Posted on 04/13/2017 6:58:51 PM PDT by brucedickinson
Pittman replied, "And if Hitler had won, should the world just get over it? Lincoln was the same sort of tyrant, and personally responsible for the deaths of over 800,000 Americans in a war that was unnecessary and unconstitutional." Pittman did not respond to request for comment from TIME to clarify his remarks.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
If the North Carolina GOP had any b@lls, they would expel this neo-confederate douchebag from the party of Lincoln. If he dislikes the first Republican president so much, he can join the party of Jefferson Davis. Good luck getting elected under their party label.
“Also, the South wanted the slaves.”
If the South was fighting FOR slavery in the war, who was fighting against slavery?
It was never about politics AFAIC.
It was about invasion. Like islamists in Israel, to put it in terms you may, or may not get.
It’s all semantics...
I was trying to find the short-snippet that is often tossed on the internet to show that running for election, during the Lincoln-Douglass debates, the Lincoln quote showing him to be a racist, and therefore assuming he was not against slavery.
In finding the entire speech - the snippet doesn’t provide the complete (complex) views. Lincoln was a racist. But he was against slavery. (He also had a decent sense of humor.)
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-lincoln-douglas-debates-4th-debate-part-i/
Excerpt of Lincoln speaking:
“....and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing.
I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes.”
Really read that Declaration sometime.
The civil war was about slavery just like all the middle east conflicts are about human rights. If anyone actually thinks that, they’re extremely naive.
I’m Albertan, but even here in western Canada we know that war was about centralizing power, and the beginning of the globalists plan in the USA.
It’s a bit more in depth, but you’re right on the money.
Slavery was used to garner public support.
I once heard someone argue - it wasn’t really a “Civil War.”
A Civil War is a struggle for control of the government of a country. The South had no interest in controlling the government of the USA. They simply wanted out.
As such, it was a suppression of an independence movement, or simply a war of conquest.
London issued two emancipation proclamations during the American war of independence- Dunmore’s and Philipsburg. Seeing as slavery would have ended 90 years earlier had the rebellion been put down and the secession of the colonies prevented, can we conclude that you think the wrong side won?
Little too much time in video hollyweird land. Simplistic syllogism. Wilson was a Progressive democrat. Check out Jesse Helms and see how he compares to Byrd of WV. Pay attention particularly to policy. Then explain what will happen to your assumptions when the Convention of States takes back the Constitutional power of the States, and gets the government closer to the People, and away from the federal tyrants.
It's always entertaining to introduce the "Proclamation of Rebellion" which echoes so much of the reasoning and rhetoric of the Lincoln administration- it is of course the 1775 message by King George to Parliament, urging them to put a quick end to the traitorous rebels seeking to secede from the Empire.
Yes. And to what end?
I dont know if there would have been reason to leave Italy in the early 1900s if there had been two countries.
And as far as I’m concerned, the southern states are by far the more patriotic and American (though out Italian enclave is very conservative up here).
But I see wasted lives. So many.
And the South, if not for lower numbers of men, and less industrial output, would have crushed the north.
Ah, you’re getting your revenge with Trump :) And making LIBERAL states want to secede.
And even if Trump only got 42 percent in NY, that’s a LOT of people that think like you guys do!!
And the way liberals fight, we could beat the other 58 percent in a war :)
I’m so depressed.
Thank you.
I’m a confederate WOP who just lives where my grandparents and father landed :)
I appreciate your opinion. Getting all kinds of opinions.
Ah, i’m not that smart. Weight the opinions of others more ;)
“The Civil War was primarily about slavery, no matter what the revisionists say.”
Fricking yankees. Didn’t understand squat then; don’t understand squat now.
BTW, rewriting history to make it seem that the war was primarily about slavery was the first instance of revisionism. What you think of as “revisionism” is just the effort to set the record straight.
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.