It's not a good thing when the president sends a boy's older brother down to kill him and his Dad. Being an unCivil War also raping the neighbors wives & kids and killing them and their kin, Stealing what they want, burning their home, crops and anything else that can be destroyed.

The Irish fought hundreds of years against England for their freedom. Had they knew that Americans were also fighting for their freedom from a totaloritant government... They would have seen to it that lincoln ceased to exist...therefore...no blessed shthammer, no uncalled hangings of innocent people, yest a dead shthead who's bones should have been fed to predators/RATS/WOLVES or anything that eats Sht...
No-one could or ever will state a better comment than me in my in and out sanity. I may be crazy butttttt, I'm sainer than lincolnites ever will be. You can't be responsible for the deaths of more than 600,000 Americans, Murder, Mayhem, rape, pillaging and be declared a hero...unless you be ken to HITLER!!!

I jest thought I'd let you know this. It seems to be an important issue for this forum.

Love my country, these United States and will fight for her to my death. My kids will too and are and I think we've gotta do something about declaring lincoln, ( the mass murderer of our beloved country as a totaliran and a mass murderer, not nowhere a freakin' hero. My Son is a hero and anyone that serves to protect us Americans are too heroes. NOT LINCOLN!!! He killed Americans for monetary gain.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: travisab1,

Your whole post is nothing but bravo sierra.

George;

I find it sooo hard to believe that anyone can spend 20 odd years in the armed forces of these United States like you state in your bios and be sooo ignorant of our countries history.

Were you one of those yes men??? I'm sorry but your comments make no sense other than you hate the South.

Your name says you are of Mexican or Spanish heritage. Mexico had a lot of revolutions and a lot of brave Mexican civilians died to take Mexico back from Iron Fisted dictators/rulers and presidents. How would you feel if you lost a lot of kinfolk in one of those fights for freedom those brave civilians fought for and someone told you they were peasants, asinine pigs that deserved to be shot down like rabid dogs for even thinking that their president was other than royalty?

Put my shoes on and wear them for a while. I think you’ll come away with different point of view.

wow trav! there is so much wrong with your postings I don't know where to begin. to compare lincoln to hitler is borderline insane. also, the irish were going to fight for the region in which the settled here, period. i respect your passion, but your views seem to be all or nothing; and history just doesn't work like that. we will agree on one point, anyone who serves in our military is a true hero.

Bush has been compared to Hitler. Was lincoln too sweet to be compared to him? He did cause the deaths of over 630,000 people. That's like today's toll would be 63 million people per capita, (there's 10 times the people living here today as back then).

lincoln was a monster and many a Union soldier deserted while under his command because they didn't believe in him and his reasons for killing his fellow Americans. You should go back a ways and read all the comments made in this Civil War so to bring yourself up on the whys lincoln was soooo hated by both the North and the South. Remember, the North rewrote history and even today in politics the North is still doing it. You need to watch news too. You'll see that a lot of these folks are going down for the lies and deceit they tell and do. Read more then post. Don't just pick something you don't agree with and make us have to go back and explain things again and again.

quote:

Originally posted by Shnides:
wow trav! there is so much wrong with your postings I don't know where to begin. to compare lincoln to hitler is borderline insane. also, the irish were going to fight for the region in which the settled here, period. i respect your passion, but your views seem to be all or nothing; and history just doesn't work like that. we will agree on one point, anyone who serves in our military is a true hero.

Like I said in another thread to you merely type "Lincoln and Hitler" in Googles search string and walla...you'll see a lot of insane folks there posting pro's and con's about that sweet little ole' president. You can have a field day by joining in all those forums and telling folks how crazy they are. You'll have some that will agree with you too so not to get discouraged.

Hope this helps fella.

quote:

Originally posted by Shnides:
wow trav! there is so much wrong with your postings I don't know where to begin. to compare lincoln to hitler is borderline insane. also, the irish were going to fight for the region in which the settled here, period. i respect your passion, but your views seem to be all or nothing; and history just doesn't work like that. we will agree on one point, anyone who serves in our military is a true hero.

Shnides, I can compare Hitler to Lincoln.

1. Hitler invaded Poland, starting WWII. Lincoln vowed that if there were a war, the South would fire the first shot which they did.

2. Lincoln's goal was the preservation of the United States. Hitler's goal was the conquest of Europe, Russia, North Africa, Norway...

3. Hitler locked people up in concentration camps. Lincoln freed an entire race.

Then again, you may be correct, Shnides. There is no comparison. Lincoln was a great man. Hitler was evil. No comparison!

There you go scooter, spreading nothern propaganda again. Everyone knows that Lincoln was actually manning the guns while in disguise and he fired the first shots.

Lincoln didn't really want to preserve the union, he was trying to break away from the south.

And he didn't free a race, he was trying to create a new market for our slaves in foreign countries to equal trade with those countries.

These are the kind of facts that you don't read about in your nothern liberal history books.

Well said, PSimon. I like your style. Have you seen Art lately? Sorry, wrong P Simon...

Anyway, back to the topic. I don't know if Ireland would have fought the South but cettainly Irish-Americans did and in hiuge numbers. 150,000 joined the Union Army. It is not clear how many fought for the Confederacy but that's not the point. A very significant number alligned themselves with the Union cause.

There is perhaps no other ethnic group so closely identified with the Civil War years and the immediate aftermath of the war as Irish Americans.
[COLOR:RED]Of those Irish who came over much later than the founding generations, fully 150,000 of them joined the Union army. Unfortunately, statistics for the Confederacy are sketchy at best; still, one has but to listen to the Southern accent, and listen to the sorts of tunes Southern soldiers loved to sing, to realize that a great deal of the South was settled by Irish immigrants. But because the white population of the Confederate states was more native-born than immigrant during the Civil War years, there did not seem as much of a drive in the Southern army to recognize heritage in the names and uniforms of regiments as there was in the Union forces
[/COLOR]
http://www.civilwarhome.com/irish.htm

By the way, in my opinion, one of the biggest failures of the CSA was its inability to get official recognition fron any foreign government.

You're right scooter, some of the worst and deadilest fighting that took place a Fredericksburg took place between two Irish regiments, one Union doing the attacking and one Confederate doing the defending. There were many Irish serving in The Confederate Army. Also look at the man who was called the Stonewall of the West, Patrick Royne Cleighburn.
An Irish immigrant and one of the best Confederate commanders in the Western theater.
Came to the US and settled in Helena, Arkansas.

As to the Confederacy receiving support from European nations, that is a story in its self. Many historians consider the Confederation temporary penatration of the Union line at Gettysburg the high point of the Confederacy. I have a different opinion and that is the time in the early Fall of 1862 where the South was winning and holding its own against the Union. The officials in Great Britain felt that the Confederates had to win an outright military victory to be recognized a nation fighting for its freedom and not a rebellious group of states fighting against home rule. Antietam was the deciding factor. By not getting a clear cut victory over the Union forces and the withdrawl back to Virginia. Did not convince the European powers to assist the Confederacy. Great Britain was struggling over the fact that helping the south would violate English law which had outlawed slavery a hundred years before.
Some other points not generaly know is that AFTER the war had ended the British proposed to keep an army of occupation in the South until things had stabilized. This did not go over well with the Southern leadership.
France wanted even more for helping the South. Loius Napoleon wanted a free hand in Mexico, the return of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona Terrtories. We know that wouldn't gone over at all! So the South was left to its own devices and fate.

The interesting thing about Patrick Cleburne was that he was very atypical of an Irishman. He was an Anglophile, a former British soldier, a protestant-Christian, and (in contrast to stereotypes) a non-drinker. Most of all he was an individual, but he gave his life in service to his country and in payment for the debt of friendship that he had been granted in our country. A great man altogether, and a perfect example of individuality AND community service in one person. We say "A man before a Marine," and the same applies to our forefather soldiers (in whichever war and on whichever side), because they are the ones who gave America the name it once had, not the other way around.


On a similar note, I find the focus on some kind of Celtic heritage or the myth of a (nebulous) new Scots-Irish homeland to be counterproductive to our Southern cause. We should unite on our National ideal, our working class and soldierly heritage, and our religion, not divide on our ancestry.

The Irish or Scotts-Irish served on both sides of the war. the 10th Reg't Tenn, Vols which was almost all Irish/Scotts-Irish. Indiana had the 35th Indiana/1st Irish which was exclusivly Irish/Scotts-Irish. Alot of them joined to gain experiance in the art of arms and were paying some of their pay to the Fenian organization for when the war ended they would purchase war materiel and return to Ireland and force england to leave. Part of the Fenians idea was the invasion of Canada in 1868 and 1869 and possibly force england to leave Ireland.

In Missouri as was true in other states, The Irish were treated with less respect the a slave. Most of the Irish came to this area as Indentured workers. TWO years as an unpaid slave. A free black man named Hiram smith made a fortune as a wheelwright using indentured people. The Yankees run him out of Independence, MO. during the Civil war. He had to move to Leavenworth to fulfill his Government contracts. There iis a story about a man driving down a road in Missouri who See's four white man digging a well. just a short distance from them are several slaves weeding corn. The man Tell's the gang boss He should have the white men doing the weeding & the slaves digging. The Boss Tell's him, The slaves cost $800.00 apiece. If the well caves in I have to buy another one. The white men are Irish. If the well caves in, I can get all I want for three dollars a month. The slaves in Missouri were fed, clothed, housed and treated better than an Irishman.

quote:

Originally posted by travisab1:
Bush has been compared to Hitler. Was lincoln too sweet to be compared to him? He did cause the deaths of over 630,000 people. That's like today's toll would be 63 million people per capita, (there's 10 times the people living here today as back then).

lincoln was a monster and many a Union soldier deserted while under his command because they didn't believe in him and his reasons for killing his fellow Americans. You should go back a ways and read all the comments made in this Civil War so to bring yourself up on the whys lincoln was soooo hated by both the North and the South. Remember, the North rewrote history and even today in politics the North is still doing it. You need to watch news too. You'll see that a lot of these folks are going down for the lies and deceit they tell and do. Read more then post. Don't just pick something you don't agree with and make us have to go back and explain things again and again.

Hey Travisab1;
I was born in the southland and most of my dad's people come from South Carolina. Yet I find your remarks about Lincoln to largely be mindless fabrications. All honest historians agree that Lincoln's primary purpose was to preserve the Union and on one occasion he said that if freeing the slaves was what was required, that's what he'd do. But if retaining slavery would preserve the Union, then he'd do that; and that if he could preserve the Union by freeing some of the slaves and keeping some of them then that is the what he would do. In short, his main purpose was to preserve the Union, whatever it took.

Moreover, most of the horrible attrocities were not committed by Lincoln but by incompetent battlefield commanders, whom he seemed to have in good supply. Indeed, Linclon had serious trouble finding competent battlefield commanders. While he was not particularly impressed with Grant still he once remarked, "At least he can win battles for me."

Desertions have long been a factor in virtually every war. But my experience has been that most people don't dessert because of their leaders but rather, for personal reasons.

I have heard others make the same kind of cutting remarks about Lincoln that you do, but there is no valid support for such accusations. Indeed, his wife Mary Todd was a whole "civil war" unto herself and a burden that no man should have to be saddled with. She was known for her hot temper and threw hot coffee in Lincoln's face and I think she even threw a burning log at him on one occasion. In contrast, Lincoln was a humble, gentle man. Had he lived, he would have taken a much more conciliatory approach to the South. There are those today who believe that it was actually vicious men like Staunton, who wanted to impose harsh measures on the South who were behind his assasination.

Just take my word for it, we have done far worse in our choices of president than Lincoln. If he were running for office today, I'd vote for him. He had far more to offer than any of the candidates I see today.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: AirDefndr1968,