- Joined
- Jun 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,441
- Reaction score
- 349
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?
Lincoln was an American version of Pol Pot; he deliberately launched an illegal war and ordered the murders of hundreds of thousands of Americans and native Americans as well, and his appointed butchers went on to butcher thousands of native Americans after the war as well, as a favor to railroad and mining interests and their financial backers. The Civil War wasn't abou slavery, that's just self-serving gibberish by northern apologists. Given how laborers were treated by northern businesses, it's a distinction without a difference, except slaves were a little better off than white labor in the north was, as they could at least grow their own food and had some shelter year round, even during depressions.
It's blatantly obvious what Lincoln and the northern financial interests were fighting for; it's in the Congressional Record and the first bills they pushed through. Whether or not the South was 'good' or 'bad' had nothing to do with why Lincoln started the war; it was about massive subsidies for railroads and high protective tariffs for northern manufacturers and financial interests, and giving away huge blocks of Federal land free to railroads to further their businesses. As for 'slavery' being an issue, that was only for propaganda, and as meaningless as Jefferson's famous 'anti-slavery' tract, which was written only for a political reason at the time he wrote it. It had no effect on his own personal financial interests in slaves. Nothing politicians from any era say can be taken at face value; 'follow the money' applies in nearly all cases.
Jefferson was a man of many dimensions, and any explanation of his behavior must contain a myriad of seeming contradictions. He was a sincere and dedicated foe of the slave trade who bought and sold men whenever he found it personally necessary. He believed that all men were entitled to life and liberty regardless of their abilities, yet he tracked down those slaves who had the courage to take their rights by running away. He believed that slavery was morally and politically wrong, but still he wrote a slave code for his state and opposed a national attempt in 1819 to limit the further expansion of the institution. He believed that one hour of slavery was worse than ages of British oppression, yet he was able to discuss the matter of slave breeding in much the same terms that one would use when speaking of the propagation of dogs and horses.
William Cohen, Thomas Jefferson and the Problem of Slavery
If Jefferson was a liar and hypocrite, why the sudden faith in a sociopath like Lincoln, a railroad lawyer and one of the authors of the Black Codes for his state of Illinois? How many freed southern blacks fled north, or were even allowed to?
He was, once the nation was united.
Lincoln was a zero sum person. All or nothing.
The fact that he was the only president to wage war on his own people may give some, like me, to pause on his place in history. None of that is taught in school.
Lincoln was an American version of Pol Pot; he deliberately launched an illegal war and ordered the murders of hundreds of thousands of Americans and native Americans as well, and his appointed butchers went on to butcher thousands of native Americans after the war as well, as a favor to railroad and mining interests and their financial backers. The Civil War wasn't abou slavery, that's just self-serving gibberish by northern apologists. Given how laborers were treated by northern businesses, it's a distinction without a difference, except slaves were a little better off than white labor in the north was, as they could at least grow their own food and had some shelter year round, even during depressions.
It's blatantly obvious what Lincoln and the northern financial interests were fighting for; it's in the Congressional Record and the first bills they pushed through. Whether or not the South was 'good' or 'bad' had nothing to do with why Lincoln started the war; it was about massive subsidies for railroads and high protective tariffs for northern manufacturers and financial interests, and giving away huge blocks of Federal land free to railroads to further their businesses. As for 'slavery' being an issue, that was only for propaganda, and as meaningless as Jefferson's famous 'anti-slavery' tract, which was written only for a political reason at the time he wrote it. It had no effect on his own personal financial interests in slaves. Nothing politicians from any era say can be taken at face value; 'follow the money' applies in nearly all cases.
Jefferson was a man of many dimensions, and any explanation of his behavior must contain a myriad of seeming contradictions. He was a sincere and dedicated foe of the slave trade who bought and sold men whenever he found it personally necessary. He believed that all men were entitled to life and liberty regardless of their abilities, yet he tracked down those slaves who had the courage to take their rights by running away. He believed that slavery was morally and politically wrong, but still he wrote a slave code for his state and opposed a national attempt in 1819 to limit the further expansion of the institution. He believed that one hour of slavery was worse than ages of British oppression, yet he was able to discuss the matter of slave breeding in much the same terms that one would use when speaking of the propagation of dogs and horses.
William Cohen, Thomas Jefferson and the Problem of Slavery
If Jefferson was a liar and hypocrite, why the sudden faith in a sociopath like Lincoln, a railroad lawyer and one of the authors of the Black Codes for his state of Illinois? How many freed southern blacks fled north, or were even allowed to?
Last edited: