...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[JBeukema]

First off, war crimes are committed by states, not individuals.

So the Nuremberg trials was really one trial against a State and not a series of hearings regarding the crimes of the individuals involved?

Justice Newman [of the US Court of Appeals] added:

"The liability of private individuals for committing war crimes has been recognized since World War I and was confirmed at Nuremberg after World War II."
​

Legal Definition of War Crimes

Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

Clearly addresses individuals

(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
...

(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

United States Code: Title 18,2441. War crimes | LII / Legal Information Institute


Refuted and dismissed

 

[paperview]

OOh. Have I mentioned yet how stoooooopid the title of this thread is?

The Great Emancipator. He Rests at Peace.

 

[Mr Natural]

I don't remember Lincoln preaching anything about world domination or the extermination of ethnic groups.

I must have been asleep during that part of the lecture.

 

[paperview]

Who instigated that shot?

The South by demanding that the US Army surrender a US fort.

That would be incorrect. Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.

Lincoln wasn't even President when the first shot was fired, Kevin.

 

[JBeukema]

Lincoln certainly realized that slavery was the root cause of the war, from which all other causes were secondary and from which they budded.

The South fought for slavery because it was the cornerstone of their economy, as well as for their racist views. The North didn't fight for slaver, but even ad their own slaves; they were motivated by economics more than any other factor.

Thus Lincoln emancipated the slaves in the region of insurrection,

Impossible by definition. There was no 'region of insurrection'; the CSA was not trying to take over the government any more than the FF were trying to take over the British Empire. Both were wars for independence.

The CSA left the Union, meaning that Lincoln had no more authority than the King.

where he certainly had legal authority if not physical ability to enforce it. As the areas were captured, the slaves became automatically free. Lincoln supported the 13th Amendment that would end all slavery with its ratification in December 1865.

He also supported the original, which was to have a very different effect.

So, yes, verily yes, the United States fought the just war against the South.

They did not. There was a just war to be fought but the Union did not fight it, for they did not fight for the just reason and cause for which there was to fight.

You probably think America fought a just war against Hitler, as well, despite the fact that we never cared about the Jews, we had our own eugenics movement and forced sterilizations, we ignored 'Europe's Problem', we were in contact with NAZI 'doctors' thorugh much of the war, and we only went reluctantly into war against Hitler after he declared war on us following the Japanese attack.

There was a just war to be fought, but we did not fight it. We fought our own war for our own reasons and what was just had nothing to do with it. That the enemy happened to be the same merely provided an opportunity for great propaganda.

 

[JBeukema]

they were in outright revolution.

Fail.

Did they try to depose the king? Did they have any plans to storm the palace? Did they seek to destroy the Empire and remove the kings head, taking control of the Crown?

No.


It was a war for independence, not a revolution. America has never seen a revolution except in paintings of that waged by the French.

 

[JBeukema]

True. Read any papers of the day at the time. The secession bubble had been building for a years and years before. Hell, in 1850 SC threatened to seceded and in 1852, a convention was held and secession was laid out.

It was positively inevitable. Lincoln, of the new anti-slavery party being elected, was the final straw.

If the North gave a damned about the <RACIST SLUR DELETED BY PAPERVIEW>, why did the North not free their own slaves during the conflict?

The fact you use such a disgusting term to refer to black people tells me all I need to know about you.

Thanks for saving me some time.

That's how they viewed them. They didn't care about the '*******'. If you can't accept the reality of the mindset of those involved, then you're utterly hopeless.

 

[paperview]

The Northern & Lincoln's view of Slavery:

The South's view:

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.

you've called our veterans war criminals, which is just as bad, if not worse.

Plus he called us during wwii "al quaeda".

He'll just deny it and act like we misinterpreted, like he said above in regards to the US being unjustified in being in WWII, and claiming they were the aggressors against Japan. Sounds like someone who just like to argue something, regardless of what bullshit he spews forth and how absurd that argument is. Must be a lawyer

Again, you're purposefully misinterpreting what I said regarding al-Qaeda. It was in fact Elvis who initiated that comparison, as I've already shown.

Oh, and I think Jillian and CrimsonWhite would be able to tell you that I am in no way shape or form a lawyer.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, the confeds grabbed fed properties wherever they could before offering to pay for them. Your problem is that you believe that a state is equal to the national government. When a state ratified the Constitution or later joined the union, it gave up its own sovereignty and adopted the principles of federalism. No where in the Constitution is a state granted the right to secession whereas Section I 8: 16 clearly gives the national government precedence over the states. The tail cannot wag the dog.

So they gave up their own sovereignty for the principles of federalism? What is federalism but a system whereby the member states of a union retain their sovereignty?

A false definition of federalism. Go look it up. The member states did not retain their sovereignty any more than did the new states that came into the union. Since the Constitution did not grant that power to the states, then an amendment would have been needed to grant the states such power.

You clearly have no idea how the Constitution doles out power. I'm not going to bother explaining it again, however. I've probably done so a few times in this thread already.

 

[paperview]

This was the Cornerstone of what the South was fighting for:

 

[JakeStarkey]

they were in outright revolution.

Fail.

Did they try to depose the king? Did they have any plans to storm the palace? Did they seek to destroy the Empire and remove the kings head, taking control of the Crown?

No.


It was a war for independence, not a revolution. America has never seen a revolution except in paintings of that waged by the French.

Your belief fails because it does not meet the evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So they gave up their own sovereignty for the principles of federalism? What is federalism but a system whereby the member states of a union retain their sovereignty?

A false definition of federalism. Go look it up. The member states did not retain their sovereignty any more than did the new states that came into the union. Since the Constitution did not grant that power to the states, then an amendment would have been needed to grant the states such power.

You clearly have no idea how the Constitution doles out power. I'm not going to bother explaining it again, however. I've probably done so a few times in this thread already.

Kevin, your belief is not evidence, it is merely fail.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The South by demanding that the US Army surrender a US fort.

That would be incorrect. Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.

Lincoln wasn't even President when the first shot was fired, Kevin.

He wasn't President in April of 1861?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Northern & Lincoln's view of Slavery:

The South's view:

Lincoln believed African-Americans deserved equal rights, but only so long as they weren't in America. They could have equal rights wherever he deported them to.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A false definition of federalism. Go look it up. The member states did not retain their sovereignty any more than did the new states that came into the union. Since the Constitution did not grant that power to the states, then an amendment would have been needed to grant the states such power.

You clearly have no idea how the Constitution doles out power. I'm not going to bother explaining it again, however. I've probably done so a few times in this thread already.

Kevin, your belief is not evidence, it is merely fail.

The words of the Constitution itself, however, are evidence. And that has been posted in this thread multiple times I believe.

 

[JBeukema]

How about looking at Lincoln's real views, as expressed before the propaganda machine had to justify things in retrospect?

"Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get an answer out of me to the question whether I am in favor of Negro citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. (applause from audience) He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of Negro citizenship. (renewed applause) If the state of Illinois has the power to grant Negroes citizenship, I shall be opposed to it. (cries of "here, here" and "good, good" from audience) That is all I have to say." -- Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Springfield, Illinois, June 1857

"Negro Equality! Fudge!! How long in the government of a God, great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?"


Fourth debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858 : "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the White and black races, (Applause) - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurers of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on equal terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race..."

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"In the course of his reply, the Senator remarked that he had always considered this a government made for the white people and not for the Negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so, too."
-From, Speech at Peoria, Illinois
Oct. 1854 (Vol. II)

[/FONT]"I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District [of Columbia]." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1862

"We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North and become tip-top abolitionists, while some Northern Men go South and become most cruel masters. When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter." -- Abraham Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois

"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." -- Abraham Lincoln, Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858; from Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, 1894, Volume 1, page 273


"The point the Republican party wanted to stress was to oppose making slave States out of the newly acquired territory, not abolishing slavery as it then existed. " -- Abraham Lincoln in a speech at Peoria, Illinois

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Abraham Lincoln's Inaugural Address on the Capitol steps, 1861

What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the Union." -- Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greeley


Lincoln never gave a damn about the slaves- they were merely pawns he could use to secure his own power and keep the Confederates subject to Union rule.

"If we turn 200,000 armed Negroes in the South, among their former owners, from whom we have taken their arms, it will inevitably lead to a race war. It cannot be done. The Negroes must be gotten rid of." ​

Ben Butler responded to this by saying: "Why not send them to Panama to dig the canal?" Lincoln was delighted with this suggestion, and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later, John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln and one of his conspirators wounded Seward. ​

 

[paperview]

That would be incorrect. Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.

Lincoln wasn't even President when the first shot was fired, Kevin.

He wasn't President in April of 1861?

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.




They took a ship and seized it as well, "The Marion."


Then converted her to a Man of War ship.



Star of the West


Yes, the first shots were fired even before Lincoln was president.

 

[paperview]

Amazing how the man the South itself claimed was Anti-Slavery and the party they billed as Anti-slavery, never "gave a damn about the slaves."

Makesyawonder, huh?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Lincoln wasn't even President when the first shot was fired, Kevin.

He wasn't President in April of 1861?

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.




They took a ship and seized it as well, "The Marion."


Then converted her to a Man of War ship.



Star of the West


Yes, the first shots were fired even before Lincoln was president.

The Fort Sumter incident seen as the spark that started the war, however, occurred in April. Lincoln needed this incident because he knew northern public sentiment was against war, and he had every intention of invading the south.