Of course there were bigots and hate mongers in the North. Just as their were rapists and bank robbers in the North. So the fuck what?
The Confederacy was the ONLY nation in history to be FOUNDED, literally founded, on "the great moral truth" that Almighty God ordained white men to enslave inferior races.
That's what the Confederate LEADERS said at the time -- proudly. They bragged they were founded on slavery, they predicted the rest of "civilized world" would follow.
So what if Lincoln's EP only freed slaves in the areas of rebellion?
Here is a clue - that was all he could legally do. Slavery was legal in ALL states that granted it. It would take a constitutional amendment to change that.
So Lincoln didnt just wave a wand and end slavery - nor could he.
But he could - -and did -- push for a Constitutional AMendement to end slavery . He would personally get 13th passed in the House where it was stuck.
Both Lincoln and Lee -- and virtuallly everyone in the Civil War -- thought GOD was involved.
Certainlly LIncoln imagined the hand of God in the ongoing bloody war. Lee thought God would give the South the Victory - because GOD approved of slavery.
Southern Leaders insisted God ordained slavery, and that the "great moral truth" waas that whites should enslave the Negro race -- because God was punishing blacks. Blacks punishment was to be enslaved to whites.
(Part 2) Lincoln's War, as are all wars, was about the consolidation of power. Power was spread too thinly in antebellum America, so deduced the great banking houses of the City of New York. Rail-splitting Abe's "Proclamation" only concerned itself with slaves within the states that were in rebellion against the Union, in effect: not a single slave was freed.
The South said why they hated lincoln idiot -- and they didnt mention you lunatic banker shit.
They mentioned slavery dumb fuck -- the South said slavery was from God. Lincoln said anyone who saw the blacks as merchandise should be "kicked to death"
Read what the fucking south said at the time dumb fuck. Not this shit you lunatics dreamed up later.
(Part 1) Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation helped to precipitate New York's draft riots (July 11-16, 1863) whereat 100's of innocent blacks were killed (even a black orphanage was torched). There was no love for Negroes north of the Mason-Dixon Line. Indeed, the incidents of lynchings, per capita, were often higher in the Union. The European powers saw Lincoln's pronouncement as a plea for plantation Negroes to slaughter their absent masters' wives & children.
NawwLeans, I get what you are saying; however, "Souther Scum ism"? I don't understand. Are you really trying to say that the Southern U.S. is guilty and only they are guilty for biggotry? You can tell that to the United States founders who owned slaves and protected it in the Constitution by recognizing it as a legitimate institution. Tell that to Lincoln's home state of Illinois that (amongst others) passed laws "forbidding" the "immigration of negros" into their racist states.
Hmm, the States did issue an ordinance of secession, declaraing their actions and detailing for the Federal Government that they were exiting. However, I see vritually no mention of slaves/slavery or taxes or anything in particular in any of them. You wouldn't be lying to me now would you Mark? My family detested slavery sir. It cost them a substantial amount of money like almost all white and freed black Southerners. The select few that had them wouldn't hire us nor could we compete for output.
This is ludacris. I am a Southerner, most of my family has been since before the "civil war" I understand it about as well as anyone could. My forefathers never owned a slave. Nor did any of their neighbors that also sent sons to defend their property ie homes and farmland plus wives and girlfriends from Sherman's looter/rapists aka "bummers" They "plundered" indiscriminately blacks and whites. Both freed men and slaves.
Everything you tried to compare the Southern United States for can be compared collectively to the the entire U.S. and you know it. Therefore, it needs zero addressing. Really I don't recall hearing Patrick Tucker being hung... Secession was legal in 1860/61... Sumter was paid for almost entirely by Southern tax dollars and built by Southern contractors... It was theirs before they even seceded. However, they did and throughout March the troops there fired on 6 vessels trying to enter the harbor
Having anti slavery literature was a hanging offense in the south, retard/ Learn some history.
Ships were regularly searched for such contraband, idiot.
Lincoln had every right to suspend Habeas moron -- it says so in the fuching constitution retard . Suspending habeaus was legal "in times of rebellion" according to the constitution.
Your thoughts are still backwards. I meant to say something initially about your analogy too. How so? The "Nazis" was supposed an era where virtually an entire population hated one specific group and thought them less. There is no evidence to support that really anyone outside the single digit percent of the South thought blacks should be enslaved or killed etc. Hmm, so you admit the truth that Lincoln had no intentions of ending slavery in the States...well that is certainly a step forward.
Lincoln did MORE than free the slaves - north and south. More than save the Union.
Lincoln saved the birth of freedom, which the South was trying to abort.
Had Lincoln failed -- the South would have established a Nazi like country in the USA - south and west.
World history would have been much different.
But then, if you are so stupid you give lectures on LIncoln and slavery, when you have no clue what he did with 13th Amendment -- you are too stupid to know that.
Your nazi analogy is the most absurd piece of all... The two systems of government couldn't be more different. No Mark, Nazism (National Socialism) is not the same in any way as a Republic of States (Sovereigns)... Nice try though... You with your name calling, you have successfully made an arse out of yourself here Mark. I must thank ya for the laughs.
Interesting... Why then did the first anti slavery literature come from Virginia around 1800? I never said Lincoln shut down them all... never. However, he did shut down around 300... If a murderer kills two people and lets the other two live is he a nice guy? Actually, Lincoln waged war unilateraly; therefore, he had no right to suspend habeas corpus... Actually in 1860/1861 secession was legal by all Constitutional stand points... Therefore, there was no "rebellion"...
And without Lincoln -- what would have happened? First, the scum slave raping south would have broken away, and slavery would have continued in south and out west. There would h ave been massive race wars all over America.
The Germans would have won WW1. If there was a WW2 -- the South would have supported Hitler, because the South was a Nazi dream.
Most of you idiots now who enjoy freedom in USA -- don't know you have it cause of Lincoln.
According to Lincoln, Republicans and Northern Democrats slavery was a right of the States respectively and he said so explicitly in that inaugural you claim to have read.... You are forgetting one paramount fact. No one upon Lincoln's election or inauguration were about to lose any slaves. As long as they held them in an established States in the United States.... You are lying through your teeth now and have no quams about it... Not to mention your name calling tactics...nice Mark...
I have freedom because of the "man" who shutdown newspapers critical of him. The "man" who imprisoned widows caught demonstrating against him and the war all over New England.... really? I see. Anyhow again, largely uninformed and incoherent gibberish. Let me spell it out for you, all-a-president-can-do-for-an-amendment-is-sign-it-figuratively-and-speak-out-for-or-against-it-period. Are you telling me "honest Abe engaged in illegal actions to "get it passed"? Really?! How interesting Mark....
Of course Lincoln personally got 13th Amendment passed -- without him, it would not have passed.
First of all, he personally insisted it be on the GOP platform in 64-- back when platforms meant something.
Second -- he personally twisted arms, cajoled, and bribed House members to pass it in the House. No president ever worked as hard -- personally -- to pass an Amendment while in office.
Third - his death actually spurred the states to ratify the 13th
Power corrupts -- the south was just like a spoiled child, who got to rape, steal, and plunder at will.
When the spoiled brats got pushy - Lincoln pushed back.
Sure, Lincoln spoke nice nice in his inaugural -- you would bitch if he didn't, retard. He tried to do the right thing through peace. Even then, the scum slave raping spoiled brat south started the war.
You mistake Lincoln's nice speech with weakness. Ask Lee about Lincoln's weakness sometime.
Oh hey Mark apparently aka 12FlyMe. Should have known you would pull something this underhanded. Like using another account and then not posting directly to me, nice one. Power corrupts, ha, you're telling me. The Federal Government is the corrupt stealing, murdering machine it is today because of Presidents Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt largely. You are apparently calling a relatively small number of people rapists etc. The slavers.... Okay, nice one again and the Union Army was what exactly???
yes of course I read his inaugural address -- and I read the 13th Amendment he personally got passed.
Unless you understand Lincoln personally got 13th Amendment, you don't know crap about his role.
Lincoln said a lot of things to passify the cry baby south -- which is what they were. But when the cry baby slave raping southern scum started the civil war, Lincoln ended it.
Lincoln's inaugural address was to placate the spoiled brats. It didn't work.
By the way, as per this statement, "yes of course I read his inaugural address -- and I read the 13th Amendment he personally got passed" You couldn't have read the whole thing at least. If you had you wouldn't have had your little misunderstanding. You are also incorrect. No president can "personally" get any Constitutional amendment passed. That is just plain rubbish. Presidents play no official role in that entire process..... They may sign it, just figuratively to let us know that approve...
....March 4th, 1861, Abraham Lincolns inaugural day. Not long after 12:00 the clouds part on what was a cold rainy day. Lincoln begins to give his speech. He pledges his personal support for a 13th amendment to the United States Constitution to forever protect slavery and its expansion. An amendment drawn up and passed in Congress by his own Republican party. The 7 seceded States could have come back to help ratify it and slavery may still be here today. They did not come back.
Joseph - are you nuts? The 13th Amendment didn't happend in 61, so Im not sure what you are talking about. Plus, the 13 Amendment -- which Lincoln personally got passed in the HOuse -- was to stop slavery, not protect slavery.
Yes, Lincoln did make efforts to keep the union intact. That was his job moron.
Once the scum south started the war -- Lincoln ended it, and ended slavery at the same time.
What a lot of incoherent gibberish that was Mark.... Clearly I was not talking about the 13th amendment we have today... If you haven't even read Lincoln's first inaugural speech (which you clearly haven't or you would not have had this major misunderstanding) then you are no place to debate or even question this era... Please further your education in this field before posting another comment to me...
Lincoln is hated by "wacky libertarians" because he was a dictator who repeatedly violated the supreme law of the land (the Constitution) and is directly responsible for the genocidal and destructive Civil War, due to his inability to let the Southern people decide their own political fate.
The power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed. Anything further is tyranny.
How can one who is ruled over by violent force (ie "governed") give consent? "Consent" under duress is meaningless. If the idea is accepted, there is no extortion, only gifts, and one who has a gun to their head and therefore spreads their legs is not being raped.
The best five American presidents - 1) Lincoln, 2)Lincoln, 3)Lincoln 4) Lincoln 5 Lincoln.
The lunatics who hate Lincoln should thank him. Lincoln is responsible for America existing today, for the south, or north, to have the freedom and prosperity it does today. The South was a little Nazi land, where there was no freedom. Your children could be sold, you could be hung for having a book the white lunatic slave rapers didnt like. Of all the idiots Lincoln helped, he helped the south most
slavery was legal all throughout yankeeland just 60 years before yall started callin us evil for not being the first to abolish it. what hypocrites you are!
you say the south was like nazi land but is the north that practiced nazi style law. in reality hitler hated states rights and praised lincoln for his great militant dictator powers over the south and the constitution.
I read an article the other day by Dr. Walter Williams entitled "Oklahoma Rebellion" where he makes an interesting observation that the Civil War was in fact not a civil war at all.
He explains that a civil war involves two or more parties fighting for control of the same government. The American Civil War, on the other hand, was a war of independence. A wrong-headed independence, but an independence nonetheless.
Pointing this out makes the South's case a bit weaker I suppose.
that is true. the feds call it a civil war so it dosent dound like they are denyin us our independance which they are.
there is nothing wrong headed about our need for independance. we payed near 7/8 of the taxes that supported the feds. for this we recieved almost nothing in return. they used the money to grow their federal government and yankee citys. then one day out of greed they decide they were gonna raise federal export taxes to near 50% for products that only the south produced.
What's with all this "we" stuff? The war ended 150+ years ago. Long before you were born.
Okay, if the South paid 7/8ths of the taxes, it was on the backs of slaves. What about their independence?
I doubt these economics severly, but even if true, the South's ability to provide capital goods was a result of the thinking, science, and industry filtering down from the North. It would have been symbiotic.
Also, "states" don't have right. Only individuals do.
we still want out. we aint givin up. there is no unity in a forced union. a recent poll shows that over 25% of folks in my state/country cant wait to get out. the numbers are still the same as they were in the 1860s and 1770s. the state derives it right from the people and should not have to answer to a foreign power in washington. yalls ideas that the people get their rights from the state is wayyy off. theres gonna be another revolution real soon if the feds dont change their ways.
Wow. I am shocked by the out-of-context Lincoln bashing in this vids comments.
While I don't rank Lincoln as one of our greatest Presidents, because his assassination prevented him from completing the tasks needed to raise him to that level (in my opinion), he is one of our greatest commander-in-chiefs for his asserting civilian control of the military to the betterment of military effectiveness.
Lincoln was a monster, a true dictator. And as for those who are studying him, those "whacy libertarians" are in the minority. If you criticize lincoln in academia your are shunned. Everyone idolizes him and makes him out to be some saintly hero. He was nowhere near this. He was a dictator.
"Wiki" is derived from the Hawaiian word meaning "fast." If you technically want to pronounce that root word the Native Hawaiian way, it's "wee-kee." "Why-kipedia" isn't any more incorrect than "Wih-kipedia."
We hate Lincoln because he was a nationalist, mercantalist, protectionist, habeus corpus violating, racist, anti-secession (and by extension, pro-centralization) statist.
Regarding Ls being anti-Lincoln, I think it is because at least some Ls are pro-Confederacy; not regarding slavery, but succession, anti-tariff, state's rights, etc.
For example, in his Meet the Press interview during the primary, Ron Paul struck me as an unreconstructed confederate in his statements about Lincoln, 14th Amendment, and civil rights legislation.
On Wiki, I see that Thomas DiLorenzo is a scholar with the League of the South Institute, and has spoken in favor of CSA succession.
lmao did anyone else pt me notice thoses cats in the background lol he didnt even know!
xSophiaSeax 1 year ago
Of course there were bigots and hate mongers in the North. Just as their were rapists and bank robbers in the North. So the fuck what?
The Confederacy was the ONLY nation in history to be FOUNDED, literally founded, on "the great moral truth" that Almighty God ordained white men to enslave inferior races.
That's what the Confederate LEADERS said at the time -- proudly. They bragged they were founded on slavery, they predicted the rest of "civilized world" would follow.
MathTruthTax 2 years ago
So what if Lincoln's EP only freed slaves in the areas of rebellion?
Here is a clue - that was all he could legally do. Slavery was legal in ALL states that granted it. It would take a constitutional amendment to change that.
So Lincoln didnt just wave a wand and end slavery - nor could he.
But he could - -and did -- push for a Constitutional AMendement to end slavery . He would personally get 13th passed in the House where it was stuck.
NavyBeer 2 years ago
Both Lincoln and Lee -- and virtuallly everyone in the Civil War -- thought GOD was involved.
Certainlly LIncoln imagined the hand of God in the ongoing bloody war. Lee thought God would give the South the Victory - because GOD approved of slavery.
Southern Leaders insisted God ordained slavery, and that the "great moral truth" waas that whites should enslave the Negro race -- because God was punishing blacks. Blacks punishment was to be enslaved to whites.
FilmCriticOne 2 years ago
George Washington promoted what?
randyguitarman13 2 years ago
(Part 2) Lincoln's War, as are all wars, was about the consolidation of power. Power was spread too thinly in antebellum America, so deduced the great banking houses of the City of New York. Rail-splitting Abe's "Proclamation" only concerned itself with slaves within the states that were in rebellion against the Union, in effect: not a single slave was freed.
procommenter 2 years ago
pro nonsense idiot.
The South said why they hated lincoln idiot -- and they didnt mention you lunatic banker shit.
They mentioned slavery dumb fuck -- the South said slavery was from God. Lincoln said anyone who saw the blacks as merchandise should be "kicked to death"
Read what the fucking south said at the time dumb fuck. Not this shit you lunatics dreamed up later.
12FlyMe 2 years ago
(Part 1) Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation helped to precipitate New York's draft riots (July 11-16, 1863) whereat 100's of innocent blacks were killed (even a black orphanage was torched). There was no love for Negroes north of the Mason-Dixon Line. Indeed, the incidents of lynchings, per capita, were often higher in the Union. The European powers saw Lincoln's pronouncement as a plea for plantation Negroes to slaughter their absent masters' wives & children.
procommenter 2 years ago
NawwLeans, I get what you are saying; however, "Souther Scum ism"? I don't understand. Are you really trying to say that the Southern U.S. is guilty and only they are guilty for biggotry? You can tell that to the United States founders who owned slaves and protected it in the Constitution by recognizing it as a legitimate institution. Tell that to Lincoln's home state of Illinois that (amongst others) passed laws "forbidding" the "immigration of negros" into their racist states.
SgtZellmer 2 years ago 2
I think you mean "[American] Scum ism"
SgtZellmer 2 years ago
Nazism and Souther Scum ism. Similiarities? Separated at Birth?
Both thought God wanted them to enslave others.
Both lost every war they ever fought.
Both thought they were the superior race.
Both punished protest by capital punishment.
Both had death penalties for any written material against their rule.
Both got their ass kicked.
Both were full of shit.
NawwLeans 2 years ago
You clearly have no idea what southern culture was - nor the fever pitch, the polarization -- over slavery.
Lincoln freed the whites too -- you just don't grasp it, cause you have no clue what the south was like.
You will never see, I hope, anything as close to Nazi Germany, as the American South before the civil war,
12FlyMe 2 years ago
Hmm, the States did issue an ordinance of secession, declaraing their actions and detailing for the Federal Government that they were exiting. However, I see vritually no mention of slaves/slavery or taxes or anything in particular in any of them. You wouldn't be lying to me now would you Mark? My family detested slavery sir. It cost them a substantial amount of money like almost all white and freed black Southerners. The select few that had them wouldn't hire us nor could we compete for output.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
No evidence that more than a few people in the south thought God wanted them to enslave blacks?
That was the COMMON REFRAIN. That was the ONLY thing you CAN find in the south.
That was in letters, diarys, and it was in the declarations of independence written by southern states.
Southern scum had to justify slavery someway -- that's how they did it. It was ordained by god.
YOu can't find dissenting opinions in the south about slavery -----there was no freedom of speech..
12FlyMe 2 years ago
This is ludacris. I am a Southerner, most of my family has been since before the "civil war" I understand it about as well as anyone could. My forefathers never owned a slave. Nor did any of their neighbors that also sent sons to defend their property ie homes and farmland plus wives and girlfriends from Sherman's looter/rapists aka "bummers" They "plundered" indiscriminately blacks and whites. Both freed men and slaves.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
The Nazis were very muc h like the South before civil war.
Both could punish free speech by hanging.
Both believed in slavery.
Both believed one race was put on earth to enslave another race.
Both were beaten.
Both are scum sucking pigs, and an example of how power corrupts. Both got their ass kicked.
12FlyMe 2 years ago
So armed people attacking a US fort isn't rebellion you idiot? What is it?
Funny -- the slave raping crybabies in the South could have avoided war, and kept slavery --- if they had not attacked.
Lincoln wasn't going to do a dayum thing against the spoiled brats in the south. But then you lunatics played macho duck and attacked.
The south was like the bully at school who is used to pushing kids around.
Abe pushed back, and kicked the bully's ass.
12FlyMe 2 years ago
Everything you tried to compare the Southern United States for can be compared collectively to the the entire U.S. and you know it. Therefore, it needs zero addressing. Really I don't recall hearing Patrick Tucker being hung... Secession was legal in 1860/61... Sumter was paid for almost entirely by Southern tax dollars and built by Southern contractors... It was theirs before they even seceded. However, they did and throughout March the troops there fired on 6 vessels trying to enter the harbor
Joseph565112 2 years ago
Having anti slavery literature was a hanging offense in the south, retard/ Learn some history.
Ships were regularly searched for such contraband, idiot.
Lincoln had every right to suspend Habeas moron -- it says so in the fuching constitution retard . Suspending habeaus was legal "in times of rebellion" according to the constitution.
12FlyMe 2 years ago
Your thoughts are still backwards. I meant to say something initially about your analogy too. How so? The "Nazis" was supposed an era where virtually an entire population hated one specific group and thought them less. There is no evidence to support that really anyone outside the single digit percent of the South thought blacks should be enslaved or killed etc. Hmm, so you admit the truth that Lincoln had no intentions of ending slavery in the States...well that is certainly a step forward.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
Lincoln did MORE than free the slaves - north and south. More than save the Union.
Lincoln saved the birth of freedom, which the South was trying to abort.
Had Lincoln failed -- the South would have established a Nazi like country in the USA - south and west.
World history would have been much different.
But then, if you are so stupid you give lectures on LIncoln and slavery, when you have no clue what he did with 13th Amendment -- you are too stupid to know that.
12FlyMe 2 years ago
Your nazi analogy is the most absurd piece of all... The two systems of government couldn't be more different. No Mark, Nazism (National Socialism) is not the same in any way as a Republic of States (Sovereigns)... Nice try though... You with your name calling, you have successfully made an arse out of yourself here Mark. I must thank ya for the laughs.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
Before the Civil War, you could be hung in the south for even having written material that questioned slavery.
How's that for freedom? In the south, you could not even QUESTION things in the press.
War is hell - shit happens. But LIncoln was extremely gracious, more gracioius probably than he should have been.
Yes - you lunatics would be in some Nazi like existance now, no freedom at all., if Lincoln hadn't saved freedom
But like a true dumb ass, you hate the man that provided it
12FlyMe 2 years ago
Interesting... Why then did the first anti slavery literature come from Virginia around 1800? I never said Lincoln shut down them all... never. However, he did shut down around 300... If a murderer kills two people and lets the other two live is he a nice guy? Actually, Lincoln waged war unilateraly; therefore, he had no right to suspend habeas corpus... Actually in 1860/1861 secession was legal by all Constitutional stand points... Therefore, there was no "rebellion"...
Joseph565112 2 years ago
Comment removed
12FlyMe 2 years ago
No you have freedom because Lincoln saved the first experiment where governtment is formed FOR the people BY the people.
Lincoln shut down all newspapers? Are you retarded? There was extreme newspapers for and against Lincoln all through the war idiot.
The south -- however - even before the war - you could be hung for having any writing promoting freedom, you idiot.
Lincoln CAN and SHOULD have suspended habeus you retard -- the constitution SAYS it can in times of war or rebellion
12FlyMe 2 years ago
And without Lincoln -- what would have happened? First, the scum slave raping south would have broken away, and slavery would have continued in south and out west. There would h ave been massive race wars all over America.
The Germans would have won WW1. If there was a WW2 -- the South would have supported Hitler, because the South was a Nazi dream.
Most of you idiots now who enjoy freedom in USA -- don't know you have it cause of Lincoln.
12FlyMe 2 years ago
According to Lincoln, Republicans and Northern Democrats slavery was a right of the States respectively and he said so explicitly in that inaugural you claim to have read.... You are forgetting one paramount fact. No one upon Lincoln's election or inauguration were about to lose any slaves. As long as they held them in an established States in the United States.... You are lying through your teeth now and have no quams about it... Not to mention your name calling tactics...nice Mark...
Joseph565112 2 years ago
You are an blooming idiot to give a lecture on Lincoln and 13th Amendment, and you think all he did was SIGN IT?
Gesus what a dumb ass. Thats like someone giving a lecture on oxygen, and not know that its in our air.
Lincoln was the one -- bird brain - who got it passed
.He personally put it on the platform in 64, he got it passed in the House by his own INTENSE action, his death got it passed in the states.
Learn something before you lecture on it, dumb ass.
12FlyMe 2 years ago
I have freedom because of the "man" who shutdown newspapers critical of him. The "man" who imprisoned widows caught demonstrating against him and the war all over New England.... really? I see. Anyhow again, largely uninformed and incoherent gibberish. Let me spell it out for you, all-a-president-can-do-for-an-amendment-is-sign-it-figuratively-and-speak-out-for-or-against-it-period. Are you telling me "honest Abe engaged in illegal actions to "get it passed"? Really?! How interesting Mark....
Joseph565112 2 years ago
Of course Lincoln personally got 13th Amendment passed -- without him, it would not have passed.
First of all, he personally insisted it be on the GOP platform in 64-- back when platforms meant something.
Second -- he personally twisted arms, cajoled, and bribed House members to pass it in the House. No president ever worked as hard -- personally -- to pass an Amendment while in office.
Third - his death actually spurred the states to ratify the 13th
So, without Lincoln, no 13th
12FlyMe 2 years ago
They may sign it, just figuratively to let us know that [they] approve... beg pardon
Joseph565112 2 years ago
Power corrupts -- the south was just like a spoiled child, who got to rape, steal, and plunder at will.
When the spoiled brats got pushy - Lincoln pushed back.
Sure, Lincoln spoke nice nice in his inaugural -- you would bitch if he didn't, retard. He tried to do the right thing through peace. Even then, the scum slave raping spoiled brat south started the war.
You mistake Lincoln's nice speech with weakness. Ask Lee about Lincoln's weakness sometime.
12FlyMe 2 years ago
Oh hey Mark apparently aka 12FlyMe. Should have known you would pull something this underhanded. Like using another account and then not posting directly to me, nice one. Power corrupts, ha, you're telling me. The Federal Government is the corrupt stealing, murdering machine it is today because of Presidents Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt largely. You are apparently calling a relatively small number of people rapists etc. The slavers.... Okay, nice one again and the Union Army was what exactly???
Joseph565112 2 years ago
Comment removed
12FlyMe 2 years ago
Comment removed
12FlyMe 2 years ago
yes of course I read his inaugural address -- and I read the 13th Amendment he personally got passed.
Unless you understand Lincoln personally got 13th Amendment, you don't know crap about his role.
Lincoln said a lot of things to passify the cry baby south -- which is what they were. But when the cry baby slave raping southern scum started the civil war, Lincoln ended it.
Lincoln's inaugural address was to placate the spoiled brats. It didn't work.
12FlyMe 2 years ago
By the way, as per this statement, "yes of course I read his inaugural address -- and I read the 13th Amendment he personally got passed" You couldn't have read the whole thing at least. If you had you wouldn't have had your little misunderstanding. You are also incorrect. No president can "personally" get any Constitutional amendment passed. That is just plain rubbish. Presidents play no official role in that entire process..... They may sign it, just figuratively to let us know that approve...
Joseph565112 2 years ago
....March 4th, 1861, Abraham Lincolns inaugural day. Not long after 12:00 the clouds part on what was a cold rainy day. Lincoln begins to give his speech. He pledges his personal support for a 13th amendment to the United States Constitution to forever protect slavery and its expansion. An amendment drawn up and passed in Congress by his own Republican party. The 7 seceded States could have come back to help ratify it and slavery may still be here today. They did not come back.
Lincoln=Devil
Joseph565112 3 years ago
Joseph - are you nuts? The 13th Amendment didn't happend in 61, so Im not sure what you are talking about. Plus, the 13 Amendment -- which Lincoln personally got passed in the HOuse -- was to stop slavery, not protect slavery.
Yes, Lincoln did make efforts to keep the union intact. That was his job moron.
Once the scum south started the war -- Lincoln ended it, and ended slavery at the same time.
MarkDouglasC 2 years ago
What a lot of incoherent gibberish that was Mark.... Clearly I was not talking about the 13th amendment we have today... If you haven't even read Lincoln's first inaugural speech (which you clearly haven't or you would not have had this major misunderstanding) then you are no place to debate or even question this era... Please further your education in this field before posting another comment to me...
Joseph565112 2 years ago
"Wacky" libertarians?? Freedom lovers are wacky??
This guy lost his credibility with me right away.
GaGirlie777 3 years ago 2
Lincoln is hated by "wacky libertarians" because he was a dictator who repeatedly violated the supreme law of the land (the Constitution) and is directly responsible for the genocidal and destructive Civil War, due to his inability to let the Southern people decide their own political fate.
The power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed. Anything further is tyranny.
buff001 3 years ago 2
Well stated! Thank you for setting the record straight.
GaGirlie777 3 years ago 2
How can one who is ruled over by violent force (ie "governed") give consent? "Consent" under duress is meaningless. If the idea is accepted, there is no extortion, only gifts, and one who has a gun to their head and therefore spreads their legs is not being raped.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
The best five American presidents - 1) Lincoln, 2)Lincoln, 3)Lincoln 4) Lincoln 5 Lincoln.
The lunatics who hate Lincoln should thank him. Lincoln is responsible for America existing today, for the south, or north, to have the freedom and prosperity it does today. The South was a little Nazi land, where there was no freedom. Your children could be sold, you could be hung for having a book the white lunatic slave rapers didnt like. Of all the idiots Lincoln helped, he helped the south most
MarkDouglasC 3 years ago
slavery was legal all throughout yankeeland just 60 years before yall started callin us evil for not being the first to abolish it. what hypocrites you are!
you say the south was like nazi land but is the north that practiced nazi style law. in reality hitler hated states rights and praised lincoln for his great militant dictator powers over the south and the constitution.
803honda 3 years ago
both hitler and lincoln support laws that kept diffrent races from settling near them
both hitler and lincoln preached speeches of the benefits of deporting diffrent races
both hitler and lincoln incarcerated countless press and civilians that opposed their evilness
both hitler and lincoln censored and destroyed literature that spoke against them
both hitler and lincoln sent military terrorist to destroy property and murder civilians to persuade the public to stay in their empire
803honda 3 years ago
I read an article the other day by Dr. Walter Williams entitled "Oklahoma Rebellion" where he makes an interesting observation that the Civil War was in fact not a civil war at all.
He explains that a civil war involves two or more parties fighting for control of the same government. The American Civil War, on the other hand, was a war of independence. A wrong-headed independence, but an independence nonetheless.
Pointing this out makes the South's case a bit weaker I suppose.
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
that is true. the feds call it a civil war so it dosent dound like they are denyin us our independance which they are.
there is nothing wrong headed about our need for independance. we payed near 7/8 of the taxes that supported the feds. for this we recieved almost nothing in return. they used the money to grow their federal government and yankee citys. then one day out of greed they decide they were gonna raise federal export taxes to near 50% for products that only the south produced.
803honda 3 years ago
What's with all this "we" stuff? The war ended 150+ years ago. Long before you were born.
Okay, if the South paid 7/8ths of the taxes, it was on the backs of slaves. What about their independence?
I doubt these economics severly, but even if true, the South's ability to provide capital goods was a result of the thinking, science, and industry filtering down from the North. It would have been symbiotic.
Also, "states" don't have right. Only individuals do.
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
we still want out. we aint givin up. there is no unity in a forced union. a recent poll shows that over 25% of folks in my state/country cant wait to get out. the numbers are still the same as they were in the 1860s and 1770s. the state derives it right from the people and should not have to answer to a foreign power in washington. yalls ideas that the people get their rights from the state is wayyy off. theres gonna be another revolution real soon if the feds dont change their ways.
803honda 3 years ago
Wow. I am shocked by the out-of-context Lincoln bashing in this vids comments.
While I don't rank Lincoln as one of our greatest Presidents, because his assassination prevented him from completing the tasks needed to raise him to that level (in my opinion), he is one of our greatest commander-in-chiefs for his asserting civilian control of the military to the betterment of military effectiveness.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
Lincoln was a monster, a true dictator. And as for those who are studying him, those "whacy libertarians" are in the minority. If you criticize lincoln in academia your are shunned. Everyone idolizes him and makes him out to be some saintly hero. He was nowhere near this. He was a dictator.
Aristotle100 3 years ago
Don't ever stop man!
gear2345 3 years ago
*boinks the Lincoln cult*
PursuitOfReality 3 years ago
There are another 15 videos in this series, so it isn't all on the table yet.
MrCropper 3 years ago
Argh! It's not "Why-kipidia." It's "Wih-kipedia."
I was letting it go for a while, but now I'm gonna correct you every time I hear it. :)
nine9s 3 years ago
"Wiki" is derived from the Hawaiian word meaning "fast." If you technically want to pronounce that root word the Native Hawaiian way, it's "wee-kee." "Why-kipedia" isn't any more incorrect than "Wih-kipedia."
legendre007 3 years ago
*boinks the lincoln cult*
brainpolice2 3 years ago
We hate Lincoln because he was a nationalist, mercantalist, protectionist, habeus corpus violating, racist, anti-secession (and by extension, pro-centralization) statist.
brainpolice2 3 years ago 2
He sucks.
Moragauth 3 years ago
Regarding Ls being anti-Lincoln, I think it is because at least some Ls are pro-Confederacy; not regarding slavery, but succession, anti-tariff, state's rights, etc.
For example, in his Meet the Press interview during the primary, Ron Paul struck me as an unreconstructed confederate in his statements about Lincoln, 14th Amendment, and civil rights legislation.
On Wiki, I see that Thomas DiLorenzo is a scholar with the League of the South Institute, and has spoken in favor of CSA succession.
jwoodswce 3 years ago 4