The Lincoln Myth

[Mott the Hoople]

If not for Mr. Lincoln slavery would have ended peacefully as technology increased and the need for slave labor on the plantations subsided. The worst thing about Slavery was the way it was ended and purely for political reasons.

It essentially left thousands of Negroes homeless over-night....no place to go, no means to support themselves and thus their dependence on another master(feds) or the charity of white folk developed and has continued for the majority to this day.

If Slavery had been allowed to die a natural death the Negroes would have developed the confidence, ability and skills to sustain themselves without private or federal charity.

Instead ....the culture of dependence grew and created a huge mess which now is maniefesting itself more and more in the form of black youth alienated and blaming White Society for all their problems...made explicit by the youthful(teens as the media refers to them)mob attacks on whites aka...the knockout game, wildings etc. and so on and so forth.

If it had not been for the Charity of the Southern People thousands of negroes would have died that first winter after Mr. Lincoln's impudent action without consideration for the plight the freed negroes would find themselves in.

Maybe in your fantasy land alternate universe but in real world land it was the South that showed it was willing to use violence to force the rest of the nation to accept slavery in the western territories. You may have also forgotten that it was the Southern States that seceded who started the war. That is they were the ones that initiated violence and the use of arms. So on that fact right there your argument, pulled straight out of your ass, completely falls apart.

Had the southern slave States been isolated would slavery had died a natural death? Yes it would have. That peculiar institution had retarded the South's social and economic development and had prevented the development of it's public infrastructure making it a backwater, both culturally and economically, where it remained till the 1960's.

But that's not what happened. The Southern States knew that if abolitionist prevented slaveries expansion into the western territories that slavery would die a natural death and that their substantial investment in chattel property would dissolve and thus they were prepared to use violence to propagate the peculiar institution into the western territories, as they did in Missouri and Kansas. When that failed to achieve their aims they resorted to war, not the north and certainly not Lincoln.

So your argument is based on the absolute false premise that either Lincoln or the North started the civil war. They did not. That's just asinine southern apologist revisionist history. The South resorted to violence and war as an instrument of policy. They started the Civil war. Not Lincoln and with those facts your argument falls apart as the laughable and factless fallacy which it is.

What is it with you wingnuts and your abhorance of facts?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

600000+ dead while the rest if the world addressed slavery with bext to no bloodshed. Yeah what a guy...

You moron. It wasn't Lincoln who started the war. It wasn't Lincoln who resorted to violence. It was the Southern traitors who did that. Lincoln merely preserved our nation by enforcing the rule of law as he was required to do under the constitution. That this resulted in so many death can be laid squarely at the doors at the Southern traitors who resorted to violence, war and treason to preserve their own immoral aims.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

While I have not been here long.....I have been here long enough to note two things.....1. This board appears to be one of the leaders in free speech...that in and of itself vaults this board to the front row.

2. Unfortunately, and I really hate to say this there are few on here capable of honest debate...most--seem to just want to post their opinion ....which of course they are entitled to but that is not enough.

A good message board is about debate...preferably honest debate but that is a rarity on any of the boards and I have been on a lot of them.

I will linger awhile and see how it goes. At least....apparantly I do not have to worry about getting banned on here....I have been banned on most of the boards ...so I am running out of options.

Ah yes but honest debate is more than that. It is also about logically presenting facts in a comprehensible manner. Your argument in this thread is illogical and factually incorrect as you base your arguments on a false premise.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The south would in that case have been a British colony within a year or two, and slavery abolished.

That or it would have been a third world banana Republic in which it cultivated an single industry (cotton) and would have been essentially owned by the Brits if not an outright colony.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

As somebody already pointed out on this thread, slavery was on it's way out. The only reason it was abolished in the northern states was on account of the enormous influx of European immigrants into the industrialized north who did not want to compete for higher wages against slave labor which would been impossible and the northern states knew this so they abolished it. the south meanwhile relied on slavery as a vital part of it's agrarian economy but the cost of maintaining slaves was ever increasing and in time it too would have been economically indefeasible in the south also.

So why then did Southern politicians try to enforce the expansion of slavery into the western territories?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yes...definitely on it's way out....and it would have been a gradual and peaceful transition and the end result would have been a black population that could stand on its own feet and take care of themselves instead of being forced by Lincoln's self serving pronouncement of freedom for the slaves to have to fend for themselves in a hostile atmosphere created by Mr. Lincolns agression against the South and the chaos that existed at that time.....not a good time to suddenly be thrust out into the cold cruel world with no job, no home, no food and no prospects.

Except that you continuing to argue this false premise about Lincoln when it was Southern traitors who fired the first shots and resorted to violence and war as their instrument of pro-slavery policy. So if the blame falls squarely on anyone it is them.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That is just your opinion and you are entitled to it but it is not enough. Aka....opinions are like assholes everyone has one.

Sorry, not an opinion. It's cold hard fact. Your whole argument is based on a false premise and is factually wrong. You're either an apologist and/or revisionist or you're just simply wrong.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Slavery in the US in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries was evil. Any attempt to mitigate that as humane is absurd. We deserved the Civil War as justice for the practice. States Rights would have remained intact had slavery never been allowed to exist.

I seriously doubt that. The Doctrine of "States Rights" died during the Civil War due to it's own incompetence. "State Rights" was a rationalization for rejecting the notion of a strong central government and of repressing individual liberties. It has been and always was a failed concept. You only have to look at what happened to the South during The Civil War to see why the "State Rights" argument was a failure because without a strong central government the Confederacy literally collapsed from it's own dead weight. Much like Communism has.

 

[Minister of Truth]

We should have implemented the Hunger Games after the war.

 

[Rune]

Slavery has existed for thousands of years and still exists in Africa and other places....any time a people lack freedom they are slaves....and that certainly encompasses totolitarian regimes of which the left wingers seem especially fond...having a fatal attraction for totolitarian regimes.

Now you may believe God is on your side and that you can even speak for God...you are entitled to your beliefs and opinions. The fanatical abolitionist and radical religious yankees also believed God was on their side....despite the fact the Holy Bible...their guidebook does not condemn slavery.

Slavery in fact developed as a humane method to deal with prisoners of war...before slavery POWS were simply disposed of as in slaughtered.

When the Declaration of Independence was written, the term "men" referred only to those who were able to be land owners which, at that time, meant only white men. In fact Africans were not considered fully human.

There are many things worse than slavery in this world...the fact that you do not understand this only demonstrates a public school education wherein you were thoroughly indoctrinated into political correctness.

In fact you know little about slavery and certainly even less about that peculiar institution as it existed in The American South.

Also it is obvious you know next to nothing about history...in essence you are a bigoted and ignorant sort who probably went and saw some movie about slavery and your infantile mind was so impressed that you were instantly converted into a passionate hater of slavery.....almost laughable...in fact it is laughable bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

If you were a little better educated you would understand that bringing some Africans to America as slaves was in fact a huge improvement in their lives.....they were well treated down south for the most part...had good shelter, decent clothes(unlike running around nekid in the jungles of Afreeka) if they got sick they were taken care of...in fact most of them lived to a good old age...and produced many offspring.

Very different from how their lives would have been in Afreeka aka..... of very short duration in Africa, not to mention constantly being hungry and enduring constant threats of tribal warfare and rampant disease....Africa was and still is a hell hole. That is why there has never been a movement amongst Negroes of wanting to go back.....today they whine and cry that they are victims of racism...but they vote with their feet ...they stay here....even though as stupid as many of these racial agitators are...they damn well know ....no other nation would treat them as good as we do.

If you do not want to end up a slave yourself...I suggest you get an education or at least a skill...depending on the Feds for your livliehood is a tragedy waiting to happen...the pendulum is swinging the other way...more and more people are getting tired of supporting a huge parasitic minority that wants to bite the hands of those who feed them.

As has been said...the worse thing about slavery was the way it was ended....no planning, no logistics in place to offer sustenance to the freed slaves who had nowhere to go, no job, no food...all they had were the clothes on their backs....thus they graduated from farm workers to vagabonds, thieves,homeless people, unable to provide for themselves....having to return to their former masters to beg for food and eventually most of them wound up doing the same kind of work under worse conditions...they got paid enough to sustain them for work but their former masters were not as beneovlent as they had been in the past. Many of them gradually made it to Washington D.C. where they thought the Feds would take care of them...after all that was the place where the Feds were in control and eventually they did wind up as wards of the state...and did not have to work anymore...which only created more problems for them.

In fact the conditions that exist now in the black communities were brought about by the Federal Government and misguided charities treating black people as if they were children...making them dependent instead of teaching them how to take care of themselves. This paternalism exists now mainly in the democratic party...in order to keep the minority vote they need to keep them dependent and thus the huge,huge black unempoloyment rate and the crime rate that goes along with that miserable condition.

One fucking lie after another. GFY

 

[philly rabbit]

If you believe wars are caused by stuff like that, you live in a world different from mine. Slavery is an offense to humanity. Some of my wife's family, physical force chartists, went over specially to fight the filth, since they'd been stymied here.

Your people had the problem of slavery in your colonies and not within your mainland and you did not use violence to end it, you used reason and compromise to end it in distant lands where your population wasn't at odds with each other. You speaking of ending slavery by war is quite perplexing knowing that every other western society avoided war to end it including yours. Your people never had the opportunity of practicing segregation and boasting of abolition at the same time among your population that never included African slaves but undoubtedly would have shunned them whether or not they were free within your strict British class system which was always a stamp mark of British society.

 

[philly rabbit]

If you really believe that the Civil War was orchestrated to give us big government, then you are waging a losing proposition, because you cannot make the argument without saying that the South was incapable of governing itself (petulant children) and that limited government could no longer function in the US.

The south practiced free trade while the north practiced protectionism through tariffs. This is another myth that is always propagandized by the Lincoln gate keepers, the south couldn't survive because it wasn't self sustaining. The south could have gotten everything it needed via free trade from Europe and eventually the U.S.

 

[philly rabbit]

Actually, the Southern attack on Fort Sumter was the excuse for laying waste to your pathetic and degenerate homeland.

If you're going to keep talking like that about my people - you parking lot philosopher little faggot, I'm going to personally fuck you up with an arranged private meeting. Call my people derogatory names to my face and you'll be sucking your meals through a straw for at least two months.

Your Fort Sumter bullshit is the biggest fraud argument for your cultural bigot war against the southern states in recorded history. There was an invasion fleet sitting outside of Charleston Harbor and your fort sat on confederate territory - not federal territory. No one was hurt during the bombardment and if King Abraham had abandoned the fort like he originally said he would, the incident would have never occurred in the first place.

 

[iolo]

Your people had the problem of slavery in your colonies and not within your mainland and you did not use violence to end it, you used reason and compromise to end it in distant lands where your population wasn't at odds with each other. You speaking of ending slavery by war is quite perplexing knowing that every other western society avoided war to end it including yours. Your people never had the opportunity of practicing segregation and boasting of abolition at the same time among your population that never included African slaves but undoubtedly would have shunned them whether or not they were free within your strict British class system which was always a stamp mark of British society.

Slavery was found to be illegal in the UK way back in the Eighteenth Century, and the vast mass of the population always detested it, though a lot of the boss class (Cameron's ancestors, for instance) did very well out of it. What is extraordinary, to my view, is that the South managed at the one time to be a nasty slave-hole like the British colonies while claiming somehow to be 'free', and therefore able to keep the filthy system. I fully take your general point. Mine is that everywhere else in the world the wage-slaves would have fought to abolish chattel slavery: only in the south did racism manage to keep both in being without war. That is why those states hoped to cut themselves off from the rest of the world, be the North Korea of their time. They were too central to the world economy, however, so it could never have worked.

 

[SmilinJack]

Actually, the Southern attack on Fort Sumter was the excuse for laying waste to your pathetic and degenerate homeland.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa what pathetic 'sectionalism' this bigot wants to propagate...which bth was one of the causes of that war.

At least he is honest enough to admit that the attack on Ft. Sumpter by the South to eliminate Northern hedgemony in the Great Southland was nothing more than an excuse for Mr. Lincoln to launch his illegal aggression on the South.

The South had a constitutional right to secede...Mr. Lincoln simply used force to prevent the South from exercising its constitutional right.

Now 'sectionalism' as it was called back at that time is really nothing more than 'culture war' and it continues to this day. The War actually settled nothing ...just put off to a future time the final settlement of these issues.....which in fact may never be settled because our current trajection is one that is leading us to self-destruction...either literal physical destruction or political destruction wherein some foreign power will come in and administer the country....the libtards seem intent on helping to bring this about.

 

[SmilinJack]

One fucking lie after another. GFY

You lack in so many areas...History being one of the main ones.

 

[Minister of Truth]

If you're going to keep talking like that about my people - you parking lot philosopher little faggot, I'm going to personally fuck you up with an arranged private meeting. Call my people derogatory names to my face and you'll be sucking your meals through a straw for at least two months.

Your Fort Sumter bullshit is the biggest fraud argument for your cultural bigot war against the southern states in recorded history. There was an invasion fleet sitting outside of Charleston Harbor and your fort sat on confederate territory - not federal territory. No one was hurt during the bombardment and if King Abraham had abandoned the fort like he originally said he would, the innocent would have never occurred in the first place.

Your people were fucking degenerates who got off on raping their slaves (frequently committing the almost equally Christian act of adultary at the same time). How messed up is that, Wabbit?

Fort Sumter was sovereign US soil. You cannot claim ownership of it, because it is not yours. You can bargain for it, and offer to make some sort of payment, but America is not obligated to sell off it's possessions, merely because they are surrounded by your own. The fact that Lincoln assumed you would be stupid enough to attack it, and thus postured the fleet in a ready state does not change the fact that he gave the option for war to you, and you took it.

Fort Sumter, 1861; Pearl Harbour, 1941. Sometimes our enemies just overreach, and give us the moral high-ground to begin a protracted war by attacking our military installations.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa what pathetic 'sectionalism' this bigot wants to propagate...which bth was one of the causes of that war.

At least he is honest enough to admit that the attack on Ft. Sumpter by the South to eliminate Northern hedgemony in the Great Southland was nothing more than an excuse for Mr. Lincoln to launch his illegal aggression on the South.

The South had a constitutional right to secede...Mr. Lincoln simply used force to prevent the South from exercising its constitutional right.

Now 'sectionalism' as it was called back at that time is really nothing more than 'culture war' and it continues to this day. The War actually settled nothing ...just put off to a future time the final settlement of these issues.....which in fact may never be settled because our current trajection is one that is leading us to self-destruction...either literal physical destruction or political destruction wherein some foreign power will come in and administer the country....the libtards seem intent on helping to bring this about.

It's called an "act of war" and has always been recognised as a proper excuse to engage in warfare. When you secede from a country such as America (let's say that secession is perfectly legal, which I have no problem with), you don't get to lay claim to our federal installations. You might get away with parks and open lands, but a military fort is sovereign soil, and not part of any of your confederated states.

 

[SmilinJack]

Shattering The Icon Of Abraham Lincoln

Well...this thread is doing better than I expected.

Here is another article with some much needed information:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p319_Dickson.html

 

[SmilinJack]

It's called an "act of war" and has always been recognised as a proper excuse to engage in warfare. When you secede from a country such as America (let's say that secession is perfectly legal, which I have no problem with), you don't get to lay claim to our federal installations. You might get away with parks and open lands, but a military fort is sovereign soil, and not part of any of your confederated states.

That is irrelevant...different legal scholars have different opions but the central fact is that Mr. Lincoln could have very easily avoided the conflagration that he is more responsible for than any other figure at that time.

Lincoln's policy was hypocritical because this position of his on the South's secession conflicts with Lincoln’s own doctrine of the right of revolution that he expressed in Congress on January 12, 1848 during the Mexican War when he said,


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power,
have the right to rise up
and shake off the existing government
and form a new one that suits them better.
This is a most valuable—a most sacred right—
a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.
Nor is this right confined to cases in which
the whole people of an existing government
may choose to exercise it.
Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize
and make their own so much of the territory as they inhabit.
More than this, a majority of any portion of such people
may revolutionize, putting down a minority,
intermingled with or near about them,
who may oppose their movement.
Such minority was precisely the case
of the Tories of our own revolution.
It is a quality of revolutions not to go
by old lines or old laws,
but to break up both and make new ones.