Distortions of truth and history: Lee, a better friend of slaves than Lincoln

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Sava
The Republicans of that era would be the Democrats of today. Comparing the neo-fascist right wing organization known as the GOP to the Republicans of the mid to late 19th century is false. They share little more than a name.

You are like to a snot nosed toddler who cries wolf at the sight of toy poodle. Bad doggie, Bad.

[Sava]

aw did I make the evil right winger cry? I'll mail you some Kleenex[tm] to wipe your tears, sweetheart.

[Drake Tungsten]

I would shoot them on sight just like my Serbian ancestors and family did.

This of course also applies to any Croats, Bosnians, or Albanians Sava may come across. Go Serbia!!!

ps: Don't forget the Austro-Hungarian aristocracy, shooter!

[Ramo]

Because its not related to your claim. The South started the War and that makes THEM responsible for the deaths in any case.

Whoever "started" the war involves minor legal semantics. Its irrelevant. It takes two sides to execute the war.

You can't buy or sell conscripted soldiers.

Irrelevent distinction. I meant slavery as a general term, not referring to the special case of blacks in t he US. How bout forced labor? Is that a better term?

I suppose I could be mixing you up with someone else that is a Libertarian and maybe you are an anarchist.

Yep.

In which case there is no capacity for reason in you. Anarchy can only lead to some hardcase taking over. Its not a viable system.

Not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. Anarchists like the Catalonians during the Spanish revolution or the Zapatistas during the Mexican revolution, the Paris Communards, etc., were all brought down through overwhelming external force, not internal politics.

Even more brain dead than extreme Libertarianism.

I am still waiting for those numbers by the way. The War deaths are usually given as around 600,000 and as

Hmmm.. you're right. I looked up the the war deaths a minute ago, and a link mislead me (I though it was ~600,000 too).

I pointed out that number is the responsibility of the people that started the war not the people that ended it.

That's silly. It's the responsibility of the sides that were wrong, in this case, both sides.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes States Rights did first come up over the Alien and Sedition Acts. It may also be the last time that State Rights were brought up in defense of human rights instead to squash human rights as has so often been the case.

What about Calhoun's threat of nullification over the 1832 tariff? The Hartford Convention during the War of 1812 (NorthEastern states opposed to the war)?

And after the Civil War: speed limits, liquor laws, right to vote for women were done in MANY states before the Federal government did it in the 20s. All are examples of states' rights. It is THE greatest issue in the history of the United States.

Actions speak louder than words *cough* Emancipation Proclamation *cough*

Great political move. It kept the UK and France out of the war.

And sorry, Sava, but I don't whitewash what someone did simply because the world is a better place for him. If he did wrong, then he should be set to task for it. But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you? You'd be first in line for a Totalitarian US if it benefited you.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I guess you sickos are forgetting that they were SLAVESSS.... SUB HUMAN.... TREATED LIKE ANIMALSS.... SOLD LIKE COMMODITIES....

Which is basically how Lincoln thought of them.... do you have a point or are you just being a stupid troll?

Lincoln's own writings refute this. How are you being objective when you spout such a blatant lie?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, and for what it's worth (probably not much, but oh well), Lincoln is in my Top 5 Presidents ever. Joining him on that list is Jefferson, Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, and FDR/Reagan (depending on my mood that day).

[Capt Dizle]

I would like to interject a serious comment that shows the mindset of many America whites in the period before the war. Lincoln advocated a policy of colonialization for blacks to territory outside the US. He opposed equal rights for blacks. No voting, no office holding. Just food for thought.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Lincoln's own writings refute this.

His own writings also called them subhuman (like stated, he wanted to ship them back to Africa). Which Lincoln do you believe? I think it is something in the middle, kind of like the average Northerner.

--

jimmy is correct, he opposed equal rights for blacks, and his writings support this.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ooooh, Boris:

When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, 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 how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, -- to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world 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 betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? 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 white people will not.

October 16, 1854

(Emphasis Mine)

http://www.nps.gov/liho/slavery/al05.htm

While he thought slavery was illegal it was against his OWN FEELINGS that blacks should be made equals.

[Boris Godunov]

You're both ignoring the fact that he changed his opinion on this matter as his views evolved. You seem to think he had to be born a full-on abolitionist to merit respect. I find it much more respectful to see the evolution into that mindset. He certainly advocated full civil rights for blacks by the end of his life.

I just don't understand this sniping at the ankles of Lincoln. Especially from jimmytrick, who in other threads idolizes to ridiculousness the very American history and institutions that Lincoln's actions made possible. Isn't that just a little hypocritical of you?

[David Floyd]

That Europeans are far more enlightened than southerners is well established fact.

I guess that depends on your definition of "enlightened." But if we're making generalizations, it's a well established fact that whites are smarter than blacks, and that blacks commit far more violent crime. You like those? No? Why not shut the hell up then?

Sava,

I'm not going to debate what Lincoln might have thought or said about them. Actions speak louder than words *cough* Emancipation Proclamation *cough*

Funny how he waited until just after Antietam, the first major Union victory against Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.

Ethelred,

Well at least I allready had a suspicion as to what kind of mind you have.

One that disagrees with you? Can't have that, can we?

Because its not related to your claim. The South started the War and that makes THEM responsible for the deaths in any case.

Actually the USA started the war by attempting to resupply US troops in CSA territory, and refusing to withdraw said troops, and by invading Virginia.

You can't buy or sell conscripted soldiers.

What does that matter? The concept of slavery essentially means forced labor, and there's no way you can say that conscription is not forced labor.

I am still waiting for those numbers by the way. The War deaths are usually given as around 600,000 and as I pointed out that number is the responsibility of the people that started the war not the people that ended it.

Approximately 160,000 CSA, 360,000 USA deaths, in addition to thousands of civilians. Not to mention thousands more who were displaced and had their lives ruined by William T. Sherman, who was much more a war criminal than Slobodan Milosevic. And all this because Lincoln had an inferiority complex about his penis size, and wouldn't dream of letting people exercise their Constitutional rights in order to avoid all that slaughter.

[Boris Godunov]

Imran, do you hold the same positions on issues you did 10 years ago?

I should hope not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I also find it amusing that there are those the hold up Lincoln as the Emancipator without realizing what that Emancipation Proclimation actually did. It freed slaves in the states STILL IN REBELLION. It did nothing for slaves that were in states that were readmitted to the Union by that time. Why? Because Lincoln didn't want to ruffle any feathers in the North. The slaves in the North were liberated by the Radical Republicans who passed the 13th Amendment. Chances are that Lincoln wouldn't have been too fond of the 14th and 15th Amendments, seeing as Johnson carried out Lincoln's plan after Lincoln was shot.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He certainly advocated full civil rights for blacks by the end of his life.

HA! Then why didn't he try to push it through?! Congress was ready and willing to do so. Hell, it had to drag Johnson, who was implimenting Lincoln's appeasement plan to the letter, kicking and screaming to get the 14th and 15th Amendments passed.

If Lincoln really believed in full civil rights for blacks, like say Thaddeus Stevens did, then he would have actually done something about it instead of things like the Emancipation Proclimation which basically did nothing (they freed slaves in places where the US had no control). Why didn't he make an Emancipation Proclimation freeing the slaves in the US at the same time as he did the other? Congress would surely have backed him up (seeing as they were much more radical than he was on that issue).