# Abraham Lincoln uncensored



## IM2 (Jun 5, 2019)

Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.

"In his book _The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery_, historian Eric Foner writes that by 1862, Lincoln, as well as politically moderate members of Congress, saw colonization as at least a piece of the policy puzzle. "Both the law providing for abolition in the District of Columbia and the Second Confiscation Act included provisions for the colonization of those willing to emigrate. During 1862, Congress appropriated a total of $600,000 to aid in the transportation overseas of African-Americans," Foner wrote. Policy entrepreneurs of varying trustworthiness offered colonization proposals in such far-flung locales as Brazil, Colombia, and the Caribbean island of St. Croix.

But most black Americans weren’t buying. Seeking their support, Lincoln met with a black delegation at the White House on Aug. 14, 1862, and made the case for colonization. It was widely considered a failure. Lincoln offended his visitors, and others who read the after-the-fact newspaper coverage, by saying such things as, "It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated" and that for blacks to refuse to colonize elsewhere would be "extremely selfish."

Did Abraham Lincoln plan to send ex-slaves to Central America after the Civil War?

Abraham Lincoln 'wanted to deport slaves' to new colonies

Here are some words from the republican Abe Lincoln:

*“You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.” *

This is the Abraham Lincoln they didn’t tell you about in school.

As the free black leaders soon discovered, Lincoln’s invitation to discuss policy was a pretext for a one-sided sales pitch.

*“I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal,” Lincoln continued. “I cannot alter it if I would. It is a fact, about which we all think and feel alike, I and you.”*

*Lincoln continued to unload on the delegates, even blaming their people for the Civil War at his doorstep: “See our present condition—the country engaged in war!—our white men cutting one another’s throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.”*

*Slavery was a law made legal by whites and yet Lincoln blames blacks for the civil war.*

This brought the president back to colonization, and his purpose for inviting the delegates to the White House in the first place—to get them to accept his trial balloon.

*“I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it,” Lincoln reasoned. “You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life [as easily], perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case.”*

Then he pivoted: *“But you ought to do something to help those who are not so fortunate as yourselves.”*

In Lincoln’s mind, if these free leaders stepped forward to lead the emigration of black people out of the United States, that would make it easier for white slaveholders to free the rest.

He explained: *“If you could give a start to white people, you would open a wide door for many to be made free. If we deal with those who are not free at the beginning, and whose intellects are clouded by Slavery, we have very poor materials to start with. If intelligent colored men, such as are before me, would move in this matter, much might be accomplished. It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed.”*

Nothing like flattering some of the race by insulting the rest!

*“There is much to encourage you,”* Lincoln continued pitching. *“For the sake of your race you should sacrifice something of your present comfort for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people.”
*
https://www.theroot.com/did-lincoln-want-to-ship-black-people-back-to-africa-1790858389

*This is part of republican history they don't want to tell blacks as they try to herd dumb blacks into republican slave quarters.*


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jun 5, 2019)

The Civil War is over and Lincoln is dead. And there isn't a nickel's worth of difference between Republicans in Washington and Democrats in Washington.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 5, 2019)

The GOP is indeed the party of Lincoln.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 5, 2019)

Blacks are fine with slavery; just look at the history of Liberia for a true view of what they think about slavery. 

As for Lincoln, he was a white nationalist, and ran on a white nationalist platform, keeping blacks out of the northern sates and out of the new territories. They refuse to teach the truth in schools, which is why this is such 'news' to IM2Stupid.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jun 5, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The GOP is indeed the party of Lincoln.


Fair enough.  While Lincoln was looking for equitable solutions to find for the black nation, the Dems of the same period were content to keep them all in chains . . . . 

Sort of like today. . . the chains of your minds.. . . .


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> 
> "In his book _The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery_, historian Eric Foner writes that by 1862, Lincoln, as well as politically moderate members of Congress, saw colonization as at least a piece of the policy puzzle. "Both the law providing for abolition in the District of Columbia and the Second Confiscation Act included provisions for the colonization of those willing to emigrate. During 1862, Congress appropriated a total of $600,000 to aid in the transportation overseas of African-Americans," Foner wrote. Policy entrepreneurs of varying trustworthiness offered colonization proposals in such far-flung locales as Brazil, Colombia, and the Caribbean island of St. Croix.
> 
> ...





Yeah that *liberal* president was a bastard



And who didn't know Abe was against segregation and wanted to ship blacks to Panama?


.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 5, 2019)

It was a popular solution at the time, but unworkable


----------



## OldLady (Jun 5, 2019)

Liberia has elephants.

There is no landline phone system in Liberia.  Take your cell.

Consensual same sex activities will get you a year in jail.

Major source of income:  Ship registries.  I know, who woulda thunk.

Their civil war in the 90's and the skunk who took over there and bankrupted them really knocked the stuffin' out of them.  They still have not recovered.


----------



## gipper (Jun 5, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> 
> "In his book _The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery_, historian Eric Foner writes that by 1862, Lincoln, as well as politically moderate members of Congress, saw colonization as at least a piece of the policy puzzle. "Both the law providing for abolition in the District of Columbia and the Second Confiscation Act included provisions for the colonization of those willing to emigrate. During 1862, Congress appropriated a total of $600,000 to aid in the transportation overseas of African-Americans," Foner wrote. Policy entrepreneurs of varying trustworthiness offered colonization proposals in such far-flung locales as Brazil, Colombia, and the Caribbean island of St. Croix.
> 
> ...


There is no doubt Dishonest Abe was our worst president and a traitor for mass murdering fellow Americans.  He should have been hung in 1861. 

At any rate, your attack on the R Party for Dishonest Abe’s heinous actions is hypocrisy of the highest order. You ignorantly support the DParty which is the party of slavery, segregation, and the Confederacy. 

Come on IQ2 stop with your racist hatred of whites. It just makes you even more dumb.


----------



## Ambivalent1 (Jun 5, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> 
> "In his book _The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery_, historian Eric Foner writes that by 1862, Lincoln, as well as politically moderate members of Congress, saw colonization as at least a piece of the policy puzzle. "Both the law providing for abolition in the District of Columbia and the Second Confiscation Act included provisions for the colonization of those willing to emigrate. During 1862, Congress appropriated a total of $600,000 to aid in the transportation overseas of African-Americans," Foner wrote. Policy entrepreneurs of varying trustworthiness offered colonization proposals in such far-flung locales as Brazil, Colombia, and the Caribbean island of St. Croix.
> 
> ...



Is/was it ok that Blacks owned slaves?


----------



## OldLady (Jun 5, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> 
> "In his book _The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery_, historian Eric Foner writes that by 1862, Lincoln, as well as politically moderate members of Congress, saw colonization as at least a piece of the policy puzzle. "Both the law providing for abolition in the District of Columbia and the Second Confiscation Act included provisions for the colonization of those willing to emigrate. During 1862, Congress appropriated a total of $600,000 to aid in the transportation overseas of African-Americans," Foner wrote. Policy entrepreneurs of varying trustworthiness offered colonization proposals in such far-flung locales as Brazil, Colombia, and the Caribbean island of St. Croix.
> 
> ...


Thanks a bunch.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 5, 2019)

Ambivalent1 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> ...


Lincoln opposed all slavery


----------



## Jitss617 (Jun 5, 2019)

We have  slave colonies today Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Camden, New York, Oakland


----------



## IM2 (Jun 5, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



This thread is not about slavery so ignore Dales remarks.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 5, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> We have  slave colonies today Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Camden, New York, Oakland


Troll


----------



## Jitss617 (Jun 5, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > We have  slave colonies today Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Camden, New York, Oakland
> ...


Ad hominem


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 5, 2019)




----------



## rightwinger (Jun 5, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...


But accurate


----------



## Jitss617 (Jun 5, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Yes you are the definition right to the T lol


----------



## gipper (Jun 5, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


Yet he offered to ensconce SLAVERY in the constitution, if the south would agree not to secede.

You clearly know nothing about this subject. STOP POSTING


----------



## IM2 (Jun 5, 2019)

Natural Citizen said:


> The Civil War is over and Lincoln is dead. And there isn't a nickel's worth of difference between Republicans in Washington and Democrats in Washington.



This is the history section. What has been posted is history.

If you guys can discuss this:

HC Frick faces down lib assassin in 1892

May 29, 1453- greatest act of Islamofascist terror ever

May 30, 1431: Why was Joan of Arc Burned at the Stake

See the face of a man from the last gasps of the Roman Empire

Here's How The Founding Fathers Ensured America Would Not Be A Christian Nation

150 Years Ago Today: DONE

*Then don't bitch about discussing Lincoln.*


----------



## IM2 (Jun 5, 2019)

gipper said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> ...



What we see here is the truth about the republican party. They were about shipping blacks out of the country.

Face the truth gimpy.


----------



## Third Party (Jun 5, 2019)

Wow. Lincoln makes Trump look good!


----------



## gipper (Jun 5, 2019)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


You forgot to add the D Party would have happily done the same. 

WTF is wrong with you IQ2?


----------



## IM2 (Jun 5, 2019)

Picaro said:


> Blacks are fine with slavery; just look at the history of Liberia for a true view of what they think about slavery.
> 
> As for Lincoln, he was a white nationalist, and ran on a white nationalist platform, keeping blacks out of the northern sates and out of the new territories. They refuse to teach the truth in schools, which is why this is such 'news' to IM2Stupid.



I've known this for 40 years dipshit.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 5, 2019)

gipper said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



I didn't add the D party because Lincoln is the subject and you republicans want to lie about your history.

So as none of you republicans freed the slaves that you did not own, don't take credit for it. Take credit for what you are now. Anti AA, anti civil rights, pro confederacy, fake claims of anti white discrimination, and alt right racism.

I don't like white racists gimpy. So unless you are telling me all whites are racist, then  you show your ignorance every time your maggot ass starts crying about me being a racist. Because all whites aren't white racists. But you are.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 5, 2019)

MisterBeale said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP is indeed the party of Lincoln.
> ...



If I wanted my mind to be in chains, id be a republican.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 5, 2019)

Some of you pricks sing the same song no matter the thread.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 5, 2019)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


It was an option.
Abraham Lincoln was the Commander in Chief and the President of the United States whose army defeated the rebel South and terminated slavery in the United States.  He began the arduous task of reconstruction, trying to bring the South back IN to the Union rather than punish it.  Then he was assassinated by a sore loser.
Being black, I would think you'd be a little bit glad that Abraham Lincoln did what he did.  

That said, his words were interesting and enlightening--he was not a saint but a human who was frustrated and heartbroken at the waste of lives that was happening in the war.  Not a pretty view of our President but at least in the end, he did the right thing.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 5, 2019)

OldLady said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



You're spot on with your comment Oldlady. It is indeed an ugly truth. My being black doesn't mean I have to be glad that Lincoln ended a mistake that should not have been made and only as a second option he was forced to do. Yes he did the right thing at the end and that's as much credit as I will give him.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 5, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> 
> "In his book _The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery_, historian Eric Foner writes that by 1862, Lincoln, as well as politically moderate members of Congress, saw colonization as at least a piece of the policy puzzle. "Both the law providing for abolition in the District of Columbia and the Second Confiscation Act included provisions for the colonization of those willing to emigrate. During 1862, Congress appropriated a total of $600,000 to aid in the transportation overseas of African-Americans," Foner wrote. Policy entrepreneurs of varying trustworthiness offered colonization proposals in such far-flung locales as Brazil, Colombia, and the Caribbean island of St. Croix.
> 
> ...


You are one special dumbass. Lincoln knee Democrats would treat blacks as subhumans so offered blacks a choice to escape what Democrats would do to them for the next 160 years.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 5, 2019)

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Ambivalent1 said:
> ...


He was a politician making a deal

The South should have accepted


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 5, 2019)

IM2 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


For his tone he was the most liberal politician


----------



## gipper (Jun 5, 2019)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


You are one silly racist dude. 

I have yet to see a post by you that attacks the D Party. Yet, the D Party IS the historic party of racism, slavery, segregation, etc...  However you are very proficient at attacking the R Party. So helpfully you will understand why I find your racist rants against the Rs ignorant. There is little difference between the two parties on this subject. 

As you well know, I am not a republican.


----------



## 22lcidw (Jun 5, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


There are other scenarios to what became the war between the states. Slavery was not going to last much longer from the massive pressure exerted by people back then. Outside interests wanted a divided nation with at least one of them having a fiat currency. The then two nations would then be less powerful and more susceptable to interference from the then globalist interests and would be good for Britain.  the unfortunate result of the Civil War was a massively strong central government. There were other attempts to get a fiat currency by the outside interests but they failed until 1913.


----------



## gipper (Jun 5, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Oh brother are you ignorant. Nearly as ignorant as IQ2. 

Dishonest Abe was a radical racist even in his time. You know nothing. Stop posting.


----------



## gipper (Jun 5, 2019)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


You fool. I have posted this fact on this forum a number of times. Of course Dishonest Abe wanted to deport all blacks. It is a historical FACT. 

Lincoln was a rabid racist even in his time. Funny how your D dumb buddy Leftnutter supports Lincoln, but I don’t. Yet, you attack me.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 5, 2019)

gipper said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Stop living in the past gimpy. Today's republican party is the party of racism. It's been like that since at least 1964. So I am not going to be gaslight into being party of your party. Don't tell me you are not republican while repeating republican rhetoric chump. So are you telling me all whites are racists?


----------



## IM2 (Jun 5, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> ...



Why is it you racist fucks keep repeating this shit?


----------



## Death Angel (Jun 5, 2019)

IM2 said:


> “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.”


And today we see this is 100% true.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 5, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


Truth is like sunshine to you Vampire fascist racists.


----------



## Ambivalent1 (Jun 5, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



That wasn't the question


----------



## MisterBeale (Jun 5, 2019)

OldLady said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


IM2 is judging human beings that lived over a century ago by ethical standards and mores of today.

It is a silly discussion to entertain to begin with.  It is nothing but an attempt to generate hate for ones enemies.  At the same time Lincoln was writing this, the Democrats were busy creating the KKK.

What of it?  



Its akin to saying; because monkeys throw shit, and monkeys are a primates, and we are a primates, well. . . .

You do the the math. . .


----------



## gipper (Jun 5, 2019)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



The party blacks have supported for decades has done nothing for them, yet you still support that party. DUMB. 

I don’t know R rhetoric so I can’t comment on your stupidity.


----------



## gipper (Jun 5, 2019)

MisterBeale said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


Yes but he is only judging Rs, while ignoring the equally heinous actions of Ds of the 1860s. This is a very good example of someone lacking even a low level of intelligence.


----------



## Ambivalent1 (Jun 5, 2019)

IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Ambivalent1 said:
> ...



Do you truly think nobody sees how you dodge pointed questions? What are you afraid of?


----------



## whitehall (Jun 5, 2019)

It wasn't just about race or the politically motivated and relatively meaningless "emancipation proclamation". Lincoln was given credit by fawning novelists disguised as historians historians for "preserving the Union" when the Union fell apart under his watch. The E.P. was too little too late. Lincoln either had bad advice or he was having a senior citizen moment when he thought a Civil War would last barely a couple of months. Instead of compromising and cajoling and dealing with the fiery radicals in the South he let it go.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 6, 2019)

Lincoln had more supporters in the 100 northern pro-war Democrats than he did Republicans in the Senate and House, which is why his private army controlling the ballots in the border states was the only thing keeping him President after the1862 mid-terms. And, he as going to be very lenient on the South after they surrendered as well, which didn't sit well with all the thieves and scum foaming at the mouth to sweep down and plunder the South, robbing whites and blacks alike, then leaving blacks to their fate after the rape. Of course, black people are stupid, and still think Lincoln freed them, when all he did was murder some 700,000 of them, steal their reparations, and left in 5-6 years.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



Why is it you can't admit you're incapable of self-rule and are just crying to be taken care of again?


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 7, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> 
> "In his book _The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery_, historian Eric Foner writes that by 1862, Lincoln, as well as politically moderate members of Congress, saw colonization as at least a piece of the policy puzzle. "Both the law providing for abolition in the District of Columbia and the Second Confiscation Act included provisions for the colonization of those willing to emigrate. During 1862, Congress appropriated a total of $600,000 to aid in the transportation overseas of African-Americans," Foner wrote. Policy entrepreneurs of varying trustworthiness offered colonization proposals in such far-flung locales as Brazil, Colombia, and the Caribbean island of St. Croix.
> 
> ...



Well like you say after receiving letters from people like Andrew Moore the governor of Alabama who said he would gladly end slavery, but there is nothing to do with the blacks who are freed and if free blacks existed his citizens would need to murder them. Lincoln did propose and push a voluntary option for blacks who wished to resettle outside of where those people were.  But made it clear those blacks were free.  

He then invited a black delegation to the white house to go over his proposal.  The first time in the US history a black delegation was given a voice in that way.  Their response was completely against his plan.

So instead of pushing that through as the next election was coming up, he ran as a "moderate" again, saying he wasn't for equal rights for blacks.  Once he had those votes in his inaugural speech, he did a 180, and spoke that he would be fighting for black voting rights.  At that speech was an actor who seeing that the wall was pulled over the white supremacists eyes again in an election left yelling " well that means ni&&er citizenship!".   A week later while Lincoln was at a play that same actor found him and ended his life.

I think Frederick Douglass had it right.  Lincoln could have told the truth and run his first election not as a moderate, but based on his actions as a full abolitionist wanting to end slavery.  He could have run his second term not as a moderate but as a fighter for black rights.   And likely would not have won the presidency in either of them, and not been able to end slavery or attempt to fight for black rights before he was murdered.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 7, 2019)

Ambivalent1 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> ...



I don't think owning black people is good in any way.  And the secessionists of the South making it clear that they were breaking away to protect and expand the institution of race based slavery was horrible, and all of those legislators pushing secession and 100% of the votes for that secession for that reasoning were white.  

There is one exception for black slaveholders.  No one knows what percentage of black slave owners fell under this, but as more black slaves were being freed, many states in the South passed laws that black slaves could not ever be emancipated. This meant that fathers had wives, children, extended family and friends who were enslaved with no way of freeing them.  Some wrote about their decision to buy their families and friends.  As awful as that sounds when it's the only legal option available, I don't fault that when it was the only option to live.  As for those not owning black slaves for that reason they were definitely in the wrong.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 7, 2019)

Fuck the tyrant lincoln.
Worst president in history


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 7, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> 
> "In his book _The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery_, historian Eric Foner writes that by 1862, Lincoln, as well as politically moderate members of Congress, saw colonization as at least a piece of the policy puzzle. "Both the law providing for abolition in the District of Columbia and the Second Confiscation Act included provisions for the colonization of those willing to emigrate. During 1862, Congress appropriated a total of $600,000 to aid in the transportation overseas of African-Americans," Foner wrote. Policy entrepreneurs of varying trustworthiness offered colonization proposals in such far-flung locales as Brazil, Colombia, and the Caribbean island of St. Croix.
> 
> ...



And as far as Lincoln's emancipation proclamation being forced upon him, that only works if you have a Marty mcfly delorean.  It was July of 1862 when Lincoln was sharing his emancipation proclamation he had written with his cabinet, and AFTER that, in August of that year was when the black delegation rejected his voluntary resettlement idea.   

So to say that that black delegation response influenced his decision to emancipate, would need a swapping of events in history.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 7, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> Fuck the tyrant lincoln.
> Worst president in history



Yep that's exactly what the white supremacist secessionists said about his fight against slavery at any cost.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 7, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck the tyrant lincoln.
> ...


He didn't give a fuck about those slaves, you indoctrinated moron. Plus he was a tyrant.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 7, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



yeah that's nothing new. Like I said we've been hearing that from Southern Democrats ages ago.

Granted he ran for the anti slavery party, and freed slaves everywhere he had the power to during a 4 year span ending hundreds of years of slavery on this soil... 

But yeah those 1800s Dems and dixiecrats have been saying your chant for years, actual history be damned.


And I'm sure Tennessee left for really good reasons, not sickening ones.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 7, 2019)

gipper said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



I have stated the situation accurately when I said whites.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 7, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> ...



Lincoln wasn't going to run that way because he didn't believe that way. His comments to the delegation shows this.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 7, 2019)

Picaro said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



I don't admit to things that are not so.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 7, 2019)

gipper said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Blacks were republicans for decades before that. We left the party for a reason.

And we would be fools to join the republican party now.


----------



## gipper (Jun 7, 2019)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


Neither party will do you any good. They are criminal organizations only interested in enriching themselves and their 1% donors.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 7, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> ...



I'm not so sure about that SandSquid. The EP was an executive order issued in January 1863 after meeting with the delegation. Had they accepted his proposal the EP would probably have been unnecessary.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 7, 2019)

gipper said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Look, concern yourself with the politics affecting the white community. I don't need the advice from someone like you pertaining to who I support politically, nor do blacks in general.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 7, 2019)

IM2 said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


I do wonder if we will view other presidents how we view Lincoln in 150 years.  If we will say George HW bush didn't raise taxes because of his campaign speeches.  If we will say Obamacare kept your provider and cut prices cause he said so in his campaign.   I am curious how long it takes for a campaign speech to matter more than actual actions.  

I mean who else do we ignore acts for campaign speeches for?


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 7, 2019)

IM2 said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



Yes it took effect In 1863.  Something he had written well before July when he shared it with his cabinet, and threatened in September. 

And let's not forget his pushing for Congress to act on slaves recovered by troops, freeing slaves where he could as a senator and president (DC and the only thing he required West va to do to enter the us was abolish slavery, and of course fighting for the 13th amendment to free every slave in the US.   

You need a time machine to say he was forced to come up with it before that delegation, as it was already written before they showed up.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 8, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



This is about more than a campaign speech. I'm viewing Lincoln from the perspective that he did not honestly think blacks were equal human beings. He might not have been for slavery but he still had a problem with racism. So did every president before and mist presidents since,


----------



## IM2 (Jun 8, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



I don't know about all that since blacks did reject his proposal you really can't say it had bothing to do with it. Lincoln went to congress in December 1862 still pushing colonization and continued to by asking if other governments would accept blacks sent from America.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 8, 2019)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


You keep repeating the same lies to give yourself some form of false comfort.


----------



## gipper (Jun 8, 2019)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


You should take my advice. Your IQ would increase exponentially.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 8, 2019)

gipper said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



My IQ is higher than yours so do as I suggested. Concern yourself with the politics affecting the white community. I don't need the advice from someone like you pertaining to who I support politically, nor do blacks in general.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 8, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



What part don't you get, owning a slave was like owning a I pad today, it was the technology of the time, every one had to have one to make their lives easier.



.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 8, 2019)

IM2 said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...




Your views are correct, for some reason Lefty's like you can't figure out you can't compare the way society thought in the past to the present.

It's not that complicated if you read history and look at old pictures.


.


----------



## gipper (Jun 8, 2019)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


LMFAO. Not a chance IQ2.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 8, 2019)

bear513 said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > Ambivalent1 said:
> ...





IM2 said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



Which puts that months after he had publicly released his emancipation proclamation and said if the South didn't surrender, it would take effect in January.   

So clearly the later one can't have influenced something that came before it.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 8, 2019)

IM2 said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



I agree to a point. Being accused of wanting equal rights was an atom bomb being thrown at your campaign in that era.  It would be like being accused of being a communist during the cold war. 

It's tough to say a President who died because after having his opponents bash him with the unelectable position that he was for freeing slaves, and then the second round that he was for equal rights even, he denied them to get votes, then fought for exactly those things. 

I do wonder how much further along less discrimination and the civil rights movement would be had he not been killed.  He ended slavery, something that had existed in the US since it's inception in 4 years.  I am curious if he could have gotten the right to vote passed over 50 years earlier had he lived.  I really think he could have with reconstruction governments in place.  

Was he perfect? By no means.  His dirty politics, threats with imprisonment and such to get the 13th amendment through were awful.  His emancipation proclamation was one of the biggest overreaches in federal power ever.  His thoughts on that voluntary resettlement were shortsighted and wrong no matter who's best interest he thought he was trying to protect.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 8, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Too bad they aren't lies. But you are the one doing that.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 8, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



I think you need to show me where he made that announcement.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 8, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



Fair enough.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 8, 2019)

gipper said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



I'm quite certain it is. In fact I guarantee that your IQ is lower. So do as I suggested. Concern yourself with the politics affecting the white community.


----------



## gipper (Jun 8, 2019)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


I’ve never met a racist with an IQ over 10. I doubt you are the exception.


----------



## Ambivalent1 (Jun 8, 2019)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



Kid you have the IQ of a rock.
Hell I have a dog with a larger IQ than you.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

IM2 said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



About this Collection  |               Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress  |               Digital Collections  |               Library of Congress

He drafted it and went over it with his Sec of State (Seward) and other cabinet members in July of 1862.  Then later that month showed it to his entire cabinet asking them about any wording critiques.  

Seward advised him not to put it out until after a major Union win, so after Antietam On Sep 22, 1862 Lincoln made it public saying ". . . on the first day of January . . . all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free."   

Preliminary Emacipation Proclamation, 1862

Ended up costing Republicans heavy in the midterms, and the Confederate response was brutal.  They passed a law in response that stated that the black U.S. soldiers captured while fighting against the Confederacy would be tried as slave insurrectionists in civil courts—a capital offense with automatic sentence of death.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 10, 2019)

gipper said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



That's because I'm not a racist.


----------



## Flash (Jun 10, 2019)

Lincoln was an asshole in many ways.  It is despicable that there is a monument in DC to him.  We built a monument to a shithead that started a war that resulted in the deaths of almost a million Americans and fucked up a third of this country for almost 100 years.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

Flash said:


> Lincoln was an asshole in many ways.  It is despicable that there is a monument in DC to him.  We built a monument to a shithead that started a war that resulted in the deaths of almost a million Americans and fucked up a third of this country for almost 100 years.



Yup, been hearing that from the pro-slavery twats for 150 years....  Find your safe space and cry out that you can't own people anymore snowflake.  

Those morons rebelled against the US, overran hundreds of US federal properties, forced the surrender of 1/4 of the US military and acted offended that he responded with force.   Inbreeding... it's the only excuse.  

But yeah, it takes a special kind to really decide they like the idea of starting a war with America, to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans... men, women, and children all so they can protect and expand race based slavery.   But for some, that's what they love.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

I trash Lincoln and his motives and I get accused of racism and supporting slavery.
A black racist like im2 does it and all is well and Lincoln was a POS 
Our society is fucking stupid.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> I trash Lincoln and his motives and I get accused of racism and supporting slavery.
> A black racist like im2 does it and all is well and Lincoln was a POS
> Our society is fucking stupid.



No, he made his points and I countered some of them and he took actual fact into account. 

You just repeated those same tired old lazy white supremacist lost cause myths.

I get you are upset, but maybe educate yourself using actual source history, and avoid the "I'll just repeat these good old white supremacist debunked lies I see here", and people will start treating you better.

You think you are bringing up something new... no, it's the same crap lies those pro-slavery groups tried saying.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jun 10, 2019)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



Bullshit


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jun 10, 2019)

Fact is slavery sucked. Jews were slaves to Egyptians for 1000s of years. Should we get reparations? In the end, the ancestors of African American slaves get to live in America and Canada vs Africa. I think that’s a win.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I trash Lincoln and his motives and I get accused of racism and supporting slavery.
> ...


Lincoln was racist and a tyrant. I didn't even read your bullshit passed the 2nd sentence.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



I know.   It makes sense you'd like to just keep your uninformed opinion rather than do something like read and educate yourself.   Hell you probably think Tennessee seceded for good reasons even.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


So he wasnt a racist? He didn't abuse his powers? He didn't shit all over the constitution?
Show me where I am wrong, oh great one.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Oh yes he did to suppress a rebellion... that started to protect and expand slavery.  It's funny how people say the Republican party never changed... then flip out that Lincoln used the largest potential misuse of presidential powers... to free slaves.   That he lied like crazy on his campaign speeches... to go back and say he was going to fight for black suffrage..  How he pulled some of the dirtiest politics for support in US history... to pass the 13th amendment.   Definitely fought for what he believed was right by any means 

It had those racist pro-slavery people so upset... still does even 150 years later.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


So you agree he was a racist tyrant. Thanks.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



No... I think those things were the opposite of racist.  How is ending slavery and fighting for human rights for black people racist?  A racist tyrant would be Tennessee's governor for example.  Jefferson Davis, the founding fathers of the Confederacy were racist tyrants.  Not the guy who joined the anti-slavery party.  

And while it is questionable that he had the right to do those things, his legal standing was just that... questionable..


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


Lol I see you never read history passed a high school history book


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



What are you basing that on?


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


Your ridiculous cliches that plagued your posts


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Such as that the Confederacy was filled with racist tyrants?   I'm sure you buy that line that Tennessee seceded for honorable reasons huh?  lol


----------



## OldLady (Jun 10, 2019)

Flash said:


> Lincoln was an asshole in many ways.  It is despicable that there is a monument in DC to him.  We built a monument to a shithead that started a war that resulted in the deaths of almost a million Americans and fucked up a third of this country for almost 100 years.


Lincoln started it?  LOL


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


I don't support much of the confederacy. I am against slavery. I am against any kind of abuse of power. I am also against shutting down newspapers and arresting people. Sending your thugs out to pillage and burn. Telling your supreme court to go fuck themselves. Etc etc etc.
I do support his assassination.
I don't support your ridiculous bullshit that he freed any slaves. That he cared about black folk..
If you read what he actually said and did, you wouldn't say the bullshit you do 
Hence, the high school history book reference.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jun 10, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> 
> "In his book _The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery_, historian Eric Foner writes that by 1862, Lincoln, as well as politically moderate members of Congress, saw colonization as at least a piece of the policy puzzle. "Both the law providing for abolition in the District of Columbia and the Second Confiscation Act included provisions for the colonization of those willing to emigrate. During 1862, Congress appropriated a total of $600,000 to aid in the transportation overseas of African-Americans," Foner wrote. Policy entrepreneurs of varying trustworthiness offered colonization proposals in such far-flung locales as Brazil, Colombia, and the Caribbean island of St. Croix.
> 
> ...



south or central american jungles we're already full African slaves thanks to the Spaniards 
but together youve could of built wakanda 

Jungle location would of been perfect 








errr i hate to tell ya this but skyscrapers are cultural appropriation 
racist nazis


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



You must HATE Trump then, that much is sure... 

So wait... so if people were trying to overthrow the government to install sharia law, you would just say "let them be" and push for anarchy? 


And now you want to rewrite history.. What do you say we do with the stories of all those slaves?  The thousands celebrating the Emancipation Proclamation?  Just dump that crap because it doesn't fit your revised version of history? Burn their stories, destroy the evidence, then you can have your version of history with nothing to say that isn't true?  



And there probably will be people like you in 100 years.   Saying "look there, HW Bush said no more taxes, and that's proof he never raised taxes, and Obama said Obamacare would go perfectly and you can keep your provider so that is the truth.   Don't look at the actual facts, campaign speeches are all just truths.

I'd suggest you educate yourself on this topic.  It's abundantly clear that you'd rather write your own and keep your ignorance instead.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> I trash Lincoln and his motives and I get accused of racism and supporting slavery.
> A black racist like im2 does it and all is well and Lincoln was a POS
> Our society is fucking stupid.


I don't like what either one of you say about Lincoln, but in that they're facts, what can I say?
I don't like IM's attitude at all, nor yours.
You're a confederate, TN.  It wouldn't have mattered if Jesus Christ himself was CoC of the United States military at the time, you would hate him and call him names and find something to argue was wrong with what he did because YOU LOST.
Lincoln held this country together so that we could go on to be the biggest hot shots on the planet.  We have a lot to thank him for.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

OldLady said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I trash Lincoln and his motives and I get accused of racism and supporting slavery.
> ...


I'm not a Confederate. That's bullshit. 
We all lost the war. We lost almost one million Americans. There is STILL division over north and south.
I am against Lincoln's trampling of the constitution and skillfully strategy of fort sumter causing the civil war to stop states from doing something the constitution never forbid.
You can kiss my ass!


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



skillful strategy of Ft Sumter?   You mean protecting US federal property like he swore to do?   Remember that was AFTER hundreds of US banks, forts, ports, ships, weapons caches, and other properties had been overrun and 1/4 of the US military forced to surrender. 

Like what? If Bullitt county secedes, they just all get to be millionaires and keep the gold in Ft Knox?   If the mayor of San Diego decides he wants to be his own nation, he gets to take over Naval Station San Diego and become the 4th largest nuclear power on the US, even if he has to bomb it for 24 straight hours to garner it's surrender and you are ok with that?  



And yes the Constitution did forbid it.  Texas V White confirmed that it was indeed a rebellion and any legality to that rebellion was NULL.  Meaning the ONLY way to trample the Constitution would be to ignore his duty to protect the US from those rebellions.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


Trump is no Lincoln but I do not support him. Not sure why that matters though.
What slave did the emancipation proclamation free? None is the answer. It only applies to states he had no control over.
A journalist wrote a piece in his paper to Lincoln that called on him to free all slaves in union control. He said if he could win this war without freeing one slave he would. He said that because it was about the union. He didn't care about the slaves, he was just against the concept of owning other humans. One of the few things I agree with him on.
He only did the EP because England was about to support the confederacy. 
Put your high school cliches in the back of the bus.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


They seceded numbnuts


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Unilaterally, which, unless you want to take a shit on the Constitution and the Supreme Court, was illegal.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

Texas vs white lol. Another cliche
That happened AFTER the civil war. 
And people say our education system doesn't suck


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


So you trash the seceded states for trashing the constitution in ways that aren't even there yet but defend Lincoln? 
What a big batch of disingenuous bullshit LOL.


----------



## Faun (Jun 10, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> 
> "In his book _The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery_, historian Eric Foner writes that by 1862, Lincoln, as well as politically moderate members of Congress, saw colonization as at least a piece of the policy puzzle. "Both the law providing for abolition in the District of Columbia and the Second Confiscation Act included provisions for the colonization of those willing to emigrate. During 1862, Congress appropriated a total of $600,000 to aid in the transportation overseas of African-Americans," Foner wrote. Policy entrepreneurs of varying trustworthiness offered colonization proposals in such far-flung locales as Brazil, Colombia, and the Caribbean island of St. Croix.
> 
> ...


Lincoln had one goal and one goal only -- save the union. Freeing slaves helped him accomplish that.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

Texas vs white was a RIP OFF anyways. It used the articles of confederation as justification even though it was replaced almost 100 years earlier.
What a load of bullshit. They literally just made up excuses for ruling on their feelings.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



3.5 million slaves were in states that had been still opposing the US which were free'd by the end of the war.   

What do you say we should do with those writings from places like Hilton Head where former slaves celebrated their freedom?  Just destroy it?

Why should we destroy history to support your lazy debunked white supremacist lie?  



And England right up until the moment of the EP DID NOT EVER ACCEPT A SINGLE MEETING WITH ANY CONFEDERATE DIPLOMAT, and ONLY considered the Confederacy a belligerent of the US.   They had their own wars going on, as did France.   What proof do you have they were about to join?

Or is this more of that lazy debunked white supremacist lost cause?



And of course if those were true, then the 13th Amendment, W.VA, Wash DC, etc make NO sense.   But hey, lets destroy that history too huh?


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> Texas vs white was a RIP OFF anyways. It used the articles of confederation as justification even though it was replaced almost 100 years earlier.
> What a load of bullshit. They literally just made up excuses for ruling on their feelings.



So much for "walking all over the Supreme Court"    I guess it only applies when you don't like it.   Fucking retarded aren't you.  You literally debunked your entire complaint there


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


And the EP didn't free any of them.
Dude the US threatened war against Britain because they were going to back the confederacy. 
What a load


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Yes I trash the seceded states for unilaterally seceding which was deemed to be Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  And rather than wait for a court opinion, instead in their efforts to protect and expand the institution of race based slavery overrun and attack US federal properties, starting a war that killed hundreds of thousands.  

I defend Lincoln for freeing slaves, even if your lazy debunked lost cause lies want to destroy history and subject those slaves who celebrated their freedom to a history you can erase.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Really what leaders were planning on helping?  Who in the Confederacy were they talking to? 

lol   You can't even back your claim.

And of course you need a marty mcfly time machine to believe that.   After Antietam the US had the Confederacy on the run the rest of the war.   At that point any mediation efforts by the UK were no longer supported (or show them if you maintain they were).    And it was AFTER that when Lincoln put out the EP.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Why didn't it free the 3.5 million slaves that were freed as the US gained access to them?


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jun 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



How about when Lincoln imprisoned Northern newspaper publishers because he didn't like what they printed?

Stop the Presses: Lincoln Suppresses Journalism

Abraham Lincoln's Forgotten Atrocities - James Bovard

The Lincoln Administration and Arbitrary Arrests: A Reconsideration


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...




Yes, the journalist wrote that piece.   Granted that same Journalist, Horace Greeley, also wrote his context to Lincoln's reply that he was paving the way for his emancipation proclamation trying to garner public support and all along he wanted to free the slaves.    But you seem to leave that journalist out of history when it doesn't suit you.   

Why OVER AND OVER AND OVER do you keep wanting to destroy or rewrite history?  

If he didn't care about the slaves, why write legislation as a senator to free them.  Why push to keep it from expanding.  Why end it in DC.  Why make slavery the ONLY thing W. Va had to abandon to join the US?   Why free the slaves in the south and then fight for the 13th amendment?


----------



## OldLady (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Sorry.  I was too harsh.  You have absorbed a perspective of history, though, told by the losers.   If you are willing to move on from that disastrous war, why do you keep bringing it up?


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Texas vs white was a RIP OFF anyways. It used the articles of confederation as justification even though it was replaced almost 100 years earlier.
> ...


It happened after the fact and used the AoC that has been replaced.
Lincoln actually defied the supreme court. I am arguing against one of their "interpretations"
You are comparing  Apples and supernovas


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

OldLady said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


You mean lincolns own words and actions? Lol ok


----------



## OldLady (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Not everyone looks at his actions the way you do, TN.  And I still think even the South and even the descendants of slaves here ought to thank him for pulling us back together and eventually stopping the kicking and screaming over being able to own human beings.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

OldLady said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Some don't see him as tyrant even though his actions are tyrannical. To the T

tyr·an·ny
/ˈtirənē/
Learn to pronounce
_noun_

cruel and oppressive government or rule.
"people who survive war and escape tyranny"
synonyms: despotism, absolutism, absolute power, autocracy, dictatorship, undemocratic rule, reign of terror, totalitarianism, Fascism; More

a nation under cruel and oppressive government.
cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Yes. In America courts don't hear cases until after the occurrence.  We don't try somebody for a crime that they have yet to commit.  and again you're walking all over the Supreme Court here something just a few posts ago you were saying was completely wrong.  The Supreme Court ruled that secession was illegal.  It was based off of their interpretation of the law as it existed.  It was founded in their constitutional power to both law and fact in that jurisdiction.  If you want to walk all over the Supreme Court that is your decision.

But when you need to do that to rewrite history. There you go.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



So it's oppressive to fight for freedom..  got it.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Yep. and when he in his first inaugural address said that he would fight for black suffrage, an actor at that speech came out yelling "that means ****** citizenship!"

And a week later that same person killed him over it.  Sickening that some people today still think that that was a good action and try to rewrite history.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


IM2 I realize we were in a different thread, but read this on what Lincoln personally felt about slavery.  My thanks to Sand Squid for cheering my heart just a bit.

_Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune....As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and *I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.*

Yours,
A. Lincoln._
Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

OldLady said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Well said.   There's a lot of people trying to rewrite that objective, or classic statement of Lincolns Presidential responsibilities to the cause of what they were fighting for.   Lincoln multiple times, in his inauguration speech and his letters to Confederate leaders say the cause was slavery.   He said it again in his 2nd secession speech. Which is why you have to choose intentional ignorance to use the one section of that speech.   You have to deny the rest, deny his actions, deny his statements on cause, and his beliefs that slaves should be free.   But to some, when they see a line they like, they are willing to be intentionally ignorant to context and everything else.    

TNHarley made mention of that, with Lincoln not freeing all the slaves with his emancipation proclamation.   Which goes back to what those Southern slave owners considered his "Tyranny" that was worth killing him for.   He said states in open rebellion were not protected under the Constitution, therefore, he didn't need to wait for an amendment by Congress (which even without the southern legislators was very tenuous at best), and therefore he could free their slaves.   More "tyranny" with him telling W. Va that the only way they could rejoin the Union is if they passed anti-slavery legislation.  More "Tyranny" freeing slaves on federal properties.   More "Tyranny" with ending slavery in DC.   More "Tyranny" with trying to stop slavery from expanding, and more "tyranny" with not actively enforcing the fugitive slave law and actually taking a stance against that early in the war calling them "contraband".  You can see that tyranny in the words of the southern leaders, and their pushing a response to his tyranny that all black US soldiers who surrendered could be tried for inciting and insurrection and tried with an automatic death penalty.  It was "tyranny" because blacks were property not people.  

It is odd that people today still believe his actions used to give freedom to people is tyranny.  I thought the slave mentality that it was just taking their property and blacks aren't real people had long since vanished, but apparently not.  

What TNHarley forgot, is in the United States we don't have a monarchy.   Lincoln didn't have the power to free slaves in the north except DC, W. Va, and federal properties where he did, and made mention of that.   For those who don't understand how an amendment works, a President can't just write amendments.  So that point is null and just a lie based on some wrong interpretation of how the Constitution works.  Call it a 5th grade civics class failure.  But if you want to see what he felt about slavery in the North, well his work to get legislation on the 13th passed says all you need to hear.  

TNHarley said "undemocratic rule" is tyranny.   Well after the DEMOCRATIC election process for Lincoln, states rebelled saying his stance on slavery was something they disagreed with and would fight to protect.   IN all just under 2% of southerners actually voted to leave the United States.  Their government was founded because after a democratic election, a miniscule percentage of people voted to leave.  So Lincoln FOUGHT tyranny by TN's definition.  

It's an "Oppressive government" according to TNHarley.   Well one of those two sides was fighting to protect and expand human enslavement.  The other fought to stop them.


----------



## gipper (Jun 10, 2019)

OldLady said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


850,000 dead Americans and half the nation destroyed to prevent the South from leaving. Much better to let them leave peacefully.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 10, 2019)

OldLady said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



I've read that. Now can you please understand there is a difference between freeing slaves and believing  they were humans and equal in every way to whites?


----------



## Faun (Jun 10, 2019)

gipper said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Had Lincoln let the south secede,  slavery might still be legal in the confederacy.


----------



## Flash (Jun 10, 2019)




----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

IM2 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


I wanted to thank this but you are such an asshole I couldnt.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

Flash said:


>


That's got to be the best one yet!


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 10, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


No way.


----------



## gipper (Jun 10, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Not a chance. It was on its way out in 1861.


----------



## Flash (Jun 10, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




That is just about the level of intelligence that most of these Moon Bats have about the Civil War.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 10, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



I doubt that. In the 1940s harvesting machinery was making manual labor finally obsolete.  So with that the value of owning black people would have been lost.  now what would have happened to those people when they had no value is another story had the Confederacy been allowed to stay.


----------



## gipper (Jun 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Slavery could have ended long before the 1940s.  The cost of the war of northern aggression was billions of dollars, in 1860s dollars. Had cooler more intelligent heads prevailed, the slave owners could have been more cheaply bought off.

The war would have been averted entirely, had Lincoln overturned the Morrill Tariff or Buchanan vetoed it.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 10, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



There was no war of northern aggression.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 10, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> 
> "In his book _The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery_, historian Eric Foner writes that by 1862, Lincoln, as well as politically moderate members of Congress, saw colonization as at least a piece of the policy puzzle. "Both the law providing for abolition in the District of Columbia and the Second Confiscation Act included provisions for the colonization of those willing to emigrate. During 1862, Congress appropriated a total of $600,000 to aid in the transportation overseas of African-Americans," Foner wrote. Policy entrepreneurs of varying trustworthiness offered colonization proposals in such far-flung locales as Brazil, Colombia, and the Caribbean island of St. Croix.
> 
> ...




So, according to your meme, blacks are handicapped? BTW, the issue of slavery was a secondary issue and not the main reason the Civil War was fought.....capiche'?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 11, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




Well slavery was legal on the mainland of Great Brit. Untill recently...but no one owned any slaves there before Test Cricket started. 


.


----------



## Yarddog (Jun 11, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Liberia has elephants.
> 
> There is no landline phone system in Liberia.  Take your cell.
> 
> ...




well, they have lost 95% of their elephants to poaching so they wont have them for long


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> ...



no actually it was the primary issue according to the founding fathers of Confederacy who all said that was the primary issue of why they split.

They broke from the US over and hundreds of federal properties by force if necessary, enforced the surrender of 1/4 of the US military for the cause of protecting and expanding the institution of race based slavery.


----------



## IM2 (Jun 11, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> ...



Try another one boy. The blacks must be handicapped for mentioning what whites have done gaslighting tactic doesn't work. CAPICHE?


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


LOL. Once again you prove you’re ignorant. 

Who invaded whom?  Who used force to obtain it’s goal?  Who refused a peaceful approach?

Had Lincoln followed the constitution, there wouldn’t have been a war. He chose war and tyranny which should have resulted in his removal from office in 1861.


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


The south offered to pay for all federal facilities located in the Confederacy. They also agreed to pay their portion of the national debt. Lincoln told them fuck off and prepare to die.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



The time to renegotiate the bankruptcy of USA.INC formerly known as the Virginia Company fell under Lincoln's term and the bankers wanted the lands of the southern states put up for collateral. There were over 451,000 slaves in the north counted in 1860 and Lincoln's proclamation to "free " the slaves didn't occur until 1863...over two years into the war.  Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri were Union slave states and there were still slaves in the Union up until 1865..Slaves that fought for the Union army were only paid 2/3rds of what non slave soldiers were.

IM2 wants to believe that the nation went to war to free the slaves but it wasn't even a secondary reason. unless one believes in revisionist history.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 11, 2019)

IM2 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


He did know.  One of the articles you put up, with his comments to a group of black community leaders, acknowledged slavery's negative effect on blacks in that day. Which was true for those who had grown up in it, uneducated and treated like dirt.  Above in his letter to Greeley he says "all men."
He knew.


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


I hadn't thanked that post, so I just went back and thanked it for you.


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Oh? What would have ended it?


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


If that were true, the south wouldn't have seceded.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

It kinda makes you wish Lincoln had a diary.   Where he kept his own thoughts out of the public.   

I always laughed at the "Honest Abe" line.   He was really one of the first major Presidents playing the campaigning game.    

His first campaign, his opponents were all trying to paint him as an extremist.   The abolitionist, the black republican.  And when you look at his campaign speeches, he's trying to take the "no, I'm an electable moderate" side.   The "I have no intention of ending slavery where it exists" campaign... he just wants to stop it's spread.

But once elected we see a completely different Lincoln.   Slavery on the federal docks... eliminated, slavery in Wash DC... eliminated, slavery in W.VA.. eliminated, his fight for emancipation in Delaware, slavery in the South... eliminated.

And his fight for the 13th amendment to ban slavery throughout the US completely was nasty.  Knowing the Amendment would be shelved in Congress if they thought a peace deal was being struck at the time, he'd be asked if there was a delegation and he'd respond “So far as I know, there are no peace commissioners in the city, nor are there likely to be.”   They were in Virginia just outside the city and he planned on meeting them just outside the city... He talked with Frederick Douglass about a "premature peace" saying that if peace were to come too soon, he might not be able to free the slaves.  He literally didn't want to end the war if it meant it would hamper freeing more slaves.  

Same with the 13th.  He'd promise legislators nice jobs, or for their family... or the opposite, finding a relative of a legislator being an officer for the South promising they would get a long prison term if they didn't vote for the 13th.  This was the dirtiest politics ever... for the most pure cause.  

Then the next election, the bomb dropped on Lincoln to show he was unelectable was calling him for equal rights.  The "King Abraham Africanus the First" campaign... stories of how he wanted the unthinkable.  And he denied it his entire campaign, because to accept that would be political suicide.   

But as soon as the election had passed, who was fighting for equal pay for soldiers?  Who was making his push for black suffrage a primary part of his 2nd term, effectively signing his own death warrant with that stance? 

It's tough to say without him having a diary.  

Was he the guy saying equality wasn't his goal on the campaign?  Or the guy saying he was for equality once the votes were cast and he could do as he pleased?  

In the end some of his harshest critics early on became his strongest supporters.   Frederick Douglass, a man who Lincoln considered the person who's opinion most mattered to him talked at length about that and Lincolns pragmatism.  How he couldn't have won the war and freed the slaves by putting that first.    

Some others wish to say Douglass was "just another black fool" who knew nothing, and destroy his history because it speaks of Lincolns changing stance on black equality as well.  

It would be neat to have that diary and see what was said from the heart.


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


The south started by attacking a federal installation.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

Faun said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I think that it would have ended with the 1940's farming revolution, when sharecropping finally saw it's twilight (just a guess).   At that point, new 
mechanized harvesting equipment was being made reliably and able to take over the hand harvesting which relied on manual labor.  Figure another decade for the pressure from outside to outweigh the reward for them.

As for what would happen next is anyone’s guess.   The south had made it abundantly clear they didn’t want free blacks with rights.  Germany at that same time made it clear they didn’t want free Jews with rights, and would have been left to their own devices how to solve that issue had they not also chosen to invade Europe.  Genocide was quite common in that time when a government felt a population was a detriment to their society.  Pol Pot killed millions in genocide with no repurcussions internationally, Burundi, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Iraq... 

At the best, we’d have an apartheid rule.  2nd class citizens with no rights, separate pay, etc...

But that is my guess.  In the 60’s states in the south were STILL rejecting ratifying the 13th amendment, and one state didn’t officially ratify it until just 6 years ago.  There’s the possibility that they would have held onto slavery much longer, just “cull the herd” so to speak to an acceptable level in a post-manual harvesting world.  It’s all a guess, but mine is sometime soon after those mid-1940’s farming changes.


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


That same simpleton argument always presented by the Lincoln cultist. So in your mind, the north had to go war over a fort they fully intended to evacuate and the bombing of which by SC, resulted in no casualties. Too fucking funny. Do you cultists ever tire?  

At any rate, it is well known that Lincoln set up events at Fort Sumter. If you disagree, then you expose yourself as uninformed.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



Correct.   While Lincoln preached peace, and that he wouldn't fire unless fired upon, the South was overrunning hundreds of US federal properties.   Raiding US weapons caches, overrunning federal ports, and taking over US ships when they couldn't be destroyed in time.  

Once those hundreds of properties were invaded, 1/4 of the US military forced to surrender at gunpoint, and actual open war against the US with the bombing of a US base for 24 straight hours... ONLY THEN was a military response made with force.  

But ignorant ones will still hold onto that lost cause myth debunked by actual source history.


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Wrong. All Lincoln had to do was terminate the Morrill Tariff, and south wouldn’t have seceded. He made it clear in his inaugural speech slavery was safe, but you better pay the tariffs or we will kill you.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Yes, Lincoln intended to fortify US federal properties.  The south had already overrun hundreds of them and forced the surrender of 1/4 of his army at gunpoint.  

Sorry but your lazy tired white supremacist lost cause conspiracy doesn't hold up to actual history.  

At what point would we consider it war if the USSR was overtaking our bases across the world?   How many hours of bombardment should a US base take before we consider retaliation?


----------



## OldLady (Jun 11, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


_one state didn’t officially ratify it until just 6 years ago. _
Which state was that?


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Too dumb to comment.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...




Ahhh the Morrill tariff..   Remember that wasn't in place when the South seceded.  The tariff in place was the Tariff of 1858.   Written by the eventual Sec of State of the Confederacy, and passed unanimously by the Senate in states that seceded.

NOT ONE article of secession mentions the Morrill tariff.   But revisionists want to write it in, to pretend that the South seceded over the tariff THEY wrote, that THEY put in place and that THEY ensured was the lowest tariff rate in 60 years (and lower than any Confederate States Tariff).  

Funny thing.  That tariff only passed BECAUSE of secession.  That's right, it passed by 11 votes in the senate, with 14 no shows from the 7 states in the south that already had seceded.   The ONLY way for the Morrill tariff to pass would have been for the southerners to vote FOR it, or for them to secede and not vote.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

OldLady said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Mississippi I think.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge (Jun 11, 2019)

I heard a guy called Adolf didn’t like Jewish people, a number of years ago also. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Bullshit. The uniformed one is you. Lincoln notified South Carolina he was sending in supplies, which was his right to supply a federal fort, after the south tried to cut off supplies to the fort. It was the south who demanded the federal government surrender the fort to them and then opened fire on it when they didn't. 

I don't care how ignorant you are, you cons can't rewrite history


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 11, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Not enough states tom hold a quorum which was why Lincoln "incorporated" America. Where is the treaty after the end of the war?Hmmmmm? Why are we still under the Lieber Code? Points to ponder.


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Liar, the south put it in writing.-- slavery was the overwhelming reason for why they seceded.

I don't care how ignorant you cons are, you can't rewrite history.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Again, not one article for secession mentioned the Morrill tariff as a reason for secession.  They said it was protecting and expanding slavery from a government that was pushing opposition to it.   

Some people will read the minutes from the secession conventions, like Georgia's for example where they mentioned slavery 214 times and US tariffs zero times and say they wanted secession over slavery and not tariffs.  Others will want to rewrite history and say they wanted it over tariffs.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 11, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



But slavery was allowed even in the Union states and states that sat out the war were allowed to keep their slaves......so why did it take two years into the war for the Lincoln proclamation?


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


The Lincoln cultist ignores Lincoln’s obvious tyrannical actions and then venerates the mass murdering asshole.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Well while slavery was allowed in the US at the time, it was being wiped out Country by Country in the western hemisphere.  The US was the last holdout for slavery in North America.  Like Lincoln said in his inaugurational speech and in letters to the leading secessionists, his desire to end slavery was their major fight.   They knew he opposed slavery and if given the opportunity would try and end it (which he did).

I’d suggest you read the articles of secession.  The speeches of secession commissioners, the speeches of people like Jefferson Davis to the Mississippi senate saying once Lincoln declared his presidential run that if an abolitionist (his term for Republicans) won the presidency, they would need a revolution.   Or the VP of the confederacy calling protecting slavery and their belief that blacks should be subjugated the Cornerstone of their government.  They called slavery the “ONLY” reason, the “Overwhelming” reason.  The minutes of secession where secessionists laid out their reasons (protect slavery, expand slavery, more rights for slave owners) would be a good spot as well. Tennessee would be a fine one.   Gov Harris there used his emergency powers to hold a secession convention.  From that Tennessee came up with 23 complaints, and 7 amendments requested for them to decide against secession.  21 of those complaints were about slavery.   All 7 amendments requested were about protecting or expanding slavery.   THAT is what they wanted.


As for the Emancipation Proclamation, there’s some primary source history there.  First, the states around Washington DC, and DC itself were all slave states, that still had yet to secede early in that time.  To make a goal of the war explicitly about slavery from day 1, likely could have meant Lincoln could wave a white flag out of the White House, located in the Confederacy on day 2 and pushed those states to secession (Virginia left anyways).  Lincoln was also working a different plan early on.  Compensated emancipation.  When that idea failed, he moved on to the non-compensated Emancipation Proclamation.  Lincolns Sec of State (Seward) recommended to him that if he was going to go through with it, he should wait until a decisive US victory so it didn’t look like he was doing it out of fear of losing the war.   So a few days after that decisive victory at Antietam that had Lee in retreat he announced his EP based on his cabinets recommendations.  Remember, before that he was fighting to have slaves reclassified as “contraband” so that the Fugitive slave law wouldn’t apply and they wouldn’t be returned.  He was freeing the slaves in DC.  He was freeing the slaves in federal ports and bases.

States that didn't rebel were allowed to keep their slaves.  The EP was based on Lincoln saying that states in Rebellion were not protected by the Constitution.  Dred Scott case made the right to own slaves a Constitutionally protected one.  In the US, we don't have a monarch.  Congress and the states hold the power for an amendment to the Constitution to eradicate slavery, not an executive order.  It literally was not something he could do. Lincoln did pressure those states to abolish slavery and many did in the North before the end of the war.  And of course he fought like hell for the 13th amendment, even postponing any peace talks and lying about their chances for peace talks to get the 13th passed by Congress before the southern states would be readmitted to Congress.  

Saying Lincoln didn't want to end slavery because of that reason is like saying Trump doesn't want border security since it's been over 2 years without his wall.  It's not based in the reality of how the US political system works with the separation of government.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



lol.  You and actual source history mix together like oil and water don't you.   Tell me, do you pride yourself on that?  That you can look at source history and completely ignore it and decide to instead keep an ignorant opinion based on fairy tales?  Is that something you truly are proud about yourself for doing?   Do you brag things like "you think that guys gullible... well you should see me!"

I get it.  You love those old tired lazy debunked white supremacist lost cause myths.  You want to be a mouthpiece for the pro-slavery anti-black factions that promoted them.   Got it.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 11, 2019)

You've taught me a lot about the Civil War, Sand Squid.  How do you come to know so much about it?  Are you a teacher?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 11, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Gipper is a sharp poster and no one I know personally is a "white supremacist" and he (like myself) know that history isn't what we were told. The same people that subsidize and fund the educational curriculum  also told the sheeple that a central bank is a very goooood thing. The 14 amendment rid us of involuntary servitude. We are debt slaves whose sweat equity was pledged as surety against the debt of USA.INC. Do you know what the original 13th amendment was?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 11, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




There was no functioning government during the Civil War. A corporate entity? Yep, but not a constitutional republic set forth by the founders of the united states for America.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

OldLady said:


> You've taught me a lot about the Civil War, Sand Squid.  How do you come to know so much about it?  Are you a teacher?



No, just a student.   I grew up in North Florida.   Was in 5th grade I think when we took a trip to the northeast.   Realized what I'd been taught wasn't right, and that the "other guys" in the war weren't some foreign country but other Americans.   I believed the lost cause crap most of my life until I started looking into primary source history on it, and it was lying directly against source history.   Decided I didn't want to be taken advantage of by those lies again, so I've studied quite a bit on it, not so much from authors and historians and their stories... But right to the source.   That way there's nobody else injecting their interpretation.


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You really believe that?  Lincoln set it up to look like the SC started it all. He knew he couldn’t supply the fort and protect it from the shore batteries. It was a false flag operation, but you bought it.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Maybe people aren't white supremacists that spout those lies.  Maybe they don't realize that the lies those groups have been feeding for over a century are their beliefs and not founded in actual source history. 

As for the original 13th, it was an amendment to keep slavery.   The south spoke out about that saying they had no intention to believe Lincoln would enforce or keep it and that he'd destroy it the minute he was able.   In hindsight, listening to lincoln preach over and over he had no intention to end slavery where it existed, the south stating that they did not believe that was one thing they were right on.  Lincoln was willing to use a LOT of different methods to end slavery.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



So wait.  AFTER South Carolina had taken over forts, ports, ships and other federal properties through the threat of force, he caused them to attack and bomb a US base by not surrendering it?  Remember South Carolina had already overrun Moultrie, Pinckney, federal ships, the US arsenal in Charleston...

You know why South Carolina was able to bomb Fort Sumter?   Because on December 30, 1860, John Cunningham of the South Carolina militia surrounded the US Federal Arsenal in Charleson and called for the "Immediate surrender of the US arsenal at this place and under your charge, and a delivery to me of the keys and contents of the arsenals, magazines, etc..."

The Chief of Ordinance declared "This arsenal has been taken by force of arms", and the troops after their surrender withdrew to Fort Sumter.  

This all happened BEFORE Lincoln was President.

Then with those weapons they took by force of arms, Ft Sumter was bombed.   

But yeah... lets revise history and say Lincoln was the cause.


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The federal government had relinquished all properties in the south without incident. Then comes Fort Sumter. Clearly the action at the fort was designed by Lincoln to blame the South for starting the war and change public opinion in the North. It worked, but it was all a big lie.

Once the South learned that Lincoln sent a fleet of war ships, after telling the governor of SC that the garrison would soon be evacuated, the deception had been exposed. When Lincoln’s war ships showed up off Charleston, all knew it was an act of war. The SC shore batteries opened up and the fort surrendered the next day without one casualty taking place. Lincoln’s war fleet refused to help their brethren being besieged. They were sent by Lincoln merely as a provocation and it worked.

You might know the name Abner Doubleday, the so called inverter of baseball. He was second in command at Ft. Sumter. He stated, “every Union ship which entered the harbor that day would have been sunk.”  So, all knew the fort was defenseless and incapable of being reinforced, as the SC shore batteries could easily destroy any ships that approached the harbor. 

So, Lincoln’s false flag worked in turning public opinion in the North from letting the South go peacefully, to let’s kill those bastards.


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...




Great, now we have goofy gipper to go along with delusional dale.


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Not nice Fauny. What in my post is incorrect?


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


_*"The federal government had relinquished all properties in the south without incident."*_

Utter nonsense. They were forced to surrender those installations and fled to Sumter.

I don't care how ignorant you are, you cons can't rewrite history.


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Everything. It was a U.S. fort.  As president, Lincoln had every right to send in supplies. They weren't at war yet and there was no reason for him to not be able to resupply them.


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


Wrong. At the time, all thought states were sovereign. When the southern states seceded, the federal personal left without being molested. Please name the facilities in the south where violence occurred.

Even at Ft. Sumter, SC was more than willing to allow the Union to purchase provisions almost up to the day the bombardment began. 

The seceding states offered to pay for all federal installations within their lands. So, your point is meaningless. 

Stop venerating the mass murderer Dishonest Abe. He sucked just like nearly all our recent presidents.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Without incident?  They were scuttling ships and burning docks at the ports to try and not let them fall into rebels hands. Their COs were surrendering at gunpoint.  The Confederate Congress had voted to take Sumter and Pickens by force if necessary a couple months before they took Sumter by force.  


What world do you come from?  Buchanan's administration responds to South Carolina that "Fort Sumter will not be surrendered" but it was being evacuated? Buchanan's administration attempts to resupply the soldiers at Sumter and US ships are fired on but that's not an incident?   Do you even care that you are painting a fake story devoid of historical fact?  1/4 of the military had surrendered to armed rebels and that's not an incident?

I'm sorry. You have to either be a liar or an idiot to say what you are trying to say there.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Actually states weren't sure on that which is why they didn't wait for a Supreme Court ruling but instead moved to attack US federal properties instead.  

What do you mean they offered to pay?   So a military base must be sold to a rebellion if they ask to pay for it? 

Seriously, if I offer to buy a nuclear silo, and the govt refuses, I can overrun it at gunpoint and thats not a fucking incident?   


 What kind of revisionist BS are you spouting.   Did you learn your history from the back of a cracker jack box or something here?  Over and over you are just making shit up.


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


LOLOLOL 

Seceded states had no ownership of federal property. That property still belonged to the U.S.. South Carolina gave the territory to the U.S..


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


Wrong. You have chosen to believe lies.

South Carolina allowed Ft. Sumter to purchase provisions nearly to the time of the bombardment. They found out about Lincoln’s treachery in sending a fleet of war ships, and only then did they stop provisions and take aggressive action.

Lincoln held a cabinet meeting upon entering the WH. He asked all cabinet members should he hold on to Ft Sumter. All agreed they should not. They should evacuate as not to instigate war. The hope was war could still be averted. VA hadn’t yet seceded. They knew an act of war might lead to more states seceding.

Then the south published their constitution. It mirrored the founder’s, but it imposed a national tariff of only 10%. This infuriated Lincoln who knew this low tariff would harm his northern industrial donors and the R party. This is when the whole attitude change. He wanted war to stop that Confederate tariff and impose his.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

That is the revisionist BS that the shite supremacists have been spouting for years to defend the confederacies war to protect and expand the institution of race based slavery.   

Made up, "they were tricked into bombing the US", and "since they surrendered when surrounded at gunpoint, rather than die when the Confederacy declared to take those bases by force if necessary that is not an incident"

And "well after taking them at gunpoint they offered to pay for the forts" (remember they overran 4 mints and took millions of dollars of bullion that they claimed was now theirs).

It's like pointing a gun at someone, taking their belongings, then when they get upset, offering them a few bucks out of the wallet you stole from them, and calling that an acceptable act.   How mentally incompetent is this Gipper guy to defend this crap?


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> That is the revisionist BS that the shite supremacists have been spouting for years to defend the confederacies war to protect and expand the institution of race based slavery.
> 
> Made up, "they were tricked into bombing the US", and "since they surrendered when surrounded at gunpoint, rather than die when the Confederacy declared to take those bases by force if necessary that is not an incident"
> 
> ...


Too stupid for a response.


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


LOLOL 

And the south fired on Sumter ... because ..... ?


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


No silly boy. That’s like saying our bases in Japan are USA land. Think man. Think.


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


Can you read? Lincoln sent a fleet of war ships. Please look it up. I hate ignorance.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 11, 2019)

Oh Goodie!  Yet another Racist Race Baiting thread by a Racist Race Baiting Race Baiter!


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Jan 31 1861, governor Pickens demanded that President Buchanan surrender Ft Sumter...  And Buchanan made the stand that he wouldn't surrender it.  

Feb 15, 1861, the Confederate Congress votes to take ft Sumter by force.  

"Resolved by the Confederate States of America in Congress assembled, That it is the sense of this Congress,
That immediate steps should be taken to obtain Forts Sumter and Pickens, by the authority of this Government, either by negotiations or force, as early as practicable, and that the President is hereby authorized to make all necessary military preparations for carrying this resolution into effect
Passed February 15, 1861."

Before Lincoln was inaugurated.  Damn you are not really intelligent when it comes to US history are you?  Just make shit up and hope for the best...


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Makes sense.  The Confederacy had already voted to take ft Sumter by force if they had to.   I'm sure if the US knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor ahead of time we would have tried to defend it with more ships too.

But somehow that would have been starting the war.   Wow you can't believe what you type can you?


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Our bases on foreign land are not on U.S. territory. Fort Sumter was, and is, on U.S. territory. 

Like all the other nonsense you spew, this analogy utterly fails you.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Nope.  That's ANOTHER lie of yours.

The government of South Carolina Ceded all right and claim to the property and constructions at ft Sumter.

I guess you believe that if Russia decides they didn't like that Alaska deal they can just bomb it to take it back, and if we send some forces to defend it, that makes the US the aggressor.


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


To resupply Fort Sumter, which was his right to do.


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


That's actually his argument, as crazy as it is.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Agree.  Dec 1836 the South Carolina legislature ceded all right, title and claim to the land for ft Sumter, adjacent territory, and structures from South Carolina to the US federal govt


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

Faun said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



That makes no sense. 

French govt changes since the Louisiana purchase so half the US is theirs and if we try to defend it, we started the war.

England changed their monarchy to a democracy, so now the original 13 colonies revert to England.  And if we being a carrier back to defend NY from a UK invasion, we started it.

Mexico has a new government, so Texas is now theirs and if we send anyone to defend the border, it's our fault for not just letting them buy it back with the money in the Dallas mint.

If Spain moves on Florida, overruns NAS key west, uses those planes to bomb Jacksonville base into surrender, and we try to defend Jax, the US is to blame because they wanted it back?  

How can someone think with that logic?

And the bit that the govt of South Carolina, when ordering it's surrender were provisioning the troops defending it against the Confederate Congresses order to take it by force is just so so so dumb.  

Lincoln sent warships because when Buchanan sent a civilian ship to resupply his troops there it was fired on (yes the first shots were fired BEFORE Lincoln).  But what?  After shooting at US ships trying to resupply their troops then the enemy attackers supplied them themselves?  

And why was Anderson telling Lincoln he would run out of food by April 15, if the Confederacy was supplying them?   Any proof to your claim there?  All I can see in US records is they were desperate for supplies and had none.

And how is Lincoln saying he would be resupplying ft Sumter and then sending ships to resupply ft Sumter treachery?


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


No. SC has seceded. Do you know what that means?


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Too stupid as usual. 

All in America thought states could secede just as they had agreed to join. You like Lincoln think the state is perpetual yet no state ever has. LOL. 

You are a dumb Lincoln cultist. Unable to think other than what the state tells you to think. 

You would do well in Orwell’s 1984.


----------



## gipper (Jun 11, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


No. It was a foreign land.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Yes.  According to the Constitution and the Supreme Court that unilateral secession is in fact a rebellion, meaning it is the duty of the President to put it down.

It also does not mean US federal property which all right to has been ceded away automatically is null.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



To South Carolina yes if they believed they weren't part of the US it was foreign for them.   Their legislature ceded all right and claim to that land.   It was no longer theirs.  Just like when Russia ceded all right to Alaska to the US, it was no longer theirs.  Revolution didn't retroactively change that status. Just like the Russian revolution didn't mean Alaska became Russia's again.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Granted that's not true, which is why Jefferson Davis himself called it a "revolution" to leave and the Supreme Court declared it illegal.

And I would do good in that.  You can play big brother trying to rewrite history, and I'd be what you consider a "thoughtcriminal" for not buying your revised version and finding it from the source instead. 

Very apt point there big brother.

You do realize that a big plot of 1984 was the main character rewriting history.   As line after line here you spout lies you can't back up with historical evidence and lies that I've countered with primary source history. 

Or do you just spout the 1984 line having no clue at all what it was about and not realizing the absolute irony of your post there.


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


That doesn't mean they get to steal territory.  It belonged to the United States


----------



## Faun (Jun 11, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Poor, goofy gipper, it was U.S. territory.


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 11, 2019)

Meh you guys really buy this little Abe Lincoln colonization conversation? Not many responses... Odd account... Its simple. All Racism , African and Indian, had to end all at the exact same time by the exact same people. That's because it all sounded the same. Dixie Children read a list of races, by how likely they'll comprehend the Bible. We even put the aborigines first, odd...


----------



## gipper (Jun 12, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your posts expose you as an uninformed dupe. Stop posting and get informed.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Coming from the guy who was trying to say when a state ceded all right to land to the federal government, they kept the rights to that land.

Coming from the guy trying to say that Ft Sumter was to be evacuated, even though both presidents at the time had said they were going to defend it.

Coming from the guy who said that the Confederacy was resupplying the fort, when in actuality they were calling for it's surrender and voting to take it by force.

Coming from the guy who said that stealing the US federal bullion reserves then offering to pay for other things they took from those reserves sounds like a good deal.

Coming from the guy who said it was because of the Morrill tariff, even though the south had the votes to kill that tariff in the senate had they not seceded over slavery, and kept asking that slavery be protected and expanded, nothing about the tariff in their demands.  

Coming from the guy who said they only took aggressive action when Lincoln sent ships, even though they shot at the ships Buchanan sent to resupply the fort.

Coming from the guy who says that surrendering a fort under the threat of being slaughtered isn't an "incident".  

Poor goofy Gipper.   Just playing Big Brother from 1984 and trying to rewrite history and getting his panties in a bunch when people counter him with actual historical facts.  So sad.  

Question.   Do you like knowingly when you say these things, just sticking to the lie no matter what?   Or are you truly that uninformed you have no clue you are lying?


----------



## gipper (Jun 12, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You too. Stop posting and get informed.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Poor goofy Gipper.   So gullible he doesn't even realize he's been lied to.  So dumb he can't even use primary history sources to learn. Thinks "getting informed" is believing lies, and ignoring primary source history.   So sad.

He gets called a liar 7 TIMES in a post (using factual data to prove it earlier), and since he knows he can't defend his lies with facts, he just spouts nonsense and pleadingly cries for people to stop posting factual data at him.

Just has to make up his own history and hope for the best.

Sorry poor goofy Gipper.  I feel for you.


----------



## gipper (Jun 12, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


Lincoln cultists prove their ignorance over and over. They don’t even know what the word “secede“ means. Apparently it is a word they refuse to comprehend. Typical of those who believe the State is perpetual and can never be terminated. They still believe in Hitler’s thousand year Reich. LMFAO.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



I would say that your attempts to try and rectify actual historical record is admirable, but doubt you would even get the irony of that.

Poor goofy Gipper.   Living in a fantasy world of his own making because reality is too tough for him.   So sad, here he is still distracting from the fact he was called a liar 7 times with evidence for all 7 times and can't respond to that but has to change the subject.


I wonder if Goofy Gipper is one of those guys who just blacks out the parts of the Constitution he doesn't like and writes in his own stuff when he doesn't agree with it.


----------



## gipper (Jun 12, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


Can you say SECEDE?  Say it with me.  SECEDE. Again....SECEDE. 

All states were sovereign in 1861. Then came the mass murdering traitor Dishonest Abe. He killed all who opposed his perpetual union bull shit, and dumb Lincoln cultists commend him for his tyranny. 

It was all about the money, as it always is with criminal politicians. Lincoln wanted his tariff to enrich his rich northeastern donors.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Poor goofy Gipper.  STILL sitting there admitting he LIED no less than 7 times and unable to rectify history.  

So sad.  

And he probably doesn't even believe in the Constitution.   Just throws out the parts he doesn't like.


----------



## gipper (Jun 12, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


Say it son....SECEDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



I wonder why Goofy Gipper just accepts that he's lying so easily.   I mean does he go "damn, they caught me again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again." and it's just so often part of who he is it doesn't even register with him anymore?  

Is lying that commonplace for Goofy Gipper that he doesn't even care when he's found out?   So sad.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Goofy gipper sadly probably uses the Constitution for toilet paper.   So sad such anti-American people exist.


----------



## gipper (Jun 12, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


LMFAO...That is exactly what your beloved Lincoln did, but you’re too dumb to know.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Kind of interesting.  The word "sovereign" appears exactly..... ZERO times in the Constitution.   The theory on that comes from the precursor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



So sad, you are so stuck down in your lies, you can't even say you support the Constitution of the United States of America.   I'm sure you are the kind of person who kneels and opposes the Pledge of Allegiance as well.   

So sad Goofy Gipper.   Doesn't even care that he's been proven a liar at least 7 times in one lousy thread.  It's just so common with him, he doesn't care anymore.


----------



## Faun (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


LOL 

Sure,  tell me again how seconding from the country gave them the right to steal someone else's territory.


----------



## Faun (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Nope, you're still delusional, goofy gipper. The killing was started by the confederacy attacking a United States fort.


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 12, 2019)

Jefferson Davis was outraged that the Confederacy was "outmaneuvered" on the point politically, that the South appears to "Start" the war. You know its off the deep Southern Coast. If you claimed to be a new government of the South, you would be expected to take it, its not a micronation. Fort Sumter.
Is anyone of Any confusion that Abraham Lincoln and his wing of a Republican party, planned, and planned, and planned, with 80% of all resources of every type and denomination of this country, to remove slavery with little diplomacy? His campaign involved the twin evils of Mormon polygamy and Protestant Slavery, correct? Methodist and Baptist upstarts makes this basically Protestantism as its then known. As it exists anywhere on the Continent, not Catholic. He put Utah in line, then he put the Southern States in line. I have no idea how much maneuvering this involves. His wife is a southern aristocratic Presbyterian woman, who overhauled the Whitehouse as the Prestige of the Nation and herself, to great expense. A Presbyterian wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin to say Christianity was beaten out of slaves, and sold 5 times better in 5 millions to Britain. Every sort of maneuver I'm sure already existed on a topic morally. I think that is Whether Or Not the independent raid of John Brown in Harper's Ferry became a huge talking point about general security and the border security between states, mistrust.


----------



## gipper (Jun 12, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


Except there where no casualties at Fort Sumter. Good God man get informed.


----------



## gipper (Jun 12, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I asked you to look up the definition for “secede,” but you failed this simple task. You poor thing. 

The South offered to pay for all former federal installations on THEIR land. Lincoln said, “fuck you...now we kill you.”

 TRAITOR!!!!


----------



## Faun (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


LOLOL 

That means they didn't attack the fort in your demented mind, right?


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 12, 2019)

Ya I don't know what Gipper is getting at. There are two in 7 billion southern apologists and ones making up crazy talk.


----------



## Faun (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


So what if they offered? No offers were accepted.

The fort was U.S. property on U.S. territory.

Attacking it was an act of war.


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 12, 2019)

Its a very convenient starting place, however, doesn't anyone think? No 200 soldiers were moved in any other place at any other time during thise conquering of all the southern states for the Confederate Government? The War itself is captured pretty well by AGEOD's Civil War, they do the AGEOD English Civil War too. Fort Sumter, and a very slow build up from there and distrust, Bureaugard is actually the starting confederate with mclellan I guess, Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson both enter the field around late 61 I think?


----------



## gipper (Jun 12, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Wrong.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


With money from Federal mints that they stole.

And why do you keep saying it was their land?  When they ceded all right and claim to that land?

If I take your bank account and your car, how is it then legal if I say I offered to buy your car after stealing it with some of the money that I stole from you?


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



What are you saying is wrong.  In 1836 South Carolina ceded all right and claim to ft Sumter to the US Federal government.  That resolution by the South Carolina government is located in book C, No 11, page 310, In the South Carolina registrar's office in Charleston.

Why are you trying to deny it's existence?  Might as well say the Constitution and the declaration of Independence are just not real. 

You brought up Orwells 1984.  Where big brother was rectifying history by erasing written history and just writing their own.  you are literally doing the same exact thing here.  Attempting to erase written history so you can write one that suits you instead.

And the sad thing is I don't think you have the intelligence to see the irony.


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 12, 2019)

If only Weird Al did Bonnie Blue Flag!


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



So what you're saying is that if Russia wants Alaska back, after ceding it to the US, as long as they make an offer (maybe give us some oil from Alaska for free), the US is now the aggressor if we try to defend it when they attack.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



You've literally lied yourself into a place where you can't defend at least seven of them, where you are saying that we have to destroy and ignore written history and South Carolinas government, take away any of there sovereignty to cede land, and that is what you think is a reasonable argument...

Gimper:  "They had full sovereignty!"  
Well using that sovereignty they ceded all right to that land. 
Gimper: "They didn't have sovereignty to do that!"

Poor goofy gimper.  Lied his way into a paradox.


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 12, 2019)

Korea argues all the time that Korean King and officials were bullied to sign irrational documents like the Annexation treaty. Like why would Sec. 1 Korean Emperor gives all to the Japanese Emperor. Treaties aren't necessarily trades or make any sense. In fact a lot of Koreans stop there, as far as logic goes.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 12, 2019)

Mike Dwight said:


> Korea argues all the time that Korean King and officials were bullied to sign irrational documents like the Annexation treaty. Like why would Sec. 1 Korean Emperor gives all to the Japanese Emperor. Treaties aren't necessarily trades or make any sense. In fact a lot of Koreans stop there, as far as logic goes.



wasn't that the one that the Korean emperor refused to sign because it was pushed on them by threat of force.  

I would say if you want to makeThe comparison you would need to make the comparison.

The threat of force against South Carolina, South Carolinas leadership refusing to sign said cession, etc.  

Otherwise all you have is an unfounded allegation not backed by actual history.


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 12, 2019)

I did a college Alabama History paper on the Grape and Olive Colony. What in the World did Alabama have to say about that? Not anything I ever read. The Federal Congress was in favor of Napoleon Bonaparte, Anti-Kings, and Radical Republicanism, as we used to use the word Republican, and they granted a specific charter to make a Colony! Hold on a Second, inside a State there is a French Colony granted by Congress! Luckily none of it worked. None of those lazy Officers, and none of their hatian free-men, ever planted a single olive or grape, sold their land to speculators in New York. As late as 1900, Government documents about, What about this Land Charter here for the Grape and Olive Colony which belongs by Agreement to some Frenchman?! Demopolis Alabama. Demopolis Alabama probably ended up the most heated of rebels, when it was all, Alabamians that stormed in and took over that Revolutionary idea from congress.

OK I sort of know your point, and I don't know all the meeting minutes from every session in South Carolina. But some thought the Presidency, the Executive branch ofa one-third of a Union government, was a trust granted by the States unto it or not at all. Most presidents in that timeperiod agreed. Some guy toasts to Andrew Jackson "To the Confederacy" , Andrew Jackson toasts "to the Union" , oh outrage, outrage. whatever. That would mean he's his own boss possibly.


----------



## Faun (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Nope. None of what I said is wrong. It's certainly not wrong just 'cause some internet schmuck says so.


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 12, 2019)

Lincoln wasn't going to accept the legality of the resolution of Secession from any of the States, for the humblest gentleman Jefferson Davis, instead. That wasn't legal and he was going to preserve union even if Confederation were preserved, why the States could still have great relations with each other, as Jefferson Davis tried to maintain, and to not impose any ill-will on other senators as he left. Confederacy of These United States may have been maintained but the Union had to be preserved, and Lincoln the Lawyer had very complicated arguments, that the illegality of secession even made those State bodies invalid. These States , to a fully, Proper Union man, were frauds , and a "Rebellion" took place, and a"civil war", where an unauthorized insurrection was put down. The position is inhuman. If Ahn Chang Ho Did form a Provisional Government, then of course these were authorized patriots of Korea. Jefferson Davis' Provisional Government of these States formed for the same purpose. The choices of the State rest on the Recognition internationally of Provisional bodies.


----------



## gipper (Jun 12, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Yes Lincoln was lying tyrant who should have been hung for treason. All agree.


----------



## gipper (Jun 12, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> Mike Dwight said:
> 
> 
> > Korea argues all the time that Korean King and officials were bullied to sign irrational documents like the Annexation treaty. Like why would Sec. 1 Korean Emperor gives all to the Japanese Emperor. Treaties aren't necessarily trades or make any sense. In fact a lot of Koreans stop there, as far as logic goes.
> ...


Yes Lincoln started the war. All agree.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Dwight said:
> ...



Lol. Caught in lies and his stance breaks down to a child's tantrum.

Well not a child's tantrum, The tantrum of the pro slavery groups, the KKK, the Dixiecrats.  When given facts, straight from historical sources you lie to support their cause.  so you can no longer claim ignorance with your stance. You've been shown the facts, and choose to intentionally lie.

If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck...

go ahead and keep  your racist lies.


----------



## gipper (Jun 12, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


Yes Lincoln was a racist liar.


----------



## Faun (Jun 12, 2019)

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Dwight said:
> ...


LOLOL 

All agree except history.... 

and lucid people... 

and people with an IQ above room temperature in Alaska... 

and folks who made it past 2nd grade... 

and people who don't don tin foils hats...


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 12, 2019)

Attack at Harpers Ferry | Season 1 | American Experience


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 13, 2019)

Natural Citizen said:


> The Civil War is over and Lincoln is dead. And there isn't a nickel's worth of difference between Republicans in Washington and Democrats in Washington.





Beast damn post on this thread.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 13, 2019)

Third Party said:


> Wow. Lincoln makes Trump look good!



Actually you're correct. For all of Lincolns faults ,he must have developed a conscience by his second term because he at LEAST tried to do what Trump has not tried to do yet so we can have a government where they serve us like they are suppose to according to the constitution instead of us serving them like we do. This  is what our last great president Kennedy tried to do as well. this was the reason BOTH of them were assassinated.


President Abraham Lincoln Takes on the Banksters and their Cartels in a Brave Battle to Free the People from Financial Tyranny. See the story of how the Rothschilds and other bankers tried to stop Lincoln. Financial Institutions have enslaved the world and this History of how the banksters manipulated the monetary system during the American Civil War. It shows just what the banking cartels are capable of doing, and the threat they pose to your freedom. Part 2 of 2

this is the Abraham Lincoln they didn’t tell you about in school.

this was ALSO The Abraham Lincoln we were not taught about in school either..


----------



## emilynghiem (Jun 13, 2019)

Thanks IM2
1. Lincoln got away with hanging journalists and burning presses
as  "enemies of the state" because America was in a state of war.
2. Emancipating the slaves was done to break the economy of the South.
3. The North was biased toward demonizing the South for Slavery. That was Political.
The South remains biased toward framing it as States' Rights which is also Political.

NOTE: People also do not give a REAL FU about RACISM because the ones who sincerely care
find out it takes SO MUCH INTERNAL WORK to heal the injuries over centuries of genocide.
All those people who really care work on it in positive ways that can't be generalized.

The rest that you see in the media has all become POLITICIZED.
If the RACE CARD pushes buttons and incites response, they push it.



IM2 said:


> Abraham Lincoln has been given a lot of credit because he signed the emancipation proclamation. But in reality he was forced to do so because blacks refused to be resettled in a colony in the Central American jungle.
> 
> "In his book _The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery_, historian Eric Foner writes that by 1862, Lincoln, as well as politically moderate members of Congress, saw colonization as at least a piece of the policy puzzle. "Both the law providing for abolition in the District of Columbia and the Second Confiscation Act included provisions for the colonization of those willing to emigrate. During 1862, Congress appropriated a total of $600,000 to aid in the transportation overseas of African-Americans," Foner wrote. Policy entrepreneurs of varying trustworthiness offered colonization proposals in such far-flung locales as Brazil, Colombia, and the Caribbean island of St. Croix.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 13, 2019)

emilynghiem said:


> Thanks IM2
> 1. Lincoln got away with hanging journalists and burning presses
> as  "enemies of the state" because America was in a state of war.
> 2. Emancipating the slaves was done to break the economy of the South.
> ...


Plus, do we really know where he is getting all these bedside chat quotes from Lincoln no one's heard of? A speech?


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 13, 2019)

Hey, I had a blast reading the Alabama secession, that was weird. Everybody else throwing their hands up in the air. The first state's throwing a tea party. You are cordially invited. Does anybody say if Lincoln's trying to shutdown this stuff?! Innovation in governance?! Its a very specific topic... Well how much confusion do we all have about it? The McCarthy fellow wrote the Bonnie Blue Flag in the Alabama Capitol building currently, as they wrote out the Confederate Constitution, newly including a Preamble toward, an Almighty God, in the sovereign Character of the States, similar to how John Knox's Presbyterianism was Approved by Scottish Parliament voting in Scotland. Another John Knox chaired the Alabama Constitution. Hardly a name for coincidences. The First flag of Alabama is in fact Our woman with the Bonnie Blue Flag in hand. In fact any sort of centralization of the Confederating government states and ideas, seems to be from Alabama, while, Alabama tends to downplay its Monuments, These days. They Tend to point at Virginia, for the battles. I do think 90% of that battle field is that dueling ground between Washington DC and Richmond.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 13, 2019)

emilynghiem said:


> Thanks IM2
> 1. Lincoln got away with hanging journalists and burning presses
> as  "enemies of the state" because America was in a state of war.
> 2. Emancipating the slaves was done to break the economy of the South.
> ...



Wow there are some Whoppers in here.

#2.  it wasn't like when Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation Southerners In the Confederacy just gave up their slaves because it was law.  As the Union army took control of the South only then were slaves emancipated.  if you're saying that freeing slaves hurt the economy, well it was only hurting the union one.  It also makes no sense then why he fought to end slavery in the north, like making West Virginia give up slavery, ending it in DC, on federal installations and in new US territories and then with a United States pushed the 13th amendment when it was one economy.

And again someone's trying to make the time travel bit.  Lincoln was discussing his emancipation proclamation before he gave up on the voluntary move for free blacks.

As for the souths "states rights" fight they actually spelled those out rather than use that ambiguous term.  They were fighting for the right to expand slavery to new states.  they were fighting for the right to be able to take their slaves to any state that they wanted.  They were fighting for the right to protect slavery in their states.  They were fighting for the right to have slaves returned to their states.

In fact only one time was states rights as a reason for rebellion mentioned which didn't include slavery.  Joseph E Brown, the governor of Georgia, vs the Confederacy and Jefferson Davis using a strong central government to walk over his states rights.

And actually Lincoln specifically blamed slavery as the cause of the Civil war. Yes blacks were slaves so that was where the blame was but on them being held as slaves not them themselves.   "*One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war.". 

*


----------



## Mindful (Jun 13, 2019)

Wandering through the Civil War section of the Smithsonian American Art museum yesterday, I took this picture for TNHarley.


----------

