Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I Never Knew That Abraham Lincoln Ordered The Largest MASS HANGING IN US HISTORY, Or Why He Did It
The Daily Check ^ | May 29, 2017

Posted on 06/17/2017 6:14:26 PM PDT by plain talk

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 561-576 next last
To: BeadCounter
“Articles for secession for every state, Mississippi, Texas, Carolinas explicitly mention that they are fighting for slavery”

For every state? Are you absolutely sure?

Can we see your data for Florida?

301 posted on 06/19/2017 3:29:37 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem; sargon
You probably know this but, just for the tally book, the states that voted to enshrine human slavery into the U.S. constitution were: New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maryland.

Oh yes, and Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia.

Yes, those were Sargon's words that I had copied and placed in italics when I replied to him.

302 posted on 06/19/2017 3:31:33 PM PDT by higgmeister ( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem

Scroll up about 270 posts or so and you’ll see a couple of your fellow Lincoln opponents posting quote after quote about how Lincoln had no problem with slavery, hated black people, yadda, yadda, yadda. No problem with slavery, no liking for black people, no need to start a war to end it. So we’re back to wondering why Davis and his cohorts felt the need to start a war to defend slavery?


303 posted on 06/19/2017 3:31:48 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: T-Bone Texan
I believe this was in the form of tariffs.

Two questions. If the South consumed two-thirds of the imports then why were over 90% of all tariff revenue collected in Northern ports? And what was it that the South imported in such massive amounts that accounted for two-thirds of the tariff revenue?

I will never forgive Abe for what he did to my beloved South. I spit on his name.

What happened to your beloved South was self-inflicted.

304 posted on 06/19/2017 3:34:58 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Demojeff is a one-trick phony.


305 posted on 06/19/2017 3:51:27 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
"So in other words there was no "economic war" being waged when the Southern states began their rebellion. Nice to know."

Sure there was. It just wasn't run by Republicans (yet). The question of slavery was itself an economic question, at least for the South.

306 posted on 06/19/2017 4:08:07 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel and NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: higgmeister

“Yes, those were Sargon’s words that I had copied and placed in italics when I replied to him.”

Thank you for the clarification. I did get myself confused for a moment.


307 posted on 06/19/2017 4:09:35 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
“Scroll up about 270 posts or so and you’ll see a couple of your fellow Lincoln opponents posting quote after quote . . .”

My point is this: Doing the math, as you suggest, reveals that President Lincoln simply did not have the votes necessary to abolish slavery peacefully through the U.S. constitution's amendment process.

If Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, he would have to do it through force of arms - in other words, use violence to overthrow the pro-slavery U.S. constitution and to kill or imprison anyone who opposed.

For that he would need a pretext for war which he found in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I meant to say the Fort Sumter incident.

308 posted on 06/19/2017 4:21:40 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Whether the state was ever out of the Union is a matter of opinion, and not a position supported by the Supreme Court. See Texas v. White (74 US 700).

It seems odd that each state had to be individually readmitted to the Union then, doesn't it?

Below is a list of the 11 states that seceded from the Union
during the American Civil War, along with the date of secession
and when they were readmitted.

State Seceded
from Union
Readmitted
to Union
1. South Carolina Dec. 20, 1860 July 9, 1868
2. Mississippi Jan. 9, 1861 Feb. 23, 1870
3. Florida Jan. 10, 1861 June 25, 1868
4. Alabama Jan. 11, 1861 July 13, 1868
5. Georgia Jan. 19, 1861 July 15, 1870
6. Louisiana Jan. 26, 1861 July 9, 1868
7. Texas March 2, 1861 March 30, 1870
8. Virginia April 17, 1861 Jan. 26, 1870
9. Arkansas May 6, 1861 June 22, 1868
10. North Carolina May 20, 1861 July 4, 1868
11. Tennessee June 8, 1861 July 24, 1866


309 posted on 06/19/2017 4:26:14 PM PDT by higgmeister ( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem
If Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, he would have to do it through force of arms - in other words, use violence to overthrow the pro-slavery U.S. constitution and to kill or imprison anyone who opposed.

Great Britain did not need a Civil War to end slavery. As a matter of fact no other civilized country did.

310 posted on 06/19/2017 4:40:29 PM PDT by higgmeister ( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: higgmeister

“Great Britain did not need a Civil War to end slavery. As a matter of fact no other civilized country did.”

You are right. And in his first inaugural address, Lincoln did not say that he would fight to “free the slaves” although at Gettysburg he implied the war all along was for that purpose.

Lincoln and the north may very well have been fighting for something that, to them, was more important than “freeing the slaves”. And that “something” was what they considered their own economic and political best interests.


311 posted on 06/19/2017 4:55:22 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Sure there was. It just wasn't run by Republicans (yet).

But you said they seceded due to the economic war waged on them by Lincoln and the Republicans.

312 posted on 06/19/2017 5:09:22 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem
My point is this: Doing the math, as you suggest, reveals that President Lincoln simply did not have the votes necessary to abolish slavery peacefully through the U.S. constitution's amendment process.

And yet that's exactly what they did.

If Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, he would have to do it through force of arms - in other words, use violence to overthrow the pro-slavery U.S. constitution and to kill or imprison anyone who opposed.

Lincoln entered office with the goal of preventing the spread of slavery. It was the South who forced the war upon Lincoln in their goal of furthering their secession, which they did in defense of slavery.

For that he would need a pretext for war which he found in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I meant to say the Fort Sumter incident.

The ever popular "We wuz so stoopid we done fell into Likum's trap" defense.

313 posted on 06/19/2017 5:12:10 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: higgmeister
It seems odd that each state had to be individually readmitted to the Union then, doesn't it?

Not really. The dates in question was when their delegations were readmitted to Congress, not when the states were readmitted to the Union. Which makes sense since the states were never out of the Union to begin with. Read the Reconstruction acts.

The proof of this is that a state is admitted to the U.S. through passage of an Enabling Act. No such act was passed post Civil War for any of the Southern states.

314 posted on 06/19/2017 5:14:59 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

“And yet that’s exactly what they did.”

Such words, in this context, must have been written in jest.

Because I like you I will express a disproportionally large laugh.


315 posted on 06/19/2017 5:30:53 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

“Which makes sense since the states were never out of the Union to begin with.”

Still, history students know the United States denied southern states representation in Congress, abolished state and local governments, divided the South into military districts (not states) and appointed military governors to rule the South like conquered territories.

Arguably, the North did this for a very, very important reason - because it was in the North’s economic and political best interests.


316 posted on 06/19/2017 5:39:01 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
“Lincoln entered office with the goal of preventing the spread of slavery.”

Is it your testimony that the north fought a war they did not want to abolish slavery that the states of New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware and Maryland voted to enshrine into the U.S. constitution?

Like you, I would jump at the chance to believe this exculpatory explanation if I did not know of the mistreatment of black people in northern states before Lincoln's War.

And during Lincoln's War.

And after Lincoln's War.

317 posted on 06/19/2017 6:06:43 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: higgmeister

I often go by Stand Watie’s grave on my way to Grove, Oklahoma. It is not far from here.


318 posted on 06/19/2017 7:26:39 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

In actual fact, it was. Otherwise, why were hte Feds fighting it.


319 posted on 06/19/2017 8:59:31 PM PDT by TBP (0bama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

The Supreme Court has vastly exceeded its proper authority. So saying that a decision is “the law of teh land” is improper.


320 posted on 06/19/2017 9:00:35 PM PDT by TBP (0bama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 561-576 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson