Abraham Lincoln's Socialist Affirmative Action Generals

Seymour Flops

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2021
13,560
10,867
2,138
Texas
In a nutshell, Lincoln promoted Franz Sigel, a former German officer who turned on his country to fight in the socialist insurrections sweeping Europe at the time. When that failed miserably, many of the miserable failures immigrated to America. Sigel, along with many other of his fellow immigrants, joined the Union Army for the Civil War. German-Americans were a large minority in the United States and Lincoln sought them out to promote them to senior positions as a recruiting tool for this group.

As could be expected, this Affirmative Action hire was a skilled self-promoter, but a disaster as a military leader. Reading descriptions of his battles, the words "conspicuous failure" occur with regularity. His forces were late to the Battle of Cedar Mountain. He claimed he never got orders to join it, though he was camped in hearing distance of the battle. His Civil War service was a series of disasters, followed by resignations, followed by political reinstatements.

At the Battle of New market, Sigel's men were forced into a disastrous retreat by teenage cadets from the nearby Virginia Military Institute.


The strange thing is that Germans have long had a reputation for efficiency, and military service. Had Germans been selected on the basis of merit and not the identity politics of the day, many of them would likely have been outstanding leaders. But the Affirmative Action hires took up the limited spots at the top.
 
In a nutshell, Lincoln promoted Franz Sigel, a former German officer who turned on his country to fight in the socialist insurrections sweeping Europe at the time. When that failed miserably, many of the miserable failures immigrated to America. Sigel, along with many other of his fellow immigrants, joined the Union Army for the Civil War. German-Americans were a large minority in the United States and Lincoln sought them out to promote them to senior positions as a recruiting tool for this group.
The South Had Slavery; the North Had Sweatshops. The North Had No Moral Superiority.

The European revolutions of 1848 terrified our Scrooge plutocracy, which, like they do now, cared more about their foreign class-allies than about their own nation. Typically Republican, Lincoln started the Civil War in order to kill off or take the fight out of the bravest of working-class Americans before they could get ideas about higher wages.

One Abolitionist leader, whose sister wrote the WOKE Uncle Tom's Cabin, said this about the White working class, "Anyone who can't live on bread and water doesn't deserve to live."
 
The South Had Slavery; the North Had Sweatshops. The North Had No Moral Superiority.

Well, other than those in the North were not property, and could quit or leave at any time they wanted.

Nobody was whipping, branding, or hanging them if they did not like their job and quit. And nobody at a Northern factory was selling the wife and children of their workers to a factory 50 miles away.
 
The South Had Slavery; the North Had Sweatshops. The North Had No Moral Superiority.

The European revolutions of 1848 terrified our Scrooge plutocracy, which, like they do now, cared more about their foreign class-allies than about their own nation. Typically Republican, Lincoln started the Civil War in order to kill off or take the fight out of the bravest of working-class Americans before they could get ideas about higher wages.

One Abolitionist leader, whose sister wrote the WOKE Uncle Tom's Cabin, said this about the White working class, "Anyone who can't live on bread and water doesn't deserve to live."
Well, other than those in the North were not property, and could quit or leave at any time they wanted.

Nobody was whipping, branding, or hanging them if they did not like their job and quit. And nobody at a Northern factory was selling the wife and children of their workers to a factory 50 miles away.
Yes, the idea that "sweatshops" is on the same moral plane as slavery was mentioned in the mini-series "North and South," with the Southern gentleman making that argument in defense of slavery. In fact, that comparison is an absurd attack on the free market.

A much better comparison would be the condition of African-Americans before and after the Civil War. Most of them became sharecroppers on the same plantations on which they had labored as slaves. So, just as before, they worked the fields and only got a small part of the fruits of their labor. If the Democrats before the war would have been smart enough to free all the slaves, but keep them on as sharecroppers, they would have never had to suffer that humiliating defeat.

But politically, the former slaves were far better off. They had the option to look elsewhere for employment and for a few years, they had the right and ability to vote. They did not have to worry about the Democratic Party's family separation policy as mentioned by Mushroom.

Sadly, the Democrats lost the war, but won the peace by using Jim Crow laws to keep the former slaves in positions of second class citizenship, if that.
 
Yes, the idea that "sweatshops" is on the same moral plane as slavery was mentioned in the mini-series "North and South," with the Southern gentleman making that argument in defense of slavery.

Which is actually part of the "Lost Cause Myth". To any who had read the books or seen the series, that was when Orry Main visited the Hazard Iron Works. But it also must be remembered, that both of those main characters were the "Wild eyed radicals" of their era. George Hazard wanted living conditions improved, but fought his father and brother to try and accomplish that. The same with Orry Main, who saw industrialization as a way to end slavery and bring the South into the 19th century. However, in the same exchange Orry admitted that most plantations were not run as his was, and that whippings, crippling, and hangings were all too common on others. As could be seen in the LaMotte Plantation, where such happened all the time.

One of the main threads in that series was radicalism, and how it can make even good things bad, and bad things worse. Any time I see much of the excesses of extreme groups (BLM, Antifa, Proud Boys, etc), it brings to mind the segments of Abolitionists in the book-movie. Where to those people their "cause" was justification for all kinds of horrors forced upon others.

Yes, I actually do like John Jakes, and the book series was quite good. But also heavily influenced by "Birth of a Nation", which is its own problem. But JJ never claimed to write "history", just a large story based in a historical time period. But for history, it is in general not much better than a Harrold Robbins book (just with a bit less sex).
 
Lincoln was looking for foreign mercenaries when he ran short of manpower just like the South was. Sigel didn't do too well at New Market when his 10,000 man army was pitted against Breckenridge's 4,000 which included the entire VMI class of cadets.
 
Yes, the idea that "sweatshops" is on the same moral plane as slavery was mentioned in the mini-series "North and South," with the Southern gentleman making that argument in defense of slavery. In fact, that comparison is an absurd attack on the free market.

A much better comparison would be the condition of African-Americans before and after the Civil War. Most of them became sharecroppers on the same plantations on which they had labored as slaves. So, just as before, they worked the fields and only got a small part of the fruits of their labor. If the Democrats before the war would have been smart enough to free all the slaves, but keep them on as sharecroppers, they would have never had to suffer that humiliating defeat.

But politically, the former slaves were far better off. They had the option to look elsewhere for employment and for a few years, they had the right and ability to vote. They did not have to worry about the Democratic Party's family separation policy as mentioned by Mushroom.

Sadly, the Democrats lost the war, but won the peace by using Jim Crow laws to keep the former slaves in positions of second class citizenship, if that.
Two Claws of the Same Raptor

Your snobbish contempt for the White working class throughout its miserable history, plus your insulting virtue-signaling to Limousine Liberal race traitors proves, once again, that Whites who are born rich deplore and fear all other White people.

America was settled, industrialized, and fought for by people born in the White working class. For us to survive, the predatory parasites born at the top need to be toppled.
 
Lincoln was looking for foreign mercenaries when he ran short of manpower just like the South was. Sigel didn't do too well at New Market when his 10,000 man army was pitted against Breckenridge's 4,000 which included the entire VMI class of cadets.
Where Else Would Commie Leaders Get the Illusion That They Were Born to Rule?

Sigel's socialism just proves once again that such a pseudo-democratic ideology was invented by his heiristocratic class as a means to take over working-class movements and become their parasitic dictators just like the Parlor Socialists' Capitalist fathers had done.
 
I worked my way through college at UPS, the first few years loading and unloading trailers. Was that in a "sweatshop?" I sure sweated a lot.
 
I worked my way through college at UPS, the first few years loading and unloading trailers. Was that in a "sweatshop?" I sure sweated a lot.
Bootlicking Brown-Noses Aren't Brains, So They Have No Right to the Jobs the Economic Bullies Reward Them With

In other words, you bought the job you stole from self-respecting talent by slavishly submitting to class-biased inventured-servitude "education." Such an education puts inferior people in superior positions. A degree is nothing to be proud of.

The Diploma Dumbo phrase "working your way through college" logically implies that schoolwork is not work. Besides, while you were working a paid job, you took away time and energy from studying, which contributed to your defective education.
 

Forum List

Back
Top