An Irishman's view regarding the removal of statues

cancel2 2022

Canceled
This was sent to me on Facebook by a guy called Thomas Sheridan from Sligo, makes sense to me!

About the removal of Confederate monuments in the USA. I think it is disgraceful.

The US Civil War had absolutely nothing to do with abolishing or retaining slavery. Southern states wanted to form separate trade deals with France and Great Britain. The US Federal Government said "no" and the South seceded from the USA. They were legally entitled to do so. Lincoln responded with war.

Even many Northerners considered Lincoln to be a tyrant and this is why the Union army was heavily made up of Irish and Germans who had their own agenda for fighting. They both wanted political power. Many Northern people would not fight for Lincoln.

When the north was running out of troops Lincoln only then abolished slavery so as to use black men as cannon fodder. Lincoln was an Angela Merkel type supranationalist. He was building an empire and not a nation.

There are no clear cut "good" soldiers or "bad" soldiers in history. Just soldiers. Men who fought and died for various reasons as complex as any human life can be. But we can be sure that all had lives and loves like you or I.

Only people with the minds of children believe that history is made up exclusively of "good" and "bad" guys. While the politicians and their bankrollers may well have evil agendas, it is also evil to portray all fighting men on the losing sides as being all "evil" too.

Alas, we are living in a world where the minds of pampered and clueless infantile adults call the shots. How the hell can people who don't even know what gender they are, be allowed to dictate a history they have only the most superficial and detached understanding of, and care even less.

Allow the men who fought and died on all sides to rest with equal dignity.
 
Last edited:
This was sent to me on Facebook by a guy called Tommy Sheridan from Sligo, makes sense to me!

Seriously, if you are an American and believe that the Civil War had absolutely nothing to do with the issue of slavery, then you are mentally ill..................

Which leads me to the question, how fucked up, is fucked up, and how many helpings did you get
 
Seriously, if you are an American and believe that the Civil War had absolutely nothing to do with the issue of slavery, then you are mentally ill..................

Which leads me to the question, how fucked up, is fucked up, and how many helpings did you get
I am not American and neither is the guy I am quoting from Facebook.
 
I am not American and neither is the guy I am quoting from Facebook.

Then go back to your fucking cave..........................

While there was more than one issue in the Civil War, the emancipation of slaves was the central one of these issues.

Next
 
Then go back to your fucking cave..........................

While there was more than one issue in the Civil War, the emancipation of slaves was the central one of these issues.

Next

Whilst not agreeing totally with that Irish guy, I do believe he's right that it wasn't the central defining issue that is portrayed in modern times. The real issue for southern states was the right to cut independent trade deals with Britain and France, which mirrors what is happening now with Brexit. I also think he's mainly right that Lincoln really only cared about slavery when he needed blacks as cannon fodder.
 
Whilst not agreeing totally with that Irish guy, I di believe he's right that it wasn't the central issue that is portrayed in modern times. The central issue for southern states was the right to cut independent trade deals which mirrors what is happening with Brexit. I also think he's mainly right that Lincoln really only cared about slavery when he needed blacks to fight for him.

Again, you are completely ignorant of American history. Why the fucking hell are you posting krap from a foreigner who has never been to the USA and deciding that this is reality?

If you have pills, it is time to take them, if not, get some.....................
 
Again, you are completely ignorant of American history. Why the fucking hell are you posting krap from a foreigner who has never been to the USA and deciding that this is reality?

If you have pills, it is time to take them, if not, get some.....................
I suspected that you are Legion, now you've confirmed it!
 
I suspected that you are Legion, now you've confirmed it!

You believe and said this, and I quote

"About the removal of Confederate monuments in the USA. I think it is disgraceful.

The US Civil War had absolutely nothing to do with abolishing or retaining slavery. Southern states wanted to form separate trade deals with France and Great Britain. The US Federal Government said "no" and the South seceded from the USA. They were legally entitled to do so. Lincoln responded with war."

Can you please elaborate on how the Civil War had nothing to do with abolishing or retaining slavery? And also explain the meaning and consequences of the Emancipation Proclamation?

Then as said, If you have pills, it is time to take them, if not, get some.....................

After you get those pills and take them, take an IQ test. See if u can pass imbecile
 
You believe and said this, and I quote

"About the removal of Confederate monuments in the USA. I think it is disgraceful.

The US Civil War had absolutely nothing to do with abolishing or retaining slavery. Southern states wanted to form separate trade deals with France and Great Britain. The US Federal Government said "no" and the South seceded from the USA. They were legally entitled to do so. Lincoln responded with war."

Can you please elaborate on how the Civil War had nothing to do with abolishing or retaining slavery? And also explain the meaning and consequences of the Emancipation Proclamation?

Then as said, If you have pills, it is time to take them, if not, get some.....................

After you get those pills and take them, take an IQ test. See if u can pass imbecile
This from the troll that stated blacks are killed at the rate of one every 2.4 seconds in Chicago.
 
Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist.

Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nation’s founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word “slavery” in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count slaves for the purposes of representation in the federal government. In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slavery—and then admitted he didn’t know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system.

Abolitionists, by contrast, knew exactly what should be done about it: Slavery should be immediately abolished, and freed slaves should be incorporated as equal members of society. They didn’t care about working within the existing political system, or under the Constitution, which they saw as unjustly protecting slavery and slave owners. Leading abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell,” and went so far as to burn a copy at a Massachusetts rally in 1854. Though Lincoln saw himself as working alongside the abolitionists on behalf of a common anti-slavery cause, he did not count himself among them. Only with emancipation, and with his support of the eventual 13th Amendment, would Lincoln finally win over the most committed abolitionists.
Lincoln didn’t believe blacks should have the same rights as whites.

Though Lincoln argued that the founding fathers’ phrase “All men are created equal” applied to blacks and whites alike, this did not mean he thought they should have the same social and political rights. His views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting “negro equality.” In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust.

Like his views on emancipation, Lincoln’s position on social and political equality for African-Americans would evolve over the course of his presidency. In the last speech of his life, delivered on April 11, 1865, he argued for limited black suffrage, saying that any black man who had served the Union during the Civil War should have the right to vote.

abraham lincoln, emancipation proclamatin
Lincoln thought colonization could resolve the issue of slavery.

For much of his career, Lincoln believed that colonization—or the idea that a majority of the African-American population should leave the United States and settle in Africa or Central America—was the best way to confront the problem of slavery. His two great political heroes, Henry Clay and Thomas Jefferson, had both favored colonization; both were slave owners who took issue with aspects of slavery but saw no way that blacks and whites could live together peaceably. Lincoln first publicly advocated for colonization in 1852, and in 1854 said that his first instinct would be “to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia” (the African state founded by the American Colonization Society in 1821).

Nearly a decade later, even as he edited the draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862, Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed slaves at the White House in the hopes of getting their support on a plan for colonization in Central America. Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be “better for us both, therefore, to be separated.” Lincoln’s support of colonization provoked great anger among black leaders and abolitionists, who argued that African-Americans were as much natives of the country as whites, and thus deserved the same rights. After he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln never again publicly mentioned colonization, and a mention of it in an earlier draft was deleted by the time the final proclamation was issued in January 1863.

Emancipation was a military policy.

As much as he hated the institution of slavery, Lincoln didn’t see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nation’s 4 million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two. But as the Civil War entered its second summer in 1862, thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines, and the federal government didn’t have a clear policy on how to deal with them. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion.

In July 1862 the president presented his draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet. Secretary of State William Seward urged him to wait until things were going better for the Union on the field of battle, or emancipation might look like the last gasp of a nation on the brink of defeat. Lincoln agreed and returned to edit the draft over the summer. On September 17 the bloody Battle of Antietam gave Lincoln the opportunity he needed. He issued the preliminary proclamation to his cabinet on September 22, and it was published the following day. As a cheering crowd gathered at the White House, Lincoln addressed them from a balcony: “I can only trust in God I have made no mistake … It is now for the country and the world to pass judgment on it.”

The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t actually free all of the slaves.

Since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure, it didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, all of which had remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted selected areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control in hopes of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states. In practice, then, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control—the Southern states currently fighting against the Union.

Despite its limitations, Lincoln’s proclamation marked a crucial turning point in the evolution of Lincoln’s views of slavery, as well as a turning point in the Civil War itself. By war’s end, some 200,000 black men would serve in the Union Army and Navy, striking a mortal blow against the institution of slavery and paving the way for its eventual abolition by the 13th Amendment

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation
 
Last edited:
This was sent to me on Facebook by a guy called Thomas Sheridan from Sligo, makes sense to me!

Your author lied with this statement alone: "Lincoln responded with war?"

Are you saying that Fort Sumter was a false flag operation that the CSA took credit for, Tom?
 
Whilst not agreeing totally with that Irish guy, I do believe he's right that it wasn't the central defining issue that is portrayed in modern times. The real issue for southern states was the right to cut independent trade deals with Britain and France, which mirrors what is happening now with Brexit. I also think he's mainly right that Lincoln really only cared about slavery when he needed blacks as cannon fodder.

The south literally viewed emancipation (and new free states) as an attack upon its character. Literally an attack. Not some philosophical dilemma. Did your author ever bother to read to official secession documents, which talk exclusively about slavery and white nationalism, while never mentioning these trade deals with France and Britain?
 
The south literally viewed emancipation (and new free states) as an attack upon its character. Literally an attack. Not some philosophical dilemma. Did your author ever bother to read to official secession documents, which talk exclusively about slavery and white nationalism, while never mentioning these trade deals with France and Britain?

The Confederacy were convinced that both Britain and France would intervene on their behalf. They didn't even though the blockade hurt them badly.

Although Confederate leaders were confident that Southern economic power would compel European powers to intervene in the Civil War on behalf of the Confederacy, Britain and France remained neutral despite their economic problems, and later in the war developed new sources of cotton in Egypt and India. Although British Prime Minister Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerston, was personally sympathetic to the Confederacy, and many other elite Britons felt similarly, strong domestic abolitionist sentiment in Britain and in his cabinet prevented Palmerston from taking stronger steps toward assisting the Confederacy. Napoleon III of France was also sympathetic to the Confederacy, but wanted to pursue a joint policy with Britain regarding the U.S. Civil War, and so remained neutral. Moreover, Napoleon III’s chief concern during the Civil War years was France’s intervention in Mexico.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1861-1865/blockade
 
Then quit lying about it.
Not lying, Sumter was a mere skirmish. The new Lincoln administration sought not to provoke armed conflict, but refused to surrender Federal installations to the Confederates. Instead, Lincoln chose to resupply Fort Sumter and other forts when required.
 
Not lying, Sumter was a mere skirmish. The new Lincoln administration sought not to provoke armed conflict, but refused to surrender Federal installations to the Confederates. Instead, Lincoln chose to resupply Fort Sumter and other forts when required.

It was an act of war, Tom. Perhaps someone will commit one against the UK in the near future, and I can lecture you on the finer points of overreacting to a skirmish.
 
I am not American and neither is the guy I am quoting from Facebook.

Sometimes its useful to have the perspective of having no dog in the fight. You and the author are a good example of this. People dont seem to understand that political spin is not new. Ask them why the US Navy turned its cannons on NYC back during the Civil War.
 
It was an act of war, Tom. Perhaps someone will commit one against the UK in the near future, and I can lecture you on the finer points of overreacting to a skirmish.
Lincoln drew a red line and dared South Carolina to cross it. He was newly installed in the White House and had to show he was tough by refusing to hand over the forts. The North was shitting themselves that they'd lose the taxes from the South especially cotton.
 
Back
Top