And here I thought Sherman's quote dealt with the plantation & slave owning class, as well as the military elite, that directed and duped poor whites into fighting their rebellion for them. It wasn't about 'genocide'...it was about eliminating, as a CLASS, those people who were the direct root of the problem that allowed a Lincoln to flourish.
And here I thought Sherman's quote dealt with the plantation & slave owning class, as well as the military elite, that directed and duped poor whites into fighting their rebellion for them. It wasn't about 'genocide'...it was about eliminating, as a CLASS, those people who were the direct root of the problem that allowed a Lincoln to flourish.
This lovely little essay must drive the Lincoln idolaters into fits of rage. It's a great antidote for those blinded and rendered obtuse by civil religion. Lincoln worship is State worship.
The "Southern Avenger" is a Libertarian at best and a Neo-Liberal at worst. Why he calls himself a conservative and tries to steal the conservative mantel is ridiculous, and the main reason he is considered a nut-job. He talks about Lincoln? What about SA’s hero Confederate president Jefferson Davis? March 1, 1862 president Jefferson Davis declares martial law and suspends both civil jurisdiction and the writ of habeas corpus. Wake up Paulestinians, and read your F’ing history!
@RightWinger1776 As prominent "Paulestinian" Tom Woods has written to Tom DiLorenzo: "Tom, the whole 'pro-Confederate' thing is just laughable. They obviously know we're not 'pro-Confederate' in any sense -- what is there to support in a government that (like the U.S. government at the time) condoned slavery, imposed a fiat currency, and engaged in military conscription?" Please watch this: /watch?v=a4zKzXFcLN4 And This: /watch?v=45JSYIuTk0Y And This: /watch?v=6YpP80_J5N8&feature=youtu.be
Holy SHIT! I've seen 4th graders with a more intelligent view of world and American history. Thank God that people who think like this make up about 1% of the population, we wouldn't have enough insane asylums to house them otherwise. I mean, "southernavenger", is this resentment born out of the fact that your side got it's ass kicked in the war, or is it just a childish anti-war philosophy? Or is it just hatred of the U.S.?
While I agree that Lincoln was a tyrant who expanded government and infringed on American's civil liberties, you can't deny that the Confederacy started the civil war by attacking Ft. Sumter. Lincoln might have invaded before then, we'll never know, but as it stands, Lincoln had justification for war, but not the war crimes he committed.
@xtremejohnny69 Fort Sumter Death Toll: 1 horse, no humans. Death Toll From Lincolns Response to Fort Sumter: 670,000 humans (including 50,000 Southern civilians); thousands of horses. This certainly seems like a measured, prudent, statesmanlike response by Lincoln (sarcasm off). The South seceded peacefully from the North and then became a separate country, as is their right. Lincoln then sent a fleet to reinforce Fort Sumter, which amounted to a declaration of war by Lincoln so they fired
@ErikLiberty Gotcha. I never liked Lincoln after the shit I found out about him, but I always thought the attack of Ft. Sumter was justification for war. Thanks for the info.
@xtremejohnny69 You're welcome. If you want to read more on Fort Sumter, check out the free book Reassessing the Presidency. See chapter 8 called Lincoln and the First Shot: A Study of Deceit and Deception: mises (.) org/resources/3358
Fact: Lincoln was a supporter of the Corwin Amendment. How did that restrict slavery from expanding?
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
Lincoln didn't care about abolishing slavery he just wanted to keep the union intact.
True fact: The South started the war by attacking federal property, Fort Sumter. True fact: The voluntary union of the PEOPLE of the United States was destroyed by the SLAVE STATES' illegal act of secession. True fact: The reason the Slave States seceded was because Lincoln decided for slavery to not being able to legally expand into the western territories. True fact: Defending the Slave States against the Federal government is just favoring a different brand of authoritarianism, not liberty.
Wow, rarely have I seen such an Anti-American, racist, and marxist video in my entire life!!! The first 5 seconds of this video made me puke in my mouth!! The only media outlet Jackass Hunter belongs on is the Osama Bin Laden tapes!!
SA, I respect you, but on the Lincoln debate, you Libertarians avoid the fact that the strong central government had been long established by the time Lincoln moved to Washington in 1861. For good or ill, the anti-federalists lost. But their enduring legacy was the nagging cancer of slavery that they left unaddressed for a later generation to sort out. Yes, Lincoln's deification is lamentable, but this in no way makes Lincoln less than a GREAT MAN! I lack the space for my full argument dammit!!
@civilwarcow I dont need to read clearly bias fiction such as that.. And I'll be like you and pretend that the union army in the march to the sea did not commit ONE WRONG... and confederates did all the wrong/ 100% to 0% .. the federal army was perfect in every way. Andersonville was indeed the facility in which prisoners and guards had the same rations. Your close minded-ness and bias discredit you. I recognize there was wrong doing by the CSA but unlike you, I believe it happened on both sides
@civilwarcow in confderate prisons.. the guards and the prisoners ate equally and starved equally. and the federal prisons did not treat their prisoners the same as they treated the prison guards,when they had the resources. The facts are you need to be realistic, it was a war and THERE IS ALWAYS wrongs to come out from both sides accusing the other side of wrong doing.We cant trust either account to be fair. But what we do know as fact is cities were burned, civilians slain by feds & not by CSA
@civilwarcow you seem 2 make ever excuse in the book 4 federal atrocities during the war for southern independece.I challenge you 2 come up w/ 5 atrocities committed by the federals. im sure you thought they did 0 wrongs. The war efforts directed against non military targets i the south and SHERMAN march to the sea cannot be described as justified in ANYWAY. I dont remember any such actions when rebel armies were north of the mason dixon. Jubal Early had an opportunity to burn cities, he didnt
Well put. I should add that he should have delved even deeper into Lincoln's butchery of Indians in MN as well as his various and sundry war crimes against Southern Civilians-not to mention the widespread murder of Southern POW's in places like Point Lookout, Elmira ("Helmira") and the most infamous of all, Camp Douglas. The Sherman quote gives the merest hint at the rapacious nature of the "malice toward none" lie about "honest" Abe..not to mention trampling constitutional rights in the North
The southern avenger's videos are well thought out, intellectual and delivered in a calm reasonable way. Forget which "side" they are on, I wish more video's took his approach, not in terms of content, just in terms of reasoned approach.
As a "liberal" I can find 1000 videos that mirror my views or directly contrast them. But videos that garner automatic agreement or disagreement aren't intellectually stimulating they are both much to easy to make and say very little. Keep up the good work SA!
How can confedrates believe in freedom when they denied it for so long 400 of slavery and 100 of jim crow, for so many people. Confedrates are cowards because they can't deal with competion from people different from them
@thyczko2 "How can confedrates believe in freedom when they denied it for so long 400 of slavery and 100 of jim crow" - Northerners were just as dependent on cotton and the slave system, benefitted greatly because of it, and even more racist in some ways. And do you feel guilty for using chinese slaves when you shop at Walmart?
@megagagnon1 Oh, c'mon! Do you think it (the American civil war, and the deaths of over 600,000 soldiers, combined) was necessary in "preserving" the union? Or was it more so Lincoln's decision, as Commander-in-Chief, to have set off such a bloodletting, all for the preservation-and consolidation-of Federal power over the states? Slavery had withered on the vine, the world over, and it would have been no different for the U.S. Read the history, without being so sycophantic!
@thyczko2 slavery was the way of the world and abe lincoln and ulyssis grant both owned slaves lincoln is quoted as saying "if he could win the war without freeing the slaves he would"
the confederacy had every right to remove those troops by force and did so for a time but the manufacturing being in the north meant that the southern troops had harder times finding guns and equipment to fight. underfitted they did very well against a better trained and outfitted enemy. it could happen again if a state secedes......it will happen in time.
@lincolngopleader and its only been in recent years the the democrats were the panderers to the socialist agenda. either way their communist....socialism and communism do not go seperate
As I have taught for many years...Lincoln did not tell the truth to his own "Northerners". He was a Liar. He preached..."Slavery is the cause" for the war, but alas it was truthfully a power grab for with to consolidate his powers. If he allowed the South to resign, his area of influence and power would be divided in half. That is the bottom line.
The southern US and Germany have a lot in common. Both were defeated in war and then lied about. And, in both cases, the 'victor' himself ultimately became enslaved.
Very questionable just how much of the modern centralized state can be justly blamed on Lincoln. He did not long survive the end of the war, and who knows what he would have been like as a postwar president. Lincoln was less radical than most of the men in his party, and the centralization of power that characterized Reconstruction was mainly the work of Stevens, Stanton, Sumner and other Republican bigshots who actually hated the 16th president.
Bless You, I could not have said it better myself. Seccession was legal and written into the Constitution to prevent exactly what Lincoln did. Had Robert E. Lee known what was in store for his people he would have fought to the death. They drove the South into an Economic Tiolet Bowl after promissing to return the land to them. Then they tore down the farms and took over all machinery. History = A Big Lie !
so liberty and prosperity are incompatible. you can be poor, free, possibly nomadic peasant, or a servant of a hegemonic center of wealth, power, and knowledge(assume all gains spread to everyone to a marginal degree)? Liberty (one kind of happiness) HAS to be curbed for prosperity (another kind of happiness), question is where will your morality draw the line?
it was WWII(2) that we fought against Germany aka Hitler and Japan, it was the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor that brought us into WWII, so yes we had every business being in that war. Hitler had nothing to do with WWI although that war did include Germany that America, Great Britain, etc fought,.
hey dumbshit..what lincoln has to do with marx???i mean learn some things for fucking sake!!!!!!marx always talked about the power belongs to the people and everything should be discussed by the people so they make the choice...so FUCKING LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT COMMUNISM AND TELL ME THAT MOTHERFUCKING LINCOLN IS LEFT WING!!!!!!!!!!FUCK YOU!!!!ONCE LOVED AMERICA.....NOW I HATE IT.....BECAUSE OF SOME DUMBSHITS LIKE YOU!!!!!!BYE BYE DARLING!
I'm not interested in whether Lincoln is left wing or not, but I have just one question for now: Have you seen the congratulatory letter Marx wrote to Lincoln in 1864?
this is also stupid becuase you people dont know what he really did to this government. if we didnt expand the "war machine" we wouldve lost ww1 andww2. if we didnt have big corporations, we wouldve lost all our wars. we wouldve have hardly ay jobs (yes i no were in a economic whatever) when it gets better, like it always does, everything will back to the way it should be, the highest standard of living seince the roman empire.
Ah the Roman Empire. Sounds nice. How should I go about getting there?
If you have an open mind, there is great literature out there that supports the idea of WW 1 and WW 2 never needing to happen if not for the US and UK.
We had no business in WW 1. Like most I wouldn't go so far as to say Hitler wouldn't have rose to power if we didn't get involved; however the chances of Hitler becoming the fuhrer may have drastically decreased.
There are many, many wars, conflicts, and operations that America really had no business in.
The only just wars are those that take place on American soil, driving back invaders or tyrannical governments.
Germany was in a position of winning the war when we interfered. If that had happened the monarchy would have been maintained and hitler would have had no way to rise to power. England just couldn't stand the competition and with us was able to utterly destroy Germany and everybody knows the results.
this guy sounds as though hes high. theres some truth to what he's saying, and some of it is bull shit. habeus corpus? dos this guy even no what that was. it was an agreement betwween the nobles and the king of england to lessen the kings power. what a dumbshit.
Article one section nine of the constitution my friend. Habeas corpus is right there, black and white, clear as crystal. Lincoln broke the law. While it did originate in England, it is still law in America.
Many legal principles that we take for granted today originate from the separation of the state from its king. That period of time of is called the Age of Enlightenment. Whatever liberties you may enjoy are came from it. So yes, habeus corpus has an origin, but the end has been erased. The right to face your accuser is evaporating.
First of all, Lincoln was killed by a southerner who was angry that Lincoln would dare to mess with their sovereignty. I am glad Lincoln was killed before he worked to set up a central bank.
Lincoln was a terrible president, but then again so were most of the ones who are considered "great"... really what that means is that they trample the Constitution. The more you break the law, the higher you're rated.
Of course Lincoln suspended habius corpus. There was a war going on in this country. There's no habius corpus on the battlefield. POW's are detained until the end of the conflict. (Don't think I support the suspension of habius corpus in the present, never-ending "war on terror.")
Also, Lincoln did not perpetrate reconstruction's injustices. He was dead at the time. His writings and speeches before he died indicate that he intended to be far more fair to the South than his successors.
I agree with most of this, but what about Andrew Jackson? He was the "people's president" and leader during the nullification crisis. He was the beginning of an over-powerful executive branch. Lincoln was simply following Jackson's model. Should Lincoln be considered as great as the books says he is?
Andrew Jackson was one of the best presidents we ever had. Second to Washington.
Because Jackson got the banking cartels OUT of our government. He restored the nations power to coin money BACK to congress where it belongs, and the bankers tried to kill him for it several times.
We curently have that same corrupt system BACK though, since 1913 when Wilson signed the federal reserve act. And thats why the dollar is worth 2 cents compared to what it was in 1913.
The trail of Tears happened under him. He killed and displaced the Cherokee with whom America with whom America had a treaty. The Cherokees were holding up there end of the bargain, but gold was found on there land, so they were removed, even against a Supreme court ruling.
He may have had his low points. But Andrew Jackson removed the slavery from the entire nation.
Type "America Freedom to Fascism" into your youtube search bar. You will see how the bankers have taken over governments...Jackson was the last one to kick them out...Washington was the first when he won the revolutionary war.
We have been slaves of constant interest debt and fake paper money for far too long.
I agree with all of it, except holding up GW as some sort of example. GW advanced State power himself at the expense of liberty, as all presidents have. It's the natural process of government.
"I agree with all of it, except holding up GW as some sort of example. GW advanced State power himself at the expense of liberty, as all presidents have."
I don't understand your view. I was of the impression that the Southern Avenger was very anti-Bush, and recognized how terrible Bush has been for American liberty.
????? I am quite certain that SA only had kind words for Washington in this video. Lincoln and all the presidents mentioned in his posterity were categorized as people who wanted to centralize and aggrandize executive power.
I'm still reading Washington, my impression is that his right hand was Alexander Hamilton, the centralizer/federalist/pseudo-aristoi, who was in favor of a pseudo-monarchy: "An executive is less dangerous to the liberties of the people when in office during life, than for 7 years" (Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 taken by R. Yates: June 19th).
Thank you Mr. Burr.
I also understand that the 1st Pres. set -a modicum of libertarian compromise-, later destroyed.
I have never heard anyone called unpatriotic for saying anything bad about Bush. I would like to see quotes for that. People always say that Bush detractors are called unpatriotic (and yea I am sure SOME people might say that) but no of significance that I know of has ever said that. Mean while, Nancy Pelosi uses the term 'unpatriotic' all the time while arguing for or against her policies. Google 'Nancy Pelosi unpatriotic' and you will find actual quotes. noOb.
I first heard of this as its context was a correspondence I think with Lincoln. Basically Sherman was his hammer, to do things to destroy Southerners completely, not just militarily. I'm sure a basic search would find you the exact verbage.
We are not in the middle east for any other reason than to secure our part of the dwindling oil supply. Fuck the "insurgents" and fuck "terrorism" the new words used to replace "communism". Only 400 people died last year from terror attacks. More people died from lightening strikes and bee stings. A lot more of our people died in Iraq. Our government uses words and fear to keep our asses in line. I am behind our troops but our government lies to us everytime they open their fucking mouths.
Presidents are marionettes. Look closely and you can see the strings and someone else moving their mouths. Check out the Obama deception on youtube. It's a long video but worth watching. Most people won't believe it because most people believe the corporately controlled media. Better wake up to what is happening before it's too late or stick your head in the sand. You won't be alone. Fuck Lincoln, FDR, Bush (Sr. & Jr.) Obama and all the rest.
I can agree with Southernavenger's underlying philosophy but disagree with his view on Lincoln.
Lincoln was fighting against the 'money power' of Britain - major financial interests across the atlantic. They spent 2 decades engineering the civil war after Jackson abolished the second bank of the United States.
The British also hated Lincoln's railroads and protective tarriffs; railways threatened to undermine Britain's control of world trade (it was previously done by sea).
still doesnt change the fact that Lincoln has destroyed the Republic as our founders made it. He stamped out liberty and States Rights with his illegal invasion of the free Southern States. He's practically our Julius Caesar. Lincoln crossed the Potomac instead of the Rubicon with his big blue army and made himself Caesar of the United States, and all Presidents since have had more power then our founders meant them to.
George Wahington owned slaves, almost all the great american man before 1865 owned slaves. Whether it was moral or amoral doesn't matter. Breaking the constitution is breaking the constitution. And if lincoln was so against slavery all he had to do was compensate the slaveholders who made up 6% of the south. That woudln't have cost him that much money adn saved us 600000 men. To believe the war of northern aggression is to
Lincoln wrecked the nation. Before that, the States were paramount, as the Founding Fathers desired. States exist for a reason. We are NOT one big nation with a capitol in DC. Before the Civil War, people were loyal to their state, before the idea of a the Union. The Union existed to unify. After the Civil War did the Federal Government continue to GROW. State governments take the back seat.
Nearly a million men died for the Civil War, which was not fought over slavery. Just a romantic notion.
For one, the idea that a majority of Iraqis simply "want us out" is a media concoction. The only thing keeping us there are the insurgents. If they hadn't started fighting we'd probably be out by now, or our presence would be hardly felt at all.
Those who do simply "want us out" are no different than Americans who never think about the consequences of their own actions, then complain when they make a bad decision, & inevitibly blame someone else for it.
NoGuff. Firstly, Your comment has nothing to do with the video. Secondly, forget what you think causese wars.
My father fought in the Korean War, but was common to also defend his ship against North Vietnam during their war with the french. Myself, as a US Marine in the Indian Ocean during 1982, it was common to warn the Iranians to quit attempts at jamming radar(An act of war in the open ocean. Our task force also fired on pirates at the time. IN other words...this is a rough world, by nature
ain't it the truth and everyone is "Blinded by the light" like the song because of suppsed help which it is not help at all but is destroying this country little by little and that is exactly what Obama wants to do!
Did you want the war which was costing thousands of lives? I would not if I had been president. Whether is total war is a viable solution, I would argue against.
Total War is an abomination, it leads to the targeting of innocent civilians, destroyed cities, ruined economies and costly military occupations. It works but in the short term, you create so many more problems in the long term.
As a person who enjoys reading up on the Civil War and enjoys reading books on Abraham Lincoln, let me first acknowledge the fact that Lincoln did make mistakes in suspending habeas corpus and imprisoning dissenters. I find it highly offensive that you fail to acknowledge that it was the South that started the Civil War. They fired on Fort Sumter. Now, you can argue about the ships sent to Fort Sumter.
Lincoln did not get a chance to do anything about the tariffs as SC left the union along with other states before lincoln's first day as president. If Old Hickory was able to reach a compromise on tariffs with his attitude and approach. Team of rivals Lincoln could've done the same thing but he wasn't even given the chance to do so. How can there be a crises for Lincoln when he wasn't president? Slavery was the sticking point for all sides involved.
In other words, that great adage that governments derive their legitimacy from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. We didn't want the Yankees telling us how to live. We didn't want them taxing us to death with tariffs. We didn't want their cultural imperialism. We wanted to rule our lives on our terms, Autonomy, literally translated from the Greek, one's own laws.
Slavery was never the main issue, it was limited, self-government and states' rights that was.
There was already a nullification crisis once and it was solved without secession of any states. There was a compromise in the congress. Lincoln showed an ability to change his position on issues.
Yes when andrew jackson was president. John C. Clahoun was his vice president and supporter of nullification. Jackson threaten to kill Calhoun. Eventually the congress compromised on the trade/tariff issue that was the sticking point for southern states.
Google "Right of Succession" and read the article by Walter Williams.
Maybe you recognize this:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
Sorry to be the first person to bring this to your attention, but the states and their people are SOVEREIGN.
Jefferson also said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
SA, you continue to amaze me and continue to clarify the points made in States' rights arguments that have been forever obfuscated by self-proclaimed, ignorant left-leaning pariahs. One can only begin to mark-off the days until the government finally becomes a corporate-controlled fascist state, and then begin counting the minutes it'll take Americans to wake-up and realize the horror that they have unleashed upon themselves.
English industry provided arms to both sides. The govs. of England and France considered helping the South militarily until the loss at Gettysburg. So don't give me this "they didn't care" bull. Too much crappy Canadian beer has gotten to your brain.
Have you guys ever seen the mockumentary Confederate States of America? It's a funny film that asks the question "What if?" and shows a picture of a possible independent South after the Civil War. The movie is supposed to be a joke, but something tells me it'd be a lot more accurate if this actually happened. It's a funny movie cuz it's supposed to be a joke but paints a disturbing picture of the hypothetical.
Do you realize that you are admitting here to argue on the basis of a confabulation that was presented to you visually as if it were real? Surely a moment's reflection will show that several of the many people involved in any such production would likely have had an axe to grind, and that a critique if not an alternative fantasy would likely point out places where the author's suppositions or ignorance of history appear.
I understand where Jack is going with this video, but if I were Lincoln, I'm not sure if I'd be able to just let the South secede, mainly because it would doom millions of black people for slavery and racism for god knows how long. There probably would be a much better approach than a war to freeing slaves, such as having Northerners take the slaves to freedom and giving more support for the Underground Railroad. Then the South could stay independent, and blacks would be free. Win-win.
The Government could have bought the slaves from the plantation owners as a form of financial compensation. This is what occurred in several European nations.
@whoo689 not millions...and not just black.....FACT: the Portuguese owned the trade camps in Nigeria...where slaves were purchased by various Slave owners and shipped to many location around the globe. at the time of the civili war only 14000 slaves were owned in the united states...while over 1000000 WHITE slaves were owned in Africa. Slave trade is alive and well today and your too caught up in the lies to see it
My candidate would be moderately pro-free trade but not sign agreements that give away our sovereignty and get us involved in bullshit like the WTO. He would abolish all federal cabinet agencies except Treasury, Justice, State, and Defense. Let the individual states handle the other problems. He would abolish FEMA and let the states handle disaster relief like they should've in the beginning. If the South or North wanted to secede in this day and age, let em. No reason not to.
Speaking negatively about Lincoln today is considered heresy. This will probably prove the same for Obama. Though he may look it, he is hardly different from Bush, but in the future many Americans will see him as a pioneer, revolutionary, and founding father. I expect the work on his face on Mt. Rushmore to be finished before the end of his successors first year in office, if he is yet another neocon or liberal. Gone are the days when the government was small, and all Americans are to blame.
You see, I know what collateral damage is. Its people who die in a war or battle that aren't the intended enemy. You try to limit it the best you can, because you know even one innocent life taken this way is wrong but you have no other way to get at your enemy. The Art of War chastises you if you are too soft when it comes to the issue of collateral damage.
Sherman did his best to eradicate every Southerner he ran across in his march, that he didn't get every last one of them denotes means nothing. The gaggle of idiots you refer to might as well have been the same who fought the War of Independence in 1776 when you think of it, surely they were stirred by the rhetoric of the planter and shipping classes.
You, by the way, have condoned murder and the seizure of property of people you and your side claims never were anything but Americans by an American army on behalf of the American government. Even if it cannot be considered genocide, and it was genocide whatever you want to call it to sleep peacefully at night, the fact that the government that was instituted to secure their rights, secession is one of them, had no problem in killing off as many as they could to gain their aims.
A short reading list that gives a great historical and constitutional education: - War Crimes Against Southern Civilians, Walter Brian Cisco - A Constitutional History of Secession, John Remington Graham - When in the Course of Human Events, Charles Adams - Lincoln Unmasked & The Real Lincoln, Thomas DiLorenzo - Is Davis a Traitor?, Albert Taylor Bledsoe - Lincoln the Man, Edgar Lee Masters
We should remember that the colonists who founded the USA seceded from Great Briain.
As far as torching of Atlanta, Sherman never intended to burn the whole thing but only the factoried,mills, and railyards. But the fire got out of control.
@tempusfugit68 you mean his gaggle of murderers and slave owners got out of hand. sherman intended to destroy TERMINUS as atlanta was known then and end it as a industrial shipping complex which is what it remains today. shermans goal was to end any capabillity of shipping its needed to supplies to the front and also stall/stop the controlling hands in the CSA. sherman did turn his dogs loose to rape the people in their home.....WE NEVER FORGET
I think you mean Northern Aggression. The Civil War started when the North started looking for a reasons to steal land & natural resources. Remind of anything? ;-)
No, AppalachianFauxAmer1can, the Civil War, i.e., the War of Southern Aggression, was started by the Rebel Traitor forces of South Carolina attacking the United States military at Fort Sumter.
Sorry, but to place the blame for our move toward socialism on Lincoln is a stretch. I blame it on the new world order. And american's failure to recognize and act on what is going on. As George Carlin said it best. Everyone has a cell phone that will make pancakes and rub their balls. So no one wants to rock the boat. No one questions anything. "The politicians are there to make you think you have a choice, you have no choice, they own you, they own everything"
Lincoln gave us our own debt free money. Freeing us from the strangle hold that the fed has reimposed on us through Wilson. The fed is largely to blame for the trouble with the economy we are now.
The cause of the civil war was that Lincoln was a known abolitionist. His failure to act would have likely resulted in slaves on the american continent today.
Constitutionally, the south should have been allow to succeed. Lincoln accomplished abolishing slavery and the preservation of the union.
I don't believe this. Slavery would have disappeared eventually in the South. Even in the Southern Constitution they had outlawed the African slave trade. With the advent of of more modern technology and the move away from an agrarian society slavery would have disappeared. Even Ron Paul said the Civil War was unnecessary.
The list of examples of intrusive government laws is kinda weird. Roe v. Wade and income tax? Roe v. Wade is only bad if you think it's excusable to criminalize abortion. Income tax is kinda weird to me, because it's not like they couldn't put the tax in some other place instead of your income and have the same effect.
I hear Ole Abe didn't even Abolish Slavery in the North, only in the South, as Punishment for not going along with the Federal Government in their goals of domination over the States.
Well said,this is a summery of what i tell people who glorify lincoln today,its so anoying how they make him look like a hero,i tell you my friends History is definatly written by the victor
oh and the railroad was privatized. it wasn't until your hero Ronald Reagan Federalized the railroad and bought out the entire railroad and turned it into the "Union Pacific".
The Railroad was never privatized. =P On top of that all through out the mid to late 1800s the Government colluded with Banks and Railroad companies to rob farmers and american indians of their land to build them.
Just like now with a certain trans-texas corridor.
wtf r u talking about? mopac, k-line, southern pacific, northern pacific? these were private companies until Reagan came and bought them all up and made them corporate.
I really don't think Washington's incredible ideal of America would have lasted whether or not Lincoln was President or there was a Civil War. Power and wealth are just too strong a lure for men lesser than Washington, which goes to prove how great a man he was.
While Lincoln did indeed suppress free speech and suspend habeas corpus the Southern states did the same thing as well. Both sides were willing to do whatever it took to win the war.
Yeah I don't know why people are giving me thumbs down. Do they think not mentioning the fact that the South did the same thing as Lincoln would somehow change history?
Well yes the south was very into and maintaining white supremacy. The North really wasn't that much different either. Only a few of the so called Radical Republicans were for equality under the law and they even had their own statist faults. Lincoln didn't think free blacks could live with free rights and the North a few years after the Civil War begin to side more with the South and WS then the newly freed blacks.
Haha the sheeple losers are out in full force after this video that completely destroyed their indoctrinated, propagandized view of history.
WestSkier11 1 week ago
I wish you would cite your sources. It would help.
gooseCha 1 month ago
ulillillia goes politics
YELLINGWITHCAPSLOCK 2 months ago
And here I thought Sherman's quote dealt with the plantation & slave owning class, as well as the military elite, that directed and duped poor whites into fighting their rebellion for them. It wasn't about 'genocide'...it was about eliminating, as a CLASS, those people who were the direct root of the problem that allowed a Lincoln to flourish.
Bhoddisatva 5 months ago
And here I thought Sherman's quote dealt with the plantation & slave owning class, as well as the military elite, that directed and duped poor whites into fighting their rebellion for them. It wasn't about 'genocide'...it was about eliminating, as a CLASS, those people who were the direct root of the problem that allowed a Lincoln to flourish.
Bhoddisatva 5 months ago
This lovely little essay must drive the Lincoln idolaters into fits of rage. It's a great antidote for those blinded and rendered obtuse by civil religion. Lincoln worship is State worship.
HyperboreanBrew 6 months ago
The "Southern Avenger" is a Libertarian at best and a Neo-Liberal at worst. Why he calls himself a conservative and tries to steal the conservative mantel is ridiculous, and the main reason he is considered a nut-job. He talks about Lincoln? What about SA’s hero Confederate president Jefferson Davis? March 1, 1862 president Jefferson Davis declares martial law and suspends both civil jurisdiction and the writ of habeas corpus. Wake up Paulestinians, and read your F’ing history!
RightWinger1776 6 months ago
@RightWinger1776 As prominent "Paulestinian" Tom Woods has written to Tom DiLorenzo: "Tom, the whole 'pro-Confederate' thing is just laughable. They obviously know we're not 'pro-Confederate' in any sense -- what is there to support in a government that (like the U.S. government at the time) condoned slavery, imposed a fiat currency, and engaged in military conscription?" Please watch this: /watch?v=a4zKzXFcLN4 And This: /watch?v=45JSYIuTk0Y And This: /watch?v=6YpP80_J5N8&feature=youtu.be
ErikLiberty 6 months ago
Holy SHIT! I've seen 4th graders with a more intelligent view of world and American history. Thank God that people who think like this make up about 1% of the population, we wouldn't have enough insane asylums to house them otherwise. I mean, "southernavenger", is this resentment born out of the fact that your side got it's ass kicked in the war, or is it just a childish anti-war philosophy? Or is it just hatred of the U.S.?
nr63kish 6 months ago
While I agree that Lincoln was a tyrant who expanded government and infringed on American's civil liberties, you can't deny that the Confederacy started the civil war by attacking Ft. Sumter. Lincoln might have invaded before then, we'll never know, but as it stands, Lincoln had justification for war, but not the war crimes he committed.
xtremejohnny69 7 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 Fort Sumter Death Toll: 1 horse, no humans. Death Toll From Lincolns Response to Fort Sumter: 670,000 humans (including 50,000 Southern civilians); thousands of horses. This certainly seems like a measured, prudent, statesmanlike response by Lincoln (sarcasm off). The South seceded peacefully from the North and then became a separate country, as is their right. Lincoln then sent a fleet to reinforce Fort Sumter, which amounted to a declaration of war by Lincoln so they fired
ErikLiberty 6 months ago 6
@ErikLiberty Gotcha. I never liked Lincoln after the shit I found out about him, but I always thought the attack of Ft. Sumter was justification for war. Thanks for the info.
xtremejohnny69 6 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 You're welcome. If you want to read more on Fort Sumter, check out the free book Reassessing the Presidency. See chapter 8 called Lincoln and the First Shot: A Study of Deceit and Deception: mises (.) org/resources/3358
ErikLiberty 5 months ago
i like this man a lot .
dave2806 7 months ago
Very well done....could'nt agree more with this vid
ke4bss 9 months ago 2
@theralaj123
Fact: Lincoln was a supporter of the Corwin Amendment. How did that restrict slavery from expanding?
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
Lincoln didn't care about abolishing slavery he just wanted to keep the union intact.
jackolini 9 months ago
@civilwarcow Cool story bro.
djsherin 9 months ago
@civilwarcow Yup. SA is just putting forth typical neoconfederate doughfaced historical revisionism. Something also championed by Ron Paul, btw.
therealaj123 9 months ago
True fact: The South started the war by attacking federal property, Fort Sumter. True fact: The voluntary union of the PEOPLE of the United States was destroyed by the SLAVE STATES' illegal act of secession. True fact: The reason the Slave States seceded was because Lincoln decided for slavery to not being able to legally expand into the western territories. True fact: Defending the Slave States against the Federal government is just favoring a different brand of authoritarianism, not liberty.
therealaj123 9 months ago
Wow, rarely have I seen such an Anti-American, racist, and marxist video in my entire life!!! The first 5 seconds of this video made me puke in my mouth!! The only media outlet Jackass Hunter belongs on is the Osama Bin Laden tapes!!
ProgressiveInAmerica 10 months ago 2
SA, I respect you, but on the Lincoln debate, you Libertarians avoid the fact that the strong central government had been long established by the time Lincoln moved to Washington in 1861. For good or ill, the anti-federalists lost. But their enduring legacy was the nagging cancer of slavery that they left unaddressed for a later generation to sort out. Yes, Lincoln's deification is lamentable, but this in no way makes Lincoln less than a GREAT MAN! I lack the space for my full argument dammit!!
MachTwo1 10 months ago 2
@MachTwo1
If you like stalin you'll love lincoln
mrearlygold 5 months ago
@mrearlygold - you're an idiot, lincoln bears no resemblance to stalin
jack hunter is just as big a nut case as ron paul is
sfiorare 2 months ago
@civilwarcow I dont need to read clearly bias fiction such as that.. And I'll be like you and pretend that the union army in the march to the sea did not commit ONE WRONG... and confederates did all the wrong/ 100% to 0% .. the federal army was perfect in every way. Andersonville was indeed the facility in which prisoners and guards had the same rations. Your close minded-ness and bias discredit you. I recognize there was wrong doing by the CSA but unlike you, I believe it happened on both sides
23mbtx23 10 months ago
@civilwarcow in confderate prisons.. the guards and the prisoners ate equally and starved equally. and the federal prisons did not treat their prisoners the same as they treated the prison guards,when they had the resources. The facts are you need to be realistic, it was a war and THERE IS ALWAYS wrongs to come out from both sides accusing the other side of wrong doing.We cant trust either account to be fair. But what we do know as fact is cities were burned, civilians slain by feds & not by CSA
23mbtx23 10 months ago
@civilwarcow you seem 2 make ever excuse in the book 4 federal atrocities during the war for southern independece.I challenge you 2 come up w/ 5 atrocities committed by the federals. im sure you thought they did 0 wrongs. The war efforts directed against non military targets i the south and SHERMAN march to the sea cannot be described as justified in ANYWAY. I dont remember any such actions when rebel armies were north of the mason dixon. Jubal Early had an opportunity to burn cities, he didnt
23mbtx23 10 months ago
Well put. I should add that he should have delved even deeper into Lincoln's butchery of Indians in MN as well as his various and sundry war crimes against Southern Civilians-not to mention the widespread murder of Southern POW's in places like Point Lookout, Elmira ("Helmira") and the most infamous of all, Camp Douglas. The Sherman quote gives the merest hint at the rapacious nature of the "malice toward none" lie about "honest" Abe..not to mention trampling constitutional rights in the North
hungarygator 10 months ago
Funny that Lincoln. While he "freed the slaves" he also helped launch deprivations on Native Americans and was harsh on tribes such as the Lakotas.
efrem1 1 year ago
The southern avenger's videos are well thought out, intellectual and delivered in a calm reasonable way. Forget which "side" they are on, I wish more video's took his approach, not in terms of content, just in terms of reasoned approach.
As a "liberal" I can find 1000 videos that mirror my views or directly contrast them. But videos that garner automatic agreement or disagreement aren't intellectually stimulating they are both much to easy to make and say very little. Keep up the good work SA!
bigfilmhat 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your spiritual salvation come from your own inner reflection with your own conscience and not from your outer reflection with society
timbosforporn 1 year ago
BRAVO!!!!!
celticultural 1 year ago
How can confedrates believe in freedom when they denied it for so long 400 of slavery and 100 of jim crow, for so many people. Confedrates are cowards because they can't deal with competion from people different from them
thyczko2 1 year ago
@thyczko2 "How can confedrates believe in freedom when they denied it for so long 400 of slavery and 100 of jim crow" - Northerners were just as dependent on cotton and the slave system, benefitted greatly because of it, and even more racist in some ways. And do you feel guilty for using chinese slaves when you shop at Walmart?
megagagnon1 1 year ago
@megagagnon1 Oh, c'mon! Do you think it (the American civil war, and the deaths of over 600,000 soldiers, combined) was necessary in "preserving" the union? Or was it more so Lincoln's decision, as Commander-in-Chief, to have set off such a bloodletting, all for the preservation-and consolidation-of Federal power over the states? Slavery had withered on the vine, the world over, and it would have been no different for the U.S. Read the history, without being so sycophantic!
whiff1962 1 year ago 4
@thyczko2 slavery was the way of the world and abe lincoln and ulyssis grant both owned slaves lincoln is quoted as saying "if he could win the war without freeing the slaves he would"
supercomet32 1 year ago
the confederacy had every right to remove those troops by force and did so for a time but the manufacturing being in the north meant that the southern troops had harder times finding guns and equipment to fight. underfitted they did very well against a better trained and outfitted enemy. it could happen again if a state secedes......it will happen in time.
supercomet32 1 year ago
@lincolngopleader and its only been in recent years the the democrats were the panderers to the socialist agenda. either way their communist....socialism and communism do not go seperate
supercomet32 1 year ago
As I have taught for many years...Lincoln did not tell the truth to his own "Northerners". He was a Liar. He preached..."Slavery is the cause" for the war, but alas it was truthfully a power grab for with to consolidate his powers. If he allowed the South to resign, his area of influence and power would be divided in half. That is the bottom line.
jalsante75 1 year ago
The southern US and Germany have a lot in common. Both were defeated in war and then lied about. And, in both cases, the 'victor' himself ultimately became enslaved.
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago
Very questionable just how much of the modern centralized state can be justly blamed on Lincoln. He did not long survive the end of the war, and who knows what he would have been like as a postwar president. Lincoln was less radical than most of the men in his party, and the centralization of power that characterized Reconstruction was mainly the work of Stevens, Stanton, Sumner and other Republican bigshots who actually hated the 16th president.
evergreenpotato 1 year ago
he looks like a depraved alcoholic
luckylangerie 2 years ago
Bless You, I could not have said it better myself. Seccession was legal and written into the Constitution to prevent exactly what Lincoln did. Had Robert E. Lee known what was in store for his people he would have fought to the death. They drove the South into an Economic Tiolet Bowl after promissing to return the land to them. Then they tore down the farms and took over all machinery. History = A Big Lie !
nucsol 2 years ago
I thought the same after hearing these words.
Southernavenger you are my hero :)
gina7177 2 years ago
so liberty and prosperity are incompatible. you can be poor, free, possibly nomadic peasant, or a servant of a hegemonic center of wealth, power, and knowledge(assume all gains spread to everyone to a marginal degree)? Liberty (one kind of happiness) HAS to be curbed for prosperity (another kind of happiness), question is where will your morality draw the line?
maximummask 2 years ago
This should be aired on every news station in the country, especially Fox News.
kingsteve1096 2 years ago 2
Obama said on David Letterman show "Our Gov. isn't big enough".
statesrights01 2 years ago
Really eye-opening stuff. Keep it up Jack.
e5154 2 years ago
it was WWII(2) that we fought against Germany aka Hitler and Japan, it was the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor that brought us into WWII, so yes we had every business being in that war. Hitler had nothing to do with WWI although that war did include Germany that America, Great Britain, etc fought,.
moodybluesgurl 2 years ago
hey dumbshit..what lincoln has to do with marx???i mean learn some things for fucking sake!!!!!!marx always talked about the power belongs to the people and everything should be discussed by the people so they make the choice...so FUCKING LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT COMMUNISM AND TELL ME THAT MOTHERFUCKING LINCOLN IS LEFT WING!!!!!!!!!!FUCK YOU!!!!ONCE LOVED AMERICA.....NOW I HATE IT.....BECAUSE OF SOME DUMBSHITS LIKE YOU!!!!!!BYE BYE DARLING!
StonerHillbilly 2 years ago
I'm not interested in whether Lincoln is left wing or not, but I have just one question for now: Have you seen the congratulatory letter Marx wrote to Lincoln in 1864?
tarzanofcouches 2 years ago
You actually loved an inanimate object? What a sucker. Don't worry, I was one too.
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
once again,i find myself agreeing with alot of this,thank you for getting into details
FATMIKED518 2 years ago
this is also stupid becuase you people dont know what he really did to this government. if we didnt expand the "war machine" we wouldve lost ww1 andww2. if we didnt have big corporations, we wouldve lost all our wars. we wouldve have hardly ay jobs (yes i no were in a economic whatever) when it gets better, like it always does, everything will back to the way it should be, the highest standard of living seince the roman empire.
starcraft2222 2 years ago
Ah the Roman Empire. Sounds nice. How should I go about getting there?
If you have an open mind, there is great literature out there that supports the idea of WW 1 and WW 2 never needing to happen if not for the US and UK.
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
We had no business in WW 1. Like most I wouldn't go so far as to say Hitler wouldn't have rose to power if we didn't get involved; however the chances of Hitler becoming the fuhrer may have drastically decreased.
There are many, many wars, conflicts, and operations that America really had no business in.
The only just wars are those that take place on American soil, driving back invaders or tyrannical governments.
andersoncouncil1968 2 years ago 2
Germany was in a position of winning the war when we interfered. If that had happened the monarchy would have been maintained and hitler would have had no way to rise to power. England just couldn't stand the competition and with us was able to utterly destroy Germany and everybody knows the results.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
this guy sounds as though hes high. theres some truth to what he's saying, and some of it is bull shit. habeus corpus? dos this guy even no what that was. it was an agreement betwween the nobles and the king of england to lessen the kings power. what a dumbshit.
starcraft2222 2 years ago
Wow.... public schooling for you folks.
andersoncouncil1968 2 years ago
actully public schooling doesnt teach you this, you gotta go out, buy books, and read them. try getting past the first 2 steps and ull be fine
starcraft2222 2 years ago
Article one section nine of the constitution my friend. Habeas corpus is right there, black and white, clear as crystal. Lincoln broke the law. While it did originate in England, it is still law in America.
andersoncouncil1968 2 years ago
@starcraft2222 And that's why my parents sent me to a private school. Thank god.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
Many legal principles that we take for granted today originate from the separation of the state from its king. That period of time of is called the Age of Enlightenment. Whatever liberties you may enjoy are came from it. So yes, habeus corpus has an origin, but the end has been erased. The right to face your accuser is evaporating.
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
this seems to me as utter BS.. Lincoln was assasinated by the Rothschilds.. ie. the US first bank.
svenalbert 2 years ago
First of all, Lincoln was killed by a southerner who was angry that Lincoln would dare to mess with their sovereignty. I am glad Lincoln was killed before he worked to set up a central bank.
ed2point0 2 years ago
Good for them.
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
This guy is brutally honest
rewdan12 2 years ago
If I could give this video more than 5 stars, I would. BRAVISIMO!
Ishpeck 2 years ago
Lincoln was a terrible president, but then again so were most of the ones who are considered "great"... really what that means is that they trample the Constitution. The more you break the law, the higher you're rated.
djsherin 2 years ago 17
Of course Lincoln suspended habius corpus. There was a war going on in this country. There's no habius corpus on the battlefield. POW's are detained until the end of the conflict. (Don't think I support the suspension of habius corpus in the present, never-ending "war on terror.")
Also, Lincoln did not perpetrate reconstruction's injustices. He was dead at the time. His writings and speeches before he died indicate that he intended to be far more fair to the South than his successors.
pcfriars2000 2 years ago
Only congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln broke the law plain and simple.
andersoncouncil1968 2 years ago
I agree with most of this, but what about Andrew Jackson? He was the "people's president" and leader during the nullification crisis. He was the beginning of an over-powerful executive branch. Lincoln was simply following Jackson's model. Should Lincoln be considered as great as the books says he is?
rmiles05 2 years ago
Andrew Jackson was one of the best presidents we ever had. Second to Washington.
Because Jackson got the banking cartels OUT of our government. He restored the nations power to coin money BACK to congress where it belongs, and the bankers tried to kill him for it several times.
We curently have that same corrupt system BACK though, since 1913 when Wilson signed the federal reserve act. And thats why the dollar is worth 2 cents compared to what it was in 1913.
END THE FED.
sandman3131 2 years ago
JACKSON?
The trail of Tears happened under him. He killed and displaced the Cherokee with whom America with whom America had a treaty. The Cherokees were holding up there end of the bargain, but gold was found on there land, so they were removed, even against a Supreme court ruling.
Jackson was a dictatorial, genocidal asshole.
pcfriars2000 2 years ago 2
He may have had his low points. But Andrew Jackson removed the slavery from the entire nation.
Type "America Freedom to Fascism" into your youtube search bar. You will see how the bankers have taken over governments...Jackson was the last one to kick them out...Washington was the first when he won the revolutionary war.
We have been slaves of constant interest debt and fake paper money for far too long.
sandman3131 2 years ago
more nonsense
moobograc 2 years ago
Nice work, and great narration.
I agree with all of it, except holding up GW as some sort of example. GW advanced State power himself at the expense of liberty, as all presidents have. It's the natural process of government.
martidags 2 years ago
"I agree with all of it, except holding up GW as some sort of example. GW advanced State power himself at the expense of liberty, as all presidents have."
I don't understand your view. I was of the impression that the Southern Avenger was very anti-Bush, and recognized how terrible Bush has been for American liberty.
rockymountainwest 2 years ago
????? I am quite certain that SA only had kind words for Washington in this video. Lincoln and all the presidents mentioned in his posterity were categorized as people who wanted to centralize and aggrandize executive power.
Elasaltaculos 2 years ago
I'm still reading Washington, my impression is that his right hand was Alexander Hamilton, the centralizer/federalist/pseudo-aristoi, who was in favor of a pseudo-monarchy: "An executive is less dangerous to the liberties of the people when in office during life, than for 7 years" (Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 taken by R. Yates: June 19th).
Thank you Mr. Burr.
I also understand that the 1st Pres. set -a modicum of libertarian compromise-, later destroyed.
jaralero 2 years ago
I have never heard anyone called unpatriotic for saying anything bad about Bush. I would like to see quotes for that. People always say that Bush detractors are called unpatriotic (and yea I am sure SOME people might say that) but no of significance that I know of has ever said that. Mean while, Nancy Pelosi uses the term 'unpatriotic' all the time while arguing for or against her policies. Google 'Nancy Pelosi unpatriotic' and you will find actual quotes. noOb.
dquijano 2 years ago
Thank you!
- from another college professor fed up with the propaganda we peddle as "knowledge."
down8ve 2 years ago
Ft Sumter was an inside job.
sp4lg 2 years ago 2
Very well said and put together; best video of its kind on YouTube.
Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.....it surely does and you better believe J.W. Booth is my all-time favorite actor.
sparkywundermutt1 2 years ago
Brilliant.
What "class" of people was Sherman talking about? What demographic were they?
CRAPCANNONS 2 years ago
poor, White, Southerners
14BIGMIKE14 2 years ago
Really? That's horrible.
This is autogenocide. I've never heard of this ever. I'm not surprised though. If they could do Andersonville, why not this.
Is there any other evidence I can find about this?
CRAPCANNONS 2 years ago
I first heard of this as its context was a correspondence I think with Lincoln. Basically Sherman was his hammer, to do things to destroy Southerners completely, not just militarily. I'm sure a basic search would find you the exact verbage.
14BIGMIKE14 2 years ago
You may be interested, I don't know, but have you heard of the Rock Island Prison Camp in Illinois?
Andersonville had a deathrate of 27%, but the Union death camp of Rock Island had a 72% deathrate.
thetrickster89159 2 years ago
No I've never heard of the Rock Island Prison Camp in Illinois.
Does it still exist? Was it for Southern POW's as well?
CRAPCANNONS 2 years ago
We are not in the middle east for any other reason than to secure our part of the dwindling oil supply. Fuck the "insurgents" and fuck "terrorism" the new words used to replace "communism". Only 400 people died last year from terror attacks. More people died from lightening strikes and bee stings. A lot more of our people died in Iraq. Our government uses words and fear to keep our asses in line. I am behind our troops but our government lies to us everytime they open their fucking mouths.
Sportybob 2 years ago
Presidents are marionettes. Look closely and you can see the strings and someone else moving their mouths. Check out the Obama deception on youtube. It's a long video but worth watching. Most people won't believe it because most people believe the corporately controlled media. Better wake up to what is happening before it's too late or stick your head in the sand. You won't be alone. Fuck Lincoln, FDR, Bush (Sr. & Jr.) Obama and all the rest.
Sportybob 2 years ago
I can agree with Southernavenger's underlying philosophy but disagree with his view on Lincoln.
Lincoln was fighting against the 'money power' of Britain - major financial interests across the atlantic. They spent 2 decades engineering the civil war after Jackson abolished the second bank of the United States.
The British also hated Lincoln's railroads and protective tarriffs; railways threatened to undermine Britain's control of world trade (it was previously done by sea).
davetheaussie1 3 years ago
still doesnt change the fact that Lincoln has destroyed the Republic as our founders made it. He stamped out liberty and States Rights with his illegal invasion of the free Southern States. He's practically our Julius Caesar. Lincoln crossed the Potomac instead of the Rubicon with his big blue army and made himself Caesar of the United States, and all Presidents since have had more power then our founders meant them to.
14BIGMIKE14 2 years ago
Now I understand why, in some southern states, you find pennies in urinals.
With this in mind it's a bit chilling that Obama would so openly choose to inherit his historical mantle.
Andersonville GA = FEMA camps?
CRAPCANNONS 2 years ago
believe iraq was "really" only about weapons of mass destruction and to disregard everything else.
Luigi84289 3 years ago
George Wahington owned slaves, almost all the great american man before 1865 owned slaves. Whether it was moral or amoral doesn't matter. Breaking the constitution is breaking the constitution. And if lincoln was so against slavery all he had to do was compensate the slaveholders who made up 6% of the south. That woudln't have cost him that much money adn saved us 600000 men. To believe the war of northern aggression is to
Luigi84289 3 years ago
Lincoln wrecked the nation. Before that, the States were paramount, as the Founding Fathers desired. States exist for a reason. We are NOT one big nation with a capitol in DC. Before the Civil War, people were loyal to their state, before the idea of a the Union. The Union existed to unify. After the Civil War did the Federal Government continue to GROW. State governments take the back seat.
Nearly a million men died for the Civil War, which was not fought over slavery. Just a romantic notion.
twixcookie 3 years ago 2
I must disagree on a lot of this.
For one, the idea that a majority of Iraqis simply "want us out" is a media concoction. The only thing keeping us there are the insurgents. If they hadn't started fighting we'd probably be out by now, or our presence would be hardly felt at all.
Those who do simply "want us out" are no different than Americans who never think about the consequences of their own actions, then complain when they make a bad decision, & inevitibly blame someone else for it.
NoGuff 3 years ago
NoGuff. Firstly, Your comment has nothing to do with the video. Secondly, forget what you think causese wars.
My father fought in the Korean War, but was common to also defend his ship against North Vietnam during their war with the french. Myself, as a US Marine in the Indian Ocean during 1982, it was common to warn the Iranians to quit attempts at jamming radar(An act of war in the open ocean. Our task force also fired on pirates at the time. IN other words...this is a rough world, by nature
tonysshadow 3 years ago
"Your comment has nothing to do with the video"
--4:05
"forget what you think causese wars"
--Where did I say I knew what causes wars?
"this is a rough world, by nature"
--Ummm....yes. I understand this.
NoGuff 3 years ago
Seems to me any sacred cow is up for the slaughter. Great video, Jack.
mathgeek37 3 years ago
ain't it the truth and everyone is "Blinded by the light" like the song because of suppsed help which it is not help at all but is destroying this country little by little and that is exactly what Obama wants to do!
TheDukesofHazzard01 3 years ago
Did you want the war which was costing thousands of lives? I would not if I had been president. Whether is total war is a viable solution, I would argue against.
Tepepn2005 3 years ago
Total War is an abomination, it leads to the targeting of innocent civilians, destroyed cities, ruined economies and costly military occupations. It works but in the short term, you create so many more problems in the long term.
espunde 3 years ago
As a person who enjoys reading up on the Civil War and enjoys reading books on Abraham Lincoln, let me first acknowledge the fact that Lincoln did make mistakes in suspending habeas corpus and imprisoning dissenters. I find it highly offensive that you fail to acknowledge that it was the South that started the Civil War. They fired on Fort Sumter. Now, you can argue about the ships sent to Fort Sumter.
Total war was introduced to shorten the war.
Tepepn2005 3 years ago
Amen, no compromising of principles for Protectionist obsessed Yankees.
espunde 3 years ago
Lincoln did not get a chance to do anything about the tariffs as SC left the union along with other states before lincoln's first day as president. If Old Hickory was able to reach a compromise on tariffs with his attitude and approach. Team of rivals Lincoln could've done the same thing but he wasn't even given the chance to do so. How can there be a crises for Lincoln when he wasn't president? Slavery was the sticking point for all sides involved.
nowaveshow 3 years ago
A cont. of my reply to nowaveshow.
In other words, that great adage that governments derive their legitimacy from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. We didn't want the Yankees telling us how to live. We didn't want them taxing us to death with tariffs. We didn't want their cultural imperialism. We wanted to rule our lives on our terms, Autonomy, literally translated from the Greek, one's own laws.
Slavery was never the main issue, it was limited, self-government and states' rights that was.
espunde 3 years ago
There was already a nullification crisis once and it was solved without secession of any states. There was a compromise in the congress. Lincoln showed an ability to change his position on issues.
nowaveshow 3 years ago
Yes when andrew jackson was president. John C. Clahoun was his vice president and supporter of nullification. Jackson threaten to kill Calhoun. Eventually the congress compromised on the trade/tariff issue that was the sticking point for southern states.
nowaveshow 3 years ago
Another great vid SA.
hrosemd 3 years ago 2
So-called?
Google "Right of Succession" and read the article by Walter Williams.
Maybe you recognize this:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
Sorry to be the first person to bring this to your attention, but the states and their people are SOVEREIGN.
immanent 3 years ago
Google "right of secession" ... obviously.
Jefferson also said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
immanent 3 years ago 2
SA, you continue to amaze me and continue to clarify the points made in States' rights arguments that have been forever obfuscated by self-proclaimed, ignorant left-leaning pariahs. One can only begin to mark-off the days until the government finally becomes a corporate-controlled fascist state, and then begin counting the minutes it'll take Americans to wake-up and realize the horror that they have unleashed upon themselves.
-- James (AKA "Nero")
N3row0lf 3 years ago
English industry provided arms to both sides. The govs. of England and France considered helping the South militarily until the loss at Gettysburg. So don't give me this "they didn't care" bull. Too much crappy Canadian beer has gotten to your brain.
tempusfugit68 3 years ago
Didn't the Vatican recognize the Confederacy? I am not a fan of the Vatican, but I appreciate what they did in recognizing the Confederacy.
Stevo2444 3 years ago 3
Oh, wait, you're Canadian. That explians it.
tempusfugit68 3 years ago
You're either a liar or you just don't read anything. The Europeans almost joined in the war douchebag.
tempusfugit68 3 years ago
Exactly. Another great commentary. George Washington is spinning in his grave. His America has been co-opted by European money interests.
acivilwarjunkie 3 years ago
Have you guys ever seen the mockumentary Confederate States of America? It's a funny film that asks the question "What if?" and shows a picture of a possible independent South after the Civil War. The movie is supposed to be a joke, but something tells me it'd be a lot more accurate if this actually happened. It's a funny movie cuz it's supposed to be a joke but paints a disturbing picture of the hypothetical.
whoo689 3 years ago
Do you realize that you are admitting here to argue on the basis of a confabulation that was presented to you visually as if it were real? Surely a moment's reflection will show that several of the many people involved in any such production would likely have had an axe to grind, and that a critique if not an alternative fantasy would likely point out places where the author's suppositions or ignorance of history appear.
GBanville 3 years ago
I understand where Jack is going with this video, but if I were Lincoln, I'm not sure if I'd be able to just let the South secede, mainly because it would doom millions of black people for slavery and racism for god knows how long. There probably would be a much better approach than a war to freeing slaves, such as having Northerners take the slaves to freedom and giving more support for the Underground Railroad. Then the South could stay independent, and blacks would be free. Win-win.
whoo689 3 years ago
The Government could have bought the slaves from the plantation owners as a form of financial compensation. This is what occurred in several European nations.
Stevo2444 3 years ago
@whoo689 not millions...and not just black.....FACT: the Portuguese owned the trade camps in Nigeria...where slaves were purchased by various Slave owners and shipped to many location around the globe. at the time of the civili war only 14000 slaves were owned in the united states...while over 1000000 WHITE slaves were owned in Africa. Slave trade is alive and well today and your too caught up in the lies to see it
supercomet32 1 year ago
My candidate would be moderately pro-free trade but not sign agreements that give away our sovereignty and get us involved in bullshit like the WTO. He would abolish all federal cabinet agencies except Treasury, Justice, State, and Defense. Let the individual states handle the other problems. He would abolish FEMA and let the states handle disaster relief like they should've in the beginning. If the South or North wanted to secede in this day and age, let em. No reason not to.
whoo689 3 years ago
Speaking negatively about Lincoln today is considered heresy. This will probably prove the same for Obama. Though he may look it, he is hardly different from Bush, but in the future many Americans will see him as a pioneer, revolutionary, and founding father. I expect the work on his face on Mt. Rushmore to be finished before the end of his successors first year in office, if he is yet another neocon or liberal. Gone are the days when the government was small, and all Americans are to blame.
smallmaniac 3 years ago
I like how the only thing relevant to this video in your post was the word "Lincoln"
Yup. Very solid argument indeed.
NwZ2 3 years ago
This video mentioned
1)Lincoln
2)Obama
3)Misconceptions about famous presidents
4)Bloated national government
I appear to have commented on all these topics. You were saying?
smallmaniac 3 years ago
Comment withdrawn.
NwZ2 3 years ago
great analysis
VirginianRebel 3 years ago
You see, I know what collateral damage is. Its people who die in a war or battle that aren't the intended enemy. You try to limit it the best you can, because you know even one innocent life taken this way is wrong but you have no other way to get at your enemy. The Art of War chastises you if you are too soft when it comes to the issue of collateral damage.
KushinLos 3 years ago
Sherman did his best to eradicate every Southerner he ran across in his march, that he didn't get every last one of them denotes means nothing. The gaggle of idiots you refer to might as well have been the same who fought the War of Independence in 1776 when you think of it, surely they were stirred by the rhetoric of the planter and shipping classes.
KushinLos 3 years ago
You, by the way, have condoned murder and the seizure of property of people you and your side claims never were anything but Americans by an American army on behalf of the American government. Even if it cannot be considered genocide, and it was genocide whatever you want to call it to sleep peacefully at night, the fact that the government that was instituted to secure their rights, secession is one of them, had no problem in killing off as many as they could to gain their aims.
KushinLos 3 years ago
A short reading list that gives a great historical and constitutional education: - War Crimes Against Southern Civilians, Walter Brian Cisco - A Constitutional History of Secession, John Remington Graham - When in the Course of Human Events, Charles Adams - Lincoln Unmasked & The Real Lincoln, Thomas DiLorenzo - Is Davis a Traitor?, Albert Taylor Bledsoe - Lincoln the Man, Edgar Lee Masters
We should remember that the colonists who founded the USA seceded from Great Briain.
ericcpn 3 years ago
Here's a list of some Pulitzer prize winners.
What Hath God Wrought: the Transformation of America, 1815-1848, Daniel Walker Howe
The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties, Mark E. Neely, Jr.
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, James M. McPherson
Mary Chesnut's Civil War, C. Vann Woodward
The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics, Don E. Fehrenbacher
The Impending Crisis, 1841-1867, David M. Potter
Remember the colonists loved the classics.
eelzen 3 years ago
whooooooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaa, genocide, against southern european americans, that sounds CRAZY, i agree with everything but "southern genocide"
bigrodneyakatrey 3 years ago
As far as torching of Atlanta, Sherman never intended to burn the whole thing but only the factoried,mills, and railyards. But the fire got out of control.
tempusfugit68 3 years ago
@tempusfugit68 you mean his gaggle of murderers and slave owners got out of hand. sherman intended to destroy TERMINUS as atlanta was known then and end it as a industrial shipping complex which is what it remains today. shermans goal was to end any capabillity of shipping its needed to supplies to the front and also stall/stop the controlling hands in the CSA. sherman did turn his dogs loose to rape the people in their home.....WE NEVER FORGET
supercomet32 1 year ago
Lincoln was also a homosexual just like Obama
AppalachianAmer1can 3 years ago
See, when you make stupid statments like this it makes your other arguments look unbelievable.
tempusfugit68 3 years ago
South Carolina fired on federal troops, thus starting the Civil War. The Civil War should properly be called the War of Southern Aggression.
CarryANation 3 years ago
I think you mean Northern Aggression. The Civil War started when the North started looking for a reasons to steal land & natural resources. Remind of anything? ;-)
AppalachianAmer1can 3 years ago
No, AppalachianFauxAmer1can, the Civil War, i.e., the War of Southern Aggression, was started by the Rebel Traitor forces of South Carolina attacking the United States military at Fort Sumter.
Traitors always try to revise history.
CarryANation 3 years ago
Sorry, but to place the blame for our move toward socialism on Lincoln is a stretch. I blame it on the new world order. And american's failure to recognize and act on what is going on. As George Carlin said it best. Everyone has a cell phone that will make pancakes and rub their balls. So no one wants to rock the boat. No one questions anything. "The politicians are there to make you think you have a choice, you have no choice, they own you, they own everything"
RAPSUCKS1738 3 years ago
Lincoln gave us our own debt free money. Freeing us from the strangle hold that the fed has reimposed on us through Wilson. The fed is largely to blame for the trouble with the economy we are now.
The cause of the civil war was that Lincoln was a known abolitionist. His failure to act would have likely resulted in slaves on the american continent today.
Constitutionally, the south should have been allow to succeed. Lincoln accomplished abolishing slavery and the preservation of the union.
RAPSUCKS1738 3 years ago
I don't believe this. Slavery would have disappeared eventually in the South. Even in the Southern Constitution they had outlawed the African slave trade. With the advent of of more modern technology and the move away from an agrarian society slavery would have disappeared. Even Ron Paul said the Civil War was unnecessary.
tempusfugit68 3 years ago
The list of examples of intrusive government laws is kinda weird. Roe v. Wade and income tax? Roe v. Wade is only bad if you think it's excusable to criminalize abortion. Income tax is kinda weird to me, because it's not like they couldn't put the tax in some other place instead of your income and have the same effect.
JerryRSun 3 years ago
I hear Ole Abe didn't even Abolish Slavery in the North, only in the South, as Punishment for not going along with the Federal Government in their goals of domination over the States.
SATANSbankers 3 years ago
Well said,this is a summery of what i tell people who glorify lincoln today,its so anoying how they make him look like a hero,i tell you my friends History is definatly written by the victor
USA7557 3 years ago 3
Interesting video.
MRSketch09 3 years ago
dude your voice is so annoying
georgezimmer 3 years ago
oh and the railroad was privatized. it wasn't until your hero Ronald Reagan Federalized the railroad and bought out the entire railroad and turned it into the "Union Pacific".
oldhacks 3 years ago
The Railroad was never privatized. =P On top of that all through out the mid to late 1800s the Government colluded with Banks and Railroad companies to rob farmers and american indians of their land to build them.
Just like now with a certain trans-texas corridor.
Silvsilvchan 3 years ago
wtf r u talking about? mopac, k-line, southern pacific, northern pacific? these were private companies until Reagan came and bought them all up and made them corporate.
oldhacks 3 years ago
@oldhacks during the civil war they were not private.
supercomet32 1 year ago
I really don't think Washington's incredible ideal of America would have lasted whether or not Lincoln was President or there was a Civil War. Power and wealth are just too strong a lure for men lesser than Washington, which goes to prove how great a man he was.
FunnyHedger 3 years ago
well said!
803honda 3 years ago
SIC SEMPER TYRANNUS
erikarabin8924 3 years ago
While Lincoln did indeed suppress free speech and suspend habeas corpus the Southern states did the same thing as well. Both sides were willing to do whatever it took to win the war.
jeAh7 3 years ago
I didn't know the South did but it is irrelevant in the end to me. Both sides sucked and wouldn't support either side.
overmind25 3 years ago
Yeah I don't know why people are giving me thumbs down. Do they think not mentioning the fact that the South did the same thing as Lincoln would somehow change history?
jeAh7 3 years ago
No idea. States rights is a silly concept anyway. Who did the South censor and detain?
overmind25 3 years ago
Mainly "pro northern" journalists and abolitionists. As a black American my sympathy for the southern cause is very limited.
jeAh7 3 years ago
Well yes the south was very into and maintaining white supremacy. The North really wasn't that much different either. Only a few of the so called Radical Republicans were for equality under the law and they even had their own statist faults. Lincoln didn't think free blacks could live with free rights and the North a few years after the Civil War begin to side more with the South and WS then the newly freed blacks.
overmind25 3 years ago
*free whites
overmind25 3 years ago
* Only a few Republicans, known as the Radical Republicans supported equality under the law
overmind25 3 years ago