# Steven Spielberg's movie about Lincoln is pure bullshit !!!!!!!



## Contumacious

*Lincolns Greatest Failure​*(*Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)*
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo


"Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."

~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007

*The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction*, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincolns White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).

In fact, as Bennett shows,* it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years.* The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielbergs Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarists Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry"). 

.


----------



## BlindBoo

Linclon, like most White Americans at the time, were pure racist.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Contumacious said:


> *Lincolns Greatest Failure​*(*Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)*
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> 
> "Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."
> 
> ~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007
> 
> *The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction*, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincolns White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).
> 
> In fact, as Bennett shows,* it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years.* The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielbergs Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarists Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").
> 
> .



Does Ron Paul feel the same way about the American Revolution??


----------



## AmyNation

Historians praise its accuracy, but if you say it's pure BS, they must all be wrong.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Suspended habeas corpus, jailed political dissidents.  Dude was a tyrant.


----------



## Misty

I knew Spielberg would bastardize poor Lincoln.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

One of the biggest lies in history is the idea that the CW was fought to free the slaves.  How can that possibly be true when there were 4 northern states that allowed slavery during the entire war and when  General US Grant was a slave owner during the  war and so to Lincoln's second vice president Andrew Johnson.?


----------



## Staidhup

BlindBoo said:


> Linclon, like most White Americans at the time, were pure racist.



*AS WAS THE ENTIRE WORLD!* As a mater of fact all the tribes in Africa were also racist.
So your point is what, racism is a only  an American phenomenon?

One must respect the man for his accomplishments during the period of time he lived, this historical revisionist bull shit needs to be laid to rest.


----------



## g5000

Contumacious said:


> *Lincoln&#8217;s Greatest Failure​*(*Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)*
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> 
> "Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."
> 
> ~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007
> 
> *The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction*, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln&#8217;s White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).
> 
> In fact, as Bennett shows,* it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years.* The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielberg&#8217;s Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarist&#8217;s Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").
> 
> .



Wow.  That link is one of the most twisted gyrations of historical revisionism and logical fallacies I have seen in some time.

As if the South was ever going to end slavery peacefully.  Yeah, right.  I want what that dumb shit is smoking.



.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AmyNation said:


> Historians praise its accuracy, but if you say it's pure BS, they must all be wrong.



Which historians?


----------



## BlindBoo

ShootSpeeders said:


> One of the biggest lies in history is the idea that the CW was fought to free the slaves.  How can that possibly be true when there were 4 northern states that allowed slavery during the entire war and when  General US Grant was a slave owner during the  war and so to Lincoln's second vice president Andrew Johnson.?



You're right, it was not fought to free anyone.  It was fought over the existance of slavery as an integral part of the southern economy.  Northern industrialist were jealous and afraid of the pool of free labor and the growing wealth/power of the southern elite.


----------



## g5000

Here is something, written in 1832 by one of the greatest political scientists that ever lived, that should be read from beginning to end:

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 18



> Whatever may be the efforts of the Americans of the South to maintain slavery, they will not always succeed. *Slavery, now confined to a single tract of the civilized earth*, attacked by Christianity as unjust and by political economy as prejudicial, and now contrasted with democratic liberty and the intelligence of our age, cannot survive. By the act of the master, or by the will of the slave, it will cease; and in either case *great calamities may be expected to ensue*.





.


----------



## Contumacious

AmyNation said:


> Historians praise its accuracy, but if you say it's pure BS, they must all be wrong.








*William Lloyd Garrison *(December 10, 1805  May 24, 1879) was a prominent American abolitionist, journalist, and social reformer. He is best known as the editor of the abolitionist newspaper The Liberator, and was one of the founders of the American Anti-Slavery Society. He promoted "immediate emancipation" of slaves in the United States."

.


----------



## DiamondDave

$10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution


----------



## Quantum Windbag

g5000 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Lincolns Greatest Failure​*
> (*Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)*
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> 
> "Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."
> 
> ~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007
> 
> *The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction*, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincolns White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).
> 
> In fact, as Bennett shows,* it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years.* The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielbergs Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarists Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That link is one of the most twisted gyrations of historical revisionism and logical fallacies I have seen in some time.
> 
> As if the South was ever going to end slavery peacefully.  Yeah, right.  I want what that dumb shit is smoking.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Slavery would have collapsed years before if it hadn't been propped up by the northern manufacturers and the invention of the cotton gin.


----------



## g5000

DiamondDave said:


> $10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution



I have found people who parrot things like this generally know very little of the man.

.


----------



## DiamondDave

g5000 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> $10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have found people who parrot things like this generally know very little of the man.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Are you saying he did not brutally violate the constitution? Suspend the constitution to fit his needs??


----------



## Contumacious

LordBrownTrout said:


> Suspended habeas corpus, jailed political dissidents.  Dude was a tyrant.



I bet  that none of that will be discussed in the FICTIONALIZED account.

.


----------



## L.K.Eder

i think abraham lincoln vampire killer was 100% accurate.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Contumacious said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suspended habeas corpus, jailed political dissidents.  Dude was a tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet  that none of that will be discussed in the FICTIONALIZED account.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Not at all.  It will not even be broached.


----------



## rightwinger

> Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."
> 
> ~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007



How true

None of those countries had traitors breaking away just to preserve their right to own and rape other human beings


----------



## jillian

g5000 said:


> Wow.  That link is one of the most twisted gyrations of historical revisionism and logical fallacies I have seen in some time.
> 
> As if the South was ever going to end slavery peacefully.  Yeah, right.  I want what that dumb shit is smoking.



as if the o/p would ever use a legitimate source. lol.


----------



## nodoginnafight

ShootSpeeders said:


> One of the biggest lies in history is the idea that the CW was fought to free the slaves.  How can that possibly be true when there were 4 northern states that allowed slavery during the entire war and when  General US Grant was a slave owner during the  war and so to Lincoln's second vice president Andrew Johnson.?



Revisionist Bull

The Civil War WAS fought over the issue of slavery. Refer to the South Carolina declaration 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 assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The statements of the Vice President of the Confederacy:

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions&#8212;African slavery as it exists among us&#8212;the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. *This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution*."

Cornerstone Speech by Alexander H. Stephens


----------



## g5000

Contumacious said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suspended habeas corpus, jailed political dissidents.  Dude was a tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet  that none of that will be discussed in the FICTIONALIZED account.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Why not?  It is fairly common knowledge Lincoln suspended habaeus corpus.  Look, even DiamondDave heard about it!

I wonder if these same people whined when Bush did it, and called him, what was it...a tyrant.

Probably not. 

.


----------



## jillian

L.K.Eder said:


> i think abraham lincoln vampire killer was 100% accurate.



my son liked that book a lot.


----------



## BlindBoo

Staidhup said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linclon, like most White Americans at the time, were pure racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AS WAS THE ENTIRE WORLD!* As a mater of fact all the tribes in Africa were also racist.
> So your point is what, racism is a only  an American phenomenon?
> 
> One must respect the man for his accomplishments during the period of time he lived, this historical revisionist bull shit needs to be laid to rest.
Click to expand...


The enslavement of an entire race in perpetuity(meaning that their children were born into slavery) required the demonization of that race in America, IMHO that level of demonization was not seen in other places.


----------



## g5000

ShootSpeeders said:


> One of the biggest lies in history is the idea that the CW was fought to free the slaves.  How can that possibly be true when there were 4 northern states that allowed slavery during the entire war and when  General US Grant was a slave owner during the  war and so to Lincoln's second vice president Andrew Johnson.?



You dipshit White Nationalists never fail to crack me up with this fantasy.  

You obviously never read their declarations of secession.

Declaration of Causes of Secession

Those four states alone mention slavery no less than 82 times!

Here's Mississippi:


> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.



.


----------



## Bigfoot

Judging the man by today's standards is pretty ignorant.


----------



## BlindBoo

DiamondDave said:


> $10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution



What Article in the Constitution gives any State the right to leave the Union?


----------



## CaféAuLait

Contumacious said:


> *Lincolns Greatest Failure​*(*Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)*
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> 
> "Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."
> 
> ~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007
> 
> *The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction*, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincolns White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).
> 
> In fact, as Bennett shows,* it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years.* The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielbergs Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarists Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").
> 
> .



Something that Lincoln refused to do for 54 of his 56 years? He should have been waiving a sword, consutling congress and releasing slaves at the age of 3?  How *dare* he not take a stand at the age of 3.  I might find it more intriguing if Lincoln were not castigated for things he did not do as a toddler.


----------



## rightwinger

g5000 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suspended habeas corpus, jailed political dissidents.  Dude was a tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet  that none of that will be discussed in the FICTIONALIZED account.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?  *It is fairly common knowledge Lincoln suspended habaeus corpus*.  Look, even DiamondDave heard about it!
> 
> I wonder if these same people whined when Bush did it, and called him, what was it...a tyrant.
> 
> Probably not.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You mean like we did with Gitmo?


----------



## g5000

BlindBoo said:


> Linclon, like most White Americans at the time, were pure racist.



Complete bullshit.

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong."

Letter by Abraham Lincoln to Albert Hodges

.


----------



## elvis

DiamondDave said:


> $10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution



Without a country, the constitution has no meaning.


----------



## g5000

Bigfoot said:


> Judging the man by today's standards is pretty ignorant.



Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus and lost in court over it.  He ordered Muslims...er...suspected Southern sympathizers in Maryland to be temporarily rounded up and detained out of fear that secessionists would interfere with troop movements. 

As far as I know, he did not waterboard any of them.


Regardless, this by no means negates everything else he did nor diminishes his greatness.

.


----------



## elvis

rightwinger said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet  that none of that will be discussed in the FICTIONALIZED account.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  *It is fairly common knowledge Lincoln suspended habaeus corpus*.  Look, even DiamondDave heard about it!
> 
> I wonder if these same people whined when Bush did it, and called him, what was it...a tyrant.
> 
> Probably not.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like we did with Gitmo?
Click to expand...

Any American citizens at Gitmo?


----------



## DiamondDave

g5000 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suspended habeas corpus, jailed political dissidents.  Dude was a tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet  that none of that will be discussed in the FICTIONALIZED account.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?  It is fairly common knowledge Lincoln suspended habaeus corpus.  Look, even DiamondDave heard about it!
> 
> I wonder if these same people whined when Bush did it, and called him, what was it...a tyrant.
> 
> Probably not.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Don't forget his other constitutional violations *cough* Clement Vallandigham *cough*... government confiscation of property.. the list goes on...

I personally think Lincoln is held in abnormally high regard because of the tragedy of the assassination.. people want to gloss over his flaws and violations in some attempt to not tarnish the fallen... we have seen it many times


----------



## Quantum Windbag

nodoginnafight said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest lies in history is the idea that the CW was fought to free the slaves.  How can that possibly be true when there were 4 northern states that allowed slavery during the entire war and when  General US Grant was a slave owner during the  war and so to Lincoln's second vice president Andrew Johnson.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist Bull
> 
> The Civil War WAS fought over the issue of slavery. Refer to the South Carolina declaration 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 assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."
> 
> Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
> 
> The statements of the Vice President of the Confederacy:
> 
> "The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutionsAfrican slavery as it exists among usthe proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. *This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution*."
> 
> Cornerstone Speech by Alexander H. Stephens
Click to expand...


Strange, I don't see anything about slavery here.



> Whereas, The laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law :
> 
> Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the Militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.
> 
> I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate,  and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union and the perpetuity of popular government, and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.
> 
> I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the force hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union, and, in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country; and I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.
> 
> Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do, hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. The Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers at twelve o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.
> 
> In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
> 
> Done at the City of Washington, this fifteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.


----------



## elvis

The greatest President of all time villified by the fringe.....


----------



## g5000

elvis said:


> Without a country, the constitution has no meaning.



Because this is a tyrant's defense, Lincoln is lumped in with all of them.

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

g5000 said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest lies in history is the idea that the CW was fought to free the slaves.  How can that possibly be true when there were 4 northern states that allowed slavery during the entire war and when  General US Grant was a slave owner during the  war and so to Lincoln's second vice president Andrew Johnson.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dipshit White Nationalists never fail to crack me up with this fantasy.
> 
> You obviously never read their declarations of secession.
> 
> Declaration of Causes of Secession
> 
> Those four states alone mention slavery no less than 82 times!
> 
> Here's Mississippi:
> 
> 
> 
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The fact that Southern States seceded over slavery in no way proves that the Northern States fought over slavery. Unless, of course, you think we fought WWII because Germany was being oppressed by Europe.


----------



## nodoginnafight

> Strange, I don't see anything about slavery here.



Seriously??? Are you able to read the English language???


----------



## g5000

Quantum Windbag said:


> Strange, I don't see anything about slavery here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas, The laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law :
> 
> Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the Militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.
> 
> I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate,  and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union and the perpetuity of popular government, and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.
> 
> I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the force hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union, and, in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country; and I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.
> 
> Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do, hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. The Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers at twelve o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.
> 
> In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
> 
> Done at the City of Washington, this fifteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.
Click to expand...


You are being typically selective.

You, too, need to read the declarations of secession.  The rebel states clearly stated they were leaving over slavery.  They left no shadow of a doubt.

You also need to read the letter Lincoln wrote to Albert Hodges to which I linked above.  In that letter it becomes crystal clear Lincoln is stating the war is about slavery.

Despite his absolute detestation of slavery, keeping the country together had to take precedence.

.


----------



## g5000

Quantum Windbag said:


> The fact that Southern States seceded over slavery in no way proves that the Northern States fought over slavery. Unless, of course, you think we fought WWII because Germany was being oppressed by Europe.



Jesus this is some fucked up illogic.

The southern states left to preserve slavery.  So obviously the war was about slavery, dipshit.  If there was no slavery, there was no war.

Before the war: slavery.  After the war: no slavery.




.


----------



## g5000

Quantum Windbag said:


> The fact that Southern States seceded over slavery in no way proves that the Northern States fought over slavery. Unless, of course, you think we fought WWII because Germany was being oppressed by Europe.



Germany was being oppressed by Europe.  

Spoken like a true WN.  

.


----------



## mascale

At the First Lincoln Innauguration, Slavery and the end of Slavery was not what the Administration was planning to do.   Southerners being Southerners, the attack on Fort Sumter had to be addressed.  That eventually required a federal intervention.  Southern States were already in Secession.

The original Article I, Section 9, abolished the importation of slaves on a date certain.  That had actually happened, way before Lincoln was taking office.  Even in the "Emancipation Proclamation," the Abolition of Slavery was not extended into the states not in Secession.  The Emancipation was allowed in the already at-war states.

Lincoln likely was himself not entirely ready for the concept of a bunch of freed. . . .Words now fail us in the more modern, technical, and advanced civilization--which tanked the international financial community, only in the last five years.
_________________________________

Clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Clause 2. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
__________________________________

Lincoln never once violated Clause 1, but violated famously:  Most important, Clause 2.  George Bush II, Terms I & II, had more or less the same concept in mind in the phony, "War on Terror' against the already atomized Moslems of 9/11.  They, of course, were already dead.  There was not only the nonsense of the fabricated "Weapons of Mass Destruction" on which to rely in the Bush Administration!

It was the living who were supposed to have their civil rights suspended, indefinitely--even unto now, in the Bush Administration!

Famously, then:  Abraham Lincoln was not a saint, even by comparison, even to the most recent President Bush!

Lincoln was dead way before, in fact, any Amendments were considered or passed, post-Civil War.

"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
("Better Dead Than Red" even famous when not discussing Lands of Many Nations, at the RNC rallies--if any(?)!)


----------



## elvis

g5000 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Southern States seceded over slavery in no way proves that the Northern States fought over slavery. Unless, of course, you think we fought WWII because Germany was being oppressed by Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany was being oppressed by Europe.
> 
> Spoken like a true WN.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Actually Germany was oppressed.


----------



## paperview

mascale said:


> ...
> Lincoln was dead way before, in fact, any Amendments were considered or passed, post-Civil War.
> 
> ...



The 13th Amendment 



 

See that signature to the right?  That's Lincoln's signature.

It was passed by Congress in January of 1865.

His signature was not required, he nonetheless quite purposefully, and boldly, signed it.


----------



## Contumacious

ShootSpeeders said:


> One of the biggest lies in history is the idea that the CW was fought to free the slaves.  How can that possibly be true when there were 4 northern states that allowed slavery during the entire war and when  General US Grant was a slave owner during the  war and so to Lincoln's second vice president Andrew Johnson.?



Executive Mansion,

Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

*I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution*. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. *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. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

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.

Yours,
*A. Lincoln.*

.


----------



## paperview

The party of Lincoln, hates Lincoln. 

Go figger.


----------



## paperview

Little trip back, a few years before Lincoln was elected.

The Republican party, founded on Anti-slavery ideals, had their first presidential candidate in 1856.  That would be Fremont. 

He gave over 50 speeches for Fremont's campaign, Lincoln *was *co-founder of the Republican party in Illinois - there was no national party...and in that first presidential campaign - Lincoln was first  runner up for VP.
At the Republican Convention that year, Lincoln spoke, and well, I'll let

Contemporary  observer William H. Porter intro this:[
  "When the convention  speeches finished about 5:30 o'clock people began calling for Lincoln.  From his seat in the back of the house, near where I sat, Lincoln got up  and said he believed he would talk from where he was, if nobody  objected.  But everybody shouted for him to take the platform.  All  heads turned to the back of Major's Hall, when Lincoln's long frame  unlimbered itself.  Cheers shook the walls as he elbowed his way down  the aisle. ​And then:
_
Snip:
_Lincoln biographer  William E. Barton wrote: "There stood Lincoln  in the forefront, erect,  tall, and majestic in appearance, hurling  thunderbolts at the foes of  freedom, while the great convention roared  its endorsement!

 *I never  witnessed such a scene before or since.  As he descried the  aims and  aggressions of the unappeasable slaveholders and the servility  of their  Northern allies as illustrated by the perfidous repeal of the  Missouri  Compromise two years previously, and their grasping after the  rich  prairies of Kansas and Nebraska, to blight them with slavery and  to  deprive free labor of this rich inheritance, and exhorted the  friends of  freedom to resist them to death, the convention went fairly  wild.  

It  paralleled or exceeded the scene in the Revolutionary  Virginia  convention of eight-one years before, when Patrick Henry  invoked death  if liberty could not be preserved, and said, 'After all  we must fight.' 
...
* According to young William  H. Porter,"the tall man in black told us about the aims of the new  party they were organizing that day*.*   I'll say now that I learned more  during that next hour and a half,  about what was the best for the United  States, than I'd learned in all  my life before."

Read more: 1856 - Abraham Lincoln​


----------



## Contumacious

g5000 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Lincolns Greatest Failure​*(*Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)*
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> 
> "Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."
> 
> ~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007
> 
> *The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction*, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincolns White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).
> 
> In fact, as Bennett shows,* it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years.* The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielbergs Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarists Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That link is one of the most twisted gyrations of historical revisionism and logical fallacies I have seen in some time.
> 
> As if the South was ever going to end slavery peacefully.  Yeah, right.  I want what that dumb shit is smoking.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


From your favorite fish wrapper *NY Times:*


*Throughout the first six months of 1862, Radical Republicans, abolitionists and border state legislators all entertained uncertainties about Abraham Lincolns stance on the future of slavery. The president seemed to act as a moderator between contending factions, wrote William M. Dickson, a Cincinnati judge and eventual commander of one of the first black units in the Union Army *(and husband to Mary Todd Lincolns first cousin). He is helping the one today & the other tomorrow & and holding . . . [each] by the hope that . . . he will finally be with one of them. Neither breaks with him because each yet hopes him to be on its side.
"


----------



## USwings

g5000 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linclon, like most White Americans at the time, were pure racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete bullshit.
> 
> "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong."
> 
> Letter by Abraham Lincoln to Albert Hodges
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Nothing like going to the source.


----------



## BallsBrunswick

This thread is stupid.


----------



## lovemymutts

paperview said:


> The party of Lincoln, hates Lincoln.
> 
> Go figger.



Can't EVER make them happy,bunch of whiners.


----------



## paperview

Contumacious said:


> ...
> (*Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)*
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> ///
> .



And your piece of shit article by the scumsucking neo-confederate and economist (NOT historian) Thomas J. DiLorenzo is nothing more that White Supremacist trash.

Of course he hates Lincoln. The Hate group he belongs to is still fighting the Lost Cause / Civil War.


----------



## paperview

BallsBrunswick said:


> This thread is stupid.


It's a Contumacious thread.  Is there any other kind?


----------



## Contumacious

Quantum Windbag said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historians praise its accuracy, but if you say it's pure BS, they must all be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which historians?
Click to expand...








Lerone Bennet, an Afro-American , historian also agrees that the movie is pure bullshit

"Lerone Bennett, Jr. contends that it is almost impossible for the average citizen to know much of anything about Lincoln despite the fact that literally thousands of books have been written about him. "A century of lies" is how he describes Lincoln "scholarship." He provides thousands of documented facts to make his case.

On the subject of Steven Spielbergs new movie on Lincoln, which is entirely about Lincolns supposed role in lobbying for the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, Bennett points out: "*There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction . . ." To the extent that Lincoln did finally and hesitatingly support the amendment, Bennett argues that it was he who was literally forced into it by other politicians, not the other way around as portrayed in the Spielberg film.* (David Donald, by the way, is the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our day and Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer).
"


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Quantum Windbag said:


> [
> The fact that Southern States seceded over slavery in no way proves that the Northern States fought over slavery. Unless, of course, you think we fought WWII because Germany was being oppressed by Europe.



The South fought to preserve Slavery.  Go read the articles of Secession  from the Southern States.  Play a drinking game.  Have a beer every time the word slave or negro is used.  If you're still alive in the morning, let me know how it turned out.

The problem is wars are fought for different reasons and everyone involved has their own motives.  The wealthy plantation owners fought 100% to preserve slavery, and as they formed the leadership of the South, the Southern States fought with that as a war aim.  The poor folks that ended up as foot soldiers fought to stop what they saw as Northern Aggression.

In the North, the industrialists and the Feds fought to preserve the Union and keep the South in.  However, for the folks that ended up as foot soldiers in the North abolitionism absolutely was a war aim.  Northern papers DEMONIZED the South over Slavery, songs and poems were written to motivate the North to stay in the war to free their fellow man.

Ultimately, Slavery is absolutely why the South lost.  The South lacked the population, industrial capability, naval power, and railroad lines to win a modern protracted war without help.  They could only win if the North gave up or Europe stepped in.  The North never gave up because they were confident that fighting to end slavery was a just cause.  Europe never entered because they saw Slavery as a detestable horrible downright evil institution.  

That kept the South isolated and the North motivated.  After that, there was never any doubt how that would end.


----------



## Mustang

AmyNation said:


> Historians praise its accuracy, but if you say it's pure BS, they must all be wrong.



Sheesh.  Next thing we know, you're going to be talking about how random sampling statistical analysis can predict electoral outcomes in larger groups or how science can trace global warming to human activity...and other ridiculous nonsense like that.


----------



## Contumacious

g5000 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> $10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have found people who parrot things like this generally know very little of the man.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Exactly.

So why don't you grab a history book and become informed?!?!?!?

.


----------



## GHook93

Contumacious said:


> *Lincolns Greatest Failure​*(*Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)*
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> 
> "Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."
> 
> ~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007
> 
> *The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction*, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincolns White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).
> 
> In fact, as Bennett shows,* it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years.* The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielbergs Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarists Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").
> 
> .



LOL, even though historians are saying it's a master-piece and right on, we should listen to another Ron Paul douche bag analysis!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The situation was 100s of times more complex than simply slavery. What it really came down to was preserving the union at all costs. You know, violent conflict to unite. Much like fucking for chastity


----------



## Contumacious

DiamondDave said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> $10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have found people who parrot things like this generally know very little of the man.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying he did not brutally violate the constitution? Suspend the constitution to fit his needs??
Click to expand...


He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. He just wants to be a contrarian.

.


----------



## BlindBoo

g5000 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linclon, like most White Americans at the time, were pure racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete bullshit.
> 
> "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong."
> 
> Letter by Abraham Lincoln to Albert Hodges
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Nope, it's not.  He was having somewhat a change of heart after seeing how the Blacks performed in the Army, but for most of his life he most certainly was.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races  that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

by:

Abraham Lincoln


----------



## paperview

Contumacious said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historians praise its accuracy, but if you say it's pure BS, they must all be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which historians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> 
> Lerone Bennet, an Afro-American , historian also agrees that the movie is pure bullshit
> 
> "
Click to expand...

Historian Brian Dirck states that "Few Civil War scholars take Bennett ... seriously"

Other historians have their say on Bennett's work:

Lincoln the Devil

Eric Foner: American Historian

The Claremont Institute - Forced into Gory Lincoln Revisionism


----------



## paperview

From one of my previous links, this is the guy Comatose is using as a great historian to back up that 'Lincoln shit'

::

"Where to begin?

*Never has so much been so wrong about so  important a subject. The only way to misrepresent Lincoln more would be  to misspell his name. Add to this Bennett's denigration of George  Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Booker T. Washington, Winston Churchill,  Ronald Reagan, and conservatism generally, along with frequent  references to Lincoln's endorsement of "ethnic cleansing" and a "final  solution" to the race problem, and his diatribe becomes almost  impossible to take seriously.
*
Bennett allows Lincoln's rivals to  second-guess Lincoln's own explanations for what he was attempting to do  as president of a republic during a rebellion. B*ennett's attempt to  understand Lincoln's principles and policies on American slavery falters  on so many fronts that it would be impossible to document all his  errors*. Given constraints of space, I will focus on the greatest  misunderstandings, especially as they pertain to the American form and  the practice of self-government"

Damn.  That's harsh.

The Claremont Institute - Forced into Gory Lincoln Revisionism


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That link is one of the most twisted gyrations of historical revisionism and logical fallacies I have seen in some time.
> 
> As if the South was ever going to end slavery peacefully.  Yeah, right.  I want what that dumb shit is smoking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as if the o/p would ever use a legitimate source. lol.
Click to expand...


Identify any "legitimate" souce which provides historical facts contradicting mssgrs Lorenzo and Bennett.

.


----------



## paperview

Contumacious said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That link is one of the most twisted gyrations of historical revisionism and logical fallacies I have seen in some time.
> 
> As if the South was ever going to end slavery peacefully.  Yeah, right.  I want what that dumb shit is smoking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as if the o/p would ever use a legitimate source. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Identify any "legitimate" souce which provides historical facts contradicting mssgrs Lorenzo and Bennett.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Just did.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Jefferson Davis...................Now there was a "president"      LMFAO


----------



## francoHFW

The LAST time racist conservatives got all rabid defending total BS...LOL


----------



## Quantum Windbag

nodoginnafight said:


> Strange, I don't see anything about slavery here.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously??? Are you able to read the English language???
Click to expand...


Is there a reason you dropped Abraham Lincoln's call out of the militia that I quoted? Is it because dealing with factual evidence makes you sick?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

g5000 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange, I don't see anything about slavery here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas, The laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law :
> 
> Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the Militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.
> 
> I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate,  and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union and the perpetuity of popular government, and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.
> 
> I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the force hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union, and, in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country; and I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.
> 
> Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do, hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. The Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers at twelve o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.
> 
> In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
> 
> Done at the City of Washington, this fifteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are being typically selective.
> 
> You, too, need to read the declarations of secession.  The rebel states clearly stated they were leaving over slavery.  They left no shadow of a doubt.
> 
> You also need to read the letter Lincoln wrote to Albert Hodges to which I linked above.  In that letter it becomes crystal clear Lincoln is stating the war is about slavery.
> 
> Despite his absolute detestation of slavery, keeping the country together had to take precedence.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Can I point out the obvious here? 

A declaration of secession is not a declaration of war. I posted the Declaration of War published on behalf of the Northern States, feel free to point out where it discusses slavery to prove me wrong. In the meantime, I will stick to my position that the North did not go to war over slavery.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The cause of the war was slavery.  Every issue came down to a conflict with either the slave race or slave labor: every issue.

Lincoln proposed to his cabinet that he would co-opt the end of slavery in the summer of 1862 (1) to deny slave labor to the Confederates, (2) to coerce slave owners back into the Union, and (3) to keep France and England from recognizing the South.

Once he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln became a total proponent of ending slavery, for he recognized correctly that for America to survive slavery had to die.

No historian of major recognition would disagree with this, and would call the arguments of some like Contumacious the arguments of a "mere poseur."


----------



## paperview

Oh geezes.

They laid out the REASONS why they were going to war.  This isn't hard.  It was to preserve slavery.

Christ on a cracker.  THINK!


----------



## jillian

Quantum Windbag said:


> Can I point out the obvious here?
> 
> A declaration of secession is not a declaration of war. I posted the Declaration of War published on behalf of the Northern States, feel free to point out where it discusses slavery to prove me wrong. In the meantime, I will stick to my position that the North did not go to war over slavery.



A declaration of secession is treason...and is a declaration of war.

it doesn't need to state it was about slavery.. it was clearly about slavery.

don't be obtuse.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The denial crowd are mere race haters, nothing more.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Heck, slaves have certainly had their revenge....................

Endless reparations, third world policies, ghetto crime, rampant drug use, and guilt ridden white liberals to kiss their ass at every turn...............IMPRESSIVE


----------



## jillian

LogikAndReazon said:


> Heck, slaves have certainly had their revenge....................
> 
> Endless reparations, third world policies, ghetto crime, rampant drug use, and guilt ridden white liberals to kiss their ass at every turn...............IMPRESSIVE



and you wonder why people of color don't vote for you people?

lol


----------



## koshergrl

L.K.Eder said:


> i think abraham lincoln vampire killer was 100% accurate.


 
I wish I could rep you for this!

I haven't watched it yet, but after seeing the previews, I think I'm going to! And there's one with Zombies, too!!!

Tooooooo funnnnnnyyyy...love that sort of schtick.

I truly mourn the loss of your rep capabilities.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

g5000 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Southern States seceded over slavery in no way proves that the Northern States fought over slavery. Unless, of course, you think we fought WWII because Germany was being oppressed by Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus this is some fucked up illogic.
> 
> The southern states left to preserve slavery.  So obviously the war was about slavery, dipshit.  If there was no slavery, there was no war.
> 
> Before the war: slavery.  After the war: no slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Tell you what, why don't you show me where North Carolina declared that slavery was a reason for secession. In fact, why don't you show me where that can be said about Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky.

Alternatively, you could stop cherry picking facts.


----------



## koshergrl

jillian said:


> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heck, slaves have certainly had their revenge....................
> 
> Endless reparations, third world policies, ghetto crime, rampant drug use, and guilt ridden white liberals to kiss their ass at every turn...............IMPRESSIVE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you wonder why people of color don't vote for you people?
> 
> lol
Click to expand...

 
jillian, it is always a little bit laughable when a privileged member of the non-colored elite tells us what motivates "people of color"......


----------



## Quantum Windbag

g5000 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Southern States seceded over slavery in no way proves that the Northern States fought over slavery. Unless, of course, you think we fought WWII because Germany was being oppressed by Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany was being oppressed by Europe.
> 
> Spoken like a true WN.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That, believe it or not, is why Germany went to war. The fact that you don't know that is extremely telling.


----------



## paperview

Quantum Windbag said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange, I don't see anything about slavery here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are being typically selective.
> 
> You, too, need to read the declarations of secession.  The rebel states clearly stated they were leaving over slavery.  They left no shadow of a doubt.
> 
> You also need to read the letter Lincoln wrote to Albert Hodges to which I linked above.  In that letter it becomes crystal clear Lincoln is stating the war is about slavery.
> 
> Despite his absolute detestation of slavery, keeping the country together had to take precedence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I point out the obvious here?
> 
> A declaration of secession is not a declaration of war. I posted the Declaration of War published on behalf of the Northern States, feel free to point out where it discusses slavery to prove me wrong. In the meantime, I will stick to my position that the North did not go to war over slavery.
Click to expand...

The North DIDN'T go to war over slavery. They went to war to preserve the Union.

The South went to to war to preserve slavery.


----------



## jillian

nodoginnafight said:


> Strange, I don't see anything about slavery here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously??? Are you able to read the English language???
Click to expand...


rhetorical question?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The South went to war over slavery, and Lincoln co-opted the issue in the summer of 1862, putting the South in an indefensible position thus preventing France and England from recognizing the South.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

paperview said:


> Oh geezes.
> 
> They laid out the REASONS why they were going to war.  This isn't hard.  It was to preserve slavery.
> 
> Christ on a cracker.  THINK!



Educate yourself.

Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States of America


----------



## JakeStarkey

Paperview has dozens of primary documents that will make you cry, QWB.  She will love to post them for your education.

Just ask her!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I point out the obvious here?
> 
> A declaration of secession is not a declaration of war. I posted the Declaration of War published on behalf of the Northern States, feel free to point out where it discusses slavery to prove me wrong. In the meantime, I will stick to my position that the North did not go to war over slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A declaration of secession is treason...and is a declaration of war.
> 
> it doesn't need to state it was about slavery.. it was clearly about slavery.
> 
> don't be obtuse.
Click to expand...


I think you have a sliding definition of treason that is just as partisan as the idiots that accuse Obama of treason. If Lincoln had chosen to use other methods of dealing with the problem war could easily have been avoided. 

If the North went to war over slavery why didn't Lincoln make that point when he called up the militia.


----------



## Katzndogz

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are being typically selective.
> 
> You, too, need to read the declarations of secession.  The rebel states clearly stated they were leaving over slavery.  They left no shadow of a doubt.
> 
> You also need to read the letter Lincoln wrote to Albert Hodges to which I linked above.  In that letter it becomes crystal clear Lincoln is stating the war is about slavery.
> 
> Despite his absolute detestation of slavery, keeping the country together had to take precedence.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I point out the obvious here?
> 
> A declaration of secession is not a declaration of war. I posted the Declaration of War published on behalf of the Northern States, feel free to point out where it discusses slavery to prove me wrong. In the meantime, I will stick to my position that the North did not go to war over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North DIDN'T go to war over slavery. They went to war to preserve the Union.
> 
> The South went to to war to preserve slavery.
Click to expand...


Neither is true, but this is probably what the schools are teaching nowadays.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lincoln went war to preserve the Union, the South went to war preserve slavery.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are being typically selective.
> 
> You, too, need to read the declarations of secession.  The rebel states clearly stated they were leaving over slavery.  They left no shadow of a doubt.
> 
> You also need to read the letter Lincoln wrote to Albert Hodges to which I linked above.  In that letter it becomes crystal clear Lincoln is stating the war is about slavery.
> 
> Despite his absolute detestation of slavery, keeping the country together had to take precedence.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I point out the obvious here?
> 
> A declaration of secession is not a declaration of war. I posted the Declaration of War published on behalf of the Northern States, feel free to point out where it discusses slavery to prove me wrong. In the meantime, I will stick to my position that the North did not go to war over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North DIDN'T go to war over slavery. They went to war to preserve the Union.
> 
> The South went to to war to preserve slavery.
Click to expand...


Keep telling yourself that.


----------



## Katzndogz

If the North went to war over slavery, how come slavery wasn't even mentioned until two years into the war?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Do you not read the scholars who do this for a living?

Do you not read the primary documents of the age?

Or you going to continue your Reign of the Doofus?



Katzndogz said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I point out the obvious here?
> 
> A declaration of secession is not a declaration of war. I posted the Declaration of War published on behalf of the Northern States, feel free to point out where it discusses slavery to prove me wrong. In the meantime, I will stick to my position that the North did not go to war over slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> The North DIDN'T go to war over slavery. They went to war to preserve the Union.
> 
> The South went to to war to preserve slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is true, but this is probably what the schools are teaching nowadays.
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Paperview has dozens of primary documents that will make you cry, QWB.  She will love to post them for your education.
> 
> Just ask her!



I have seen them, I just posted some that prove that not every state thought slavery was the driving force for secession.


----------



## paperview

Quantum Windbag said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Southern States seceded over slavery in no way proves that the Northern States fought over slavery. Unless, of course, you think we fought WWII because Germany was being oppressed by Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus this is some fucked up illogic.
> 
> The southern states left to preserve slavery.  So obviously the war was about slavery, dipshit.  If there was no slavery, there was no war.
> 
> Before the war: slavery.  After the war: no slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what, why don't you show me where North Carolina declared that slavery was a reason for secession. In fact, why don't you show me where that can be said about Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky.
> 
> Alternatively, you could stop cherry picking facts.
Click to expand...

Hang on...sorry for the long one here folks:

 I guess all these states actually telling us *why *they were seceding was a myth too. 

*Louisiana:*"*Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery*, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity...

The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African  slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not  join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains  in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism  and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles  predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government  would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army  bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave  her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile  savages....

That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government *we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy* that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. *With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery*, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual."

Geo. Williamson 
Commissioner of the State of Louisiana 
City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.
Address of George Williamson to the Texas Secession Convention​ 
*The plea from South Carolina to the other southern states: *

"We prefer, however, our system of industry, by which labor and capital  are identified in interest, and capital, therefore, protects labor; by  which our population doubles every twenty years; by which starvation is  unknown, and abundance crowns the land; by which order is preserved by  unpaid police, and *the most fertile regions of the world where the Caucasian cannot labor are brought into usefulness by the labor of the African*, and the whole world is blessed by our own productions....

*We ask you to join us in forming a confederacy of Slaveholding States."
*Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States by Convention of South Carolina 
Texas:The States of Maine, Vermont, New  Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York,  Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative  enactments, *have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the  3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave  clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance  thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact*,  designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of  the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in  their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom,  and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish  the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines  and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may  carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal  laws enacted in accordance therewith.

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith   and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the   people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, *now  strong  enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those  States, based  upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern  States and  their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, *proclaiming   the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or   color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience   of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.   *They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the  confederacy,  the recognition of political equality between the white  and negro races,  and avow their determination to press on their crusade  against us, so  long as a negro slave remains in these States.
*Avalon  Project - Confederate States of America - A Declaration of the Causes  which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union​ *Speech to Tennessee Legislature by the Governor: *In discharge of official duty, I had occasion, within  the past year, to demand of the Governor of Ohio " a person charged in  the State (of Tennessee) with the crime " of slave stealing, who had  fled from justice, and was found in the State of Ohio.' The Governor  refused to issue his warrant for the arrest and delivery of the  fugitive, and in answer to a letter of inquiry which I addressed to him,  said:* 'The crime of negro stealing not being known to either the  common law or the criminal code of Ohio, it is not of that class of  crimes contemplated by the Federal Constitution, for the commission of  which I am authorized, as the executive of Ohio, to surrender a fugitive  from the justice of a sister State, and hence I declined to issue a  warrant," &c.; thus deliberately nullifying and setting at defiance  the clause of the Constitution above quoted, as well as the act of  Congress of February 12th, 1793, and grossly violating the ordinary  comity existing between separate and independent nations, much less the  comity which should exist between sister States of the same great  Confederacy*; the correspondence connected with which is herewith transmitted.​It has, through the executive authority of other States, denied extradition of murderers and marauders.​It obtained its own compromise in the Constitution to continue the  importation of slaves, and now sets up a law, higher than the  Constitution, to destroy this property imported and sold to us by their  fathers.

It has caused the murder of owners in pursuit of their fugitive slaves, and shielded the murderers from punishment.

It has, upon many occasions, sent its emissaries into the Southern  States to corrupt our slaves; induce them to run off, or excite them to  insurrection.

It has run off slave property by means of the "underground railroad,"  amounting in value to millions of dollars, and thus made the tenure by  which slaves are held in the border States so precarious as to  materially impair their value.           
 Alabama."
Speech of Tennessee Governor Isham G. Harris for Secession​(I particularly like this speech; if slavery was abolished and slaves set free, then Whites would be forced to commit murder!):

*ALABAMA: *"I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, *the reasons that impel me to this act.*

I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. *Years  ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either  to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or  they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery.*  This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the  South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is  now come, and Alabama must make her  selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a  sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy  on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel  her to abolish African Slavery.​Mr.  President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of  slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now  intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty  alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But  poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that  would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. T*here are now  in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the  relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that  race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible.* History gives us  no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a  place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They  therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave  be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint,  they would either be destroyed by our own hands-- the hands to which  they look, and look with confidence, for protection-- or we ourselves  would become demoralized and degraded. The former result would take  place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves.  To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and  thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse,  we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must,  therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers  (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME! 
Speech of E.S. Dargan Secession Convention of Alabama 1861​ *South Carolina:*

 Quote:
                The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth  Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one  State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in  consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such  service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to  whom such service or labor may be due." *[Fugitive Slave Clause]*

*This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made*.  The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had  previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by  making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the  territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the  Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by  the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into  effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were  executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the  non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a  disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government  have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of  Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island,  New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and  Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or  render useless any attempt to execute them. 
In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor  claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the  stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an  early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional  obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more  recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by  her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even  the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and  the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice  fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in  the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been  deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and  the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her  obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to  be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic  tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general  welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our  posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which  each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over  its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by  giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the  right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for  three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves  for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from  labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have  been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of  them by the action of the non-slaveholding States.* Those States have  assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic  institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in  fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have  denounced as sinful the institution of slavery;* they have permitted  open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to  disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other  States.* They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to  leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by  emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.           *
Avalon  Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate  Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the  Federal Union

*Mississippi:*

 Quote:
*Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.*  Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and  most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are  peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an  imperious law of nature, *none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun*.  These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at  slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long  aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its  consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates  of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been  subverted to work out our ruin.           
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession

*Georgia: *F*or  the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint  against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the  subject of African slavery*...

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies.  The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for  success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone  for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the  Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was  therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary  to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which  it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had  been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it  into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a  large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern  it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding  solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery  sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern  anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery  from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt  and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and  unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by  the South...​*The prohibition of slavery  in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the  black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its  favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its  followers.*

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their  lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall  receive them as our rulers.

But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and  therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North  offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they  have outlawed *$3,000,000,000 of our property*** in the common  territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the  States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law  everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who  assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most  solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to  subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property  but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the  desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. *To avoid  these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the  Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards  for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquility.           *​**property = humans
Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War

Confederate Constitution Secession Articles of American Civil War


----------



## JakeStarkey

Game, set, match.


----------



## jillian

koshergrl said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heck, slaves have certainly had their revenge....................
> 
> Endless reparations, third world policies, ghetto crime, rampant drug use, and guilt ridden white liberals to kiss their ass at every turn...............IMPRESSIVE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you wonder why people of color don't vote for you people?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> jillian, it is always a little bit laughable when a privileged member of the non-colored elite tells us what motivates "people of color"......
Click to expand...


you mean like when old white men tell us what rape is? and what women should do with their bodies, sweetie?

and i wasn't privileged when i was young... unless you count having a decent school, a decent place to live and loving family and friends as being 'privileged'... in which case, i'm happy to cop to it.

but if you mean 'privileged' as in money... not til i was an adult.

but the right's been whining about how black people don't vote for you. that's why.

or do you think they're stupid enough not to understand how racist that is?


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl just got jillian slapped!


----------



## paperview

Katzndogz said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I point out the obvious here?
> 
> A declaration of secession is not a declaration of war. I posted the Declaration of War published on behalf of the Northern States, feel free to point out where it discusses slavery to prove me wrong. In the meantime, I will stick to my position that the North did not go to war over slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> The North DIDN'T go to war over slavery. They went to war to preserve the Union.
> 
> The South went to to war to preserve slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is true, but this is probably what the schools are teaching nowadays.
Click to expand...

This from the guy who thought the cotton gin freed many slaves.


----------



## paperview

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paperview has dozens of primary documents that will make you cry, QWB.  She will love to post them for your education.
> 
> Just ask her!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen them, I just posted some that prove that not every state thought slavery was the driving force for secession.
Click to expand...

In order to give your premise any quarter whatsoever, you have to ignore all that led up to the war, including
the decades long increasingly embittered debate that took place in   Congress, in states houses, in pulpits, on soapboxes,  and in   practically every newspaper and journal in the country.
It was THE topic. 

You'd  also have to ignore
The Compromise of 1850
the  Kansas-Nebraska Act  
Bleeding Kansas
The Dred Scott decision
The John Brown Affair
and the myriad other intensities growing wildfire by 1860 to reach his convoluted conclusions. 

You also have to ignore:

- the declarations of the causes of secession that gave slavery as the  reason for the rebellion,
-the secession commissioners that gave slavery  as the reason for the rebellion
-the newspaper editorials that gave  slavery as the reason for the rebellion

I guess they were all   lying.  

You'd have to make a case virtually all of the southern leadership was lying in order to get their people to fight for them 

Just think about that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

QWB is fail before he opens his mouth.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus this is some fucked up illogic.
> 
> The southern states left to preserve slavery.  So obviously the war was about slavery, dipshit.  If there was no slavery, there was no war.
> 
> Before the war: slavery.  After the war: no slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what, why don't you show me where North Carolina declared that slavery was a reason for secession. In fact, why don't you show me where that can be said about Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky.
> 
> Alternatively, you could stop cherry picking facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on...sorry for the long one here folks:
> 
> I guess all these states actually telling us *why *they were seceding was a myth too.
> 
> *Louisiana:*"*Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery*, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity...
> 
> The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African  slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not  join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains  in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism  and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles  predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government  would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army  bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave  her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile  savages....
> 
> That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government *we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy* that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. *With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery*, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual."
> 
> Geo. Williamson
> Commissioner of the State of Louisiana
> City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.
> Address of George Williamson to the Texas Secession Convention​ *The plea from South Carolina to the other southern states: *
> 
> "We prefer, however, our system of industry, by which labor and capital  are identified in interest, and capital, therefore, protects labor; by  which our population doubles every twenty years; by which starvation is  unknown, and abundance crowns the land; by which order is preserved by  unpaid police, and *the most fertile regions of the world where the Caucasian cannot labor are brought into usefulness by the labor of the African*, and the whole world is blessed by our own productions....
> 
> *We ask you to join us in forming a confederacy of Slaveholding States."
> *Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States by Convention of South Carolina
> Texas:The States of Maine, Vermont, New  Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York,  Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative  enactments, *have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the  3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave  clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance  thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact*,  designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of  the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in  their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom,  and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish  the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines  and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may  carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal  laws enacted in accordance therewith.
> 
> "In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith   and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the   people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, *now  strong  enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those  States, based  upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern  States and  their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, *proclaiming   the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or   color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience   of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.   *They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the  confederacy,  the recognition of political equality between the white  and negro races,  and avow their determination to press on their crusade  against us, so  long as a negro slave remains in these States.
> *Avalon  Project - Confederate States of America - A Declaration of the Causes  which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union​ *Speech to Tennessee Legislature by the Governor: *In discharge of official duty, I had occasion, within  the past year, to demand of the Governor of Ohio " a person charged in  the State (of Tennessee) with the crime " of slave stealing, who had  fled from justice, and was found in the State of Ohio.' The Governor  refused to issue his warrant for the arrest and delivery of the  fugitive, and in answer to a letter of inquiry which I addressed to him,  said:* 'The crime of negro stealing not being known to either the  common law or the criminal code of Ohio, it is not of that class of  crimes contemplated by the Federal Constitution, for the commission of  which I am authorized, as the executive of Ohio, to surrender a fugitive  from the justice of a sister State, and hence I declined to issue a  warrant," &c.; thus deliberately nullifying and setting at defiance  the clause of the Constitution above quoted, as well as the act of  Congress of February 12th, 1793, and grossly violating the ordinary  comity existing between separate and independent nations, much less the  comity which should exist between sister States of the same great  Confederacy*; the correspondence connected with which is herewith transmitted.​It has, through the executive authority of other States, denied extradition of murderers and marauders.​It obtained its own compromise in the Constitution to continue the  importation of slaves, and now sets up a law, higher than the  Constitution, to destroy this property imported and sold to us by their  fathers.
> 
> It has caused the murder of owners in pursuit of their fugitive slaves, and shielded the murderers from punishment.
> 
> It has, upon many occasions, sent its emissaries into the Southern  States to corrupt our slaves; induce them to run off, or excite them to  insurrection.
> 
> It has run off slave property by means of the "underground railroad,"  amounting in value to millions of dollars, and thus made the tenure by  which slaves are held in the border States so precarious as to  materially impair their value.
> Alabama."
> Speech of Tennessee Governor Isham G. Harris for Secession​(I particularly like this speech; if slavery was abolished and slaves set free, then Whites would be forced to commit murder!):
> 
> *ALABAMA: *"I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, *the reasons that impel me to this act.*
> 
> I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. *Years  ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either  to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or  they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery.*  This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the  South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is  now come, and Alabama must make her  selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a  sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy  on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel  her to abolish African Slavery.​Mr.  President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of  slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now  intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty  alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But  poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that  would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. T*here are now  in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the  relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that  race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible.* History gives us  no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a  place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They  therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave  be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint,  they would either be destroyed by our own hands-- the hands to which  they look, and look with confidence, for protection-- or we ourselves  would become demoralized and degraded. The former result would take  place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves.  To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and  thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse,  we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must,  therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers  (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME!
> Speech of E.S. Dargan Secession Convention of Alabama 1861​ *South Carolina:*
> 
> Quote:
> The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth  Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one  State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in  consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such  service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to  whom such service or labor may be due." *[Fugitive Slave Clause]*
> 
> *This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made*.  The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had  previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by  making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the  territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the  Ohio River.
> 
> The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by  the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
> 
> The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into  effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were  executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the  non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a  disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government  have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of  Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island,  New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and  Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or  render useless any attempt to execute them.
> In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor  claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the  stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an  early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional  obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more  recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by  her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even  the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and  the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice  fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in  the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been  deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and  the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her  obligation.
> 
> The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to  be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic  tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general  welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our  posterity."
> 
> These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which  each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over  its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by  giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the  right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for  three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves  for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from  labor.
> 
> We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have  been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of  them by the action of the non-slaveholding States.* Those States have  assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic  institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in  fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have  denounced as sinful the institution of slavery;* they have permitted  open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to  disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other  States.* They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to  leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by  emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.           *
> Avalon  Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate  Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the  Federal Union
> 
> *Mississippi:*
> 
> Quote:
> *Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.*  Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and  most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are  peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an  imperious law of nature, *none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun*.  These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at  slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long  aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its  consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates  of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been  subverted to work out our ruin.
> Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
> 
> *Georgia: *F*or  the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint  against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the  subject of African slavery*...
> 
> All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies.  The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for  success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone  for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the  Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was  therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary  to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which  it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had  been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it  into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a  large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern  it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding  solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery  sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern  anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery  from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt  and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and  unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by  the South...​*The prohibition of slavery  in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the  black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its  favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its  followers.*
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their  lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall  receive them as our rulers.
> 
> But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and  therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North  offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they  have outlawed *$3,000,000,000 of our property*** in the common  territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the  States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law  everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who  assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most  solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to  subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property  but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the  desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. *To avoid  these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the  Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards  for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquility.           *​**property = humans
> Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
> 
> Confederate Constitution Secession Articles of American Civil War
Click to expand...


Let me see if I get the drift here, this was about other states ignoring the constitution and federal law, not about slavery. Ever wonder why New York thought it was a good idea not to return slaves to southern states even though they allowed slavery?


----------



## Katzndogz

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus this is some fucked up illogic.
> 
> The southern states left to preserve slavery.  So obviously the war was about slavery, dipshit.  If there was no slavery, there was no war.
> 
> Before the war: slavery.  After the war: no slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what, why don't you show me where North Carolina declared that slavery was a reason for secession. In fact, why don't you show me where that can be said about Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky.
> 
> Alternatively, you could stop cherry picking facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on...sorry for the long one here folks:
> 
> I guess all these states actually telling us *why *they were seceding was a myth too.
> 
> *Louisiana:*"*Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery*, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity...
> 
> The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African  slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not  join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains  in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism  and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles  predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government  would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army  bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave  her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile  savages....
> 
> That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government *we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy* that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. *With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery*, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual."
> 
> Geo. Williamson
> Commissioner of the State of Louisiana
> City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.
> Address of George Williamson to the Texas Secession Convention​
> *The plea from South Carolina to the other southern states: *
> 
> "We prefer, however, our system of industry, by which labor and capital  are identified in interest, and capital, therefore, protects labor; by  which our population doubles every twenty years; by which starvation is  unknown, and abundance crowns the land; by which order is preserved by  unpaid police, and *the most fertile regions of the world where the Caucasian cannot labor are brought into usefulness by the labor of the African*, and the whole world is blessed by our own productions....
> 
> *We ask you to join us in forming a confederacy of Slaveholding States."
> *Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States by Convention of South Carolina
> Texas:The States of Maine, Vermont, New  Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York,  Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative  enactments, *have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the  3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave  clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance  thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact*,  designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of  the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in  their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom,  and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish  the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines  and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may  carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal  laws enacted in accordance therewith.
> 
> "In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith   and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the   people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, *now  strong  enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those  States, based  upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern  States and  their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, *proclaiming   the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or   color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience   of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.   *They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the  confederacy,  the recognition of political equality between the white  and negro races,  and avow their determination to press on their crusade  against us, so  long as a negro slave remains in these States.
> *Avalon  Project - Confederate States of America - A Declaration of the Causes  which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union​ *Speech to Tennessee Legislature by the Governor: *In discharge of official duty, I had occasion, within  the past year, to demand of the Governor of Ohio " a person charged in  the State (of Tennessee) with the crime " of slave stealing, who had  fled from justice, and was found in the State of Ohio.' The Governor  refused to issue his warrant for the arrest and delivery of the  fugitive, and in answer to a letter of inquiry which I addressed to him,  said:* 'The crime of negro stealing not being known to either the  common law or the criminal code of Ohio, it is not of that class of  crimes contemplated by the Federal Constitution, for the commission of  which I am authorized, as the executive of Ohio, to surrender a fugitive  from the justice of a sister State, and hence I declined to issue a  warrant," &c.; thus deliberately nullifying and setting at defiance  the clause of the Constitution above quoted, as well as the act of  Congress of February 12th, 1793, and grossly violating the ordinary  comity existing between separate and independent nations, much less the  comity which should exist between sister States of the same great  Confederacy*; the correspondence connected with which is herewith transmitted.​It has, through the executive authority of other States, denied extradition of murderers and marauders.​It obtained its own compromise in the Constitution to continue the  importation of slaves, and now sets up a law, higher than the  Constitution, to destroy this property imported and sold to us by their  fathers.
> 
> It has caused the murder of owners in pursuit of their fugitive slaves, and shielded the murderers from punishment.
> 
> It has, upon many occasions, sent its emissaries into the Southern  States to corrupt our slaves; induce them to run off, or excite them to  insurrection.
> 
> It has run off slave property by means of the "underground railroad,"  amounting in value to millions of dollars, and thus made the tenure by  which slaves are held in the border States so precarious as to  materially impair their value.
> Alabama."
> Speech of Tennessee Governor Isham G. Harris for Secession​(I particularly like this speech; if slavery was abolished and slaves set free, then Whites would be forced to commit murder!):
> 
> *ALABAMA: *"I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, *the reasons that impel me to this act.*
> 
> I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. *Years  ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either  to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or  they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery.*  This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the  South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is  now come, and Alabama must make her  selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a  sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy  on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel  her to abolish African Slavery.​Mr.  President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of  slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now  intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty  alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But  poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that  would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. T*here are now  in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the  relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that  race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible.* History gives us  no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a  place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They  therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave  be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint,  they would either be destroyed by our own hands-- the hands to which  they look, and look with confidence, for protection-- or we ourselves  would become demoralized and degraded. The former result would take  place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves.  To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and  thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse,  we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must,  therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers  (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME!
> Speech of E.S. Dargan Secession Convention of Alabama 1861​ *South Carolina:*
> 
> Quote:
> The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth  Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one  State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in  consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such  service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to  whom such service or labor may be due." *[Fugitive Slave Clause]*
> 
> *This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made*.  The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had  previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by  making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the  territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the  Ohio River.
> 
> The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by  the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
> 
> The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into  effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were  executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the  non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a  disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government  have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of  Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island,  New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and  Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or  render useless any attempt to execute them.
> In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor  claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the  stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an  early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional  obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more  recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by  her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even  the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and  the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice  fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in  the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been  deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and  the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her  obligation.
> 
> The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to  be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic  tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general  welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our  posterity."
> 
> These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which  each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over  its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by  giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the  right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for  three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves  for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from  labor.
> 
> We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have  been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of  them by the action of the non-slaveholding States.* Those States have  assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic  institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in  fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have  denounced as sinful the institution of slavery;* they have permitted  open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to  disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other  States.* They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to  leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by  emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.           *
> Avalon  Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate  Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the  Federal Union
> 
> *Mississippi:*
> 
> Quote:
> *Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.*  Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and  most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are  peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an  imperious law of nature, *none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun*.  These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at  slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long  aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its  consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates  of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been  subverted to work out our ruin.
> Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
> 
> *Georgia: *F*or  the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint  against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the  subject of African slavery*...
> 
> All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies.  The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for  success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone  for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the  Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was  therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary  to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which  it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had  been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it  into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a  large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern  it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding  solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery  sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern  anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery  from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt  and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and  unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by  the South...​*The prohibition of slavery  in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the  black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its  favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its  followers.*
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their  lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall  receive them as our rulers.
> 
> But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and  therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North  offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they  have outlawed *$3,000,000,000 of our property*** in the common  territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the  States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law  everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who  assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most  solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to  subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property  but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the  desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. *To avoid  these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the  Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards  for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquility.           *​**property = humans
> Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
> 
> Confederate Constitution Secession Articles of American Civil War
Click to expand...


Substitute cheap labor that Americans won't do, for slavery and you could be talking about mexicans today!


----------



## Charles_Main

Quantum Windbag said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Lincolns Greatest Failure​*
> (*Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)*
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> 
> "Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."
> 
> ~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007
> 
> *The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction*, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincolns White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).
> 
> In fact, as Bennett shows,* it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years.* The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielbergs Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarists Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That link is one of the most twisted gyrations of historical revisionism and logical fallacies I have seen in some time.
> 
> As if the South was ever going to end slavery peacefully.  Yeah, right.  I want what that dumb shit is smoking.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery would have collapsed years before if it hadn't been propped up by the northern manufacturers and the invention of the cotton gin.
Click to expand...



The first half of what you said makes since, the second half not so much. The Cotton Gin actually seriously reduced the need for Slave Labor to Process Cotton.


----------



## paperview

Quantum Windbag said:


> ...
> 
> Let me see if I get the drift here, this was about other states ignoring the constitution and federal law, not about slavery. Ever wonder why New York thought it was a good idea not to return slaves to southern states even though they allowed slavery?


Wow.

Shit, man, I knew you were a dumbshit before this, but now we're talking single-cell functioning braincell.


----------



## paperview

Charles_Main said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That link is one of the most twisted gyrations of historical revisionism and logical fallacies I have seen in some time.
> 
> As if the South was ever going to end slavery peacefully.  Yeah, right.  I want what that dumb shit is smoking.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery would have collapsed years before if it hadn't been propped up by the northern manufacturers and the invention of the cotton gin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first half of what you said makes since, the second half not so much. The Cotton Gin actually seriously reduced the need for Slave Labor to Process Cotton.
Click to expand...

Oh gawd.  Not another one.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The cotton gin allowed thousands upon thousands of new acres to be developed every year, which required a tremendous increase in slaves.  All the gin did was comb the cotton.  Thus much more cotton (requiring many more agricultural slaves) was required.


----------



## paperview

Nearly all noted historians agree, the South fought the war primarily  for the protection of slavery, the literal blood that kept the engine of  the south going.  
The North fought initially to keep the Union  together.  With the Emancipation Proclamation, it became a war about  slavery for the North. 

This is 5th grade stuff, people.


----------



## Mustang

Charles_Main said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That link is one of the most twisted gyrations of historical revisionism and logical fallacies I have seen in some time.
> 
> As if the South was ever going to end slavery peacefully.  Yeah, right.  I want what that dumb shit is smoking.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery would have collapsed years before if it hadn't been propped up by the northern manufacturers and the invention of the cotton gin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first half of what you said makes since, the second half not so much. The Cotton Gin actually seriously reduced the need for Slave Labor to Process Cotton.
Click to expand...


Could that cotton gin pick the cotton?


----------



## paperview

Mustang said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery would have collapsed years before if it hadn't been propped up by the northern manufacturers and the invention of the cotton gin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first half of what you said makes since, the second half not so much. The Cotton Gin actually seriously reduced the need for Slave Labor to Process Cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could that cotton gin pick the cotton?
Click to expand...

You wanna read some funny shit?

This was just a few days ago.  I bout peed my pants laughing at the raw ignorance:



Katzndogz said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The  cotton gin alone freed hundreds of slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> You serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.   Before the invention of the cotton gin, hundreds of slaves  were necessary to pick through the cotton bolls to remove debris,  weevils, seeds anything that polluted the cotton.   This work was done  by mostly women and children.
> 
> *Did you think the term Picking Cotton referred to the harvest?   No.   Picking cotton was cleaning the cotton.  Once the cotton gin was  invented it separated the fibers from the smallest seed and preserved  the seed for replanting.  It did so quite quickly.  Dozens of slaves who  did pick cotton could be replaced by the cotton gin and one operator.
> 
> This left a lot of useless slaves that still had to be supported, fed,  housed, cared for.  Since everyone had a cotton gin, the only thing that  could be done with the slaves was to free them.   There was no market  for cotton picking slaves anymore.  * *
> 
> Slavery was over, it was only a matter of time before the machinery of  the industrial revolution replaced slave labor.   Compared to the  purchase price of a machine, the endless upkeep of a slave was just too  expensive* .
Click to expand...


----------



## Politico

It's a movie.


----------



## paperview

Here's the trailer:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJVuqYkI2jQ]Lincoln Official Trailer #1 (2012) Steven Spielberg Movie HD - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ludicrous.



paperview said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first half of what you said makes since, the second half not so much. The Cotton Gin actually seriously reduced the need for Slave Labor to Process Cotton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could that cotton gin pick the cotton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wanna read some funny shit?
> 
> This was just a few days ago.  I bout peed my pants laughing at the raw ignorance:
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> You serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.   Before the invention of the cotton gin, hundreds of slaves  were necessary to pick through the cotton bolls to remove debris,  weevils, seeds anything that polluted the cotton.   This work was done  by mostly women and children.
> 
> *Did you think the term Picking Cotton referred to the harvest?   No.   Picking cotton was cleaning the cotton.  Once the cotton gin was  invented it separated the fibers from the smallest seed and preserved  the seed for replanting.  It did so quite quickly.  Dozens of slaves who  did pick cotton could be replaced by the cotton gin and one operator.
> 
> This left a lot of useless slaves that still had to be supported, fed,  housed, cared for.  Since everyone had a cotton gin, the only thing that  could be done with the slaves was to free them.   There was no market  for cotton picking slaves anymore.  * *
> 
> Slavery was over, it was only a matter of time before the machinery of  the industrial revolution replaced slave labor.   Compared to the  purchase price of a machine, the endless upkeep of a slave was just too  expensive* .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Oh, no. I happen to hold the opinion of some of these revisionists in here on certain things but far from for the same reasons. The cotton gin wasn't the invention that reduced slave demand that you wish for. The opposite is true. 

I can't anymore.


----------



## TakeAStepBack




----------



## USwings

Saw some excellent post here, even the dumb questions and answers made it possible to provide good information. The title of the thread, *Steven Spielberg's movie about Lincoln is pure bullshit !!!!!!!*, is a farther stretch then Hollywood's usual and expected poetic license. *Pure bullshit?* No. I think I'll go see it!


----------



## USwings

JakeStarkey said:


> Do you not read the scholars who do this for a living?
> 
> Do you not read the primary documents of the age?
> 
> Or you going to continue your Reign of the Doofus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The North DIDN'T go to war over slavery. They went to war to preserve the Union.
> 
> The South went to to war to preserve slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is true, but this is probably what the schools are teaching nowadays.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Looks like all three are true.


----------



## ERGO

USwings said:


> Saw some excellent post here, even the dumb questions and answers made it possible to provide good information. The title of the thread, *Steven Spielberg's movie about Lincoln is pure bullshit !!!!!!!*, is a farther stretch then Hollywood's usual and expected poetic license. *Pure bullshit?* No. I think I'll go see it!



The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a *fiction*, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincolns White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).

In fact, as Bennett shows, it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years. *The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielbergs Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarists Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").*
*
The theme of the Spielberg movie is the subtitle of Goodwins book*: "The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln." *Nothing gets a leftists legs tingling more than someone who is very, very good at the methods of political theft, plunder, subterfuge, and bullying*. Goodwin the court historian has devoted her life to writing hagiographies of the worst of the worst political bullies  FDR, Lyndon Johnson, the Kennedys, and Lincoln. (It was her book on the Kennedys that got her in trouble and forced her to admit plagiarizing dozens of paragraphs, and paying a six-figure sum to the victim of her plagiarism. That got her kicked off the Pulitzer prize committee and PBS, but only for a very short while).

Lincolns "political genius" is grossly overblown in Goodwins book. In addition the book, like virtually all other books on the subject, completely misses the point. *If Lincoln was such a political genius, he should have used his "genius" to end slavery in the way the British, French, Spaniards, Dutch, Danes, Swedes, and all the Northern states in the U.S. did in the nineteenth century, namely, peacefully.*

Source:Lincolns Greatest Failure by Thomas DiLorenzo

Also...

*Lincoln the Racist*
(Or: Steven Spielberg, Call Your Office)

On the subject of Steven Spielbergs new movie on Lincoln, which is entirely about Lincolns *supposed role* in lobbying for the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, Bennett points out: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction . . ." *To the extent that Lincoln did finally and hesitatingly support the amendment, Bennett argues that it was he who was literally forced into it by other politicians, not the other way around as portrayed in the Spielberg film. *(David Donald, by the way, is the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our day and Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer).

*Lerone Bennett is understandably outraged at how the Lincoln cult has covered up Lincolns racism for over a century, pretending that he was not a man of his time.* He quotes Lincoln as saying in the first Lincoln-Douglas debate in Ottawa, Illinois, for example, that he denied "to set the ******* and white people to marrying together" (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 3, p. 20). In Forced into Glory Bennett shows that Lincoln rather compulsively used the N-word; was a huge fan of "black face" minstrel shows; was famous for his racist jokes; and that many of his White House appointees were shocked at his racist language. 

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/143447710X?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=143447710X&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell]Amazon.com: The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (9781434477101): Abraham Lincoln: Books[/ame]

*Lincoln did not hesitate to broadcast his racist views publicly, either. Bennett quotes his speech during a debate with Douglas in Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858 *(Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 3, pp. 145-146):

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Source:Lincoln the Racist by Thomas DiLorenzo


----------



## JakeStarkey

The dopes don't understand that Lincoln the racist was dedicated by the summer of 1862 to the ending of slavery, period.


----------



## Sallow

LordBrownTrout said:


> Suspended habeas corpus, jailed political dissidents.  Dude was a tyrant.



The Constitution grants a president those powers.


----------



## oldfart

BlindBoo said:


> Linclon, like most White Americans at the time, were pure racist.



OK I haven't seen the movie yet so I'll withhold judgment on it until I see it.  I am pretty well read on Lincoln however.  In the 60's and 70's there was a boom in Lincoln books that started out notiing (correctly) that Lincoln held views most of his life that reflected his era in regard to race relations.  Thankfully we got throught that.  The new rage is to claim Lincoln was gay.  Both require a profound misunderstanding of both Lincoln and his times.

It comes as no news to every serious Lincoln scholar that in the 1858 Lincoln--Douglas debates Lincoln vigorously defended himself against Douglas' charges that he was an extreme abolitioist and favored social equality of the races.  Nor is it novel that in a public letter to Horace Greeley on August 22,1862 he stated


> I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
> 
> As to the policy I ``seem to be pursuing'' as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
> 
> I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be ``the Union as it was.''  If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
> 
> 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. Yours,
> 
> A. LINCOLN


I include the entire letter here because it s often quoted in part in such a wa as to alter the meaning.  Remember that at this point Lincoln had already read the Emancipation Proclimation to his Cabinet, and on the advice of Seward delayed issuing it to avoid an appearance of desperation if it appeared after Union military reverses.  

Lincoln's efforts to convince the border states into  emancipation also reveal much.

But his efforts to support colonization projects and his meetings with black leaders clearly show that while his views on emancipation and of using black troops had evolved during the War, his views on political and social equality still had a way to go.

Clearly to label this as "racism" is to commit the major historiogaphic fallacy of judging a historical figure by standards that did not exist in his day.  Racism must be identified as something more than mere ethnocentrism to be effectively identified and combated.  To say that all whites in the nineteenth century were racists is to make reacism far more benign than it was and to lump together people like Lincoln who had a lifelong  record of campaigning for economic equality and against slavery with those who defended and sought to extend slavery.


----------



## oldfart

BlindBoo said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest lies in history is the idea that the CW was fought to free the slaves.  How can that possibly be true when there were 4 northern states that allowed slavery during the entire war and when  General US Grant was a slave owner during the  war and so to Lincoln's second vice president Andrew Johnson.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, it was not fought to free anyone.  It was fought over the existance of slavery as an integral part of the southern economy.  Northern industrialist were jealous and afraid of the pool of free labor and the growing wealth/power of the southern elite.
Click to expand...


I would agree that the Civil War was not fought by the North to free anyone.  And I agree that many in the North, including Lincoln feared the "Slave Power"  and its drive to extend slavery.  But the South actually entered the War desperately poor in everything needed to fight a war or trigger and industrial revolution.  The wealth of the planter class turned out to be a sham.


----------



## oldfart

DiamondDave said:


> $10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution



Yep.  Forget about the Homestead Act that settled the West, the transcontinental raiload, land grant colleges, tariff reform, and transforming anagrarian economy into an industrial one.  

If you want to debate habeus corpus, make your case and let's get it on.


----------



## Synthaholic

_*	 Steven Spielberg's movie about Lincoln is pure bullshit !!!!!!!  * _



Pure?


----------



## oldfart

DiamondDave said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> $10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have found people who parrot things like this generally know very little of the man.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying he did not brutally violate the constitution? Suspend the constitution to fit his needs??
Click to expand...


Yes.  That is exactly what people who got their history credentials from a university rather than a crackerjack box say.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Charles_Main said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That link is one of the most twisted gyrations of historical revisionism and logical fallacies I have seen in some time.
> 
> As if the South was ever going to end slavery peacefully.  Yeah, right.  I want what that dumb shit is smoking.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery would have collapsed years before if it hadn't been propped up by the northern manufacturers and the invention of the cotton gin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first half of what you said makes since, the second half not so much. The Cotton Gin actually seriously reduced the need for Slave Labor to Process Cotton.
Click to expand...


Umm, no, what it did was enable plantation owners to grow more cotton. 10 years after the introduction of the cotton gin the value of the US cotton crop went from $150,000 to $8 million. That would not have happened if they were forced to card the wool by hand.


----------



## oldfart

BlindBoo said:


> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linclon, like most White Americans at the time, were pure racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AS WAS THE ENTIRE WORLD!* As a mater of fact all the tribes in Africa were also racist.
> So your point is what, racism is a only  an American phenomenon?
> 
> One must respect the man for his accomplishments during the period of time he lived, this historical revisionist bull shit needs to be laid to rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The enslavement of an entire race in perpetuity(meaning that their children were born into slavery) required the demonization of that race in America, IMHO that level of demonization was not seen in other places.
Click to expand...


Add a fear of slave revolts like those in the Caribbean and you have enough paranoia to fuel quite a bit of repression.


----------



## oldfart

DiamondDave said:


> Don't forget his other constitutional violations *cough* Clement Vallandigham *cough*... government confiscation of property.. the list goes on...



Oh please!  We're supposed to bleed for the Copperheads now?


----------



## Contumacious

nodoginnafight said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest lies in history is the idea that the CW was fought to free the slaves.  How can that possibly be true when there were 4 northern states that allowed slavery during the entire war and when  General US Grant was a slave owner during the  war and so to Lincoln's second vice president Andrew Johnson.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist Bull
> 
> The Civil War WAS fought over the issue of slavery. Refer to the South Carolina declaration of secession:
Click to expand...


Lincoln's words from the famous* Lincoln vs. Douglas debate *on Sept. 18, 1858:


*"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]  that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."*


.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conty clearly does not comprehend Lincoln, the times, or the Civil War.

That's OK, because his agenda has nothing to do with history but rather his desired future.


----------



## bripat9643

NYcarbineer said:


> Does Ron Paul feel the same way about the American Revolution??



You mean does he have contempt for lies and propaganda about the American Revolution? 

I'm sure he does.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> Conty clearly does not comprehend Lincoln, the times, or the Civil War.
> 
> That's OK, because his agenda has nothing to do with history but rather his desired future.



You've already established your thorough ignorance on those subjects.


----------



## bripat9643

oldfart said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have found people who parrot things like this generally know very little of the man.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying he did not brutally violate the constitution? Suspend the constitution to fit his needs??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is exactly what people who got their history credentials from a university rather than a crackerjack box say.
Click to expand...



Actually, not.  Historians all admit that Lincoln wiped his ass on the Constitution.  They just make excuses for it and canonize him as some kind of saint.


----------



## oldfart

bripat9643 said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying he did not brutally violate the constitution? Suspend the constitution to fit his needs??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is exactly what people who got their history credentials from a university rather than a crackerjack box say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, not.  Historians all admit that Lincoln wiped his ass on the Constitution.  They just make excuses for it and canonize him as some kind of saint.
Click to expand...


I've never seen a reputable historian make that argument.  Who have you been reading?


----------



## bripat9643

oldfart said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> $10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Forget about the Homestead Act that settled the West, the transcontinental raiload, land grant colleges, tariff reform, and transforming anagrarian economy into an industrial one.
> 
> If you want to debate habeus corpus, make your case and let's get it on.
Click to expand...


The Transcontinental railroads were cesspools of fraud and corruption that all went bankrupt.  Tariff "reform?"  Are you joking?  Doubling tariffs is "reform?"  The government run colleges are the reason this nation is swirling down the toilet bowl of socialism.  The nation was already industrialized before Lincoln was elected.  That's the only reason the North won.


----------



## bripat9643

paperview said:


> Nearly all noted historians agree, the South fought the war primarily  for the protection of slavery, the literal blood that kept the engine of  the south going.
> The North fought initially to keep the Union  together.  With the Emancipation Proclamation, it became a war about  slavery for the North.
> 
> This is 5th grade stuff, people.



Lincoln started the war to force the Southern States to collect the Morrill tariff.  It was a war fought purely so Northern Republicans could impose mercantilism on the nation and fleece the South for revenue to pay for Republican boondoggles like the transcontinental railroads.  The emancipation proclamation was purely a cynical political maneuver that didn't free a single slave.


----------



## bripat9643

Sallow said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suspended habeas corpus, jailed political dissidents.  Dude was a tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution grants a president those powers.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't.  It grants Congress those powers.

Lincoln was a dictator.  He's right up there with Stalin and Hitler.  In fact, both men learned a lot from Lincoln.


----------



## paperview

bripat9643 said:


> ...
> 
> Lincoln started the war to force the Southern States to collect the Morrill tariff.



Pile 'O bull crap.  The first shots were fired before Lincoln even stepped into the office.


----------



## paperview

oldfart said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is exactly what people who got their history credentials from a university rather than a crackerjack box say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, not.  Historians all admit that Lincoln wiped his ass on the Constitution.  They just make excuses for it and canonize him as some kind of saint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never seen a reputable historian make that argument.  Who have you been reading?
Click to expand...

Neo Confederate / white supremacist rags, of course.


----------



## paperview

Contumacious said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the biggest lies in history is the idea that the CW was fought to free the slaves.  How can that possibly be true when there were 4 northern states that allowed slavery during the entire war and when  General US Grant was a slave owner during the  war and so to Lincoln's second vice president Andrew Johnson.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist Bull
> 
> The Civil War WAS fought over the issue of slavery. Refer to the South Carolina declaration of secession:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln's words from the famous* Lincoln vs. Douglas debate *on Sept. 18, 1858:
> 
> 
> *"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]  that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

There you go again...Like Thomas Jefferson, I could show you quotes that would convince you he was a deeply religious man.

I could also show you just as many quotes that would convince he was an atheist. (as many deemed him at the time)

Lincoln was complex, but anyone who has studied his history knows his dedication to the cause; Union first, anti-slavery as a backdrop.  Pragmatism.

All you do is cherrypick quotes - no depth to your analysis.  It's why most people dismiss you,


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have no knowledge on the subject, as this thread clearly proves.

Move along, sonny.



bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conty clearly does not comprehend Lincoln, the times, or the Civil War.
> 
> That's OK, because his agenda has nothing to do with history but rather his desired future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already established your thorough ignorance on those subjects.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bripat and so many of the far right simply cannot critically think while handling the evidence.

Shoot, ask bigrebnc to trot all of the evidence about Hitler and his supposed socialism.  biggie shoots himself in the ass every time.


----------



## Toro

bripat9643 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suspended habeas corpus, jailed political dissidents.  Dude was a tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution grants a president those powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  It grants Congress those powers.
> 
> Lincoln was a dictator.  He's right up there with Stalin and Hitler.  In fact, both men learned a lot from Lincoln.
Click to expand...


hahahahahahaha


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat has far more in common with Htiler and this thugs than he does with American and its values.


----------



## regent

Lincoln bent the constitution, no question, but many presidents have bent the constitution, and as Lincoln said this was a military emergency. Lincoln was also insistent that the Thirteenth Amendment be added to the constitution, in fact, the Republican platform for his 1864 reelection had a demand for the constitutional amendment.


----------



## elvis

bripat9643 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suspended habeas corpus, jailed political dissidents.  Dude was a tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution grants a president those powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  It grants Congress those powers.
> 
> Lincoln was a dictator.  *He's right up there with Stalin and Hitler.  In fact, both men learned a lot from Lincoln*.
Click to expand...

Most ignorant statement of the year.   You make Truthmatters sound brilliant.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat makes koshergrl sound brilliant.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Contumacious said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historians praise its accuracy, but if you say it's pure BS, they must all be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *William Lloyd Garrison *(December 10, 1805  May 24, 1879) was a prominent American abolitionist, journalist, and social reformer. He is best known as the editor of the abolitionist newspaper The Liberator, and was one of the founders of the American Anti-Slavery Society. He promoted "immediate emancipation" of slaves in the United States."
> 
> .
Click to expand...


And today there are those who demand immediate freedom to same sex couples to marry.  The lesson is obvious, is it not?  The battle for freedom will always be fought against bigoted assholes who demand the freedom to suppress others.


----------



## Political Junky

I saw the movie today, and it was perfect. Great performances by all. Lots of Oscars are going to that film.


----------



## elvis

Political Junky said:


> I saw the movie today, and it was perfect. Great performances by all. Lots of Oscars are going to that film.



It was far from perfect.  Great jobs by Lewis, Field, and Jones, though.


----------



## The Infidel

Quantum Windbag said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historians praise its accuracy, but if you say it's pure BS, they must all be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which historians?
Click to expand...


Contumacious ..... he has his bona fides


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only wack libertarians or far righty extremists will have problem with the movie.  History is different for them, all seven of them.


----------



## gipper

elvis said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution grants a president those powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  It grants Congress those powers.
> 
> Lincoln was a dictator.  *He's right up there with Stalin and Hitler.  In fact, both men learned a lot from Lincoln*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most ignorant statement of the year.   You make Truthmatters sound brilliant.
Click to expand...


Lincoln was a traitor and a tyrant.  He chose to war on Americans merely to impose his will.  

The constitution clearly outlines what a traitor is.  Lincoln fits the definition perfectly.

This from Dishonest Abe's first inaugural address.


> I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
> In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none *unless it be forced upon the national authority*. *The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects,* there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
> Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989



It is easy for those of us capable of reason, that this statement clearly reveals his intentions to commit war upon fellow Americans, should they refuse the national authority of collecting tariffs. 

All Americans should vilify Lincoln...not venerate him. 

But like the great comedian said, "You can't fix stupid."


----------



## Katzndogz

If revisionist historians praise its accuracy, it can't be accurate.

Lincoln didn't care whether slavery ended or not.  He wanted to use ending slavery to punish the south for seceeding.   What he really wanted was to round up all the black people and send them back to Africa.  He was a member of the American Colonization Society, he was not an abolitionist.   Does the movie contain this?   Does it cover his efforts to remove black people from America down to the last one?    As it was, he removed hundreds and sent them to the newly created country of Liberia.   Created for the purpose of receiving the displaced former slaves.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Katz is another myth believer instead of one who knows the narrative.  





Katzndogz said:


> If revisionist historians praise its accuracy, it can't be accurate.
> 
> Lincoln didn't care whether slavery ended or not.  He wanted to use ending slavery to punish the south for seceeding.   What he really wanted was to round up all the black people and send them back to Africa.  He was a member of the American Colonization Society, he was not an abolitionist.   Does the movie contain this?   Does it cover his efforts to remove black people from America down to the last one?    As it was, he removed hundreds and sent them to the newly created country of Liberia.   Created for the purpose of receiving the displaced former slaves.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ShootSpeeders said:


> One of the biggest lies in history is the idea that the CW was fought to free the slaves.  How can that possibly be true when there were 4 northern states that allowed slavery during the entire war and when  General US Grant was a slave owner during the  war and so to Lincoln's second vice president Andrew Johnson.?



They create a history that suits their narrative, the truth be damned.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The North went to war to preserve the Union, the South to own humans.

By the middle of 1862, Lincoln realized to save the Union he would have to end slavery.

He was, thank heavens, ruthless about it.


----------



## MHunterB

Thomas DiLorenzo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Lincoln Unmasked and The Real Lincoln

DiLorenzo has devoted much effort to historical revisionism, focusing on what he has been called "the myth of Lincoln" as a political and historical phenomenon. He said, "Lincoln is on record time after time rejecting the idea of racial equality. But whenever anyone brings this up, the Lincoln partisans go to the extreme to smear the bearer of bad news." [5] In the same vein, DiLorenzo has spoken out in favor of the secession of the Confederate States of America, defending the right of these states to secede in a view similar to that of abolitionist Lysander Spooner.[6] He has also criticized the crediting of the New Deal for ending the Great Depression.[7]

In 2002, DiLorenzo debated Harry V. Jaffa on the merits of Abraham Lincoln's statesmanship prior to and during the civil war.

DiLorenzo is a frequent speaker at von Mises Institute events, and offers several online courses on political subjects on the Mises Academy platform.[3]

*He was formerly an affiliated lecturer of the League of the South Institute, the research arm of the pro-secession League of the South[8] He has denied any lasting affiliation, noting that he only gave a few lectures there shortly after its founding.[9][10]*

*The Southern Poverty Law Center considers DiLorenzo one of the most important intellectuals "who form the core of the modern neo-Confederate movement*." They believe DiLorenzo's depiction of president Abraham Lincoln paints Lincoln as a "paragon of wickedness, a man secretly intent on destroying states' rights and building a massive federal government."[11]


Uh-Huh. 'Nuff Said.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lincoln was a man committed to the economic opportunity for the white working classes and the continuation of slavery only in the Old South.  His understanding of racial matters evolved over time far in advance of most white Americans by his death, only surpassed by the few true civil rights believes among the Radical Republicans.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> The North went to war to preserve the Union, the South to own humans.
> 
> By the middle of 1862, Lincoln realized to save the Union he would have to end slavery.
> 
> He was, thank heavens, ruthless about it.



Lincoln spoke out against slavery well before 1862 genus



> "What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle - the sheet anchor of American republicanism." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 266.





> "In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855), p. 320.





> I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.






> "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, (August 1, 1858?), p. 532.






> So plain that no one, high or low, ever does mistake it, except in a plainly selfish way; for although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it, by being a slave himself." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Fragment on Slavery" (April 1, 1854?), p. 222.



Abraham Lincoln Quotes About Slavery (Including Sources)


----------



## JakeStarkey

He did not believe that he could end slavery, genius, until Stanton convinced him his war time powers in Article II allowed him to begin the end of slavery in the areas that were still rebellious on 1 Jan 1863.


----------



## gipper

MHunterB said:


> Thomas DiLorenzo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> See also: Lincoln Unmasked and The Real Lincoln
> 
> DiLorenzo has devoted much effort to historical revisionism, focusing on what he has been called "the myth of Lincoln" as a political and historical phenomenon. He said, "Lincoln is on record time after time rejecting the idea of racial equality. But whenever anyone brings this up, the Lincoln partisans go to the extreme to smear the bearer of bad news." [5] In the same vein, DiLorenzo has spoken out in favor of the secession of the Confederate States of America, defending the right of these states to secede in a view similar to that of abolitionist Lysander Spooner.[6] He has also criticized the crediting of the New Deal for ending the Great Depression.[7]
> 
> In 2002, DiLorenzo debated Harry V. Jaffa on the merits of Abraham Lincoln's statesmanship prior to and during the civil war.
> 
> DiLorenzo is a frequent speaker at von Mises Institute events, and offers several online courses on political subjects on the Mises Academy platform.[3]
> 
> *He was formerly an affiliated lecturer of the League of the South Institute, the research arm of the pro-secession League of the South[8] He has denied any lasting affiliation, noting that he only gave a few lectures there shortly after its founding.[9][10]*
> 
> *The Southern Poverty Law Center considers DiLorenzo one of the most important intellectuals "who form the core of the modern neo-Confederate movement*." They believe DiLorenzo's depiction of president Abraham Lincoln paints Lincoln as a "paragon of wickedness, a man secretly intent on destroying states' rights and building a massive federal government."[11]
> 
> 
> Uh-Huh. 'Nuff Said.



Yeah sure....You might try reading his books rather than believing the propaganda from Wikipedia.  

His books are extensively documented.  He uses Lincoln's own words and actions (which clearly expose Lincoln for the tyrant he was and yet you and others apparently are incapable of thinking for yourselves) to back his conclusions...unlike the Lincoln sycophants who chose to believe lies promoted by the big government establishment.  

And....and....and.....DiLorenzo is NOT the only historian who disputes the Lincoln myth you and others foolishly accept.  There are many.  

H.L. Mencken on Dishonesty Abe's absurdly stupid Gettysburg Address once wrote, *"The Union soldiers in the battle [of Gettysburg] actually fought against self determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves."*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc, reading history is good for the soul if you read it objectively.

Yes, Lincoln was anti-slavery before 1862, but he was not developing into an abolitionist before the summer of 1862.

AL told the departed states that they could return to Union voluntarily and maintain their slaves.  That changed by the summer of 1862 when Lincoln realized that South would have to be conquered and in order to do that, the abolition of slavery was morally and militarily necessary.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc, reading history is good for the soul if you read it objectively.
> 
> *Yes, Lincoln was anti-slavery before 1862,* but he was not developing into an abolitionist before the summer of 1862.
> 
> AL told the departed states that they could return to Union voluntarily and maintain their slaves.  That changed by the summer of 1862 when Lincoln realized that South would have to be conquered and in order to do that, the abolition of slavery was morally and militarily necessary.



Thank you


----------



## JakeStarkey

Antil-slavery and abolitionism were not the same thing, and they were not differences of degree rather than kind.



Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc, reading history is good for the soul if you read it objectively.
> 
> *Yes, Lincoln was anti-slavery before 1862,* but he was not developing into an abolitionist before the summer of 1862.
> 
> AL told the departed states that they could return to Union voluntarily and maintain their slaves.  That changed by the summer of 1862 when Lincoln realized that South would have to be conquered and in order to do that, the abolition of slavery was morally and militarily necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you
Click to expand...


----------



## oldfart

gipper said:


> It is easy for those of us capable of reason, that this statement clearly reveals his intentions to commit war upon fellow Americans, should they refuse the national authority of collecting tariffs.



So the South fught the Civil War to prevent the federal government from collecting tariffs???  That might have been true when Andy Jackson threatened to march the army to South Carolina in1832 and hang all the traitors, led by his former Vice resident John C Calhoun.     On May 1, 1833, Jackson wrote, "the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."  [Correspondence of Andrew Jackson, Vol. V, p. 72.]


----------



## JakeStarkey

Tariffs were not a major reason for the Civil War.


----------



## gipper

oldfart said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy for those of us capable of reason, that this statement clearly reveals his intentions to commit war upon fellow Americans, should they refuse the national authority of collecting tariffs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the South fught the Civil War to prevent the federal government from collecting tariffs???  That might have been true when Andy Jackson threatened to march the army to South Carolina in1832 and hang all the traitors, led by his former Vice resident John C Calhoun.     On May 1, 1833, Jackson wrote, "the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."  [Correspondence of Andrew Jackson, Vol. V, p. 72.]
Click to expand...


You failed to read or comprehend Dishonest Abe's inaugural address.  He clearly states he will pursue military action against any state that fails to do what the national authority demands.  Those who think tariffs were not behind Lincoln's aggressive military actions against fellow Americans, thus committing treason, are not thinking.


----------



## Wry Catcher

oldfart said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy for those of us capable of reason, that this statement clearly reveals his intentions to commit war upon fellow Americans, should they refuse the national authority of collecting tariffs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the South fught the Civil War to prevent the federal government from collecting tariffs???  That might have been true when Andy Jackson threatened to march the army to South Carolina in1832 and hang all the traitors, led by his former Vice resident John C Calhoun.     On May 1, 1833, Jackson wrote, "the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."  [Correspondence of Andrew Jackson, Vol. V, p. 72.]
Click to expand...


Jon Meacham's, "American Lion" is well worth reading for those who want (i.e. those not willfully ignorant) to understand our divisive political history.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lincoln said the South must (1) recognize federal authority, (2) accept constitutional and electoral process, and (3) no slavery in the territories.

If you can get tariffs under (1), then, oK, but tariffs were a very minor issue.



gipper said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy for those of us capable of reason, that this statement clearly reveals his intentions to commit war upon fellow Americans, should they refuse the national authority of collecting tariffs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the South fught the Civil War to prevent the federal government from collecting tariffs???  That might have been true when Andy Jackson threatened to march the army to South Carolina in1832 and hang all the traitors, led by his former Vice resident John C Calhoun.     On May 1, 1833, Jackson wrote, "the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."  [Correspondence of Andrew Jackson, Vol. V, p. 72.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You failed to read or comprehend Dishonest Abe's inaugural address.  He clearly states he will pursue military action against any state that fails to do what the national authority demands.  Those who think tariffs were not behind Lincoln's aggressive military actions against fellow Americans, thus committing treason, are not thinking.
Click to expand...


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

NYcarbineer said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Lincolns Greatest Failure​*(*Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)*
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> 
> "Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."
> 
> ~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007
> 
> *The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction*, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincolns White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).
> 
> In fact, as Bennett shows,* it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years.* The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielbergs Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarists Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Ron Paul feel the same way about the American Revolution??
Click to expand...


What does the Revolutionary War have to do with the Civil War?  They are two totally separate and distinct wars that had nothing to do with one another.


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> Lincoln said the South must (1) recognize federal authority, (2) accept constitutional and electoral process, and (3) no slavery in the territories.
> 
> If you can get tariffs under (1), then, oK, but tariffs were a very minor issue.
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the South fught the Civil War to prevent the federal government from collecting tariffs???  That might have been true when Andy Jackson threatened to march the army to South Carolina in1832 and hang all the traitors, led by his former Vice resident John C Calhoun.     On May 1, 1833, Jackson wrote, "the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."  [Correspondence of Andrew Jackson, Vol. V, p. 72.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to read or comprehend Dishonest Abe's inaugural address.  He clearly states he will pursue military action against any state that fails to do what the national authority demands.  Those who think tariffs were not behind Lincoln's aggressive military actions against fellow Americans, thus committing treason, are not thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You admit that Dishonest Abe demanded the South recognize Federal authority....but somehow miss the point.

Lincoln clearly states, in his first inaugural address, as POTUS that he has the right, if necessary, to use military FORCE to impose upon any state the will of the national authority.  He fully believed he could kill Americans to impose the will of the national authority....and did just that.  I think we can agree on that....

Now, what was the national authority (aka Dishonest Abe/R Party) trying to impose on the southern states in 1860?  BINGO....TARIFFS!!!!!!!  This is the MAIN reason why the south chose to secede and why Lincoln chose treason by committing troops to murder fellow Americans.  

Dishonest Abe was our first Neocon/statist president.  He damaged our republic irreparably....then assholes like Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Bushs, Obama....made things much much worse.  But, it all stated with the lying cheating tyrant...Dishonest Abe.


----------



## rightwinger

Saw the movie last weekend

It shows Lincoln the politician. Selling patronage jobs to lame duck Democrats for their vote on the 13th amendment. Lying to Congress about ongoing negotiations with the south to end the war. Very few votes were obtained arguing the nobility of freeing the slaves

Good movie...shows Washington politics has not changed all that much


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am helping Gipper on some errors he is making.

No concrete evidence exists that tariffs were the administration's nefarious reasons for waging war against rebellious states.

Lincoln made quite clear that the "South must (1) recognize federal authority, (2) accept constitutional and electoral process, and (3) no slavery in the territories."  Tariffs were constitutional and fall within (1) above.

Yes, no doubt that the national government had the authority to force its will on rebellious states who failed to meet conditions 1 to 3 above.

Our first statis president was President Washington who permitted the first US national bank as well as the funding and assumption measures.

Gipper may not, any more than EB and others, pick and choose their favoritie cherries out of the historical fruit basket, and not be called out.


----------



## Big Black Dog

I've said it before, and I will say it again.  The biggest mistake this country ever made was bringing slaves into the country.  The second biggest mistake was to not ship them all back to where they came from once they were freed.


----------



## rightwinger

Big Black Dog said:


> I've said it before, and I will say it again.  The biggest mistake this country ever made was bringing slaves into the country.  The second biggest mistake was to not ship them all back to where they came from once they were freed.



God, that is stupid


----------



## Big Black Dog

rightwinger said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it before, and I will say it again.  The biggest mistake this country ever made was bringing slaves into the country.  The second biggest mistake was to not ship them all back to where they came from once they were freed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God, that is stupid
Click to expand...


Yeah - Like you're some sort of expert on intelligence.  Fuck off.


----------



## JakeStarkey

BBD, slavery and its effects are our burdern to carry to the end of our country's existence.


----------



## rightwinger

Big Black Dog said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it before, and I will say it again.  The biggest mistake this country ever made was bringing slaves into the country.  The second biggest mistake was to not ship them all back to where they came from once they were freed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God, that is stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah - Like you're some sort of expert on intelligence.  Fuck off.
Click to expand...


No, that is REALLY Stupid

Not as in that is a stupid idea, but the very act of posting puts your intellectual capability in serious doubt


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, that is stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - Like you're some sort of expert on intelligence.  Fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is REALLY Stupid
> 
> Not as in that is a stupid idea, but the very act of posting puts your intellectual capability in serious doubt
Click to expand...


It is a stupid idea.  But remember that Dishonest Abe wanted to do just that.  In fact, he met with generals in the oval office a couple days before his death trying to figure out a plan to deport all African Americans back to Africa.  He was a radical racist even for his time.  

Can you imagine the death and suffering blacks would have experienced being rounded up and shipped back to Africa in 1865?  That would have been a historical event so disgusting and unbelievable....like something out of Stalin's USSR or Mao's China...and yet the fool intended to do just that.  

One might conclude that John Wilkes Booth was a hero in saving millions of African Americans from certain death.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"deport all" blacks "back to Africa" was not even in the slightest considered by AL.

He and his generals were faced what to do with more than 3 million slaves, and some of the ideas were to send willing volunteers to Haiti and Central America, not all of them, not one of them unwilling.

Gipper is guilty of falsying history and of present-ism the sort we find at SnoreFront and Devil Like Productions.

For shame.


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> "deport all" blacks "back to Africa" was not even in the slightest considered by AL.
> 
> He and his generals were faced what to do with more than 3 million slaves, and some of the ideas were to send willing volunteers to Haiti and Central America, not all of them, not one of them unwilling.
> 
> Gipper is guilty of falsying history and of present-ism the sort we find at SnoreFront and Devil Like Productions.
> 
> For shame.



Wrong again.  Why do you persist with posting lies and distortions?  A simple Google search proves you wrong.  Now will you chose to educate yourself or stay ignorant?



> Perhaps no one has described it better than black author Lenore Bennett, Jr. No conservative nor friend of the Confederacy, Bennett wrote in his massive chronicle Forced Into Glory, Abraham Lincoln&#8217;s White Dream:
> 
> *What Lincoln proposed officially and publicly was that the United States government buy the slaves and deport them to Africa or South America. This was not a passing whim. In five major policy declarations, including two State of the Union addresses and the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, the sixteenth president of the United States publicly and officially called for the deportation of blacks. On countless other occasions, in conferences with cronies, Democratic and Republican leaders, and high government officials, he called for colonization of blacks or aggressively promoted colonization by private and official acts.*
> 
> Lincoln&#8217;s own words, and those of his colleagues, left abundant evidence of his views. Following are a few of the many examples.
> 
> "Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage in a body."
> 
> ~ Lincoln, 1857
> 
> "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such degrees, as the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be . . . filled up by free white laborers."
> 
> ~ Lincoln, February 27, 1860, New York City
> 
> "But if gradual emancipation and deportation be adopted, they will have neither to flee from . . . till new homes can be found for them, in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race."
> 
> ~ Lincoln&#8217;s 1862 State of the Union Address
> 
> "(It) might well be well to consider, too, whether the free colored people already in the United States could not, so far as individuals may desire, be included in such colonization."
> 
> ~ Lincoln&#8217;s 1862 State of the Union Address,
> regarding already-free blacks and the American Colonization Society
> 
> He asked Congress to pass a constitutional amendment:
> 
> "colonizing free colored persons, with their own consent, at any place or places without the United States."
> 
> What if Congress refused to grant Lincoln&#8217;s desire for this sprawling, whites-only enclave, which included states and western territories alike?
> 
> "We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best, hope of earth."
> 
> "Almost from the commencement of this administration, the subject of deporting the colored race has been discussed . . . As early as May 1861, a great pressure was made upon me to enter into a coal contract with (a) company. The President was in earnest in the matter, wished to send the Negroes out of the country."
> 
> ~ Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles
> 
> "(President Lincoln) zealously and persistently devised schemes for the deportation of the Negroes, which the latter deemed cruel and atrocious in the extreme . . . "
> 
> ~ Close friend and Federal Marshal Ward Hill Lamon
> 
> Until Americans &#8211; especially conservatives and Christians &#8211; begin to appreciate how misguided was Lincoln in so many ways, how many lives his actions destroyed or ruined, and how unlike conservative and Christian principles were those actions, we will be frustrated in our efforts to elect wise statesmen to lead us, and to support and require statesmanlike conduct from them.Misconceptions About Lincoln by John J. Dwyer


Abraham Lincoln 'wanted to deport slaves' to new colonies - Telegraph
Book: Lincoln sought to deport freed slaves - Washington Times
Abraham Lincoln 'tried to deport slaves' to British colonies | Mail Online
The Great Emancipator Abraham Lincoln and the Issue of Race
Abraham Lincoln wanted to deport slaves to British colonies, reveals book - Lifestyle - DNA
Lincoln &#8216;tried to deport slaves&#8217; -- NationNews Barbados -- Local, Regional and International News -- nationnews.com


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bennett makes the assertion of ALL slaves would be shipped without conclusive supporting documents to prove the assertion.  (I notice you have gone from all African Americans to all slaves)

Gipper repeats the assertion without having checked the documents

At the same time, the President was considering the franchise for black veterans and educated blacks.

Gipper truly does not understand what the President was doing, and Bennett has deliberately skewed the facts to an untenable conclusion.


----------



## thanatos144

Oh God another neo confederate hate Lincoln thread......Dont any of you ever get sick of trying to hide the fact that slavery was a reality back then?


----------



## JakeStarkey

It is really a "we hate statism and presidents who use statist programs for either good or bad", because the 'anti-statists' want to curb federal power.


----------



## regent

The number one priority with Lincoln was the preservation of the Union, the rest, such as slavery which he was against took second place. Lincoln's reaction to the Ghost Amendment seems evidence that the Union came first.


----------



## thanatos144

regent said:


> The number one priority with Lincoln was the preservation of the Union, the rest, such as slavery which he was against took second place. Lincoln's reaction to the Ghost Amendment seems evidence that the Union came first.



You see that as a bad thing?


----------



## gipper

thanatos144 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number one priority with Lincoln was the preservation of the Union, the rest, such as slavery which he was against took second place. Lincoln's reaction to the Ghost Amendment seems evidence that the Union came first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see that as a bad thing?
Click to expand...


The TRUTH is sometimes hard for some people to accept.  Generally I think it is due to ignorance.  But it might be that truth is whatever some people want it to be and facts be damned.


----------



## regent

thanatos144 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number one priority with Lincoln was the preservation of the Union, the rest, such as slavery which he was against took second place. Lincoln's reaction to the Ghost Amendment seems evidence that the Union came first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see that as a bad thing?
Click to expand...


The way I see it is immaterial, it is how did Lincon saw it.


----------



## thanatos144

regent said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number one priority with Lincoln was the preservation of the Union, the rest, such as slavery which he was against took second place. Lincoln's reaction to the Ghost Amendment seems evidence that the Union came first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see that as a bad thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way I see it is immaterial, it is how did Lincon saw it.
Click to expand...


Yes he was presidential.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Without Lincoln, warfare between and among the states would have occurred for decades.  Texas would have created its own nation, as would the territories of Utah and New Mexico, and the Pacific Coast states.  They would have warred until one super-national state arose.  The end would be the same: the United States of America.  The cost would have been much higher.


----------



## zakdavis

gipper said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy for those of us capable of reason, that this statement clearly reveals his intentions to commit war upon fellow Americans, should they refuse the national authority of collecting tariffs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psha, the Feds were doing that in 1791.
> 
> On the movie note, I'll wait until it's in the dollar theatre.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Friends

"Cornerstone Speech," by Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander H. Stephens, given March 21, 1861, at Savannah, Georgia

 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...

Our new government is founded 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.  
Cornerstone Speech by Alexander H. Stephens


----------



## Friends

Prior to and during the presidential campaign of 1860 Abraham Lincoln spoke of what he called "a second Dredd Scott Decision." 

This would have been a decision by the Supreme Court finding laws against slavery in the free states to be unconstitutional. 

Lincoln did not campaign on a promise to free the slaves. He did campaign on a promise to restrict slavery to the states where it was legal. This promise united two very different constituencies. Abolitionists wanted to free the slaves where slavery existed. They thought Lincoln was the best man they could vote for, considering the political consensus. Then there were those who wanted to keep slavery out of their states and the territories because they wanted to keep blacks out of those areas.

During the 1860 election Lincoln won 39.65% of the vote. 

403 Forbidden

In a two way election that is considered to be losing by a landslide. Four men ran for president in 1860. The other three were more supportive of slavery than Lincoln. 

If the slave owners in the South had had more sense they would have realized that even if Lincoln wanted to free their slaves he lacked both the mandate, and the popular support to do so. There would have been no secession. 

Also, during the nineteenth century the American South produced the best  cotton and tobacco at the lowest prices. This was true whether the cotton and tobacco was grown by slaves or share croppers. 

Another factor to consider is that as many as ninety five percent of white men in the South did not own slaves. Farmers without slaves had difficulty competing with plantation owners who owned slaves. Non slave owning whites in the South usually earned less than their skills would have earned for them in the North. European immigrants usually moved to the free states because there were better economic opportunities there. 

On top of that, men who owned at least 20 slaves were draft exempt from the Confederate military. The Confederacy really was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.


----------



## Friends

The Civil War was forced on President Lincoln by slave owners defending an institution whose existence made a mockery of America's most cherished value, which has always been freedom. 

If Lincoln had not preserved the Union, there would probably be more than two countries between Canada and Mexico. The disunited states would not have been able to advance the causes of freedom and democracy during the twentieth century. 

Because Lincoln was able to preserve the Union, the United States went on to become the strongest and richest country in the world.


----------



## jrdlf

I liked the movie


----------



## JakeStarkey

The movie was superb.


----------



## HUGGY

Contumacious said:


> *Lincolns Greatest Failure​*(*Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)*
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> 
> "Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."
> 
> ~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007
> 
> *The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction*, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincolns White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).
> 
> In fact, as Bennett shows,* it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years.* The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielbergs Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarists Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").
> 
> .



A Speilberg movie that isn't 100% factual and true?  I'm shocked !!!!  

I thought he pretty much nailed it with E. T..


----------



## JakeStarkey

The revisionists, clearly out of context, mistakenly conflate Lincoln's awareness that slavery must end with Lincoln being an abolitionist.  Lincoln's massive contributions to the 13th Amendment are indeed documented, are not in question.  He supported the amendment to crush the divisive slave power that cursed America for more than two centuries.

Lincoln is a study of evolving over the decades on an issue that would nearly destroy the Union.

Oh, and the Radicals never led Lincoln.  Quite to the contrary, he led them wherever he wanted, which drove Sumner, Wilson, and other nuts.


----------



## Katzndogz

Lincoln was far from an abolitionist.  His intention was to repatriate blacks back to Africa.   He would never have ended slavery in this country but it was the method he chose to punish the south for secession.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lincoln was not an abolitionist but was dedicated to ending the slave power.  You can't repatriate Americans who were born here, and the international slave trade had ended more than fifty years before.  External colonization was one of several ideas floated by him and others.  The concept involved moving a small minority.  The means to move any more than that did not exist, and all knew it.


----------



## CMike

It was fought to keep the union together.


----------



## zakdavis

JakeStarkey said:


> Lincoln was not an abolitionist but was dedicated to ending the slave power.  You can't repatriate Americans who were born here, and the international slave trade had ended more than fifty years before.  External colonization was one of several ideas floated by him and others.  The concept involved moving a small minority.  The means to move any more than that did not exist, and all knew it.



Liberia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This wasn't a new idea.....


----------



## JakeStarkey

Zak, I did not say it began with him.  I said, "External colonization was one of several ideas floated by him and others."


----------



## zakdavis

JakeStarkey said:


> Zak, I did not say it began with him.  I said, "External colonization was one of several ideas floated by him and others."



Quoting you so I could keep my place.


----------



## rightwinger

A house divided against itself cannot stand, this nation cannot endure half slave and half free.....Abe Lincoln


----------



## JakeStarkey

Because AL was not a RR abolitionist does not lessen that he was anti-slavery with only Union more important than that.  In the end, AL was able to to preserve the one by elimination of the other.


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> Because AL was not a RR abolitionist does not lessen that he was anti-slavery with only Union more important than that.  In the end, AL was able to to preserve the one by elimination of the other.



Yeah he preserved the Union by committing treason by warring on fellow Americans resulting in the deaths of 800,000, unbelievable suffering, and destruction of nearly all the southern states.  Leading to decades of terrible racism and injustice in the South lead by the D Party.  To say nothing of his trashing the Constitution and centralizing power in DC.

Now that is a job well done...

The Lincoln Myth persists....AMAZING!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Gipper, the South committed treason, and the Old South was executed for it.

Revisionism is acceptable as long as it stays within the narrative suggested by the facts.  You have not done that.


----------



## thanatos144

Lincoln whooped the south ass ended slavery and saved the union....Get the fuck over it already you whining fucking neoconfederats!


----------



## Pinocchio

Lincoln wanted to stop the spread of slavery into the territories and leave slavery in the existing slave states.  If the South had seceded, I think there would have been more wars over the territories.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Wars would have extended throughout North America because of it, from Mexico and the Caribbean to Canada.


----------



## Pinocchio

JakeStarkey said:


> Wars would have extended throughout North America because of it, from Mexico and the Caribbean to Canada.



Interesting, I hadn't thought about that but you're probably right.

America in general was expansionist back then.  Being agricultural, the South was always looking for more land.  We later had the Spanish-American war at the end of the 19th century.  Some of the American influence on the island cultures was Southern.

Here is an interesting facet of history i didn't know about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partido_Independiente_de_Color


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> Wars would have extended throughout North America because of it, from Mexico and the Caribbean to Canada.



Yeah sure....yet somehow the entire western world, including the huge British empire, eliminated slavery without bloodshed....strange???

The Lincoln Myth is strong among the feeble minded.


----------



## thanatos144

gipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars would have extended throughout North America because of it, from Mexico and the Caribbean to Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah sure....yet somehow the entire western world, including the huge British empire, eliminated slavery without bloodshed....strange???
> 
> The Lincoln Myth is strong among the feeble minded.
Click to expand...


Then the confederates states shouldnt have started a war....


----------



## JakeStarkey

You make no sense as usual.  With the eastern and central portions of the country split in two, the western portion of the continent was up for grabs.

Your hatred of Lincoln is biased and unfounded.



gipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars would have extended throughout North America because of it, from Mexico and the Caribbean to Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah sure....yet somehow the entire western world, including the huge British empire, eliminated slavery without bloodshed....strange???
> 
> The Lincoln Myth is strong among the feeble minded.
Click to expand...


----------



## Cecilie1200

ShootSpeeders said:


> One of the biggest lies in history is the idea that the CW was fought to free the slaves.  How can that possibly be true when there were 4 northern states that allowed slavery during the entire war and when  General US Grant was a slave owner during the  war and so to Lincoln's second vice president Andrew Johnson.?



I hate to break it to the Lincoln worshippers, but the biggest reason he went to war was his own legacy.  He didn't want the power of his office reduced, and he SURE as Hell didn't want to be the President under whom the Union split apart.  In service of his own place in history, he chose instead to suppress what were largely accepted to be the Constitutional rights of the states - to exit the federal contract - and plunge the nation into a long, ugly war of suppression.

Oh, and then he dressed it up in the clothing of "emancipation", in order to make it look noble and to keep his own soldiers from deserting and going home.


----------



## Cecilie1200

DiamondDave said:


> $10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution



Oh, yeah, like anyone in Hollywood understands or gives a damn about the Constitution.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BlindBoo said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> $10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Article in the Constitution gives any State the right to leave the Union?
Click to expand...


You HAVE read the Bill of Rights, yes?  The 9th and 10th Amendments?  Of course you have, otherwise you wouldn't have so-carefully restricted your question ONLY to the "Articles of the Constitution", in an attempt to pretend that ONLY the Articles of the Constitution apply.  Nice try.

Since the Articles of the Constitution exist to describe the rights and responsibilities of the federal government, not the states or the people, perhaps YOU can tell us where in the Articles of the Constitution the federal government is given the right of forcible coercion against states to keep them in the Union.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The crazies, fraught with follies of fact and saddled with poor syntax and diction, do not comprehend the Constitution, Lincoln and his personality, and narrative of our wonderful country.  They spew only 'tin hat' foolishness.


----------



## regent

Cecilie1200 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> $10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Article in the Constitution gives any State the right to leave the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You HAVE read the Bill of Rights, yes?  The 9th and 10th Amendments?  Of course you have, otherwise you wouldn't have so-carefully restricted your question ONLY to the "Articles of the Constitution", in an attempt to pretend that ONLY the Articles of the Constitution apply.  Nice try.
> 
> Since the Articles of the Constitution exist to describe the rights and responsibilities of the federal government, not the states or the people, perhaps YOU can tell us where in the Articles of the Constitution the federal government is given the right of forcible coercion against states to keep them in the Union.
Click to expand...


Since the Civil War the secession question is academic, a state cannot secede unless it has the power to do so. The questions of secession or nullification are long dead. The executive and the judicial have both rejected the concepts.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And the North and the West murdered the Old South.  It and its doctrines of treason and secession will never be treated with any other reaction than laughter.


----------



## MaryL

They also had a movie out about Lincoln slaying zombies or somesuch. Silly.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Not if one is a vampire.


----------



## Pinocchio

gipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars would have extended throughout North America because of it, from Mexico and the Caribbean to Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah sure....yet somehow the entire western world, including the huge British empire, eliminated slavery without bloodshed....strange???
> 
> The Lincoln Myth is strong among the feeble minded.
Click to expand...


With the exception of South Africa and Rhodesia.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Merry Christmas to all.

Unsubscribe.


----------



## thanatos144

Cecilie1200 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> $10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Article in the Constitution gives any State the right to leave the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You HAVE read the Bill of Rights, yes?  The 9th and 10th Amendments?  Of course you have, otherwise you wouldn't have so-carefully restricted your question ONLY to the "Articles of the Constitution", in an attempt to pretend that ONLY the Articles of the Constitution apply.  Nice try.
> 
> Since the Articles of the Constitution exist to describe the rights and responsibilities of the federal government, not the states or the people, perhaps YOU can tell us where in the Articles of the Constitution the federal government is given the right of forcible coercion against states to keep them in the Union.
Click to expand...

Does that mean said states have no fault when they start a war like the confederates did?


----------



## Thunderbird

Lincoln was clearly a dictator and white supremacist who prosecuted a brutal war against the principle of democracy.  If you believe in democracy you must agree that any sizable region (Ireland, the Ukraine, Slovakia, Quebec) has the right to secede if they so desire.  Anything else is tyranny.  I hate sentimental portraits of Lincoln - he was a crooked politician whose armies tortured suspected deserters and imposed a deadly blockade which killed many Southern civilians.

*Let's put myths to rest*

*The Mythical Lincoln*

It seems like the more Americans a president kills the higher up he ranks on the list of greatest presidents.


----------



## Cecilie1200

thanatos144 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Article in the Constitution gives any State the right to leave the Union?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You HAVE read the Bill of Rights, yes?  The 9th and 10th Amendments?  Of course you have, otherwise you wouldn't have so-carefully restricted your question ONLY to the "Articles of the Constitution", in an attempt to pretend that ONLY the Articles of the Constitution apply.  Nice try.
> 
> Since the Articles of the Constitution exist to describe the rights and responsibilities of the federal government, not the states or the people, perhaps YOU can tell us where in the Articles of the Constitution the federal government is given the right of forcible coercion against states to keep them in the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does that mean said states have no fault when they start a war like the confederates did?
Click to expand...


I'm afraid I have trouble seeing "fault" in exercising one's rights, or in seeing it as "starting a war" by doing so simply because someone ELSE decides they're going to forcibly stop you from exercising those rights.

Keep in mind that, although in this day and age people believe secession to have been "settled" by the War Between the States as "not a state's right", at that time it was believed by most people to be fully and correctly within the power of the states to do.  Our own Founding Fathers very much believed in the right of a people to withdraw themselves from a social and political contract they felt to be onerous, burdensome, and unfair to them.  They HAD to have believed it, because that's what they did themselves in the American Revolutionary War.

Justify all you like, but when Lincoln chose to use military force to subjugate the Southern states and retain them in the Union against their will, he believed he was violating their rights, and he didn't care, because he rationalized it as "for the greater good", just like you guys are doing now.  "Well, their reason for wanting to leave sucked, so it's okay that their rights were violated."  Does that mean that if you don't approve of the use I put my freedom of speech to, that makes it okay for the government to censor me?  Which other rights of individuals and states do you believe can be suppressed if the cause for which they're exercised doesn't meet with your approval?


----------



## gipper

thanatos144 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars would have extended throughout North America because of it, from Mexico and the Caribbean to Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah sure....yet somehow the entire western world, including the huge British empire, eliminated slavery without bloodshed....strange???
> 
> The Lincoln Myth is strong among the feeble minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the confederates states shouldnt have started a war....
Click to expand...


They didn't.  Your beloved Dishonest Abe did.  He then proceeded to cause the deaths of 800,000 Americans.  

Funny how he destroyed the South just to keep it in the Union.  How this could be considered admirable, I will never know.


----------



## gipper

Thunderbird said:


> Lincoln was clearly a dictator and white supremacist who prosecuted a brutal war against the principle of democracy.  If you believe in democracy you must agree that any sizable region (Ireland, the Ukraine, Slovakia, Quebec) has the right to secede if they so desire.  Anything else is tyranny.  I hate sentimental portraits of Lincoln - he was a crooked politician whose armies tortured suspected deserters and imposed a deadly blockade which killed many Southern civilians.
> 
> *Let's put myths to rest*
> 
> *The Mythical Lincoln*
> 
> It seems like the more Americans a president kills the higher up he ranks on the list of greatest presidents.



Yes it is amazing how so many Americans have been duped into believing the Lincoln myth promoted by the ruling elite.  The ruling elite have done much the same with the worthless lying fool FDR. No doubt they will do it with Obama too and many people will fall for the statist lies.


----------



## thanatos144

gipper said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah sure....yet somehow the entire western world, including the huge British empire, eliminated slavery without bloodshed....strange???
> 
> The Lincoln Myth is strong among the feeble minded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the confederates states shouldnt have started a war....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't.  Your beloved Dishonest Abe did.  He then proceeded to cause the deaths of 800,000 Americans.
> 
> Funny how he destroyed the South just to keep it in the Union.  How this could be considered admirable, I will never know.
Click to expand...


That odd seeing as it was the confederates who fired on a union fort.


----------



## thanatos144

Cecilie1200 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You HAVE read the Bill of Rights, yes?  The 9th and 10th Amendments?  Of course you have, otherwise you wouldn't have so-carefully restricted your question ONLY to the "Articles of the Constitution", in an attempt to pretend that ONLY the Articles of the Constitution apply.  Nice try.
> 
> Since the Articles of the Constitution exist to describe the rights and responsibilities of the federal government, not the states or the people, perhaps YOU can tell us where in the Articles of the Constitution the federal government is given the right of forcible coercion against states to keep them in the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean said states have no fault when they start a war like the confederates did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I have trouble seeing "fault" in exercising one's rights, or in seeing it as "starting a war" by doing so simply because someone ELSE decides they're going to forcibly stop you from exercising those rights.
> 
> Keep in mind that, although in this day and age people believe secession to have been "settled" by the War Between the States as "not a state's right", at that time it was believed by most people to be fully and correctly within the power of the states to do.  Our own Founding Fathers very much believed in the right of a people to withdraw themselves from a social and political contract they felt to be onerous, burdensome, and unfair to them.  They HAD to have believed it, because that's what they did themselves in the American Revolutionary War.
> 
> Justify all you like, but when Lincoln chose to use military force to subjugate the Southern states and retain them in the Union against their will, he believed he was violating their rights, and he didn't care, because he rationalized it as "for the greater good", just like you guys are doing now.  "Well, their reason for wanting to leave sucked, so it's okay that their rights were violated."  Does that mean that if you don't approve of the use I put my freedom of speech to, that makes it okay for the government to censor me?  Which other rights of individuals and states do you believe can be suppressed if the cause for which they're exercised doesn't meet with your approval?
Click to expand...


It is starting a war when you fire on a union base continuously. I know you would love it to be Lincoln being the bad guy but truth is he isnt. He was just the smarter and better guy.


----------



## Bfgrn

Contumacious said:


> *Lincolns Greatest Failure​*(*Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)*
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> 
> "Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."
> 
> ~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007
> 
> *The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction*, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincolns White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).
> 
> In fact, as Bennett shows,* it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years.* The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielbergs Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarists Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").
> 
> .



WOW, after reading DiLorenzo's piece, I guess the GOP really IS the party of Lincoln.


----------



## paperview

gipper said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah sure....yet somehow the entire western world, including the huge British empire, eliminated slavery without bloodshed....strange???
> 
> The Lincoln Myth is strong among the feeble minded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the confederates states shouldnt have started a war....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't.  Your beloved Dishonest Abe did.  He then proceeded to cause the deaths of 800,000 Americans.
> ...
Click to expand...

The southern rebels did.

They did months before Lincoln even stepped into office.





> Funny how he destroyed the South just to keep it in the Union.  How this could be considered admirable, I will never know.


You should be happy he did.  Had he not kept this Union together, you might not be here right now, spouting garbage.


----------



## gipper

paperview said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the confederates states shouldnt have started a war....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't.  Your beloved Dishonest Abe did.  He then proceeded to cause the deaths of 800,000 Americans.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The southern rebels did.
> 
> They did months before Lincoln even stepped into office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how he destroyed the South just to keep it in the Union.  How this could be considered admirable, I will never know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be happy he did.  Had he not kept this Union together, you might not be here right now, spouting garbage.
Click to expand...


Yeah Lincoln caused the deaths of 800,000 Americans so that we could enjoy freedom of speech.  Lets kill 'em so they can have free speech......... unbelievable.


----------



## Votto

Misty said:


> I knew Spielberg would bastardize poor Lincoln.



You have to understand, Lincoln is a progressive idol.  In the movie, you saw Lincoln violate law after law after law and then justifying it by saying that the ends justify the means.  This is progressive philosophy 101.  In essence, screw the law, just give me what I want and then screw you.

In short, the rule of law means nothing.  Might makes right.


----------



## rightwinger

Votto said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew Spielberg would bastardize poor Lincoln.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to understand, Lincoln is a progressive idol.  In the movie, you saw Lincoln violate law after law after law and then justifying it by saying that the ends justify the means.  This is progressive philosophy 101.  In essence, screw the law, just give me what I want and then screw you.
> 
> In short, the rule of law means nothing.  Might makes right.
Click to expand...


Shame really....Lincoln used to be a Republican idol

We'll take him 

Thank you kindly


----------



## Votto

rightwinger said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew Spielberg would bastardize poor Lincoln.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to understand, Lincoln is a progressive idol.  In the movie, you saw Lincoln violate law after law after law and then justifying it by saying that the ends justify the means.  This is progressive philosophy 101.  In essence, screw the law, just give me what I want and then screw you.
> 
> In short, the rule of law means nothing.  Might makes right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shame really....Lincoln used to be a Republican idol
> 
> We'll take him
> 
> Thank you kindly
Click to expand...


The GOP is full of progressives.  Just ask ilk like John McCan't.


----------



## rightwinger

Votto said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to understand, Lincoln is a progressive idol.  In the movie, you saw Lincoln violate law after law after law and then justifying it by saying that the ends justify the means.  This is progressive philosophy 101.  In essence, screw the law, just give me what I want and then screw you.
> 
> In short, the rule of law means nothing.  Might makes right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shame really....Lincoln used to be a Republican idol
> 
> We'll take him
> 
> Thank you kindly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP is full of progressives.  Just ask ilk like John McCan't.
Click to expand...


GOP, time to rebrand in the image of the 'Great Emancipator' - CNN.com

Steven Spielberg's historical drama, as well as the biography upon which it is based, Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," both remind today's Americans that Lincoln was not only a moral leader but also a practical politician. The political identity that Lincoln forged for the fledgling Republican Party -- uniting the nation while defending individual rights -- was a winning formula for half a century, with the GOP winning 11 of 13 presidential elections from 1860 through 1908.

Moreover, support for civil rights persisted in the party throughout the last century. Among the Republican presidents of the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt famously hosted Booker T. Washington at the White House. Dwight Eisenhower ordered federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce school desegregation. Richard Nixon expanded affirmative action. And George H. W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law.


----------



## Votto

rightwinger said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shame really....Lincoln used to be a Republican idol
> 
> We'll take him
> 
> Thank you kindly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is full of progressives.  Just ask ilk like John McCan't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOP, time to rebrand in the image of the 'Great Emancipator' - CNN.com
> 
> Steven Spielberg's historical drama, as well as the biography upon which it is based, Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," both remind today's Americans that Lincoln was not only a moral leader but also a practical politician. The political identity that Lincoln forged for the fledgling Republican Party -- uniting the nation while defending individual rights -- was a winning formula for half a century, with the GOP winning 11 of 13 presidential elections from 1860 through 1908.
> 
> Moreover, support for civil rights persisted in the party throughout the last century. Among the Republican presidents of the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt famously hosted Booker T. Washington at the White House. Dwight Eisenhower ordered federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce school desegregation. Richard Nixon expanded affirmative action. And George H. W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law.
Click to expand...


So Obama "united" the country by force and secured power for the GOP for years to come.  Was it worth over half a million dead?

The country is as divided now as it has ever been since the Civil War.  The only problem for progressives today is that they don't have the cloak of slavery to hide behind to enforce their fascist tendencies.


----------



## paperview

Wow.


----------



## Votto

paperview said:


> Wow.



Oh, I've only just begun to fight.

What these progressives need to do now is go "liberate" another oil rich third world country.


----------



## thanatos144

So who here wants the good old day in the confederate states where people owned people and wars are started cause said slave owners through a fit?


----------



## rightwinger

Votto said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is full of progressives.  Just ask ilk like John McCan't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP, time to rebrand in the image of the 'Great Emancipator' - CNN.com
> 
> Steven Spielberg's historical drama, as well as the biography upon which it is based, Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," both remind today's Americans that Lincoln was not only a moral leader but also a practical politician. The political identity that Lincoln forged for the fledgling Republican Party -- uniting the nation while defending individual rights -- was a winning formula for half a century, with the GOP winning 11 of 13 presidential elections from 1860 through 1908.
> 
> Moreover, support for civil rights persisted in the party throughout the last century. Among the Republican presidents of the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt famously hosted Booker T. Washington at the White House. Dwight Eisenhower ordered federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce school desegregation. Richard Nixon expanded affirmative action. And George H. W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Obama "united" the country by force and secured power for the GOP for years to come.  Was it worth over half a million dead?
> 
> The country is as divided now as it has ever been since the Civil War.  The only problem for progressives today is that they don't have the cloak of slavery to hide behind to enforce their fascist tendencies.
Click to expand...


You obviously missed out on the 60s

Read up on it sometime


----------



## deltex1

Abe wanted to send all blacks back to Africa...that would have devastated the NBA, but possibly kept Obabble where he belonged.  On the other hand had we waited for Whitney's cotton gin, technology could have obviated the necessity for war.


----------



## thanatos144

deltex1 said:


> Abe wanted to send all blacks back to Africa...that would have devastated the NBA, but possibly kept Obabble where he belonged.  On the other hand had we waited for Whitney's cotton gin, technology could have obviated the necessity for war.



Tell me why is it considered wrong to wish to send people back to the country from which they were stolen from???????? I think it was too expensive and so did they in the end.


----------



## paperview

deltex1 said:


> Abe wanted to send all blacks back to Africa...that would have devastated the NBA, but possibly kept Obabble where he belonged.  On the other hand had we waited for Whitney's cotton gin, technology could have obviated the necessity for war.


What the fuck?

First, the idea of Colonization originated with abolitionists, with even some of our founders in favor of it. Lincoln for the most part abandoned the idea after 1863.

And secondly...on the cotton gin: again...what the fuck?


----------



## rightwinger

deltex1 said:


> Abe wanted to send all blacks back to Africa...that would have devastated the NBA, but possibly kept Obabble where he belonged.  On the other hand had we waited for Whitney's cotton gin, technology could have obviated the necessity for war.



Abe looked into it and quickly found it unworkable

Obamas father came from Africa. Repatriating blacks would have made no difference

The Cotton Gin caused the war


----------



## Cecilie1200

thanatos144 said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abe wanted to send all blacks back to Africa...that would have devastated the NBA, but possibly kept Obabble where he belonged.  On the other hand had we waited for Whitney's cotton gin, technology could have obviated the necessity for war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why is it considered wrong to wish to send people back to the country from which they were stolen from???????? I think it was too expensive and so did they in the end.
Click to expand...


Actually, most of them just didn't want to go.

And they weren't "stolen" from anywhere.  Clue yourself into the REAL history of the slave trade.  The people who were brought here from Africa were slaves THERE, and were sold to the slave traders, not "stolen".  Furthermore, by the time of the War Between the States, the import of slaves had been illegalized, and the slaves in question were born in THIS country, which is one reason they didn't want to leave.


----------



## Zoom

Right wingers, when you think of slavery, do you say, ah, the good ol days?  You know, capitalism at its finest?


----------



## thanatos144

Cecilie1200 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abe wanted to send all blacks back to Africa...that would have devastated the NBA, but possibly kept Obabble where he belonged.  On the other hand had we waited for Whitney's cotton gin, technology could have obviated the necessity for war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why is it considered wrong to wish to send people back to the country from which they were stolen from???????? I think it was too expensive and so did they in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, most of them just didn't want to go.
> 
> And they weren't "stolen" from anywhere.  Clue yourself into the REAL history of the slave trade.  The people who were brought here from Africa were slaves THERE, and were sold to the slave traders, not "stolen".  Furthermore, by the time of the War Between the States, the import of slaves had been illegalized, and the slaves in question were born in THIS country, which is one reason they didn't want to leave.
Click to expand...

 I am sorry but I don't make excuses for slavers


----------



## thanatos144

Zoom said:


> Right wingers, when you think of slavery, do you say, ah, the good ol days?  You know, capitalism at its finest?



Why would they want to be democrats?


----------



## Mushroom

g5000 said:


> Wow.  That link is one of the most twisted gyrations of historical revisionism and logical fallacies I have seen in some time.
> 
> As if the South was ever going to end slavery peacefully.  Yeah, right.  I want what that dumb shit is smoking.



Not to mention that the quote from Ron Paul was wrong to begin with.

There is very little difference between "Revolution" and "Civil War", other then normally in a Revolution the rebels win, and in a Civil War, the status quo wins.

In the US, we had a Civil War, and slavery was abolished.

In Haiti, they had a Revolution (with over 120,000 dead), and slavery was abolished.

And the Americas were full of other slave rebellions, from Jamaica and Panama to Brazil and Cuba.  The only thing unique in the US Civil War was that a significant number of whites supported emancipation, and it was mostly whites fighting whites to decide the fate of slavery (instead of the slaves themselves taking up arms and slaughtering all the whites).

So yea, that claim was full of coprolite.


----------



## Mushroom

[/LIST]





Zoom said:


> Right wingers, when you think of slavery, do you say, ah, the good ol days?  You know, capitalism at its finest?



I always laugh when people make that statement.

Democrats were the party that split over slavery, with the majority of them supporting it and the Civil War.

Republicans were the party that was primarily founded on the principal of Emancipation.

Personally, slavery was a dying institution, that only had a decade or more to go at best I believe.  The Industrial Revolution was just swinging into high gear at the time of the Civil War, and would have shortly rendered slavery obsolete.

That is why the only places it really still survives is in those regions that have little industrialization, and everything is still largely done by hand.  In industrialized nations, it is cheaper and easier to build a machine to do it then it is to buy and take care of a human being.


----------



## Cecilie1200

thanatos144 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why is it considered wrong to wish to send people back to the country from which they were stolen from???????? I think it was too expensive and so did they in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, most of them just didn't want to go.
> 
> And they weren't "stolen" from anywhere.  Clue yourself into the REAL history of the slave trade.  The people who were brought here from Africa were slaves THERE, and were sold to the slave traders, not "stolen".  Furthermore, by the time of the War Between the States, the import of slaves had been illegalized, and the slaves in question were born in THIS country, which is one reason they didn't want to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sorry but I don't make excuses for slavers
Click to expand...


So now being truthful and accurate is "making excuses"?


----------



## Thunderbird

rightwinger said:


> Abe looked into it and quickly found it unworkable





paperview said:


> Lincoln for the most part abandoned the idea after 1863.


You are both wrong.  Lincoln was long devoted to colonization schemes.  

Check this out: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Colonization-After-Emancipation-Movement-Resettlement/dp/0826219098"]*Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement *[/ame]

Here's a quote about Lincoln and colonization: Using long-forgotten records scattered across three continents&#8212;many of them untouched since the Civil War&#8212;the authors show that Lincoln continued his search for a freedmen&#8217;s colony much longer than previously thought.

No doubt Lincoln was a white supremacist.  Here's a quote from Lincoln: "I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."

LINK


----------



## Sallow

Contumacious said:


> *Lincolns Greatest Failure​*(*Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)*
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> 
> "Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."
> 
> ~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007
> 
> *The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction*, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincolns White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).
> 
> In fact, as Bennett shows,* it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years.* The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielbergs Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarists Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").
> 
> .



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEC68vTQwP8]Ron Paul&#39;s Neo-Confederate "South Was Right" Civil War Speech With Confederate Flag - YouTube[/ame]

Ron Paul's a fucking racist.


----------



## Sallow

Thunderbird said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abe looked into it and quickly found it unworkable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln for the most part abandoned the idea after 1863.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are both wrong.  Lincoln was long devoted to colonization schemes.
> 
> Check this out: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Colonization-After-Emancipation-Movement-Resettlement/dp/0826219098"]*Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement *[/ame]
> 
> Here's a quote about Lincoln and colonization: Using long-forgotten records scattered across three continentsmany of them untouched since the Civil Warthe authors show that Lincoln continued his search for a freedmens colony much longer than previously thought.
> 
> *No doubt Lincoln was a white supremacist.*  Here's a quote from Lincoln: "I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."
> 
> LINK
Click to expand...


No..he wasn't.


----------



## Sallow

Cecilie1200 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, most of them just didn't want to go.
> 
> And they weren't "stolen" from anywhere.  Clue yourself into the REAL history of the slave trade.  The people who were brought here from Africa were slaves THERE, and were sold to the slave traders, not "stolen".  Furthermore, by the time of the War Between the States, the import of slaves had been illegalized, and the slaves in question were born in THIS country, which is one reason they didn't want to leave.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry but I don't make excuses for slavers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now being truthful and accurate is "making excuses"?
Click to expand...


Basically..what you seek to do is exonerate the slave trade by conflating a really small and insignificant part of the history.


----------



## paperview

Thunderbird said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abe looked into it and quickly found it unworkable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln for the most part abandoned the idea after 1863.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are both wrong.  Lincoln was long devoted to colonization schemes.
> 
> Check this out: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Colonization-After-Emancipation-Movement-Resettlement/dp/0826219098"]*Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement *[/ame]
> 
> Here's a quote about Lincoln and colonization: Using long-forgotten records scattered across three continents&#8212;many of them untouched since the Civil War&#8212;the authors show that Lincoln continued his search for a freedmen&#8217;s colony much longer than previously thought.
Click to expand...

Thank you.  This is based on new documents, and I may consider purchasing the book.  The reviews make it worthy.

That said, Lincoln all along had not been in favor of * involuntary* colonization.  Always the pragmatic, he did know the freeing of some 4 million bondsmen would create bitter and terrifying new worlds for both blacks and whites. What of states like Mississippi, where there were more slaves than free men, now suddenly free?

 Angry slaveholders, deprived of their property, scared penniless blacks with broken families and dim prospects (and we saw after they _had_ been freed, attempts and actual measures which effectively re-enslaved them were employed by some of the Southern states) was of major concern in maintaining the peace.  The option to live in the West Indies might have sounded a great deal better than what else they may have faced (and indeed, what they in fact did come to face...)

So I don't see it as a slight on Lincoln as his detractors do, or that it was conceived with malicious intent, nor is it inconsistent with his beliefs that slavery was morally wrong.

I look forward to learning more about these newly discovered documents.


----------



## JakeStarkey

By 1860, almost every slave had born in America.  They had not been stolen from anywhere.  Your statement is not realistic.



thanatos144 said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abe wanted to send all blacks back to Africa...that would have devastated the NBA, but possibly kept Obabble where he belonged.  On the other hand had we waited for Whitney's cotton gin, technology could have obviated the necessity for war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why is it considered wrong to wish to send people back to the country from which they were stolen from???????? I think it was too expensive and so did they in the end.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

The GOP was founded on white economic opportunity first, last, always.

It was anti-slavery, not abolitionist, because the slave power threatened white civil rights and white economic opportunity.



Mushroom said:


> [/LIST]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right wingers, when you think of slavery, do you say, ah, the good ol days?  You know, capitalism at its finest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always laugh when people make that statement.
> 
> Democrats were the party that split over slavery, with the majority of them supporting it and the Civil War.
> 
> Republicans were the party that was primarily founded on the principal of Emancipation.
> 
> Personally, slavery was a dying institution, that only had a decade or more to go at best I believe.  The Industrial Revolution was just swinging into high gear at the time of the Civil War, and would have shortly rendered slavery obsolete.
> 
> That is why the only places it really still survives is in those regions that have little industrialization, and everything is still largely done by hand.  In industrialized nations, it is cheaper and easier to build a machine to do it then it is to buy and take care of a human being.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Answered above in #249.



Thunderbird said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abe looked into it and quickly found it unworkable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln for the most part abandoned the idea after 1863.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are both wrong.  Lincoln was long devoted to colonization schemes.
> 
> Check this out: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Colonization-After-Emancipation-Movement-Resettlement/dp/0826219098"]*Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement *[/ame]
> 
> Here's a quote about Lincoln and colonization: Using long-forgotten records scattered across three continentsmany of them untouched since the Civil Warthe authors show that Lincoln continued his search for a freedmens colony much longer than previously thought.
> 
> No doubt Lincoln was a white supremacist.  Here's a quote from Lincoln: "I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."
> 
> LINK
Click to expand...


----------



## jillian

JakeStarkey said:


> The GOP was founded on white economic opportunity first, last, always.
> 
> It was anti-slavery, not abolitionist, because the slave power threatened white civil rights and white economic opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/LIST]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right wingers, when you think of slavery, do you say, ah, the good ol days?  You know, capitalism at its finest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always laugh when people make that statement.
> 
> Democrats were the party that split over slavery, with the majority of them supporting it and the Civil War.
> 
> Republicans were the party that was primarily founded on the principal of Emancipation.
> 
> Personally, slavery was a dying institution, that only had a decade or more to go at best I believe.  The Industrial Revolution was just swinging into high gear at the time of the Civil War, and would have shortly rendered slavery obsolete.
> 
> That is why the only places it really still survives is in those regions that have little industrialization, and everything is still largely done by hand.  In industrialized nations, it is cheaper and easier to build a machine to do it then it is to buy and take care of a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


the republican party of the 1800's is not the republican party of today. the democrats of that time, the slavers, the states' rights extremists... the people who fought to keep slavery are all incorporated into today's GOP... they ran to the GOP after the civil rights' act.

as for the GOP being founded on white economic opportunity, jake, i don't think that's correct either. i think there were different people who wanted similar things for different reasons.

but it was fun to watch congress being the same unruly idiots they are today. 

it's also fun to see the cons try to revise history in regards to lincoln. they can't stand that he's universally looked at as one of our greatest presidents.... well, except for people who still think there should be slavery and that the states should be able to tell the federal government what to do.


----------



## rightwinger

Thunderbird said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abe looked into it and quickly found it unworkable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln for the most part abandoned the idea after 1863.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are both wrong.  Lincoln was long devoted to colonization schemes.
> 
> Check this out: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Colonization-After-Emancipation-Movement-Resettlement/dp/0826219098"]*Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement *[/ame]
> 
> Here's a quote about Lincoln and colonization: Using long-forgotten records scattered across three continents&#8212;many of them untouched since the Civil War&#8212;the authors show that Lincoln continued his search for a freedmen&#8217;s colony much longer than previously thought.
> 
> No doubt Lincoln was a white supremacist.  Here's a quote from Lincoln: "I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."
> 
> LINK
Click to expand...


Looking at 19th century morals through a 21st century set of eyes is always easy

Did many Americans in 1860 believe negros were their social and intellectual equals? Very few did.
Did that mean they deserved to be slaves?  That was the big question

Hell, it was the 1960s until we believed blacks and whites should be allowed to marry

Lincoln put it best in that his core belief was that a man toiling in a field all day deserved the fruit of his labor


----------



## Thunderbird

jillian said:


> the republican party of the 1800's is not the republican party of today. the democrats of that time, the slavers, the states' rights extremists...


Don't be a partisan stooge.  The Democratic elite eagerly embraces corporate tyranny.

And anyone involved in the global economy - Republican or Democrat - benefits from slavery.  We shouldn't feel at all superior.

*Modern Slavery*

*Christians Fight Modern Slavery in Pakistan*

*Slavery Footprint*



> it's also fun to see the cons try to revise history in regards to lincoln. they can't stand that he's universally looked at as one of our greatest presidents....


The Civil War, which killed 100s of thousands, could have been avoided.  Does killing helpless civilians and tossing out freedom of the press and habeas corpus make someone a great president?


----------



## Thunderbird

Why do some people praise a racist like Lincoln?

*Lincoln the Racist*


----------



## paperview

Thunderbird said:


> ...
> The Civil War, which killed 100s of thousands, could have been avoided.


Yes, the southerners shouldn't have started the war.  They had been itching for a fight well over a decade. SC drew up secession papers in their convention in 1852. They were ready to almost go at it in 1856.

Lincoln getting elected was what it took.  They never even waited for him to take office to officially secede and commence hostilities.



> Does killing helpless civilians and tossing out freedom of the press and habeas corpus make someone a great president?


Yea. Jefferson Davis was pretty sucky in that regard.


----------



## Votto

rightwinger said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP, time to rebrand in the image of the 'Great Emancipator' - CNN.com
> 
> Steven Spielberg's historical drama, as well as the biography upon which it is based, Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," both remind today's Americans that Lincoln was not only a moral leader but also a practical politician. The political identity that Lincoln forged for the fledgling Republican Party -- uniting the nation while defending individual rights -- was a winning formula for half a century, with the GOP winning 11 of 13 presidential elections from 1860 through 1908.
> 
> Moreover, support for civil rights persisted in the party throughout the last century. Among the Republican presidents of the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt famously hosted Booker T. Washington at the White House. Dwight Eisenhower ordered federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce school desegregation. Richard Nixon expanded affirmative action. And George H. W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Obama "united" the country by force and secured power for the GOP for years to come.  Was it worth over half a million dead?
> 
> The country is as divided now as it has ever been since the Civil War.  The only problem for progressives today is that they don't have the cloak of slavery to hide behind to enforce their fascist tendencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously missed out on the 60s
> 
> Read up on it sometime
Click to expand...


You misread the populace.

Left wingers sit in protests and burn down buildings

Right wingers stock up on arms and prepare to live on their own and seek change through the political process via legal means.

It could all fall apart much faster than in the 1960's.


----------



## Votto

For all of you progressive Abe Lincoln idol worshippers, was it worth over half a million dead to keep the South?

And if it was worth the cost, what if slavery had not been an issue?  Would it have still been worth the cost?


----------



## rightwinger

Votto said:


> For all of you progressive Abe Lincoln idol worshippers, was it worth over half a million dead to keep the South?
> 
> And if it was worth the cost, what if slavery had not been an issue?  Would it have still been worth the cost?



Slavery WAS the issue

Was allowing "the peculiar institution" of the South a workable alternative? Just allowing the South to walk away and maintain their slave status would have destroyed us.
The South engaged in treason and paid a price for it


----------



## paperview

> And if it was worth the cost, what if slavery had not been an issue?  ...



You can't "what if" the slavery part off.

Slavery was part and parcel and the literal blood that ran the engine of the south,

It was their cornerstone.


----------



## tjvh

I wonder how many people actually know that slavery wasn't an issue until Lincoln made it an issue to get more support for a war that was at the time not going so well for the North.


----------



## Votto

rightwinger said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all of you progressive Abe Lincoln idol worshippers, was it worth over half a million dead to keep the South?
> 
> And if it was worth the cost, what if slavery had not been an issue?  Would it have still been worth the cost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery WAS the issue
> 
> Was allowing "the peculiar institution" of the South a workable alternative? Just allowing the South to walk away and maintain their slave status would have destroyed us.
> The South engaged in treason and paid a price for it
Click to expand...


It would have "destroyed us"?  How so?  Would over half a million have perished?

Slavery would have eventually been erradicated, just like with apartide in South Africa.  No shots needed to be fired.  In fact, with the coming industrial revolution, slavery would have assuradly gone away on its own.


----------



## paperview

tjvh said:


> I wonder how many people actually know that slavery wasn't an issue until Lincoln made it an issue to get more support for a war that was at the time not going so well for the North.


Well, it certainly was an issue in the campaign, and the Republican party was founded on limiting slavery's expansion, but when the rebels rebelled, the primary objective of the Commander in Chief was to keep the Union together.

As for the South, it was THE issue.


----------



## Votto

tjvh said:


> I wonder how many people actually know that slavery wasn't an issue until Lincoln made it an issue to get more support for a war that was at the time not going so well for the North.



Most probably don't know that Licoln offerred the states that had seceded the oppurtuinty to make slavery a Constitutional right in the South if only they would stay apart of the Union.   After all, keeping us all under one progressive tyranny is the first order of business.  Of course, the movie conveniently left this bit out.  I'm sure Speilburg is not ignorant enough to have not known this, which means he is trying to rewrite history as all progressives do.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jillian, I agree the party was not monolithic, but on white economic opportunity and anti-slavery, one probably had a near 99% agreement.  Read the party documents and those of-Lincoln to Seward to Stevens and the other leaders.  White economic opportunity was the main reason, abolition a minor position in the overwhelming fear of the slave power.





jillian said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP was founded on white economic opportunity first, last, always.
> 
> It was anti-slavery, not abolitionist, because the slave power threatened white civil rights and white economic opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/LIST]
> 
> I always laugh when people make that statement.
> 
> Democrats were the party that split over slavery, with the majority of them supporting it and the Civil War.
> 
> Republicans were the party that was primarily founded on the principal of Emancipation.
> 
> Personally, slavery was a dying institution, that only had a decade or more to go at best I believe.  The Industrial Revolution was just swinging into high gear at the time of the Civil War, and would have shortly rendered slavery obsolete.
> 
> That is why the only places it really still survives is in those regions that have little industrialization, and everything is still largely done by hand.  In industrialized nations, it is cheaper and easier to build a machine to do it then it is to buy and take care of a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the republican party of the 1800's is not the republican party of today. the democrats of that time, the slavers, the states' rights extremists... the people who fought to keep slavery are all incorporated into today's GOP... they ran to the GOP after the civil rights' act.
> 
> as for the GOP being founded on white economic opportunity, jake, i don't think that's correct either. i think there were different people who wanted similar things for different reasons.
> 
> but it was fun to watch congress being the same unruly idiots they are today.
> 
> it's also fun to see the cons try to revise history in regards to lincoln. they can't stand that he's universally looked at as one of our greatest presidents.... well, except for people who still think there should be slavery and that the states should be able to tell the federal government what to do.
Click to expand...


----------



## paperview

Votto said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all of you progressive Abe Lincoln idol worshippers, was it worth over half a million dead to keep the South?
> 
> And if it was worth the cost, what if slavery had not been an issue?  Would it have still been worth the cost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery WAS the issue
> 
> Was allowing "the peculiar institution" of the South a workable alternative? Just allowing the South to walk away and maintain their slave status would have destroyed us.
> The South engaged in treason and paid a price for it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would have "destroyed us"?  How so?  Would over half a million have perished?
> 
> Slavery would have eventually been erradicated, just like with apartide in South Africa.  No shots needed to be fired.  In fact, with the coming industrial revolution, slavery would have assuradly gone away on its own.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about??  With the "coming" industrial revolution??

The revolution was in full swing, and the South wanted little part of it.  Their whole aristocracy plantation was based on the agrarian slave labor force. 

And no, it would not have ended on it's own.  People who say stupid shit like that have no idea what they are talking about.

The South had wanted to expand slavery into the territories and into Mexico and beyond. They had NO intention of giving up their billions of dollars in human capital.


----------



## paperview

Votto said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many people actually know that slavery wasn't an issue until Lincoln made it an issue to get more support for a war that was at the time not going so well for the North.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most probably don't know that Licoln offerred the states that had seceded the oppurtuinty to make slavery a Constitutional right in the South if only they would stay apart of the Union.   After all, keeping us all under one progressive tyranny is the first order of business.  Of course, the movie conveniently left this bit out.  I'm sure Speilburg is not ignorant enough to have not known this, which means he is trying to rewrite history as all progressives do.
Click to expand...

Because the Corwin Amendment was little more than a footnote.  It was a last ditch effort in Congress to appease the Southerners.  A meaningless toss. 

Lincoln had nothing to do with its passage.  By the time he addressed it, most states had already seceded.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Everyone knew that Lincoln was always ready to protect slavery in the South.

Interesting that enforcing constitutional, electoral process as well as ending slavery are marks of "progressive tyranny.


----------



## paperview

Some might find this of interest.

What was the reaction of Jefferson Davis to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation?

*In a broadside dated **January 5, 1863, and published at Richmond **::

*






Original here: http://international.loc.gov/rbc/rbpe/rbpe18/rbpe187/18702100/001dr.jpg

"An Address To the People of the Free States by the President of the Southern Confederacy..."  

*"...all   free Negroes in the Southern  Confederacy shall be placed  on the slave   status, and deemed to be  chattels, they and their issue  forever."

 So EVEN THE FREE BLACKS AFTER 1863 WERE NO LONGER FREE!
Even their children and children's children were bonded into slavery FOREVER!  

These were, prior to 1863, FREE BLACKS in the South.

*To those who deny the cause of the war --

Wanna  tell me again how this  wasn't about slavery -- and that, as   some like pretend, the  Institution itself was "on its way  out???"

Go head.  Try if you can.


----------



## paperview

Moreover, in that broadside, Davis  proclaimed that all Negroes who were    captured in states where slavery  did not exist were to be adjudged  to   occupy the status of slaves,

*"...so that the respective normal condition of the white and black races may be ultimately placed on a permanent basis."*

Any of these neo-confederates starts to tell you the South did not fight primarily to defend slavery, or had _any_     intention of before, during the war, or long after - of getting rid   of   slavery - or allowing it to "die out"  -- Remind them of this   declaration  by   the Confederate President, Jefferson Davis.


----------



## paperview

paperview said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many people actually know that slavery wasn't an issue until Lincoln made it an issue to get more support for a war that was at the time not going so well for the North.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most probably don't know that Licoln offerred the states that had seceded the oppurtuinty to make slavery a Constitutional right in the South if only they would stay apart of the Union.   After all, keeping us all under one progressive tyranny is the first order of business.  Of course, the movie conveniently left this bit out.  I'm sure Speilburg is not ignorant enough to have not known this, which means he is trying to rewrite history as all progressives do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the Corwin Amendment was little more than a footnote.  It was a last ditch effort in Congress to appease the Southerners.  A meaningless toss.
> 
> Lincoln had nothing to do with its passage.  By the time he addressed it, most states had already seceded.
Click to expand...

Which reminds me.  Haven't we been through this before?

Oh yes, we have.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6392610-post287.html

It appears since then, you've not bothered to educate yourself on the subject.

(I'm still laughing you think in 1860, the Industrial Revolution _had not yet even occurred_.  (!) Hilarious.  Were you home schooled?)


----------



## dominico

it was a bit more accurate than the vampire hunter one.


----------



## paperview

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. 

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing  whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can  long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We  have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place  for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. 

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate --  we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who  struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or  detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,  but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living,  rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who  fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be  here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these  honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they  gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve  that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln
November 1863

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


----------



## paperview

Here's a fun one for those who hold up the Southern rebels as some brave Constitutionalists, interested in the ideals of that document:

South Carolina Asks That Non-Slaveholding States Make Abolitionist Societies Illegal, Dec. 16, 1835



> * The Gathering Storm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South  Carolina Asks That Non-Slaveholding States Make Abolitionist Societies  Illegal, Dec. 16, 1835                                    *
> 
> 
> 
> South Carolina Asks Non-Slaveholding States to Make Abolitionist Societies Illegal, Dec. 16, 1835
> 
> From Acts and Resolutions of South Carolina, Dec. 1835, 26-28, from &#8220;State Documents on Federal Relations: The States and the United States, No. V. Slavery and the Constitution, 1789-1845,&#8221; edited by Herman V. Ames, published by The Department of History of the University of Pennsylvania, 1906.
> 
> From this resolution you can see that South Carolina has little interest in the states' rights of non-slaveholding states.



<Snip>



> *3. Resolved,  That the Legislature of South Carolina, having every confidence in the  justice and friendship of the non-slave*holding states, announces to her  co-states her confident expecta*tion, and she earnestly requests that  the governments of these states will promptly and effectually suppress  all those associations within their respective limits, purporting to be  abolition societies, and that they will make it highly penal to print,  publish and dis*tribute newspapers, pamphlets, tracts and pictorial  representations calculated and having an obvious tendency to excite the  slaves of the southern states to insurrection and revolt.
> ** [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
> *


----------



## JakeStarkey

paperview body slams the dummies to the mat, stomps their faces in, and slaps the chains of history and logic and truth on the naysayers, shackling them to Derision and Flatulence.


----------



## Mushroom

jillian said:


> the republican party of the 1800's is not the republican party of today. the democrats of that time, the slavers, the states' rights extremists... the people who fought to keep slavery are all incorporated into today's GOP... they ran to the GOP after the civil rights' act.



All I can say is "wow".

OK, now for a little history lesson.  You did not say *which* Civil Rights Act, so lets go through them, starting in 1968 and going backwards, shall we?

Civil Rights Act of 1968, 71.2% of Senate Democrats voted for this legislation, 90.6% of Republicans voted for it.

Voting Rights Act of 1965, 73% of Senate Democrats favored this legislation, and 78% of House Democrats.  Of the Republicans, 94% of Republican Senators and 82% of House Republicans approved this one.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 69% of Senate Democrats and 61% of House Democrats approved this legislation.  Meanwhile, 82% of Republican Senators and 80% of House Republicans approved this law.

Shall we continue playing?  The votes are a matter of public record, and easy to look up.  Funny how you are making claims that are the exact opposite of history.

Feel free to look it up, see for yourself which party had a higher percentage of approving votes.  This is why I tell people over and over to not just parrot things they hear from others, but to do real research themselves and find out what happened.


----------



## rightwinger

Mushroom said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the republican party of the 1800's is not the republican party of today. the democrats of that time, the slavers, the states' rights extremists... the people who fought to keep slavery are all incorporated into today's GOP... they ran to the GOP after the civil rights' act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is "wow".
> 
> OK, now for a little history lesson.  You did not say *which* Civil Rights Act, so lets go through them, starting in 1968 and going backwards, shall we?
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1968, 71.2% of Senate Democrats voted for this legislation, 90.6% of Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Voting Rights Act of 1965, 73% of Senate Democrats favored this legislation, and 78% of House Democrats.  Of the Republicans, 94% of Republican Senators and 82% of House Republicans approved this one.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964, 69% of Senate Democrats and 61% of House Democrats approved this legislation.  Meanwhile, 82% of Republican Senators and 80% of House Republicans approved this law.
> 
> Shall we continue playing?  The votes are a matter of public record, and easy to look up.  Funny how you are making claims that are the exact opposite of history.
> 
> Feel free to look it up, see for yourself which party had a higher percentage of approving votes.  This is why I tell people over and over to not just parrot things they hear from others, but to do real research themselves and find out what happened.
Click to expand...


Blah....blah....blah

You guys have been selling that lie for years.  Break out the numbers by North and South and then tell us how they look

Trying to convert a North/South issue into a Republican/Democrat issue is not convincing anyone


----------



## paperview

Mushroom said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the republican party of the 1800's is not the republican party of today. the democrats of that time, the slavers, the states' rights extremists... the people who fought to keep slavery are all incorporated into today's GOP... they ran to the GOP after the civil rights' act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is "wow".
> 
> OK, now for a little history lesson.  You did not say *which* Civil Rights Act, so lets go through them, starting in 1968 and going backwards, shall we?
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1968, 71.2% of Senate Democrats voted for this legislation, 90.6% of Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Voting Rights Act of 1965, 73% of Senate Democrats favored this legislation, and 78% of House Democrats.  Of the Republicans, 94% of Republican Senators and 82% of House Republicans approved this one.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964, 69% of Senate Democrats and 61% of House Democrats approved this legislation.  Meanwhile, 82% of Republican Senators and 80% of House Republicans approved this law.
> 
> Shall we continue playing?  The votes are a matter of public record, and easy to look up.  Funny how you are making claims that are the exact opposite of history.
> 
> Feel free to look it up, see for yourself which party had a higher percentage of approving votes.  This is why I tell people over and over to not just parrot things they hear from others, but to do real research themselves and find out what happened.
Click to expand...

1964 called.  They wanted to let you know 50 years ago

is not_ today_.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are an ass, Mush, and you know it.

The majority of the Pubs were in the North and West, and voted lock step with the Dems of the North and West.

The *Southern Pubs voted AGAINST the bills in HIGHER %s than the Southern Dems* on this bills?  Are you aware of that fact?

Don't you know a fucking thing about this?  Are you listening to Rush or some other lame brain fucking idiot?  Fools like you fuck up the process.



Mushroom said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the republican party of the 1800's is not the republican party of today. the democrats of that time, the slavers, the states' rights extremists... the people who fought to keep slavery are all incorporated into today's GOP... they ran to the GOP after the civil rights' act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is "wow".
> 
> OK, now for a little history lesson.  You did not say *which* Civil Rights Act, so lets go through them, starting in 1968 and going backwards, shall we?
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1968, 71.2% of Senate Democrats voted for this legislation, 90.6% of Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Voting Rights Act of 1965, 73% of Senate Democrats favored this legislation, and 78% of House Democrats.  Of the Republicans, 94% of Republican Senators and 82% of House Republicans approved this one.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964, 69% of Senate Democrats and 61% of House Democrats approved this legislation.  Meanwhile, 82% of Republican Senators and 80% of House Republicans approved this law.
> 
> Shall we continue playing?  The votes are a matter of public record, and easy to look up.  Funny how you are making claims that are the exact opposite of history.
> 
> Feel free to look it up, see for yourself which party had a higher percentage of approving votes.  This is why I tell people over and over to not just parrot things they hear from others, but to do real research themselves and find out what happened.
Click to expand...


----------



## paperview

Here's a simple test, ye who trot out 50 year old voting records and have some absurd notion George Wallace and Bull Conner were liberals:

Which party  trumpeted "States Rights" before the 1960's?

Which party trumpets it now?

Once you get that, you're halfway there.


----------



## Toro

Mushroom said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the republican party of the 1800's is not the republican party of today. the democrats of that time, the slavers, the states' rights extremists... the people who fought to keep slavery are all incorporated into today's GOP... they ran to the GOP after the civil rights' act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is "wow".
> 
> OK, now for a little history lesson.  You did not say *which* Civil Rights Act, so lets go through them, starting in 1968 and going backwards, shall we?
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1968, 71.2% of Senate Democrats voted for this legislation, 90.6% of Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Voting Rights Act of 1965, 73% of Senate Democrats favored this legislation, and 78% of House Democrats.  Of the Republicans, 94% of Republican Senators and 82% of House Republicans approved this one.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964, 69% of Senate Democrats and 61% of House Democrats approved this legislation.  Meanwhile, 82% of Republican Senators and 80% of House Republicans approved this law.
> 
> Shall we continue playing?  The votes are a matter of public record, and easy to look up.  Funny how you are making claims that are the exact opposite of history.
> 
> Feel free to look it up, see for yourself which party had a higher percentage of approving votes.  This is why I tell people over and over to not just parrot things they hear from others, but to do real research themselves and find out what happened.
Click to expand...


lol



Outstanding.


----------



## Votto

paperview said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery WAS the issue
> 
> Was allowing "the peculiar institution" of the South a workable alternative? Just allowing the South to walk away and maintain their slave status would have destroyed us.
> The South engaged in treason and paid a price for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would have "destroyed us"?  How so?  Would over half a million have perished?
> 
> Slavery would have eventually been erradicated, just like with apartide in South Africa.  No shots needed to be fired.  In fact, with the coming industrial revolution, slavery would have assuradly gone away on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about??  With the "coming" industrial revolution??
> 
> The revolution was in full swing, and the South wanted little part of it.  Their whole aristocracy plantation was based on the agrarian slave labor force.
> 
> And no, it would not have ended on it's own.  People who say stupid shit like that have no idea what they are talking about.
> 
> The South had wanted to expand slavery into the territories and into Mexico and beyond. They had NO intention of giving up their billions of dollars in human capital.
Click to expand...


So you still think slaves would be picking cotton till this day?  Whatever.


----------



## Votto

paperview said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most probably don't know that Licoln offerred the states that had seceded the oppurtuinty to make slavery a Constitutional right in the South if only they would stay apart of the Union.   After all, keeping us all under one progressive tyranny is the first order of business.  Of course, the movie conveniently left this bit out.  I'm sure Speilburg is not ignorant enough to have not known this, which means he is trying to rewrite history as all progressives do.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Corwin Amendment was little more than a footnote.  It was a last ditch effort in Congress to appease the Southerners.  A meaningless toss.
> 
> Lincoln had nothing to do with its passage.  By the time he addressed it, most states had already seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which reminds me.  Haven't we been through this before?
> 
> Oh yes, we have.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/6392610-post287.html
> 
> It appears since then, you've not bothered to educate yourself on the subject.
> 
> (I'm still laughing you think in 1860, the Industrial Revolution _had not yet even occurred_.  (!) Hilarious.  Were you home schooled?)
Click to expand...


My point here was that machines would have eventually replaced slave labor.

I realize you discount me having an education from public schools because I am able to read and write and actually question the progressive stooges.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Votto, the machines that came to timber, agriculture, and oil in the 1880s and after in the South did not end social and economic slavery under Jim Crow.  Slavery would have ended very slowly, and the minority population would have suffered just as much or more than they did after 1877.


----------



## bripat9643

paperview said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Lincoln started the war to force the Southern States to collect the Morrill tariff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pile 'O bull crap.  The first shots were fired before Lincoln even stepped into the office.
Click to expand...


That's wrong.  Fort Sumter occurred after Lincoln was inaugurated.   Furthermore, Lincoln committed the first act of war by trying to resupply Fort Sumter.  Who fired the first shots is irrelevant.


----------



## bripat9643

oldfart said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is exactly what people who got their history credentials from a university rather than a crackerjack box say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, not.  Historians all admit that Lincoln wiped his ass on the Constitution.  They just make excuses for it and canonize him as some kind of saint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never seen a reputable historian make that argument.  Who have you been reading?
Click to expand...



The Lincoln cult historians are not "reputable."  They are propagandists who lie about Everything Lincoln did.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat has far more in common with Htiler and this thugs than he does with American and its values.




What do I have in common with Hitler?


----------



## bripat9643

thanatos144 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars would have extended throughout North America because of it, from Mexico and the Caribbean to Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah sure....yet somehow the entire western world, including the huge British empire, eliminated slavery without bloodshed....strange???
> 
> The Lincoln Myth is strong among the feeble minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the confederates states shouldnt have started a war....
Click to expand...


They didn't.  Lincoln started the war.


----------



## Dr Grump

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> bripat has far more in common with Htiler and this thugs than he does with American and its values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do I have in common with Hitler?
Click to expand...


1) Full of yourself
2) Never admit you are wrong
3) Think you are more knowledgeable than you are
4) Arrogant
5) Gets angry easily


----------



## Dr Grump

bripat9643 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah sure....yet somehow the entire western world, including the huge British empire, eliminated slavery without bloodshed....strange???
> 
> The Lincoln Myth is strong among the feeble minded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the confederates states shouldnt have started a war....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't.  Lincoln started the war.
Click to expand...


No he didn't.


----------



## paperview

bripat9643 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Lincoln started the war to force the Southern States to collect the Morrill tariff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pile 'O bull crap.  The first shots were fired before Lincoln even stepped into the office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's wrong.  Fort Sumter occurred after Lincoln was inaugurated.   Furthermore, Lincoln committed the first act of war by trying to resupply Fort Sumter.  Who fired the first shots is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I'll repeat this as many times as it takes to sink in with some of the slow learners.

The first shots were fired in *January of 1861.  *

 Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter. 




Click to enlarge 

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

 They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."




Then converted her to a Man of War ship.   
*THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF  SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *

Star of the West

 Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*,  linked above.*THE FIRST OF THE WAR.  *

 WE publish  herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn,  and of the steamship Star of the West, and  of the steamship Marion,  which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last  week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor,  showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These  pictures w ill enable our readers to realize what is going on in this  most memorable contest of the present age. 
 On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the 

 first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship     Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to     enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter

 The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her  errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came  within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was  fired across her bows ; whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted  the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in  rapid 

 succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer,       and compelled her to put about and go to sea. The accompanying     picture   shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor;      the plan will explain the  situation of the forts, and the position    of   the steamer when she was  fired upon. The channel through which   she    passed runs close by Morris  Island for some distance. 
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the  port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island.​ 
They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the  office.  Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR.  *


----------



## thanatos144

Cecilie1200 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, most of them just didn't want to go.
> 
> And they weren't "stolen" from anywhere.  Clue yourself into the REAL history of the slave trade.  The people who were brought here from Africa were slaves THERE, and were sold to the slave traders, not "stolen".  Furthermore, by the time of the War Between the States, the import of slaves had been illegalized, and the slaves in question were born in THIS country, which is one reason they didn't want to leave.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry but I don't make excuses for slavers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now being truthful and accurate is "making excuses"?
Click to expand...


Yes. Cause they didn't have to buy the slaves did they? Supply and demand. So yes they were stolen from their country cause they didnt volunteer for slavery.


----------



## thanatos144

Votto said:


> For all of you progressive Abe Lincoln idol worshippers, was it worth over half a million dead to keep the South?
> 
> And if it was worth the cost, what if slavery had not been an issue?  Would it have still been worth the cost?



Then the confederate states shouldnt have started the war....


----------



## thanatos144

Votto said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all of you progressive Abe Lincoln idol worshippers, was it worth over half a million dead to keep the South?
> 
> And if it was worth the cost, what if slavery had not been an issue?  Would it have still been worth the cost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery WAS the issue
> 
> Was allowing "the peculiar institution" of the South a workable alternative? Just allowing the South to walk away and maintain their slave status would have destroyed us.
> The South engaged in treason and paid a price for it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would have "destroyed us"?  How so?  Would over half a million have perished?
> 
> Slavery would have eventually been erradicated, just like with apartide in South Africa.  No shots needed to be fired.  In fact, with the coming industrial revolution, slavery would have assuradly gone away on its own.
Click to expand...


It was eradicated......The south started a war and the north won it. You neo confederates need to stop thinking the confederates were the good guys cause they weren't.


----------



## thanatos144

paperview said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the republican party of the 1800's is not the republican party of today. the democrats of that time, the slavers, the states' rights extremists... the people who fought to keep slavery are all incorporated into today's GOP... they ran to the GOP after the civil rights' act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is "wow".
> 
> OK, now for a little history lesson.  You did not say *which* Civil Rights Act, so lets go through them, starting in 1968 and going backwards, shall we?
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1968, 71.2% of Senate Democrats voted for this legislation, 90.6% of Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Voting Rights Act of 1965, 73% of Senate Democrats favored this legislation, and 78% of House Democrats.  Of the Republicans, 94% of Republican Senators and 82% of House Republicans approved this one.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964, 69% of Senate Democrats and 61% of House Democrats approved this legislation.  Meanwhile, 82% of Republican Senators and 80% of House Republicans approved this law.
> 
> Shall we continue playing?  The votes are a matter of public record, and easy to look up.  Funny how you are making claims that are the exact opposite of history.
> 
> Feel free to look it up, see for yourself which party had a higher percentage of approving votes.  This is why I tell people over and over to not just parrot things they hear from others, but to do real research themselves and find out what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1964 called.  They wanted to let you know 50 years ago
> 
> is not_ today_.
Click to expand...

Hey look up how the democrat Hero John F. Kennedy voted on the civil rights bills.....


----------



## thanatos144

bripat9643 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah sure....yet somehow the entire western world, including the huge British empire, eliminated slavery without bloodshed....strange???
> 
> The Lincoln Myth is strong among the feeble minded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the confederates states shouldnt have started a war....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't.  Lincoln started the war.
Click to expand...


No he didnt. The confederates attacked a union base consistently. That was what started the war.


----------



## gipper

The indoctrination Americans suffer in government schools prevents many from thinking.  Belief in the Lincoln Myth is a perfect example.  

Failure to recognize tyranny is as bad as promoting it.



> *Legends die hard. They survive as truth rarely does.*
> ~ Helen Hayes
> 
> The first such legend is Lincoln&#8217;s war, commonly (and inaccurately) referred to as the Civil War. One legend holds that Lincoln fought to free the slaves and give them equality. While it is certainly true that the war ended slavery in the United States, this was not Lincoln&#8217;s objective: the truth is that Lincoln didn&#8217;t care one bit about the slaves, other than proposing to send them back to Africa.
> 
> Another legend from this war was that Lincoln fought it to preserve the union. Of course, Lincoln did not preserve the union, but instead transformed it into that which opponents of the Constitution most feared &#8211; from a confederacy of states with a limited central government to an all-powerful central government to which state government would become increasingly subservient.
> 
> *Did you know that Lincoln . . .
> 
> &#8226; did NOT save the union? In fact, Lincoln did more than any other individual to destroy the voluntary union the Founding Fathers recognized.
> 
> &#8226; did NOT want to free the slaves? Lincoln, who did not believe in equality of the races, wanted the Constitution to make slavery &#8220;irrevocable.&#8221;
> 
> &#8226; was NOT a champion of the Constitution? Contrary to his high-minded rhetoric, Lincoln repeatedly trampled on the Constitution&#8212;and even issued an arrest warrant for the chief justice of the United States!
> 
> &#8226; was NOT a great statesman? Lincoln was actually a warmonger who manipulated his own people into a civil war.
> 
> &#8226; did NOT utter many of his most admired quotations? DiLorenzo exposes a legion of statements that have been falsely attributed to Lincoln for generations&#8212;usually to enhance his image.
> 
> Lincoln is memorialized via his own temple in Washington, DC. The design echoes a classic Greek temple, &#8220;structures built to house deity statues....&#8221; It is ironic that the site has become an almost sacred venue for those advocating civil rights.*



The Legends Supporting the American Religion


----------



## Votto

JakeStarkey said:


> Votto, the machines that came to timber, agriculture, and oil in the 1880s and after in the South did not end social and economic slavery under Jim Crow.  Slavery would have ended very slowly, and the minority population would have suffered just as much or more than they did after 1877.



So you would say that it was worth speeding up the process with over half a million dead?


----------



## del

the only good cracker is a dead cracker


----------



## JakeStarkey

You would have to talk to the leaders of the Slave Power for that answer since they are the ones who caused the war. 

War would have continued across North America if the South had defeated the North.



Votto said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Votto, the machines that came to timber, agriculture, and oil in the 1880s and after in the South did not end social and economic slavery under Jim Crow.  Slavery would have ended very slowly, and the minority population would have suffered just as much or more than they did after 1877.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would say that it was worth speeding up the process with over half a million dead?
Click to expand...


----------



## paperview

gipper said:


> The indoctrination Americans suffer in government schools prevents many from thinking.  Belief in the Lincoln Myth is a perfect example.
> ...


Another piece of shit article touting  the scumsucking neo-confederate and economist (NOT historian) Thomas J. DiLorenzo.  DiLorenzo is nothing more that White Supremacist trash.

Absurd revisionism.  No one takes that crap seriously. 

Of course he hates Lincoln, and the actual facts of the CW. The Hate group he belongs to is still fighting the Lost Cause.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Did you know that Lincoln SAVED the Union, PRESERVED the nation of the Founding Fathers, ENDED slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation, the Military Confiscation Acts, and the 13th Amendment.

&#8226; used the CONSTITUTIONAL war powers to crush the South.

&#8226; WAS a superb statesmen, binding a team of rivals to one great political purpose and one great moral purpose: preserving the Union and ending SLAVERY.

&#8226; did utter many of his SAYINGS that are preserved in his writings.

The libertarian hacks who attempt to smear Lincoln's name and narrative are simply ignorant fools at best and vicious anti-Americans at worst.


----------



## gipper

So many Americans duped by the propaganda mills aka government schools.  Sad.  Very sad.

Most Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln "saved" the voluntary union of states that was created by the founding fathers, based on the principle that governments just powers are derived from the consent of the governed by micromanaging the waging of total war on Americans who no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C., killing hundreds of thousands of them.


Most Americans also think of Lincoln as a racial saint even though he advocated the deportation of all black people all of his adult life, to his dying day. He also opposed inter-racial marriage or allowing black people to vote or serve on juries or even to reside in his home state of Illinois. They think of him as a "great statesman" even though he manipulated his country into the bloodiest war in American history where as many as 850,000 Americans died according to the latest research. This is the kind of thing "great statesmen" do, we are all told in the government schools.


----------



## Cecilie1200

gipper said:


> So many Americans duped by the propaganda mills aka government schools.  Sad.  Very sad.
> 
> Most Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln "saved" the voluntary union of states that was created by the founding fathers, based on the principle that governments just powers are derived from the consent of the governed by micromanaging the waging of total war on Americans who no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C., killing hundreds of thousands of them.
> 
> 
> Most Americans also think of Lincoln as a racial saint even though he advocated the deportation of all black people all of his adult life, to his dying day. He also opposed inter-racial marriage or allowing black people to vote or serve on juries or even to reside in his home state of Illinois. They think of him as a "great statesman" even though he manipulated his country into the bloodiest war in American history where as many as 850,000 Americans died according to the latest research. This is the kind of thing "great statesmen" do, we are all told in the government schools.



I don't think you can "save" a voluntary union by making it mandatory.  Of course, I also don't think you can save the village by destroying it.


----------



## paperview

Cecilie1200 said:


> I don't think you can "save" a voluntary union by making it mandatory.  Of course, I also don't think you can save the village by destroying it.


Yet here you are, 150 years later, residing in the most powerful country in the world, the UNITED States, spouting your nonsense.


----------



## paperview

One history question left hanging: 

Why did not the Southern States wait and see whether A. Lincoln would interfere with slavery before they seceded?


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> So many Americans duped by the propaganda mills aka government schools.  Sad.  Very sad.
> 
> Most Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln "saved" the voluntary union of states that was created by the founding fathers, based on the principle that governments just powers are derived from the consent of the governed by micromanaging the waging of total war on Americans who no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C., killing hundreds of thousands of them.
> 
> 
> Most Americans also think of Lincoln as a racial saint even though he advocated the deportation of all black people all of his adult life, to his dying day. *He also opposed inter-racial marriage *or allowing black people to vote or serve on juries or even to reside in his home state of Illinois. They think of him as a "great statesman" even though he manipulated his country into the bloodiest war in American history where as many as 850,000 Americans died according to the latest research. This is the kind of thing "great statesmen" do, we are all told in the government schools.



So, your premise is that in the 1860 election Lincoldn should have advocated inter-racial marriage or else be a racist?

We had states in 1960 that still banned inter-racial marriage

Lincoln was primarily a politician. He knew he had to go one step at a time. Advocating an end to slavery was an important first step. Advocating that blacks should marry your sister was a bit of an overreach.....Don't ya think?


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many Americans duped by the propaganda mills aka government schools.  Sad.  Very sad.
> 
> Most Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln "saved" the voluntary union of states that was created by the founding fathers, based on the principle that governments just powers are derived from the consent of the governed by micromanaging the waging of total war on Americans who no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C., killing hundreds of thousands of them.
> 
> 
> Most Americans also think of Lincoln as a racial saint even though he advocated the deportation of all black people all of his adult life, to his dying day. *He also opposed inter-racial marriage *or allowing black people to vote or serve on juries or even to reside in his home state of Illinois. They think of him as a "great statesman" even though he manipulated his country into the bloodiest war in American history where as many as 850,000 Americans died according to the latest research. This is the kind of thing "great statesmen" do, we are all told in the government schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your premise is that in the 1860 election Lincoldn should have advocated inter-racial marriage or else be a racist?
> 
> We had states in 1960 that still banned inter-racial marriage
> 
> Lincoln was primarily a politician. He knew he had to go one step at a time. Advocating an end to slavery was an important first step. Advocating that blacks should marry your sister was a bit of an overreach.....Don't ya think?
Click to expand...


From my post you harp on inter-racial marriage.  Come on now...open up your mind.

And Lincoln NEVER intended to end slavery.  He NEVER worked to end slavery.  He NEVER cared one wit about the slaves.  He was a balded faced racist EVEN Considering his time.  He planned to deport all of them in his second term, but thankfully, John Wilkes Booth put an end to the tyrant.

Lincoln was the first statist. He destroyed our constitutional republic and later presidents expanded on his tyranny to give us the police state Kleptocracy we have today.  And yet many Americans think Dishonest Abe was a great president.  The brainwashing of Americans is amazing.


----------



## paperview

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many Americans duped by the propaganda mills aka government schools.  Sad.  Very sad.
> 
> Most Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln "saved" the voluntary union of states that was created by the founding fathers, based on the principle that governments just powers are derived from the consent of the governed by micromanaging the waging of total war on Americans who no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C., killing hundreds of thousands of them.
> 
> 
> Most Americans also think of Lincoln as a racial saint even though he advocated the deportation of all black people all of his adult life, to his dying day. *He also opposed inter-racial marriage *or allowing black people to vote or serve on juries or even to reside in his home state of Illinois. They think of him as a "great statesman" even though he manipulated his country into the bloodiest war in American history where as many as 850,000 Americans died according to the latest research. This is the kind of thing "great statesmen" do, we are all told in the government schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your premise is that in the 1860 election Lincoldn should have advocated inter-racial marriage or else be a racist?
> 
> We had states in 1960 that still banned inter-racial marriage
> 
> Lincoln was primarily a politician. He knew he had to go one step at a time. Advocating an end to slavery was an important first step. Advocating that blacks should marry your sister was a bit of an overreach.....Don't ya think?
Click to expand...

It's amusing to see some of the pro and/or neo-confederate crowd wail away at how "Lincoln was a racist" -- and he was, by our standards today.  By standards then, just about everyone was. Lincoln, though, like many in the north, thought members of the black race deserved to be afforded the same human rights as the white race, that 'all men are created equal' and that slavery is a great moral wrong -- 

and at the same time the "Lincoln was a racist" puppets glorify the confederates who were so racist they owned these human beings as property, and fought an atrociously bloody war to defend it.


----------



## jillian

paperview said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many Americans duped by the propaganda mills aka government schools.  Sad.  Very sad.
> 
> Most Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln "saved" the voluntary union of states that was created by the founding fathers, based on the principle that governments just powers are derived from the consent of the governed by micromanaging the waging of total war on Americans who no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C., killing hundreds of thousands of them.
> 
> 
> Most Americans also think of Lincoln as a racial saint even though he advocated the deportation of all black people all of his adult life, to his dying day. *He also opposed inter-racial marriage *or allowing black people to vote or serve on juries or even to reside in his home state of Illinois. They think of him as a "great statesman" even though he manipulated his country into the bloodiest war in American history where as many as 850,000 Americans died according to the latest research. This is the kind of thing "great statesmen" do, we are all told in the government schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your premise is that in the 1860 election Lincoldn should have advocated inter-racial marriage or else be a racist?
> 
> We had states in 1960 that still banned inter-racial marriage
> 
> Lincoln was primarily a politician. He knew he had to go one step at a time. Advocating an end to slavery was an important first step. Advocating that blacks should marry your sister was a bit of an overreach.....Don't ya think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's amusing to see some of the pro and/or neo-confederate crowd wail away at how "Lincoln was a racist" -- and he was, by our standards today.  By standards then, just about everyone was. Lincoln, though, like many in the north, thought members of the black race deserved to be afforded the same human rights as the white race, that 'all men are created equal' and that slavery is a great moral wrong --
> 
> and at the same time the "Lincoln was a racist" puppets glorify the confederates who were so racist they owned these human beings as property, and fought an atrociously bloody war to defend it.
Click to expand...


i think they're sad and pathetic. and the fact that there are people who think like them in 2013 is horrifying.


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many Americans duped by the propaganda mills aka government schools.  Sad.  Very sad.
> 
> Most Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln "saved" the voluntary union of states that was created by the founding fathers, based on the principle that governments just powers are derived from the consent of the governed by micromanaging the waging of total war on Americans who no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C., killing hundreds of thousands of them.
> 
> 
> Most Americans also think of Lincoln as a racial saint even though he advocated the deportation of all black people all of his adult life, to his dying day. *He also opposed inter-racial marriage *or allowing black people to vote or serve on juries or even to reside in his home state of Illinois. They think of him as a "great statesman" even though he manipulated his country into the bloodiest war in American history where as many as 850,000 Americans died according to the latest research. This is the kind of thing "great statesmen" do, we are all told in the government schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your premise is that in the 1860 election Lincoldn should have advocated inter-racial marriage or else be a racist?
> 
> We had states in 1960 that still banned inter-racial marriage
> 
> Lincoln was primarily a politician. He knew he had to go one step at a time. Advocating an end to slavery was an important first step. Advocating that blacks should marry your sister was a bit of an overreach.....Don't ya think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my post you harp on inter-racial marriage.  Come on now...open up your mind.
> 
> And Lincoln NEVER intended to end slavery.  He NEVER worked to end slavery.  He NEVER cared one wit about the slaves.  He was a balded faced racist EVEN Considering his time.  He planned to deport all of them in his second term, but thankfully, John Wilkes Booth put an end to the tyrant.
> 
> Lincoln was the first statist. He destroyed our constitutional republic and later presidents expanded on his tyranny to give us the police state Kleptocracy we have today.  And yet many Americans think Dishonest Abe was a great president.  The brainwashing of Americans is amazing.
Click to expand...


"I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.


----------



## paperview

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many Americans duped by the propaganda mills aka government schools.  Sad.  Very sad.
> 
> Most Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln "saved" the voluntary union of states that was created by the founding fathers, based on the principle that government&#8217;s just powers are derived from the consent of the governed by micromanaging the waging of total war on Americans who no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C., killing hundreds of thousands of them.
> 
> Most Americans also think of Lincoln as a racial saint even though he advocated the deportation of all black people all of his adult life, to his dying day. *He also opposed inter-racial marriage *or allowing black people to vote or serve on juries or even to reside in his home state of Illinois. They think of him as a "great statesman" even though he manipulated his country into the bloodiest war in American history where as many as 850,000 Americans died according to the latest research. This is the kind of thing "great statesmen" do, we are all told in the government schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your premise is that in the 1860 election Lincoldn should have advocated inter-racial marriage or else be a racist?
> 
> We had states in 1960 that still banned inter-racial marriage
> 
> Lincoln was primarily a politician. He knew he had to go one step at a time. Advocating an end to slavery was an important first step. Advocating that blacks should marry your sister was a bit of an overreach.....Don't ya think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my post you harp on inter-racial marriage.  Come on now...open up your mind.
> 
> And Lincoln NEVER intended to end slavery.  He NEVER worked to end slavery.  He NEVER cared one wit about the slaves.  He was a balded faced racist EVEN Considering his time.  He planned to deport all of them in his second term, but thankfully, John Wilkes Booth put an end to the tyrant.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

Bullshit. He didn't wish to expand it, and he was a pragmatic politician. Anyone who has read at any length - or even simply read some of his speeches and debates (ever read the Lincoln/Douglass debates?) knows he most certainly DID care about slavery.  The Republican party was born of the slavery divide. 

Abraham Lincoln Quotes About Slavery (Including Sources)

No, he never planned to deport "all of them" -- his plan, like many of the abolitionists who started it involved* VOLUNTARY *deportation.  You and some others here keep presenting the idea of colonization, very popular with many statesmen and many in the populace at the time, as some INVOLUNTARY _pack em up and ship 'em off_ scheme?  It wasn't.  At all. 

 Why do you keep promoting lies?


----------



## jillian

paperview said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your premise is that in the 1860 election Lincoldn should have advocated inter-racial marriage or else be a racist?
> 
> We had states in 1960 that still banned inter-racial marriage
> 
> Lincoln was primarily a politician. He knew he had to go one step at a time. Advocating an end to slavery was an important first step. Advocating that blacks should marry your sister was a bit of an overreach.....Don't ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my post you harp on inter-racial marriage.  Come on now...open up your mind.
> 
> And Lincoln NEVER intended to end slavery.  He NEVER worked to end slavery.  He NEVER cared one wit about the slaves.  He was a balded faced racist EVEN Considering his time.  He planned to deport all of them in his second term, but thankfully, John Wilkes Booth put an end to the tyrant.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. He didn't wish to expand it, and he was a pragmatic politician. Anyone who has read at any length - or even simply read some of his speeches and debates (ever read the Lincoln/Douglass debates?) knows he most certainly DID care about slavery.  The Republican party was born of the slavery divide.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln Quotes About Slavery (Including Sources)
> 
> No, he never planned to deport "all of them" -- his plan, like many of the abolitionists who started it involved* VOLUNTARY *deportation.  You and some others here keep presenting the idea of colonization, very popular with many statesmen and many in the populace at the time, as some INVOLUNTARY _pack em up and ship 'em off_ scheme?  It wasn't.  At all.
> 
> Why do you keep promoting lies?
Click to expand...


because he's a racist?

because he's stupid?

because he's ignorant?

all of the above?


----------



## paperview

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your premise is that in the 1860 election Lincoldn should have advocated inter-racial marriage or else be a racist?
> 
> We had states in 1960 that still banned inter-racial marriage
> 
> Lincoln was primarily a politician. He knew he had to go one step at a time. Advocating an end to slavery was an important first step. Advocating that blacks should marry your sister was a bit of an overreach.....Don't ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my post you harp on inter-racial marriage.  Come on now...open up your mind.
> 
> And Lincoln NEVER intended to end slavery.  He NEVER worked to end slavery.  He NEVER cared one wit about the slaves.  He was a balded faced racist EVEN Considering his time.  He planned to deport all of them in his second term, but thankfully, John Wilkes Booth put an end to the tyrant.
> 
> Lincoln was the first statist. He destroyed our constitutional republic and later presidents expanded on his tyranny to give us the police state Kleptocracy we have today.  And yet many Americans think Dishonest Abe was a great president.  The brainwashing of Americans is amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.
Click to expand...

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." _The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln_ edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Letter to Albert G. Hodges" (April 4, 1864), p. 281.


----------



## Cecilie1200

paperview said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you can "save" a voluntary union by making it mandatory.  Of course, I also don't think you can save the village by destroying it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here you are, 150 years later, residing in the most powerful country in the world, the UNITED States, spouting your nonsense.
Click to expand...


Which has exactly two things to do with the topic of my post (voluntary unions vs. mandatory):  jack and shit.

And that's probably why I wasn't conversing with you.


----------



## paperview

Cecilie1200 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you can "save" a voluntary union by making it mandatory.  Of course, I also don't think you can save the village by destroying it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here you are, 150 years later, residing in the most powerful country in the world, the UNITED States, spouting your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which has exactly two things to do with the topic of my post (voluntary unions vs. mandatory):  jack and shit.
> 
> And that's probably why I wasn't conversing with you.
Click to expand...

If you want a private conversation, take it to a PM.

I replied because this is a message board.

Regards your "voluntary" union - Two words:  Perpetual Union.

The states have a way to "volunteer" out - the same way they came in: With the consent of the other States, and Congress.


----------



## HUGGY

Another fine Lincoln documentary....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOtf_2rFgd4]Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Killer, Trailer 2 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## gipper

Anyone who believes Lincoln's actions were appropriate, obviously does not believe in the Constitution and likely is a statist, progressive, neo-con, or worse.  Because Lincoln clearly was not only a tyrant, since he breached the Constitution repeatedly, but a traitor.  He purposely warred on fellow Americans solely for statist reasons...to centralize power to the central government....something the Founders would find completely unacceptable and directly in contradiction to the true meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution.  As such, his actions were traitorous and he should have been impeached and removed from office before he managed to murder 800,000 Americans.

It is not surprising that monstrous dictators throughout history managed to gain power, when so many people are ignorant or unable to accept the TRUTH.


----------



## paperview

Hate on dude.

He will forever be remembered as one of America's greatest Presidents.







He belongs to the ages.


----------



## paperview

Now, and forever more...


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> Anyone who believes Lincoln's actions were appropriate, obviously does not believe in the Constitution and likely is a statist, progressive, neo-con, or worse.  Because Lincoln clearly was not only a tyrant, since he breached the Constitution repeatedly, but a traitor.  He purposely warred on fellow Americans solely for statist reasons...to centralize power to the central government....something the Founders would find completely unacceptable and directly in contradiction to the true meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution.  As such, his actions were traitorous and he should have been impeached and removed from office before he managed to murder 800,000 Americans.
> 
> It is not surprising that monstrous dictators throughout history managed to gain power, when so many people are ignorant or unable to accept the TRUTH.



Beyond a doubt our greatest President

Carry on


----------



## gipper

How about we meet at the Lincoln Memorial and you guys can watch as I urinate on the statute of the tyrant?


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> How about we meet at the Lincoln Memorial and you guys can watch as I urinate on the statute of the tyrant?



Its a free country

You are welcome to get arrested anywhere you want


----------



## elvis

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes Lincoln's actions were appropriate, obviously does not believe in the Constitution and likely is a statist, progressive, neo-con, or worse.  Because Lincoln clearly was not only a tyrant, since he breached the Constitution repeatedly, but a traitor.  He purposely warred on fellow Americans solely for statist reasons...to centralize power to the central government....something the Founders would find completely unacceptable and directly in contradiction to the true meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution.  As such, his actions were traitorous and he should have been impeached and removed from office before he managed to murder 800,000 Americans.
> 
> It is not surprising that monstrous dictators throughout history managed to gain power, when so many people are ignorant or unable to accept the TRUTH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beyond a doubt our greatest President
> 
> Carry on
Click to expand...


Doesn't happen often that rightwinger and I are in complete agreement.


----------



## gipper

The great H.L.Mencken agrees with me.  To bad so many Americans are not intelligent enough or too brainwashed, to the see the truth.  



> But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination&#8212;"that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country&#8212;and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.
> H.L. Mencken on Abraham Lincoln


----------



## thanatos144

Don't you neo confederates ever get tired or crying that the south lost a war they started?


----------



## Mushroom

gipper said:


> The great H.L.Mencken agrees with me.  To bad so many Americans are not intelligent enough or too brainwashed, to the see the truth.



Ahh, so a racist agrees with you.  Oh wow.



> The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered, they lack many of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display.


Trieste of the Gods, 1930, first edition



> _t is impossible to talk anything resembling discretion or judgment to a colored woman.
> _


_
H.L. Mencken, personal diary, 1943

Yea, guess it is satisfying to agree with such an individual to some people.  I am thankfully not one of them._


----------



## 4Horsemen

Go see a REAL movie....*Django Unchained.*


----------



## thanatos144

4Horsemen said:


> Go see a REAL movie....*Django Unchained.*



Rather not see this Tarantino movie....All it is is a excuse for him to say ****** 60 thousand times....


----------



## gipper

And the great Ron Paul agrees with me...

I stand with liberty and you guys stand with tyranny.



> In 2007, Paul told &#8220;Meet The Press&#8221; said that the North should have bought the slaves living in the South and freed them, rather than pursue a war.
> &#8220;Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a Civil War,&#8221; Paul told Tim Russert.
> In another undated video on YouTube, Paul told an audience that slavery was an important factor in the Civil War, but not the biggest reason the conflict was fought.
> &#8220;It really wasn&#8217;t the issue of why the war was fought in my estimation,&#8221; he said.
> Paul said that Abraham Lincoln, like Alexander Hamilton, believed that central government should benefit the industrial base in the North, along with a central banking system.
> &#8220;When they saw this opportunity, they used the issue of slavery to precipitate the war and literally cancel out the whole concept of individual choice,&#8221; he said.
> &#8220;Many think the question of secession was settled by our Civil War. On the contrary; the principles of self-governance and voluntary association are at the core of our founding.  Clearly Thomas Jefferson believed secession was proper, albeit as a last resort,&#8221; he added.
> &#8220;Keep in mind that the first and third paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence expressly contemplate the dissolution of a political union when the underlying government becomes tyrannical. Do we have a &#8216;government without limitation of powers&#8217; yet? The Federal government kept the Union together through violence and force in the Civil War, but did might really make right?&#8221; Paul added.
> Ron Paul: Secession is right, Civil War maybe not - Yahoo! News


----------



## thanatos144

gipper said:


> And the great Ron Paul agrees with me...
> 
> I stand with liberty and you guys stand with tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2007, Paul told Meet The Press said that the North should have bought the slaves living in the South and freed them, rather than pursue a war.
> Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a Civil War, Paul told Tim Russert.
> In another undated video on YouTube, Paul told an audience that slavery was an important factor in the Civil War, but not the biggest reason the conflict was fought.
> It really wasnt the issue of why the war was fought in my estimation, he said.
> Paul said that Abraham Lincoln, like Alexander Hamilton, believed that central government should benefit the industrial base in the North, along with a central banking system.
> When they saw this opportunity, they used the issue of slavery to precipitate the war and literally cancel out the whole concept of individual choice, he said.
> Many think the question of secession was settled by our Civil War. On the contrary; the principles of self-governance and voluntary association are at the core of our founding.  Clearly Thomas Jefferson believed secession was proper, albeit as a last resort, he added.
> Keep in mind that the first and third paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence expressly contemplate the dissolution of a political union when the underlying government becomes tyrannical. Do we have a government without limitation of powers yet? The Federal government kept the Union together through violence and force in the Civil War, but did might really make right? Paul added.
> Ron Paul: Secession is right, Civil War maybe not - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...


Ron Paul is a racist. Please try again.


----------



## Fun

You're right. Spielberg should have said: "We're not entirely sure that all of this happened exactly like this, so let's just not make the movie."
Haha


----------



## thanatos144

Here are the facts....Lincoln was elected President, The confederates started a war shortly after, The union won the war , Slavery was ended, the rest is filler. I know you neoconfederats will say it was a economic thing that the mean Union wouldn't trade fairly with the confederate states....Why would they want to trade with a people whose economy was made on the backs of slaves? Also why should the union have to trade with slave owning traitors to the country? You have to love that the Neo confederates like to cry about how Lincoln didnt treat the confederate states constitutionally which is funny seeing since they seceded they  gave up their constitutional rights.


----------



## paperview

The movie was based on historian Doris Kearns Goodwin's book _Team of Rivals_.


----------



## Mushroom

gipper said:


> And the great Ron Paul agrees with me...



Greatm yet another example of why I am glad I do not agree with you.

And sorry, already busted that statement of his days ago.  If you think every other nation ended slavery without bloodshed, then obviously you know nothing of the history of France.


----------



## Mushroom

thanatos144 said:


> Here are the facts....Lincoln was elected President, The confederates started a war shortly after, The union won the war , Slavery was ended, the rest is filler. I know you neoconfederats will say it was a economic thing that the mean Union wouldn't trade fairly with the confederate states....Why would they want to trade with a people whose economy was made on the backs of slaves? Also why should the union have to trade with slave owning traitors to the country? You have to love that the Neo confederates like to cry about how Lincoln didnt treat the confederate states constitutionally which is funny seeing since they seceded they  gave up their constitutional rights.



This is actually part of the irony of it all.

After the war was over, the South had to live with Reconstruction.  Now of course a great many resented it, but also most appreciated that it was in the model that President Lincoln had set forth before he was assassinated, not the harsh retribution that most Republicans at the time wanted to see.

And once President Johnson was gone, they proceeded with the radical plan whole-heartedly.  And the more moderate idea was dead for another 11 years.


----------



## gipper

Lots of historians know that Lincoln was a tyrant.  Yet many Americans still cling to the silly Lincoln myth...continuing a foolish charade.  



> Unfortunately, say historians, its portrayal of Americas most revered president is about as accurate as the notion that an ordinary soldier could have recited the Gettysburg Address from memory when the speech only became famous in the 20th century.
> Not only, they say, has Spielbergs lengthy drama grossly exaggerated Lincolns role in ending slavery, but it has also glossed over the presidents rather less likeable qualities.
> Both Spielberg and his screenwriter have insisted this film is the definitive account of the defeat of slavery. We were enormously accurate, said Kushner.
> What were describing absolutely happened.
> Sadly, historians have been less impressed than the critics by such assurances. One after another has risked breaking step with national sentiment by declaring that Lincoln wasnt quite the great liberator after all.
> The Emancipation Proclamation is an order issued to all segments of the Executive branch, including the Army and Navy, of the United States by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War
> *As cinema its very, very good. As history it leaves something to be desired, says Eric Foner, a history professor at Columbia University who won a Pulitzer Prize for his book on Lincoln and slavery.*
> Historian Henry Louis Gates has called him a recovering racist. Other African-American experts on the period agree.
> He supported so-called black colonisation, backing unsuccessful schemes to send willing freed slaves to new lives  still toiling in the fields under blazing suns, of course  in countries such as Haiti, Panama and British Honduras.
> Supporters say he only did it to persuade Congress to agree to freeing the slaves, but new evidence from, of all places, the National Archives at Kew in South-West London, suggests not.
> *Even after Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation of 1863  which announced that all those enslaved in Confederate territories would be freed for ever  he approved plans in tandem with the British to set up freed slave settlements in what are now Belize and Guyana.*
> Was Lincoln racist? Spielberg film lionises him but historians are now asking a shocking question | Mail Online


----------



## gipper

Are you intelligent enough to accept the truth about Lincoln?

This article spells it out for you...



> This Humean notion of Americanism that acknowledges the right of a self-governing people to secede is framed in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is primarily a document justifying secession, but it has been thoroughly corrupted by Lincoln&#8217;s reading of it and the ritualistic repetition and expansion of that reading. The Lincoln tradition reads the Declaration as affirming a metaphysical doctrine of individual rights (all men are created equal) and takes this to be the fundamental symbol of the American regime, trumping all other symbols, including the symbol of moral excellence internal to those inherited moral communities protected by the reserved powers of the states under the Tenth Amendment. Indeed, this tradition holds that the Declaration of Independence is superior to the Constitution itself, for being mere positive law, the Constitution can always be trumped by the &#8220;higher&#8221; metaphysical law of equality.
> 
> The Constitution of the United States was founded as a federative compact between the states, marking out the authority of a central government, having enumerated powers delegated to it by sovereign states which reserved for themselves the vast domain of unenumerated powers. By an act of philosophical alchemy, the Lincoln tradition has transmuted this essentially federative document into a consolidated nationalist regime having as its telos the instantiation of an abstract metaphysical proposition about equality. Such a proposition, in so far as it is taken seriously, must give rise to endless antinomic interpretations, and being metaphysical, these interpretations must stand in ultimate and implacable opposition. In this vision, the reserved powers of the states vanish, and the states themselves are transformed into resources for and administrative units of a nationalist political project &#8220;dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.&#8221; So well established has this inversion become that Mortimer Adler could write a book on the Constitution using for the title not the words of the Constitution, but those of the Lincolnian Declaration: &#8220;We Hold These Truths...&#8221;[4]
> 
> Lincoln&#8217;s vision of a consolidated nationalism in pursuit of an antinomic doctrine of equality had its roots in the French Revolution, which sought to unify the decentralized traditional order of France into a consolidated nationalism in pursuit of the rights of man. But Lincoln&#8217;s vision was also forward looking. By the 1830s, the forces of nationalism and industrialism were sweeping Europe, and had begun to have an impact on an industrial *North all too eager to compete on the world stage with the empires of Europe. For this project, centralization and consolidation were necessary. Lincoln&#8217;s vision of consolidating the states into a nationalist regime was of a piece with that of Garibaldi in Italy, Bismarck in Germany, Lenin in Russia, and the general consolidating, industrializing, and imperializing forces on the move in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.*
> 
> One reason why Americans have difficulty even thinking about secession is that since 1865, they have been taught and have come to believe the triumphant Unionist theory of their own constitutional order. According to that theory, the break with England threw the colonists into a state of nature from which they spontaneously formed the political society of the American people in the aggregate. This body was sovereign and created a central government. This government, in turn, authorized the formation of thirteen state governments as administrative units through which the sovereign will could be best expressed. In this view, an American state never possessed the attributes of sovereignty and so could not legally secede from the Union any more than a county could legally secede from a state. The classic formulation of the nationalist theory was given by Justice Story in the 1830s; it was eloquently defended by Webster and was established in the world *with a writ of fire and sword by Lincoln. *[6] Despite this distinguished pedigree, however, the theory is not only false, but spectacularly so.
> 
> The main error of the Unionist theory is the claim that the states were never sovereign. Each state, however, declared its sovereignty and independence from Britain on its own, and during the war each engaged in acts of sovereignty. After the war, each state was recognized by name as sovereign by the British government.
> 
> This did not have to be asserted, since everyone knew that secession was an action available to an American state.[7] If, at the time of ratification, Lincoln&#8217;s theory had been stated that the states were not and had never been sovereign, and that once in the Union a state could not leave, there would have been no Union.
> 
> ...*but it was no more hypocritical than Lincoln&#8217;s Gettysburg Address that presents the conflict of 1861&#8211;65 as an earth-shaking war to make the world safe for self-government, when he was engaged in a total war aimed at the civilian population of the South, and designed to suppress their efforts at self-government.* The irony is complete when we consider that the Soviets eventually did allow the secession of states (something that caused nervous tremors in the Bush administration). Perhaps over time, as sometimes happens, the Soviets were partially converted by their own hypocrisy.



http://mises.org/daily/6345/A-Voluntary-Federation


----------



## gipper

And now the great Walter Williams chimes in....and of course he and I are in complete agreement and those who posted in this thread, who disagreed, are proven to be uninformed.

Lincoln committed treason by warring on fellow Americans causing terrible death and destruction, primarily to keep revenue flowing to the federal government, as I stated long ago in this thread.



> You say, "His Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves! That proves he was against slavery." Lincoln's words: "I view the matter (Emancipation Proclamation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." At the time Lincoln wrote the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union. London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and considering assisting it in its war effort.
> Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." But that was Lincoln's 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
> 
> *Why didn't Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?*
> Abraham Lincoln - Walter E. Williams - Page 1


----------



## gipper

Further proof from the great Mises website that I am right and those of you who admire Lincoln are WRONG.  

Lincoln was a tyrant.  He preferred war against follow Americans solely to keep southern tariffs in force. All Americans should condemn him for his actions.

Please read and comprehend...



> The moral grandeur of Lincoln is rooted in the myth that he made a war on the South to abolish slavery. This is, at most, a Platonic noble lie designed to legitimate the Unionist regime. Lincoln thought that slavery was immoral, but so did Robert E. Lee. And Lee, at his own expense, freed the slaves he had inherited, through marriage, from the family of George Washington. Only around fifteen percent of southerners even owned slaves, and the great majority of these had holdings of one to six. Jefferson Davis was an enlightened slave holder who said that once the Confederacy gained its independence, it would mean the end of slavery. The Confederate Cabinet agreed to abolish slavery within five years after the cessation of hostilities in exchange for recognition by Britain and France. Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery, but simply and solely because they were being invaded. And the North certainly did not invade to abolish slavery.
> Slavery was more secure in 1860 than it had ever been. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, had declared that Africans were not citizens; and Congress approved a constitutional amendment that would take the regulation of slavery forever out of the hands of the central government. Lincoln said that he had no authority and no inclination to interfere with slavery in the states where it was legal. He could tolerate slavery as a means of controlling what nearly everyone saw to be an exotic and alien population. What he could not tolerate was a dissolution of the Union, loss of revenue from the South, and a low-tariff zone on his southern border. This was the consistent thread running through Lincolns policy from 18601865. He would not recognize the conventions of the people of the southern states, and he would not negotiate with their commissioners. He would go to war immediately to coerce the states of the deep South back into the Union. And it was this act that Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas could not tolerate. They had been opposed to the radicalism of the deep South, and their legislatures had voted firmly to stay within the Union. But they would not answer Lincolns call for troops to coerce a state into the Union; this they considered not only unconstitutional, but immoral.
> 
> This broader experience enables us to take a fresh look at the morality of Lincolns decision. It has been said that, although the Union was originally conceived as a compact between sovereign states entailing a right to secession, it evolved into the notion of an indivisible, organic Union from which secession was impossible. This notion, however, was late in arriving, and was not universally received by 1860. Southerners obviously did not believe it, nor did many northerners. There was tremendous opposition to Lincolns invasion of the South. To maintain power, he was forced to suspend the writ of habeas corpus throughout the North for the duration of the war, netting tens of thousands of political prisoners. Some 300 opposition newspapers were closed down. Democratic candidates, critical of the war, were arrested by the military, and the military was used to secure Republican victories at the polls, including Lincolns election in 1864
> *Charles Adams has shown that the Republican agenda could not tolerate a low-tariff zone to the south, and that the North had become accustomed to the Souths funding the bulk of the federal revenue through its export trade.[5] And it was just this horror of what an economically independent South would mean to northern industrial interests that Charles Bancroft, writing in 1874, presented as the justification for invading the South:*
> 
> While so gigantic a war was an immense evil; to allow the right of peaceable secession would have been ruin to the enterprise and thrift of the industrious laborer, and keen eyed business man of the North. It would have been the greatest calamity of the age. War was less to be feared. [6]
> 
> *A million-and-a-half people were killed, wounded, or missing in the war. The defense of protective tariffs has seldom been so ferocious, or so crude.*
> 
> Lincolns conservative statesmanlike posture about preserving an indivisible union cannot be taken seriously. Not only did he not inherit such a union, the only union he was interested in preserving was a union which was dominated by northern industrial ambition. And it was exactly this that Lincoln, and the Republican party, after his death, accomplished.



Lincoln's Inversion of the American Union - Donald W. Livingston - Mises Daily


----------



## gipper

You must let go of your brainwashed thinking, instilled in you by the State, in their indoctrination centers. Lincoln was a fucking TYRANT!  He has much in common with the many murderous tyrants of history, which all of us can agree upon.  Why can't we agree on Lincoln?

The Mises column gets better with this...



> What would the great Virginians, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick Henry, George Mason, John Randolph, John Taylor, and Lighthorse Harry Lee have done? They all supported the Union, believed the Constitution was a compact between the states, and were Virginians first. So when the states of the deep South discussed secession, Virginia called a convention of the people to decide the question, and the convention voted firmly to stay in the Union. It was only after Lincoln had decided on war and called for troops that the convention reconvened and voted to secede. *Madison had said in the Federalist that the central government could not coerce a state.* To be sure that the will of the people was expressed, the judgment of the convention was put to the people of Virginia, who supported secession by a margin of five to one. *Tennessee was also pro-Union, but, in a referendum of the voters, decided to secede by a margin of two to one after Lincolns decision to wage war. The pro-Union states of North Carolina and Arkansas seceded for the same reason.*
> 
> *To treat, as Lincoln did, the peoples of entire states who had engaged in deliberate and legal acts of self-government as common criminals and as domestic foes aroused deep emotions of resentment and injustice that could be felt only by an American who had received with his mothers milk the principle, framed in the Declaration of Independence, of the self-government of independent moral and political societies. As the case of Robert E. Lee makes clear, this feeling of resentment had nothing to do with slavery,* an institution he thought was on its way to oblivion. *It was this deeply felt American resentment that enabled the entire South, 85 percent of whom did not own slaves, to mobilize and to make spectacular sacrifices to keep out an invading army, the government of which was intent on destroying, and did destroy, the corporate liberty of their political societies.* It was this sense of state honor that Hamilton had in mind when he said in the Federalist that the central government could never make war against an American state, and which he again asserted again before the New York State convention: To coerce a state would be one of the maddest projects ever devised. No state would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another. One cannot imagine the great Virginians of his time disagreeing.
> 
> Herman Melville, who had a good eye for the hypocrisy of northern industrial unionism, wrote:
> 
> Who looks at Lee must think of Washington
> In pain must think and hide the thought
> So deep with grievous meaning is it fraught.[8]
> 
> *To this conservative and backward-looking image, we should add the forward-looking and progressive image: he who looks at Lincoln has seen the consolidationists Bismarck and Lenin.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

The unwashed, unintelligent gipper keeps on nattering.


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> The unwashed, unintelligent gipper keeps on nattering.



You are like many Americans...terribly confused....but don't feel bad.  There are many of you brainwashed drones out there.

You can readily comprehend government tyranny at Waco and Ruby Ridge, but not in Old Dishonest Abe.  So, you are getting close to reaching a basic level of understanding, but you are still terribly confused and conflicted.

When an American comes to recognize and accept the Lincoln Myth, one becomes a REAL American.


----------



## editec

LordBrownTrout said:


> Suspended habeas corpus, jailed political dissidents.  Dude was a tyrant.



Yes, he was.  Tyrant is exactly the right word, too.  

A tyrant is a ruler given extrordinary powers granted in times of extreme threat to the state.  It's a Greek word, incidently, and it meant the same thing then it means now.

A tyrant is granted tyranical powers (like martial law) during a time of civil revolt or in times of war.

Of course, he started acting like a tyrant a few months before he was granted those unusual powers by Congress, too, so I can sort of understand when some people bitch about it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, brainwashed drones such a gipper do not have a basic level of understanding about such basic matters as the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, and the role of race in America.

As such as gipper learn, they will become better Americasn and more positively involved in our country's narrative.


----------



## JakeStarkey

editec said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suspended habeas corpus, jailed political dissidents.  Dude was a tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he was.  Tyrant is exactly the right word, too.
> 
> A tyrant is a ruler given extrordinary powers granted in times of extreme threat to the state.  It's a Greek word, incidently, and it meant the same thing then it means now.
> 
> A tyrant is granted tyranical powers (like martial law) during a time of civil revolt or in times of war.
> 
> Of course, he started acting like a tyrant a few months before he was granted those unusual powers by Congress, too, so I can sort of understand when some people bitch about it.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the insight.  Only those who wished for a CSA success bitch about the outcome.


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, brainwashed drones such a gipper do not have a basic level of understanding about such basic matters as the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, and the role of race in America.
> 
> As such as gipper learn, they will become better Americasn and more positively involved in our country's narrative.



Lets see...I have posted the views of EXPERTS, who agree with me about the tyrant Dishonest Abe, while you have posted nothing backing your belief in the Lincoln Myth. 

Believing Lincoln right in murdering 800k Americans is fundamentally the belief in the unlimited power of the Central State.  It is frightening that so many Americans continue to believe the big lie.  

Is it any wonder we now have an out of control central government?


----------



## JakeStarkey

gipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, brainwashed drones such a gipper do not have a basic level of understanding about such basic matters as the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, and the role of race in America.
> 
> As such as gipper learn, they will become better Americasn and more positively involved in our country's narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see...I have posted the views of EXPERTS, who agree with me about the tyrant Dishonest Abe, while you have posted nothing backing your belief in the Lincoln Myth.
> 
> Believing Lincoln right in murdering 800k Americans is fundamentally the belief in the unlimited power of the Central State.  It is frightening that so many Americans continue to believe the big lie.
> 
> Is it any wonder we now have an out of control central government?
Click to expand...


gipper, my boy, they are not experts, merely people with strange opinions unsupported by the evidence: much like you, in fact.

The folks of the southern states wanted to continue trafficking in human flesh: that was states right to them.

They, and no one else, are responsible for the Civil War.

All the central government required was their submission to legal and constitutional and electoral process, keeping slaves out of the free territories, and respecting federal property in their states.

Instead, the southern states tried to murder the union, and were executed instead.


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, brainwashed drones such a gipper do not have a basic level of understanding about such basic matters as the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, and the role of race in America.
> 
> As such as gipper learn, they will become better Americasn and more positively involved in our country's narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see...I have posted the views of EXPERTS, who agree with me about the tyrant Dishonest Abe, while you have posted nothing backing your belief in the Lincoln Myth.
> 
> Believing Lincoln right in murdering 800k Americans is fundamentally the belief in the unlimited power of the Central State.  It is frightening that so many Americans continue to believe the big lie.
> 
> Is it any wonder we now have an out of control central government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gipper, my boy, they are not experts, merely people with strange opinions unsupported by the evidence: much like you, in fact.
> 
> The folks of the southern states wanted to continue trafficking in human flesh: that was states right to them.
> 
> They, and no one else, are responsible for the Civil War.
> 
> All the central government required was their submission to legal and constitutional and electoral process, keeping slaves out of the free territories, and respecting federal property in their states.
> 
> Instead, the southern states tried to murder the union, and were executed instead.
Click to expand...


Apparently you would not know an expert if they hit you in the face.

You still have yet to reconcile the disconnected beliefs you hold.  You find Waco and Ruby Ridge reprehensible, but are cool with the War of Northern Aggression.  But then, you might not be intelligent enough to see the disconnect.


----------



## JakeStarkey

gipper, you are no expert, not even an informed layman on this subject.

I am not cool with the War of Southern Aggression. But I understand why it happened and who carry the blame for it.

Please don't hesitate to drop by, but don't think you will get a passing grade on the subject anytime soon.


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> gipper, you are no expert, not even an informed layman on this subject.
> 
> I am not cool with the War of Southern Aggression. But I understand why it happened and who carry the blame for it.
> 
> Please don't hesitate to drop by, but don't think you will get a passing grade on the subject anytime soon.



More deflection and ignorance from you.  I never stated I was an expert, but I did post several columns written by experts.  I suspect you do not understand this.

Are you capable of answering a direct question?  Answer the question.

Why do your fail to support your position with anything other then your foolish opinion?

Is it that since Dishonest Abe was an R, you support him, while posting consistently against the actions and beliefs of Ds.  Are you that simple minded that your belief system is Rs good Ds bad?


----------



## paperview

White supremacists and white nationalists are only "experts" at being white supremacists and white nationalists.


----------



## JakeStarkey

gipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> gipper, you are no expert, not even an informed layman on this subject.
> 
> I am not cool with the War of Southern Aggression. But I understand why it happened and who carry the blame for it.
> 
> Please don't hesitate to drop by, but don't think you will get a passing grade on the subject anytime soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection and ignorance from you.  I never stated I was an expert, but I did post several columns written by experts.  I suspect you do not understand this.
> 
> Are you capable of answering a direct question?  Answer the question.
> 
> Why do your fail to support your position with anything other then your foolish opinion?
> 
> Is it that since Dishonest Abe was an R, you support him, while posting consistently against the actions and beliefs of Ds.  Are you that simple minded that your belief system is Rs good Ds bad?
Click to expand...


Beating down the nonsense from your "experts" is the opposite of deflection.

The facts did not fit the foolish opinions of you and your supporters.

I support Lincoln because he understood that all Americans must support constitutional and electoral process.  He acted appropriately: (1) no slavery in the territories, (2) recognition and protection of federal properties in the South.

If the far right of my Republican Party acted as did the secessionists in the Democratic Party to dismember the country, I would expect our sitting president to act the same way as did Lincoln.

We the People as a whole are sovereign to the individual and several states.


----------



## oldfart

JakeStarkey said:


> I support Lincoln because he understood that all Americans must support constitutional and electoral process.  He acted appropriately: (1) no slavery in the territories, (2) recognition and protection of federal properties in the South.



You might want to re-read Lincoln's First  Inaugural Address.  



> This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.



Lincoln explicitly recognized a right of revolution, but notes that he is bound by oath to oppose it.    



> The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor....
> In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."



Of course, although Lincoln did not mention it; recourse to arms to separate the Union was treason under the Constitution.  Those who venture to exercise that "right of revolution" must be prepared for the consequences if they fail.  Many in Congress in 1865 favored mass execution of rebel officers and officials, and there is no Constitutional  guarantee that the penalty for treason could not be death for each and every traitor.  A few historians have speculated that a more bloody Reconstruction might have created a stronger and better Union.  While I don't spend too much time on counterfactual history, I think there is a good book in what would have happened had Booth struck earlier, before Appomattox, and had the Vice President not been from Tennessee but from  Ohio or Massachusetts.

Personally I think it is a mistake to lionize soldiers such as Napoleon or Robert E Lee;  their military exploits do not compensate for the blood on their hands.  Lee's redemption came for his behavior after the War, which is conveniently forgotten by virtually every "Southern Nationalist".


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lincoln was trying to ease the Southern States back into the Union, but was also setting them up for failure if they fired the first shot.

Brilliant!  When the secesh fired on Fort Sumter, the northern Democrats, who had been screaming for conciliation with would be traitors, began screaming rightfully for the blood of those who began the War of Southern Aggression.  Lincoln knew he needed Republicans and Democrats in the North and the West to combat the traitors

He sealed when the secesh fired on Old Glory and traduced the memories of Washington and the Patriots.

Genius.


----------



## gipper

paperview said:


> White supremacists and white nationalists are only "experts" at being white supremacists and white nationalists.



You are a complete idiot.  Walter Williams is black.

Can't fix stupid.


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> gipper, you are no expert, not even an informed layman on this subject.
> 
> I am not cool with the War of Southern Aggression. But I understand why it happened and who carry the blame for it.
> 
> Please don't hesitate to drop by, but don't think you will get a passing grade on the subject anytime soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection and ignorance from you.  I never stated I was an expert, but I did post several columns written by experts.  I suspect you do not understand this.
> 
> Are you capable of answering a direct question?  Answer the question.
> 
> Why do your fail to support your position with anything other then your foolish opinion?
> 
> Is it that since Dishonest Abe was an R, you support him, while posting consistently against the actions and beliefs of Ds.  Are you that simple minded that your belief system is Rs good Ds bad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beating down the nonsense from your "experts" is the opposite of deflection.
> 
> The facts did not fit the foolish opinions of you and your supporters.
> 
> I support Lincoln because he understood that all Americans must support constitutional and electoral process.  He acted appropriately: (1) no slavery in the territories, (2) recognition and protection of federal properties in the South.
> 
> If the far right of my Republican Party acted as did the secessionists in the Democratic Party to dismember the country, I would expect our sitting president to act the same way as did Lincoln.
> 
> We the People as a whole are sovereign to the individual and several states.
Click to expand...


You have no idea of what you speak.  The Founders and our Founding documents granted secession. Lincoln ignored the Founders and waged war against fellow Americans solely to promote the expansionist state.  

To think Lincoln was following the Constitution and the Founders by killing Americans, is utterly ignorant and undeniably false.  

And you like to condemn the statist actions of today's Dems and Obama, while commending the actions of a tyrant in Dishonest Abe.  You are most confused.

Rs good....Ds bad...duh!


----------



## JakeStarkey

gipper, the Founders and our Founding documents did not grant the power of secession. Lincoln followed the Founders' intent and waged war against traitorous Americans solely to preserve the Union.   

To think Lincoln was not following the Constitution and the Founders by putting down treason and preserving the Union is utterly ignorant and undeniably false.  

And you like to condemn the honorable actions of today's Dems and Pubs, while condemning the actions of a tyrant in Dishonest Abe.  

You are most confused.


----------



## oldfart

JakeStarkey said:


> Lincoln was trying to ease the Southern States back into the Union, but was also setting them up for failure if they fired the first shot.


The definitive study of this is Russell McClintock's "Lincoln & the Decision for War" (2008) published by my alma mater, UNC at Chapel Hill Press.  It's a masterful scholarly work, very readable by the armchair historian, and only 280 pages.  



JakeStarkey said:


> Brilliant!  When the secesh fired on Fort Sumter, the northern Democrats, who had been screaming for conciliation with would be traitors, began screaming rightfully for the blood of those who began the War of Southern Aggression.  Lincoln knew he needed Republicans and Democrats in the North and the West to combat the traitors
> 
> He sealed when the secesh fired on Old Glory and traduced the memories of Washington and the Patriots.
> 
> Genius.



Lincoln actually had three goals which drove his actions in the period between the election and the first call for troops.  

First, because of Buchanan's unwillingness to act, Lincoln inherited a situation where separation of the Deep South was almost accomplished.  Virtually all of the arsenals, forts, and public buildings in those states had been turned over to state governments or had been seized by state forces.  Only two main forts remained in the hands of the federal government:  Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens.  If they fell before the North mobilized, there would be no base from which to assert national authority such as the collection of tariffs.  

Second, Lincoln had a difficult political situation in the North.  You correctly refer to the Peace Democrats, but the Republicans were also divided.  If it was to come to war, Lincoln needed as broad support as he could muster for a war effort.  Invading the South before a major provocation was not politically possible.  

Finally, and most crucially, was the problem of the border states.  A number of them (Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee) had strong Unionist sentiments which for the time being were ascendant.  With nine states on the edge, Union victory was impossible if he did not retain a substantial number of them.  Until First Bull Run Lincoln tried everything to retain the border states, especially Kentucky and Maryland.  He ended up with Deleware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and half of Virginia.


----------



## JakeStarkey

gipper said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacists and white nationalists are only "experts" at being white supremacists and white nationalists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a complete idiot.  Walter Williams is black.
> 
> Can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...


Walter Williams called John C. Calhoun his hero: fuck them both, I say.

gipper, read oldfart and learn.


----------



## oldfart

gipper said:


> You have no idea of what you speak.  The Founders and our Founding documents granted secession.


Generally I avoid intellectual combat with an unarmed opponent as unsporting; but in your case I think an exception is warranted.  What is your basis for the above claim?  Have you read the Articles of Confederation and Lincoln's First Inaugural Address?  


> I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure foreverit being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
> Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate itbreak it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
> Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
> But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
> It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.



Pray tell what is your response to this reasoning?  


gipper said:


> Lincoln ignored the Founders and waged war against fellow Americans solely to promote the expansionist state.



Poppycock and balderdash.  You embarrass yourself.  Come back when you locate a brain.


----------



## gipper

oldfart said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea of what you speak.  The Founders and our Founding documents granted secession.
> 
> 
> 
> Generally I avoid intellectual combat with an unarmed opponent as unsporting; but in your case I think an exception is warranted.  What is your basis for the above claim?  Have you read the Articles of Confederation and Lincoln's First Inaugural Address?
> 
> 
> 
> I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure foreverit being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
> Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate itbreak it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
> Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
> But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
> It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pray tell what is your response to this reasoning?
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln ignored the Founders and waged war against fellow Americans solely to promote the expansionist state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poppycock and balderdash.  You embarrass yourself.  Come back when you locate a brain.
Click to expand...


Oh my...another foolish lover of the murderous Dishonest Abe.  

If you don't know that secession was ALWAYS a right of the states, you don't know much.  Up and until they murderous tyrant started the War of Northern Aggression, every state in the Union thought it could secede.  Secessionist movements had even existed prior to the war.  No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede.  Most of the Founders agreed with secession.  The states WERE sovereign.

To think the Founders would have sided with Traitor Abe, is utterly and completely ignorant.  

Read my posts and all the experts opinions I posted within them, in this thread, and get educated.


----------



## oldfart

gipper said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poppycock and balderdash.  You embarrass yourself.  Come back when you locate a brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't know that secession was ALWAYS a right of the states, you don't know much.  Up and until they murderous tyrant started the War of Northern Aggression, every state in the Union thought it could secede.  Secessionist movements had even existed prior to the war.  No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede.  Most of the Founders agreed with secession.  The states WERE sovereign.
Click to expand...

It's nice to know that your grasp of history and argument is as vapid as your drivel-driven writing style.  You present no evidence or logic to support your allegations whatsoever.  For example, you state " No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede. "  Could you give me a single example of where a ratifying convention asserted this point?  Many had reservations about individual liberties which were addressed in the Bill of Rights, and some even tried to make ratification contingent on those amendments.  But none of them asserted a right to unilaterally leave the Union.  No such debate even occurred at any of the ratification conventions.  It seems that as your credentials come out of a Cracker Jack box, your evidence comes on moonbeams from Mars.   

As to Lincoln's argument that the Union pre-exists the Constitution (and the Revolution!) , beginning with the 1774 compact, you have no comment.  Nor can you explain the repeated phrase "perpetual" in the Articles of Confederation.  Even Lincoln's argument that under the law of contracts (assuming the Union to be a voluntary association) the association cannot be dissolved unilaterally.  

Three strikes; you're out.  



gipper said:


> Read my posts and all the experts opinions I posted within them, in this thread, and get educated.



I have read your posts, and quite a tedious task it was.  May I suggest that you hire an editor until you learn how to write.  Add a fact-checker or researcher while you are at it.  These are the most basic still sets of a historian.  As for your "experts", my nose still hurts from spewing coffee through my nostrils at your citations.  Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck would be an improvement.  I see no evidence that you have read a single source document or primary source in this discussion and have no clue where to find either.  You obviously have no familiarity with the body of Lincoln scholarship and couldn't tell Roy Basler from Bill O'Reilly.  One's a respected Lincoln scholar and the other is a crackpot who wrote a bad book about Lincoln.  Do you know which is which?


----------



## mudwhistle

gipper said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea of what you speak.  The Founders and our Founding documents granted secession.
> 
> 
> 
> Generally I avoid intellectual combat with an unarmed opponent as unsporting; but in your case I think an exception is warranted.  What is your basis for the above claim?  Have you read the Articles of Confederation and Lincoln's First Inaugural Address?
> 
> 
> Pray tell what is your response to this reasoning?
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln ignored the Founders and waged war against fellow Americans solely to promote the expansionist state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poppycock and balderdash.  You embarrass yourself.  Come back when you locate a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my...another foolish lover of the murderous Dishonest Abe.
> 
> If you don't know that secession was ALWAYS a right of the states, you don't know much.  Up and until they murderous tyrant started the War of Northern Aggression, every state in the Union thought it could secede.  Secessionist movements had even existed prior to the war.  No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede.  Most of the Founders agreed with secession.  The states WERE sovereign.
> 
> To think the Founders would have sided with Traitor Abe, is utterly and completely ignorant.
> 
> Read my posts and all the experts opinions I posted within them, in this thread, and get educated.
Click to expand...


I have a better idea......


.....go fuck yourself.


----------



## gipper

mudwhistle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Generally I avoid intellectual combat with an unarmed opponent as unsporting; but in your case I think an exception is warranted.  What is your basis for the above claim?  Have you read the Articles of Confederation and Lincoln's First Inaugural Address?
> 
> 
> Pray tell what is your response to this reasoning?
> 
> 
> Poppycock and balderdash.  You embarrass yourself.  Come back when you locate a brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my...another foolish lover of the murderous Dishonest Abe.
> 
> If you don't know that secession was ALWAYS a right of the states, you don't know much.  Up and until they murderous tyrant started the War of Northern Aggression, every state in the Union thought it could secede.  Secessionist movements had even existed prior to the war.  No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede.  Most of the Founders agreed with secession.  The states WERE sovereign.
> 
> To think the Founders would have sided with Traitor Abe, is utterly and completely ignorant.
> 
> Read my posts and all the experts opinions I posted within them, in this thread, and get educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a better idea......
> 
> 
> .....go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...


Can't fix stupid...no truer words could be applied to you.


----------



## tjvh

Had the Union been more successful in countering the rebellion of the South in the early years of the Civil War, Lincoln would never had brought out a desire to free the slaves, it was only when he was losing support for his cause did he decide to make things about freeing slaves. History has proven that fact time and time again.


----------



## gipper

oldfart said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poppycock and balderdash.  You embarrass yourself.  Come back when you locate a brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't know that secession was ALWAYS a right of the states, you don't know much.  Up and until they murderous tyrant started the War of Northern Aggression, every state in the Union thought it could secede.  Secessionist movements had even existed prior to the war.  No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede.  Most of the Founders agreed with secession.  The states WERE sovereign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's nice to know that your grasp of history and argument is as vapid as your drivel-driven writing style.  You present no evidence or logic to support your allegations whatsoever.  For example, you state " No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede. "  Could you give me a single example of where a ratifying convention asserted this point?  Many had reservations about individual liberties which were addressed in the Bill of Rights, and some even tried to make ratification contingent on those amendments.  But none of them asserted a right to unilaterally leave the Union.  No such debate even occurred at any of the ratification conventions.  It seems that as your credentials come out of a Cracker Jack box, your evidence comes on moonbeams from Mars.
> 
> As to Lincoln's argument that the Union pre-exists the Constitution (and the Revolution!) , beginning with the 1774 compact, you have no comment.  Nor can you explain the repeated phrase "perpetual" in the Articles of Confederation.  Even Lincoln's argument that under the law of contracts (assuming the Union to be a voluntary association) the association cannot be dissolved unilaterally.
> 
> Three strikes; you're out.
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read my posts and all the experts opinions I posted within them, in this thread, and get educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read your posts, and quite a tedious task it was.  May I suggest that you hire an editor until you learn how to write.  Add a fact-checker or researcher while you are at it.  These are the most basic still sets of a historian.  As for your "experts", my nose still hurts from spewing coffee through my nostrils at your citations.  Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck would be an improvement.  I see no evidence that you have read a single source document or primary source in this discussion and have no clue where to find either.  You obviously have no familiarity with the body of Lincoln scholarship and couldn't tell Roy Basler from Bill O'Reilly.  One's a respected Lincoln scholar and the other is a crackpot who wrote a bad book about Lincoln.  Do you know which is which?
Click to expand...


I have cited the works of several experts including the PhD Walter Williams, PhD David Livingston, PhD Thomas DiLorenzo, and the Great PhD Ludwig Von Mises.  All men devoted to individual liberty and the rule of law.  Of course, these great man know Lincoln was a tyrant, as do I.  You have cited no one but your ignorant opinion and fall for the Lincoln Myth.

Once an American comes to realize the truth about Dishonest Abe, that American recognizes tyranny when they see it.  Those incapable of comprehending the truth, will never understand tyranny in America.


----------



## gipper

Neocon foolishness gets lots of people killed...and they think that is just fine.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t9_xURaJEqw#t=283s]Bolton Clashes With Stossel Over Obama's Drones, - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## oldfart

tjvh said:


> Had the Union been more successful in countering the rebellion of the South in the early years of the Civil War, Lincoln would never had brought out a desire to free the slaves, it was only when he was losing support for his cause did he decide to make things about freeing slaves. History has proven that fact time and time again.



I assume you are making reference to the Horace Greeley letter.  As of March 4, 1861, I believe Lincoln thought he had a reasonable chance of a political solution.  That had evaporated by May 20 when North Carolina had passed an ordinance of succession.  Prior to First Bull Run, both sides anticipated a short war.  They were wrong.  By August, after the Battle of Wilson's Creek, Lincoln settled into a strategy for a long war, calling for three-year enlistments.  His efforts to retain especially Kentucky during this period included plans for compensated emancipation, so I think it's wrong to take the Greeley reply at face value.  

The effort to promote compensated emancipation in the border states continued well into 1862.  Lincoln only abandoned it when he wrote and shared with his cabinet the first draft of the Emancipation Proclamation.  At numerous points Lincoln claimed that he had no authority under the Constitution to free slaves, EXCEPT AS A WAR MEASURE.  After Sharpsburg he released the Proclamation to become effective January 1, 1863.  

How far Lincoln would have gone toward Emancipation had the war gone better for the Union in 1862 is a good question for counter-factual history.


----------



## oldfart

gipper said:


> I have cited the works of several experts including the PhD Walter Williams, PhD David Livingston, PhD Thomas DiLorenzo, and the Great PhD Ludwig Von Mises.  All men devoted to individual liberty and the rule of law.  Of course, these great man know Lincoln was a tyrant, as do I.  You have cited no one but your ignorant opinion and fall for the Lincoln Myth.
> 
> Once an American comes to realize the truth about Dishonest Abe, that American recognizes tyranny when they see it.  Those incapable of comprehending the truth, will never understand tyranny in America.



I don't care how many crackpots you quote.  You are willfully ignorant and obviously know nothing of history or historiography.  Von Mises?  Give me a break!  The guy was a worse historian than he was an economist.


----------



## gipper

oldfart said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have cited the works of several experts including the PhD Walter Williams, PhD David Livingston, PhD Thomas DiLorenzo, and the Great PhD Ludwig Von Mises.  All men devoted to individual liberty and the rule of law.  Of course, these great man know Lincoln was a tyrant, as do I.  You have cited no one but your ignorant opinion and fall for the Lincoln Myth.
> 
> Once an American comes to realize the truth about Dishonest Abe, that American recognizes tyranny when they see it.  Those incapable of comprehending the truth, will never understand tyranny in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care how many crackpots you quote.  You are willfully ignorant and obviously know nothing of history or historiography.  Von Mises?  Give me a break!  The guy was a worse historian than he was an economist.
Click to expand...


Yeah...Dr. Williams, Livingston, DiLorenzo, and Von Mises are a bunch of dummies...but you are the smart one.

Too funny!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

tjvh said:


> Had the Union been more successful in countering the rebellion of the South in the early years of the Civil War, Lincoln would never had brought out a desire to free the slaves, it was only when he was losing support for his cause did he decide to make things about freeing slaves. History has proven that fact time and time again.


I think you're largely right and that makes the recent movie much less than accurate. I mean come on, the guy wanted to ship blacks off to Africa or Central America.

Maybe Spielberg saw it as his duty to make a feel good movie that would restore our faith in our history or in our leaders, or maybe he figured it was just the best way to sell a movie. I doubt a balanced critical look at Lincoln and his insane wife would have inspired so much interest.


----------



## velvtacheeze

Contumacious said:


> *Lincolns Greatest Failure​*(*Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)*
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> 
> "Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."
> 
> ~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007
> 
> *The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction*, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincolns White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).
> 
> In fact, as Bennett shows,* it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years.* The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielbergs Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarists Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").
> 
> .



I like the way we ended slavery better.  Bloodshed should have happened in the other countries too.  Slave holders deserved it.  The other countries that ended slavery "peacefully" were sell-outs, and they are the ones who ended slavery incorrectly.


----------



## Rogue 9

DiamondDave said:


> $10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution


Nah, the worst President bar none was James Buchanan.


----------



## JakeStarkey

gipper said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't know that secession was ALWAYS a right of the states, you don't know much.  Up and until they murderous tyrant started the War of Northern Aggression, every state in the Union thought it could secede.  Secessionist movements had even existed prior to the war.  No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede.  Most of the Founders agreed with secession.  The states WERE sovereign.
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to know that your grasp of history and argument is as vapid as your drivel-driven writing style.  You present no evidence or logic to support your allegations whatsoever.  For example, you state " No state would have EVER joined the Union, if it could not later secede. "  Could you give me a single example of where a ratifying convention asserted this point?  Many had reservations about individual liberties which were addressed in the Bill of Rights, and some even tried to make ratification contingent on those amendments.  But none of them asserted a right to unilaterally leave the Union.  No such debate even occurred at any of the ratification conventions.  It seems that as your credentials come out of a Cracker Jack box, your evidence comes on moonbeams from Mars.
> 
> As to Lincoln's argument that the Union pre-exists the Constitution (and the Revolution!) , beginning with the 1774 compact, you have no comment.  Nor can you explain the repeated phrase "perpetual" in the Articles of Confederation.  Even Lincoln's argument that under the law of contracts (assuming the Union to be a voluntary association) the association cannot be dissolved unilaterally.
> 
> Three strikes; you're out.
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read my posts and all the experts opinions I posted within them, in this thread, and get educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read your posts, and quite a tedious task it was.  May I suggest that you hire an editor until you learn how to write.  Add a fact-checker or researcher while you are at it.  These are the most basic still sets of a historian.  As for your "experts", my nose still hurts from spewing coffee through my nostrils at your citations.  Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck would be an improvement.  I see no evidence that you have read a single source document or primary source in this discussion and have no clue where to find either.  You obviously have no familiarity with the body of Lincoln scholarship and couldn't tell Roy Basler from Bill O'Reilly.  One's a respected Lincoln scholar and the other is a crackpot who wrote a bad book about Lincoln.  Do you know which is which?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have cited the works of several experts including the PhD Walter Williams, PhD David Livingston, PhD Thomas DiLorenzo, and the Great PhD Ludwig Von Mises.
> .
Click to expand...


All are radical revisionists and disdained by mainstream historians.


----------



## hortysir

Just watched it and it comes across as a pure fluff piece.
It focuses almost entirely on the amendment he passed in his second term and not the one he tried to pass during his first term


----------



## JakeStarkey

The far right and the libertarians are clearly posting revisionist nonsense.

I like a lot of you folks, but really, come on now.

Lincoln went to war to Preserve The Union, and by the late Spring of 1862, he came to realize that slavery had to be destroyed to save the Union.

He was right.


----------



## mudwhistle

DiamondDave said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> $10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have found people who parrot things like this generally know very little of the man.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying he did not brutally violate the constitution? Suspend the constitution to fit his needs??
Click to expand...


The war powers of the Commander In Chief during national emergencies overrules the ability to sue. He suspended Habius Corpus, not the constitution.


----------



## hortysir

JakeStarkey said:


> The far right and the libertarians are clearly posting revisionist nonsense.
> 
> I like a lot of you folks, but really, come on now.
> 
> Lincoln went to war to Preserve The Union, and by the late Spring of 1862, he came to realize that slavery had to be destroyed to save the Union.
> 
> He was right.


  Spring of 1862? Really?

Why'd he write this that summer?????



> *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;*



Why did he push through an amendment that would have allowed slavery to the states, written in such a way that only that state could ever abolish it, in an attempt to lure the south back into the Union?


----------



## KissMy

AmyNation said:


> Historians praise its accuracy, but if you say it's pure BS, they must all be wrong.



The movie was rampant with historical fiction. The recorded votes of senators do not match the way they voted in the movie. First Lady Mary Lincoln, for example, never planted herself in the House Gallery to observe the final tally on the amendment. (Michelle Obama may routinely attend the State of the Union address each year, but such a visit would have been unthinkable in 1865.) Nor did congressmen vote by state delegationsa device that conflates the traditions of national political conventions with those of the House of Representatives. (Until the advent of machine voting, the House voted alphabetically by name.


----------



## JakeStarkey

hortysir said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far right and the libertarians are clearly posting revisionist nonsense.
> 
> I like a lot of you folks, but really, come on now.
> 
> Lincoln went to war to Preserve The Union, and by the late Spring of 1862, he came to realize that slavery had to be destroyed to save the Union.
> 
> He was right.
> 
> 
> 
> Spring of 1862? Really?
> 
> Why'd he write this that summer?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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;*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did he push through an amendment that would have allowed slavery to the states, written in such a way that only that state could ever abolish it, in an attempt to lure the south back into the Union?
Click to expand...


AL was a master politician who realized he had to guide the people to the place he wished to go.  And he did, one step at a time, right into January 1865, when the House ratified the Amendment by two votes.

William Faulkner realized the great sin of America was racism, and AL earlier came to realize, on a decades long journey, that slavery had to be slain and the old slave South murdered.

He did just that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

KissMy said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historians praise its accuracy, but if you say it's pure BS, they must all be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The movie was rampant with historical fiction. The recorded votes of senators do not match the way they voted in the movie. First Lady Mary Lincoln, for example, never planted herself in the House Gallery to observe the final tally on the amendment. (Michelle Obama may routinely attend the State of the Union address each year, but such a visit would have been unthinkable in 1865.) Nor did congressmen vote by state delegationsa device that conflates the traditions of national political conventions with those of the House of Representatives. (Until the advent of machine voting, the House voted alphabetically by name.
Click to expand...


KissMy, yes, surprise, it was a historical fiction: it could be nothing else.  And it was not the Senate, it was the House.


----------



## hortysir

JakeStarkey said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far right and the libertarians are clearly posting revisionist nonsense.
> 
> I like a lot of you folks, but really, come on now.
> 
> Lincoln went to war to Preserve The Union, and by the late Spring of 1862, he came to realize that slavery had to be destroyed to save the Union.
> 
> He was right.
> 
> 
> 
> Spring of 1862? Really?
> 
> Why'd he write this that summer?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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;*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did he push through an amendment that would have allowed slavery to the states, written in such a way that only that state could ever abolish it, in an attempt to lure the south back into the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AL was a master politician who realized he had to guide the people to the place he wished to go.  And he did, one step at a time, right into January 1865, when the House ratified the Amendment by two votes.
> 
> William Faulkner realized the great sin of America was racism, and AL earlier came to realize, on a decades long journey, that slavery had to be slain and the old slave South murdered.
> 
> He did just that.
Click to expand...


Prior to his lanky ass taking the throne we were THESE United States.
This freak wanted centralized power and didn't care what kind of bullshit e had to sling to get it.

Just like people called Bush the "Oil President", Lincoln was the "Resource President". Same kind of Republican
He wanted the cotton, citrus, tobacco, etc of the south and didn't care how many had to die to give him total reign over ALL of the states.


----------



## JakeStarkey

AL wanted the South to accept constitutional, electoral process; to recognize that slavery would not extend beyond the Old South; and to respect federal property.

He waited for the Confederates to fire on Old Glory and Ft Sumter, which enraged northern Democrats as well as Republicans.  The war was lost the day it began for the Old South.


----------



## hortysir

JakeStarkey said:


> AL wanted the South to *accept constitutional, electoral process;* to recognize that slavery would not extend beyond the Old South; and to respect federal property.
> 
> He waited for the Confederates to fire on Old Glory and Ft Sumter, which enraged northern Democrats as well as Republicans.  The war was lost the day it began for the Old South.



Like I said.... Bigger and more centralized government.
No wonder Obama likes to compare himself to Lincoln


----------



## paperview

hortysir said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far right and the libertarians are clearly posting revisionist nonsense.
> 
> I like a lot of you folks, but really, come on now.
> 
> Lincoln went to war to Preserve The Union, and by the late Spring of 1862, he came to realize that slavery had to be destroyed to save the Union.
> 
> He was right.
> 
> 
> 
> Spring of 1862? Really?
> 
> Why'd he write this that summer?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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;*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did he push through an amendment that would have allowed slavery to the states, written in such a way that only that state could ever abolish it, in an attempt to lure the south back into the Union?
Click to expand...

That letter AL sent Horace Greeley ends with this:

"...and *I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free*. Yours,                                                      A. LINCOLN."

http://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/n...-greeley-slavery-union-restoration-union.html


People often leave that part out.

And your facts on the Corwin Amendment are wrong.

Lincoln had nothing to do with its passage.  By the time he addressed it, most states had already seceded.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Corwin Amendment was before AL became president, and he would never have permitted it.


----------



## paperview

hortysir said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> AL wanted the South to *accept constitutional, electoral process;* to recognize that slavery would not extend beyond the Old South; and to respect federal property.
> 
> He waited for the Confederates to fire on Old Glory and Ft Sumter, which enraged northern Democrats as well as Republicans.  The war was lost the day it began for the Old South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said.... Bigger and more centralized government.
> No wonder Obama likes to compare himself to Lincoln
Click to expand...

You understand the confederacy was just as centralized, and in some cases, even more so, no?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The CSA instituted the draft a full year before the North.

The CSA sent out man hunters to force dodgers into the draft.

However, the Civil War's early modernistic ways of conducting warfare did force both North and South to centralize quickly.

Inevitable.


----------



## hortysir

paperview said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far right and the libertarians are clearly posting revisionist nonsense.
> 
> I like a lot of you folks, but really, come on now.
> 
> Lincoln went to war to Preserve The Union, and by the late Spring of 1862, he came to realize that slavery had to be destroyed to save the Union.
> 
> He was right.
> 
> 
> 
> Spring of 1862? Really?
> 
> Why'd he write this that summer?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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;*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did he push through an amendment that would have allowed slavery to the states, written in such a way that only that state could ever abolish it, in an attempt to lure the south back into the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That letter AL sent Horace Greeley ends with this:
> 
> "...and *I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free*. Yours,                                                      A. LINCOLN."
> 
> A LETTER FROM PRESIDENT LINCOLN. - Reply to Horace Greeley. Slavery and the Union The Restoration of the Union the Paramount Object. - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> People often leave that part out.
> 
> And your facts on the Corwin Amendment are wrong.
> 
> Lincoln had nothing to do with its passage.  By the time he addressed it, most states had already seceded.
Click to expand...


I know the final part all too well.
It's presented as an after-thought, however, not as a tool to support the previous statement.
Abe was just like any other power-hungry politician. His political agenda took priority over individuals.
And that agenda was to rule over as many states as he could and reap the benefits thereof.


----------



## hortysir

JakeStarkey said:


> The Corwin Amendment was before AL became president, and he would never have permitted it.



That's why his IL representatives were the first to sign on before the war preempted passage?


----------



## hortysir

paperview said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> AL wanted the South to *accept constitutional, electoral process;* to recognize that slavery would not extend beyond the Old South; and to respect federal property.
> 
> He waited for the Confederates to fire on Old Glory and Ft Sumter, which enraged northern Democrats as well as Republicans.  The war was lost the day it began for the Old South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said.... Bigger and more centralized government.
> No wonder Obama likes to compare himself to Lincoln
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You understand the confederacy was just as centralized, and in some cases, even more so, no?
Click to expand...


Then, perhaps, you would like to expound on their tax policies, trade plans, and cabinet positions and authority??


----------



## JakeStarkey

hortysir said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said.... Bigger and more centralized government.
> No wonder Obama likes to compare himself to Lincoln
> 
> 
> 
> You understand the confederacy was just as centralized, and in some cases, even more so, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, perhaps, you would like to expound on their tax policies, trade plans, and cabinet positions and authority??
Click to expand...


You have not been particularly specific, and this has been your burden of affirmation, hortysir, so you better get cracking on comparative policies and plans.

I gave you the one on Conscription: points to the Union.


----------



## hortysir

JakeStarkey said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> You understand *the confederacy was just as centralized, and in some cases, even more so,* no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, perhaps, you would like to expound on their tax policies, trade plans, and cabinet positions and authority??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not been particularly specific, and this has been your burden of affirmation, hortysir, so you better get cracking on comparative policies and plans.
> 
> I gave you the one on Conscription: points to the Union.
Click to expand...


It's not up to me to be specific (yet).
Paper made the bolded claim.

I want to see evidence of it


----------



## JakeStarkey

These (tax policies, trade plans, and cabinet positions and authority) are your interests,

Post for us, please.  And if indeed the Union was more centralized, so what?  The vast geography and the technology required to overcome it required centralization.

Why then are you so afraid of modernism and We the People.

We are not going backwards.


----------



## paperview

hortysir said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Corwin Amendment was before AL became president, and he would never have permitted it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why his IL representatives were the first to sign on before the war preempted passage?
Click to expand...


What do other IL reps have to do with Lincoln?

It was a last ditch effort, which most all knew stood no chance of survival, and you are wrong about IL being the first to sign it.

Like I said, most of the states had already seceded before it was passed.  A futility, and most all saw it as such.


----------



## Katzndogz

The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.  Slavery did not even become an issue until the nation was two years into the war.  It was about economic oppression and the control the mills in the North wanted over the growers in the South.

Lincold didn't want to free the slaves.  He wanted to repatriate them and send them back to Africa.


----------



## paperview

Oh geeze, here we go again.

Round and round.

Idiocy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Reactionaries are the opposition to which HS and college instructors teach.  Such as Katzndogz make it very easy for a mainstream teacher to tell the truthful American narrative.


----------



## hortysir

JakeStarkey said:


> These (tax policies, trade plans, and cabinet positions and authority) are your interests,
> 
> Post for us, please.  And if indeed the Union was more centralized, so what?  The vast geography and the technology required to overcome it required centralization.
> 
> Why then are you so afraid of modernism and We the People.
> 
> We are not going backwards.



Ya know, Jake, most times I honestly enjoy exchanging points of view with you....
But this post just helps to prop up others' claims that you're not a Republican.
Why else would you say "so what" to a more controlling centralized government?

Anyhoo.....this is one of those subjects that never get anywhere


----------



## JakeStarkey

That you reactionaries and libertarians have trouble with a Ford Republican, so who cares?

Watch what happens to your candidates next year in the primaries.


----------



## Rogue 9

Katzndogz said:


> The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.  Slavery did not even become an issue until the nation was two years into the war.  It was about economic oppression and the control the mills in the North wanted over the growers in the South.
> 
> Lincold didn't want to free the slaves.  He wanted to repatriate them and send them back to Africa.








Here is why the war happened, in the words of those who started the war:  





			
				Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union said:
			
		

> Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, *whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.* He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.





			
				A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union. said:
			
		

> In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
> 
> *Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.* Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and *a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.* That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. *There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union*, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.





			
				Alexander Stephens said:
			
		

> But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: *the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among 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.


Need I go on?  Because I can.  There's lots, lots more.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.  Slavery did not even become an issue until the nation was two years into the war.  It was about economic oppression and the control the mills in the North wanted over the growers in the South.
> 
> Lincold didn't want to free the slaves.  He wanted to repatriate them and send them back to Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is why the war happened, in the words of those who started the war:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, *whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.* He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
> 
> *Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.* Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and *a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.* That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. *There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union*, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: *the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Need I go on?  Because I can.  There's lots, lots more.
Click to expand...


Civil war is simple: Lincoln got elected, it meant north would control extension of slavery so south left union rather than submit to northern control of slavery, southern economies, and lifestyles.


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.  Slavery did not even become an issue until the nation was two years into the war.  It was about economic oppression and the control the mills in the North wanted over the growers in the South.
> 
> Lincold didn't want to free the slaves.  He wanted to repatriate them and send them back to Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is why the war happened, in the words of those who started the war:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: *the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Need I go on?  Because I can.  There's lots, lots more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil war is simple: Lincoln got elected, it meant north would control extension of slavery so south left union rather than submit to northern control of slavery, southern economies, and lifestyles.
Click to expand...


The meds are working!


----------



## Rogue 9

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need I go on?  Because I can.  There's lots, lots more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil war is simple: Lincoln got elected, it meant north would control extension of slavery so south left union rather than submit to northern control of slavery, southern economies, and lifestyles.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for any case that they were in the right, slavery is one of the greatest evils of human history.  Refusing to permit controls upon it and the aim of its eventual abolition shows the leaders of the Slave Power and the plantation aristocracy to be monsters, worthy only of scorn from their posterity.


----------



## Thunderbird

The movie is evil because it attempts to justify dictatorship.

The common people are depicted as ignorant racists.  The people are only redeemed when they worship the politicians.

The politicians are saints.  Whatever lies the politicians tell, whatever corruption they embrace, whatever rights they dispose of, even if they kill 100s of 1000s they are justified because the politicians motives are supposed to be pure.

In reality Lincoln was a white supremacist who wanted to send African Americans to foreign colonies.  Lincoln fought an ugly war (which included a large number of civilian deaths, torture of suspected deserters, brutal POW camps) to maintain the supremacy of the central government.

Is that any justification for all the suffering?  If Quebec decided to leave the rest of Canada and the Ottawa government fought a war to force Quebec to submit, would any reasonable person defend the national government?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The movie is great because it shows the end of the Southern dictatorship over human flesh and soul.

Thunderbird clearly, so clearly, has not a clue about what he pontificates.

Disgusting.


----------



## Toro

Thunderbird said:


> The movie is evil because it attempts to justify dictatorship.
> 
> The common people are depicted as ignorant racists.  The people are only redeemed when they worship the politicians.
> 
> The politicians are saints.  Whatever lies the politicians tell, whatever corruption they embrace, whatever rights they dispose of, even if they kill 100s of 1000s they are justified because the politicians motives are supposed to be pure.
> 
> In reality Lincoln was a white supremacist who wanted to send African Americans to foreign colonies.  Lincoln fought an ugly war (which included a large number of civilian deaths, torture of suspected deserters, brutal POW camps) to maintain the supremacy of the central government.
> 
> Is that any justification for all the suffering?  If Quebec decided to leave the rest of Canada and the Ottawa government fought a war to force Quebec to submit, would any reasonable person defend the national government?



If the frogs wanna go, it's on the 1867 borders.


----------



## Toro

If the Confederacy had left, it would have been an unimportant backwater shithole shunned by the rest of the world, a la South Africa. The South is prosperous because it lost the Civil War.


----------



## hortysir

Toro said:


> If the Confederacy had left, it would have been an unimportant backwater shithole shunned by the rest of the world, a la South Africa. The South is prosperous because it lost the Civil War.



And the South wasn't allowed to leave because of its prosperity


----------



## Rogue 9

hortysir said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Confederacy had left, it would have been an unimportant backwater shithole shunned by the rest of the world, a la South Africa. The South is prosperous because it lost the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the South wasn't allowed to leave because of its prosperity
Click to expand...

The South wasn't allowed to leave because throwing a shitfit and breaking up the country because of losing a single election and then getting away with it would spell the end of republican government in the world, something understood and expounded upon by nearly every political leader and thinker of the day not in the Slave Power - some of them, such as Napoleon III and many members of the British nobility, who wanted to resume colonization of the Americas, with great glee.  This is why the Constitution specifically places the power to regulate and dispose of U.S. territory in the hands of Congress, not the states, and why the Founders who wrote on the subject for posterity decried it as an unconscionable evil - Washington, in his Circular to the States, wrote, "That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly."  During the Nullification Crisis, when South Carolina first threatened secession, James Madison wrote that the idea that the Constitution (which he largely wrote!) would permit such a thing was so mad that he was shocked that it was necessary to discuss it, saying that the question was simply whether a state, any more than an individual, had a right to renege on its contracts.  

As to Southern prosperity, that's a joke and a half.  Southern planters were rich because they owned loads of real property (much of in in the form of human chattel, let us not forget), but there was basically no middle class economic activity in the Antebellum South and liquid assets lagged far behind the northern industrial states.  The idea that they were kept around simply because they were so much more prosperous than the North (the North that they couldn't even begin to outproduce in terms of war materiel, something that an actually more prosperous region should have been able to do) is laughable.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

hortysir said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Confederacy had left, it would have been an unimportant backwater shithole shunned by the rest of the world, a la South Africa. The South is prosperous because it lost the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the South wasn't allowed to leave because of its prosperity
Click to expand...


more importantly the arrogance and power of the Federal government was reinforced by its victory over states and individuals rights in Civil War. All conservatives then must have mixed feelings about the Civil War.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Toro said:


> If the Confederacy had left, it would have been an unimportant backwater shithole shunned by the rest of the world, a la South Africa. The South is prosperous because it lost the Civil War.



wrong!! Slavery probably would have disappeared there just like it did everywhere. If the north accepted escaped slaves as free men, slavery would have been impossible for long! THere is no way to justify 600k dead and the arrogant central government it produced!


----------



## Thunderbird

Rogue 9 said:


> The South wasn't allowed to leave because throwing a shitfit and breaking up the country because of losing a single election and then getting away with it would spell the end of republican government in the world, something understood and expounded upon by nearly every political leader and thinker of the day


If you believe in democracy you must acknowledge any sizable region within a larger political entity has the right to secede if that region so desires.

Ireland had the right to separate from the British Empire.
India had the right to separate from the British Empire.
The U.S. had the right to separate from the British Empire.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia had the right to separate from the Soviet Empire.
Ukraine had the right to separate from the Soviet Empire.
Quebec has the right to separate from the rest of Canada.

Only a dictator would deny this fundamental right.

No apocalyptic "end of republican government" need follow such separation.



> During the Nullification Crisis, when South Carolina first threatened secession, James Madison wrote


You ignore the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Thunderbird said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South wasn't allowed to leave because throwing a shitfit and breaking up the country because of losing a single election and then getting away with it would spell the end of republican government in the world, something understood and expounded upon by nearly every political leader and thinker of the day
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in democracy you must acknowledge any sizable region within a larger political entity has the right to secede if that region so desires.
> 
> Ireland had the right to separate from the British Empire.
> India had the right to separate from the British Empire.
> The U.S. had the right to separate from the British Empire.
> Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia had the right to separate from the Soviet Empire.
> Ukraine had the right to separate from the Soviet Empire.
> Quebec has the right to separate from the rest of Canada.
> 
> Only a dictator would deny this fundamental right.
> 
> No apocalyptic "end of republican government" need follow such separation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the Nullification Crisis, when South Carolina first threatened secession, James Madison wrote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignore the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
Click to expand...



No apocalyptic "end of republican government" need follow such separation.

true enough!! there is no way it turned out well with 600k dead and the much more liberal authoritarian government we have today!


----------



## Rogue 9

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Confederacy had left, it would have been an unimportant backwater shithole shunned by the rest of the world, a la South Africa. The South is prosperous because it lost the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong!! Slavery probably would have disappeared there just like it did everywhere. If the north accepted escaped slaves as free men, slavery would have been impossible for long! THere is no way to justify 600k dead and the arrogant central government it produced!
Click to expand...

I quote the Confederate Constitution:  





			
				Confederate States Constitution said:
			
		

> No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.





			
				Confederate States Constitution said:
			
		

> The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.





			
				Confederate States Constitution said:
			
		

> The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.


Legal emancipation was never coming under the government the Slave Power created for itself.  Any contention that it was is pure fantasy.  


Thunderbird said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South wasn't allowed to leave because throwing a shitfit and breaking up the country because of losing a single election and then getting away with it would spell the end of republican government in the world, something understood and expounded upon by nearly every political leader and thinker of the day
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in democracy you must acknowledge any sizable region within a larger political entity has the right to secede if that region so desires.
> 
> Ireland had the right to separate from the British Empire.
> India had the right to separate from the British Empire.
> The U.S. had the right to separate from the British Empire.
> Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia had the right to separate from the Soviet Empire.
> Ukraine had the right to separate from the Soviet Empire.
> Quebec has the right to separate from the rest of Canada.
> 
> Only a dictator would deny this fundamental right.
> 
> No apocalyptic "end of republican government" need follow such separation.
Click to expand...

You are disputed by John Stuart Mill, in his autobiography:  





> Before this, however, the state of public affairs had become extremely critical, by the commencement of the American civil war.  My strongest feelings were engaged in this struggle, which, I felt from the beginning, was destined to be a turning point, for good or evil, of the course of human affairs for an indefinite duration.  Having been a deeply interested observer of the Slavery quarrel in America, during the many years that preceded the open breach, I knew that it was in all its stages an aggressive enterprise of the slave-owners to extend the territory of slavery; under the combined influences of pecuniary interest, domineering temper, and the fanaticism of a class for its class privileges, influences so fully and powerfully depicted in the admirable work of my friend Professor Cairnes, "The Slave Power." *Their success, if they succeeded, would be a victory of the powers of evil which would give courage to the enemies of progress and damp the spirits of its friends all over the civilized world*, while it would create a formidable military power, grounded on the worst and most anti-social form of the tyranny of men over men, and, by destroying for a long time the prestige of the great democratic republic, *would give to all the privileged classes of Europe a false confidence, probably only to be extinguished in blood.*


Considering that the man was the foremost classical liberal (i.e. small government) political thinker of his day, I should think he had quite a handle on what the reaction to a successful Confederacy would have been.  I remind you that Napoleon III took advantage of the Civil War's distraction of the United States to conquer Mexico and install Ferdinand Maximilian of the Habsburg dynasty as its emperor; behavior that would have continued had the United States been broken up and weakened to the point of being unable to enforce the Monroe Doctrine.  


Thunderbird said:


> During the Nullification Crisis, when South Carolina first threatened secession, James Madison wrote
> 
> 
> 
> You ignore the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
Click to expand...

No I don't.  At no point do they advocate secession.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Confederacy had left, it would have been an unimportant backwater shithole shunned by the rest of the world, a la South Africa. The South is prosperous because it lost the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong!! Slavery probably would have disappeared there just like it did everywhere. If the north accepted escaped slaves as free men, slavery would have been impossible for long! THere is no way to justify 600k dead and the arrogant central government it produced!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quote the Confederate Constitution:
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legal emancipation was never coming under the government the Slave Power created for itself.  Any contention that it was is pure fantasy.
Click to expand...


it disappeared all over the world and would have here too, especially if the north accepted slaves as free men. The underground would have grown and grown as would have the moral outrage.


----------



## Thunderbird

Rogue 9 said:


> You are disputed by John Stuart Mill, in his autobiography:





> Considering that the man was the foremost classical liberal (i.e. small government) political thinker of his day,


J.S. Mill was an imperialist and a racist.  Not unlike Lincoln. 

He thought the natives of India were inflicted with "a general disposition to deceit and perfidy".

He claimed: "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion."

Check out the article: *John Stuart Mill and Liberal Imperialism*


----------



## Rogue 9

Thunderbird said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are disputed by John Stuart Mill, in his autobiography:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that the man was the foremost classical liberal (i.e. small government) political thinker of his day,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> J.S. Mill was an imperialist and a racist.  Not unlike Lincoln.
> 
> He thought the natives of India were inflicted with "a general disposition to deceit and perfidy".
> 
> He claimed: "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion."
> 
> Check out the article: *John Stuart Mill and Liberal Imperialism*
Click to expand...

A blatant ad hominem.  Regardless of Mill's opinion of  the Indians, he is still an authoritative source on European governments and how they would react to Confederate victory.  

He may have been a racist and looked down upon African and Asian peoples (in fact I don't doubt it; it would be shocking for a Western man of the 19th century _not_ to have that outlook), but Jefferson Davis and all who served under him thought that the proper state of non-whites was as chattel livestock, with no thought whatever to their improvement (however mistaken Mill may have been on that point).  If you wish to make this about personalities, the South will still come out the worse.  Mill's writings were handy, but he was not the only one; I can quote the same opinion on the importance of the war from Napoleon III, Lincoln himself, several members of the British House of Lords, and others.  Whether one thought the demise of the United States and representative government with it was good or bad, it was widely believed that it would be the result of Confederate victory.  And not without reason; the French Republic had fallen to the exact same fate a few decades earlier and descended into autocracy; the example of his own nation was not lost upon Napoleon and at the time the United States was the only republic in the world powerful enough to oppose European conquest.


----------



## Toro

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Confederacy had left, it would have been an unimportant backwater shithole shunned by the rest of the world, a la South Africa. The South is prosperous because it lost the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong!! Slavery probably would have disappeared there just like it did everywhere. If the north accepted escaped slaves as free men, slavery would have been impossible for long! THere is no way to justify 600k dead and the arrogant central government it produced!
Click to expand...


Of course slavery would have ended - eventually - but the South practiced legal segregation well into the 1960s as part of the United States.  There is no reason at all to think that they would have abandoned Segregation earlier had they been their own country.  They would have continued it long after.  It would have been an American South Africa, shamed, shunned and boycotted by the rest of the world, and would have been even poorer and more backwards.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thunderbird said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South wasn't allowed to leave because throwing a shitfit and breaking up the country because of losing a single election and then getting away with it would spell the end of republican government in the world, something understood and expounded upon by nearly every political leader and thinker of the day
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in democracy you must acknowledge any sizable region within a larger political entity has the right to secede if that region so desires.
> 
> Ireland had the right to separate from the British Empire.
> India had the right to separate from the British Empire.
> The U.S. had the right to separate from the British Empire.
> Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia had the right to separate from the Soviet Empire.
> Ukraine had the right to separate from the Soviet Empire.
> Quebec has the right to separate from the rest of Canada.
> 
> Only a dictator would deny this fundamental right.
> 
> No apocalyptic "end of republican government" need follow such separation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the Nullification Crisis, when South Carolina first threatened secession, James Madison wrote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignore the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
Click to expand...


That was more than 30 years earlier, and if JM thought they applied, he would have included them.


----------



## Thunderbird

Rogue 9 said:


> he is still an authoritative source on European governments and how they would react to Confederate victory.


Liberal Lord John Russell leaned toward recognition of the Confederacy.


> it would be shocking for a Western man of the 19th century _not_ to have that outlook),


So Mill and Lincoln were racists.  So your attempt to demonize the South as uniquely evil looks foolish.


> Whether one thought the demise of the United States and representative government with it was good or bad, it was widely believed that it would be the result of Confederate victory.


The Confederacy was a republic and would be as likely as the Union to aid other republics.  What republics did the Union give birth to or maintain in the late 19th century?  Do you think a sizable region has the right to separate from a larger political entity, yes or no?


> And not without reason; the French Republic had fallen to the exact same fate a few decades earlier and descended into autocracy;


The French Republic descended into the autocracy of Napoleon I.  Inappropriate to blame foreign powers.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The statement ". . . to demonize the South as uniquely evil looks foolish" is grounded in the falsehood that anybody used or implied the concept of "uniquely."

Since the falsehood was deliberate, then it may be concluded it was evil and foolish.


----------



## Rogue 9

Thunderbird said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> he is still an authoritative source on European governments and how they would react to Confederate victory.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal Lord John Russell leaned toward recognition of the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

This isn't news.  Britain was a colonial power, and the United States kept it from continuing colonization of the western hemisphere.  There were many, many voices in the British Parliament in favor of recognizing the Confederacy before the Emancipation Proclamation made it politically impossible.  


Thunderbird said:


> it would be shocking for a Western man of the 19th century _not_ to have that outlook),
> 
> 
> 
> So Mill and Lincoln were racists.  So your attempt to demonize the South as uniquely evil looks foolish.
Click to expand...

Lincoln and Mill were racists.  Jefferson Davis, Robert Lee, and Alexander Stephens were _slavers._  There is a stark difference.  


Thunderbird said:


> Whether one thought the demise of the United States and representative government with it was good or bad, it was widely believed that it would be the result of Confederate victory.
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy was a republic and would be as likely as the Union to aid other republics.  What republics did the Union give birth to or maintain in the late 19th century?  Do you think a sizable region has the right to separate from a larger political entity, yes or no?
Click to expand...

The Confederacy was an illegitimate body formed through blatantly unconstitutional means that existed for the sole purpose of the preservation and expansion of the institution of slavery.  Confederate victory would weaken the United States to the point where it would be unable to enforce its ban on further colonization of the Americas; having a powerful enemy actively competing for territory sharing a large land border would change the entire course of U.S. politics and foreign policy.  

And any right to separate from a nation depends on the circumstances.  Even our own Declaration of Independence is careful to note that such a separation must not be made for "light or transient causes," and the catalyst for the Slave Power's secession was a single presidential election.  


Thunderbird said:


> And not without reason; the French Republic had fallen to the exact same fate a few decades earlier and descended into autocracy;
> 
> 
> 
> The French Republic descended into the autocracy of Napoleon I.  Inappropriate to blame foreign powers.
Click to expand...

You miss the point.  It is an _example._  The belief that a free people cannot be self-governing had great currency in the mid-19th century, and the fates of the French First and Second Republics gave credence to the idea; one republic had already fallen (twice, both times to a man named Napoleon) and the fall of another would give those who espoused the doctrine that men must be governed by a strong autocracy and are unfit to choose their leaders proof that their ideas were right, along with removing a formidable barrier to implementing those ideas.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> The Confederacy was an illegitimate body formed through blatantly unconstitutional means



and how do you know that' you did not say? Sounds like it was very clear in the Constutution...somewhere.


----------



## Rogue 9

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy was an illegitimate body formed through blatantly unconstitutional means
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and how do you know that' you did not say? Sounds like it was very clear in the Constutution...somewhere.
Click to expand...

Mainly because it is.  Observe:  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions


So if insurrection is legal, why is the federal government empowered to suppress it, hmmm?  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.


Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?  


			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> *No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation*; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.


Confederacy is out.  


			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, *keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War*, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


As is keeping all those troops they were keeping.  Following so far?  


			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States


So, who's running the Army again?  Ain't the states.  


			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in *levying War against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


Now then, who was levying war against the United States?  Oh, that's right...  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and *nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States*, or of any particular State.


This one's the kicker.  When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States.  Secession is such a violation.  Here is that Clause, in case you've forgotten:  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, *any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding*.


There's your constitutional argument for the unconstitutionality of secession.  If need be, I can bring forward multiple Federalist papers and letters from the members of the Constitutional Convention clearly spelling out that allowing secession was not their intent.  As I pointed out above, James Madison thought the idea was so preposterous that it was a wonder that he should have to point out why it's wrong.  He also pointed out that the people agitating for the "states' right" of secession at the time (the Nullification Crisis) would just as surely object to the same principle turned on it's head; a majority of the other states voting to kick one state out.  Secessionism was never a stand on principle; it was always merely a political tool of blackmail to force the federal government to pander to the interests of the region threatening it.

Actually, here is that letter of Madison's, just to get the citation in here.  





			
				James Madison said:
			
		

> The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. *But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference.* The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.
> 
> The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. *It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself.* But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being *misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union* and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them.


----------



## Thunderbird

Rogue 9 said:


> This isn't news.  Britain was a colonial power, and the United States kept it from continuing colonization of the western hemisphere.


 Some liberal imperialists, like Mill, saw the Union as a partner in imperialism.  Some liberals sided with the South.



> Lincoln and Mill were racists.  Jefferson Davis, Robert Lee, and Alexander Stephens were _slavers._  There is a stark difference.


 Lincoln prosecuted a war which killed 100's of 1000's.  Mill served an empire which kept down Africans, Indians, etc.  Not so stark.



> The Confederacy was an illegitimate body formed through blatantly unconstitutional means


 Keep repeating this and it might become true. 



> Confederate victory would weaken the United States to the point where it would be unable to enforce its ban on further colonization of the Americas;


 Or prevent the US from over involvement in the affairs of other American nations.  The British and the native people themselves fought against colonization by other European powers.



> And any right to separate from a nation depends on the circumstances.


 Do you think a sizable region has the right to separate from a larger political entity, yes or no?  Please stop ducking the question.



> and the fall of another would give those who espoused the doctrine that men must be governed by a strong autocracy and are unfit to choose their leaders proof that their ideas were right,


lol Like Lincoln's autocracy?

You fail to see that Mill and Lincoln were racist, power-hungry, anti-democratic imperialists.


----------



## Rogue 9

Thunderbird said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't news.  Britain was a colonial power, and the United States kept it from continuing colonization of the western hemisphere.
> 
> 
> 
> Some liberal imperialists, like Mill, saw the Union as a partner in imperialism.  Some liberals sided with the South.
Click to expand...

Citation needed.


Thunderbird said:


> Lincoln and Mill were racists.  Jefferson Davis, Robert Lee, and Alexander Stephens were _slavers._  There is a stark difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln prosecuted a war which killed 100's of 1000's.  Mill served an empire which kept down Africans, Indians, etc.  Not so stark.
Click to expand...

The South instigated the war and was outrageously aggressive in internal politics for decades prior to it, which I have previously conclusively demonstrated.  


Thunderbird said:


> Keep repeating this and it might become true.


It doesn't need to become true; it's been true for 152 years and counting.  I refer you to my previous post.  


Thunderbird said:


> Or prevent the US from over involvement in the affairs of other American nations.  The British and the native people themselves fought against colonization by other European powers.


Given the 1864 takeover of Mexico by the Habsburgs with French and Belgian support, clearly not hard enough.  


Thunderbird said:


> And any right to separate from a nation depends on the circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think a sizable region has the right to separate from a larger political entity, yes or no?  Please stop ducking the question.
Click to expand...

It isn't a simple yes or no question.  I'm not ducking it; I told you it's conditional.  The Slave Power did not meet those conditions.  They were not suffering under tyranny (though it's arguable the free states were, by means of the Fugitive Slave Act ramrodded by Southern-dominated majorities in Congress) and in fact had spent the previous eighty years in firm control of the federal government.  To borrow from the Declaration of Independence, the government had not become destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and by its formulation until it does it is not the right of the people to alter or abolish it.  





			
				The Declaration of Independence said:
			
		

> Prudence, indeed, will dictate that *Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes*; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a* long train of abuses and usurpations*, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


A single presidential election is in fact transient.  The only long train of abuses and usurpations extant in 1860 was at the behest and for the benefit of the Slave Power.  


Thunderbird said:


> and the fall of another would give those who espoused the doctrine that men must be governed by a strong autocracy and are unfit to choose their leaders proof that their ideas were right,
> 
> 
> 
> lol like Lincoln's autocracy?
> 
> You fail to see that Mill and Lincoln were racist, power-hungry, anti-democratic imperialists.
Click to expand...

Keep saying that and it might become true.    Everything Lincoln did that could be found objectionable (in fact everything he did, since the conflict was underway when he took office) falls under the war power of the government.  Take away the war, and what do you have?  Maybe legislation restricting the expansion of slavery into the territories and an otherwise unremarkable presidency (probably punctuated with demands from the Slave Power that the United States conquer Cuba in order to create a new slave state from it).  And there was only war because the Slave Power, in its childish tantrum over the predictable result of not getting a Democratic president after it intentionally split the ticket, made it so.


----------



## Thunderbird

Rogue 9 said:


> Given the 1864 takeover of Mexico by the Habsburgs with French and Belgian support, clearly not hard enough.


 Don't underestimate Mexicans.  Example: *Battle of San Pedro*


> They were not suffering under tyranny





> A single presidential election is in fact transient.


If the people of the South decided differently, who are you to disagree?



> And there was only war because the Slave Power,


If Lincoln had not decided to invade the South at Bull Run would there have been a war?


----------



## Rogue 9

Thunderbird said:


> They were not suffering under tyranny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A single presidential election is in fact transient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the people of the South decided differently, who are you to disagree?
Click to expand...

Someone with a clear grasp of the facts.  By no realistic measure were the slaveholders and free whites of the South oppressed by the federal government.  By every realistic measure they were oppressing their slaves, if not the free state populations via the Fugitive Slave Act.  They were legally and morally in the wrong.  


Thunderbird said:


> And there was only war because the Slave Power,
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln had not decided to invade the South at Bull Run would there have been a war?
Click to expand...

There already was one before then.  Firings on Fort Sumter, Fort Barrancas, the _Star of the West,_ and many more outright acts of war besides took place well in advance of Bull Run (and you betray yourself by not calling it Manassas ).


----------



## JakeStarkey

The South unconstitutionally, unethically, and immorally decided that states' rights meant the right to own and sell human flesh.

I am glad Lincoln murdered states' rights and changed the course of America for the better.


----------



## Thunderbird

Rogue 9 said:


> Someone with a clear grasp of the facts.  By no realistic measure were the slaveholders


I understand that is your opinion.  The majority of Southerners disagreed.  They thought the North was robbing the South.  The North was eager to impose high tariffs, like the Morrill Tariff. 

*Another Court Historian&#8217;s False Tariff History*

Anyone who believes in democracy should let the South secede.  Do you believe in democracy or not?



> Firings on Fort Sumter, Fort Barrancas, the _Star of the West,_


How many casualties resulted from these trivial incidents?  Please answer my question: If Lincoln had not decided to invade the South at Bull Run would there have been a war?


----------



## JakeStarkey

> Anyone who believes in democracy should let the South secede.  Do you believe in democracy or not?



An absolute _non sequitur_.  Democracy decided that AL won and that the South should abide.


----------



## hortysir

JakeStarkey said:


> The South unconstitutionally, unethically, and immorally decided that states' rights meant the right to own and sell human flesh.
> 
> *I am glad Lincoln murdered states' rights* and changed the course of America for the better.




wow


----------



## JakeStarkey

Wow is right.

The South refused to obey constitutional, electoral, democratic process, and rose up against the American people.

AL did right, and we all are blessed by it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

hortysir said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South unconstitutionally, unethically, and immorally decided that states' rights meant the right to own and sell human flesh.
> 
> *I am glad Lincoln murdered states' rights* and changed the course of America for the better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow
Click to expand...


yes, best to murder states rights and place all power in a national government!! What on earth were our Founders thinking when they gave us freedom from national government long before Hitler, Stalin(who our liberals spied for) and Mao!


----------



## Rogue 9

Thunderbird said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone with a clear grasp of the facts.  By no realistic measure were the slaveholders
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that is your opinion.  The majority of Southerners disagreed.  They thought the North was robbing the South.  The North was eager to impose high tariffs, like the Morrill Tariff.
Click to expand...

The tariff in 1860 was at historically low levels.  Claiming it was a tariff issue is a joke.  



Thunderbird said:


> *Another Court Historians False Tariff History*


Thomas DiLorenzo is an agenda-driven hack, and this article shows it as well as any other he's written.  The 1828 tariff was not in place in 1860.  It is irrelevant to 1860 except insofar as the incident demonstrates South Carolina's eagerness to threaten disunion as a tool of political blackmail.  He is correct in that the end of the Nullification Crisis was the result of a compromise tariff passed alongside the Force Bill, but while other states joined South Carolina in objection to the tariff, no other state joined it in raising thousands of militiamen to fight over it, which is the point.  

It is true that Lincoln would almost certainly have raised the tariff (to what levels absent the war it is impossible to know), but first it would at least be reasonable to see what would happen before starting a war over it, and second the Declarations of Causes that various seceding states issued to justify their secession in fact do not mention tariffs even once (so much for "every bit of this narrative is false").  They one and all focus primarily (and in most cases only) upon threats to slavery; Texas wanders from the subject only once and then only to complain about insufficient protection from Indian raids.  You are free to confirm this for yourself if you wish; declarations were issued by *Georgia*, *Mississippi*, *Texas*, and *South Carolina*, and further explanation was provided by *Alexander Stephens*, Vice President of the Confederate States.  If they complained of tariffs so vehemently as a cause for secession, by all means find and quote it in the documents explaining the causes for the secession.  



Thunderbird said:


> Anyone who believes in democracy should let the South secede.  Do you believe in democracy or not?


The United States isn't a democracy; it's a republic.  For a republic to function, elections must be sacrosanct, and the ability to freely secede in response to losing an election would rapidly balkanize any republic that tried to function in that manner.  To borrow from Lincoln, it is necessary that "ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets."  The South tried to appeal back to bullets when it did not win an election, something that absolutely cannot be tolerated if republican government is to endure.  


Thunderbird said:


> Firings on Fort Sumter, Fort Barrancas, the _Star of the West,_
> 
> 
> 
> How many casualties resulted from these trivial incidents?  Please answer my question: If Lincoln had not decided to invade the South at Bull Run would there have been a war?
Click to expand...

There already was a war.  Under no circumstances are firing on a nation's armed forces and flagged ships "trivial."


----------



## Thunderbird

Rogue 9 said:


> The tariff in 1860 was at historically low levels.


Obviously Lincoln's election meant high tariffs, really economic warfare against the South.



> Thomas DiLorenzo is an agenda-driven hack,


lol All you have is name-calling.  Don't be so subservient to the academic establishment.  African American scholars and libertarian scholars have demolished the Lincoln myth.



> It is true that Lincoln would almost certainly have raised the tariff


Exactly.



> *Georgia*,


Thanks for posting those links.  They really help to prove my point!

Let's look at the declaration from Georgia: *The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests.* Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors.



> by all means find and quote it in the documents explaining the causes for the secession.


Just look at the documents you linked to.



> The United States isn't a democracy; it's a republic.


 So you don't believe in democracy?  Don't be shy, give us a yes or no answer.



> For a republic to function, elections must be sacrosanct, and the ability to freely secede in response to losing an election would rapidly balkanize any republic that tried to function in that manner.


Ridiculous.  Many states (Ireland, Slovakia, etc.) have established independence without rapid balkanization.  Isn't local rule preferable - more responsive to the will of the people?



> Under no circumstances are firing on a nation's armed forces and flagged ships "trivial."


These sort of provocations can be ignored by leaders who don't love war.  For example, Cuban anti-aircraft gunners fired on U.S. planes in October 1962, but Kennedy didn't start a war.  Too bad Kennedy wasn't always so wise.

You seem to think the pride of the central government is more important than all those lives.

Again you are unable to answer the question: If Lincoln had not decided to invade the South at Bull Run would there have been a war?


----------



## Rogue 9

Thunderbird said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tariff in 1860 was at historically low levels.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Lincoln's election meant high tariffs, really economic warfare against the South.
Click to expand...

Prove it.  Oh wait, _you can't._  By the same argument, having no tariff or a token one amounted to economic warfare against the North, since it permitted European industry to outcompete it with already established manufacturing, but you didn't see the Upper Midwest seceding in the 1840s.  Clearly, tariff policy wasn't enough to spur such an immediate and decisive reaction and we need another reason.  Fortunately, the secessionists considerately provided it for us:  The preservation of slavery.  


Thunderbird said:


> Thomas DiLorenzo is an agenda-driven hack,
> 
> 
> 
> lol All you have is name-calling.  Don't be so subservient to the academic establishment.  African American scholars and libertarian scholars have demolished the Lincoln myth.
Click to expand...

No, that's not all I have; you cut out the bit where I said _why._ You should stop cherrypicking; it's unbecoming.  


Thunderbird said:


> Exactly.


And there are valid economic policy reasons for doing so.  Further, impeding Southern agriculture could only be good, because Southern agriculture was what drove demand for slaves and thus underpinned slavery as a whole.  What's your point?  


Thunderbird said:


> Thanks for posting those links.  They really help to prove my point!


You may want to read the rest before you say that, Skippy.  


Thunderbird said:


> Let's look at the declaration from Georgia:


Yes, let's:  "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our *non-slave-holding* confederate States* with reference to the subject of African slavery.* They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. *It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.* While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, *anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state.*"

It's what they went to first.  In the document right up front they say that everything else is incidental.  

How about the other ones you ignored?  

Mississippi:  "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

*Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.* Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and *a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.* That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but *submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union*, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

Just for fun, Mississippi continued:  "It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain."

So much for the state rights fantasy; they weren't concerned with it in the least except as a tool to advance their own interests.  When free states wished to impede the operation of federal law to hinder slavery, their own doctrine became inconvenient and was abandoned at first opportunity.  

Texas:  "Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. *She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.* Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, *for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.*"

"Waaaaaah, they won't let us keep beating our slaves!"  

Also note:  The idea that they were going to let slavery die out on its own continues to be pure fantasy.  

South Carolina:  "In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

*This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia*, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. *But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.* The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. *In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed*, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York *even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals*; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. "

Their complaint is again focused around personal liberty laws in the free states which mandated jury trials for men accused of being escaped slaves before deportation - laws which were overridden by Congress in a roughshod manner in amendments to the Fugitive Slave Act, effectively allowing any slaveholder to come into a free state, point to a black man, say "he was my slave," and haul him south in chains with no legal recourse.  This federal provision had not in fact been repealed, so I can only presume they refer to the fear that the Lincoln government would repeal it.

Stephens:  "But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: *the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among 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. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. *Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.* It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

*Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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 moral condition.* This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, *based upon* this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

You know, I think that stands for itself.  


Thunderbird said:


> Just look at the documents you linked to.


I have.  


Thunderbird said:


> So you don't believe in democracy?  Don't be shy, give us a yes or no answer.


Yes, of course I believe in it.  It clearly exists or has existed, but polling the whole citizenry on every issue is both wholly inefficient and, absent a constitution, is simply mob rule.  Since the United States (thankfully) is a constitutional republic and has not and never has been a democracy, however, I fail to see the relevance of the question.  


Thunderbird said:


> For a republic to function, elections must be sacrosanct, and the ability to freely secede in response to losing an election would rapidly balkanize any republic that tried to function in that manner.
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.  Many states (Ireland, Slovakia, etc.) have established independence without rapid balkanization.  Isn't local rule preferable - more responsive to the will of the people?
Click to expand...

That depends on circumstance.  Clearly local Southern rule wasn't more responsive to the will of the people, since it kept four million of those people enslaved against their will.  QED.  


Thunderbird said:


> Under no circumstances are firing on a nation's armed forces and flagged ships "trivial."
> 
> 
> 
> These sort of provocations can be ignored by leaders who don't love war.  For example, Cuban anti-aircraft gunners fired on U.S. planes in October 1962, but Kennedy didn't start a war.  Too bad Kennedy wasn't always so wise.
> 
> You seem to think the pride of the central government is more important than all those lives.
> 
> Again you are unable to answer the question: If Lincoln had not decided to invade the South at Bull Run would there have been a war?
Click to expand...

Yep.  A good thing too, since  the Slave Power was both evil and carving away a huge portion of U.S. territory.  This isn't about the pride of the central government; it was about the survival of the nation.  To be perfectly clear, we have established that the Confederate government was, in so many words, based upon the idea that the negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery is his natural and moral condition.  It only existed to preserve and perpetuate that condition.  Such a government deserves destruction no matter who is doing it.  War is an ugly thing, but it isn't the ugliest of things.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rogue9 is slowly turning Thunderbird's arguments on the fiery spit of logic.  Dinner will be served shortly.


----------



## Thunderbird

Rogue 9 said:


> Prove it.  Oh wait, _you can't._


Ha ha  You admitted earlier: "It is true that Lincoln would almost certainly have raised the tariff".  Did you forget?



> but you didn't see the Upper Midwest seceding in the 1840s.  Clearly, tariff policy wasn't enough to spur such an immediate and decisive reaction and we need another reason.


 Many in New England wanted separation back in the early 1800s because they thought the Federal government was not serving New England's economic interests. 

The South regarded the economic warfare waged by the North as a casus belli.  Alexander H. Stephens, from your own link, decried this kind of economic warfare: "The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality." 

And Lincoln was every bit as racist as the Southerners. 

*Mr. Lincoln The Racist *

*Lincoln the Racist*

See how your argument falls apart?



> Also note:  The idea that they were going to let slavery die out on its own continues to be pure fantasy.


Slavery was ended in many American nations without civil war.



> Yes, of course I believe in it.


You believe in democracy.  Thanks for conceding the debate.  Since a majority of Southerners wanted separation you can only agree to allow it. 

Here is the question you keep running from: If Lincoln had not decided to invade the South at Bull Run would there have been a war?

You certainly seem terrified of this question.  lol

Lincoln's atrocities: *The Lincoln War Crimes Trial: A History Lesson*



> it was about the survival of the nation.


Don't be a drama queen.  The Union would have endured, though maybe it would have been a little more humble.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Fact: the Tariff Theory as Lincoln's secret cause for the war is made with no evidence.


----------



## Rogue 9

Thunderbird said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.  Oh wait, _you can't._
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha  You admitted earlier: "It is true that Lincoln would almost certainly have raised the tariff".  Did you forget?
Click to expand...

No, I didn't forget.  Raising the tariff /= economic warfare.  


Thunderbird said:


> but you didn't see the Upper Midwest seceding in the 1840s.  Clearly, tariff policy wasn't enough to spur such an immediate and decisive reaction and we need another reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Many in New England wanted separation back in the early 1800s because they thought the Federal government was not serving New England's economic interests.
> 
> The South regarded the economic warfare waged by the North as a casus belli.  Alexander H. Stephens, from your own link, decried this kind of economic warfare: "The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality."
Click to expand...

A laughable claim, since in the very same speech he stated that the negro is not equal to the white man, therefore all do _not_ stand upon the principles of perfect equality in their system, by definition.  Class interests were the entire basis; I quote John C. Calhoun:  





> There is no part of the world where agricultural, mechanical, and other descriptions of labor are more respected than in the South, with the exception of two descriptions of employment, that of menial and body servants. No Southern man&#8212;not the poorest or the lowest&#8212;will, under any circumstance, submit to perform either of them. He has too much pride for that, and I rejoice that he has. They are unsuited to the spirit of a freeman. But the man who would spurn them feels not the least degradation to work in the same field with his slave, or to be employed to work with them in the same field or in any mechanical operation; and, when so employed, they claim the right, and are admitted, in the country portion of the South, of sitting at the table of their employers. Can as much, on the score of equality, be said for the North? *With us the two great divisions of society are not the rich and poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class*, and are respected and treated as equals, if honest and industrious, and hence have a position and pride of character of which neither poverty nor misfortune can deprive them.





Thunderbird said:


> And Lincoln was every bit as racist as the Southerners.
> 
> *Mr. Lincoln The Racist *
> 
> *Lincoln the Racist*
> 
> See how your argument falls apart?


No I don't.  I have never disputed that Lincoln was a racist (though "every bit as racist as the Southerners" is just a stupid thing to say; he at least thought they were worth more than livestock).  This isn't about Lincoln; this is about the *indisputable fact* that the Confederacy existed for the express and sole purpose of keeping millions of men and women in chattel bondage, that doing so is evil to the core, and that it was worth war to end it.  



Thunderbird said:


> Slavery was ended in many American nations without civil war.


Yes, in nations not founded with the express purpose of its preservation, and sometimes not even then.  It took violent revolution in Haiti (and the United States refused recognition of the Haitian government until 1862 because of threats from the Southern section in general and Calhoun in particular). 


Thunderbird said:


> Yes, of course I believe in it.
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in democracy.  Thanks for conceding the debate.  Since a majority of Southerners wanted separation you can only agree to allow it.
Click to expand...

Nope.  I believe it exists; I don't believe it's a good idea.  Republics are superior.  Learn what the word means before you try to use it to entrap people who do.  


Thunderbird said:


> Here is the question you keep running from: If Lincoln had not decided to invade the South at Bull Run would there have been a war?
> 
> You certainly seem terrified of this question.  lol


I'm not terrified of it; it's a non-sequitur.  Yes there would have been one; there was already one.  It is good that there was one, because by it millions of people were freed from tyrannical bondage and the Slave Power was destroyed forever.  *In the situation of the United States in 1860-61, war was the superior choice, and by it was achieved superior results.  It was terrible, but it was less terrible than continued bondage.  The blame is entirely upon the Slave Power for making it a necessity.*



Thunderbird said:


> Lincoln's atrocities: *The Lincoln War Crimes Trial: A History Lesson*


I'm well aware of Lincoln's behavior in office.  It changes absolutely nothing.  


Thunderbird said:


> it was about the survival of the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be a drama queen.  The Union would have endured, though maybe it would have been a little more humble.
Click to expand...

No, it by definition would not have, since it would have just been sundered.

Edit:  You know what?  You keep accusing me of being afraid of answering your questions and addressing your argument, but you cut out whole swathes of what I have to say and only address what you feel you can nitpick.  Rather than bring all of it up again at once, answer me this:  *How is it that you say Southern local rule was more responsive to the will of the people when it kept four million of those people enslaved?*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> How is it that you say Southern local rule was more responsive to the will of the people when it kept four million of those people enslaved?



too stupid!! would you rather have Hitler Stalin or Mao take over a state in our country or the whole country!! Once all the power is in Washington the whole country is doomed. That is the message of our Founders which liberals lack the IQ to understand.

Yes dear once in  while a national government is morally superior to local governments, but not in general. That is why our Founders feared central government above all else and gifted to us the Constitution!!



Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny-Jefferson


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thunderbird and EdwardB must come from the same strange stock.

The southern leadership wanted to keep slavery: that ends the argument right there.

No answer exists to justify slavery.  End of discussion.


----------



## Rogue 9

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that you say Southern local rule was more responsive to the will of the people when it kept four million of those people enslaved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!! would you rather have Hitler Stalin or Mao take over a state in our country or the whole country!! Once all the power is in Washington the whole country is doomed. That is the message of our Founders which liberals lack the IQ to understand.
Click to expand...

I judge the government on its actions, not where it is located.  In more than just this one case, the central government has been a greater force for liberty than local governments.  The slave states refused to give up slavery on their own; abolition was accomplished through the federal constitution.  The Jim Crow states refused to end legal, public segregation on their own; it was accomplished through federal enforcement.  The effective end of the trans-Atlantic slave trade was accomplished by the British Empire, not (except in the case of the United States) through the actions of the various North and South American nations.  Local rule frequently is better and more free, but it isn't always so, and it is foolish to reflexively assume that it is without critical examination of the facts.  



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Yes dear once in  while a national government is morally superior to local governments, but not in general. That is why our Founders feared central government above all else and gifted to us the Constitution!!


I'm aware of the fact.  I'm also aware of the fact that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, a much more decentralized form of government that was tried and found not to work.  As far as the United States is concerned, the Constitution represented a concentration of power from what came before, not a diffusion of it.  


EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny-Jefferson


So you have term limits on the executive.


----------



## hortysir

JakeStarkey said:


> Thunderbird and EdwardB must come from the same strange stock.
> 
> The southern leadership wanted to keep slavery: that ends the argument right there.
> 
> No answer exists to justify slavery.  End of discussion.



The "southern leadership" wanted slavery so badly that they declined an offer made to them, by Abe, that would have made slavery perfectly legal and a matter of the states.
Got it.

As disgusting as slavery is, you cannot apply 21st century morals to those of that era.
Slavery was a worldwide commonality.


----------



## JakeStarkey

hortysir said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird and EdwardB must come from the same strange stock.
> 
> The southern leadership wanted to keep slavery: that ends the argument right there.
> 
> No answer exists to justify slavery.  End of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "southern leadership" wanted slavery so badly that they declined an offer made to them, by Abe, that would have made slavery perfectly legal and a matter of the states.
> Got it.
> 
> As disgusting as slavery is, you cannot apply 21st century morals to those of that era.
> Slavery was a worldwide commonality.
Click to expand...


19th century morals by 1860 in the West were to end slavery, in part, because it was disgusting.  Only the reactionaries defended it.  You are right, AL offered a good bargain for the southern leadership and they turned it down.


----------



## Thunderbird

Rogue 9 said:


> No I don't.  I have never disputed that Lincoln was a racist


Glad you see this.

quote: Some Southern politicians did indeed defend slavery, but not as strongly as Abraham Lincoln did in his first inaugural address, where he supported the enshrinement of Southern slavery explicitly in the U.S. Constitution (the "Corwin Amendment") for the first time ever. Coming from the president of the United States, this was the strongest defense of slavery ever made by an American politician. 
Some Southern politicians did say that their society was based on white supremacy, but so did Abraham Lincoln and most other Northern politicians. "I as much as any man want the superior position to belong to the white race," Lincoln said in a debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858. 

LINK



> This isn't about Lincoln;


Actually it is.  That's what this thread is about!



> It took violent revolution in Haiti


Here's one of your most important misunderstandings.  War is not necessary to end slavery!

quote: *During the 19th century, dozens of countries, including the British and Spanish empires, ended slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation. Among such countries were Argentina, Colombia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish colonies, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela.*

LINK

quote: A real statesman, as opposed to a monstrous, egomaniacal patronage politician like Abe Lincoln, would have made use of the decades-long world history of peaceful emancipation if his main purpose was to end slavery. Of course, Lincoln always insisted that that was in no way his purpose. He stated this very clearly in his first inaugural address, in which he even supported the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which would have prohibited the federal government from EVER interfering with Southern slavery. He  and the U.S. Congress  declared repeatedly that the purpose of the war was to "save the union," but of course the war destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers.

quote: The story of how Great Britain ended slavery peacefully is the highlight of Powells book. There were once as many as 15,000 slaves in England herself, along with hundreds of thousands throughout the British empire. The British abolitionists combined religion, politics, publicity campaigns, legislation, and the legal system to end slavery there just two decades prior to the American "Civil War."
Great credit is given to the British statesman and member of the House of Commons, William Wilberforce. After organizing an educational campaign to convince British society that slavery was immoral and barbaric, Wilberforce succeeded in getting a Slavery Abolition Act passed in 1833, and within seven years some 800,000 slaves were freed. Tax dollars were used to purchase the freedom of the slaves, which eliminated the only source of opposition to emancipation, wealthy slave owners. It was expensive, but as Powell notes, nothing in the world is more expensive than war.

LINK 



> Nope.  I believe it exists; I don't believe it's a good idea.


Now you *don't *believe in democracy?  Could you make up your mind? lol

So you now want to discard the will of the people and submit to rule by an elite?  You must feel comfortable in a kneeling posiiton.



> Yes there would have been one;


Of course this is silly.  The South had no interest in invading the North back in 1861.



> It is good that there was one,


100's of 1000's dead = good?!



> I'm well aware of Lincoln's behavior in office.


You acknowledge his contempt for fundamental rights, his atrocities.



> *How is it that you say Southern local rule was more responsive to the will of the people when it kept four million of those people enslaved?*


Of course I think slavery is wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Washington Peace Conference, the Corwin Amendment, etc, were worth that of human excrement.

Lincoln waited for the northern Democracy to come on to his side, and he got that with Ft Sumter.

Any time the South had agreed to accept constitutional, electoral process, and respect for federal property, and agreement that slavery would remain in the South, AL would have wholeheartedly agree.

Instead, the South rose in rebellion and AL shot it in the forehead.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> Local rule frequently is better and more free, but it isn't always so, and it is foolish to reflexively assume that it is without critical examination of the facts.



too stupid by 1000% and perfectly liberal. Our founders gave us a federal government with very very limited power rather than a strong national because their reading of history showed that local government was far far safer( though, of course and  very very obviously, not always) , and that was before Hitler Stalin and Mao, the great 20th century liberals!!

Conservatives find it hard to believe that liberals lack the IQ to understand the most basic principle of America!  




idb said:


> I'm also aware of the fact that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, a much more decentralized form of government that was tried and found not to work.



OMG!! too completely stupid!!! Constitution replaced a tiny tiny tiny government with a tiny tiny government about 1% the size of todays government on a per capita, inflation adjusted basis!!!!! A liberal will be too slow for words and sadly very very much in the retarded zone!! No other explanation is possible. I'm sorry but if we don't speak up as profound liberal ignorance grows soon enough we'll all be supporting Hitler Stalin and Mao or some derivitive thereof all over again.   


Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny-Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Rogue 9

Thunderbird said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't.  I have never disputed that Lincoln was a racist
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you see this.
> 
> quote: Some Southern politicians did indeed defend slavery, but not as strongly as Abraham Lincoln did in his first inaugural address, where he supported the enshrinement of Southern slavery explicitly in the U.S. Constitution (the "Corwin Amendment") for the first time ever. Coming from the president of the United States, this was the strongest defense of slavery ever made by an American politician.
> Some Southern politicians did say that their society was based on white supremacy, but so did Abraham Lincoln and most other Northern politicians. "I as much as any man want the superior position to belong to the white race," Lincoln said in a debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858.
> 
> LINK
Click to expand...

Lincoln's first duty as President was the preservation and security of the nation.  He was painstakingly clear about the divide between his personal desires and his official duty on several occasions.  At the time it was thought that guarantees to slavery might entice the South to give up the charade, but as the fire eaters had been demonstrating for years, they were too pigheaded for even that.  Also from the Lincoln-Douglas debates:  





			
				Abraham Lincoln said:
			
		

> "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 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."


There is a stark difference between a racist and a slaver, no matter how much you may insist to the contrary.  


Thunderbird said:


> This isn't about Lincoln;
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is.  That's what this thread is about!
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but it still concerns the *indisputable fact* that the Confederacy existed for the sole purpose of keeping millions of men and women in chattel bondage, that this is and was evil to the core, and that it was worth the measures taken to end it.  You cannot discuss Lincoln's presidency without that context, since it was framed by it in its entirety.  


Thunderbird said:


> Here's one of your most important misunderstandings.  War is not necessary to end slavery!
> 
> quote: *During the 19th century, dozens of countries, including the British and Spanish empires, ended slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation. Among such countries were Argentina, Colombia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish colonies, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela.*
> 
> LINK


And the United States was _not one of them,_ and it wasn't the only one that couldn't purge the practice without war.  Haiti in fact had to fight two; their revolution and a war against Napoleonic France when Napoleon III decided to try and retake the island and re-introduce slavery.  

What _you_ don't understand is that peaceful measures to end slavery had been tried, for decades, and failed because of the Slave Power's stranglehold on the federal government for the first eighty years of the nation's existence.  In gross defiance of the Constitution, abolitionists were not permitted to petition Congress, their pamphlets were barred from the mail, and outside New England they were frequently unable to publicly gather for fear of government censure.  (This is, incidentally, another reason why I laugh at the Slave Power's whining about breach of the fugitive slave provisions as unconstitutional; it was okay when they did it.)  When the political environment finally changed so that peaceful measures _could_ be attempted with some reasonable chance of at least being heard, the Slave Power violently broke up the government rather than take the risk that it might happen.  


Thunderbird said:


> quote: A real statesman, as opposed to a monstrous, egomaniacal patronage politician like Abe Lincoln, would have made use of the decades-long world history of peaceful emancipation if his main purpose was to end slavery. Of course, Lincoln always insisted that that was in no way his purpose. He stated this very clearly in his first inaugural address, in which he even supported the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which would have prohibited the federal government from EVER interfering with Southern slavery. He &#8211; and the U.S. Congress &#8211; declared repeatedly that the purpose of the war was to "save the union," but of course the war destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers.
> 
> quote: The story of how Great Britain ended slavery peacefully is the highlight of Powell&#8217;s book. There were once as many as 15,000 slaves in England herself, along with hundreds of thousands throughout the British empire. The British abolitionists combined religion, politics, publicity campaigns, legislation, and the legal system to end slavery there just two decades prior to the American "Civil War."
> Great credit is given to the British statesman and member of the House of Commons, William Wilberforce. After organizing an educational campaign to convince British society that slavery was immoral and barbaric, Wilberforce succeeded in getting a Slavery Abolition Act passed in 1833, and within seven years some 800,000 slaves were freed. Tax dollars were used to purchase the freedom of the slaves, which eliminated the only source of opposition to emancipation, wealthy slave owners. It was expensive, but as Powell notes, nothing in the world is more expensive than war.
> 
> LINK


You really should vary your reading a bit; multiple sources do wonders for clearing up perception bias.  I refer you to the previous two responses; Lincoln's duty as he saw it was first to preserve the Union, and abolitionist press and government petitioning was _de facto_ illegal in the antebellum United States.  Further, Lincoln offered compensated emancipation to the loyalist slave states, and it was refused.  The first part of the British solution was tried in the United States, and it failed.  

The second part of the British solution, which you conveniently fail to mention, was naval interdiction of the slave trade, boarding ships regardless of nationality and, if they had slaves aboard, seizing them to be released.  This was the entire job of the Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron.  Incidentally, this is also an act of war, so apparently the British Empire thought it was indeed worth war by the mid-19th century (though no one was crazy enough to actually fight one with them over it).  


Thunderbird said:


> Now you *don't *believe in democracy?  Could you make up your mind? lol


My mind is made up; you are apparently just semi-literate.  Democracy is direct rule of the people, as practiced in ancient Athens, where the citizenry was directly polled to decide laws and legal matters rather than having officials appointed, elected, or by inheritance.  It has multiple problems, the primary one being that there's no practical way to do it on a scale much larger than a small city-state, but another being that it by nature is simply tyranny of the mob; if the people decide by popular vote to do some incredible atrocity, it is done (as happened on several noted occasions in Athens).  The United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.  Furthermore, even if it were, democracy doesn't mean secession by a minority would be legal; remember majority rules without check or balance in it, so secession would turn out no differently.  

Being a constitutional republic, the United States has a constitution and laws.  I have already spelled out upthread how and why the Constitution bars secession through any means other than the amendment mechanism; you just chose to ignore it.  I reject your premise that representative government automatically means that secession must be allowed.  


Thunderbird said:


> So you now want to discard the will of the people and submit to rule by an elite?  You must feel comfortable in a kneeling posiiton.


False dichotomy.  Rule by an elite is not the only alternative to direct democracy.  


Thunderbird said:


> Of course this is silly.  The South had no interest in invading the North back in 1861.


Funny how the Army of Northern Virginia ended up at Gettysburg, *Pennsylvania,* then.  The Slave Power had lots of interest in attacking the possessions of the United States; it seized forts and armories belonging to the United States, attacked its soldiers, fired on its ships, and carved out hundreds of thousands of square miles of its territory with clear goals of expanding that further.  


Thunderbird said:


> 100's of 1000's dead = good?!


No, the cost is not good.  The question is whether or not that cost was worth the end of chattel slavery and the preservation of the United States.  I submit that it was.  


Thunderbird said:


> I'm well aware of Lincoln's behavior in office.
> 
> 
> 
> You acknowledge his contempt for fundamental rights, his atrocities.
Click to expand...

The war power of the government permits suspension of habeus corpus in time of rebellion.  Without one, do you seriously think he'd have done any of that?  Besides, the Slave Power did it all and more besides; you may ask the Unionist residents of eastern Tennessee, not to mention all their slaves.  


Thunderbird said:


> *How is it that you say Southern local rule was more responsive to the will of the people when it kept four million of those people enslaved?*
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I think slavery is wrong.
Click to expand...

But not wrong enough to be worth ending, apparently, nor even wrong enough to think ill of those who tore apart their nation and started a massive war for the purpose of preserving and expanding it.  But that doesn't answer the question.  You claimed that the secessionist government was more responsive to the will of the people.  The question wasn't "is slavery wrong," the question was (and continues to be) "how is that possible given slavery and its role in the formation of that government?"  



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Local rule frequently is better and more free, but it isn't always so, and it is foolish to reflexively assume that it is without critical examination of the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid by 1000% and perfectly liberal. Our founders gave us a federal government with very very limited power rather than a strong national because their reading of history showed that local government was far far safer( though, of course and  very very obviously, not always) , and that was before Hitler Stalin and Mao, the great 20th century liberals!!
> 
> Conservatives find it hard to believe that liberals lack the IQ to understand the most basic principle of America!
Click to expand...

I'm a classical liberal, you nitwit; so were most of the Founders.  You apparently lack the IQ to understand that you basically repeated what I said after saying it was stupid.  




EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also aware of the fact that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, a much more decentralized form of government that was tried and found not to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!! too completely stupid!!! Constitution replaced a tiny tiny tiny government with a tiny tiny government about 1% the size of todays government on a per capita, inflation adjusted basis!!!!! A liberal will be too slow for words and sadly very very much in the retarded zone!! No other explanation is possible. I'm sorry but if we don't speak up as profound liberal ignorance grows soon enough we'll all be supporting Hitler Stalin and Mao or some derivitive thereof all over again.
Click to expand...

No, we actually won't, not without a profound change first in our citizenry and second in our form of government.  I don't see a scenario where a Communist or Nazi dictator could seize power in the United States; the conditions simply aren't there.  I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject at hand, though.  



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny-Thomas Jefferson


So you have term limits on the executive.    (Seriously, did you think the answer would change?)


----------



## Thunderbird

Rogue 9 said:


> There is a stark difference between a racist and a slaver, no matter how much you may insist to the contrary.


1) Lincoln defended slavery. 2) Lincoln was a hater: *Abraham Lincoln 'wanted to deport slaves' to new colonies *



> Fair enough, but it still concerns the *indisputable fact* that the Confederacy existed for the sole purpose of keeping millions of men and women in chattel bondage,


Laughable hyperbole.  



> and failed because of the Slave Power's stranglehold on the federal government for the first eighty years of the nation's existence.


Yes we've heard your conspiracy theory over and over again. 



> In gross defiance of the Constitution, abolitionists were not permitted to petition Congress, their pamphlets were barred from the mail, and outside New England they were frequently unable to publicly gather for fear of government censure.


 Frenzied exaggeration. 



> Further, Lincoln offered compensated emancipation to the loyalist slave states, and it was refused.


Why not try again?  Why give up?  Venezuelans, the Spanish, etc. gave up slavery without war.  Why couldn't the South be persuaded to give up slavery too?  Chattel slavery was on the way out and many Southerners knew it.  When cotton was no longer king, chattel slavery was doomed.



> Democracy is direct rule of the people, as practiced in ancient Athens, where the citizenry was directly polled to decide laws and legal matters rather than having officials appointed, elected, or by inheritance.


 That's only one kind of democracy. Democracy = rule by the people, sometimes through representatives.  You said you oppose democracy, you "don't believe it's a good idea."  So you prefer to be ruled by people in ermine capes or military uniforms.  Unless you've changed your mind *again!* 

Rule by the people obviously means that citizens of a sizable region have the right to independence if they so desire. 



> Funny how the Army of Northern Virginia ended up at Gettysburg, *Pennsylvania,* then.


lol *After* the Northern invasion.  Please provide evidence the South planned to invade the North in 1861.  Unless you can't.  



> I'm a classical liberal,


 Really?  And yet you love Lincoln who suspended habeas corpus, dismantled freedom of the press, opposed free trade, wanted to deport African Americans, piled on taxes, built up a powerful central government, and waged a bloody war to force a region to stay in the Union.  *That's just crazy! *


----------



## Rogue 9

Thunderbird said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a stark difference between a racist and a slaver, no matter how much you may insist to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Lincoln defended slavery. 2) Lincoln was a hater: *Abraham Lincoln 'wanted to deport slaves' to new colonies *
Click to expand...

I would very much like to see the primary sources.  Even in the article you provide, it notes that the administration authorized a British agent to *recruit* freed slaves, that is, to take them if they wished to go.  To my knowledge (which is extensive) there was no _involuntary_ deportation program nor plans for one; if nothing else the shipping tonnage simply didn't exist to remove every black person from the United States.  I'm aware that Lincoln explored several programs to relocate freedmen who wished to leave the country, but if he wished to forcibly deport them all, I'd love to see the evidence of it.  


Thunderbird said:


> Fair enough, but it still concerns the *indisputable fact* that the Confederacy existed for the sole purpose of keeping millions of men and women in chattel bondage,
> 
> 
> 
> Laughable hyperbole.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.  With the removal of slavery as an issue, you don't have the 1860-61 secession.  The only reason the Confederacy was formed was to provide a government that was guaranteed to protect slavery in perpetuity, something the Slave Power felt (rightly, as it turned out) that this was not something the United States would do.  


Thunderbird said:


> Yes we've heard your conspiracy theory over and over again.


It isn't a theory, nor was it particularly a conspiracy.  The dominant political force in the South was the plantation aristocracy throughout the antebellum period, and the South had a disproportionate share of the vote due to both the three fifths clause (which consistently granted the slave states roughly a third more representation in the House than their free population justified, a margin by which proslavery measures carried in Congress more than once) and in the very early days the restrictions on the franchise favoring wealthy, male property owners (of which the South had many).  Ten of the first fifteen Presidents were slaveholders, and two of the others were in favor of it (the exceptions being John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and Millard Fillmore, and the latter gave up fighting over it during his presidency anyway).  The slave states had at least guaranteed parity in the Senate until 1850 with the admission of California (which is when, astute observers may note, the buildup to civil war started in earnest) and majorities in the House until the population boom of the Northeast and Midwest triggered by emigration and urbanization started to give free states substantially greater shares of the House than the seats apportioned for the South's free population plus three fifths, also during the 1850s.  It is not exaggeration to say that slave politics were a dominant force in the antebellum federal government.  


Thunderbird said:


> Frenzied exaggeration.


*No* *it* *isn't*.  


Thunderbird said:


> Why not try again?  Why give up?  Venezuelans, the Spanish, etc. gave up slavery without war.  Why couldn't the South be persuaded to give up slavery too?  Chattel slavery was on the way out and many Southerners knew it.  When cotton was no longer king, chattel slavery was doomed.


Why wait?  Why allow decades more of slavery, even if it would ever have been permitted to die on its own given that it underpinned the entire Southern social system? Evidently not enough Southerners knew it, since they attempted to destroy their nation to preserve slavery, something that doesn't make much sense if it was going to be over in a few years anyway.  

I have already brought forth more than sufficient evidence to show that the Confederacy intended to keep slavery as an institution in perpetuity.  Texas' declaration of causes says it explicitly and their Constitution forbade laws against negro slavery or impairment of the right of property in slaves.  Cotton is not the only thing one could use slaves for.  You too easily discount the ideology of the Slave Power as a factor; that machine processing would have become more efficient in no way means that slavery would be automatically dropped for that reason.  After all, it was not throughout the decades of the Industrial Revolution that preceded the Civil War, and in fact the South in general showed marked disinterest in industrializing at all.  



Thunderbird said:


> That's only one kind of democracy. Democracy = rule by the people, sometimes through representatives.  You said you oppose democracy, you "don't believe it's a good idea."  So you prefer to be ruled by people in ermine capes or military uniforms.  Unless you've changed your mind *again!*


The United States is a constitutional republic and has been since its inception.  It is also not ruled by people in ermine capes or military uniforms.  I believe you were saying something about frenzied hyperbole earlier?  


Thunderbird said:


> Rule by the people obviously means that citizens of a sizable region have the right to independence if they so desire.


1.)  I reject this assertion.  So did the founders of this nation, seeing how they saw fit to provide for suppression of that very thing in the enumerated powers of the government.  Under the Constitution, the only method for legitimate secession is the amendment mechanism, i.e. Amendment XXVIII: South Carolina withdraws from the Federal Union effective date X.  It is a government of the nation as a whole, and changes of that magnitude must be decided upon by the nation as a whole.  

2.) Even were that true, if that's what the Confederates truly believed they would not have attempted to falsify the vote in Kentucky and Missouri, successfully done so in Tennessee, nor put down the people of eastern Tennessee and occupied the region by main military force when they tried to counter-secede in the same manner as West Virginia.  Confederate behavior is inconsistent with the motives you ascribe to them.  


Thunderbird said:


> Funny how the Army of Northern Virginia ended up at Gettysburg, *Pennsylvania,* then.
> 
> 
> 
> lol *After* the Northern invasion.  Please provide evidence the South planned to invade the North in 1861.  Unless you can't.
Click to expand...

General Leonidas Polk ordered the invasion and occupation of Columbus, KY on September 4, 1861.  NEXT!  


Thunderbird said:


> I'm a classical liberal,
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  And yet you love Lincoln who suspended habeas corpus, dismantled freedom of the press, opposed free trade, wanted to deport African Americans, piled on taxes, built up a powerful central government, and waged a bloody war to force a region to stay in the Union.  *That's just crazy! *
Click to expand...

Where have I said I love Lincoln?  I hate slavery.  Those are two very separate concepts.  I'm glad Lincoln had so great a hand in putting an end to it, but I don't worship the man.  By the same token, I'm not partial to lies and slander about him (or anyone else, for that matter).

You still haven't actually answered the question.  *How is it that you say Southern local rule was more responsive to the will of the people when it kept four million of those people enslaved?*


----------



## Thunderbird

Rogue 9 said:


> The dominant political force in the South was the plantation aristocracy throughout the antebellum period,


Nonsense.  The North had greater financial power and, increasingly, a larger population which translated into greater power in the House.



> until the population boom of the Northeast and Midwest triggered by emigration and urbanization started to give free states substantially greater shares of the House


Yes. 



> Why wait?


How about *saving 100s of 1000s of lives!* 

Some more reasons to wait: While some Yanks treated contrabands with a degree of equity and benevolence, the more typical response was indifference, contempt, and cruelty. Soon after Union forces captured Port Royal, South Carolina, in November 1861, a private described an incident there that made him &#8220;ashamed of America&#8221;: &#8220;About 8-10 soldiers from the New York 47th chased some Negro women but they escaped, so they took a Negro girl about 7-9 years old, and raped her.&#8221;  From Virginia a Connecticut soldier wrote that some men of his regiment had taken &#8220;two ****** wenches [women] . . . turned them upon their heads, and put tobacco, chips, sticks, lighted cigars and sand into their behinds.&#8221;  Even when Billy Yank welcomed the contrabands, he often did so from utilitarian rather than humanitarian motives.  &#8220;Officers and men are having an easy time,&#8221; wrote a Maine soldier from occupied Louisiana in 1862. &#8220;We have Negroes to do all fatigue work, cooking and washing clothes." (The Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 497, emphasis added)

LINK

And I'm sure you're familiar with Sherman and Lincoln's taste for total war.



> Cotton is not the only thing one could use slaves for.  You too easily discount the ideology of the Slave Power as a factor; that machine processing would have become more efficient in no way means that slavery would be automatically dropped for that reason.  After all, it was not throughout the decades of the Industrial Revolution that preceded the Civil War, and in fact the South in general showed marked disinterest in industrializing at all.


 Chattel slavery was dying.  Cotton was no longer king.  The new industrial age required more skilled, educated workers concentrated in urban areas.  No way chattel slavery could survive in such an environment!



> 1.)  I reject this assertion.  So did the founders of this nation, seeing how they saw fit to provide for suppression of that very thing in the enumerated powers of the government.  Under the Constitution, the only method for legitimate secession is the amendment mechanism, i.e. Amendment XXVIII:


In dispute.

quote: There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state from peacefully and democratically separating from the Union.  The Constitution doesn&#8217;t say that ratification is irrevocable.  Nor does it give the citizens of a majority of states any right to prevent the citizens of a minority of states from withdrawing their states from the Union.  Nor does it say that the Union itself is permanent.  Lloyd Paul Stryker, who opposed secession, admitted the Southern states had an &#8220;arguable claim that no specific section of the Constitution stood in their way,&#8221; i.e., no section of the Constitution prohibited peaceful, democratic separation (Andrew Johnson: A Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930, p. 447).  Indeed, the right of secession is implied in the Tenth Amendment, which reads,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 

The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to force a state to remain in the Union against its will.  President James Buchanan acknowledged this fact in a message to Congress shortly before Lincoln assumed office.  Nor does the Constitution prohibit the citizens of a state from voting to repeal their state&#8217;s ratification of the Constitution.  Therefore, by a plain reading of the Tenth Amendment, a state has the implied legal right to peacefully withdraw from the Union.
This view is strengthened by the fact that several of the states specified in their constitution or in their ratification ordinance that they should retain all rights and powers that were not expressly granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. 

LINK



> It is a government of the nation as a whole, and changes of that magnitude must be decided upon by the nation as a whole.


Only if you believe a larger political entity has the right to exploit and oppress a smaller entity within its borders.



> General Leonidas Polk ordered the invasion and occupation of Columbus, KY on September 4, 1861.  NEXT!


Are you joking?!  Polk penetrated some meters into disputed territory for a defensive purpose *after* Lincoln's massive invasion.  We both know you are being ridiculous. 



> Where have I said I love Lincoln?


You do admit that Lincoln was a racist.  The evidence clearly shows he was a white supremacist.  You have also admitted he intended to raise the tariff.  The high tariff would have devastated the Southern economy.  



> I hate slavery.


How many slaves work for you?

*Slavery Footprint*



> You still haven't actually answered the question.


I have.  I don't think a slave society is responsive to the will of all the people.


----------



## Rogue 9

Thunderbird said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dominant political force in the South was the plantation aristocracy throughout the antebellum period,
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  The North had greater financial power and, increasingly, a larger population which translated into greater power in the House.
Click to expand...

I said the dominant political force in the _South_, not in the whole of the Union.  Slave states held a majority in the Senate until 1820, and parity until 1850 (though a split was maintained because California sent a proslavery Senator to Washington as part of the Compromise of 1850).  Minnesota's admission in 1858 irreversibly upset the split Senate that was so very important to the Slave Power's interests (so very important that during the debate on Californian admission there was serious discussion of slave state militia going to Washington to... how did John Hammond put it?  "Kick them out of the Capitol and set it on fire," I believe).  

The upshot of this is that thanks to the structure of the Senate and the fact that the Democratic Party was (and is) national and wielded great influence in the North as well as the South, Southern interests held outsized sway in Congress and Southern and pro-Southern candidates won the Presidency far more often than not.  The only reason Lincoln _didn't_ lose the 1860 election horribly is because the Deep South delegations walked out of the Democratic National Convention when it declined to demand federal guarantees of slavery in all the territories as a platform plank, leading to a split ticket.  It's arguable that secession actually happened at the DNC, since there was no other possible result once the Deep South states nominated Breckenridge to compete with Douglas.  (This was _incredibly_ foolish of them even though Stephen Douglas didn't share their fanaticism for slavery expansion, by the way; he was a Manifest Destiny-believing expansionist and as President likely would have set about conquering Caribbean islands if not huge swathes of the Central American mainland, where slave states could be set up with no realistic possibility of interference from the abolitionists in the North.)  




Thunderbird said:


> How about *saving 100s of 1000s of lives!*
> 
> Some more reasons to wait: While some Yanks treated contrabands with a degree of equity and benevolence, the more typical response was indifference, contempt, and cruelty. Soon after Union forces captured Port Royal, South Carolina, in November 1861, a private described an incident there that made him ashamed of America: About 8-10 soldiers from the New York 47th chased some Negro women but they escaped, so they took a Negro girl about 7-9 years old, and raped her.  From Virginia a Connecticut soldier wrote that some men of his regiment had taken two ****** wenches [women] . . . turned them upon their heads, and put tobacco, chips, sticks, lighted cigars and sand into their behinds.  Even when Billy Yank welcomed the contrabands, he often did so from utilitarian rather than humanitarian motives.  Officers and men are having an easy time, wrote a Maine soldier from occupied Louisiana in 1862. We have Negroes to do all fatigue work, cooking and washing clothes." (The Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 497, emphasis added)
> 
> LINK


I've read The Battle Cry of Freedom straight through (as well as many other books on the subject by a wide variety of authors) and am under no illusions on the matter.  As I've said multiple times before, it would be shocking for a white man of the 19th century _not_ to hold such views, and the North didn't initially go to war for the purpose of bringing abolition.  The fact remains that abolition was eventually a war aim and the end result.  Even if the Confederacy would ever have allowed slavery to die (something that would have taken at least a generation if not two and a constitutional amendment if it were to happen at all, and it was certainly something its founders intended to never happen) it would have been decades later, with millions more living and dying in bondage.  

That said, the incident I referred to was Lincoln offering compensated emancipation to the border states while the war was underway, telling their delegations that if they did not accept, slavery would be worn away despite them through the "friction and abrasion" of the war.  They refused, and there wasn't a lot more waiting to do; they lost their remaining slaves to the 13th Amendment.  


Thunderbird said:


> And I'm sure you're familiar with Sherman and Lincoln's taste for total war.


General Sherman's Special Field Orders, Number 120, governing the Georgia campaign, which do not outline total war, but rather provisions for foraging.  Union war measures were outright kid-gloved through 1862, only becoming harsher as the war dragged on, and even then there wasn't classic total war in the sense of indiscriminately targeting the whole population, civilian and military, as targets of military operations.  "The hard hand of war," as Sherman put it, was the hardship and privations of war, not indiscriminately shooting everyone in sight.  (Also the burning is greatly exaggerated; I've personally seen plantation mansions and other antebellum architecture in the path of the march, still standing.)  It isn't pleasant, but then that's rather the point.  

Also:  [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-dzCt2xeSo]Marching through Georgia - YouTube[/ame]




Thunderbird said:


> Chattel slavery was dying.  Cotton was no longer king.  The new industrial age required more skilled, educated workers concentrated in urban areas.  No way chattel slavery could survive in such an environment!


Actually, the problem wasn't that cotton was no longer king; it was that Egypt was starting to produce cotton at competitive rates to the American South.    The thing is, the new industrial age required that, but it had for thirty years at least, and the South had simply bypassed it, consciously preferring the Jeffersonian agrarian ideal ("let our workshops remain in Europe").  Cotton was still an essential commodity, so they could get away with doing that.  They could have continued to get away with it for quite some time yet; Egypt was breaking their monopoly, but they were still competitive.  



Thunderbird said:


> In dispute.


Not by James Madison.  From a letter of his to Nicholas P. Trist, dated February 15, 1830:  





> In forming this compound scheme of Government it was impossible to lose sight of the question, what was to be done in the event of controversies which could not fail to occur, concerning the partition line, between the powers belonging to the Federal and to the State Govts. That some provision ought to be made, was as obvious and as essential, as the task itself was difficult and delicate.
> 
> That the final decision of such controversies, if left to each of the 13 now 24 members of the Union, must produce a different Constitution & different laws in the States was certain; and that such differences must be destructive of the common Govt. & of the Union itself, was equally certain. *The decision of questions between the common agents of the whole & of the parts, could only proceed from the whole, that is from a collective not a separate authority of the parts.*
> 
> The question then presenting itself could only relate to the least objectionable mode of providing for such occurrences, *under the collective authority.*
> 
> The provision immediately and ordinarily relied on, is manifestly the Supreme Court of the U. S., clothed as it is, with a Jurisdiction "in controversies to which the U. S. shall be a party;" the Court itself being so constituted as to render it independent & impartial in its decisions; [see Federalist, no. 39] whilst other and ulterior resorts would remain in the elective process, in the hands of the people themselves the joint constituents of the parties; and in the provision made by the Constitution for amending itself. *All other resorts are extra & ultra constitutional, corresponding to the Ultima Ratio of nations renouncing the ordinary relations of peace.*



Nor by Washington.  From his Circular to the States:  





> Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That *there must be a faithfull and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly,* and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain. Many other considerations might here be adduced to prove, that *without an entire conformity to the Spirit of the Union, we cannot exist as an Independent Power*; it will be sufficient for my purpose to mention but one or two which seem to me of the greatest importance. It is only in our united Character as an Empire, that our Independence is acknowledged, that our power can be regarded, or our Credit supported among Foreign Nations. The Treaties of the European Powers with the United States of America, will have no validity on a dissolution of the Union.





Thunderbird said:


> quote: There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state from peacefully and democratically separating from the Union.  The Constitution doesnt say that ratification is irrevocable.  Nor does it give the citizens of a majority of states any right to prevent the citizens of a minority of states from withdrawing their states from the Union.  Nor does it say that the Union itself is permanent.  Lloyd Paul Stryker, who opposed secession, admitted the Southern states had an arguable claim that no specific section of the Constitution stood in their way, i.e., no section of the Constitution prohibited peaceful, democratic separation (Andrew Johnson: A Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930, p. 447).  Indeed, the right of secession is implied in the Tenth Amendment, which reads,
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to force a state to remain in the Union against its will.  President James Buchanan acknowledged this fact in a message to Congress shortly before Lincoln assumed office.  Nor does the Constitution prohibit the citizens of a state from voting to repeal their states ratification of the Constitution.  Therefore, by a plain reading of the Tenth Amendment, a state has the implied legal right to peacefully withdraw from the Union.
> This view is strengthened by the fact that several of the states specified in their constitution or in their ratification ordinance that they should retain all rights and powers that were not expressly granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> LINK


A plain reading of the Tenth Amendment only implies that if it has not followed a plain reading of the remainder of the Constitution.  The power to regulate and dispose of the territory of the United States is enumerated to Congress, nothing in the Constitution (which the Tenth Amendment is) may be construed to prejudice the claims of the United States, and the Constitution and laws made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land.  I provided the relevant passages to EdwardBaiamonte upthread when he challenged my assertion that the secession method used was unconstitutional, and no one has commented on it since.  


Thunderbird said:


> Only if you believe a larger political entity has the right to exploit and oppress a smaller entity within its borders.


I refer you to Madison, above.  Also, just for fun:  





			
				Abraham Lincoln said:
			
		

> If all the States, save one, should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one:" it would be exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they are a majority, may not rightfully do. *These politicians are subtle and profound on the rights of minorities. They are not partial to that power which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself "We, the People."*





Thunderbird said:


> Are you joking?!  Polk penetrated some meters into disputed territory for a defensive purpose *after* Lincoln's massive invasion.  We both know you are being ridiculous.


It's only ridiculous if one accepts the premise that the secessions were right and proper.  I don't.  You demanded evidence that the Union was invaded in 1861.    


Thunderbird said:


> You do admit that Lincoln was a racist.  The evidence clearly shows he was a white supremacist.  You have also admitted he intended to raise the tariff.  The high tariff would have devastated the Southern economy.


How high did he intend to raise the tariff?  We don't know, because he never had a peacetime to do it in.  The Southern export economy was the engine of slavery, it's reason for existence.  First, we don't know that it would have been raised high enough to devastate the Southern economy (it could have withstood quite a bit of raising, given how low the starting point was), and second even if it did, it would have driven down demand for slave labor.  The Deep South had a consciously undiversified economy; they could have easily not depended so much upon exports if they had chosen a different course.  


Thunderbird said:


> I hate slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> How many slaves work for you?
> 
> *Slavery Footprint*
Click to expand...

Irony:  The link contains an internal popup that seems heavily pro-Lincoln.  

According to that survey, 21.  In my own defense, I'm very aware of the fact and campaign actively against sweatshop practices.  I also think the number is high; I work in manufacturing in the United States (making furniture, if you're curious), and in cooperation with my extended family grow a large vegetable garden and small orchard that supplies the majority of my food (and as the survey notes, food is the biggest part).  But now you're changing the subject.  


Thunderbird said:


> You still haven't actually answered the question.
> 
> 
> 
> I have.  I don't think a slave society is responsive to the will of all the people.
Click to expand...

This leads to an obvious corollary.  A non-local authority that mandates a non-slaveholding society is more responsive to the will of the slaves than a local authority that would not (and the masters, being slaveholders, are irrelevant to the issue, being evil men who deserve naught but the sword).  This is why I judge governments based on their actions rather than their location or remoteness from myself.


----------



## Thunderbird

Rogue 9 said:


> share their fanaticism for slavery expansion,


I'm not sure why you keep demonizing the South.  Many of the most stalwart defenders of classical liberalism are Southerners.

A large majority of Southern families did not own slaves.  Many Southerners fought the North because 1) They did not want to be robbed by the national government that served the interests of Northern plutocrats. 2) The North invaded their homeland.

*Some Surprising Facts About The Confederacy*

Those who want to subjugate the people first demonize them.  This is Spielberg's strategy and should be condemned.



> "The hard hand of war," as Sherman put it, was the hardship and privations of war, not indiscriminately shooting everyone in sight.


Don't ignore the suffering caused by Lincoln's invasion.  

Northern atrocities: *Generals Sherman and Sheridan: The War Criminals*

I'm sure you condemn this kind of barbarity.



> Cotton was still an essential commodity, so they could get away with doing that. They could have continued to get away with it for quite some time yet;


Slavery was profitable because the U.S. had too few workers.  As immigrants poured in the situation changed



> According to that survey, 21.  In my own defense, I'm very aware of the fact and campaign actively against sweatshop practices.  I also think the number is high;


With laudable honesty you acknowledge you have slaves working for you.  By your own logic you have no reason to object if some overarching political entity (say the U.N.) outraged by your slave-holding came and arrested you, burned your home, and drove your family onto the street.  Would you cheer such brutality?

Tyrants and Imperialists often pose as liberators as they gobble up territory - think of Mao invading Tibet & Mussolini invading Ethiopia.

I hate to see Lincoln, who was responsible for killing far more Americans than any other president, rated our top leader.


----------



## Rogue 9

Thunderbird said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> share their fanaticism for slavery expansion,
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you keep demonizing the South.  Many of the most stalwart defenders of classical liberalism are Southerners.
> 
> A large majority of Southern families did not own slaves.  Many Southerners fought the North because 1) They did not want to be robbed by the national government that served the interests of Northern plutocrats. 2) The North invaded their homeland.
> 
> *Some Surprising Facts About The Confederacy*
> 
> Those who want to subjugate the people first demonize them.  This is Spielberg's strategy and should be condemned.
Click to expand...

First:  It was fanaticism for slavery expansion.  The Deep South's delegates to the DNC would not accept a candidate nor endorse a platform that didn't agree with them on that point.  This isn't demonization; it's documentable historical fact.  

Second: A large majority of Southerners didn't own slaves, but a large plurality of them _were_ relatives of those who did.  Free southerners, furthermore, were almost entirely vested in the institution; it was the driver of nearly the entire Southern economy, so owning slaves was not necessary to not want it threatened.  Beyond that, slaveholders held almost every important political office in the slave states.  *This gentleman* has some figures of interest on the matter.  

Even ignoring the economy, it was also the basis of the entire social fabric of the slave states; I have already posted Calhoun's opinion on the matter, and can go further than that.  An 1856 editorial from the Richmond Enquirer stated:  





> Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves... In this country alone does perfect equality of civil and social privilege exist among the white population, and it exists solely because we have black slaves. Freedom is not possible without slavery. The spectacle of Republican freedom and Democratic equality in this country, is an eye-sore to an aristocracy whose system of exclusive privilege and arbitrary distinctions rests upon the false assumption of a right to degrade and oppress men whom God has made as good as themselves. The abolition of negro slavery in the South would inevitably end in the ruin of the political institution of the country.


The aristocracy referred to is Great Britain.  I'm rather pressed for time, but I could fill a forum page with more of the same.  Incidentally, this is _why_ many of the early American proponents of classical liberalism were Southerners; when your philosophy is that God Almighty has cast your slaves in an inferior mold, and believe that the continuation of political liberty is dependent upon continued slavery (after all, Jefferson's political philosophy holds that no one is competent to exercise the franchise unless he is essentially independently wealthy or at least entirely self-reliant), there is no contradiction between that slavery and your political liberty.  

Classical liberals _outside_ the United States (Bastiat was particularly prolific on the matter; I own a copy of his essay _The Law_ with a preface written by Thomas DiLorenzo, and when I read it I have to laugh at the irony, as well as his inability to keep from talking about Lincoln when introducing a work by a man who died in 1850) held - correctly - that slavery was a monstrous cancer and blight upon the American republic's example.  


Thunderbird said:


> "The hard hand of war," as Sherman put it, was the hardship and privations of war, not indiscriminately shooting everyone in sight.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ignore the suffering caused by Lincoln's invasion.
> 
> Northern atrocities: *Generals Sherman and Sheridan: The War Criminals*
> 
> I'm sure you condemn this kind of barbarity.
Click to expand...

An article that can't even correctly identify Lincoln's Secretary of War?  Surely you can do better.  

War is hell, to quote the man himself.  If you don't want to have one, don't start one.  Which the South did, crowing all the while that they would whip the Yankees in a few short months.  The things to understand:  The Shenandoah Valley, Atlanta's munitions dumps, Savannah's warehouses of cotton, all were major strategic assets to the Confederacy.  Leaving such things in the hands of the enemy is a good way to lose a war, something Sherman understood all too well.  


Thunderbird said:


> Cotton was still an essential commodity, so they could get away with doing that. They could have continued to get away with it for quite some time yet;
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was profitable because the U.S. had too few workers.  As immigrants poured in the situation changed
Click to expand...

No it didn't.  Immigrants had been pouring in for decades, and slavery remained as strong as ever.  You need to remember that the institution was as much about the social fabric as economics anyway; it was considered _degrading_ among southern whites to do menial labor, because that's what slaves were for.  


Thunderbird said:


> According to that survey, 21.  In my own defense, I'm very aware of the fact and campaign actively against sweatshop practices.  I also think the number is high;
> 
> 
> 
> With laudable honesty you acknowledge you have slaves working for you.  By your own logic you have no reason to object if some overarching political entity (say the U.N.) outraged by your slave-holding came and arrested you, burned your home, and drove your family onto the street.  Would you cheer such brutality?
Click to expand...

That's your angle?    No, because I'm not holding slaves nor am I employed in keeping them.  At no point did I say the Union should have been attacking most of the Western world for buying what slave labor produced, which would be the analogous situation.  By their measure, furthermore, every free Southerner had slaves working for him, since their metric is whether someone gains benefit from slave labor at all, so you can't consistently claim that only a small minority owned slaves on one hand and use that metric to say everyone in the modern first world owns slaves on the other.  Go burn that strawman somewhere else.  

I would, however, cheer the violent deaths of the actual slave-takers.  Especially those concerned in question 11; I daresay I'd do it myself.  

Incidentally, you undermine your own position - if modern industrial practices make slave labor obsolete and untenable, why is it still employed?  


Thunderbird said:


> Tyrants and Imperialists often pose as liberators as they gobble up territory - think of Mao invading Tibet & Mussolini invading Ethiopia.
> 
> I hate to see Lincoln, who was responsible for killing far more Americans than any other president, rated our top leader.


And those who are actually liberators don't need to pose.  Whether someone is identified as a liberator or not is of little relevance; if he is then he is, and if he isn't he'll say he is because no one wants to self-identify as a moustache-twirling villain.  At any rate, the comparisons are rather nonsensical.  Lincoln carried on a civil war against an internal insurrection, not an external war of conquest against Canada or whatever.


----------



## gipper

Rogue 9 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> share their fanaticism for slavery expansion,
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you keep demonizing the South.  Many of the most stalwart defenders of classical liberalism are Southerners.
> 
> A large majority of Southern families did not own slaves.  Many Southerners fought the North because 1) They did not want to be robbed by the national government that served the interests of Northern plutocrats. 2) The North invaded their homeland.
> 
> *Some Surprising Facts About The Confederacy*
> 
> Those who want to subjugate the people first demonize them.  This is Spielberg's strategy and should be condemned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First:  It was fanaticism for slavery expansion.  The Deep South's delegates to the DNC would not accept a candidate nor endorse a platform that didn't agree with them on that point.  This isn't demonization; it's documentable historical fact.
> 
> Second: A large majority of Southerners didn't own slaves, but a large plurality of them _were_ relatives of those who did.  Free southerners, furthermore, were almost entirely vested in the institution; it was the driver of nearly the entire Southern economy, so owning slaves was not necessary to not want it threatened.  Beyond that, slaveholders held almost every important political office in the slave states.  *This gentleman* has some figures of interest on the matter.
> 
> Even ignoring the economy, it was also the basis of the entire social fabric of the slave states; I have already posted Calhoun's opinion on the matter, and can go further than that.  An 1856 editorial from the Richmond Enquirer stated:
> The aristocracy referred to is Great Britain.  I'm rather pressed for time, but I could fill a forum page with more of the same.  Incidentally, this is _why_ many of the early American proponents of classical liberalism were Southerners; when your philosophy is that God Almighty has cast your slaves in an inferior mold, and believe that the continuation of political liberty is dependent upon continued slavery (after all, Jefferson's political philosophy holds that no one is competent to exercise the franchise unless he is essentially independently wealthy or at least entirely self-reliant), there is no contradiction between that slavery and your political liberty.
> 
> Classical liberals _outside_ the United States (Bastiat was particularly prolific on the matter; I own a copy of his essay _The Law_ with a preface written by Thomas DiLorenzo, and when I read it I have to laugh at the irony, as well as his inability to keep from talking about Lincoln when introducing a work by a man who died in 1850) held - correctly - that slavery was a monstrous cancer and blight upon the American republic's example.
> 
> An article that can't even correctly identify Lincoln's Secretary of War?  Surely you can do better.
> 
> War is hell, to quote the man himself.  If you don't want to have one, don't start one.  Which the South did, crowing all the while that they would whip the Yankees in a few short months.  The things to understand:  The Shenandoah Valley, Atlanta's munitions dumps, Savannah's warehouses of cotton, all were major strategic assets to the Confederacy.  Leaving such things in the hands of the enemy is a good way to lose a war, something Sherman understood all too well.
> 
> No it didn't.  Immigrants had been pouring in for decades, and slavery remained as strong as ever.  You need to remember that the institution was as much about the social fabric as economics anyway; it was considered _degrading_ among southern whites to do menial labor, because that's what slaves were for.
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> With laudable honesty you acknowledge you have slaves working for you.  By your own logic you have no reason to object if some overarching political entity (say the U.N.) outraged by your slave-holding came and arrested you, burned your home, and drove your family onto the street.  Would you cheer such brutality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your angle?    No, because I'm not holding slaves nor am I employed in keeping them.  At no point did I say the Union should have been attacking most of the Western world for buying what slave labor produced, which would be the analogous situation.  By their measure, furthermore, every free Southerner had slaves working for him, since their metric is whether someone gains benefit from slave labor at all, so you can't consistently claim that only a small minority owned slaves on one hand and use that metric to say everyone in the modern first world owns slaves on the other.  Go burn that strawman somewhere else.
> 
> I would, however, cheer the violent deaths of the actual slave-takers.  Especially those concerned in question 11; I daresay I'd do it myself.
> 
> Incidentally, you undermine your own position - if modern industrial practices make slave labor obsolete and untenable, why is it still employed?
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrants and Imperialists often pose as liberators as they gobble up territory - think of Mao invading Tibet & Mussolini invading Ethiopia.
> 
> I hate to see Lincoln, who was responsible for killing far more Americans than any other president, rated our top leader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And those who are actually liberators don't need to pose.  Whether someone is identified as a liberator or not is of little relevance; if he is then he is, and if he isn't he'll say he is because no one wants to self-identify as a moustache-twirling villain.  At any rate, the comparisons are rather nonsensical.  Lincoln carried on a civil war against an internal insurrection, not an external war of conquest against Canada or whatever.
Click to expand...


Much of what you state is accurate, but some is not and some minimizes the tyrannical actions taken by Lincoln. 

First, we can all agree that African slavery was wrong and a terrible institution that needed termination.  It was and still is a national disgrace. You would be hard pressed to find one sane American today who would dispute this point, including white Southerns.  Slavery was destined for dissolution on its own, much like racism towards African Americans.

We agree that NEARLY ALL Southerns did not own slaves and that slavery was part of southern culture.  But this statement:_ it was considered degrading among southern whites to do menial labor_ diminishes your credibility.  How could southerns not do menial labor, when most did not own slaves? And this at a time, when farming was the main occupation.  This in no way lessens how insulting that is of southerns of that time, but may reflect a bigotry you possess toward them.  

You also stated the South started the war.  While it is true many in the south wanted war and thought they could easily whip the north and the firing on Fort Sumter started the hostilities, it has been documented by many historians that Lincoln purposely set up the situation to begin the war.  Does he fail to get some credit for starting the war? 

It is easy to get caught up in the minutia of the politics and reasons for the war, but if we look at it clearly, we must conclude it was entirely unnecessary and a terrible wrong committed by our government.  And as the old saying goes...two wrongs do not make a right.  Was all the killing and destruction necessary?  Of course not.  Even if a settlement could not be reached to avert war, it would have been much better to allow the South to peacefully secede, as was granted by the Constitution.  However, the tyrannical Lincoln did not see it this way.  Lincoln breached the Constitution repeatedly, while claiming he was abiding it.


----------



## Thunderbird

What a surprise, another unconvincing book length post from Rogue.



Rogue 9 said:


> Second: A large majority of Southerners didn't own slaves, but a large plurality of them _were_ relatives of those who did.  Free southerners, furthermore, were almost entirely vested in the institution;


Yea and many had relatives in the North too.  And the Northern economy was closely connected to the Southern economy.



> Even ignoring the economy, it was also the basis of the entire social fabric of the slave states;


Many Southern leaders detested the institution.

Examples: The CSA's two highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston, both disliked slavery and supported emancipation in various forms. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Johnston called it "a curse." (Johnston initially opposed using slaves as soldiers only because he feared it would be disruptive and ineffective, not because he had any sympathy for slavery. He later came to support the proposal.) Other Confederate generals who supported emancipation included General Daniel Govan, General John Kelly, and General Mark Lowrey.

LINK



> and believe that the continuation of political liberty is dependent upon continued slavery (after all, Jefferson's political philosophy holds that no one is competent to exercise the franchise unless he is essentially independently wealthy or at least entirely self-reliant), there is no contradiction between that slavery and your political liberty.


 You're a classical liberal and yet you hate Jefferson?  You are an odd one.  Provide evidence that Jefferson thought the franchise should be limited to the "independently wealthy". 

You rebuke Jefferson for not being democractic enough yet you yourself don't believe in democracy and you serve an apologist for Northern plutocrats.



> War is hell, to quote the man himself.  If you don't want to have one, don't start one.  Which the South did,


If you are going to justify mass murder - 100s of 1000s of deaths - you should come up with better excuses.  You have not been able to provide any evidence that the South intended to invade the North prior to Lincoln's invasion.



> it was considered _degrading_ among southern whites to do menial labor, because that's what slaves were for.


Laughable.  The majority of Southerners who didn't own slaves certainly worked for a living.



> Incidentally, you undermine your own position - if modern industrial practices make slave labor obsolete and untenable, why is it still employed?


Please notice the difference between chattel slavery and wage slavery.



> Lincoln carried on a civil war against an internal insurrection, not an external war of conquest against Canada or whatever.


Not so very different.  Instead of pointing the guns south he could have pointed them north.  Both invasions would be anti-democratic.  But you don't believe in democracy so that won't concern you.


----------



## Rogue 9

gipper said:


> Much of what you state is accurate, but some is not and some minimizes the tyrannical actions taken by Lincoln.
> 
> First, we can all agree that African slavery was wrong and a terrible institution that needed termination.  It was and still is a national disgrace. You would be hard pressed to find one sane American today who would dispute this point, including white Southerns.  Slavery was destined for dissolution on its own, much like racism towards African Americans.
> 
> We agree that NEARLY ALL Southerns did not own slaves and that slavery was part of southern culture.  But this statement:_ it was considered degrading among southern whites to do menial labor_ diminishes your credibility.  How could southerns not do menial labor, when most did not own slaves? And this at a time, when farming was the main occupation.  This in no way lessens how insulting that is of southerns of that time, but may reflect a bigotry you possess toward them.
> 
> You also stated the South started the war.  While it is true many in the south wanted war and thought they could easily whip the north and the firing on Fort Sumter started the hostilities, it has been documented by many historians that Lincoln purposely set up the situation to begin the war.  Does he fail to get some credit for starting the war?
> 
> It is easy to get caught up in the minutia of the politics and reasons for the war, but if we look at it clearly, we must conclude it was entirely unnecessary and a terrible wrong committed by our government.  And as the old saying goes...two wrongs do not make a right.  Was all the killing and destruction necessary?  Of course not.  Even if a settlement could not be reached to avert war, it would have been much better to allow the South to peacefully secede, as was granted by the Constitution.  However, the tyrannical Lincoln did not see it this way.  Lincoln breached the Constitution repeatedly, while claiming he was abiding it.


It was not entirely unnecessary.  We're talking about the _disintegration of the country._  If that were not serious enough, at the time the United States was the only major functioning republic in the world, at a time when there was serious doubt about whether a republic could function for long; demonstrating inability to sustain itself against internal revolt would put down the idea of non-aristocratic government for a long, long time.  (You also mistake what I mean by menial labor, but I'll address that in detail to Thunderbird.)  

Also, the Constitution does not allow the South (or anyone else) to peacefully secede, at least not through the method used by the South in 1860-61.  I've already posted why upthread in detail, but to condense it so you don't have to go back through:  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and *nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States*, or of any particular State.





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, *any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.*


This is the problem with the 10th Amendment argument.  The 10th Amendment specifies that all power not given to the federal government in the Constitution is retained by the states or the people.  However, as an argument for state-level secession ordinances, it falls flat twice:  First because the power to dispose of and regulate the territory of the United States _is_ enumerated as a power of the federal Congress; and second because the Amendment lies within the Constitution, and nothing in the Constitution can be read to prejudice the territorial claims of the United States.  Further, the Constitution and laws pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land, anything in the laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding, so a state law cannot override this.  Pretending that the secessions were legal is a farce; what happened was an attempted (and failed) revolution.  





Thunderbird said:


> What a surprise, another unconvincing book length post from Rogue.


Which you will, in characteristic fashion, doubtlessly fail to substantively address.  

Bluntly, I grow tired of you ignoring points you can't address (there have been many), responding only to things I say that you think you can score cheap points on (butchering sentences to do so on occasion), and doing so with copypasta from Southern Heritage and Lew Rockwell rather than doing your own legwork (while I work almost entirely from primary sources, having researched the topic from the original sources for years).  But here we go again.  I'll use small words so you'll be sure to understand.  


Thunderbird said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second: A large majority of Southerners didn't own slaves, but a large plurality of them _were_ relatives of those who did.  Free southerners, furthermore, were almost entirely vested in the institution;
> 
> 
> 
> Yea and many had relatives in the North too.  And the Northern economy was closely connected to the Southern economy.
Click to expand...

Which is in no way a counter to what I said.  You may notice (in fact I know you do since you've brought it up) that the Lincoln administration went well out of the way to avoid striking at slavery in the first year or so of the war, and when it did it justified it as a war measure.  If one were to actually read Lincoln's correspondence freely instead of what the various writers at the von Mises Institute have preselected for him (especially with General Fremont when he reversed the general's emancipation order; it's particularly instructive), one would realize that this is because people in the North (not to mention the critically important border states) were also opposed to emancipation to the degree that it would have cost the loyalty of several more states, the capital city, and the war to adopt an overt policy of emancipation at that stage.  (This also comes out if you read many other primary source documents and accounts from border state loyalists; several said that if they thought that the purpose of the war was emancipation rather than union, they would defect at once.)  This means that the difference between rebel and loyalist, in large part, was determined by belief or lack of it that Lincoln intended to free the slaves.  Clearly, the Deep South did; their declarations of causes say as much.  


Thunderbird said:


> Even ignoring the economy, it was also the basis of the entire social fabric of the slave states;
> 
> 
> 
> Many Southern leaders detested the institution.
> 
> Examples: The CSA's two highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston, both disliked slavery and supported emancipation in various forms. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Johnston called it "a curse." (Johnston initially opposed using slaves as soldiers only because he feared it would be disruptive and ineffective, not because he had any sympathy for slavery. He later came to support the proposal.) Other Confederate generals who supported emancipation included General Daniel Govan, General John Kelly, and General Mark Lowrey.
> 
> LINK
Click to expand...

Good for them.  Let me know when you find such an opinion from Jefferson Davis, Robert Rhett, or anyone else who was a prominent political leader.  The various state declarations and copious volumes of speeches and memorandums from secession conventioneers extoll the "blessings of African slavery," and name the preservation thereof as the primary motivator for their actions in sundering the Union.  


Thunderbird said:


> You're a classical liberal and yet you hate Jefferson?  You are an odd one.  Provide evidence that Jefferson thought the franchise should be limited to the "independently wealthy".
> 
> You rebuke Jefferson for not being democractic enough yet you yourself don't believe in democracy and you serve an apologist for Northern plutocrats.


Sure!  





			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which he keeps alive that sacred fire, which otherwise might escape from the face of the earth. Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators is a phaenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example. It is the mark set on those, who not looking up to heaven, to their own soil and industry, as does the husbandman, for their subsistence, depend for it on casualties and caprice of customers. *Dependance begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. This, the natural progress and consequence of the arts, has sometimes perhaps been retarded by accidental circumstances: but, generally speaking, the proportion which the aggregate of the other classes of citizens bears in any state to that of its husbandmen, is the proportion of its unsound to its healthy parts, and is a good enough barometer whereby to measure its degree of corruption.* While we have land to labour then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a workbench, or twirling a distaff . Carpenters, masons, smiths, are wanting in husbandry: but, for the general operations of manufacture, let our workshops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles. *The loss by the transportation of commodities across the Atlantic will be made up in happiness and permanence of government.* The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strenth of the human body. It is the manners, and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.


So, unless one is independent of an employer (owning one's own land from which he makes his living, or otherwise possessed of means to not be dependent upon another), one is likely to corrupt society and through it the government.  It's not hard to see the logic; dependence creates leverage over the dependent, which if he has franchise could be used to manipulate his vote.  (Vote so-and-so or you're fired.)  The example of the Roman Senate and its patronage system gave him good reason to think this, but the secret ballot takes a lot of teeth out of the threat.  

I also note I did not say I hate Jefferson.  Hate is a very strong word.  The man had a lot of good ideas, a few bad ones, and was instrumental in bringing forth the first modern republic.  Note that Alexander Stephens, linked to and quoted above, said Jefferson and the other founders were wrong when they supposed the races to be equal and slavery something to be encouraged to die out in course; this is evidence enough that they were in fact right (and the Confederacy was engaged in revolution against the founding).  


Thunderbird said:


> If you are going to justify mass murder - 100s of 1000s of deaths - you should come up with better excuses.  You have not been able to provide any evidence that the South intended to invade the North prior to Lincoln's invasion.


I don't need to.  This is farcical and I should never have played along with it just to get a tit for tat fact in.  The Slave Power fired on federal forts, ships, and soldiers; seized federal armories, post offices, and other property; carved out huge chunks of United States territory; and did almost all of it before Lincoln was even in office, because they didn't want to abide by the results of a constitutionally conducted election that they had full franchise in.  If that isn't _casus belli,_ nothing is.  


Thunderbird said:


> Laughable.  The majority of Southerners who didn't own slaves certainly worked for a living.


But they didn't do it picking cotton, which was one of the fears - that if slavery was abolished, they might have to.  And thus become dependent upon an employer, incidentally.  A yeoman farmer works for himself; that the majority of Southrons were farmers doesn't mean that they wanted to work for the plantation aristocracy as laborers in the absence of slaves.  Remember Calhoun:  





			
				John C. Calhoun said:
			
		

> There is no part of the world where agricultural, mechanical, and other descriptions of labor are more respected than in the South, with the exception of two descriptions of employment, that of menial and body servants. No Southern man&#8212;not the poorest or the lowest&#8212;will, under any circumstance, submit to perform either of them. He has too much pride for that, and I rejoice that he has. They are unsuited to the spirit of a freeman. But the man who would spurn them feels not the least degradation to work in the same field with his slave, or to be employed to work with them in the same field or in any mechanical operation; and, when so employed, they claim the right, and are admitted, in the country portion of the South, of sitting at the table of their employers. Can as much, on the score of equality, be said for the North? With us the two great divisions of society are not the rich and poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals, if honest and industrious, and hence have a position and pride of character of which neither poverty nor misfortune can deprive them.


They are upper class because they are not black, and this is drawn (by Calhoun favorably) in comparison to the Northern industrial system where being white didn't automatically make one superior. 


Thunderbird said:


> Incidentally, you undermine your own position - if modern industrial practices make slave labor obsolete and untenable, why is it still employed?
> 
> 
> 
> Please notice the difference between chattel slavery and wage slavery.
Click to expand...

Why?  You didn't until just now when it became convenient.  


Thunderbird said:


> Lincoln carried on a civil war against an internal insurrection, not an external war of conquest against Canada or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> Not so very different.  Instead of pointing the guns south he could have pointed them north.  Both invasions would be anti-democratic.  But you don't believe in democracy so that won't concern you.
Click to expand...

Canada wasn't in defiance of a fair and duly conducted election and the resulting mandate of the people.  It comes down to this:  The secession at its core was an assertion that a group can decide to break up the country because it does not like the results of a presidential election.  No constitutional republic could operate under such a rule; it's absurd.


----------



## Thunderbird

Rogue 9 said:


> This is the problem with the 10th Amendment argument.


Let's look at Article 6.

quote: Critics of the Confederacy maintain that certain clauses in the Constitution prohibit secession, even though not one of those clauses mentions the subject.  They point out, for example, that the Constitution prohibits states from entering into treaties with foreign powers.  They place particular emphasis on the Supremacy Clause, which reads as follows: 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. (Article 6, Paragraph 2)

*However, it goes without saying that this clause and the clauses regarding state relations with foreign governments only apply to states that are in the Union.  Again, there&#8217;s simply nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the citizens of a state from democratically revoking their state&#8217;s ratification of the Constitution. * The explanations of the Supremacy Clause that are given in the Federalist Papers do not say the clause prohibits secession or makes ratification irrevocable.

LINK 



> (while I work almost entirely from primary sources, having researched the topic from the original sources for years).


Again thanks for reminding us what a Super-Genius you are.  We might forget so please keep reminding us over and over. lol



> Good for them.  Let me know when you find such an opinion from Jefferson Davis, Robert Rhett, or anyone else who was a prominent political leader.


quote: In keeping with such opposition to the wickedness of the slave trade, the Constitution of the Confederate States of 1861 permanently abolished the practice in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. Confederate President Jefferson Davis made clear his plans for the infant country when he stated, "The slave must be made fit for his freedom by education and discipline and thus be made unfit for slavery."  

LINK 



> I don't need to.  This is farcical and I should never have played along with it just to get a tit for tat fact in.


A lot of words to say "You can't."  You know full well the South had no interest in invading the North prior to Bull Run.

quote from Alexander Stephens: The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincoln's inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered. *Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith. *War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us.  (&#8220;Cornerstone Speech,&#8221; March 21, 1861, Savannah, Georgia, in Henry Cleveland, editor, Alexander H. Stephens, in Public and Private: With Letters and Speeches, Philadelphia, 1886, pp. 727-728, original emphasis)

LINK



> The Slave Power fired on federal forts, ships, and soldiers; seized federal armories, post offices, and other property; carved out huge chunks of United States territory;


Wow!! The South gained control of post offices!!!  Definitely that justifies all those kids and the elderly being deprived of food and medicine by Lincoln's blockade.  And upwards of 600,000 dead.  And all those orphaned and crippled.

And how many casualties did the Confederacy inflict prior to Bull Run?



> No constitutional republic could operate under such a rule; it's absurd.


Tell that to Slovakia.  If a region votes for independence it's not the end of the world.


----------



## Rogue 9

Thunderbird said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the problem with the 10th Amendment argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at Article 6.
> 
> quote: Critics of the Confederacy maintain that certain clauses in the Constitution prohibit secession, even though not one of those clauses mentions the subject.  They point out, for example, that the Constitution prohibits states from entering into treaties with foreign powers.  They place particular emphasis on the Supremacy Clause, which reads as follows:
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. (Article 6, Paragraph 2)
> 
> *However, it goes without saying that this clause and the clauses regarding state relations with foreign governments only apply to states that are in the Union.  Again, theres simply nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the citizens of a state from democratically revoking their states ratification of the Constitution. * The explanations of the Supremacy Clause that are given in the Federalist Papers do not say the clause prohibits secession or makes ratification irrevocable.
> 
> LINK
Click to expand...

I can't help but notice that my argument is based almost entirely upon Article 4, which your copypasta doesn't address.  The Supremacy Clause is only important insofar as it means a state law can't override Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.  

In any case, _Texas v. White_ makes the whole thing moot.  It's just fun to point it out.  


Thunderbird said:


> (while I work almost entirely from primary sources, having researched the topic from the original sources for years).
> 
> 
> 
> Again thanks for reminding us what a Super-Genius you are.  We might forget so please keep reminding us over and over. lol
Click to expand...

I think I have reason to be annoyed that original research is answered with canned arguments and copy-pasted blog posts.  Relative intelligence has little to do with it; you don't address the primary sources because they don't support your argument, and bluntly the smarter you are the more likely you realize that.  Mr. Davis and company (none of them stupid men) knew it too; there are multiple postwar addresses, letters, etc. from ex-Confederate leaders both political and military (Stephens, Davis himself, and Jubal Early are especially prominent) that speak of the need to gain control of the historical narrative so as to realize, in the words of the title of Edward Pollard's second book on the history of the war, the Lost Cause Regained; work continued through the turn of the century by the United Confederate Veterans, United Daughters of the Confederacy, and similar organizations, aided by the urge for reconciliation and to sweep the "Negro question" under the rug.  The Civil War is not one in which the victors wrote the history.  



Thunderbird said:


> quote: In keeping with such opposition to the wickedness of the slave trade, the Constitution of the Confederate States of 1861 permanently abolished the practice in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. Confederate President Jefferson Davis made clear his plans for the infant country when he stated, "The slave must be made fit for his freedom by education and discipline and thus be made unfit for slavery."
> 
> LINK


Funny how Stephens in his postwar memoirs states that education was denied the slaves in order to defend himself by saying he thought that was wrong.  The ban on the trans-Atlantic slave trade was already in place under the United States Constitution, and the Confederate Constitution was almost word for word copied from it bar minor changes to the Presidential term, the states' relationship to federal judges, and of course *permanent bars on emancipation and guarantees of the right of property in slaves.*  The Confederate Constitution still permitted the slave trade with slaveholding states of the United States, it's worth pointing out.  



Thunderbird said:


> A lot of words to say "You can't."  You know full well the South had no interest in invading the North prior to Bull Run.
> 
> quote from Alexander Stephens: The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincoln's inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered. *Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith. *War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us.  (Cornerstone Speech, March 21, 1861, Savannah, Georgia, in Henry Cleveland, editor, Alexander H. Stephens, in Public and Private: With Letters and Speeches, Philadelphia, 1886, pp. 727-728, original emphasis)
> 
> LINK


You know what _else_ he said in the Cornerstone Address?  





> But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among 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. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
> 
> Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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 moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.



*Link to an actual source, not a collection of egregious cherry picking*.

Fine.  You want evidence of slave state aggression.  You may have it.  Starting from most recent and working backward (though not exhaustively; I'd rather not be here all week listing it all):  

The shelling of Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861.  I trust I need not source this.  

The shelling of the _Star of the West_, January 9, 1861.  

South Carolina's governor and Congressional delegation _plotted to send a regiment of militia to Washington to break up Congress_ should John Sherman be elected Speaker of the House, as illustrated in *this letter* posted December 20, 1859.  





			
				Governor William Gist of South Carolina to William Porcher Miles said:
			
		

> While I advise against the ejection of Sherman if elected, I do not wish to be understood as not desiring the war to begin at Washington; but as I would prefer it should begin in sudden heat & with good provocation rather than a deliberate determination to perform an act of violence which might prejudice us in the eyes of the world. If however, you upon consideration decide to make the issue of fire in Washington, write or telegraph me, & I will have a Regiment in or near Washington in the shortest possible time.


Only the withdrawal of Sherman's nomination prevented this from actually happening.  Note that this plan was not contingent upon Northern invasion of South Carolina.  

Prior to the 1856 election, Senator James Mason of Virginia requested Jefferson Davis, then Secretary of War, to provide the federal armories of the slave states with percussion muskets to replace the obsolete flintlocks, and to send said flintlocks to armories in free states, so that if Fremont won the election (which he did not) the Slave Power would have the advantage in the ensuing war.  *His letter*:  





			
				James Murray Mason said:
			
		

> SELMA, NEAR WINCHESTER, VA., Sept. 30, 1856.
> 
> MY DEAR SIR: I have a letter from WISE, of the 27th, full of spirit. He says the Governments of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Louisiana, have already agreed to rendezvous at Raleigh, and others will -- this in your most private ear. He says, further, that he had officially requested you to exchange with Virginia, on fair terms of difference, percussion for flint muskets. I don't know the usage or power of the Department in such cases, but if it can be done, even by liberal construction, I hope you will accede. Was there not an appropriation at the last session for converting flint into percussion arms? If so, would it not furnish good reason for extending such facilities to the States? Virginia probably has more arms than the other Southern States, and would divide in case of need. In a letter yesterday to a Committee in South Carolina. I gave it as my judgment, in the event of FREMONT's election, the South should not pause, but proceed at once to "immediate, absolute, and eternal separation." So I am a candidate for the first halter.
> 
> WISE says his accounts from Philadelphia are cheering for Old Buck in Pennsylvania. I hope they be not delusive. Vale et Salute,
> 
> (Signed) J.M. MASON.
> 
> Colonel DAVIS.


WISE is Governor Henry Wise of Virginia.  Peaceful secession my ass.  

During the debate on the admission of California, 1850, there were multiple threats of violence and invasion, all from the Slave Power.  *James Hammond writing to John C. Calhoun*, March 5, 1850:  





> On mere Legislative Compromises I look with horror.  They are the apples of Hippomenes cast behind him in the race.  Our only safety is in _equality of power_.  We must divide the territory so as forever to retain that equality in the Senate at least, and in doing so we should count Delaware with the North.  She is no Southern or Slave State.  I would infinitely prefer disunion to any thing the least short of this - and I would rather have it I believe any how for fear of future Clays, Bentons, Houstons and Bells.  *If the North will not consent to this I think we should not have another word to say, but kick them out of the Capitol and set it on fire.*  We must act _now_, and _decisively_.


Italics in the original.  

Congressman Albert G. Brown of Mississippi, *speaking on the House floor.*


> The southern States, in convention at Nashville, will devise means for vindicating their rights. I do not know what these means _will_ be, but I know what they _may_ be, and with propriety and safety. They may be to carry slaves into all of southern California, as the property of sovereign States, and there hold them, as we have a right to do; and if molested, defend them, as is both our right and duty.
> 
> We ask you to give us our rights by non-intervention; if you refuse, I am for taking them by armed occupation.


That should be enough to get on with.  Don't pretend the South wasn't outrageously aggressive in the run-up to the war; it demonstrably was.  



Thunderbird said:


> The Slave Power fired on federal forts, ships, and soldiers; seized federal armories, post offices, and other property; carved out huge chunks of United States territory;
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!! The South gained control of post offices!!!  Definitely that justifies all those kids and the elderly being deprived of food and medicine by Lincoln's blockade.  And upwards of 600,000 dead.  And all those orphaned and crippled.
> 
> And how many casualties did the Confederacy inflict prior to Bull Run?
Click to expand...

I was being thorough.  The point is massive seizure of federal property and roughly 800,000 square miles of United States territory in response to not liking the results of a constitutionally conducted election that they had full franchise in (and then some really, considering the 3/5ths clause).  If the South didn't want to suffer so greatly, they were free to stop rebelling at any time.  


Thunderbird said:


> No constitutional republic could operate under such a rule; it's absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to Slovakia.  If a region votes for independence it's not the end of the world.
Click to expand...

I note you cut out the bit where I defined what "such a rule" is.  Slovakia didn't break up the country simply because one region's favored candidate didn't win an election; there were far deeper reasons than that (namely the breakup of the Soviet bloc and end to de facto Soviet rule) and you know it.  Also, Czechoslovakia was dissolved by act of the federal parliament, i.e. the government of the whole, which would also be permissible (if extremely unlikely) in the case of the United States.  The comparison isn't applicable.

At any rate, to start a running tally of things you don't address, since you seem so concerned with the subject, starting only with the most recent post for brevity's sake:  

1.) The reasoning behind slavery being a motivator even for those who didn't directly own slaves, and why this wasn't a large factor in the loyal states; namely that their loyalty depended on believing that emancipation wasn't Lincoln's purpose rather than having zeal for emancipation themselves.  

2.) Jefferson's position on the effect of wage earners on the vote.  You demanded evidence and didn't react when it was presented, so I shall accept your concession.  

3.) The fact that the South seceded in response to a fair and free election that they had full franchise in (so the "without representation" clause so important in the American Revolution does not apply).  You carefully cut that part out to attack other things said around it, but not that.  

4.) That emancipation was feared (partially) because it would mean that someone other than the slaves would need to perform menial labor (as defined by Calhoun), with evidence presented.  I'm noticing a trend where you drop a line of argument as soon as a primary source is actually posted.  

5.) Your hypocrisy in suddenly deciding to care about the difference between chattel and wage slavery when your cheap _tu quoque_ argument was turned back on you.  

6.)  Item 3 again, once more cutting it out so you could attack something dependent on it in isolation.


----------



## Thunderbird

Rogue 9 said:


> I can't help but notice that my argument is based almost entirely upon Article 4,


quote: *The founding fathers specifically rejected the idea that the federal government could use force against a state to compel obedience. * The only two situations in which the framers permitted the general government to use force against a state, or even in a state, were (1) if the state were invaded or (2) if the state's legislature or governor requested federal assistance to deal with domestic violence.  Constitutional scholar and former law professor John Remington Graham discusses this point:  

It is an historical fact that, on two occasions during their deliberations, the framers in the Philadelphia Convention voted to deny Congress the power of calling forth military forces of the Union to compel obedience of a state, and on two further occasions they voted to deny Congress the power of sending the Federal army or navy into the territory of any state, except as allowed under Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution--to repel a foreign invasion or at the request of its legislature or governor to deal with domestic violence. (A Constitutional History of Secession, Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company, 2002, p. 287)

LINK



> In any case, _Texas v. White_ makes the whole thing moot.  It's just fun to point it out.


Has the Supreme Court never been wrong?



> The Civil War is not one in which the victors wrote the history.


Characteristically silly.  Have there been no sentimental panegyrics to Lincoln? Name a recent movie that's pro-South. 



> Fine.  You want evidence of slave state aggression.  You may have it.


OMG!  You provide examples of some pretty unpleasant *words* and some *plans* that never came to fruition.  They certainly justify a massive intervention and upwards of 600,000 dead!!!  Almost as evil as securing control of all those post offices!



> At any rate, to start a running tally of things you don't address,


Yea I don't feel compelled to comment upon every irrelevant notion that meanders through your mind, every foggy thought that wanders lonely through your brain.


----------



## Rogue 9

Thunderbird said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but notice that my argument is based almost entirely upon Article 4,
> 
> 
> 
> quote: *The founding fathers specifically rejected the idea that the federal government could use force against a state to compel obedience. * The only two situations in which the framers permitted the general government to use force against a state, or even in a state, were (1) if the state were invaded or (2) if the state's legislature or governor requested federal assistance to deal with domestic violence.  Constitutional scholar and former law professor John Remington Graham discusses this point:
> 
> It is an historical fact that, on two occasions during their deliberations, the framers in the Philadelphia Convention voted to deny Congress the power of calling forth military forces of the Union to compel obedience of a state, and on two further occasions they voted to deny Congress the power of sending the Federal army or navy into the territory of any state, except as allowed under Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution--to repel a foreign invasion or at the request of its legislature or governor to deal with domestic violence. (A Constitutional History of Secession, Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company, 2002, p. 287)
> 
> LINK
Click to expand...

1.)  I can't help but notice that this _still_ doesn't address the fact that the Constitution expressly states that nothing in it shall be construed to prejudice the territorial claims of the United States.  

2.)  The text of Article One, Section 8 doesn't say "with permission of the state legislatures" even if that's what I was talking about, which I wasn't.  Since you're kind enough to bring it up, though, the federal government has the authority to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, in those exact words.  


Thunderbird said:


> In any case, _Texas v. White_ makes the whole thing moot.  It's just fun to point it out.
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Supreme Court never been wrong?
Click to expand...

You clearly don't understand _Texas v. White_ if you think that.  Texas' own legal arguments rested on its secession being invalid, because if the defense of White, et al had stood, it would result in the dissolution of the state.  The court ruling as it did upheld the rights of the citizens of Texas as well as those of Texas as a state; a different result would necessarily treat it as conquered territory and require that it be reorganized as a territory and once again apply for statehood.  Texas won the case on every point, regaining the bonds that were at issue in the case and having its statehood (and that of every other former Confederate state for that matter) assured on the bargain.  

As for the actual question, in the legal sense no, the Supreme Court by law isn't wrong, since it is the highest arbiter of the law.  It might be factually or morally wrong, but legally it is incapable of being so.  


Thunderbird said:


> Characteristically silly.  Have there been no sentimental panegyrics to Lincoln? Name a recent movie that's pro-South.


Name one textbook used in public schools to this day that teaches the actual motives behind secession.  You can't, because they don't.  High school American history textbooks either conspicuously ignore the issue or mention states' rights and a way of life that included slavery in the same breath.  A victor's history would name the preservation of chattel slavery (coincidentally the right answer, but that's what you get when the good guys win ) as the cause of the war, but that doesn't happen because the textbook market has to keep Southern school boards happy to sell books.  I never once saw the Declarations of Causes as part of my formal schooling for this reason.  As a result, unless the teacher is himself informed and proactive, the curriculum does not teach students about the cause of the war beyond vague generalities.  Movies do not history make.  

The American Civil War is one of the great exceptions to the general rule of victors writing the history because it is basically the only war in history in which the losing side was almost immediately restored to equal footing with the victors, and said losing side set about writing the history to their liking (while the North frankly didn't care about the issue all that much).  


Thunderbird said:


> Fine.  You want evidence of slave state aggression.  You may have it.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!  You provide examples of some pretty unpleasant *words* and some *plans* that never came to fruition.  They certainly justify a massive intervention and upwards of 600,000 dead!!!  Almost as evil as securing control of all those post offices!
Click to expand...

You miss the point.  Every time there was a possibility of the Republican Party gaining the Presidency or an abolitionist gaining power beyond a back bench seat in Congress, violence was planned and threatened, contingent upon that happening (and not upon said Republicans or abolitionists doing anything with their offices first).  The first time it actually happened, violence resulted.  This is not a coincidence.  


Thunderbird said:


> At any rate, to start a running tally of things you don't address,
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I don't feel compelled to comment upon every irrelevant notion that meanders through your mind, every foggy thought that wanders lonely through your brain.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of words to say "you can't," to borrow a phrase.    Every one of those was a line of argument you had pursued, and proceeded to ignore when you couldn't find something in the giant wall of text you keep linking to that refutes what I said or sourced.  In civilized debate circles, that's called conceding.  If you think you're fooling anybody (or at least anybody who doesn't already agree with you) carrying on as you are, you're greatly mistaken.  

In case you're wondering, I've read that wall of text.  I didn't say "egregious cherrypicking" idly; the author produced yet another iteration in the neo-Confederate cottage industry of carefully excerpting very narrow segments of the historical record and leaving out the vast reams of evidence that contradict his chosen position.  Yes, tariffs were an issue.  No, they were not the overwhelmingly important issue, and no that issue on its own would not have brought about the 1860-61 secession.  Yes, Stephens in the middle of his public relations campaign in favor of the new Confederate government said that the North need not fear war (when it was already upon them), but he is contradicted many, many times by other leaders in other places and times (and he said quite damning things elsewhere in the same speech; I notice the author refers to it as the "Cornerstone Speech" and yet leaves out the part that's the reason why, for obvious reasons).  And so it goes.  If you were to use that as a citation for any scholarly purpose, you'd be laughed out of the room.  (At least, outside of the pre-1990 American South, where/when honestly exploring the motives behind the secession could and did lead to professors being forced to resign in Southern universities.)  I shouldn't even be entertaining it, but if I only addressed what you'd legitimately sourced there wouldn't be much to say.


----------



## oldfart

gipper said:


> Much of what you state is accurate, but some is not and some minimizes the tyrannical actions taken by Lincoln.


I had basically dropped out of this thread as it was going nowhere fast, but you raise a few issues that deserve response.  When Americans created the myth of Lincoln, they at the same  time lost touch with the complex and gifted real Lincoln.  I think you may have fallen into this trap here.  

When you refer to "tyrannical actions taken by Lincoln", I assume your primary issue here is the habeas corpus issue.  The Constitution specifically allows for the suspension of habeas corpus, but places that provision in Article I indicating that it is a legislative rather than executive power.  As Congress was not in session when Lincoln was inaugurated and not due to meet until the December term, Lincoln took the step himself, claiming national exigency, and called Congress into session for July 4, 1861 to ratify or reject his measures.  He invited Congress to determine if he had the power to take these war measures and expressed a preference that Congress act in this area, preferring legislative to executive action.  Congress ratified his actions and passed legislation instituting the war measures, forming the Committee on the Conduct of the War to provide an ongoing vehicle to review and restrain executive actions even when Congress was not in session.  The historical record does not support the label "tyrannical" for Lincoln's early war measures.  

If you had some other actions in mind, I would be happy to discuss them with you.  



gipper said:


> First, we can all agree that African slavery was wrong and a terrible institution that needed termination.  It was and still is a national disgrace. You would be hard pressed to find one sane American today who would dispute this point, including white Southerns.  Slavery was destined for dissolution on its own, much like racism towards African Americans.



You might be hard pressed to find defenders of slavery but I run into them all the time.  One of the myths of historical revisionism is that slavery was a good bringing culture to heathen and uncivilized Africans.  While admitting that slavery is not a good thing now, these revisionists who can be found in virtually every history department in the South, still claim that slavery served a noble purpose in its time.  

As to the issue of whether slavery was on a path to economic extinction, that is the subject of a lively debate in economic history.  Personally I belong to the school that slavery was not a dying institution, but was evolving into an even more threatening and malignant form.  I'll leave that discussion for another thread.  But if you want to debate it, I suggest you first check out the definitive work on the subject: "Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery" (1974) by the economists Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman.  I think Fogel & Engerman has some substantial flaws, but it's the recognized starting point in the debate.  



gipper said:


> You also stated the South started the war.  While it is true many in the south wanted war and thought they could easily whip the north and the firing on Fort Sumter started the hostilities, it has been documented by many historians that Lincoln purposely set up the situation to begin the war.  Does he fail to get some credit for starting the war?



I think your argument is too cute by half.  The Deep South had left the Union before Lincoln was president.   Lincoln refused to comment after the election on the issue of slavery, referring everyone to his body of writing and speeches on the topic.  After all, Buchanan was still president.  I fail to see how Lincoln can be held at fault here.  The best work here is Russell McClintock's "Lincoln and the Decision for War" (2008) which I highly recommend [published by my alma mater!].  

 Before becoming president and in the months immediately afterward Lincoln had a three-part policy, first espoused only privately to political friends and made public in the First Inaugural.  First he would pursue any proposal that would accommodate the South and preserve the Union, so long as it did not compromise the Republican principles regarding extension of slavery in the territories.  This is encompassed by the portion of the First Inaugural dedicated to a constitutional amendment.  The second part of his policy was the defense of the Union, which he labored to explain predated the Constitution.  This also is elaborated in the First Inaugural.  Finally, if it came to a passage at arms, his basic strategy was to hold onto the Upper South by any means available, hopefully through compensated emancipation, and hope that the Lower South could be brought back into the Union through negotiation.  All of this was abandoned only about May--June 1862 and was simultaneous to the commitment to emancipation. 



gipper said:


> It is easy to get caught up in the minutia of the politics and reasons for the war, but if we look at it clearly, we must conclude it was entirely unnecessary and a terrible wrong committed by our government.



This is stunningly bad historical analysis.  Hopefully you lifted it from somewhere and it does not reflect the overall quality of your thought.  



gipper said:


> Even if a settlement could not be reached to avert war, it would have been much better to allow the South to peacefully secede, as was granted by the Constitution.  However, the tyrannical Lincoln did not see it this way.  Lincoln breached the Constitution repeatedly, while claiming he was abiding it.



First there is no right of succession in the Constitution.  And Lincoln's analysis of the issue in the First Inaugural is still the best treatise on organic law in this regard ever written.  If you want to contest this, I suggest you read it first.  

Second, your counterfactual "it would have been much better..." is an unprovable counterfactual which I would label a vicious fantasy.  Are you seriously suggesting that any America remotely similar to America today could have emerged from an independent South based on slavery? 

Third, I believe you have just adopted the position you started out claiming no one was adopting, that slavery should have been left alone and the Union sundered just because that was what Southern fireeaters wanted.  

Finally, your post is long on assertions and short of any reasoning or evidence.  If you care to back any of them up, I will be happy to respond.  

Jamie


----------



## Mr. H.

We watched this for the first time tonight. 

Very good film. The only "cheesy" part was at the end when Lincoln was superimposed on a candle flame. Too Spielberg/Holocaust - ish. Fuck that. 

I'm perplexed as to why, for all of Lincoln's tenure, that Spieljew would focus on the 13th amendment. 
Typical Spielberg statement there. 

The Lincoln makeup job made him look like Ben Stiller. 

I give it 8 out of 10 fuck-its.


----------



## Mr. H.

How many black people have viewed this movie?
Inquiring minds want to know!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Thunderbird said:


> Really?  And yet you love Lincoln who suspended habeas corpus, dismantled freedom of the press, opposed free trade, wanted to deport African Americans, piled on taxes, built up a powerful central government, and waged a bloody war to force a region to stay in the Union.  *That's just crazy! *



Yes Lincoln more than anybody asserted the anti-Constitutional power of the  Federal government over the states.

Republicans are stuck loving him because he was the first Republican and because  we can't admit that killing 600,000 was a huge huge waste for nothing.


----------



## gipper

How can Americans venerate this man, when he made so many intolerant and ignorant statements?

In his own words...



> LINCOLN WAS AN OBSESSIVE WHITE SUPREMACIST
> 
> "Free them [blacks] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We can not then make them equals." (CW, Vol. II, p. 256).
> 
> "There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races" (CW, Vol. II, p. 405).
> 
> "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races" (CW, Vol. II, p. 521).
> 
> "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . 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." (CW, Vol. III, p. 16).
> 
> "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . . I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people . . ." (CW, Vol, III, pp. 145-146).
> 
> "I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes." (CW, Vol. III, p. 146).
> 
> 
> "Senator Douglas remarked . . that . . . this government was made for the white people and not for negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too." (CW, Vol. II, p. 281).
> 
> Until His Dying Day, Lincoln Plotted to Deport all the Black People Out of America
> 
> "I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation . . . . Such separation . . . must be effected by colonization" [to Liberia, Central America, anywhere]. (CW, Vol. II, p. 409).
> 
> "Let us be brought to believe it is morally right , and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime . . ." (CW, Vol. II, p. 409).
> 
> "The place I am thinking about having for a colony [for the deportation of all American blacks] is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia." (CW, Vol. V, pp. 373, 374).
> 
> LINCOLN ONLY RHETORICALLY OPPOSED SOUTHERN SLAVERY. IN PRACTICE, HE STRENGTHENED IT
> 
> " I think no wise man has perceived, how it [slavery] could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty himself." (CW, Vol. II, p. 130).
> 
> "I meant not to ask for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia." (CW, Vol., II, p. 260).
> 
> "I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination I the people of the free states to enter into the slave states and interfere with the question of slavery at all." (CW, Vol. II, p. 492).
> 
> "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists." (CW, Vol. III, p. 16).
> 
> "I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery . . . because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so." (CW, Vol. III, p. 460).
> 
> 
> LINCOLN CHAMPIONED THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT
> 
> "I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive slave law." (CW, Vol., III., p. 40).
> 
> "[T]he people of the Southern states are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave Law." (CW, Vol. III, p. 41).
> 
> Lincoln Advocated Secession When it Could Advance His Political Career
> 
> "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better." (CW, Vol. 1, p. 438).
> 
> LINCOLN VIEWED FORT SUMTER AS AN IMPORTANT TAX COLLECTION POINT AND WENT TO WAR OVER IT
> 
> "I think we should hold the forts, or retake them, as the case may be, and collect the revenue." (CW, Vol. IV, p. 164).
> 
> LINCOLN BELIEVED THE CONSTITUTION WAS WHATEVER HE ALONE SAID IT WAS
> 
> "The dogmas of the quite past [referring to the U.S. Constitution], are inadequate to the stormy present . . . so we must think anew and act anew." (CW, Vol. V, p. 537).
> 
> "The resolutions quote from the constitution, the definition of treason; and also the . . . safeguards and guarantees therein provided for the citizen . . . against the pretensions of arbitrary power . . . . But these provisions of the constitution have no application to the case we have in hand." (CW, Vol. VI, p. 262.
> 
> 
> "[T]he theory of the general government being only an agency, whose principles are the states [i.e. the true history of the American founding] was new to me and, as I think, is one of the best arguments for the national supremacy." (CW, Vol. VII, p. 24.
> 
> "I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful . . ." (CW, Vol. VII, p. 281).
> 
> "You [General John Dix] are therefore hereby commanded forth with to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers [New York World and New York Journal of Commerce]." CW, Vol. VII, p. 348.
> 
> "It was decided [by Lincoln alone] that we have a case of rebellion, and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the writ [of Habeas Corpus]." CW, Vol. IV, pp. 430-431.
> 
> LINCOLN WAS ECONOMICALLY IGNORANT OF THE BIG ECONOMIC ISSUE OF HIS DAY: PROTECTIONIST TARIFFS
> 
> "[A] tariff of duties on imported goods . . . is indispensably necessary to the prosperity of the American people." (CW, Vol. I, p. 307.
> 
> "*y the tariff system . . . the man who contents himself to live upon the products of his own country , pays nothing at all." (CW, Vol. I, p. 311).
> 
> "All carrying . . . of articles from the place of their production to a distant place for their consumption . . . is useless labor." (CW, Vol. I, p. 409).
> 
> "I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not changed my views." (CW, Vol, III, p. 487).
> 
> 
> "The tariff is to the government what a meal is to a family . . ." (CW, Vol., IV, p. 211).
> 
> "I must confess that I do not understand the subject [the economics of tariffs]." (CW, Vol. IV, p. 211).
> 
> "The power confided to me, will be used . . . to collect the duties and imposes; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion . . ." (CW, Vol. IV, p. 266).
> 
> "Accumulations of the public revenue, lying within [Fort Sumter] had been seized [and denied to the U.S. government] . . . . [The administration] sought only to hold the public places and property [i.e., the forts] . . . to collect the revenue." (CW, Vol. IV, pp. 422-423).
> 
> ALTHOUGH HE NEVER BECAME A CHRISTIAN, LINCOLN CLAIMED TO KNOW WHAT WAS IN THE MIND OF GOD AND BLAMED THE WAR ON HIM, ABSOLVING HIMSELF OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT, IN ORDER TO BAMBOOZLE THE RELIGIOUS POPULATION OF THE NORTH
> 
> "t is peculiarly fit for us to recognize the hand of God in this terrible visitation [i.e. the war]." CW, Vol. IV, p. 482.
> 
> "You all may recollect that in taking up the sword thus forced into my hands this Government . . . placed its whole dependence upon the favor of God." (CW, Vol. V., p. 212).
> 
> "God wills this contest [the war]." CW, Vol. V, p. 404.
> 
> 
> "If I had my way, this war would never have been commenced . . . but . . . we must believe that He permits it for some wise purpose of his own, mysterious and unknown to us . . ." (CW, Vol. V, p. 478).
> 
> "t has not pleased the Almighty to bless us with a return to peace . . ." (CW, Vol. V, p. 518).
> 
> "[R]ender the homage due to the Divine Majesty . . . to lead the whole nation, through the paths of repentance and submission to the Divine Will, back to the perfect enjoyment of Union . . ." (CW, Vol. VI, p. 332).
> 
> "It has pleased Almighty God . . . to vouchsafe to the army and the navy of the United States victories on land and sea." (CW, Vol. VI, p. 332).
> 
> "I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me . . . . God alone can claim it." (CW, Vol. VII, p. 282).
> 
> "He intends some great good to follow this mighty convulsion, which no mortal could make . . ." (CW, Vol. VII, p. 535).
> The Real Lincoln in His Own Words by Thomas DiLorenzo*


----------



## oldfart

gipper said:


> How can Americans venerate this man, when he made so many intolerant and ignorant statements?



Lincoln bashing is a cottage industry for historian wannabes.  But I have yet to find anyone who can name five public figures of the era which held positions closer to modern than Lincoln.  Like to try?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

oldfart said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can Americans venerate this man, when he made so many intolerant and ignorant statements?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln bashing is a cottage industry for historian wannabes.  But I have yet to find anyone who can name five public figures of the era which held positions closer to modern than Lincoln.  Like to try?
Click to expand...


Lincoln is modern in the sense that he was liberal or socialist. He had great support from the European socialists and even Karl Marx. The president of Harvard says we must love Lincoln because if we don't the 600,000 dead were in vein. Lincoln was very destructive to states rights and individual liberty. How do you have freedom when you can't leave the union? Isn't that why we have divorce in marriage? If you can't leave you are in effect a slave. Lincoln attacked the very concept of America.


----------



## Rogue 9

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can Americans venerate this man, when he made so many intolerant and ignorant statements?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln bashing is a cottage industry for historian wannabes.  But I have yet to find anyone who can name five public figures of the era which held positions closer to modern than Lincoln.  Like to try?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln is modern in the sense that he was liberal or socialist. He had great support from the European socialists and even Karl Marx. The president of Harvard says we must love Lincoln because if we don't the 600,000 dead were in vein. Lincoln was very destructive to states rights and individual liberty. How do you have freedom when you can't leave the union? Isn't that why we have divorce in marriage? If you can't leave you are in effect a slave. Lincoln attacked the very concept of America.
Click to expand...

But the Confederacy was pro-slavery, so supporting it must mean you think slavery is awesome.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rogue 9 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln bashing is a cottage industry for historian wannabes.  But I have yet to find anyone who can name five public figures of the era which held positions closer to modern than Lincoln.  Like to try?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is modern in the sense that he was liberal or socialist. He had great support from the European socialists and even Karl Marx. The president of Harvard says we must love Lincoln because if we don't the 600,000 dead were in vein. Lincoln was very destructive to states rights and individual liberty. How do you have freedom when you can't leave the union? Isn't that why we have divorce in marriage? If you can't leave you are in effect a slave. Lincoln attacked the very concept of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the Confederacy was pro-slavery, so supporting it must mean you think slavery is awesome.
Click to expand...


Most imortantly, the Confederacy was pro-freedom. That they made a mistake with their freedom does not mean only central government should have all the freedom because only  central government is all knowing and won't make even bigger mistakes with its freedom.

Too complicated for a liberal-right?


----------



## Rogue 9

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Most imortantly, the Confederacy was pro-freedom. That they made a mistake with their freedom does not mean only central government should have all the freedom because only  central government is all knowing and won't make even bigger mistakes with its freedom.
> 
> Too complicated for a liberal-right?


Wouldn't know, since I'm not one.  But it's apparently too complicated for you to understand, because the Confederacy was not, in any sense, pro-freedom, at least not in any degree more than the United States.  The Confederacy, in addition to starting a massive war in order to maintain and expand slavery, instituted the draft well before the Union and relied on it to a greater degree, jailed or conscripted (or executed if they were too enthusiastic about it) residents who had campaigned against secession, put down the unionists of eastern Tennessee with main military force when they attempted to counter-secede and occupied the region, wrote slavery permanently into their constitution, and overall were in support of an openly aristocratic social order.  It's laughable to claim that the Slave Power was in any way pro-freedom.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can Americans venerate this man, when he made so many intolerant and ignorant statements?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln bashing is a cottage industry for historian wannabes.  But I have yet to find anyone who can name five public figures of the era which held positions closer to modern than Lincoln.  Like to try?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln is modern in the sense that he was liberal or socialist. He had great support from the European socialists and even Karl Marx. The president of Harvard says we must love Lincoln because if we don't the 600,000 dead were in vein. Lincoln was very destructive to states rights and individual liberty. How do you have freedom when you can't leave the union? Isn't that why we have divorce in marriage? If you can't leave you are in effect a slave. Lincoln attacked the very concept of America.
Click to expand...


Bad analogy. If a nation is to survive it cannot allow parts to break off and go into the world alone. Still it would be nice if my state became free, no more lousy state laws. Better than that would be if the county broke off from the state, then no more state income taxes. Come to think of it the county has taxes so maybe my city should break off from the county. On another tack only my neighborhood has no taxes, so stand by, a new nation of just my neighborhood. Imagine a new nation, small but like minded people and with with no taxes? I think the South was on to something.


----------



## oldfart

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Lincoln is modern in the sense that he was liberal or socialist. He had great support from the European socialists and even Karl Marx. The president of Harvard says we must love Lincoln because if we don't the 600,000 dead were in vein. Lincoln was very destructive to states rights and individual liberty. How do you have freedom when you can't leave the union? Isn't that why we have divorce in marriage? If you can't leave you are in effect a slave. Lincoln attacked the very concept of America.



First, Ed, let me congratulate you on a cogent post!

Apparently you are one of the few who is aware that Marx wrote for several newspapers on the Civil War.  The fact that many Europeans supported Lincoln in his anti-slavery positions is not an indication of Lincoln's broader beliefs. Much of the support for Lincoln came from staunchly conservative quarters in Europe as well.  We don't want to imply that conservatives in the 1860's supported slavery now, do we?

I'm not sure what quote about loving Lincoln you are referring to, but a common sentiment has been that America fought a Civil War to determine certain issues, and we ought not re-fight them.  In that sense I would agree.  

The idea that Lincoln tried to put an end to the idea of state's rights including a right to withdraw from the Union is perfectly correct.  I cannot recall a claim that he opposed any other rights of states and would be interested to hear how that argument would be advanced.  

Regarding individual liberties, I have also not heard much of an argument outside of the habeus corpus issue, and would like to hear if there is more to that.  

Finally, Lincoln's record as an old Whig on promoting business was exemplary he clearly supported Clay's "American system".  This should surely put him in the camp of the founders of American capitalism.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Lincoln is modern in the sense that he was liberal or socialist. He had great support from the European socialists and even Karl Marx. The president of Harvard says we must love Lincoln because if we don't the 600,000 dead were in vein. Lincoln was very destructive to states rights and individual liberty. How do you have freedom when you can't leave the union? Isn't that why we have divorce in marriage? If you can't leave you are in effect a slave. Lincoln attacked the very concept of America.



oldfart said:


> First, Ed, let me congratulate you on a cogent post!



thanks,.... but then again that's undoubtedly a devilish way to make doubt my own post!!



oldfart said:


> Apparently you are one of the few who is aware that Marx wrote for several newspapers on the Civil War.



yes he wrote for several in the USA and was friendly with Horace Greely( an open socialist) who was one of the founders of the Lincoln's Republican Party, not to be confused with Jefferson's Republican Party which was all about individual liberty and very very limited government as is today's Republican Party.



oldfart said:


> The fact that many Europeans supported Lincoln in his anti-slavery positions is not an indication of Lincoln's broader beliefs.


what beliefs??? he was a double talking two faced lawyer, oportunistic politician, and racist who stood for nothing. We made him into a hero rather than face the 600,000 dead human beings - 10 times more than Vietnam when the population was 10 times less.



oldfart said:


> Much of the support for Lincoln came from staunchly conservative quarters in Europe as well.


what European support?? What conservatives??????  



oldfart said:


> We don't want to imply that conservatives in the 1860's supported slavery now, do we?


Dear, lincoln's ideas where a jumbled mess as were European ideas at the time as were definitions of conservative and liberals so you are talking pure jibberish by using the terms as if anyone could know what you think they mean. 



oldfart said:


> I'm not sure what quote about loving Lincoln you are referring to, but a common sentiment has been that America fought a Civil War to determine certain issues, and we ought not re-fight them.  In that sense I would agree.



no idea, whatsoever, what on earth you are talking about. Why not think before you post, read what you write after you post, and then make corrections.



oldfart said:


> The idea that Lincoln tried to put an end to the idea of state's rights including a right to withdraw from the Union is perfectly correct.



yes he was simple minded and probably crazy but he could keep the idea of preserving the union in his mind. Lincoln freed the slaves and imprisoned the south. See why I say, crazy?




oldfart said:


> I cannot recall a claim that he opposed any other rights of states and would be interested to hear how that argument would be advanced.



imagine if the south had won and some fool said, "I cant see how that would limit Federal power versus the states." Lincoln wanted a national government, not a federal government or at least that is what happened from his intervention.




oldfart said:


> Regarding individual liberties, I have also not heard much of an argument outside of the habeus corpus issue, and would like to hear if there is more to that.



Lincoln may have arrested around 13,000 northerners without trial and shut down hundreds of newspapers as well as killed 600,000. This was the beginning of the end in some senses. From then forward forever we had a national government, not a federal government, and the process continues today!



oldfart said:


> Finally, Lincoln's record as an old Whig on promoting business was exemplary he clearly supported Clay's "American system".  This should surely put him in the camp of the founders of American capitalism.



don't know how you can be confused about so much. The American System was little  more than a socialist tariff. Today we support free trade among states and among nations. Our Founders supported it among states, but not among nations. This is because  Milton did not appear for 200 years.


----------

