I Never Knew That Abraham Lincoln Ordered The Largest MASS HANGING IN US HISTORY, Or Why He Did It

124
9941

People think that Abe Lincoln was such a benevolent President. He was actually a bit of a tyrant. He attacked the Confederate States of America, who seceded from the Union due to tax and tariffs. (If you think it was over slavery, you need to find a real American history book written before 1960.)This picture is of 38 Santee Sioux Indian men that were ordered to be executed by Abraham Lincoln for treaty violations (IE: hunting off of their assigned reservation). Yes, the “Great Emancipator” as the history books so fondly referred to him as.

Authorities in Minnesota asked President Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303 Indian males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South.

He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 38. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds.

So, on December 26, 1862, the “Great Emancipator” ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota.

You have no idea the things that are hidden from you with the textbooks assigned to you as a child by your government. Stay mindful people, be aware….in the age of information being ignorant is indeed a choice.

You are currently seeing the wholesale attempt to REWRITE yet another chapter in American History were the Confederate Battle Flag is concerned. Now there is talk of digging up graves and moving bodies that ‘offend’ people. This is nothing more than desecration of the dead.

Have a disagreement with history, and not wanting to remember the War Between the States, is one thing. But to erase a significant event in national history is another. And sets a dangerous precedent. What will fall victim next to Political Correctness?

Click to WATCH: I Never Knew That Abraham Lincoln Ordered The Largest MASS HANGING IN US HISTORY, Or Why He Did It

SOURCEhistory
SHARE

124 COMMENTS

  1. Also, I am no yankee apologist–this was a very nuanced issue, particularly for the non-slaveholders in the South who truly were fighting for a lost cause in supporting their agrarian economy. I agree that the Union really was (like today’s Left) really doing all it could to stir up the hornet’s nest prior to Lincoln’s election. However, South Carolina’s articles of secession, which actually set the whole thing off, specifically mention slavery as the cause. There was a lot of revision going on between 1860 and 1960. You need to go back to the source material to get the facts straight.

    • .America has to own the offenses it has committed against God’s indigenous people. You want the crimes of America to be overlooked. It won;t. When you start something wrong….you will end it wrong.

      • Not America….one individual who happened to be President. I am sure back then he did not need ok from Congress. Sad history.

        • “Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South.” Lincoln had to balance the judicial murder of 38 people, of doubtful criminality, against the survival of the Union. Compared to the casualties of many, many battles, this was a minor load on his conscious.

          • They left out the little bit about France thinking about attacking the southern states from Mexico and England thinking on attacking the northern states from Canada. Pushed by the bankers in europe who wanted the U.S. back under their heel. Russian Tsar Peter the peace keeper sent his Baltic fleet to just off of the coast of NY and his Pacific fleet to the coast of California with instructions that if England or France get involved then they are to report to Abraham Lincoln. This blocked England or France from getting involved unless they wanted to war with Russia as well. At least that’s what i read. Something no one talks about.

          • to Joe nelson: You r not far from the truth. (sorry for my English)
            the European’s Plan by France, England, Austria, Spain was to cutt of the growing america.
            Napoléon the third want build a christian and democratic mexico to stop the migrants from Europe to go to USA .
            Like that the Europeans will control all south america . the Européans where more with the south states cause economics reason (cottons etc….).dont forget that the Louisiana was French before, Napoleon the First sold to Washington
            ( Louisiana was from the great lakes to new Orleans! its mean one third of futur USA)
            They took all mexique,(the french army cannot get trough “the cinqo di mayo” but couple months after with more reenforcement took all mexique) put an Austrian King. after wild the USA where financing the mexican’s resistance against the Frenchs.
            And like all occupation its feld, the French and its allieds (mexicans republicans, spain, austrians ….) get out. these are the facts.

        • Here’s an opinion. The south lost the war, get over it already. Confederate flag IS OFFENSIVE, just as a swastika is offensive to Jews. Nobody is moving any bodies, stop lying in attempts to incite anger and fear.

          • Crap! When you focus on symbols in an effort to destroy what you deem to be offensive, you will only ensure that the resistance to your efforts will be magnified. Ultimately you will attempt to criminalize both symbols and words, in the effort to eradicate what you consider to be “wrongful” or “immoral” thinking and ideas…at which point you will become the very example of what claim to despise. Let sleeping dogs lie is the old counsel here, leave those you fundamentally disagree with to their symbolic pride. Let the evidence and artifacts of history be seen as they are, for all their faults, and concentrate on influencing by open debate rather than dogma!

          • How come the flag wasn’t offensive 10 years ago? When I was in school everyone wore confederate flag shirts, both black and white and nobody was offended. How did it get suddenly offensive? How come the 2002 film Sweet Home Alabama was full of confederate flags but nobody was offended? it made 180 million at the box office so obviously in 2002 nobody was offended!

          • shame very few even know what flags were really used by the Confederacy… you probably wouldn’t recognize the real ones with all the bad publicity the NON CONFEDERACY flag gets…

          • Agreed. I really don’t care what flags were used by the Confederacy. The Confederates and Robert E. Lee were traitor and should have been tried in a court of law. Lee was an officer in the Union army who resigned to fight for our enemies. That defines traitor. All Confederate flags are the flags of traitors NOT patriots and do not pay homage to their history. There is no “their history” it is the history of the United States and the US Army put down a rebellion of traitors. Pretty simple if you ask me.

          • Yes, they are talking about removing graves and relocating them because they are “Offensive”. Everyone is so easily offended this day and age it is ridiculous. History is history, war is war, and I can not think of anything more offensive than WAR. So with that being said, if you dig up, and remove history that includes all history even the history you CHOOSE to acknowledge. We will never be able to tell the truth about our culture. It may be ugly, but it is our history. So instead of jumping on a band wagon, acknowledge that it happened and you MOVE on. I am assuming this because you are still alive and it did not directly happen to you or anyone in your family. We are talking about centuries ago up to about 75 years ago. And if it was your family because of genetic research its so far removed you are just looking for a reason to bitch.

      • I don’t think same was trying to overlook the offenses committed against American Indians, he didn’t say anything at all to mitigate that or hide it.

        But there is a definite right-wing slant in the subtext of the history given here, if anything it is trying to use that massacre of indigenous people, to undermine the role the end of slavery in the civil war and to undermine “policial correctness” as if today’s meaning of “political correctness” had anything to do with the sweeping of this under the carpet.

        My understand and I think it’s quite known now, was that Lincoln wasn’t personally against slavery but nonetheless the emancipation of slaves was very much relevant to the reasons for the war and backing for the war. Saying it was only about taxes and tariffs ignores the importance of slavery to the economy in the south, and therefore how relevant that was to the taxes and tariffs charged.

      • This whole idea that modern Americans have to “pay” for what was done generations ago is stupid nonsense.

        But if we are going to play that game then let’s just chalk it up as “payback” for what todays’ Amerindians (so-called “Native Americans”) did to the ORIGINAL indigenous peoples that THEY killed off, chased off and destroyed from off the face of North America.

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0903_030903_bajaskull.html

        • I’ve never been sure how it could be possible for anyone who is living now to pay for the evils of people who lived years before we were even born. The only person who could die to pay for the sins of others is Jesus Christ, He died once for the souls of all humankind. This doesn’t mean that a lot of things haven’t been done in the name of whatever worked at the time, that now in retrospect we know to be horrible. I’m just saying that no human can pay for the sins of another human, only Christ the only begotten son of God could do that. He did, He was raised from the grave and lives today. He lives in the hearts of all who invite Him to save them from sin and, give them eternal life.

          • Vivian Trimpe, if you think today is different then think again. The most recent example is the mess in the Middle East that started with a lie in 2003 or the support of Zionists who keep taking Palestinian’s land and claim supremacy and being chosen people. That all happens in the name of protecting freedom in the USA.

        • The point of it is to level the playing field. Everyone knows that they are not responsible for the ills of the past. However, it is taking the responsibility to make something right even in absence of fault.

          The refusal to engage in an act of reparations is shallow because of how it is viewed. it is seen as another tax or bill, when in fact it is nothing more than giving a boost to the people who need it most. The refusal is equal to the idea that you don’t owe any money to a combat veteran (VA, etc…) because you didn’t start any war, or you were not alive when the war took place, or that you don’t believe that a combat veteran has performed any task for you specifically. It is equal to the idea that money that you give to homeless people on the street corner should be allotted for food only and that you have some sort of right over how the money is spent once you give the money to them. It is not being able to control the outcome with your money because someone will not perform a task in a specific way that you think it should be performed. This is because the act of giving really isn’t giving, it is buying. (It is an act of selfishness).

          People who have the least amount of money to spend usually spend all they have. Reparations would not only stoke the economy, it would offset piss poor wages provided by employers who employ revolving door employees.

          If you think that America can’t afford to help the descendants of people it has destroyed/wronged in the past, you should consider that large corporations receive billions of dollars in subsidys that not only pay for their employees, but pays into lots of executive officer salaries and bonuses. (Not directly on paper, but if you compared the amounts, you would see the differences… and since most of these corporations that receive tax payer monies to offset their overseas operations, and the money goes to stoke the economies of other great countries… You might consider that taking care of you own people in your own country is not only good for the people America, but it is paying yourself.

          • Your reply is ridiculous. The Civil War was over 160 plus years ago if people can’t straighten themselves out in that time it is no one’s fault but their own. Having one race of people pay for the sins of their ancestors is crazy. the first American slave owners were black people and the biggest slave owner of all was in Virginia and he was a black person and their own people sold them into slavery bringing them to the shores of Africa to the slave ships and holding them enslaved in holding pins until the ships arrived.

        • ” This whole idea that modern Americans have to “pay” for what was done generations ago is stupid nonsense.

          But if we are going to play that game then let’s just chalk it up as “payback” for what todays’ Amerindians (so-called “Native Americans”) did to the ORIGINAL indigenous peoples that THEY killed off, chased off and destroyed from off the face of North America.”

          This entire line of dialogue is irrelevant because it is ILLEGAL by the Constitution of hte United States. Any talk by anyone demanding that white people make amends for slavery, is the talky of money-grubbing, greedy parasites who have never once looked at the Laws of their Nation, including the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution of the United States:

          ARTICLE III, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America:
          “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”
          http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/120/punishment-of-treason

          Therefore, Congress does not have the power to hold any individual accountable for hte crimes of his parents, his grandparents, or any of his other predecessors. Furthermore, the US Government has ALREADY spent CENTURIES paying out reparations to the Native American tribes, and to the ancestors of Native Americans via the lands upon which many Native Americans ancestors built casinos, and via the thousands ( maybe even millions) of dollars that African descendants have received over the last 200 years.

          Now that the Government, and America as a whole, has suddenly started feeling like its time that their ancestors stop being forced to pay money to people who’s ancestors were not American slaves, now people are trying to bring up “white priviledge” and american slavery in order to keep the “white people”‘s government in financial bondage to people who are poor, and mostly too lazy to completely cut themselves off from all the financial aid that the government has long been shelling out with a bulldozer.

    • Yes. Denying the part slavery had in the War Between The States is a denial of the facts, economics, and cause of the conflict.

      • Slavery issue was settle by the Missouri Compromise. And the compromise of 1850. There was no way that Slavery was going to change in the US. It existence was guaranteed by the Federal government and the areas of it’s expansion was guaranteed by the Federal Government. Nothing short of a Constitutional amendment could have changed that.

        The issue which 90% of the southerners choose to fight was due to restrictive regulation similar to those which led up to the US Revolutionary War. Less than 5% of southerners owned slaves and the expansion or issues surrounding slavery did not effect the other 95%.

        Very hard for poor southerners to survive when government regulations drive up cost to a point where they have to work without needed tool or had to make patchwork repairs to try and make them work.

        • Hate to tell you the truth, as you’re likely so stuck in your beliefs that this will knock you out of orbit, but most of the Southern states were starting to look at freeing the slaves on their own before the war.

          The MAJOR component that took us into the Civil War was the premise that new states would have no choice of their own whether they allowed slavery – and thus lost their rights under the 10th amendment – with a law that would make it illegal, but only for NEW states.

          It wasn’t about slavery – it was about the right to choose whether slavery was allowed in a state or not by the state and its citizenry.

          Go ahead- look it up…

          If you dare know the truth.

          • LOL it wasn’t about slavery but about the right to have slavery… yup.. it wasn’t about stealing it was about the right to decide to steal. He wasn’t convicted of murder but about his right to decide to murder…. the logic is beyond dumb. Slavery is a crime against humanity. To argue that you are defending the right to choose to continue the act to commit the crime is not only ethically bankrupt but morally abhorant. As I stated before, the letters of secession speak for themselves. If they mention slavery orvslaves tgen it is illogical to argue that the subsequent war was not about slavery or slaves. Logic. It is a process you may want to learn. By the way. Mengele is said to have stated that his gross experiments and torture on twins at the death camp was excusable because they were going to die anyway. To your way of thinking i assume that mmakes sense. Does it?

    • the Ordinance of Secession mentions nothing about slavery or tariffs;but those were contributing causes,as was state’s rights-think of it! because we lost ,the Federal government in Washington DC gained a great deal of power which has gravitated toward The Swamp ever since

        • LOL it wasn’t about slavery but about the right to have slavery… yup.. it wasn’t about stealing it was about the right to decide to steal. He wasn’t convicted of murder but about his right to decide to murder…. the logic is beyond dumb. Slavery is a crime against humanity. To argue that you are defending the right to choose to continue the act to commit the crime is not only ethically bankrupt but morally abhorant. As I stated before, the letters of secession speak for themselves. If they mention slavery orvslaves tgen it is illogical to argue that the subsequent war was not about slavery or slaves. Logic. It is a process you may want to learn. By the way. Mengele is said to have stated that his gross experiments and torture on twins at the death camp was excusable because they were going to die anyway. To your way of thinking i assume that mmakes sense. Does it?

        • So basically 2/3rd through the article it is saying that certain northern states were not abiding by the laws created by The US Constitution the Missouri compromise and the Compromise of 1850. That the federal government were not forcing these states to abide by Constitution, the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850.

          Seems natural that if the federal government would not enforce the law equally then there is need to make a change.

      • Fourteen states held votes in their respective legislatures about the issue of secession. Maryland voted no, the others voted yes (11 soon to be confederate states, Kentucky which was seized by the Union and a vote in Missouri which wasn’t necessarily legal by their state laws.) Lets focus on the actual confederate states.
        All 11 states, that ended up joining the Confederacy, created signing documents explaining their votes. 10 of the 11 published these for public perusal (Florida was the exception). Every one of those documents, without exception, explicitly referenced slavery as the issue.
        Most, if not all, of these documents are available online. You should feel free to read them. These “new” explanations of why we really fought the Civil War are ridiculous.

      • It had virtually everything to do with slavery. Most were not slave holders just like most are not super rich today, but Koch brothers and Robert Mercer (who is the real one behind Trump) have effective control. The 50’s and 60’s boomed with high taxes that smoothed out income and raised average demand. The rich did not like this, and we’ve had low growth, declining middle class ever since. But, their propaganda won’t let you think it. Same thing with the South at the time. The winners of the agrarian economy didn’t want to roll the die again with industrialization. Fight!

    • Specifically, South Carolina seceded over property rights of Slave owners. i.e. being deprived of their property, an enslaves human being. Because their book of morality, the Holy Bible permitted slavery, by never condemning it, these capitalists believed Christianity condoned the inhumane practice. They were convinced, God was on their side and they were willing to subject their states and state citizens to the ravages of war. Is that greed at its most evil?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union

        • True SuzyQ I never go to or read Wikipedia it can be edited by anyone.Yes I agree America has it’s very bad times and some did some horrific things but those so called Christians were not true to GODS WORD and we have many today that try to do harm in the name of GOD they are playing with fire GOD doesn’t like it but we have to remember and know our history good,bad or otherwise.

      • You do know that the first slave state was Delaware. And that slavery still existed in the North until the ratification of the 13th amendment. Oh yea Delaware did not ratify the 13th amendment until the 20th century.

      • So tired of God haters trying to bash the bible and Christians over slavery. First off, the bible CLEARLY says “You were called to be FREE” in regard to slavery. And “slave traders” are specifically listed among the ‘immoral’. The fact that Old Testament Jews had “servants” who were REQUIRED TO BE FREE AFTER 7 YEARS OF SERVICE debunks one of the most ludicrous misleading misconceptions of the ‘bible condones slavery’ crowd. In fact the North used the bible as a call to end slavery.

        • In Leviticus, it states clearly that in the year of Jubilitaion, you were to FREE your slaves. (Actually it doesn’t mention slaves, but bondsmen – you were not a slave for life, but a hired person for up to 49 years, until the year of “Jubile”)

          You could also, or someone on your behalf, could buy your freedom back by paying back the difference in what you sold yourself for… so if, for example, you sold yourself for $100,000 and had ten years until the year of Jubile, and after five you wanted freedom, you would pay the $50,000 for the remaining half of the time you did not work.

          It wasn’t slavery as we had – and Europe had… and you STILL FIND in some places in Africa…

          Comparing slavery to what was discussed in the Bible is like comparing growing a crop to laying asphalt. Sure, you prepare the ground before each, but the end result is completely different.

    • correct Slavery was the straw that broke the camel’s back .. yes the Tarifs and stuff is why they tried to leave the union but without an approval of Congress no state except Texas can leave the union … so even with their claim of left the union isn’t really legit due to Congress never approved their leaving of the Union … but yes what finally started the war was the Freeing of the Slaves due to Lincon was going to send in troops to make sure land owners did release the slaves … and the south weren’t going to stand for that .. so that is the real facts about how the civil war started

    • My reading of history is that the South talked itself into war, considering the election of Lincoln a dire threat to the existence of slavery, which, really, it was not.

    • Thank you! The article lost credibility with me as soon as I read that BS. Mississippi’s Article of secession is the one I always point to. It said “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

    • There is no proof that Lincoln executed Indians. The photo is not related to the story, as presented. This is more nonsense promoted by a nutjob. For someone to go to this extreme shows a need for medical help!

    • If you think that the Civil War was NOT fought over slavery, read the Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States of America and the Declarations of Secession for South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas.

    • Google The “GHOST AMENDMENT” or http://ghostamendment.com/
      It read as follows:
      “No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” –Joint Resolution of Congress, voted on an Adopted March 2, 1861
      This was a Northern written and submitted Constitutional Amendment aka Corwin Amendment, which was passed by The US Congress and approved by Lincoln and the previous president. It clearly states ANY State North or South would be able to keep their slaves. It was aimed at keeping the South from seceding from the Union and taking $$$ Millions in TAX Revenues and cheap material along with them.
      So it by itself, could be used to clearly show the Northern States primary goal was never Anti-Slavery.
      Also to add spoilage to the false claim that the war was over slavery.
      We must remember the Emancipation Proclamation was issued the FOLLOWING year, after the war started, and only free slaves in the CSA not the UNION. The Union allowed union states to keep their slaves even a year AFTER the Civil War Ended.
      The last state to free its slaves was DE,
      The ‘Ghost Amendment’ That Haunts Lincoln’s Legacy | Cognoscenti
      cognoscenti.legacy.wbur.org/…/18/the-other-13th-richard-alb…
      Feb 18, 2013 – The initial amendment would have made slavery constitutional and permanent — and Lincoln supported it. This early version of the 13th Amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment, was proposed in December 1860 by William Seward, a senator from New York who would later join Lincoln’s cabinet as his first secretary of state.

    • The statement that the North, under Lincoln, “attacked” the Confederate States of America over taxes and tariffs is so wrong that it steals credibility from everything else written in this article. every state constitution, AND the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, as well as, the personal writings of the most prominent leaders of the Confederacy state specifically that slavery was the proximate cause for their secession from the Union. Moreover, they attacked Fort Sumter as their first act of war against the United States of America. Those are all historical facts, regardless of what your “real history” books from prior to 1960 might say. Today, in 2017, history books are being distributed in schools across the country that state the Black African slaves were “migrant workers”, and the slave trade that brutalized millions of Africans as they were kidnapped, imported in chains, killed, tortured and raped is characterized as Atlantic Triangular Trade. Revisionist historical writing doesn’t change historical facts. If Lincoln did preside over the lynching of the Minnesota Indians referenced in this article, it makes him no different in that regard from all the other Presidents that have presided over the decimation of the Native American peoples of this continent since Europeans first settled here, and deemed their seizure of all lands from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean the Manifest Destiny of this country. Actually, that term was coined by President Polk, but the policies were carried out by all of the rest of them. To this day, Native Americans are brutalized, and treated as second class citizens in their own land.

  2. Isn’t that pretty much the whole of US history. A fabrication to protect the guilty and blame the innocent. Looking forward to the history of Trump as a hero who could never tell a lie and revered women. Giving them the vote as a reward for their Nation Building.

    • you mean like hilary will be looked back on as a trusting honest women that did a great job for her country lol

  3. All my life when i have been ask who in my opion was the greatest American I always said Abe Lincoln. He now does not make my list of great Americans. What he did was awful and those who serve in his administration should be shamed also.

    • Do you believe every thing you see on face book may I suggest You do a little home work before you change your mind when I read the first part about the civil war not being about slavery that was a big red flag I would not take this post of Abe Lincoln serous until I did my own homework

      • Absolutely correct. The reason for the South leaving the Union was over the fact that there was a bill up to prohibit Slavery in the Northwest Territory. The south got nervous, thinking they would be next.
        The issue of Slavery was definitely the underlying cause of the Civil War. The person who posted this does no know what he was talking about. This

        ‘mass hanging” incident could be blown way out of proportion. think about it. How come this is the first time we are hearing this. I agree that one must research things like this before they buy it hook. line, and sinker.

        • I first read about these hanging over 20 years ago when I first became serious about research. All these unknown are available to all who are willing
          to do the hard work.
          Check out Author — pledge of allegiance and read about the Bellamy boys. And to think you have been saying it all these years and did not have a clue!

    • Read historical documents and I recommend two books by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked. Proof text what he says with your own research and you will see a totally different person, an unfeeling, cruel, despotic ruler!! He could have prevented the War of Northern Aggression but he chose war. He chose the scorched earth tactic to bring the widows and orphans and black folk of the Southern States to their knees, starving to death and grieving to death. Yeah, my great great grandmothers and their children were among the lot.

      • Very good resource. I, too, have read both of these well researched and documented books and, although I already knew of Lincoln’s duplicity and dishonesty, learned a few things about that scoundrel I did not know.
        The argument concerning whether or not slavery was the cause of the civil war is little more than a tempest in a teapot. Those who are history literate know that slavery was an issue but of itself not the crux of the matter.

      • Dawn, you are a victim of liberal and libertarian slander and lies about Abraham Lincoln. Most reg’lar Americans aren’t aware that doctrinaire libertarians are just as morally sick and upside-down as God-hating liberals and Leftists are. Hardcore libertarians have been on a mission for decades to defame Lincoln with their lies and slander and libelous misrepresentations and revisions of history. They commonly compare Lincoln to Hitler and Stalin — an intentional slander which amounts to one of the biggest lies of the modern era.

        The books you mention are nothing but agendized hit pieces by amoral partisans from the amoral libertarian end of the political spectrum. If you want to know the truth about Abe Lincoln, you need to read PRIMARY DOCUMENTS — not secondary or tertiary documents like the slanderous trash you’ve fallen victim to. Start with the fantastic book of Lincoln’s letters and speeches called “The Portable Lincoln,” by Andrew Delbanco. Any honest human being with reasonable intelligence can perceive and discern from those writings that Lincoln was indeed the extremely moral and extremely compassionate man that he was reputed to be by all history and historians before the modern amoral and immoral and dishonest libertarian movement started their crusade of slander and revisionism. “The Portable Lincoln” truly is an excellently chosen, small but engrossing selection of Lincoln’s speeches and letters. And the very best ones are those he wrote after he became president, so you can skip the first two or three sections to get to the great stuff, then go back later and read them.

        There’s a world of lies and misinformation about both the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln, but those of us who honestly DO want the truth can and do figure out The Truth from primary documents and secondary documents that don’t militates against the primary documents. And one should never, ever read or consult tertiary documents.

        The author of this article is a lying scumbag. He might be a liberal, but he’s most likely a doctrinaire libertarian — which means that he’s also an atheist and, like your average liberal, is willing to lie about history and slander good, honest, moral and noble people in order to further his political world view. And let’s not forget — lying about history is one of the greatest crimes that a human being can commit. Lying about history is a vicious, malicious, nefarious, evil and murderous act. Yes — it is nothing less than murderous. And the leaders of the libertarian movement are as bad as or worse than liberals when it comes to lying about history — and Abraham Lincoln has always been their main target, victim and whipping boy.

        The truth about the episode of history that is the subject of this article is that it was an uprising among the Indians that resulted in the deaths of numerous settlers. In the aftermath, the military leaders wanted to hang over 300 Indians, but Lincoln wouldn’t hear of it. He PERSONALLY went through the account of events and deeds and whittled the list of 300 down to only the worst perpetrators of only the most grievous acts of inhumane violence. (Lincoln was an extraordinarily compassionate man — he had an almost feminine compassion — and he always looked for any excuse to commute the sentence of death to something less final and less severe — and anyone who tells you otherwise is a damned liar. For instance, when cases of desertion — death penalty cases — came before him for his executive approval, he referred to them as “leg cases.” He said, “Why should I condemn to death a poor, brave soldier boy who’s perfectly willing to fight, just because his legs got up and carried him off ?”

        THAT . . . is the true Abraham Lincoln: a man of ultimate compassion and forgiveness and charity. He truly was the most Christ-like man we’ve ever had as President. And anyone who tells you different is willfully lying about Lincoln and history.

        Like the author of this revisionist, slanderous article.

    • Buddy Morse – Give me your list of 10 best and 10 worst people and I can find things to show the best were very bad, and the worst had good in them…

      There are no absolutes. Everyone is evil from some perspective.

  4. Lincoln did not order these hangings. Governor Sibley of Minnesota did. Lincoln pardoned all but 38 of the Dakota who were originally sentenced to hanging.

  5. The word you want is SECEDE, NOT SUCCEED, IDIOT. No, the South did not succeed, they failed.

    The fake old-looking ” newspaper clipping is a laugh. Got some better evidence that doesn’t get laughed away?

    Here’s an actual article on the subject in the New York Times, and oh look, it’s 2012, a long time after the 60s. And my 1983 textbook has it.

    And, political correctness can’t be to blame for revising the history on this. First off, it was never covered up.

    Political correctness didn’t exist at the time you claim the revision took place: since you say the mass hanging can be found in history textbooks published prior to the 1960s then somewhere in the early 60s, right?

    Revisions to history–what you say whitewashed the massacre–are those that unearth new and compelling evidence, NOT burying the truth. What exactly do you think happened in the 60s? The entire universe of historians, publishers, school teachers, professors, and everyone educated prior to the 60s suddenly conspired to make Lincoln look better??

    Of course the freaking Civil War was over slavery. Ever hear of John Brown? And do you know what Bills Southern State-Houses voted upon to secede? What was the reason did Robert E. Lee provided for resigning his commission from the US Army and taking a same-rank commission in the Army of Northern Virginia?

    Those citizens who seized a military installation provided the same reason for their act of domestic terrorism. That’s the reason the South gave. But for the US (the Union was still the US, it was the states that did not seced) the reason was much simpler, and much more justified, and the reason was terrorism at Ft. Sumpter.

    Sort of like forgetting that attack on Pearl Harbor was the start of US involvement in WW II. Japan said they attacked the US over refusal to sell steel to Japan, but while that was one of many circumstances, it’s not what started the war.

    And you don’t know the difference between who and whom.
    Keep your fingers in your nose, not on a computer keyboards.

    Any further fifth grade education you want you’ll have to pay for yourself or move to a state that requires basic literacy and arithmetic to graduate high school.

    • When you call someone an idiot for a misspelling, your credibility is diminished when your own post has multiple misspellings. “Seced” is also wrong. And it’s Fort “Sumter” not Sumpter. And “on a computer keyboards”; what is that? Hoisted by your own petard.

    • R.E. Lee resigned from the U.S. Army with the rank of Colonel, he was appointed commander of Virginia State Forces as a Major General. His initial rank in C.S. Army was Brigadier General. Then General, third, behind Sam Cooper of New Ýork and Albert Sidney Johnston of Texas. Lee did not take command of Army of Northern Virginia until June 1, 1862 following the Battles at Fair Oaks and Seven Pines where that Army’s CO was wounded.
      Slavery was not a reason for his resignation, not desiring to participate in an invasion of the South was the reason.

      • Thank you for the clarification. The world is filled with misinformed snobs who believe they know everything. Get into genealogy and it will open your eyes to so much of our American history! I read about this when I was researching my great great great grandmother, Sarah Santee, led to it by a Native American man I met who knew about the Dakota Santee tribe.

        • Southern Black’s on their knees, Dawn keep that conversation to your people, Black’s came to this country on their knees, I know that you felt sorry for us…please! All of this arguing back and forth, about who’s right, who’s wrong… that is why this country won’t last long, because together you stand, divided you fall, and history is not on US side!

    • I feel Dez Arnez’s (any relation to Lucille Ball?) frustration about all of the arguing. Can anyone from other than the U.S. tell me whether so many people elsewhere are so sure of themselves and their opinions, so willing to publicize their own ideas, on whatever basis, and so eager to openly insult and personally vilify people with whom they disagree . I think it a national discrace, and here am I adding my two cents worth?!

  6. this is true disgusting history im glad none of my relatives had nothing to do with. Never know why Lincoln was shot but its a shame it wasn’t done sooner. The Indian nation has been the biggest most screwed over people in U.S. history . they are the only true Americans and the only true ones that care about all people and the land we live on. It always amazes me how every other race bitches bout something yet have no comparison to what has happened to the Indians . Maybe someday they will take back what was once and is rightfully theirs.

    • jacked, I appreciate your anger at the atrocities to the Indigenous Peoples of the US, however, I am grieved by the atrocities on both sides of the issue. I have Native American ancestors as well as Anglo ancestors. I am forever grieved by the atrocities of some, but, I am forever proud to be the descendent of others.

  7. From the various Declarations of Secession:
    .
    South Carolina:
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp
    198 references to slavery, including:
    “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.”
    .
    Mississippi:
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp
    7 references to slavery, including:
    “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”
    .
    Alabama:
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
    .
    “And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government”
    .
    Georgia:
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/georgia_declaration.asp
    10 references to slavery, including:
    For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
    .
    Texas:
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/texas_declaration.asp
    22 references to slavery, including:
    “She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery – the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits – a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slaveholding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?”
    .
    Virginia:
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
    .
    “Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States”

    • You are spot on! Sadly, we have entered an age of misinformation where academia and intellectualism is shunned as nonsense. God help us all.

  8. I have read this article again & again & researched other records/reports – ok, the OUTRAGE of 38 Murdering Rapists being hung all at once that was ordered by Abraham Lincoln USA President – BUT no one says anything about the TWO-HUNDRED & SIXTYNINE THAT HE PARDONED!!!! REMEMBER, that 307 had been ORIGINALLY FOUND GUILTY but, after the individual cases were reviewed by President Lincoln, he found that ONLY 38 WE’RE ACTUALLY GUILTY OF THE CRIMES OF MURDER & RAPE – the PUNISHMENT – HANGING.

    WHY are people so incensed by this???

    Are you saying Murdering Rapists should have been FREED!!!!! I DON’T THINK SO.

  9. Don’t believe everything you read in that article. Those 38 indian men weren’t a Hunting Party. They were the end result of Trials after the Sioux War. The Hunting Party the author is referring to was only four Souix. They killed 5 settlers. Funny how the article left that part out. After those killings the tribes decided to attack the settlements to drive the whites out of the region. Read about the Sioux war of 1862. Whoever wrote this article has a lot of hatred for Abraham Lincoln. It’s poorly written and he’s trying to make it personal. The war was about slavery. The outcome of the war was emancipation. The Republican party was created specifically to abolish slavery.

  10. I read a DOCUMENTARY called ” Irish White Slaves – White Slaves ” this says that not only was there Black Slaves but there was white slaves. Whites were not the only ones that had Slaves so did Native Americans , yes Indians owned Black and White Slaves, Blacks owned White and Black Slaves. Slavery started may-many years ago, Black Slaves migrated to Africa to avoid the Slave Traitors, to the North Eastern coast area, where the Slave Traitors caught up with them. The Slave Traitors then went to South West in Africa and continued to get Slaves to Sell and Trade in America.. This Documentary is very Educational and Interesting. Please read to get the full extent of the Documentary. I read this artical several months ago, and I hope I stated every thing correctly.

    • The White Slaves were primarily Irish. The Brits wanted to be rid of those rebellious Irishmen so they sold them. White slaves were in more peril than blacks because the Black slaves were more valuable. The males were seen as studs and the females as mares to bear strong and healthy offspring to work the fields. The Irish were sold at a discount because their horrible treatment by the Brits had left them weaker, thinner and not as healthy as their black counterparts.

  11. Not treaty violations…Their crime: killing 490 white settlers, including women and children, in the Santee Sioux uprising the previous August.

  12. You cannot judge historical events using current PC dogma. If you do then there are no former great individuals. Anyone who takes a moral stand against what is considered “normal” in that day and age deserves our respect.

  13. I always read the war started when the rebels attacked Fort Sumter? I didn’t know the north attacked first!

  14. for those who cares to dig deeper, good old Abe wanted to ship all the slaves off to another country….south America… I believe, after the war .

  15. The world is ruled by approximately 8,000 people; about 1,500 of whom are billionaires. Beginning with their first pet snake Alexander Hamilton, the elites attempted to hijack the only Christian, constitutional republic in history. Hamilton profoundly influenced presidents Washington and Adams, and created the first illegal full-time army and the precursor to the criminal FED banking cartel. Read the book ‘Hamilton’s Curse’ to learn much more about this execrable snake.

    But Dishonest Abe was the elites’ pet snake that finally delivered the killing bite to the U.S. Constitution. This is explained in extensive detail in the six books linked in this blog article:

    https://americaagain.net/lincoln-americas-hijacker/

    Was slavery immoral and inhuman? Of course; but those six books — even just the one by Lerone Bennett — will forever dispel the myth that the War to Enslave the States was primarily about slavery. That was only a clever cover story…as were the ruthless 9/11 contract, the false report from Tonkin Bay, the Pearl Harbor setup, and the sinkings of the HMS Lusitania and USS Maine. Each of these led to a massive windfall for thousands of the elites in banking, war, oil and other industries.

    Lincoln was just the dog-faced butcher who served the puppet role perfectly in his time. After a long career as a lawyer for the railroad and river boat industries, Lincoln was a serial failure in politics. One measure of his treachery was his fiery ‘Spot Resolutions’ condemning President Polk in 1847 for starting a war with Mexico…then starting a war against the American people for far less!

    Yes, far less; read any of the six books linked in the article above. If you believe what you were taught in school, given the paucity of truth in government education over the past 50+ years, you belong in Russia or China.

    • DM Zuniga
      Aluminum foil will keep those radio waves from the alien satellites out. Suggest you make a hat immediately.

  16. Reason history continues repeating itself and changes constantly is because people within this “Nation under God,” can’t learn to forgive the past and move on, with lessons learned, thus evil always finds its way back to the top amongst non-thinkers who are like sheep following and believing all they hear from the racists, bigots and those who have become hypocrites as evil breeds evil, thus baring it’s fruit every now and then to keep lovers of truth and progress at bay, while evil runs this world few will ever overcome.

  17. There were many many more story’s similar to this one , but no one wants to hear them . The Brutal and murderous occupation of the South by the North and the Carpet Bag’s and Scalawags were just the tip of the Iceberg . Raping and killing at Will, killing those whom dared resist , steeling anything they wanted . Setting fires and setting more fires and more fires. It would be Generations before southerners ever forgave the atrocities of the Northern Occupation , and the National Cover up , paying off historians and politicians and News papers to not write the truth .

  18. Oh! We ought to seek out a “real history book before 1960” because they printed the truth of America’s history and particularly that the succession was not about slavery. Well, there are plenty of remarks from Confederate Generals and southern politicians whose words are on record stating that their engagement in the Civil War was intended to protect their vital institution of slavery. Slavery was the foundation of causing Mississippi plantation owners by 1836 to become some of the richest people in the world, so attempting to diminish its significance is a worthless canard.

  19. So tired of people judging the past by today’s standards. History is history – for a reason. What right have we to judge anyone?

  20. This article is simply wrong, on almost all counts.

    First, Lincoln didn’t “order” the execution of anyone. Over 300(!) were sentenced to death for their part in the Dakota uprising of 1862. When this was brought to Lincoln’s attention, he understood that it was a gross miscarriage of justice, and worked personally to find reasons to exonerate all but the 38. So, he actually *saved* hundreds of Dakota from murder. To characterize his actions as “ordered” is sloppy.

    Second, the Southern slave states seceded over the issue of slavery. Period. This is settled by overwhelming evidence in the historical record. It was certainly the main reason given my the slave states themselves. To fall back on the neo-Confederate canard that Lincoln was a tyrant, and that the secession wasn’t really about slavery is ignorance.

    Lincoln had his flaws, no doubt. But you discredit yourself (and your editor, and your website) when you post nonsense like this.

  21. This article is so grossly misleading (and I believe deliberately so) that I hardly know where to begin. For starters, it states that the 38 Santee Indians were hung for “treaty violations (IE: hunting off of their assigned reservation).” The real reason that they were hung – and there is absolutely no mention of it in the article – is for what they did after they left the reservation. The Santee Sioux Indians, led by Little Crow, went on a bloody, murderous rampage throughout southern Minnesota, killing and raping white settlers. This came to be known as the Sioux uprising of 1862, and by the time it had ended; over 800 whites had been killed and hundreds of buildings had been burned or destroyed.

    The article also calls President Lincoln a “tyrant,” and portrays him as uncaring and unsympathetic, trading in the lives of the Indians for political capital. In reality, the thirty-eight Indians that were hung were only a very small percentage of the 1,500 that were placed on trial. Of this number, 303 were found guilty. Lincoln himself poured over the trial transcripts and wound up personally commuting the sentence of all but 39 of those who had been found guilty (one additional Indian was pardoned just before the hangings). Lincoln wanted to be sure that only those Indians for whom it could be proved that they had committed murder or rape would be executed.

    If Lincoln had been interested in gaining political favor in Minnesota, he sure went about it the wrong way. In the election of 1864, the Republicans lost ground in Minnesota, due to the fact that Lincoln had pardoned so many of the Indians who had been participants in the uprising. Governor Ramsey rebuked Lincoln, telling him that he would have received more votes if he had hung more Indians. Lincoln replied, “I cannot afford to hang men for votes.”

    I agree that our nation’s Indian policy was harsh. We broke treaties, we stole land and we often times failed to make annuity payments to the Indians who had settled on reservations. The Indians counted on these annuity payments in order to make it through the winters without starving to death. I believe that when we report history, we should report all of it – the ugly truth as well as the stuff that makes us look good. But we should also report history honestly and without bias. And we certainly should never do what this article does – twist the facts and leave other facts out completely in order to further our own agenda.

    • Thank you for a voice of reason. I have Indian ancestry; my husband is 7/8 Native. It is disingenuous of the authors of this article to claim to tell the “real historical truth”, then leave out the major fact of the Dakota uprising, and the number (450-800) of white settlers who were murdered. We can argue endlessly about the “right” of several hundred thousand native Americans to every bit of land of the North American continent, and their “right” to murder settlers who wanted land. There is no doubt that native peoples were lied to and treated unfairly many times, and the deaths on both sides, but if you want to talk about these 38 hangings, and leave out not only the original number of defendants, but the crimes they committed in order to be given the death penalty, to try to besmirch Abraham Lincoln, you haven’t got a leg to stand on.

  22. Text books?? Seriously? Textbooks are garbage. If you want history, you need to read much and widely. I’ve known about this bit about Lincoln, for instance, for many years. And never heard it in school. But there are thousands of stories like this. But you won’t ever hear it in school.

  23. I’ve heard it said that the Indians in question were hardly innocent to say the least. Supposedly, they took advantage of the distraction of the civil war to attack innocent settlers. In other words, they hunted white civilians. They murdered and raped their way across the area. They left 450-800 dead depending on the source. 77 soldiers died too.

  24. The indians did not “take advantage of the civil war” to attack settlers. They were not given promised provisions, They were starving, they were angry, they were desperate. The Indian agents were stealing the provisions and money that was supposed to go to the natives. On August 17 1862 five settlers were killed by 3 disgruntled indians who then went to Chief Little Crow and asked him to join in the war against the whites. He at first refused, but finally joined in although he told them that basically they’d all be shot like dogs. The 38 hanged in Mankato in December were executed because of their part in this Dakota uprising, however many more of them should have been pardoned. Many actually had friendly relations with many of the whites, who had taken over their land. It’s complicated, but completely tragic. Oh, and somewhere in this article it says some were executed for “shooting outside of treaty land.” Not true. BTW Little Crow was not captured, but on July 3 1863 he was shot by a local farmer, who received a bounty of $50 for killing an Indian. Only after his body decomposed (in Hutchinson MN) was it discovered, because of obvious past broken arm bones, that this in fact was Little Crow. So then the farmer received $500 dollars for murdering Little Crow. The bones were in the Minnesota Historical Society archives until finally Little Crow’s descendants were able to retrieve them, I think it was in the 1980s, and rebury them on tribal land. Everytime I drive past the spot where Little Crow was shot, I stop and think about him, and wish it had been better for him and his people. It is true that many innocent settlers were killed during this war, but it is also true that many innocent Natives were killed. After all, it WAS THEIR LAND, we took it away from them, promised them compensation, then didn’t follow through. I absolutely understand their angst, and their actions.

  25. This is a fallacy of distraction (Ad Hominem, Red Herring, Straw Man, and Moral Equivalence). The author uses an ad hominem attack to discredit Lincoln. He hopes his attack will distract us from the true subject of his essay, which is the Confederate flag and other monuments honoring Southern White supremacists should not be removed. He uses another fallacy, trying to convince readers that Lincoln’s act is morally equivalent to the deaths, enslavement, lynchings, and apartheid of 10-20 million Africans and Black Americans. While Lincoln’s act, if true, is reprehensible it is not morally equivalent. This author doesn’t care that Lincoln agreed to these hangings; s/he just wants to turn you against Lincoln. What the author actually cares about is the preservation of symbols that represent Southern White supremacy and the enslavement and slaughter of 10-20 million Africans and Black Americans. To this day, these White supremacists symbols are used to harass and intimidate Black Americans.

  26. If YOU think it was over taxes and tariffs, fo read the secession declarations of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississipppi, and North Arcolina. It was about PROERPTY, i.e. SLAVES, i.e. HUMANS. Maybe we ought to put you out on the farm for a hot summer picking cotton and see how you like it.

  27. If the author believes the southern states seceded from the Union to form the Confederate States of America because of taxes, he/she needs to read the Articles of Secession of each state. Each of them cites blacks (either in general or slaves only) as the sole reason—the right to decide for themselves whether slavery is legal in their state——-for their secession.

  28. So, if I say the north lost the Civil War as well, what do I mean?The south did not lose on its own. The north lost as well. Every Yankee Doodle Dandy and every Swinging Dixie in the south lost their state sovereignty to the Federal Government when the war was over. States told the Federal government what to do prior to the war. When it ended the idea of states rights was forever trumped. Oh know, I didn’t say Trump did I? Well, you know what I mean, every state in the Union was on notice from Big Brother. Had the men fighting for the north known what the end game really was, I doubt Lincoln could have gotten a single one to pick up a rifle. Not many did anyway, as most of the Union army were imigrants from Ireland, Germany and other country’s. Right now our army is bing filled with imigrants from the Middle East. Why? They have no allegience to their fellow Americans, because they are not Americans to begin with. There is a History Lesson for you. The north lost the war. The north was hoodwinked. so there you go.

  29. IT IS WHAT IT IS because itzallconnected.
    This article is yet another example of TPPS – Tiny Pink Penis Syndrome – with no hope of any kind of a natural erection – run amok and gone pussy pink wild.

  30. What is this nonsense that 38 were hung for treaty violations (IE: hunting off of their assigned reservation). Murder and rape of settlers is definitely a treaty violation!

    History records that more than 300 more than 300 Santee Sioux are found guilty of raping and murdering Anglo settlers and are sentenced to hang. A month later, President Abraham Lincoln commuted all but 39 of the death sentences. One of the Indians was granted a last-minute reprieve, but the other 38 were hanged simultaneously on December 26 in a mass execution witnessed by a large crowd of Minnesotans.

    Presenting false and MISLEADING information shows a lack of ETHICS and poor research on the part of the presenter and a deliberateness for DISHONESTY. Next time get your information correct!

    READ, SHARE, DISCUSS and YOU DECIDE!

  31. Stopped reading the page after reading “He {Lincoln} attacked the Confederate States of America, who seceded from the Union due to tax and tariffs.” Trying to rewrite history to as why the south seceded removes all credibility from any conclusions the author has made. Talking about DISHONESTLY {borrowing from the last comment before mine}.

  32. I was raised in Jackson, MS and I have a History degree from Delta State University in the MS delta. Everyone of my professors were white and brilliant people. They all understood why people would say that it wasn’t about slavery because we were all told that in the south growing up. I heard the “taxes and tariff” crap my whole life. I am not a liberal democrat protestor at all, but for anyone to say The Civil War was not fought over slavery is ignorant. Either that or this person has emotions and folk lore tied up in his or her head. These stories and opinions were passed down through the generations. I guess it made us southerners feel less guilty to say “the northerners were just as racist and bad as the south.” That’s true for the most part. Sure, Lincoln and most people in the north were racists as well, but that doesn’t mean that slavery was not the real issue. The slave labor gave the south tremendous power and the southern pickers money controlled most of the government. The Civil War was fought over the expansion of slavery and the political power if gave the south. The icing on the cake for recruiting certain demographics was the abolitionists point of view. Which was slavery is evil. All of this is true. Get your head out of the clouds brother. The war is over and the south lost. Funny thing I have always noticed most of my life, is when people bring up the tariffs and taxes argument, they never say what those taxes and tariffs specifically were…

  33. That was then. This is now. They all been dead for many many year’s. It has nothing to do with what WE do unless we turn it into the bullshit that it’s being turned into to start trouble which was all started by Obama. You are all a bunch of IDIOT’S helping to start more war’s.

  34. “Crime” of the Indians? What “crime?” Having land that the Americans wanted for themselves? Defending their homeland? Escaping the colonialist prison (reservation) in order to feed themselves? “Rebelling” against occupation of the homes?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here