# Think Tank > History >  Abraham Lincoln: Tyrant

## green73



----------


## green73

*King Lincoln Archive*

----------


## Travlyr

Yes. It was much better for the white man to own black slaves. That is what "Liberty" is all about!!!

----------


## talkingpointes

Surely you jest. Lincoln was not only called honest Abe, he even once admitted to chopping down a cherry tree. Put that in your (plantation built) hippy pipe and smoke it.

----------


## talkingpointes

> Yes. It was much better for the white man to own black slaves. That is what "Liberty" is all about!!!


Whoa, take a step back and take off your thinking caps folks. "Yes. It was much better for the white man to own black slaves" You aren't giving us much context into what you actually mean, so I'm going say - no, it's not. Don't set the bar too high.

----------


## green73

> Yes. It was much better for the white man to own black slaves. That is what "Liberty" is all about!!!


Weak sauce, troll-extraordinaire, weak sauce.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Nice thread.  I approve.

----------


## Travlyr

> Whoa, take a step back and take off your thinking caps folks. "Yes. It was much better for the white man to own black slaves" You aren't giving us much context into what you actually mean, so I'm going say - no, it's not. Don't set the bar too high.


You have to be either lying or kidding, right? Are you seriously claiming that you, if you were to be honest, would not like to own a slave? Be honest. If you could own another human being to do your work for you and do anything you demanded, without worry from legal battles, you would not want to own a slave? Personally, I find that owning at least two slaves would be good. A big smart strong male slave to do all my work... and a very lovely female slave to do my cooking and attend to my desires. That would be "LIBERATING!!!"

----------


## green73

LOL. Trav is pretending to imply the invasion of the South was over slavery.  He knows better but he'll keep repeating that old canard!!!

 Hopefully people will watch these videos and read up on the subject.

----------


## Travlyr

> LOL. Trav is *pretending* to imply the invasion of the South was over slavery.  He knows better but he'll keep repeating that old canard!!!
> 
>  Hopefully people will watch these videos and read up on the subject.


I've read your hero Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens. He specifically stated that the South seceded to "protect the blessings of African slavery." I think all of us men knows what that means. Sneak out at night and knock of a little evening delight. Pretend all you want. Defending the institution of slavery is not what the liberty movement is about. Liberating everyone as Lincoln worked to do is the most honorable of all.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> LOL. Trav is pretending to imply the invasion of the South was over slavery.  He knows better but he'll keep repeating that old canard!!!
> 
>  Hopefully people will watch these videos and read up on the subject.


I see he's decided to troll this thread. :/  Fortunately, I have him on ignore so I won't be exposed to his nonsense.

----------


## AGRP

Criticizing gods of the state is unacceptable!!! Calling them tyrants is treasonous!!!

----------


## Travlyr

> I see he's decided to troll this thread. :/  Fortunately, I have him on ignore so I won't be exposed to his nonsense.


I see the head cheerleader has arrived. I expect another -rep soon.

----------


## green73

> I've read your hero Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens. He specifically stated that the South seceded to "protect the blessings of African slavery." I think all of us men knows what that means. Sneak out at night and knock of a little evening delight. Pretend all you want. Defending the institution of slavery is not what the liberty movement is about. Liberating everyone as Lincoln worked to do is the most honorable of all.


Nice try. You find a statement by some $#@!head politician. Don't they say all manner of things in one circle or another? But you're just trying to obfuscate why the North invaded the South. It wasn't for their want of abolition. That's just silly.

----------


## Travlyr

> Nice try. You find a statement by some $#@!head politician. Don't they say all manner of things in one circle or another? But you're just trying to obfuscate why the *North invaded the South.* It wasn't for their want of abolition. That's just silly.


North invaded the South is a lie. It is the standard of historical ignorance. This is the 21st century. We have the truth machine at our fingertips. Liars are losers in the 21st century.

----------


## TheTexan

> Liberating everyone as Lincoln worked to do is the most honorable of all.


All hail, the great liberator!!!

----------


## Travlyr

> All hail, the great liberator!!!


While I am not a black person my grandson is. For him, Lincoln was indeed a liberator. For the white man, which I am guessing you are, Lincoln screwed the white Slave Masters. They are still butt hurt after 150 years hiding behind the "skirt" of "Liberty!"

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Trav still isn't recognizing that Lincoln's way of eliminating slavers was to make everyone a slave to the regime.  SMH.

----------


## Travlyr

> Trav still isn't recognizing that Lincoln's way of eliminating slavers was to make everyone a slave to the regime.  SMH.


You do not have any idea why, or how, that happened. Clue: Lincoln was dead when the 14th amendment was passed. And you call me "weak sauce."

----------


## TheTexan

> North invaded the South is a lie. It is the standard of historical ignorance. This is the 21st century. We have the truth machine at our fingertips. Liars are losers in the 21st century.


I'll grant you that it was foolish for the South to fire on Fort Sumter.  I'll even grant you that their claim to the ownership of that piece of property is questionable.  (I would side with SC on that though)

But there is no question that Lincoln wanted the South to fire on Fort Sumter.  There are letters from his top advisors that it would be a terrible idea to try to resupply the fort, and that it would simply start a war.

He could have abandoned the fort, and lost very little.  It may have hurt what, his pride?

He had no intentions of abandoning the fort.

He had no intentions of _selling_ the fort.

He had one intention and one intention only: *war*.  And the South knew it.

----------


## green73

> North invaded the South is a lie. It is the standard of historical ignorance. This is the 21st century. We have the truth machine at our fingertips. Liars are losers in the 21st century.


Oh, I didn't know the war was fought in the North. Let me guess, you're going to say the invasion was justified after Lincoln goaded the South Carolinians into firing "the first shot" at Ft. Sumter. This was their island and no one was hurt, but this justified a full-scale invasion? Haha, that's rich. Do liberty-minded people actually fall for this $#@!? Go to 17:55 of the Dilorenzo video above and listen for a couple minutes. He explains.  

Did you know the federal government has always tried to goad the other side into firing the first shot in all its wars? It's a necessity to win popular support. Sometimes they resort to false flags.

----------


## Travlyr

> I'll grant you that it was foolish for the South to fire on Fort Sumter.  I'll even grant you that their claim to the ownership of that piece of property is questionable.  (I would side with SC on that though)
> 
> But there is no question that Lincoln wanted the South to fire on Fort Sumter.  There are letters from his top advisors that it would be a terrible idea to try to resupply the fort, and that it would simply start a war.
> 
> He could have abandoned the fort, and lost very little.  It may have hurt what, his pride?
> 
> He had no intentions of abandoning the fort.
> 
> He had no intentions of _selling_ the fort.
> ...


Bull$#@!! On the highest order. If Lincoln would have abandoned his loyal troops, Major Anderson and his 85 loyal troops living in Fort Sumter, he would have been immediately impeached by the Republicans and you Southern slavery apologists would have another whipping boy to whip. Most likely it would have been a much weaker Hannibal Hamlin. Is that what your ancestors hoped? That a weaker president would take over so that you boys could enjoy your female slaves on your nightly walks for eternity as declared in your Confederate Constitution?

----------


## Travlyr

> Oh, I didn't know the war was fought in the North. Let me guess, you're going to say the invasion was justified after Lincoln goaded the South Carolinians into firing "the first shot" at Ft. Sumter. This was their island and no one was hurt, but this justified a full-scale invasion? Haha, that's rich. Do liberty-minded people actual fall for this $#@!? Go to 17:55 of the Dilorenzo video above and listen for a couple minutes. He explains.  
> 
> Did you know the federal government has always tried to goad the other side into firing the first shot in all its wars? It's a necessity to win popular support. Sometimes they resort to false flags.


And what? The Southern leaders were too stupid to understand their position or their plight? Perhaps that is true.

----------


## TheTexan

> Bull$#@!! On the highest order. If Lincoln would have abandoned his loyal troops, Major Anderson and his 85 loyal troops living in Fort Sumter, he would have been immediately impeached by the Republicans


Where's your evidence of this?

Additionally, it would have been ok with me.  Perhaps his replacement would have freed the slaves and then *left*.  That would have been OK with me too.

----------


## green73

> While I am not a black person my grandson is. For him, Lincoln was indeed a liberator. For the white man, which I am guessing you are, Lincoln screwed the white Slave Masters. They are still butt hurt after 150 years hiding behind the "skirt" of "Liberty!"


Does your supposed grandson know he's been had, that he's still a slave today--in large part thanks to "liberator" Abe?

----------


## Travlyr

> Does your supposed grandson know he's been had, that he's still a slave today--in large part thanks to "liberator" Abe?


Unlike the claims of DiLorenzo ... Lincoln is not responsible for the crap that happened after he was dead. He just isn't. How disingenuous can man get?

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

http://www.mikechurch.com/transcript...-with-lincoln/

----------


## green73

trav is such a bad troll. If he was truly interested in getting at the truth he wouldn't conveniently ignore one fact after another in his responses. He just chooses one thing that he can obfuscate and leaves it. Go over his debates. See the pattern...

----------


## AGRP

> Does your supposed grandson know he's been had, that he's still a slave today--in large part thanks to "liberator" Abe?


Youre not implying lincoln went to war to make us all slaves are you!!??? Reported!!!!!!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Youre not implying lincoln went to war to make us all slaves are you!!??? Reported!!!!!!


 I guess I get to be reported too.  /thought criminal

----------


## Travlyr

> Where's your evidence of this?
> 
> Additionally, it would have been ok with me.  Perhaps his replacement would have freed the slaves and then *left*.  That would have been OK with me too.


If I was a Union man being held hostage in Fort Sumter in 1860, then I would be glad that you were not elected in 1860. You would have abandoned me. What a jackass you are. You would starve your loyal supporters for what? The greater good? I'm glad that Lincoln was a principled man. I'm glad that the Slave Masters lost the war. They were a despicable bunch.

----------


## TheTexan

> If I was a Union man being held hostage in Fort Sumter in 1860, then I would be glad that you were not elected in 1860. You would have abandoned me. What a jackass you are. You would starve your loyal supporters for what? The greater good? I'm glad that Lincoln was a principled man. I'm glad that the Slave Masters lost the war. They were a despicable bunch.


Abandoned and starved my ass.  The South was prepared to give them a free ride back home.

----------


## green73

> What a dick weed. My supposed grandson. Screw you. I accept him as my own even though he is a product of adoption. $#@! you jackass.


No offense, I just see you as a disingenuous troll. You are, right? I like your style though, getting all high and mighty...

----------


## Travlyr

> Abandoned and starved my ass.  The South was prepared to give them a free ride back home.


Happy Happy Joy Joy. Of course you weren't one of the guys hiding for 34 hours hoping to not get killed by the Southern aggressors.

----------


## green73

> Go to $#@!ing hell $#@!. You are lower than life.


That means a lot coming from you.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Yes. It was much better for the white man to own black slaves. That is what "Liberty" is all about!!!


The truth will set you free.  This means if you are free today, it was because of a truth established within and not because someone fought for you, argued for you, lied for you, cried for you, and governed over you.
So, at long last realize how blacks were owned by other blacks long before their souls were sold by the dozen for what was commonly a single horse.  If the people on the other end of the slave market were willing to buy you, that meant they valued your soul more.  The people who have taught you to dishonor your ancestors by thinking of them as slaves certainly don't care any more about you than those who purchased and owned slaves back in the day.  So, quit reducing reality to a false dichotomy of black and white. Long before blacks and whites even learned that the other existed, the disadvantaged majority had been trying forever to gain control over a tyranny made up of a minority of a few.  
Therefore, for this time on consider yourself warned.  The believing in and proliferating of these false dichotomies are in contempt of our American Civil Purpose.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The truth will set you free.  This means if you are free today, it was because of a truth established within and not because someone fought for you, argued for you, lied for you, cried for you, and governed over you.
> So, at long last realize how blacks were owned by other blacks long before their souls were sold by the dozen for what was commonly a single horse.  If the people on the other end of the slave market were willing to buy you, that meant they valued your soul more.  The people who have taught you to dishonor your ancestors by thinking of them as slaves certainly don't care any more about you than those who purchased and owned slaves back in the day.  So, quit reducing reality to a false dichotomy of black and white. Long before blacks and whites even learned that the other existed, the disadvantaged majority had been trying forever to gain control over a tyranny made up of a minority of a few.  
> Therefore, for this time on consider yourself warned.  The believing in and proliferating of these false dichotomies are in contempt of our American Civil Purpose.


+rep

----------


## Origanalist

> +rep


And another.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Go to $#@!ing hell $#@!. You are lower than life.


It is a cool hip thing for youngsters to hate Abe Lincoln just as it is for young Indians to hate Gandhi.  Don't antagonize them any further.  Remember, before we can wear something as a fashion statement, it first has to piss everyone off.  When people become indifferent, we tend to get in line.  

Abe Lincoln played the part of a necessary tyrant.  What is meant by this?  Well, according to our Founders, this means the people shouldn't honor their leaders any more than any other tyrant.  Think of president Obama being no better than Osama bin Laden or Saddam.  What is supposed to make our leaders better is that they understand this.  They are being controlled as a necessary tyranny for the betterment of our happiness.

----------


## TheTexan

> Happy Happy Joy Joy. Of course you weren't one of the guys hiding for 34 hours hoping to not get killed by the Southern aggressors.


The South viewed them as the aggressors, by trespassing on what they considered their land.  Was it their land?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Was that piece of land worth losing a million lives over?  $#@! NO.

You for some reason refuse to even acknowledge that Lincoln refused to even talk to the South.  The South was more than willing to pay for the land, just as a gesture of good will, even though they felt entitled to it.

I bet the South would have been willing to let Lincoln even keep the Fort, if he had told them respectfully that it belonged to the Union, and had no intentions of waging war against them.

What would you do Travlyr?  If tensions rose with someone you had a disagreement with decided to build a military base next to your home, and was in the process of filling it with guns aimed in your direction, and refused to even talk to you?  What would *you* do?  Would you have waited until he had enough troops to take over your home?

The bottom line is it was never about the Fort, the people in the Fort, or about the slaves.  It was about money and power, as it so often is.

----------


## Travlyr

> The truth will set you free.  *This means if you are free today*, it was because of a truth established within and not because someone fought for you, argued for you, lied for you, cried for you, and governed over you.
> So, at long last realize how blacks were owned by other blacks long before their souls were sold by the dozen for what was commonly a single horse.  If the people on the other end of the slave market were willing to buy you, that meant they valued your soul more.  The people who have taught you to dishonor your ancestors by thinking of them as slaves certainly don't care any more about you than those who purchased and owned slaves back in the day.  So, quit reducing reality to a false dichotomy of black and white. Long before blacks and whites even learned that the other existed, the disadvantaged majority had been trying forever to gain control over a tyranny made up of a minority of a few.  
> Therefore, for this time on consider yourself warned.  The believing in and proliferating of these false dichotomies are in contempt of our American Civil Purpose.


Unfortunately, I am not free today. I am a hostage of the "Federal Reserve System" of counterfeit money and debasement of currency. I wish I was free. I wanted to live a free life. I want my children and grandchildren to live a free life. I want everyone, both black and white, to live a free life. It will not happen until people, once again, understand sound money principles. Unfortunately, there is a lot of resistance in 2012 from both the Oligarchy and the "Liberty Movement."

----------


## green73

> Unfortunately, I am not free today. I am a hostage of the "Federal Reserve System" of counterfeit money and debasement of currency. I wish I was free. I wanted to live a free life. I want my children and grandchildren to live a free life. I want everyone, both black and white, to live a free life. It will not happen until people, once again, understand sound money principles. Unfortunately, there is a lot of resistance in 2012 from both the Oligarchy and the "Liberty Movement."


The Oligarchy loved Lincoln. That's why he's so propagandized.

----------


## Travlyr

> *The South viewed them as the aggressors*


What idiots and jackasses they were.

----------


## Confederate

> Go to $#@!ing hell $#@!. You are lower than life.


Weren't you banned recently for personal attacks?

----------


## TheTexan

> What idiots and jackasses they were.


"What would you do Travlyr? If tensions rose with someone you had a disagreement with decided to build a military base next to your home, and was in the process of filling it with guns aimed in your direction, and refused to even talk to you? What would you do? Would you have waited until he had enough troops to take over your home?"

----------


## Travlyr

> The Oligarchy loved Lincoln. That's why he's so propagandized.


Go find your girl slave tonight and come back after you get off.

----------


## green73

Let's not let Trav's foul mouth get this thread put into Hot Topics. That's another of his techniques. Take the high road, people.

----------


## Travlyr

> "What would you do Travlyr? If tensions rose with someone you had a disagreement with decided to build a military base next to your home, and was in the process of filling it with guns aimed in your direction, and refused to even talk to you? What would you do? Would you have waited until he had enough troops to take over your home?"


What disingenuous bull$#@!. The Union did not "decide to build a military base next to your home." Liars are losers in the 21st century. We have the truth machine at our fingertips. Nice try. Liars are losers in the 21st century. GIVE US OUR SLAVES BACK!!!

----------


## TheTexan

> What disingenuous bull$#@!. The Union did not "decide to build a military base next to your home." Liars are losers in the 21st century. We have the truth machine at our fingertips. Nice try. Liars are losers in the 21st century. GIVE US OUR SLAVES BACK!!!


"Lies!" "Didn't happen!" "I bet you like slavery don't ya!"

That's all you got Travlyr.

I know you don't like facts, but here's some for ya anyway:




> In contrast to Moultrie, Fort Sumter dominated the entrance to Charleston Harbor and, though unfinished, was designed to be one of the strongest fortresses in the world. In the fall of 1860 work was nearly done, but the fortress was thus far garrisoned by a single soldier, who functioned as a lighthouse keeper, and a small party of civilian construction workers. *Under the cover of darkness on December 26, six days after South Carolina declared its secession, Anderson abandoned the indefensible Fort Moultrie, ordering its guns spiked and its gun carriages burned, and surreptitiously relocated his command by small boats to Sumter*.


Fort Sumter was practically empty until the secession.  Then all of a sudden he decides to destroy his own fort, and move his men into the stronger fort.

Lincoln refused to talk to them to address their concerns about this.  Would you consider Anderson's actions an act of peace, of an act of aggression?

If you consider it an act of peace, I ask you this:  is secession an act of peace?  (Obviously it is)

Why would a man burn down his own fort and build up troop strength in response to secession?  Why Travlyr.  Why?

Without any explanation from Lincoln because he wouldn't talk to them, what would *you* have thought Anderson's intentions were?

----------


## twomp

> "What would you do Travlyr? If tensions rose with someone you had a disagreement with decided to build a military base next to your home, and was in the process of filling it with guns aimed in your direction, and refused to even talk to you? What would you do? Would you have waited until he had enough troops to take over your home?"


I'm sure Obama and George Bush would agree with you here. We gotta get them Muslims before they get us right? I mean do you want to wait for them to attack us first?

----------


## Antischism

_The true patron saints of the black men were represented in that handful of fighters in Boston, Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Thoreau, Margaret Fuller, and Theodore Parker, whose great courage and sturdiness culminated in that somber giant John Brown. Their untiring zeal, their eloquence and perseverance undermined the stronghold of the Southern lords. Lincoln and his minions followed only when abolition had become a practical issue, recognized as such by all._ - Emma Goldman.

----------


## TheTexan

> I'm sure Obama and George Bush would agree with you here. We gotta get them Muslims before they get us right? I mean do you want to wait for them to attack us first?


Well, that's kind of a disingenuous comparison because it's obvious on its face that Iraq/Afg never presented a threat to us.  (Especially not a threat that war could solve)

The South on the other hand was faced with the very real possibility of being invaded (which they obviously were), and had legitimate concerns that the North might use the Fort towards that endeavor.

It's commonly said here that preemptive war is "never" acceptable, but I don't buy that argument.  If your neighbor is pointing more and more guns at you even though you've done nothing wrong, and won't even talk to you...  you're left with the unfavorable choice of either letting them build a significant advantage on you that will put your life in very real jeopardy, or unfortunately you have to act while you can.  If Lincoln had been willing to talk, then I would see things much differently.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Unfortunately, I am not free today. I am a hostage of the "Federal Reserve System" of counterfeit money and debasement of currency. I wish I was free. I wanted to live a free life. I want my children and grandchildren to live a free life. I want everyone, both black and white, to live a free life. It will not happen until people, once again, understand sound money principles. Unfortunately, there is a lot of resistance in 2012 from both the Oligarchy and the "Liberty Movement."


If monopoly money was officially deemed, sanctioned, and blessed as legal tender, there would still be members of a new leisure class who would benefit as they wouldn't have to worry.  The same would be true if all our utility bills were deemed, sanctioned and blessed as such to the extent we could endorse the back of them for deposit.  The problem today resides in the creation of a new leisure class in this nation which owns the means of counterfeiting.  We don't differentiate between productive work and the workings of inequity.  In the confusion, we admire schemers regardless of whether their works are uphill.   
In the process of making money real, one has to determine philosophically the differences between what is true uphill work and what is downhill workings of inequity. For example, a lobbyist will tend to function in society parasitically to the extent that he or she is trying to cause inequity.  
This is why we solve our problems on the Local level while we will tend to sell our American souls on the federal.  Officials on the state level will tend to support a federal agenda because it ends up being more lucrative for them to serve as lobbyists on the state level.

----------


## georgiaboy

> [video-Q&A-/video]


Q&A Rocks!  Great interview with DiLorenzo.  Huge respect to the folks at C-SPAN for getting interviews like this out there.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The Oligarchy loved Lincoln. That's why he's so propagandized.


Truth.

----------


## green73

Trav, please explain this connection your family has to Lincoln. You've mentioned it a couple times to me. It might help us understand your bias.

----------


## Travlyr

> "Lies!" "Didn't happen!" "I bet you like slavery don't ya!"
> 
> That's all you got Travlyr.
> 
> I know you don't like facts, but here's some for ya anyway:
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Sumter was practically empty until the secession.  Then all of a sudden he decides to destroy his own fort, and move his men into the stronger fort.
> ...


Maybe he was self interested in saving his life and the life of his troops. It made sense to occupy a strong fort rather than remain in Fort Moultrie where he and his troops would be sitting ducks against an irrational group of Confederate men who would fire upon unarmed men.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Trav, please explain this connection your family has to Lincoln. You've mentioned it a couple times to me. It might help us understand your bias.


~eagerly anticipates learning about the royal bloodline and connections to international bankers~

----------


## TheTexan

> Maybe he was self interested in saving his life and the life of his troops. It made sense to occupy a strong fort rather than remain in Fort Moultrie where he and his troops would be sitting ducks against an irrational group of Confederate men who would fire upon unarmed men.


Secession is an act of peace.  Normal people who don't have aggressive motives do not respond to an act of peace by cutting off communication and burning their own forts and building troop strength and reinforcements.

So... again.. why would you burn your own unused forts, if not in preparation for war?

And if they value their forts so little that they are willing to burn them, why didn't the troops at Fort Moultrie just *go home*?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Secession is an act of peace.  Normal people who don't have aggressive motives do not respond to an act of peace by cutting off communication and burning their own forts and building troop strength and reinforcements.
> 
> So... again.. why would you burn your own unused forts, if not in preparation for war?
> 
> And if they value their forts so little that they are willing to burn them, why didn't the troops at Fort Moultrie just *go home*?


How dare you bring facts instead of baseless speculation into this!

----------


## Travlyr

> Trav, please explain this connection your family has to Lincoln. You've mentioned it a couple times to me. It might help us understand your bias.


Rational people, smart people, informed people actually read biographies of people who actually knew the person they were writing a biography for. For Lincoln, there are plenty of biographies online for free. Henry Ketcham, Carl Schurz, William H. Herndon, Nicolay and Hay, and Lincoln's own words which have been documented for posterity. DiLorenzo never knew Lincoln, or his homeland, or his intentions. He has an East coast agenda. So he lies to promote his agenda knowing full well that most people are too lazy to read the source documents. My ancestral family grew up with Lincoln in Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois. We know what challenges he and his family faced. We know his trials and tribulations. We know the land Lincoln had to clear in order to farm. We know the rivers he had to traverse in order to sell his commerce.

----------


## AuH20

> Rational people, smart people, informed people actually read biographies of people who actually knew the person they were writing a biography for. For Lincoln, there are plenty of biographies online for free. Henry Ketcham, Carl Schurz, William H. Herndon, Nicolay and Hay, and Lincoln's own words which have been documented for posterity. DiLorenzo never knew Lincoln, or his homeland, or his intentions. He has an East coast agenda. So he lies to promote his agenda knowing full well that most people are too lazy to read the source documents. My ancestral family grew up with Lincoln in Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois. We know what challenges he and his family faced. We know his trials and tribulations. We know the land Lincoln had to clear in order to farm. We know the rivers he had to transverse in order to sell his commerce.


Didn't Lincoln also oppose the international banking cartels?

----------


## Travlyr

> Didn't Lincoln also oppose the international banking cartels?


I do. But I have not read where Lincoln opposed or even was aware of the international banking cartels. Perhaps he was, but I do not have that information.

----------


## Travlyr

> Secession is an act of peace.  Normal people who don't have aggressive motives do not respond to an act of peace by cutting off communication and burning their own forts and building troop strength and reinforcements.
> 
> So... again.. why would you burn your own unused forts, if not in preparation for war?
> 
> And if they value their forts so little that they are willing to burn them, why didn't the troops at Fort Moultrie just *go home*?


That all happened under President James Buchanan.

Do you really think that Lincoln could have surrendered Fort Sumter and faced the Radical Republicans with honor the next day?

----------


## TheTexan

> That all happened under President James Buchanan.
> 
> Do you really think that Lincoln could have surrendered Fort Sumter and faced the Radical Republicans with honor the next day?


Pride or the fear of getting fired are both terrible excuses for waging war.

----------


## Travlyr

> ~eagerly anticipates learning about the royal bloodline and connections to international bankers~


This is the intelligence level of the modern liberty movement. Sad really.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Abraham Lincoln is one of the most violent, evil men to ever walk this Earth.

----------


## Travlyr

> Pride or the fear of getting fired are both terrible excuses for waging war.


Actually, I would love to have a president today who took their oath of office seriously.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Didn't Lincoln also oppose the international banking cartels?


Nope.  The confederates did, though-hence the issuance of Greybacks (instead of Greenbacks, as the Yankees practiced issuing).

----------


## Travlyr

> Abraham Lincoln is one of the most violent, evil men to ever walk this Earth.


No he wasn't. He was a man of peace. Show me one time, prior to the Southern Confederacy firing upon Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861), where Abraham Lincoln ever initiated violence upon any human being or animal.

----------


## TheTexan

> Actually, I would love to have a president today who took their oath of office seriously.


By take their oath of office seriously, you mean wage an illegal undeclared war and throughout the war, violate the constitution, the right to trial, etc?

And by the way "That all happened under President James Buchanan" is most certainly not a legitimate defense of Lincoln.  If Lincoln inherited a mistake, then the right thing to do is to correct the mistake, not to make the mistake 700000x worse.

----------


## Origanalist



----------


## itshappening

> No he wasn't. He was a man of peace. Show me one time, prior to the Southern Confederacy firing upon Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861), where Abraham Lincoln ever initiated violence upon any human being or animal.


No one died at Sumter, how many died after Lincoln's invasion?

----------


## Travlyr

> Nope.  The confederates did, though-hence the issuance of Greybacks (instead of Greenbacks, as the Yankees practiced issuing).


lolz... Confederate Currency $40.00

----------


## Ender

*The Forgotten Slaves: Whites in Servitude in Early America and Industrial Britain
*

by Michael A. Hoffman II ©Copyright 1999. All Rights Reserved

Two years ago, Prime Minister Paul Keating of Australia refused to show "proper respect" to Britain's Queen Elizabeth II during her state visit. In response, Terry Dicks, a Conservative member of the British Parliament said, "It's a country of ex-convicts, so we should not be surprised by the rudeness of their prime minister."

A slur such as this would be considered unthinkable if it were uttered against any other class or race of people except the descendants of White slavery. Dicks' remark is not only offensive, it is ignorant and false. Most of Australia's "convicts" were shipped into servitude for such "crimes" as stealing seven yards of lace, cutting trees on an aristocrat's estate or poaching sheep to feed a starving family.

The arrogant disregard for the holocaust visited upon the poor and working class Whites of Britain by the aristocracy continues in our time because the history of that epoch has been almost completely extirpated from our collective memory.

When White servitude is acknowledged as having existed in America, it is almost always termed as temporary "indentured servitude" or part of the convict trade, which, after the Revolution of 1776, centered on Australia instead of America. The "convicts" transported to America under the 1723 Waltham Act, perhaps numbered 100,000.

The indentured servants who served a tidy little period of 4 to 7 years polishing the master's silver and china and then taking their place in colonial high society, were a minuscule fraction of the great unsung hundreds of thousands of White slaves who were worked to death in this country from the early l7th century onward.

Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too.

*Whites were auctioned on the block with children sold and separated from their parents and wives sold and separated from their husbands. Free Black property owners strutted the streets of northern and southern American cities while White slaves were worked to death in the sugar mills of Barbados and Jamaica and the plantations of Virginia.*

*The Establishment has created the misnomer of "indentured servitude" to explain away and minimize the fact of White slavery. But bound Whites in early America called themselves slaves. Nine-tenths of the White slavery in America was conducted without indentures of any kind but according to the so-called "custom of the country," as it was known, which was lifetime slavery administered by the White slave merchants themselves.*

*In George Sandys laws for Virginia, Whites were enslaved "forever." The service of Whites bound to Berkeley's Hundred was deemed "perpetual." These accounts have been policed out of the much touted "standard reference works" such as Abbott Emerson Smith's laughable whitewash, Colonists in Bondage.*

I challenge any researcher to study 17th century colonial America, sifting the documents, the jargon and the statutes on both sides of the Atlantic and one will discover that White slavery was a far more extensive operation than Black enslavement. It is when we come to the 18th century that one begins to encounter more "servitude" on the basis of a contract of indenture. But even in that period there was kidnapping of Anglo-Saxons into slavery as well as convict slavery.

In 1855, Frederic Law Olmsted, the landscape architect who designed New York's Central Park, was in Alabama on a pleasure trip and saw bales of cotton being thrown from a considerable height into a cargo ship's hold. The men tossing the bales somewhat recklessly into the hold were Negroes, the men in the hold were Irish.

Olmsted inquired about this to a shipworker. "Oh," said the worker, "the ******s are worth too much to be risked here; if the Paddies are knocked overboard or get their backs broke, nobody loses anything."

Before British slavers traveled to Africa's western coast to buy Black slaves from African chieftains, they sold their own White working class kindred ("the surplus poor" as they were known) from the streets and towns of England, into slavery. Tens of thousands of these White slaves were kidnapped children. In fact the very origin of the word kidnapped is kid-nabbed, the stealing of White children for enslavement.

According to the English Dictionary of the Underworld, under the heading kidnapper is the following definition: "A stealer of human beings, esp. of children; originally for exportation to the plantations of North America."

The center of the trade in child-slaves was in the port cities of Britain and Scotland:

"Press gangs in the hire of local merchants roamed the streets, seizing 'by force such boys as seemed proper subjects for the slave trade.' Children were driven in flocks through the town and confined for shipment in barns...So flagrant was the practice that people in the countryside about Aberdeen avoided bringing children into the city for fear they might be stolen; and so widespread was the collusion of merchants, shippers, suppliers and even magistrates that the man who exposed it was forced to recant and run out of town." (Van der Zee, Bound Over, p. 210).

White slaves transported to the colonies suffered a staggering loss of life in the 17th and 18th century. During the voyage to America it was customary to keep the White slaves below deck for the entire nine to twelve week journey. A White slave would be confined to a hole not more than sixteen feet long, chained with 50 other men to a board, with padlocked collars around their necks. The weeks of confinement below deck in the ship's stifling hold often resulted in outbreaks of contagious disease which would sweep through the "cargo" of White "freight" chained in the bowels of the ship.

Ships carrying White slaves to America often lost half their slaves to death. According to historian Sharon V. Salinger, "Scattered data reveal that the mortality for [White] servants at certain times equaled that for [Black] slaves in the 'middle passage,' and during other periods actually exceeded the death rate for [Black] slaves." Salinger reports a death rate of ten to twenty percent over the entire 18th century for Black slaves on board ships enroute to America compared with a death rate of 25% for White slaves enroute to America.

Foster R. Dulles writing in Labor in America: A History, states that whether convicts, children 'spirited' from the countryside or political prisoners, White slaves "experienced discomforts and sufferings on their voyage across the Atlantic that paralleled the cruel hardships undergone by negro slaves on the notorious Middle Passage."

Dulles says the Whites were "indiscriminately herded aboard the 'white guineamen,' often as many as 300 passengers on little vessels of not more than 200 tons burden--overcrowded, unsanitary...The mortality rate was sometimes as high as 50% and young children seldom survived the horrors of a voyage which might last anywhere from seven to twelve weeks."

Independent investigator A.B. Ellis in the Argosy writes concerning the transport of White slaves, "The human cargo, many of whom were still tormented by unhealed wounds, could not all lie down at once without lying on each other. They were never suffered to go on deck. The hatchway was constantly watched by sentinels armed with hangers and blunder busses. In the dungeons below all was darkness, stench, lamentation, disease and death."

Marcus Jernegan describes the greed of the shipmasters which led to horrendous loss of life for White slaves transported to America:

"The voyage over often repeated the horrors of the famous 'middle passage' of slavery fame. An average cargo was three hundred, but the shipmaster, for greater profit, would sometimes crowd as many as six hundred into a small vessel...The mortality under such circumstances was tremendous, sometimes more than half...Mittelberger (an eyewitness) says he saw thirty-two children thrown into the ocean during one voyage."

"The mercantile firms, as importers of (White) servants, were not too careful about their treatment, as the more important purpose of the transaction was to get ships over to South Carolina which could carry local produce back to Europe. Consequently the Irish--as well as others--suffered greatly...

"It was almost as if the British merchants had redirected their vessels from the African coast to the Irish coast, with the white servants coming over in much the same fashion as the African slaves." (Warren B. Smith, White Servitude in Colonial South Carolina).

A study of the middle passage of White slaves was included in a Parliamentary Petition of 1659. It reported that White slaves were locked below deck for two weeks while the slaveship was still in port. Once under way, they were "all the way locked up under decks...amongst horses." They were chained from their legs to their necks.

Those academics who insist that slavery is an exclusively Black racial condition forget or deliberately omit the fact that the word slave originally was a reference to Whites of East European origin - "Slavs."

Moreover, in the 18th century in Britain and America, the Industrial Revolution spawned the factory system whose first laborers were miserably oppressed White children as young as six years of age. They were locked in the factories for sixteen hours a day and mangled by the primitive machinery. Hands and arms were regularly ripped to pieces. Little girls often had their hair caught in the machinery and were scalped from their foreheads to the back of their necks.

White Children wounded and crippled in the factories were turned out without compensation of any kind and left to die of their injuries. Children late to work or who fell asleep were beaten with iron bars. Lest we imagine these horrors were limited to only the early years of the Industrial Revolution, eight and ten year old White children throughout America were hard at work in miserable factories and mines as late as 1920.

Because of the rank prostitution, stupidity and cowardice of America's teachers and educational system, White youth are taught that Black slaves, Mexican peons and Chinese coolies built this country while the vast majority of the Whites lorded it over them with a lash in one hand and a mint julep in the other.

The documentary record tells a very different story, however. When White Congressman David Wilmot authored the Wilmot Proviso to keep Black slaves out of the American West he did so, he said, to preserve that vast expanse of territory for "the sons of toil, my own race and color."

This is precisely what most White people in America were, "sons of toil," performing backbreaking labor such as few of us today can envision. They had no paternalistic welfare system; no Freedman's Bureau to coo sweet platitudes to them; no army of bleeding hearts to worry over their hardships. These Whites were the expendable frontline soldiers in the expansion of the American frontier. They won the country, felled the trees, cleared and planted the land.

The wealthy, educated White elite in America are the sick heirs of what Charles Dickens in Bleak House termed "telescopic philanthropy"--the concern for the condition of distant peoples while the plight of kindred in one's own backyard are ignored.

Today much of what we see on "Turner Television" and Pat Robertson's misnamed "Family Channel," are TV films depicting Blacks in chains, Blacks being whipped, Blacks oppressed. Nowhere can we find a cinematic chronicle of the Whites who were beaten and killed in White slavery. Four-fifths of the White slaves sent to Britain's sugar colonies in the West Indies did not survive their first year.

Soldiers in the American Revolution and sailors impressed into the American navy received upwards of two hundred whiplashes for minor infractions. But no TV show lifts the shirt of these White yeoman to reveal the scars on their backs.

The Establishment would rather weep over the poor persecuted Negroes, but leave the White working class "rednecks" and "crackers" (both of these terms of derision were first applied to White slaves), to live next door to the Blacks.

Little has changed since the early 1800s when the men of property and station of the English Parliament outlawed Black slavery throughout the Empire. While this Parliament was in session to enact this law, ragged five year old White orphan boys, beaten, starved and whipped, were being forced up the chimneys of the English parliament, to clean them. Sometimes the chimney masonry collapsed on these boys. Other times they suffocated to death inside their narrow smoke channels.

Long after Blacks were free throughout the British Empire, the British House of Lords refused to abolish chimney-sweeping by White children under the age of ten. The Lords contended that to do so would interfere with "property rights." The lives of the White children were not worth a farthing and were considered no subject for humanitarian concern.

The chronicle of White slavery in America comprises the dustiest shelf in the darkest corner of suppressed American history. Should the truth about that epoch ever emerge into the public consciousness of Americans, the whole basis for the swindle of "Affirmative action," "minority set-asides" and proposed "Reparations to African-Americans" will be swept away. The fact is, the White working people of this country owe no one. They are themselves the descendants, as Congressman Wilmot so aptly said, of "the sons of toil."

There will only be racial peace when knowledge of radical historical truths are widespread and both sides negotiate from positions of strength and not from fantasies of White working class guilt and the uniqueness of Black suffering.

Let it be said, in many cases Blacks in slavery had it better than poor Whites in the antebellum South. This is why there was such strong resistance to the Confederacy in the poverty-stricken areas of the mountain south, such as Winston County in Alabama and the Beech mountains of North Carolina. Those poor Whites could not imagine why any White laborer would want to die for the slave-owning plutocracy that more often than not, gave better care and attention to their Black servants than they did to the free white labor they scorned as "trash."

To this day, the White ruling class denigrates the White poor and patronizes Blacks.

If this seems admirable from the pathological viewpoint of Marxism or cosmopolitan liberalism, the Black and Third World "beneficiaries" of White ruling class "esteem" ought to consider what sort of "friends" they actually have.

The Bible declares that the man who does not take care of his own family is "worse than an infidel." This also applies to one's racial kindred. The man who neglects his own children to care for yours has true love for neither.

White, self-hating liberals and greed-head conservatives who claim to care for the "civil rights" of Black and Third World people, discard the working class of their own people on the garbage heap of history. When they are finished with their own they shall surely turn on others.

Those who care for their own kind first are not practicing "hate" but kindness, which is the very root of the word.

----------


## TheTexan

> No he wasn't. He was a man of peace. Show me one time, prior to the Southern Confederacy firing upon Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861), where Abraham Lincoln ever initiated violence upon any human being or animal.


Unless you want to take back your earlier retort, of "that happened under Buchanan," then you've already admitted that the South fired on Fort Sumter in self defense.

What say you?

----------


## Travlyr

> No one died at Sumter, how many died after Lincoln's invasion?


Tens of thousands at this southern prison. Andersonville POW camp.

----------


## Ender

And- BTW- I am a Scot Cherokee with a black great-grandmother. 

Just sayin'.

----------


## TheTexan

> Tens of thousands at this southern prison. Andersonville POW camp.


"U.S. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, at Gen. U.S. Grant's urging, halted the customary exchange of prisoners.* Grant stopped exchanges because they helped the South*, which was short on manpower. "

"by the end of the war, approximately 30,000 Union prisoners had died in Confederate camps and 25,000 Confederates had died in Union prisons."

a) Tens of thousands died in prisons, on both sides
b) They were in prisons to begin with because the North didn't want to exchange prisoners

----------


## Travlyr

> Unless you want to take back your earlier retort, of "that happened under Buchanan," then you've already admitted that the South fired on Fort Sumter in self defense.
> 
> What say you?


How can anyone in 2012 claim that the South fired upon Fort Sumter in self-defense? There were 86 Union men held hostage in the Union fort that had been denied reinforcement supplies for nearly 5 months. They were sitting ducks to the tyrannical Southern Confederacy who had to endure 34 hours of bombardment. Fortunately, they were not all killed in the attack. Yet, since they were not killed... the Confederacy gets a pass on that violent attack. Give me a break.

----------


## Travlyr

> "U.S. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, at Gen. U.S. Grant's urging, halted the customary exchange of prisoners.* Grant stopped exchanges because they helped the South*, which was short on manpower. "
> 
> "by the end of the war, approximately 30,000 Union prisoners had died in Confederate camps and 25,000 Confederates had died in Union prisons."
> 
> a) Tens of thousands died in prisons, on both sides
> b) They were in prisons to begin with because the North didn't want to exchange prisoners


There you go... It was Lincoln's fault that Northern prisoners were starved to death. Yeah. You got a bridge to sell me?

----------


## TheTexan

> There you go... It was Lincoln's fault that Northern prisoners were starved to death. Yeah. You got a bridge to sell me?


The North starved nearly as many Southern prisoners to death as well.  What's your point?  War is hell.  Even non-prisoners were starving.

----------


## TheTexan

> How can anyone in 2012 claim that the South fired upon Fort Sumter in self-defense?


If that's your position, then give me a legitimate response to these questions:




> Secession is an act of peace. Normal people who don't have aggressive motives do not respond to an act of peace by cutting off communication and burning their own forts and building troop strength and reinforcements.
> 
> So... again.. why would you burn your own unused forts, if not in preparation for war?
> 
> And if they value their forts so little that they are willing to burn them, why didn't the troops at Fort Moultrie just go home?

----------


## Travlyr

> If that's your position, then give me a legitimate response to these questions:


Why are you defending enslaving the African negro in the name of liberty?

----------


## TheTexan

> Why are you defending enslaving the African negro in the name of liberty?


Why are you lying and using diversionary tricks instead of answering the question honestly?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Obsessions about North vs. South and slavery cloud the most revolutionary point about Lincoln: he was the first Marxist leader of a major nation.

----------


## Travlyr

> Obsessions about North vs. South and slavery cloud the most revolutionary point about Lincoln: he was the first Marxist leader of a major nation.


No he wasn't. He was a strict constitutionalist. If he had not had to fight a war of Southern aggression, then he would have strictly obeyed the Constitution.

----------


## Travlyr

> No he wasn't. He was a strict constitutionalist. If he had not had to fight a war of Southern aggression, then he would have strictly obeyed the Constitution.


People need to learn what "principles" mean. Nobody today has any but Lincoln did.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Obsessions about North vs. South and slavery cloud the most revolutionary point about Lincoln: he was the first Marxist leader of a major nation.


 True that.

----------


## green73

> No he wasn't. He was a man of peace. Show me one time, prior to the Southern Confederacy firing upon Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861), where Abraham Lincoln ever initiated violence upon any human being or animal.


haha

----------


## TheTexan

> He was a strict constitutionalist. If he had not had to fight a war of Southern aggression, then he would have strictly obeyed the Constitution.


He violated the constitution by starting an undeclared war without congressional approval even before the war started.  And the constitution doesn't apply just during peace times, but during war also.  He threw that constitution to the curb faster than a used hooker

----------


## Aldanga

> No he wasn't. He was a strict constitutionalist. If he had not had to fight a war of Southern aggression, then he would have strictly obeyed the Constitution.


He was a strict constitutionalist... except when it wasn't convenient. I wouldn't exactly call that strict.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> He violated the constitution by starting an undeclared war without congressional approval even before the war started.  And the constitution doesn't apply just during peace times, but during war also.  He threw that constitution to the curb faster than a used hooker


He was also no fan of "constitutional money".  (inconvenient fact)

----------


## TheTexan

> No he wasn't. He was a strict constitutionalist.


You're not quite up there with the best trolls like Herman Cain, but if you work hard, you can make it happen.  I wish you luck towards that endeavor

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

No doubt Lincoln's rotting in hell now. Rotten bastard got what he deserved.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> No he wasn't. He was a man of peace. Show me one time, prior to the Southern Confederacy firing upon Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861), where Abraham Lincoln ever initiated violence upon any human being or animal.


No, you don't claim that much knowledge of the subject and then expect me to respond to such a ridiculous post.

----------


## itshappening

Trav, just admit that you hate Prof. Dilorenzo because he's exposed the Lincoln myth of 'father Abraham' and more people are questioning him than ever before.  It drives the establishment crazy that their hero is exposed

----------


## cbrons

> *King Lincoln Archive*


You forgot my most recent interview with Dr. DiLorenzo on this subject :/

----------


## RickyJ

> Why are you defending enslaving the African negro in the name of liberty?


Not only the African "negro," but also the poor white farmers, which composed the vast majority of the South, were being denied liberty by there not being free commerce in the South. Slavery was a determent to liberty, not only to the slaves, but also to the unskilled white man that could not find a job because slaves were being used in the place of hired help.

----------


## cbrons

Lincoln was such a peaceful man with great respect for civil liberties and the rule of law, if he was alive today he would've won a Nobel Peace Prize like BHO. Here are some of his notable achievements:

-	Shut down 300 opposition newspapers.
-	Suspended habeas corpus (illegally)
-	Imprisoned tens of thousands of political dissenters in hell-hole prisons like Fort McHenry and Fort Lafayette 
-	Deported outspoken Democratic congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio.
-	Censored telegraphs.
-	Intimidated judges. 
-	Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Roger Taney who said his suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional.
-	Lincoln placed sentries outside the home of a federal judge in Washington D.C. who issued a writ of habeas corpus to a man detained by the D.C. Provost Marshal so the judge couldn’t preside over his hearing.
-	Conscripted soldiers 
-	Recruited foreign immigrants to fight in the war
-	Abolished the independent treasury system, was the first one to nationalize the money supply.

No wonder neo-cons and leftists love Lincoln so much. He had just as much respect for the US Constitution and the founding principals of this country as they do.

----------


## papitosabe

> You have to be either lying or kidding, right? Are you seriously claiming that you, if you were to be honest, would not like to own a slave? Be honest. If you could own another human being to do your work for you and do anything you demanded, without worry from legal battles, you would not want to own a slave? Personally, I find that owning at least two slaves would be good. A big smart strong male slave to do all my work... and a very lovely female slave to do my cooking and attend to my desires. That would be "LIBERATING!!!"


yea, and you could be the town gimp...

----------


## green73

> You forgot my most recent interview with Dr. DiLorenzo on this subject :/


A thousand apologies, sir.

----------


## Anti Federalist

What the hell's going on in here?

Oh, _this_...

Carry on.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What the hell's going on in here?
> 
> Oh, _this_...
> 
> Carry on.


You _knew_ it would happen.

----------


## cbrons

> A thousand apologies, sir.


"You must spread some reputation around before giving more to green73"

----------


## Galileo Galilei

Lincoln was not a tyrant.  When a tyrant conquers territory, he makes it into a province and then makes it pay tribute.  The South was actually given voting rights in the federal government, including votes in the senate, house, and electoral college.

Historical examples of how tyrants operate include the Roman empire that added many provinces, and Genghis Khan.  Khan did not allow provinces any voting rights.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> No he wasn't. He was a strict constitutionalist. If he had not had to fight a war of Southern aggression, then he would have strictly obeyed the Constitution.


Marxist in the most original, benign, good intentioned sense. They were contemporaries. Proto-Marxist might be a better term.

But when one looks at the results, there are disturbing similarities to later Marxist leaders. For instance, taking on expanded powers, and killing many citizens of the nations that they led. Future Marxists held power until they died. Circumstances didn't allow us to know for sure if Lincoln would have held on to or expanded his power if he had lived longer.

His Marxist connection also gives us insight into the vast "worship" that Lincoln garners from the left and neo-conservatives. Marxists and Trotskyites have a connection to Lincoln, either through full knowledge of the Marxist history, or through group-think and modern propaganda.

That's my take from limited study. It could be wrong. I have no idea if DiLorenzo or other Mises scholars have addressed this.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> What the hell's going on in here?
> 
> Oh, _this_...
> 
> Carry on.


I used to leave these topics alone. Blame it on Spielberg. I now find the subject more interesting.

----------


## bolil

Was the civil war waged over slavery?  I don't know.  I do feel, however, that an end to slavery is why the common northerner fought.  $#@!, I'd fight that battle... even today.  If you enslave a man, what guarantee do I have that you would not enslave me?

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Was the civil war waged over slavery?  I don't know.  I do feel, however, that an end to slavery is why the common northerner fought.  $#@!, I'd fight that battle... even today.  If you enslave a man, what guarantee do I have that you would not enslave me?


Saps think that they go to war for 'freedom' nowadays too. It's the same formula to dupe the population into committing mass murder that it always has been on behalf of the state. The Lincoln cult plays right into this nonsense that we should all be fighting tooth and nail against.

----------


## pochy1776

> I see the head cheerleader has arrived. I expect another -rep soon.


Why did lincoln had to do it by amassing power and shredding the constitution? why not just buy up all the slaves and free them? Why did he have to create the modern powerful executive?

----------


## RickyJ

> Was the civil war waged over slavery?  I don't know.  I do feel, however, that an end to slavery is why the common northerner fought.  $#@!, I'd fight that battle... even today.  If you enslave a man, what guarantee do I have that you would not enslave me?


I'm not so sure that is why the common Northerner fought the Civil War since the North also had a draft. Both sides had to have a draft for this war to occur. It seems to me most people in the South and North did not want anything to do with this war, but were forced under the threat of imprisonment if they didn't report for duty.

----------


## bolil

> I'm not so sure that is why the common Northerner fought the Civil War since the North also had a draft. Both sides had to have a draft for this war to occur. It seems to me most people in the South and North did not want anything to do with this war, but were forced under the threat of imprisonment if they didn't report for duty.


Meh, you own slaves?  You ain't got a friend in me.  Draft or not, if circumstances allow I'll happily stick a slaver with something sharp.  The south should have freed the slaves, and then fired on fort sumter. This, of course, is a honest though emotivist reaction and being said I don't see how slavery has ended in this country yet, beyond nominally that is.  Don't pay uncle sam, he takes your freedom.

I used to be Grey to the bone, but slavery?  Really?  The real shame is the men in grey fought for their rights and for, perhaps incidentally, the elite of their societies slaves.  The men in blue, some were drafted, some fought for pay and food, and some certainly fought thinking they were fighting the scourge of slavery.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Meh, you own slaves?  You ain't got a friend in me.  Draft or not, if circumstances allow I'll happily stick a slaver with something sharp.  The south should have freed the slaves, and then fired on fort sumter. This, of course, is a honest though emotivist reaction and being said I don't see how slavery has ended in this country yet, beyond nominally that is.  Don't pay uncle sam, he takes your freedom.
> 
> I used to be Grey to the bone, but slavery?  Really?  The real shame is the men in grey fought for their rights and not for the elite of their societies slaves.  The men in blue, some were drafted, some fought for pay and food, and some certainly fought thinking they were fighting the scourge of slavery.


Who gives a $#@! what the aggressive invading murderers thought they were fighting for? The slaves would have been freed regardless of the unnecessary bloodshed just like they were in any other country. Stop focusing on the nonsense and focus instead on the undeniable historical fact of Lincoln being a racist Constitution destroying war criminal.

Now here's Ron Paul standing behind a rebel flag triumphing the cause of the Confederate south. Watch and learn, novices:

----------


## bolil

> Who gives a $#@! what the aggressive invading murderers thought they were fighting for? The slaves would have been freed regardless of the unnecessary bloodshed just like they were in any other country. Stop focusing on the nonsense and focus instead on the undeniable historical fact of Lincoln being a racist Constitution destroying war criminal.
> 
> Now here's Ron Paul standing behind a rebel flag triumphing the cause of the Confederate south. Watch and learn, novices:


Im not justifying the war of northern aggression, but If I had the chance to kill a slaver...  AGAIN, I understand that most SOuthern soldiers and citizens DID NOT own slaves,... I would.  Perhaps my boast will be tested on day.  I don't give a $#@! for lincoln,  perhaps i got off topic.  Slavery... that $#@! will rile me up any day.  Maybe because I feel like a slave.  Intellectually free, but bound to service for pretend money.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

"No army can stop an idea whose time has come."

Victor Hugo

In 1860, the time had come to get rid of slavery.

----------


## dillo

If the civil war hadn't happened, if Lincoln was never elected......when would slavery have ended in America?

----------


## bolil

It does seem to me, than any claims of liberty by a society that owns slaves... well... $#@!ing ridiculous.  Rights are individual things, States "rights" cannot trump individual rights.  States are collections of individuals, correct?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> If the civil war hadn't happened, if Lincoln was never elected......when would slavery have ended in America?


Probably in the early 1900s in the upper South, and in the 1960s in the deep south.

----------


## bolil

The fact that the United States ever tolerated slavery is sickening.  Shouldn't throw the babies of jefferson, washing, et al out with the bath water though.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Probably in the early 1900s in the upper South, and in the 1960s in the deep south.


Nah, it would have happened way earlier due to technological advances. And there would be way less of racial disputes with it being gotten rid of peacefully. But since America's version of Hitler (Abe Lincoln) had his way, our country has suffered to the point of being a completely ruined despotism. He got to keep his power, and Yankee imperialism has now been spread all across the globe with tens of millions of people being murdered just like the southerners who only wished to peacefully secede were murdered. So remember that the next time that predator drone rains hellfire down on a child in Pakistan, people like you are the moral justification for such an act happening.

----------


## RickyJ

> The fact that the United States ever tolerated slavery is sickening.  Shouldn't throw the babies of jefferson, washing, et al out with the bath water though.


Not all states did tolerate it. Yes I agree, it should have been done away with when the country was first started, and some called for it to be abolished then, but they were outnumbered.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Nah, it would have happened way earlier due to technological advances. And there would be way less of racial disputes with it being gotten rid of peacefully. But since America's version of Hitler (Abe Lincoln) had his way, our country has suffered to the point of being a completely ruined despotism. He got to keep his power, and Yankee imperialism has now been spread all across the globe with tens of millions of people being murdered just like the southerners who only wished to peacefully secede were murdered. So remember that the next time that predator drone rains hellfire down on a child in Pakistan, people like you are the moral justification for such an act happening.


Apartheid lasted until the 1990s in South Africa and Jim Crow laws lasted in the US until the 1960s.  Both ended from intense outside pressure.

----------


## cbrons

> Was the civil war waged over slavery?  I don't know.  I do feel, however, that an end to slavery is why the common northerner fought.


The common northern fought because hey were conscripted. If the avg northern white thought they were fighting simply to end southern slavery, they wouldve overthrown the government.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Apartheid lasted until the 1990s in South Africa and Jim Crow laws lasted in the US until the 1960s.  Both ended from intense outside pressure.


You sure love spouting irrelevent nonsense, don't you? But whatever you need to justify the terrorist acts of your vaunted government hero, I guess.

----------


## cbrons

> Nah, it would have happened way earlier due to technological advances. And there would be way less of racial disputes with it being gotten rid of peacefully. But since America's version of Hitler (Abe Lincoln) had his way, our country has suffered to the point of being a completely ruined despotism. He got to keep his power, and Yankee imperialism has now been spread all across the globe with tens of millions of people being murdered just like the southerners who only wished to peacefully secede were murdered. So remember that the next time that predator drone rains hellfire down on a child in Pakistan, people like you are the moral justification for such an act happening.


Dont forget lincolns general Sherman and the ethnic cleansing of the Plains Indians.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Dont forget lincolns general Sherman and the ethnic cleansing of the Plains Indians.


How galliant would have Hitler looked if the Germans had won WW2? The millions of deaths of Jews would have been a small price to pay for victory just like the hundreds of thousands of American deaths during the Civil War. I'm sure that Hitler and company could have invented some supposedly valid reason for it to happen too like they have here.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> You sure love spouting irrelevent nonsense, don't you? But whatever you need to justify the terrorist acts of your vaunted government hero, I guess.


I'm with the pro-liberty movement, I oppose slavery.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> I'm with the pro-liberty movement, I oppose slavery.


You should be against the tyrant Lincoln then who was more than happy to keep slavery around as long as he could lord over the south.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> You should be against the tyrant Lincoln then who was more than happy to keep slavery around as long as he could lord over the south.


Lincoln should _never_ have allowed the southern states to rejoin the union.  He should have raped and pillaged the women and then looted all the wealth, then ordered heavy tribute payments.  That's how real tyrants act.

----------


## cbrons

> Lincoln should _never_ have allowed the southern states to rejoin the union.  He should have raped and pillaged the women and then looted all the wealth, then ordered heavy tribute payments.  That's how real tyrants act.


Ever heard of Sherman's seige of Atlanta? Plenty of civs violated by northern thugs there.

----------


## RickyJ

> Lincoln should _never_ have allowed the southern states to rejoin the union.  He should have raped and pillaged the women and then looted all the wealth, then ordered heavy tribute payments.  That's how real tyrants act.


Very good point. It shows that Lincoln's main objective was as he stated, the preservation of the union. He knew that the forces that were trying to divide America were hostile to both sides, and they did not want a strong unified America after Andrew Jackson killed the central bank. The division of the USA and provocation for the Civil War was mainly planned by those who did not even live in America. 

Lincoln's history before he became president is inconsistent with a man that wanted war. He very much questioned whether or not the event that started the war between the USA and Mexico really happened or not as stated. It was one of this nation's first false flags actually and Lincoln was on the "truther" side instead of the warmongers' side.

----------


## Aratus

are any of y'all going to wait until Sally Field's movie "LINCOLN" is out in DVD format to look at it? 
are you also going to wait for Bill Murray's new movie about FDR and his affair with his fifth cousin?

----------


## Aratus

thankfully i am fighting the urge to create a 

Jefferson Davis: Tyrant thread in tandem with

this one and i just might create instead two

threads. i think the presidency of Mr. Davis did

suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus also. Let 

alone the lack of a free press in both the N + S

and the use of the draft to expand the armies...






Lets have an informal vote!  Thread Number ONE!

James Buchanan: Totally Indecisive Blithering Idiot?

and now (((((drumrolls))))))  Thread Number TWO!!!

Andrew Johnson: Our Most CONTRARY Potus EVER?

I concede that the CSA felt they were responding to

Honest Abe's very close friends and political ambitions.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Ever heard of Sherman's seige of Atlanta? Plenty of civs violated by northern thugs there.


That was just one portion of the South.  A real tyrant like Tamerlane would have done what Sherman did to the ENTIRE South.  And Tamerlane did not allow conquered provinces to vote.  Sorry, Sherman does not measure up to a real tyrant.

----------


## Aratus

jefferson davis was never formally put on trial but he did have to endure an uncomfortable confinement.
from what i heard of the accounts, the andersonville prison was hell on earth. if there was a good reason
to put the head of the confederacy on trial, andersonville's slowly starved P.O.Ws heads the list, totally.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That was just one portion of the South.  A real tyrant like Tamerlane would have done what Sherman did to the ENTIRE South.*  And Tamerlane did not allow conquered provinces to vote*.  Sorry, Sherman does not measure up to a real tyrant.


So?  Voting does not a free man make.  

The American colonists were represented in British parliamnet, but still felt the need to secede.

----------


## green73

> Nah, it would have happened way earlier due to technological advances. And there would be way less of racial disputes with it being gotten rid of peacefully. But since America's version of Hitler (Abe Lincoln) had his way, our country has suffered to the point of being a completely ruined despotism. He got to keep his power, and Yankee imperialism has now been spread all across the globe with tens of millions of people being murdered just like the southerners who only wished to peacefully secede were murdered. So remember that the next time that predator drone rains hellfire down on a child in Pakistan, people like you are the moral justification for such an act happening.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sgt150 again.

----------


## Aratus

Lets have an informal vote!  Thread Number ONE!         ======> James Buchanan: Totally Indecisive Blithering Idiot?


and now (((((drumrolls))))))  Thread Number TWO!!!      ======> Andrew Johnson: Our Most CONTRARY Potus EVER?

----------


## green73

> are any of y'all going to wait until Sally Field's movie "LINCOLN" is out in DVD format to look at it? 
> are you also going to wait for Bill Murray's new movie about FDR and his affair with his fifth cousin?


I watched it online. It took me three attempts. The first two ended within five minutes. How I made it through the third is beyond me. It's intensely boring and full of lies.

----------


## Aratus

if poor Honest Abe & Jefferson Davis were the two presidents in our nation's history
 who were the closest to being actual tyrants as our wise Union badly fragmented,
as a historian, should i be harsher about Honest Abe's predecessor or the tailor guy 
he shared a ballot with in 1864? I may back off on creating these 2 new threads~!

----------


## green73

> That was just one portion of the South.  A real tyrant like Tamerlane would have done what Sherman did to the ENTIRE South.  And Tamerlane did not allow conquered provinces to vote.  Sorry, Sherman does not measure up to a real tyrant.


And you don't measure up to someone who knows what the hell they are talking about. Perhaps you've been in the vicinity of Madison too long?

----------


## Aratus

roger ebert actually praises LINCOLN the movie an' also Lincoln the man!   Lets thusly weigh into this green73's review 
as we all keep in mind its a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong and preachy politically correct flic
that has to have at least 5 well timed rest~room breaks that maybe green73 can happily describe ahead of tyme for us!

----------


## Aratus

maybe maybe maybe actually james buchanan was a sometimes partial blithering idiot and andy johnson sometimes given to being contrary

----------


## green73

For the DVD jacket:



> _Intensely boring and full of lies..._
> 
>                                                   -Green73 Movie Reviews

----------


## Aratus

its a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong movie.
like LES MISERABLES, if thee be talked into P.C. going for
the good of thy immortal soul, you need restroom breaks.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

I dont see why we need to keep bringing it up...

----------


## green73

> I dont see why we need to keep bringing it up...


I know that for me and many others, learning the truth about Lincoln was very instrumental in waking up.

----------


## Aratus

actually the debate in this here lil thread is not over the legitimacy of the old Confederacy 
insted it is over whether the GOP as a gungho party machine has entered the 21st century
or is still manifesting some of its rather lamentable & sad behavior patterns from the 1800s!
Honest Abe laid out the high ideals of the GOP early on, and then we had bearded potuses.

----------


## Aratus

keep in mind doctor ron paul praises two termer grover cleveland, the Democrat who is before woodrow wilson!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Very good point. It shows that Lincoln's main objective was as he stated, the preservation of the union.


That was most likely Lincoln's primary motivation. It's just too obvious for people to even mention most of the time.

----------


## osan

THREAD FAIL!
THREAD FAIL! 

EJECT! EJECT! EJECT!

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> How dare you bring facts instead of baseless speculation into this!


This history of mass confusion shall be known to future generations as the Lincoln Hating Period:

"Hop into my car babe!  It has a V-8, a dozen cup holders, and I hate Abraham Lincoln!"
"You hate Abe Lincoln?  Radical!  Give me a second to get out of these wet panties!"

----------


## TheTexan

> This history of mass confusion shall be known to future generations as the Lincoln Hating Period:
> 
> "Hop into my car babe!  It has a V-8, a dozen cup holders, and I hate Abraham Lincoln!"
> "You hate Abe Lincoln?  Radical!  Give me a second to get out of these wet panties!"


Ya it's not like Lincoln did anything to deserve being hated.  If you brush aside the few negative things about him, he was really quite an upstanding guy

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> That was most likely Lincoln's primary motivation. It's just too obvious for people to even mention most of the time.


Regardless of the insanity involved in debating Abraham Lincoln, every viewpoint made has an equal and opposite point of view.  Show the tail, sniff the tail, chase the tail.  Bow Wow!

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Ya it's not like Lincoln did anything to deserve being hated.  If you brush aside the few negative things about him, he was really quite an upstanding guy


I once thought that I knew Abraham Lincoln.  Now I don't know anything about the bastard.

----------


## klamath

HOUSE DIVIDED, by Ben Ames Williams

One of the best historical novels ever written by a grand nephew of general James Longstreet. I read it as a teenager. 15 years of research and 1500 pages of top notch writting. This guy did his research. I highly recommend it for anyone that wants to get deep information about the period. Written from one of the most unbiased prespectives of near any book I have ever read.
http://www.amazon.com/House-Divided-...DateDescending

----------


## Dick Chaney

Lincoln did a LOT of bad things... but his economic policy was dead on. Debt-free interest-free fiat currency absent of central banking regulation WORKS, he understood this, and the economy flourished -- and then he was shot. Ever since our dollars value has gone down and down. Fact, not fiction.

----------


## TheTexan

> Lincoln did a LOT of bad things... but his economic policy was dead on. Debt-free interest-free fiat currency absent of central banking regulation WORKS, he understood this, and the economy flourished -- and then he was shot. Ever since our dollars value has gone down and down. Fact, not fiction.


it works, as in, the government can print as much money as it needs.  works great, for that

----------


## samforpaul

> *The Forgotten Slaves: Whites in Servitude in Early America and Industrial Britain
> *
> 
> by Michael A. Hoffman II ©Copyright 1999. All Rights Reserved
> 
> Two years ago, Prime Minister Paul Keating of Australia refused to show "proper respect" to Britain's Queen Elizabeth II during her state visit. In response, Terry Dicks, a Conservative member of the British Parliament said, "It's a country of ex-convicts, so we should not be surprised by the rudeness of their prime minister."
> 
> A slur such as this would be considered unthinkable if it were uttered against any other class or race of people except the descendants of White slavery. Dicks' remark is not only offensive, it is ignorant and false. Most of Australia's "convicts" were shipped into servitude for such "crimes" as stealing seven yards of lace, cutting trees on an aristocrat's estate or poaching sheep to feed a starving family.
> 
> ...




Wow!!!!! Thanks, Ender.  That was one of the most educational posts I've read on this board.  I'm going to do some further research to try to get some verification on this.

----------


## Ender

> Wow!!!!! Thanks, Ender.  That was one of the most educational posts I've read on this board.  I'm going to do some further research to try to get some verification on this.



Thanks, samforpaul! I'm glad someone finally read it.

----------


## green73

> Lincoln did a LOT of bad things... but his economic policy was dead on. Debt-free interest-free fiat currency absent of central banking regulation WORKS, he understood this, and the economy flourished -- and then he was shot. Ever since our dollars value has gone down and down. Fact, not fiction.


Utter bull$#@!. The dollar gained in purchasing power from 1865 into the 1900s.

The Lincoln Money Cabal | Why the Greenbackers Are Wrong 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...kers-Are-Wrong

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Utter bull$#@!. The dollar gained in purchasing power from 1865 into the 1900s.
> 
> The Lincoln Money Cabal | Why the Greenbackers Are Wrong 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...kers-Are-Wrong


Thanks!  Spared me an angry ramble about greenbackers and such.

----------


## McChronagle

Im getting one of DiLorenzo's books but not sure if I should get The Real Lincoln or Lincoln Unmasked. Im leaning towards Unmasked just because its newer and probably more detailed. Anybody have a preference?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Im getting one of DiLorenzo's books but not sure if I should get The Real Lincoln or Lincoln Unmasked. Im leaning towards Unmasked just because its newer and probably more detailed. Anybody have a preference?


The first one is better.

----------

