APP - The truth about Lincoln

C

canceled.2021.1

#AMERICAISDEAD
Abraham Lincoln is known throughout the land as the Great Emancipator because of the Emancipation Proclamation. However, what most people don't know is what a truly horrid President he really was.

First of all, The Emancipation Proclamation did not free anyone. It specifically exempted ares of the southern states that were under the control of the federal armies, but it allowed slavery to exist in Maryland, Kentucky and Washington D.C. The Emancipation Proclamation was a propaganda document that was meant to keep England from supporting the Confederacy.

In an August 22, 1862 letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said the following "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

How was it that so many other countries were able to end the practice of slavery without killing 620,000 of its citizens, but Lincoln the great orator was not?

Here is a list of Lincoln's tyrannical actions while President

1) He unconstitutionally conducted a war without the consent of Congress and intentionally waged war against civilians
2) He suspended habeas corpus
3) He conscripted railroads and censored telegraph lines
4) He imprisonied without trial some 30,000 northern citizens for merely voicing opposition to the war
5) He deported a member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, for opposing Lincoln’s income tax proposal at a Democrat Party political rally
6) He shut down hundreds of Northern newspapers and imprisoning their editors for questioning his war policies
7) He ordered federal troops to intimidate voters into voting Republican

For these reasons and more, I consider Lincoln to be our worst President ever. He committed the first full frontal assault on the US Constitution. Of course he must be lauded and held up by statists around the issue of slavery so as to whitewash his other transgressions against this country.
 
I think most of us are familiar with the politics of the Emancipation Proclamation by now. Also, Delaware was a slave state at the time. If you believe the South would have ever given up slavery peacefully, then you probably cannot read. Instead, though, they did manage to create the one scenario in which it could have been ended, well before the end of the century.

Obviously, where I depart from Congress, is that they concurred with Lincoln that the CSA was not a real nation, that the hostilities it initiated amounted to rebellion, and thus no declaration of war was needed. Congress also rubberstamped suspending habeas corpus, which it ultimately has the power to do.
 
Establishment said:
I think most of us are familiar with the politics of the Emancipation Proclamation by now. Also, Delaware was a slave state at the time. If you believe the South would have ever given up slavery peacefully, then you probably cannot read. Instead, though, they did manage to create the one scenario in which it could have been ended, well before the end of the century.

Obviously, where I depart from Congress, is that they concurred with Lincoln that the CSA was not a real nation, that the hostilities it initiated amounted to rebellion, and thus no declaration of war was needed. Congress also rubberstamped suspending habeas corpus, which it ultimately has the power to do.
Click to expand...

Slavery would have ended on its own. Only 1% of Southerners owned slaves at the time.

It would have ended if for no other reason than it was bad economics. It was expensive to own slaves. As more less labor intensive means of agriculture were developed they would have had to adapt.
 
Well no. I would imagine that its also about slavery as a whole.

But trolling? what is your definition of trolling?
 
I Love America said:
Slavery would have ended on its own. Only 1% of Southerners owned slaves at the time.

It would have ended if for no other reason than it was bad economics. It was expensive to own slaves. As more less labor intensive means of agriculture were developed they would have had to adapt.
Click to expand...

They didn't care about the economics. The notion of emancipation was, itself, deemed offensive. Congress had become a safe space for southern sensibilities, due to how hurtful talk of liberty had become.
 
Establishment said:
They didn't care about the economics. The notion of emancipation was, itself, deemed offensive. Congress had become a safe space for southern sensibilities, due to how hurtful talk of liberty had become.
Click to expand...

Slavery was all about economics. That they were deemed lesser beings was nothing more than cognitive dissonance used to justify the act
 
I Love America said:
Slavery was all about economics. That they were deemed lesser beings was nothing more than cognitive dissonance used to justify the act
Click to expand...
You can say that as often as you please, but the sheer volume of quotes and writings about how morally offensive talk of abolition (where talk was actually legal, and no safe spaces were imposed) makes you either uninformed or a liar.
 
Slavery was on the wan as technology was rendering it needless. There was still quite a bit of money on the books for these fixed assets which could not just be done away with without bankrupting the planters. Of course all other slave holding nations had the same issue and all found a bloodless way to deal with it.
But Lincoln chose blood.
He didn't expect the CSA to put up the quality of fight and further chose to brutalized civilians by firing generals who wouldn't do his bidding.
40 percent of the economy gone, 600k+ dead all for politics.
What a guy.
 
It's also interesting to me how the south has a different standard for how America should have handled its behavior, compared to everyone else. Iran must be handled firmly and strongly. Same goes for Cuba. Jihadist organizations such as ISIL, al-Queda, and their enablers should be subject to invasion. If America shows the slightest sign of hesitation and restraint, then it becomes a joke and will lose moral capital, and become subject to embarrassment and shame. But if it's the south that is misbehaving, and challenging America, then it must be catered to, held-up as courageous and honorable, deferred to in all matters pertaining to the Constitution (regardless of how thin), and, most importantly - ALL BLATANT ACTS OF WAR MUST BE IGNORED!
 
Celticguy said:
Slavery was on the wan as technology was rendering it needless. There was still quite a bit of money on the books for these fixed assets which could not just be done away with without bankrupting the planters. Of course all other slave holding nations had the same issue and all found a bloodless way to deal with it.
But Lincoln chose blood.
He didn't expect the CSA to put up the quality of fight and further chose to brutalized civilians by firing generals who wouldn't do his bidding.
40 percent of the economy gone, 600k+ dead all for politics.
What a guy.
Click to expand...

You can thank the traitor, George B. McClellan for the prolonged nature of the war.

And, again, it's still a lie, no matter how many times you claim that the south would have given to abolition, peacefully. They said, repeatedly, that it was a social order, not bound to the rules of economics.
 
Establishment said:
You can thank the traitor, George B. McClellan for the prolonged nature of the war.

And, again, it's still a lie, no matter how many times you claim that the south would have given to abolition, peacefully. They said, repeatedly, that it was a social order, not bound to the rules of economics.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was the principle they stood on.
But simple facts as demonstrated the world over slavery was becoming obsolete.
 
Establishment said:
You can say that as often as you please, but the sheer volume of quotes and writings about how morally offensive talk of abolition (where talk was actually legal, and no safe spaces were imposed) makes you either uninformed or a liar.
Click to expand...

I am sorry if I am not explaining myself clearly. Allow me to simplify it for you

Back in the very early days of this country agriculture was a very labor intensive proposition. Some technology was utilized but on the whole it required manual labor. Some crops more so than others

Now as the owner of said crops I have some choices about how I wish to acquire that labor. I can use family which has a cost. I can hire people which has a cost. I can use slave labor which yes had a cost. Many chose slave labor. Many did not.

It obviously helped the cause of those who chose slave labor that those who owned them considered them lesser humans to justify their actions.

I am not in any way justifying the act of slavery. It was a barbaric practice that went against much of what this count was suppose to be founded upon. I am merely trying to educate you on aspects that your left wing dominated educated education failed to tell you.

The practice was dying out. It was poor economics. Lincoln didn't want to be the President that saw the Union dissolved so he chose war and devastated a region of this country that never really recovered and consequently made things worse the negro.
 
Establishment said:
It's also interesting to me how the south has a different standard for how America should have handled its behavior, compared to everyone else. Iran must be handled firmly and strongly. Same goes for Cuba. Jihadist organizations such as ISIL, al-Queda, and their enablers should be subject to invasion. If America shows the slightest sign of hesitation and restraint, then it becomes a joke and will lose moral capital, and become subject to embarrassment and shame. But if it's the south that is misbehaving, and challenging America, then it must be catered to, held-up as courageous and honorable, deferred to in all matters pertaining to the Constitution (regardless of how thin), and, most importantly - ALL BLATANT ACTS OF WAR MUST BE IGNORED!
Click to expand...

The south left. And the union began negotiating the particulars. Why ? Because there was nothing preventing it.
 
Celticguy said:
Yes, it was the principle they stood on.
But simple facts as demonstrated the world over slavery was becoming obsolete.
Click to expand...

Everywhere else, such as England, treated slavery much more as a purely economic enterprise. This made the path to abolition much easier than here in the US. That being said, the mainstream plan for America always was the free settlement of western lands with the long-term goal of creating a supermajority of free states in the Union. It was not anticipated that the south would secede and initiate an act of war against America.
 
Celticguy said:
The south left. And the union began negotiating the particulars. Why ? Because there was nothing preventing it.
Click to expand...

I'm personally open to the concept of secession (as opposed to nullification, which is clearly illegal), despite a dominant view which deems it unconstitutional, and a violation of the rights of those citizens who are effected. The attack on Sumter made the question of legality irrelevant.
 
Establishment said:
Everywhere else, such as England, treated slavery much more as a purely economic enterprise. This made the path to abolition much easier than here in the US. That being said, the mainstream plan for America always was the free settlement of western lands with the long-term goal of creating a supermajority of free states in the Union. It was not anticipated that the south would secede and initiate an act of war against America.
Click to expand...

So it is your view that once a State joined the Union they in fact made an irrevocable pact?

Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say a particular State thought it not in their best interest to join the Union, would the United States of America just invade them and force them to?

How is secession treason? Because a State says "no thanks, don't want to be a party to this any longer" is somehow treasonous?
 
I Love America said:
So it is your view that once a State joined the Union they in fact made an irrevocable pact?

Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say a particular State thought it not in their best interest to join the Union, would the United States of America just invade them and force them to?

How is secession treason? Because a State says "no thanks, don't want to be a party to this any longer" is somehow treasonous?
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Did you read any of my posts in this thread?
 
Establishment said:
You can thank the traitor, George B. McClellan for the prolonged nature of the war.

And, again, it's still a lie, no matter how many times you claim that the south would have given to abolition, peacefully. They said, repeatedly, that it was a social order, not bound to the rules of economics.
Click to expand...

Excerpt 1: My only use of the term "traitor" was referencing an American general, and 1864 Democratic presidential candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top