# Think Tank > History >  Atrocities committed by Lincoln

## LibertiORDeth

I need a somewhat detailed list of some of the things that Lincoln and the North did during the Civil War that were illegal and unethical, such as repressing free speech, with examples.

----------


## sratiug

> I need a somewhat detailed list of some of the things that Lincoln and the North did during the Civil War that were illegal and unethical, such as repressing free speech, with examples.



Invaded a country and used terrorist tactics against its civilian population, literally burning cities to the ground.  Pretended to free the slaves in that other country while keeping slavery legal in the United States.  Instituted a draft that caused the worst riots in American history in New York with thousands of Blacks and other minorities killed.

----------


## LibertiORDeth

Thanks

----------


## Uriel999

He repealed Habaeous (spelling I have been drinking at this point) corpus. However, remember Lincoln didn't go to war to end slavery, he went to war to preserve the Union. We have over 150 years of retrospect to realize the horrors of slavery, even many abolitionists were racist. As well, the Emancipation Proclamation was brilliant politics. It is true it did not free any African slaves, but what it did do was sway European sentiment to the side of Union. Don't blame Lincoln for the Civil War, blame John Calhoun and South Carolina. Nullification was bull$#@!.

----------


## nate895

> He repealed Habaeous (spelling I have been drinking at this point) corpus. However, remember Lincoln didn't go to war to end slavery, he went to war to preserve the Union. We have over 150 years of retrospect to realize the horrors of slavery, even many abolitionists were racist. As well, the Emancipation Proclamation was brilliant politics. It is true it did not free any African slaves, but what it did do was sway European sentiment to the side of Union. Don't blame Lincoln for the Civil War, blame John Calhoun and South Carolina. Nullification was bull$#@!.


I think you are mistaken on the count that the South caused the war. 

Nullification was even justified by the architects of the Constitution (specifically James Madison, who wrote the Virginia Resolutions). Many arguments used against nullification and secession are total BS. Sovereign states entered a compact, and sovereign states then decided to leave it. To suggest what the South did is unconstitutional would be like saying that the US withdrawing from the UN would be unconstitutional.

----------


## travisAlbert

The purpose of the government is first and foremost to protect the rights of it's citizens. Ignorant southerners always argue the states rights bull$#@!. Let's focus on the ideals of enlightened republicanism, which guided the creation of our nation, and contrast them with the southern way of life. Our founding fathers fought to end a system of privelage and aristocracy, in which a man's merit was based on his physical abilities or keen wit. It should also be noted that one of the major reasons for the Revolution was not only for the nation's independence, but the independence of the individual as well. The concept of self ownership and self sufficiency cannot exist in a slave economy. Everyone is dependent on everyone. Not to mention the fact that the black folk are just as human as you or I, and the white slave holding ARISTOCRACY felt that they should have the privelage to force them to work for nothing. The southern slave owners were a member of an elite leisure class that made profits through inherited forced labor. The lazy slave owners and their imbred children did not gain their wealth by their own merit, but through an inherited wealth that seemed to keep on giving. I understand that Lincoln did use the Civil War to pass questionable legislation, and that slavery was in the North, but the difference is in the fact that black was not synonomous to slave in the North. I wish that the government didn't have to put in the emancipation proclaimation and go to war against the unruly backward slaveholding elites. I wish that John Brown would have continued his acts of "terrorism" against the racist slime and that a massive slave revolt would have ended it there, but the government killed John Brown.  The argument of states rights is often used to protect racist practices. Their is nothing American about an Aristocracy, there is nothing American about owning another human being, there is nothing American about denying black Americans of their constitutional rights, and there is nothing American about treason. The south should not be honored. They revolted, because they were aristocratic bigots, not because they were lovers of freedom and liberty (other than the liberty to infringe on someone else's liberty). In conclusion, I actually wish that the north would have allowed the south to secceed and then fall into poverty as they failed to industrialize and the slaves revolted and ran away to a northern safe haven. $#@! the South.

----------


## nate895

> The purpose of the government is first and foremost to protect the rights of it's citizens. Ignorant southerners always argue the states rights bull$#@!. Let's focus on the ideals of enlightened republicanism, which guided the creation of our nation, and contrast them with the southern way of life. Our founding fathers fought to end a system of privelage and aristocracy, in which a man's merit was based on his physical abilities or keen wit. It should also be noted that one of the major reasons for the Revolution was not only for the nation's independence, but the independence of the individual as well. The concept of self ownership and self sufficiency cannot exist in a slave economy. Everyone is dependent on everyone. Not to mention the fact that the black folk are just as human as you or I, and the white slave holding ARISTOCRACY felt that they should have the privelage to force them to work for nothing. The southern slave owners were a member of an elite leisure class that made profits through inherited forced labor. The lazy slave owners and their imbred children did not gain their wealth by their own merit, but through an inherited wealth that seemed to keep on giving. I understand that Lincoln did use the Civil War to pass questionable legislation, and that slavery was in the North, but the difference is in the fact that black was not synonomous to slave in the North. I wish that the government didn't have to put in the emancipation proclaimation and go to war against the unruly backward slaveholding elites. I wish that John Brown would have continued his acts of "terrorism" against the racist slime and that a massive slave revolt would have ended it there, but the government killed John Brown.  The argument of states rights is often used to protect racist practices. Their is nothing American about an Aristocracy, there is nothing American about owning another human being, there is nothing American about denying black Americans of their constitutional rights, and there is nothing American about treason. The south should not be honored. They revolted, because they were aristocratic bigots, not because they were lovers of freedom and liberty (other than the liberty to infringe on someone else's liberty). In conclusion, I actually wish that the north would have allowed the south to secceed and then fall into poverty as they failed to industrialize and the slaves revolted and ran away to a northern safe haven. $#@! the South.


I refuse to even respond to a man who says "F*#$ the South," assaulting my homeland with nothing but vitriolic propaganda, and who cannot even use intelligent words to justify it. Instead he says "F@#! the South" and makes up a jumbled mess that isn't even organized. This is what we call "diarrhea of the mouth" when it is spoken.

----------


## sratiug

> The purpose of the government is first and foremost to protect the rights of it's citizens. Ignorant southerners always argue the states rights bull$#@!. Let's focus on the ideals of enlightened republicanism, which guided the creation of our nation, and contrast them with the southern way of life. Our founding fathers fought to end a system of privelage and aristocracy, in which a man's merit was based on his physical abilities or keen wit. It should also be noted that one of the major reasons for the Revolution was not only for the nation's independence, but the independence of the individual as well. The concept of self ownership and self sufficiency cannot exist in a slave economy. Everyone is dependent on everyone. Not to mention the fact that the black folk are just as human as you or I, and the white slave holding ARISTOCRACY felt that they should have the privelage to force them to work for nothing. The southern slave owners were a member of an elite leisure class that made profits through inherited forced labor. The lazy slave owners and their imbred children did not gain their wealth by their own merit, but through an inherited wealth that seemed to keep on giving. I understand that Lincoln did use the Civil War to pass questionable legislation, and that slavery was in the North, but the difference is in the fact that black was not synonomous to slave in the North. I wish that the government didn't have to put in the emancipation proclaimation and go to war against the unruly backward slaveholding elites. I wish that John Brown would have continued his acts of "terrorism" against the racist slime and that a massive slave revolt would have ended it there, but the government killed John Brown.  The argument of states rights is often used to protect racist practices. Their is nothing American about an Aristocracy, there is nothing American about owning another human being, there is nothing American about denying black Americans of their constitutional rights, and there is nothing American about treason. The south should not be honored. They revolted, because they were aristocratic bigots, not because they were lovers of freedom and liberty (other than the liberty to infringe on someone else's liberty). In conclusion, I actually wish that the north would have allowed the south to secceed and then fall into poverty as they failed to industrialize and the slaves revolted and ran away to a northern safe haven. $#@! the South.


You are an idiot.  You can't invade the South to end slavery when slavery is still legal in the rest of the country.  That bigot Lincoln was going to send every black person here back to Africa.  And there were free black people in the South before the Civil War, in case you didn't know that.

Nobody here is defending slavery, moron.  Slavery was written into the Constitutional Union that Lincoln so murderously protected.

Oh, and $#@! YOU.

----------


## qaxn

> You can't invade the South to end slavery when slavery is still legal in the rest of the country.


Something corrected _by Lincoln_ with the Thirteenth Amendment.



> That bigot Lincoln was going to send every black person here back to Africa.


while true that he was a colonizationist before the war, frederick douglas convinced him otherwise early on.



> And there were free black people in the South before the Civil War, in case you didn't know that.


...no one is arguing that?  why should that even matter?  "yeah sure we're systematically enslaving an entire race of people but hey there are a couple people we aren't $#@!ing over"

----------


## sratiug

> Something corrected _by Lincoln_ with the Thirteenth Amendment.
> 
> while true that he was a colonizationist before the war, frederick douglas convinced him otherwise early on.
> 
> ...no one is arguing that?  why should that even matter?  "yeah sure we're systematically enslaving an entire race of people but hey there are a couple people we aren't $#@!ing over"


Lincoln didn't pass the Thirteenth amendment.  The Union couldn't pass it until the end of the war, even without southern representation in congress.  Lincoln said he would free none of the slaves if it would preserve the Union, and that's what he did, freed none of the slaves.

The poster I replied to implied there were no free blacks in the South, wrongly.  There were many free blacks, and many slaves, in both North and South.  So the Union did not want to free the slaves and lose support of THE SLAVE STATES STILL IN THE UNION.  They also did not want southern blacks mass migrating to the North.  Lincoln said the two races could never live together.

The "Civil" War was neither a civil war, nor a war over slavery.  The people that actually enslaved the black race were the Northern merchant ship slave traders that "bought" or kidnapped them in Africa and brought them to the United States and to sell at huge profit.

----------


## sratiug

Union generals like George B. McClellan in Virginia and Henry W. Halleck in the West were ordered not only to defeat the Southern armies but also to prevent slave insurrections. In the first months of the war, slaves who escaped to Union lines were returned to their masters in conformity with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.  

Does that sound like a war to end slavery?

----------


## jmdrake

I wish someone would explain this to me.  Sure Lincoln "invaded the South" (actually the south fired first but for the sake of argument lets say he did) but Andrew Jackson THREATENED an invasion to stave off secession.  Andrew Jackson also threatened to hang John Calhoun for promoting secession.  So why is it that some (though perhaps not all) of the same people who condemn Lincoln hail Jackson?  Oh yeah, and in Andrew Jackson's time tariffs were the ONLY thing on the agenda.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## jmdrake

> Union generals like George B. McClellan in Virginia and Henry W. Halleck in the West were ordered not only to defeat the Southern armies but also to prevent slave insurrections. In the first months of the war, slaves who escaped to Union lines were returned to their masters in conformity with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.  
> 
> Does that sound like a war to end slavery?


Actually it was a war to prevent the end of slavery.  There is a subtle difference which some people simply don't understand or choose not to understand.  Lincoln didn't have the constitutional power to end slavery and said as much just like Ron Paul wouldn't have the constitutional power to ban all abortions.  Lincoln made it clear that he wanted to end the expansion of slavery.  The southern states saw this as a threat to slavery because if the union grew without slave states being added there would eventually be the 2/3rds majority needed to amend the constitution.  The southern states said as much in the declarations of secession.  And yes there were issues besides slavery such as the tariff issues (which is why SC threatened to secede under Andrew Jackson...but backed down when Jackson threatened to invade) but the preservation of slavery was still an issue.  The union couldn't afford to mess with slavery directly early not not just because of the constitution but also because they needed the support of the "border states" that had slaves but did not secede.  Lincoln offered to buy the freedom of these slaves (similar to an idea Ron Paul floated on "Meet The Press") but the border states wanted more money than Lincoln was willing to offer and congress didn't want to spend even that much.  The civil war was a complex issue but unfortunately modern Americans have short attention spans.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## LibertiORDeth

> Lincoln offered to buy the freedom of these slaves (similar to an idea Ron Paul floated on "Meet The Press") but the border states wanted more money than Lincoln was willing to offer and congress didn't want to spend even that much.  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John M. Drake


He did?  I never heard that.

----------


## LiveFree79

Sorry but Lincoln despite all his downfalls was probably one of the best if not the BEST President this country has ever had.  One of the few that actually stood up to the private banking cartel that ultimately led to his assissination.

----------


## LibertiORDeth

> Sorry but Lincoln despite all his downfalls was probably one of the best if not the BEST President this country has ever had.  One of the few that actually stood up to the private banking cartel that ultimately led to his assissination.


What??? HE ENCOURAGED it.

----------


## sratiug

> I wish someone would explain this to me.  Sure Lincoln "invaded the South" (actually the south fired first but for the sake of argument lets say he did) but Andrew Jackson THREATENED an invasion to stave off secession.  Andrew Jackson also threatened to hang John Calhoun for promoting secession.  So why is it that some (though perhaps not all) of the same people who condemn Lincoln hail Jackson?  Oh yeah, and in Andrew Jackson's time tariffs were the ONLY thing on the agenda.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John M. Drake


I'm not a free trader.  Tariffs are fine by me if they are a flat rate on everything.  In fact, they seem to me to be the only logical way to fund the federal government.  I would also eliminate foreign purchasing of land.

Jackson was great because he got rid of the national bank and won the Battle of New Orleans but obviously sucked in other ways.

----------


## sratiug

> He did?  I never heard that.


Lincoln proposed to his cabinet late in the war to buy all the slaves in the Southern states to free them.  His cabinet was not receptive to the idea.  At least according to the book Mary Todd Lincoln.

----------


## sratiug

> Actually it was a war to prevent the end of slavery.  There is a subtle difference which some people simply don't understand or choose not to understand.  Lincoln didn't have the constitutional power to end slavery and said as much just like Ron Paul wouldn't have the constitutional power to ban all abortions.  Lincoln made it clear that he wanted to end the expansion of slavery.  The southern states saw this as a threat to slavery because if the union grew without slave states being added there would eventually be the 2/3rds majority needed to amend the constitution.  The southern states said as much in the declarations of secession.  And yes there were issues besides slavery such as the tariff issues (which is why SC threatened to secede under Andrew Jackson...but backed down when Jackson threatened to invade) but the preservation of slavery was still an issue.  The union couldn't afford to mess with slavery directly early not not just because of the constitution but also because they needed the support of the "border states" that had slaves but did not secede.  Lincoln offered to buy the freedom of these slaves (similar to an idea Ron Paul floated on "Meet The Press") but the border states wanted more money than Lincoln was willing to offer and congress didn't want to spend even that much.  The civil war was a complex issue but unfortunately modern Americans have short attention spans.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John M. Drake


It is interesting that a president that didn't believe he had authority to take someone's "property" to free their slaves believed he had a right to kill the same people and destroy all of their property without freeing their slaves.

----------


## FreeTraveler

> Sorry but Lincoln despite all his downfalls was probably one of the best if not the BEST President this country has ever had. One of the few that actually stood up to the private banking cartel that ultimately led to his assissination.


Two questions: What drugs are you on? Do you have any more?

----------


## LibertiORDeth

> Two questions: What drugs are you on? Do you have any more?


Lol

----------


## LiveFree79

> What??? HE ENCOURAGED it.



I suggest to dig a little deeper and read a little more history.  Lincoln was a strong proponent of the Greenback and the government's right to issue its own currency.

----------


## klamath

When the constitution was written the slave owning states should never have been allowed to be in the same country but because of a stupid compromise, slavery was allowed to grow like a virus as the country expanded. It was such a fault in the constitution that in the end the ultimate law of the world was the only option left to solve the stupid hypocrasy in what was susposed to be a free nation. The people of SC appealed to the war gods and the war  gods ruled. CASE CLOSED.

----------


## Southron

Lincoln saved the Union by destroying it....

----------


## MS0453

> I suggest to dig a little deeper and read a little more history.  Lincoln was a strong proponent of the Greenback and the government's right to issue its own currency.



So to finance his war, he supported a fiat, paper currency. Please remember that the government DID issue money prior to the Civil War. It was commodity-based. Also note that the greenbacks were accompanied with various forms of taxation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Banking_Act

Legal Tender Act of 1862 as well, but there's no wiki entry.

----------


## demolama

The fiat paper money was the brain child of then Sec of Treasury, Salmon P Chase, the same man who would later as Supreme Court judge declared the very same notes unconstitutional in Hepburn v. Griswold (1870). So here we had people with these US government issued paper money that with one Supreme Court case made them completely worthless....arguably it is one of the acts that lead to the depression of 1873

----------


## DirtMcGirt

Funny you brought up Salmon Chase, he was involved in a Civil War battle I recently researched,  the Battle of Olustee in Florida, feb 20 1864.  He also had aspirations to be the republican candidate   in the'64 election as a "radical" republican..   On the Lincoln topic he also arrested Maryland citizens who supported the south and shut down media outlets.

----------


## LiveFree79

> So to finance his war, he supported a fiat, paper currency. Please remember that the government DID issue money prior to the Civil War. It was commodity-based. Also note that the greenbacks were accompanied with various forms of taxation.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Banking_Act
> 
> Legal Tender Act of 1862 as well, but there's no wiki entry.


Instead of quoting wikipedia and Googling all your info I suggest reading some books on the issue.  You can start with Web of Debt by Ellen Brown instead of The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo which is a complete fraud of a book.  Or better yet go stuff your face with more Lew Rockwell garbage!

----------


## jmdrake

> He did?  I never heard that.


Yes.  This was revealed in his letters.  It's been talked about several times here.  See:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...d+emancipation

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## jmdrake

> What??? HE ENCOURAGED it.


The international bankers were dominated by England at the time.  England backed the south.

http://members.tripod.com/american_almanac/lincoln3.htm

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## jmdrake

> It is interesting that a president that didn't believe he had authority to take someone's "property" to free their slaves believed he had a right to kill the same people and destroy all of their property without freeing their slaves.


Take it up with Andrew Jackson.  He got authority from congress to invade South Carolina to prevent them from seceding over tariffs.  SC backed down partially because no other states were willing to go along.  But when slavery was the front and center issue many southern states were willing to go along and the confederacy was born.  Like I said, the civil war wasn't fought to end slavery, it was fought to preserve it.  

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## klamath

As always, lots of racist bastards on here.

----------


## jmdrake

> So to finance his war, he supported a fiat, paper currency. Please remember that the government DID issue money prior to the Civil War. It was commodity-based. Also note that the greenbacks were accompanied with various forms of taxation.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Banking_Act
> 
> Legal Tender Act of 1862 as well, but there's no wiki entry.


The revolutionary war was also funded by fiat currency.  That's where the term "not worth a continental" came from.  

See:
http://historywired.si.edu/object.cfm?ID=437
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_dollar

The problem with the federal reserve isn't simply that it's based on fiat currency but also that it gives the *illusion* of being under the control of the people's elected representatives (since the chairman has to go before congress) but it is in fact a privately owned illegal monopoly.  

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## jmdrake

> When the constitution was written the slave owning states should never have been allowed to be in the same country but because of a stupid compromise, slavery was allowed to grow like a virus as the country expanded. It was such a fault in the constitution that in the end the ultimate law of the world was the only option left to solve the stupid hypocrasy in what was susposed to be a free nation. The people of SC appealed to the war gods and the war  gods ruled. CASE CLOSED.


QFT.  According to Ron Paul:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...3/cr012903.htm

_A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution with this goal in mind is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people. Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it too was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majoritys demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a Civil War that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic._

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## jmdrake

> As always, lots of racist bastards on here.


For the record I don't think that people who have opposing views on the civil war are automatically racist.  It is a complex issue.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## klamath

> QFT.  According to Ron Paul:
> 
> http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...3/cr012903.htm
> 
> _A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution with this goal in mind is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people. Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it too was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majoritys demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a Civil War that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic._
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John M. Drake


I agree with RP here. I think that there was a huge misunderstanding of constitutional government and freedom on all sides.  I hold individual rights way higher than states rights. In my opinion no states should be allowed into the Union unless they have the bill of rights written into their constitutions.
I think if we want to start pointing fingers at who started the errosion of freedom we need to start right at those founding fathers who signed the constitution with the line about how to count slaves for representational purposes. If as so many try to argue that slaves were thought of as property and not humans at that time why were the slave owning states trying to get them counted as people so they could have more power in the federal government?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> I need a somewhat detailed list of some of the things that Lincoln and the North did during the Civil War that were illegal and unethical, such as repressing free speech, with examples.



It is impossible for the Administrative branch of the government to be "illegal" in regards to breaking laws set up by the government because violating a legal precedent set up by a prior President isn't a crime.  So what?  When a President commits crimes against the people (Congress) and the Constitution, he or she is not committing crimes against the 3 branch tyranny set up to implement the function of the government; or, he or she is not breaking laws against any of the legal precedents or policies set up by them to do so; but, rather, he or she is committing crimes against the people (Congress) and the Civil Purpose which was designed to be primary in the Constitution as "self evident" and "unalienable" truths.  In other words, as legal precedents come and go, the civil purpose can't be challenged.           

For example, if the Supreme Court decided tomorrow to discontinue the legal precedent of preciding over the constitutionality of laws pertaining to "legal" matters for the sake of focussing specifically on "civil" matters, then that is their right.  The Supreme Court can implement whatever legal measure necessary to strengthen, reestablish or reconsecrate the Constitutional government of the United States.  If they aren't serving with this purpose in mind today, they should be impeached.      

Likewise, if the Administrative and Congressional branches today decided to strengthen the civil purpose in the Constitution by expanding the limit of those who serve on the Supreme Court from 9 member justices to, let's say, 20,000, that is their legal right.   

The Bill of Rights were created to give citizens the tools to preserve a "positive" government by keeping it from eroding through pressures to a natural state of tyranny.  The point isn't the rights people have but the Civil Purpose that such rights preserve when people exercize them.     

From what I have read, Abraham Lincoln held the Civil Purpose of the Constitution above all else.

----------

