Abraham Lincoln: American Dictator

Husky_Khan · Mar 5, 2023

Agent23 said:
Actually he defended a bunch of his points here and dug in further into what statist scum Lincoln was, also he reminded us all thet there is the whole rpess of Britain giving its own view of the war.

In any case, this is just the first of a three paeter series, and the 3rd part will be dewli g with that boomer attention whore of yours.

Speaking of attention whores... Related to the Reaction to the Comments video VTH made, a fair number of the comments were about how VTH was chasing clout even though Razorfist only had a few more thousand subscribers at the time. At a glance now it appears that they both have 351K subscribers so I guess VTH caught up to him for the time being. 😛

Nice to see that Razorfist apparently needs three hours, two helpers and six weeks of preptime (on top of his months long prep for the original video) to respond to a guy who responded to him off the cuff within days of his uploading of his original hour long video.

f1onagher · Mar 5, 2023

Lord Sovereign said:
Vlogging through History has already torn him to shreds. Razor is just giving people like him more ammunition now.

I do enjoy the Rageaholic, but he isn't winning this fight.

Vlogger made some good rebuttals, but he spent most of his criticism talking past Razor's points and never once actually acknowledged the objective stuff like Lincoln's voter suppression tactics. Instead, he went out of his way to hunt down the stuff he could rebut and ignored anything he couldn't. It's a good argument tactic, as reflected by the responses here, but it makes vlogger a rhetorical coward and I'd like to see him and Razor compare their sources. Razor frequently seems like he's hanging hats on flimsy bits of evidence/sources, but at least he's providing them. VtH is just leaning on standard pop history and mainstream third-party collections, which aren't automatically wrong, but it reeks of "Of course sickness is caused by miasma. Every real academic already knows this!"

Husky_Khan said:
Yeah Vlogging Through History I think stated he's not going to bother with Razorfist anymore in his last video on the subject but who knows, circumstances may change. Related to the Reaction to the Comments video VTH made, a fair number were about how VTH was chasing clout even though Razorfist only had a few more thousand subscribers at the time. At a glance now it appears that they both have 351K subscribers so I guess VTH caught up to him for the time being. 😛

That video didn't improve my opinion of VtH at all. Comment sections are font of absolute stupidity and picking on someone through the comments their most acidic followers leave behind is a chickenshit tactic. He might as well have pulled down his pants and cranked one out right there on camera.

Husky_Khan · Mar 5, 2023

f1onagher said:
Vlogger made some good rebuttals, but he spent most of his criticism talking past Razor's points and never once actually acknowledged the objective stuff like Lincoln's voter suppression tactics. Instead, he went out of his way to hunt down the stuff he could rebut and ignored anything he couldn't. It's a good argument tactic, as reflected by the responses here, but it makes vlogger a rhetorical coward and I'd like to see him and Razor compare their sources. Razor frequently seems like he's hanging hats on flimsy bits of evidence/sources, but at least he's providing them. VtH is just leaning on standard pop history and mainstream third-party collections, which aren't automatically wrong, but it reeks of "Of course sickness is caused by miasma. Every real academic already knows this!"

I think it's because he is reacting, not engaged in rebutting, because as he states, he's a reaction channel. So he sits in front of his computer, watches the video and then literally reacts as he watches it for the first time (and says otherwise if he isn't) so one shouldn't expect sources or citations or anything beyond basic internet searches (which he does in most of the rest of his videos). Like earlier we were discussing the allegations of mass rape allegedly perpetrated by Sherman's Army in Georgia and VTH let that roll by while it was being contested here more vigorously but that was because people were pulling up sources and citing the book Razorfist used etc. VtH has never compiled lists of citations or sources for any of his other videos because he's reacting often off of the first viewing of said video.

Lord Sovereign · Mar 5, 2023

Husky_Khan said:
I think it's because he is reacting, not engaged in rebutting, because as he states, he's a reaction channel. So he sits in front of his computer, watches the video and then literally reacts as he watches it for the first time (and says otherwise if he isn't) so one shouldn't expect sources or citations or anything beyond basic internet searches (which he does in most of the rest of his videos). Like earlier we were discussing the allegations of mass rape allegedly perpetrated by Sherman's Army in Georgia and VTH let that roll by while it was being contested here more vigorously but that was because people were pulling up sources and citing the book Razorfist used etc.

That is ultimately the thing though.

Razor's sources were so catastrophically flawed and cherry picked that they call his entire argument into question. This is a politically motivated hatchet job on what he thinks is the keystone of "globalist tyranny", not good history.

Husky_Khan · Mar 5, 2023

Lord Sovereign said:
That is ultimately the thing though.

Razor's sources were so catastrophically flawed and cherry picked that they call his entire argument into question. This is a politically motivated hatchet job on what he thinks is the keystone of "globalist tyranny", not good history.

Yeah. Vlogging Through History recently reacted to some of Mr. Beats video on best and worst actions of every President through history, and one of the things brought up was John Adams and the Alien & Sedition Act which was supported by Alexander Hamilton which seemed pretty authoritarian and that was right from the beginning. Plus again you have Andrew Jackson, who was Authoritarian and yet neither of them are apparently the keystones of Today's globalist tyranny or foundation of American Empire or other words thrown together and responsible for everything from Marxism to Covid Policy.

Plus people seemed concerned with how VtH didn't contest every point. It's probably because VtH agrees and knows about Lincoln's actions in regards to the press and suspending habeas corpus. All of that stuff is well known. But the way Razorfist presents it among other things in his video, is distorted so when Razorfist defenders state he's just nitpicking, it's more of reducing the distortion. Lincoln did bad things in regards to civil liberties. He wasn't proto-Hitler though and his Emancipation Proclamation wasn't intended to encourage male slaves to gangrape White women as alleged. Sherman's March destroyed a lot of property and left people destitute, but the evidence of them going regiment by regiment gang raping slaves and poor Southern White women is scant. The Razorfist video is just taking little factoids often well accepted by historians and distorting and exaggerating it to arguments that border on absurd. But since the little factoids are true, any pushback on the distortions is just "nitpicking" or "apologism."

Husky_Khan · Jan 13, 2024

Oh a new reaction video by Vlogging Through History to Razorfists latest Civil War magnum opus.

I like how Razorfist set up the video title though. "Was the CIVIL WAR ONLY about Slavery?"

ONLY a Sith speaks in Absolutes!

EDIT:

Watching it, I noticed that Razorfist is using a book by the Author Paul Escott about thirty three minutes in as an argument that Lincoln was willing to continue slavery during the negotiations at the Hampton Roads Peace Conference in early 1865.

I had posted about that back in 2021 when I found those claims rather curious.

Husky_Khan said:
This is my first time trying to genuinely sound smart so... take it easy...

So apparently this Hampton Roads Conference, the one that took place on the Warship, was poorly documented in that only Alexander Stephens (the Vice President of the Confederacy at the time) and Confederate Emmissary John A. Campbell were the ones that had documented what was said in said conference?

Also apparently the new sources that Paul Escott uses were 'private letters in North Carolina' and a previously uncited recounting of the meeting published in the Augusta Chronicle and Sentinel, a Southern newspaper, based on an interview with Alexander Stephens.

From: Justin A. Nystrom "What Shall We Do With The Narrative of American Progress? Lincoln at 200 and National Mythology" Reviews in American History 38, no. 1 (2010): 67-71.

Some of the other journal reviews I found seemed critical of the third portion of the book about how Lincoln would allegedly push the slaves back into slavery in exchange for peace and the United States would apparently cheerfully comply with such.

From: Darrel E. Bigham. The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, vol. 107, no. 1, 2009, pp. 109–110.

It seems to suggest that even around the time of the ending of the Civil War, Lincoln was rather strongly for the emancipation of slaves and that the Author mistakes persuasion for ambiguity which when politics is involved, can be rather mysterious.

From: Matthew Mason. Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, vol. 31, no. 1, 2010, pp. 66–69.

According to this fellow (though obviously a LINCOLNITE) he's far less forgiving of the analysis of Lincoln in apparently portraying him as the White Racist (though that's at best anachronistic term I suppose) but more tellingly, a timid, pro-Southern and unprincipled President and strategist and that the Author interprets the maneuvering done at the Hampton Conference as Lincoln being conciliatory as opposed to both sides politically maneuvering into making the other appear rather unreasonable

VtH obviously isn't a journalistic review compendium and rather sagely pointed out that the 13th Amendment which was to free the slaves, not the 14th as Razorfist repeatedly asserts, was already going to be ratified so its moot but a more comprehensive response is sometimes useful as well.

Sailor.X · Jan 13, 2024

Husky_Khan said:
Oh a new reaction video by Vlogging Through History to Razorfists latest Civil War magnum opus.

I like how Razorfist set up the video title though. "Was the CIVIL WAR ONLY about Slavery?"

ONLY a Sith speaks in Absolutes!

EDIT:

Watching it, I noticed that Razorfist is using a book by the Author Paul Escott about thirty three minutes in as an argument that Lincoln was willing to continue slavery during the negotiations at the Hampton Roads Peace Conference in early 1865.

I had posted about that back in 2021 when I found those claims rather curious.

VtH obviously isn't a journalistic review compendium and rather sagely pointed out that the 13th Amendment which was to free the slaves, not the 14th as Razorfist repeatedly asserts, was already going to be ratified so its moot but a more comprehensive response is sometimes useful as well.

Unfortunately for Razorfist the Diaries and letters of various Confederate higher ups exist. And their own words damn them. They very much were doing the war to preserve Slavery because Free Labor is Free Labor meaning they keep all the profits.

Abhorsen · Jan 13, 2024

At best, you can make the argument that the South fought to preserve slavery and the North fought to preserve the Union. But eventually the North also fought to end slavery.

Agent23 · Jan 13, 2024

Sailor.X said:
Unfortunately for Razorfist the Diaries and letters of various Confederate higher ups exist. And their own words damn them. They very much were doing the war to preserve Slavery because Free Labor is Free Labor meaning they keep all the profits.

Yeah, and every single German in WWII was a member of the NSDAP and subscribed to Hitler's weirdo religion, every single German wanted to kill all Slavs and amm Jews and every single German was a vegetarian....

There is a difference between what the ruling elites want and what the populace at large wants.
The populace at large might not care thet much about things like the Tariff of Abominations, although it probably influenced their lives more than slavery did.
The populace at large will probably not own slaves a s will actually be negatively impacted by the oligarchy owning slaves and I vsstong in low added value low tech crap.

But the populace at large will be patriotic and will defend what they see their land and their rights if they are threatened.

Skallagrim · Jan 13, 2024

This entire matter, and all that it entails, can be summed up by two things that James Longstreet wrote after the war:

"The next time we met was at Appomattox, and the first thing that General Grant said to me when we stepped inside, placing his hand in mine was, Pete, let us have another game of brag, to recall the days that were so pleasant. Great God! I thought to myself, how my heart swells out to such magnanimous touch of humanity. Why do men fight who were born to be brothers?"

and

"The passions of the titanic struggle will finally enter upon the sleep of oblivion, and only its splendid accomplishments for the cause of human freedom and a united nation, stronger and richer in patriotism because of the great strife, will be remembered."

That's the only correct mentality. One can still argue about the shape of that stronger union which has emerged, but it is senseless to hate that union. It stands out to me that all the intelligent men of the age (including Lincoln!) were aiming for reconciliation and brotherhood, such as Longstreet describes.

Zachowon · Jan 13, 2024

Skallagrim said:
This entire matter, and all that it entails, can be summed up by two things that James Longstreet wrote after the war:

"The next time we met was at Appomattox, and the first thing that General Grant said to me when we stepped inside, placing his hand in mine was, Pete, let us have another game of brag, to recall the days that were so pleasant. Great God! I thought to myself, how my heart swells out to such magnanimous touch of humanity. Why do men fight who were born to be brothers?"

and

"The passions of the titanic struggle will finally enter upon the sleep of oblivion, and only its splendid accomplishments for the cause of human freedom and a united nation, stronger and richer in patriotism because of the great strife, will be remembered."

That's the only correct mentality. One can still argue about the shape of that stronger union which has emerged, but it is senseless to hate that union. It stands out to me that all the intelligent men of the age (including Lincoln!) were aiming for reconciliation and brotherhood, such as Longstreet describes.

That is exactly what they wanted.
It was brother fighting brother in that war.

Sailor.X · Jan 13, 2024

Agent23 said:
Yeah, and every single German in WWII was a member of the NSDAP and subscribed to Hitler's weirdo religion, every single German wanted to kill all Slavs and amm Jews and every single German was a vegetarian....

There is a difference between what the ruling elites want and what the populace at large wants.
The populace at large might not care thet much about things like the Tariff of Abominations, although it probably influenced their lives more than slavery did.
The populace at large will probably not own slaves a s will actually be negatively impacted by the oligarchy owning slaves and I vsstong in low added value low tech crap.

But the populace at large will be patriotic and will defend what they see their land and their rights if they are threatened.

That same populace had no problem lynching poor Black People of damn near 100 years so spare me.

Agent23 · Jan 14, 2024

Sailor.X said:
That same populace had no problem lynching poor Black People of damn near 100 years so spare me.

I believe they also lynched Jews (like that one guy that was the reason the Adult Diaper League exists) and some whites that did something particularly heinous.

Sowell went into a lot of detail about the South in his books on the subject, and the place was hardly civilized by modern standards, which meant pretty brutal mob justice.
And given the fact that the blacks were basically shaped by the same Southern culture and despised their "superiors" I am sure many would have been happy to "return the favor".
Also, remember, that this was still the time of "Scientific" racism and that public and private isntitutions were discriminatory 70 years ago.
And the animosity towards blacks was to a great degree brought upon both the humiliation and damage inflicted upon them by the North and by years of oligarchy propaganda meant to keep them from seeing how slavery impacted their own economic interests.

Oh, and btw, do you realize that you are complaining against corporeal punishment to a person who wants to take Singapore's corporeal punishment and extend it for more minor crimes and implement it locally.

With any parents complaining about their crotch fruit being mistreated getting a public caning, too, actually, they should still get caned if their brats are delinquent scum.

Husky_Khan · Jan 14, 2024

Judah Benjamin was an Attorney General and Secretary of War for the Confederacy and a Jew.

Also the famous sculptor Moses Ezekiel was the first Jewish cadet at the Virginia Military Institute.

Antisemitism existed back then on both sides of the conflict.

But you'd never see the Confederacy allow a Black man become a Cadet at VMI, much less become Secretary of War. Same with the North of course at the time (though there were eighty or so Black Commissioned Officers in the Union) but even with national survival at stake, the Confederacy wouldn't recruit an Army of Blacks to defend their country until the very, very, very end... with much controversy... and public jeering... of the assembly of a few colored troops in Confederate uniforms.

ShadowArxxy · Jan 14, 2024

Husky_Khan said:
But you'd never see the Confederacy allow a Black man become a Cadet at VMI, much less become Secretary of War.

In fact, VMI did not admit even a single black cadet until 1968, making it the last segregated public college in Virginia (and one of the last in the entire country).

History Learner · Jan 18, 2024

Abhorsen said:
At best, you can make the argument that the South fought to preserve slavery and the North fought to preserve the Union. But eventually the North also fought to end slavery.

Even that argument proves too simplistic when you find out Confederate envoys were offering to do abolition in exchange for recognition by the Europeans in the dying days of the Confederacy, though. Slavery was the proximate cause, but a real sense of Southern nationalism/ethnic identity had developed and exploded into popular use as a result of the war which was the ultimate animating factor. It's like saying the American Revolution happened solely because of taxes, which ignores all the other developments and emerging views which contributed to it happening.

This is clear through contemporary writings, and explains why, for example, 87% of all White Southern men in Mississippi served in the Confederate Army. Gary Gallagher calls the Confederate war effort the only example of a People's War in American history and the statistics certainly show this. White Southern men saw a near total mobilization, had a lower desertion rate than their Federal counter-parts and took casualties comparable to that France suffered in the trenches of World War I and what the Soviet Union endured on the Eastern Front in WWII. Southern Nationalism was the undercurrent, regardless of what the proximate cause was.

SoliFortissimi · Jan 18, 2024

I'm not sure if Lincoln was a dictator, but he should have been. Unfortunately, the North was simply not as committed to freeing slaves as the South was to keeping them.

And any Confederate apologists can [censored]. They fought to keep men as chattel, and they will all burn in hell forever and ever. So will anyone who supports them.

Free-Stater 101 · Jan 18, 2024

History Learner said:
Even that argument proves too simplistic when you find out Confederate envoys were offering to do abolition in exchange for recognition by the Europeans in the dying days of the Confederacy,

Desperation is a helluv a drug especially when being spoken by diplomats with little to no legislative power or the ability to fulfill the lofty promises that they were making, especially when Article 1 Section 9 (4) of the Confederate Constitution explicitly says that no Federal, State or Territorial part of the legislative, judicial or chief executive branch of the governing body can ban or restrict it.

Really, they only started thinking about that offering when it was increasingly looking like the hangman's noose was becoming more and more of a possible reality, people tend to choose anything over death in those sorts of circumstances.

strunkenwhite · Jan 18, 2024

History Learner said:
Confederate envoys were offering to do abolition in exchange for recognition by the Europeans in the dying days of the Confederacy

Confederates were doing a whole lot of desperate shit in the dying days of the Confederacy, so I don't find it too implausible that such an idea was floated, but do you happen to have a ready source for this?

History Learner · Jan 19, 2024

Free-Stater 101 said:
Desperation is a helluv a drug especially when being spoken by diplomats with little to no legislative power or the ability to fulfill the lofty promises that they were making, especially when Article 1 Section 9 (4) of the Confederate Constitution explicitly says that no Federal, State or Territorial part of the legislative, judicial or chief executive branch of the governing body can ban or restrict it.

Really, they only started thinking about that offering when it was increasingly looking like the hangman's noose was becoming more and more of a possible reality, people tend to choose anything over death in those sorts of circumstances.

The Confederate Constitution also forbid internal improvements and that was subverted from the start citing military necessity to get around it. As with all governments, constitutions are rarely ironclad and can be, and often are, subverted to achieve necessary ends.

In particular to the point at hand, however, if Slavery was the sole motivating factor for the Confederacy at large, why then did they offer to end it at all? Victory or defeat would become pointless at that juncture, if slavery was their only reason of fighting at all. I don't deny it was the proximate factor for secession in 1861, but a generation earlier South Carolina and others had threatened secession over a dispute regarding tariffs. The underlying factor that motivated Southerners to fight to the bitter end was the concept of the South as a separate nation, something that had come into being over the past several generations and something men like Edmund Ruffin argued for as much as they did on slavery.

By 1861, the South had become a nation and Slavery was the leading edge of the sectional divide that served as the spark. I find it hard to believe the modern equivalent of 8 to 10 million Southern men would die solely for an economic system that few of them ever actually directly benefited from.

strunkenwhite said:
Confederates were doing a whole lot of desperate shit in the dying days of the Confederacy, so I don't find it too implausible that such an idea was floated, but do you happen to have a ready source for this?

The Kenner Mission of 1865:

Kenner mission, in U.S. history, secret attempt on the part of the Confederacy in 1864 to elicit European recognition in exchange for Southern abolition of slavery.

Duncan Farrar Kenner, a prosperous Louisiana sugar planter and Thoroughbred horse breeder, represented his state in the Confederate House of Representatives throughout the war. As the conflict dragged on, he became increasingly convinced that the South could not win without English and French recognition of the legitimacy of the Confederate government.

In 1864 Kenner convinced Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin to send a special commission to Europe, offering the abolition of slavery in exchange for recognition. The South was desperate, and Pres. Jefferson Davis reluctantly agreed to the plan. But Davis knew that such a proposal would inflame Southern opinion, and he decided to send Kenner alone to Europe without informing the Confederate Congress.

Abraham Lincoln: American Dictator

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.

Well-known member

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.

The resident Britbong

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.

Cold War Veteran

Local Degenerate

Ни шагу назад!

Well-known member

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!

Cold War Veteran

Ни шагу назад!

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Freedom Means Freedom!!!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Users who are viewing this thread