• Abraham Lincoln - UnConstitutional Gay Tyrant - The South was Right!
    6 replies, posted
[video=youtube;sn2ELZ8dC40]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn2ELZ8dC40[/video]
even with the clear southern bias to it, this is a really interesting perspective and while I knew 'ol honest abe wasn't really as honest as he's made out to be, i had no idea how far the lie went. truly the school system has failed america
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;48998985][video=youtube;sn2ELZ8dC40]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn2ELZ8dC40[/video][/QUOTE] 0:06 He held views that today are considered racist. Because he was a white man in the 1850s, yes. Nearly every white person was racist and those that weren't were seen as fringe. 0:25 Denied divinity of the Bible and questioned existence of God As did Jefferson and many other American founders. The founders were intelligent men who understood that religion was a system, one used in England to command allegiance and control and denote privilege to the loyal. However, the group also lived in the colonies, where many establishments and states existed totally due to religious minorities escaping prosecution, making the colonies a sort of multi-religious place. It would only be natural that those who dabbled in liberalism, secularism, and religious inter-mingling would also question religious supremacy. Lincoln did not live in this time but he was in contact with a large number of radicals and fringe beliefs among his professional life, and of course he was- as it said- a "free thinker" who became well educated and was well aware of earlier liberals' rejections of religious supremacy. 0:60-4:15 Lincoln slept with men *hint hint he was probably gay!!!* Actually, from what I understand, it was no uncommon for men to share a bed when traveling or boarding together, since most people didn't have a couch or a guest bed or whatever. You had one for the homeowners and maybe one for the children and that was that. I'm not sure why the historian is saying it was uncommon or taboo or whatever, because from what I've read about James Buchanan (who was president before Lincoln) who was a bachelor and spent much more time with a man and slept in the same bed as him etc, and who some serious historians do now question as potentially being legitimately gay, the "men sharing a bed" thing was not taboo. The wording that he "slept with men" here is actually intentionally misleading, because there's no evidence that he fucked them. 4:20-4:30 Lincoln didn't believe blacks and whites were equal Very few did. Not a defense of Lincoln, but he wasn't the equalist or abolitionist we commonly think of him as. The belief that there were different races and that they were fundamentally different with some having biological superiority in thought and some in physical capability was as ingrained as the rationality of men over women- that is, it was a common belief that many viewed as having historical and scientific evidence. Lincoln was no different in this, though in all actuality he (along with a good chunk of northerners) were probably less rigidly confined to this belief as the majority of Americans, and certainly less so than the majority of Southerners who often held the position that slaves were another form of animal and somewhere in between beast and human. It's also of note that Lincoln at times was sympathetic to blacks and abolition, and he made different statements to different crowds at different times in different places, as there was no national newspaper that kept track of his statements and therefore he didn't have to keep his statements straight. He was a lawyer and a politician, but from what we can tell he was sympathetic to abolition, but his crowds weren't most of the time. 4:30-4:48 Lincoln intended to deport slaves This was a position that was commonly considered the most humane or the best for both races, including by many free blacks. Many were adamant that even if black slaves were freed, that the two races could not coexist peacefully. This wasn't controversial at the time though it was beginning to fall out of fashion. 5:13-5:30 Slavery was dying a natural death all over the world And even in America, the system of slavery was beginning to collapse in on itself due to the slave market being flooded by surplus from over-breeding. Not only was northern industry overtaking southern agrarianism, but slavery was becoming less and less profitable, and less and less easy to manage. It was this decline in the ability to manage slaves and maintain the market that lead to the south seeking a states' rights position of new states entering the union deciding if they were going to admit slavery, with hopes that new states would open new markets, spread the congestion of slaves across the western half of America, raise demand in those states to ease the excess supply of slaves, and give slavery a market for another several decades as the labor was deeded to homestead and build new establishments. 5:30-5:45 Instead of helping slavery die, purchasing the slaves, or allowing it to die... Slavery was being held on to by the most powerful political group in the world. The northerners had been trying to prohibit and end slavery since day one of the constitutional convention. There was no feasible way to stop slavery legally when the south had inflated political representation thanks to the three-fifth clause and a stranglehold over the majority needed to limit slavery in any real way. Slavery was going to fight on to the bitter end and that end may have been decades down the line. Further, purchasing the slaves to free them would not do much when slavery was impossible to illegalize. 5:45-6:00 Lincoln instead went on a violent rampage to end slavery Lincoln didn't fight the war to end slavery, Lincoln fought the war to crush the largest rebellion north of the Rio Grande in the history of the Americas (short of the natives). That rebellion was started over the issue of creating a political climate where slavery could maintain indefinitely. The rebels fought over slavery, Lincoln fought to crush the rebels. If you read anything by Lincoln, the majority of his public documents and speeches on the war focus not on slavery at all, but on maintaining the union and concern with the Southern political system. Lincoln was a skilled lawyer so his concerns were less humanitarian and more political and legal- no president would have allowed a political half of the nation to break away. Saying that Lincoln ravaged the South over slavery is simply incorrect. 6:00-6:10 Lincoln's actions spawned Jim Crow and the KKK Jim Crow was an attempt for southern politicians to regain control of the black population after Reconstruction. It was a legal way to re-enslave the black populace in many aspects. If you want to pin that on Lincoln you're an idiot, because yes, the anti-black, pro-slavery South did in fact attempt to institute anti-black, pro-slavery controls after slavery was made illegal. It was a continuation of the Southern regime, not a reaction to the end of it. The KKK was a reaction, yes, to undo the liberation of blacks, but again, blaming that on Lincoln is ridiculous. There are many events in between the two that lead to that result, and Lincoln's rampage of the South was not the direct cause. "Lincoln ended slavery and then the KKK was born to enact terrorism during Reconstruction". So what was the other option? Let slavery happen so there would be no KKK to terrorize blacks? 6:15-6:30 The violence and state control of Lincoln's regime in the South prevented freedom for blacks until the 1960s Simply incorrect. Reconstruction, man. Reconstruction was the point of time (bit over a decade) directly after the civil war in which the South was militarily occupied, had its political rights severely restricted, and was ruled over by military governors. The rights of black Americans were enforced by Union soldiers. Elections were protected and guaranteed as fair by Union soldiers. Political revolt was met with violence, suppression, and sometimes execution. It was also the most progressive time in American history for black people until that time. For that time, there were more blacks in political office in the South than there would be until the 1990s. This came about in the fifteen years after the war, and only because of "scary big goburment", Southern political repression, and the military suppression of the Southern white ruling class. So basically this guy is 100% full of shit. 6:30-8:00 Lincoln fought the war to impose political repression and act as a tyrant when it suited him. Also income tax No doubt, Lincoln imposed government controls, suspended fundamental rights, and ignored the law. He was not the first and he would not be the last. The SCOTUS allowed him to throughout the war until after its conclusion, believing that Lincoln had special powers to do so in the event of a national emergency, like secession of half the country and a war. Later, the SCOTUS would again support the suspension of fundamental rights during wartime or times of threatened national security, during [I]Schenck v. US[/I], [I]Hirabayashi v. US[/I], and a few lesser known others. Fact of the matter is that Lincoln took every step necessary to crush northern internal resistance which he saw as a threat to the nation itself. He exerted whatever influence and power necessary to get results. 8:30-8:35 Lincoln's troops fucked up the South Yep, they sure did. 8:35-9:05 Lincoln justifies repression, decentralize powerful government, and goes against the grain of Jeffersonian ideals Not really. All of these things have many problems with them that were made apparent after Lincoln, and no one uses Lincoln's actions as a justification for refuting these points. Specifically, states' rights tarnished themselves when the states' rights movement was born out of racism and anti-black politics and maintained that until the 1980s, where it's still the domain of racists and tea party loonies. 9:05 "...South Carolina, the state that did more to advance state's [sic] rights than any other Southern state, became the fist state to officially secede." [quote]The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States. [[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850"]The Fugitive Slave Act[/URL], [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause"]Fugitive Slave Clause[/URL]] The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations [to return escaped slaves], and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution [referring to the fugitive slave clause]. The States of [list of several northern states] have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them [specifically, acts dealing with protecting slavery]. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution...[List of specific rejections by specific states]...Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation [meaning that because some states find the Fugitive Slave Clause unconstitutional within their borders, therefore the whole Constitution is null. Some states' rights]. The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens [states' right stipulated that states could permit citizenship for free blacks, as was the case until [I]Dred Scott[/I] in 1957. Apparently SC was cool with the government telling states who could and couldn't be citizens of those states, though. States' rights, anyone?]; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety. [Technically incorrect- there were not enough voting blacks to influence the election in any way] On the 4th day of March next, this party [Republicans] will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.[All of this is conjecture and incorrect] The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.[Conjecture] ... We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world [God] for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. -Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union[/quote] 9:20 The principle of secession was enshrined in American right because we seceded from Britain 90 years previous You can't exactly nullify 90 years of institutions on a precedent established 90 years ago. By the same logic Lincoln was in the right, then, since Britain had the right to attempt to prevent secession. It's a bad argument because you were relying on force and circumstance rather than a legal precedent. Hint: you can't have legal precedents that void the legal system. Further, the signing of the Constitution was a covenant of unity, so, I mean.... 9:27 Tommy J. said secession is A-OK Jefferson was also a radical who believed in eliminating slavery, thought force and violence was justified for political goals and the achievement of liberty, and thought a bloody revolution every generation would be a good idea to maintain liberty. None of which the South was particularly fond of until they were on the getting-fucked end post-civil-war. 10:00 Lincoln raised an army to invade his own country And the South raised one to rebel. Also, why is it "his own country" if they've seceded? It's a crushing of a rebellion. 10:20-12:00 Look at the horrible result of Lincoln's pillage of the South! That's war lol I mean what did the South expect? 12:20 Was the violence really necessary? What did you expect? Rebellions aren't permitted. No Southerners were against suppressing John Brown's rebellion, but all of a sudden the Southern rebellion of a larger scale is ok? Nah, you're gonna get the same treatment. 12:25 Did you really kill all those people to free the slaves? No, it was the prevent a rebellion and dissolution of the country. 12:30-14:50 Lincoln didn't do it for slavery, he did it to become a tyrant!!! Well he certainly didn't do it to end slavery, he certainly didn't do it to be a tyrant. Both abolition and the "tyranny" he enacted were pragmatic actions to end the rebellion and treachery of the South to preserve the United States as a whole. Ladies and Gentlemen, the intellectuals of the Confederate sympathizers, who have not read a single historical or political book on the topic :hiddendowns:
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];49000575']stuff[/QUOTE] *scrolls through entire argument* no but homosexuality though [sp]was actually really informative[/sp]
I can't believe a mainstream media source is making claims like this in fucking 2015
The presentation of the whole 'sleeps with men' thing seems very disingenuous. Its like they are trying very hard to say he was gay without actually saying he had sex with men, but obviously using the wording they are using (He slept with men) suggests so.
clickbait in tv form.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.