ABRAHAM LINCOLN: AMERICA'S GREATEST WAR CRIMINAL

Dixie Daily ^ | 6/17/02 | Ron Holland

[sinkspur]

Tell me, Where was it written in 1861 that the states didn't have a right to succeed?

Nobody said you couldn't succeed. In fact, I hope you're doing very well.

You call ME a "dumb Yankee"? (BTW, I'm from Texas)

[WhiskeyPapa]

Dixie Daily?

Consider the source.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

We won. You lost. Get over it.

Everyone in this country won the Civil War.

Walt

[ReclaimDixie]

It is interesting to note that whenever a topic such as this comes up, the detractors immediately resort to name calling and brow beating. They can never come up with any facts to counter the point usually because there aren't any. Why do you think that Davis, et al were never tried for treason? BECAUSE THEY DIDN"T COMMIT TREASON and the Supreme Court said so. ...and I guess the smart states were the northern border states that used the Constitution to keep their slaves for months after the War. So much for liberty and justice for all. If the South wanted to keep their slaves, they only had to stay in the Union (Original 13th Amendment). The War obviously isn't over or you wouldn't be so ticked off. The factions between the North and South are still here as evident by your name calling.

[Honorary Serb]

Whatever one thinks about the rights and wrongs of the South versus the North (I come from a state with connections to both), the basic truth is that civil wars are the GREATEST arenas for war crimes, atrocities, disregard of civilian rights, and just plan mass killing. This applies to the American Civil War, as well as more recent civil wars in Mexico, Russia, Spain, China, etc. etc. And it also applies to the civil wars in 1990s Yugoslavia.

This, however, does not give some outside "humanitarian warrors" the right to intervene in civil wars, take steps to exacerbate them, to demonze one side or the other, and to occupy parts of the country that had the civiil war on some "peacekeeping mission." The "West", as well as the international islamic jihad, did all these things in Yugoslavia, and are still doing them.

Anyone who supports "humanitarian intervention" should ask themselves what would have happened if the 19th century "Concert of Europe", led by Great Britain and France, had intervened in the US Civil War, in order to "stop atrocities", "restrain war criminals", "protect trade interests", or any other number of reasons. Would there be a United States (or for that matter, a Confederacy) today? Would European powers still occupy parts of the US, Mexico, and/or Canada? Would Russia (whether Czarist, communist/socialist,or otherwise) still be in Alaska? How might Europe itself be different?

They should also ask themselves how the United States, which went through a great civil war itself, could possibly morally justify intervening in Yugoslavia, for any of the reasons given above. How could we expect a good outcome from such an intervention?

[doryfunk]

First, most of the attacks against Mr. Holland and the ideas he espoused have been baseless namecalling. A few people have actually tried to rebut him. It is to those to whom I adress this reply. One person complained about the comparison of Lincoln to Mao, Lenin, and Hitler because Lincoln was duly elected. In response to that, I say, so was Hitler. Whether or not a person enjoys popular support doesnt determine whether his actions were right or wrong, even though it might determine if his actions are presented as right or wrong in the history books. Most of the other people posting have focussed on slavery in the South as justification for the war. To them my response is two fold. First, the war was not about slavery. At the outset of the war, there were more slave States in the union than in the Confederacy. Slave States remained in the union throughout the war. Lincoln and Grant both stated that the war was not to end slavery. In fact, Grant kept his slaves until after the passage of the 13th ammendment, citing as his reason, "Its so hard to find good help these days." The war was about economics. The main issue on this front was the protective tariff advocated by the republican party. South Carolina had threatened to secede about a dozen years earlier over what came to be called, 'the tariff of abomination.' The republicans had as their stated aim to bring back a high protectionist tariff for the benefit of the mercantilist north against the agrarian South. At the time of the outbreak of the war, the South with about 30% of the population paid over 70% of the federal taxes. This was before the higher tariff was implemented. Furthermore, this money was largely spent in the north for the benefits of their industry. Certainly the threat of taking the slaves from their owners without compensation was an economic threat as well. More importantly, the so called 'abolitionist'(read radical unitarians, humanists, and atheists) wanted to destroy slavery in the South and foment the slaves to massacre the whites in the land much the way Dessalines had done in Haiti. Men like John Brown were in closer to fitting the definition of terrorist than those we supposedly fight today. Second, slavery is not in and of itself wrong. While this is undoubtedly an enraging statement to most of you, it is true. In fact, the U.S. Constitution still does not outlaw slavery, though it does outlaw slavery as practiced in the antebellum South, chattel slavery. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment of a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Some cited that the secession of the South was not legitimate because all people were not allowed to vote. All people are not meant to be allowed to vote in a republic. In both the north and the South at that time, women were not allowed to vote. Most States required property ownership for suffrage. The secession of the South was still a move for self determination of government, the same principle as the American Revolution was fought over. Someone else stated that slaves in the South had no civil rights. This statement is patently untrue and shows the effectiveness of the brainwashing campaign of government schools in the past 130 years. Many slaves were paid. Quiet a few bought their freedom with money they saved from their pay. The Georgia Constitution of 1861, the secession constitution, contains what to my knowledge is the first statement of equal protection under the law for blacks.

[WhiskeyPapa]

In response to that, I say, so was Hitler.

Hitler was not elected.

He was a compromise selection.

Walt

[doryfunk]

I stand corrected. Hitler was not directly elected. However, the reason he was chosen by Hindenberg was because the party he led had secured the most votes. The more important point is, that just because you are elected, doesnt mean you cant do evil things including war crimes.

[Piper George]

Rush Limbaugh says that we should smile with satisfaction when opponents display their intellectual vacuity by resorting to calling names when they have no facts or valid arguments with which to rebut our statements. In this spirit, Mr. Holland owes you a grand THANK YOU to you for having thus conceded defeat.

I would also suggest that you run your postings through a grammar checker before going public with them. You used the word "their" where the word "there" was proper. Although both are correct spellings, the words are homonyms with entirely different meanings.

[Piper George]

Sir,

With all due respect for your attempt at civility, I am compelled to broaden your view of the War by a few facts to which you are apparently oblivious.

First, the vast majority of Southerners (94% as of the 1860 census) did not own slaves. To drink the Kool-Aid of the liberal media that these 94% would risk life and limb to defend the sins of the wealthy is to demonstrate extreme illogic and gullibility. This is excusable when you are in elementary school and have no experience with the deception of the media. To fail to acquire intellectual curiosity about such illogic is deplorable in an adult.

Second, Lincoln himself announced that he had no intention of interfering with slavery if he could preserve the union (read: Empire). He announced that the abolition or preservation of slavery had no influence on his pursuit of the war. He announced at his first inauguration that he had no intent to interfere with it.

Third, the Emancipation Proclamation freed absolutely no slaves. It specifically exempted the northern states and the portions of the South that were under military control of Federal forces. Lincoln himself remarked that it had absolutely no legal validity.

Fourth, Gen. Fremont, in charge of the military district of Missouri, declared all slaves in the district to be free only to have Lincoln castigate him for his pronouncement and force him to rescind his announcement. Lincoln repeated this action in the case of virtually every other Federal general who freed slaves, and he actually relieved at least one of command.

Fifth, the Federal government continued to employ slaves to build the Capitol and White House during the War. Does this seem a contradiction? Those slaves were not freed until years AFTER the War.

Sixth, General Grant allowed his wife to bring her slave into the Army camp during the War. Moreover, he is quoted as saying, "If I had any inkling that this war was being fought over slavery, I would throw down my sword and join the other side." He is also reported to have regretted the abolition of slavery and to have explained his opposition to this act with the words, "Good help is hard to find."

Seventh, (and I will stop here) when Lincoln was asked by his cabinet officers, "Why not simply let the South secede in peace?" Lincoln answered, "Where would I get the money to run the country?" You see, the South was providing at the time 85% of the Federal budget which was financed by tariffs which the north imposed on the South through the north's numerical superiority in Congress. The South, powerless to determine its own fate, had the choice of being compelled to continue with the unfair arrangement or to secede and go it on her own.

The north's inability to live under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution rendered the contract invalid. At the time, virtually everyone (on BOTH sides) knew secession to be legal. Forcing sovereign states to remain in the union at bayonet was a further violation of that contract. But the history books conveniently overlook these facts.

[ladyinred]

What's up with you people anyway?

[Piper George]

One's life does not have to be boring or unrewarding to resent an injustice that took place to one's people. If you are not aware of this, simply speak to a descendant of a Holocaust victim. That hurt will probably be remembered at least as long as the Holocaust that Sherman visited upon the defenseless citizenry of the South. It is easy to sit back and mock those whose hurts have not healed, but I wonder where you have trashed your humanity.

Although the article faults Lincoln for his actions in destroying the US Constitution by invalidating the sovereignty of the states, it is not "Anti-Lincoln." We do not want to fight the War Between the States again; we have learned that going up against the American Empire is a losing proposition. However, in the same way that Holocaust victims and their descendants will continue to broadcast the sins of Adolf Hitler and his henchmen, Southerners will continue to point out the ACTIONS of Lincoln which were contrary to the US Constitution and the Bible upon which this country was founded.

Neo-Nazis are rising again and preaching their anti-Semitism. Anti-Southernism is state policy promulgated by deceptive history books. It is sad to see conservatives so rigid in their defense of the destroyers of the US Constitution.

[ConservaChick]

This is compleat and total CRAP. What a bunch of hateful garbage. Abe Lincoln was a fine president and a fine man. All i can say is &@#!&*!@$%!!!! to this pile of manure.

[Valin]

I mean no disrespect to the South when I say that this crap is getting has got REAL tiresome.

[nicollo]

PG wrote:

Sir,
With all due respect for your attempt at civility...

You may have the wrong person. I'm not ordained by the British Crown (I'd have accepted, but the Constitution prohibits it...), and I am rarely civil.

Just in case you really meant me, here's mine, per yours, no. 94:

First, the vast majority of Southerners (94% as of the 1860 census) did not own slaves. : For all the joy expressed in the neo-con fantasy about the souther common man's will for the South, despite, regardless, irrespective, etc. of slavery, your argument is turned inside out with a simple Gallup poll of northerners c. April, 1861. "Get 'em," quoth 94% of the northern population (Baltimore, Maryland, excepted...)

Second, Lincoln himself announced that he had no intention of interfering with slavery... Fool me once, shame on me, fool you twice, shame on you. Lincoln said a lot of things. What he did is very clear. Shall we argue ghosts or shadows?

Third, the Emancipation Proclamation freed absolutely no slaves. The E.P. was a wholly constitutional act that freed the slaves in rebellion states. The 13th amendment freed the rest. Constitutional literalists find this fact inconvenient. I hate to btich at Walter Williams, but he's stupid wrong on this one.

Fourth, Gen. Fremont, in charge of the military district of Missouri... and so on to your fifth and sixth on the same topic... See no. three.

Fremont had no such authority. He liberated California from the Mexicans, though. That's worth something, even a run at the White House...

Seventh, ... You see, the South was providing at the time 85% of the Federal budget which was financed by tariffs which the north imposed on the South through the north's numerical superiority in Congress. The South, powerless to determine its own fate, had the choice of being compelled to continue with the unfair arrangement or to secede and go it on her own.

I just PUKED.

If the South paid 85% of the tariffs collected I'm moving to 'Bama, 1857. Must have been heaven, with so much money about. Aside from the lie, laws of economics make it an impossibility. The North, larger in population, industry, and consumption paid only 15% import duties? Danmed yankee smugglers.

If this were the case, secession was not the answer: cotton mills were. Go NC! (which generally didn't want to secede, including its Governor).

The argument is so specious not even anti-tariff southern Democrats in the post-war period brought it up.

As for control of the Government, please re-read the constitution. The South controlled the Senate. And the Democratic party (aka the South) ran the Government in the 1850s. They pushed through a free trade deal with Canada (did you know that?). They lowered duties generally. They ran the Supreme Court which ruled friendly to slave owners. They controlled the growth of the nation via congressional control over the territories and their brokered admittance to the Union.

Gee, what went wrong in 1861? Maybe a self-destruction of unparalled stupidity? I cry for my southern ancestors who fought so bravely, so magnificiently for the wrong reasons. I laud my northern ancestors who fought with equal honor the winning cause. I have medals earned for bravery on both sides.

The north's inability to live under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution rendered the contract invalid. At the time, virtually everyone (on BOTH sides) knew secession to be legal. Forcing sovereign states to remain in the union at bayonet was a further violation of that contract. But the history books conveniently overlook these facts.

Actually, Prof. William admitted one thing on this subject: to the victors history.

Duh.

x, Huck, WhiskeyPapa, I really wanted to do this, but now I'm just bored.

[GOPcapitalist]

Their job is to lie to the American people and cover up a true and honest account of our history in order to support the government and political system in power.

"Such is the tale; is there any possibility of making our citizens believe in it? Not in the present generation, he replied; there is no way of accomplishing this; but their sons may be made to believe in the tale, and their sons' sons, and posterity after them. I see the difficulty, I replied; yet the fostering of such a belief will make them care more for the city and for one another." - Plato, The Republic, ca. 380 B.C.