Was Lincoln a Closet Abolitionist? Was Lincoln's real purpose to Free the Slaves?

0

Before some might think to argue the old northern propaganda rationalization invented to divert attention away from Northern guilt; to defend their fraud, scheming, lies and complicity in racist bigotry, slave profiteering and malicious genocide committed against Native American tribesmen, by arguing,

"Abraham Lincoln did not _really mean_ what he said"

(as if he were a closeted abolitionist and had his arm twisted into using his executive power to commit crimes against humanity) --if that is the best argument that can be made for "The North,"

"Lincoln didn't really mean what he said,"

in light of the overwhelming evidence, I will argue this: If Lincoln's own words can not be trusted for insight into his bloodthirsty actions, and millions of dead Indians attest to it, then let's say, "ADOLF HITLER DID NOT REALLY MEAN what he said either," for sake of argument. All those Hitler quotes about "Gott this Deutschen Volk" and "Gott that der Juden."

"Oh, Hitler didn't really mean any of that, either."

History is beginning to turn the tide in favor of Truth.

'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.'
- Martin Luther King Jr.

Who has the authority to cherry pick which leaders "literally meant" what they say, and which do not? We know by their actions if they meant it.

Lincoln was quite emphatic with no intention of leaving anyone in doubt... Take the man at his word!

"...I have not meant to leave any one in doubt:
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that..."
Yours,
A. Lincoln.

SPEAKING OF ADOLF HITLER:

Lincoln's administration are the first to put "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins, authorized 1864...
Hitler's administration puts "Gott Mit Uns" on belt buckles... and that isn't all!

The Civil War: 1861-1865
Abraham Lincoln (Died 1865)
--> Lincoln Presidency March 1861-April 1865

--> "...From 1863 to 1868, the U.S. Military persecuted and imprisoned 9,500 Navajo (the Diné) and 500 Mescalero Apache (the N’de). Living under armed guards, in holes in the ground, with extremely scarce rations, it is no wonder that more than 3,500 Navajo and Mescalero Apache men, women, and children died while in the concentration camp."<--

HITLER'S INSPIRATION and Guide: The Native American Holocaust
(Source, Jewish Journal)

...and Lincoln's right-hand man, Sherman, did a lot to teach future dictators a thing or two about "Genocide by Starvation":

...“As a policy statement, I think that’s pretty clear,” The Army had already used a similar strategy—In its 1863-1864 campaign against the Navajos, led by Colonel Kit Carson, the Army destroyed tens of thousands of sheep in a successful effort to subdue the Navajos..."
-Genocide by Other Means: U.S. Army Slaughtered Buffalo in Plains Indian Wars
(Lincoln's Administration, Starving the Natives into Submission) (Source, Indian Country Today Media Network)

More words by this "Saint" who could do "no wrong"... whom Hitler admired so,

“...I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
-Abraham Lincoln

LINCOLN SURE SOUNDS A LOT LIKE ADOLF HITLER, DOESN'T HE?

"...It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."
-Abraham Lincoln, Last Public Address, Washington, D.C., April 11, 1865

Read More »

Abolitionists vs. Social Darwinism

0

An apologist argument: "Again, to be fair, there were only a dozen Tasmanians left in the year that Darwin's Origin was published, 1859, look at what Europeans did to them before "Darwinism".

Rational Wiki on Francis Galton: "...However, his hereditarian views seemed to have taken shape prior to this point, especially during his voyages to south-west Africa in the early 1850s..."

Not sure what your point is about "look at what they did to Tasmania before Galton/Darwin..."
That's either an argument fallacy...
OR, you didn't understand what I've posted...
OR, I didn't convey myself well enough.

So I begin again.
Slavery was outlawed in Britain in 1833. Nobody denies slavery existed, and still exists throughout the world today.

"...By 1783, an anti-slavery movement to abolish the slave trade throughout the Empire had begun among the British public. In 1808, Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which outlawed the slave trade, but not slavery itself."
(Source)

Are we on the same page?

We are up to 1833 Britain.

OK. Here's the video.
Scientific Racism The Eugenics of Social Darwinism

(1:50-4:54 mark) "The 19th Century was to end with the worst crimes of empire but it began with a great moment of optimism. In the 1830's the great plantations of the Carribean Britain became the first nation to end slavery. 3/4 of a million slaves across Carribean were about to be freed. It was presumed the grateful slaves would transform themselves into hard-working Christian peasantry. The campaign to end slavery had been fought by Christian abolitionists. In the 1830's it was their views that dominated the national debate on race." The Christian Abolitionists want to "educate" and bring up the standard of culture for the people of Africa, and here is one basis for a reason to expand the British Empire.
"In the empire the missionaries and abolitionists set out to create, indigenous people would see their culture destroyed and their religions eradicated, and YET THIS SEEMS ALMOST BENIGN when compared with the grim reality of what imperialism became, because during the 19th Century, their dream was gradually overwhelmed by another vision. One that claimed that the black races could not be civilized and should instead be exterminated."

(5:45) "The event that BEGAN THE COLLAPSE of the missionaries vision, took place in a little known outpost. Tasmania, on the Southern Coast of Australia. When the British began settling in 1803, they encountered aboriginal people, only 5000 strong, and lived in complete isolation for 10,000 years... the British found them "uniquely savage and primitive" and therefore can treat them as animals." The British steal their land, and abuse the aboriginals. BY THE 1820's... huge amounts of land has been taken up. It is against the law to kill the aboriginal people, but in journals write their desire to kill them.Fighting breaks out between colonists/aboriginals. War breaks out and many of the aboriginals are killed by settlers.
(9:45) by the end of 1820's they were near completely annihilated.
(11:42) A new policy enacted to capture the remaining aboriginal people (12:09) after years of guerilla warfare the last few 100 of the original aboriginals, a missionary named Robinson is acquired to come to agreement with the aboriginals. The aboriginals (300) were transported to Flinders island to protect them.... but instead, wants to transform them into peasant Christians. They begin dying from European disease.
(17:12) By the 1840's... about 240 of the original 300 brought to Flinders island by Robinson, were dead.

(18:07) "What happened in Tasmania was far from being a unique event. (Narrator gives a list of people's nearly wiped out and one that was wiped out).

(18:52) "Everywhere it seemed white settlers were destroying indigenous people."
(19:05) "And in these very same years the old racism that had been born in the age of slavery began to re-emerge. In the aftermath of Abolition... former slave owners begin to grumble against the people who once made them rich."
(20:07) In the 1830's, it was unpopular to speak of native people as anything less than in the humanitarian sense, "but by the mid-1840's that's beginning to shift."
(20:37) Some complained abolition had failed and that the "Christian vision of civilized empire was also doomed." The moral momentum ran out of the abolitionist movement. People found that other races were not becoming civilized... optimism for "christianization of people of color, began to drain away."
(21:22) Since the natives were rejecting the message of the Christian missionaries, some in Europe begin asking if they can be civilized at all.
In 1849, Thomas Carlisle publishes "Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question" to which he appeals to return to some form of slavery, printed worldwide and helped transform the debate about race.
(23:08) "In 1865, natives of Jamaica attacked a courthouse during a miner demonstration. In return the governor declares martial law and orders his soldiers to go on a killing spree. Nearly 500 people were executed.
(24:10) News of it reaches Britain, and the old abolitionists are roused to intervene and demand the governor put on trial.
(24:43) But in court he is acquitted of mass murder charges due to a strong wave of support. The aristocracy was backing him.
(25:09) his defense was "orchestrated by the new high priest of the new racism Thomas Carlisle." But behind him stood many members of the British literary elite, including Vanity Fair writer, Reverend Charles Kingsley, Charles Dickens.
(25:46) "The notion of treating other people with some degree of Justice and rule of law finally went out the window and was demolished in the 1860's. From then on, we knew the Empire was about ruling people with the maximum amount of coercion.
(26:05) Some of the new ideas about race, In the high Victorian age.. based on the study of anatomy, laid the foundation for a new, scientific racism.

And THAT is where I will let you pick up on the video. At 26:36

( https://youtu.be/3FmEjDaWqA4?t=26m36s )

So when does Francis Galton enter the picture exactly?

"...Galton was inspired by Darwin's On the Origin of Species to apply natural selection to humans and then extend that argument to support the use of artificial selection, or "eugenics," on the human population. However, his hereditarian views seemed to have taken shape prior to this point, especially during his voyages to south-west Africa in the early 1850s. Galton conducted ethnographic research there and began to develop some of his early psychological theories. This experience seems to have provided much of the basis of his works espousing scientific racism, which was fairly extreme even by the standards of Victorian England.[1] His first book-length work on heredity, Hereditary Genius, was published in 1869.[2] The book included hundreds of subjects' scores on mathematical and civil service tests as well as the lineages of the subjects. Galton argued that "genius" was primarily inherited by noting the normal distribution of the scores and the closeness of "great" men on their family trees. He coined the term "eugenics" in 1883..."
(Source, Rational Wiki)

Either way, during slave times, Christian slavers viewed their slaves as mere "animals without souls" --mere "property" like a tractor or a plow horse. Without soul -- not human? That argument had even erupted earlier on among the Church fathers whom made strong allusions to their doubts as to whether or not women had fully qualified souls or have you forgotten? (20 Vile Quotes Against Women By Religious Leaders From St. Augustine to...)

Now, wasn't that the Anti-Darwin argument, that man is created in God's image therefore it defies all teachings within the Bible and Gospel? Saint Augustine would digress, and be forced to agree with Charles Darwin:
"...Woman was merely man's helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God."
–Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius (354-430), 20 Vile Quotes

Tertullian rates woman lower than the apes --all the way back to the primordial puddle, the "temple built over a sewer."

Woman was some kind of "creature" --wicked, the gateway to hell.
Woman declared, "lesser" in body, mind and spirit, -- but those of other races or religion, how much more less?
Did you really believe when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution that they intended to include women among "All men are created equal" -- of course not. Or, that the founding fathers were intending to imply, that "All men are created equal" should include Native American inhabitants... or the black slave?

The non-Anglo-Saxon were not counted among "human" or a "man" --not by religious or political standards. Perhaps the most staunch abolitionist would have been so generous as to count them as their "brother" -- but only in terms of being a "lesser" brother, but never equal.

The views that Darwin developed how that "man" came from animals, or that --> man IS animal <-- ... was the prevalent view among British colonists and Europeans alike. That view of "man as a beast" was at least a millennia in the making, if not more so.

Definitely.. woman. She was not considered human for most of human history -- a mere slave, disposable at birth, or piece of property.

Not fair, I wholeheartedly agree, but that's how it was back then. I think "revisionism" has went a very long way with anti-Darwinism in the past century, where memory & conscience has been wiped clean. Christians no longer remember how they viewed the slaves in the cotton fields as merely "livestock"... or that a wife in America (1922) if she "marries a foreigner, if she wants to retain her property for herself, she has to have it transferred to trustees before marriage to hold for her. She, herself, only has the income at the pleasure of her trustees..." (only one of the many historical laws which acted to discriminate against women, a long list, compiled over several pages.)

Read this frightful list of accounts, about how "Woman has no Soul." A book dated 1922, and uncertain about all the examples being verifiable. The stories of horrors perpetrated against women through history, due to being viewed as mere "animal," some are religious customs, other cultural prejudices, are all, nonetheless shocking.

Sex and Sex Worship: (phallic Worship)
Otto Augustus Wall
Mosby, 1922 - Phallicism - 608 pages

Read More »

Abraham Lincoln's Legacy to the Nation and the World

0

Abraham Lincoln's legacy to North America... and the World

The Civil War: 1861-1865
Abraham Lincoln (Died 1865)
Lincoln Presidency March 1861-April 1865

--> "...From 1863 to 1868, the U.S. Military persecuted and imprisoned 9,500 Navajo (the Diné) and 500 Mescalero Apache (the N’de). Living under armed guards, in holes in the ground, with extremely scarce rations, it is no wonder that more than 3,500 Navajo and Mescalero Apache men, women, and children died while in the concentration camp." <--
(Source)

Yes, the very dates when Abraham Lincoln is in power, are the dates mentioned in the article. Lincoln was a great inspiration for Adolf Hitler and others like him, indeed!

Hitler’s Inspiration and Guide: The Native American Holocaust
(Source: Jewish Journal)
"...While attending the annual Garifuna Film Festival held here in Los Angeles, we watched films about indigenous cultures, and saw the 1985 Academy Award-winning documentary Broken Rainbow, directed by Victoria Mudd, which discusses the history of injustice towards the Native American people. The film talked about The Long Walk of the Navajo, which was the 1864 deportation and attempted ethnic cleansing of the Navajo people by the U.S. government. 8,000 Navajos were forced to walk more than 300 miles at gunpoint from their ancestral homelands in northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico to an internment camp in Bosque Redondo, which was a desolate tract on the Pecos River in eastern New Mexico. Many died along the way. From 1863 to 1868, the U.S. Military persecuted and imprisoned 9,500 Navajo (the Diné) and 500 Mescalero Apache (the N’de). Living under armed guards, in holes in the ground, with extremely scarce rations, it is no wonder that more than 3,500 Navajo and Mescalero Apache men, women, and children died while in the concentration camp."

As Pulitzer Prize-winning author, John Toland, notes in his book Adolf Hitler (pg. 202):

Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination—by starvation and uneven combat—of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.
He was very interested in the way the Indian population had rapidly declined due to epidemics and starvation when the United States government forced them to live on the reservations. He thought the American government's forced migrations of the Indians over great distances to barren reservation land was a deliberate policy of extermination. Just how much Hitler took from the American example of the destruction of the Indian nations is hard to say; however, frightening parallels can be drawn.

Who can deny the obvious? Lincoln and General Sherman were far more akin to Hitler than to any civil rights activists such as Martin Luther King.

But, that was only the beginning.

The British Empire observed the genocide, and their intellectuals pondered over the question of race... like the North American motto "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" as they enslaved Natives in Reservations (Concentration Camps) they thought to "civilize" the natives around the world, while others argued the brown races could never be civilized, and only to be exterminated. The British Race inevitably discovered its own "Manifest Destiny" . . .

BBC Documentary -- Scientific Racism The Eugenics of Social Darwinism

The "Expansionist" vision of the American Colonists was emulated by the British (see 28:48 of the documentary)

"One writer compared the extermination of these natives by white settlers, as being like, 'the melting of snow before the advancing rays of the sun.'

Francis Galton's wicked genius in Pseudo-scientific "Racial Theory" further (29:48)

"'neatly explained and JUSTIFIED the global expansion of the great British race'"

(but offering a scientific basis, further bolstering racial extermination as a legitimate undertaking). This "Honest Abe Lincoln" who freed no slaves, would be bothered by it in the least? He was part of the inspiration behind it!

What began in the 1400's, 1500's, 1600's... with "God clearing passage" for Anglo-Saxon protestants by use of his favorite weapon of choice, Smallpox,to kill the indians evolved over the next couple centuries into the quasi-Religious doctrine of "Manifest Destiny" -- which, had been amply proven as "divine providence," Abraham Lincoln didn't even think to question it.
Manifest Destiny for the "Anglo-Saxon Protestant" (God's Chosen) inspired The Indian Removal Act/Trail of Tears/Wounded Knee) etc... and no sooner than America was completing its quest to expand from "Sea to Shining Sea" -- inspired the British Empire to do the same.

The British Empire brutalized natives around the world.. tactics successfully devised by Abraham Lincoln's bloody toadies and those who came before him (such as starving people into submission through slaughter of their livestock and destruction of crops, as Sherman had done during the Civil War on the South) the rape and pillaging and burning was turned West, against the Natives. Sherman slaughtered the buffalo to cripple the Indians.

Genocide by starvation was carried out by the British Empire, and Hitler, likewise... quite the fan of Abraham Lincoln.

Hitler had a deep appreciation for the efficiency of the American exterminators of Indians, the British Empire likewise... Hitler learned from American as well as British exploits in Africa and elsewhere... Hitler learned from Lenin, who also had perfected the Gulag labor-death concentration camp...

Stalin studied Hitler and Lenin...
Mao studied Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler...

No dictator is created in a vaccum.

What could the colonial Exterminator mean, when he spoke of "Cutting down the Natives' Corn"? -- Genocide by Starvation and the criminal exterminators took it to a whole new level, when General Sherman entered the South during the Civil War, torching everything in slight -- wholesale slaughter of livestock. These extermination tactics, through starvation, were so effective in crushing the South that Sherman contemplated using it as a policy to break the Natives.

Christian exterminators: “God’s Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!” “Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!” Moreover, “Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians ‘grow secure upon (sic) the treaty’, advised the Council of State in Virginia, ‘we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cut down their Corn.’”
(Source).

"Cut down their corn" ... interesting, perhaps to people like Adolf Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and other insanely power-thirsty dictators... but especially, Sherman's brutal war crimes -- it must have made delightful reading for the Fuhrer, Mao, Stalin and Lenin alike who specialized and perfected the art of "Genocide by Starvation".

Genocide by Other Means: U.S. Army Slaughtered Buffalo in Plains Indian Wars
"...As the U.S. government and its restless people looked to expand westward after the Civil War, they started to infringe upon Indian lands. During the Plains Indian Wars, as the U.S. Army attempted to drive Indians off the Plains and into reservations, the Army had little success because the warriors could live off the land and elude them—wherever the buffalo flourished, the Indians flourished. But pressure on the Army to contain the Indians increased in the 1860s when gold was discovered in the Montana Territory, and part of what is now eastern Wyoming became the route of the Bozeman Trail, the quickest way to get to the mines in Montana. This trail cut through sacred ground for the Sioux, as well as their prime hunting grounds—the “best game country in the world,” according to one veteran trapper. The Sioux regularly attacked travelers on the Bozeman Trail, and Army forts were set up to protect travelers through the Powder River Basin. During the Indians’ clashes with settlers, prospectors and U.S. Cavalry to protect a last bastion of their food supply in what became known as Red Cloud’s War, U.S. Army Captain Fetterman bragged, “With 80 men I could ride through the whole Sioux Nation.” He soon got the chance to back up that boast: Captain Fetterman and his men met with some representatives of the Sioux Nation and their allies, led by Crazy Horse, on December 21, 1866, in the Powder River Basin, and the result of that battle is remembered in history books as the Fetterman Massacre—all 81 men in his party were slain. It was the Army’s worst defeat on the Plains until the Battle of Little Bighorn, 10 years later, and forced it to pull out of the area after the Fort Laramie Treaty was signed in April 1868.

General William Tecumseh Sherman, who had broken the back of the South during the Civil War with his ruthless March to the Sea, helped negotiate the Fort Laramie and 1867 Medicine Lodge treaties that were supposed to end U.S. hostilities with northern and southern tribes. But that’s when officers started thinking about a new strategy. Sherman knew that during the Civil War the Confederates’ means and will to fight were extinguished by his brutal—and brutally effective—”scorched earth” policy that decimated the infrastructure of the South. Why couldn’t the same strategy be applied to Indians and their buffalo? Greymorning said, “The government realized that as long as this food source was there, as long as this key cultural element was there, it would have difficulty getting Indians onto reservations.”

Isenberg said, “Some Army officers in the Great Plains in the late 1860s and 1870s, including William Sherman and Richard Dodge, as well as the Secretary of the Interior in the 1870s, Columbus Delano, foresaw that if the bison were extinct, the Indians in the Great Plains would have to surrender to the reservation system.” Colonel Dodge said in 1867, “Every buffalo dead is an Indian gone,” and Delano wrote in his 1872 annual report, “The rapid disappearance of game from the former hunting-grounds must operate largely in favor of our efforts to confine the Indians to smaller areas, and compel them to abandon their nomadic customs.”

“As a policy statement, I think that’s pretty clear,” Isenberg said. The Army had already used a similar strategy—In its 1863-1864 campaign against the Navajos, led by Colonel Kit Carson, the Army destroyed tens of thousands of sheep in a successful effort to subdue the Navajos.

There was one tactical flaw with this strategy: too many buffalo. But while it wasn’t feasible for the U.S. Army to kill tens of millions of bison, it was feasible for the Army to let hunters use their forts as bases of operation and stand by as they slaughtered the animals in staggering numbers. Another key strategy here was that the Army made no effort to enforce all those treaty obligations forbidding whites to hunt on Indian lands. Whites could needlessly kill a bison for “sport” but when an Indian killed cattle for food for his family because of the growing scarcity of bison, he was severely reprimanded."
/EXCERPT
(Source)

The Myth of the Great Emancipator

The only defense for the genocidal butcher, Abraham Lincoln, is the MYTH... the need for a "happy ending" like Hollywood movies portray heroes ... somebody has to be a hero, right? There's got to be a "good guy" ... somewhere in the bleak, dismal? Right??

Real life is very different:

• NOT ONE policy was devised by Lincoln, with all his learned expertees in legal matters and the hostile racial atmosphere, to guarantee slaves be safe, secure, and the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" post-slavery. NOT ONE POLICY. Therefore, former slaves, ended up right back in slavery via Peonage system of exploitation.
• The 'emancipation proclamation' only theoretically freed slaves in the southern nation, "Confederate States of America." Slaves under Lincoln's jurisdiction, remained in slavery. Lincoln's crafty use of legaleeze-speak was a close as it was going to get to Lincoln doing squat for people he did not consider his "brother".
• The best effort he ever mustered concerning the fate of black lives, was to meet with representatives of the black race, and encouraged them to support his policy to remove the blacks from the continent and send them back to Africa or colonize them in Liberia, and THAT was Lincoln's only desire. Not to live among them as equals.

Beyond that, no further effort was forthcoming from Lincoln.

Any who doubt the racist, genocidal butcher Lincoln and his maniac right hand man, General Sherman, were merely "closeted" abolitionists have failed to see "Honest Abe Lincoln" was being completely honest when in his letter of 1862 regarding his ONLY OBJECTIVE, for the Civil War:

---> Executive Mansion,
---> Washington, August 22, 1862.
---> Hon. Horace Greeley:
---> Dear Sir.
---> As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
---> I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.<---
(Source

How could Lincoln be any more clear about his true intentions?

Lincoln's ONLY objective in the Civil War was to "Save the Union". Nothing more. Nothing less. The man put it in plain English, and yet people feel the dogged persistent need to find something in his motives, that simply wasn't there... and he said so, point blank in plain-spoken-English.

There's nothing "hidden" between the lines.

Everything Lincoln wrote, is stated in the very way any other racist exterminator would've stated their true intentions.

"Honest Abe Lincoln" says in plain English,

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."

PLAIN ENGLISH. Ignore the facts as they will.

"To save the Union..."

why the all-encompassing need?

Lincoln, was on a mission from God himself, that's why.

MANIFEST DESTINY: "ONE NATION UNDER GOD".

"...The 19th-century belief that the United States would eventually encompass all of North America is known as "continentalism".[42] An early proponent of this idea was John Quincy Adams, a leading figure in U.S. expansion between the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the Polk administration in the 1840s. In 1811, ADAMS WROTE to his father:

--->"...The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by DIVINE PROVIDENCE to be peopled by ONE NATION, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union. <---

(Source: "Manifest Destiny," Wikipedia)

"ONE FEDERAL UNION." Lincoln's objective like his predecessor, John Quincy Adams: to "Save the Union" for,

• Anglo-Saxon
• Protestant
• One nation
• under God
• One language
• One common civic religion
• One race.

Lincoln be like (paraphrased): "Ship the blacks back to Africa while my good man General Sherman enslave the remaining native beasts in concentration camps and teach them the Anglo-Saxon language, culture, religion... those who refuse to submit are to be exterminated through various means like starvation. Kill the Indian. Save the Man!"

And that was the TRUE Abraham Lincoln that Adolf Hitler admired with much fondness.

Read More »

British empire responsible for more deaths than communist Russia and China combined?

0

10 Most Evil Empires in History

All in all, you're dealing with death tolls that span a few centuries... and numerous conspirators. Including ... smallpox... genocide of the North American colonial settlement which, oh yeah, by the way, like the colonial settlers, Lincoln believed too that God was picking off those "two-legged non-human" native savages" to clear passage for the Anglo-Saxon people and the divine will, for "One Nation" --the USA. As discussed, it was "Manifest Destiny". Lincoln slaughtered a whole lot of Indians and Presidents before him. (Former British).

Stalin accomplished to pack his grisly death toll into a couple decades... China too.

"...The evidence shows something much darker. Far from doing nothing during the famine, the British did a lot - to make it worse. They insisted that the Indian peasants carry on shipping out grain for global markets, and enforced this policy with guns. (Stalin did exactly the same thing in the 1930s, during the famines caused by collectivisation). This meant, as the historian Professor Mike Davis has noted, "London was eating India's bread" at the height of a famine. They even stepped up taxes on the starving, and insulted them as "indolent" and "unused to work"."
(Source)

And you on the left wing, that is, may not like that can of worms once opened because my Irish Ancestors are a part of the death tolls of which they speak.

--> "How "open" was it to an Irishman being tortured by the Black and Tans for advocating a free Ireland? <---

Politically Correct Choir: "Oh no, white (Irish) people never suffered racism, discrimination, slavery or oppression... but my ancestors did. The British treated the Irish, like the Colonists and Abe Lincoln treated the Indians -- slavery, starvation, genocide..."

Exacerbating The Irish Famine
"...If you want to see why large parts of Ireland still despise anything remotely British, look no further than the Irish Famine. What started out as an ordinary if brutal famine soon became something more like genocide when London sent the psychopathic Charles Trevelyan to oversee relief work.
A proud Christian who believed the famine was God’s way of punishing the “lazy” Irish, Trevelyan was also a fierce devotee of Adam Smith. How fierce? Well, he passionately felt that government should never, ever interfere with market forces, to the extent that he refused to hand out food to the starving Irish. Instead, he instituted a public works program that forced dying people into hard labor building pointless roads so they could afford to buy grain. The only problem was he refused to control the price of grain, with the result that it skyrocketed beyond what the road builders could afford. Trevelyan thought this would encourage cheap imports. Instead it led to a million people starving to death.
To cap it all off, Trevelyan also launched a PR blitz in Britain that encouraged people to blame the Irish for their own poverty. Suddenly Irish emigrants looking for work found themselves unemployable and subject to violence, even as their friends and families starved to death back home. Because fate laughs in the face of justice, Trevelyan was later officially honored for his “relief work.”
10 Evil Crimes Of The British Empire
(Source)

Oh my, --> "...A proud Christian who believed the famine was God’s way of punishing the “lazy” Irish..." <---

PART OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE'S "GENOCIDE"...

"Goddiddit."

--> "On average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of “the marvelous goodness and providence of God” to the Christians of course, e.g., the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as

for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess.” <--

PRAISE THE LORDSKI?

--> The puritan commander-in-charge, John Mason, wrote after one massacre: “And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished...God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven...Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies.” So “the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance.” Because of his readers’ assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow: “Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them...” (Deut. 20) Mason’s comrade Underhill recalled how “great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers” yet reassured his readers that “sometimes the Scripture declares women and children must perish with their parents.” Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists’ own words: “blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastiffs to seize them.” In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. The surviving handful of Indians “were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for ‘a share’ of the captives, specifically ‘a young woman or girl and a boy if you think good.’”

Other tribes were to follow the same path. Comment the Christian exterminators: “God’s Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!” “Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!” Moreover, “Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians ‘grow secure upon (sic) the treaty’, advised the Council of State in Virginia, ‘we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cut down their Corn.’”

In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. In a single massacre in “King Philip’s War” of 1675 and 1676 some “600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a ‘barbecue.’” <---
(Source)

'tis merely Manifest Destiny, and Honest Abe Lincoln, Indian Killer, honestly believed.

Civil war (1861-1865)
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)

Indians would not even be recognized as fully "Human" or citizens ... until long after Lincoln was dead and buried.

I Am a Man: When American Indians Were Recognized as People Under U.S. Law
"...In 1877, as part of the government’s “removal” program (what we would now call ethnic cleansing), the Ponca tribe was forcefully relocated from it homelands in Nebraska to “Indian Territory in present-day Oklahoma. As with every tribe relocated by the U.S. government to strange and inhospitable land, the Ponca suffered huge losses to disease and starvation. However, this itself was not what began the momentous story of Chief Standing Bear.
[...] LONG EXCERPT [...]
"...And, then, recognition of American Indians as persons under the law did not grant them citizenship, which was not theirs for another forty-five years, in 1924. For the Northern Ponca, as for many other Native Americans, citizenship was not a miraculous cure for conquest and the government’s continuing and often malign mismanagement of it’s trust relationship with the tribe. In the 1960’s, under another of the government’s frequent changes of policy, the Nortern Ponca were misled into giving up their federally recognized status. When, within twenty years, they had recognized their error and sought arduously and expensively to correct it, they were at the last stage of the process coerced by their own non-Native U.S. congressman – against pain of his blocking the restored recognition – to forswear in perpetuity any future claim to a tribal reservation in Nebraska, on land that was theirs to begin."
(Source)

A hangover from the British Empire's stupid superiority superstition.

Genocide is genocide.
A few million here, a few million there... like Stalin is attributed to have stated, "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic," but the Leftwing for some queer reason beyond me rationalizes "some genocides are more 'excusable' than others."

Some suggested authoritative links on Leftwing Death Tolls:
1. How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder? By R.J. Rummel
2. Communism Killed 94M in 20th Century, Feels Need to Kill Again
3. So, how many did Communism kill? (UPDATED: The historical reality of communist oppression is being ignored. But the truth must not be buried)

   "In total, this is not far short of 100 million deaths at the hands of a single ideology. Nothing like this has ever happened before. (As an aside, my personal view is that the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews was the greatest single crime of the modern era, while communism was the greatest criminal system.)"

   The frightful thing is that such a staggering death toll was achieved within a single century under policies of single dictators. The figure does not even take into account the ongoing death tally beyond 1989, in modern communist regimes.

   "Apologists have adopted a number of strategies -- beyond outright denial which lasted for decades. One of the most popular and enduring is that we should not spend much time on the crimes of communism because Western countries have also committed crimes, most particularly when they had their empires.
   To say that this is disingenuous is an understatement. Even if it were true that Western countries had committed similar crimes -- which it most certainly isn't -- why would that be an obstacle to discussing the crimes of communism? Jack the Ripper isn't any the less of a killer because Ted Bundy was too."

Other relevant death tolls apply which should be taken into consideration as they are a direct result of applying Marxist-Communist ideology of "International Socialism" philosophies into political systems, i.e., George Bush' unprovoked "pre-emptive war" in the Middle East which produced a death toll of at least 1,000,000 in Iraq:
The Neocons: An Illustrated Progression
From exile to redemption to exile again: a history of "militaristic idealists" known as neocons.
4. Death toll of communism
5. Atheist Governments of the 20th Century: The Death Toll of Godless Goodness
Last, but not least:
6. “An 800-page compendium of the crimes of Communist regimes worldwide, recorded and analyzed in ghastly detail by a team of scholars. The facts and figures, some of them well known, others newly confirmed in hitherto inaccessible archives, are irrefutable. The myth of the well-intentioned founders—the good czar Lenin betrayed by his evil heirs—has been laid to rest for good. No one will any longer be able to claim ignorance or uncertainty about the criminal nature of Communism, and those who had begun to forget will be forced to remember anew.”
   —Tony Judt, The New York Times
   “When The Black Book of Communism appeared in Europe in 1997 detailing communism’s crimes, it created a furor. Scrupulously documented and soberly written by several historians, it is a masterful work. It is, in fact, a reckoning. With this translation by Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer, English-language readers may now see for themselves what all the commotion was about.”
   —Jacob Heilbrunn, The Wall Street Journal
   The Black Book of Communism
   Crimes, Terror, Repression
   Stéphane Courtois
   Nicolas Werth
   Jean-Louis Panné
   Andrzej Paczkowski
   Karel Bartošek
   Jean-Louis Margolin
   Edited by Dr. Mark Kramer
   Translated by Jonathan Murphy
   Published by Harvard University Press

CHOOSING A SIDE

There's no "left vs right" ... no "good guy vs bad guy" ... no "right vs wrong". It's futile to try to salvage these monsters and maniacs from history and whitewash their bloodthirsty genocide and ethnic cleansing.
It's ALL GENOCIDE. Human madness (and yeah, all of it above was inspired either by theistic-influenced empires, or atheistic-influenced regimes. ALL of it is pure insanity, evil... and there's no excuse for even one death. Stalin was wrong, one death is a tragedy and a million deaths are a million tragedies.
As the left/right scramble to defend "their side" -- the way I see it, there was never any valid justification for any of it 100, 200, 300, 500 years ago.. no more than there is now.

So don't waste your time defending them. They're all criminals. Guilty as charged.

APACHE TEARS
This piece was created as a tribute to the North American Indian people. A collage of symbolic images frame the center piece which is that of an Apache chief of 1889. (Source)

I won't allow Abraham Lincoln to steal the legacy and honor of this Apache Chief anymore, no apologies. Lincoln was complicit in the genocide of the Indian people. Lincoln and Sherman were war criminals. I do not feel that the white race (being Irish, my ancestors weren't even counted among the so-called "white people" (no doubt due in great part to the Irish majority preference for Roman Catholic religion) any more than Mulato children were "white," being direct offspring of Anglo-Saxon Protestant slave-owners but never counted among rightful heirs or "legitimate," and sometimes sold by their own biological parent into slavery. The Irish --relegated among the "Negro" race and others deemed racially "defective" and "inferior" -- the Anglo Saxon Protestants were in no way "superior" to the people they slaughtered because they condescendingly looked down on their race or religion... they were cold-blooded butchers, --the worst kind of savage beast and how harmoniously it fits within Charles Darwin's theory of human evolution.

With history in correct perspective, I don't see how Protestants can deny the Theory of Evolution, since after all, back in Abraham Lincoln's day, Lincoln himself espoused belief that Native Americans and Black slaves, were nothing more than beasts... "two legged" creatures who merely resembled "human persons," and fair game for ethnic cleansing. Sherman would either enslave or slaughter the Native American Indian, while Lincoln wished to put the Africans on ships and send them to Liberia or back to Africa. He had no desire to live beside them... any of them.

Darwin's theory fit nicely with the prevailing and widespread attitude of Anglo-Saxon Protestant Christians in Europe and abroad... he was no doubt, widely received by the most affluent intellectuals, even further justifying genocide.

There are documentaries about that very topic: Francis Galton (the cousin of Charles Darwin), referred to as the "Father of Modern Eugenics".
Darwin was merely a product of his time, nothing more, nothing less.

Abraham Lincoln wanted to ship black people back to Africa while being in full support and complicit with General Sherman's razing and rape and pillaging southward and then westward expansion' ethnic cleansing of Native American Indian tribes.

Scientific Racism The Eugenics of Social Darwinism

Charles Darwin is brought into play at 29 minutes and 10 seconds... a worthwhile listen.

The theory of human evolution fit neatly within the prevailing religious beliefs of the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and even 19th and 20th century... however, when Charles Darwin proposed the same theory applied to Anglo-Saxon Protestants, surely that was a huge blow to their exaggerated sense of self-importance. They were already heavily reliant on the notion every other race was a "beast" while they themselves, were born "Children of God" with a divine significance that set them apart, with a cringeworthy "Manifest Destiny" in the world.

Abraham Lincoln shared much more in common with Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler's "ethnic cleansing" than Lincoln and his butcher, General Sherman would ever share in common with Martin Luther King.

The documentary does an expose on Francis Galton and Eugenics. Christianity wasn't so far removed from Darwinist principles, back then. Lincoln would be the first to agree with the British Empire that the "Tasmanians were a godless, primitive beast... savage... left behind by history... and no loss if treated like animals."

A footnote to all this information:
I'm sure for some, there is a faint glimmer of hope that to criticize the British Empire (who's ideology was deeply grounded in an idolatrous-like, religious-based racist bigotry), would somehow justify the Communists in their wanton bloodbath?
Somehow make the lives that were lost, of less significance?
Somehow soften the brutal reputation of such murderous communist regimes?
Or perhaps by making an example of the British Empire, make Communism appear to be "Really not so bad"? It was BAD... no, it was worse.
Unlike the British Empire of which there's been full disclosure... an almost boastful disclosure because they were under the delusion they were "Men on a Mission from God," -- the majority of Communist Archives remain SEALED. We will never know the full extent of the atrocities; horrific war crimes, brutality, torture and death that were carried out under Communist regimes.
Does any person doubt for a moment, Theodore Bundy was a "vicious, brutal killer" who derived sadistic pleasure from his victims' suffering? To make such comparison is like saying, "Since Gary Ridgway was convicted of killing 49 victims, and Ted Bundy only killed 36, Bundy deserved to be exonerated." It's a moot issue but that's the logic! ;-)

Genocide is genocide.

Francis Galton, (cousin of Charles Darwin) was the crackpot ... the "mad genius" behind the latter day "British Empire" atrocities and founder of the modern Eugenics programme we're all too familiar with -- pseudo-scientific racism, or "Racial Hygiene" was implemented in early 1900's America which included laws in about half or over half of the United States, enforcing sterilization of persons deemed "unfit" to reproduce.
Notably, Adolf Hitler so admired the American Eugenics programme... and copied it.

The British Empire based their own version of "British Racial Superiority" on Galton's racist philosophy.
So for those seeking to somehow justify the death tolls under Communism, by invoking the British Empire? Well, there it is.

As far back as the 1600's ... English colonists expressed a deeply held belief that Native People were merely "Beastlike". So unworthy of Life, Liberty and Happiness, that they were wiped out like a common animal and when man didn't do it through weapons and ammunition, starvation by broken treaty, "Goddidit" through the act of sending a little Smallpox here or there.
Darwin and Galton merely jumped on the bandwagon with the rest of the herd that widely believed, humans were "animals".

Galton was probably an Agnostic considering Charles Darwin was as well (according to those who knew Darwin), if not, it is safe to speculate Galton was Atheist.

So, will those on the Left, quick to defend Communist Regimes also properly lay blame on Francis Galton's Agnostic or Atheist influence on the British Empire's folly?

First, I will refer to a book which touches on the topic of Galton's spiritual views,

"Boyle on Atheism"
Robert Boyle, John James MacIntosh
University of Toronto Press, 2005 - Philosophy - 493 pages

And here, I quote another web source to base a conclusion on as to what "spiritual persuasion" Galton was of.

"...The founder of eugenics, Francis Galton, was not only an agnostic, but also openly hostile toward religion."

The Darwin Effect: It's influence on Nazism, Eugenics, Racism, Communism, Capitalism & Sexism
Jerry Bergman
New Leaf Publishing Group, Sep 26, 2014 - Religion - 360 pages

So, please, in all fairness, include that Agnostic among the motivations behind the British Empire's ghastly wreckage in human misery and death.

Additional Video

The History of Racism - Episode 1 (part 1/6)

Read More »