• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?[W:39]

Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

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:
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

actually there was heavy manufacturing in the south,a correct answer would have been the south was greatly outproduced by norther industry.

Very little. The South was an agrarian society that had to import most of the material necessary for making war. And that became increasingly difficult with the northern blockade of southern ports.
 
Last edited:
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

what?...slavery was gone everywhere but Brazil and the american south??... no ... no ,it wasn't
you're ignoring a large part of Africa and most of the Middle East..... jesus dude.


I still wonder why America was the only country that had to kill off 600,000 of it's own people to end slavery, while every other country was able to end it peacefully... and furthermore, why people , supporters of the south and the north, are actually proud of that fact.
the civil war was an unnecessary abomination... it's nothing to be proud of.. it's nothing to gloat about.. it's a heinous period in our history.

in any event, Perry is a dolt... Lincoln didn't give 2 ****s about federalism... he didn't give 2 ****s about states sovereignty... he completely ignored the 10th amendment
he was on the exact right side of the slavery issue, but he took the absolute worst path imaginable in ending it.... it is fitting that he was both revered/celebrated.. and assassinated... he earned both.

Yeah, well I was referring to Europe and the Americas, not to Arabia or Africa. But I expect you knew that. Next time I'll be sure to spell it out for you.

The reason it took a war in the US was because the south adamantly refused to have any discussions about ending slavery. It was off the table as an issue for the owners and rapers of black people. They had their own little world down there and no Yankee by God was gonna tell them to get rid of their 'niggahs'.


And it's fitting that you celebrate the murder of an American President by a southern slavery lover. Way to go.
 
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

that's true.... along with the lack of railroads and new technologies such as the telegraph.
its' hard to fight when you primary industries are all agriculture related.

the south, to this day, lacks in infrastructure compared to the north... most likely due to decades and decades of being "punished" over the civil war.

Punished over the Civil War. Surely you jest. Punishment would have been freeing the slaves and then reducing the confederate states to territories. It should have been done but unfortunately wasn't, which resulted in 100 years of Jim Crow and incredible arrogance on the part of Southerners which continues to this day.
 
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

No, the south did not try to destroy anything. Only keep what it had.

What it had that it wanted to keep was the right of wealthy white landowners to enslave Africans. I am from the South, I love the South. I sound like I am from the South. I am as Southern as you can get. Hell I got family with confederate memorials dedicated to them. However, this notion that there was anything even remotely noble in the Southern cause at the time of the Civil War is ridiculous. The South seceded from the United States in an attempt to preserve what was one of the most evil and immoral system man has ever devised.
 
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

I see you are pretending the Civil war would have happened-- ceteris paribus-- if slavery had never existed in the USA.

It's rather true slavery was not the only reason. Perhaps you should try opening a book at some point, I'd suggest “The Union War,” By Gary Gallagher.

While most historians today stress that slavery was the primary reason, it was certainly not the ONLY reason and in Gallaghers case he argues slavery wasn't even primary but secondary to preserving the union and democracy within one country.
 
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

Yeah, well I was referring to Europe and the Americas, not to Arabia or Africa. But I expect you knew that. Next time I'll be sure to spell it out for you.

you said "everywhere".. how the hell i am supposed ot know you didn't mean everywhere?

The reason it took a war in the US was because the south adamantly refused to have any discussions about ending slavery. It was off the table as an issue for the owners and rapers of black people. They had their own little world down there and no Yankee by God was gonna tell them to get rid of their 'niggahs'.
you can make up all the excuses you want... it didn't have to come to war.....defending the civil war is atrocious, you oughta be ashamed of yourself.


And it's fitting that you celebrate the murder of an American President by a southern slavery lover. Way to go.
celebrate isn't the correct word... I merely accept it as fitting.
but please, you are sitting here celebrating the killing of 600,000 of our countrymen.. don't whine over 1 President who made it happen.
 
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

Punished over the Civil War. Surely you jest. Punishment would have been freeing the slaves and then reducing the confederate states to territories. It should have been done but unfortunately wasn't, which resulted in 100 years of Jim Crow and incredible arrogance on the part of Southerners which continues to this day.

I don't jest.... you just don't understand our history.
 
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?

Yeah.. you might want to check your history.

First.. the South left the union... before Lincoln even was inaugurated. Before he even had the opportunity to do a thing. And simply because the south didn't get its way in the election. And why did they leave the union? Because of the issue of slavery.. its in their Articles of Secession.

So just about everything you stated was pure bunk... except for follow the money. You are right. Follow the money... rich slave owners were making bank off the slave labor on their plantations.. and not only did they make money.. they also held tremendous power over Congress because slaves counted as 3/5 of a person yet had no right to vote. Which gave the south an advantage in the house and in the presidential election (what was referred to as "slave power)..

And claiming that :
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.

That claim is so far off base...untitled.jpg
 
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

Yeah.. you might want to check your history.

I have, in detail.

First.. the South left the union... before Lincoln even was inaugurated.

They left after the election, and only one state had left by Christimas. Lincoln's noise making started a stampede of states seceding, in January, followed by several more by April. They already knew exactly what his policies were going to be.

Before he even had the opportunity to do a thing.

Actually he started doing quite a bit; as President Elect, he had more influence than any other Republican, and he started using it.

And simply because the south didn't get its way in the election. And why did they leave the union? Because of the issue of slavery.. its in their Articles of Secession.

So what? They had a right to secede, whether you personaly liked it or not. Lincoln rejected any compromises offered in the months before his inaugeration, from either the southern leaders trying to compromise or his own Party; only one person, his Postmaster General appointee, supported the Sumter provocation and going to war.

So just about everything you stated was pure bunk...

It's pure fact; that's what the historical record shows; by January newspapers in the North and the South were reporting about 'the mask coming off' and the tariffs. In January, when a few more states joined Carolina, the first convention was held. The key provisions that provoked most of the northern politicians to start lining up behind Lincoln were the South's setting fr lower tariffs, and shipping directly to and from England and Europe, cutting out the NewYork and northern coastal shipping monopolies; New York City, which was previously going to join the South in seceding, suddenly changed it's mind after hearing of the plans to bypass them.

The far lower tariffs by foreign traders shipping to the southern ports would have left northern importers and businesses at a serious disadvantage not only on the Atlantic but the South American trade and the Mississippi river and tributaries' trade as well via New Orleans. That is what spurred on the Lincoln suppport, not anything to do with some outburst of morality and concern for the plight of black folks; that myth is a large load of nonsense and pure bunk. Nobody cliams the southerners were angels; that's all in your head. The truth is like telling you there was no Santa Claus when you were a kid, which is why you and most of the other clueless types hate it when it turns out to be merely another fight over money and the morality myth is blown up.

Whether anybody likes it or not secession wasn't illegal, on Contitutional grounds or moral grounds either. All 'preserving the Union' meant to Lincoln and his corporate owners was looting the South for their own financial benefit. After the war was over it became even more obvious that was the only reason for launching a war on the South.
 
Last edited:
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

I don't jest.... you just don't understand our history.

Indeed. Glossing over the horrendous corruption and criminal activities of Reconstruction that gauranteed a lasting hatred for both the North and black people is par for the course with the Lincoln Myth.
 
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

No, the south did not try to destroy anything. Only keep what it had.

The south was destroying the union. That's what secession was all about. What they had was an agrarian land tenure system akin to baronies wherein the land baron wielded control in affairs of local government.
 
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

The south was destroying the union. That's what secession was all about. What they had was an agrarian land tenure system akin to baronies wherein the land baron wielded control in affairs of local government.
Yea, we really fixed that. Land owners have still had sway over local politics. To this day.
 
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

Yea, we really fixed that. Land owners have still had sway over local politics. To this day.

We retain our federal government and the union of states however don't we.
 
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

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.

Oh yes, the Southern victimization front all over again. What a tired, sad song they sing. It hasn't stopped since the late 18th century. Give it a bloody rest.

They also don't teach students that Southerners have been nothing but a collection of whining hypocrites about this antebellum state's rights nonsense. The South has always loved to talk a good game about State's rights, but all it wanted was to uphold the slavery regime at all costs, including the State sovereignty of the North. It would even try to influence the operation of the Federal government (and sometimes succeed) if it could help it. Do school children get to learn about that? Nope. Do Southerners get to continue to invoke their idiotic worship of "small government" despite this 200 plus year hypocrisy? Yes. When William Buckley called out Wallace for being a hypocrite to his face about his supposed conservatism, he purposefully remarked about the Southern tradition of being big government for everything except anything dealing with the colored people.

Perhaps that is because they have to please them because of the textbook market, eh?
 
Last edited:
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

Oh yes, the Southern victimization front all over again. What a tired, sad song they sing. It hasn't stopped since the late 18th century. Give it a bloody rest.

They also don't teach students that Southerners have been nothing but a collection of whining hypocrites about this antebellum state's rights nonsense. The South has always loved to talk a good game about State's rights, but all it wanted was to uphold the slavery regime at all costs, including the State sovereignty of the North. It would even try to influence the operation of the Federal government (and sometimes succeed) if it could help it. Do school children get to learn about that? Nope. Do Southerners get to continue to invoke their idiotic worship of "small government" despite this 200 plus year hypocrisy? Yes. When William Buckley called out Wallace for being a hypocrite to his face about his supposed conservatism, he purposefully remarked about the Southern tradition of being big government for everything except anything dealing with the colored people.

Perhaps that is because they have to please them because of the textbook market, eh?
I quit reading at victimization. I am no victim, just see clearly what history taught us. But the OP is right, BO would would be a modern Lincoln if he could.
 
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

Indeed. Glossing over the horrendous corruption and criminal activities of Reconstruction that gauranteed a lasting hatred for both the North and black people is par for the course with the Lincoln Myth.

Gee - so sad about reconstruction. The main problem with reconstruction is that it didn't go on nearly long enough. The ignorant and vengeful southerners were allowed to go on with their KKK and Jim Crow laws for a hundred years after the Civil War, and it was only US Courts and federal intervention that eventually got rid of those Nazi-like creations.
 
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

I quit reading at victimization. I am no victim, just see clearly what history taught us. But the OP is right, BO would would be a modern Lincoln if he could.

No, you are an apologist for the racist south and slavery. Being that, I can see why you are such a Lincoln hater and such a defender of the indefensible.
 
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

The south was destroying the union. That's what secession was all about. What they had was an agrarian land tenure system akin to baronies wherein the land baron wielded control in affairs of local government.

The southern 'aristocracy' saw themselves as the patrician class - sort of like the landed gentry in England. It's why they loved slavery so much.
 
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

You gotta love these unreconstructed Southerners. In their small little world, the Civil War was about anything except slavery. The North fought to preserve the Union. The South fought to preserve slavery.

So i guess the north fought to preserve racism then

Abraham Lincoln said:
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; 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 in as much 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.*
 
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

I agree with your post.
A small minority of southerners actually owned slaves, I think.
I'm wondering what sort of media spin those super rich plantation owners used to get the non-slave owning southerners to secede.

I've heard tale that it was the southern women that made the men fight.
 
Re: Idiot Perry claims Lincoln was a strong states' rights proponent- 2016 DOA?

I've heard tale that it was the southern women that made the men fight.
Dadgum wimmenfolk......they're always to blame.;)
 
Rick Perry Apparently Serious About Trying To Be President Again | Wonkette
Rick Perry




:lol::lol::lol:

Guess the glasses aren't helping much with actual learning.
Did he forget that this was "the war of yankee aggression"?

He sure knows how to build a strong economy which is allot more than I can say for your President.

If Perry is a " idiot ", whats that make Obama, or Jerry Brown, or any other Leftist politician who's driven their State or Nation into poverty ?
 
Back
Top Bottom