Skip to comments.Nelson Mandela vs Abraham Lincoln
Posted on 12/08/2013 10:02:57 AM PST by PeaRidge
We are hearing a multitude of broadcasts, blogs, and stories about Mandela. Hosts fill their alloted time with stories of Mandela, and cannot help but slip into comparisons with modern politicians. It is also appropriate to compare him with our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln, who faced some of the very same challenges as Mr. Mandela.
I think FR needs a moratorium on Mandela threads.
Well Lincoln did burn the South(including Atlanta) for daring to secede so they are similar in that : genocide.
here it says there is a stage 6 genocide in South Africa, mandelas enduring legacy.
that is a genocide of whites in South Africa by a black government.
In South Africa many white women getting raped and tortured to death proof:
Genocide Watch has been particularly concerned for over ten years at the hate crimes perpetrated against Boer farmers and other whites bodies of murder victims dissembled and disfigured, old women raped in front of their husbands, and other strong evidence of racially targeted crimes. However, Genocide Watch had no evidence that the South African government was encouraging these crimes or that they were organised by an organised hate group.
Now Genocide Watch states that they have evidence of organised incitement to violence against white people.
I second that!
Lincoln and mandela faced nothing that was the same.
Lincoln was not a communist.
“Well Lincoln did burn the South(including Atlanta) for daring to secede so they are similar in that : genocide.”
Burning the South is not genocide
It is arson
Well you’re right there...cant watch football without a moment of silence for him, read fr,twitter,or listen to radio and not be bombarded with this eternal fawning over someone, lets face it now, people are only pretending to care about. They’re like a starving dog gnawing on a meatless bone.
How many southerners (Americans) did Lincoln kill?
Sometimes I think a moratorium on Lincoln threads would be a good idea. ;)
Especially idiotic ones....like this one.
If only that were true. He will continue to be heralded as one of the world’s premier leaders of all time.
Mandela was a avid Communist with ties to violent thugs starting with his wife.
He might have ended apartheid, but in the wake he opened up a brand new wave of racial violence that’s brought South Africa to be known as one of the most dangerous places on Earth (for whites and blacks).
Lincoln only freed southern blacks. He couldn’t care less for Northern slaves - they were owned by his friends.
Smug self-congratulating “I am not racist” white people use their legacies indiscriminately while continuing to distance themselves from blacks. For communists, the enemy isn’t racism, but freedom.
I like pictures of puppies and kittens.
If I am not mistaken, isn’t that the infamous orange patch white kitten of the central plains of Africa, capable of killing a herd of elephants with a single bite? One drop of his venom can wipe out an entire population.
I never realized Lincoln had spent years in prison. That always gets left out of his biographies.
I figured I had everyone covered with those pics.
If a person doesn’t like beer, a beautiful woman, or puppies and kittens, then they are insane.
Yep, it’s also capable of shooting lightning bolts from its eyes. A truly savage beast that is to be respected.
I nominate this for the Dumbest Mandela-Related Thread Of The Week award.
Nelson Mandela Vs Bill Ayers Vs Yasser Arafat...
Lincoln’s not part of the mix.
Lincoln did not want war. Mandela was a communist terrorist.
Most of them out the part about him being a vampire killer.
Let me rephrase that Lincoln would rather not have had the war, but the south wasn’t going to stick around and he wasn’t willing to let them go. Lincoln would probably have compromised on the slavery thing to avoid it.
Well that would set him apart from Mandela right there.
I don’t recall Old Abe necklacing people as Mandela’s family did. Specifically his wife. I don’t recall the pubbies cutting of the noses of people who voted for their opposition as the ANC did. No I don’t think there is anything to discuss and no similarities whatsoever. Simply wishful, romantic nonsense.
That would be pretended confederate general Hood who burned Atlanta.
That would be the thousands of southern deserters who burned houses after they returned home and were not supported by states rights politicians after years of service to the slave power, and in response looted and burned local farm houses.
Lincoln worked to pass the 13th Amendment that freed all the slaves. He didn’t just free the southern slaves, but he did recognize that the federal government had limited powers to free slaves, absent an insurrection or constitutional amendment.
So he issued the EP to weaken the insurrection, and worked toward the amendment.
Confederate Nathan Forrest comes closest to that with the atrocities at Fort Pillow: chaining Union soldiers to burning logs.
Mandela was a terrorist Lincoln was not.
now you all know Obama would send the army against the Southern states if we decided to secede .and the media again would use the demonozation of us as being racist to justify the invasion.
who does the buck stop with ? who is responsible for all these American deaths: all the following for what?
The Civil Wars rate of death, its incidence in comparison with the size of the American population, was six times that of World War II. A similar rate, about two percent, in the United States today would mean six million fatalities. As the new southern nation struggled for survival against a wealthier and more populous enemy, its death toll reflected the disproportionate strains on its human capital. Confederate men died at a rate three times that of their Yankee counterparts; one in five white southern men of military age did not survive the Civil War. Twice as many Civil War soldiers died from disease as from battle wounds, the result in considerable measure of poor sanitation in an era that created mass armies that did not yet understand the transmission of infectious diseases like typhoid, typhus, and dysentery.
These military statistics, however, tell only a part of the story. The war also killed a significant number of civilians; battles raged across farm and field, encampments of troops spread epidemic disease, guerrillas ensnared women and children in violence and reprisals, draft rioters targeted innocent citizens, and shortages of food in parts of the South brought starvation. No one sought to document these deaths systematically, and no one has devised a method of undertaking a retrospective count. The distinguished Civil War historian James McPherson has estimated that there were 50,000 civilian deaths during the war, and has concluded that the overall mortality rate for the South exceeded that of any country in World War I and all but the region between the Rhine and the Volga in World War II.
If anyone starts an insurrection in the US, Obama should declare such an insurrection, and suppress it.
Of course if you want to legally secede you need
(1) majority of house and senate, and 3/4s of the states for an amendment or
(2) majority of house and senate, and presidential signature for straight law or
(3) 2/3rds of Senate and presidential signature for treaty
(4) a valid supreme court cause by one or more states, that wins.
Of course if you could get a majority of house and senate and 3/4s of the states or presidential signature, you could resolve any particular grievance that would compel different people to combine to pursue secession.
Who would be responsible for loss of life associated with any insurrection? That would be the parties pursuing insurrection.
By the way, in 1860-1865 there was no new southern nation. Rather they were an insurrection, that failed to gain the recognition of any foreign government anywhere in the world.
but you now the communist Obama would send the army against states seceding and you know the media will lie and say it was an insurrection. and almost all will believe what the news media says.
history is rewritten by the liberal/marxist news media. in this fake universe Obama, Mandela,JFK,FDR , Martin Luthor king are messiahs, saintly heroes. what they really are : pieces of crap evil marxist scum
Confederate men died at such a high rate because the pretended confederate army shot its own men at a high rate.
No doubt the media would like, if they thought it would be to their master’s advantage, but if you start an insurrection, pretending an illegal secession, that would be an insurrection, and they could tell the truth, and label the insurrection as an insurrection.
rather ‘would like’ should be ‘would lie’
Which merely indicates that wars have become less destructive, contrary to the popular POV.
The 30 Years War resulted in the deaths of 25% to 40% of Germans, with some provinces upwards of 75%.
Most Chinese changes of the Mandate of Heaven (one dynasty succeeding another) in the last 2000+ years resulted in death rates of 50% to 75%, usually over a few decades.
The Wars of the Three Kingdoms in 1600s Britain and Ireland resulted in the deaths of an estimated 10% of the English, 20% of the Scots, and 30% of the Irish.
The French and others had religious civil wars with similar death rates.
It is estimated that almost 300,000 CSA soldiers died, let's round up to that number. Add in the 50,000 claimed civilian deaths, almost all of whom were in the South for the obvious reason that's where the fighting was.
350,000 is around 3.8% of the 9M prewar population of the seceding states.
Most if not all seceding states showed an increase in population from the 1860 census to that of 1870.
U.S. population was much lower back then
25% of southern white men killed in the civil war. that is no walk in the park .and they didn't have modern weapons.of course Obama would send tanks against the people in the South like Clinton did in Waco. Obama would send the army to machine gun southerners
How many Northerners (Americans) did Jeff Davis kill?
You would be well served to read some history instead of the Lost Cause mythology you have obviously swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Let's discuss it then.
Blacks in South Africa under Apartheid were not slaves. They could not be sold down the river never to see their families again. Their children belonged to them, not to some 'master.' They could work for wages wherever they could be hired. They were free to move about the country or even to leave the country if they chose. They could own property and that property was respected. They were allowed to learn to read and write.
Mandela v Lincoln? Wrong analogy.
Apartheid treated blacks in South Africa very similar to how blacks in the most of the Southern US were treated for 100 years after the Civil War. They were not allowed to participate in the political process. They were denied equal rights in a number of spheres such as housing, employment and educational opportunities. They were denied equal protection under the law. But they were not chattel slaves.
Mandela v M.L. King? I can see their struggles as similar but what Mandela fought against was nothing like the institution of slavery that Lincoln opposed and apparently you would have supported.
I do not think you have any idea what I support.
Near the end of the war, Lincoln freed the southern slaves.
This was long after secession, long after the war began, long after there were no southern states in congress.
The last American slaves to be freed were in New Jersey.
I have read it many times. Now tell us professor, how could Lincoln have Constitutionally freed slaves via executive order in states that were not in rebellion?
It appears you only have a superficial (or perhaps selective) knowledge of both history and of the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.