All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Wednesday, December 30, 2020

Why they attack Lincoln



Lincoln is banned in Boston. The city tore down its replica of the Emancipation Memorial freed slaves bought and erected in Washington, D.C.

The Democrat mayor of Boston, Marty Walsh, said the statue of Lincoln emancipating a black slave insults black people.

Through a spokesman, Walsh said, "The decision for removal acknowledges the statue’s role in perpetuating harmful prejudices and obscuring the role of black Americans in shaping the nation’s fight for freedom. We’re eager to continue the public conversation that’s underway, and we’ll soon begin a series of virtual panel discussions and short-term art installations examining and reimagining our cultural symbols, public art, and histories."

Let me explain this gibberish.

Communists are rewriting American history to shame Americans into surrendering their God-given rights and liberty. Considering how millions of people (led by Corporate America) now bow to the Black Liberation Movement (rebranded as Black Lives Matter), I would say the indoctrination into an alternate universe history is working.

One pillar of this rewrite holds that Americans invented slavery and black people liberated themselves amid a civil war. This is why Obama, in his failed presidency, celebrated Juneteenth and largely ignored the 150th anniversaries of the Gettysburg Address, Lee's Surrender, and passage of the 13th Amendment which banned slavery once and for all.

However, Lincoln and 300,000 dead Union soldiers (most of them white) stand in the way of this negative narrative.

Now some readers will argue that the Civil War was about states rights and not slavery. The problem with that is the South did not secede with the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required free states not to liberate escaped slaves who made it to their states. If the South were so fired up about states rights, why did they do this to the North a decade before Lincoln's election?

The war was about slavery, and Lincoln's comments about preserving the union are a reminder that while he may be America's first saint, he also was a lawyer and a politician.

A reader reminded me that a debt that cannot be repaid is resented. That white people sacrificed their lives to liberate black people is the ultimate insult to those who insist ours is an irredeemably racist nation.  

And so modern Democrats assassinate Lincoln's memory, just as Democrat John Wilkes Booth assassinated him 155 years ago.

Today's black people owe today's white people absolutely nothing, and vice versa. I and 10 million other Americans trace our ancestry to the Mayflower. Hans Heinrich Surber arrived here from Switzerland a century later. But on my mother's side, I have a pair of great-grandfathers who arrived by steerage nearly two centuries later.

Denying that Lincoln led the nation to abolish slavery and died for his effort is downright criminal.

Have Bostonians no shame?

57 comments:

  1. Yes, the Boston city government lacks shame, dignity and respect

    ReplyDelete
  2. At some point you find yourself caught in the Twilight Zone or something.

    ReplyDelete
  3. They also don't have empiricism. "...the statue's role in perpetuating harmful prejudices..."

    Let's see you prove that, Marty.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The Democrat mayor of Boston, Marty Walsh, said the statue of Lincoln emancipating a black slave insults black people."

    The actual insult to black people is to believe they are dumb enough to fall for that explanation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I recall, freed Black slaves paid for that statue.
      Nice job, mayor. Second guess them.

      Delete
  5. Lincoln lead the nation to abolish slavery

    Nope fraid not. While the South did secede to preserve slavery, the North invaded to preserve the Union. Period.

    Why do you think the first shot was fired at the port which collected tariffs on foreign trade????

    That was at Fort Sumter. Lincoln fought to save those tariffs he didn't give a dam about slaves. Read what he said time and time again 1859-1862, and you'll see he was as racist as anyone.

    But the victors write the school textbooks and idiots still believe them since they never read primary source materials from that era.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For anyone who wants the FACTS not fairy tales here is a link to Lincon's infamous campaign speech in NYC

      http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm

      You will see that Lincoln wanted to preserve slavery in the South but outlaw it in any new states admitted to the Union.

      Simple enough huh? Not for those who love their childhood fairy tales.

      Delete
    2. "Nope fraid not. While the South did secede to preserve slavery, the North invaded to preserve the Union. Period."

      Correction troll. The South started the war when they fired on Fort Sumter.

      Delete
    3. Learn to read, moron. He isn't disputing who started it.

      You're dumber than Edwina edutcher, and that takes real effort, troll.

      Delete
    4. You didn't prove your point, as usual jakee.

      The North may not have invaded had the South NOT attacked Sumter. Though, we'll never know, it's still a point. The South had the moral high ground due to Jefferson's statements in the Declaration of Independence. And thus, may have been able to convince England and/or France to assist their independence effort had they not started the war.

      Maybe try and defend your point before you project.

      Delete
    5. "That was at Fort Sumter. Lincoln fought to save those tariffs he didn't give a dam about slaves. Read what he said time and time again 1859-1862, and you'll see he was as racist as anyone."

      Well troll, I guess that begs the question of why Lincoln worked so hard to pass the 13th Amendment during the lame duck session of CONgress in 1864-1865, and was able to successfully get it passed on January 31, 1865.

      That sure does NOT sound like a guy who "didn't give a damn about slaves."

      Delete
    6. When Lincoln entered Richmond in April of 1865 freed slaves flocked to him and there was the resounding cry of "father Abraham". Seems the slaves that were alive at the time understood the war. js

      Delete
  6. "Have Bostonians no shame?"

    None. And no self awareness or ability to think critically. Truly a lost cause.

    Bob in MA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree they have no shame. Proud home of John Fraud Kerry (the fake Irishman) and Liawatha Warren, Ted Kennedy and other lowlife democrat scum.

      Delete
    2. minor edit..
      "Libtards have no shame" and then the rest of your comment is applicable to all the left losers

      Delete
  7. If the history of our first civil war is this convoluted, disputed, and controversial, the history of our impending next civil war will be worse.
    The deep state will not be defenestrated overnight. It won't be as simple as states choosing sides. It will be a deeply distributed insurgency, and the overwhelming likelihood is that it will be very ugly for a very long time.
    May God help and inspire PDJT to choose the least bloody path forward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. May the President choose the wisest course that preserves the Republic and it's citizens freedoms, given by God.

      Delete
    2. He can't even veto a ridiculous spending bill. Ever. What makes you think he will do anything other than have a rally?

      I'm on his side but at some point reality HAS to trump (pun not intended) fantasy.

      He can't do it. He won't do it. We have to do it.

      Delete
    3. Your problem jakee, and it's a huge problem, is you can't see the forest for the trees. You just aren't aware of what is really going on around you. I.e., no situational awareness.

      Trump knew his veto would be overridden by CONgress. So, he tries to get what he wants, which is payments to those hurt by the shutdowns. Since this bill is still ongoing, he may still get what he wants.

      You have no clue about Trump. No clue whatsoever. No wonder you are a debbie downer about him. Hell, you still can't accept he planned this whole election trap, to catch the fraud, and the corruption in our system. Instead, You're still crying and hung up about his reaction when he came out to call out the fraud when the systems shut down around the same time in the swing states. Not even understanding why he actually did that. You are lost. And lost posters give up.

      Delete
    4. He can't even veto a ridiculous spending bill. Ever. What makes you think he will do anything other than have a rally?

      I'm on his side but at some point reality HAS to trump (pun not intended) fantasy.

      He can't do it. He won't do it. We have to do it.


      Sure, you first, blowhard.

      Trump is doing what he always does. Expose the Whigs, as much the enemies of this country as the Democrats - the Specters, the McCains, the Robertses, all of them - after giving them a chance to do right.

      Now it's his turn.

      Delete
    5. I voted for PTrump. I consider myself a Libertarian (social)- Conservative (fiscal/limited gov't), and Lincoln was one of the worse Presidents. He was the one that ultimately led to the Federal government becoming what it is today. The South had the right to secede. The Civil War was unnecessary. Slavery would have ended without the war, over time. Just as it did in every other European country.

      Delete
    6. BJ, for a guy who says he's on Trump's side, you sure are a black pilling little bitch.

      Delete
  8. The other explanation is that Democrats are still pissed that Lincoln freed their slaves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I choose yours, JP. Well, well played.

      Delete
    2. Dimms really just put them on another plantation
      The ones that can think for themselves and analyze facts have truly been freed

      Delete
  9. Now some readers will argue that the Civil War was about states rights and not slavery. The problem with that is the South did not secede with the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required free states not to liberate escaped slaves who made it to their states. If the South were so fired up about states rights, why did they do this to the North a decade before Lincoln's election?

    The war was about slavery


    No, it was the protective tariff. Slavery was the emotional cause for some, but it doesn't erase the fact 50,000 Union soldiers went over the hill after the Emancipation Proclamation became public or that Union officers from Sherman on down wanted as little to do with slaves as possible and regarded their mission as restoring the Union.

    That said, your analysis of why its being done is correct.

    Funny how Trump doubled his share of the black vote, though.

    Have Bostonians no shame?

    The name Kennedy ring a bell?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "No, it was the protective tariff. Slavery was the emotional cause for some ..."

      I mostly agree edutcher. Most of those who actually fought the war for the Confederacy, did NOT own slaves, and thus, didn't care about the issue of slavery, including the AA soldiers who fought for the Confederacy. Nor did they serve in the government of the states that eventually made up the Confederacy. Nor, did they serve in the federal government. Thus, their view had little to no representation.

      On the other hand, those who did own slaves, rich plantation owners, were the ones who either served in state and federal governments, or bought influence. It was their interests, agriculture, that needed slaves. Thus, it was their issue. And, since they either served in government, or influenced it, they had the better representation in the states that formed the South. In other words, it was their war, that those who owned no slaves, the majority, fought for.

      Resembles much much of what is happening today.

      Delete
  10. As the current widespread corruption in government is laid bare, one ponders what will be the next Fort Sumpter.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I know that this is a topic that generates a lot of heat among southerners :-) but just a couple of notes in passing...

    o Volunteer regiments from every Confederate state (except *maybe* North Carolina) fought in the Union Army during the war; the Confederacy was never as united as post-war romanticism came to imply. Among the four "slave" states that remained in the Union, to say that loyalties were conflicted would be an understatement; visit the Chickamauga National Battlefield Park sometime... one of the more stunning things is the number of regimental monuments for Kentucky regiments... on BOTH sides... (Abraham Lincoln had a brother-in-law who was killed in that battle, fighting in a Kentucky regiments... in the Confederate Army).

    o The best way to get insight into why the North fought to preserve the Union (rather than "just let them go") isn't in the books written by later-day historians. The Civil War was a clash between highly-literate peoples, and the amount of letters that were written home on a variety of topics is voluminous. Many of the soldiers also wrote letters home to there hometown newspapers, essentially serving as correspondents for them. One of the better collections of such letters is compiled in "Hard Marching Every Day," the letters that Private Wilbur Fisk sent home to his local paper in Tunbridge, Vermont (I actually stumbled across this book in, of all places, the Ohio State campus bookstore 20+ year ago - and it looks like it is still in print).

    The "why?" question was answered by Fisk as follows - that a separate CSA would be a slave-owning aristocracy that would not be content with what they had, but would eventually attack the contracted USA as an imperial project. (Given that many Confederate leaders were talking about, post-war (assuming CSA survival), building an empire in Central and South America, big-and-dangerous ideas were clearly in their minds). So, the southern aristocracy, which was descended of a different pedigree than the northern yeomen, had to be eliminated - or it would come back as an imperial aggressor.

    (Aside - if anyone reading this really finds the above to be interesting... asking me how the Civil War was really ultimately caused by... the French!)

    If we get to Civil War 2.0, keep that in mind. The problem is a central aristocracy (in DC and the blue enclaves) that will come back to destroy the rest of the country if it is allowed to persist. I'm not interested in a permanent split - only a split (if we get to that point) that will let us consolidate a base region, liberate the red parts of the "blue" states... and then move on the core "blue" enclaves to finish off the aristocracy. Wilbur Fisk would approve.

    ReplyDelete
  12. As bad as slavery was, what would have been the plight of those people had slavery not existed?
    The enslavers were Muslim conquerors. They hauled many women back to Mecca, Medina, Baghdad and Tehran, along with many supple young boys whom they castrated and used for sex toys.
    The men of the conquered lands who were strong and able were sold into slavery along with women who they considered to be a threat.
    If the conduit of slavery had not existed, would they have allowed those men and women to roam free, or would they have been murdered?
    Remember, this is the satanic pedophile cult we are looking at here. Many of the conquered people were Christians, not muslim as Alex Hailey portrayed in his fiction.
    GOD preserved them just like he did the remnant of Jews who were carried to Babylon, or the descendants of Jacob who went freely to Egypt and were enslaved there.
    We don't know Lincoln's mind. He was against slavery, but viewed the preservation of the Union as more important.
    Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. It's been a good run. 244 years. It would be nice to preserve the nation for the sake of the grand children, but it seems they don't want it.
    Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got till it's gone.
    They're gonna tear down paradise, but lack the smarts to build a parking lot.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I gotta say that statue is not a good pose. It has the slave kneeling at Lincoln's feet and Lincoln passing a hand over him like a blessing.

    This is a very demeaning pose regardless of what it was supposed to mean. I don't go along with taking down old statues for stupid reasons but this statue should never have been displayed in public. Maybe a gov't office building somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'd have to take that up with the freed slaves who paid for the original statue. They must've thought it was appropriate, or they wouldn't have paid for it.

      And a case could be made that Lincoln's passing his hand over the kneeling slave was giving him a blessing: the blessing of freedom, which that slave didn't have previously.

      Now, of course, the once-slaves are being talked into being slaves once again, in the name of Black Lives Matter, which is an organization mostly comprised of white people who favor Communism. History does repeat itself, doesn't it!

      Delete
  14. Something that is way overlooked is that many whites were indentured servants as well. That is tantamount to slavery, and while not exactly the same in certain ways, it was still a harsh way to have to live. My ancenstry is Palatine German--look them up. They were Protestants who paid for their passage by being laborers on farms and were promised a lot of things that were either never delivered or had to be fought for in order to get. NOBODY stood up for them, certainly no civil war was fought over the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Here again we have the Democrats attacking a now dead Republican who has been held up for years as preserving the union and leading abolitionist. Mr. Lincoln was the lead protagonist in ending the institution of slavery being promoted and protected by the Democrats. If the Democrats can destroy Lincoln's legacy then they can rid their party of the sigma of the Party of Slavery and Jim Crow, which the Republicans were against and defeated.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This present conflict proves the wrong side won the civil war.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This post by Surber is wrong. The south did not declare war, they declared secession. It was Lincoln that would not permit them to go. This is not hard to understand. One has to be willfully ignorant to keep repeating the lie that the south was bent on going to war with the north.

    Lincoln said in his inaugural that the south could keep their slaves but they had to pay their taxes. He said in his private letter to Horace Greeley that it was about making the southerners be a part of the US and not about slavery. Was he lying in his private letters about the reason he went to war, Don?

    The south was being made to pay over 75 percent of the bill of the federal gov't And they increased the tariffs just days before Lincoln's inaugural. Sure, that had nothing to do with it. Nobody cares about their money, right?

    Lincoln was worse than Hitler. Lincoln went to toal war. Look up the march to the sea and read about it. He had his generals rape, kill and burn everything to the ground of non combatant civilians. If we can overlook that, then what is so bad about Hitler burning the Jews? Anyone who thinks that's different is some kind of an idiot. Total war means total war. They both did it.
    Now which one had a more noble cause? Hitler was trying to get back German people and land that had been stolen from it. Presumably the people wanted to come back.

    What about Lincoln? He went to total war to force at gunpoint people to come back to a nation they wanted nothing to do with.

    Anybody that can't see that Lincoln was worse than Hitler just doesn't not want to admit the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  18. One of the problems these leftists have is that although Lincoln did say that if he could preserve the union without freeing any slaves he would, the South's intransigence made that impossible.
    The author's statement about unpayable debts is spot on. I encountered the same thing in Japan and Korea. While the Japanese may not like us but they do have a grudging respect because kicked their collective butts. Meanwhile the Koreans resent us because we had to come in and save them as they could not have done it by themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have often wondered about the critical thinking skills of Communist Democrats. Is it ignorance? Is it stupidity? Is it hate? It appears to be a toxic blend of malcontent mental illness. It does not age well and will deliver a very unpleasant set of social catastrophes coming to your town soon.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So let me get this straight...The Democrat mayor of Boston, Marty Walsh, said the statue of Lincoln emancipating a black slave insults black people. Yet BLACK Freed Slaves Paid for that statue to honor Lincoln? Isn't that in it self an insult, and not just to Lincoln but to those freed slaves that spent their hard earned money and time to put up that statue? Where is their voice in the matter? The mayor CAN NOT speak for those people, they already had their say! They wanted that Statue other wise it would not have been created!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Let's move straight to reparations.

    My family fought and died to free the slaves. Every slave descendant in the USA owes me money for my family's suffering.

    ReplyDelete
  22. After the upcoming civil war, a vocal bunch of morons such as Don Surber will claim that the eventual winners - who are willing to murder children and ship women to labor camps now as they did then - won a ar about "equality" when the actual subject of the war then as now is freedom to form a new government separate from the one which hopes to impoverish, enslave, and murder those seeking independence.

    Americans have less freedom now than enslaved men in the Confederacy. Think I'm a liar? Try to buy groceries in Little Rock without a mask. Try to board a boat without a photo id. Try to assert your marriage rights without a license. Try to go to school without a vaccine. Forget to file federal income taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The Dutch ran the trans-atlantic slave trade.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Whether Lincoln ended slavery out of a sincere hatred, or from political expedience, had the North lost (and it would have without the Emancipation Proclamation - it kept England and France out of the war), slaves certainly would never have been freed if the North lost. It is also extremely likely, if the European powers entered the war on the side of the South, the Confederacy would have conquered the North. Slavery would then be institutional, permanent, and probably would have remained in South American and ultimately moved back to Africa. It is unlikely ANY African countries would EVER be free of their European overlords.

    What makes me laugh, is Obama's father's family owned slaves in Kenya. Once they GET their Marxist paradise, the BLM, and African Americans will be purged and put back on the bottom. That is a real truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “... ), slaves certainly would never have been freed if the North lost.”

      That wins the prize for the silliest post on the internet so far in 2021, thanks for the laugh!

      Slavery was ending all on its own around the world when we fought our Civil War, which was about economics and egregious and unfair taxation imposed on the South by the North. The tax reason alone was equal and identical to the reason we declared our independence from Britain. Slavery, on the other hand, was ending for two reasons - attitudes around the world were changing, which is the feel good reason, and slavery itself was becoming uneconomical due to industrialization, which was the practical reason.. So for those who still cling to the false notion that the war is about slavery, it is rubbish - the practice would have ended anyway in a score of years without the slaughter of half a million people, and the peaceful abolition would have resulted in far less rancor. The proof is simple. Consider a mechanical harvesting machine, which replaces the labor of about 500 slaves. Who would trust the operation of such a large investment to a slave?

      So, as to the war itself, after many decades I have sadly come to the conclusion that Lincoln was not only wrong, but he forever destroyed the intent of our Constitution - transforming us from a voluntary union of states to an empire ruled by force of arms. It was inevitable once we crushed the intent of our Declaration - that men have the right to change or abolish their own government - that we would inevitably arrive at a time when the illusion of free elections would also be abolished as they were this year.

      Delete
    2. How was the south paying the lions share of taxes? The taxes in question were tariffs, duties on imports. The South didn't import as much as the North. The North had the factories and industry, the South was agriculture and exported cotton all over the world. No tariffs on exports at the time.
      Ships hauling materials for factories would arrive in the North, unload, then deadhead to southern ports and pick up loads of cotton destined for France and England.
      The belief was that the tariffs would cause England and France to buy less cotton because they had less profit after paying the duties.
      Here's the stinker, the tariffs were raised after session to fund the war effort.
      As for state's rights, the South did more against state's rights than people today want to admit. The fugitive slave act for one. The northern states were expected to foot the bill for capturing escaped slaves who were fleeing to Canada. That is like asking a Catholic to pay for abortions.

      Delete
    3. Not sure if you’re replying to my post or the one above, your post does not correlate well to either. The tax issues predated the war by decades. The North used taxes and other dirty tricks to keep the south from developing their own fabric mills, putting a monopoly on where the south could sell their cotton. If you want to understand what actually happened, you’ll have to read a lot more source material, not just the revised summaries in places like Wikipedia. In any event, once Lincoln engineered his excuse to launch a war of conquest, the principles upon which our country was founded were nullified, and it was no longer the voluntary union it started out as.

      Delete
    4. Johnny, I majored in history in college. Your statements about the taxes are pure garbage.
      The South seceded before Lincoln ever had a chance to do anything. Add to that the fact that democrats retained control of the senate, and there was zero chance that Lincoln could have accomplished anything even if he had wanted to.

      Delete
  25. It is the same in every totalitarian takeover. History and objective truth must be outlawed, to be replaced by political propaganda. Sadly, nearly half of our country prefers the propaganda to the truth, and Republicans may soon have to face the dystopia they plan on installing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “They plan on installing” = “DEMOCRATS plan on installing.”

      Delete
  26. Now some readers will argue that the Civil War was about states rights and not slavery. The problem with that is the South did not secede with the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required free states not to liberate escaped slaves who made it to their states. If the South were so fired up about states rights, why did they do this to the North a decade before Lincoln's election?

    I'm sorry, Don, but I'm going to have to disagree with this. For one thing, this act took place a decade before the invasion of the South. For another, this act did a lot to ease the building tension between the North and the South. The Wilmot Proviso was viewed by the South as an intolerable blow to their honor and another example of the North's refusal to grant them equality. The Compromise of 1850 eased those tensions, but they never completely went away.
    The last thing is is that Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas only joined the Confederacy after Lincoln sent 75,000 troops into the South to prevent secession. In other words, they didn't secede over slavery, but over Lincoln's decision to use military force to suppress Southern independence.

    Don't believe me? The firing on Fort Sumter happened on April 12, 1861. Lincoln asked for the 75,000 volunteers on April 16th. Virginia seceded the next day, April 17th, Arkansas followed on May 6th, North Carolina on May 20th, and Tennessee on June 8th, 1861. Was there any actions or proclamations made that freed any slaves after April 16th? Nope. The only reason those 4 states joined the Confederacy is because they wanted to be free of an oppressive government.

    Search through any personal correspondence for either the North or the South, and try to find anybody writing that they joined the army to free the slaves or keep them enslaved. Nope, you won't find any such correspondence. What you'll find is one soldier after another either fighting to keep the Union whole, or to prevent invaders from invading their homeland.

    Slavery had little to no bearing on the War Between The States.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm a big fan of Mr. Surber's, agree with him on most things and appreciate his indefatigable defense of common sense, but I agree with Kaptain Krude that the Civil War had almost nothing to do with slavery.

    The North invaded the South to prevent them from seceding from the Union, just as the British King invaded the American colonies to prevent them from seceding from the British Empire.

    Somebody who believes that the Civil War was prosecuted to eradicate slavery must believe that the North would have invaded without the South having seceded. To realize how insane that is, just read Lincoln's First Inaugural, a paean to states rights including the rights of the South to hold black in chattel slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  28. “ The firing on Fort Sumter happened on April 12, 1861. Lincoln asked for the 75,000 volunteers on April 16th. Virginia seceded the next day, April 17th, Arkansas followed on May 6th, North Carolina on May 20th, and Tennessee on June 8th, 1861.”

    Yep. Fort Sumter was nothing but an engineered provocation, a thin veneer of an excuse to conquer and dominate the south in violation of the principles set forth in our Declaration of Independence. From that moment on, this country was no longer a voluntary union but a subjugated empire.

    As for slavery, it would have ended anyway within a score of years without the slaughter of half a million people and the decimation of the South. Attitudes around the world, including in the South, were changing, and slavery was becoming economically unviable. When a mechanical harvester can do the work of 500 slaves but costs as much as four homes, there is no way anyone will trust its operation to a slave.

    ReplyDelete
  29. “... I agree with Kaptain Krude that the Civil War had almost nothing to do with slavery.”

    Naturally not. The south seceded for the same reason the colonials seceded from Britain -onerous and unjust targeted taxes heaped upon them by the North. Lincoln forever transformed this country from a voluntary union to an empire of economic subjugation - a form of universal slavery - in direct contravention of the Declaration’s guarantee that people have a god given right to “change or abolish” their own government.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Just to stir the pot a little more, if you want to understand why the BLM/Antifa brownshirts hate Lincoln, then you should read Wake Forest University Professor of Law Tanya D. Marsh’s 8/16/2017 article in the despicable Huffington Post entitled “Abraham Lincoln Was A Racist” (link below). Her conclusions are mostly garbage, but she has her facts right.

    Quoting from Professor Marsh’s article: “…I grew up believing that the Civil War was fought to end slavery. I grew up believing that the South seceded following the election of Abraham Lincoln because he was going to end slavery. Neither of those are true..”

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hard-truths-abraham-lincoln-was-a-racist-and-the-confederacy_b_59932564e4b0a88ac1bc3758

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Johnny, I majored in history in college. Your statements about the taxes are pure garbage."

    Janie, you should demand your money back. Or, perhaps you were just a very bad student. The South produced 70% of the cotton imported by Great Britain and 100% of the cotton used in the Americas. The North had all the factories, and intended to "protect" their industries from cheap British imports. So, using their majority in Congress, they passed the Tariff of Abominations which had the effect of stifling the South. The level of taxation was far greater than the British tea tax which sparked the Revolution of Independence - but rather than being imposed on them by the British, it was imposed on them by their own government. An additional concern was that harming British imports in that way would lead to punitive taxes against cotton - the major export of the new world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_Abominations

    This was one of the final straws of injustices heaped upon the South.

    Now, you are better educated. If you repeat that nonsense again you it will be clear you are simply disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete