NationStates Jolt Archive

Despite what your statist, propagandizing government school tells you, Abraham Lincoln was the worst president in the history of the United States. The Civil War, as it's called by the North, or the War for Southern Independence, as it's more accurately called by the South, was actually just Lincoln's War to Enslave the States.

About 600,000-680,000 Americans were unjustly slaughtered, many of them black. African-Americans, after the War ended, lived a much less happy life as a result of Lincoln's crusade to destroy the South rather than let them peacefully abolish slavery as they would have done without the War.

Abraham Lincoln hated churches and Christianity. A book by Lincoln was burned by his friend William Herndon to prevent it from getting published. The book was against the Bible and Christianity; had it been published, Lincoln would have himself been obliterated, and after the incident Lincoln chose to hide his anti-Christian prejudice and make himself look better by using sneaky words.

He never actually intended to end slavery; in his inaugural address, he stated so, and promoted a bill that would amend the Constitution, making slavery a permanent institution (obviously the bill was turned down -- otherwise we'd still have slaves today). And he was also a racist.
Make Negroes politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. I will say that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. And I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

If you're having trouble understanding why Lincoln was evil but you understand "Star Wars," read the article "Episode II: Art Imitates Life (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman113.html)."

The Declaration of Independence eloquently states, "[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The South was establishing a new country based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence: that they have the inherent, God-given right to secede. They were not doing evil because their intent was not simply to create a nation of slave-owners, as most Southerners did not own slaves and were more concerned with Rights. Robert E. Lee, as a matter of fact, freed his slaves as soon as he could, and one of them happily went on to become his wartime cook.

The South was inevitably going to peacefully abolish slavery. Lincoln's intent was not to emancipate slaves in his War, but to establish the Federal Government as the Supreme Governing Body and to ensure that blacks never stole white jobs. He did not believe in the Right of Secession -- it is a God-given right, and although Lincoln pretended to believe in God to get public support, he was a known atheist.

Lincoln was also the true rebel. If the South has the right to secede for righteous reasons (avoiding a tyrannical government), then the South has done nothing wrong, and Lincoln is therefore the rebel opposed to what he called a "rebellion."

We can also draw connections from Lincoln to today. Lincoln's proponents claim the war was to "free" slaves, and Bush's proponents claim Bush is "freeing" Iraq and Afghanistan. Lincoln forcefully emancipated the slaves who survived (of course many died), enslaved the states, and now Bush is making the lives of Iraqis worse and enslaving America to the unConstitutional and unBiblical "New World Order." It is not our duty to stop tyranny elsewhere, and often just makes matters worse.

Lincoln's unlawful dictatorship has never ceased, even after his assassination. His cruelness has been immortalized because Good Men have done nothing. Today, we live in a racist, socialist, compartmentalist, fascist society. We pay the unConstitutional income tax, and it's managed by a private corporation, which is corporatism, another word for fascism -- the marriage of the private corps. and the State. Lincoln's bloody war created rampant racism by using a War as a means to rapidly transform the lives of blacks and whites, something for which neither group was ready. Lincoln instituted the idea that it's okay to ravage our nation's Constitution, violating it wherever possible. Such has created socialistic public schools (unConstitutional and unBiblical) which brainwash children to worship the State and force families to use their own money to pay for their neighbors' education and other welfares.

Lincoln was clearly the worst President in US History. He was not an American, not a Christian, and not an Emancipator. He was America's Caesar.

Abraham Lincoln hated churches and Christianity.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Anyway, *yawn*. You racist slave-staters lost. Get over it.

At least it's original....well...slightly.

The South was inevitably going to peacefully abolish slavery

Just like it peacefully gave blacks the same rights as white men?

As a matter of fact southern states fought against black rights so viciously that it wasn't until the federal governemnt literally forced them to. (100 years after slavery was abolished).

Had the south remained independent we'd either see a continuance of slavery, a massive oppression of blacks, or a genocide after mechanical devices deemed manual labor useless.

Thank god the south lost.

Lincoln was clearly the worst President in US History. He was not an American, not a Christian, and not an Emancipator. He was America's Caesar.
And you are from where??? :confused:

~snip~

Although I agree that Lincoln was one of the two worst U.S. presidents, it is not for the "Christian Dixie Pride" propoganda reasons you are spouting.

Articles highly critical of Lincoln:
http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/origins-of-the-civil-war-slavery
http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/origins-of-the-civil-war-secession
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/7/3/Dickson319-344.html

Books highly critical of Lincoln
The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Hummel
Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: the Economics of the Civil War by Thornton & Eklund
A Constitutional History of Secession by Graham
America's Caesar by Durand

Website highly critical of Lincoln: http://www.americascaesar.com/

Although I agree that Lincoln was one of the two worst U.S. presidents, it is not for the "Christian Dixie Pride" propoganda reasons you are spouting.
Okay, so why not voice your opinions for further discussion? My first post is a just a starter.

What's a "statist" ?

I'm not impressed by your foolish romantic version of what the South was. Lincoln's main goal was to restore rebelling states back into the Union. Nothing more or less. The southerners were slaveholders and freeing them would destroy their economy.

I bet you watched and enjoyed Birth of a Nation didn't you?

Articles highly critical of Lincoln:
--snip--

So basically, you've nothing of your own to say? *yawn, again*

What's a "statist" ?
Liberals are socially pro-liberty and economically pro-authority.
Libertarians are socially pro-liberty and economically pro-liberty.
Conservatives are socially pro-authority and economically pro-liberty.
Statists are socially pro-authory and economically pro-authority.

Statists are basically the opposite of libertarians -- anti-individual, pro-State. In the case I described, the schools teach you through dishonest means to worship the State, which is a statist practice.

Although I agree that Lincoln was one of the two worst U.S. presidents, it is not for the "Christian Dixie Pride" propoganda reasons you are spouting.


Same here...I go more along the lines of the whole crushing the freedoms of the first admendment

As a matter of fact throughout your whole damn post you paint the south in this innocent, freedom fighter light. I'm not saying Abe was a good president, as evidence would say otherwise. But don't try to make the south something they were not, innocent.

The north had to twist the south's arm before they started treating blacks like normal people and god only knows how blacks were treated while they were still slaves.

Funny... Sounds to me like you're whistlin Dixie. (Sorry, couldn't resist the really bad pun)

In all honesty, I'd say you need to learn to differentiate between propoganda (what whoever taught you this nonsense told you) and poor information (the habit of American schools). American schools do indeed fail to tell the full story, but what you have been told is utter poppycock.

Any atrocities that occured during reconstruction are NOT Lincoln's fault, so don't even START on that shit. Lincoln died before his FORGIVING reconstruction policy was able to set in, and so the radical republicans instituted radical reconstructionism (which failed to do the important part and offer blacks equal rights).

And hey, if you're telling the truth and Abe wasn't a christian, he just moved up in my books. After all, neither were our founding fathers.

I'm not impressed by your foolish romantic version of what the South was. Lincoln's main goal was to restore rebelling states back into the Union. Nothing more or less. The southerners were slaveholders and freeing them would destroy their economy.

I bet you watched and enjoyed Birth of a Nation didn't you?
I've never seen that movie. I'm no more impressed of what your romantic version of what the North was. Southerners had very few slaveholders -- less than or equal to 10% of them.

The South was not rebelling against America; Lincoln was rebelling against the Constitution and his duty as President.

I've never seen that movie. I'm no more impressed of what your romantic version of what the North was. Southerners had very few slaveholders -- less than or equal to 10% of them.

The South was not rebelling against America; Lincoln was rebelling against the Constitution and his duty as President.
You're an idiot. His duty as President was to keep the Union intact, and that's exactly what he did.

I agree with Achtung: He did his job as President.

Same here...I go more along the lines of the whole crushing the freedoms of the first admendment
Although I never explicitly pointed out why he was a tyrannical dictator, I said in my original post that he severely violated the Constitution. Things like that were about what I was talking.

You're an idiot. His duty as President was to keep the Union intact, and that's exactly what he did.
Union "intact"? I'd say it's well-beyond broken. It's been destroyed. The Union and the South lost to the American Empire.

The South was not rebelling against America; Lincoln was rebelling against the Constitution and his duty as President.

I'm not positive of the exact number but something like six states had seceded before Lincoln was even sworn in to office. Hard to make this kind of arguement that Lincoln's policies caused the secesion before Lincoln even made any policies. The South did not care for the potential anti-slavery legislation that would come from the new President.

Lincoln Upheld the Union for his time. The "Union" Is in Chaos Now: I agree with that, Lincoln did his job, plain and simple.

Despite what your statist, propagandizing government school tells you, Abraham Lincoln was the worst president in the history of the United States. The Civil War, as it's called by the North, or the War for Southern Independence, as it's more accurately called by the South, was actually just Lincoln's War to Enslave the States.

About 600,000-680,000 Americans were unjustly slaughtered, many of them black. African-Americans, after the War ended, lived a much less happy life as a result of Lincoln's crusade to destroy the South rather than let them peacefully abolish slavery as they would have done without the War.

Abraham Lincoln hated churches and Christianity. A book by Lincoln was burned by his friend William Herndon to prevent it from getting published. The book was against the Bible and Christianity; had it been published, Lincoln would have himself been obliterated, and after the incident Lincoln chose to hide his anti-Christian prejudice and make himself look better by using sneaky words.

He never actually intended to end slavery; in his inaugural address, he stated so, and promoted a bill that would amend the Constitution, making slavery a permanent institution (obviously the bill was turned down -- otherwise we'd still have slaves today). And he was also a racist.


If you're having trouble understanding why Lincoln was evil but you understand "Star Wars," read the article "Episode II: Art Imitates Life (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman113.html)."

The Declaration of Independence eloquently states, "[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The South was establishing a new country based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence: that they have the inherent, God-given right to secede. They were not doing evil because their intent was not simply to create a nation of slave-owners, as most Southerners did not own slaves and were more concerned with Rights. Robert E. Lee, as a matter of fact, freed his slaves as soon as he could, and one of them happily went on to become his wartime cook.

The South was inevitably going to peacefully abolish slavery. Lincoln's intent was not to emancipate slaves in his War, but to establish the Federal Government as the Supreme Governing Body and to ensure that blacks never stole white jobs. He did not believe in the Right of Secession -- it is a God-given right, and although Lincoln pretended to believe in God to get public support, he was a known atheist.

Lincoln was also the true rebel. If the South has the right to secede for righteous reasons (avoiding a tyrannical government), then the South has done nothing wrong, and Lincoln is therefore the rebel opposed to what he called a "rebellion."

We can also draw connections from Lincoln to today. Lincoln's proponents claim the war was to "free" slaves, and Bush's proponents claim Bush is "freeing" Iraq and Afghanistan. Lincoln forcefully emancipated the slaves who survived (of course many died), enslaved the states, and now Bush is making the lives of Iraqis worse and enslaving America to the unConstitutional and unBiblical "New World Order." It is not our duty to stop tyranny elsewhere, and often just makes matters worse.

Lincoln's unlawful dictatorship has never ceased, even after his assassination. His cruelness has been immortalized because Good Men have done nothing. Today, we live in a racist, socialist, compartmentalist, fascist society. We pay the unConstitutional income tax, and it's managed by a private corporation, which is corporatism, another word for fascism -- the marriage of the private corps. and the State. Lincoln's bloody war created rampant racism by using a War as a means to rapidly transform the lives of blacks and whites, something for which neither group was ready. Lincoln instituted the idea that it's okay to ravage our nation's Constitution, violating it wherever possible. Such has created socialistic public schools (unConstitutional and unBiblical) which brainwash children to worship the State and force families to use their own money to pay for their neighbors' education and other welfares.

Lincoln was clearly the worst President in US History. He was not an American, not a Christian, and not an Emancipator. He was America's Caesar.
This is exactly what I've been trying to tell people for years...except that last sentence. It doesn't matter whether or not someone is Christian, as long as they are a good person.

Union "intact"? I'd say it's well-beyond broken. It's been destroyed. The Union and the South lost to the American Empire.
Only because of nostalgic nationalistic idiots who hang confederate flags everywhere. The American Empire came much later on.

This is exactly what I've been trying to tell people for years...except that last sentence. It doesn't matter whether or not someone is Christian, as long as they are a good person.
Yes, but he lied to make himself sound like a Christian. That's the point of "he was not a Christian" -- that he made himself out to be one so that he would have a greater chance of being politically successful.

Lincoln Upheld the Union for his time. The "Union" Is in Chaos Now: I agree with that, Lincoln did his job, plain and simple.
Lincoln did not do his duty as President, as some people have said here. His duty was not to preserve the Union, but to uphold the Constitution, which does not mean destroying a country that seceded from it. He failed to do what his duty actually was, and every subsequent president has taken his lead.

Yea...Lincoln wasn't the saint that everybody paints him to be. He and his generals really didn't have much regard for the sanctity of human life.

Yes, but he lied to make himself sound like a Christian. That's the point of "he was not a Christian" -- that he made himself out to be one so that he would have a greater chance of being politically successful.


Lincoln did not do his duty as President, as some people have said here. His duty was not to preserve the Union, but to uphold the Constitution, which does not mean destroying a country that seceded from it. He failed to do what his duty actually was, and every subsequent president has taken his lead.
Now that I think about it, Lincoln was bad, but Andrew Jackson was worse.

Yes, but he lied to make himself sound like a Christian. That's the point of "he was not a Christian" -- that he made himself out to be one so that he would have a greater chance of being politically successful.


Lincoln did not do his duty as President, as some people have said here. His duty was not to preserve the Union, but to uphold the Constitution, which does not mean destroying a country that seceded from it. He failed to do what his duty actually was, and every subsequent president has taken his lead.Well who would be satisfied if he had just let the South secede? You, that other guy and Roach-Busters (too bad he's not here to see this, unless all three of you are actually one person). The South would not have given up slavery anyways.

And basically all I'm getting from you is that lincoln was a dictator and because of him we live in a fascist, socialist society dominated by corporations, which is a contradition in terms, entirely.

Liberals are socially pro-liberty and economically pro-authority.
Libertarians are socially pro-liberty and economically pro-liberty.
Conservatives are socially pro-authority and economically pro-liberty.
Statists are socially pro-authory and economically pro-authority.

Statists are basically the opposite of libertarians -- anti-individual, pro-State. In the case I described, the schools teach you through dishonest means to worship the State, which is a statist practice.


Profoundly trivial.

Pretty clearly, the US, under lincoln, saved itself by defeating the treasonous southern army.

National rights are absolute regardless of which state a person lives in.

Union "intact"? I'd say it's well-beyond broken. It's been destroyed. The Union and the South lost to the American Empire.

And 2+2=5.

And basically all I'm getting from you is that lincoln was a dictator and because of him we live in a fascist, socialist society dominated by corporations, which is a contradition in terms, entirely.
Different parts have different terms applied to them. The income tax is socialist in nature. What the gov't does with that income tax is fascist in nature, and I also pointed out that Mussolini describes fascism as corporatism; so if our money is managed by a private corp. (it is), we are therefore economically fascist. Also, we are fascist in other ways, such as the suppression of many rights (right to life of unborn children, right of states to secede, etc.).

I also pointed out that Mussolini describes fascism as corporatism; so if our money is managed by a private corp. (it is), we are therefore economically fascist.

Not really, you're confusing corporations and Corporate economics, which don't have a lot to do with each other. Fascism is more to do with indirectly controlling the economy through state sponsored trade unions, directing the economy towards national interests.

Truly private businesses can't exist under Fascism.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Anyway, *yawn*. You racist slave-staters lost. Get over it.
Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus and instituted the first draft, but to call him a Ceasar is a bit overboard. Also to say that the US Civil war was about slavery is a gross oversimplification.

Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus and instituted the first draft, but to call him a Ceasar is a bit overboard. Also to say that the US Civil war was about slavery is a gross oversimplification.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion, or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Jefferson Davis also instituted the draft.

I have no love for Lincoln, and our textbooks (most of which are produced in the South by the way), paint him up to be a great leader championing the freedom of slaves...

But for the love of God...IT'S BEEN 141 YEARS! Let it go!

To forget the past is one thing, but to bitch about it is another.

But for the love of God...IT'S BEEN 141 YEARS! Let it go!

To forget the past is one thing, but to bitch about it is another.
That's just where I was going to go with this "argument."

Just like it peacefully gave blacks the same rights as white men?

As a matter of fact southern states fought against black rights so viciously that it wasn't until the federal governemnt literally forced them to. (100 years after slavery was abolished).

Had the south remained independent we'd either see a continuance of slavery, a massive oppression of blacks, or a genocide after mechanical devices deemed manual labor useless.

Thank god the south lost.

Harry Turtledove has a serious of books on this. Started out with slavery existitng until the 2nd Mexican war. Then it went to oppression inbetween WWI and WWII now they are being eradicated by the naziesque leader of the CSA.

As to this thread as a whole, I suggest you actually wake up and smell the coffee. Most historians who have researched the Abraham Lincoln Presidency do call him one of the best presidents of all time. I see that you are very ignorant of history.

I've never seen that movie. I'm no more impressed of what your romantic version of what the North was. Southerners had very few slaveholders -- less than or equal to 10% of them.

The South was not rebelling against America; Lincoln was rebelling against the Constitution and his duty as President.

I'll have to call bullcrap here. It is apparent you know next to nothing about the Civil War.

let me tell you this:

"If I could save the nation without freeing a single slave, I would do it...." That was part of an Abe Lincoln Quote.

As to your assertion that Lincoln rebelled against the Constitution... your only part right but he wouldn't have had to do that if the damn Confederate States HADN'T FIRED ON FORT SUMNTER!!!! The South did Rebel against the Union and tried to split away from the Union. It was this rebellion that forced Lincoln to take drastic action to protect the union from splintering.

Learn some history before spouting your mouth.

You're an idiot. His duty as President was to keep the Union intact, and that's exactly what he did.

Here here!

Today, we live in a racist, socialist, compartmentalist, fascist society. We pay the unConstitutional income tax

Just to point out the income tax is perfectly Constitutional now due to the Sixteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Pretty clearly, the US, under lincoln, saved itself by defeating the treasonous southern army.

National rights are absolute regardless of which state a person lives in.

Well Said New Granada.

Here here!

Pet peeve: It's "hear, hear." Sorry.

Jefferson Davis also instituted the draft.
Does that make it right?

In reguard to Habeus Corpus:
"I can only say that if the authority under which the constitution has confided to the judicial department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found."
-Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, 1861

[Edit to add: The majority of offenders imprisoned under the suspension where imprisioned due to the opposition to the draft/]

Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus and instituted the first draft, but to call him a Ceasar is a bit overboard. Also to say that the US Civil war was about slavery is a gross oversimplification.

Yea he did suspend Habeas Corpus but in a time of a national emergency, the president has the right to do so.

Jefferson Davis also instituted the draft.

Jefferson Davis instituted the first draft on American Shores. Not the United States.

I'm an atheist, so I wouldn't mind if Lincoln hated the Church and Christianity, but the thing is, he didn't. He was Christian, so stop making up bullshit. Anyway, he was one of the best U.S. presidents ever, and he showed those slack-jawed, racist Southerners who's boss. It's true that he didn't care about slavery; he abolished it for political, not moral, reasons, but at least he still abolished it. None of the previous presidents did that.

Yea he did suspend Habeas Corpus but in a time of a national emergency, the president has the right to do so.
Well, in this case he didn't (ex parte merryman), but still, considering that presidents today are doing much, much worse.

Taney is blatantly pro-confederate, however.

Jefferson Davis instituted the first draft on American Shores. Not the United States.
I said nothing about him instituting the draft in the U.S. That's precisely why I left it as it is.

Does that make it right?

In reguard to Habeus Corpus:
"I can only say that if the authority under which the constitution has confided to the judicial department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found."
-Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, 1861

And what did the Supreme Court do to enforce their ruling? Oh wait, they don't have enforcement Power.

I'm an atheist, so I wouldn't mind if Lincoln hated the Church and Christianity, but the thing is, he didn't. He was Christian, so stop making up bullshit. Anyway, he was one of the best U.S. presidents ever, and he showed those slack-jawed, racist Southerners who's boss. It's true that he didn't care about slavery; he abolished it for political, not moral, reasons, but at least he still abolished it. None of the previous presidents did that.

For your information, the XIII amendment was passed in December 1865 which would put it under the Andrew Johnson Administration and not the Lincoln Administration.

I said nothing about him instituting the draft in the U.S. That's precisely why I left it as it is.

Just a trivia note :D

And hey, if you're telling the truth and Abe wasn't a christian, he just moved up in my books. After all, neither were our founding fathers.

Don't know where you heard that from. The founding fathers weren't Puritans, but they definitely were Christian.

And what did the Supreme Court do to enforce their ruling? Oh wait, they don't have enforcement Power.
Yup, the Executive branch can trample all over the Judiciary ala Worcester vs Georgia.

For your information, the XIII amendment was passed in December 1865 which would put it under the Andrew Johnson Administration and not the Lincoln Administration.

I was talking about the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address.

I was talking about the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address.

I suggest you go back and re-read the Proclamation. It only freed the slaves in the states in rebellion. Said nothing about Slavery in Missouri (border State), Kentucky (border State), West Virginia (border State), Maryland (border state--Under martial law), and Delaware (border state).

Now where in the Gettysburg address is slavery mentioned?

You can yell at the past all you like, but until someone takes a DeLorean back to the 1800s, the South lost, slavery ended, and everyone involved in the process is quite dead.

Abraham was one of our best presidents
And i suppose you live were?
Iraq,Syria,Iran,N Korea,China

This is very true and I applaud you. Now I must go work, because if I stay I will be drawn in to a debate about the War of Northern Aggression.

Yankee invaders :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

This is very true and I applaud you. Now I must go work, because if I stay I will be drawn in to a debate about the War of Northern Aggression.

Yankee invaders :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Curious. Who fired on Fort Sumter? Not that it matters since the southern states were in rebellion. Aggression... :rolleyes:

This is very true and I applaud you. Now I must go work, because if I stay I will be drawn in to a debate about the War of Northern Aggression.

Yankee invaders :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

:rolleyes:

Despite the fact that it was the johnny reb who started the friggin war.

That's certainly one interpretation of history.

Do you have any proof that the south would have ever abolished slavery on their own? They did, after all, pass a law that forced northerners to assist the capture of any slave, and a law that made it so any black man who wasn't carrying 'free man' papers could be taken into custody and enslaved. Not all southerners were in favor of slavery, but they all as a whole clearly had no intention of ending it.

America is a secular country -- a Christian president and an atheist president are equally 'American' and equally valid elected officials. Just because the country is becoming more and more secular and you don't like it is no reason to whinily villify anyone who doesn't agree with you. Heck, 3/4 of the planet doesn't agree with you! At some point you have to get over it!!!

If anybody who disagrees with the majority in charge of the country can just secede whenever we want, then the western and northeastern states are equally justified to secede on the grounds of theocratic tyranny.

I suggest you go back and re-read the Proclamation. It only freed the slaves in the states in rebellion. Said nothing about Slavery in Missouri (border State), Kentucky (border State), West Virginia (border State), Maryland (border state--Under martial law), and Delaware (border state).

Duh! That's why I said, "It's true that he didn't care about slavery; he abolished it for political, not moral, reasons, but at least he still abolished it. None of the previous presidents did that."

I suggest you go back and re-read the Proclamation. It only freed the slaves in the states in rebellion. Said nothing about Slavery in Missouri (border State), Kentucky (border State), West Virginia (border State), Maryland (border state--Under martial law), and Delaware (border state).

Duh! That's why I said, "It's true that he didn't care about slavery; he abolished it for political, not moral, reasons, but at least he still abolished it. None of the previous presidents did that."

The statement is still inaccurate since slavery WAS NOT abolished.

The statement is still inaccurate since slavery WAS NOT abolished.

As you already stated, it was abolished in the Confederate States.

Don't know where you heard that from. The founding fathers weren't Puritans, but they definitely were Christian.

Could it be that Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Adams, and Madison were all deists? There's a lot of misinformation out there about the founding fathers which is fed by the religious right, but they were, primarily, led by enlightenment scholars and were deistic in religious beleif (although many argue that Jefferson may well have been a "closet" atheist because of some of the things he wrote, but I don't think that there's a great deal of support for that assumption.).

As you already stated, it was abolished in the Confederate States.

Oh for heaven's sake. Since technically they were not in the Union during this time, what Lincoln said in his Emancipation Proclamation was really worthless. Ergo, slavery STILL EXISTED in the South AS WELL AS in the NORTH!!!

I'm not sure the South/southern states had any Constitutional right to leave the rest of the Union to begin with.

In fact, Corny is even more correct than that. Lincoln didn't have the authority to ban slavery. The Emancipation Proclomation is basically an empty document. It was the 13th amendment that ended slavery.

Could it be that Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Adams, and Madison were all deists? There's a lot of misinformation out there about the founding fathers which is fed by the religious right, but they were, primarily, led by enlightenment scholars and were deistic in religious beleif (although many argue that Jefferson may well have been a "closet" atheist because of some of the things he wrote, but I don't think that there's a great deal of support for that assumption.).

I know for sure that Franklin was a deist (which still is a Christian). Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and Madison were probably deists, too.

In fact, Corny is even more correct than that. Lincoln didn't have the authority to ban slavery. The Emancipation Proclomation is basically an empty document. It was the 13th amendment that ended slavery.

Already stated that twice.

Oh for heaven's sake. Since technically they were not in the Union during this time, what Lincoln said in his Emancipation Proclamation was really worthless. Ergo, slavery STILL EXISTED in the South AS WELL AS in the NORTH!!!

Slavery never existed in the North.

I know for sure that Franklin was a deist (which still is a Christian). Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and Madison were probably deists, too.

Deism isn't a christian belief system. Deism states that "god" set the laws of the world in place and then stepped aside to allow the world to move on it's own. The Christian belief that "god" sent it's only child to die for humanity directly contradicts the concept of the "Unmoved Mover".

Oh for heaven's sake. Since technically they were not in the Union during this time, what Lincoln said in his Emancipation Proclamation was really worthless. Ergo, slavery STILL EXISTED in the South AS WELL AS in the NORTH!!!

Sure it did nothing at first. But when Federal troops took Southern territory they freed any slave they came upon improving their life and hurting the southern economy with every slave they removed from bondage.

Slavery never existed in the North.

That is where you are wrong my friend.

Missouri (slave) Kentucky (slave) Maryland (slave) All northern states and all had slavery.

Slavery never existed in the North.

Actually, it did. It was banned by seperate states. However, if memory serves correctly, the Supe's basically ruled that those bans were unconstitutional. I could be mistaken though.

Sure it did nothing at first. But when Federal troops took Southern territory they freed any slave they came upon improving their life and hurting the southern economy with every slave they removed from bondage.

Only after did we take southern territory though. Then it became occupied territory which does fall under US Law. However, the Proclamation wasn't even a law.

Only after did we take southern territory though. Then it became occupied territory which does fall under US Law. However, the Proclamation wasn't even a law.

It was an executive order wasn't it? It only affected the "states in rebellion" so it was a policy that was in place for the occupied territories only anyway.

It was an executive order wasn't it? It only affected the "states in rebellion" so it was a policy that was in place for the occupied territories only anyway.

True but it still leaves slavery legal in the rest of the country.

True but it still leaves slavery legal in the rest of the country.

It was limited that way but once the South was defeated the writing, as they say, was on the wall. Slavery was done for as an instituion as the slaves had all been released and the momentum wasn't going to let the border states keep slavery. In the end the Proclamation did end slavery even before the 13th Amendment.

It was limited that way but once the South was defeated the writing, as they say, was on the wall. Slavery was done for as an instituion as the slaves had all been released and the momentum wasn't going to let the border states keep slavery. In the end the Proclamation did end slavery even before the 13th Amendment.

I'll grant you that but until December 1865, it was still technically legal.

Naw Lincoln wasnt so bad. Really he didnt care about slaves so much as he wanted to keep his country together. I dont know anything about the Christian bashing book nor do I care(atheist). Where you are really wrong is the whole "Southerners wouldve ended slavery peacefully thing". Southern economy revolved arouns slavery, henve plantation owners fought so hardly to keep slaves or low paid blacks who had nowhere else to go and would accept these slavelike conditions. No slaves=No cheap labor=Less weath in Southern cotton biz. As you could see with the whole Jim Crow laws, the KKK, the treatment of peaceful protesters in the civil rights movement, the unwritten social law of that still existed far after the war, Ante Bellum treatment of the slaves(really does someone whipping you really plan on setting you free?), no way would the south even have stopped slavery without the American Civil War. If you want to see a bad president try Lincolns sucessor Andrew Johnson.

Naw Lincoln wasnt so bad. Really he didnt care about slaves so much as he wanted to keep his country together. I dont know anything about the Christian bashing book nor do I care(atheist). Where you are really wrong is the whole "Southerners wouldve ended slavery peacefully thing". Southern economy revolved arouns slavery, henve plantation owners fought so hardly to keep slaves or low paid blacks who had nowhere else to go and would accept these slavelike conditions. No slaves=No cheap labor=Less weath in Southern cotton biz. As you could see with the whole Jim Crow laws, the KKK, the treatment of peaceful protesters in the civil rights movement, the unwritten social law of that still existed far after the war, Ante Bellum treatment of the slaves(really does someone whipping you really plan on setting you free?), no way would the south even have stopped slavery without the American Civil War. If you want to see a bad president try Lincolns sucessor Andrew Johnson.

Actually, if the South wanted Britain to assist them militarily, they very well could've abolished slavery to gain those ends.

I'll grant you that but until December 1865, it was still technically legal.

Yeah, but I've always been a fan of Lincoln so I prefer to view his Emancipation Proclamation as at least the starting point to the end of slavery in this country.

Actually, if the South wanted Britain to assist them militarily, they very well could've abolished slavery to gain those ends.

If they were thinking long term they would have. Once Lincoln gave his Proclamation Britain and France couldn't help a "country" fighting to keep slavery. The South though couldn't let go of its slaves so...

Yeah, but I've always been a fan of Lincoln so I prefer to view his Emancipation Proclamation as at least the starting point to the end of slavery in this country.

I'm a fan of Lincoln myself but as an Amature historian, I do have to stick with the facts.

If they were thinking long term they would have. Once Lincoln gave his Proclamation Britain and France couldn't help a "country" fighting to keep slavery. The South though couldn't let go of its slaves so...

Suffering massive defeats on the Western Front followed by the Battle of Antietam pretty much ended any hope of the Brits coming into the Civil War though it was a near thing in 1861 but not for the reason you might suspect.

Suffering massive defeats on the Western Front followed by the Battle of Antietam pretty much ended any hope of the Brits coming into the Civil War though it was a near thing in 1861 but not for the reason you might suspect.

Antietam was really a draw and the more decisive Union victories like Vicksburg had not occured yet. Europe still had an option to intervene the way I see it.

I take it you mean that it wan't to protect their cotton imports that Britain nearly intervened? If it wasn't that what was it?

Antietam was really a draw and the more decisive Union victories like Vicksburg had not occured yet. Europe still had an option to intervene the way I see it.

True but to tell the truth, Gettysburg had more of an impact on the war than Vicksburg.

I take it you mean that it wan't to protect their cotton imports that Britain nearly intervened? If it wasn't that what was it?

A little thing called the Trent Affair, A.K.A the Mason and Slidell Affair of November 1861.

True but to tell the truth, Gettysburg had more of an impact on the war than Vicksburg.

I have to disagree on this, Gettysburg just turned back Lee's attempts to invade the North. Important yes, but General Grant taking Vicksburg cut the South in half and greatly helped to open the way for Sherman into Georgia.

I have to disagree on this, Gettysburg just turned back Lee's attempts to invade the North. Important yes, but Grant taking Vicksburg cut the South in half and opened the way for Sherman into Georgia.

True but if Lee had won at Gettysburg, then the South could've very well have wound up in either Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or D.C. He had a chance to take out the Union Army and didn't despite having the advantage.

True but if Lee had won at Gettysburg, then the South could've very well have wound up in either Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or D.C. He had a chance to take out the Union Army and didn't despite having the advantage.
If Lee had agreed on fighting for the North, which he didn't over some trivial matter, the war would've lasted only like a year.

If Lee had agreed on fighting for the North, which he didn't over some trivial matter, the war would've lasted only like a year.

You maybe correct.

True but if Lee had won at Gettysburg, then the South could've very well have wound up in either Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or D.C. He had a chance to take out the Union Army and didn't despite having the advantage.

I never understood why Lee figured that Pickett could actually beat the Union army in his charge. Marching that distance across an open field? Suicide. What I'm really annoyed about is that the Union Commanding General (Meade was it?) didn't pursue Lee when he retreated. Perhaps the war could have ended sooner if he had done so.

Still I didn't see Lee having much chance getting into the North. They didn't have the logistics of the Union Army so I can't see them getting that deep into Northern territory. Besides I feel an offensive victory added more then a defensive one.

I never understood why Lee figured that Pickett could actually beat the Union army in his charge. Marching that distance across an open field? Suicide. What I'm really annoyed about is that the Union Commanding General (Meade was it?) didn't pursue Lee when he retreated. Perhaps the war could have ended sooner if he had done so.

Exhaustion basically. And knowing Lee, he would've extradited his forces as he has done time and again. Sometimes I wonder if he was Washington incarnate.

Still I didn't see Lee having much chance getting into the North. They didn't have the logistics of the Union Army so I can't see them getting that deep into Northern territory. Besides I feel an offensive victory added more then a defensive one.

Odds are he would've moved back down South and attacked Washington D.C. or Baltimore.

If Lee had agreed on fighting for the North, which he didn't over some trivial matter, the war would've lasted only like a year.

A trivial matter? I think the reason he didn't fight for the North was one of the bigger factors of the war. The fact that many Southerners owed greater loyalty to their states than the Federal govt was the only thing that allowed the South to prosecute the war.

All I can say to the original post is "so what"?

Lincoln's been dead for what, 150 years? What's the South's excuse for its own ills long, LONG after Lincoln was murdered? What does it matter who revises Lincoln's history? Let's go WAY out on a limb and suppose that your view of Lincoln eventually becomes the popular view -- again, so what? The US government will no more re-name countless streets, schools, towns and CVN-72 (aircraft carrier) than the South will cease waving the Confederate flag around like it still means something.

Twenty-first century, y'all -- get on with life.

All I can say to the original post is "so what"?

Oh let him rant. His facts are wrong and they have been proven wrong and it was fun doing it :D

Lincoln's been dead for what, 150 years?

Yep.

What's the South's excuse for its own ills long, LONG after Lincoln was murdered?

Very Good question.

What does it matter who revises Lincoln's history?

Actually it matters quite abit to those of us who are historians and believes in facts.

Let's go WAY out on a limb and suppose that your view of Lincoln eventually becomes the popular view -- again, so what? The US government will no more re-name countless streets, schools, towns and CVN-72 (aircraft carrier) than the South will cease waving the Confederate flag around like it still means something.

Twenty-first century, y'all -- get on with life.

Agreed but debating the Civil War is fun :D

Articles highly critical of Lincoln:
http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/origins-of-the-civil-war-slavery
http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/origins-of-the-civil-war-secession
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/7/3/Dickson319-344.html

Books highly critical of Lincoln
The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Hummel
Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: the Economics of the Civil War by Thornton & Eklund
A Constitutional History of Secession by Graham
America's Caesar by Durand

Website highly critical of Lincoln: http://www.americascaesar.com/

Ok, a few things. First, lew Rockwell is a cultural conservative and anarcho-capitalist. Not exactly unbiased.

The 4th site you linked is to the Journal of Historical Review, which is published by the Institute for Historical Review, a group infamous for, among other things, Holocaust denial.

Judging from the name of the magazine the first two are links to, I'm guessing those are probably right-wing as well.

How about using and linking sources that aren't biased?

And also, you broke one of the main rules of sources: never, ever use a ".com" site as a source.

Yea...Lincoln wasn't the saint that everybody paints him to be. He and his generals really didn't have much regard for the sanctity of human life.


I don't have much regard for the sanctity of life, nor does anyone else. I mean, some people are Pro-Life but for capital punishment. Some people are Pro-Choice and against capital punishment. I mean, everyone is trying to figure out who decides when everyone dies.

How are public schools unbiblical and unconstitutional?

How are public schools unbiblical and unconstitutional?

Please point to the part of this discussion that this post is relevent too, ty.

The South was inevitably going to peacefully abolish slavery.

Yes, after "peacefully" killing runaway slaves.

Lincoln's intent was not to emancipate slaves in his War, but to establish the Federal Government as the Supreme Governing Body and to ensure that blacks never stole white jobs. He did not believe in the Right of Secession -- it is a God-given right, and although Lincoln pretended to believe in God to get public support, he was a known atheist.

Ahem, -cough- Freedom of religion -cough-


We can also draw connections from Lincoln to today. Lincoln's proponents claim the war was to "free" slaves, and Bush's proponents claim Bush is "freeing" Iraq and Afghanistan. Lincoln forcefully emancipated the slaves who survived (of course many died), enslaved the states, and now Bush is making the lives of Iraqis worse and enslaving America to the unConstitutional and unBiblical "New World Order." It is not our duty to stop tyranny elsewhere, and often just makes matters worse.

Alrighty, if you're gonna start a rant against Lincoln, leave Bush out of it. Two different time periods, two different Presidents, two different situations.

On another note, when someone repeatedly uses the word Unbiblical, I stop caring. Our country, unlike what some people think, was built on the basis of freedom, not the Bible.

Such has created socialistic public schools (unConstitutional and unBiblical) which brainwash children to worship the State and force families to use their own money to pay for their neighbors' education and other welfares.

I know I'm no longer a Catholic, but I'm pretty sure I never read that Public Schools were a tool of Satan.

Lincoln was clearly the worst President in US History. He was not an American

Oh sure, he was Japanese [/sarcasm]

not a Christian.

Freedom. Of. Religion. I don't know how to make it any more clear.

Please point to the part of this discussion that this post is relevent too, ty.

Part of the first post said Such has created socialistic public schools (unConstitutional and unBiblical) which brainwash children to worship the State and force families to use their own money to pay for their neighbors' education and other welfares.

Is the OP trying to rewrite history Southern style? This happened almost 150 years ago, Give it up already or do you hardcore Southerners want Civil War II?

Would the US be better off with the South splitting with the rest of the nation?

Actually, this one site seems to think it might not be a bad idea. (http://www.fuckthesouth.com/) :eek: I found it a totally hilarious rant, but then again I have a twisted sense of humour. :D

Lincoln, as far as I am concerned, was a damn fine President, and yeah, he did his job as others have alluded to by keeping the country together.

Ok I decided to come back here to the 1st post and hit it hard.

Despite what your statist, propagandizing government school tells you, Abraham Lincoln was the worst president in the history of the United States. The Civil War, as it's called by the North, or the War for Southern Independence, as it's more accurately called by the South, was actually just Lincoln's War to Enslave the States.

1) Carter was by far the worst President in American History.

2) It was called the War of NORTHER AGRESSION in the South, not the War for Southern Independence.

3) Your last line about Lincoln's War to enslave the states is inaccurate as he is known to have said and in part "If I could save the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do it." Doesn't sound like he wanted to enslave the states to me.

4) I was homeschooled for most of my life so I didn't have Government Education.

About 600,000-680,000 Americans were unjustly slaughtered, many of them black.

Incorrect statement. Most of those killed in the War were White.

African-Americans, after the War ended, lived a much less happy life as a result of Lincoln's crusade to destroy the South rather than let them peacefully abolish slavery as they would have done without the War.

Actually, compared to what they were earlier, this is incorrect. They at least had their freedom and a choice on what they wanted to do. Also for your Information, it was the STATES THEMSELVES, not the federal government, that made their lives hard.

Abraham Lincoln hated churches and Christianity. A book by Lincoln was burned by his friend William Herndon to prevent it from getting published.

Unbias proof please?

The book was against the Bible and Christianity; had it been published, Lincoln would have himself been obliterated, and after the incident Lincoln chose to hide his anti-Christian prejudice and make himself look better by using sneaky words.

Proof please?

He never actually intended to end slavery; in his inaugural address, he stated so, and promoted a bill that would amend the Constitution, making slavery a permanent institution (obviously the bill was turned down -- otherwise we'd still have slaves today). And he was also a racist.

Nearly 100% Correct. Ever hear of a thing called Politics and trying to keep the Union as one?

If you're having trouble understanding why Lincoln was evil but you understand "Star Wars," read the article "Episode II: Art Imitates Life (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman113.html)."

All I can do is :rolleyes:

The Declaration of Independence eloquently states, "[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

That is what the declaration says. You had to look that up too I bet.

The South was establishing a new country based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence: that they have the inherent, God-given right to secede.

Despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence is not a Legal Document.

They were not doing evil because their intent was not simply to create a nation of slave-owners, as most Southerners did not own slaves and were more concerned with Rights. Robert E. Lee, as a matter of fact, freed his slaves as soon as he could, and one of them happily went on to become his wartime cook.

Somewhat accurate but if you read the deep south, it was about Slavery and the fact that they feard (unfoundedly) that the Republicans would ban slavery since they were the Anti-slavery party.

The South was inevitably going to peacefully abolish slavery.

This has already been debunked so I'm not going to go into it.

Lincoln's intent was not to emancipate slaves in his War, but to establish the Federal Government as the Supreme Governing Body and to ensure that blacks never stole white jobs.

This is utter BS.

He did not believe in the Right of Secession -- it is a God-given right, and although Lincoln pretended to believe in God to get public support, he was a known atheist.

Show me in the Constitution where it is a God given Right please.

Lincoln was also the true rebel.

Proof?

If the South has the right to secede for righteous reasons (avoiding a tyrannical government), then the South has done nothing wrong, and Lincoln is therefore the rebel opposed to what he called a "rebellion."

Actually, the government was not tyrannical at the outset of the war. Even during the war it really wasn't tyrannical at all. Not in the sense that your trying to push it towards at any rate.

Tell me, do you happen to know who started the War?

We can also draw connections from Lincoln to today. Lincoln's proponents claim the war was to "free" slaves, and Bush's proponents claim Bush is "freeing" Iraq and Afghanistan. Lincoln forcefully emancipated the slaves who survived (of course many died), enslaved the states, and now Bush is making the lives of Iraqis worse and enslaving America to the unConstitutional and unBiblical "New World Order." It is not our duty to stop tyranny elsewhere, and often just makes matters worse.

Oh brother. I see so many glaring errors here I do not know where to begin.

Lincoln's unlawful dictatorship has never ceased, even after his assassination.

Now this is just stupid. Since when did this nation become a dictatorship?

His cruelness has been immortalized because Good Men have done nothing. Today, we live in a racist, socialist, compartmentalist, fascist society.

Now we are moving into something that is just purely dillusional and completely out into left fielf.

We pay the unConstitutional income tax, and it's managed by a private corporation, which is corporatism, another word for fascism -- the marriage of the private corps. and the State.

I suggest you go back and re-read your Constitution. Income Tax Amendment was the XVI amendment to the US Constitution. Therefor, the Income Tax is not illegal.

Lincoln's bloody war created rampant racism by using a War as a means to rapidly transform the lives of blacks and whites, something for which neither group was ready.

Again, go back and check your history. Especially up in the Northern States.

Lincoln instituted the idea that it's okay to ravage our nation's Constitution, violating it wherever possible.

Actually, the only two things he violated (and in a time of emergency HAS the power to do) was suspend Habius Corpus and the press. That was it and he had the power to do that because of the threat to the nation.

Such has created socialistic public schools (unConstitutional and unBiblical) which brainwash children to worship the State and force families to use their own money to pay for their neighbors' education and other welfares.

Public Schools were instituted long before the Civil War my friend. Go look up your colonial and Early American History. Also look at Colonial Maryland while your at it..

Lincoln was clearly the worst President in US History. He was not an American, not a Christian, and not an Emancipator. He was America's Caesar.

I believe my response to this post shows that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/7/3/Dickson319-344.html
Huh? A web site about Historical Revisionism – International and Independent Scientific Historical Research.

Hey that makes sense, especially since it appears to be German based and even has HOLOCAUST Handbooks (http://vho.org/GB/Books/HHS.html)!! How nice!!

Dissecting the Holocaust applies state-of-the-art scientific technique and classic methods of detection to investigate the alleged murder of millions of Jews by Germans during World War II.

Such a wonderful site to learn about "dishonest Abe". :rolleyes:

Huh? A web site about Historical Revisionism – International and Independent Scientific Historical Research.

Hey that makes sense, especially since it appears to be German based and even has HOLOCAUST Handbooks (http://vho.org/GB/Books/HHS.html)!! How nice!!

Dissecting the Holocaust applies state-of-the-art scientific technique and classic methods of detection to investigate the alleged murder of millions of Jews by Germans during World War II.

Such a wonderful site to learn about "dishonest Abe". :rolleyes:

CH,

This is unusual for me to say this but rock on.

I know all about this thing. The "Civil War" was basicly a war between the Democrats (South) and the Republicans (North). The were originally the Democratic-Republicans, but they split over ISSUES OF SLAVERY! The Klu-Klux-Klan or whatever the heck those idiots are called targeted REPUBLICANS. Lincon was, I think the first Republican president. He freed slaves PERIOD. P.S. NOTHING AGAIST DEMOCRATS (though I'm a Republican) it hapened a long time ago. They were idiot rebs. I'm happy we Republicans won. Let us not forget THEY made the first offense, not us. And no matter what you say about Lincon there is ZERO chance he was the worst president ever pal.

I know all about this thing. The "Civil War" was basicly a war between the Democrats (South) and the Republicans (North). The were originally the Democratic-Republicans, but they split over ISSUES OF SLAVERY! The Klu-Klux-Klan or whatever the heck those idiots are called targeted REPUBLICANS. Lincon was, I think the first Republican president. He freed slaves PERIOD. P.S. NOTHING AGAIST DEMOCRATS (though I'm a Republican) it hapened a long time ago. They were idiot rebs. I'm happy we Republicans won. Let us not forget THEY made the first offense, not us. And no matter what you say about Lincon there is ZERO chance he was the worst president ever pal.

Another inaccurate History Post.

For your information, the Democratic-Republican Party became the Democrat Party. It was the Democrat Party that split.

The last Democratic-Republican President was John Quincy Adams.

I know all about this thing. The "Civil War" was basicly a war between the Democrats (South) and the Republicans (North). The were originally the Democratic-Republicans, but they split over ISSUES OF SLAVERY! The Klu-Klux-Klan or whatever the heck those idiots are called targeted REPUBLICANS. Lincon was, I think the first Republican president. He freed slaves PERIOD. P.S. NOTHING AGAIST DEMOCRATS (though I'm a Republican) it hapened a long time ago. They were idiot rebs. I'm happy we Republicans won. Let us not forget THEY made the first offense, not us. And no matter what you say about Lincon there is ZERO chance he was the worst president ever pal.
Remember the Republicans and Democrats of those times were in fact basically the opposite of what they are today.

Despite what your statist, propagandizing government school tells you, Abraham Lincoln was the worst president in the history of the United States. The Civil War, as it's called by the North, or the War for Southern Independence, as it's more accurately called by the South, was actually just Lincoln's War to Enslave the States.

About 600,000-680,000 Americans were unjustly slaughtered, many of them black. African-Americans, after the War ended, lived a much less happy life as a result of Lincoln's crusade to destroy the South rather than let them peacefully abolish slavery as they would have done without the War.

Abraham Lincoln hated churches and Christianity. A book by Lincoln was burned by his friend William Herndon to prevent it from getting published. The book was against the Bible and Christianity; had it been published, Lincoln would have himself been obliterated, and after the incident Lincoln chose to hide his anti-Christian prejudice and make himself look better by using sneaky words.

He never actually intended to end slavery; in his inaugural address, he stated so, and promoted a bill that would amend the Constitution, making slavery a permanent institution (obviously the bill was turned down -- otherwise we'd still have slaves today). And he was also a racist.


If you're having trouble understanding why Lincoln was evil but you understand "Star Wars," read the article "Episode II: Art Imitates Life (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman113.html)."

The Declaration of Independence eloquently states, "[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The South was establishing a new country based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence: that they have the inherent, God-given right to secede. They were not doing evil because their intent was not simply to create a nation of slave-owners, as most Southerners did not own slaves and were more concerned with Rights. Robert E. Lee, as a matter of fact, freed his slaves as soon as he could, and one of them happily went on to become his wartime cook.

The South was inevitably going to peacefully abolish slavery. Lincoln's intent was not to emancipate slaves in his War, but to establish the Federal Government as the Supreme Governing Body and to ensure that blacks never stole white jobs. He did not believe in the Right of Secession -- it is a God-given right, and although Lincoln pretended to believe in God to get public support, he was a known atheist.

Lincoln was also the true rebel. If the South has the right to secede for righteous reasons (avoiding a tyrannical government), then the South has done nothing wrong, and Lincoln is therefore the rebel opposed to what he called a "rebellion."

We can also draw connections from Lincoln to today. Lincoln's proponents claim the war was to "free" slaves, and Bush's proponents claim Bush is "freeing" Iraq and Afghanistan. Lincoln forcefully emancipated the slaves who survived (of course many died), enslaved the states, and now Bush is making the lives of Iraqis worse and enslaving America to the unConstitutional and unBiblical "New World Order." It is not our duty to stop tyranny elsewhere, and often just makes matters worse.

Lincoln's unlawful dictatorship has never ceased, even after his assassination. His cruelness has been immortalized because Good Men have done nothing. Today, we live in a racist, socialist, compartmentalist, fascist society. We pay the unConstitutional income tax, and it's managed by a private corporation, which is corporatism, another word for fascism -- the marriage of the private corps. and the State. Lincoln's bloody war created rampant racism by using a War as a means to rapidly transform the lives of blacks and whites, something for which neither group was ready. Lincoln instituted the idea that it's okay to ravage our nation's Constitution, violating it wherever possible. Such has created socialistic public schools (unConstitutional and unBiblical) which brainwash children to worship the State and force families to use their own money to pay for their neighbors' education and other welfares.

Lincoln was clearly the worst President in US History. He was not an American, not a Christian, and not an Emancipator. He was America's Caesar.

My how eloquent. If only a fraction of it were true, you might not be a loony.

Nope. You say public schools are unConstitutional and unBiblical. You are just loony.

He was such a bad President, he should have been shot. Oh wait a second ... he was.

Articles highly critical of Lincoln:
http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/origins-of-the-civil-war-slavery
http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/origins-of-the-civil-war-secession
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/7/3/Dickson319-344.html

Books highly critical of Lincoln
The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Hummel
Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: the Economics of the Civil War by Thornton & Eklund
A Constitutional History of Secession by Graham
America's Caesar by Durand

Website highly critical of Lincoln: http://www.americascaesar.com/


Thanks for those, got anything original of your own to add or was your pathetic cut-and-paste diatribe the extent of your input? Well done.

Despite what your statist, propagandizing government school tells you, Abraham Lincoln was the worst president in the history of the United States.

And of all the things that US government lies and propagandizes about, Lincoln is probably among the least of them.

I was always under the impression that the Civil War was about State Rights....or did they forget to teach that in public school also?

Oh well, just another person who is out there to blame something on a person who actually DID more for the country in one year than that person will do in their entire lives.

Shame, I like Abe too, maybe I should read more about him...not from unbias out to get the white man sites, but truely unbias sites.


Further more to settle this whole Democrat/Republican thing.

The Republican Party was founded around 1854, with the hopes of getting rid of slavery. That was their purpose. The Whigs and the Democrats, at the time, were the party choices so for the Republicans to step onto the scene, made things interesting.

Seems to me, people need to read more history instead of trying to re-write it. Or is it hiding it? Either way...read your history, might learn a thing or two.

I was always under the impression that the Civil War was about State Rights....or did they forget to teach that in public school also?

Oh well, just another person who is out there to blame something on a person who actually DID more for the country in one year than that person will do in their entire lives.

Shame, I like Abe too, maybe I should read more about him...not from unbias out to get the white man sites, but truely unbias sites.

According to the Declarations of Secession (http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#Mississippi) and the "Cornerstone Speech (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76)" of Confederate VP Alexandar Stephens, the South was built on the cornerstone of slavery. It was to protect that cornerstone and to be able to expand it that the Confederacy was born.

Slavery was the issue of the war.

Slavery was the issue of the war.

Correct, just like the cornerstone of abortion happens to be Roe v. Wade. Ultimately, though its about women's rights (already in the constitution, but what the hell right?)

So that being said....the overall issue was, state rights.

I cant believe this thread even exists.

It seems every few months, some racist bozo, pulls this damn article out of the depths of Stormfront.com or some other crap.

This isnt even original.
The Neo-nazis used to try this one all the time on this very forum, and every single time, anyone who did some casual browsing, could discredit them.

Its as if, we change how we think of Lincoln, we suddenly may want to start up an all white nation or something?

A smart, and original neo-nazi is an oxymoron.

What would really appall me, Quam, is if anyone reasonable agreed with you. Luckily, that doesn't seem to be the case. The facts coldly back up the official history. No, Lincoln didn' t come to office intending to free the slaves. But nevertheless, the fact is he did, while the South would have waited another 100 years to do so if it had won. Also, a win by the union was the best choice for the nation, as the Confederate States would never have survived the twentieth century, with its wholesale transference of textile and agriculture jobs to China.

Industrialisation started in the north, and is still in the process of creeping through most of the south. Today, the odds are that the Confederacy would resemble Africa in more ways than majority population had it 'won'.

Remember the Republicans and Democrats of those times were in fact basically the opposite of what they are today.
No, no and... no.

Justify that statement.

No, no and... no.

Justify that statement.

Republicans wanted to free slaves and give black rights (liberal for the era)

Democrats wanted to keep slavery and not give black rights (conservative for the era)

Republicans wanted to free slaves and give black rights (liberal for the era)

Democrats wanted to keep slavery and not give black rights (conservative for the era)
Not correct on either count.

Secondly the implication that the modern Republican party is in favor of eliminating black rights is as patenly offensive and incorrect as stating that the Democrat policeis are still being formed by the Dixiecrats.

Not correct on either count.

Secondly the implication that the modern Republican party is in favor of eliminating black rights is as patenly offensive and incorrect as stating that the Democrat policeis are still being formed by the Dixiecrats.
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that the Democrats of then were conservative and now they're liberal. Vice-versa for the Republications.

Quamia is quite obviously a Liberal who is upset with the Republican government so he is attacking the first Republican president with unfounded accusations. Just another fool that makes decent Liberals look like Howard Dean.

Quamia is quite obviously a Liberal who is upset with the Republican government so he is attacking the first Republican president with unfounded accusations. Just another fool that makes decent Liberals look like Howard Dean.
You can't be serious. This post is almost as stupid as the OP.

No, no and... no.

Justify that statement.
Wow, are you disagreeing with history? The liberals of the civil war era were primarily Republicans. Do you think modern Republicans are liberals? Of course there are different branches of liberalism, but TR, who was a liberal mainly in that he was against monopolies and preserved the environment, was a Republican. The Democrats dominated the South until the Civil Rights era and now it's dominated by Republicans, so there is clear evidence that who were Democrats are now Republicans.

You can't be serious. This post is almost as stupid as the OP.

That was the point.

Wow, are you disagreeing with history? The liberals of the civil war era were primarily Republicans. Do you think modern Republicans are liberals? Of course there are different branches of liberalism, but TR, who was a liberal mainly in that he was against monopolies and preserved the environment, was a Republican. The Democrats dominated the South until the Civil Rights era and now it's dominated by Republicans, so there is clear evidence that who were Democrats are now Republicans.
The Republicans of the Day where pro-business, and where not in favor of universal equalty. And the Democrat party split three ways in the elecition of 1860, each section with a different platform.

TR was also a blatent imperialist.

Your statement is greatly oversimplifies the two parties. The Republicans of 1860 are not the Republicans of 2006, and the Democrats of 2006 are not the Republicans of 1860, nor is the revese true.

Edit to add: Neither the RNC or the DNC have liberals.

The Republicans of the Day where pro-business, and where not in favor of universal equialty. And the Democrat party split three ways in the elecition of 1860, each section with a different platform. Okay...In general though, the ideologies have switched more than not.

TR was also a blatent imperialist.Really? :rolleyes:

Your statement is greatly oversimplifies the two parties. The Republicans of 1860 are not the Republicans of 2006, and the Democrats of 2006 are not the Republicans of 1860, nor is the revese true.
I said nothing about trying to not generalize. Republicans of lore are closer to the Democrats now, and vice versa.

The Republicans of the Day where pro-business, and where not in favor of universal equalty. And the Democrat party split three ways in the elecition of 1860, each section with a different platform.

The republicans were against slavery and wanted it ended. That was liberal for the time.

Democrats wanted to keep slavery. That was conservative for the time.

TR was also a blatent imperialist.

I'll grant you this one.

Your statement is greatly oversimplifies the two parties. The Republicans of 1860 are not the Republicans of 2006, and the Democrats of 2006 are not the Republicans of 1860, nor is the revese true.

I see someone here really needs to go back and look at party platforms a tad more.

All of you who think Lincoln was a horrible president are just wrong. Just because we have the right to do something does not mean we should. If the south was allowed to leave over many issues (yes slavery was one of them) than other states could have left as well. This would have lead to many nations who did not get along instead of one powerful nation that gives us many freedom and protects us from harm. Furthermore, Lincoln was very anti-slavery from his youngest days. If i remember correctly he did not speak to hsi father because his father was a racist. Oh and by today's standards everyone back in Lincoln's time was a racist. True Lincoln was not a Christian but he was not anti-Christian. American history is not taught correctly to be politically correct etc but what you have said is just as equally as wrong and false. After the Civil War people spoke of "the United States is" before the war it was "the United States are" quite an important change in our thoughts. Whats mor eis we became more unified and less regional which has only made this great county of ours evens stronger. I agree with the other people slavery might have been abolished but i doubt blacks would be as free as they are today. Of course life si ahrd for any country that as been through war IT IS WAR!!!!! Give countries tiem to re-build after a war, look at the Balkans, Africa, former Soviet Union. All of these places are still realing from war why isn't the UN being attacked for a botched job in Rawanda (they should have gone in and liad down the law with force stupid panzy UN) of the Balkans (what peacekeeping). I am sure other people mentiond that Lincoln was shot before he could institute his reconstruction plan that was ver forgiving, he wanted to heal the nation. He also gave the south tiem after he was elected they fired first thus starting the war, he wanted to be diplomatic but the south was not willing to.

Under TR, the U.S. Empire extended to include the Philippines, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico.

I said nothing about trying to not generalize. Republicans of lore are closer to the Democrats now, and vice versa.
Again, issues are very different, containment and preservation of the Union, which was mentioned in 10 of the original 17 planks of 1860 are just not applicable. Though:

[Plank 16]
Affirms that the Federal Government should render immediate and efficient aid to the construction of a railroad to the Pacific; and as a preliminary thereto should establish a daily overland mail

Is still a contentious issue.

Edit to add, the Republicans where not direct abolitionists, they where however commited to containment.

All of you who think Lincoln was a horrible president are just wrong. <snip>
They are just sticking to the word-for-word interpretation of the Constitution, and on those grounds, Lincoln wasn't quite as great as he may seem, but the folly is that the Constitution isn't meant to be taken taht literal, hence the ability to amend, elastic cause, "faithfully excecute laws of the land," etc...

Edit to add, the Republicans where not direct abolitionists, they where however commited to containment.

Most republicans were actually direct abolitionists. Why do you think the South seceded from the Union when Lincoln took office?

Most republicans were actually direct abolitionists. Why do you think the South seceded from the Union when Lincoln took office?
Because the south thought they were direct abolitionists. Most republicans were pro-containment. Free soil at best.

I am not even going to bother with quoting.

Lincoln was great. No other President has ever stood up to such a trial. (Well except big number 15th Buchanon who was in the chair when the first batch seceded and did absolutly nothing, consequently, he is one of the worst presidents) Lincoln was depressed through out his whole life. His entire life was destroyed by the Civil War. He aged rapidly (look at photos), he felt guilt for every single soldier who died (He watched the dead and wounded return from battles) His wife went crazy, his son died, half of his country wanted him dead, yet he stayed on. Lincoln's assasination doomed the South to hard reconstruction. Lincoln was forced to revoke Habeas Corpus because of the massive numbers of prisoners.

Republicans and Democrats of the age are incomparable to them now. The Democrats were a strong national party along with the whigs, who fell apart. The Republicans were not a party as viewed today. They were a sectionalistic party. I am not aware of any Republican running in the South for Congress or whatever before the Civil War (I didn't look it up, well none of them succeeded anyway).

The Democrats were the only party left for the South.

Many of the Republicans were extremely religious people, as some thought religion was more important than the Constitution, (Stanton's Higher Law) Many of them were fighting slavery like Pro-lifers now, that it is God's will, plan, etc. The majority favored containing slavery in the South now, some for moral, some for the racist reason of not wanting any blacks in the territories (Yes it is true, the American school books and the revisionists say so)

So not Liberal or Conservative, One issueist (I am pretty sure that isn't a word).



Whoever said that the Democrats do not have a continuing path back (Something about JQA being the last) The Democrats were orignally Republicans (Back with Jefferson's time) Then Democratic Republicans, then they split into the current Democrats (Jackson) and the highly original Democratic Republicans (JQA)

If I messed up what the person said, disregard this.

you're stupid..yep i think that sums it up pretty well all your "facts" are ridiculous and i would say you are running border line of treason....

Lincoln was the best. He abolished slavery. He accomplished more in office than any of the last 3 presidents combined. You're just mad because stupid Jefferson Davis didn't win the Civil War. The south, there was no need for that war. They just were under the reign of that crazy Jefferson Davis.

you're stupid..yep i think that sums it up pretty well all your "facts" are ridiculous and i would say you are running border line of treason....

Very Well said, no need for anything more.

Most republicans were actually direct abolitionists. Why do you think the South seceded from the Union when Lincoln took office?
I kinda hate to say it, but Corneliu, you have owned in this debate.

It's already been done by plenty of sane souls in here, so I won't lambast the opening post.

The fact is, "statist" or not, Abraham Lincoln was, if not the best, certainly one of the best presidents in United States history.

He.. saved.. the.. union (with notable generals like Grant, Sherman and Sheridan, who rode circles around Lee in Lee's back yard).. and.. while.. doing.. that.. issued.. the.. Emancipation.. Proclamation.. which.. made.. slavery.. illegal.

I'm in the South now, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to miss out on all the benefits of being part of the USA.

Most republicans were actually direct abolitionists. Why do you think the South seceded from the Union when Lincoln took office?
[Plank 14]
“That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions [Read Slavery], according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political faith depends, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”

[Plank 8]
"That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any Territory of the United States."

- The Republican Platform, 1860

[Plank 14]
“That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own [u]domestic institutions [Read Slavery], according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political faith depends, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”

[Plank 8]
"That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in [u]any Territory[u] of the United States."

- The Republican Platform, 1860

Thankfully, Lincoln decided to follow Plank 8... that the normal condition is freedom and that slavery is an effrontery to that.

And if you wrote in [Read Slavery]... you've added something that's not there and rendered any argument you might base on that passage.. invalid.

Lincoln was clearly the worst President in US History. He was not an American, not a Christian, and not an Emancipator. He was America's Caesar.

Everybody be quiet, shh...You hear that? That's the sound of nobody giving a shit...:D

Seriously dude, who cares? I didn't know Lincoln, I wasn't alive during the 1800s (and I doubt anyone else was either), and I think black people are as equal as anyone else in America, so what's the big deal? Go ahead and believe that Lincoln was a terrible man and all that (even though being an Atheist doesn't mean you're evil), but most people will probably think you're crazy.

Thankfully, Lincoln decided to follow Plank 8... that the normal condition is freedom and that slavery is an effrontery to that.
Territory is capitalized in the action section, it was reffering to US Territory, or areas "owned" by the US and not states, such as New Mexico Territory, and while it says that slavery is an affront to man, no action is proscribed against slave holding state. You are only reading part of the text.

And if you wrote in [Read Slavery]... you've added something that's not there and rendered any argument you might base on that passage.. invalid.
Direct abolishtion is not mentioned anywhere in the planks, and yes the brakets are mine. I wrote them in so I would not have to post the rest, and I will inform you that they are used in a proper context within the language of time, AND within the context of the rest of the document.

Or do you want to argue over semantics for 8 pages, and what is and is not responsible academic quotation method?

I kinda hate to say it, but Corneliu, you have owned in this debate.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Original Poster for allowing me to show off my Civil War knowledge. I would also like to thank my parents who have pushed me to the limit in researching this topic and for giving me the tools to learn it.

I also thank the History Channel for their wonderful 8 tape documentary on the Civil War and to my ex-gf for giving it to me as a present.

*brushes aside a tear as I hold on to my award*

[QUOTE=Quamia]
Abraham Lincoln hated churches and Christianity.
Lincoln was clearly the worst President in US History. He was not an American, not a Christian, and not an Emancipator. [QUOTE]


Who cares if he was a christian or not? Almost only rednecks are christians these days.
Personally, I'm an athiest. I think religion is the most ridiculous thing in the world and it's hardly fair to diss someone that's dead, just because he happened to think religion was and is pathetic! Fine if you're being rude about him for the other reasons but it's just horrible to do this just because he didn't share your views. Personally I'm glad America had an athiestic president.
And Hniz, you took the words right out of my mouth!

[QUOTE=Quamia]
Abraham Lincoln hated churches and Christianity.
Lincoln was clearly the worst President in US History. He was not an American, not a Christian, and not an Emancipator. [QUOTE]


Who cares if he was a christian or not? Almost only rednecks are christians these days.
Personally, I'm an athiest. I think religion is the most ridiculous thing in the world and it's hardly fair to diss someone that's dead, just because he happened to think religion was and is pathetic! Fine if you're being rude about him for the other reasons but it's just horrible to do this just because he didn't share your views. Personally I'm glad America had an athiestic president.
And Hniz, you took the words right out of my mouth!

actually, Lincoln believed in God but was (so he said in letters) not a Christian.

Territory is capitalized in the action section, it was reffering to US Territory, or areas "owned" by the US and not states, such as New Mexico Territory, and while it says that slavery is an affront to man, no action is proscribed against slave holding state. You are only reading part of the text.


Direct abolishtion is not mentioned anywhere in the planks, and yes the brakets are mine. I wrote them in so I would not have to post the rest, and I will inform you that they are used in a proper context within the language of time, AND within the context of the rest of the document.

Or do you want to argue over semantics for 8 pages, and what is and is not responsible academic quotation method?

no, I had 7 years of following academic quotation method (post-high school).

Suggested reading:

Trial By Fire by Paige Smith (think that's the author's name... read it years ago).

no, I had 7 years of following academic quotation method (post-high school).(I have had five years myself "Use brackets when inserting a word of your own choosing into a quotation.")
Come on, it would be fun :D

I will give you that I should have used an Asterix to avoid confusion, and a lengthy expose on how slavery was refered to slavery as "The Pecuilar Institiution." Which no one would bothered to read, and the whole passage would have been ignored or cherry picked.

Suggested reading:

Trial By Fire by Paige Smith (think that's the author's name... read it years ago).
If you will read:
The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 by David M. Potter

Could anyone enlighten me to what a 'Plank' is? I'm studying US History Since 1880 for one Uni module, and the word keeps popping up. I was going to research it tomorrow, but since there seem to be no end of knowledgable US experts here I thought I'd go to the Horses Mouth as it were.

Could anyone enlighten me to what a 'Plank' is? I'm studying US History Since 1880 for one Uni module, and the word keeps popping up. I was going to research it tomorrow, but since there seem to be no end of knowledgable US experts here I thought I'd go to the Horses Mouth as it were.
What's the context? Because the first thing that's coming to my mind would be a part of a party's policy, if you'll excuse my alliteration. Like being pro-choice, is a plank for the Democratic party.

What's the context? Because the first thing that's coming to my mind would be a part of a party's policy, if you'll excuse my alliteration. Like being pro-choice, is a plank for the Democratic party.

That's the one. I've been reading up on several elections and party political 'Planks' keep jumping up. Confused the hell out of me the first time I read it. Are they just like statements of the party?

That's the one. I've been reading up on several elections and party political 'Planks' keep jumping up. Confused the hell out of me the first time I read it. Are they just like statements of the party?
Ah, alright yeah. You've heard of the "party platform," right? All the policies that that party as a majority, support. Well, each plank, or individual policy, make up the party platform.

Ah, alright yeah. You've heard of the "party platform," right? All the policies that that party as a majority, support. Well, each plank, or individual policy, make up the party platform.

Ohhh. An individual policy. Thank you very much my friend, you just made the early 20th Century US Elections a hell of a lot easier to understand. Any idea why they're called Planks? I know for the metaphor, but why not just Policy? Is there a specific political reason?

Ohhh. An individual policy. Thank you very much my friend, you just made the early 20th Century US Elections a hell of a lot easier to understand. Any idea why they're called Planks? I know for the metaphor, but why not just Policy? Is there a specific political reason?
I assume it just came from the mataphor, I'm not quite sure. But I'm glad you understand now. :)

I assume it just came from the mataphor, I'm not quite sure. But I'm glad you understand now. :)

Heh. I was reading about Wilson's election and the Planks he was supporting and those he wasn't, and I got hellishly confused, wondering what wood had to do with feminism...

Oh shut up, nobody asked you...

Oh shut up, nobody asked you...

Que? I say, thats a tad rude. I asked a civil question and Achtung 45 answered it. No need for that...

Oh shut up, nobody asked you...

uh? Whats this in response to?

Note to Confederate wannabees.

Please stop posting garbage about how the South was right. Please stop showing us your ignorance and get back to making babies with your cousins. Or actually, don't do that. But, please stop posting this crap. The south was still a racist society until the North had to force you to change. We'd still have segregation in the South or worse, slavery if it wasn't for the North. You rebels really need to get an education. Just face it, the Yankees kicked your asses. Damn I hate Dixie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinda Sensible people
And hey, if you're telling the truth and Abe wasn't a christian, he just moved up in my books. After all, neither were our founding fathers.

Quote:
Don't know where you heard that from. The founding fathers weren't Puritans, but they definitely were Christian.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, some of them, though more deist than theist. Not sure about Thomas Jefferson though:

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." --Thomas Jefferson

James Madison - not such a keen churchman either:
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." -- James Madison

The Confederacy would've been right and woud've won had they abolished slavery before the war, besides the salvery, they had it right. But since they were ignorant of other races I would firmly have to side with the North.

The ONLY way to solve this argument is.....HAVE ANOTHER CIVIL WAR! AHAHAHA! GRAB YOUR GUNS! IRISH BRIGADE FORWARD! HURRAH!
:mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :fluffle: :fluffle:

An additional note:
Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable."

Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But Americans are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.

An additional note:
Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable."

Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But Americans are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.

*hands Moderatine a cookie*

The Confederacy would've been right and woud've won had they abolished slavery before the war, besides the salvery, they had it right.

How do you figure?

[QUOTE=Luporum]As a matter of fact throughout your whole damn post you paint the south in this innocent, freedom fighter light. I'm not saying Abe was a good president, as evidence would say otherwise. But don't try to make the south something they were not, innocent.
QUOTE]

I agree, Lincoln was not the greatest president ever, but he did his duty to his nation.

And by the way, I think you mean only 10% of Southerners were Plantation Owners.

It should be noted that the church was at the forefront on many social issues including but not limited to slavery, womens rights and suffrage, civil rights etc. Furthemore I am a well educated peron not a redneck and am Christian. Yes there are people who misuse my faith to murder or committ injustice but I do not support them. In fact I would call their actions contrary to the Bible. Before you go bashing my faith do remember the good it has doen for this country. Many of the principles foudn in the first Great Awakening in the early 18th century found their way into our DofI and Constitution. Such as free governance, the church wanted speration of Church and State to protect the Church. The found fathers (note fathers not people) had this same point Jefferson said so in the Federalist papers. This does not mean seperation of politis and religion, simply not established church. Lincoln did believe in God but did not believe in Christ as a Savior. So yes, he was not a Christian but he was also not an Atheist. Agian please check your facts before knocking somethign you don't agree with. All religions are imperfect, just like every party, and nation, and state no one is perfect so everyone stop acting so high and mighty like your group as never committed a crime.

In a true spirit of Christian brotherhood you take several things for granted.
1) That I am not a Christian myself.
2) That I do not believe in Jesus or God.
3) That I was attacking your religion.
4) That I was not assigning blame to other religions, nationalisms, etc. etc.

I was merely pointing out that some of the founding fathers were not adherents of, or at the very least, were suspicious of, the workings of the ecclesiastical Christian church, a fact that tends to be glossed over these days by the American religious right. The words you seem to have taken as a provocation were not mine, but Jeffersons.

For example the question of George Washington`s faith remains in doubt. He was an intensely private man, of course. But was not a communicant, nor did he speak in his correspondance about Jesus Christ. In February, 1800, a few weeks after. Washington's death, Jefferson made the following entry in his journal:

"Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice" (Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572).

Jefferson further says: "I know that Gouverneur Morris, who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did" (Ibid).

The point is that these people were freethinkers, with minds open to the latest developments of science and technology. They saw no opposition between spirituality and reason.

In the American Constitution, there's a little thing called the supremacy clause, which states that laws of the federal government are supreme over the state governments'. If every state wanted to secede every time it didn't like a law of the federal government, there would be no U S of A.

Just a query - if it is truly the United States of America, rather than the United State of America, why do people persist in using the singular rather than the plural?

"the USA is number one"
rather than
"the USA are number one"
???

If it came across that I was attacking one person, I was not. Nor was I intentionally attacking anyone for that matter. I was simply stating some facts that I felt should be stated. I was only offended by the comment that all Christians are rednecks. I am aware that most of our founding fathers were deists. Most Christian acknowledge this fact, there is fundamentalist branch but they are extreme and do not represent the vast majority of Christians. If that is the religious right I agree with your statement. But the term religious right can refer to many groups. What did you mean by this comment about the "religious right" the average Christian who happens to be republican? or the person I described above? I do apologize if you felt attacked. I am not one to name names because this is a public forum, I would have done that in private our of respect. I know not everyone is Christian but am speaking from my viewpoint and using language to describe Christians that I am used to. I guess I did feel people were attacking my faith and that is why I added the bit about no faith being perfect.

Moderatine it is because we see this country as one not many. yes we are many states but we are one nation depsite our many differences.

Slavery never existed in the North.

I've read it all!! If you really believe that, go read some real history, if you can read! Apparently, most of you just believe what you are told and don't research for yourselves. Slavery existed in the United States longer than in the Confederate States. Hmm, let's see...1776-1865 (Slavery in America, both sections), 1861-1865 (Slavery in CSA, as well as USA). You say the South had no plans of abolishing slavery. Well, let me lay a few facts out for you...

*The Confederate Constitution strictly forbade importing slaves from ANY country (USA included), thus restricting slavery to those slaves already existing in the Confederacy. If you want to rid yourself of something, you generally cut off all supplies to that issue!!

*Many Southern generals highly applauded the mustering of Negroes into the Army in exchange for their freedom. The only thing that hindered them was the disapproaval of President Davis (who many viewed as incompetent) and time.

Also, if you think the South's fight for freedom was only a cover up to continue slavery, what do you suppose the Colonies' reason was for independence from England? Slavery existed in all the colonies at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and every one of the Founding Fathers (except Benjamin Franklin) and early presidents owned slaves. How come they aren't decried and denounced for slavery? Do I catch a hint of hypocrisy from the Yanks?? Oh yeah, and on this very day, March 6, in 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott case that slaves are not citizens.
(source, http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

Please allow me to quote two sources condoning and encouraging secession as a Constitutional and God-given right...

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."- Abraham Lincoln, 1847, on the floor of Congress. WAIT! DID THAT SAY, "ABRAHAM LINCOLN?":headbang:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."- Declaration of Independence.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it! :)

Yes, of course I understand, E Pluribus Unum etc. etc. It stretches the concept of State a little I suppose, but the singular refers to the Republic rather than the union. Serves me right for asking a silly question to which I knew the answer.

I never understood how having a sunburned neck affected one`s intelligence anyway. I`m pretty sure Henry David Thoreau did, for example.

[QUOTE=Luporum]

And by the way, I think you mean only 10% of Southerners were Plantation Owners.

Check this out!
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html

I've read it all!! If you really believe that, go read some real history, if you can read! Apparently, most of you just believe what you are told and don't research for yourselves. Slavery existed in the United States longer than in the Confederate States. Hmm, let's see...1776-1865 (Slavery in America, both sections), 1861-1865 (Slavery in CSA, as well as USA). You say the South had no plans of abolishing slavery. Well, let me lay a few facts out for you...

Ok! 1st, you need to calm done. 2) Slavery existed even earlier than 1775 (the start of the war for American Independence) 3) There really were no plans to end slavery in the South. South Carolina didn't have plans. Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, they didin't have plans either.

*The Confederate Constitution strictly forbade importing slaves from ANY country (USA included), thus restricting slavery to those slaves already existing in the Confederacy. If you want to rid yourself of something, you generally cut off all supplies to that issue!!

I would like to see a source for this. As for cutting off the slaves, they had an extra slaves that they did not know what to do with. Virginia especially. This would not have ended slavery my friend.

*Many Southern generals highly applauded the mustering of Negroes into the Army in exchange for their freedom. The only thing that hindered them was the disapproaval of President Davis (who many viewed as incompetent) and time.

Some, repeat some confederate generals wanted this. I do not know how many and neither do you. Frankly they were relunctent to do it and it wasn't until near the end of the war that they actually started to do this. It didn't do them much good because of what you said, time. And yes, Davis was incompetent.

Also, if you think the South's fight for freedom was only a cover up to continue slavery, what do you suppose the Colonies' reason was for independence from England?

Taxes.

Slavery existed in all the colonies at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and every one of the Founding Fathers (except Benjamin Franklin) and early presidents owned slaves. How come they aren't decried and denounced for slavery? Do I catch a hint of hypocrisy from the Yanks??

Go study more Colonial History. Jefferson had in there an ending of slavery but the South would've voted the whole thing down if it was left in there. John Adams advocated to keep it in there but if he got his way, the South would've voted it down thus ending the 2nd Continental Congress. Jefferson relented in this regard and got the South to sign on to declaring independence from Great Britain.

Oh yeah, and on this very day, March 6, in 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott case that slaves are not citizens.
(source, http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

Thanks for the trivia. Also, if you read the opinion, you would also note that some of those justices were against slavery but since it was still legal, had no choice but to rule the way they did. Go figure. It was what we call Judicial Restraint.

Please allow me to quote two sources condoning and encouraging secession as a Constitutional and God-given right...

Ask that to your Southern Colleagues.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."- Abraham Lincoln, 1847, on the floor of Congress. WAIT! DID THAT SAY, "ABRAHAM LINCOLN?":headbang:

I see someone is taking a quote out of context. This quote can be taken many different ways.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."- Declaration of Independence.

Sorry but this is only an historical document nothing more and nothing less. It does not hold any legal weight whatsoever.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it! :)

Go ahead. I'm sure it tastes good for you.

Ok! 1st, you need to calm done. 2) Slavery existed even earlier than 1775 (the start of the war for American Independence) 3) There really were no plans to end slavery in the South. South Carolina didn't have plans. Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, they didin't have plans either.

My reference to 1776 was regarding the colonies' recognizing of their own independence.



I would like to see a source for this. As for cutting off the slaves, they had an extra slaves that they did not know what to do with. Virginia especially. This would not have ended slavery my friend.

1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy. http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html



Some, repeat some confederate generals wanted this. I do not know how many and neither do you. Frankly they were relunctent to do it and it wasn't until near the end of the war that they actually started to do this. It didn't do them much good because of what you said, time. And yes, Davis was incompetent.

Agreed, except about them being reluctant. Several generals, Gens. Patrick Cleburne, Stonewall Jackson, and Robert E. Lee included, were excited and pushed heavily for it.



Taxes.

And the South's was lop-sided representation in Congress, and the hard-riding tyrannical government who imposed heavy tariffs to force Southern commerce to only trade within the nation.

Go study more Colonial History. Jefferson had in there an ending of slavery but the South would've voted the whole thing down if it was left in there. John Adams advocated to keep it in there but if he got his way, the South would've voted it down thus ending the 2nd Continental Congress. Jefferson relented in this regard and got the South to sign on to declaring independence from Great Britain.

Like I said, it still existed!



Thanks for the trivia. Also, if you read the opinion, you would also note that some of those justices were against slavery but since it was still legal, had no choice but to rule the way they did. Go figure. It was what we call Judicial Restraint.

Exactly, it was still legal, NATIONWIDE! You would have people to believe it was only legal and accepted in the South.


I see someone is taking a quote out of context. This quote can be taken many different ways.

It is not taken out of context. And if it was, what would be the "correct" translation?

Well, some of them, though more deist than theist. Not sure about Thomas Jefferson though:

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." --Thomas Jefferson

James Madison - not such a keen churchman either:
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." -- James Madison

There may have been a few Founding Fathers who were deists, but the majority were practising Christians. 52 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Trinitarian Christians. Of the 55 signers of the Constitution, 29 were Anglicans, 16 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 was a lapsed Quaker.
William J. Federer, America's God and Country: Encyclopaedia of Quotations (St. Louis, MO: Amerisearch Inc., 1994) pp 180.


Not that it should make much of a difference. Even if 99.9% of the Founding Fathers had been devout worshipers of the Goddess Amaterasu, they wrote a Constitution that prohibits the federal government, as an entity, from meddling in religious affairs.

I know this has already been stated but according to this quote from Confederate VP Stevens Cornerstone speech, slavery was a big issue in the war and the Confederacy was certainly not considering abolishing slavery on their own.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html

My reference to 1776 was regarding the colonies' recognizing of their own independence.

What about the other point I made?

1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

This isn't ending slavery my friend. Just the International Slave Trade. Nothing more and nothing less. If this had any remoteness of ending slavery, the South would have fought it tooth and nail.

2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

This has to deal with the South I believe since it says this Confederacy. Again, it is ending the International Slave Trade. Nothing more and nothing less.

Agreed, except about them being reluctant. Several generals, Gens. Patrick Cleburne, Stonewall Jackson, and Robert E. Lee included, were excited and pushed heavily for it.

They pushed yes but the Confederate Congress was Relunctent. Also, what the confederate soldiers did to black soldiers of the Union.... *shakes head*

And the South's was lop-sided representation in Congress, and the hard-riding tyrannical government who imposed heavy tariffs to force Southern commerce to only trade within the nation.

lopsided my ass. All 13 colonies were there dude.

Like I said, it still existed!

yes it did. It existed until 1865. They weren't denounced because even the Continental Congress was split on this issue for the most part.

Exactly, it was still legal, NATIONWIDE! You would have people to believe it was only legal and accepted in the South.

Who me? Not me dude. I actually study history. I know it was legal nationwide. Why don't you go back and actually look at my posts throughout this thread.

It is not taken out of context. And if it was, what would be the "correct" translation?

As I said, it could be interpretted in many different ways. I guess you missed that part of my quote.

Just like it peacefully gave blacks the same rights as white men?

As a matter of fact southern states fought against black rights so viciously that it wasn't until the federal governemnt literally forced them to. (100 years after slavery was abolished).

Had the south remained independent we'd either see a continuance of slavery, a massive oppression of blacks, or a genocide after mechanical devices deemed manual labor useless.

Thank god the south lost.

Well, the South was about to abloish slaver in order to get through the Civil Wars in order to survive.

Despite what your statist, propagandizing government school tells you, Abraham Lincoln was the worst president in the history of the United States. Fair enough.
The Civil War, as it's called by the North, or the War for Southern Independence, as it's more accurately called by the South, was actually just Lincoln's War to Enslave the States. Yes. Lincon wanted to enslave the states

About 600,000-680,000 Americans were unjustly slaughtered, many of them black. The number of blacks who died fighting the civil war was miniscule.
African-Americans, after the War ended, lived a much less happy life as a result of Lincoln's crusade to destroy the South rather than let them peacefully abolish slavery as they would have done without the War.Their lives weren't necessairily worse. Yes, its true that they didn't get better right away, but the civil war set them on a course which resulted in the de jure equality of blacks

Abraham Lincoln hated churches and Christianity. Making him the worst president in US history?
A book by Lincoln was burned by his friend William Herndon to prevent it from getting published. The book was against the Bible and Christianity; had it been published, Lincoln would have himself been obliterated, and after the incident Lincoln chose to hide his anti-Christian prejudice and make himself look better by using sneaky words. All politicians hide the less seemly aspects of their character. If you ask me, Lincon's apparent anti-christian sentiments are a testament to his intellegence.

The Declaration of Independence eloquently states, "[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The South was establishing a new country based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence: that they have the inherent, God-given right to secede. They were not doing evil because their intent was not simply to create a nation of slave-owners, as most Southerners did not own slaves and were more concerned with Rights. Robert E. Lee, as a matter of fact, freed his slaves as soon as he could, and one of them happily went on to become his wartime cook. I don't disagree in the least. The civil war was alot more complicated than it is often portrayed and Robert Lee is a fascinating story. Doesn't make Lincon any worse of a president than, well, virtually all US presidents. Its jsut a fact that the US fights wars that it shouldn't.

The South was inevitably going to peacefully abolish slavery. You think so? You think a very wealthy, very outnumbered white elite, whose wealth (and soceity) was based on slavery would just free all the slaves? Not without the formation of some new socio-political moral philosophy which, judging by the regressive nature of the south's education system at the time, never would have happened.
Lincoln's intent was not to emancipate slaves in his War, but to establish the Federal Government as the Supreme Governing Body and to ensure that blacks never stole white jobs. I'm going to call you on this. You need proof to say something like that.
He did not believe in the Right of Secession -- it is a God-given right, and although Lincoln pretended to believe in God to get public support, he was a known atheist. So he was a well known atheist who was publicly a non-atheist. Right.

Lincoln was also the true rebel. If the South has the right to secede for righteous reasons (avoiding a tyrannical government), then the South has done nothing wrong, and Lincoln is therefore the rebel opposed to what he called a "rebellion." So Lincon seceeded from the US. I can buy that. Oh wait. That's not what happened at all... where is this comming from? You're calling Lincon a bad president because you think South had a legitimate right to seceed. Lincon obviously would try to keep his country intact. Regardless of wheather of not the south was seceeding for "righteous reasons", Lincon's sucsessful attempt to maintain his country's unity doesn't amke him a rebel, or a bad president.

We can also draw connections from Lincoln to today. Lincoln's proponents claim the war was to "free" slaves, and Bush's proponents claim Bush is "freeing" Iraq and Afghanistan. You think there is a historical parallel? There is not. The gulf wars were to ensure the US's access to oil, and to somewhat stabalize a volatile region, further ensuring a supply of oil. Lincon did not gain access to vital natural resources by invading his own country many times over (he was likley a leading cause of the war).

Lincoln forcefully emancipated the slaves who survived (of course many died), I though Lincon didn't want to free the slaves. "forcfully emancipated"? BS
He enslaved the states, and now Bush is making the lives of Iraqis worse and enslaving America to the unConstitutional and unBiblical "New World Order." It is not our duty to stop tyranny elsewhere, and often just makes matters worse.
"He enslaved the states" What does that even mean? Like what is this tangent even about? How does Bush making the lives of Iraqis worse have anything to do with Lincon being a bad president? 'The New World Order' is unconstitutional, but so much is these days. Whats it got to do with Lincon? unbiblical? Mabye, check certainly. Unchristian? No. American Imperialism is propelled by white militant christians. and fuelled with black militant christians.
Lincoln's unlawful dictatorship has never ceased, even after his assassination. Despite the fact that that's a physical impossibility, and despite the fact that, because Lincon's actions were so restricted by his war council, calling him a dictator is highly inaccurate, how was his rule unlawful? He was absolutly elected (albiet by a slim margin but...) and gave up office without hassel when he was done. An unlawful dictator who magically extended his control into the future? No.
His cruelness has been immortalized because Good Men have done nothing. ?
Today, we live in a racist, socialist, compartmentalist, fascist society. Ya, that society, being at once fascist and socialist. Damn society...
We pay the unConstitutional income tax, and it's managed by a private corporation, which is corporatism, another word for fascism -- Corporatism isn't synonymous with facism. They're arguably exactly antithetical to one another.
the marriage of the private corps. and the State. Ok, here's the real clue that you just don't know what you're talking about. The single thing that Lincon wrote about most often, and most passionatly was his feelings that private banks, conglomerated newspapers and growing corporations would be the fall of the country which he cared about so much. "the marrige of private corporations and the american state' not only has nothing to do with lincon, it was his greatest fear.
Lincoln's bloody war created rampant racism by using a War as a means to rapidly transform the lives of blacks and whites, something for which neither group was ready. Yep, Lincon was sure racist by abolishing slavery. Those blacks, who had always been slaves and whose situation was changing at the time, just weren't ready to be independant for the first time ever in history. Those blacks just needed more time for their owners to teach them more. Yep, thats how it was. And lincon screwed it all up:headbang:
Lincoln instituted the idea that it's okay to ravage our nation's Constitution, violating it wherever possible. Such has created socialistic public schools (unConstitutional and unBiblical) which brainwash children to worship the State and force families to use their own money to pay for their neighbors' education and other welfares.

Lincoln was clearly the worst President in US History. He was not an American, not a Christian, and not an Emancipator. He was America's Caesar.
This is the most ignorant, worst-written peice of neo-conservative, chritian poo that I have ever laid eyes on. I couldn't have made anything of such poor-quality, and such misguided anger if I tried.

You do not, as you think, have a radical new interpretation of history brought about by recent revelations, you just have an angry and poorly constructed conspiracy theory which it has not been worth my time to deconstruct.

I digress and defer...I see victory is still hopeless for the South, and being outnumbered is the only reason.:headbang:

Wow...this topic has has been debated for far too long. Does anyone honestly care if Lincoln was Christian or not?

He abolished slavery, so good for him. He should be A-OK in everyone's book, especially black people. [/end debate]

I digress and defer...I see victory is still hopeless for the South, and being outnumbered is the only reason.:headbang:

Oh brother. I knew you were a southern but I didn't expect you to be a radical.

PS the civil war was sweet. It's the best example of the little guy takin on the big guy and then just kicking the shit out of him for so long untill all the big guy's freinds come and corner the little guy, ever.

Edit: probably better described as the big guy just refuses to die and the little guy gets tired eventually, not to take the little guy down at all.
Ya, I like that one more

PS the civil war was sweet. It's the best example of the little guy takin on the big guy and then just kicking the shit out of him for so long untill all the big guy's freinds come and corner the little guy, ever.

And yet over a half million people died in the Civil War. I wouldn't call it sweet, I call it a tragedy.

Abe was a dictator wanna be, but the Confederacy sucked too. Old Abe being assassinated at the war’s end, before he could consolidate his power, was probably one of the best possible outcomes of the entire situation.

Oh brother. I knew you were a southern but I didn't expect you to be a radical.

When you least expect it...EXPECT IT!

Ditto, Unogal!

Abe was a dictator wanna be, but the Confederacy sucked too. Old Abe being assassinated at the war’s end, before he could consolidate his power, was probably one of the best possible outcomes of the entire situation.

I suggest you actually go back and study up on Lincoln's plans for reconstruction. If he hadn't been assassinated, I do not believe we would've had all the troubles that occured. At least not to the extent that it occured.

Despite what your statist, propagandizing government school tells you, Abraham Lincoln was the worst president in the history of the United States. The Civil War, as it's called by the North, or the War for Southern Independence, as it's more accurately called by the South, was actually just Lincoln's War to Enslave the States.

About 600,000-680,000 Americans were unjustly slaughtered, many of them black. African-Americans, after the War ended, lived a much less happy life as a result of Lincoln's crusade to destroy the South rather than let them peacefully abolish slavery as they would have done without the War.

Abraham Lincoln hated churches and Christianity. A book by Lincoln was burned by his friend William Herndon to prevent it from getting published. The book was against the Bible and Christianity; had it been published, Lincoln would have himself been obliterated, and after the incident Lincoln chose to hide his anti-Christian prejudice and make himself look better by using sneaky words.

He never actually intended to end slavery; in his inaugural address, he stated so, and promoted a bill that would amend the Constitution, making slavery a permanent institution (obviously the bill was turned down -- otherwise we'd still have slaves today). And he was also a racist.


If you're having trouble understanding why Lincoln was evil but you understand "Star Wars," read the article "Episode II: Art Imitates Life (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman113.html)."

The Declaration of Independence eloquently states, "[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The South was establishing a new country based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence: that they have the inherent, God-given right to secede. They were not doing evil because their intent was not simply to create a nation of slave-owners, as most Southerners did not own slaves and were more concerned with Rights. Robert E. Lee, as a matter of fact, freed his slaves as soon as he could, and one of them happily went on to become his wartime cook.

The South was inevitably going to peacefully abolish slavery. Lincoln's intent was not to emancipate slaves in his War, but to establish the Federal Government as the Supreme Governing Body and to ensure that blacks never stole white jobs. He did not believe in the Right of Secession -- it is a God-given right, and although Lincoln pretended to believe in God to get public support, he was a known atheist.

Lincoln was also the true rebel. If the South has the right to secede for righteous reasons (avoiding a tyrannical government), then the South has done nothing wrong, and Lincoln is therefore the rebel opposed to what he called a "rebellion."

We can also draw connections from Lincoln to today. Lincoln's proponents claim the war was to "free" slaves, and Bush's proponents claim Bush is "freeing" Iraq and Afghanistan. Lincoln forcefully emancipated the slaves who survived (of course many died), enslaved the states, and now Bush is making the lives of Iraqis worse and enslaving America to the unConstitutional and unBiblical "New World Order." It is not our duty to stop tyranny elsewhere, and often just makes matters worse.

Lincoln's unlawful dictatorship has never ceased, even after his assassination. His cruelness has been immortalized because Good Men have done nothing. Today, we live in a racist, socialist, compartmentalist, fascist society. We pay the unConstitutional income tax, and it's managed by a private corporation, which is corporatism, another word for fascism -- the marriage of the private corps. and the State. Lincoln's bloody war created rampant racism by using a War as a means to rapidly transform the lives of blacks and whites, something for which neither group was ready. Lincoln instituted the idea that it's okay to ravage our nation's Constitution, violating it wherever possible. Such has created socialistic public schools (unConstitutional and unBiblical) which brainwash children to worship the State and force families to use their own money to pay for their neighbors' education and other welfares.

Lincoln was clearly the worst President in US History. He was not an American, not a Christian, and not an Emancipator. He was America's Caesar.
Unless I see links you're full of shit by default.

On side note read Uncle Tom's Cabin you racist asshole and see how you like slave-holders.

[QUOTE=Quamia]snipQUOTE]

oh get over yourself kid. i don't even know what kind of revisionist you are, other than a bad one of course.

Anyone notice that he has not responded at all in this thread to any of the responses to his post?

I suggest you actually go back and study up on Lincoln's plans for reconstruction. If he hadn't been assassinated, I do not believe we would've had all the troubles that occured. At least not to the extent that it occured.
Only because he would have seized dictatorial power. It would probably only have been a matter of months before the constitution was abandoned entirely.

Only because he would have seized dictatorial power. It would probably only have been a matter of months before the constitution was abandoned entirely.

Very nice conspiracy and one not steeped in anything resembling facts.

Lincoln was a bad man, I grant you. But he was not even CLOSE to being the worst President ever. I recommend you read up on some presidents named Franklin Pierce, James Buchannan, Ulysses S. Grant, and Warren G. Harding. THOSE, my friend, are the worst presidents ever. I recommend you get all your facts straight before you spout such bolt opinions.

Very nice conspiracy and one not steeped in anything resembling facts.
Look at what the man did. We were on a steady path to dictatorship. Nobody ever gives powers back, ever. That is a fact.

Lincoln was a bad man, I grant you. But he was not even CLOSE to being the worst President ever. I recommend you read up on some presidents named Franklin Pierce, James Buchannan, Ulysses S. Grant, and Warren G. Harding. THOSE, my friend, are the worst presidents ever. I recommend you get all your facts straight before you spout such bolt opinions.

You forgot Ford and Carter in that list.

Look at what the man did. We were on a steady path to dictatorship. Nobody ever gives powers back, ever. That is a fact.
George Washington?

Look at what the man did. We were on a steady path to dictatorship. Nobody ever gives powers back, ever. That is a fact.

I know precisely what he did. Guess what? He did. Oops. Another conspiracy theory busted

George Washington?

John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison

and every president has given up power while they had it. Oops!

John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison

and every president has given up power while they had it. Oops!
But don't forget about the Super Secret Undercover No-Holds-Barred Shadow Government which they all graduate to.

Conservative Christian historical revisionism at its WORST.

So what's coming next? Hitler was a model for leftists? :rolleyes:

Look at what the man did. We were on a steady path to dictatorship. Nobody ever gives powers back, ever. That is a fact.

Hate to break it to you, but our system is too deeply rooted in checks and ballances to become a dictatorship Emperor Palpatine style. The only way America is going to get a dictator in place is if an armed group of rebels takes control of the government by force, OR there's unanimus agreement between the people and the government (as well as the beaurocracy) that we need a dictator and that the U.S. constitution isn't worth a dime.

Taking control of a democratic government is much easier to do in a parlementry system where popular sovergnty rules absolutely. America is completely different.

I could go on and on about this forever and it will really do me no good... I recommend you read the Federalist Papers (if you haven't already) and really delve deeply into our government's structuring. You'll begin to see very quickly, just how brilliant the Founding Fathers were when they designed our "Grand Experiment" that is a Federal Republic.

But don't forget about the Super Secret Undercover No-Holds-Barred Shadow Government which they all graduate to.

I have no idea what your talking about.

*shifts eyes left and right*

I have no idea what your talking about.

*shifts eyes left and right*
*throws salt over my left shoulder*
I've said nothing.

George Washington?
His powers came from the Continental Congress. They were superior to him.
I know precisely what he did. Guess what? He did. Oops. Another conspiracy theory busted
You are delusional. The shadow of Lincoln’s plans still lives on today and explains many of modern day America’s governmental problems.

Oh yeah, Lincoln created the Grant scandals with the money he stole from the American people and gave to the railroads.

John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison

and every president has given up power while they had it. Oops!
Only becasue they are forced to by a system.
Hate to break it to you, but our system is too deeply rooted in checks and ballances to become a dictatorship Emperor Palpatine style.
Lincoln was able to declare martial law.
Hell, FDR came damn close. He was able to obtain legislative powers.

His powers came from the Continental Congress. They were superior to him.

George Washington was the 1st elected President under the US Constitution. He gave up power willingly. As did Presiden Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other presidents that either served two terms or ousted after one. The only exception being FDR who was elected 4 times which resulted in what we have today. Two terms or nor more than 10 years as President.

You are delusional. The shadow of Lincoln’s plans still lives on today and explains many of modern day America’s governmental problems.

:rolleyes:

Oh yeah, Lincoln created the Grant scandals with the money he stole from the American people and gave to the railroads.

Proof?

You are delusional. The shadow of Lincoln’s plans still lives on today and explains many of modern day America’s governmental problems.

Oh yeah, Lincoln created the Grant scandals with the money he stole from the American people and gave to the railroads.

A. There's no reason to call anyone delusional or anything else in enlightened debate for that matter.

B. America has few, if any, governmental problems. Let me tell you something, inefficiant governments that don't get anything done are GOOD. A big Beurocratic mess can be good as well! I'll tell you this also, you should fear a powerful congress a lot more than a powerful president. A powerful congress rules by complete popular sovergnty, which means there's no protection for the minority opinion. Mob rule is a very, VERY bad thing. So please, don't preach that our government has "problems" until you can name off real ones.

Only becasue they are forced to by a system.

Not in those days Undelia.

Lincoln was able to declare martial law.

Only in the state of Maryland.

Hell, FDR came damn close. He was able to obtain legislative powers.

And yet FDR is also among the greatest presidents in American History.

Proof?
The shit he pulls out of his ass.

His powers came from the Continental Congress. They were superior to him.

You are delusional. The shadow of Lincoln’s plans still lives on today and explains many of modern day America’s governmental problems.

Oh yeah, Lincoln created the Grant scandals with the money he stole from the American people and gave to the railroads.
Washington was unsure he even wanted to serve a SECOND term.

Washington was unsure he even wanted to serve a SECOND term.

He was talked into it I believe.

Yes, Lincoln declared martial law. If you read the constitution, that was perfectly within his power to do so. "The writ of Hebeas Corpus shall not be suspended except in time of rebellion." Get what I'm saying? Any President from WAshingtion to Dubyah could have done that. Lincoln wasn't tyrannical for doing that.

Also, I'd like to make note to you all that FDR threatened to seek dictitorial power in his first Innaugeral Address if congress didn't follow him...

So — have the nice folks in the Texas Hill Country west of San Antonio succeeded in Taking Back Texas?

Give my regards to Texas Separatists Marshall Kuykendall and Richard McLaren — and let Marshall Kuykendall know that African-Americans have opted not to pay slaveowners for the loss of income following their emancipation by Abraham Lincoln, as proposed by Mr. Kuykendall.

worst?

while it may be perfectly true that give a politician one issue with enough popular backing he can get away with almost anything else, i fail to see how lincoln could have been any worse then andrew jackson if he had tried.

we've had any number of others it would be pretty hard to top for harmfulness, so whatever the distortions and exagerations about lincoln, why pick him out particularly?

i don't like the precident he sat by making war to prevent cesession. america probably would be better off to have become a hand full of regeonal nations then the superpower spoiled bully it has instead become.

appealing to the abolitionist movement probably was more of a selling point then an actual reason. the only thing slavery is ever really any good for though, is sex. and having it be on racial lines is absurd.

jeff davis's intentions weren't exactly all sweetness and light either.

the mechanics of the dispute, as i understand it, had to do with economic allieances with then dominant powers in europe. my understanding being that the real motivation was to avoid domestic, largely northern, industrial intrests, having to compete with french, and other european imports, which the south had no quams about trading with at all.

=^^=
.../\...

Why do revisionists waste their time with this shit? Just join the KKK and try to change the future instead of rewriting the past.

He was talked into it I believe.
He was basically talked into serving his first term as well. He didn't want to be Prez, he was a military leader, not a political figure. But he did one hell of a job.

And yet FDR is also among the greatest presidents in American History.
Are you fucking kidding me? He was a racist, a warmonger and is responsible for the US government thinking deficit spending is a good way to run things.

Why do revisionists waste their time with this shit? Just join the KKK and try to change the future instead of rewriting the past.

COMPLETELY uncalled for. Look, I joined this hoping for a more enlightened historical debate and all I got was a forum full of babies with foul language. If you can't debate like civilized people, then I see no reason for me to try and talk sence to you people... Good night.

But he did one hell of a job.
He was a typical mediocre leader. What makes you think he was great? Sure he set precedents, maybe that’s because he was the first guy to have the job.

COMPLETELY uncalled for. Look, I joined this hoping for a more enlightened historical debate and all I got was a forum full of babies with foul language. If you can't debate like civilized people, then I see no reason for me to try and talk sence to you people... Good night.
Wah.

He was basically talked into serving his first term as well. He didn't want to be Prez, he was a military leader, not a political figure. But he did one hell of a job.

I agree 100%. Maybe the relunctent presidents make better presidents than those that actually seek the office.

Are you fucking kidding me? He was a racist, a warmonger and is responsible for the US government thinking deficit spending is a good way to run things.

I'll give you the deficit spending but for the rest...:rolleyes:

He was a typical mediocre leader. What makes you think he was great? Sure he set precedents, maybe that’s because he was the first guy to have the job.
Exactly. The founders didn't know what they were creating with the Executive branch, it was something totally new. No one knew how to be president, exactly what powers a president should have, and Washington didn't fuck up. That's why he's so great.

Exactly. The founders didn't know what they were creating with the Executive branch, it was something totally new. No one knew how to be president, exactly what powers a president should have, and Washington didn't fuck up. That's why he's so great.
Your standards are ridiculously low.

He was a typical mediocre leader. What makes you think he was great? Sure he set precedents, maybe that’s because he was the first guy to have the job.

Oh grow up and actually learn abit of history before you go spouting off your mouth.

I'll give you the deficit spending but for the rest...:rolleyes:
Japanese internment= racist.
Provoking the Japanese and Lend-Lease= Warmongering.

Exactly. The founders didn't know what they were creating with the Executive branch, it was something totally new. No one knew how to be president, exactly what powers a president should have, and Washington didn't fuck up. That's why he's so great.

*hands Achtung a cookie :)*

Japanese internment= racist.

Ya know? I could call it protective custody after what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor. However, the Federal Government did pay reperations to the Japanese for the internment.

Provoking the Japanese and Lend-Lease= Warmongering.

Oh brother. I'm not even going to waste my time debunking this. I'd be up all night typing it.

Your standards are ridiculously low.
wow. You just hate to admit you were wrong. No one had any idea how the Presidency should be carried out. Washington defined it for all 42 (41 rather) presidents to come.

*hands Achtung a cookie :)*
YAY!

cookie from Corneliu count: 2

Ya know? I could call it protective custody after what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor. However, the Federal Government did pay reperations to the Japanese for the internment.
Thirty to forty years later. Besides $20,000 doesn't compensate for it.
The stated intention was always to stop Japs from spying on us.
Oh brother. I'm not even going to waste my time debunking this. I'd be up all night typing it.
What's to debunk? He cut of trade with the Japanese and passed laws that heavily favored the allies.

YAY!

cookie from Corneliu count: 2

Well when you deserve them, I'll give them to you!

wow. You just hate to admit you were wrong. No one had any idea how the Presidency should be carried out. Washington defined it for all 42 (41 rather) presidents to come.
What can I say? I'm not a fan of counter-revolutionaries, and especially ones that owned slaves.

Japanese internment= racist.
Provoking the Japanese and Lend-Lease= Warmongering.
Hey, it got us out of the depression. And how exactly did we provoke the Japanese before Pearl Harbor? And the Japanese internment was the only major stain against the FDR administration. Many others have been able to get worse stains in less time. Dems and Reps alike.

Thirty to forty years later. Besides $20,000 doesn't compensate for it.
The stated intention was always to stop Japs from spying on us.

Actually it was more sabatoge than spying. You can't even get that straight.

What's to debunk? He cut of trade with the Japanese and passed laws that heavily favored the allies.

I guess you don't know the reasons for cutting off trade with china do you? And you said it yourself, allies help allies. We were supplying Britain, USSR AND China (to an extent).

What can I say? I'm not a fan of counter-revolutionaries, and especially ones that owned slaves.

Then why are you arguing agianst Abraham Lincoln?

Hey, it got us out of the depression. And how exactly did we provoke the Japanese before Pearl Harbor? And the Japanese internment was the only major stain against the FDR administration. Many others have been able to get worse stains in less time. Dems and Reps alike.

*hands Achtung a 3rd cookie and orders up more cookies*

Then why are you arguing agianst Abraham Lincoln?
haha, nice!

*hands Corneliu a cookie* ;)

I guess you don't know the reasons for cutting off trade with china do you? And you said it yourself, allies help allies. We were supplying Britain, USSR AND China (to an extent).
We were not allies with those countries. We had no legal obligations, that's why we rejected Versailles. FDR just had neo-imperialist ambitions. I take great satisfaction in knowing that polio did him in before his dreams could be realised.
Then why are you arguing agianst Abraham Lincoln?
Lincoln couldn't have given a flying fuck about the slaves. His own ambitions were all that mattered to him.
And how exactly did we provoke the Japanese before Pearl Harbor?
He cut off the oil supply.

haha, nice!

*hands Corneliu a cookie* ;)

YUM!!!

*saviors the cookie*

We were not allies with those countries. We had no legal obligations, that's why we rejected Versailles. FDR just had neo-imperialist ambitions. I take great satisfaction in knowing that polio did him in before his dreams could be realised.

Actually we rejected Versailles because of what Wilson pulled. It was called politics. I suggest you go read up on what Wilson did that got Versailles rejected.

Lincoln couldn't have given a flying fuck about the slaves. His own ambitions were all that mattered to him.

:rolleyes:

He cut off the oil supply.

And yet the Germany and Italy (members with Japan in the tripartite alliance) were already at war with French indochina that had oil. They could've gone after them without taking on the United States. Also, the United States was working for a peaceful solution before war broke out. I see you failed History 101 after all.

He cut off the oil supply.Because Japan was invading China and we didn't like that. And that's not exactly provoking. I mean, we didn't invade virtually all of the Middle East in the late '70s with the OPEC crisis.

Actually we rejected Versailles because of what Wilson pulled. It was called politics. I suggest you go read up on what Wilson did that got Versailles rejected.
Wilson was an uncompromising bastard, true, but the fact remains that the had the League of Nations not been included, it would have been accepted.
Also, the United States was working for a peaceful solution before war broke out. I see you failed History 101 after all.
Lies. FDR was well aware that the Japanese were preparing an attack. He let it happen so the American people would be willing to follow him on his neo-imperialist conquests.

Im with Corneliu about FDR he was horrible presdient. His alphabet soup program ruined this country creating a welfare state and eventually led to the idea that Social Security should be your enitre retirement. Even FDR saw it as something merely to keep people out of the poor house. FDR did not end the depression the War did. The War wasa good thing kicked Hitler ass (theirs a racist for you) and Hirohito (also a crackpot). Provoked the Japanese?? They had been taking over the Pacific for years Hawaii was only one of their goals, they happend to piss of the mighty USofA. Yes FDR was a horrible president Lincoln was a great president, he kept our country one. Yes other might have but he was the one who got elected, it does not matter by how small of a margin one gets elected all that matters is that one gets elected. Oh about the unequal representation 7 of the pre-war presidens were from the south (another two were from TN). The south had created theri economic POS themselves by basing everything on slavery and thus did not have a diverse economy. They had bad education for most people, oh and poor roads and railroads and canals (all of which contributed to their defeat). But I am getting offcourse, FDR was one of the worst. But the prize goes to Jimmy Carter was the worst American president ever, and despite all his failings I don't think Bush will go down as the worst not even close to it. Lincoln is among the best this group inlcudes Washington and Reagan.

Because Japan was invading China and we didn't like that. And that's not exactly provoking.
We should have left well enough alone. What business did we have in the Far East anyway. Nothing more that the remains of a debunct imperialist policy in the Philipines, which had already been promised independance eventually, anyway. Real colonies aren't conducive to neo-imperialism.
I mean, we didn't invade virtually all of the Middle East in the late '70s with the OPEC crisis.
Only becasue of the USSR and MAD.

Lies. FDR was well aware that the Japanese were preparing an attack. He let it happen so the American people would be willing to follow him on his neo-imperialist conquests.
That's about as sketchy as the theory of the Bush Administration being behind 9/11.

First, I know Lincoln's personal life will come into question so how about the fact that not everyone is perfect. Don't try to view the man as God but as a person.

Second, after about 1840, the South took a drastic turn for the worse. The secretary of state quoted it as being in ruins and that was in 1850. The original posts South never existed anyway. Not everyone owned a slave, bigotry and racism did exist, and King Cotton was a depleting source of wealth. The days when cotton bailed out the US were far over by 1860 and proof enough is in the fact that the South was continuously, almost from the beggining not rich enough to purchase materials. That was before the blockade started. In fact they used church bells for cannon metal at the very beggining.

Third, Lincoln, although not exactly out of his intentions freed the slaves, so quit that argument it happened and he did it. Also, he tried to mediate as much as possible. If anyone is to blame for the death toll, it is the South who would not listen to Lincoln and Grant, whose nickname suddenly became something along the lines of the butcher after the wilderness. Last, the Union is still a Union isn't it. So this whole argument is pointless. END OF STORY.