

You can't help but wonder if it all was just part of a new system of exploiting everyone, and the groups that were previously exploited, though newly freed, were hit the hardest by that and the discrimination.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2015 4:58 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't like him because the Banking Act was drafted on his watch and was passed into law after his death, and I don't like his connection to the Pinktertons.

Him trying to keep the union together when the tenth amendment was supposed to allow for states sovereignty and secession was wrong headed, but I can maybe buy he thought it was the right thing to do at the time, especially what with the chance to end slavery. The war resulted in a lot of death and one hell of a Federal power grab though, so it's hard to judge - more deaths caused by slavery, or more deaths caused afterward by imperialism?

You can't help but wonder if it all was just part of a new system of exploiting everyone, and the groups that were previously exploited, though newly freed, were hit the hardest by that and the discrimination.


I cannot argue against giving freedom or emancipation, even if exploitation was to ensue.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 3, 2015 5:26 PM

BYTEMITE


>I cannot argue against giving freedom or emancipation, even if exploitation was to ensue.

Oh, no doubt. But I can grumble a bit about the last part.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:00 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I have two related ones that are about the Civil War.

He felt he had to keep the south. Somebody should have been there telling him - shake it off, man. Walk it off. You can get by without them. And the US - would have been far, far better off. In fact, I'm hoping someone invites the south to leave right now. Let it make amends for past errors.

But failing that - he failed to make it VERY clear - it was about slavery. It wasn't about 'northern aggression' (aside from the fact that southern idiots don't seem to realize the south fired the first shots - but that's another story). Slavery should have been front and center. Ultimately, that's what it was about. There should be no question at this point that the south is STILL pissed off - that they can't own slaves anymore.


Well, you sort of have a point where the evil Democrats controlled the media (press) then just as they still do today, and they controlled the lies back then as well as now, and the majority of the uneducated citizens believed then and now what the Democrats tell them.

There is nothing Lincoln could have done to get the truth through the liberal blockage of media (now known as the "media bubble"), just as the truth is not allowed to be exposed via the likes of Brian Williams, Dan Blather or Scott Pelley.

And yes, the Democrats are still ticked off that they can't keep their slaves anymore.

But be honest, you just dislike Abe because you hate the honest, the brave, the honorable, the patriotic, and the Republicans - but I repeat myself.


While Obama was in Selma on Saturday trying to take credit for the Republican-organized Civil Rights marches against the Democrat racists, and the Republican-supported Civil Rights demonstrations against the Democrat segregationists and the Republican legislated Civil Rights Acts despite vehement Democrat opposition, I suppose you were cheering for the Democrats who worked so hard to squash liberty and equality?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 11, 2015 11:49 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


My post was largely tongue-in-cheek.




SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 13, 2015 3:56 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
My post was largely tongue-in-cheek.


Your OP?
The entire thread?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 19, 2015 11:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I just read this recently, and I thought it was a great expose of Lincoln.

The Power of Lies

Paul Craig Roberts

Quote:

It is one of history’s ironies that the Lincoln Memorial is a sacred space for the Civil Rights Movement and the site of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Lincoln did not think blacks were the equals of whites. Lincoln’s plan was to send the blacks in America back to Africa, and if he had not been assassinated, returning blacks to Africa would likely have been his post-war policy.

As Thomas DiLorenzo and a number of non-court historians have conclusively established, Lincoln did not invade the Confederacy in order to free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation did not occur until 1863 when opposition in the North to the war was rising despite Lincoln’s police state measures to silence opponents and newspapers. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure issued under Lincoln’s war powers. The proclamation provided for the emancipated slaves to be enrolled in the Union army replenishing its losses. It was also hoped that the proclamation would spread slave revolts in the South while southern white men were away at war and draw soldiers away from the fronts in order to protect their women and children. The intent was to hasten the defeat of the South before political opposition to Lincoln in the North grew stronger.

The Lincoln Memorial was built not because Lincoln “freed the slaves,” but because Lincoln saved the empire. As the Savior of the Empire, had Lincoln not been assassinated, he could have become emperor for life.

As Professor Thomas DiLorenzo writes: “Lincoln spent his entire political career attempting to use the powers of the state for the benefit of the moneyed corporate elite (the ‘one-percenters’ of his day), first in Illinois, and then in the North in general, through protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for road, canal, and railroad corporations, and a national bank controlled by politicians like himself to fund it all.”

Lincoln was a man of empire. As soon as the South was conquered, ravaged, and looted, his collection of war criminal generals, such as Sherman and Sheridan, set about exterminating the Plains Indians in one of the worst acts of genocide in human history. Even today Israeli Zionists point to Washington’s extermination of the Plains Indians as the model for Israel’s theft of Palestine.

The War of Northern Aggression was about tariffs and northern economic imperialism. The North was protectionist. The South was free trade. The North wanted to finance its economic development by forcing the South to pay higher prices for manufactured goods. The North passed the Morrill Tariff which more than doubled the tariff rate to 32.6% and provided for a further hike to 47%. The tariff diverted the South’s profits on its agricultural exports to the coffers of Northern industrialists and manufacturers. The tariff was designed to redirect the South’s expenditures on manufactured goods from England to the higher cost goods produced in the North.

This is why the South left the union, a right of self-determination under the Constitution.

The purpose of Lincoln’s war was to save the empire, not to abolish slavery. In his first inaugural address Lincoln “made an ironclad defense of slavery.” His purpose was to keep the South in the Empire despite the Morrill Tariff. As for slavery, Lincoln said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” This position, Lincoln reminded his audience, was part of the 1860 Republican Party platform. Lincoln also offered his support for the strong enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, which required Northerners to hunt down and return runaway slaves, and he gave his support to the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, already passed by Northern votes in the House and Senate, that prohibited any federal interference with slavery. For Lincoln and his allies, the empire was far more important than slaves.

DiLorenzo explains what the deal was that Lincoln offered to the South. However, just as empire was more important to the North than slavery, for the South avoiding large taxes on manufactured goods, in effect a tax on Southern agricultural profits, was more important than northern guarantees for slavery.

If you want to dislodge your brainwashing about the War of Northern Aggression, read DiLorenzo’s books, The Real Lincoln, and Lincoln Unmasked.

The so-called Civil War was not a civil war. In a civil war, both sides are fighting for control of the government. The South was not fighting for control of the federal government. The South seceded and the North refused to let the South go.



More at http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/04/13/power-lies/

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 19, 2015 2:48 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I just read this recently, and I thought it was a great expose of Lincoln.

The Power of Lies

Paul Craig Roberts

Quote:

It is one of history’s ironies that the Lincoln Memorial is a sacred space for the Civil Rights Movement and the site of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Lincoln did not think blacks were the equals of whites. Lincoln’s plan was to send the blacks in America back to Africa, and if he had not been assassinated, returning blacks to Africa would likely have been his post-war policy.

As Thomas DiLorenzo and a number of non-court historians have conclusively established, Lincoln did not invade the Confederacy in order to free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation did not occur until 1863 when opposition in the North to the war was rising despite Lincoln’s police state measures to silence opponents and newspapers. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure issued under Lincoln’s war powers. The proclamation provided for the emancipated slaves to be enrolled in the Union army replenishing its losses. It was also hoped that the proclamation would spread slave revolts in the South while southern white men were away at war and draw soldiers away from the fronts in order to protect their women and children. The intent was to hasten the defeat of the South before political opposition to Lincoln in the North grew stronger.

The Lincoln Memorial was built not because Lincoln “freed the slaves,” but because Lincoln saved the empire. As the Savior of the Empire, had Lincoln not been assassinated, he could have become emperor for life.

As Professor Thomas DiLorenzo writes: “Lincoln spent his entire political career attempting to use the powers of the state for the benefit of the moneyed corporate elite (the ‘one-percenters’ of his day), first in Illinois, and then in the North in general, through protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for road, canal, and railroad corporations, and a national bank controlled by politicians like himself to fund it all.”

Lincoln was a man of empire. As soon as the South was conquered, ravaged, and looted, his collection of war criminal generals, such as Sherman and Sheridan, set about exterminating the Plains Indians in one of the worst acts of genocide in human history. Even today Israeli Zionists point to Washington’s extermination of the Plains Indians as the model for Israel’s theft of Palestine.

The War of Northern Aggression was about tariffs and northern economic imperialism. The North was protectionist. The South was free trade. The North wanted to finance its economic development by forcing the South to pay higher prices for manufactured goods. The North passed the Morrill Tariff which more than doubled the tariff rate to 32.6% and provided for a further hike to 47%. The tariff diverted the South’s profits on its agricultural exports to the coffers of Northern industrialists and manufacturers. The tariff was designed to redirect the South’s expenditures on manufactured goods from England to the higher cost goods produced in the North.

This is why the South left the union, a right of self-determination under the Constitution.

The purpose of Lincoln’s war was to save the empire, not to abolish slavery. In his first inaugural address Lincoln “made an ironclad defense of slavery.” His purpose was to keep the South in the Empire despite the Morrill Tariff. As for slavery, Lincoln said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” This position, Lincoln reminded his audience, was part of the 1860 Republican Party platform. Lincoln also offered his support for the strong enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, which required Northerners to hunt down and return runaway slaves, and he gave his support to the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, already passed by Northern votes in the House and Senate, that prohibited any federal interference with slavery. For Lincoln and his allies, the empire was far more important than slaves.

DiLorenzo explains what the deal was that Lincoln offered to the South. However, just as empire was more important to the North than slavery, for the South avoiding large taxes on manufactured goods, in effect a tax on Southern agricultural profits, was more important than northern guarantees for slavery.

If you want to dislodge your brainwashing about the War of Northern Aggression, read DiLorenzo’s books, The Real Lincoln, and Lincoln Unmasked.

The so-called Civil War was not a civil war. In a civil war, both sides are fighting for control of the government. The South was not fighting for control of the federal government. The South seceded and the North refused to let the South go.



More at http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/04/13/power-lies/


Most of the folks I know from the Confederate States had always held that the Civil War was NOT about Slavery, and have helped spread the word to any who seemed ignorant. This was their trump card, and was to preempt any discussion of slavery as strawman.
Are you saying that you now feel this is fact, belying all of the arguing racists, libtards, and other Democrats have done on the side of wrong for the past 150 years?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 19, 2015 3:09 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I think most people who have read even a little history understand Lincoln didn't fight the war to free the slaves.

But, to correct the author's inaccuracies - the South fired the first shots. That makes the war a case of SOUTHERN aggression, not Northern. The side that initiates military action is called the aggressor, if you're using normal English. Also, since the South claimed - then seized - federal land, that makes the South the invading force, not the North. Just fyi. And the South may - or may not - have had the right to secede. And they may - or may not - have been able to declare their independence without a Northern response. But once the South initiated military action, the North HAD to respond.

It's also true that the Southern economy depended entirely on slaves. It couldn't exist without them. In starting a war in support of their economy, the South of necessity was fighting to keep slavery.

It was also using what we today would call terrorism to make territories SLAVE territories. The author skirts around that fact when he quotes Lincoln arguing for the status quo in EXISTING slave states. The status of the territories was very much in dispute.


Bad arguments based on obvious inaccuracies aren't terribly convincing.


Finally - if the South had won, it would have extended the entire system of slavery an untold time. Whatever the reason Lincoln freed the slaves, the end result was that by defeating the South he ended slavery in this country. That's a good thing.

Don't you agree?




SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 19, 2015 3:49 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I think most people who have read even a little history understand Lincoln didn't fight the war to free the slaves.


Many libtards, Democrats and other racists tend to ignore this inconvenient knowledge.
Quote:


But, to correct the author's inaccuracies - the South fired the first shots. That makes the war a case of SOUTHERN aggression, not Northern. The side that initiates military action is called in aggressor, if you're using normal English. Also, since the South claimed - then seized - federal land, that makes the South the invading force, not the North. Just fyi. And the South may - or may not - have had the right to secede. And they may - or may not - have been able to declare their independence without a Northern response. But once the South initiated military action, the North HAD to respond.

It's also true that the Southern economy depended entirely on slaves. It couldn't exist without them. In starting a war in support of their economy, the South of necessity was fighting to keep slavery.


Bad arguments based on obvious inaccuracies aren't terribly convincing.


Regarding the economic factors: Hopefully you also understand that the taxation policies of the north (read: New England) created an economic formula which almost required slavery to remain fiscally viable, and without fiscal viability, entire states could collapse. The Confederate backers have long laid claim to the economic factors being the cause of the Civil War. If the north had instead allowed reasonable taxation and duty laws, it would not have benefited the north, but the south would have been viable without the slavery factor. Any southerner who would have wanted to eliminate slaves or pursue enterprise without slaves would have been debt-ridden quickly under the northern taxation policies enacted for the nation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 19, 2015 4:13 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"(without taxation) the south would have been viable without the slavery factor"

That doesn't explain the 250 years of slavery before then (est 1619 in Jamestown).

The reason is the cotton/ tobacco/ sugar/ rice plantation economy of the South. You can see the same economics at work in any plantation economy, whether the Old South, the 'banana republics' of the early 1900's, or the current cocaine economy of Columbia. The necessary cheap labor has to be gotten by force - whether by whip and chain, machete, or at the point of a gun.

Meanwhile, during that same pre-Civil War time, while the rest of the South was propping itself up with slavery, New Orleans was thriving without it, due to its non-plantation economy.

The 'cause' of slavery wasn't the tariffs, it was a necessary part of the Southern plantation economy.





SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 19, 2015 4:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"(without taxation) the south would have been viable without the slavery factor"

That doesn't explain the 250 years of slavery before then (est 1619 in Jamestown).


EDIT: The Jamestown mentioned as stateless was apparently not located in Mass., which is the state that is most commonly assumed to be the locale when "Jamestown" is solely mentioned. My apologies for the assumption.

That Jamestown you refer to is in Mass. MA is in the north. I am familiar with it's location, my ancestors founded the place.
New England is not the south. Never has been, never will be. The north is the opposite of the south. Are you confused?
Quote:


The reason is the cotton/ tobacco/ sugar/ rice plantation economy of the South. You can see the same economics at work in any plantation economy, whether the Old South, the 'banana republics' of the early 1900's, or the current cocaine economy of Columbia. The necessary cheap labor has to be gotten by force - whether by whip and chain, machete, or at the point of a gun.

Meanwhile, during that same pre-Civil War time the rest of the South was propping itself up with slavery, New Orleans was thriving without it, due to its non-plantation economy.

The 'cause' of slavery wasn't the tariffs, it was a necessary part of the Southern plantation economy.


You are proving my point.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 19, 2015 4:58 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


That Jamestown you refer to is in Mass. MA is in the north. I am familiar with it's location, my ancestors founded the place.
New England is not the south. Never has been, never will be. The north is the opposite of the south. Are you confused?



And those slaves were imported to Jamestown - VIRGINIA! Are YOU confused?

BTW that attempted putdown - was an EPIC fail!

And meanwhile - if tariffs were 'the' cause of slavery as you claim, you haven't addressed why slavery existed in the South for a mere 250 year timespan before the tariffs ever existed.




SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:06 - 592 posts
How do you like my garbage truck?
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:49 - 2 posts
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:47 - 236 posts
Trump on Joe Rogan: Full Podcast
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:05 - 7 posts
Israeli War
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:04 - 62 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:58 - 4657 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:45 - 4425 posts
Spooky Music Weird Horror Songs...Tis ...the Season...... to be---CREEPY !
Thu, October 31, 2024 16:19 - 56 posts
Sentencing Thread
Thu, October 31, 2024 15:11 - 381 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, October 31, 2024 14:25 - 921 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, October 31, 2024 13:46 - 7408 posts
No matter what happens...
Wed, October 30, 2024 23:43 - 21 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL