Abraham Lincoln (Part 2)

[lildadecounty305]

where is the part where he killed all them vampires

[JacksonXxXWaWa]

7,41 sec - illuminati ?

[rebel2276]

@thestorycanresume1 If you seek the real truth, I will provide you Lincoln's March 1861 letter, that has never been published and never will be. I will not type the letter on here, because in the past, the very next day that video was deleted. You seek the real truth on Lincoln's assassination, who really started the war, all American wars, what they have planned out in the future, WW3 how it will start. I will provide you with all the tools for you to search, never believe the Government.

[thestorycanresume1]

@rebel2276 @rebel2276 I sincerely thank you but I think I will pass. I am not blind to not see that the govt is no saint. It hides many things from the public, but I believe there is certain "truth" when I was saying this war was fought not for the MAIN reason that was slavery, but for the MOST part, it was. This war was certainly attributed to sectional interest between the North and the South also.

[thestorycanresume1]

and mind you, if you remember way back to the colonial period, the Northern states/ New World region were created out of religious reform reason, so I don't think it's a strecth to say they were more traditional/ conservatives there and hence felt more obliged to eradicate slavery. So we had the Second Great Awakening- evangelical revivals from all the Northern Quakers/ Whigs/ abolitionists.

[thestorycanresume1]

@rebel2276 I could not confidently say that if the North has had cotton plantation, it would be able to vehemently oppose slavery in the same manner it did. About you mentioning G.W and all the high profile Northerners owning slaves. Yes, it happened but I believe it stopped at certain point (after the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 that banned slavery) or only ran low at an underground level in Washington D.C. The mainstream Northerners still very much opposed slavery.

[filip3scu]

what sources had you used?

[mutopis]

Abraham Lincoln was accused of being an abolitionist. Obama is accused of being a socialist. Good to know that things hasn't changed...

[scottieman2]

@mutopis Just the names and faces. It's just a remake/reboot of the previous guy.

[MindSeeR666]

Whaqt does.. abolitionist mean..

[kingofamericans]

@MindSeeR666 the doing away with something by formal action

[longfootbuddy]

not to end black slavery, but to enslave the southern states to the union

[yahyes]

Lincoln / Perry 2012!

[dtaijo174]

The start of the Civil War was about tariffs... The south paid 70% of all Federal revenues. They wanted out. Slavery is not what it was really about...

[Colloquium2011]

Homeless Christ 02 Colloquium minute 7: on Abraham Lincoln

[Seedofwinter]

It's a great honor to fight for this land, and it's something I intend on doing when I get my degree. Not many people are willing to subject themselves to military service for a mere 4 years yet alone 30. Kudos, brother.

That being said, your position on this matter seems to elude me. Are you in favor of

If I remember my history correctly, the slaves were em

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter My stand on slavery is that I believe it was wrong. I would not have owned a slave, because I would not want to be a slave myself. When I am in Afghanistan in my department, I refuse to send some eighteen year old private to scout for intelligence reports. I want something done, I do it myself. Regardless if my rank is Colonel, General or a ten star general, I prefer the front and I lead by example. My fate and death is not in my hands, it is up to God.

[061369317]

The issue around the 1860 presidential election wasn't extension of slavery, it was about integration of new and future western states which would join those already in favor of low tariffs policies and free trade, whereas the highly industrialized northern states, in competition with GB, would have rather a high tariffs, protectionism oriented policy.

Slavery was a symptom, not the cause.

[yumfireballs]

thanks, i needed that info for a report. :)

[davidtomthompson]

am a vampire i was alive back then ol abe was a vampire hunter.it was kept secret.abe was killed for killing off the vampire race him and his men.john booth was one of our leaders he killed lincoln was killed for killing us. it was all kept secret by saying it was slavery and war.

[PATRICELUMUMBAS]

okkkkkk

[MarcusAbad]

Ole' Abe just another jew! his relatives Levi & Mordachai proves the jews were at work then too!

[MrSlik25]

I think its evident that the civil war wasnt infact a war but a mere battle in the big picture...but i think its evident by taking one look at the penny that the south really won the war...hes been an inside joke to deep southerners for hundreds of years now..shame.

[MrSlik25]

Slavery made average men "Kings" in a sense.

[TAz69x]

Republicans were founded as the new Liberals or Progressives; almost jaw-dropping to see the filth that the party has become.

[Shadowheart1087]

thanks for all the parts for this, really helped me for my history fair project

[YTubeArraignment]

Lincoln on Slavery:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery." --- March 14, 1861

"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." --- 7-17-58, fr. a speech delivered in Springfield, Ill.

"I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, or of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people." --- 9-15-1858

[YTubeArraignment]

Don't praise our worst Chief Magistrate, our version of Hitler: Abe Lincoln. His war killed 620,000 citizens and maimed millions more. Stop! Think! Clean up your act you miserable fawners!

[SUMEJORAMIGO]

that speech makes me soo sad :( really depresses me :(

[SeeProfileForDetails]

he has made a vow to his creator? didn't the bible permit slavery? what a hoax

[blossom114]

@mufflerbearin Well, that makes a ton of sense considering he died 145 years ago. Wow... you're a special little snowflake, aren't you?

[mufflerbearin]

@blossom114 smartass... shove a trumpet up your ass.. bone head

[DropLSDnotBombs]

a revolution has to happen within your self before it carries out in to the public

[d789b]

wow America was against it's self when the Bloody war came along.

Gosh I hope that does not happen again.

[rebel2276]

I'm curious if Lincoln was never born would we have war in 1861?

[wc470]

probably so the war was inevitable in my opinion and had been building for years since lincoln was a teenager

[Illiknight]

The simple fact a Republican was elected caused the war.

Republicans would NOT allow the expansion of slavery.

The South committed treason and seceded on behalf of slavery.

[rebel2276]

The Supreme court in 1857 made it crystal clear that American citizens could take their personal property into the new territories. That territorial governors had no power to stop or prevent that.

I would believe that the Supreme Court is the highest court in America. The Republicans did not want to obey the law. Had they obeyed the law, no war would have came.

If the South committed treason, so did our founding fathers against the British.

[angel91163]

@rebel2276 you are a freaken idiot, there are natural unwritten laws. slavery and people held as property is not one of them. think of yourself as someones property. the laws passed in the jim crow era is an example of how man used politics to fail in the common good of people.

[rebel2276]

@angel91163 I don't create laws nor was I alive nearly 150 years ago. Those laws were passed by the United States government and Supreme Court. Do some research on the Supreme Court's "1857 Dred Scott Decision".

Anymore questions?

[Seedofwinter]

@rebel2276

So is your argument slavery should not have been touched?

The rule under the British was one of Tyranny and taxation without representation. That is completely contrary to the situation under Lincoln's reign.

Human beings are not personal property and it is just sad that you hold such a view. The Supreme Court's decision would only hold weight if it was actually true that slaves could be considered "personal property".

Lincoln was a great and noble man. Stop disrespecting.

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter The Constitution written and approved by our founding fathers protected slavery. George Washington owned over 300 slaves, along with Eleven more Presidents, including Grant. The South did not "Invent" slavery, they were told they were right by Constitutional laws. They fought for their "Rights". There would have never been a "Union" in the first place if slavery was not allowed. Twelve Colonies/States allowed slavery, only Rhode Island prohibited it. So don't be a hypocrite.

[Seedofwinter]

@rebel2276 It did not in ANY way protect slavery. No where within that Constitution will you find anything remotely mentioning such a thing. A matter of fact, slaves were used against the Colonies by the British. The British promised them their "freedom" if they beared arms against the militias.

I'm all for a respectful and fact-based debate, but I will not contribute to a debate build on a shaky foundation.

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter You need to read the Constitution a few more times then. You will not find the words slave or slavery in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Constitution and a slave owner himself. It is only a "Shaky foundation" because you don't have the experience to debate with me. I have been in this business for nearly thirty years and I have worked with many of the top experts who will tell you the same thing I am. I learned from Ed Bearss and Brian Pohanka.

[Seedofwinter]

@rebel2276 You're making it very hard to have a debate based in fact here because you are making stuff up. I don't care if Jesus Christ said the constitution endorses slavery; it doesn't.

The founding father's are discrepancies are overlooked due to the fact that they set up a profound founding document that has guided this Country towards greatness. Sure, the founding fathers were ignorant with their positions on slavery, but so was the vast majority of the population.

[Seedofwinter]

@Seedofwinter The confederates are relegated to the trash bin of history due to the bloodshed their ignorance had unleashed. They are responsible for 100's of thousands of American deaths And for what? Because this Country wasn't going to let them pillage an entire race?

Your implication that the American revolution is somehow the same as the South's rebellion is chilling. How can you compare rebelling because you can't have slaves to rebelling against a tyrannical monarchy?

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter Lincoln could have avoided the war had he removed the soldiers from the fort. Duh. The usual rhetoric, anything else?

[Seedofwinter]

@rebel2276 Why would he do that? That's a federal fort and doesn't belong to the South. If he said to the Union soldiers "Okay leave the fort because the South are acting like spoiled children" that would have been appeasement.

It took the South to their clocks cleaned to realize the federal government and law trumps state law.

My rhetoric has been respectful and civil. YOU, on the other hand, like to make things up to prove points. Look inward and you will find the ugly rhetoric.

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter What happened when Lincoln did not remove the troops? War. So if he removed the troops, as he wrote to Governor Pickens, a month earlier that he would, not a shot would have been fired. Lincoln wrote a letter to Governor Pickens (South Carolina) that he would remove the soldiers and abandon the fort. That was the understanding they had. Strange enough, three weeks later, Lincoln changed his mind. thus South Carolina felt they had been misled and lied to.

[Seedofwinter]

@rebel2276 Yeah, well his whole cabinet would do anything to avoid a war, that's including appeasing the South.

That's besides the point anyway. As soon as Lincoln was elected they started to succeed from the Union and elected their fraudulent President. And yes, even if they didn't succeed, I'm sure he would have gunned for slavery. simply because it's wrong.

This Civil war was not started by Lincoln; all Lincoln did was uphold the Constitution. If the people don't want slavery, than that's it

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter Was it wrong for General Grant to own slaves, that his father-in-law gave him when he married Julia Dent? Was it wrong for our founding fathers to own slaves? Was it wrong for Northerners to own slaves? So don't be a hypocrite here. In nearly Thirty years I have worked on the Civil War, not one single Northern hypocrite ever brings up that Grant, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and many more founding fathers owned slaves.

[Seedofwinter]

@rebel2276 I think me and you discussed this in the dawn of our meeting. Yes, they did own slaves and I do not excuse them for it.

Let me tell you where most historians make the distinction between the Northerners that held slaves and the Southerners. The North was willing to give up the slaves without bloodshed, while the South would rather tear this Country apart and fight a war for slavery.

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter You have to get away from the Eleventh grade text book. Southerners did not break away over slavery, they broke away because the United States government infringed on their rights. Rather if it was morally wrong or right, the law is the law. Lincoln knew he could not touch slavery where it existed, it was protected by laws. The North did not need slaves, because cotton and tobacco does not grow in cold climate. If it did, they would have had slaves longer as well.

[thestorycanresume1]

@rebel2276 How funny it is that just this morning my professor (and mind you, i am in college, not in any eleventh grade) repeadtedly said that don't believe anybody saying that the Civil War was fought not in the cause of slavery. It IS fought over slavery. Other problems were in short, consisted of slavery, the abolitionist movement, difference in economy, and the western expansion, but the major cause was still slavery.

[rebel2276]

@thestorycanresume1 Your professor is a mere amateur to me. You're "Professor" certainly did not obtain his P.H.D in the arts of "The War of Rebellion" (Official name). He obtained a "American History Degree." Which does not cover wars and battles in any remote detail. There are no colleges or online colleges that offers a P.H.D. However, there is a online college that does offer up to a master's degree, it would be wise to obtain that.

[thestorycanresume1]

@rebel2276 I am not American, only an international student who is midly interested in American history. I am not into conspiracy things and I can say I am not passionate about Civil War subject as you obviously are (see you channel), so I think I am content with what my prof provided me and what is beside the course: published books/ press. I think we should stop our arguments here since we flooded this page enough already.

[rebel2276]

@thestorycanresume1 You go believe you're professor, remember my screen name and never bother me again.

[thestorycanresume1]

@rebel2276 about you commenting on my professor. You don't know him personally and probably you never will, is there a need to belittle him? I don't feel the urge to brag about my college but I can guarantee it is no amateur. My prof. wrote several books: "Black Soldiers in the Civil War", "General Lee's Army: From Victory to Defeat", "The Civil War in the West", "Partners in Command: Relationships Between Civil War Leaders", just to name a few. Google them, maybe it will interest you? idk.

[rebel2276]

@thestorycanresume1 I didn't see on that book list, "The real truth about the Civil War." Why, because less then twenty-five people know the real truth and he is not one of them. I research/write books on subject no humans have ever done. I have been working on that book alone for twenty-two years (About as long you have been born).

[thestorycanresume1]

@rebel2276 I don't think owning a slave can be considered a "right" in the first place. Since it is not something so proudful to be protected, your indirect label of this war an "infringement on rights" is highly erroneous. Plus, don't talk about the "what ifs" because in reality, the North was not the one insistently on keeping its slaves. Since the Missouri Compromise, it was illegal to own slaves in the North so it is futile to argue whether what the North would do in the South's position.

[rebel2276]

@thestorycanresume1 I have been reading on the Civil War for Thirty years now, I live normally in Washington DC, two blocks from the Library of Congress. My research team and I have dug deeper in the last eleven years then any human beings have at the National Archives and we know the real truth. Lincoln wrote a letter that Major Williams found about a year and half ago. Lincoln wrote who pressured him to start the war and that he, his wife and children, would be killed.

[thestorycanresume1]

@rebel2276 Law is man-made. If it was wrong in itself, it HAD to be changed. Slavery was wrong, to say the least. Democracy could not exist if it tolerated such paradoxing, disgusting and demeaning institution like slavery. This was an unavoidable war. When conflicts of interests/ povs kept emerging, the U.S having to deal with this issue is a matter of sooner or later. Lincoln did not intend to crush slavery, what he did, I believe was to preserve the Union, so he couldn't let secession happen

[rebel2276]

@thestorycanresume1 Our Founding fathers should have abolished slavery when they won their freedom from the British. George Washington owned over three-hundred slaves at Mount Vernon, Virginia. Benjamin Franklin owned five slaves, Thomas Jefferson and many more, etc. About Lincoln "Preserving the Union" so the Union soldiers raped, looted, killed and then turned around and forced Southerners to stay in the Union? Let's not have another Civil War.

[thestorycanresume1]

@rebel2276 Seeing how you listed all the first generation of presidents who owned slavery, it confirmed further my argument. They never felt it was wrong at FIRST to own slavery and that blacks were of equal status because such institution was embedded profoundly in the life of people in that era, they failed to question the morality of slavery. That didnt mean things could not be evolved though. 

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter There never would have been a "Union" in the first place without slavery. George Washington identified the problem and deep down, from his writings, he did want to do something about slavery. But as he wrote, he was just in a long Seven year war with Britain and knew if he tried to stop, prevent or abolish slavery, not many colonies would have joined any "Union" at all. A Civil War would have started right then and there and again, there would have never been a "Union."

[Seedofwinter]

@rebel2276 I was actually going to make this same point during my last barrage of comments, but I felt I posted enough already.

You're absolutely right about your statement. In order for the Colonies to fend off the British, we needed to give the South the slaves because they wouldn't join the fight with slavery. So the founders had to deal with it because their was no way to pull it off without the South

But this was done for the greater good and was unavoidable.

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter During the American Revolution, Twelve colonies had allowed slavery, only Rhode Island abolished it in 1774. Slaves first came to this land back in 1619, around the 1660's slave laws came into effect. Personally, I don't like slavery, for I would not want to be a slave myself. One-hundred and Fifty years ago was a long time ago and it was much different back then. It is hard for us to imagine a human being being bought and sold. At one point or another, all countries had slaves.

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter I have been in this business for Thirty years, almost Eleven of those years as been deep research at the Library of Congress and National Archives. I work with many top historians, we have had these same debates/discussions. I've been on YouTube for three and half years now and I have found 5-10 people that really know what they are typing about. My standard bar is way way up there, nothing against you, but I work around many of the great historians.

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter I can't afford to "Make stuff up", my own people would not work on the projects. Just ask me for my sources, I will be more then happy to post them on here. Lincoln's letter can be found here as well: "150 Years in the church of Rome." By Charles Chiniquy, quoted by smokescreens, Page 86, 1968. Try "Google" then type in "Google Books", then type that source in. Always feel free to ask me for my sources! Not here to bs or lie, just finding unknown things.

[talitakoomi]

@rebel2276 Um....I know your debate is over a month old, but Thomas Jefferson did NOT "write the constitution" as you say, he wrote the Declaration. He was home at Monticello during the years that the constitution was written. He DID write the Virginia Statutes, however, which gave basis to some of the constitutional ideas. Your lack of such a basic fact of American history as this brings your entire argument into dubious repute. You like to stir up intllectual battles, but lack the ammunition.

[rebel2276]

@talitakoomi Governor Morris actually wrote the ruff draft of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, John Dickinson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe all wrote sections in the Constitution. Now since many of those names are not known popularity wise, I always list Thomas Jefferson. But people like yourself, I will give you the full details on it.

[rebel2276]

@talitakoomi Interesting to find this on your site..... "Your testimony of how your were an atheist and how you can't see until God reveals things to you."

Sounds like some mental health case, there is my "Ammunition".

Anymore questions?

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter Ed Bearss told me that going back to 1910, the US. Government covered up the role of African-Americans that not only fought for the Confederacy but worked as teamster, medical, cooks, engineers etc. Free Africans were paid, some even more then the white soldiers. Slaves could not be held on any detail for more then sixty days. The US. Government covered that up along with many things during the war. I/We seek the truth and the National Archives is where to find it.

[Seedofwinter]

@rebel2276 You are venturing into conspiracies. The South succeeded from the Union due to the fact that they knew Lincoln was a staunch opponent of slavery. The South thought that the Southern economy was largely dependent on slave labor, and so they clung to it; and they though Lincoln was gunning for them.

And Forgive me, I find it hard to believe the people that have lynched tortured and bullied African also paid them a salary. All those slaves running from the South ran from luxury?

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter Once again, it is not a "Conspiracy" when we have found letters written by Lincoln, Stanton and Steward. None of those letters have been published, because if they were, everyone would have known this already. That is what we dig for, the unknown. What is real, what is Hollywood, etc. I'm not going to type and say I got "Bored" with the Civil War, but it got old reading another book on Gettysburg and another autobiography on Grant or Lee. We just seek the truth.

[Seedofwinter]

@rebel2276 What you speak of is really the "political will" to enact change. Lincoln once famously remarked during the turmoil of his time that ["he would save the union with or without freeing the negro"], but that's not to say he was in favor of slavery. It's a tribute to the fact that he was way ahead of the population, and can't force change to people that are not with him yet.

I fail to see how I'm a hypocrite in anyway. You defend the brutality of slavery(I think) while I don't.

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter I don't defend slavery or condone it, I point out the facts and truth. If you can't handle that, that preach to someone else at your level. Yes, all of you are hypocrites, you bash the South but not a single word about Grant owning slaves. Not a single word about our Founding Fathers that owned slaves. Never in nearly thirty years I have worked on the War of Rebellion/Civil War with many of the top experts, have I come across one single person that bashed those people.

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter As to your British comments, the British fought a long war (French and Indian war) they had an enormous war debt to pay off when the war ended. Even when the war ended, they still had to pay their soldiers to guard colonists in the frontier areas. So what was wrong with taxing the colonists for protection? Our founding fathers were traitors to the British crown. If our founding fathers lost the war, I highly doubt King George the Third would have shown any leniency.

[Seedofwinter]

@rebel2276 And it isn't a simplistic as you put it. A variety of events-besides taxing- culminated with the Revolution; I'm sure you have heard of the Boston tea party.



[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter Our founding fathers were traitors plain and simple. Revolution and Rebellion are the same thing. Our founding fathers and the Confederacy were pretty the same. Outnumbered, outgunned, heck out of everything. But we view our founding fathers as heroes as do Southern people with Lee, Jackson etc. It is interesting to think, had our founding fathers lost the war and we were under a British flag, I doubt slavery would have moved into the 19th Century.

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter During the American Revolution their were about 500,000 slaves/Africans in the colonies. Of that number 100,000 ran from colonist homes by the tens of thousands and joined the British Army. George Washington refused to have blacks in the Continental Army or in any capacity. Alexander Hamilton, tried over and over again to change George Washington attitude towards blacks. Only when British officers nailed proclamations on trees did George Washington finally relent.

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter I hope I am not coming off "As a know-it-all". I even have millions of questions on Civil War. When I call or email the experts and they can't answer my questions, then we are all stuck. I/We are working on the first ever two book series on Union and Confederate captured flags. I began the project almost twenty years ago. It is frustrating, I often stay up late reading, my little spare time I spend at the Library of Congress and National Archives.

[rebel2276]

@Seedofwinter I am not from the South nor Britain, I just point out the facts and truth. I am all "American", I have served in the US.Army since I was 17 years old and my thirty years will be up in less then two years. I fought for this country in all wars during that time period. My family and ancestors have fought in every war on this soil and all foreign wars. From the King James War to present day Afghanistan.

Enjoy the Christmas holidays and New Years!

[TuRkmEnOkaN]

@rebel2276

you fought for politicans, not for the USA thats just an image the politicans want to give you and all the other soldiers so they join the military.

[rebel2276]

@TuRkmEnOkaN I am one of those "Senior Commanders" and protested the war from day one. I told them that going into Afghanistan was a very bad idea. I was in Afghanistan 1986-1987 when we supplied Afghan Rebels against the Russians. I have been in the US. Army for 34 years and I will retire in a year and half. I don't have to be in Afghanistan or Iraq, I could just stay at the Pentagon and sit at my desk. But I prefer the field and combat, while the other senior commanders hide in the rear.

[shihyun3699]

@rebel2276 then america thanks your family

[rebel2276]

@shihyun3699 I more or less thank the American tax payers. Millions lost their jobs, houses, etc. I hope this war ends and everything can get back to normal again.

Have a good day

[SouthernFriedHoney]

The North did not "occupy" Fort Sumter -- they owned it. Literally. They had bought the land 20 years earlier from the State of SC. Plus -- the South had threatened 10 other federal locations, and had plans to invade Washington and take over the White House.  Fort Sumter was simply the focal point, especially in history. But all kinds of shit was going all on, all over.

[SouthernFriedHoney]

Slavery was going to die if it couldnt expand -- and soon. Southern leaders said this quite clearly -- expand or perish.

There were simply too many slaves - Slaves prices went from 1500 dollars to 50 dollars. You could hardly give them away there were so many.

Forget cotton -- SLAVES were the cash crop for decades. The Slave leaders were desperate -- on a life and death level -- to expand slavery or die.

If you don't understand that, you don't know shit.

[valacar11]

And who sold the slaves to the slavers, and who were the slavers?

Where slave prices greater in the North or the South? Did Crispus Attucks or his brethren own slaves

[andresblazeit420]

this is good, but there are too many holes in the story

[freedomrecordsmusic]

Thanks for sharing!

[SeeProfileForDetails]

@freedomrecordsmusic -5 redundant