PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Founding Father of the American Leviathan State


BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 10:43 AM
Abraham Lincoln

Time for school.

For all those who love liberty and limited government....as well as those who need to be schooled about gargantuan government...here is a course that lays it all out.


The course consists of five lectures of 45-60 minutes, followed by 30-45 minutes of Q&A. Everything is online of course, and the lectures and discussions are archived, so that you don't have to be physically there from 5:30 to 7:00 for the next five Thursdays. Here are the nightly topics:

WEEK 1: THE TRUTH ABOUT LINCOLN, RACE, AND SLAVERY

WEEK 2: WHY LINCOLN WAS ELECTED: THE FOUNDING FATHER OF CRONY CAPITALISM

WEEK 3: WAGING WAR ON THE CONSTITUTION: THE LINCOLN DICTATORSHIP

WEEK 4: FOUNDING FATHER OF THE AMERICAN WARFARE STATE

WEEK 5: THE LINCOLN CURSE: DICTATORSHIP, MILITARISM, AND ECONOMIC FASCISM

http://academy.mises.org/courses/lincoln/

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 10:49 AM
The violence of the criticism aimed at Lincoln by the great men of his time on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line is startling. The breadth and depth of the spectacular prejudice against him is often shocking for its cruelty, intensity, and unrelenting vigor. The plain truth is that Mr. Lincoln was deeply reviled by many who knew him personally, and by hundreds of thousands who only knew of him.~ Larry Tagg, The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: The Story of America's Most Reviled President

The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln, which utilizes thousands of primary sources to make the case that no American president was more reviled by his contemporaries — at home and abroad — during his own lifetime than Abraham Lincoln was. Tagg is no Southern apologist: He is a native of Lincoln, Illinois, and profusely thanks Harold Holzer, one of the high priests of the Lincoln cult, in his acknowledgements. This book establishes Mr. Tagg as a card-carrying member of the cult.

How the Lincoln Myth was Hatched (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo191.html)

Bowser
05-05-2013, 10:50 AM
LMAO

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 10:52 AM
"Mainstream" Lincoln scholar David Donald remarked in Lincoln Reconsidered that Lincoln was wildly unpopular in his own time.

Edgar Lee Masters wrote of the near universal hatred of Lincoln by his contemporaries in Lincoln the Man.

Historian Frank L. Klement, author of Lincoln's Critics: The Copperheads of the North, spent a career researching and writing about Lincoln's Northern critics.

Freedom Under Lincoln by Dean Sprague and Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln by James Randall also discuss the critics of Lincoln's tyrannical and dictatorial behavior, although these authors do their best to whitewash it all.

from same link above

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 10:55 AM
Election of 1864 election Lincoln won with 55% of the vote—with the South OUT of the Union.
Plus federal troops were used to rig the elections by intimidating Democratic voters at the polling places.

The Civil War was immensely unpopular in the North.
Lincoln had to imprison so many dissenters and shut down most of the opposition press. He had to resort to the slavery of military conscription resulting in draft riots.

In the July, 1863 New York City draft riots Lincoln sent 15,000 troops who fired into the crowds, killing hundreds in the streets. Entire regiments of Union Army soldiers deserted on the eve of battle again and again, and tens of thousands — probably more — deserted.

The Daily Bell interview with Thomas DiLorenzo. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo186.html)

Prison Bitch
05-05-2013, 12:03 PM
It would've been interesting to see what would've happened to the South had they been allowed to leave freewill. Slavery wouldn't have lasted very long and certainly not in the face of massive technological advancements that made manpower farming irrelevant. Then what? What would they do? Ask back in?

cosmo20002
05-05-2013, 12:08 PM
It would've been interesting to see what would've happened to the South had they been allowed to leave freewill. Slavery wouldn't have lasted very long and certainly not in the face of massive technological advancements that made manpower farming irrelevant. Then what? What would they do? Ask back in?

This is BS. So what you are saying is that in the 1900s (or even today) there was no need for manual labor.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 01:12 PM
It would've been interesting to see what would've happened to the South had they been allowed to leave freewill.

As I said before, they'd likely have returned because it was in their best interests.
The thing is, seceding is a last check and balance on the federal govt. Can you imagine how much freer this country would have been if Lincoln didn't handled it his way. It sends a message.

Slavery wouldn't have lasted very long and certainly not in the face of massive technological advancements that made manpower farming irrelevant. Then what? What would they do? Ask back in?

That's the main point, made by those who say slaughtering 620,000 our our fellow country men t end slavery wasn't necessary. Please, go back and read earlier debates we've had here before on how slavery in that era was ended by the stroke of a pen in other countries. Dozens of countries. We're one of the few that slaughtered over it. One method was compensated emancipation. Although, if you read British Progs, they didn't even like that idea. They just prefer the force and violence of govt instead.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 01:26 PM
Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery by Jim Powell

British, Spanish, French and our own Northern states where slavery existed for over 200 years, ended slavery peacefully.

Slavery was also ended in Cuba, Brazil, and the Congo.

Page 241:

"[S]lavery was being eroded throughout the West by political trends and relentless agitation. The process would have continued and perhaps accelerated without the Civil War."

Powell argues that peaceful secession would have neutered the federal Fugitive Slave Act (which Lincoln strongly supported), creating a flood of runaway slaves that could not have been stopped and would have broken the back of the slave system. Echoing Spooner's arguments, he also says that the Confederacy would have been politically isolated by the rest of the world so that "there would have come a time, much sooner than most people might expect, when the combined effects of multiple antislavery strategies would have brought about the fairly peaceful collapse of Confederate slavery. If this seems doubtful, just recall how a combination of pressures led the mighty Soviet Union to collapse and vanish from the map — without a (nuclear) war."

Powell concludes that blacks in America would have achieved freedom and justice much sooner had emancipation been peaceful, as it had been in most of the rest of the world in the nineteenth century.


How the West (Except for the U.S.) Ended Slavery (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo146.html)

Donger
05-05-2013, 01:27 PM
Our state is a large sea animal?

Donger
05-05-2013, 01:29 PM
BEP, could you explain something...

Is there a substantial amount of hyperbole with your statements such as (paraphrasing), "We live in a totalitarian state!"?

Prison Bitch
05-05-2013, 03:13 PM
This is BS. So what you are saying is that in the 1900s (or even today) there was no need for manual labor.

Ever heard of the Industrial Revolution?

Loneiguana
05-05-2013, 04:44 PM
As I said before, they'd likely have returned because it was in their best interests.
The thing is, seceding is a last check and balance on the federal govt. Can you imagine how much freer this country would have been if Lincoln didn't handled it his way. It sends a message.



That's the main point, made by those who say slaughtering 620,000 our our fellow country men t end slavery wasn't necessary. Please, go back and read earlier debates we've had here before on how slavery in that era was ended by the stroke of a pen in other countries. Dozens of countries. We're one of the few that slaughtered over it. One method was compensated emancipation. Although, if you read British Progs, they didn't even like that idea. They just prefer the force and violence of govt instead.

Lincoln’s efforts to secure the peaceful abolition of slavery through a gradual, compensated emancipation with the option for freed blacks to relocate outside the United States were rebuffed by Confederates and most southern white unionists. Thus, the offer was made, and it was rejected. If Lincoln was the tyrant you makes him out to be, why did not the sixteenth president simply impose his solution on the nation?

If one is to ask whether it was necessary for so many Americans to have died to end slavery, one might with at least equal justice ask a similar question of Confederate leadership, who contributed to that death toll in order to preserve the enslavement of fellow human beings. Moreover, to attribute the costs of a war that no one could have foreseen in 1861 to the actions of a single individual while ignoring the presence of other actors seems to me to be problematic. One could with more than equal justice claim that Jefferson Davis was willing to sacrifice hundred of thousands of lives to preserve slavery. Nor do you appear to care about the continued suffering of slaves or their prolonged enslavement had the Confederacy survived.

cosmo20002
05-05-2013, 05:19 PM
Ever heard of the Industrial Revolution?

Yes I have. Have you ever heard that manual labor was still necessary throughout the Industrial Revolution, up to and including the present day?

Prison Bitch
05-05-2013, 07:36 PM
Yes I have. Have you ever heard that manual labor was still necessary throughout the Industrial Revolution, up to and including the present day?

Paid or slave?

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 07:46 PM
Lincoln’s efforts to secure the peaceful abolition of slavery through a gradual, compensated emancipation with the option for freed blacks to relocate outside the United States were rebuffed by Confederates and most southern white unionists. Thus, the offer was made, and it was rejected. If Lincoln was the tyrant you makes him out to be, why did not the sixteenth president simply impose his solution on the nation?

If one is to ask whether it was necessary for so many Americans to have died to end slavery, one might with at least equal justice ask a similar question of Confederate leadership, who contributed to that death toll in order to preserve the enslavement of fellow human beings. Moreover, to attribute the costs of a war that no one could have foreseen in 1861 to the actions of a single individual while ignoring the presence of other actors seems to me to be problematic. One could with more than equal justice claim that Jefferson Davis was willing to sacrifice hundred of thousands of lives to preserve slavery. Nor do you appear to care about the continued suffering of slaves or their prolonged enslavement had the Confederacy survived.

Lincoln paid lip service to various compensated emancipation plans; primarily in the border states. He even proposed a compensated emancipation bill (combined with colonization) in 1862. He failed to see these through.

He failed to use legendary political skills and rhetorical gifts to accomplish this and still resorted to warfare that killed civilians,burned entire towns populated only by civilians, rape, and the executing of civilians all of which violated international law, in a war he micromanaged.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2013, 08:12 PM
BTW, loneiguana, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America prohibited the importation of slaves (Article I, Section 9). There's a primary source for ya'!

There were no fugitive slave laws in neighboring states that would return runaway slaves to their owners. Nor would any escaping to the north have to be returned. This means the value of slaves as property would have dropped as the costs to guard them would increase. Between a place to escape,increased costs to prevent escape slavery and a restriction on importation slavery would not be sustainable

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 06:33 AM
Lincoln paid lip service to various compensated emancipation plans; primarily in the border states. He even proposed a compensated emancipation bill (combined with colonization) in 1862. He failed to see these through.

He failed to use legendary political skills and rhetorical gifts to accomplish this and still resorted to warfare that killed civilians,burned entire towns populated only by civilians, rape, and the executing of civilians all of which violated international law, in a war he micromanaged.


So you are blaming Lincoln for the South's refusal to end slavery peacefully?

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 06:40 AM
BTW, loneiguana, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America prohibited the importation of slaves (Article I, Section 9). There's a primary source for ya'!

There were no fugitive slave laws in neighboring states that would return runaway slaves to their owners. Nor would any escaping to the north have to be returned. This means the value of slaves as property would have dropped as the costs to guard them would increase. Between a place to escape,increased costs to prevent escape slavery and a restriction on importation slavery would not be sustainable

First, the Confederates didn't need to import slaves. The American slave trade (between states) was booming in the middle of 1800's. This point is irrelevant. Try actually understanding history, not parroting someone elses BS.

Is Your entire argument is that slavery would have ended because escaped slaves could run away to the north?

One, slaves were hardly guarded, so no increase in cost.

two, what increased cost to prevent slaves from escaping

three, slaves were not imported at this time within the Confederate, Slaves were born raised and traded within the south. The south had its own slave trade.

Four, what makes you think the North (still racist) would accept escaped slaves in large numbers? Evidence from the Civil War shows this to be problematic.

Amnorix
05-06-2013, 06:58 AM
Election of 1864 election Lincoln won with 55% of the vote—with the South OUT of the Union.

Right, Lincoln was unpopular in the South. I'm sure that's not exactly newsworthy.

As for the rest, there's nothing like taking a few factoids here and there and painting a wildly false picture with them. It's like giving you two pieces from a puzzle of a Rembrandt and you explaining how, if you hold them just right, it's actually two pieces of a Dora the Explorer picture.

Amnorix
05-06-2013, 07:00 AM
It would've been interesting to see what would've happened to the South had they been allowed to leave freewill. Slavery wouldn't have lasted very long and certainly not in the face of massive technological advancements that made manpower farming irrelevant. Then what? What would they do? Ask back in?


The issue is that slavery was the bedrock on which the South's entire social and economic system was built. If you think slavery would've been gone by, say, 1880, that's ridiculous. At some point, way down the road, who knows.

But it hardly matters. The South rose up in rebellion to fight for and save slavery. The North didn't fight to end it, primarily, but if anyone was at fault for fighting over slavery, it's the South. If they could've known that soon slavery would be economically undesirable (arguably it was already, but the South was far too blind to see that), maybe they don't rebel, but we'll never know.

Amnorix
05-06-2013, 07:05 AM
As I said before, they'd likely have returned because it was in their best interests.

Right, because two countries merge all the time because it's "in their best interests." I'm sure the politicians of both countries would be glad to risk their power and wealth by merging countries.

Oh wait, actually, that's absurd, but then so are you.


That's the main point, made by those who say slaughtering 620,000 our our fellow country men t end slavery wasn't necessary. Please, go back and read earlier debates we've had here before on how slavery in that era was ended by the stroke of a pen in other countries. Dozens of countries. We're one of the few that slaughtered over it. One method was compensated emancipation. Although, if you read British Progs, they didn't even like that idea. They just prefer the force and violence of govt instead.


The fact that the South seceded and then fought a ruinous war for the EXPRESS STATED purpose of preserving slavery tells me all I need to know about how likely it was that the South would agree to end slavery "by the stroke of a pen."

By 1950 would slavery be gone? Sure, probably, but the South didn't decide to wait and see what would happen. When Lincoln was elected they felt they had lost control over Washington DC and slavery would be shut out of federal territories and new states, so they had to secede before the North made it impossible for the system to continue.

Have you ever read on Lew Rockwell how the Southern politicans dreamed of expanding the Confederacy further west and also south into the Caribbean islands? The entire Southern economic and political leadership was hell-bent to not only preserve slavery, but to create an even larger country based on the slave system.

Amnorix
05-06-2013, 07:17 AM
Lincoln paid lip service to various compensated emancipation plans; primarily in the border states. He even proposed a compensated emancipation bill (combined with colonization) in 1862. He failed to see these through.

He failed to use legendary political skills and rhetorical gifts to accomplish this and still resorted to warfare that killed civilians,burned entire towns populated only by civilians, rape, and the executing of civilians all of which violated international law, in a war he micromanaged.

You're not serious. This statement alone really shows your complete ignorance of Civil War history (and/or the many mistakes that Lewrockwell.com has in its articles).

Amnorix
05-06-2013, 07:19 AM
BTW, loneiguana, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America prohibited the importation of slaves (Article I, Section 9). There's a primary source for ya'!

That wasn't new. Slaves hadn't been imported since 1808. If you had the brains God gave to a goose you'd understand that it was because there were already so many slaves in the US that they were already fully self-sufficient in terms of making more to satisfy demand.

There were no fugitive slave laws in neighboring states that would return runaway slaves to their owners. Nor would any escaping to the north have to be returned. This means the value of slaves as property would have dropped as the costs to guard them would increase. Between a place to escape,increased costs to prevent escape slavery and a restriction on importation slavery would not be sustainable


Pure speculation, and ignoring the history of the Southern states, before and during the Civil War, which was constantly seeking to expand the slave system.

Prison Bitch
05-06-2013, 07:58 AM
I do find it puzzling how some have taken to challenging the notion the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery. Of course it was. Hiding behind "states rights" is avoiding the the 10,000 pound elephant in the living room.

Amnorix
05-06-2013, 08:02 AM
I do find it puzzling how some have taken to challenging the notion the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery. Of course it was. Hiding behind "states rights" is avoiding the the 10,000 pound elephant in the living room.


It doesn't fit their story so they try to deny it, even though the South themselves specifically said in their articles of secession that they were seceding to defend slavery.

It doesn't matter to them, though. Inconvenient facts are totally irrelevant to them. They just ignore them.

Dave Lane
05-06-2013, 08:05 AM
Why do I have the feeling that BEP has convinced herself that if she just says the same crazy things enough times it will convince everyone she is right.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:10 AM
So you are blaming Lincoln for the South's refusal to end slavery peacefully?

Strawman.

Amnorix
05-06-2013, 08:13 AM
Why do I have the feeling that BEP has convinced herself that if she just says the same crazy things enough times it will convince everyone she is right.


Seriously. There's nothing new here.

What's incredible is the sheer imperviousness to obvious, provable, verifiable facts. Lincoln is reelected 55/45 in the middle of a horrible civil war and yet somehow "no American president was more reviled by his contemporaries — at home and abroad — during his own lifetime than Abraham Lincoln was."

Nearly all Union soldiers that were drafted fought and fought well once they had decent leadership, and yet somehow it all boils down to one set of riots in NYC and yet "entire regiments of Union Army soldiers deserted on the eve of battle again and again, and tens of thousands — probably more — deserted."

As if Confederate soldiers weren't drafted (the South instituted the draft first) and didn't have desertion problems (uhh, yeah, they did).

The list goes on and on and on and on and on.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:32 AM
I do find it puzzling how some have taken to challenging the notion the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery. Of course it was. Hiding behind "states rights" is avoiding the the 10,000 pound elephant in the living room.

I didn't see anyone saying slavery wasn't a factor. You must be learning how to strawman. Afterall, Amnorix is one of the best at this form of argumentation and now we have Loneiguana. It seems to run more deeply on the progressive side of the political spectrum.

Amnorix
05-06-2013, 08:39 AM
I didn't see anyone saying slavery wasn't a factor. You must be learning how to strawman. Afterall, Amnorix is one of the best at this form of argumentation and now we have Loneiguana. It seems to run more deeply on the progressive side of the political spectrum.

You used to argue that the war was fought over tariffs. If you have moved off the dime on that, then I commend you for giving up an argument that you hopelessly lost, repeatedly.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:41 AM
Is Amnorix saying things in this thread?

Donger
05-06-2013, 08:42 AM
Is Amnorix saying things in this thread?

Yeah, he's stomping you like a narc at a biker rally.

Mr. Kotter
05-06-2013, 07:08 PM
Yeah, he's stomping you like a narc at a biker rally.

Yep. LMAO

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 07:14 PM
Yeah, he's stomping you like a narc at a biker rally.

No, he only thinks he is. He usually just twists words around, argues things different than stated. King of Strawman—waste of time. Hence on iggy for three years or more now.
You like big govt and empire, that's why you think this. Plus your uninformed on the era. I assure you, Amnorix doesn't have the guts to attend that group of classes. He'd be stomped on pretty hard. He'd be no match.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 07:15 PM
Yep. LMAO

Really? Should I get the post out where you put a thumbs up to me about Lincoln on some of these things from a few years back...where you thanked me for posting them?

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 07:26 PM
Strawman.


Explain to me how it is solely Lincolns fault a deal with the south could not be reached.

you said "He failed to use legendary political skills and rhetorical gifts to accomplish this". Why is it solely's Lincoln's fault?

Prison Bitch
05-06-2013, 07:30 PM
What "deal" was available? You can't negotiate with people who don't want to negotiate. What could he have offered other than retaining slavery?

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 07:33 PM
What "deal" was available? You can't negotiate with people who don't want to negotiate. What could he have offered other than retaining slavery?

Full compensation. Slavers born before a certain date (usually in the future) will remain slaves. Colonization (the south didn't want free african americans). Gradual freedom over many decades. (sometimes up into the 1900's) Numerous other things.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 07:44 PM
you said "He failed to use legendary political skills and rhetorical gifts to accomplish this". Why is it solely's Lincoln's fault?

I said that to a particular point—not in this generality you are now using.

Loneiguana
05-06-2013, 07:48 PM
I said that to a particular point—not in this generality you are now using.

But you only talk about Lincoln. You only attack Lincoln. So again, why? And if you just want to attack Lincoln, why do it with something practically everyone at the time was guilty of? That is just dishonest.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 08:01 PM
But you only talk about Lincoln. You only attack Lincoln.
So what if I do.

But your adding the word "only" is a lie. I talk about plenty of issues and other politicians. Lincoln just happens to come up and as a hero or great emancipator. That's just not the truth.

So again, why? And if you just want to attack Lincoln, why do it with something practically everyone at the time was guilty of? That is just dishonest.
I don't have to explain that when this is a political forum where this is what goes on about politicians.

However, telling the truth about a president who is the most whitewashed is not an attack. It's an attack if it's not true. I like to know the truth. That is not dishonest. What is dishonest is the whitewashing of the so-called Honest Abe who was not honest but a politician with an agenda. And I have mainly covered how he dealt secession and his subsequent war—not who put him in power and what for. However, if you want to know, I don't think he was all bad either. For he was going to grant the South mercy after the war; even forgive them their war debts for which he was assassinated. The Radical Republicans were a pretty nasty bunch. Because Johnson was going to carry out his same plan of mercy for which he was impeached. There are plenty of other unsavory characters at the time...as there usually are in politics—a very dirty business.

As for "practically everyone at the time as guilty of" are not my words. They're yours.This is what you do.

Prison Bitch
05-06-2013, 08:54 PM
Full compensation. Slavers born before a certain date (usually in the future) will remain slaves. Colonization (the south didn't want free african americans). Gradual freedom over many decades. (sometimes up into the 1900's) Numerous other things.

I guess those make sense. Did they get any traction?

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by Loneiguana
...Colonization (the south didn't want free african americans).

Neither did Lincoln. And let's be honest here, there were free black men, even in the south that also owned slaves.

BucEyedPea
05-06-2013, 09:36 PM
Now let's move on to WEEKS 2, 3 and 4 shall we:

WEEK 2: WHY LINCOLN WAS ELECTED: THE FOUNDING FATHER OF CRONY CAPITALISM

WEEK 3: WAGING WAR ON THE CONSTITUTION: THE LINCOLN DICTATORSHIP

WEEK 4: FOUNDING FATHER OF THE AMERICAN WARFARE STATE

WEEK 5: THE LINCOLN CURSE: DICTATORSHIP, MILITARISM, AND ECONOMIC FASCISM

Loneiguana
05-07-2013, 06:48 AM
Neither did Lincoln. And let's be honest here, there were free black men, even in the south that also owned slaves.

Mainly in New Orleans. A free black regiment asked to join the Confederates (wierd). They were rejected. Guess which Government allowed them to fight. (Linocln's)

And the north was not nearly afraid of Free Blacks like the south.

Loneiguana
05-07-2013, 06:50 AM
I guess those make sense. Did they get any traction?

Not really. The South wasn't going to give up slavery. Even in union occupied Confederate land, Lincoln attempted to end slavery at the state level. (Like LA). Never really worked.

Loneiguana
05-07-2013, 06:51 AM
So what if I do.

But your adding the word "only" is a lie. I talk about plenty of issues and other politicians. Lincoln just happens to come up and as a hero or great emancipator. That's just not the truth.


I don't have to explain that when this is a political forum where this is what goes on about politicians.

However, telling the truth about a president who is the most whitewashed is not an attack. It's an attack if it's not true. I like to know the truth. That is not dishonest. What is dishonest is the whitewashing of the so-called Honest Abe who was not honest but a politician with an agenda. And I have mainly covered how he dealt secession and his subsequent war—not who put him in power and what for. However, if you want to know, I don't think he was all bad either. For he was going to grant the South mercy after the war; even forgive them their war debts for which he was assassinated. The Radical Republicans were a pretty nasty bunch. Because Johnson was going to carry out his same plan of mercy for which he was impeached. There are plenty of other unsavory characters at the time...as there usually are in politics—a very dirty business.

As for "practically everyone at the time as guilty of" are not my words. They're yours.This is what you do.

I never said it was a quote of yours. And I have yet to see you attack any party of the Civil War besides Lincoln.

Loneiguana
05-07-2013, 06:55 AM
I guess those make sense. Did they get any traction?

Here is some reading on Gradual Emancipation if you are interested:

http://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/gradual-emancipations-last-stand/


Since early March 1862, Abraham Lincoln had lobbied the remaining loyal border states to embrace a plan of gradual compensated emancipation. His efforts had met with steadfast refusal by slaveholders there determined to hold on to their human property and believing their loyalty did nothing but strengthen their claim to their slaves. If anything, the loyal slaveholders in the Border States in July 1862 were angry with President Lincoln for not doing more to help them reclaim their slaves that had found sanctuary with Union forces, and for signing bills to prevent the army from returning slaves in March and emancipating slaves in the District of Columbia in April."

Amnorix
05-07-2013, 07:16 AM
So what if I do.

But your adding the word "only" is a lie. I talk about plenty of issues and other politicians. Lincoln just happens to come up and as a hero or great emancipator. That's just not the truth.


Err....wait. WHO exactly emancipated the slaves then? Did I miss where Jeff Davis did that? Or perhaps the great Robert E. Lee did it and the historians (except the excellent ones writing on Lewrockwell.com (a/k/a BEP'sBrain.com) have uncovered that long forgotten fact?


However, telling the truth about a president who is the most whitewashed is not an attack. It's an attack if it's not true.

You're confusing "attack" with slander or libel, but that's the least of your mistakes.

I like to know the truth.

Then seek more sources and for God's sake start to learn how to think critically. Your woefully inability to separate fact from fiction undermines everything else.

That is not dishonest. What is dishonest is the whitewashing of the so-called Honest Abe who was not honest but a politician with an agenda.

Heroes get built up, and overbuilt. Obviously he was a politician and obviously he had an agenda. Pretty pathetic politician if he didn't. That agenda wasn't what you seem to think, but that's another story.

However, if you want to know, I don't think he was all bad either.

A great relief to us all to know that he wasn't Satan incarnate in your eyes.


For he was going to grant the South mercy after the war; even forgive them their war debts for which he was assassinated.

Wait, whoa, what? He was assassinated for their WAR DEBTS?! Seriously?
When he jumped down from Lincoln's box, did he shout "War debts! We won't pay 'em!!"

The Radical Republicans were a pretty nasty bunch.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Well done. Of course, they were a bit ticked off at the whole rebellion thing. That does tend to happen.

Amnorix
05-07-2013, 07:21 AM
Mainly in New Orleans. A free black regiment asked to join the Confederates (wierd). They were rejected. Guess which Government allowed them to fight. (Linocln's)

And the north was not nearly afraid of Free Blacks like the south.

One of the best quotes of Southern thinking, from Howell Cobb, former Speaker of the US House, governor of Georgia, a founder of the Confederacy, and Confederate General.

You cannot make soldiers of slaves, or slaves of soldiers. The day you make a soldier of them is the beginning of the end of the Revolution. And if slaves seem good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong

Mr. Kotter
05-07-2013, 12:13 PM
Really? Should I get the post out where you put a thumbs up to me about Lincoln on some of these things from a few years back...where you thanked me for posting them?

Marshall law, suspension of habeas corpus, and an expanding role for the federal government, yeah....okay.

Not the bat-shit crazy, lunatic fringe, over-the-top, moronic diatribe and crap you've spewed in this thread though. LMAO

Comrade Crapski
05-07-2013, 01:17 PM
Next payday, have a look at your pay stub to see how much the government stole. Then look here to see how the moonbats in charge have been spending your money:

http://radio.foxnews.com/2013/05/02/vipps-world-of-nonsense-when-spending-taxpayers-money-makes-little-sense/#.UYlSXvVy2QG

Prison Bitch
05-07-2013, 01:21 PM
Next payday, have a look at your pay stub to see how much the government stole. Then look here to see how the moonbats in charge have been spending your money:

http://radio.foxnews.com/2013/05/02/vipps-world-of-nonsense-when-spending-taxpayers-money-makes-little-sense/#.UYlSXvVy2QG

Government didn't steal anything. Voters who wanted the government to steal for them, are the culprits.