|
October 5th, 2004 | #1 |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
US civil war discussion
Doppelhaken made an interesting observation in another thread:
"I was surprised to see that WGS thought highly of Lincoln. I think the jury is still out on Lincoln, at least for me. Tyrant: absolutely. But he was trying to repatriate the slaves up until his dying day, and according to WGS, he was also trying to free America from the Rothschild patterned banking system which had Europe firmly under its thumb since Waterloo. He was clearly a complex and very intelligent man, and I think he understood that the attack on America from within was essentially contrived from without." |
October 5th, 2004 | #2 |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
I said in reply:
well I know where you're coming from. also as a former presbyterian WGS probably liked Lincoln's stern demeanor. And the Biblical scale of his violence. LOL I think all Lincoln's talk about repatriation and "nothing I would say or do would elevate the negro to a position of social or political equality to the White man" was a load of shit, lies fed to the electorate. Abolitionists backed him, and he used their rhetoric plenty, to mask the huge economic unfairness of the federal government endeavoring to TAKE private property (negores) without just compensation as required by the fifth amendment. Alternatives? Congress could have passed a bill to levy a tax to pay for the manumission of slaves and their deportation. That would have been JUST. That however was not in the cards: the northernors didnt want to pay for it and the southernors were not just going to be walked on like slaves themselves. The second most just solution would have been to NOT preserve the union and just let the South go. The framers of the constitution discussed secession and it was regarded as a remedy of the states which entered into the constitutional federation in the first place, to leave it. but the bottom line for us today is to remember how all such large scale social conflicts are resolved in the end: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. ------------------- Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. |
October 5th, 2004 | #3 |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
what do you think gentle reader?
|
October 5th, 2004 | #4 | ||
Overseer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of Cotton
Posts: 2,602
|
Lincoln led the assault on the South, permitted Sherman’s march, caused the slaves to be freed and initiated reconstruction. He can rot in Hell in my book.
Quote:
Quote:
How close do you consider the WN predicament is to becoming a large scale social conflict?
__________________
"To speak his thoughts is every freeman's right, in peace and war, in council and in fight." Homer-The Iliad "The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think." -Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. |
||
October 5th, 2004 | #5 | |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
Quote:
Metzger has made the argument a few times that the Civil war was good for Whites. I dont know, you could argue that the peculiar institution of negro slavery was good for slaves and good for big slave owners and neutral to bad for nearly everybody else, including the entire north and poor Whites down south. So putting it all on Lincoln is unfair. Maybe if he'd have lived, Reconstruction wouldnt have happened, and the blacks would have been deported. But I doubt it. The American capitalist has had an insatiable appetite for non-WHite labor and the problem persists. We need to imprison employers of illegal immigrants for starters, and not make the same mistakes over and over again. |
|
October 5th, 2004 | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,483
|
They all died for nothing
First Battle of Fredericksburg
The first Battle of Fredericksburg in Missouri took place on Sunday, July 17, 1864. Prior to the engagement, a force of about 140 Union men was split into three parties in search of Bushwackers that an advance guard had happened upon. One of those parties was led by Captain Thomas Moses, Jr. This group numbered 47 and was composed of detachments of companies C and M from the 2nd Colorado Cavalry. According to some “witnesses,” the Federals were mistakenly identified as Kansas Redlegs. Traveling east from Liberty towards Richmond, and after camping overnight, Capt. Moses and company neared the town of Fredericksburg in the early afternoon. As they approached the small town, a group appeared from the opposite direction. At first they were mistaken for one of the other parties from the earlier split, but it turned out to be Bushwackers led by Captains John Thrailkill and Charles “Fletch” Taylor. The Confederate guerillas numbered about 300. Although outnumbered by more than 5 to 1, Capt. Moses was quick to dismount his first platoon and return fire standing their ground until their horses became too frightened and unmanageable. Col. Thrailkill took advantage of the confusion and charged into hand-to-hand combat with the Federals. With foresight to see the hopelessness in such odds, Moses ordered his men to retreat following a twenty minute melee. This they did in various directions leaving behind six of their comrades who were killed within the exchange. Capt. Moses survived, but was grazed by a ball across his forehead. Two other balls were near hits severing his saber belt and cutting through his coat. His horse took three hits but managed to take him out of harms way. Nearly everybody that participated and survived the skirmish was injured. Returning to the battleground the next day with over 200 reinforcements, it was discovered that the six dead Federals were stripped of their arms, money, and clothing. J. C. Isley, owner of the general store in Fredericksburg, was hired by local citizens to bury the dead Union soldiers. He loaded them into a logging wagon and hauled them to Pisgah Baptist Church where they were laid upon benches in the church while the grave was prepared. Eventually they were buried in an unmarked mass grave in the Pisgah churchyard. Louis Seybold, a southern sympathizer, allowed the citizens of Fredericksburg to bury the 16 dead guerillas in the family cemetery behind his tavern, a couple miles west of Fredericksburg. The Seybold Tavern, once located on Seybold Avenue, burned down in 1953. Until May 2004, the names of the six Union soldiers killed in this battle were unknown to interested Civil War historians, local residents, and even the cemetery’s Board of Trustees. Thorough research has led to the discovery of their names. The six Union veterans of the 2nd Colorado Cavalry that were killed in the first Battle of Fredericksburg were all Privates from Company M. They were Charles H. Godfrey, David Good, William H. Kirby, John Pickard, William W. Robson, and Simon Simpkins. Pvt. Charles H. Godfrey ca. 1845 – 17 Jul 1864 Pisgah Cemetery, Ray Co. Pvt. David Good ca. 1835 – 17 Jul 1864 Pisgah Cemetery, Ray Co. Pvt. William H. Kirby unknown – 17 Jul 1864 Pisgah Cemetery, Ray Co. Pvt. John Pickard ca. 1833 – 17 Jul 1864 Pisgah Cemetery, Ray Co. Pvt. William W. Robson ca. 1840 – 17 Jul 1864 Pisgah Cemetery, Ray Co. Pvt. Simon Simpkins ca. 1844 – 17 Jul 1864 Pisgah Cemetery, Ray Co. Second Battle of Fredericksburg The second Battle of Fredericksburg occurred during the afternoon to early evening hours of Friday, August 12, 1864. A brief news article describing the skirmish appeared in the Liberty Tribune a week later on Friday, August 19, 1864. The "Bushwackers" were being chased out of Clay County "by Col. Catherwood's men, and the militia of this county under Captains Garth and Younger, that on Friday they left the county, going east through Ray into Carroll county. During their passage out, they encountered Capt. Colly [sic], of the Ray militia, and killed him and four of his men...." At the time of these killings, Col. Catherwood must not have been in pursuit, for the news continues, "Col. Catherwood on learning of their killing Capt. Colly, immediately went out at the head of an additional force, and pursued them into Carroll county." Brief as the news article was, and however unimportant it may have seemed when looking at the overall progress of the Civil War, it was the brutality suffered by the Union soldiers that heightened concern among county residents in the surrounding area. The Federals were no more than a militia comprised of Ray County citizens who received their first duty guarding Albany (now Orrick) in Ray County on June 7, 1864. Two months later, in early August, they found themselves defending the border between Ray and Clay Counties. There had been numerous recent sightings of Confederate guerrillas in the area and it was their duty to protect the citizens from them. What was worse, the Bushwackers were apparently being led by William “Bill” Anderson who, following his death was popularly known as “Bloody Bill.” Bill Anderson’s tactics involved hiding in the bushes and luring opponents into a trap by baiting them with a few of his own men. While waiting for Colley and company to fall prey to the ambush, two of Colley’s men, residents of southeastern Ray County, were captured by Anderson’s men. They were returning to meet with Colley following a visit to their homes when they were taken prisoner. Meanwhile, Anderson’s scouts lured Capt. Colley and his men west to the county line, then south only to be ambushed by the guerrillas. In order to avoid disclosure of their plan, Anderson had the two captured soldiers, brothers Smith and John Hutchings, silenced by slitting their throats. Capt. Colley fell victim to the ambush laid out for him in a farm lane east of the county line road, and his men were quickly routed. Shots were fired immediately killing George O’Dell. Colley ordered, “Each man for himself.” Some of his men were able to hide in the nearby woods. Not all were able to escape, though. The horse Phillip Siegel was riding apparently tripped over a log when climbing out of the valley, throwing Pvt. Siegel to the ground. This made him an easy target for the guerillas and he was shot and killed. Anderson chased Colley into a fenced barnyard where Colley’s horse refused to jump the fence. Anderson took aim and shot Colley with a dragoon revolver as witnessed by the Confederate, Ninian Letton. Satisfied that his prey was incapacitated, Anderson brutally scalped his personal victim and proudly displayed his trophy on his horse’s bridle. The scalp was identified as Colley’s nearly three months later by Capt. Tiffin following Anderson’s death. The five Union veterans of Company E, 51st Enrolled Missouri Militia killed in the second Battle of Fredericksburg were Capt. Patten Colley (age 37), Pvt. George O'Dell (age 35 to 39), Pvt. Smith Hutchings (age 39), Pvt. John Hutchings (age 30), and Pvt. Phillip Siegel (age 21). Capt. Patten Colley 1 Nov 1826 – 12 Aug 1864 Riffe Cemetery, Ray Co. Pvt. George O’Dell ca. 1825 (or 1828) – 12 Aug 1864 unknown burial location Pvt. Smith Hutchings 6 Nov 1824 – 12 Aug 1864 Enon Cemetery, Clay Co. Pvt. John Hutchings 16 Nov 1833 – 12 Aug 1864 Enon Cemetery, Clay Co. Pvt. Phillip Siegel 17 Aug 1842 – 12 Aug 1864 Siegel Cemetery, Ray Co. |
October 6th, 2004 | #7 |
Ausrotter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Walhalla
Posts: 4,018
|
Lincoln wasn't intelligent.
It isn't intelligent to start a war against your own people. Although...own people.... Lincoln was a quarter kike.
__________________
"People, look at the evidence the truth is there you just have to look for it!!!!!" - Joe Vialls Fight jewish censorship, use Aryan Wiki Watch online television without jews! |
October 6th, 2004 | #8 | |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
Quote:
Have you read Alex's essay about his ancestor Usher Linder? An Illinois attorney of Lincoln's time. check VNN archive |
|
October 6th, 2004 | #9 |
VNN Toxoid
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 555
|
The pro-union opinions on this forum surprise me.
__________________
www.xanga.com/axehandle "When men are pure and free of sex addiction, they feel easy in male relationships and they naturally gravitate to other men as the most ideal friends." -Stormfront granola-yogi nutcase Julian Lee (Celibacy.info) |
October 6th, 2004 | #10 |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
Here's five little things I like from the might is right perspective:
1) Lincoln obviously appreciated the North's strong points, ie, lots of men and material. He used them ruthlessly. http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm Consider the boatloads of German ethnics, getting marshalled and dragooned straight into union blue, ready for the chopping block. Oh, that Lincoln, as bloody a warlord as any. Hitler was no wimp about taking casualties either was he? Consider the Sixth army. 2) Lincoln didnt follow the law, he USED the law. Lincoln didnt give a shit about my point about the manumission of slaves being a fifth amendment issue forcibly enacted upon the South and its citizens. He blatantly violated the fifth amendment issue and knew damn well about it. Lincoln also didnt give a shit about the first amendment. He just sent the federals out to shutter the press houses who opposed him, just like that. Naked, open, unconstitutional force. I guess they were all too scared shitless of him to do anything about it. Just goes to show how a real tyrant kicks ass: honestly and not always through the backdoor like the Jews. Lincoln also suspended writ of habeas corpus. Where did it say he could do that? The constittuion says that cant be done. Well, Lincoln did it. Bottom line, Lincoln was ruthless and not a piker when it came to crushing his opposition, American scruples regardless. 3) Lincoln was probably a racist. His "Emancipation Proclamation" was a carefully considered piece of abolitionist propaganda with not real effect on slaves. For example, it only freed the slaves in places where the edict could not be enforced at the time. In federal controlled areas of the South, slaves were still slaves. He also said he was against negro social and political equality, in the Lincoln-Douglass debates. (Ironic isnt it, that inthe Land Of Lincoln, Matt Hale was denied a license? What hypocrites!) Lincoln did things to try and reign in the abolitionists, and set the stage for successful efforts to reign in the insanity of Reconstruction after his passing. However, that was not enough by my account. Still he gets some credit. 5) Lincoln was a mean SOB from flyover and he clearly believed he could kick anybody's ass. In a way, Lincoln was something like the proverbial "redneck." He grew up on what was pretty much fronteir, hewed wood, etc. Then he became a lawyer and got paid to kick ass. Then he became a politician and a fecking hell of a White warlord. That's a good role model for Whites. |
October 6th, 2004 | #11 |
Overseer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of Cotton
Posts: 2,602
|
So AE, if Bush Jr. reinstated the draft and marshaled them all to the middle East, shut down the press and did darn well whatever the fuck he wanted to do (which is close to the way it is now) you’d consider him a role model too? Give me a break. Are you listening to what you’re saying or have you been emotionally tied to Lincoln in some recently read book in his favor. Lincoln should have been on the battlefield if he was such a “warlord” maybe the bullet would have got him sooner.
__________________
"To speak his thoughts is every freeman's right, in peace and war, in council and in fight." Homer-The Iliad "The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think." -Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. |
October 6th, 2004 | #12 |
Overseer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of Cotton
Posts: 2,602
|
Is this more Aryan warlord material AE?
__________________
"To speak his thoughts is every freeman's right, in peace and war, in council and in fight." Homer-The Iliad "The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think." -Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. |
October 7th, 2004 | #13 |
Ausrotter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Walhalla
Posts: 4,018
|
I read it on the internet somewhere years ago that Lincoln was part kike. It would explain a lot.
Here's a question. Was it a major error to attack fort Sumter or would the North have invaded anyway with the extra of having a forward base in Charleston? ZOG history claims that Lincoln only attacked after the evil South attacked the North. Gaining time, and the recognition by the major powers would have enabled the South to receive support including help from the british fleet.
__________________
"People, look at the evidence the truth is there you just have to look for it!!!!!" - Joe Vialls Fight jewish censorship, use Aryan Wiki Watch online television without jews! |
October 7th, 2004 | #14 | |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
Quote:
|
|
October 7th, 2004 | #15 |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
My sympathies have always been with the south. Many of my ancestor's kinsmen were killed as cannon fodder in the Union infantry. But I can consider Lincoln from as many angles as I could Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, or Charlemagne or Alexdander. He was definitely on their level of efficacy and historical significance.
|
October 7th, 2004 | #16 |
Ausrotter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Walhalla
Posts: 4,018
|
Lincoln was a "great man" if we define greatness as the ability of one man to change history.
The American Civil War was, as the European Civil Wa, engineered by kikes. That the South lost was bad.
__________________
"People, look at the evidence the truth is there you just have to look for it!!!!!" - Joe Vialls Fight jewish censorship, use Aryan Wiki Watch online television without jews! |
October 7th, 2004 | #17 | |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
Quote:
|
|
October 7th, 2004 | #18 |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
well, the problem with Simpson's thesis about the Civil war is that other than the Jew treasurer of the confederacy, Jew power in the US was about One One Hundred Thousandth what it is now, so it is sort of nonsensical to blame things on them.
And yet the shoe fits. I resolve this by observing that the forces of abolitionism were like our "east coast liberals" who are descendants of the Puritans who were expulsed from England after cutting the head off the king, enacting the insane, utopian social strictures known as "blue laws" and wickedly inviting the Jews back into England from their haven in the Netherlands. This was all part and parcel of their Calvinism. Calvinism is a form of highly Judaized Christian heresy: iconoclasm, structural decentralization, focus on logos to the exclusion of Tradition, and the whole "return to the early church" retrogressivism. So I would say that the Puritans were Juda-izers, and the abolitionists their heirs imposed the most idiotic utopian scheme the west has ever seen upon the rest of us, which is the enfranchisement of negroes. An utter, unmitigated disaster. Sure the jews were around to lend money to both sides and exploit this: but there is little doubt that the prime movers of the US Civil war were Whites not Jews. They key is not just Jews but to discern Jewish ideas. Yes many here will agree such as "Christianity." Yes, but dont just categorize the ideas and dismiss them but understand and appreciate and differentiate. If one takes as big a thing as "Christianity" and paints it all with the same brush of "Jewish," that is to ignore significant sectarian and philosphical differences that explain much of our history. |
October 7th, 2004 | #19 | |
Overseer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of Cotton
Posts: 2,602
|
Quote:
I understand you pointing out his use of the ‘might is right’ angle but you summed him all up as the embodiment of respectability. Lincoln used his power to the detriment of the populace he was supposed to serve. There is no defending it in my book.
__________________
"To speak his thoughts is every freeman's right, in peace and war, in council and in fight." Homer-The Iliad "The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think." -Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. |
|
October 14th, 2004 | #20 |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
Well said Doppel, I dont know what I was trying to get at but maybe that's it.
"Lightening and the Sun" is what Devi called Hiter; as an example of Lightening only, she offered Ghengis Khan-- sun only Akenaton. I think probably, Lincoln was closer to Lightening like Ghengis Khan, that worthy ideals; but he was not an unmitigated disaster for our race, which is what some people suggest. Again, the peculiar institution of slavery has left us in a shit place today in this country with all these nogs and that should be part of the equation. |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|