Poll

Was Lincon a tyrant? Type your reasons in a reply.

Yes
No
Abstain

Author Topic: "Lincoln was a tyrant"  (Read 16828 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wismar

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 3838
  • Med Gud o' Sveas allmoge för Konung och Fosterland
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Radical
  • Side: Confederacy
"Lincoln was a tyrant"
« on: October 21, 2013, 10:28:18 pm »
"President Abraham Lincoln, who is often referred to by politically correct historians as the best and certainly the most important U.S. President, wielded power in a fashion never seen before, nor since. The fact that he died as a martyr is why history has viewed him in such a kind, albeit sanitized light.

During the Civil War, Lincoln continuously circumvented the law and in many cases suspended the Constitution altogether. In doing so, Lincoln denied the rights of the citizens he was sworn to protect. He suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, closed courts by force, and arrested citizens and elected officials without cause.

Sound familiar?

Lincoln also raised troops without the consent of Congress, and closed-down newspapers whose writers voiced and disagreement with his policies.

Lincoln's troops razed the South and doomed to poverty, generations of Southerners for many years to come. General Tecumseh Sherman's "March to the Sea" was little more than a marauding rampage filled with robbery, rape and murder. These men were less soldiers on a military mission and more common thugs on a crime spree.

With Lincoln's approval, Northern armies brought war to women, children, and privately held property as a matter of official policy, rather than as so-called "collateral damage."

Lincoln ordered the arrest of Baltimore police chief George P. Kane, police commissioner Charles Howard, as well as fellow commissioners: William H. Gatchell, John W. Davis, and Charles D. Hinks.

Baltimore Mayor George W. Brown was also arrested and sent to Fort McHenry.

The men were incarcerated because they dared to publicly disagree with Lincoln and refused to carry-out the President's tyrannical orders.

Baltimore was then placed under federal control and a military police force was formed to enforce martial law.

Both the continents of Europe and South America ended the practice of slavery, and unlike the United States government, they did so without killing 600,000 of their own citizens. The shameful practice of slavery could have and would have been ended in this country, without ever firing a shot.

Contrary to popular belief (as perpetuated by government schools), slavery was a national institution, it was not unique to the South.

Upon his inauguration, Lincoln could have freed the slaves in the Northern states which would have put severe diplomatic pressure on the South. However, Lincoln, besides being a tyrant was also an incredible hypocrite.

Lincoln's multitude of personal letters show his outright disgust for the black man and his truly racist views.

Consider a few rarely spoken facts:

-Northern General U.S. Grant continued to hold a slave for nearly a year after the war. In fact, it took an act of Congress to finally free the man from Grant's possession.

-Northern General Tecumseh Sherman was arrested many times for brutally abusing several of his slaves.

Conversely, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed all of his slaves prior to the start of the war. That act by the military leader of the South speaks to the fact, that at least for the Confederacy, the war was truly about states' rights and a rebellion against tyranny, not a defense of slavery.

-In an 1858 speech in Charleston, IL, Lincoln said: "I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."

-In a letter to New York Tribune editor, Horace Greeley, Lincoln wrote: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it."

Read the entire letter...

For President Lincoln, the war was much less about freeing oppressed blacks and much more about the federal government exerting complete control over all citizens. Lincoln's actions were a direct assault upon the wishes of our founding fathers.

Had Lincoln survived his second term, his place in this nation's history would be seen in a much different light. Furthermore, had the Civil War ended with a different outcome, Lincoln and many of his generals would have been deservedly tried as war criminals.

But as we know, History is written by the victor."


-Forgotten article

ModEdit: Dat Title
« Last Edit: November 08, 2013, 03:55:53 pm by Blobmania »

Offline Wismar

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 3838
  • Med Gud o' Sveas allmoge för Konung och Fosterland
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Radical
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Lincon was a tyrant
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2013, 10:29:45 pm »
Debate is opened~

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Lincon was a tyrant
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2013, 10:30:36 pm »
Oh no, an American president mis-using his power? I'm so surprised.

Sarcasm away, what's the use of this thread. And what's the use of a bigger font?

Offline Wismar

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 3838
  • Med Gud o' Sveas allmoge för Konung och Fosterland
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Radical
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Lincon was a tyrant
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2013, 10:34:05 pm »
Oh no, an American president mis-using his power? I'm so surprised.

Sarcasm away, what's the use of this thread. And what's the use of a bigger font?
Sorry, I typed it on my phone :P

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Lincon was a tyrant
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2013, 10:38:38 pm »
You wrote a text of almost 800 words on your phone? And how does that changes font and size? I regularly type from my phone and it never gives a different font.

This text is obviously biased, gives bad examples and makes conclusions out of scraps of info. Even though it might be an interesting discussion, it is impossible to take this serious.
Just look at the title. It's not a question to start a discussion, it's a statement by which you try to evoke people.

Offline Wismar

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 3838
  • Med Gud o' Sveas allmoge för Konung och Fosterland
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Radical
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Lincon was a tyrant
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2013, 10:48:39 pm »
You wrote a text of almost 800 words on your phone? And how does that changes font and size? I regularly type from my phone and it never gives a different font.

This text is obviously biased, gives bad examples and makes conclusions out of scraps of info. Even though it might be an interesting discussion, it is impossible to take this serious.
Just look at the title. It's not a question to start a discussion, it's a statement by which you try to evoke people.
I didn't write this, it's based of an article.
And why wouldn't you want to take this serious? Because of the title?
I did the same as many news papers do, take a statement out of its' context to stir up some emotions=more enjoyable and passionate discussions.

And the size and font looked better on the phone than my PC.

Offline Archduke Sven

  • Brigadier General
  • *
  • Posts: 6012
  • I have over 1000 warning points, be careful.
    • View Profile
  • Nick: regimentless sven
  • Side: Union
Re: Lincon was a tyrant
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2013, 10:53:07 pm »
I have to agree with Duuring on this one. Sure you put forth some good points but you don't show any other sides of the argument which shows that you're either incredibly one sided, or that you purposely left it out to try to bolster sn already weak argument.

I also want to mention that Generals do not represent their goverment's policies etc, they represent the armed forces. Now if you told me Lincoln loved abusing slaves that would be a different thing, same if you told me Davis was a black lover, but you just took a few Generals who really don't have much to do with the actual government.


told that bih don't @ me

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Lincon was a tyrant
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2013, 10:56:57 pm »
It's a ridiculously biased article.
Quote
The men were incarcerated because they dared to publicly disagree with Lincoln and refused to carry-out the President's tyrannical orders.

Biased wording. The Mayor refused to follow direct orders in war-time, which makes his arrest fully excusable.

Quote
Both the continents of Europe and South America ended the practice of slavery

Europa and South America are different situations from both each other and the USA.

And my personal favorite:
Quote
Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed all of his slaves prior to the start of the war. That act by the military leader of the South speaks to the fact, that at least for the Confederacy, the war was truly about states' rights and a rebellion against tyranny, not a defense of slavery.

The action of one man automatically decides what their national cause was about? That's ridiculous.

Offline Wismar

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 3838
  • Med Gud o' Sveas allmoge för Konung och Fosterland
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Radical
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Lincon was a tyrant
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2013, 11:00:02 pm »
The article is sort of my argument and I take side with it. I posted it so y'all could see and post what you think.

I also think the way Abe handled things was really unprofessional.
Was it all worth 600 000 lives? Europe and South America ended slavery without firing a bullet.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 11:03:51 pm by Oscar XI Hederlööf »

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Lincon was a tyrant
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2013, 11:10:07 pm »
Quote
The article is sort of my argument and I take side with it. I posted it so y'all could see and post what you think.

First of all, 'Y'all' is not proper English. You are not a Texan, do not try to talk like one. Second, posting a biased article is not an argument. It's just a opinion posted in a big font.

Quote
I also think the way Abe handled things was really unprofessional.

Enlighten.

Quote
Was it all worth 600 000 lives? Europe and South America ended slavery without firing a bullet.

Serious? First you say 'Slavery was not a reason for the war', then you say Lincoln did badly because ending slavery cost 600.000 lives. How can it cost 600.000 lives if it wasn't even a reason for slavery? Contradictions do not help your creditability.

Offline von_Bismarck

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 832
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Lincon was a tyrant
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2013, 11:19:23 pm »
This is the original article: http://www.examiner.com/article/let-s-be-clear-the-south-was-fighting-tyranny

Regardless, I do have to agree with Duuring this time. That article is impartial, and one-sided. Lincoln can or not, be a tyrant, depends on your point of view. He was quite respectful of both views of the Union and the Confederates, and it was very evident in his second-inaugural address he wanted to tie the nation back together. That doesn't make him the best President either, because he violated the Constitution. Although many people would like to overlook it, several of Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional and controversial at best. His nationwide declaration of martial law, suspension of habeus corpus, and imprisonment of Congress-members that were sympathetic to the South was unconstitutional and fits the montage of a tyrant.


"Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post."  :o

Offline Menelaos

  • Brigadier General
  • *
  • Posts: 4000
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: Lincon was a tyrant
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2013, 11:21:33 pm »
How does being racist (which was perfectly normal even in the majority of the 20th century) have to do with tyranny?

Offline Wismar

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 3838
  • Med Gud o' Sveas allmoge för Konung och Fosterland
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Radical
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Lincon was a tyrant
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2013, 11:29:08 pm »
How does being racist (which was perfectly normal even in the majority of the 20th century) have to do with tyranny?
Violation of the constitution and censorship?

Offline Allasaphore

  • First Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 709
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Lincon was a tyrant
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2013, 11:33:00 pm »
This argument appears to be little more than hogwash. Where are your sources? Where is your argument? Your title asserts that "Lincon" was a tyrant, but you make no argument to prove him to be such. You simply list a bunch of facts (without sources, I might add) and expect us to agree with you.

I don't contest the legitimacy of some of the "facts" you have posted, but you do not possess a degree in American Civil War history. Cite your facts and make an argument supporting your claim.

Offline Wismar

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 3838
  • Med Gud o' Sveas allmoge för Konung och Fosterland
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Radical
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Lincon was a tyrant
« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2013, 11:39:43 pm »
This argument appears to be little more than hogwash. Where are your sources? Where is your argument? Your title asserts that "Lincon" was a tyrant, but you make no argument to prove him to be such. You simply list a bunch of facts (without sources, I might add) and expect us to agree with you.

I don't contest the legitimacy of some of the "facts" you have posted, but you do not possess a degree in American Civil War history. Cite your facts and make an argument supporting your claim.
I'm not forcing you to agree, I'm just interested what y'all think.
That's why I made a poll.

Instead of claiming my facts are wrong, post some arguments yourself of what you think.