Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

And here I though you LIKED Matthew McConaughey.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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/

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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/

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

---

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.

---