|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Military History Civil War Prove Lincoln Is Is Not A Hero, Despite The 363,000+ lives He caused|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
10 days; abusive and hateful remarks. |
We all know lincoln caused the deaths of more than 363,000 Americans. NOW why was this president a hero???
Riddle me that??? Remember...This guy was a Republican..., I. E. Hillary and Obambsquad...AIN'T Jest thought I'd throw this in folks... Don't cha jest love it??? |
||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Is your point which political party has the most racist past?
I nominate the Demcrats. Lester Maddox and George Wallace were both Democrats. EVERY Southern Senator and Congressman voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, despite Al Gore's efforts to rewrite his father's voting record. What's your point? |
|||
|
|
10 days; abusive and hateful remarks. |
Gumby;
Things change and yes...its raciest and too bad too. I'm just showing folks how things change. Republicans started out to supposedly be for the black men and women killing everybody that disagreed with them. NOW Demorats wouldn't get into office without the help/votes of people of color i.e. black folk and those of Mexican background and now three...hillary is counting on this plus women to get her in office... This is fast becoming a RACIEST society and I find it most shameful just to say the least. Maybe I shouldn't have started this thread, maybe I put it in the wrong section but things need to be aired. Travis |
|||
|
|
Member |
Also did Lincoln have a pending lawsuit against him from fellow lawyers claiming fraud and illegal campaign contributions? did he spend over a million dollars on legal fees so the attorneys can keep out of a court room?
Has or did Lincoln meet with other party senators in a conference on how to bypass constituitional amendments in order to consolidate their power further? How to get rid the troublesome search and seizure amendment or the right to keep and bear arms? Or get a meanless assault weapon ban through that did NOTHING to abate crime? Yep great job those Democrats! Let's see Jimmy made us a laughing stock, Bill was too busy with women to give a commander the right equipment he needed and how many Americans died because of not having armor support when they needed it? Yep... my oh my what a good job those Democrats do! Let's get Hillary in the WH, then we can discuss fifty years from now the SECOND American Civil War.....that is if there is an America left? |
|||
|
|
10 days; abusive and hateful remarks. |
Thanks Jpope;
Now, do you see what I mean. Folks know what's going on around them...they jest don't know what to do about it. Travis |
|||
|
|
Member |
The Democrats have the wool pulled over the black peoples eyes in this country.
|
|||
|
|
10 days; abusive and hateful remarks. |
Not to mention those illegal aliens…GIVE THEM AMNISTY. What a farce!!! Add this to your favorites…Our love of illegal asinine…should you be a demorat. LOL… http://youtube.com/watch?v=nONjlZ8YMkA Travis |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
|
|||
|
|
10 days; abusive and hateful remarks. |
Scooter;
Looks like you have your mind made up. Were you talking about John Kennedy or Ted Kennedy? Obama's too young and inexperienced to be the leader of the country and you know it. The thought of another Clinton in office for 4 to 8 years is mind boggling. No Muslim country would have respect for these United States ever again...if they ever had any respect for us in the first place.
The South Did exactly What Washington did, (break away from a government gone bad and lincoln proved just how bad the Union government had become) The South war exercising States Rights to seceed. That's it. It should have been simple and the states would have eventually re-united after the govermnent was given back to the people of our Nation. Remember Washington committed treason and if caught he'd have been hung. Lincoln rewrote the Constitution to suit his war that turned our Nation into a shambles in even today's world. The North is still fighting the South always will I suppose. No-one will ever make the South fought for anything other that their freedom from BIG government. Lincoln was a Republican but it's kind of funny how things change. In todays world he'd be a Demorat. The Republican party would never see him any other way. Should thing keep going on this wondering track down a hill with no end you'll probably see another Civil War. Today that would be the end of the states with the weaponry in today’s arsenal now wouldn't it? Travis This message has been edited. Last edited by: travisab1, |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
We were talking presidents so I thought it unnecessary to specify. Young and inexperienced? That's what they said about JFK. He had one term in the Senate before being elected president. What I don't understand is how someone could have so much hatred for the 16th president. Certainly, he made mistakes. But remember, he had to make some difficult decisions. And the Civil War? That was brought on as much by the men that preceded him in the oval office. I am thinking of Buchannon, primarily but it goes back further. How any responsible man could have seen the Missouri compromise as a solution to the nation's problems is beyond me. Lincoln may not have been our greatest president but he certainly makes the top ten list!! |
|||
|
|
10 days; abusive and hateful remarks. |
Scooter;
Soooo, we were talking presidents. I had to bring Ted Kennedy (of the circumstances surrounding the infamous accident at Chappaquiddick July 19, 1969 killing that little girl, (letting her suffer suffocation in a dark car in a cold lake because he chose to drive while drunk on his BUTT) and getting away with it) in the picture along with his stupid brother John who like lincoln got us into to stupid wars. Remember JOHN KENNEDY, got us into the Bay of Pigs, (being in the Navy at the time I too was in the middle of that) and Castro was ready to use the Atomic Bomb given him by Russia??? Castro was ready to blow America off the face of the Earth even if it meant taking Cuba along to do so. Remember John Kennedy got us into the Vietnam War??? Man, you sure love these killer presidents don’t you? Yup, you sure know how to pick winner presidents fella. How deep are you into the dark ages when The Spanish Inquisition was established in 1481 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms and was under the direct control of the Spanish monarchy. It was not definitively abolished until 1834, during the reign of Isabel II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition What are you??? A sadist? Wellllll, post us some more good hero presidents that love killing in the name of their legacy. Clinton freeing all those criminals with pardons, (just before leaving office) lying under oath in the court rooms of these United States…Creating that Bridge to Never, Never Land, stealing Air Force One of all those personal trinkets like rugs, dishes ETC…his staff gluing the W keys to the ceiling…Yup, you sure can pick ‘em Scooter. How ‘bout King George III??? What’s your take on him?  Travis |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Seven states broke from the Union before Lincoln took office. Blaming the Lincoln administration makes no sence. The stated did not have the right to seceed. There is nothing in the constitution that says they can. The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land nor was it in the 19th century; the Constitution is. When the USA declared its independence, the Constitution did not exist. This was a document ratified by the states. Including Virginia, North Carolina South... Then there is the title to this weak thread. "The 363,000+ lives he caused." What!!!  Don't you mean deaths? If so, you need to place the blame where it truly belongs; THE SOUTHERN "FIRE-EATERS" Blaming Lincoln for the Civil War because he attempted to supply Fort Sumpter makes about as much sence as if you blamed FDR for Pearl Harbor because he resupplied Wake Island!!In United States history, the term Fire-Eaters refers to a group of extremist pro-slavery politicians from the South who urged the separation of southern states into a new nation, which became known as the Confederate States of America. In the later half of the 1850s, the group reemerged. They utilized several recent events for propaganda, among them "Bleeding Kansas" and the Sumner-Brooks Affair to accuse the North of trying to immediately abolish slavery. Using effective propaganda against 1860 presidential candidate Abraham Lincoln, the Fire-Eaters were able to convince many southerners of this false accusation. They first targeted South Carolina, which passed an article of secession in December 1860. Thus, the Fire-Eaters helped to unleash a chain reaction that eventually led to the formation of the Confederate States of America and to the American Civil War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_eaters Let's repeat those last few words, ...led to the formation of the Confederate States of America and to the American Civil War. |
|||
|
|
10 days; abusive and hateful remarks. |
Wellllll Scooter...I guess you’ve just gotta be there.
 Even the drafted Union soldiers and Generals knew they were fighting a sovereign country and provoked the Confederates in firing the first shot by not leaving a fort after being told time and again to get the hell out owned by the Confederation and in a foreign country not of their own. Fire Eaters, I never looked it up but if there was such a title for the South Lincoln was the cause of it.You are beyond reaching. Your brain is closed to the facts. Sorry fella, I give up. Travis |
|||
|
Basic Training |
I disagree with this statement. U.S. involvement in Vietnamese affairs began with the Truman administration. It was during that administration that the U.S. began sending financial aid to the French in order to help them fight the Viet Minh. During the Eisenhower administration, the U.S. began sending military advisors to help train the Vietnamese army. I realize this is the Civil War forum and my intention is not to criticize or lecture. Just food for thought. |
|||
|
|
10 days; abusive and hateful remarks. |
Hello Jester;
Actually the French got into it I'm thinking 1947, we got into it in 1957 or so and Kennedy had his chance like Clinton, (had the chance to kill the hell outta Bin L and chose not to, he did kill some innocent folks to get the press off his back but was too busy getting serviced himself. Now we have the twin Towers to thank him for, Clinton that is) to sever ties, (Clinton to Bin L., Kennedy with Vietnam) butttt, chose to get still more Americans killed, (both one in Vietnam, the other in the war on terror) there...over 57,000 I'm thinking in Vietnam no telling how many more to come from the war on terror. Probably a lot more. Think about it. Travis |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
In that case travis, what you really need to do need to look up this term and its origin. It goes back to the 1840's. This was more than a decade before Lincoln ran for president. But don't bother. I looked it up for you. Fire-Eaters An outspoken group of Southern, proslavery extremists, the Fire-Eaters advocated secession from the Union and the formation of an independent confederacy as early as the 1840s. The group included a number of well-known champions of Southern sovereignty, including South Carolina newspaper editor Robert Barnwell Rhett, Virginia planter Edmund Ruffin, and William Lowndes Yancey, a radical Democrat from Alabama. Although Rhett, Ruffin, Yancey, and other Fire-Eaters were the chief spokesmen for confederacy, many moderate southerners who supported secession continued to distrust them and they seldom acquired responsible positions within the Confederate government. http://www.answers.com/topic/fire-eater Travis. You never heard the term "fire-eater" before?  Maybe someone needs to break out the history books and do a little reading... |
|||
|
|
10 days; abusive and hateful remarks. |
Scooter;
You should know that I and my ancestors didn’t believe in slavery. We didn’t believe in what the KKK brought down on our Stars & Bars. I didn’t know of the fire eaters until mentioned in these threads. As I quote you, “Although Rhett, Ruffin, Yancey, and other Fire-Eaters were the chief spokesmen for confederacy, many moderate southerners who supported secession continued to distrust them and they seldom acquired responsible positions within the Confederate government.” You’ll notice that these fire eaters weren’t favored by most Confederates just like the KKK too wasn’t favored by most Confederates. Why should the South condone slavery? Slavery took money from the pockets of the poorest of civilians. Today it’s said that the illegal aliens are doing work Americans wouldn’t do. We know that’s not true. They do nearly every job conceivable…even become doctors. The slave owners were teaching their slaves to do high paying jobs back then taking even more pay from even the more skilled laborer like bronco busting, blacksmithing, working on cattle drives ETC… for mere room and board. Naturally the common folk of less education or the common citizens didn’t go for this. Soooo, why do folks try to pen this slavery thingy on the South when most Southerners didn’t like it any more than the slaves themselves? As you can see in the paragraphs below it was the North who really depended on slavery. The South as I’ve mentioned time and again were in the process of freeing the slaves and needed no help from any tyrants from the North. In truth the South broke away from the North because the South couldn’t afford to support themselves and the North too. The North posed excessively high tax/tariffs on the South the North never had to pay and the South got fed up with it. The South had to break away and form a new government that was for the people but “Aby Baby” saw to it this could never come about if he had to kill everything that moved and almost got that stove pipe hat shoved up his butt. Where it should be. He rewrote the constitution to suit his needs and sent his men on a killing spree that got twice as many of his Union soldiers killed as his intended victims…The Confederate soldier…and their wives and kids death was just a glitch in his warring mind. The North depended on Slave Labor from The South "After 1830 the industrial North had become wedded, not only to the South's production of cotton, but to the institution of slave labor which made such valuable production possible." Northern factories based their profits on a steady flow of cotton.[6] The price of raw cotton was low during this period, and lagged behind the price of cotton goods. Northern bankers grew rich by extending liberal (but risky) credit to Southern planters against next year's crop. Cotton was already America's leading export by 1821. By 1850, Southern cotton accounted for nearly 60 percent of the nation's total exports, and was a major factor in Northern shipping prospects. While the looms of Lawrence and Lowell sucked up raw cotton, the ships of Boston bulged with it as they crossed the Atlantic, and their owners looked forward to increasing production on the slave plantations, which meant increased profit for them.” Above is a small excerpt. Go to the link below for more info… http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm One day the truth will come out and America, both North and South will once again think as a unit…or be UNITED.  Travis P.S. I'll overlook the "Maybe someone needs to break out the history books and do a little reading..." thingy. I read what interest me. I didn't like what the KKK did and I now don't like what the fire eaters did. What good would it do for me to read about this crap when I'm on a subject that needs tending to now. Those two groups are now in the background except for a few radicals here and there. These groups remind me of this...  This message has been edited. Last edited by: travisab1, |
|||
|
|
Member |
Travis I don't know how old you are, but from your reference about being in the service durng the JFK era I assume you're old enough to have kids. Let me see if I can draw you a picture.
If you find out that your kid was out in the park playing baseball--he had the only bat/ball in the neighborhood. He comes home early and says he quit because he struck out on 3 pitches and they wouldn't change the rules for him and give him 10 strikes to swing at so he took the bat/ball and came home. If it was my kid we would be back in that park as fast as I could walk. His pants would be down around his ankles, and his butt would be so red they could play all night long from the glow. That's all Lincoln did--spank those hot headed fools who did in fact start the war. No he didn't kill 300,000+ men. Every single man that died in that war can be laid on the conscience(s) of the Southerns who instigated it. You need to learn that actions have consequences. If I sleep with a hooker, I shouldn't be surprised if I catch the clap or worse. If they didn't want Lincoln, they should have voted for Douglas. It would have been a landslide, a massive landslide. So what if Lincoln was elected President. The Supreme Court was solidly in the hands of Southerners. The Senate was capable of blocking any legislation the South did not like. The only way Lincoln has the capability of doing anything to the South is for them to give him a pretext. Far from sending the 100,000 men of the Army of the Potomac south toward Richmond, he would have been hard pressed to round up 100 men to try and accomplish the same. |
|||
|
|
Leave request approved GerryRM3 |
I want all of you to read the following.
I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of negros,nor qualifying them to hold office. A. Lincoln; Campaign speech,1858 I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so. A. Lincoln, First Inaugural speech. March 4th 1861 If I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it. A. Lincoln; in a letter to Horace Greeley. Aug.22nd. 1862 If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side. GENERAL U.S.GRANT In a letter, 1862. I am with the south in life or in death, In victory or defeat.... I believe the north is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong. In violation of the constitution and the fundamental principles of government. Thay no longer acknowledge that all government derives it's validity from the consent of the governed. They are about to invade our property and inaugurate a servile insurrection, Murder our men and dishonor our women. We propose no invasion of the north, no attack on them and ask only to be left alone. General, PATRICK CLEBURNE C.S.A. 1862 NOW: Who lied to be nominated ? Who lied to get Elected ? Who was telling the truth ? AS they say. You can't argue with History. |
|||
|
|
Member |
You hit the nail on the head OLDAO.Only thing is,some want to rewrite history to make it look as if the CSA was the bad guys.
|
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Military.com Forums | ||
| Servlet | eve2da047 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Front Door" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
