If Lincoln the great "hero" was against slavery so much whyd he wait until the civil war started goin before he said hey i should free the slaves today to make me look like a good guy
'Try DiLorenzo. No wait. He's panned by any historian who isn't a brain washed Libertarian.'
Who? Modern day scumbags who are establishment cheerleaders and would have us believe that Lincoln was an angel whose farts smelled like roses? Get the fuck out you miserable self-loathing white raised by a single mommy dork.
@MikeM2608 Lincoln, on a technical level, was against slavery and he said as much. But he was also a white supremisist who never saw blacks being on the same social status as white -(i.e. being able to vote, intermarry with whites, he would have laughed at the idea of an Aferican American president.). He'd actually had an idea of sending the freed slaves elsewhere. Lincoln isn't anyone Martin Luther King would've been freinds with. I'm not racist, supporting slavery, or lying.
Lincoln wanted to TAX slavery, and that was the ONLY reason he didn't want slavery in the newer states-- i.e. because he needed them to be free states in order to get the numbers needed to pass new federal tax-laws on slave-states via increased tariffs on exhange-goods traded for slave-products.
Essentially the North viewed the south as tributaries to be exploited, and of course the South had different ideas.
And you don't try to free slaves if you want to TAX them--DERP!
*Applying 21 st century moality to a 19th century man is beyond stupid.*
I couldn't agree more. Even more hilarious, he doesn't even understand the meaning and context of Lincoln's words, which he believes are exposing the man as a proponent of slavery.
It may be noted, also, that the proclamation on applied to the "Rebel" states who had their own government set up with Davis as president not Lincoln.. Delaware and Maryland, 2 "Northern" states, were the last 2 states to give up slavery, after the war was over..Furthermore, the Yankee states (primely New York and Road Iseland) were importing the slaves to sell to owners. Several nothern states (Ohio and Illinois for example) made laws against freed slaves moveing in to protect "white workers".
It may also be noted that the EP applied to the Rebel States who were in REBELLION and was recognized as a shifting of war efforts to include The Ending of Slavery along with Preserving the Union. Lincoln makes this especially clear in the Gettysburg address
*Yankee states (NY & RI) were importing the slaves to sell to owners.*
That may make sense in 1806, however the in 1807, the Atlantic Slave Trade was effectively ended.
@MikeM2608 Just now reading your reply. It may take awhile for me to pull everything togethor and I hope you don't mind waiting. Lol, even if you do, I'm getting my stuff togethor so I'll be ready in the future. In all honesty, I'm looking at the book I got the R.I and N.Y. bit from and it may be referring to leagal AND illegal trade which would make since in context with your statement although it gives the year 1808. Anyways, I'll include eveything upon return. Thanks.
@MikeM2608 Oh, for the first point. My point was that Lincoln's EP applied to a seperate nation (the C.S.,A) which had established it's own goernment and constitution. And yet, he neglects to free all the slaves in his own nation first which he does have power over. I will allow that the C.S.A was haveing trouble being recognized (namely by Britain and France). I'll give years each state freed slaves if needed next time.
*My point was that Lincoln's EP applied to a seperate nation*
This is strictly a revisionist opinion. Among others, The Supreme Court, Constitutional Lawyers and the President say otherwise. Hell, James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, was against secession. The states were in rebellion, and Lincoln acknowledged powers granted to the Executive Office during an insurrection to draft and put into action, the EP.
WRONG! Madison upheld each state as a popularly sovereign nation unto itself.
You're talking out of your ass, there IS no power delegated to the federal government BY the states to COERCE them--- that's an OXYMORON.
As Madison wrote: "On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."
*And yet, he neglects to free all the slaves in his own nation first which he does have power over.*
This is where you fail to understand the Constitution. (Ugh, I'm sounding like a Libertarian) Without an Amendment (which he pushed for) he did not have the power to free the slaves, in states that were not in rebellion.In dealing with states that seceded, as Com. in Chief of the Army and Navy, under Article II, section 2 of the US Cons. Lincoln had the authority.
Actually sovereign states cannot "rebel," that's a bit of artificial trumpery invented by charlatans to justify military coercion against sovereign nations.
The Emancipation Proclamation did not free anyone. Read it and check the facts. As long as you were loyal to the Federal government you could still own slaves. Also don't forget that the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't written until two and a half years into the war. Also don't forget that the South fought side by side with blacks. The North segregated it's troops. It was all about money. Lincoln had raised tariffs on Southern goods to 43% from 20% and the South paid 83% of taxes.
*The Emancipation Proclamation did not free anyone. Read it and check the facts.*
I'd suggest you follow your own "advice" and read. I realize that facts are only good to a Libertarian, if they are smudged or partial, but give it a shot. 10,000 slaves in NC, & 20,000 in SC were freed immediately following the EP.
Runaway slaves of whom had previously been held by the Union Army as "contraband of war;" were told they were free to leave when the EP took effect.
*Also don't forget that the EP wasn't written until two and a half years into the war.*
*facepalm*
Lincoln acknowledged he did not have the power, at the time of his election, to free the slaves. His stated goal was to preserve the Union
AGAIN. You Libertarians want Lincoln to usurp extraordinary executive powers in the name of emancipating slaves, while eschewing any sort of presidential power in prosecuting the very civil war that made emancipation possible.
*Also don't forget that the South fought side by side with blacks.*
Really? Where is the evidence of this? If you actually read something other than slanted revisionist rhetoric, you'd know, the historical record for primary evidence of the black soldiers fighting for the South, can only be concluded that the support for such a claim is scanty at best. Yet, you have it written as fact.
Let me guess. Somebody has been reading "The South was Right" by the Kennedy Brothers? I thought so
*It was all about money. Lincoln had raised tariffs on Southern goods to 43% from 20% and the South paid 83% of taxes.*
It was all about money? Nothing to do with slavery? Hilarious. The South rebelled over the politics and ecomomics of slavery. I see you have your Libertarian math 43%, 20% 83%. That is from what? The Real Lincoln? South was Right?
This was summed up eloquently be Runstedt1 already. I'll repost it for you.
And most of the sea trade happened in the North as the port facilities there far outstripped those in any southern port. "U.S. foreign trade rose in value from $134 million in 1830 to $318 million in 1850. It would triple again in the 1850s. Between two-thirds and three-fourths of those imports entered through the port of New York. Which meant that any trading the South did, had to go through New York. Trade from Charleston and Savannah during this period was stagnant.
The total shipping entered from foreign countries in 1851 in the port of Charleston was 92,000 tons, in the port of New York, 1,448,000. You'd find relatively little tariff money coming in from Charleston. According to a Treasury report, the net revenue of all the ports of South Carolina during 1859 was a mere $234,237; during 1860 it was $309,222" (of 318 Million!)
And the tariffs were not an issue anyway, tariffs were at their lowest since 1828 and the South had written the current Tariff policy of 1857 and it had majority Southern support and the South still had enough power in congress to prevent drastically higher tariffs. And even then this all fails to notice
WHY some in the South favored Higher tariffs. (But certainly not all in the South as it was itself divided on the issue, those areas that grew props such as Sugar or rice that had foreign competition actually favored higher tariffs) The reason behind the tariff issue itself is related to slavery and the backward Southern slave economy. For as already stated:
"Second, when people talk about conflicting economic systems, obviously the root of the conflict was that the South's economic system was based upon plantation slavery.
So one can't talk about different economic systems without once again coming back to the issue of slavery. That was fundamental to what the South was about."
"Within the profession there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war. To the extent within the profession there's a debate about this, people will talk about other causal factors such as economic factors creating secession and the Civil War, but those economic factors always come down to a slave economy"
1. Why is it that Pro C.S people always rant on the Corwin Amendment, when in the C.S Constitution has the same thing as the Corwin Amendment.
2. If States' Rights was the cause why did the Declaration of Causes of Secession state they did not what Northern States nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act?
3. States' Rights for what?
4. Why rant on Lincoln suspending Habeas corpus when the C.S Constitution allows that, in fact Davis did it too!
P.S-I was once 110% pro C.S these and more added doubt
It's absolutely mind numbing that with all the documented proof, quotes, papers, speeches, debates, declarations, not to mention the CSA's own constitution, that the Kool-Aid drinking revisionists still can't quite grasp that the Civil War was rooted in slavery.
Basically, according to arm-chair-revisionist-fantasy-history-experts, the southern states and politicians were somehow lying in their assertions that slavery was the root of the war.
@MikeM2608 Comment removed? Why? Well he said that if he could preserve the union without freeing any slave, that he would do it. That means that if he could've preserved the union without freeing a slave, that he would've done it. That means that he cared about preserving the union, not freeing slaves. Anything else I can help you with?
Lincoln acknowledged he did not have the power, at the time to free the slaves. Was he against the institution of slavery? Yes. Absolutely, read his comprehensive writings, not what somebody like Dilorenzo tells you he said.
As said before. You Libertarians are great, you want Lincoln to usurp extraordinary executive powers in the name of emancipating slaves, while eschewing any sort of presidential power in prosecuting the very civil war that made emancipation possible.
Lincoln's priority at 1st was to preserve the Union. "blkphoto" takes a few words of one particular speech, takes it out of context, then ignorantly and erroneously deduces that Lincoln was in support of slavery. "I have to say not."
Once again, read Lincoln's comprehensive writings. If you do, ONLY one of two things would happen. 1. You would see reality, that AL was against slavery, OR 2. Youd still say he supported slavery, WHICH would mean you either didn't read or are a liar, or both
I did happen to watch the part where "blkphoto" erroneously believed he could characterize the life and beliefs of Abraham Lincoln as well as know what his thoughts were, based on two speeches engraved on the memorial, taking what he said out of context.
It all "boiled down" to slavery. The economics and politics of slavery.
Why did the states reference slavery in their Declarations of Rebellion if it had "nothing" to do with the south seceding? It cracks me up, the southern states & politicians themselves absolutely assert secession was over slavery, yet revisionists somehow conveniently over look this.
If it was all about states rights why didn't the CSA include this perceived "right" to secede in their own Constitution?
Nice job with the insults. Well done sir. Clearly you have demonstrated you are incapable of handling comprehending basic facts of history and need to rely on opinions of axe grinding Lincoln hating Libertarians. If anybody is a sheep, it is you. Enjoy the Kool-Aid.
Napolitano? He wanted Lincoln to usurp extraordinary executive powers in the name of emancipating slaves, while eschewing any sort of presidential power in prosecuting the very civil war that made emancipation possible.
Try again. Where's this evidence of Lincoln's desperate evil white supremacist racist scheming to get rid of all the newly freed blacks in the last days of life?
Try DiLorenzo. No wait. He's panned by any historian who isn't a brain washed Libertarian.
How about the Kennedy Brothers? Well, they probably aren't too reliable for an unbiased source either as they seem to believe the slaves were happy in their opinion-laced-fact-smudged/omitted mess, "The South was Right."
@MikeM2608 Get them MikeM - these Hillbillies are simple, and so easily brainwashed by falseness, there is a pathetic quality to them. They write nonsense about Lincoln, because they see the evil Federal Government taking the innocent south by force - though they all seem to forget it is the south that fired the first shot. Anyway, give the inbreds hell.
Yeah, before that evil statist Lincoln clawed and tentacled his way to power the south was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the slaves danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.
Slavery would have ended magically, through paid emancipation, since it happened in other countries in completely different times under absolutely different economic, political and social circumstances.
By the way, thanks for posting this video. Anytime somebody evokes a discussion about racism's history and especially the political economy of racism, I think we are taking a step toward becoming a better country of people.
FYI: "Abolitionism" refers not generally to a vague moral objection to slavery, but rather a historically political stance and call to direct action in order that slavery as a legal and economic institution be dismantled. In other words, somebody could dislike slavery and simultaneously not be an abolitionist in the same way that today somebody could enjoy racial diversity and simultaneously not be an anti-racism activist. True, Lincolns words are confusing, but not if they are taken in context.
In fact, slaves were not freed until MONTHS after he died. He had no intention to free the slaves, he was a tyrantical big government guy who waged an illegal war to "restore the union." The sad fact is that the Confederacy had just as much right to secede as the Colonies did to leave the King. In fact, it is a Constitutional right for the states to be able to leave if they believe their state rights were being destroyed by a strong central government.
Hey, good video. I do think you are wrong on some things though. He did not free the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. I do not believe 1 single slave was freed because of that. Note that Lincoln allowed Union states to keep slaves as well as areas that the Union had taken by force. He also offered the Confederate states to come back to the Union with the fact they could keep their slaves. So the only slaves freed were southern, but he wasn't their president. So no slaves freed.
In fact, he's such an idiot that he's pretending not to be watching these debates. He's such a moron. He's so disgustingly idiotic that the only way I can remotely begin to retreat from the fact that he's a rep of the missing link, is for his apology. Not to me, but to our greatest president. If he can't do that, then this is absolute proof that he is indeed a relic of the age that crossed over.
@mike3940 Gotta kill a lotta people, especially Americans, to be a 'great' president, and so I agree with you in that by that criterion, 'Honest' Abe was probably our 'greatest'. I mean, were he not so 'great', his actions would prove him to be an evil, evil man, rather than a national hero.
Is that what you think? That's probably why you'll never be a janitor, never mind a president. I bet that after you were done typing all of that you needed to take a nap.
@mike3940 Agreed. blkphoto has so little knowledge. Spewing garbage about a leader who took a huge risk to help blkphoto's race, and yet all he can do is complain. The man - Lincoln, died, and probably his son died due to moving to DC, to .... emancipate... . Emancipate - look it up blkphoto, I know it is a big word and all.
@kumlerah .... The Emancipation? Slaves weren't freed til MONTHS after Lincoln was DEAD. Not 1 single slave was freed because of the "Emancipation Proclamation". Note that Lincoln allowed Union states to keep slaves as well as areas that the Union had taken by force. He also offered the Confederate states to come back to the Union with the fact they could keep their slaves. So the only slaves freed were southern, but he wasn't their president. So no slaves freed.
***The Emancipation? Slaves weren't freed til MONTHS after Lincoln was DEAD. Not 1 single slave was freed because of the "Emancipation Proclamation".***
Really? Might want to check up on Union occupied NC and the Sea Islands of SC, alone. Slaves were freed IMMEDIATELY following the EP. Some estimates at 20,000+. True, the EP only freed slaves in states of rebellion but it was a step toward total abolition. To state "no slaves were freed" is just simply erroneous.
Spoken like a true revisionist with only pathetic half witted insults to back up his Swiss Cheese knowledge of history. By the way I have read the revisionist fantasy history books too.
Where was it discovered Lincoln wanted to deport all blacks until his dying days? Show it. If you are referring to Gen. Butlers widely discredited accusations written YEARS after the fact. Try again. Days before his death Lincoln gave a speech supporting suffrage for blacks.
@MikeM2608 Go look at Judge Napolitano's video about the "Lincoln Myth." I didn't insult you, did I? If you are really gay, as you are, the queer statement just affirms that, stupid queer.
It's not my fault you believe in a baked up myth that Abraham Lincoln was some hero. You are a pathetic sheep. Not worthy of anything else you pathetic troll.
You can keep making up facts for your argument, everyone sees it.
@richard4president - He was in the middle of a Civil War. As if every action had to be immediate. Obviously he didn't want to splinter the alliance with Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri. His last speech was given on the abolishment of slavery and giving the black man the right to vote. The speech that he caused Booth to assassinate him, remember that one?
@kumlerah Remember that he also wanted to deport all African-Americans? Recently it's been discovered that he wished to do that til his dying days and you can't change that fact. He was a racist. End of story, he was just a "politician" who did what he thought would get him further politically and "punish" the rebel states.
@ZackAttack261 My goodness, reading your grammar AssAttack261, gives he head pain. You splodge out tripe of such moronic proportions. The same old lies that I read elsewhere, simply because you read them, and thought they were right. "The men from the fort told them to leave" - what the hell does that mean? Fort Sumter was a US Federal Fort. Would we leave Fort Bragg if Pakistan told us to? Learn how to use witch also, wrong content. Yours uses a broom.
Yea! The moron realed in a fact!... so what? He was a Whig Republican and he wasn't an abolitionist. So what? What's your point? As a Whig Republican he was ending all expansion of slavery in ANY new Federal territory, but felt he had no Constitutional right to end it where it already existed.
BWAHAHAHAHAA if you're going to call "moron" you might want to spell right.
As for the Constiution, Lincoln twisted it any way he pleased, claiming it was a NATIONAL constitution rather than federal; he even plotted to overturn the supreme court when they didn't please his whim on Dred Scott.
But you're too much of a fucking MORON to underdstand that one basic fact-- that you came out your momma's asshole-- so I shun one more fool.
President Lincoln swore to protect and defend the Constitution, not participate in an election and then eject upon learning the outcome wasn't favorable to the party involved. True, his actions were 'questionable' while congress was adjourned, but what your neo-conf papers didn't tell you is that when Congress went back into session, after Southern secession, they approved everything he did...Everything...which made everything he did legal under the Constitution, and, your mental.
Gawd, you are just such an ignorant moron with your head so far up Lincoln's ass that you'll never stop sniffing his farts, so there'd no point in confusing you with facts.
The Constitution is FEDERAL, NOT NATIONAL.
Until you pull your head out of your ass and realize this one single fact, you'll clearly have your head wedged so far up your ass that you approve mass-murdering imperialism like any Neo-nazi.
You're pathetic. Federal Republics and Sovereign States are one thing. Slavery and the attempt to destroy a nation over slavery is another, ok moron. You've toasted nothing and you're disgusting.
The USA was never a nation, it was a FEDERAL REPUBLIC of nations.
This just shows why you don't have a clue what you're talking about-- you believe what you were brainwashed with in public schools, in defiance of BASIC FACTS.
What part of "Free, sovereign and independent STATES" do you NOT understand?
That means each state is a SOVERIEGN NATION unto itself, under its PEOPLE, not its government..
This shows you don't have the knowledge to discuss this with ANY intelligence.
So what? What does all of this have to do with slavery, treason, attacks on military installations, arsenals, and armories, and extreme intimidation to loyal Americans? It has nothing to do with it and everything to do with a certain faction that believes they have a God given right to ignore the law of the land which is until we all decided differently, the Constitution. You can't fire on an American installation without expecting retaliation.
Real slow, you can't bomb an American installation without retaliation. And you can't leave this nation without the consent of all concerned, especially for the purpose of expanding the institution that the duly elected president was elected to retain, and election that all parties participated in. As proven in President Lincoln's administration, you just can't do that you idiot, and like I said, I'm done with you. You are a moron and need therapy. Bye jackass.
"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states."
Get that? EACH STATE was a nation unto itself-- NOT collectively.
You are referring to a treaty. Site in the UNITED states constitution where is affirms that each state is in fact, a Sovereign Nation unto it's own.
Also, site in the Constitution where the document gives power to those with Political and Economical Pull in a state to speak for the PEOPLE and succeed from the Union. Succession wasn't even held to popular vote except in TX. Shouldn't the people have had their say?
I guess I had to figure that would be the ignorant response I'd get. I didn't insult you. I asked you 2 simple questions that you clearly have shown you are incapable of answering.
Well, I sincerely apologize for bringing up questions/facts and having them get in the way of your delusions. I'm of the hope one of these days you Libertarians will be able to spin this where your revised history doesn't look like a slice of swiss cheese.
Well educate me then. You are basing your whole fallacious argument on the Constitution yet, you are unable to point out where it affirms the that each state is a sovereign nation unto their own.
Also, if the south was so adamant about their "right" to just leave when the people of economic and political powers don't agree with the federal government. Why wasn't this right clearly defined in their own Constitution? It was omitted.
Likewise, Confucius says that a fool can ask more questions in seven seconds than a wise man can answer in seven years; you prove yourself a fool here, since your questions prove your general ignorance on the subject, which prove that you simply lack the knowledge or intelligence to be able to discuss the subject with any coherence whatsoever.
Ah the Confucius root. Good excuse. Nobody will realize you don't know what you're talking about if you bring up a quote from some philosopher. Well done.
While you busy looking up quotes, try reading a up a bit on the history. Well, real history. You may look less foolish.
No, your arguments are simply rife with logical fallacies. For example, saying "Site in the UNITED states constitution where is affirms that each state is in fact, a Sovereign Nation unto it's own" assumes without warrant that the constituiton is some type of national document, while you're wholly ignorant of the international law behind the fact that the Treaty of Paris makes eaach state a sovereign nation via the recognition as such by two or more states.
Go back and read what you have written on here.You were basing your argument on the Constitution and this perceived "right" for the States to just leave the Union. Now you are trolling up the Treaty of Paris?
So, the Civil War was based on the powers vested to Southern States by the Treaty of Paris? The Treaty of Paris stated the each state was free and Sovereign over England's rule. How about u try reading the rest of it where it refers to the United States, as THE UNITED STATES
**Where did I EVER say that the right to secede is in the Constitution?**
You said "THE SECEDING STATES WERE SOVEREIGN NATIONS UNTO THEMSELVES, by LAW."
What law(s) could you possibly be referring to other then the fundamental principles and laws of the Constitution. Are you back to trolling up the Trty of Paris again as your basis for this law? How about the Mayflower Compact? Magna Carta?
The Constitution applies to the Federal Government and the States. You don't know this?
No, it says "the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."
It also acknowledges them to be "free, sovereign and independent STATES."
You know STATES-- as in PLURAL?
So "the United States" is clearly NOT recognized by two or more sovereign nations one single sovereign nation-- but THIRTEEN.
You left out the part where it Addresses "His Majesty." In the TREATY OF PARIS, this "free and Independent" statement you keep tantrumming about is to the KING. It's NOT a resolution that the states are independent sovereign nations of each other.
And clearly you still have not read the rest of it, because if you had, the rest of the treaty refers to the states as a whole, The United States.
Try reading. Or have somebody other then a Libertarian read to you.
They were never dependent ON each other, moron! The states DELEGATED POWERS TO CONGRESS in the Articles of Confederation to be commonly represented by congress-- but they ALSO retained their sovereignty, freedom and independence therein!
FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES are sovereign nations, independent of EVERYTHING!
After that, it doesn't MATTER what it says!
This is what you do every time, pulling shit out of your ass and flinging it like it's the God's truth.
A Sovereign nation has the power to do EVERYTHING necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations. The sovereignty of a state is determined with reference to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
That being said. I hate that the Sovereign Nation of Rhode Island keeps declaring war on France.
Well you've done an excellent job at flailing around vomitting out incomplete, erroneous and out of context information for your revisionist fallacious history.
You've proven nothing other then you are incapable of answering any questions when you're brought up to task on it because you have no answers.
You have proven you can only throw a tantrum and write up some juvenile pathetic attempt at an insult.
It's funny, you Libertarians start vomiting up some revisionist rhetoric, yet when anybody questions you, 1 of 3 things happen. NONE of which is the actual answering of the question, because your house of cards knowledge just doesn't allow you to do so. Go ahead and feel free to prove me right.
1 You throw some juvenile insult
2 You say you "don't have the time"
3 You troll up some unrelated topic
It's like clockwork.
Don't bother with reality or those pesky facts, they just get in the way.
Er, no, the above proves that I TRIED to answer your lame arguments, many times-- but you just kept spewing out more and more ignorance until you proved yourself a hopeless case who has no interest in the truth, but simply being an evasive liar and troll.
Ok, this it the last time I'm talking to your pathetic ass because the shit you spew can't be coming from your face. The Treaty of Paris originated before our Constitution in which we created "a more perfect Union" until you came along you dingbat.
Slavery, as stated by Lincoln with his own speeches, was just a stepping stone for his effort to create a stronger central government. He has also stated that he is in favor of the white race being superior to the black race. Lincoln was a true politician, a smooth talker.
Slavery was a STRAWMAN of convenience to put a halo on Northern treachery and aggression against sovereign nations through lies and atrocity. Lincoln was a true sociopath, a man who claimed that truth was subjective to the ends of victory by any means.
You're delusional and should seek medical attention. President Lincoln is understood not only by most Americans, but by this nations greatest and most noted historians, North AND South, that President Lincoln in a tally of our 10 greatest presidents ranks as our GREATEST president. You're a moron and you've been driving down the wrong roads, silly.
Why is it bad? Because they're lowering the bar as to the intensity of what it will take to revisit the tumultuous times that we experienced in the 1860's. Those were horrible moments in American history, and America needs to understand, north and south, the truth about the mid-nineteenth century's politics and why we were so mad at each other that we took up arms and slaughtered one another. The problem is the North here and now could care less about 150 years ago when they're trying to eat.
The South correctly recognized that each state was a sovereign nation unto itself, and the North egregiously lied and violated its oath to RESPECT his common sovereignt among the states, instead claiming that they had national authority over the states; and they proceeded to use the military forces entrusted to them for the express purpose of DEFENDING this respective sovereignty, in order to DESTROY it.
@postalmeter : I understand that you're a moron that probably has no teeth, but that's besides the point...on your head from that cone hat they gave you at your last meeting.
Your statements...equate to horse shit, ok moron. Concurring with you to date is the equivalent of concurring with a donut. You live a life of fairytales and equate them as fact. You're an idiot. If you had a brain, you'd tip over. Any questions?
@UnionStatesHeritage 1861, Americans enjoyed the protection of the Bill of Rights. 2011, Americans no longer enjoy the basic rights enumerated in their founding documents.
@imaStonesFan ***You are right. Thank you for the truth ***
How is he right? Lincoln was against the morality of slavery. Look at the vast vast VAST majority of his writings, other than some cherry picked out of context quotes in books by that nut Dilorenzo or the axe grinding Kennedy Brothers.
His stated goal in his 1st Inauguration speech was to keep the Union together. He was always against slavery, even if ending it wasn't his first objective.
Huh? Well, now you have ZERO credibility. Even Lincoln hating Thomas Dilorenzo wouldn't write something as nonsensical as Lincoln actually owning slaves. Lincoln was fundamentally against slavery. Was ending slavery his 1st and only objective when he became president? Absolutely not.
There's revisionist history and then there's deluded history like what you have posted.
You are not saying anything that historians haven't been saying the last 25 years, so you're not shocking anyone. Henry Louis Gates called Lincoln a "recovering racist" because he believed, like many white folks in Illinois who hadn't been around too much, that blacks were less intelligent. But meeting Frederick Douglass made him see the light! In the end he wanted to extend the vote to black veterans and educated black men. Lincoln was ALWAYS, throughout his life, morally opposed to slavery.
You are right Larry - I wish there had never been a Lincoln, failure and all. Without him, I could walk down to the local slave auction, and buy you. Tie you to a try and horse whip you to death. That is after I purchased your mother, and had her gang raped to death. Yeah, that damned Lincoln spoiled everything, I agree. I just wish the Good old Dixie south was still going strong. Right Larry, that damned Lincoln took that away from us. Now where were we, lash 56 of 200.
@kumlerah Dude you are seriously funny not just for your ridiculous comments but your profound lack of understand of our country's history. I am glad people like you are not afraid to show that the ugliness of racism still exist because many people thought that after Obama was elected that racism was dead but there are still many ignorant racist people in the world too afraid to love people that look different than them. Good luck in life and God Bless.
@blkphoto Wow, abolutely clueless on the video or the comment. The fact a black man is comment ling on how Lincoln failed the black man, is absolutely the most ignorant item I have seen on Youtube. Here is another one dumb ass. I not only voted for Obama, I gave him money, and think he is doing a good job. If you cannot understand the facts presently, find a youtube on Spongebob and lay your comments there.
You are right Larry - I wish there had never been a Lincoln, failure and all. Without him, I could walk down to the local slave auction, and buy you. Tie you to a try and horse whip you to death. That is after I purchased your mother, and had her gang raped to death. Yeah, that damned Lincoln spoiled everything, I agree. I just wish the Good old Dixie south was still going strong. Right Larry, that damned Lincoln took that away from us. Now where were we, lash 56 of 200.
You are right Larry - I wish there had never been a Lincoln, failure and all. Without him, I could walk down to the local slave auction, and buy you. Tie you to a try and horse whip you to death. That is after I purchased your mother, and had her gang raped to death. Yeah, that damned Lincoln spoiled everything, I agree. I just wish the Good old Dixie south was still going strong. Right Larry, that damned Lincoln too that away from us. Now where were we, lash 56 of 200.
"The Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. We are to give a summary of our causes to the world, but mainly to the other Southern States, whose co-action we wish, and we must not make a fight on the Tariff question.... Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question."
L.M.Keitt, US CONGRESSMAN South Carolina Secession Declaration Debates
*I've converted over three dozen black Democrats in the last year.*
Surely in the time it took to convert 36 people of their lifelong political beliefs, you must have become friends. Invite all 36 over to our discussion so we can bash Lincoln together.
You may have caused 36 people to leave the Libertarian party but given your abysmal performance here I can't fathom you converting anybody.
4. Explain why you believe this right for states to start their own country is clearly defined in the US Constitution, yet none of the states except Texas dared put secession to a popular vote by the people. Seems the people should have got their say.
Since you are busy pretending to be a paid writer here are a few easy ones.
1. Explain how the southern position for rebelling had nothing to do with slavery but slavery was clearly emphasized in their Declarations of Rebellion.
2. Explain how the South, the champions of the Secession, rebelled yet somehow omitted this "right" from their Cons.
3.Site examples in our Cons. where those with political & economic power in a State can speak for the people & just walk from the Union.
For good measure. Once again. You won't address my questions. We'll run in circles with these fact-less slanted theories & cherry picked out of context quotes. Of course, not before, you will again insult my intelligence by asking something insulting in the form of a question so it's "not an insult."
Whatever insults you have ready in question form, take a moment and ask them to yourself because you have done ZERO to prove any point or show off this superhuman intelligence you think you have.
@MikeM2608 It's amazing how people like you claim victory where it wasn't won. Lincoln barely made it back into office a second time. His war was illegal (he didn't even get a Declaration of War). He obliterated the Constitution. There is no other way to look at it. End of list.
@fanadfilms I claim victory because 1. You haven't answered a single one of my questions. 2. You immediately start with the name calling - the mark of a loser. Show me where I'm wrong. You can't which is fine. But be a man about it.
You keep saying he destroyed the Union obliterated the Constitution. Great! Show me where. Show me how. Give examples. Facts. Not slanted opinions.
@fanadfilms *I answered all that were worthy of being answered. I'm too busy to answer stupid questions.*
You answered NONE because you have no answers. Just insults, which if you are going to insult at least be creative about it. For somebody who lies and claims to make their living off being a writer your insults are juvenile and one note, you sound like a child throwing a tantrum
Allow me to post for you since I can already tell what's coming. You won't answer my questions. You'll type the same question that I already answered. You will say I need to be educated, because you are clearly some scholar of slanted-house-of-cards-history which doesn't seem to quite rely on facts. Finally you will question whether I am obtuse, again. If possibly maybe you can even through in some grammar insult, I think some of my sentences ended in prepositions. Well, anyway. Don't dissapoint
Great job!! You crushed that uneducated, pale copy of DiLorenzo. These hatemongers are too embarassed and politically correct to argue the real reason they support more slavery and segregation for black people, so they end up lecturing about American history and law, even though they've never studied either one in their entire life. It quickly shows---they can't answer even basic questions, and post outright lies about Lincoln in 1820 and the EP coming three years into the war. You stomped him!!
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Thanks. In all honesty I should be thanking FanadVideos. He made me look like a psychic as I was able to predict exactly what he would say in response. He didn't disappoint.
It's funny I answered his questions. He couldn't answer one of mine. Then he goes to the pathetic route and starts questioning intelligence. It's the avenue the ignorant take when they're flailing and have nothing to add.
@MikeM2608 I've encountered a thousand hatemongers who think getting a 10th grade education and skimming a summary of DiLorenzo qualifies them to straight-up lecture the world about American history and law with no uncertainty or intellectual modesty. It's Dunning-Kruger personified. When confronted with hard questions and the actual facts, most of them drop the act and start spraying the N-word. They should really start there and save everyone some time.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Exactly! It's funny they cherry pick quotes from AL and present them out of context to prove some ill-conceived theory. Yeah, we get it, Lincoln made note in his Inaugural that he wouldn't interfere with slavery. He also emphasized that his priority AT THAT TIME, was preserving the union. The south forced his hand
The best part is, Fanad I'm sure voted for Bob Barr who AT ONE TIME, was in favor of the patriot act and was key note speaker at the CCC, a white supremacy group
@RonPaulHatesBlacks So, how is it from the racist side of the aisle? You probably sided with Jackson when he wanted to invade SC over the abominable tariffs.
Again you show your lack of ability to back up your slanted clouded theories. Answer my questions. I answered yours. You are so over your head you can't even make one counter point. You can only insult because you have nothing.
I bet if you have one of the 36 black democrats you "converted" read our exchanges they'd go right back to being a democrat not wanted to side with somebody like you.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Wow, OMG, I bruise. I have a friend, close one. We're producing a film together. He's black. He's read the same things I have, and he's ANTI-Lincoln. He's not the only one. I've converted over three dozen black Democrats in the last year. As for the date, moron, I mistyped it. You probably missed that because you were too busy voting for higher taxes and more slavery. You are an idiot.
BS. Show me one example that you have even received a dime for your writing let alone are able to support yourself. You pump you're chest out and say you make a living as a writer prove it. This freakin' internet is a problem for liars because it's so easy to double check facts.
*I've converted over three dozen black Democrats in the last year.*
It's really filling up in here. Prove it. You're full of it.
@fanadfilms *I've converted over three dozen black Democrats in the last year.*
I had to go back to this tall tale. It's too good. You can call me what you'd like but you sir are a liar. If not. Prove it.
Did you say, "Hey guys, I know you're diggin' this Libertarian stuff but I gotta tell ya, if Libertarians would have been runnin' the show in the 1960's we defin
He couldve done it right when he was ellected if he accually cared
GeneralCage 1 month ago
If Lincoln the great "hero" was against slavery so much whyd he wait until the civil war started goin before he said hey i should free the slaves today to make me look like a good guy
GeneralCage 1 month ago in playlist More videos from blkphoto
This has been flagged as spam show
'Try DiLorenzo. No wait. He's panned by any historian who isn't a brain washed Libertarian.'
Who? Modern day scumbags who are establishment cheerleaders and would have us believe that Lincoln was an angel whose farts smelled like roses? Get the fuck out you miserable self-loathing white raised by a single mommy dork.
Otzmatron 1 month ago
Lincoln was not against slavery. Read your history you bootlicking maggots.
Otzmatron 1 month ago 2
@Otzm
*Lincoln was not against slavery. Read your history you bootlicking maggots.*
Brilliant well informed, fact-filled argument. Put down Dilorenzo and read a real non-axe-grinding, unslanted History book.
Read Lincoln's comprehensive writings. If you do, ONLY one of two things would happen:
1. You would see past your brainwashing. A.L was against slavery, OR
2. You would still say he supported slavery, WHICH would mean, you either didn't read, or are a liar, OR both
MikeM2608 1 month ago
@MikeM2608 Lincoln, on a technical level, was against slavery and he said as much. But he was also a white supremisist who never saw blacks being on the same social status as white -(i.e. being able to vote, intermarry with whites, he would have laughed at the idea of an Aferican American president.). He'd actually had an idea of sending the freed slaves elsewhere. Lincoln isn't anyone Martin Luther King would've been freinds with. I'm not racist, supporting slavery, or lying.
sonotarockstar 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lincoln wanted to TAX slavery, and that was the ONLY reason he didn't want slavery in the newer states-- i.e. because he needed them to be free states in order to get the numbers needed to pass new federal tax-laws on slave-states via increased tariffs on exhange-goods traded for slave-products.
Essentially the North viewed the south as tributaries to be exploited, and of course the South had different ideas.
And you don't try to free slaves if you want to TAX them--DERP!
SovereignStatesman 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stardaddyo9
*Applying 21 st century moality to a 19th century man is beyond stupid.*
I couldn't agree more. Even more hilarious, he doesn't even understand the meaning and context of Lincoln's words, which he believes are exposing the man as a proponent of slavery.
MikeM2608 2 months ago
Comment removed
MikeM2608 2 months ago
It may be noted, also, that the proclamation on applied to the "Rebel" states who had their own government set up with Davis as president not Lincoln.. Delaware and Maryland, 2 "Northern" states, were the last 2 states to give up slavery, after the war was over..Furthermore, the Yankee states (primely New York and Road Iseland) were importing the slaves to sell to owners. Several nothern states (Ohio and Illinois for example) made laws against freed slaves moveing in to protect "white workers".
sonotarockstar 4 months ago
@sonotarockstar
It may also be noted that the EP applied to the Rebel States who were in REBELLION and was recognized as a shifting of war efforts to include The Ending of Slavery along with Preserving the Union. Lincoln makes this especially clear in the Gettysburg address
*Yankee states (NY & RI) were importing the slaves to sell to owners.*
That may make sense in 1806, however the in 1807, the Atlantic Slave Trade was effectively ended.
*OH & IL made laws*
Context and evidence. Please.
MikeM2608 3 months ago
@MikeM2608 Just now reading your reply. It may take awhile for me to pull everything togethor and I hope you don't mind waiting. Lol, even if you do, I'm getting my stuff togethor so I'll be ready in the future. In all honesty, I'm looking at the book I got the R.I and N.Y. bit from and it may be referring to leagal AND illegal trade which would make since in context with your statement although it gives the year 1808. Anyways, I'll include eveything upon return. Thanks.
sonotarockstar 3 months ago
@MikeM2608 Oh, for the first point. My point was that Lincoln's EP applied to a seperate nation (the C.S.,A) which had established it's own goernment and constitution. And yet, he neglects to free all the slaves in his own nation first which he does have power over. I will allow that the C.S.A was haveing trouble being recognized (namely by Britain and France). I'll give years each state freed slaves if needed next time.
sonotarockstar 3 months ago
@sonotarockstar
*My point was that Lincoln's EP applied to a seperate nation*
This is strictly a revisionist opinion. Among others, The Supreme Court, Constitutional Lawyers and the President say otherwise. Hell, James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, was against secession. The states were in rebellion, and Lincoln acknowledged powers granted to the Executive Office during an insurrection to draft and put into action, the EP.
MikeM2608 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MikeM2608
WRONG! Madison upheld each state as a popularly sovereign nation unto itself.
You're talking out of your ass, there IS no power delegated to the federal government BY the states to COERCE them--- that's an OXYMORON.
As Madison wrote: "On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."
SovereignStatesman 2 months ago
@sonotarockstar
*And yet, he neglects to free all the slaves in his own nation first which he does have power over.*
This is where you fail to understand the Constitution. (Ugh, I'm sounding like a Libertarian) Without an Amendment (which he pushed for) he did not have the power to free the slaves, in states that were not in rebellion.In dealing with states that seceded, as Com. in Chief of the Army and Navy, under Article II, section 2 of the US Cons. Lincoln had the authority.
MikeM2608 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MikeM2608
Actually sovereign states cannot "rebel," that's a bit of artificial trumpery invented by charlatans to justify military coercion against sovereign nations.
SovereignStatesman 2 months ago
The Emancipation Proclamation did not free anyone. Read it and check the facts. As long as you were loyal to the Federal government you could still own slaves. Also don't forget that the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't written until two and a half years into the war. Also don't forget that the South fought side by side with blacks. The North segregated it's troops. It was all about money. Lincoln had raised tariffs on Southern goods to 43% from 20% and the South paid 83% of taxes.
jeremy347123 4 months ago
@jeremy347123
*The Emancipation Proclamation did not free anyone. Read it and check the facts.*
I'd suggest you follow your own "advice" and read. I realize that facts are only good to a Libertarian, if they are smudged or partial, but give it a shot. 10,000 slaves in NC, & 20,000 in SC were freed immediately following the EP.
Runaway slaves of whom had previously been held by the Union Army as "contraband of war;" were told they were free to leave when the EP took effect.
MikeM2608 4 months ago
*Also don't forget that the EP wasn't written until two and a half years into the war.*
*facepalm*
Lincoln acknowledged he did not have the power, at the time of his election, to free the slaves. His stated goal was to preserve the Union
AGAIN. You Libertarians want Lincoln to usurp extraordinary executive powers in the name of emancipating slaves, while eschewing any sort of presidential power in prosecuting the very civil war that made emancipation possible.
Well, which is it?
MikeM2608 4 months ago
*Also don't forget that the South fought side by side with blacks.*
Really? Where is the evidence of this? If you actually read something other than slanted revisionist rhetoric, you'd know, the historical record for primary evidence of the black soldiers fighting for the South, can only be concluded that the support for such a claim is scanty at best. Yet, you have it written as fact.
Let me guess. Somebody has been reading "The South was Right" by the Kennedy Brothers? I thought so
MikeM2608 4 months ago
@jeremy347123
*It was all about money. Lincoln had raised tariffs on Southern goods to 43% from 20% and the South paid 83% of taxes.*
It was all about money? Nothing to do with slavery? Hilarious. The South rebelled over the politics and ecomomics of slavery. I see you have your Libertarian math 43%, 20% 83%. That is from what? The Real Lincoln? South was Right?
This was summed up eloquently be Runstedt1 already. I'll repost it for you.
MikeM2608 4 months ago
1.
And most of the sea trade happened in the North as the port facilities there far outstripped those in any southern port. "U.S. foreign trade rose in value from $134 million in 1830 to $318 million in 1850. It would triple again in the 1850s. Between two-thirds and three-fourths of those imports entered through the port of New York. Which meant that any trading the South did, had to go through New York. Trade from Charleston and Savannah during this period was stagnant.
MikeM2608 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2.
The total shipping entered from foreign countries in 1851 in the port of Charleston was 92,000 tons, in the port of New York, 1,448,000. You'd find relatively little tariff money coming in from Charleston. According to a Treasury report, the net revenue of all the ports of South Carolina during 1859 was a mere $234,237; during 1860 it was $309,222" (of 318 Million!)
MikeM2608 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3.
And the tariffs were not an issue anyway, tariffs were at their lowest since 1828 and the South had written the current Tariff policy of 1857 and it had majority Southern support and the South still had enough power in congress to prevent drastically higher tariffs. And even then this all fails to notice
MikeM2608 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4.
WHY some in the South favored Higher tariffs. (But certainly not all in the South as it was itself divided on the issue, those areas that grew props such as Sugar or rice that had foreign competition actually favored higher tariffs) The reason behind the tariff issue itself is related to slavery and the backward Southern slave economy. For as already stated:
MikeM2608 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5.
"Second, when people talk about conflicting economic systems, obviously the root of the conflict was that the South's economic system was based upon plantation slavery.
So one can't talk about different economic systems without once again coming back to the issue of slavery. That was fundamental to what the South was about."
MikeM2608 4 months ago
6.
"Within the profession there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war. To the extent within the profession there's a debate about this, people will talk about other causal factors such as economic factors creating secession and the Civil War, but those economic factors always come down to a slave economy"
MikeM2608 4 months ago
Comment removed
MikeM2608 4 months ago
Comment removed
MikeM2608 4 months ago
Comment removed
MikeM2608 4 months ago
Comment removed
MikeM2608 4 months ago
Comment removed
MikeM2608 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1. Why is it that Pro C.S people always rant on the Corwin Amendment, when in the C.S Constitution has the same thing as the Corwin Amendment.
2. If States' Rights was the cause why did the Declaration of Causes of Secession state they did not what Northern States nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act?
3. States' Rights for what?
4. Why rant on Lincoln suspending Habeas corpus when the C.S Constitution allows that, in fact Davis did it too!
P.S-I was once 110% pro C.S these and more added doubt
SunofAusterlitz1805 5 months ago
It's absolutely mind numbing that with all the documented proof, quotes, papers, speeches, debates, declarations, not to mention the CSA's own constitution, that the Kool-Aid drinking revisionists still can't quite grasp that the Civil War was rooted in slavery.
Basically, according to arm-chair-revisionist-fantasy-history-experts, the southern states and politicians were somehow lying in their assertions that slavery was the root of the war.
I think I'll go by the documented proof/facts.
MikeM2608 5 months ago
@MikeM2608 So you weren't watching any of the quotes carved into the granite on the Lincoln memorial?
HammerOvThor 5 months ago
Comment removed
MikeM2608 5 months ago
@MikeM2608 Comment removed? Why? Well he said that if he could preserve the union without freeing any slave, that he would do it. That means that if he could've preserved the union without freeing a slave, that he would've done it. That means that he cared about preserving the union, not freeing slaves. Anything else I can help you with?
HammerOvThor 5 months ago
Lincoln acknowledged he did not have the power, at the time to free the slaves. Was he against the institution of slavery? Yes. Absolutely, read his comprehensive writings, not what somebody like Dilorenzo tells you he said.
As said before. You Libertarians are great, you want Lincoln to usurp extraordinary executive powers in the name of emancipating slaves, while eschewing any sort of presidential power in prosecuting the very civil war that made emancipation possible.
Well, which is it?
MikeM2608 5 months ago
Comment removed
MikeM2608 5 months ago
Comment removed
MikeM2608 5 months ago
Lincoln's priority at 1st was to preserve the Union. "blkphoto" takes a few words of one particular speech, takes it out of context, then ignorantly and erroneously deduces that Lincoln was in support of slavery. "I have to say not."
Once again, read Lincoln's comprehensive writings. If you do, ONLY one of two things would happen. 1. You would see reality, that AL was against slavery, OR 2. Youd still say he supported slavery, WHICH would mean you either didn't read or are a liar, or both
MikeM2608 5 months ago
Comment removed
MikeM2608 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HammerOvThor
Nope. Please explain to me what I missed.
I did happen to watch the part where "blkphoto" erroneously believed he could characterize the life and beliefs of Abraham Lincoln as well as know what his thoughts were, based on two speeches engraved on the memorial, taking what he said out of context.
But, go ahead. Humor me.
MikeM2608 5 months ago 4
He only did it because it all boiled down to money, that is it not about slavery but states rights being bullied by the North
1998disco72 5 months ago
Here we go again.
It all "boiled down" to slavery. The economics and politics of slavery.
Why did the states reference slavery in their Declarations of Rebellion if it had "nothing" to do with the south seceding? It cracks me up, the southern states & politicians themselves absolutely assert secession was over slavery, yet revisionists somehow conveniently over look this.
If it was all about states rights why didn't the CSA include this perceived "right" to secede in their own Constitution?
MikeM2608 5 months ago
you sure are one happy black man!
assman255 6 months ago
Nice job with the insults. Well done sir. Clearly you have demonstrated you are incapable of handling comprehending basic facts of history and need to rely on opinions of axe grinding Lincoln hating Libertarians. If anybody is a sheep, it is you. Enjoy the Kool-Aid.
Napolitano? He wanted Lincoln to usurp extraordinary executive powers in the name of emancipating slaves, while eschewing any sort of presidential power in prosecuting the very civil war that made emancipation possible.
MikeM2608 7 months ago
Try again. Where's this evidence of Lincoln's desperate evil white supremacist racist scheming to get rid of all the newly freed blacks in the last days of life?
Try DiLorenzo. No wait. He's panned by any historian who isn't a brain washed Libertarian.
How about the Kennedy Brothers? Well, they probably aren't too reliable for an unbiased source either as they seem to believe the slaves were happy in their opinion-laced-fact-smudged/omitted mess, "The South was Right."
MikeM2608 7 months ago
@MikeM2608 Get them MikeM - these Hillbillies are simple, and so easily brainwashed by falseness, there is a pathetic quality to them. They write nonsense about Lincoln, because they see the evil Federal Government taking the innocent south by force - though they all seem to forget it is the south that fired the first shot. Anyway, give the inbreds hell.
kumlerah 6 months ago
@kumlerah
Thanks.
Yeah, before that evil statist Lincoln clawed and tentacled his way to power the south was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the slaves danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.
Slavery would have ended magically, through paid emancipation, since it happened in other countries in completely different times under absolutely different economic, political and social circumstances.
MikeM2608 6 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@MikeM2608
The states are sovereign nations, and are voluntary members of an international federal republic. So your opinion is meaningless.
SovereignStatesman 2 months ago
By the way, thanks for posting this video. Anytime somebody evokes a discussion about racism's history and especially the political economy of racism, I think we are taking a step toward becoming a better country of people.
greenanarchyify 7 months ago
FYI: "Abolitionism" refers not generally to a vague moral objection to slavery, but rather a historically political stance and call to direct action in order that slavery as a legal and economic institution be dismantled. In other words, somebody could dislike slavery and simultaneously not be an abolitionist in the same way that today somebody could enjoy racial diversity and simultaneously not be an anti-racism activist. True, Lincolns words are confusing, but not if they are taken in context.
greenanarchyify 7 months ago
In fact, slaves were not freed until MONTHS after he died. He had no intention to free the slaves, he was a tyrantical big government guy who waged an illegal war to "restore the union." The sad fact is that the Confederacy had just as much right to secede as the Colonies did to leave the King. In fact, it is a Constitutional right for the states to be able to leave if they believe their state rights were being destroyed by a strong central government.
richard4president 7 months ago
Hey, good video. I do think you are wrong on some things though. He did not free the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. I do not believe 1 single slave was freed because of that. Note that Lincoln allowed Union states to keep slaves as well as areas that the Union had taken by force. He also offered the Confederate states to come back to the Union with the fact they could keep their slaves. So the only slaves freed were southern, but he wasn't their president. So no slaves freed.
richard4president 7 months ago
In fact, he's such an idiot that he's pretending not to be watching these debates. He's such a moron. He's so disgustingly idiotic that the only way I can remotely begin to retreat from the fact that he's a rep of the missing link, is for his apology. Not to me, but to our greatest president. If he can't do that, then this is absolute proof that he is indeed a relic of the age that crossed over.
mike3940 8 months ago
@mike3940 Gotta kill a lotta people, especially Americans, to be a 'great' president, and so I agree with you in that by that criterion, 'Honest' Abe was probably our 'greatest'. I mean, were he not so 'great', his actions would prove him to be an evil, evil man, rather than a national hero.
rsimpson69 7 months ago
@rsimpson69
Is that what you think? That's probably why you'll never be a janitor, never mind a president. I bet that after you were done typing all of that you needed to take a nap.
mike3940 7 months ago
But this moron blkphoto makes me want to puke. He's such an idiot.
mike3940 8 months ago
@mike3940 Agreed. blkphoto has so little knowledge. Spewing garbage about a leader who took a huge risk to help blkphoto's race, and yet all he can do is complain. The man - Lincoln, died, and probably his son died due to moving to DC, to .... emancipate... . Emancipate - look it up blkphoto, I know it is a big word and all.
kumlerah 7 months ago
@kumlerah .... The Emancipation? Slaves weren't freed til MONTHS after Lincoln was DEAD. Not 1 single slave was freed because of the "Emancipation Proclamation". Note that Lincoln allowed Union states to keep slaves as well as areas that the Union had taken by force. He also offered the Confederate states to come back to the Union with the fact they could keep their slaves. So the only slaves freed were southern, but he wasn't their president. So no slaves freed.
richard4president 7 months ago
@richard4president
***The Emancipation? Slaves weren't freed til MONTHS after Lincoln was DEAD. Not 1 single slave was freed because of the "Emancipation Proclamation".***
Really? Might want to check up on Union occupied NC and the Sea Islands of SC, alone. Slaves were freed IMMEDIATELY following the EP. Some estimates at 20,000+. True, the EP only freed slaves in states of rebellion but it was a step toward total abolition. To state "no slaves were freed" is just simply erroneous.
MikeM2608 7 months ago
@MikeM2608 go read a book queer.
richard4president 7 months ago
***go read a book queer.***
Spoken like a true revisionist with only pathetic half witted insults to back up his Swiss Cheese knowledge of history. By the way I have read the revisionist fantasy history books too.
Where was it discovered Lincoln wanted to deport all blacks until his dying days? Show it. If you are referring to Gen. Butlers widely discredited accusations written YEARS after the fact. Try again. Days before his death Lincoln gave a speech supporting suffrage for blacks.
MikeM2608 7 months ago
@MikeM2608 Go look at Judge Napolitano's video about the "Lincoln Myth." I didn't insult you, did I? If you are really gay, as you are, the queer statement just affirms that, stupid queer.
It's not my fault you believe in a baked up myth that Abraham Lincoln was some hero. You are a pathetic sheep. Not worthy of anything else you pathetic troll.
You can keep making up facts for your argument, everyone sees it.
richard4president 7 months ago
@richard4president - He was in the middle of a Civil War. As if every action had to be immediate. Obviously he didn't want to splinter the alliance with Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri. His last speech was given on the abolishment of slavery and giving the black man the right to vote. The speech that he caused Booth to assassinate him, remember that one?
kumlerah 7 months ago
@kumlerah Remember that he also wanted to deport all African-Americans? Recently it's been discovered that he wished to do that til his dying days and you can't change that fact. He was a racist. End of story, he was just a "politician" who did what he thought would get him further politically and "punish" the rebel states.
richard4president 7 months ago
@ZackAttack261 My goodness, reading your grammar AssAttack261, gives he head pain. You splodge out tripe of such moronic proportions. The same old lies that I read elsewhere, simply because you read them, and thought they were right. "The men from the fort told them to leave" - what the hell does that mean? Fort Sumter was a US Federal Fort. Would we leave Fort Bragg if Pakistan told us to? Learn how to use witch also, wrong content. Yours uses a broom.
kumlerah 8 months ago
Lincoln was NOT an Abolitionist. He was a WHIG Republican.
FACT.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
Yea! The moron realed in a fact!... so what? He was a Whig Republican and he wasn't an abolitionist. So what? What's your point? As a Whig Republican he was ending all expansion of slavery in ANY new Federal territory, but felt he had no Constitutional right to end it where it already existed.
mike3940 8 months ago 2
@mike3940
"The moron realed in a fact!... "
BWAHAHAHAHAA if you're going to call "moron" you might want to spell right.
As for the Constiution, Lincoln twisted it any way he pleased, claiming it was a NATIONAL constitution rather than federal; he even plotted to overturn the supreme court when they didn't please his whim on Dred Scott.
But you're too much of a fucking MORON to underdstand that one basic fact-- that you came out your momma's asshole-- so I shun one more fool.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
President Lincoln swore to protect and defend the Constitution, not participate in an election and then eject upon learning the outcome wasn't favorable to the party involved. True, his actions were 'questionable' while congress was adjourned, but what your neo-conf papers didn't tell you is that when Congress went back into session, after Southern secession, they approved everything he did...Everything...which made everything he did legal under the Constitution, and, your mental.
mike3940 8 months ago 2
@mike3940
Gawd, you are just such an ignorant moron with your head so far up Lincoln's ass that you'll never stop sniffing his farts, so there'd no point in confusing you with facts.
The Constitution is FEDERAL, NOT NATIONAL.
Until you pull your head out of your ass and realize this one single fact, you'll clearly have your head wedged so far up your ass that you approve mass-murdering imperialism like any Neo-nazi.
Zig heil, turd.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
I done with you moron. If you had a brain, you'd tip over.
mike3940 8 months ago 2
@mike3940
Damn right you're done, stick a fork in your ass because I TOASTED it!
Look up FEDERAL REPUBLIC vs. SOVEREIGN STATE.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
You're pathetic. Federal Republics and Sovereign States are one thing. Slavery and the attempt to destroy a nation over slavery is another, ok moron. You've toasted nothing and you're disgusting.
mike3940 8 months ago 2
@mike3940
The USA was never a nation, it was a FEDERAL REPUBLIC of nations.
This just shows why you don't have a clue what you're talking about-- you believe what you were brainwashed with in public schools, in defiance of BASIC FACTS.
What part of "Free, sovereign and independent STATES" do you NOT understand?
That means each state is a SOVERIEGN NATION unto itself, under its PEOPLE, not its government..
This shows you don't have the knowledge to discuss this with ANY intelligence.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
So what? What does all of this have to do with slavery, treason, attacks on military installations, arsenals, and armories, and extreme intimidation to loyal Americans? It has nothing to do with it and everything to do with a certain faction that believes they have a God given right to ignore the law of the land which is until we all decided differently, the Constitution. You can't fire on an American installation without expecting retaliation.
mike3940 8 months ago 2
@mike3940
Ok, REAL slow, so you can understand it:
THE SECEDING STATES WERE SOVEREIGN NATIONS UNTO THEMSELVES, by LAW.
Now, what part of NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, do you NOT understand?
Even YOU can't be that fucking stupid not to undertand it.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
Real slow, you can't bomb an American installation without retaliation. And you can't leave this nation without the consent of all concerned, especially for the purpose of expanding the institution that the duly elected president was elected to retain, and election that all parties participated in. As proven in President Lincoln's administration, you just can't do that you idiot, and like I said, I'm done with you. You are a moron and need therapy. Bye jackass.
mike3940 8 months ago
@mike3940
You ARE real slow.
Treaty of Paris, Article I:
"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states."
Get that? EACH STATE was a nation unto itself-- NOT collectively.
You are ignorant and stupid.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
*EACH STATE was a nation unto itself*
You are referring to a treaty. Site in the UNITED states constitution where is affirms that each state is in fact, a Sovereign Nation unto it's own.
Also, site in the Constitution where the document gives power to those with Political and Economical Pull in a state to speak for the PEOPLE and succeed from the Union. Succession wasn't even held to popular vote except in TX. Shouldn't the people have had their say?
MikeM2608 8 months ago
Sorry
Secede, not succeed. Spell check.
MikeM2608 8 months ago
@MikeM2608
You're just too ignorant and stupid to know what you're talking about, and I don't feel like educating you.
Ta.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
I guess I had to figure that would be the ignorant response I'd get. I didn't insult you. I asked you 2 simple questions that you clearly have shown you are incapable of answering.
Well, I sincerely apologize for bringing up questions/facts and having them get in the way of your delusions. I'm of the hope one of these days you Libertarians will be able to spin this where your revised history doesn't look like a slice of swiss cheese.
All the best with the brainwashing,
MM
MikeM2608 8 months ago
@MikeM2608
Yes, you WOULD think that... comes from having your head up yhour ass.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
Well educate me then. You are basing your whole fallacious argument on the Constitution yet, you are unable to point out where it affirms the that each state is a sovereign nation unto their own.
Also, if the south was so adamant about their "right" to just leave when the people of economic and political powers don't agree with the federal government. Why wasn't this right clearly defined in their own Constitution? It was omitted.
Well, go ahead. Educate me.
MikeM2608 8 months ago
@MikeM2608
Ignorance of the evidence is no excuse, do your own homework.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@MikeM2608
Likewise, Confucius says that a fool can ask more questions in seven seconds than a wise man can answer in seven years; you prove yourself a fool here, since your questions prove your general ignorance on the subject, which prove that you simply lack the knowledge or intelligence to be able to discuss the subject with any coherence whatsoever.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
Ah the Confucius root. Good excuse. Nobody will realize you don't know what you're talking about if you bring up a quote from some philosopher. Well done.
While you busy looking up quotes, try reading a up a bit on the history. Well, real history. You may look less foolish.
Good luck
MM
MikeM2608 8 months ago
Comment removed
postalmeter 8 months ago
@MikeM2608
No, your arguments are simply rife with logical fallacies. For example, saying "Site in the UNITED states constitution where is affirms that each state is in fact, a Sovereign Nation unto it's own" assumes without warrant that the constituiton is some type of national document, while you're wholly ignorant of the international law behind the fact that the Treaty of Paris makes eaach state a sovereign nation via the recognition as such by two or more states.
So you're a shit-brain.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
Go back and read what you have written on here.You were basing your argument on the Constitution and this perceived "right" for the States to just leave the Union. Now you are trolling up the Treaty of Paris?
So, the Civil War was based on the powers vested to Southern States by the Treaty of Paris? The Treaty of Paris stated the each state was free and Sovereign over England's rule. How about u try reading the rest of it where it refers to the United States, as THE UNITED STATES
MikeM2608 8 months ago
@MikeM2608
"You were basing your argument on the Constitution and this perceived "right" for the States to just leave the Union." What are you smoking, son?
Where did I EVER say that the right to secede is in the Constitution?
This just proves how you are seeing things that aren't there.
Pull your pants up and SAY NO TO CRACK!
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
**Where did I EVER say that the right to secede is in the Constitution?**
You said "THE SECEDING STATES WERE SOVEREIGN NATIONS UNTO THEMSELVES, by LAW."
What law(s) could you possibly be referring to other then the fundamental principles and laws of the Constitution. Are you back to trolling up the Trty of Paris again as your basis for this law? How about the Mayflower Compact? Magna Carta?
The Constitution applies to the Federal Government and the States. You don't know this?
MikeM2608 8 months ago
@MikeM2608
No, it says "the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."
It also acknowledges them to be "free, sovereign and independent STATES."
You know STATES-- as in PLURAL?
So "the United States" is clearly NOT recognized by two or more sovereign nations one single sovereign nation-- but THIRTEEN.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
You left out the part where it Addresses "His Majesty." In the TREATY OF PARIS, this "free and Independent" statement you keep tantrumming about is to the KING. It's NOT a resolution that the states are independent sovereign nations of each other.
And clearly you still have not read the rest of it, because if you had, the rest of the treaty refers to the states as a whole, The United States.
Try reading. Or have somebody other then a Libertarian read to you.
MikeM2608 8 months ago
@MikeM2608
They were never dependent ON each other, moron! The states DELEGATED POWERS TO CONGRESS in the Articles of Confederation to be commonly represented by congress-- but they ALSO retained their sovereignty, freedom and independence therein!
FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES are sovereign nations, independent of EVERYTHING!
After that, it doesn't MATTER what it says!
This is what you do every time, pulling shit out of your ass and flinging it like it's the God's truth.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
For reference:
A Sovereign nation has the power to do EVERYTHING necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations. The sovereignty of a state is determined with reference to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
That being said. I hate that the Sovereign Nation of Rhode Island keeps declaring war on France.
MikeM2608 8 months ago
Needless to say, I'm done talking to you, having proved you an utterly hopeless ignoramus and pseudo-intellectual.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
***Needless to say, I'm done talking to you***
Well you've done an excellent job at flailing around vomitting out incomplete, erroneous and out of context information for your revisionist fallacious history.
You've proven nothing other then you are incapable of answering any questions when you're brought up to task on it because you have no answers.
You have proven you can only throw a tantrum and write up some juvenile pathetic attempt at an insult.
Thanks though, it was fun
MikeM2608 8 months ago
It's funny, you Libertarians start vomiting up some revisionist rhetoric, yet when anybody questions you, 1 of 3 things happen. NONE of which is the actual answering of the question, because your house of cards knowledge just doesn't allow you to do so. Go ahead and feel free to prove me right.
1 You throw some juvenile insult
2 You say you "don't have the time"
3 You troll up some unrelated topic
It's like clockwork.
Don't bother with reality or those pesky facts, they just get in the way.
MikeM2608 8 months ago
@MikeM2608
Er, no, the above proves that I TRIED to answer your lame arguments, many times-- but you just kept spewing out more and more ignorance until you proved yourself a hopeless case who has no interest in the truth, but simply being an evasive liar and troll.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
Ok, this it the last time I'm talking to your pathetic ass because the shit you spew can't be coming from your face. The Treaty of Paris originated before our Constitution in which we created "a more perfect Union" until you came along you dingbat.
mike3940 8 months ago
Slavery, as stated by Lincoln with his own speeches, was just a stepping stone for his effort to create a stronger central government. He has also stated that he is in favor of the white race being superior to the black race. Lincoln was a true politician, a smooth talker.
TheRealRockgod 8 months ago
@TheRealRockgod
Slavery was a STRAWMAN of convenience to put a halo on Northern treachery and aggression against sovereign nations through lies and atrocity. Lincoln was a true sociopath, a man who claimed that truth was subjective to the ends of victory by any means.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
You're delusional and should seek medical attention. President Lincoln is understood not only by most Americans, but by this nations greatest and most noted historians, North AND South, that President Lincoln in a tally of our 10 greatest presidents ranks as our GREATEST president. You're a moron and you've been driving down the wrong roads, silly.
mike3940 8 months ago
@mike3940
OMG this morn ACTUALLY thinks that historical facts can be determined by mob rule afterward!
BWAAHHAHAHAHHAHAAHA
ROTFLMAO
postalmeter 8 months ago
Why is it bad? Because they're lowering the bar as to the intensity of what it will take to revisit the tumultuous times that we experienced in the 1860's. Those were horrible moments in American history, and America needs to understand, north and south, the truth about the mid-nineteenth century's politics and why we were so mad at each other that we took up arms and slaughtered one another. The problem is the North here and now could care less about 150 years ago when they're trying to eat.
mike3940 8 months ago
@mike3940
Er, no.
The South correctly recognized that each state was a sovereign nation unto itself, and the North egregiously lied and violated its oath to RESPECT his common sovereignt among the states, instead claiming that they had national authority over the states; and they proceeded to use the military forces entrusted to them for the express purpose of DEFENDING this respective sovereignty, in order to DESTROY it.
Understand? Or are you too stupid?
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter : I understand that you're a moron that probably has no teeth, but that's besides the point...on your head from that cone hat they gave you at your last meeting.
mike3940 8 months ago
@mike3940
Gotcha.. you're FAR too stupid.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
Ya, ok. And you've received your degree in genius at what postal branch? Come on, what's the population in the town you work? 500?
mike3940 8 months ago
@mike3940
Since you don't take issue with my statements of fact, you must be taken to concur.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter
Your statements...equate to horse shit, ok moron. Concurring with you to date is the equivalent of concurring with a donut. You live a life of fairytales and equate them as fact. You're an idiot. If you had a brain, you'd tip over. Any questions?
mike3940 8 months ago
@mike3940
Just one-- if your parents got divorced, would they still be brother and sister? LOL
I'd challenge you to a duel, but I don't play the banjo.
postalmeter 8 months ago
LOL...1861...Almost HALF the South's entire population are living in forced servituded.
1865...Those slaves are freed
Difference...Abraham Lincoln & the Union Army.
Historical fact. Not fiction.
UnionStatesHeritage 8 months ago
@UnionStatesHeritage 1861, Americans enjoyed the protection of the Bill of Rights. 2011, Americans no longer enjoy the basic rights enumerated in their founding documents.
Difference: Lincoln's murderous, imperialist example.
rsimpson69 8 months ago
and i`m having trouble posting comments for some reason. anyway the guy in the video is right!
**YES RIGHT**
imaStonesFan 9 months ago
**watch the fucking video***
imaStonesGirl1 9 months ago
blkphoto You are right. Thank you for the truth
imaStonesFan 9 months ago
@imaStonesFan ***You are right. Thank you for the truth ***
How is he right? Lincoln was against the morality of slavery. Look at the vast vast VAST majority of his writings, other than some cherry picked out of context quotes in books by that nut Dilorenzo or the axe grinding Kennedy Brothers.
His stated goal in his 1st Inauguration speech was to keep the Union together. He was always against slavery, even if ending it wasn't his first objective.
MikeM2608 9 months ago
@MikeM2608 Cause i know he is right! Lincoln even had slaves himself. He`s proving it to u right here and your blind.
imaStonesFan 9 months ago
@imaStonesFan ***Cause i know he is right!***
Way to back that up with facts.
***Lincoln even had slaves himself. ***
Huh? Well, now you have ZERO credibility. Even Lincoln hating Thomas Dilorenzo wouldn't write something as nonsensical as Lincoln actually owning slaves. Lincoln was fundamentally against slavery. Was ending slavery his 1st and only objective when he became president? Absolutely not.
There's revisionist history and then there's deluded history like what you have posted.
MikeM2608 9 months ago
@MikeM2608 @MikeM2608 @MikeM2608 *********Have u watched the video************
you starting to get on my nerves!
imaStonesGirl1 9 months ago
@imaStonesFan How many slaves did Lincoln own? When? Where did they live?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 9 months ago
You are not saying anything that historians haven't been saying the last 25 years, so you're not shocking anyone. Henry Louis Gates called Lincoln a "recovering racist" because he believed, like many white folks in Illinois who hadn't been around too much, that blacks were less intelligent. But meeting Frederick Douglass made him see the light! In the end he wanted to extend the vote to black veterans and educated black men. Lincoln was ALWAYS, throughout his life, morally opposed to slavery.
MsSelky 9 months ago
u are an idiot
rbmaserang 9 months ago
I already knew this, that emancipation was a tactic. But then i read history for pleasure.
what a pity america is so ignorant as to not know this plain fact of history.
that being so, well done sir, you do what is necessary
Strefanasha 10 months ago
You are right Larry - I wish there had never been a Lincoln, failure and all. Without him, I could walk down to the local slave auction, and buy you. Tie you to a try and horse whip you to death. That is after I purchased your mother, and had her gang raped to death. Yeah, that damned Lincoln spoiled everything, I agree. I just wish the Good old Dixie south was still going strong. Right Larry, that damned Lincoln took that away from us. Now where were we, lash 56 of 200.
kumlerah 10 months ago
@kumlerah Dude you are seriously funny not just for your ridiculous comments but your profound lack of understand of our country's history. I am glad people like you are not afraid to show that the ugliness of racism still exist because many people thought that after Obama was elected that racism was dead but there are still many ignorant racist people in the world too afraid to love people that look different than them. Good luck in life and God Bless.
blkphoto 10 months ago
@blkphoto Wow, abolutely clueless on the video or the comment. The fact a black man is comment ling on how Lincoln failed the black man, is absolutely the most ignorant item I have seen on Youtube. Here is another one dumb ass. I not only voted for Obama, I gave him money, and think he is doing a good job. If you cannot understand the facts presently, find a youtube on Spongebob and lay your comments there.
kumlerah 10 months ago 2
@kumlerah
That's odd...because the rest of Europe freed the slaves without a civil war.
tubo222555 8 months ago
Comment removed
postalmeter 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are right Larry - I wish there had never been a Lincoln, failure and all. Without him, I could walk down to the local slave auction, and buy you. Tie you to a try and horse whip you to death. That is after I purchased your mother, and had her gang raped to death. Yeah, that damned Lincoln spoiled everything, I agree. I just wish the Good old Dixie south was still going strong. Right Larry, that damned Lincoln took that away from us. Now where were we, lash 56 of 200.
kumlerah 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lewrockwell com / orig10 / sale6.1.1.html
fanadfilms 10 months ago
You are right Larry - I wish there had never been a Lincoln, failure and all. Without him, I could walk down to the local slave auction, and buy you. Tie you to a try and horse whip you to death. That is after I purchased your mother, and had her gang raped to death. Yeah, that damned Lincoln spoiled everything, I agree. I just wish the Good old Dixie south was still going strong. Right Larry, that damned Lincoln too that away from us. Now where were we, lash 56 of 200.
kumlerah 10 months ago 5
"The Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. We are to give a summary of our causes to the world, but mainly to the other Southern States, whose co-action we wish, and we must not make a fight on the Tariff question.... Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question."
L.M.Keitt, US CONGRESSMAN South Carolina Secession Declaration Debates
MikeM2608 10 months ago
*I've converted over three dozen black Democrats in the last year.*
Surely in the time it took to convert 36 people of their lifelong political beliefs, you must have become friends. Invite all 36 over to our discussion so we can bash Lincoln together.
You may have caused 36 people to leave the Libertarian party but given your abysmal performance here I can't fathom you converting anybody.
Anyway
Please answer my questions
Prove your conversions
Prove your self sustaining writing prowess
MikeM2608 10 months ago
4. Explain why you believe this right for states to start their own country is clearly defined in the US Constitution, yet none of the states except Texas dared put secession to a popular vote by the people. Seems the people should have got their say.
MikeM2608 10 months ago
Since you are busy pretending to be a paid writer here are a few easy ones.
1. Explain how the southern position for rebelling had nothing to do with slavery but slavery was clearly emphasized in their Declarations of Rebellion.
2. Explain how the South, the champions of the Secession, rebelled yet somehow omitted this "right" from their Cons.
3.Site examples in our Cons. where those with political & economic power in a State can speak for the people & just walk from the Union.
MikeM2608 10 months ago
For good measure. Once again. You won't address my questions. We'll run in circles with these fact-less slanted theories & cherry picked out of context quotes. Of course, not before, you will again insult my intelligence by asking something insulting in the form of a question so it's "not an insult."
Whatever insults you have ready in question form, take a moment and ask them to yourself because you have done ZERO to prove any point or show off this superhuman intelligence you think you have.
MikeM2608 10 months ago
@MikeM2608 It's amazing how people like you claim victory where it wasn't won. Lincoln barely made it back into office a second time. His war was illegal (he didn't even get a Declaration of War). He obliterated the Constitution. There is no other way to look at it. End of list.
fanadfilms 10 months ago
@fanadfilms I claim victory because 1. You haven't answered a single one of my questions. 2. You immediately start with the name calling - the mark of a loser. Show me where I'm wrong. You can't which is fine. But be a man about it.
You keep saying he destroyed the Union obliterated the Constitution. Great! Show me where. Show me how. Give examples. Facts. Not slanted opinions.
MikeM2608 10 months ago
@MikeM2608 I answered all that were worthy of being answered. I'm too busy to answer stupid questions.
fanadfilms 10 months ago
@fanadfilms *I answered all that were worthy of being answered. I'm too busy to answer stupid questions.*
You answered NONE because you have no answers. Just insults, which if you are going to insult at least be creative about it. For somebody who lies and claims to make their living off being a writer your insults are juvenile and one note, you sound like a child throwing a tantrum
Are you obtuse?
Can you read?
You're an idiot, moron, etc.
Moron High.
You clearly are a talented writer.
MikeM2608 10 months ago
Respond to this video...Oh, when I get back from my meeting, I'll answer that stupid one.
fanadfilms 10 months ago
Allow me to post for you since I can already tell what's coming. You won't answer my questions. You'll type the same question that I already answered. You will say I need to be educated, because you are clearly some scholar of slanted-house-of-cards-history which doesn't seem to quite rely on facts. Finally you will question whether I am obtuse, again. If possibly maybe you can even through in some grammar insult, I think some of my sentences ended in prepositions. Well, anyway. Don't dissapoint
MikeM2608 10 months ago
Great job!! You crushed that uneducated, pale copy of DiLorenzo. These hatemongers are too embarassed and politically correct to argue the real reason they support more slavery and segregation for black people, so they end up lecturing about American history and law, even though they've never studied either one in their entire life. It quickly shows---they can't answer even basic questions, and post outright lies about Lincoln in 1820 and the EP coming three years into the war. You stomped him!!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 10 months ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Thanks. In all honesty I should be thanking FanadVideos. He made me look like a psychic as I was able to predict exactly what he would say in response. He didn't disappoint.
It's funny I answered his questions. He couldn't answer one of mine. Then he goes to the pathetic route and starts questioning intelligence. It's the avenue the ignorant take when they're flailing and have nothing to add.
MikeM2608 10 months ago
@MikeM2608 I've encountered a thousand hatemongers who think getting a 10th grade education and skimming a summary of DiLorenzo qualifies them to straight-up lecture the world about American history and law with no uncertainty or intellectual modesty. It's Dunning-Kruger personified. When confronted with hard questions and the actual facts, most of them drop the act and start spraying the N-word. They should really start there and save everyone some time.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 10 months ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Exactly! It's funny they cherry pick quotes from AL and present them out of context to prove some ill-conceived theory. Yeah, we get it, Lincoln made note in his Inaugural that he wouldn't interfere with slavery. He also emphasized that his priority AT THAT TIME, was preserving the union. The south forced his hand
The best part is, Fanad I'm sure voted for Bob Barr who AT ONE TIME, was in favor of the patriot act and was key note speaker at the CCC, a white supremacy group
MikeM2608 10 months ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks So, how is it from the racist side of the aisle? You probably sided with Jackson when he wanted to invade SC over the abominable tariffs.
fanadfilms 10 months ago
Hey, retard --- the video's not about Jackson or the Tariff of Abominations. Now fuck off.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 10 months ago
@MikeM2608 You mean psychotic. You're a moron of the highest order. And Ron Paul (I do know him) is not against black people. Only Democrats are.
fanadfilms 10 months ago
@fanadfilms You're a moron of the highest order.
Again you show your lack of ability to back up your slanted clouded theories. Answer my questions. I answered yours. You are so over your head you can't even make one counter point. You can only insult because you have nothing.
I bet if you have one of the 36 black democrats you "converted" read our exchanges they'd go right back to being a democrat not wanted to side with somebody like you.
MikeM2608 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Wow, OMG, I bruise. I have a friend, close one. We're producing a film together. He's black. He's read the same things I have, and he's ANTI-Lincoln. He's not the only one. I've converted over three dozen black Democrats in the last year. As for the date, moron, I mistyped it. You probably missed that because you were too busy voting for higher taxes and more slavery. You are an idiot.
fanadfilms 10 months ago
@fanadfilms We're producing a film together.
BS. Show me one example that you have even received a dime for your writing let alone are able to support yourself. You pump you're chest out and say you make a living as a writer prove it. This freakin' internet is a problem for liars because it's so easy to double check facts.
*I've converted over three dozen black Democrats in the last year.*
It's really filling up in here. Prove it. You're full of it.
MikeM2608 10 months ago
@fanadfilms *I've converted over three dozen black Democrats in the last year.*
I had to go back to this tall tale. It's too good. You can call me what you'd like but you sir are a liar. If not. Prove it.
Did you say, "Hey guys, I know you're diggin' this Libertarian stuff but I gotta tell ya, if Libertarians would have been runnin' the show in the 1960's we defin