HomeНовости и политикаRelated VideosMore From: Stefan Molyneux

The Truth About Abraham Lincoln

8185 ratings | 586314 views
Did you know that Abraham Lincoln was abandoned by his father and was suicidal for many years? Do you know the hidden story behind how Lincoln became president? What is the truth about Abraham Lincoln? Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.fdrurl.com/donate Sources: http://americacomesalive.com/2013/02/12/abraham-lincoln-1809-1865-president-from-1861-1865/ http://mrnussbaum.com/lincoln/childhood/ https://suite101.com/a/abraham-lincoln-was-permanently-estranged-from-his-abusive-father-a376107 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3036550/ http://history1800s.about.com/od/Lincoln-Family/f/Was-Mary-Todd-Lincoln-Mentally-Ill.htm http://www.pbs.org/wnet/lookingforlincoln/featured/watch-looking-for-lincoln/290/ http://www.mises.org/daily/952 https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/06/thomas-dilorenzo/is-there-a-libertarian-case-for-lincoln/ http://archive.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster21.html http://www.mises.org/daily/607 http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/mercer1.html http://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo18.html https://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae7_2_2.pdf Bitcoin Address: 1Fd8RuZqJNG4v56rPD1v6rgYptwnHeJRWs Litecoin Address: LL76SbNek3dT8bv2APZNhWgNv3nHEzAgKT Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com Amazon US Affiliate Link: www.fdrurl.com/AmazonUS Amazon Canada Affiliate Link: www.fdrurl.com/AmazonCanada Amazon UK Affiliate Link: www.fdrurl.com/AmazonUK Stefan Molyneux's Social Media Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/stefan.molyneux Twitter: https://twitter.com/stefanmolyneux Google+: https://www.google.com/+StefanMolyneux_Freedomain_Radio Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/stefan-molyneux/5/72a/703 Freedomain Radio Social Media Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Official.Freedomain.Radio Twitter: https://twitter.com/freedomainradio Google+: https://www.google.com/+FreedomainradioFDR LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/freedomain-radio Message Board: http://board.freedomainradio.com Meet-Up Groups: http://www.meetup.com/Freedomain-Radio/ Blogspot: http://freedomain.blogspot.com/ iTunes Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freedomain-radio!-volume-6/id552010683
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (3167)
Where's the truth about Jesus video?
CSAFD (1 day ago)
- [ ] Adolf Lincoln - [ ] the Oval Office has been disgraced since ADOLF LINCOLN in 1860 - [ ] Adolf Lincoln's great legacy includes: - [ ] 1. Raising taxes before the war that caused the South to pay more than the North. - [ ] 2. Never freed anyone, particulary a slave. Had no jurisdiction in the southern states at that time, it being an entirely different country. - [ ] 3. Believed and stated blacks were inferior to whites. - [ ] 4. Imprisoned thousands, without charges and without a trial, who disagreed with his policies of invading and subjugating the Southern people. - [ ] 5. Shut down and destroyed any newspaper that criticized his actions or supported the South in secession. - [ ] 6. Spent government funds on private ventures, enriching favored people. - [ ] 7. Arrested delegates in Maryland so they could not vote on secession. - [ ] 8. Occupied Delaware with the Army so that the state government could not even discuss Southern views. - [ ] 9. Invaded the South and caused the death of 460,000 Southerners, not to mention his own side. - [ ] 10. With his war, he single-handedly ended states rights, which empowered the federal government along with the Supreme court to do whatever they wanted. The republic formed by our Constitution came to an end. If you don't believe it, all I have to offer is Obamacare, same-sex marriage, no prayer or Bible reading in public. - [ ] 11. Anaconda plan of blockade staving the southern states, while northern states had supplies. - [ ] 12. Crimes against humanity of starving Confederate POW’s @ Elmira and Camp Douglas 30,000 died while only 12,000 died @ Andersonville. - [ ] 13. Sieges of Vicksburg, Atlanta, Petersburg and Richmond (like Leningrad during world war 2) - [ ] And then he had the audacity to coin the phrase, "government of the people, by the people and for the people". - [ ] Why do we honor this man? - [ ] “Virginia did not secede in defense of slavery. Indeed, when Lincoln was inaugurated, March 4, 1861, Virginia was still in the Union. Only South Carolina, Georgia and the five Gulf states had seceded and created the Confederate States of America. - [ ] At the firing on Fort Sumter, April 12-13, 1861, the first shots of the Civil War, Virginia was still inside the Union. Indeed, there were more slave states in the Union than in the Confederacy. But, on April 15, Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 volunteers from the state militias to march south and crush the new Confederacy. - [ ] Two days later, April 17, Virginia seceded rather than provide soldiers or militia to participate in a war on their brethren. - [ ] North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas followed Virginia out over the same issue. They would not be a party to a war on their kinfolk. - [ ] Slavery was not the cause of this war. Secession was -- that and Lincoln's determination to drown the nation in blood if necessary to make the Union whole again. - [ ] Nor did Lincoln ever deny it. - [ ] In his first inaugural, Lincoln sought to appease the states that had seceded by endorsing a constitutional amendment to make slavery permanent in the 15 states where it then existed. He even offered to help the Southern states run down fugitive slaves. - [ ] In 1862, Lincoln wrote Horace Greeley that if he could restore the Union without freeing one slave he would do it. The Emancipation Proclamation of Jan. 1, 1863, freed only those slaves Lincoln had no power to free -- those still under Confederate rule. As for slaves in the Union states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, they remained the property of their owners.” Patrick Buchanan
joanne ross (1 day ago)
Rockefeller too. Rothschilds too. Check your history.
joanne ross (1 day ago)
The matauk time travels changed everything. Also the natives were black and with the Vatican fascism was imposed on the people . Like the the destabilizing tactics with the Islam/ Muslim factions now. The
whisker49 (1 day ago)
STEPHEN, YOU MENTION SHAKESPEAR AKA EDWARD DEVERE(THE RED KNIGHT), AS POORLY EDUCATED WHICH IS A LIE. LINCOLN WAS MAINLY SELF EDUCATED AT THE POORLY LIT HEARTH LIGHT IN THE CABIN USING CHARCOAL AS A PEN AND A PIECE OF SLATE. HE BECAME ONE OF THE MOST CELEBRATED LAWYERS IN ILLINOIS FOR HIS INTELLIGENT DOWN TO EARTH DEMEANOR IN HIS PURSUIT OF THE TRUTH. WHY DO YOU CATHOLICS ALWAYS LEAVE OUT THE DOCUMENTED CASE OF CHARLES CHINIQUY (A FORMER FRENCH CANADIAN CATHOLIC PRIEST BEING SETUP FOR A CRIME BY THE SCUMBAG CHICAGO CARDINAL, AND LINCOLNS' SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE OF CHARLES TWICE)? IF YOU NEED PROOF OF THIS FACT CHINIQUYS' BOOK TITLED "50 YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME" (AVAILABLE STILL, SINCE THE 1800'S) AND FREE ON THE INTERNET IN PDF FORMAT. CHINIQUY CHRONICLED HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH LINCOLN AND QUOTED LINCOLN AS BLAMING THE VATICAN AND THE JESUITS FOR THE CIVIL WAR. TALK ABOUT THIS STEPHEN, AND YOU WILL ADDRESS WHAT IS STILL HAPPENING TO AMERICA TODAY. IT IS STILL ROME -THE VATICAN ANTI-CHRIST AND HIS BLACK SUITED MURDERERS, THE JESUITS CONTINUING THE FINAL ONCE FOUNDED PROTESTANT REPUBLIC TO THIS NOW FASCIST PAPAL EMPIRE. ARE YOU A JESUIT COADJUTOR STEPHEN, HELPING THE VATICANS' JESUITS WITH THE FINAL BLOW DESTROYING WHAT LINCOLN WAS MURDERED FOR AT THE HANDS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC JOHN WILKES BOOTH? I AWAIT YOUR ANSWER...I'M NOT HOLDING MY BREATH, WAITING FOR AN HONEST ANSWER FROM YOU.
Mark Lewis (1 day ago)
When you said @ 0:40 "...its been important throughout my intellectual development." and also why you made these videos on the "heros with feet of clay..." It made me want to vomit from the blatant lies. You did these videos for two reasons.... 1) Money (primarily) 2) You are a subvert. These are monetized and Patreon videos... There's no moral high ground for you to be standing on... You don't even have "feet of clay"... You have the locomotion of the spider you are.
Dale Gribble (3 days ago)
Omg stefan hurts my head!! Dude im just an average person plz slow down ur big brain u fry mine!! Omg!!😨 lol
jdsmith556 (4 days ago)
So the north tried to tax the southern states into poverty, south didn’t pay so the north invaded to STEAL the money. A fight broke out that drove the south into a level of poverty that some areas still haven’t recovered from. Then they whitewashed history blaming it on slavery to look righteous in their evil deeds? THIS WASNT IN MY INDOCTRINATION BOOKS IN SCROOL!!!!
Shantonu Basu (1 day ago)
None of that is true.
Ross Whitlock (4 days ago)
Dam Lincoln was a real douche bag
john sullivan (8 days ago)
teacher in third grade said families were still split and still not talking to one another right into the 20th century over taking sides in the war.
2 Cents (12 days ago)
Civil War was a ridiculous war. If the states want to leave, they should be allowed to leave. It's United States. You don't kill 600,000 people to stop a portion from leaving. USA is too big anyway.
2 Cents (2 days ago)
+Shantonu Basu Yes I'm OK with that. Do I own California? The people of CA own it. But look at it this way, do you have to go to war to keep CA in the union? Do you have to get your arms blown off for that?
Shantonu Basu (12 days ago)
Should they be allowed to leave for no reason? Like, let's say that tomorrow, for no reason at all, California wants to leave the Union. You're okay with that?
Darth nataS (15 days ago)
Thanks for this Mr. Molyneux. Was Lincoln the worst US President ever? I would say he was one of the worst tyrants to ever walk the earth. Forcing people to stay in an unwanted union is the very definition of slavery. Should the EU today draft and force the Germans and the French to invade Britain over Brexit, killing 600,000 people in the process, just to preserve the EU? Of course not. No sane person would advocate this. It is unbelievable that the states had just finished fighting a war to win their freedom from King George less than one generation before the northern invasion of the south, only to have to fight another war for secession. There was no difference between the justification for those two wars, only we lost the second one.
Shantonu Basu (12 days ago)
No the very definition of slavery is where you get beaten and raped and your children get sold down the river and you never see them again. That's slavery. You're thinking of something else.
Pierre Bezukhov (14 days ago)
And forcing black people to stay on an unwanted plantation wasn't slavery?
Kurt Sherrick (18 days ago)
The South for 30 years before the war was treated like the Red Headed Step Child. Paid around 85 percent of the Revenue to Washington and Received basically Zero percent of the benefits. States voluntarily joined the Union. Freedom means you have the Freedom to leave doesn't it?
Kurt Sherrick (12 days ago)
+Shantonu Basu Doesn't Freedom mean you have the Freedom to leave. Article 3, Section 3 does not allow the states to war. Your right Lincoln and the North didn't agree with the South taking the 85% of the Revenue they were paying and only 30 percent of the population. The South even offered to pay on the National Debt. The South had three cash crops that were the most demanded products World Wide. Hemp for Industrial use Cotton and Tobacco. The South 15 Ports the North 3. Lincoln War for sure stopped the Northern part of the country from falling apart.
Shantonu Basu (12 days ago)
No. The Union is perpetual. Leaving is fine if the other side agrees.
David W (19 days ago)
Nice set of teeth !!!
Commenter Five (20 days ago)
No sarcasm, if the American civil war wasn't about slavery, how is it, when the war ended the slaves were free?
Shantonu Basu (12 days ago)
Good question. Saying the Civil War wasn't about slavery is like saying the Civil Rights movement wasn't about segregation.
Commenter Five (20 days ago)
At 26:35 please, what exactly is the American Empire? Puerto Rico and Philippines? Military bases? It's just the opposite. The United States hasn't kept control of the nations conquered, such as Germany, Japan, etc. As a war veteran I see nothing great about the civil war leaders who's attack tactics left thousands and thousands of their men dead on the hill. For example, in at least two civil war battles, more men died than Americans in all the Vietnam War.
Wakko (21 days ago)
All unions will colapse... Soviet Union colapsed, Jugoslavia too, European Union will, and time will test american union and united kingdom... I'm not emotionally attached to US history at all. But from all I lerned, federal government and the northern states did a lot more wrong things than south. I'm on south side, truth has to prevail.
Jerry Rose (22 days ago)
There is a church Old Laurel Hill Presbyterian where there are still bullet holes in the wall of the attic space above the pulpit where union soldiers cornered and killed Confederate soldiers who sought refuge there.
Appregator (25 days ago)
It appears that Lincoln's tyranical rule is what every modern day Democrat wishes they could do today.
Ken B (27 days ago)
Too bad he didn't kill himself before gaining power. Well done Booth
James Martinelli (27 days ago)
Various saints have reported visions of Lincoln burning in hell.
James Martinelli (27 days ago)
'The Real Lincoln' by Dr. Thomas J Di Lorenzo.
Shantonu Basu (12 days ago)
Written by a non-historian.
John McGuire (28 days ago)
Great stuff! You and David Irving ought to do a video together
John McGuire (12 days ago)
+Shantonu Basu Lol (me too.)
Shantonu Basu (12 days ago)
Lol (I'm assuming that's sarcasm.)
Shantonu Basu (28 days ago)
Historians are unanimous in placing the cause of the Civil War at the feet of the pro-slavery South. Of course there were many other issues. Nothing as complicated as the Civil War can be reduced to a single cause. However, no historian disputes that it was the single biggest cause. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june11-civilwar_04-12/ Any attempt to deny that fact is doomed to failure. Therefore, this video is bullshit. If anyone thinks that the Civil War was not fought primarily over the expansion of slavery, then how do you make sense of the following? 1. The 3/5 Compromise http://constitution.laws.com/three-fifths-compromise 2. The Missouri Compromise https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html 3. The publication of The Liberator, 1831 to 1865. http://fair-use.org/the-liberator/1865/12/29/valedictory 4. The Compromise of 1850 https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Compromise1850.html 5. The Caning of Charles Sumner https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm 6. The collapse of the Whig Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States) 7. Bleeding Kansas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas 8. John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry http://www.ushistory.org/us/32c.asp 9. Dred Scott v. Sanford https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/case.html 10. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debates.htm 11. Uncle Tom's Cabin https://www.harrietbeecherstowecenter.org/utc/ 12. Lincoln's "House Divided Speech" https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/housedivided.htm 13. Lincoln's Address at Cooper Union, February 27, 1860 http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm 14. The Proceedings of the Republican Conventions https://archive.org/stream/proceedingsoffir00repu/proceedingsoffir00repu_djvu.txt 15. The Republican Party Platform of 1860. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/republican-party-platform-1860/ 16. The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states 17. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the Confederate States and Article IV of the Constitution of the Confederate States http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp Note that unlike excuses made up after the fact, almost all of these documents are about things that happened _prior_ to Fort Sumter and all of them are about *slavery.* None of this makes any sense if the the Civil War were not about slavery, the protection of slavery, the legitimization of slavery, the expansion of slavery. If you reject this simple and obvious truth, then massive parts of American history would be incomprehensible. Indeed Reconstruction would make no sense if the Civil War were not principally about the expansion of slavery. The Civil War Amendments are about slavery. Read the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. All of them are about slavery. None of them is about tariffs or about hurting the South economically. Of course, this should not be taken to mean that the North was free of hypocrisy. The North was not fighting for "Abolition" (at first). Lincoln was not anything approaching an Abolitionist until very late in the Civil War. He never was an Abolitionist in the sense of William Lloyd Garrison was an Abolitionist. There were plenty of good men who fought for the South. Stonewall Jackson is the best and most famous example of that. He personally hated slavery and was loved by black people both free and enslaved. There were plenty of bad men on the Northern side. William Sherman being a notable example of a bad man fighting for a good cause. None of this changes the basic fact: *the war was fought over the future of the institution of black slavery.* The North wanted it limited and controlled and, in a few instances, some wanted it abolished; the South wanted slavery protected and expanded. You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. You can interpret facts in different ways. But as I have pointed out above, if you think that the slavery was a side issue in the U.S. Civil War, then you _cannot_ understand what led up to the Civil War. I hope people interpret the facts in ways that do not leave whole areas of American history incomprehensible
dave cavity (1 month ago)
WHEN WILL YOU BE DOING THE TRUTH ABOUT PETER PAN.......
David Navarro (1 month ago)
(Part II) Moreover, during the same debates, Lincoln ended a speech of his in Chicago with decidedly egalitarian words that are contradictory to later statements (something Douglas would press him upon in later speeches !) : « *I have only to say let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man-this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position, discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.* » http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-at-chicago-illinois/ 37:18 We’re often told that history is written by the victors but the Civil War kinda dispels this oft-repeated assertion. The South, although losing the war, has been bent on rewriting its history by constantly minimizing and denying the role of slavery in causing this war. This allowed them to present their leaders in a positive light and most importantly to justify the very statues that pay hommage to confederate leaders even though they took arms against the United States ! 41:16 Contrary to what you say. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the millions of slaves who were still in control of the Confederacy by the time it was enacted. This move was so radical that Ben Curtis, who famously dissented in the Dred Scott case, deemed it unconstitutional in a pamphlet. What you also forget is how Lincoln ran in 1864 on a platform that explicitly called for the end of slavery through constitutional amendment. This became the 13th Amendment, signed by Lincoln himself months before his death. 42:22 You prefer to be a slave than be drafted as a soldier. That’s your opinion but implying that draft conscription is as bad as slavery is a gross trivialization of the many privations that come with the status of slave. Conscription from Lincoln seem to you a very horrendous but you forget that the Southern Confederacy also enacted its own draft act one year before the Union did. Ah ! Finally I hope reading my answer wasn’t too tedious but this is simply being proportional to the large numbers of misrepresentations your video pretending to be « the truth » abounds.
David Navarro (1 month ago)
(Part I) Hi ! Since you constantly complain that many people who criticize have « no arguments » I’ll try to make a constructive, balanced and detailed criticism of your video. If there’s a thing your video learn, is how we should always be cautious against people who claim to say « THE truth » about any topic given the many distortions your exposé contains. First, allow me to apologize for the length of my message as it contains long quotations. I’ll skip the parts regarding Abraham Lincoln’s background and family they aren’t really relevant to his policies, political views and the Civil War in general which we will examine right now. 12:25 It’s fairly easy to describe the American revolution as a secession movement if you omit crucial differences with the 1860 crisis. A focal point of the revolution was the slogan « no taxation without representation », the Southern States were not only represented in Parliament but they had PRIVILEGED representation through the constitutional 3/5th clause. They weren’t colonies submitted under a central authority they were States on par the Northern ones, under federal power. 14:50 You’re repeating the revisionist myth that tariffs were the cause behind the Civil War. A simple reading from Lincoln’s first inaugural speech shows this was simply not true: « _One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute_ ». Yes you read it, the « *only substantial dispute* ».  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/first-inaugural-address-2/ Or better yet you can read much of the speeches from Southern leaders themselves « _The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact…Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth._ » http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/ Or better yet the Ordinance of Secession from South Carolina about the « causes of secession »: « _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 assumed 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 the 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…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….We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates, in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved_ » http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/south-carolina-declaration-of-causes-of-secession/ 18:21 The assertion that 80% of income tariffs came from the South is simply false. A historian named Andy Hall posted a very instructive article showing that the New York port was bringing by itself about 2/3 of the entire revenue tariff !  « _The Chamber of Commerce from 1860 reports — on the very first page — customs revenue for Port of New York for 1859 at $38,834,212, or about 63.5% of the $61.1M in federal revenue that year. The Port of New York, alone, accounted for nearly two-thirds of U.S. Government revenue in 1859._ » https://deadconfederates.com/2013/02/24/walter-e-williams-polishes-the-turd-on-tariffs/#comments 23:35 Regarding the Fugitive Slave Act. It’s quite an exaggeration to say he « wholeheartedly » supported it. He didn’t oppose it because he felt bound by the Constitution to support it but he also advocated for better enforcement of laws prohibiting the slave trade. Better yet, during his Presidency he signed into law on June 1864 the repeal of both fugitive slave laws even though they were mandated by the Constitution. 26:27 37:32 A congressional declaration of war would have been an implicit recognition of southern independence. Federal law at the time allowed for the President as Commander-in-Chief to use military forces in cases of insurrection. The supreme court in the « Prize Cases » (1863) fully recognized a state of war didn’t need a declaration to exist, even in a civil war.  You even use the old liberal trope of name-calling as « fascist » any person whose policies you oppose. (27:39 ; 34:30) which I would say isn’t really much of an argument.  35:23 You quote many statements by Lincoln but as usual, coming from critics of his, they’re selective.  Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley to show he didn’t mind about the abolition of slavery:  “ _My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union._ ” However these people always forget the very last sentence of the letter: “ *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.* ” Although Lincoln deliberately used convoluted expressions he simply said the presidency does not give him the authority to abolish slavery all over the country and that waging war for the purpose of emancipation would be overstepping the boundaries of his “official duty”. You also extracts from Lincoln’s first debate against Stephen Douglas (Ottawa speech, 1858) but as you’ll see it’s often quoted in truncated ways:  “ _I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary,_ *but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.* ” Ottawa Speech 1858 https://mason.gmu.edu/~zschrag/hist120spring05/lincoln_ottawa.htm End of Part I
Shantonu Basu (1 month ago)
Historians are unanimous in placing the cause of the Civil War at the feet of the pro-slavery South. Of course there were many other issues. Nothing as complicated as the Civil War can be reduced to a single cause. However, no historian disputes that it was the single biggest cause. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june11-civilwar_04-12/ Any attempt to deny that fact is doomed to failure. Therefore, this video is bullshit. If anyone thinks that the Civil War was not fought primarily over the expansion of slavery, then how do you make sense of the following? 1. The 3/5 Compromise http://constitution.laws.com/three-fifths-compromise 2. The Missouri Compromise https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html 3. The publication of The Liberator, 1831 to 1865. http://fair-use.org/the-liberator/1865/12/29/valedictory 4. The Compromise of 1850 https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Compromise1850.html 5 The collapse of the Whig Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States) 6. Bleeding Kansas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas 7. John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry http://www.ushistory.org/us/32c.asp 8. Dred Scott v. Sanford https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/case.html 9. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debates.htm 10. Uncle Tom's Cabin https://www.harrietbeecherstowecenter.org/utc/ 11 Lincoln's "House Divided Speech" https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/housedivided.htm 12 Lincoln's Address at Cooper Union, February 27, 1860 http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm 13 The Proceedings of the Republican Conventions https://archive.org/stream/proceedingsoffir00repu/proceedingsoffir00repu_djvu.txt 15. The Republican Party Platform of 1860. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/republican-party-platform-1860/ 16. The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states 17. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the Confederate States and Article IV of the Constitution of the Confederate States http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp Note that unlike excuses made up after the fact, almost all of these documents are about things that happened _prior_ to Fort Sumter and all of them are about *slavery.* None of this makes any sense if the the Civil War were not about slavery, the protection of slavery, the legitimization of slavery, the expansion of slavery. If you reject this simple and obvious truth, then massive parts of American history would be incomprehensible. Indeed Reconstruction would make no sense if the Civil War were not principally about the expansion of slavery. The Civil War Amendments are about slavery. Read the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. All of them are about slavery. None of them is about tariffs or about hurting the South economically. Of course, this should not be taken to mean that the North was free of hypocrisy. The North was not fighting for "Abolition" (at first). Lincoln was not anything approaching an Abolitionist until very late in the Civil War. He never was an Abolitionist in the sense of William Lloyd Garrison was an Abolitionist. There were plenty of good men who fought for the South. Stonewall Jackson is the best and most famous example of that. He personally hated slavery and was loved by black people both free and enslaved. There were plenty of bad men on the Northern side. William Sherman being a notable example of a bad man fighting for a good cause. None of this changes the basic fact: *the war was fought over the future of the institution of black slavery*. The North wanted it limited and controlled and, in a few instances, some wanted it abolished; the South wanted slavery protected and expanded. You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. You can interpret facts in different ways. But as I have pointed out above, if you think that the slavery was a side issue in the U.S. Civil War, then you _cannot_ understand what led up to the Civil War. I hope people interpret the facts in ways that do not leave whole areas of American history incomprehensible
ghostzeke14 (1 month ago)
Anyone who wants a more in debt study of these topics should check out the book "The Real Lincoln"
Shantonu Basu (26 days ago)
+James Martinelli Real historians do not doubt that the war was fought over slavery
James Martinelli (27 days ago)
Shantonu Basu .....I read it. I've read hundreds of books on Lincoln's War. I know there is a faction propagating the official history as opposed to the true history.
Shantonu Basu (1 month ago)
+James Martinelli Yeah, that book has been ridiculed by the scholarly community. http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=79
James Martinelli (1 month ago)
ghostzeke14 by Dr. Thomas J Di Lorenzo
Charles Moore (1 month ago)
Abe was a tyrant dictator. He was clearly a racist that had his plan for “colonization” of blacks. As many as 800,000 were killed because of his choices. Shocking that he has been made into a hero.
Shantonu Basu (1 month ago)
+Charles Moore Facts are facts
Charles Moore (1 month ago)
Shantonu Basu Incorrect. You have joined the Abe Lincoln cult. Congrats !
Shantonu Basu (1 month ago)
+Charles Moore No. The authors of history in the modern era are not the winners but rather professional historians who spend their lives examining the record. And every living professional historian on planet earth makes it clear that slavery was the cause of the conflict.
Charles Moore (1 month ago)
greenbrickbox The winners of a war get to write the history books. If you choose to “buy” it, that’s up to you. You only need to read Lincoln’s own words to see that he did not care at all about slaves and planned his “colonization”up until his death. The war was about money...figure it out.
greenbrickbox (1 month ago)
+Charles Moore the war was absolutely about slavery. It didn't start with the intention of emancipation, but the efforts of the radical Republicans and a abolitionists were enough to convince Lincoln to emancipate the slaves against the advice of moderates. Had the Radical Republicans succeeded after the Civil War in enacting Reconstruction the world would be a much better place today.
James Martinelli (1 month ago)
1861 Republicans and Lincoln go to war against Americans North and South.
Shantonu Basu (1 month ago)
No.
Fred Crochen (2 months ago)
Excellent Presentation! 🤙🏿
Shantonu Basu (1 month ago)
All lies.
oldschool (2 months ago)
THE TRUTH IS ...HE WAS A MASS MURDERING YANKEE TYRANT,WHO GOT WHAT HE DESERVED.
Pierre Bezukhov (2 months ago)
Lincoln sure was a tyrant. Only the most corrupt and evil tyrant would deny to White Southerners the joys of tyrannizing Black people.
Shantonu Basu (1 month ago)
The principle cause of the Civil War was the conflict over the expansion of slavery into the Western territories. Any attempt to deny that fact is doomed to failure. Therefore, this video is bullshit. If anyone thinks that the Civil War was not fought primarily over the expansion of slavery, then how do you make sense of the following? 1. The 3/5 Compromise http://constitution.laws.com/three-fifths-compromise 2. The Missouri Compromise https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html 3. The publication of the Liberator, 1831 to 1865. http://fair-use.org/the-liberator/1865/12/29/valedictory 4. The Compromise of 1850 https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Compromise1850.html 5 The collapse of the Whig Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States) 6. Bleeding Kansas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas 7. John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry http://www.ushistory.org/us/32c.asp 8. Dred Scott v. Sanford https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/case.html 9. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debates.htm 10. Uncle Tom's Cabin https://www.harrietbeecherstowecenter.org/utc/ 11 Lincoln's Address at Cooper Union, February 27, 1860 http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm 12 The Proceedings of the Republican Conventions https://archive.org/stream/proceedingsoffir00repu/proceedingsoffir00repu_djvu.txt 13. The Republican Party Platform of 1860. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/republican-party-platform-1860/ 14. Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp 15. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the Confederate States and Article IV of the Constitution of the Confederate States http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp Note that unlike excuses made up after the fact, almost all of these documents are about things that happened prior to Fort Sumter. None of this makes any sense if the the Civil War were not about slavery, the protection of slavery, the legitimization of slavery, the expansion of slavery. If you reject this simple and obvious truth, then massive parts of American history would be incomprehensible. Indeed Reconstruction would make no sense if the Civil War were not principally about the expansion of slavery. Read the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. All of them are about slavery. None of them is about tariffs or about hurting the South economically. The Civil War Amendments are about slavery. Of course, this should not be taken to mean that the North was free of hypocrisy. The North was not fighting for "Abolition" (at first). Lincoln was not anything approaching an Abolitionist until very late in the Civil War. He never was an Abolitionist in the sense of William Lloyd Garrison was an Abolitionist. There were plenty of good men who fought for the South. Stonewall Jackson is the best and most famous example of that. He personally hated slavery and was loved by black people both free and enslaved. There were plenty of bad men on the Northern side. William Sherman being a notable example of a bad man fighting for a good cause. None of this changes the basic fact: *the war was fought over the future of the institution of black slavery*. The North wanted it limited and controlled and, in a few instances, some wanted it abolished; the South wanted slavery protected and expanded. Historians are unanimous in placing the cause of the Civil War at the feet of the pro-slavery South. Of course there were many other issues. Nothing as complicated as the Civil War can be reduced to a single cause. However, no historian disputes that it was the single biggest cause. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june11-civilwar_04-12/ You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. You can interpret facts in different ways. But as I have pointed out above, if you think that the slavery was a side issue in the U.S. Civil War, then you _cannot_ understand what led up to the Civil War. I hope people interpret the facts in ways that do not leave whole areas of American history incomprehensible
greenbrickbox (1 month ago)
Molyneux is easy to see through. The Radical Republicans didn't go far enough with reconstruction, the real tragedy is that they lost.
Papa Steve (2 months ago)
Thank you for this video.
Shantonu Basu (2 months ago)
It's full of lies.
James Everett (2 months ago)
Thank you Stefan SO MUCH for doing this one. I get so tired of hearing that this huge federal power grab was somehow justified and overshadowed by slavery, or that slavery had anything at all to do with the war, especially when Lincoln said so explicitly that abolishing slavery was not his goal.
Shantonu Basu (2 months ago)
+James Everett You want a real argument? Here you go: The principle cause of the Civil War was the conflict over slavery. Any attempt to deny that fact is doomed to failure. Therefore, this video is bullshit. If you think that the Civil War was not fought primarily over the expansion of slavery, then how do you make sense of the following? 1. The 3/5 Compromise http://constitution.laws.com/three-fifths-compromise 2. The Missouri Compromise https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html 3. The Compromise of 1850 https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Compromise1850.html 4. Bleeding Kansas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas 5. John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry http://www.ushistory.org/us/32c.asp 6. Dred Scott v. Sanford https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/case.html 7. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debates.htm 8. Uncle Tom's Cabin https://www.harrietbeecherstowecenter.org/utc/ 9. Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp 10. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the Confederate States and Article IV of the Constitution of the Confederate States http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp Note that unlike excuses made up after the fact, all of these documents are about things that happened prior to Fort Sumter. None of this makes any sense if the the Civil War were not about slavery, the protection of slavery, the legitimization of slavery, the expansion of slavery. If you reject this simple and obvious truth, then massive parts of American history would be incomprehensible. Indeed Reconstruction would make no sense if the Civil War were not principally about the expansion of slavery. Read the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. All of them are about slavery. None of them is about tariffs. Of course, this should not be taken to mean that the North was free of hypocrisy. The North was not fighting for "Abolition" (at first). Lincoln was not anything approaching an Abolitionist until very late in the Civil War. He never was an Abolitionist in the sense of William Lloyd Garrison was an Abolitionist. There were plenty of good men who fought for the South. Stonewall Jackson is the best and most famous example of that. He personally hated slavery and was loved by black people both free and enslaved. There were plenty of bad men on the Northern side. William Sherman being a notable example of a bad man fighting for a good cause. None of this changes the basic fact: *the war was fought over the future of the institution of black slavery*. The North wanted it limited and controlled and, in a few instances, some wanted it abolished; the South wanted slavery protected and expanded. As I have stated many times on this page, Stefan Molyneaux is a *liar*. Proof? Look at 14:50 to 15:01. Pure lies. Lincoln never said anything of the kind. Read for yourself what Lincoln said in the 1st Inaugural. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp See any mention of a "promised invasion" for nonpayment of the Morrill Tariff"? In fact the Morrill Tariff had not even been passed. This guy is full of shit. Anyone who's read three or four books about Lincoln would know that. You can't just pull Lincoln quotes out of your ass without explaining the context and explaining how Lincoln's opinion changed. It's easy to fabricate history. Here's an example of how you do it: “I have been very clear on this. I have said I am not a supporter of gay marriage. I think the term marriage itself has strong religious roots and a strong tradition that means something special to people in this country.” -Barack Obama, 2004. Now, is it technically true that "Obama was against gay marriage"? Yes, that is a technically true statement. It is insanely misleading? Also yes. No historian could get a paper published with the misleading statement "Obama was against gay marriage" without a qualifier explaining how his position changed. For the exact same reason, historians do not treat Lincoln's speeches and words as a mere grab bag out of which you can pick stuff at random. Stephen Molyneax does exactly that. That's why he is a full-of-shit liar. Historians are unanimous in placing the cause of the Civil War at the feet of the pro-slavery South. Of course there were many other issues. Nothing as complicated as the Civil War can be reduced to a single cause. However, no historian disputes that it was not the single biggest cause. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june11-civilwar_04-12/ You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. You can interpret facts in different ways. But as I have pointed out above, if you think that the slavery was a side issue in the U.S. Civil War, then you cannot understand what led up to the Civil War. I hope people interpret the facts in ways that do not leave whole areas of American history incomprehensible.
James Everett (2 months ago)
+Shantonu Basu - great argument.
Shantonu Basu (2 months ago)
Nonsense.
Marcus Aurelius (3 months ago)
How do you know what to believe?
Shantonu Basu (2 months ago)
Read a few books. Start with Battle Cry of Freedom.
James Ouellet (3 months ago)
Abraham Lincoln want to send black back to Africa in order to safe and preserve the white race in America but a Jew shot him and now look where we are right now.
The Digital Symphony (3 months ago)
There are many historical inaccuracies in this video that I would like to point out. For one, I beg the question, if the south really seceded over the tariff, why didn’t they secede during the Nullification Crisis? Where I believe the Tariff was even higher (I could be wrong on that one though). Another thing is that you brought up Compensated Emancipation. Lincoln tried that in all the border states where Slavery was legal as evidenced in the letter he wrote to A.G. Hodges in Kentucky, and the thing is that he actually did it in Washington D.C. as proved by the Compensated Emancipation Act that was Passed in 1862. You also later brought up that Vallandigham of Ohio was deported by Lincoln without Trial for his opposition to the war, this is only partly true. He was deported to the confederacy, but it was because he violated General Order Number 38, something that was only in Ohio, it was not because he opposed Lincoln’s emergency Income Tax. Later on you also stated that Lincoln allowed the execution of 300 native Americans in Minnesota. This is a severe oversimplification of the matter and this article explains what happened greatly very well (http://www.historynet.com/abraham-lincoln-deciding-the-fate-of-300-indians-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-minnesotas-great-sioux-uprising.htm) he also reviewed the cases for all of these men, In fact he gave clemency to 265 of them, only 39 were executed and even then they had done some pretty abhorrent things, it seems he were the one who lied about the statistics, not Lincoln. And unfortunately Lincoln does not belong in a political vacuum, He is able to change his views like any other man, and this was the case when it came to his view of black people. The notion that he did not free any slaves is ludicrous, he freed the slaves in Washington D.C. and was a big advocate for the 13th amendment (which was introduced to congress in December of 1863), which unfortunately he was not around to see it be passed. It’s also been proven that if under Lincoln, if you went into the military you were automatically freed. To understand Lincoln, He believed the correct view that without the union there would be nothing, without the United States Itself, there was no constitution. To kill the Union was to also kill the Constitution. In Lincolns words: “if one state can secede, then all states can secede, and then the Constitution means nothing.
David Boatman (3 months ago)
An intellectocracy is the only solution to counter the failure of democracy. If you truly value the safety of your own family, read the entire seven part blog for the alternative to a democracy : http://worldpeacethroughworldwidedisarmament.blogspot.com/2014/05/overview-of-seven-part-blog.html?
brown rooster (3 months ago)
Always enjoy listening to your videos Steffan Thank you señor!
Shantonu Basu (2 months ago)
This man is an idiot.
Majid Poureftekhari (3 months ago)
George w bush and his father killed and destroyed more and the US still has the old dirty policy. Doesn't end up good.
Majid Poureftekhari (3 months ago)
... I will mention only two more, being Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. Lincoln proclaimed on August 22nd, 1862, that his highest goal was the preservation of the Union, that is, the amalgamation of the American states, because a deep rift had emerged in the Union between the traditional South and the modern North, and so the whole thing had been crumbling away for years. He further declared that if he could save the Union without having to free a single slave, then he would do it. This remark was in exact opposition to that for which he was elected president, namely because he proclaimed the abolition of slavery in the USA. In contradiction, during the election campaign in 1860, he already promised that he would not abolish slavery, but it should no longer be allowed in the newly-formed states. Therefore, the southern states rejected Lincoln as president. Therefore, presidential contradiction, and once again contradiction; consequently seven states seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy, which was the prelude to the American Civil War, which lasted from 1861 to 1865. The South was fighting for its traditional social system, while no reason for war was at hand for the North to wage a war against the South. Consequently, Abraham Lincoln thought of a way to deliver a reason for war. He subsequently announced, on January 1st, 1863, the so-called Emancipation Proclamation, according to which, all slaves were now immediately free. But this was nothing more than an evil trick in order to start a struggle, for the abolition of slavery, out of a political war. Thus a double weakening of the Confederacy was brought about because immediately more than three million southern state slaves became allies of the North, with many of them joining the fight against the southern states, whereby, naturally, many also lost their lives. ... Billy Meier ... http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_544?fbclid=IwAR2GEo9JcHrDQ8ynDzIQr3rEMr4VsTB-9qfylxfK4gnNo7JH7iIFNkl3OmM
Daniel Dunn (3 months ago)
Central banking but on the gold and silver standards so no just can't print,Willy nilly.The south being provoked or not fired the 1st shot and invaded the north. High Tarriff s are only a small part of the rebellion. Blaming just Tarriffs is like saying the great war was caused by the assassination og the grand duke.
Aftermath (3 months ago)
IS that he was a tyrant
Jonathan Schulz (4 months ago)
Could you make a video covering the life and presidency of Franklin Pierce? I hope to hear from you, Stefan! Keep up the hard work!
oldschool (4 months ago)
MR BOOTH YOU LEGEND HOORAY FOR DIXIE
jasrobsny nunyabus (4 months ago)
Where did the powerpoint presentation go?  This video has changed.
Ben Walter (4 months ago)
Epic unveiling! ...another public idol bites the dust. Thanks Stefan...i had been rethinkin Lincoln for some years now...this expose' helped me loads.
Shantonu Basu (4 months ago)
This video is filled with lies.
Anthony Bauguess (4 months ago)
With Lincoln it seems there's some really good and some really bad. He brought about the end of slavery. Even if that wasn't his primary goal, it's still an unbelievable accomplishment. On the other hand, it sounds like he had zero regard for the First Amendment (throwing editors in prison, etc.). Even with deeds as good as ending slavery, I find his violations against free speech and press to be unforgivable. I see nearly everyone else being 100% supportive or oppositional towards Lincoln. I'm going to just say, "It's complicated". It's the same with our current president. I see nearly everyone else either being a cheerleader or calling him a dictator. I voted for him and probably will again, but I don't pretend like there aren't some issues with him.
Shantonu Basu (4 months ago)
+Anthony Bauguess It's not mixed bag at all. Of course, no one is perfect, but Lincoln is routinely and universally considered among the top 3 greatest Presidents. His greatness is no longer a matter of opinion. It's sort of like Shakespeare's greatness. That's not a matter of opinion anymore. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-20-presidents-in-us-history-according-to-historians-2017-2
Anthony Bauguess (4 months ago)
+Shantonu Basu I only compare them in regards to how it seems like everyone else either loves or hates them, but I consider both to be a mixed bag.
Shantonu Basu (4 months ago)
Saying Lincoln and Trump in the same breath is an offense to the human spirit.
Wouter Vos (5 months ago)
She should have been assassinated right when he started the war.
Marty Pyle (5 months ago)
Kind of lost me when you said a 9 and 11 year old were helpless. Those were not today's kids. Walk six hours for school and be afraid to go outside?
Lilolme Jusayin (5 months ago)
Thank you Stefan! Many southerners know their history but continue to this day to be demonized as racist. Even though blacks were more integrated into society in the south. Dr John Hope Franklin of Harvard and Duke U, an African American Historian, studied the 1860 census and found that New Orleans had the most Free Blacks in the country. Those Free Blacks held slaves themselves at six times the rate as whites in New Orleans. 28% vs 4.7%. Also you did not mention The Corwin Amendment which passed Congress and offered the south the promise of perpetual slavery via the Constitution. The South rejected it because the War was not about Slavery!
Shantonu Basu (5 months ago)
Then why did they say it was about slavery?
MAGA MTADTA (5 months ago)
This was truly FASCINATING.
Shantonu Basu (5 months ago)
It's bullshit.
Ivy Rivard (5 months ago)
Boom! Another false 'hero' goes down in flames.
Shantonu Basu (5 months ago)
It's based on lies.
crownofall (5 months ago)
U forgot that the British only outlawed slavery after major uprisings of slaves
Pierre Bezukhov (3 months ago)
+Shantonu Basu Have a listen. The story of the Haitian Revolution as told by the great Mike Duncan. It's the one marked 4.x, just to keep track of them. Yeah, there's about a minute of ad time in the beginning of each episode, OK by me, each one runs over 30 minutes. Mike has a family to support. Free to download, too. https://www.revolutionspodcast.com/2015/12/index.html
Shantonu Basu (5 months ago)
The French also, e.g. Haiti.
Valerie Griner (5 months ago)
You are so right...it's the history of the "species," under their psychopathic leaders! I have read the letters of my ancestors who fought for the south. I don't think they had ever left "the farm," and their letters were SO SAD! One of them died of dysentery in his camp. In fact, a lot them died of diseases, malnutrition, and from being exposed to "the elements," (or captured, tortured and STARVED in prison camps. The south gets a bad rap, but actually MORE Confederates died in Union prisons than vice versa. What gets me is how ALL of the major "players" in this "un-CIVIL war" attended or graduated from WEST POINT....Lee, Grant, McClellan, Sherman, JEB Stuart, Stonewall Jackson, and nearly 100% of the high-ranking officers. It's like they were cast as players in a GAME...I'll take Lee...and you get Grant. Really bizarre. They were all friends, classmates and "comrades" up to this point. This was such a horrible, bloody, destructive war, and I get depressed if I research it too long. ALL wars are the devil's wars....the money-changers, the bankers, the rich men....the crooked politicians, kings, rulers, etc. I don't think that America ever gained true independence from the British Empire...which is why we were DUPED into fighting in WWI and WWII. Allegedly, Gen. George Patton said..."boys...we fought on the WRONG SIDE!" They killed him, of course...he's buried in Germany. I agree. We shouldn't have fought with the Zionist/Communist/Bloody Empire...and we shouldn't have spread death and Communism throughout Europe. No offense to you. If America WAS an "experiment," it has failed horribly.
michael s (5 months ago)
Lincoln's support of the right to secede was very explicit during the Lincoln-Douglass debates.
Shantonu Basu (5 months ago)
Still nothing. I guess you don't have any support for your statement. SAD
Shantonu Basu (5 months ago)
Where in the debates did he give his support to secession?
Russell Robins (5 months ago)
You seem quite jealous of the founding fathers of the USA. Despite being the beacon of freedom for two hundred years and benefiting the world in aggregate. Maybe if Canada has an actual history besides a slippery cuck style independence...independence but not really subject of the crown. I dismiss this rant as sour grapes. Enjoy them
Truth Seeker (5 months ago)
Lincoln was a dictator, a racist, killed over 700k people, so he gets a marble statue. What a horrible country America has become.
Shantonu Basu (5 months ago)
No, no, and no.
Jay Felsberg (5 months ago)
Is Churchill next?
The Action Man (5 months ago)
Sic Semper Tyrannus!
C K (6 months ago)
Just like a lot of children growing up on the frontier Lincoln did not have any real kind of formal education, but his stepmother taught him the king James Bible every night. That’s a complex book, written in high English, and Lincoln had massive amounts of passages memorized. Why did Stefan neglect to say this fact?
greenbrickbox (1 month ago)
Because Stefan is a sophist and a huckster who will fit the evidence to support his "race realism".
Shantonu Basu (5 months ago)
Because he isn't really interested in facts. He's a liar who is interested in getting people to fall for his lies. Pretty simple really.
Walter Ferres (6 months ago)
lincoln WAS THE FIRST white To be part of the Kalergi Plan.
Timothy Kuring (6 months ago)
(3330 comments. I'll break the numerological spell with 1.) I must have been the only Northerner who hated Lincoln. I knew of his crimes and thought "tyrant" was an apt term for him. Death to them indeed. I would shake my head and bite my tongue at the phenomenal stupidity of my fellow students in school when they cited Lincoln as their favorite president. (They always hated my comments, and I had to pick my battles - preferring more contemporary issues.) But I should have understood that it was a sign of the way that the majority of my contemporaries wanted to take the country. They really did love lies, tyrants, and tyranny. It was only when I later met people from the South and some American Indians that I found Americans who knew these truths about Lincoln and hated him too. The Indians knew that his policy was to initiate their extermination. He also personally participated in the Blackhawk War, where women and children were driven into the Mississippi river and slaughtered. Knowing the evil of it, someone had questioned Lincoln about his role in the slaughter, and his only response was to joke that all he remembered was the mosquitoes. He never spoke of his role in the slaughter, and I don't know if anyone recorded it in any of the extensive biographies of Lincoln. Death to Tyrants.
Shantonu Basu (5 months ago)
No.
anastasios dernelakis (6 months ago)
There's only one real hero his name is Jesus Christ and all other Heroes are measured against him including Comic Book Heroes
frnkguard1 (6 months ago)
Poor Abraham Lincoln the only thing he did wrong was free’d the slaves
frnkguard1 (5 months ago)
Abu Mansaray- we never needed slaves freeing them may not have been wrong but not sending them back to Africa was
frnkguard1 (5 months ago)
Abu Mansaray -either way go fuck your self
frnkguard1 (5 months ago)
Abu Mansaray -you have an Arab name you probably descend from that area somehow Arab African mix
Abu Mansaray (5 months ago)
+frnkguard1 I'm an African American.
Abu Mansaray (5 months ago)
+frnkguard1 I'm not Arab.
Thum Skrew (6 months ago)
The southern plantation system should have been taxed at 99%. It's free labor economy was antithetical to our free market society.
SaveBlueEyes (6 months ago)
Worth reading: Lincoln's Marxist's by kennedy and benson.
greenbrickbox (1 month ago)
Marxists were definitely on the right side of history in this struggle.
Digidi4 (6 months ago)
so Lincoln was a bad president
Shantonu Basu (6 months ago)
No.
Young Bucks (6 months ago)
This is the side of Louis C.K. they don’t want you to know about
R T (6 months ago)
I would talk slower. You prize your intelligence and tend to showcase it by swallowing words at a rapid pace. But there is more appeal, especially for a man, in speaking at a more measured pace. There is more weight given and more authority yielded in this. In the above you sound a bit like a woman on amphetamines.
Oliver Arias (6 months ago)
Why didn’t you mention the Catholic Church and it wanting to kill off the Protestant South. I also heard the queen had her hand in it as well.
kirk cavenaugh (6 months ago)
Sometimes when I'm having a bad day.. I think about Lincoln getting a pitch fork shanked up his ass by the devil
Juan Martin Reborati (6 months ago)
To think that politicians want to help people, more than their own self interests, it pretty naif. We live in a cloud of naifness...
Anonymous User (6 months ago)
Abraham Lincoln was a murderer and killer of American people, and all those people who say that the Robert E Lee statues need to be taken down should be ashamed of themselves.
Pierre Bezukhov (3 months ago)
I say keep the statues of Lee. Next to each one another, celebrating Lee's surrendering to Grant.
Shantonu Basu (6 months ago)
No.
Kind a sounds like utub face reciondnation BOOK.
FIVE $ 5 lincon days was gold Not fucken PAPER...
MarkEvanWhite (6 months ago)
46 minutes long. I've studied the civil war for a few years now. This is the best complete and concise information on the tyrannical Lincoln administration possible. If you are interested enough to spend 46 minutes to hear the whole truth, Here it is. Not only on Lincoln's War but wars in general. Absolutely amazing!!
Pierre Bezukhov (3 months ago)
I guess a lot of Confederate sympathizers feel that Lincoln was a tyrant. Only a tyrant would deny Southerners the pleasure of tyrannizing Black people.
Shantonu Basu (6 months ago)
Nonsense. Pure nonsense.
Stefan Molyneux (6 months ago)
thank you so much Mark!
TheDudeAbidesByAgoodTime (6 months ago)
Fuck Abraham Lincoln that piece of shit destoyed states rights, suspended Habeas Corpus (on northerners protesting by the way), increased the scope and power of the federal government by instigating south carolinians to fire on fort sumter witch was where the federal governemnt collect monies from imposed tarrifs by breaking the promise to not send war ships to fort sumter where durring the incident nobody died or was injured but the response was a full scale invasion of his own country witch was what he wanted all along....he was a scumbag not a hero.
Pierre Bezukhov (3 months ago)
Does a state have the right to oppose a federal law that the people of that state believes is obnoxious?
Shantonu Basu (6 months ago)
No.
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
27:10 Lincoln deported a member of Congress for opposing his income tax plan... during a democratic political rally? Clemens L. Valendigum?
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
26:50 Lincoln imprisoned 30,000 Northern citizens without trial. Well, I could see the difficulty of holding trials for treason during a Civil War. Also, the sentence for treason is execution so I imagine he waited till the war was over and then lowered their charge after they no longer had a reason to rebel.
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
26:20 Lincoln waged the war without a formal declaration of war. Well, probably because they didn't see it as a "war" since they would not recognize the South as a sovereign entity. They saw it as simply a rebellion and he later would not address the question of whether the South had ever left the Union.
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
25:58 "The war starts." Yes, let's gloss over the fact that the South began the war with the first act of violence.
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
24:00 Some argue that slavery would have soon ended if the fugitive slave law was repealed or made inapplicable because the South's secession was recognized by the North? Yeah, that's a terrible argument.
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
23:00 Some people argue that slavery would have ended sooner "if the South had seceded." What? They did secede.
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
22:00 Some Northern states like Indiana and Illinois had laws against blacks entering the state. Lincoln supported a state program in Illinois to deport blacks to Africa? I wish he cited primary source documents. Stefan mostly cited secondary source documents. Lazy. Also Thomas Woods notes that some Northern states nullified fugitive slave laws.
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
20:50 Some estimates of casualties have the Civil War at 800,000 casualties. Does this include innocent civilians?
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
18:20 South complained that all the tariff revenue, the majority of it it was paying, was going towards projects for the North.
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
18:10 The North could tax the South without a single Southern vote.
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
17:45 Lincoln signed The Rail Act after making sure his property in Iowa would be the hub of the rail system in order to increase the value of his land?
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
17:30 Abraham Lincoln coaxed West Virginia into seceding from Virginia to gain two Senators that would vote his way?
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
17:10 75% of Northern revenue came from Southern ports?
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
15:00 Argues that the tariffs was representative of crony capitalism.
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
14:30 Argues the moral tariff was one of the primary causes of the Civil War. It raised the average tariff from 15% to 37.5℅ then to 47%. This inordinately hurt the South who was buying foreign made final goods rather than buy the expensive goods made in the North. I have to look this up. Yet unconfirmed.
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
10:46 Lincoln was referred to by friends as "the most depressed person they've ever seen." I don't believe the term "depressed" was used much back then. It would have been referred to as melancholy. He did suffer from depression but that's a paraphrasing not a quote. You should have used the word "considered", not "referred."
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
I'd love to see a debate about this. I see so many anti-Northern arguments but I've never seen anyone debate it so it's hard to take the "it wasn't about slavery" argument seriously.
Shantonu Basu (6 months ago)
It can't be taken seriously, which is why no historian alive takes it seriously.
The Maverick Historian (6 months ago)
Christ, it would have been a fraction of the cost of the Civil War to just lower the burden of tariffs on the South if that was really the reason. Tariffs may have contributed but can you really make the argument that without the tariffs, the Civil War wouldn't have happened? I haven't really seen or heard compelling evidence that "it wasn't about slavery." I'd like to hear a debate.
Shantonu Basu (6 months ago)
There can't be a debate because there is nothing to debate about. Real historians don't engage in this sort of nonsense. They are too busy doing real historical research, like closely reading Civil War era diaries or doing statistical analysis of sugar and cotton prices from 1859-1860. Debates like "was slavery the main cause of the Civil War," are just too stupid. Obviously it was. Real historians have moved on. That's why this video cites *zero* actual historians.
Alan Brady (6 months ago)
Yes he had the patients of a saint in other words and the brains of neuroscience and Einstein. Poor man had an awful life filled with grief then killed by a coward. He's probably the only reason why America is America today. Alternatively the continent would have branched off something like Europe. So greatest president for me although I was up for the south
tequilyps (6 months ago)
I'm from MN and I know about it

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.