Lincoln: The Founders did not make America racist or slaver. They inherited it that way

PGA Weblog ^

[DiogenesLamp]

It isn't treason when your own founding document declares "Independence" to be a right given by God.

What is treason is denying people their right to independence.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes he did. AND most of it was because of the press doing their part to undermine the federals cause in favor of the south.

Since the South's cause was "Independence", just as was the founders cause, and since King Lincoln's cause was subjugation, just like King George's cause was, why shouldn't the press favor the people who wanted the right to self determination over that of a man who wanted them subjugated?

[DiogenesLamp]

The right of secession in response to tyranny is absolute. There just was no tyranny, as you point out.

Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder my friend. When our own founders made their claims of tyranny, the Canadians didn't agree with them, neither did the approximately 1/3 of our own population that remained British Loyalists, and nor did the British public agree with them.

People have to judge for themselves what abuses they think are intolerable.

[Pikachu_Dad]

My apologies, I did not realize you were special.

Breckinridge and his democrats started the war.

Breckinridge and his democrats are responsible for causing the destruction.

Breckinridge and his democrats started a civil war.

Please stop spreading misinformation.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Now apply that reasoning to the 50% of the population that was enslaved !

next lie !

[Pikachu_Dad]

King who?

Good grief !

[Pikachu_Dad]

Hoisted on his own petard.

“What is treason is denying people their right to independence.”

So Breckinridge and the democrats were committing treason by denying Liberty and Independence to their people.

Agreed !

[Grampa Dave]

The Lies of the New York Times’ 1619 Project...:

A few months ago, I started posting this little historical exercise about Slavery in pre America:

Slavery was, not yet a reality, even in any British Royal American Colonies by 1619.

1619: The year, the first Endentured Africans, not slaves, were brought to Jamestown, is drilled into students’ memories, but overemphasizing this date distorts history!

1619: First Africans:

In August 1619 “20 and odd Negroes” arrived on the Dutch Man-of-War ship at Jamestown colony. This is the earliest record of Black people in colonial America.[38] These colonists were freemen and indentured servants.[39][40][41][42] At this time the slave trade between Africa and the English colonies had not yet been established.

Records from 1623 and 1624 listed the African inhabitants of the colony as servants, not slaves. In the case of William Tucker, the first Black person born in the colonies, freedom was his birthright.[43] He was son of “Antony and Isabell”, a married couple from Angola who worked as indentured servants for Captain William Tucker whom he was named after. Yet, court records show that at least one African had been declared a slave by 1640; John Punch. He was an indentured servant who ran away along with two White indentured servants and he was sentenced by the governing council to lifelong servitude. This action is what officially marked the institution of slavery in Jamestown and the future United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jamestown,_Virginia_(1607–99)#1619:_First_Africans

Jamestown was not an American colony nor even a British Colony at that time, 1619.

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/misguided-focus-1619-beginning-slavery-us-damages-our-understanding-american-history-180964873/#rw41X6dSPyUlLd4m.99

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery

Before going to the link above, everyone, ask yourself a simple question:

I have added your summary to my history of slavery inherited by America.

In what year did the former British/American Colonies, become America/the USA and recognized by the world powers as America.

Hint, It was not in 1619.

It was 1783! America’s independence was recognized by Britain in 1783.

The Emancipation Proclamation was in 1863, 80 years after we became a recognized country.

This year,2019, will make freedom from Slavery/1863, for 156 years in America, the USA. Thanks to the The Emancipation Proclamation being declared in 1863.

The US had legal slavery for 80 years! Liberal liars scream “400 years” of slavery, and it is a complete lie.

At this point, blacks in today’s America, have been free for much longer than their ancestors were slaves! (nearly twice as long).

*How many union soldiers died to free the Slaves: - Quora:
https://www.quora.com/How-many-union-soldiers-died

*Approximately 110,000 Union Soldiers died due to battle-related causes during the Civil War. Around 250,000 died of disease. Yes, you were more likely to die of illness later than on the battlefield. The deadliest battle for both sides was the infamous Battle of Gettysburg, totaling more than 50,000 casualties.

At least 360,000 Union soldiers died from battle causes or illnesses linked to their service in the Civil War. More suffered from physical and mental wounds for most of their lives post Civil War.

Women born just before, during and after the Civil War in the battleground states often died in their 20’s to 30’s. My Dad’s mother and one of her sisters died in their late 20’s. Women in their families before and after the civil war lived into their late 70’s to 80’s.

---

Lincoln: The Founders did not make America racist or slaver. They inherited it that way!
PGA Weblog ^
Posted on 9/2/2019, 4:35:14 PM by ProgressingAmerica

Abraham Lincoln:

Judge Douglas asks you, “Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made it forever?” In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time.

When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the fathers of the Government made this nation part slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that: when the fathers of the Government cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it?

The Founding Fathers could not undo in just a few short years what the King spent over a century doing.

Because of the false teachings of progressivism, it has become one of the greatest of ironies that the “Great Emancipator” was also one of the most ardent defenders of the Founding Fathers - specifically on the topic of slavery.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3776122/posts

[DiogenesLamp]

God, it’s f$&king tragic to see that they lose their county over some cotton trade.

It was about quite a lot more than the cotton trade. The Southern states produced 73% of the US entire trade product at that time, and all the money to pay for it was being funneled into New York because of the Navigation act of 1817.

New York was taking about 60% of all the value of the South's entire production, and if the South became independent, New York would lose about 230 million dollars per year in 1860 dollars. Worse still, European manufactured goods would have flooded the continent through Southern ports at prices deeply undercutting the North Eastern manufacturers, and thereby causing a double financial whammy to the power barons who would have lost significant market share and income.

The existing power structure in New York and Washington DC, then as now wanted all the nation's money funneling through their pockets, and when the South threatened to take control of their own trade and finances, this was more than the existing power structure could tolerate, and so they launched a war to subjugate the South.

Lincoln clearly had no intention of freeing the slaves when he began his presidency, and he did in fact urge the passage of an amendment that would have made slavery virtually permanent. (The Corwin Amendment.)

Lincoln and his New York backers knew where all the trade money came from, and they were not going to tolerate it getting out of their control. Their initial efforts was to get control back quickly so that everything could resume as it was before the war. When Southern doggedness kept them from winning quickly, they eventually decided it would be better to break the economic back of the South than to allow it to escape their control, and this is why they moved to abolish slavery.

In point of fact, the Northerners didn't really care about the black people, and they would have kept them in slavery had the North won quickly, but after almost two years, they saw it as a useful tactic to help them win the war, and so they made it one of their goals.

The whole affair is a lot more complex than people realize, and this is why people just generally accept the commonly repeated claim that the entire thing was over slavery.

It was really about who would control that money, not about who was creating it.

Also, the Northern powers were mostly English, and the Southern powers was mostly Scottish, and so there was a continuation of the bad blood that existed before back in the old country. It is not accident that this

Resembles this.

[DiogenesLamp]

I am correcting the misinformation that has already been spread. Lincoln started the war. He did so by sending *WARSHIPS* to attack the Confederates.

I'm sorry if you don't like hearing about this, but facts are facts. It was those warships arriving that triggered the bombardment of Sumter. There were no plans to attack that fort until those warships materialized at the entrance to Charleston harbor.

[DiogenesLamp]

Now apply that reasoning to the 50% of the population that was enslaved !

You cannot seriously expect anyone to apply one standard to Northern Slaves, and a different Standard to Southern slaves. The United States was a slave holding nation, both North and South. Or do you consider Delaware to be a Southern state?

Legal slavery would have continued in the Union if the Southern states had remained in it, so don't try to pretend invading the South and killing all those people had anything to do with Northerners launching a war to free slaves.

They had absolutely no intention of doing that when Lincoln started the war.

[The Mayor]

marked

[rockrr]

Answer : The winners write the history books.

And the losers write the mythologies...

[jmacusa]

No, God decides.

[jmacusa]

A people who enslave another are not moral or free. One becomes bound to the other, slaver and slave in a race to the moral bottom.

[BrexitBen]

Please explain what was in error ?

Did “ honest Abe “ want to send U.S. blacks to another location outside the country, or did he not ?

Did Lincoln state that blacks were inferior to whites, or did he not ?

Abraham Lincoln represents the great “ mythology “, not those who try to defend the constitutional rights of the free and independent Southern states to secede.

[Jumper]

Thank you. I have advocated the pre-existence of slavery essentially as Lincoln stated, and Lincoln was a lawyer who understood the legal ramifications of the law permitted slavery in the colonies just as it existed elsewhere throughout the Middle East, Africa and the entire known world. Would the British Navy have existed without the premise of false imprisonment similar to being Shanghaied? Indentured servants forfeited their freedom for passage to the new world. It took a WAR to break the legal chains of Slavery in divided America and the imposition of martial law. Because the South was defeated, it was both black and white sharecroppers who suffered well into the 40s....

The false ideology of victimhood has today began to run it’s course as competing fractions with the DNC Big Tent splinter and compete for a place - and the targeting of the White Race by the DNC is as shameful as their defeated forefathers who by yesterday’s standards legally owned other people.

If you mistreat any portion of the Agricultural chain, you forfeit profits and jeopardize the enterprise, so the commonly held belief of mistreatment of all slaves is a misnomer. That slavery was legal and something imposed by the Great Powers of Europe is not in question - that it took a mere 85 years to fix the wrong of the Divine Right of Kings of which Gen Washington rejected for himself and all presidents (except Obama), and yet 100 years to enjoin all by acts of the Congress (with the DNC dissenting), Republicans forced passage of Equal Rights and Equality for Women. Little did the Nation expect that puclent DNC to seeth and destroy the laws as envisioned and pervert society with the imposition of the mentally ill’s inclusion under LGBTect; that the Old South never Died in the Form of the DNC is not in question today.

[suthener]

“That’s why I really despise southern whites no matter how talented or gifted they are individually”

I am constantly amazed at what people say in public these days with no repercussions at all, but to see such a blatantly bigoted statement on FR, thrown out with total impunity, is mind boggling. And you can take your “not as wise as Chinese” and shove it up your ass. Do you know the disproportionate representation in the military from people in the South? No, you don’t. Southerners are generally the most patriotic people you will meet. I don’t know what nationality you are, and don’t care. You are ignorant fool.

[rockrr]

Lincoln did explore voluntary resettlement. You phrase it like he planned forced emigration - he did not. He also said that the black race was culturally inferior to whites - so what?

There is no constitutional right for states to secede.

[rockrr]

That really was a strikingly stupid thing to say. Why would you (Lee25) condemn an entire people for the actions of a few? And not even their actions but the actions of people 150 years prior?