Abe lincoln freed the slaves?

I hope not, because the cotton gin actually raised demand for slaves.
I've run into these kind of ignorant statements before -- people who think the cotton gin stemmed slavery, or slowed it's growth, when it was exactly the opposite.

The worst thing that could have happened for the black population back then was the cotton gin.
 
Abe Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery but he certainly didn't want the freed slaves to remain in the United States! The Emancipation Proclamation was designed to persuade southern states to give up the war by promising them support for slavery in exchange for an agreement to let new states come in free. What Lincoln wanted was to relocate the former slaves to Liberia. He was a member of the American Colonization Society who promoted such relocation efforts.

Why Lincoln supported the 13th Amendment, not because he was so opposed to slavery, but he intended to break the will of the south, to completely demoralize them forever with a ferocity so great that no one would ever dream of secession. The south was to be punished, horribly. Ending slavery was more that freedom for slaves, but a method to completely end the way of southern life. In accordance with this idea of total war, he ordered William Tecumseh Sherman to march from Atlanta to the port of Savannah Georgia destroying everything in between starting with the burning of Atlanta. Everyone found was killed. Women, children and former slaves were killed. Waterways and wells were poisoned, crops burned in the fields, livestock killed. All structures, homes, barns, factories, all burned in Sherman's march to the sea. This is total war where nothing survives. It's war the way it is currently waged in Africa.

Lincoln was not a nice man, or even a good man. He waged his war for money, so the northern mills could depress the price of cotton.
 
The cotton gin alone freed hundreds of slaves.
Huh?

You serious?

Absolutely. Before the invention of the cotton gin, hundreds of slaves were necessary to pick through the cotton bolls to remove debris, weevils, seeds anything that polluted the cotton. This work was done by mostly women and children.

Did you think the term Picking Cotton referred to the harvest? No. Picking cotton was cleaning the cotton. Once the cotton gin was invented it separated the fibers from the smallest seed and preserved the seed for replanting. It did so quite quickly. Dozens of slaves who did pick cotton could be replaced by the cotton gin and one operator.

This left a lot of useless slaves that still had to be supported, fed, housed, cared for. Since everyone had a cotton gin, the only thing that could be done with the slaves was to free them. There was no market for cotton picking slaves anymore.

Slavery was over, it was only a matter of time before the machinery of the industrial revolution replaced slave labor. Compared to the purchase price of a machine, the endless upkeep of a slave was just too expensive.
 
Read
here's a nice piece.

the intentional libertarian said:
the evil lincoln
this article was originally published at opednews.com on february 15, 2009

with abraham lincoln’s birthday just passed on february 12th the media was replete with praise for him. Unfortunately, this whitewashed view of him is misguided. Rather than being the honest and resolute knight in shining armor that he is made out to be, on closer inspection he turns out to be one of the worst politicians illinois has produced.

lincoln the racist

on this subject his own words condemn him. During the lincoln-douglas debates in ottowa, illinois on august 21, 1858 he said:


I have no disposition to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together on terms of respect, social and political equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there should be a superiority somewhere, i, as well as judge douglas, am in favor of the race to which i belong having the superior position;

he repeated the same idea at charleston, illinois on september 18, 1858:


I will say then, that i am not nor have ever 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 have i ever been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people...there must be the position of superior and inferior, that i as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.

His idea of what to do with freed blacks was to have them leave the us. He stated so very plainly on august 14, 1862 in "address on colonization to a committee of colored men, washington, d.c."

he was obviously no friend of the black race.

lincoln the corporatist

much is made of a false quote, which i will not repeat here, in which lincoln warns of the dangers corporations pose to the country. Our friends at snopes debunk it.

Lincoln was the illinois central railroad company’s lawyer right up to his taking office as president. His whole career in politics revolved around serving the northern industrialists' and bankers’ interests. From the beginning of his time in the illinois legislature he lined the railroad companies pockets with taxpayer money. The details can be read here and here.

Lincoln the mass murderer

the question then comes up of why did lincoln wage the civil war? It wasn’t to end slavery, he said so himself, "if i could save the union without freeing any slave i would do it, and if i could save it by freeing all the slaves i would do it; and if i could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone i would also do that...". So, he wanted to preserve the union. To many that may seem a lofty goal, but is it?

A clause allowing the use of force against states by the federal government was deliberately left out of the constitution. At the constitutional convention james madison opposed it:


Mr. Madison, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. -a union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. A state, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse [fn12] unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. Con.

Since the constitution doesn’t prohibit the states from seceding and it also doesn’t empower the federal government to stop them from doing so, it would seem that given the 10th amendment states can secede.

Secession was not unheard of in lincoln’s time. There had already been secessionist movements in new england and the mid-atlantic states. They considered that they had such a right. So why not the south?

Ultimately, lincoln waged the civil war to keep the south as a captive market and as taxpayers to loot. The north’s intentions were obvious starting with the 1828 "tariff of abominations". That and lincoln’s history of subsidizing his corporate buddies with taxpayer money gave the south every reason to fear being ravaged by the new republican administration.

Slavery was an issue too, of course. While lincoln was no abolitionist, the south no doubt saw a threat to that horrible institution in the stronger federal government that the republicans promised. So while ending slavery was a great thing the loss of one million lives to do so was unnecessary. Slavery was everywhere in retreat, and with few exceptions peacefully so. All of the northern states had abolished slavery by 1858. Most other countries ended the practice peacefully. There is every reason to think that slavery could have been completely ended here peacefully too.

That is why the title of this section is lincoln the mass murderer. He got all those people killed to stop the south from doing what they had a right to do, secede from the union. He was not interested in ending slavery as the mythology about him says.

It is important to understand the true meaning of lincoln’s presidency. He marked the end of the republic of the founders. After the civil war no longer was "the consent of the governed", to quote the declaration of independence, necessary. As the abolitionist lysander spooner put it in 1867 in no treason:


The principle, on which the war was waged by the north, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.

Let’s remember lincoln for what he really did, destroy the republic and one million lives in the process.
 
The cotton gin alone freed hundreds of slaves.
Huh?

You serious?

Absolutely. Before the invention of the cotton gin, hundreds of slaves were necessary to pick through the cotton bolls to remove debris, weevils, seeds anything that polluted the cotton. This work was done by mostly women and children.

Did you think the term Picking Cotton referred to the harvest? No. Picking cotton was cleaning the cotton. Once the cotton gin was invented it separated the fibers from the smallest seed and preserved the seed for replanting. It did so quite quickly. Dozens of slaves who did pick cotton could be replaced by the cotton gin and one operator.

This left a lot of useless slaves that still had to be supported, fed, housed, cared for. Since everyone had a cotton gin, the only thing that could be done with the slaves was to free them. There was no market for cotton picking slaves anymore.

Slavery was over, it was only a matter of time before the machinery of the industrial revolution replaced slave labor. Compared to the purchase price of a machine, the endless upkeep of a slave was just too expensive.
Wow Where in the hell do you read YOUR history?

The cotton gin made life 1000X worse for slaves.

Read up, slow one:


Slavery spread from the seaboard to some of the new western territories and states as new cotton fields were planted, and by 1830 it thrived in more than half the continent. Within 10 years after the cotton gin was put into use, the value of the total United States crop leaped from $150,000 to more than $8 million. This success of this plantation crop made it much more difficult for slaves to purchase their freedom or obtain it through the good will of their masters. Cotton became the foundation for the developing textile industry in New England, spurring the industrial revolution which transformed America in the 19th century.

[FONT=HELVETICA, ARIAL]Progress has different meanings for different people. And for people of African descent, the cotton gin was not progress. It was a further entrenchment of enslavement. And for African Americans, the Industrial Revolution, those technological advances in the textile industry, did not mean progress. It meant slavery.[/FONT] [FONT=HELVETICA, ARIAL][SIZE=-1] - Margaret Washington, historian[/SIZE][/FONT]


From 1790 to 1810, close to 100,000 slaves moved to the new cotton lands to the south and west. From 1810 until the Civil War, 100,000 slaves were forced westward each decade -- a half million in total. As cotton cultivation spread, slaveholders in the tobacco belt, whose crop was no longer profitable, made huge profits by selling their slaves. This domestic slave trade devastated black families. American-born slaves were torn from the plantations they had known all their lives, placed in shackles and force-marched hundreds of miles away from their loved ones. Africans in America| Part 3 | Narrative: Growth and Entrenchment of Slavery
 
I hope not, because the cotton gin actually raised demand for slaves.

It raised the demand for some aspects of slavery, because more slaves were necessary to grow and harvest cotton. There was no market at all for the weak who were just freed if they couldn't be sold.

One of the most henious aspects of slavery was that it split up families, wives and children were sold off or sent away. Why? Because the strong were necessary for the fields. The weak and women not needed for the household were eliminated.
 
Facts about Abe Lincoln and Slavery

There is a good reason why the Lincoln legend has taken on such mythical proportions: Much of what Americans think they know about Abraham Lincoln is in fact a myth. Let's consider a few of the more prominent ones.

Myth #1: Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. Ending slavery and racial injustice is not why the North invaded. As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it"

Congress announced to the world on July 22, 1861, that the purpose of the war was not "interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states" (i.e., slavery), but to preserve the Union "with the rights of the several states unimpaired." At the time of Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) only the seven states of the deep South had seceded. There were more slaves in the Union than out of it, and Lincoln had no plans to free any of them.

The North invaded to regain lost federal tax revenue by keeping the Union intact by force of arms. In his First Inaugural Lincoln promised to invade any state that failed to collect "the duties and imposts," and he kept his promise. On April 19, 1861, the reason Lincoln gave for his naval blockade of the Southern ports was that "the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed" in the states that had seceded.

Myth #2: Lincoln's war saved the Union. The war may have saved the Union geographically, but it destroyed it philosophically by destroying its voluntary nature. In the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, the states described themselves as "free and independent." They delegated certain powers to the federal government they had created as their agent but retained sovereignty for themselves.

This was widely understood in the North as well as the South in 1861. As the Brooklyn Daily Eagle editorialized on Nov. 13, 1860, the Union "depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone." The New York Journal of Commerce concurred, writing on Jan. 12, 1861, that a coerced Union changes the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves." The majority of Northern newspapers agreed.

The rest of this article can be read at:Let's put myths to rest
 
Spielberg's Lincoln is a Fantasy

Lincoln’s Greatest Failure
(Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)


"Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."

Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007

The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).

In fact, as Bennett shows, it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years. The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielberg’s Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarist’s Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").

The theme of the Spielberg movie is the subtitle of Goodwin’s book: "The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln." Nothing gets a leftist’s legs tingling more than someone who is very, very good at the methods of political theft, plunder, subterfuge, and bullying. Goodwin the court historian has devoted her life to writing hagiographies of the worst of the worst political bullies – FDR, Lyndon Johnson, the Kennedys, and Lincoln. (It was her book on the Kennedys that got her in trouble and forced her to admit plagiarizing dozens of paragraphs, and paying a six-figure sum to the victim of her plagiarism. That got her kicked off the Pulitzer prize committee and PBS, but only for a very short while).

Lincoln’s "political genius" is grossly overblown in Goodwin’s book. In addition the book, like virtually all other books on the subject, completely misses the point. If Lincoln was such a political genius, he should have used his "genius" to end slavery in the way the British, French, Spaniards, Dutch, Danes, Swedes, and all the Northern states in the U.S. did in the nineteenth century, namely, peacefully.

Rest of this article can be read at:Lincoln’s Greatest Failure by Thomas DiLorenzo
 
Thomas DiLorenzo is wonderful. His book "The Real Lincoln" is an eye opener.

Problem is nearly all Americans have been brainwashed by the liberal p-schools into believing lies about the foolish tyrant Lincoln. When you inform uninformed people of the truth about Lincoln, they look at you like you are a radical kook. I did this recently with my own brother, who gave me that look.

It is so sad that most Americans are completely brainwashed about not only Lincoln, but much of our history. And it is all thanks the libs who control academia from top to bottom and do all they can to promote statism.
 
Last edited:
Lincoln wanted to round up all the blacks and send them to Liberia. He was a member of the American Colonization Society.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top