Abraham Lincoln vs Bahir Assad. Who Is Bloodier?

The South seceded from the Union and became a foreign nation. Lincoln should have nuked their asses.

 

They had a perfect right to. I guess you think King George should have nuked us as well.

 

America was right to rebel against the English. The South was wrong to rebel against America. I don't care if I'm being a hypocrite. The British taxed America unfairly and the Soutb seceded for asinine reasons.

 

I'm sure if the South had not attacked a Union fort and let democracy run its course, there would have been no Civil War. The South had no necessity to attack Fort Sutmer. The Union troops nor president was threatening anyone. The THREAT was that democracy was going to eliminate slavery being legal.

Not a word of your message shows the slightest concern for black slaves deaths, does it? But you do give a CLUE as the the extreme racial motive you have in "they would have returned on their own." Not only absolutely no concern for the unthinkable mass attrocities against blacks in your messages , but you had to add you "black people should go back to African" pitch, right?

White people should go back to Europe. Do you agree with that?

Once again, explain your view of why white lives lost in the Civil War matter, but black lives being lost in slavery do not.

You lament the social and economic institution of slavery being crushed. I cheer it. I cheer the South being broken. In this, regardless of who started it, the Union and Lincoln were justified. There were 4,000,000 slaves. That dwarfs the 600,000 war casualties, and that is just that generation of slaves. Then there would have been another 4+ million humans subjected to the horrors, desperation, hopelessness, torture, rape and murder of slavery.

Slaves did not have the rosy servant lives portrayed in "Gone With The Wind" who loved their owners and hated the idea of being freed. That is an absurd concept. Most slaves were treated as if mules and oxen, other than they were more fun to torture and rape. If a slave was seriously injured or became sick, they'd be gunned down like a horse with a broken leg. Children were stolen from their mothers, odds fairly high by rape, and sold like selling calves at market. Deformed black babies were killed on the spot. The horrors of slavery are beyond what anyone can really fathom.

 

King George tried to. Despite all the platitudes, the American Revolutionary war's origins actually was among the remote mountain folks who would kill Red Coats (tax collectors) with virtual impunity being so remote. This caught the eye of rich and powerful guys in New England. The actual leaders of the Revolutionary war were largely very rich and very influential and saw opportunity to have their own nation. They put together a good package marketable to the public - less taxes, less government, fair trials etc - and had their war - recognizing the problems the UK had with France and their distance due to the Atlantic ocean, plus the remoteness overall of the USA.

In retrospect, people were far freer and less taxed under King George than Americans are now.

No, there is no inherent right to break away from a nation because the group figures they'd be more profitable and better off on their own. None whatsoever. No more than I could declare my private land my own private country, and then ignore all laws, hurt, rape, torture, murder whoever any of us in our "new county" wanted to. There is NO inherent right of sedition. Ultimately, sedition comes down to whether your group has the power to pull it off. Nation forming is about POWER. There was no right to take the land from Native Americans either. You are claiming a right, sedition, that doesn't exist.

 

What a bizarre claim. The South STILL would have sharecropping and segregation, if not still slavery - after another 50,000,000 blacks deaths under torture, brutality, rape, no medical care and outright murder but for the greater USA.

It is highly predictable that the South would have sided with Hitler during WWII, equally believing in inferior races and the South's then traditional hatred of Jews.

 

Do you know anything about the tariffs back then? The South was being persecuted by the North. It was not to protect slavery but states rights. Yes slavery was an excuse because slaves had been declared property and the government could not seize your property but as been said few southern solders owned slaves or fought for the right to own them. They for their state as back then people owed more allegiance to their state than the federal government. The original 13 colonies had become 13 nation states who eventually united.

Notice the small u in the united States of America,

- - - Updated - - -

Are you Kreskin ?

 

The whole "Lincoln was the devil" idea is laughable.

He did whatever he could to keep the country together. That was his only goal, and if he had held back at all the nation would have been lost.

Critics can say what they want. It only makes them look foolish.

 

I replied to a Kreskin claim that slavery would have eventually ended and that blacks would go to Africa.

 

And not surprised, Lincoln was a Republican.

 

The attack on Fort Sumter pretty much ensured that there would be a Civil War. That was done by the Confederates.

So yeah, they started the war, not Lincoln.

Lincoln is vastly overrated as a president, but he definitely wasn't our worst president. We had some utterly awful presidents in the late 1800s.

 

Same for Assad and those Baathist has removed.
Assad & Bathists "did whatever he could to keep the country together. That was his only goal, and if he had held back at all the nation would have been lost. "

Proof is there where the Baathists have been removed and the countries are little better than a
collection of killing warlords! Tell me it ain't so.

I guess the Arab problem is they have no catchy music.
Although the South did have better music, a Celt thing I betchya.

[video=youtube;8ccQ6cT-9kk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ccQ6cT-9kk&index=4&list=RDkwckonqbeos[/video]



And Mr. Lincoln's War on the Civilian population was, excessive by the standards of that day, more so today.

Moi

r > g

View attachment 37923
We dearly need a "good war" ​

 

No need to wonder what the war was started over. Lincoln plainly said for what purpose he would use force.

From his first inaugural:


The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts;


Now, with that out of the way ....
[video=youtube;RSoIi_KkOUU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSoIi_KkOUU&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

 

What a silly comparison and poll is this please? Some still wounded southern rebel heart(s) which is (are) still in anger with Abe Lincoln that he beats down the Confederates at least is back in revanchism modus?

 

He said they might not they will like you

- - - Updated - - -

Bull only the South would have been lost. Just think without the south you libs would rule the US no problem

- - - Updated - - -

He was also the 1st RINO

- - - Updated - - -

He wanted them to attack and provoked it just like FDR provoked the Japanese

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah as a life long New Yorker I have a wounded southern rebel heart

 

So what? ...

The city and the state of New York had strong economic ties to the South; by 1822 half of the city's exports were related to cotton, which also fed the upstate and New England textile mills.Mayor Fernando Wood won reelection to a second term, serving from 1860 to 1862. He was one of many New York Democrats who were sympathetic to the Confederacy, called 'Copperheads' by staunch Unionists. In January 1861, Wood suggested to the City Council that New York City secede as the "Free City of Tri-Insula", to continue its profitable cotton trade with the Confederacy. Wood's Democratic machine was concerned to maintain the revenues and jobs in the city (which depended on Southern cotton), which also supported the patronage system!

Aside this ... sympathizers for the South are everywhere existing.

 

Im old but Im not that old. I sympathize with the South on states rights not slavery

 

Whether or not that's the case, it doesn't matter. The Fort was federal property, and they attacked it -- thus war.

Attacking a military base with a conventional force is about as straightforward as it gets in declaring war.

 

Maybe you should go read up on why they attacked. So is sending a fleet into another nations waters and having a fort there you want to reinforce

 

If a nation secedes, that doesn't suddenly give the new nation ownership over a military base. If that was the case, we'd be a lot less invested in having military bases in foreign countries.

 

It does over the waters in their harbors. Like i said the south felt threatened by the fleet sent to reinforce the fort. It was a gun pointing at their head. When a nation decides it no longer wants the US in their territory they make us remove our embassy that is US territory.

 

I don't want the confederacy back. I don't want slavery. I just want a President to follow the constitution.

 

Exactly

 

When elected President, Lincoln set about implementing Henry Clay's political philosophies
As Secretary of State Clay would declare: "The Indians' disappearance from the human family will be no great loss to the world. I do not think them, as a race, worth preserving." leading to the genocide of the native people with the full knowledge and support of Lincoln

In 1862, the Santee Sioux of Minnesota grew tired of waiting for the 1.4 million dollars they had been promised for the sale of 24 million acres of land to the federal government in 1851. Appeals to President Lincoln fell on deaf ears. What made this even more egregious to the Sioux was the invasion of this yet unpaid for land by thousands of white settlers. Then, with a very poor crop in august of 1862, many of the Indians were hungry and facing starvation with the upcoming winter.
When the Indians revolted Lincoln assigned General John Pope to quell the uprising and he announced at the beginning of his campaign: "It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux. They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromise can be made."
The Indians were quickly defeated in October of 1862 and Pope herded all the Indians, men, women and children, into forts where military trials were immediately convened. None of the Indians tried were given any semblance of a defense. Their trials lasted approximately 10 minutes each. All adult males were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death with the only evidence against them being they had been present during a "war" which they themselves had declared against the government.
The authorities in Minnesota asked Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303 males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South. He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 39. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds. Remember, he only owed the Sioux 1.4 million for the land.

In 1863-64, General Carleton and his subordinate, Colonel Kit Carson, invaded the Navajo land, especially those concentrated in the Canyon de Chelly area. Crops were burned, innocents were murdered, women were raped and general chaos was rained upon these people simply because, like the Santee Sioux, they demanded from Lincoln what they had been promised; their land and to be left alone. General Carleton, believing there was gold to be found in the area, stated: "This war, will be pursued against you if it takes years until you cease to exist or move."

When it came to arranging genocide, Lincoln was the clear winner

 

Not to mention, Assad is fighting terrorists. He's fighting ISIS and Al Qaeda. Lincoln just slaughtered everyone.