Steven Spielberg's movie about Lincoln is pure bullshit !!!!!!!

[bripat9643]

Wars would have extended throughout North America because of it, from Mexico and the Caribbean to Canada.

Yeah sure....yet somehow the entire western world, including the huge British empire, eliminated slavery without bloodshed....strange???

The Lincoln Myth is strong among the feeble minded.

Then the confederates states shouldnt have started a war....

They didn't. Lincoln started the war.

 

[Dr Grump]

bripat has far more in common with Htiler and this thugs than he does with American and its values.

What do I have in common with Hitler?

1) Full of yourself
2) Never admit you are wrong
3) Think you are more knowledgeable than you are
4) Arrogant
5) Gets angry easily

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah sure....yet somehow the entire western world, including the huge British empire, eliminated slavery without bloodshed....strange???

The Lincoln Myth is strong among the feeble minded.

Then the confederates states shouldnt have started a war....

They didn't. Lincoln started the war.

No he didn't.

 

[paperview]

...

Lincoln started the war to force the Southern States to collect the Morrill tariff.

Pile 'O bull crap. The first shots were fired before Lincoln even stepped into the office.

That's wrong. Fort Sumter occurred after Lincoln was inaugurated. Furthermore, Lincoln committed the first act of war by trying to resupply Fort Sumter. Who fired the first shots is irrelevant.

I'll repeat this as many times as it takes to sink in with some of the slow learners.

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.

THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures w ill enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ; whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid

succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea. The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island.
​

They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. An ACT OF WAR.

 

[thanatos144]

Actually, most of them just didn't want to go.

And they weren't "stolen" from anywhere. Clue yourself into the REAL history of the slave trade. The people who were brought here from Africa were slaves THERE, and were sold to the slave traders, not "stolen". Furthermore, by the time of the War Between the States, the import of slaves had been illegalized, and the slaves in question were born in THIS country, which is one reason they didn't want to leave.

I am sorry but I don't make excuses for slavers

So now being truthful and accurate is "making excuses"?

Yes. Cause they didn't have to buy the slaves did they? Supply and demand. So yes they were stolen from their country cause they didnt volunteer for slavery.

 

[thanatos144]

For all of you progressive Abe Lincoln idol worshippers, was it worth over half a million dead to keep the South?

And if it was worth the cost, what if slavery had not been an issue? Would it have still been worth the cost?

Then the confederate states shouldnt have started the war....

 

[thanatos144]

For all of you progressive Abe Lincoln idol worshippers, was it worth over half a million dead to keep the South?

And if it was worth the cost, what if slavery had not been an issue? Would it have still been worth the cost?

Slavery WAS the issue

Was allowing "the peculiar institution" of the South a workable alternative? Just allowing the South to walk away and maintain their slave status would have destroyed us.
The South engaged in treason and paid a price for it

It would have "destroyed us"? How so? Would over half a million have perished?

Slavery would have eventually been erradicated, just like with apartide in South Africa. No shots needed to be fired. In fact, with the coming industrial revolution, slavery would have assuradly gone away on its own.

It was eradicated......The south started a war and the north won it. You neo confederates need to stop thinking the confederates were the good guys cause they weren't.

 

[thanatos144]

the republican party of the 1800's is not the republican party of today. the democrats of that time, the slavers, the states' rights extremists... the people who fought to keep slavery are all incorporated into today's GOP... they ran to the GOP after the civil rights' act.

All I can say is "wow".

OK, now for a little history lesson. You did not say which Civil Rights Act, so lets go through them, starting in 1968 and going backwards, shall we?

Civil Rights Act of 1968, 71.2% of Senate Democrats voted for this legislation, 90.6% of Republicans voted for it.

Voting Rights Act of 1965, 73% of Senate Democrats favored this legislation, and 78% of House Democrats. Of the Republicans, 94% of Republican Senators and 82% of House Republicans approved this one.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 69% of Senate Democrats and 61% of House Democrats approved this legislation. Meanwhile, 82% of Republican Senators and 80% of House Republicans approved this law.

Shall we continue playing? The votes are a matter of public record, and easy to look up. Funny how you are making claims that are the exact opposite of history.

Feel free to look it up, see for yourself which party had a higher percentage of approving votes. This is why I tell people over and over to not just parrot things they hear from others, but to do real research themselves and find out what happened.

1964 called. They wanted to let you know 50 years ago

is not today.

Hey look up how the democrat Hero John F. Kennedy voted on the civil rights bills.....

 

[thanatos144]

Yeah sure....yet somehow the entire western world, including the huge British empire, eliminated slavery without bloodshed....strange???

The Lincoln Myth is strong among the feeble minded.

Then the confederates states shouldnt have started a war....

They didn't. Lincoln started the war.

No he didnt. The confederates attacked a union base consistently. That was what started the war.

 

[gipper]

The indoctrination Americans suffer in government schools prevents many from thinking. Belief in the Lincoln Myth is a perfect example.

Failure to recognize tyranny is as bad as promoting it.

Legends die hard. They survive as truth rarely does.
~ Helen Hayes

The first such legend is Lincoln’s war, commonly (and inaccurately) referred to as the Civil War. One legend holds that Lincoln fought to free the slaves and give them equality. While it is certainly true that the war ended slavery in the United States, this was not Lincoln’s objective: the truth is that Lincoln didn’t care one bit about the slaves, other than proposing to send them back to Africa.

Another legend from this war was that Lincoln fought it to preserve the union. Of course, Lincoln did not preserve the union, but instead transformed it into that which opponents of the Constitution most feared – from a confederacy of states with a limited central government to an all-powerful central government to which state government would become increasingly subservient.

Did you know that Lincoln . . .

• did NOT save the union? In fact, Lincoln did more than any other individual to destroy the voluntary union the Founding Fathers recognized.

• did NOT want to free the slaves? Lincoln, who did not believe in equality of the races, wanted the Constitution to make slavery “irrevocable.”

• was NOT a champion of the Constitution? Contrary to his high-minded rhetoric, Lincoln repeatedly trampled on the Constitution—and even issued an arrest warrant for the chief justice of the United States!

• was NOT a great statesman? Lincoln was actually a warmonger who manipulated his own people into a civil war.

• did NOT utter many of his most admired quotations? DiLorenzo exposes a legion of statements that have been falsely attributed to Lincoln for generations—usually to enhance his image.

Lincoln is memorialized via his own temple in Washington, DC. The design echoes a classic Greek temple, “structures built to house deity statues....” It is ironic that the site has become an almost sacred venue for those advocating civil rights.

The Legends Supporting the American Religion

 

[Votto]

Votto, the machines that came to timber, agriculture, and oil in the 1880s and after in the South did not end social and economic slavery under Jim Crow. Slavery would have ended very slowly, and the minority population would have suffered just as much or more than they did after 1877.

So you would say that it was worth speeding up the process with over half a million dead?

 

[del]

the only good cracker is a dead cracker

 

[JakeStarkey]

You would have to talk to the leaders of the Slave Power for that answer since they are the ones who caused the war.

War would have continued across North America if the South had defeated the North.

Votto, the machines that came to timber, agriculture, and oil in the 1880s and after in the South did not end social and economic slavery under Jim Crow. Slavery would have ended very slowly, and the minority population would have suffered just as much or more than they did after 1877.

So you would say that it was worth speeding up the process with over half a million dead?

 

[paperview]

The indoctrination Americans suffer in government schools prevents many from thinking. Belief in the Lincoln Myth is a perfect example.
...

Another piece of shit article touting the scumsucking neo-confederate and economist (NOT historian) Thomas J. DiLorenzo. DiLorenzo is nothing more that White Supremacist trash.

Absurd revisionism. No one takes that crap seriously.

Of course he hates Lincoln, and the actual facts of the CW. The Hate group he belongs to is still fighting the Lost Cause.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Did you know that Lincoln SAVED the Union, PRESERVED the nation of the Founding Fathers, ENDED slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation, the Military Confiscation Acts, and the 13th Amendment.

• used the CONSTITUTIONAL war powers to crush the South.

• WAS a superb statesmen, binding a team of rivals to one great political purpose and one great moral purpose: preserving the Union and ending SLAVERY.

• did utter many of his SAYINGS that are preserved in his writings.

The libertarian hacks who attempt to smear Lincoln's name and narrative are simply ignorant fools at best and vicious anti-Americans at worst.

 

[gipper]

So many Americans duped by the propaganda mills aka government schools. Sad. Very sad.

Most Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln "saved" the voluntary union of states that was created by the founding fathers, based on the principle that government’s just powers are derived from the consent of the governed by micromanaging the waging of total war on Americans who no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C., killing hundreds of thousands of them.


Most Americans also think of Lincoln as a racial saint even though he advocated the deportation of all black people all of his adult life, to his dying day. He also opposed inter-racial marriage or allowing black people to vote or serve on juries or even to reside in his home state of Illinois. They think of him as a "great statesman" even though he manipulated his country into the bloodiest war in American history where as many as 850,000 Americans died according to the latest research. This is the kind of thing "great statesmen" do, we are all told in the government schools.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So many Americans duped by the propaganda mills aka government schools. Sad. Very sad.

Most Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln "saved" the voluntary union of states that was created by the founding fathers, based on the principle that government’s just powers are derived from the consent of the governed by micromanaging the waging of total war on Americans who no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C., killing hundreds of thousands of them.


Most Americans also think of Lincoln as a racial saint even though he advocated the deportation of all black people all of his adult life, to his dying day. He also opposed inter-racial marriage or allowing black people to vote or serve on juries or even to reside in his home state of Illinois. They think of him as a "great statesman" even though he manipulated his country into the bloodiest war in American history where as many as 850,000 Americans died according to the latest research. This is the kind of thing "great statesmen" do, we are all told in the government schools.

I don't think you can "save" a voluntary union by making it mandatory. Of course, I also don't think you can save the village by destroying it.

 

[paperview]

I don't think you can "save" a voluntary union by making it mandatory. Of course, I also don't think you can save the village by destroying it.

Yet here you are, 150 years later, residing in the most powerful country in the world, the UNITED States, spouting your nonsense.

 

[paperview]

One history question left hanging:

Why did not the Southern States wait and see whether A. Lincoln would interfere with slavery before they seceded?

 

[rightwinger]

So many Americans duped by the propaganda mills aka government schools. Sad. Very sad.

Most Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln "saved" the voluntary union of states that was created by the founding fathers, based on the principle that government’s just powers are derived from the consent of the governed by micromanaging the waging of total war on Americans who no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C., killing hundreds of thousands of them.


Most Americans also think of Lincoln as a racial saint even though he advocated the deportation of all black people all of his adult life, to his dying day. He also opposed inter-racial marriage or allowing black people to vote or serve on juries or even to reside in his home state of Illinois. They think of him as a "great statesman" even though he manipulated his country into the bloodiest war in American history where as many as 850,000 Americans died according to the latest research. This is the kind of thing "great statesmen" do, we are all told in the government schools.

So, your premise is that in the 1860 election Lincoldn should have advocated inter-racial marriage or else be a racist?

We had states in 1960 that still banned inter-racial marriage

Lincoln was primarily a politician. He knew he had to go one step at a time. Advocating an end to slavery was an important first step. Advocating that blacks should marry your sister was a bit of an overreach.....Don't ya think?