@lastoftheromans It looks like KayBee actually studied American history, unlike you, and does some research before posting, which you never do. It looks like KayBee sticks to facts and logic while you can only resort to tired insults and lame personal attacks. It looks like you got routed by someone who's way out of your league.
In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the execution, by hanging, of 38 Dakota Sioux prisoners in Mankato, Minnesota. Most of those executed were holy men or political leaders of their camps. None of them were responsible for committing the crimes they were accused of. Coined as the Largest Mass Execution in U.S. History. (Brown, Dee. BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1970. pp. 59-61 )
@watertonrivers And what were they convicted of? What process did he use to review their convictions? How many other Native Americans did he pardon or grant clemency at the same time? Shit, boy, don't you do any research at all before you post this horseshit? Did you even graduate high school?
@lastoftheromans You're pitching the same horseshit that Rundstedt1 utterly destroyed 6 months ago. You should drop the history nonsense---it's not for you, boy. Stick to the REAL reason you believe millions of innocent black men, women, and children inherently deserved to suffer MORE decades of slavery and segregation. Do you believe blacks are scientifically inferior to whites? Spiritually inferior? Why do black folks deserve slavery?
@CCbundy It never occurred to you that maybe they were annoyed to the point where they had enough? It's like if I kept poking you in the arm and annoy you, eventually you're gonna hit back aren't you? It was taxation without representation. And besides how do you justify Lincoln killing civilians and livestock and burning down homes?
@Yabuturtle ok first I don't recall saying anything regarding Lincoln I said that West Va. broke off from Va. because of major differences primarily slavery and representation Now if you want to talk able killing and burning homes down when the confeds occupied the state they did a bit of that. . . . -_- *Waits for a hate/troll reply or none at all because of the pointlessness of this argument*
@CCbundy You claim it was the South that started it when it was really the North who were the aggressors. They had a right to secede, and Lincoln not only violated the 1st amendment by having people arrested for speaking out against the war, he didn't even really give them a trial either. It's really amazing that Lincoln was built up to be such a noble person when really he was a power hungry ruthless tyrant. You know, the winners are the ones that right the history books.
@Yabuturtle The South fired on an unarmed supply ship in January 1861 called "Star of the West". Look it up. They demolished a federal fort on federal property. They also invaded NEUTRAL Kentucky early in the war. The south were the aggressors in every way.
They may or may not have had the right to secede, but they certainly didn't have the right to interpret the federal Constitution. The federal judiciary has that power (Article 3, Section 2). They should've sued the US for their independence.
@KayBeeEee1983 James Buchanan thought it was stupid for states to secede but at least he had the decency to not attack them. Lincoln would have attacked the South anyway to keep his precious union together. and the South were being pushed around. What would you do? If they joined the US, they can also leave. They wanted independence like the colonies wanted during the Revolution If the South did attack first, Lincoln had no excuse to kill civilians and burn down their buildings.
@Yabuturtle The South was pushing the North around. The South was demanding a federal slave code. They wanted to force the Northern states to allow slavery.
"If they joined the US, they can also leave."
Wrong.
"The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
-- James Madison, 1788
"When any one state in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves, the rest have a natural right to compel them to obedience."
@Yabuturtle Buchanan didn't just think secession was stupid, he thought it was revolution. "Secession is neither more nor less than revolution."
"They wanted independence like the colonies wanted during the Revolution"
Except the colonies didn't actually want independence. They wanted representation in Parliament. They "chose" independence because the only other option was submission to British tyranny.
@KayBeeEee1983 No Lincoln didn't go out there personally and murder civilians but yeah he did send his troops to take down civilians too not just soldiers. It's the same thing, they didn't want to be controlled by the British and what they were doing was unfair, just like the North was treating the South unfairly. The North even took the South's livestock and whatever livestock they couldn't take, they killed them so the South wouldn't have any food. They were brutal.
@Yabuturtle You have proof that Lincoln ordered civilians to be killed?
"the North was treating the South unfairly"
What does that even mean?
"The North even took the South's livestock and whatever livestock they couldn't take, they killed them so the South wouldn't have any food. They were brutal."
Anything they did was to get the south to surrender. Blame the cowardly southern politicians. They were terrified of being executed for treason so they let their people starve.
@Yabuturtle I never said that either again READ my comment please before trying to troll because I never said either side started it but yes North goated South into attacking first but the South didn't have to so the South is aggressors in a since also again with lincoln I never said anything about him my comments have focused on West Virginia I have read up on Lincoln so I know full well what both sides though and what they did neither side were noble or right they are both flawed *pointless*
@Yabuturtle How do you justify the confederacy unconstitutionally seceding and starting a war to try to preserve their "cornerstone" of white supremacism and neverending slavery? How do you justify their beating, whipping, raping, lynching, and enslaving millions of innocent people?
@Yabuturtle "It was taxation without representation."
The south had 30% of the American free population, but they had 40% of the Representatives in the House. They were OVER represented. How was the North "annoying" the South? By breaking supposed fugitive slaves out of jail? By instituting the lowest tariff rate of the 19th century? By electing an anti-slavery President? Please explain.
@KayBeeEee1983 The Federal government was mostly controlled by the North. They had attempted to tell the South what to do many times. There were times where France would try to trade with the North but because they were being to greedy, the French and other Europeans started trading with the South instead. There were even some anti slavery bills which didn't even get support from Lincoln so no he was never that anti slavery. If he was so noble he wouldn't have burned entire towns.
@Yabuturtle "The Federal government was mostly controlled by the North."
No, it was controlled by the South and its Pro-Slavery allies in the North. Look these up: Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Kansas-Nebraska Act. Lecompton Constitution. Kansas Bogus Legislature. Scott v. Sandford. Ableman v. Booth. Slave Power.
I suggest you read a history book and not whatever pro-confederacy websites you've obviously been reading.
Napolitano is a moron. There is so much evidence of Lincoln's hatred for slavery that it's not even debatable. That said, yes, it's true...his cause celebre was holding the union together. He said, "If I could save the union by freeing all the slaves I would do it; if I could save the union by freeing half the slaves I would do it, and if I could save the union by freeing none of the slaves I would do it. Nothing Lincoln did to save the union was tyrannical. He stood virtually alone.
@rickcee Yes, he's a crazy moron. He didn't even answer his own question. His first question, "Did the Emancipation Proclamation free the slaves?" should have been answered, "Not all of them. Only about 3 million (75%) of them."
His second question, "Was Lincoln interested in freeing the slaves?" should have been answered, "Yes, but he couldn't legally free them without a constitutional amendment or a war. The only political issue he cared about MORE than slavery was preservation of the Union."
@KayBeeEee1983 so the Great Emancipator thought slaves were property and not people protected under the Constitution of the United States of America? Hmm, interesting.
@KayBeeEee1983 What about the constitutional rights of the thousands of northern newspaper writers he imprisoned for disagreeing with is policies during the war? Was that because the Supreme Court disagreed with him too? I'm just a little lost about this whole thing. Surely a great champion of human rights such as the Great Emancipator couldn't have locked up people just for disagreeing with him.
@lastoftheromans The Constitution gives the federal government the power to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus when there's a rebellion. He didn't arrest those people during peacetime. If you support the enemy during a war, you run the risk of getting locked up.
@KayBeeEee1983 So criticizing a President's decisions during a war now means you are supporting the enemy. I didn't support Bush when he let Osama Bin Laden go at Tora Bora in order to invade Iraq. That means that I supported Osama Bin Laden and I deserve to be locked up? Hmm, the statists are interesting. Freedom of speech in the 1st Amendment only counts when you are agreeing with him. If you disagree with them, you run the risk of getting locked up.
@lastoftheromans "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not rebellions or invasions of the US. The Civil War was a rebellion. If the US was in danger of being invaded by Iraq, then, yeah, you might get locked up for supporting them.
@masterskyrunner No country on earth recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign state, including the USA. In the North, the war was the called "The War of the Rebellion"....
@KayBeeEee1983 Except for Great Britain who was in talks to support the CSA against the Union. Yeah you're right, no one on earth, except for the greatest Empire on the planet at the time. You are laughable at best.
@KayBeeEee1983 Invasion? Let me think here... The Southern Armies didn't invade the North until 1863 yet Lincoln started arresting newspaper editors who merely disagreed with him and his slavery of northerners by way of conscription in 1862.
There is no way you can seriously make the argument that disagreeing with a President means you support the enemy. That is the most asinine argument I have ever heard in my life.
@lastoftheromans The south invaded Kentucky in September 1861. They invaded Maryland in September 1862. The Union didn't start drafting men until March 1863. That's 3 strikes.
I already pasted the clause in the Constitution that allows the federal government to arrest people for little or no reason. Art 1, Sec 9, Clause 2. Look up what the writ of Habeas Corpus is.
Great Britain didn't recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation. They recognized them as a belligerent. Learn the difference
@lastoftheromans Because he wasn't in office in 1860. Obviously.
It's cute when stupid hatemongers pretend to be offended that the thousands of slaves in the Border States had to wait two extra years for freedom while the bigots simultaneously champion the confederate alternative of NO freedom for 3.5 million innocent people, and all of their descendants, forever and until the end of time. It's like neo-Nazis pretending to be offended by anti-Semitism in the Allied nations.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Then why didn't he sign it on March 4, 1861 instead of January 3, 1863? I'm just a little confused here the Great Emancipator shouldn't have wasted any time if he was so concerned with ridding the world of slavery instead of merely keeping the union together.
@lastoftheromans Because the EP was a wartime measure, and the war hadn't started yet. Obviously. Did you even graduate high school?
No one said he was so concerned with ridding the world of slavery. No one said FDR was so concerned with freeing the Jews. Lincoln was the elected president of a nation that was attacked by racist traitors. He swore an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution and other federal law, and he did and freed the slaves. That's why you hate him, remember?
@lastoftheromans Lincoln didn't emancipate the slaves at the start of the war because he didn't want the Union slave states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware) to join the Confederacy.
@rickcee You made yourself look like a fool. You said Lincoln had a hatred for slavery and yet he admits he'd keep slavery legal if it kept the union together. He couldn't care less if slaves were legal or not. It wasn't even a civil war, because the Confederate States of America was established so therefore it was an invasion. How do you justify him killing civilians, robbing people and taking their livestock? Because he wanted to cripple the south and take over. A true tyrant.
@Yabuturtle "You said Lincoln had a hatred for slavery and yet he admits he'd keep slavery legal if it kept the union together"
Yeah, because the only hope of freedom for the slaves was in the Union. If the south seceded, it would have been 40+ years before slavery died, because that's how long it took to invent an effective mechanical cotton picker.
"He couldn't care less if slaves were legal or not"
You're a fool. The only political issue he cared about more than slavery was union.
@KayBeeEee1983 That's my point you idiot. You just made that point for me. He cared more about keeping the union together at any cost than freeing slaves. I would rather have had slavery continue for a couple decades than having hundreds of thousands of people killed and tons of money being wasted on a stupid war. Not THAT many people had slaves and the North wasn't innocent either, they had slaves in their states too. He conquered and crippled the South just to keep it together.
@KayBeeEee1983 I guess you can't read either since I explicitly said that Lincoln had NO excuse to kill innocent civilians or arrest those who spoke out against the war. Care to explain why he decided to violate the Constitution? What does me being white have to do with anything? Who made the most money? Who had all the factories? The North did and they had more control than the South. Northern states had slaves not just the South. Read "The South was Right." You'll understand.
@Yabuturtle Lincoln didn't kill innocent civilians. The Constitution gives the federal government the power to arrest anyone during a rebellion.
If you were black, or if you weren't ignorant of slavery, I doubt you would say "I would rather have had slavery continue for a couple decades than having hundreds of thousands of people killed and tons of money being wasted on a stupid war."
"Read "The South was Right." You'll understand."
That explains your ignorance. That book is a joke.
@Yabuturtle Logic has no place in KayBeeEee1983's mind. She is just a statist more interested in naming Lincoln the greatest President ever rather than calling the facts as they are.
I've decided to take my father's advice. Never argue with idiots, they only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
@lastoftheromans You're done arguing because I've proved that you know absolutely nothing about the civil war or the politics that incited it. I've never said Lincoln was the greatest President, or that he was great at all. He did do something unconstitutional, and I bet you don't even know what it was.
People repeat what they hear, a parrot does the same, my history textbooks were filled with half truths and lies, no doubt "lastoftheromans" would get an A in history, but he'd never really know the truth.
Understanding the men who created this nation, their thoughts, fears and hopes it's nearly impossible to be lied to concerning them, YOU have that "Spirit of 76" same as they did, and yes they would have despised Lincoln too.
@uzijohn Why do you think the Founders would have despised Lincoln? I don't despise him. I think he had the potential to be a great president, but he handled the war terribly. As "head of state", he was amazing.
Lincoln was a corporate lawyer whose motivation was cheap southern materials for his rich mill owner clients in the north, their money was still warm in his pocket as started an unpopular and costly war, four years and 650,000 lives later the south was in ashes and our constitution forever destroyed, all this for one man!
Lincoln’s actions not only destroyed our freedoms, worst of all he created and empowered that “Unchained Beast” that now resides in Washington DC.
Yes, Lincoln’s becoming President guaranteed it, he ran on a promise to “double” tariffs from 20% to 40% (quite an increase) this would give northern industrialists an advantage over foreign competitors for raw materials.
I’m not from the south, I’ve never even been there, nor do I have any attachments, I only plead their case due to the injustice they endured.
@uzijohn The President doesn't control taxes. That's Congress's responsibility, and the Morrill tariff wouldn't have passed if the states hadn't seceded in the first place. I'm tired of people claiming that tariffs had something to do with secession. It's ignorant.
Too many to list, he arrests dissenters and seized their property, closed down opposition newspapers, Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Taney after his opinion that Congress not the President, can suspend a writ of habeas corpus, by law Congress is to declare war, but Lincoln bypassed them also.
I recommend a video, it’s on Youtube search “Abraham Lincoln | Thomas J. DiLorenzo”
I also have his book The Real Lincoln and found it quite informative.
@uzijohn I didn't mean what freedoms did Lincoln take away during the war. I meant which of OUR freedoms is he responsible for destroying? Sorry about that. I should have been clearer.
DiLorenzo isn't a historian. Real historians laugh at him for saying ignorant things like "Lincoln didn't care about slavery".
As far as DiLorenzo goes, I'd rather learn truth from an amateur than lies from a professional, I’ve seen too many so called experts get it wrong, especially with history.
Politicians manipulate truth, hide relevant information and use historians as tools.
Remember Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were just college drop outs, I don’t belittle an education, but I would get too arrogant over a piece of paper.
You’re ignoring the 16 trillion dollar gorilla in the corner, he didn’t just drop in, he was created by an erosion of our constitution, by convenient reinterpretation of law especially during times of war, Lincoln started this process and others added to it.
The Tenth Amendment states, “Powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people”
plain and clear language, but we no longer follow it.
@uzijohn Lincoln enhanced the right to pursue happiness in the southern states. By keeping the states in the Union, he made it possible for the slaves to be freed. 40% of the Confederacy's population was enslaved.
57.2% of the South Carolina population was enslaved ..... 55.2% of Mississippi was enslaved ..... 46.9% of Louisiana ..... 45.1% of Alabama ..... 44.0% of Florida ..... 43.7% of Georgia ..... 38.7% of Virginia ..... 33.4% of North Carolina ..... 30.2% of Texas ..... 25.5% of Arkansas ..... 24.8% of Tennessee ..... 40.1% of the entire Confederate population was enslaved. 3,502,739 slaves. 5,223,905 free persons.
If our politicians screwed the Jews like they screw the citizens of this country they would put bullets in them. They screwus over and over, but never do what we want, because they don't fear of being shot. They don't fear being voted out of office either, becuase if they get voted out they go get a CEO job or they go on a speaking tour. Theymight miss the perks. We need more Jews on the right wing side and maybe they'll pop some caps.
Lincoln new that if the South seceded the Federal Government would quickly run out of money. The Civil War was about the Sea Ports in the South which had many more times the harbors than the North. The future was in shipping that would move in and out of these ports. The Money was staggering. Lincoln cared little that the South had slavery - he Wanted Them Tax Dollars & the Future Big Bucks that them Southern Ports Produced the survival of Washington depended on it. .
@noscogen If the South departed the NOrth was screwed. The South grew the food. The South had the tourist spots. They had the seafood. They had cheap labor. They grew the cotton. What does the North have ski resorts and maple syrup. It isn't hard to figure out. But with all that the South sent money North, but they didn't benefit.
@amerikaiscommunist Actually the North grew more food than the South--Northern farm produce was feeding Mississippi and Tennessee. After secession, that food supply stopped, creating shortages (cont)
@galoon How could the NOrth grow more food? People throw all these statitics out there and why is important? The South doesn't have the snow and the cold, so they don't have the snow removal and they don't have the freezing temperatures and they can grow a lot more food. Florida can grow year round as well as other states. The North cold sucks.
@amerikaiscommunist The Civil War came at a time of massive crop failures in Europe; therefore they needed the wheat that the North grew in abundance. Don't forget that the North was still well over 50% rural during the war. They used mechanization on their farms, which compensated for the shorter growing season. Southern farms producing food were still using old manual methods that were well behind the times; another symptom of slavery. Therefore Northern farms outproduced Southern ones.
@amerikaiscommunist The South, though it was an agricultural region at the time of the war, was geared much more toward the production of cotton, not foodstuffs. During the conflict, cotton HAD to be grown to sell to Europe in return for weapons, medicines, etc. because the South lacked a sound currency with which to purchase them. By 1865 a barrel of flour cost $1000 in Richmond, Va. and was scarce even at that price--so you had the armies of an agrarian society that were starving nonetheless.
@amerikaiscommunist With regard to cold, snow, etc. you may be thinking of New England. The midwest states like Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and Wisconsin were part of the Union during the war--these were agricultural powerhouses with fertile land; ideal for corn, wheat, and livestock for meat and dairy, which was another area where the North outstripped the South. Compared to his counterpart in the Confederate army, the Federal soldier was quite well-fed.
@amerikaiscommunist By 1863, the daily ration for a single Union soldier consisted of almost the same amount of meat, bread, fruits/vegetables, and coffee as were often only available for every 100 men in Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. It's small wonder that he decided to take his troops into the North on two occasions (Antietam and Gettysburg) rather than keep them in Virginia. They had to be properly fed somehow; most of the Confederate soldier's spare time was spent looking for food.
@amerikaiscommunist That's why, in 1864, the Confederacy took the draconian measure of demanding 10% of every Southern farmer's food production to distribute to the Confederate army, with a 50% penalty for non-compliance. This was horribly unpopular with the people of course, as farmers were often living mighty lean at the time, but it was necessary to keep the army from starving.
@galoon FAce it was are total bullshit. WHen they created nuclear bombs they pretty much made war obsolete. WHen the USA carpet bombed German cities they pretty much decided why engage just the army. Just bomb the cities and fight the troops.When they dropped the nukes on Japan we showed we were barbaric. Japan wanted to surrender, but we said unconditional surrender. What is that? Anything, if we say sterilize all your people so be it. Japan wanted to talk. Our president decided to drop nukes
@KayBeeEee1983 I could teach you so much. If things got real bad I could even let you go down on me and you could learn how to give a good BJ and that could come in handy for you during hard times.
@galoon WHen they dropped those nukes on Japan the president should have been tried for crimes against humanity. Our country went to Europe and fought Germany, but had no business getting involved. But we can bomb their cities and they can't bomb ours. So who would want to even live in a country that could have pulled their weight and stopped the war, but instead gets involved through tricky means, by supplying munitions in WWI and then provoking Japan into attacking us. Germany never wanted war
@galoon The Southern states had a right to leave the Union. Besides large countries cause problems. WHo attacks other countries? WHen you had the Soviet Union they bullied other countries. When the Jews overthrew the Russian government they then took Poland and Ukraine. The USA is a warmongering country. Google ALl of AMerica's conflicts since 1980. The best thing for the world is make every country no bigger than spain. This would stop the wars and the poverty. Large countries cause trouble.
@galoon It's like the war with Germany was secretly planned with the USA, Russia, France and ENgland. How could you get four countries to plan war against another country? Why would each country want to do it? Why would they go to war with a Communist country? Then look what they did they crushed Germany and then fed them. When the Jews in America wanted to exterminate the Germans. How dare the Germans deny Communism to spread across Europe?
@galoon The Northern and western states might have grown more grain, but Texas had cattle and the southern states grew more veggies and fruits. Grain has to have shit done to it. You can pick a veggie or fruit and eat it. You can eat a shrimp, oyster, fish and all this stuff was in the south. So stick the grain where the sun don't shine.
@amerikaiscommunist (con't) unrelated to the blockade The North had the fisheries off the New England coast and its farms were growing enough grain to feed much of Europe as well as America.
@galoon People in Europe have lived there for thousands of years. What were they eating before America started to grow grain? Ukraine could probably grow enough food to feed Eastern EUrope. If whites lived in Africa and Brazil the amount of food owuld be unreal. Brazil has more fertile farming land than the USA and Africa if you were to irrigate it you could grow food year round. But blacks can't grow food. They carry shit on their heads.
@galoon The best thing people could do for the world is when someone became rich would be to kill them. Our problem is our founding fathers gave us this sytem and it is flawed. Flawed because the citizens should govern themselves and reelect people every year and do away with career politicians because they kiss the bankers and corporations and the people get screwed. Then they create wars. I would love to see the people rise up and get rid of rich bastards.
@amerikaiscommunist "The best thing people could do for the world is when someone became rich would be to kill them." ...Yeah that will solve all the problems, do you ever have any rational ideas?
"Flawed because the citizens should govern themselves and reelect people every year" If they are electing people then they arent governing themselves, they are electing someone to govern them.
@RevBillyRayCollins Kill them and spread the wealth to others. When I say rich I mean a billion. WHen I say people elected I mean someone elected from the community like a farmer or teacher is elected to vote yea or nay and then a year later replaced. But really they might just produce all these laws just for something to do. I think they made 400 changes to the tax laws or was it thousands. So career politicians might just do this shit to make it look like they are busy.
@amerikaiscommunist Oh okay, only the billionaires, that makes so much better! Last time I checked killing someone was murder, and that was rather immoral. "spread the wealth to others." If you want to do that vote to reelect Obama. "like a farmer or teacher is elected to vote yea or nay and then a year later replaced." That reminds me of something from ancient Rome, tell me, what happens if the farmer refuses to give up their power?
@RevBillyRayCollins farmer has to grow the crops. He has a schedule. It makes me sick those career politicians sit on their asses and vote for things we don't approve of. How many times do people get you to write to a congressman?
@amerikaiscommunist You can write to your congressman whenever you want; I wrote to mine in early January expressing my disgust that Rob Wittman (R-VA, 1st Congressional District) voted in favor of the NDAA bill.
@RevBillyRayCollins "If they are electing people then they arent governing themselves, they are electing someone to govern them."
So then you admit that the south wasn't fighting for self-government.
"what happens if the farmer refuses to give up their power?"
That's a pretty stupid question. If they refuse to give up their power, you kill them, obviously. A more appropriate question to ask him/her would be "What happens if the farmer is a jew or negro?" If course, the answer is the same.
@KayBeeEee1983 "So then you admit" ? The Southern politicians fought for a jeffersonian style of government, a republic. They werent about to let a bunch of yankee politicians tell them what to do. You have no comprehension.
"If they refuse to give up their power, you kill them, obviously." Are you agreeing with him? Wow I thought better of you. I was simply pointing out the errors of his idea.
@galoon What about the Gulf of Mexico? All the oysters and fish along the southern coasts and the oysters in Louisiana? Plus the alligators and gar fish.
@amerikaiscommunist All right, you little troll, enough is enough. I can contain myself no longer. Your brain is so tiny that if a hungry cannibal cracked your head open, there wouldn't be enough inside to spread on a Mini-Ritz Cracker.
@galoon You didn't thinkof the bullfrogs, crawfish, and shrimp. I've been in the south and caught those things. The South was screwed big time. I've eaten gar fish. Don't turn down gar fish. It's white meat and taste like some fish. The bastards are trying to pollute the world. THe gulf oil spill was intentional and AMerica exports 117 million gallons a week. You thought we couldn't get enough oil, when the truth is we have plenty. In fact the blockades on southern ports stopped the oil exports
@amerikaiscommunist The South by contrast had to grow cotton to pay for the war when its people were hungry for bread. Europe didn't side with the South in part because it needed Northern grain.
@galoon it was just another jewish financed war. So much goes on behind the scenes. But when it's all over neither side wins anything. They just kill each other. Jews don't fight they just finance. They will fight when they have the upper hand. Like in the Middle East they have far superior weapons and nukes.
@galoon the south was where most of the fighting occurred too. If they had fought in the North more their farms would have been raided. Although it made it better for the south they knew the land better. I bet everytime the Jewsprepare for war they bring the economy down. It just can't happen by chance.
@KayBeeEee1983 boy you're one of those kind. Just because I've actually purchased and read hundreds of books and read on WWI and WWII and you've read nothing and get all your info from tv means a waste of time trying to explain to you. I've actually learned. You should just read a couple books on the subject of exploring, scientists and wars, because if you don't teach it all you can do is discuss it with someone and when you discuss it with someone who has never opened a book its waste of time
Actually, as for killing civilians, the Romans, under Ceaser, wiped out the Druids and their female couterparts ("Druids were only male, don't call me sexist, it was their rule) so Lincoln wasn't the first in history to do it on a wide scale. But the rest of what he said seems about right.
The problem with your historical analysis is the a priori assumption that Jews all together form a vast international conspiracy - Many people like to say so, but it doesn't ring true to me - I guess this conspiracy theory comes from the Rothschild family & their European banking business that financed wars - but the fundamental premise, that Jews conspire to rule the world, is not one that I ascribe to - sure, Jews as a people are stubborn, smart, & self-promoting - but the rest I don't believe
Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant. He fought for equality and freedom. The suspension of habeas corpus was legal, and he had the right to go to war so that he would uphold the Constitution and the spirit of the Declaration.
A state should have more rights than it does now, but it does not and should not create laws that infringe upon the inalienable rights of another individual. Lincoln won threefold: militarily, constitutionally, and, most of all, morally.
@MrGreenPoop1000 "The suspension of habeas corpus was legal" His suspension of habeas corpus was declared unconstitutional in the court case ex parte merryman.
"should not create laws that infringe upon the inalienable rights of another individual." How wrong slavery indeed was, it was also protected by law and Lincoln promised to support an amendment which would have prohibited Federal interference in Southern slavery.
@RevBillyRayCollins And yet in 1863, Congress passed a habeas corpus law which “ratified Lincoln’s actions and indemnified soldiers against lawsuits,” (Freedman, 52).
Justice Taney misinterpreted the Constitution and was sympathetic toward the South.
Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution: “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." There was indeed a rebellion.
@MrGreenPoop1000 In your opinion perhaps Taney misinterpreted the Constitution, but he is the judge and we are not. His word is law, and ours isn't. I do realize that the suspension of haveas corpus is valid, it doesn't make it any more right to do so however. Taney declared that only Congress has the authority to suspend habeas corpus, not the President. Yet Lincoln largely ingnored the ruling and even sent out an arrest warrant for Taney, luckily no one arrested him and the
@MrGreenPoop1000 warrant was dropped. But Taney wasn't the only one who came to this conclusion. Many years before him John Marshall ruled the same thing that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus in the case Ex Parte Bollman as well as recently in the Supreme Court with the ruling in Hamdi v Rumsfeld. It's not unheard of.
I'm sorry but I can't accept anything Henry Jaffa says, he's a lincoln cultist and a dillusional fool in my opinion.
@RevBillyRayCollins It is a fact that the clause of habeas corpus is located in “Article I, which sets forth the powers of Congress, and not in Article II, which concerns the Executive,” (Jaffa 364). And while the President is not a member of the legislative branch, Chicago professor Harry V. Jaffa asserts that “where in the Constitution it [habeas corpus] is placed is wholly subordinate to why it is there at all. Lincoln’s suspension of the writ is therefore lawful,” (Jaffa 364).
@RevBillyRayCollins "Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made, for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be that the framers of the instrument intended, that in every case the danger should run its course until Congress be called together; the very assembling of which might be prevented... by the rebellion.” -President Lincoln-
@RevBillyRayCollins And slavery was inherently foreign to the Constitution. No state or institution has the right to enslave another without their consent. Period.
@MrGreenPoop1000 "No state or institution has the right to enslave another without their consent." In a moral view absolutely, but that's just not the way it was back then. Using 21st century philosophy isn't always best. Slavery is discussed in the Constitution: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of
@RevBillyRayCollins I know it wasn't the way it was as a culture. That's why it took certain leaders at the time to actually voice that same moral virtue to the citizen. Liberty was the bedrock of that nation. The problem was that many southerners rationalized around it to ensure the existence of their trade.
@MrGreenPoop1000 free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 This discusses representation of slaves in Congress.
Article 4 Section 2 "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another" This discusses slaves are to be returned if they escape.
Article 1 Section 9 discusses the abolishment of slave imports in 1808.
@RevBillyRayCollins the 3/5ths was a compromise that the North supported b/c the South was only trying to dominate their will on the rest of the nation. The majority of slaves lived in the South. If they were to be given full citizenship, the South would have far more representation in Congress (resulting in the continued enslavement of negros despite their citizenship).
There's a reason there were amendments to those sections: they contradicted the opening words of the Constitution itself.
@MrGreenPoop1000 "they contradicted the opening words of the Constitution itself." The preamble has no legal justification.
"many southerners rationalized around it to ensure the existence of their trade." Less than 4.8% of southerners owned slaves; most non slave owners didnt give a damn about the slaves.
FDR, LBJ and Eisenhower were indeed JEwish and Wilson looked strange and it wouldn't surprise me if at all the most turbulent times Jews were placed in office or someone who had skeletons in their closet were put in place at the right time. They might have put Obama in at the right time/ Anyone who thinks we have any control because we vote in bogus elections means anything?
@amerikaiscommunist Hmmm...who should I believe. A Jewish website that researches the ethnicity of famous people to find out if their Jews, or a person who probably heard they were Jewish from a neo-nazi newsletter?
@KayBeeEee1983 Patton said Eisenhower was Jewish, Roosevelt was changed from Rosenfeld. LBJ came from many Jews that moved to Texas. All of them were president at a very troubling time. They know they are going to start a war and they put them in place. We used to have decent presidents and that all ended after the turn of the century. Lincoln could have been Jewish. He did have black hair that was wavy.
22 years the Commie Jews murdered people by the millions. You think this could be hidden? IAfter WWII it involved at least 20 countries. Is it possible they could seal off the borders where nobody could get out and tell anyone about this? You think there could be drug use with a system like that? The government wants you to use drugs. If not they would send a million soldiers into Colombia to get rid of cocaine. Whern Communism rears it's ugly head you won't be able to find cocaine.
Glad to see most of the people whining in the comments section obviously didn't watch the video and listen to the relevant and cogent points that Judge Napolitano made about Lincoln.
@katman77018 It wouldn't surprise me if Lincoln was a Jew and I'm going to check but Wilson was one weird looking bastard. One thing they did do was put Wilson in place, because he owed money and they wanted WWI. FDR was Jewish and was in place for four terms. Eisenhower was Jewish and ushered in Korea and was in charge after WWII. LBJ another Jew who ushered in Vietnam and Civil Rights.
One of U.S. history's biggest lies is that the Civil War(North War of Agression) was to free the slaves. BS! Google the Morrill Act and amaze yourself with how little you know.
In a decent world we would close the cigarette factories. Especially when we learned the actually added ingredients to the tobacco to make them more addictive. In Europe they still have decent people ingovernment and won't allow the stuff to harm it's citizens like this country.
The North need tax money, and what was the biggest money maker the South had? The same crop used at the top of our nations capitols even today. Tobacco. And what was the first thing attacked by the NWO before we ever new it existed, smokers and tobacco. That was to cut down on our Gross National Product. First was a test to see if they could do it, remember when this false attack on cigarettes happened? They made us put the striker on the back of matches in the name of safety.
@DoninHI Now a spark could jump into our eyes and matches fell out of favor. They used to be a prime advertising tool. Soon stores stopped giving them away. They forced the ashtrays out of public places, created second-hand smoke and blamed cancer. Now that cancer has been exposed smokers still are condemned.
How “public health”, media and the University of Minnesota con you about passive smoke "dangers" – once again.
- January 5, 2004 -- The ink was not yet dry on the latest piece of trash science on passive smoke, and a few days ago the mass media had already rushed to spread the disinformation all over the world. We refer to the latest “study” by the University of Minnesota on passive smoking.
7/22/1861 House Passes Crittenden Resolution "Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, "will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions (slavery) of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to PRESERVE the Union,"
@KayBeeEee1983 They have a lot, but the south grows the food and they have the tourism. The North has a lot of expense the cold weather has on roads and bridges. The North should only have sli resorts people flown in and let the land go. It costs trillions to heat the homes and building.
ALL wars are bullshit. WHen the Mongolians and Turks would invade Europe then you had wars that were necessary, because they invaded. But now you have sanctions and ways of stopping bad people.. The bad guys are not the poor Arabs. All they have is desert and oil. The bad guys are the USA and Russia. The USA is the most warmmongering country there is. The problem is AMerica is so large. There is the problem. AMerica, Russia, China and Brazil should be broken down into smaller countries.
that makes a lot of sense...
chris99103 20 hours ago
Fuck yeah, Jefferson Davis.
superbeastguy 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lastoftheromans It looks like KayBee actually studied American history, unlike you, and does some research before posting, which you never do. It looks like KayBee sticks to facts and logic while you can only resort to tired insults and lame personal attacks. It looks like you got routed by someone who's way out of your league.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 4 days ago
Lincoln was a tyrant. The title of this video gets it perfectly.
lowsten 4 days ago
In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the execution, by hanging, of 38 Dakota Sioux prisoners in Mankato, Minnesota. Most of those executed were holy men or political leaders of their camps. None of them were responsible for committing the crimes they were accused of. Coined as the Largest Mass Execution in U.S. History. (Brown, Dee. BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1970. pp. 59-61 )
watertonrivers 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@watertonrivers And what were they convicted of? What process did he use to review their convictions? How many other Native Americans did he pardon or grant clemency at the same time? Shit, boy, don't you do any research at all before you post this horseshit? Did you even graduate high school?
historynet[DOT]com/abraham-lincoln-deciding-the-fate-of-300-indians-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-minnesotas-great-sioux-uprising
RonPaulHatesBlacks 5 days ago
I never liked Lincoln. Look at who he sent to burn the south. Then he sent carpet baggers...so cruel.
msanthropez 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lastoftheromans You're pitching the same horseshit that Rundstedt1 utterly destroyed 6 months ago. You should drop the history nonsense---it's not for you, boy. Stick to the REAL reason you believe millions of innocent black men, women, and children inherently deserved to suffer MORE decades of slavery and segregation. Do you believe blacks are scientifically inferior to whites? Spiritually inferior? Why do black folks deserve slavery?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 5 days ago
@CCbundy It never occurred to you that maybe they were annoyed to the point where they had enough? It's like if I kept poking you in the arm and annoy you, eventually you're gonna hit back aren't you? It was taxation without representation. And besides how do you justify Lincoln killing civilians and livestock and burning down homes?
Yabuturtle 6 days ago
@Yabuturtle ok first I don't recall saying anything regarding Lincoln I said that West Va. broke off from Va. because of major differences primarily slavery and representation Now if you want to talk able killing and burning homes down when the confeds occupied the state they did a bit of that. . . . -_- *Waits for a hate/troll reply or none at all because of the pointlessness of this argument*
CCbundy 6 days ago
@CCbundy You claim it was the South that started it when it was really the North who were the aggressors. They had a right to secede, and Lincoln not only violated the 1st amendment by having people arrested for speaking out against the war, he didn't even really give them a trial either. It's really amazing that Lincoln was built up to be such a noble person when really he was a power hungry ruthless tyrant. You know, the winners are the ones that right the history books.
Yabuturtle 5 days ago
@Yabuturtle The South fired on an unarmed supply ship in January 1861 called "Star of the West". Look it up. They demolished a federal fort on federal property. They also invaded NEUTRAL Kentucky early in the war. The south were the aggressors in every way.
They may or may not have had the right to secede, but they certainly didn't have the right to interpret the federal Constitution. The federal judiciary has that power (Article 3, Section 2). They should've sued the US for their independence.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 James Buchanan thought it was stupid for states to secede but at least he had the decency to not attack them. Lincoln would have attacked the South anyway to keep his precious union together. and the South were being pushed around. What would you do? If they joined the US, they can also leave. They wanted independence like the colonies wanted during the Revolution If the South did attack first, Lincoln had no excuse to kill civilians and burn down their buildings.
Yabuturtle 5 days ago
@Yabuturtle The South was pushing the North around. The South was demanding a federal slave code. They wanted to force the Northern states to allow slavery.
"If they joined the US, they can also leave."
Wrong.
"The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
-- James Madison, 1788
"When any one state in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves, the rest have a natural right to compel them to obedience."
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1786
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@Yabuturtle Buchanan didn't just think secession was stupid, he thought it was revolution. "Secession is neither more nor less than revolution."
"They wanted independence like the colonies wanted during the Revolution"
Except the colonies didn't actually want independence. They wanted representation in Parliament. They "chose" independence because the only other option was submission to British tyranny.
Lincoln didn't murder any civilians.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 No Lincoln didn't go out there personally and murder civilians but yeah he did send his troops to take down civilians too not just soldiers. It's the same thing, they didn't want to be controlled by the British and what they were doing was unfair, just like the North was treating the South unfairly. The North even took the South's livestock and whatever livestock they couldn't take, they killed them so the South wouldn't have any food. They were brutal.
Yabuturtle 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Yabuturtle You have proof that Lincoln ordered civilians to be killed?
"the North was treating the South unfairly"
What does that even mean?
"The North even took the South's livestock and whatever livestock they couldn't take, they killed them so the South wouldn't have any food. They were brutal."
Anything they did was to get the south to surrender. Blame the cowardly southern politicians. They were terrified of being executed for treason so they let their people starve.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@Yabuturtle I never said that either again READ my comment please before trying to troll because I never said either side started it but yes North goated South into attacking first but the South didn't have to so the South is aggressors in a since also again with lincoln I never said anything about him my comments have focused on West Virginia I have read up on Lincoln so I know full well what both sides though and what they did neither side were noble or right they are both flawed *pointless*
CCbundy 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Yabuturtle How do you justify the confederacy unconstitutionally seceding and starting a war to try to preserve their "cornerstone" of white supremacism and neverending slavery? How do you justify their beating, whipping, raping, lynching, and enslaving millions of innocent people?
Oh, yeah. Those people were black.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 5 days ago
@Yabuturtle "It was taxation without representation."
The south had 30% of the American free population, but they had 40% of the Representatives in the House. They were OVER represented. How was the North "annoying" the South? By breaking supposed fugitive slaves out of jail? By instituting the lowest tariff rate of the 19th century? By electing an anti-slavery President? Please explain.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 The Federal government was mostly controlled by the North. They had attempted to tell the South what to do many times. There were times where France would try to trade with the North but because they were being to greedy, the French and other Europeans started trading with the South instead. There were even some anti slavery bills which didn't even get support from Lincoln so no he was never that anti slavery. If he was so noble he wouldn't have burned entire towns.
Yabuturtle 5 days ago
@Yabuturtle "The Federal government was mostly controlled by the North."
No, it was controlled by the South and its Pro-Slavery allies in the North. Look these up: Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Kansas-Nebraska Act. Lecompton Constitution. Kansas Bogus Legislature. Scott v. Sandford. Ableman v. Booth. Slave Power.
I suggest you read a history book and not whatever pro-confederacy websites you've obviously been reading.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
Napolitano is a moron. There is so much evidence of Lincoln's hatred for slavery that it's not even debatable. That said, yes, it's true...his cause celebre was holding the union together. He said, "If I could save the union by freeing all the slaves I would do it; if I could save the union by freeing half the slaves I would do it, and if I could save the union by freeing none of the slaves I would do it. Nothing Lincoln did to save the union was tyrannical. He stood virtually alone.
rickcee 1 week ago
@rickcee Yes, he's a crazy moron. He didn't even answer his own question. His first question, "Did the Emancipation Proclamation free the slaves?" should have been answered, "Not all of them. Only about 3 million (75%) of them."
His second question, "Was Lincoln interested in freeing the slaves?" should have been answered, "Yes, but he couldn't legally free them without a constitutional amendment or a war. The only political issue he cared about MORE than slavery was preservation of the Union."
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Why didn't Lincoln sign the Emancipation Proclamation that freed 3 million slaves in 1860 instead of 1863?
lastoftheromans 6 days ago
@lastoftheromans Because he Constitution protects property rights.
KayBeeEee1983 6 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 so the Great Emancipator thought slaves were property and not people protected under the Constitution of the United States of America? Hmm, interesting.
lastoftheromans 6 days ago
@lastoftheromans He thought they were people and deserved Constitutional rights, but the Supreme Court disagreed.
KayBeeEee1983 6 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 What about the constitutional rights of the thousands of northern newspaper writers he imprisoned for disagreeing with is policies during the war? Was that because the Supreme Court disagreed with him too? I'm just a little lost about this whole thing. Surely a great champion of human rights such as the Great Emancipator couldn't have locked up people just for disagreeing with him.
lastoftheromans 5 days ago
@lastoftheromans The Constitution gives the federal government the power to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus when there's a rebellion. He didn't arrest those people during peacetime. If you support the enemy during a war, you run the risk of getting locked up.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 So criticizing a President's decisions during a war now means you are supporting the enemy. I didn't support Bush when he let Osama Bin Laden go at Tora Bora in order to invade Iraq. That means that I supported Osama Bin Laden and I deserve to be locked up? Hmm, the statists are interesting. Freedom of speech in the 1st Amendment only counts when you are agreeing with him. If you disagree with them, you run the risk of getting locked up.
lastoftheromans 5 days ago
@lastoftheromans "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not rebellions or invasions of the US. The Civil War was a rebellion. If the US was in danger of being invaded by Iraq, then, yeah, you might get locked up for supporting them.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Even the Civil War was not a rebellion. We recognized them as a sovereign state, then attacked them.
masterskyrunner 5 days ago
@masterskyrunner No country on earth recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign state, including the USA. In the North, the war was the called "The War of the Rebellion"....
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Except for Great Britain who was in talks to support the CSA against the Union. Yeah you're right, no one on earth, except for the greatest Empire on the planet at the time. You are laughable at best.
lastoftheromans 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Invasion? Let me think here... The Southern Armies didn't invade the North until 1863 yet Lincoln started arresting newspaper editors who merely disagreed with him and his slavery of northerners by way of conscription in 1862.
There is no way you can seriously make the argument that disagreeing with a President means you support the enemy. That is the most asinine argument I have ever heard in my life.
lastoftheromans 4 days ago
@lastoftheromans The south invaded Kentucky in September 1861. They invaded Maryland in September 1862. The Union didn't start drafting men until March 1863. That's 3 strikes.
I already pasted the clause in the Constitution that allows the federal government to arrest people for little or no reason. Art 1, Sec 9, Clause 2. Look up what the writ of Habeas Corpus is.
Great Britain didn't recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation. They recognized them as a belligerent. Learn the difference
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 Statist piece of shit
pretorious700 8 hours ago
@lastoftheromans Because he wasn't in office in 1860. Obviously.
It's cute when stupid hatemongers pretend to be offended that the thousands of slaves in the Border States had to wait two extra years for freedom while the bigots simultaneously champion the confederate alternative of NO freedom for 3.5 million innocent people, and all of their descendants, forever and until the end of time. It's like neo-Nazis pretending to be offended by anti-Semitism in the Allied nations.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 6 days ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Then why didn't he sign it on March 4, 1861 instead of January 3, 1863? I'm just a little confused here the Great Emancipator shouldn't have wasted any time if he was so concerned with ridding the world of slavery instead of merely keeping the union together.
lastoftheromans 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lastoftheromans Because the EP was a wartime measure, and the war hadn't started yet. Obviously. Did you even graduate high school?
No one said he was so concerned with ridding the world of slavery. No one said FDR was so concerned with freeing the Jews. Lincoln was the elected president of a nation that was attacked by racist traitors. He swore an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution and other federal law, and he did and freed the slaves. That's why you hate him, remember?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 5 days ago
@lastoftheromans Lincoln didn't emancipate the slaves at the start of the war because he didn't want the Union slave states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware) to join the Confederacy.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@rickcee You made yourself look like a fool. You said Lincoln had a hatred for slavery and yet he admits he'd keep slavery legal if it kept the union together. He couldn't care less if slaves were legal or not. It wasn't even a civil war, because the Confederate States of America was established so therefore it was an invasion. How do you justify him killing civilians, robbing people and taking their livestock? Because he wanted to cripple the south and take over. A true tyrant.
Yabuturtle 6 days ago in playlist PolitiKs
@Yabuturtle "You said Lincoln had a hatred for slavery and yet he admits he'd keep slavery legal if it kept the union together"
Yeah, because the only hope of freedom for the slaves was in the Union. If the south seceded, it would have been 40+ years before slavery died, because that's how long it took to invent an effective mechanical cotton picker.
"He couldn't care less if slaves were legal or not"
You're a fool. The only political issue he cared about more than slavery was union.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 That's my point you idiot. You just made that point for me. He cared more about keeping the union together at any cost than freeing slaves. I would rather have had slavery continue for a couple decades than having hundreds of thousands of people killed and tons of money being wasted on a stupid war. Not THAT many people had slaves and the North wasn't innocent either, they had slaves in their states too. He conquered and crippled the South just to keep it together.
Yabuturtle 5 days ago
@Yabuturtle "He cared more about keeping the union together at any cost than freeing slaves."
Do I have to repeat myself? Can you read? "the only hope of freedom for the slaves was in the Union."
"I would rather have had slavery continue for a couple decades"
I'm guessing you're white.
"than having hundreds of thousands of people killed and tons of money being wasted on a stupid war."
I agree that it was stupid, that's why the south shouldn't have started the war. They knew what they were doing.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I guess you can't read either since I explicitly said that Lincoln had NO excuse to kill innocent civilians or arrest those who spoke out against the war. Care to explain why he decided to violate the Constitution? What does me being white have to do with anything? Who made the most money? Who had all the factories? The North did and they had more control than the South. Northern states had slaves not just the South. Read "The South was Right." You'll understand.
Yabuturtle 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Yabuturtle Lincoln didn't kill innocent civilians. The Constitution gives the federal government the power to arrest anyone during a rebellion.
If you were black, or if you weren't ignorant of slavery, I doubt you would say "I would rather have had slavery continue for a couple decades than having hundreds of thousands of people killed and tons of money being wasted on a stupid war."
"Read "The South was Right." You'll understand."
That explains your ignorance. That book is a joke.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@Yabuturtle Logic has no place in KayBeeEee1983's mind. She is just a statist more interested in naming Lincoln the greatest President ever rather than calling the facts as they are.
I've decided to take my father's advice. Never argue with idiots, they only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
lastoftheromans 4 days ago
@lastoftheromans You're done arguing because I've proved that you know absolutely nothing about the civil war or the politics that incited it. I've never said Lincoln was the greatest President, or that he was great at all. He did do something unconstitutional, and I bet you don't even know what it was.
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
People repeat what they hear, a parrot does the same, my history textbooks were filled with half truths and lies, no doubt "lastoftheromans" would get an A in history, but he'd never really know the truth.
Understanding the men who created this nation, their thoughts, fears and hopes it's nearly impossible to be lied to concerning them, YOU have that "Spirit of 76" same as they did, and yes they would have despised Lincoln too.
uzijohn 4 days ago
@uzijohn Why do you think the Founders would have despised Lincoln? I don't despise him. I think he had the potential to be a great president, but he handled the war terribly. As "head of state", he was amazing.
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983'
Lincoln was a corporate lawyer whose motivation was cheap southern materials for his rich mill owner clients in the north, their money was still warm in his pocket as started an unpopular and costly war, four years and 650,000 lives later the south was in ashes and our constitution forever destroyed, all this for one man!
Lincoln’s actions not only destroyed our freedoms, worst of all he created and empowered that “Unchained Beast” that now resides in Washington DC.
uzijohn 5 hours ago
@uzijohn Lincoln forced the southern states to secede?
KayBeeEee1983 5 hours ago
@KayBeeEee1983,
Yes, Lincoln’s becoming President guaranteed it, he ran on a promise to “double” tariffs from 20% to 40% (quite an increase) this would give northern industrialists an advantage over foreign competitors for raw materials.
I’m not from the south, I’ve never even been there, nor do I have any attachments, I only plead their case due to the injustice they endured.
uzijohn 5 hours ago
@uzijohn The President doesn't control taxes. That's Congress's responsibility, and the Morrill tariff wouldn't have passed if the states hadn't seceded in the first place. I'm tired of people claiming that tariffs had something to do with secession. It's ignorant.
KayBeeEee1983 5 hours ago
@uzijohn Which freedoms did Lincoln destroy?
KayBeeEee1983 5 hours ago
@KayBeeEee1983,
Too many to list, he arrests dissenters and seized their property, closed down opposition newspapers, Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Taney after his opinion that Congress not the President, can suspend a writ of habeas corpus, by law Congress is to declare war, but Lincoln bypassed them also.
I recommend a video, it’s on Youtube search “Abraham Lincoln | Thomas J. DiLorenzo”
I also have his book The Real Lincoln and found it quite informative.
uzijohn 4 hours ago
@uzijohn I didn't mean what freedoms did Lincoln take away during the war. I meant which of OUR freedoms is he responsible for destroying? Sorry about that. I should have been clearer.
DiLorenzo isn't a historian. Real historians laugh at him for saying ignorant things like "Lincoln didn't care about slavery".
KayBeeEee1983 4 hours ago
@KayBeeEee1983,
The loss of "States Rights" is my main concern.
As far as DiLorenzo goes, I'd rather learn truth from an amateur than lies from a professional, I’ve seen too many so called experts get it wrong, especially with history.
Politicians manipulate truth, hide relevant information and use historians as tools.
Remember Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were just college drop outs, I don’t belittle an education, but I would get too arrogant over a piece of paper.
uzijohn 4 hours ago
@uzijohn What "State Right" did Lincoln take away?
KayBeeEee1983 4 hours ago
@KayBeeEee1983,
You’re ignoring the 16 trillion dollar gorilla in the corner, he didn’t just drop in, he was created by an erosion of our constitution, by convenient reinterpretation of law especially during times of war, Lincoln started this process and others added to it.
The Tenth Amendment states, “Powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people”
plain and clear language, but we no longer follow it.
uzijohn 3 hours ago
@uzijohn You didn't answer my question.
KayBeeEee1983 3 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uzijohn You didn't answer my question.
KayBeeEee1983 3 hours ago
@uzijohn You didn't answer my question.
KayBeeEee1983 3 hours ago
@uzijohn You're ignoring my question.
KayBeeEee1983 3 hours ago
@KayBeeEee1983,
What about the right to pursue happiness?
Claiming to free the slaves by enslaving the states, somehow that doesn’t sound right.
uzijohn 3 hours ago
@uzijohn Lincoln enhanced the right to pursue happiness in the southern states. By keeping the states in the Union, he made it possible for the slaves to be freed. 40% of the Confederacy's population was enslaved.
KayBeeEee1983 3 hours ago
Comment removed
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Yabuturtle "Not THAT many people had slaves"
57.2% of the South Carolina population was enslaved ..... 55.2% of Mississippi was enslaved ..... 46.9% of Louisiana ..... 45.1% of Alabama ..... 44.0% of Florida ..... 43.7% of Georgia ..... 38.7% of Virginia ..... 33.4% of North Carolina ..... 30.2% of Texas ..... 25.5% of Arkansas ..... 24.8% of Tennessee ..... 40.1% of the entire Confederate population was enslaved. 3,502,739 slaves. 5,223,905 free persons.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If our politicians screwed the Jews like they screw the citizens of this country they would put bullets in them. They screwus over and over, but never do what we want, because they don't fear of being shot. They don't fear being voted out of office either, becuase if they get voted out they go get a CEO job or they go on a speaking tour. Theymight miss the perks. We need more Jews on the right wing side and maybe they'll pop some caps.
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
Lincoln new that if the South seceded the Federal Government would quickly run out of money. The Civil War was about the Sea Ports in the South which had many more times the harbors than the North. The future was in shipping that would move in and out of these ports. The Money was staggering. Lincoln cared little that the South had slavery - he Wanted Them Tax Dollars & the Future Big Bucks that them Southern Ports Produced the survival of Washington depended on it. .
noscogen 1 week ago
@noscogen If the South departed the NOrth was screwed. The South grew the food. The South had the tourist spots. They had the seafood. They had cheap labor. They grew the cotton. What does the North have ski resorts and maple syrup. It isn't hard to figure out. But with all that the South sent money North, but they didn't benefit.
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@amerikaiscommunist Actually the North grew more food than the South--Northern farm produce was feeding Mississippi and Tennessee. After secession, that food supply stopped, creating shortages (cont)
galoon 1 week ago
@galoon How could the NOrth grow more food? People throw all these statitics out there and why is important? The South doesn't have the snow and the cold, so they don't have the snow removal and they don't have the freezing temperatures and they can grow a lot more food. Florida can grow year round as well as other states. The North cold sucks.
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@amerikaiscommunist The Civil War came at a time of massive crop failures in Europe; therefore they needed the wheat that the North grew in abundance. Don't forget that the North was still well over 50% rural during the war. They used mechanization on their farms, which compensated for the shorter growing season. Southern farms producing food were still using old manual methods that were well behind the times; another symptom of slavery. Therefore Northern farms outproduced Southern ones.
galoon 1 week ago
@amerikaiscommunist The South, though it was an agricultural region at the time of the war, was geared much more toward the production of cotton, not foodstuffs. During the conflict, cotton HAD to be grown to sell to Europe in return for weapons, medicines, etc. because the South lacked a sound currency with which to purchase them. By 1865 a barrel of flour cost $1000 in Richmond, Va. and was scarce even at that price--so you had the armies of an agrarian society that were starving nonetheless.
galoon 1 week ago
@amerikaiscommunist With regard to cold, snow, etc. you may be thinking of New England. The midwest states like Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and Wisconsin were part of the Union during the war--these were agricultural powerhouses with fertile land; ideal for corn, wheat, and livestock for meat and dairy, which was another area where the North outstripped the South. Compared to his counterpart in the Confederate army, the Federal soldier was quite well-fed.
galoon 1 week ago
@amerikaiscommunist By 1863, the daily ration for a single Union soldier consisted of almost the same amount of meat, bread, fruits/vegetables, and coffee as were often only available for every 100 men in Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. It's small wonder that he decided to take his troops into the North on two occasions (Antietam and Gettysburg) rather than keep them in Virginia. They had to be properly fed somehow; most of the Confederate soldier's spare time was spent looking for food.
galoon 1 week ago
@amerikaiscommunist That's why, in 1864, the Confederacy took the draconian measure of demanding 10% of every Southern farmer's food production to distribute to the Confederate army, with a 50% penalty for non-compliance. This was horribly unpopular with the people of course, as farmers were often living mighty lean at the time, but it was necessary to keep the army from starving.
galoon 1 week ago
@galoon You're talking to a troll.
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago 2
@KayBeeEee1983 Yes, you're right there, haha!
galoon 1 week ago
@galoon FAce it was are total bullshit. WHen they created nuclear bombs they pretty much made war obsolete. WHen the USA carpet bombed German cities they pretty much decided why engage just the army. Just bomb the cities and fight the troops.When they dropped the nukes on Japan we showed we were barbaric. Japan wanted to surrender, but we said unconditional surrender. What is that? Anything, if we say sterilize all your people so be it. Japan wanted to talk. Our president decided to drop nukes
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@amerikaiscommunist Stop saying "we".
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I could teach you so much. If things got real bad I could even let you go down on me and you could learn how to give a good BJ and that could come in handy for you during hard times.
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@galoon WHen they dropped those nukes on Japan the president should have been tried for crimes against humanity. Our country went to Europe and fought Germany, but had no business getting involved. But we can bomb their cities and they can't bomb ours. So who would want to even live in a country that could have pulled their weight and stopped the war, but instead gets involved through tricky means, by supplying munitions in WWI and then provoking Japan into attacking us. Germany never wanted war
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@galoon The Southern states had a right to leave the Union. Besides large countries cause problems. WHo attacks other countries? WHen you had the Soviet Union they bullied other countries. When the Jews overthrew the Russian government they then took Poland and Ukraine. The USA is a warmongering country. Google ALl of AMerica's conflicts since 1980. The best thing for the world is make every country no bigger than spain. This would stop the wars and the poverty. Large countries cause trouble.
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@galoon It's like the war with Germany was secretly planned with the USA, Russia, France and ENgland. How could you get four countries to plan war against another country? Why would each country want to do it? Why would they go to war with a Communist country? Then look what they did they crushed Germany and then fed them. When the Jews in America wanted to exterminate the Germans. How dare the Germans deny Communism to spread across Europe?
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@galoon The Northern and western states might have grown more grain, but Texas had cattle and the southern states grew more veggies and fruits. Grain has to have shit done to it. You can pick a veggie or fruit and eat it. You can eat a shrimp, oyster, fish and all this stuff was in the south. So stick the grain where the sun don't shine.
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@amerikaiscommunist (con't) unrelated to the blockade The North had the fisheries off the New England coast and its farms were growing enough grain to feed much of Europe as well as America.
galoon 1 week ago
@galoon People in Europe have lived there for thousands of years. What were they eating before America started to grow grain? Ukraine could probably grow enough food to feed Eastern EUrope. If whites lived in Africa and Brazil the amount of food owuld be unreal. Brazil has more fertile farming land than the USA and Africa if you were to irrigate it you could grow food year round. But blacks can't grow food. They carry shit on their heads.
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@galoon The best thing people could do for the world is when someone became rich would be to kill them. Our problem is our founding fathers gave us this sytem and it is flawed. Flawed because the citizens should govern themselves and reelect people every year and do away with career politicians because they kiss the bankers and corporations and the people get screwed. Then they create wars. I would love to see the people rise up and get rid of rich bastards.
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@amerikaiscommunist "The best thing people could do for the world is when someone became rich would be to kill them." ...Yeah that will solve all the problems, do you ever have any rational ideas?
"Flawed because the citizens should govern themselves and reelect people every year" If they are electing people then they arent governing themselves, they are electing someone to govern them.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Kill them and spread the wealth to others. When I say rich I mean a billion. WHen I say people elected I mean someone elected from the community like a farmer or teacher is elected to vote yea or nay and then a year later replaced. But really they might just produce all these laws just for something to do. I think they made 400 changes to the tax laws or was it thousands. So career politicians might just do this shit to make it look like they are busy.
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@amerikaiscommunist Oh okay, only the billionaires, that makes so much better! Last time I checked killing someone was murder, and that was rather immoral. "spread the wealth to others." If you want to do that vote to reelect Obama. "like a farmer or teacher is elected to vote yea or nay and then a year later replaced." That reminds me of something from ancient Rome, tell me, what happens if the farmer refuses to give up their power?
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins THen we bang his sheep and milk his cows and get his chicken eggs
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins farmer has to grow the crops. He has a schedule. It makes me sick those career politicians sit on their asses and vote for things we don't approve of. How many times do people get you to write to a congressman?
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@amerikaiscommunist You can write to your congressman whenever you want; I wrote to mine in early January expressing my disgust that Rob Wittman (R-VA, 1st Congressional District) voted in favor of the NDAA bill.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@amerikaiscommunist You're talking to a troll.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "If they are electing people then they arent governing themselves, they are electing someone to govern them."
So then you admit that the south wasn't fighting for self-government.
"what happens if the farmer refuses to give up their power?"
That's a pretty stupid question. If they refuse to give up their power, you kill them, obviously. A more appropriate question to ask him/her would be "What happens if the farmer is a jew or negro?" If course, the answer is the same.
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "So then you admit" ? The Southern politicians fought for a jeffersonian style of government, a republic. They werent about to let a bunch of yankee politicians tell them what to do. You have no comprehension.
"If they refuse to give up their power, you kill them, obviously." Are you agreeing with him? Wow I thought better of you. I was simply pointing out the errors of his idea.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins You're the dumbest person on earth.
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago
@KayBeeEee1983 my sentiments exactly. this kay dude is one stupid bastard
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Am I? I don't think so, take a look at who else is commenting here.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@galoon What about the Gulf of Mexico? All the oysters and fish along the southern coasts and the oysters in Louisiana? Plus the alligators and gar fish.
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@amerikaiscommunist All right, you little troll, enough is enough. I can contain myself no longer. Your brain is so tiny that if a hungry cannibal cracked your head open, there wouldn't be enough inside to spread on a Mini-Ritz Cracker.
galoon 1 week ago
@galoon You didn't thinkof the bullfrogs, crawfish, and shrimp. I've been in the south and caught those things. The South was screwed big time. I've eaten gar fish. Don't turn down gar fish. It's white meat and taste like some fish. The bastards are trying to pollute the world. THe gulf oil spill was intentional and AMerica exports 117 million gallons a week. You thought we couldn't get enough oil, when the truth is we have plenty. In fact the blockades on southern ports stopped the oil exports
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@amerikaiscommunist The South by contrast had to grow cotton to pay for the war when its people were hungry for bread. Europe didn't side with the South in part because it needed Northern grain.
galoon 1 week ago
@galoon it was just another jewish financed war. So much goes on behind the scenes. But when it's all over neither side wins anything. They just kill each other. Jews don't fight they just finance. They will fight when they have the upper hand. Like in the Middle East they have far superior weapons and nukes.
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@galoon the south was where most of the fighting occurred too. If they had fought in the North more their farms would have been raided. Although it made it better for the south they knew the land better. I bet everytime the Jewsprepare for war they bring the economy down. It just can't happen by chance.
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@amerikaiscommunist You're right, it's not a coincidence. Bad economic times lead to social/political revolutions. Fact. Ignorant cunt.
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Was that like signed Ignorant cunt? Or was it meant for me, because you would not know what to do with this cunt.
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@amerikaiscommunist It was meant for your mother.
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago
@KayBeeEee1983 boy you're one of those kind. Just because I've actually purchased and read hundreds of books and read on WWI and WWII and you've read nothing and get all your info from tv means a waste of time trying to explain to you. I've actually learned. You should just read a couple books on the subject of exploring, scientists and wars, because if you don't teach it all you can do is discuss it with someone and when you discuss it with someone who has never opened a book its waste of time
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
Actually, as for killing civilians, the Romans, under Ceaser, wiped out the Druids and their female couterparts ("Druids were only male, don't call me sexist, it was their rule) so Lincoln wasn't the first in history to do it on a wide scale. But the rest of what he said seems about right.
sonotarockstar 1 week ago
The problem with your historical analysis is the a priori assumption that Jews all together form a vast international conspiracy - Many people like to say so, but it doesn't ring true to me - I guess this conspiracy theory comes from the Rothschild family & their European banking business that financed wars - but the fundamental premise, that Jews conspire to rule the world, is not one that I ascribe to - sure, Jews as a people are stubborn, smart, & self-promoting - but the rest I don't believe
SupernalOne 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The confederacy was not wrong because they lost; they lost because they were wrong by nature.
It was not as Thrasymacus said in Plato's Republic (might makes right).
Through reason and discussion, one will see that this assertion is ultimately false. Might does not make right; RIGHT makes right.
MrGreenPoop1000 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrGreenPoop1000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant. He fought for equality and freedom. The suspension of habeas corpus was legal, and he had the right to go to war so that he would uphold the Constitution and the spirit of the Declaration.
A state should have more rights than it does now, but it does not and should not create laws that infringe upon the inalienable rights of another individual. Lincoln won threefold: militarily, constitutionally, and, most of all, morally.
MrGreenPoop1000 2 weeks ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 "The suspension of habeas corpus was legal" His suspension of habeas corpus was declared unconstitutional in the court case ex parte merryman.
"should not create laws that infringe upon the inalienable rights of another individual." How wrong slavery indeed was, it was also protected by law and Lincoln promised to support an amendment which would have prohibited Federal interference in Southern slavery.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins And yet in 1863, Congress passed a habeas corpus law which “ratified Lincoln’s actions and indemnified soldiers against lawsuits,” (Freedman, 52).
Justice Taney misinterpreted the Constitution and was sympathetic toward the South.
Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution: “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." There was indeed a rebellion.
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 In your opinion perhaps Taney misinterpreted the Constitution, but he is the judge and we are not. His word is law, and ours isn't. I do realize that the suspension of haveas corpus is valid, it doesn't make it any more right to do so however. Taney declared that only Congress has the authority to suspend habeas corpus, not the President. Yet Lincoln largely ingnored the ruling and even sent out an arrest warrant for Taney, luckily no one arrested him and the
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 warrant was dropped. But Taney wasn't the only one who came to this conclusion. Many years before him John Marshall ruled the same thing that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus in the case Ex Parte Bollman as well as recently in the Supreme Court with the ruling in Hamdi v Rumsfeld. It's not unheard of.
I'm sorry but I can't accept anything Henry Jaffa says, he's a lincoln cultist and a dillusional fool in my opinion.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins It is a fact that the clause of habeas corpus is located in “Article I, which sets forth the powers of Congress, and not in Article II, which concerns the Executive,” (Jaffa 364). And while the President is not a member of the legislative branch, Chicago professor Harry V. Jaffa asserts that “where in the Constitution it [habeas corpus] is placed is wholly subordinate to why it is there at all. Lincoln’s suspension of the writ is therefore lawful,” (Jaffa 364).
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made, for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be that the framers of the instrument intended, that in every case the danger should run its course until Congress be called together; the very assembling of which might be prevented... by the rebellion.” -President Lincoln-
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins And slavery was inherently foreign to the Constitution. No state or institution has the right to enslave another without their consent. Period.
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 "No state or institution has the right to enslave another without their consent." In a moral view absolutely, but that's just not the way it was back then. Using 21st century philosophy isn't always best. Slavery is discussed in the Constitution: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins I know it wasn't the way it was as a culture. That's why it took certain leaders at the time to actually voice that same moral virtue to the citizen. Liberty was the bedrock of that nation. The problem was that many southerners rationalized around it to ensure the existence of their trade.
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 This discusses representation of slaves in Congress.
Article 4 Section 2 "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another" This discusses slaves are to be returned if they escape.
Article 1 Section 9 discusses the abolishment of slave imports in 1808.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@RevBillyRayCollins the 3/5ths was a compromise that the North supported b/c the South was only trying to dominate their will on the rest of the nation. The majority of slaves lived in the South. If they were to be given full citizenship, the South would have far more representation in Congress (resulting in the continued enslavement of negros despite their citizenship).
There's a reason there were amendments to those sections: they contradicted the opening words of the Constitution itself.
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrGreenPoop1000 "they contradicted the opening words of the Constitution itself." The preamble has no legal justification.
"many southerners rationalized around it to ensure the existence of their trade." Less than 4.8% of southerners owned slaves; most non slave owners didnt give a damn about the slaves.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
Comment removed
MrGreenPoop1000 2 weeks ago
@ KayBeeEee1983
FDR, LBJ and Eisenhower were indeed JEwish and Wilson looked strange and it wouldn't surprise me if at all the most turbulent times Jews were placed in office or someone who had skeletons in their closet were put in place at the right time. They might have put Obama in at the right time/ Anyone who thinks we have any control because we vote in bogus elections means anything?
amerikaiscommunist 2 weeks ago
@amerikaiscommunist Hmmm...who should I believe. A Jewish website that researches the ethnicity of famous people to find out if their Jews, or a person who probably heard they were Jewish from a neo-nazi newsletter?
KayBeeEee1983 2 weeks ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Patton said Eisenhower was Jewish, Roosevelt was changed from Rosenfeld. LBJ came from many Jews that moved to Texas. All of them were president at a very troubling time. They know they are going to start a war and they put them in place. We used to have decent presidents and that all ended after the turn of the century. Lincoln could have been Jewish. He did have black hair that was wavy.
amerikaiscommunist 2 weeks ago
@amerikaiscommunist "He did have black hair that was wavy."
Okay you've convinced me. Please put me on your mailing list. I would like to receive your newsletter.
KayBeeEee1983 2 weeks ago
@KayBeeEee1983 he was a jew and queer and he destroyed the country
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
@amerikaiscommunist You're thinking of James Buchanan.
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago
@amerikaiscommunist What does it matter if they were Jewish or not?
RevBillyRayCollins 2 weeks ago
@RevBillyRayCollins
amerikaiscommunist 1 week ago
22 years the Commie Jews murdered people by the millions. You think this could be hidden? IAfter WWII it involved at least 20 countries. Is it possible they could seal off the borders where nobody could get out and tell anyone about this? You think there could be drug use with a system like that? The government wants you to use drugs. If not they would send a million soldiers into Colombia to get rid of cocaine. Whern Communism rears it's ugly head you won't be able to find cocaine.
amerikaiscommunist 2 weeks ago
Glad to see most of the people whining in the comments section obviously didn't watch the video and listen to the relevant and cogent points that Judge Napolitano made about Lincoln.
VotePaineJefferson 2 weeks ago
comment size , 200 characters ? wtf?
katman77018 2 weeks ago
lincoln was also a crypto jew but i suppose we shouldn't talk about that should we?
katman77018 2 weeks ago
@katman77018 It wouldn't surprise me if Lincoln was a Jew and I'm going to check but Wilson was one weird looking bastard. One thing they did do was put Wilson in place, because he owed money and they wanted WWI. FDR was Jewish and was in place for four terms. Eisenhower was Jewish and ushered in Korea and was in charge after WWII. LBJ another Jew who ushered in Vietnam and Civil Rights.
amerikaiscommunist 2 weeks ago
@amerikaiscommunist Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower, and LBJ weren't Jewish.
jewornotjew[DOT]com
KayBeeEee1983 2 weeks ago
FU KU ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS BEAUTIFUL MAN OMG
gastrozimirvox 2 weeks ago
One of U.S. history's biggest lies is that the Civil War(North War of Agression) was to free the slaves. BS! Google the Morrill Act and amaze yourself with how little you know.
bajajoes1 2 weeks ago
@bajajoes1 No professional historian says the Civil War was to free the slaves.
"Google the Morrill Act and amaze yourself with how little you know."
Irony.
KayBeeEee1983 2 weeks ago
In a decent world we would close the cigarette factories. Especially when we learned the actually added ingredients to the tobacco to make them more addictive. In Europe they still have decent people ingovernment and won't allow the stuff to harm it's citizens like this country.
amerikaiscommunist 2 weeks ago
The North need tax money, and what was the biggest money maker the South had? The same crop used at the top of our nations capitols even today. Tobacco. And what was the first thing attacked by the NWO before we ever new it existed, smokers and tobacco. That was to cut down on our Gross National Product. First was a test to see if they could do it, remember when this false attack on cigarettes happened? They made us put the striker on the back of matches in the name of safety.
DoninHI 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DoninHI "what was the biggest money maker the South had? The same crop used at the top of our nations capitols even today. Tobacco."
Wrong answer. Try again.
KayBeeEee1983 2 weeks ago
@DoninHI Now a spark could jump into our eyes and matches fell out of favor. They used to be a prime advertising tool. Soon stores stopped giving them away. They forced the ashtrays out of public places, created second-hand smoke and blamed cancer. Now that cancer has been exposed smokers still are condemned.
How “public health”, media and the University of Minnesota con you about passive smoke "dangers" – once again.
forces.org/evidence/debunk_junk_science_casino.htm
DoninHI 2 weeks ago
@DoninHI, forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm
- January 5, 2004 -- The ink was not yet dry on the latest piece of trash science on passive smoke, and a few days ago the mass media had already rushed to spread the disinformation all over the world. We refer to the latest “study” by the University of Minnesota on passive smoking.
DoninHI 2 weeks ago
7/22/1861 House Passes Crittenden Resolution "Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, "will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions (slavery) of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to PRESERVE the Union,"
Slingudwig 2 weeks ago
@KayBeeEee1983 They have a lot, but the south grows the food and they have the tourism. The North has a lot of expense the cold weather has on roads and bridges. The North should only have sli resorts people flown in and let the land go. It costs trillions to heat the homes and building.
amerikaiscommunist 2 weeks ago
Judge Napolitano forgot to add another reason Lincoln emancipated the slaves: he needed bodies to prosecute the war.
biped19 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@biped19 "Judge Napolitano forgot to add another reason Lincoln emancipated the slaves: he needed bodies to prosecute the war."
No he didn't need bodies. He didn't even need to conscript anyone, but the draft was a way to raise money AND troops at the same time.
KayBeeEee1983 2 weeks ago
ALL wars are bullshit. WHen the Mongolians and Turks would invade Europe then you had wars that were necessary, because they invaded. But now you have sanctions and ways of stopping bad people.. The bad guys are not the poor Arabs. All they have is desert and oil. The bad guys are the USA and Russia. The USA is the most warmmongering country there is. The problem is AMerica is so large. There is the problem. AMerica, Russia, China and Brazil should be broken down into smaller countries.
amerikaiscommunist 2 weeks ago