# Why Did The South Secede?



## PoliticalChic

So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?


No, *the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.*


1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
Really. Ruled!

Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,* they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.*





2. "The*Union blockade*in theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..." 
Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. "In January, 1861, _De Bow’s Review_contained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of *blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets *of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..." 
Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook





3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?

So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?

a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that *Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States.* In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was *the issue of the African slave trade.* He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."

Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord *Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. *Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
*"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71



*
*What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?*
*The answer is in the section above.*


----------



## Moonglow

I see you can't even discuss history without infusing your contempt for the current president, which is most disingenuous to your premise...


----------



## JakeStarkey

She is writing a puff piece for one of her professors is all.

Yes, the South thought Cotton was King, when in fact it was the joker in the stack.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> I see you can't even discuss history without infusing your contempt for the current president, which is most disingenuous to your premise...





"...you can't even discuss history without....blah blah blah..."

What an excellent time for a teachable moment.

As you Liberals are limited in education, you may not know of the American philosopher George Santayana, who wrote (in _The Life of Reason_, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”


So we have you, and (most merciful) Barack Obama who failed to understand the provenance of the Civil War.....and cause woe as a result.




To put it another way.....why do you suppose those of us with an education study the past at all???


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> She is writing a puff piece for one of her professors is all.
> 
> Yes, the South thought Cotton was King, when in fact it was the joker in the stack.





Look who's back.....little tag-along!

Do try to keep up!


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.





Hey....be fair!

It's my job to make you look like a fool......stop doing my job!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

says PC the fool!


----------



## TheOldSchool

PoliticalChic said:


> As you Liberals are limited in education, you may not know of the American philosopher George Santayana, who wrote (in _The Life of Reason_, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”



Another good quote is "history is written by the victors."  So if Confederates wanted to be remembered as anything other than a bunch of dirty slaver yokels, well, it seems to me they should have fought a little better


----------



## Moonglow

The South felt it was threatened by it's way of life..And rejected the proposal by Lincoln to buy the slaves and set them free..
The war over slavery was a festering boil that was decades in the making.It just didn't occur with one president, it was an issue over states rights and the balance of power by the pro and anti crowd in federal legislation...
Oblama has not a damn thing to do with the reasons for the Civil war...The Bible does since it advocated slavery and how to treat them as slaves. So if God said it was ok, why not do it?


----------



## rightwinger

The South started the war because of Obama

Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black

Obama represents everything the south was fighting against


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> says PC the fool!




And you even have to imitate my posts????

So....you have no shame; goes with no brains.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> The South felt it was threatened by it's way of life..And rejected the proposal by Lincoln to buy the slaves and set them free..
> The war over slavery was a festering boil that was decades in the making.It just didn't occur with one president, it was an issue over states rights and the balance of power by the pro and anti crowd in federal legislation...
> Oblama has not a damn thing to do with the reasons for the Civil war...The Bible does since it advocated slavery and how to treat them as slaves. So if God said it was ok, why not do it?




"The war over slavery...."

The question was why the South seceded.

Stay with this thread.....and I provide the answer.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against





Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.




But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?



Yes.

Slavery was a major part of the Southern Economy.

It's not a belief. It's history and it's fact.


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South felt it was threatened by it's way of life..And rejected the proposal by Lincoln to buy the slaves and set them free..
> The war over slavery was a festering boil that was decades in the making.It just didn't occur with one president, it was an issue over states rights and the balance of power by the pro and anti crowd in federal legislation...
> Oblama has not a damn thing to do with the reasons for the Civil war...The Bible does since it advocated slavery and how to treat them as slaves. So if God said it was ok, why not do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The war over slavery...."
> 
> The question was why the South seceded.
> 
> Stay with this thread.....and I provide the answer.
Click to expand...

You provided conservative propaganda.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
Click to expand...

 
President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent


1. A mixing of the races
2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
3. Blacks with political power


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
Click to expand...


It was stated in the first line, please get the fog of propaganda away from you and you can see better, being able to comprehend is quite another matter....


----------



## Moonglow

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> 
> It was stated in the first line, please get the fog of propaganda away from you and you can see better, being able to comprehend is quite another matter....
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The day you become disabled will not be a banner day in your life...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Slavery was a major part of the Southern Economy.
> 
> It's not a belief. It's history and it's fact.
Click to expand...





As far as the answer to the question....you fail.

Surely not a new phenomenon for you.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South felt it was threatened by it's way of life..And rejected the proposal by Lincoln to buy the slaves and set them free..
> The war over slavery was a festering boil that was decades in the making.It just didn't occur with one president, it was an issue over states rights and the balance of power by the pro and anti crowd in federal legislation...
> Oblama has not a damn thing to do with the reasons for the Civil war...The Bible does since it advocated slavery and how to treat them as slaves. So if God said it was ok, why not do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The war over slavery...."
> 
> The question was why the South seceded.
> 
> Stay with this thread.....and I provide the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You provided conservative propaganda.
Click to expand...




"...conservative propaganda..."

Is that your definition of truth? Fine.


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South felt it was threatened by it's way of life..And rejected the proposal by Lincoln to buy the slaves and set them free..
> The war over slavery was a festering boil that was decades in the making.It just didn't occur with one president, it was an issue over states rights and the balance of power by the pro and anti crowd in federal legislation...
> Oblama has not a damn thing to do with the reasons for the Civil war...The Bible does since it advocated slavery and how to treat them as slaves. So if God said it was ok, why not do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The war over slavery...."
> 
> The question was why the South seceded.
> 
> Stay with this thread.....and I provide the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You provided conservative propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...conservative propaganda..."
> 
> Is that your definition of truth? Fine.
Click to expand...


Well no.

Since you have engaged in that time honored conservative lie that the South didn't start a war over slavery.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
Click to expand...




I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.

Thanks for dropping by.


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Slavery was a major part of the Southern Economy.
> 
> It's not a belief. It's history and it's fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the answer to the question....you fail.
> 
> Surely not a new phenomenon for you.
Click to expand...


Fail at what?

Getting you to see the history?

Well yeah.

You are one of the blindest people here.


----------



## Moonglow

JakeStarkey said:


> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.


If I wrote thesis papers like that when I was in college I would have not been on the Deans List..


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was stated in the first line, please get the fog of propaganda away from you and you can see better, being able to comprehend is quite another matter....
Click to expand...




I didn't bring my copy of the Rosetta Stone...so decrypting your post may take a while.....

...but I promise you, stay tuned and you will learn something....and see that it applies to Obama.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> 
> It was stated in the first line, please get the fog of propaganda away from you and you can see better, being able to comprehend is quite another matter....
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The day you become disabled will not be a banner day in your life...
Click to expand...




A truly stupid post.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by.
Click to expand...

 
I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War

In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War

A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.

That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> 
> It was stated in the first line, please get the fog of propaganda away from you and you can see better, being able to comprehend is quite another matter....
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The day you become disabled will not be a banner day in your life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A truly stupid post.
Click to expand...


It was not a banner day in my life and one day it will happen to you..It's not stupid but to the blind and short sighted, which you are a leader...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> If I wrote thesis papers like that when I was in college I would have not been on the Deans List..
Click to expand...




Forgive me if I find your suggestion hard to believe....

One of us has both Dean's List and Valedictorian on their resume, and the other is you.


----------



## Moonglow

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War
> 
> In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War
> 
> A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.
> 
> That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do
Click to expand...

Which was the cause of the formation of the KKK after the war ended..


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> If I wrote thesis papers like that when I was in college I would have not been on the Deans List..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me if I find your suggestion hard to believe....
> 
> One of us has both Dean's List and Valedictorian on their resume, and the other is you.
Click to expand...

If you believe you are the only person to obtain such a position then so be it, but it is not the truth....How many awards did you win for being the top of your class in missile technology and electronics during military service...?
I have my yellowing papers in my files, but I would never post them on this board..


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South felt it was threatened by it's way of life..And rejected the proposal by Lincoln to buy the slaves and set them free..
> The war over slavery was a festering boil that was decades in the making.It just didn't occur with one president, it was an issue over states rights and the balance of power by the pro and anti crowd in federal legislation...
> Oblama has not a damn thing to do with the reasons for the Civil war...The Bible does since it advocated slavery and how to treat them as slaves. So if God said it was ok, why not do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The war over slavery...."
> 
> The question was why the South seceded.
> 
> Stay with this thread.....and I provide the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You provided conservative propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...conservative propaganda..."
> 
> Is that your definition of truth? Fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no.
> 
> Since you have engaged in that time honored conservative lie that the South didn't start a war over slavery.
Click to expand...




"Since you have engaged in that time honored conservative lie that the South didn't start a war over slavery."

The glaring error in you post is that I never lie.

Second....if you have any honor, you will retract that when I end the thread, and prove my premise.


I await your penitential prostration.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War
> 
> In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War
> 
> A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.
> 
> That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do
Click to expand...



The term "nutshell" in your post.....irony at its best.

Obama is a fraud and a failure, never equipped for this lofty position.
I can see where he would be your idol.


----------



## rightwinger

Moonglow said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War
> 
> In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War
> 
> A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.
> 
> That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was the cause of the formation of the KKK after the war ended..
Click to expand...

 
Very  true

If Obamas father had attempted to marry his mother in the South in 1961 he would have been lynched

In many ways the Civil War had not ended


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War
> 
> In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War
> 
> A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.
> 
> That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The term "nutshell" in your post.....irony at its best.
> 
> Obama is a fraud and a failure, never equipped for this lofty position.
> I can see where he would be your idol.
Click to expand...

Only a person that could never be president would say that...


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War
> 
> In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War
> 
> A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.
> 
> That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The term "nutshell" in your post.....irony at its best.
> 
> Obama is a fraud and a failure, never equipped for this lofty position.
> I can see where he would be your idol.
Click to expand...

 
Aren't you glad that I saved your thread for you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> 
> It was stated in the first line, please get the fog of propaganda away from you and you can see better, being able to comprehend is quite another matter....
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The day you become disabled will not be a banner day in your life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A truly stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was not a banner day in my life and one day it will happen to you..It's not stupid but to the blind and short sighted, which you are a leader...
Click to expand...




I never have wished tragedy on another.
But it was the implication of your post that you are doing exactly that.

Saying it was stupid was being kind.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> If I wrote thesis papers like that when I was in college I would have not been on the Deans List..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me if I find your suggestion hard to believe....
> 
> One of us has both Dean's List and Valedictorian on their resume, and the other is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you believe you are the only person to obtain such a position then so be it, but it is not the truth....How many awards did you win for being the top of your class in missile technology and electronics during military service...?
> I have my yellowing papers in my files, but I would never post them on this board..
Click to expand...



I have no intention nor desire to denigrate any award.


----------



## Statistikhengst

It's the 21st century, and some RWNJ wants to relitigate WHY the Civil War began?

Really?

My Gawd, Righties are more rabid than I realized.

Newsflash: the VAST majority, the OVERWHELMING majority of it was about BLACK SLAVERY.

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the *grotesquely delayed admissions of states into the Union* between 1820 and 1860, due to blockage from the South, wanting to make sure that the electoral college was stacked with pro-slavery people, *proves the point quite exquisitely*.

Any attempt to whitewash this history is nothing short of complete idiocy.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War
> 
> In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War
> 
> A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.
> 
> That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was the cause of the formation of the KKK after the war ended..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very  true
> 
> If Obamas father had attempted to marry his mother in the South in 1961 he would have been lynched
> 
> In many ways the Civil War had not ended
Click to expand...




Those damned KKKers....and their founder, the Democrat Party!!!!


----------



## Statistikhengst

PoliticalChic said:


> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> No, *the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.*
> 
> 
> 1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> 
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,* they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "The*Union blockade*in theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
> Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> a. "In January, 1861, _De Bow’s Review_contained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of *blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets *of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
> Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?
> 
> So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?
> 
> a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that *Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States.* In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was *the issue of the African slave trade.* He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."
> 
> Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord *Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. *Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
> *"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?*
> *The answer is in the section above.*




I thanked you for the collage of bullshit, just because it humored my day.

You are very good at cut and paste. Congrats.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> 
> It was stated in the first line, please get the fog of propaganda away from you and you can see better, being able to comprehend is quite another matter....
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The day you become disabled will not be a banner day in your life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A truly stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was not a banner day in my life and one day it will happen to you..It's not stupid but to the blind and short sighted, which you are a leader...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never have wished tragedy on another.
> But it was the implication of your post that you are doing exactly that.
> 
> Saying it was stupid was being kind.
Click to expand...

I am not the one mentioning retirement or my desires to be a productive person yet again...Even at the level of making a fool of myself...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Statistikhengst said:


> It's the 21st century, and some RWNJ wants to relitigate WHY the Civil War began?
> 
> Really?
> 
> My Gawd, Righties are more rabid than I realized.
> 
> Newsflash: the VAST majority, the OVERWHELMING majority of it was about BLACK SLAVERY.
> 
> The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the *grotesquely delayed admissions of states into the Union* between 1820 and 1860, due to blockage from the South, wanting to make sure that the electoral college was stacked with pro-slavery people, *proves the point quite exquisitely*.
> 
> Any attempt to whitewash this history is nothing short of complete idiocy.





Don't worry!

Your remedial education will follow!


----------



## Statistikhengst

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War
> 
> In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War
> 
> A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.
> 
> That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was the cause of the formation of the KKK after the war ended..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very  true
> 
> If Obamas father had attempted to marry his mother in the South in 1961 he would have been lynched
> 
> In many ways the Civil War had not ended
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those damned KKKers....and their founder, the Democrat Party!!!!
Click to expand...



And of course, as usual, you are missing the point that at that time the Democratic Party was the CONSERVATIVE party and the fledgling GOP was the LIBERAL party of the day. When the parties swapped ideologies, they also swapped membership.

See: 1948 to 1972. Learn something. Like Nixon's SOUTHERN STATE STRATEGY.

Thank you.


----------



## Statistikhengst

PoliticalChic said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the 21st century, and some RWNJ wants to relitigate WHY the Civil War began?
> 
> Really?
> 
> My Gawd, Righties are more rabid than I realized.
> 
> Newsflash: the VAST majority, the OVERWHELMING majority of it was about BLACK SLAVERY.
> 
> The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the *grotesquely delayed admissions of states into the Union* between 1820 and 1860, due to blockage from the South, wanting to make sure that the electoral college was stacked with pro-slavery people, *proves the point quite exquisitely*.
> 
> Any attempt to whitewash this history is nothing short of complete idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry!
> 
> Your remedial education will follow!
Click to expand...



Not with you. Your two brain cells are already worn out like a whore on nickel-night.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War
> 
> In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War
> 
> A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.
> 
> That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was the cause of the formation of the KKK after the war ended..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very  true
> 
> If Obamas father had attempted to marry his mother in the South in 1961 he would have been lynched
> 
> In many ways the Civil War had not ended
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those damned KKKers....and their founder, the Democrat Party!!!!
Click to expand...


It is proper to call them the democratic party...


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> If I wrote thesis papers like that when I was in college I would have not been on the Deans List..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me if I find your suggestion hard to believe....
> 
> One of us has both Dean's List and Valedictorian on their resume, and the other is you.
Click to expand...

 
You were valedictorian at Columbia? 

I, for one, am impressed

Did you cut and paste your valedictory speech and number it?


----------



## Moonglow

Statistikhengst said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the 21st century, and some RWNJ wants to relitigate WHY the Civil War began?
> 
> Really?
> 
> My Gawd, Righties are more rabid than I realized.
> 
> Newsflash: the VAST majority, the OVERWHELMING majority of it was about BLACK SLAVERY.
> 
> The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the *grotesquely delayed admissions of states into the Union* between 1820 and 1860, due to blockage from the South, wanting to make sure that the electoral college was stacked with pro-slavery people, *proves the point quite exquisitely*.
> 
> Any attempt to whitewash this history is nothing short of complete idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry!
> 
> Your remedial education will follow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not with you. Your two brain cells are already worn out like a whore on nickel-night.
Click to expand...


Damn I missed that night!?,,,son of a..........


----------



## PoliticalChic

Statistikhengst said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the 21st century, and some RWNJ wants to relitigate WHY the Civil War began?
> 
> Really?
> 
> My Gawd, Righties are more rabid than I realized.
> 
> Newsflash: the VAST majority, the OVERWHELMING majority of it was about BLACK SLAVERY.
> 
> The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the *grotesquely delayed admissions of states into the Union* between 1820 and 1860, due to blockage from the South, wanting to make sure that the electoral college was stacked with pro-slavery people, *proves the point quite exquisitely*.
> 
> Any attempt to whitewash this history is nothing short of complete idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry!
> 
> Your remedial education will follow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not with you. Your two brain cells are already worn out like a whore on nickel-night.
Click to expand...




Be sure you have a tissue so that you can wipe the egg off your face at the end of the thread.


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South felt it was threatened by it's way of life..And rejected the proposal by Lincoln to buy the slaves and set them free..
> The war over slavery was a festering boil that was decades in the making.It just didn't occur with one president, it was an issue over states rights and the balance of power by the pro and anti crowd in federal legislation...
> Oblama has not a damn thing to do with the reasons for the Civil war...The Bible does since it advocated slavery and how to treat them as slaves. So if God said it was ok, why not do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The war over slavery...."
> 
> The question was why the South seceded.
> 
> Stay with this thread.....and I provide the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You provided conservative propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...conservative propaganda..."
> 
> Is that your definition of truth? Fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no.
> 
> Since you have engaged in that time honored conservative lie that the South didn't start a war over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Since you have engaged in that time honored conservative lie that the South didn't start a war over slavery."
> 
> *The glaring error in you post is that I never lie.*
> 
> Second....if you have any honor, you will retract that when I end the thread, and prove my premise.
> 
> 
> I await your penitential prostration.
Click to expand...


Actually you do.

And alot.

You should stop. The baby jesus weeps.


----------



## JWBooth

May this thread come to an early death. The op is severely flawed. It doesn't come up to either standard, revisionist, or neoconfederate versions of events - all of which have some historic basis for their pov. This poorly cobbled together nonsense may just as well blame southern secession on the failure of Alexander in India.


----------



## Carla_Danger

TheOldSchool said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you Liberals are limited in education, you may not know of the American philosopher George Santayana, who wrote (in _The Life of Reason_, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another good quote is "history is written by the victors."  So if Confederates wanted to be remembered as anything other than a bunch of dirty slaver yokels, well, it seems to me they should have fought a little better
Click to expand...



The number one cause of death was diarrhea. They literally died shitting their pants.

.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War
> 
> In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War
> 
> A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.
> 
> That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was the cause of the formation of the KKK after the war ended..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very  true
> 
> If Obamas father had attempted to marry his mother in the South in 1961 he would have been lynched
> 
> In many ways the Civil War had not ended
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those damned KKKers....and their founder, the Democrat Party!!!!
Click to expand...

 
Trying to prevent a system that would allow Barack Obama to be our president is the reason the South fought the Civil War

They could have eventually accepted an end to slavery....but they NEVER would have accepted a mixed race black man as their president


----------



## JakeStarkey

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> says PC the fool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you even have to imitate my posts????
> 
> So....you have no shame; goes with no brains.
Click to expand...

Your posts are not worth anything more than mockery.


----------



## SmedlyButler

PoliticalChic said:


> "TheUnion blockadein theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."  blah blah blah.....



Okay Okay, you've got in your clip and pastes, you've established the era and the setting and set forth your grand analysis for the historical blunder, "a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities". Now tell us what we're all waiting to hear. Which liberal malefactor is to blame for one of the worst strategic decisions in world history? It won't be a real PC post if there isn't a liberal blackguard awaiting conviction and the noose. Don't keep us in suspense.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War
> 
> In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War
> 
> A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.
> 
> That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was the cause of the formation of the KKK after the war ended..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very  true
> 
> If Obamas father had attempted to marry his mother in the South in 1961 he would have been lynched
> 
> In many ways the Civil War had not ended
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those damned KKKers....and their founder, the Democrat Party!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to prevent a system that would allow Barack Obama to be our president is the reason the South fought the Civil War
> 
> They could have eventually accepted an end to slavery....but they NEVER would have accepted a mixed race black man as their president
Click to expand...



...until the Democrats recognized that they would lose every election without the black vote.....and LBJ held his nose and offered the civil rights act.


----------



## PoliticalChic

SmedlyButler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "TheUnion blockadein theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."  blah blah blah.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay Okay, you've got in your clip and pastes, you've established the era and the setting and set forth your grand analysis for the historical blunder, "a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities". Now tell us what we're all waiting to hear. Which liberal malefactor is to blame for one of the worst strategic decisions in world history? It won't be a real PC post if there isn't a liberal blackguard awaiting conviction and the noose. Don't keep us in suspense.
Click to expand...




Know how to keep an idiot in suspense?
Tell 'ya later.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War
> 
> In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War
> 
> A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.
> 
> That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was the cause of the formation of the KKK after the war ended..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very  true
> 
> If Obamas father had attempted to marry his mother in the South in 1961 he would have been lynched
> 
> In many ways the Civil War had not ended
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those damned KKKers....and their founder, the Democrat Party!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to prevent a system that would allow Barack Obama to be our president is the reason the South fought the Civil War
> 
> They could have eventually accepted an end to slavery....but they NEVER would have accepted a mixed race black man as their president
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...until the Democrats recognized that they would lose every election without the black vote.....and LBJ held his nose and offered the civil rights act.
Click to expand...

 
Actually, they gave up more votes in losing the once "Solid South" than they gained in the black vote

But it was just another case of Democrats choosing to do the right thing over what is most popular


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC, once again, demonstrates her lack of understanding of American history.


----------



## Moonglow

SmedlyButler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "TheUnion blockadein theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."  blah blah blah.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay Okay, you've got in your clip and pastes, you've established the era and the setting and set forth your grand analysis for the historical blunder, "a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities". Now tell us what we're all waiting to hear. Which liberal malefactor is to blame for one of the worst strategic decisions in world history? It won't be a real PC post if there isn't a liberal blackguard awaiting conviction and the noose. Don't keep us in suspense.
Click to expand...


Intelligent people can argue a point without personal attacks and ad- hominem...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> The South felt it was threatened by it's way of life..And rejected the proposal by Lincoln to buy the slaves and set them free..
> The war over slavery was a festering boil that was decades in the making.It just didn't occur with one president, it was an issue over states rights and the balance of power by the pro and anti crowd in federal legislation...
> Oblama has not a damn thing to do with the reasons for the Civil war...The Bible does since it advocated slavery and how to treat them as slaves. So if God said it was ok, why not do it?





"...The war over slavery....."



4. Now....let's deal with our Liberal amateur historians who need to keep slavery on the front burner...after all, without the black vote the Democrats would never win another election.

Secession....wasn't about slavery.



If you believe otherwise, take a look at Lincoln's Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:

"*I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so,* and I have no inclination to do so. 
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that* I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them;* and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

'Resolved', That the maintenance *inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions *according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.   I now reiterate these sentiments,..." 
Abraham Lincoln Inaugural Address


Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address.
He made it pretty clear.


So......did the South secede due to a fear of the North making slavery illegal?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "TheUnion blockadein theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."  blah blah blah.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay Okay, you've got in your clip and pastes, you've established the era and the setting and set forth your grand analysis for the historical blunder, "a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities". Now tell us what we're all waiting to hear. Which liberal malefactor is to blame for one of the worst strategic decisions in world history? It won't be a real PC post if there isn't a liberal blackguard awaiting conviction and the noose. Don't keep us in suspense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligent people can argue a point without personal attacks and ad- hominem...
Click to expand...




What if it's more fun my way????


----------



## rightwinger

JakeStarkey said:


> PC, once again, demonstrates her lack of understanding of American history.


 
Its not that she doesn't understand, but that she prefers to make up her own version


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "TheUnion blockadein theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."  blah blah blah.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay Okay, you've got in your clip and pastes, you've established the era and the setting and set forth your grand analysis for the historical blunder, "a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities". Now tell us what we're all waiting to hear. Which liberal malefactor is to blame for one of the worst strategic decisions in world history? It won't be a real PC post if there isn't a liberal blackguard awaiting conviction and the noose. Don't keep us in suspense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligent people can argue a point without personal attacks and ad- hominem...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if it's more fun my way????
Click to expand...


To a degree you can...


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC, once again, demonstrates her lack of understanding of American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not that she doesn't understand, but that she prefers to make up her own version
Click to expand...




Do you realize how dumb you appear when I have Lincoln's words to back up my premise???

Do you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "TheUnion blockadein theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."  blah blah blah.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay Okay, you've got in your clip and pastes, you've established the era and the setting and set forth your grand analysis for the historical blunder, "a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities". Now tell us what we're all waiting to hear. Which liberal malefactor is to blame for one of the worst strategic decisions in world history? It won't be a real PC post if there isn't a liberal blackguard awaiting conviction and the noose. Don't keep us in suspense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligent people can argue a point without personal attacks and ad- hominem...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if it's more fun my way????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To a degree you can...
Click to expand...




Boring is not part of my resume.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC, once again, demonstrates her lack of understanding of American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not that she doesn't understand, but that she prefers to make up her own version
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize how dumb you appear when I have Lincoln's words to back up my premise???
> 
> Do you?
Click to expand...

 
Lincoln?

You forgot FDR


----------



## NLT

Moonglow said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> If I wrote thesis papers like that when I was in college I would have not been on the Deans List..
Click to expand...

How many in your graduating class? 3


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC, once again, demonstrates her lack of understanding of American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not that she doesn't understand, but that she prefers to make up her own version
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize how dumb you appear when I have Lincoln's words to back up my premise???
> 
> Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln?
> 
> You forgot FDR
Click to expand...




I'll take that as your admission that you've been made to appear dumb.

We finally agree.


----------



## Moonglow

NLT said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> If I wrote thesis papers like that when I was in college I would have not been on the Deans List..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many in your graduating class? 3
Click to expand...

32, I went to a smaller school. Since I moved from Norman Oklahoma when there was 1000 students in the freshman comp. class in 1983..Same with the 500 in the FORTRAN programming class at Ark Univ.1989..To many people, less time with instructor...


----------



## guno

JakeStarkey said:


> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.




they would have loved little miss Saigon in the south during the civil war


----------



## Moonglow

guno said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they would have loved little miss Saigon in the south during the civil war
Click to expand...


Sheeet! They wouldna let her in or live in the area..back then they was either hung or run outta town...


----------



## JakeStarkey

NLT said:


> How many in your graduating class? 3



Papers of PC's quality would not have gotten her on the Dean's list if there were a class of only one.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they would have loved little miss Saigon in the south during the civil war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sheeet! They wouldna let her in or live in the area..back then they was either hung or run outta town...
Click to expand...




Exactly the response one would expect from a low-life when I prove to be correct.


----------



## rightwinger

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War
> 
> In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War
> 
> A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.
> 
> That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was the cause of the formation of the KKK after the war ended..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very  true
> 
> If Obamas father had attempted to marry his mother in the South in 1961 he would have been lynched
> 
> In many ways the Civil War had not ended
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those damned KKKers....and their founder, the Democrat Party!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to prevent a system that would allow Barack Obama to be our president is the reason the South fought the Civil War
> 
> They could have eventually accepted an end to slavery....but they NEVER would have accepted a mixed race black man as their president
Click to expand...

 
Even in 1861, the South understood the path the nation was going on. Slavery was just a start, then the black vote, civil rights, marrying white women, black political power

Eventually resulting in.....Barack Obama


----------



## JWBooth

PoliticalChic said:


> Exactly the response one would expect from a low-life when I prove to be correct.


I've yet to see proof of anything more than weak scholarship evidenced by awkward conclusions based on out of context quotes. Your jello will not nail to the wall.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Gee....I show that Lincoln stated that slavery was not the issue.....and nothing but deafening silence from the pack who claimed that it was the reason that the South seceded.


And, as the jazz singer said.....


----------



## PoliticalChic

JWBooth said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly the response one would expect from a low-life when I prove to be correct.
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see proof of anything more than weak scholarship evidenced by awkward conclusions based on out of context quotes. Your jello will not nail to the wall.
Click to expand...





"I've yet to see ...."

So we agree...the problem is with your insight.....


----------



## PoliticalChic

As Abraham Lincoln and I have shown, the proximate* reason for secession was not slavery.*
Seems to have silenced the peanut gallery.



5. Well, if the issue wasn't about slavery, *what was it about???*

This, from the Op- 
 " You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
Really. Ruled!
Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,*they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them."*



Here are some *facts that you make it clear:*


a. 75% of the world's cotton, and up to 84% of Britain's, came from the South's cotton fields. The Cotton Economy in the South FREE The Cotton Economy in the South information Encyclopedia.com Find The Cotton Economy in the South research

b. In Britain's industrial heartland, where all but 500 of the country's 2,650 cotton factories, employing 440 000 people, were located, and almost all of the cotton came from the Southern United States.  A history of the Lancashire cotton mills

*c. "In 1861 the London Times estimated that one fifth of the British population was dependent, directly or indirectly, on the success of the cotton districts." "Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.72*




*6. "*The _Trent _Affairwas an international diplomatic incident that occurred during the American Civil War. On November 8, 1861, the USS _San Jacinto_, commanded by Union Captain Charles Wilkes, intercepted the British mail packet RMS_Trent_ and removed, as contraband of war, two Confederate diplomats, James Mason and John Slidell. *The envoys were bound for Great Britain and France to press the Confederacy's case for diplomatic recognition and financial support for the Confederacy in the name of **King Cotton**." *
*Trent Affair - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*


----------



## rightwinger

The South seceded to prevent Obama

Looks like it didn't work


----------



## Coloradomtnman

PoliticalChic said:


> As Abraham Lincoln and I have shown, the proximate* reason for secession was not slavery.*
> Seems to have silenced the peanut gallery.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Well, if the issue wasn't about slavery, *what was it about???*
> 
> This, from the Op-
> " You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,*they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them."*
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some *facts that you make it clear:*
> 
> 
> a. 75% of the world's cotton, and up to 84% of Britain's, came from the South's cotton fields. The Cotton Economy in the South FREE The Cotton Economy in the South information Encyclopedia.com Find The Cotton Economy in the South research
> 
> b. In Britain's industrial heartland, where all but 500 of the country's 2,650 cotton factories, employing 440 000 people, were located, and almost all of the cotton came from the Southern United States.  A history of the Lancashire cotton mills
> 
> *c. "In 1861 the London Times estimated that one fifth of the British population was dependent, directly or indirectly, on the success of the cotton districts." "Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.72*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *6. "*The _Trent _Affairwas an international diplomatic incident that occurred during the American Civil War. On November 8, 1861, the USS _San Jacinto_, commanded by Union Captain Charles Wilkes, intercepted the British mail packet RMS_Trent_ and removed, as contraband of war, two Confederate diplomats, James Mason and John Slidell. *The envoys were bound for Great Britain and France to press the Confederacy's case for diplomatic recognition and financial support for the Confederacy in the name of **King Cotton**." *
> *Trent Affair - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*



What and where is your conclusion?

Are you saying that the Union went to war with the Confederacy because the Union was afraid of the success of the South's cotton exports?

I think the most significant reason the US Civil War occurred was slavery, most people think its slavery, and most experts do as well because that is the cause the evidence most strongly supports.

But neo-Confederates, conservative revisionists, and those willing to make fools of themselves just to make a name for themselves can try to spin the causes of the Civil War into something anti-progressive.  We'll all enjoy the gymnastics required for the attempt.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Coloradomtnman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Abraham Lincoln and I have shown, the proximate* reason for secession was not slavery.*
> Seems to have silenced the peanut gallery.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Well, if the issue wasn't about slavery, *what was it about???*
> 
> This, from the Op-
> " You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,*they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them."*
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some *facts that you make it clear:*
> 
> 
> a. 75% of the world's cotton, and up to 84% of Britain's, came from the South's cotton fields. The Cotton Economy in the South FREE The Cotton Economy in the South information Encyclopedia.com Find The Cotton Economy in the South research
> 
> b. In Britain's industrial heartland, where all but 500 of the country's 2,650 cotton factories, employing 440 000 people, were located, and almost all of the cotton came from the Southern United States.  A history of the Lancashire cotton mills
> 
> *c. "In 1861 the London Times estimated that one fifth of the British population was dependent, directly or indirectly, on the success of the cotton districts." "Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.72*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *6. "*The _Trent _Affairwas an international diplomatic incident that occurred during the American Civil War. On November 8, 1861, the USS _San Jacinto_, commanded by Union Captain Charles Wilkes, intercepted the British mail packet RMS_Trent_ and removed, as contraband of war, two Confederate diplomats, James Mason and John Slidell. *The envoys were bound for Great Britain and France to press the Confederacy's case for diplomatic recognition and financial support for the Confederacy in the name of **King Cotton**." *
> *Trent Affair - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What and where is your conclusion?
> 
> Are you saying that the Union went to war with the Confederacy because the Union was afraid of the success of the South's cotton exports?
> 
> I think the most significant reason the US Civil War occurred was slavery, most people think its slavery, and most experts do as well because that is the cause the evidence most strongly supports.
> 
> But neo-Confederates, conservative revisionists, and those willing to make fools of themselves just to make a name for themselves can try to spin the causes of the Civil War into something anti-progressive.  We'll all enjoy the gymnastics required for the attempt.
Click to expand...





It never ceases to amaze, how few posters can read.

The title to which you were ostensibly addressing your post was 
*"Why Did The South Secede?"*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PoliticalChic said:


> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> No, *the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.*
> 
> 
> 1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> 
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,* they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "The*Union blockade*in theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
> Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> a. "In January, 1861, _De Bow’s Review_contained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of *blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets *of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
> Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?
> 
> So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?
> 
> a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that *Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States.* In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was *the issue of the African slave trade.* He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."
> 
> Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord *Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. *Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
> *"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?*
> *The answer is in the section above.*



One word:  cotton.


----------



## PoliticalChic

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> No, *the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.*
> 
> 
> 1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> 
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,* they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "The*Union blockade*in theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
> Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> a. "In January, 1861, _De Bow’s Review_contained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of *blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets *of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
> Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?
> 
> So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?
> 
> a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that *Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States.* In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was *the issue of the African slave trade.* He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."
> 
> Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord *Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. *Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
> *"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?*
> *The answer is in the section above.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One word:  cotton.
Click to expand...




Yer toooo darned smart, M.D.!

I attribute that to you being on the Right.....

...the Lefties are determined to believe that slavery was the center of everything, because that topic, ad infinitum keeps the Left in power.


But....I will continue.....two or three more panels just to show how Obama fits in.



Did you notice how quite they got when I produced Lincoln's promise in post #62?
I heard a collective "gulp!"


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> No, *the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.*
> 
> 
> 1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> 
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,* they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "The*Union blockade*in theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
> Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> a. "In January, 1861, _De Bow’s Review_contained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of *blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets *of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
> Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?
> 
> So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?
> 
> a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that *Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States.* In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was *the issue of the African slave trade.* He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."
> 
> Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord *Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. *Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
> *"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?*
> *The answer is in the section above.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One word:  cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yer toooo darned smart, M.D.!
> 
> I attribute that to you being on the Right.....
> 
> ...the Lefties are determined to believe that slavery was the center of everything, because that topic, ad infinitum keeps the Left in power.
> 
> 
> But....I will continue.....two or three more panels just to show how Obama fits in.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice how quite they got when I produced Lincoln's promise in post #62?
> I heard a collective "gulp!"
Click to expand...


Slaves produced the cotton, genius.

Secession was over slavery, period.  One need only read the states' secession proclamations to prove that.


----------



## PoliticalChic

So.....since *Lincoln's inaugural address promised that slavery would remain the prerogative of each state* that had it at the moment.....why did they insist on secession?



Clearly I've proven my point, judging by how the deniers have dropped off, alternating feed in their mouths.....
....but here is even more substantiation.



7. A view of the *mistaken importance that the South placed on* it's ability to supply Britain...and the world...with *cotton* can be seen in an 1858 speech by a Senator from the state that led secession, South Carolina.


a. Senator James Henry Hammond, in what became known as *the "Cotton is King" speech:*

" Without firing a gun, without drawing a sword, should they make war on us *we could bring the whole world to our feet. *

 The South is perfectly competent to go on, one, two, or three years without planting a seed of cotton.  I believe that if she was to plant but half her cotton, for three years to come, it would be an immense advantage to her.  I am not so sure but that after three years' entire abstinence she would come out stronger than ever she was before, and better prepared to enter afresh upon her great career of enterprise. 

 What would happen if no cotton was furnished for three years?  I will not stop to depict what every one can imagine, but *this is certain:  England would topple headlong and carry the whole civilized world with her, save the South.*No, you dare not make war on cotton.  *No power on earth dares to make war upon it. Cotton is king."  *James Henry Hammond Cotton is King 




b. That was *1858. The Southern elite already thought they had an ace up their sleeve with which to coax Britain.*

c. Senator Hammond's *South Carolina was the first state to respond to Lincoln's election *(Novermber 6, 1860): it called a convention on whether to secede....the vote was announced on December 20, 1860: 169-0 to secede.

d. London Times: "there is nothing in all the dark caves of human passion so cruel and deadly as *the hatred the South Carolinians profess for the Yankees.*" 
May 28, 1861



See where this is going?
*They misunderstood their place in the world.*



*Did I mention that being Obama's problem, as well?*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PoliticalChic said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> No, *the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.*
> 
> 
> 1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> 
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,* they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "The*Union blockade*in theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
> Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> a. "In January, 1861, _De Bow’s Review_contained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of *blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets *of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
> Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?
> 
> So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?
> 
> a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that *Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States.* In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was *the issue of the African slave trade.* He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."
> 
> Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord *Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. *Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
> *"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?*
> *The answer is in the section above.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One word:  cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yer toooo darned smart, M.D.!
> 
> I attribute that to you being on the Right.....
> 
> ...the Lefties are determined to believe that slavery was the center of everything, because that topic, ad infinitum keeps the Left in power.
> 
> 
> But....I will continue.....two or three more panels just to show how Obama fits in.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice how quite they got when I produced Lincoln's promise in post #62?
> I heard a collective "gulp!"
Click to expand...


Actually, not yet.  I just responded to your OP.  Presumably, you're talking about Lincoln's inaugural speech in which he stated that he didn't have the constitutional power to dictate the institutional affairs of the several states, but I shall read on to see.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> No, *the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.*
> 
> 
> 1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> 
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,* they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "The*Union blockade*in theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
> Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> a. "In January, 1861, _De Bow’s Review_contained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of *blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets *of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
> Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?
> 
> So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?
> 
> a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that *Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States.* In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was *the issue of the African slave trade.* He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."
> 
> Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord *Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. *Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
> *"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?*
> *The answer is in the section above.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One word:  cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yer toooo darned smart, M.D.!
> 
> I attribute that to you being on the Right.....
> 
> ...the Lefties are determined to believe that slavery was the center of everything, because that topic, ad infinitum keeps the Left in power.
> 
> 
> But....I will continue.....two or three more panels just to show how Obama fits in.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice how quite they got when I produced Lincoln's promise in post #62?
> I heard a collective "gulp!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaves produced the cotton, genius.
> 
> Secession was over slavery, period.  One need only read the states' secession proclamations to prove that.
Click to expand...






What a marooon!

Who threatened slavery or cotton???? Who????



How can I possibly be considered the 'princess of posters' with low lever adversaries like this one?????



I see these as wars, and for same I need educated adversaries......not the dunces like this one.
FDR knew that.


 “Earlier, during national elections, the president could use class warfare and federal subsidies to win votes. …But when wars came, they must be won.* Few remembered the Panic of 1873- or even who was president then- but everyone remembered the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, and, of course, the Civil War. U.S. presidents could fail when they worked to end depressions, as FDR had shown, and still survive politically- if they had a viable scapegoat….*Lincoln was great because Lincoln was a successful war president. His high taxes and abuse of civil liberties were largely forgotten. If the forthcoming war were lost, FDR could, of course, attack business again for not making enough weapons. But historians would still hold Roosevelt accountable for losing any war on his watch!”
From the Prologue of  “_FDR Goes To War: How Expanded Executive Power, Spiraling National Debt, And Restricted Civil Liberties Shaped Wartime America” _by Burton W. Folsom Jr. and Anita Folsom…


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....be fair!
> 
> It's my job to make you look like a fool......stop doing my job!!
Click to expand...


This is the opening line of the Mississippi secession declaration:

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." 

...and to the specifics:

"That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove. 

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the **Constitution**, and was manifested in the well-known **Ordinance of 1787**, in regard to the Northwestern Territory. 

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France. 

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico. 

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. 

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. 

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot. 

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. 

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst. 

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice. 

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists. 

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better. 

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives. 

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security. 

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system. 

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause. 

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.


Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it."*

Now go ahead and make your argument that secession was not about the fear of the abolishment of the institution of slavery.

link Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a marooon!
> 
> Who threatened slavery or cotton???? Who????
> 
> 
> 
> How can I possibly be considered the 'princess of posters' with low lever adversaries like this one?????
> 
> …



I just proved who BELIEVED slavery was threatened, and made that the basis for secession.  Go argue with the Ghosts of Mississippi if you'd like.

You've been proven wrong.  Do you want me to run up the score?


----------



## PoliticalChic

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> No, *the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.*
> 
> 
> 1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> 
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,* they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "The*Union blockade*in theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
> Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> a. "In January, 1861, _De Bow’s Review_contained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of *blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets *of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
> Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?
> 
> So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?
> 
> a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that *Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States.* In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was *the issue of the African slave trade.* He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."
> 
> Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord *Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. *Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
> *"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?*
> *The answer is in the section above.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One word:  cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yer toooo darned smart, M.D.!
> 
> I attribute that to you being on the Right.....
> 
> ...the Lefties are determined to believe that slavery was the center of everything, because that topic, ad infinitum keeps the Left in power.
> 
> 
> But....I will continue.....two or three more panels just to show how Obama fits in.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice how quite they got when I produced Lincoln's promise in post #62?
> I heard a collective "gulp!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, not yet.  I just responded to your OP.  Presumably, you're talking about Lincoln's inaugural speech in which he stated that he didn't have the constitutional power to dictate the institutional affairs of the several states, but I shall read on to see.
Click to expand...




NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....be fair!
> 
> It's my job to make you look like a fool......stop doing my job!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the opening line of the Mississippi secession declaration:
> 
> 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."
> 
> ...and to the specifics:
> 
> "That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the **Constitution**, and was manifested in the well-known **Ordinance of 1787**, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> 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.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
> 
> It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
> 
> It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
> 
> It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
> 
> It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
> 
> It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
> 
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it."*
> 
> Now go ahead and make your argument that secession was not about the fear of the abolishment of the institution of slavery.
> 
> link Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
Click to expand...





So, you got nothin'......as usual.

No one was taking slavery away.


----------



## Sallow

Statistikhengst said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War
> 
> In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War
> 
> A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.
> 
> That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was the cause of the formation of the KKK after the war ended..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very  true
> 
> If Obamas father had attempted to marry his mother in the South in 1961 he would have been lynched
> 
> In many ways the Civil War had not ended
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those damned KKKers....and their founder, the Democrat Party!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And of course, as usual, you are missing the point that at that time the Democratic Party was the CONSERVATIVE party and the fledgling GOP was the LIBERAL party of the day. When the parties swapped ideologies, they also swapped membership.
> 
> See: 1948 to 1972. Learn something. Like Nixon's SOUTHERN STATE STRATEGY.
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


The Democratic party did not form the KKK.

That's yet another lie in both PoliticalChic's and Conservative's quiver.

Additionally, Southern Democrats, pre 1960s (DixieCrats) are very much like Conservative Tea Party types of today.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War
> 
> In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War
> 
> A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.
> 
> That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was the cause of the formation of the KKK after the war ended..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very  true
> 
> If Obamas father had attempted to marry his mother in the South in 1961 he would have been lynched
> 
> In many ways the Civil War had not ended
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those damned KKKers....and their founder, the Democrat Party!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And of course, as usual, you are missing the point that at that time the Democratic Party was the CONSERVATIVE party and the fledgling GOP was the LIBERAL party of the day. When the parties swapped ideologies, they also swapped membership.
> 
> See: 1948 to 1972. Learn something. Like Nixon's SOUTHERN STATE STRATEGY.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democratic party did not form the KKK.
> 
> That's yet another lie in both PoliticalChic's and Conservative's quiver.
> 
> Additionally, Southern Democrats, pre 1960s (DixieCrats) are very much like Conservative Tea Party types of today.
Click to expand...




I never lie....you're just stupid.



Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425


2. "Southern Democrats, pre 1960s (DixieCrats) are very much like Conservative Tea Party types of today."

See what I mean about you being stupid?

They were Dixiecrats....not Dixiecans.

They were all segregationist Democrats and remained so with one exception....and that was 16 years later.
a. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as a “Dixiecrat,” ... They were segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.
b. The so-called “Dixiecrats” remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party.  The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the State’s Rights Democratic Party with the slogan:  “Segregation Forever!”  Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections. http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#The__Dixiecrats__Remained_Democrat



While all Democrats weren’t segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.


Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, ‘Bull’ Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc.
And, Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias, which showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court:

"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
Egnorance Hugo Black and the real history of the wall of separation between church and state 

Democrat FDR made KKK guy his first Supreme Court nominee.

But the most important segregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate, where civil rights bills went to die.

a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills "when action was most needed."[3] From 1882-1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3] None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"
Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws Fox News


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC and the other writers of cultural McCarthyism deny the actual documents that support the narrative.

PC is right, the Mississippi delegation was wrong, is the way she rolls.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 
> 
> While all Democrats weren’t segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.




Really?  Then why did all ten southern Republican Congressmen vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Not to mention REPUBLICAN Barry Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PC and the other writers of cultural McCarthyism deny the actual documents that support the narrative.
> 
> PC is right, the Mississippi delegation was wrong, is the way she rolls.






OK....let me give you the opportunity to document your stupidity....

Who had the power to take slavery from the Southern states...and threatened to do so?

Name him.

Take your time.



Or....accept your regular title of Chief Lying Moron.


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> I never lie....you're just stupid.



Oh you lie all the time.

The only difference between you and a rug, is that when a rug lies..it keeps the floor warm.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> No, *the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.*
> 
> 
> 1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> 
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,* they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "The*Union blockade*in theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
> Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> a. "In January, 1861, _De Bow’s Review_contained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of *blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets *of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
> Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?
> 
> So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?
> 
> a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that *Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States.* In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was *the issue of the African slave trade.* He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."
> 
> Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord *Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. *Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
> *"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?*
> *The answer is in the section above.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One word:  cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yer toooo darned smart, M.D.!
> 
> I attribute that to you being on the Right.....
> 
> ...the Lefties are determined to believe that slavery was the center of everything, because that topic, ad infinitum keeps the Left in power.
> 
> 
> But....I will continue.....two or three more panels just to show how Obama fits in.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice how quite they got when I produced Lincoln's promise in post #62?
> I heard a collective "gulp!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, not yet.  I just responded to your OP.  Presumably, you're talking about Lincoln's inaugural speech in which he stated that he didn't have the constitutional power to dictate the institutional affairs of the several states, but I shall read on to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....be fair!
> 
> It's my job to make you look like a fool......stop doing my job!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the opening line of the Mississippi secession declaration:
> 
> 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."
> 
> ...and to the specifics:
> 
> "That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the **Constitution**, and was manifested in the well-known **Ordinance of 1787**, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> 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.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
> 
> It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
> 
> It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
> 
> It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
> 
> It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
> 
> It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
> 
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it."*
> 
> Now go ahead and make your argument that secession was not about the fear of the abolishment of the institution of slavery.
> 
> link Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you got nothin'......as usual.
> 
> No one was taking slavery away.
Click to expand...


That's it eh?

So you deny that Mississippi seceded over the fear of slavery being abolished, even in the face of irrefutable evidence that that is exactly why they seceded...as did the other states, btw?

Anyone want to help PC here?  Anyone agree with her daft claim in the OP enough to be able to refute what I've posted?

Please, someone attempt to refute the irrefutable.  Entertain us.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie....you're just stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you lie all the time.
> 
> The only difference between you and a rug, is that when a rug lies..it keeps the floor warm.
Click to expand...





I just proved you are stupid,and I don't lie.


----------



## JakeStarkey

_I never lie.._.. is a PC lie.  I correct her below.

Foner said the KKK served the interest of the Democratic Party not that the Party created it.

The Dixiecrats were very much like conservative TP members (no one said anything about the GOP).

Many of the surviving Dixiecrats did indeed become Republicans in the 1960s and 1970s.  Link the silly comments from National Black Republican Association National Black Republican Association

The sad part is that the good Republicans in the old South allowed the bad Dems to come into the party.

So now we have a less than stellar southern GOP party on matters of race, and the bad old Dems now good on race.

PC is attempting to sweep away the flip flop of the two parties in the South of these issues.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> No, *the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.*
> 
> 
> 1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> 
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,* they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "The*Union blockade*in theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
> Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> a. "In January, 1861, _De Bow’s Review_contained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of *blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets *of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
> Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?
> 
> So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?
> 
> a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that *Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States.* In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was *the issue of the African slave trade.* He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."
> 
> Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord *Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. *Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
> *"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?*
> *The answer is in the section above.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One word:  cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yer toooo darned smart, M.D.!
> 
> I attribute that to you being on the Right.....
> 
> ...the Lefties are determined to believe that slavery was the center of everything, because that topic, ad infinitum keeps the Left in power.
> 
> 
> But....I will continue.....two or three more panels just to show how Obama fits in.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice how quite they got when I produced Lincoln's promise in post #62?
> I heard a collective "gulp!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, not yet.  I just responded to your OP.  Presumably, you're talking about Lincoln's inaugural speech in which he stated that he didn't have the constitutional power to dictate the institutional affairs of the several states, but I shall read on to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....be fair!
> 
> It's my job to make you look like a fool......stop doing my job!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the opening line of the Mississippi secession declaration:
> 
> 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."
> 
> ...and to the specifics:
> 
> "That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the **Constitution**, and was manifested in the well-known **Ordinance of 1787**, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> 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.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
> 
> It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
> 
> It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
> 
> It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
> 
> It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
> 
> It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
> 
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it."*
> 
> Now go ahead and make your argument that secession was not about the fear of the abolishment of the institution of slavery.
> 
> link Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you got nothin'......as usual.
> 
> No one was taking slavery away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's it eh?
> 
> So you deny that Mississippi seceded over the fear of slavery being abolished, even in the face of irrefutable evidence that that is exactly why they seceded...as did the other states, btw?
> 
> Anyone want to help PC here?  Anyone agree with her daft claim in the OP enough to be able to refute what I've posted?
> 
> Please, someone attempt to refute the irrefutable.  Entertain us.
Click to expand...



Oh.....you're sulking because I left you out and Jakal is taking your title???


OK....here:
....let me give you the opportunity to document your stupidity....

Who had the power to take slavery from the Southern states...and threatened to do so?

Name him.

Take your time.



Or....accept your regular title of Chief Lying Moron.


Go for it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> _I never lie.._.. is a PC lie.  I correct her below.
> 
> Foner said the KKK served the interest of the Democratic Party not that the Party created it.
> 
> The Dixiecrats were very much like conservative TP members (no one said anything about the GOP).
> 
> Many of the surviving Dixiecrats did indeed become Republicans in the 1960s and 1970s.  Link the silly comments from National Black Republican Association National Black Republican Association
> 
> The sad part is that the good Republicans in the old South allowed the bad Dems to come into the party.
> 
> So now we have a less than stellar southern GOP party on matters of race, and the bad old Dems now good on race.
> 
> PC is attempting to sweep away the flip flop of the two parties in the South of these issues.





So....no name?

Gave up?

That means you're pleased to accept 'Chief Lying Moron'???

NYCarbuncle is gonna fight you for it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

“Who had the power to take slavery from the Southern states...and threatened to do so?”

Immaterial and not relevant.  The South could keep its system if it respected the constitutional, electoral process.

Since the southern States decided to go to war rather than accept slavery in the Old South but in the territories, the South rose up, and Lincoln murdered it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

And this reminder:

The most important points: *all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their lives*…except for one. And they were not conservative.



Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later. Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative, became Republicans:
Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN  supporter
Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, …but supported Clarence Thomas’ nomination
Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDR’s New Deal
Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Bork’s nomination

Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats….Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kenned refused to censure him.
Coulter, "Mugged," chapter 12


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC, you can never win these arguments against us,  your better informed and balanced opponents.

You try your silly revisionism, and we will keep making you look like an idiot.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> “Who had the power to take slavery from the Southern states...and threatened to do so?”
> 
> Immaterial and not relevant.  The South could keep its system if it respected the constitutional, electoral process.
> 
> Since the southern States decided to go to war rather than accept slavery in the Old South but in the territories, the South rose up, and Lincoln murdered it.





"Immaterial and not relevant."

Throwing in the towel, Chief Lying Moron?


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC wants to note the Dems of sixty years ago while ignoring the changes since then.

Typical revisionist nonsense, by PC.


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie....you're just stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you lie all the time.
> 
> The only difference between you and a rug, is that when a rug lies..it keeps the floor warm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just proved you are stupid,and I don't lie.
Click to expand...


Of course you lie.

The only difference between you and lying in a bed is a bed is comfy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Let's move this to the Badlands since all PC can do now is ad hom.


----------



## haissem123

PoliticalChic said:


> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> No, *the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.*
> 
> 
> 1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> 
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,* they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "The*Union blockade*in theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
> Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> a. "In January, 1861, _De Bow’s Review_contained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of *blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets *of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
> Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?
> 
> So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?
> 
> a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that *Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States.* In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was *the issue of the African slave trade.* He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."
> 
> Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord *Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. *Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
> *"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?*
> *The answer is in the section above.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

JakeStarkey said:


> PC, you can never win these arguments against us,  your better informed and balanced opponents.
> 
> 
> You try your silly revisionism, and we will keep making you look like an idiot.



What did I tell you about that crack pipe?


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PC, you can never win these arguments against us,  your better informed and balanced opponents.
> 
> You try your silly revisionism, and we will keep making you look like an idiot.





"PC, you can never win these arguments against us, your better informed and *balanced* opponents."

_When I read posts like that, I keep waiting for you open your jacket and reveal the vest of dynamite cylinders._


----------



## JakeStarkey

M. D., as a writer of cultural McCarthyism, you have no with those who know better than you on these matters.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Time to move this to Badlands.  So requested.


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie....you're just stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you lie all the time.
> 
> The only difference between you and a rug, is that when a rug lies..it keeps the floor warm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just proved you are stupid,and I don't lie.
Click to expand...


You lie so much your name should be LyinChic.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC and MD have been weighed in the balance and found wanting yet again.


----------



## PoliticalChic

haissem123 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> No, *the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.*
> 
> 
> 1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> 
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,* they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "The*Union blockade*in theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
> Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> a. "In January, 1861, _De Bow’s Review_contained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of *blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets *of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
> Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?
> 
> So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?
> 
> a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that *Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States.* In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was *the issue of the African slave trade.* He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."
> 
> Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord *Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. *Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
> *"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?*
> *The answer is in the section above.*
Click to expand...






"So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?"

What...are you illiterate....or as dumb as Chief Lying Moron????


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie....you're just stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you lie all the time.
> 
> The only difference between you and a rug, is that when a rug lies..it keeps the floor warm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just proved you are stupid,and I don't lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lie so much your name should be LyinChic.
Click to expand...



I believe I've already put you in your place....last seat in the dumb row.


----------



## haissem123

everybody wants to rule over the other guys? so what? the might of the north made them right as always in history. the south wanted to keep blacks doing their work and getting rich off of other peoples work. they called them slave owners now they call them stock holders, partners, investors etc... they won cause lincoln fought so his fellow men up north didn't have to slave like ******* in the fields for nothing but scrap pork. now we are all ******* in the true sense of the word. stupid ignorant servants doing jigs and yessirin our massers. I for one want to fight the south again. you ignant ******* don't noes no bettar or our too cowardly to admit you've been had bad. good luck keeping your ******* in line. they got some tough skin on there backs bye now.


----------



## Sallow

I found LyinChic's new avatar:







Why? Because it's a lion.


----------



## Sallow

What happened to LyinChic? Maybe she's hanging with this guy?


Why? Because he's a lyin..


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> *.*



Who says that?  Where have you ever read or heard someone say that the South seceded because the North was 'about to' outlaw slavery?


----------



## PoliticalChic

haissem123 said:


> everybody wants to rule over the other guys? so what? the might of the north made them right as always in history. the south wanted to keep blacks doing their work and getting rich off of other peoples work. they called them slave owners now they call them stock holders, partners, investors etc... they won cause lincoln fought so his fellow men up north didn't have to slave like ******* in the fields for nothing but scrap pork. now we are all ******* in the true sense of the word. stupid ignorant servants doing jigs and yessirin our massers. I for one want to fight the south again. you ignant ******* don't noes no bettar or our too cowardly to admit you've been had bad. good luck keeping your ******* in line. they got some tough skin on there backs bye now.




Go home! The earth is full!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> What happened to LyinChic? Maybe she's hanging with this guy?
> 
> 
> Why? Because he's a lyin..







Wow....I really must have wounded you by wiping the floor with you!

Gee....I thought you'd be used to it by now.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> If I wrote thesis papers like that when I was in college I would have not been on the Deans List..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me if I find your suggestion hard to believe....
> 
> One of us has both Dean's List and Valedictorian on their resume, and the other is you.
Click to expand...


On your resume?  Two of your former employers were an honor student and a valedictorian?  What was the job?

Housekeeper?  Lap dancer?


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says that?  Where have you ever read or heard someone say that the South seceded because the North was 'about to' outlaw slavery?
Click to expand...




Did you get me that name I asked for, Chief Lying Moron, jr.????


----------



## NYcarbineer

Let's be clear about what the Confederacy was about:

Jefferson Davis on slavery:

*"African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing."*
*~Davis 
"My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."*
*~Davis *
*Jefferson Davis Quotes the Bible*
*"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."*
*~Davis 
"It [slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts...Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God - let him go to the Bible...I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation...Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testaments - in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized, sanctioned everywhere.".*
*~Davis 

Jefferson Davis Quotes*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

haissem123 said:


> everybody wants to rule over the other guys? so what? the might of the north made them right as always in history. the south wanted to keep blacks doing their work and getting rich off of other peoples work. they called them slave owners now they call them stock holders, partners, investors etc... they won cause lincoln fought so his fellow men up north didn't have to slave like ******* in the fields for nothing but scrap pork. now we are all ******* in the true sense of the word. stupid ignorant servants doing jigs and yessirin our massers. I for one want to fight the south again. you ignant ******* don't noes no bettar or our too cowardly to admit you've been had bad. good luck keeping your ******* in line. they got some tough skin on there backs bye now.



This is a drug-free OP.  Drop the crack pipe and step away from the implement.


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to LyinChic? Maybe she's hanging with this guy?
> 
> 
> Why? Because he's a lyin..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....I really must have wounded you by wiping the floor with you!
> 
> Gee....I thought you'd be used to it by now.
Click to expand...


You're lyin' again.

But I am use to it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says that?  Where have you ever read or heard someone say that the South seceded because the North was 'about to' outlaw slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get me that name I asked for, Chief Lying Moron, jr.????
Click to expand...


So you based this thread on a strawman.  You've never actually heard anyone argue that the North was about to abolish slavery,

as in, imminently, right away...


----------



## Sallow

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> If I wrote thesis papers like that when I was in college I would have not been on the Deans List..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me if I find your suggestion hard to believe....
> 
> One of us has both Dean's List and Valedictorian on their resume, and the other is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On your resume?  Two of your former employers were an honor student and a valedictorian?  What was the job?
> 
> Housekeeper?  Lap dancer?
Click to expand...


Neither.

Incense and Jewelry on St. Marks.

1 dollar for a bundle of 10.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PC needs some more help here.  Can anyone name any sources of the opinion that the South seceded because slavery was going to be abolished any minute?

And btw, what is even the point of making such an argument?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Apparently today it's PoliticalChic's turn to make Econchick look smart by comparison.  I hope EC's turn is equally entertaining.


----------



## bodecea

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South started the war because of Obama
> 
> Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black
> 
> Obama represents everything the south was fighting against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.
> 
> But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent
> 
> 
> 1. A mixing of the races
> 2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
> 3. Blacks with political power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War
> 
> In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War
> 
> A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.
> 
> That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was the cause of the formation of the KKK after the war ended..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very  true
> 
> If Obamas father had attempted to marry his mother in the South in 1961 he would have been lynched
> 
> In many ways the Civil War had not ended
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those damned KKKers....and their founder, the Democrat Party!!!!
Click to expand...

Which was the Party of the Post War South.   Any white man in the South who joined the Republicans was called a Scalliwag and shunned.


----------



## Sallow

NYcarbineer said:


> PC needs some more help here.  Can anyone name any sources of the opinion that the South seceded because slavery was going to be abolished any minute?
> 
> And btw, what is even the point of making such an argument?



LyinChic is having a bit o' trouble being that she is in the middle of teaching a class on Southern History at Colom..um..Harvard..yeah that's the ticket.

And her hubby Matt..um...Hugh Jackman is coming to pick her up..yeah..that's the ticket.

And she's going to a party hosted by Bill Gate..um..The Koch Brothers where Beyonce is going to be doing a Duet with her while Elton John tickles the ivories..

Yeah..that's the ticket.


----------



## Sallow

NYcarbineer said:


> Apparently today it's PoliticalChic's turn to make Econchick look smart by comparison.  I hope EC's turn is equally entertaining.



They are both hangin' with Albert Einstein's ghost letting him know where he went wrong on the "Theory" of relativity.

Like anyone should take a theory, seriously..duh.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Sallow said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC needs some more help here.  Can anyone name any sources of the opinion that the South seceded because slavery was going to be abolished any minute?
> 
> And btw, what is even the point of making such an argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LyinChic is having a bit o' trouble being that she is in the middle of teaching a class on Southern History at Colom..um..Harvard..yeah that's the ticket.
> 
> And her hubby Matt..um...Hugh Jackman is coming to pick her up..yeah..that's the ticket.
> 
> And she's going to a party hosted by Bill Gate..um..The Koch Brothers where Beyonce is going to be doing a Duet with her while Elton John tickles the ivories..
> 
> Yeah..that's the ticket.
Click to expand...


she's Hugh Jackman's beard?  Hey there's a good gig.  lol, he's Australian so she could tell him any story about American history she made up and how would he know?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Sallow said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently today it's PoliticalChic's turn to make Econchick look smart by comparison.  I hope EC's turn is equally entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are both hangin' with Albert Einstein's ghost letting him know where he went wrong on the "Theory" of relativity.
> 
> Like anyone should take a theory, seriously..duh.
Click to expand...


Did you notice she's picked up the Econchick affliction of making outrageous claims about herself?


----------



## Sallow

NYcarbineer said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC needs some more help here.  Can anyone name any sources of the opinion that the South seceded because slavery was going to be abolished any minute?
> 
> And btw, what is even the point of making such an argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LyinChic is having a bit o' trouble being that she is in the middle of teaching a class on Southern History at Colom..um..Harvard..yeah that's the ticket.
> 
> And her hubby Matt..um...Hugh Jackman is coming to pick her up..yeah..that's the ticket.
> 
> And she's going to a party hosted by Bill Gate..um..The Koch Brothers where Beyonce is going to be doing a Duet with her while Elton John tickles the ivories..
> 
> Yeah..that's the ticket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> she's Hugh Jackman's beard?  Hey there's a good gig.  lol, he's Australian so she could tell him any story about American history she made up and how would he know?
Click to expand...


Meh..Bripat should be along soon.

This is his bread and butter..


----------



## Sallow

NYcarbineer said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently today it's PoliticalChic's turn to make Econchick look smart by comparison.  I hope EC's turn is equally entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are both hangin' with Albert Einstein's ghost letting him know where he went wrong on the "Theory" of relativity.
> 
> Like anyone should take a theory, seriously..duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you notice she's picked up the Econchick affliction of making outrageous claims about herself?
Click to expand...


She's a superspy macro-economist!


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> Let's be clear about what the Confederacy was about:
> 
> Jefferson Davis on slavery:
> 
> *"African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing."
> ~Davis
> "My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."
> ~Davis *
> *Jefferson Davis Quotes the Bible*
> *"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
> ~Davis
> "It [slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts...Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God - let him go to the Bible...I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation...Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testaments - in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized, sanctioned everywhere.".
> ~Davis
> 
> Jefferson Davis Quotes*





Did you come up with that name of the guy who was just about to outlaw slavery, Chief?


No?

OK....keep tap-dancing.


----------



## Unkotare

TheOldSchool said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you Liberals are limited in education, you may not know of the American philosopher George Santayana, who wrote (in _The Life of Reason_, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another good quote is "history is written by the victors."  So if Confederates wanted to be remembered as anything other than a bunch of dirty slaver yokels, well, it seems to me they should have fought a little better
Click to expand...



The South fought remarkably well. Their defeat was inevitable.


----------



## Unkotare

Moonglow said:


> Oblama has not a damn thing to do with the reasons for the Civil war...




Just another example of democrats fucking up.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently today it's PoliticalChic's turn to make Econchick look smart by comparison.  I hope EC's turn is equally entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are both hangin' with Albert Einstein's ghost letting him know where he went wrong on the "Theory" of relativity.
> 
> Like anyone should take a theory, seriously..duh.
Click to expand...




Only educated folks.

Kinda leaves you out, huh.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you can't even discuss history without infusing your contempt for the current president, which is most disingenuous to your premise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...you can't even discuss history without....blah blah blah..."
> 
> What an excellent time for a teachable moment.
> 
> As you Liberals are limited in education, you may not know of the American philosopher George Santayana, who wrote (in _The Life of Reason_, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
> 
> 
> So we have you, and (most merciful) Barack Obama who failed to understand the provenance of the Civil War.....and cause woe as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To put it another way....*.why do you suppose those of us with an education study the past at all?*??
Click to expand...

Well obviously to lie about the past, since your "education" is obviously very limited.

Another quote from Santayana that the better educated are aware of:
"History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there."

And a better quote from the author you love most to lie about.

If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.
George Bernard Shaw


----------



## Unkotare

edthecynic said:


> Well obviously to lie about the past, since your "education" is obviously very limited.




She seems much better educated than you, so what are you trying to admit?


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently today it's PoliticalChic's turn to make Econchick look smart by comparison.  I hope EC's turn is equally entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are both hangin' with Albert Einstein's ghost letting him know where he went wrong on the "Theory" of relativity.
> 
> Like anyone should take a theory, seriously..duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only educated folks.
> 
> Kinda leaves you out, huh.
Click to expand...


You do know when you cut and paste other people's lies that's lying too?


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you can't even discuss history without infusing your contempt for the current president, which is most disingenuous to your premise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...you can't even discuss history without....blah blah blah..."
> 
> What an excellent time for a teachable moment.
> 
> As you Liberals are limited in education, you may not know of the American philosopher George Santayana, who wrote (in _The Life of Reason_, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
> 
> 
> So we have you, and (most merciful) Barack Obama who failed to understand the provenance of the Civil War.....and cause woe as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To put it another way....*.why do you suppose those of us with an education study the past at all?*??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well obviously to lie about the past, since your "education" is obviously very limited.
> 
> Another quote from Santayana that the better educated are aware of:
> "History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there."
> 
> And a better quote from the author you love most to lie about.
> 
> If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.
> George Bernard Shaw
Click to expand...




Y'know what I love about the dunces who are so infuriated about my incontestable OPs.....

....they pour out all sorts of vituperation about me....

....not realizing that I am my favorite subject!





Hey...still sporting a quote from the socialist who supported genocide....great!


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you can't even discuss history without infusing your contempt for the current president, which is most disingenuous to your premise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...you can't even discuss history without....blah blah blah..."
> 
> What an excellent time for a teachable moment.
> 
> As you Liberals are limited in education, you may not know of the American philosopher George Santayana, who wrote (in _The Life of Reason_, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
> 
> 
> So we have you, and (most merciful) Barack Obama who failed to understand the provenance of the Civil War.....and cause woe as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To put it another way....*.why do you suppose those of us with an education study the past at all?*??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well obviously to lie about the past, since your "education" is obviously very limited.
> 
> Another quote from Santayana that the better educated are aware of:
> "History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there."
> 
> And a better quote from the author you love most to lie about.
> 
> If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.
> George Bernard Shaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know what I love about the dunces who are so infuriated about my incontestable OPs.....
> 
> ....they pour out all sorts of vituperation about me....
> 
> ....not realizing that I am my favorite subject!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey...still sporting a quote from the socialist who supported genocide....great!
Click to expand...


You're one to post..

You are supporting slavery and genocide in one thread!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently today it's PoliticalChic's turn to make Econchick look smart by comparison.  I hope EC's turn is equally entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are both hangin' with Albert Einstein's ghost letting him know where he went wrong on the "Theory" of relativity.
> 
> Like anyone should take a theory, seriously..duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only educated folks.
> 
> Kinda leaves you out, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know when you cut and paste other people's lies that's lying too?
Click to expand...



What???

You haven't received enough of a beating?

OOOOOOOK....


So...*resolved: slavery was not the precipitation for secession.*

Rather, it was the widespread *belief in the South that Britain would have to recognize, and support them, because of how heavily British industry was invested in cotton.*



And this is *one of those mistakes* that often propel human events....somewhat like the *election of Barack Obama.*



8. So....it turned out Britain was not as concerned about the impact on the cotton trade as the South thought!

a. Lord Palmerston: *Britain would refuse to recognize Southern sovereignty*.

b. London Times: "....Southern rights are now more clearly understood,  and in any case since war, though greatly to be regretted, was now at hand, it was England's business to *keep strictly out of it and to maintain neutrality."* 
May 9, 1861



c. On May 14th, Queen Victoria issued Britain's "*Proclamation of Neutrality*." The _proclamation _was avidly reported in the American press, with _Harper's Weekly _summarizing it in its edition of June 8.

 "THE proclamation of the Queen has been issued by the Privy Council at Whitehall, warning all British subjects from* interfering, at their peril, with either party in the American conflict,* or giving aid and comfort in any way, by personal service and supplying munitions of war, to either party. The proclamation announces it as the intention of the British Government to preserve the strictest neutrality in the contest between the Government of the United States and the Government of those States calling themselves the Confederate States of America." 
Civil War News



Remember the Senator from South Carolina..."....*we could bring the whole world to our feet."*
Rings like “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."
Two dopes.




9. Harper's was pro-union, and didn't let England's refusal to endorse the Confederacy go unnoticed; they really rubbed it in.
" The whole rebellion has rested upon two points : first, that the North was cowardly and divided, and then that England, which must have cotton, would open the Southern ports. 

But the traitors forgot how much the one depended upon the other. If England had seen the Slave States united in the movement, and the Free States hesitating and divided, she would doubtless have taken some more decided action. But she has seen just in time, in the Free States, an enthusiastic unanimity unparalleled in history—all the vast resources of a great, intelligent, skillful, industrious, and wealthy people, she has seen heaped and lavished in the measures of defense against this conspiracy. " 
Harper's Weekly, June 8, 1861



Get that:  *"... rebellion has rested upon two points..."*

Slavery was not one of 'em!

Just *one more proof of my premise!*


So, it was not slavery, but a misjudgment about their power to intimidate Britain, pushed the South down a path that it would, eventually, regret.

*Kinda like the last presidential election......*


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 
> 
> So...*resolved: slavery was not the precipitation for secession.*
> *......*



That's been proven false.  Your point, such as it was, about Great Britain may or may not have merit, but it is totally unconnected to the REASON for secession.


----------



## Statistikhengst

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC, once again, demonstrates her lack of understanding of American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not that she doesn't understand, but that she prefers to make up her own version
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize how dumb you appear when I have Lincoln's words to back up my premise???
> 
> Do you?
Click to expand...



Lincoln was trying to do anything he could to hold the Union together, even including saying assuaging words at his inaugural, which maybe 100 people heard.....

Just like when Pres. Bush Jr. called Islam a "religion of peace" and everyone who knew him even slightly knew he didn't mean it.

But please, PoliticalStick, keep


----------



## Statistikhengst

JWBooth said:


> I've yet to see proof of anything more than weak scholarship evidenced by awkward conclusions based on out of context quotes. Your jello will not nail to the wall.




Gets my vote for the best retort of 2014, hands-down!!!


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> So...*resolved: slavery was not the precipitation for secession.*
> *......*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's been proven false.  Your point, such as it was, about Great Britain may or may not have merit, but it is totally unconnected to the REASON for secession.
Click to expand...




So.....were you able to come up with the name of whoever was gonna' outlaw slavery?

No?

You keep lookin,' Chief.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Statistikhengst said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC, once again, demonstrates her lack of understanding of American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not that she doesn't understand, but that she prefers to make up her own version
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize how dumb you appear when I have Lincoln's words to back up my premise???
> 
> Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was trying to do anything he could to hold the Union together, even including saying assuaging words at his inaugural, which maybe 100 people heard.....
> 
> Just like when Pres. Bush Jr. called Islam a "religion of peace" and everyone who knew him even slightly knew he didn't mean it.
> 
> But please, PoliticalStick, keep
Click to expand...




Either you're a liar or Lincoln was.....

I know who I choose.


----------



## Statistikhengst

NYcarbineer said:


> I just proved who BELIEVED slavery was threatened, and made that the basis for secession.  Go argue with the Ghosts of Mississippi if you'd like.
> 
> You've been proven wrong.  Do you want me to run up the score?



You didn't prove jack-shit, PoliticalSchtick. You tried to make an argument based on a few quotes.

Now, go scamper off and play crayola with the other Tea Party kids.


----------



## Statistikhengst

I think I see rabbit hole coming up. And, oh, look, PC is heading right for it!!!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Statistikhengst said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just proved who BELIEVED slavery was threatened, and made that the basis for secession.  Go argue with the Ghosts of Mississippi if you'd like.
> 
> You've been proven wrong.  Do you want me to run up the score?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't prove jack-shit, PoliticalSchtick. You tried to make an argument based on a few quotes.
> 
> Now, go scamper off and play crayola with the other Tea Party kids.
Click to expand...




As soon as you know you're lying, your language becomes vulgar.

That sound....me laughing at you.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they would have loved little miss Saigon in the south during the civil war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sheeet! They wouldna let her in or live in the area..back then they was either hung or run outta town...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly the response one would expect from a low-life when I prove to be correct.
Click to expand...

A low life,  I worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty...Do you suppose I could buy back my introduction to you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they would have loved little miss Saigon in the south during the civil war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sheeet! They wouldna let her in or live in the area..back then they was either hung or run outta town...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly the response one would expect from a low-life when I prove to be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A low life,  I worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty...Do you suppose I could buy back my introduction to you?
Click to expand...


Nah.....free.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you can't even discuss history without infusing your contempt for the current president, which is most disingenuous to your premise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...you can't even discuss history without....blah blah blah..."
> 
> What an excellent time for a teachable moment.
> 
> As you Liberals are limited in education, you may not know of the American philosopher George Santayana, who wrote (in _The Life of Reason_, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
> 
> 
> So we have you, and (most merciful) Barack Obama who failed to understand the provenance of the Civil War.....and cause woe as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To put it another way....*.why do you suppose those of us with an education study the past at all?*??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well obviously to lie about the past, since your "education" is obviously very limited.
> 
> Another quote from Santayana that the better educated are aware of:
> "History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there."
> 
> And *a better quote from the author you love most to lie about.*
> 
> If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.
> George Bernard Shaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know what I love about the dunces who are so infuriated about my incontestable OPs.....
> 
> ....they pour out all sorts of vituperation about me....
> 
> ....not realizing that I am my favorite subject!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey...still sporting a quote from the socialist who supported genocide*....great!
Click to expand...

Do I have your lies down pat before you even spew them?
Why yes, yes I do.

As you well know, the SHAVIAN eugenics you call genocide, an honest person calls women choosing who they mate with. But that is just your lack of education showing.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they would have loved little miss Saigon in the south during the civil war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sheeet! They wouldna let her in or live in the area..back then they was either hung or run outta town...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly the response one would expect from a low-life when I prove to be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A low life,  I worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty...Do you suppose I could buy back my introduction to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah.....free.
Click to expand...


I have a mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it. 
Read more at Groucho Marx Quotes QuoteAuthors.com


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you can't even discuss history without infusing your contempt for the current president, which is most disingenuous to your premise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...you can't even discuss history without....blah blah blah..."
> 
> What an excellent time for a teachable moment.
> 
> As you Liberals are limited in education, you may not know of the American philosopher George Santayana, who wrote (in _The Life of Reason_, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
> 
> 
> So we have you, and (most merciful) Barack Obama who failed to understand the provenance of the Civil War.....and cause woe as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To put it another way....*.why do you suppose those of us with an education study the past at all?*??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well obviously to lie about the past, since your "education" is obviously very limited.
> 
> Another quote from Santayana that the better educated are aware of:
> "History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there."
> 
> And *a better quote from the author you love most to lie about.*
> 
> If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.
> George Bernard Shaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know what I love about the dunces who are so infuriated about my incontestable OPs.....
> 
> ....they pour out all sorts of vituperation about me....
> 
> ....not realizing that I am my favorite subject!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey...still sporting a quote from the socialist who supported genocide*....great!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I have your lies down pat before you even spew them?
> Why yes, yes I do.
> 
> As you well know, the SHAVIAN eugenics you call genocide, an honest person calls women choosing who they mate with. But that is just your lack of education showing.
Click to expand...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they would have loved little miss Saigon in the south during the civil war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sheeet! They wouldna let her in or live in the area..back then they was either hung or run outta town...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly the response one would expect from a low-life when I prove to be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A low life,  I worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty...Do you suppose I could buy back my introduction to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah.....free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it.
> Read more at Groucho Marx Quotes QuoteAuthors.com
Click to expand...




Now be honest.....

Even with the merciless beatings that I am forces to administer to you...

My post are the flame to your moth.


It's just that you never remember what happens to the moth that gets too close to the flame.


This thread pulled you right in.....and knocked you right out!



Too many metaphors?


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they would have loved little miss Saigon in the south during the civil war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sheeet! They wouldna let her in or live in the area..back then they was either hung or run outta town...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly the response one would expect from a low-life when I prove to be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A low life,  I worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty...Do you suppose I could buy back my introduction to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah.....free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it.
> Read more at Groucho Marx Quotes QuoteAuthors.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now be honest.....
> 
> Even with the merciless beatings that I am forces to administer to you...
> 
> My post are the flame to your moth.
> 
> 
> It's just that you never remember what happens to the moth that gets too close to the flame.
> 
> 
> This thread pulled you right in.....and knocked you right out!
> 
> 
> 
> Too many metaphors?
Click to expand...


Will you marry me? Do you have any money? Answer the second question first.


----------



## JWBooth

PoliticalChic said:


> Either you're a liar or Lincoln was.....
> I know who I choose.


History shows that the railroad lobbyist was, as for this other fellow, I grant him the benefit of the the doubt.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they would have loved little miss Saigon in the south during the civil war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sheeet! They wouldna let her in or live in the area..back then they was either hung or run outta town...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly the response one would expect from a low-life when I prove to be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A low life,  I worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty...Do you suppose I could buy back my introduction to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah.....free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it.
> Read more at Groucho Marx Quotes QuoteAuthors.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now be honest.....
> 
> Even with the merciless beatings that I am forces to administer to you...
> 
> My post are the flame to your moth.
> 
> 
> It's just that you never remember what happens to the moth that gets too close to the flame.
> 
> 
> This thread pulled you right in.....and knocked you right out!
> 
> 
> 
> Too many metaphors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you marry me? Do you have any money? Answer the second question first.
Click to expand...



A Groucho fan!

Well....that part is attractive.


----------



## guno

Unkotare said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oblama has not a damn thing to do with the reasons for the Civil war...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another example of democrats fucking up.
Click to expand...



Ahh Dripping Poo San!  You are true to form


----------



## PoliticalChic

As shown in this thread,* the South had a fundamentally misguided view* of the world, and their importance in same.



"King Cotton" did not force the British to aid the Confederacy.


Had they known this from the start, there would not have been a secession, no Civil War, and the cotton gin would have been the end of slavery.

A huge, mistake..*..the South, fundamentally misguided.*




As luck would have it....*today's NYTimes includes a suggestion that the same is true of Barack Obama.*

"To Mr. Obama’s critics, the disparity between the president’s previous statements and *today’s reality reflects not simply poorly chosen words but a fundamentally misguided view of the world.* Rather than clearly see the persistent dangers as the United States approaches the 13th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, they said, Mr. Obama perpetually imagines a world as he wishes it were."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/u...urances-have-come-back-to-haunt-him.html?_r=0





I had so much fun today beatin' up on the Leftists.....but,* just one more kick *in the pants:

Even greater significance is the fundamental mistake which lies at the heart of every totalitarian view, those political doctrines which see an omnipotent central government a the savior of mankind....
...communism, socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism,....

The view that some 'correct' form of government can change human nature.....and produce Utopia here on earth.


----------



## Impenitent

PoliticalChic said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> No, *the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.*
> 
> 
> 1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> 
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,* they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "The*Union blockade*in theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
> Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> a. "In January, 1861, _De Bow’s Review_contained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of *blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets *of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
> Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?
> 
> So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?
> 
> a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that *Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States.* In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was *the issue of the African slave trade.* He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."
> 
> Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord *Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. *Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
> *"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?*
> *The answer is in the section above.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?"
> 
> What...are you illiterate....or as dumb as Chief Lying Moron????
Click to expand...

Here's how  Mississippi's secession resolution started.  The rest of the South's is similar.  What do you think was on their minds?

"A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
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."


----------



## Moonglow

> Had they known this from the start, there would not have been a secession, no Civil War, and the cotton gin would have been the end of slavery.











> Although there was some hope immediately after the Revolution that the ideals of independence and equality would extend to the black American population, this hope died with the invention of the cotton gin in 1793. With the gin (short for engine), raw cotton could be quickly cleaned; Suddenly cotton became a profitable crop, transforming the southern economy and changing the dynamics of slavery. The first federal census of 1790 counted 697,897 slaves; by 1810, there were 1.2 million slaves, a 70 percent increase.
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]



Africans in America Part 3 Narrative Growth and Entrenchment of Slavery


----------



## PoliticalChic

Impenitent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> No, *the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.*
> 
> 
> 1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> 
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,* they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "The*Union blockade*in theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
> Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> a. "In January, 1861, _De Bow’s Review_contained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of *blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets *of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
> Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?
> 
> So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?
> 
> a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that *Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States.* In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was *the issue of the African slave trade.* He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."
> 
> Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord *Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. *Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
> *"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?*
> *The answer is in the section above.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?"
> 
> What...are you illiterate....or as dumb as Chief Lying Moron????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's how  Mississippi's secession resolution started.  The rest of the South's is similar.  What do you think was on their minds?
> 
> "A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
> 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."
Click to expand...



 Read post #62, then tell me the name of whoever was going to outlaw slavery.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you can't even discuss history without infusing your contempt for the current president, which is most disingenuous to your premise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...you can't even discuss history without....blah blah blah..."
> 
> What an excellent time for a teachable moment.
> 
> As you Liberals are limited in education, you may not know of the American philosopher George Santayana, who wrote (in _The Life of Reason_, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
> 
> 
> So we have you, and (most merciful) Barack Obama who failed to understand the provenance of the Civil War.....and cause woe as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To put it another way....*.why do you suppose those of us with an education study the past at all?*??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well obviously to lie about the past, since your "education" is obviously very limited.
> 
> Another quote from Santayana that the better educated are aware of:
> "History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there."
> 
> And *a better quote from the author you love most to lie about.*
> 
> If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.
> George Bernard Shaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know what I love about the dunces who are so infuriated about my incontestable OPs.....
> 
> ....they pour out all sorts of vituperation about me....
> 
> ....not realizing that I am my favorite subject!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey...still sporting a quote from the socialist who supported genocide*....great!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I have your lies down pat before you even spew them?
> Why yes, yes I do.
> 
> As you well know, the SHAVIAN eugenics you call genocide, an honest person calls women choosing who they mate with. But that is just your lack of education showing.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Same lie you always post with the same lying YouTube video where he satirizes eugenicists and the dishonest liars who made the video ignore the satire.
Can't you come up with any new lies????


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you can't even discuss history without infusing your contempt for the current president, which is most disingenuous to your premise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...you can't even discuss history without....blah blah blah..."
> 
> What an excellent time for a teachable moment.
> 
> As you Liberals are limited in education, you may not know of the American philosopher George Santayana, who wrote (in _The Life of Reason_, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
> 
> 
> So we have you, and (most merciful) Barack Obama who failed to understand the provenance of the Civil War.....and cause woe as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To put it another way....*.why do you suppose those of us with an education study the past at all?*??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well obviously to lie about the past, since your "education" is obviously very limited.
> 
> Another quote from Santayana that the better educated are aware of:
> "History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there."
> 
> And *a better quote from the author you love most to lie about.*
> 
> If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.
> George Bernard Shaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know what I love about the dunces who are so infuriated about my incontestable OPs.....
> 
> ....they pour out all sorts of vituperation about me....
> 
> ....not realizing that I am my favorite subject!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey...still sporting a quote from the socialist who supported genocide*....great!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I have your lies down pat before you even spew them?
> Why yes, yes I do.
> 
> As you well know, the SHAVIAN eugenics you call genocide, an honest person calls women choosing who they mate with. But that is just your lack of education showing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same lie you always post with the same lying YouTube video where he satirizes eugenicists and the dishonest liars who made the video ignore the satire.
> Can't you come up with any new lies????
Click to expand...






What sort of imbecile hears the words out of Shaw's own mouth, and continues to deny same?

Raise your paw.


----------



## Impenitent

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they would have loved little miss Saigon in the south during the civil war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sheeet! They wouldna let her in or live in the area..back then they was either hung or run outta town...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly the response one would expect from a low-life when I prove to be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A low life,  I worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty...Do you suppose I could buy back my introduction to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah.....free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it.
> Read more at Groucho Marx Quotes QuoteAuthors.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now be honest.....
> 
> Even with the merciless beatings that I am forces to administer to you...
> 
> My post are the flame to your moth.
> 
> 
> It's just that you never remember what happens to the moth that gets too close to the flame.
> 
> 
> This thread pulled you right in.....and knocked you right out!
> 
> 
> 
> Too many metaphors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you marry me? Do you have any money? Answer the second question first.
Click to expand...

In his failing last years, Groucho had a relationship with a mentally unstable, but controlling, younger woman.

Though neither you, nor PC should infer anything from that.


----------



## Moonglow

Impenitent said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they would have loved little miss Saigon in the south during the civil war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sheeet! They wouldna let her in or live in the area..back then they was either hung or run outta town...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly the response one would expect from a low-life when I prove to be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A low life,  I worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty...Do you suppose I could buy back my introduction to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah.....free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it.
> Read more at Groucho Marx Quotes QuoteAuthors.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now be honest.....
> 
> Even with the merciless beatings that I am forces to administer to you...
> 
> My post are the flame to your moth.
> 
> 
> It's just that you never remember what happens to the moth that gets too close to the flame.
> 
> 
> This thread pulled you right in.....and knocked you right out!
> 
> 
> 
> Too many metaphors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you marry me? Do you have any money? Answer the second question first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In his failing last years, Groucho had a relationship with a mentally unstable, but controlling, younger woman.
> 
> Though neither you, nor PC should infer anything from that.
Click to expand...

I followed Groucho and we shared the same wife...


----------



## Statistikhengst

PoliticalChic said:


> As soon as you know you're lying, your language becomes vulgar.
> 
> That sound....me laughing at you.



Tsk, tsk....

actually, it's easy to get vulgar with you. Your neanderthal beauty brings out the beast in men.


----------



## Toro

Impenitent said:


> Here's how  Mississippi's secession resolution started.  The rest of the South's is similar.  What do you think was on their minds?
> 
> "A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
> 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."



Exactly.

There is revisionist movement amongst the far right to weave a narrative of the evil, intrusive Federal government which conveniently fits their ideological worldview, to the point of whitewashing an institutional abomination that was one of the greatest enemies of individual liberty in the name of collectivist state power.

Their lack of self-awareness over this irony is amazing.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toro said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how  Mississippi's secession resolution started.  The rest of the South's is similar.  What do you think was on their minds?
> 
> "A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
> 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."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> There is revisionist movement amongst the far right to weave a narrative of the evil, intrusive Federal government which conveniently fits their ideological worldview, to the point of whitewashing an institutional abomination that was one of the greatest enemies of individual liberty in the name of collectivist state power.
> 
> Their lack of self-awareness over this irony is amazing.
Click to expand...




Well....would you mind revealing the name of the individual who was about to outlaw slavery in the Southern states?

So that you don't embarrass yourself further, I suggest you read post #62 before you make the attempt.


Or....you can revise your post.


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently today it's PoliticalChic's turn to make Econchick look smart by comparison.  I hope EC's turn is equally entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are both hangin' with Albert Einstein's ghost letting him know where he went wrong on the "Theory" of relativity.
> 
> Like anyone should take a theory, seriously..duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only educated folks.
> 
> Kinda leaves you out, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know when you cut and paste other people's lies that's lying too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What???
> 
> You haven't received enough of a beating?
> 
> OOOOOOOK....
> 
> 
> So...*resolved: slavery was not the precipitation for secession.*
> 
> Rather, it was the widespread *belief in the South that Britain would have to recognize, and support them, because of how heavily British industry was invested in cotton.*
> 
> 
> 
> And this is *one of those mistakes* that often propel human events....somewhat like the *election of Barack Obama.*
> 
> 
> 
> 8. So....it turned out Britain was not as concerned about the impact on the cotton trade as the South thought!
> 
> a. Lord Palmerston: *Britain would refuse to recognize Southern sovereignty*.
> 
> b. London Times: "....Southern rights are now more clearly understood,  and in any case since war, though greatly to be regretted, was now at hand, it was England's business to *keep strictly out of it and to maintain neutrality."*
> May 9, 1861
> 
> 
> 
> c. On May 14th, Queen Victoria issued Britain's "*Proclamation of Neutrality*." The _proclamation _was avidly reported in the American press, with _Harper's Weekly _summarizing it in its edition of June 8.
> 
> "THE proclamation of the Queen has been issued by the Privy Council at Whitehall, warning all British subjects from* interfering, at their peril, with either party in the American conflict,* or giving aid and comfort in any way, by personal service and supplying munitions of war, to either party. The proclamation announces it as the intention of the British Government to preserve the strictest neutrality in the contest between the Government of the United States and the Government of those States calling themselves the Confederate States of America."
> Civil War News
> 
> 
> 
> Remember the Senator from South Carolina..."....*we could bring the whole world to our feet."*
> Rings like “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."
> Two dopes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9. Harper's was pro-union, and didn't let England's refusal to endorse the Confederacy go unnoticed; they really rubbed it in.
> " The whole rebellion has rested upon two points : first, that the North was cowardly and divided, and then that England, which must have cotton, would open the Southern ports.
> 
> But the traitors forgot how much the one depended upon the other. If England had seen the Slave States united in the movement, and the Free States hesitating and divided, she would doubtless have taken some more decided action. But she has seen just in time, in the Free States, an enthusiastic unanimity unparalleled in history—all the vast resources of a great, intelligent, skillful, industrious, and wealthy people, she has seen heaped and lavished in the measures of defense against this conspiracy. "
> Harper's Weekly, June 8, 1861
> 
> 
> 
> Get that:  *"... rebellion has rested upon two points..."*
> 
> Slavery was not one of 'em!
> 
> Just *one more proof of my premise!*
> 
> 
> So, it was not slavery, but a misjudgment about their power to intimidate Britain, pushed the South down a path that it would, eventually, regret.
> 
> *Kinda like the last presidential election......*
Click to expand...


Seek help.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Statistikhengst said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you know you're lying, your language becomes vulgar.
> 
> That sound....me laughing at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tsk, tsk....
> 
> actually, it's easy to get vulgar with you. Your neanderthal beauty brings out the beast in men.
Click to expand...



Vulgarity aside, your several posts can be boiled down to "is not, is not."

I've provided links and sources to prove everything I've claimed.
You've provided proof that you are a fool.


We've both, it seems, worked up to our individual ability.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently today it's PoliticalChic's turn to make Econchick look smart by comparison.  I hope EC's turn is equally entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are both hangin' with Albert Einstein's ghost letting him know where he went wrong on the "Theory" of relativity.
> 
> Like anyone should take a theory, seriously..duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only educated folks.
> 
> Kinda leaves you out, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know when you cut and paste other people's lies that's lying too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What???
> 
> You haven't received enough of a beating?
> 
> OOOOOOOK....
> 
> 
> So...*resolved: slavery was not the precipitation for secession.*
> 
> Rather, it was the widespread *belief in the South that Britain would have to recognize, and support them, because of how heavily British industry was invested in cotton.*
> 
> 
> 
> And this is *one of those mistakes* that often propel human events....somewhat like the *election of Barack Obama.*
> 
> 
> 
> 8. So....it turned out Britain was not as concerned about the impact on the cotton trade as the South thought!
> 
> a. Lord Palmerston: *Britain would refuse to recognize Southern sovereignty*.
> 
> b. London Times: "....Southern rights are now more clearly understood,  and in any case since war, though greatly to be regretted, was now at hand, it was England's business to *keep strictly out of it and to maintain neutrality."*
> May 9, 1861
> 
> 
> 
> c. On May 14th, Queen Victoria issued Britain's "*Proclamation of Neutrality*." The _proclamation _was avidly reported in the American press, with _Harper's Weekly _summarizing it in its edition of June 8.
> 
> "THE proclamation of the Queen has been issued by the Privy Council at Whitehall, warning all British subjects from* interfering, at their peril, with either party in the American conflict,* or giving aid and comfort in any way, by personal service and supplying munitions of war, to either party. The proclamation announces it as the intention of the British Government to preserve the strictest neutrality in the contest between the Government of the United States and the Government of those States calling themselves the Confederate States of America."
> Civil War News
> 
> 
> 
> Remember the Senator from South Carolina..."....*we could bring the whole world to our feet."*
> Rings like “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."
> Two dopes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9. Harper's was pro-union, and didn't let England's refusal to endorse the Confederacy go unnoticed; they really rubbed it in.
> " The whole rebellion has rested upon two points : first, that the North was cowardly and divided, and then that England, which must have cotton, would open the Southern ports.
> 
> But the traitors forgot how much the one depended upon the other. If England had seen the Slave States united in the movement, and the Free States hesitating and divided, she would doubtless have taken some more decided action. But she has seen just in time, in the Free States, an enthusiastic unanimity unparalleled in history—all the vast resources of a great, intelligent, skillful, industrious, and wealthy people, she has seen heaped and lavished in the measures of defense against this conspiracy. "
> Harper's Weekly, June 8, 1861
> 
> 
> 
> Get that:  *"... rebellion has rested upon two points..."*
> 
> Slavery was not one of 'em!
> 
> Just *one more proof of my premise!*
> 
> 
> So, it was not slavery, but a misjudgment about their power to intimidate Britain, pushed the South down a path that it would, eventually, regret.
> 
> *Kinda like the last presidential election......*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seek help.
Click to expand...




Every time I enter the voting booth.

Unfortunately, some morons elect failures like Obama.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they would have loved little miss Saigon in the south during the civil war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sheeet! They wouldna let her in or live in the area..back then they was either hung or run outta town...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly the response one would expect from a low-life when I prove to be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A low life,  I worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty...Do you suppose I could buy back my introduction to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah.....free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it.
> Read more at Groucho Marx Quotes QuoteAuthors.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now be honest.....
> 
> Even with the merciless beatings that I am forces to administer to you...
> 
> My post are the flame to your moth.
> 
> 
> It's just that you never remember what happens to the moth that gets too close to the flame.
> 
> 
> This thread pulled you right in.....and knocked you right out!
> 
> 
> 
> Too many metaphors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you marry me? Do you have any money? Answer the second question first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In his failing last years, Groucho had a relationship with a mentally unstable, but controlling, younger woman.
> 
> Though neither you, nor PC should infer anything from that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I followed Groucho and we shared the same wife...
Click to expand...


----------



## Toro

The slavery apologists are statists in drag, or ignorant, one of the two.  Their pathological hatred of the Federal government leads them to embrace the ideology that is as anathema to individual liberty as communism.  They revise history, or take it out of context, to suit their narrative.

"States rights" is "state," the power of the collective to crush individual liberty.  That's the essence of the Confederacy, and their modern-day apologists.

Thank God the Confederates were crushed in the Civil War.  Had they succeeded, they would have become a pariah state, a North American South Africa, only more backwards.  Shut out of the global economy, they would have clung to an agrarian economy, and would never have industrialized, until - like South Africa - they would have eventually been shamed into abandoning their anachronistic, statist, anti-libertarian ideology.  Poor, and backwards, Southerners would be like poor Mexicans today, illegally entering the United States for a better life.


----------



## NYcarbineer

I think a running tally of PolitialChic's insanity is in order.

Yesterday, or whenever, it was Roosevelt prolonged WWII by 2 years.  Today it's Slavery had nothing to do with the secession of the Confederate states.

Stay tuned for even more delightful dementia...


----------



## bodecea

NYcarbineer said:


> I think a running tally of PolitialChic's insanity is in order.
> 
> Yesterday, or whenever, it was Roosevelt prolonged WWII by 2 years.  Today it's Slavery had nothing to do with the secession of the Confederate states.
> 
> Stay tuned for even more delightful dementia...


It's part and parcel of "The Lost Cause".  After the war was over, the South had to come up with a new theme as to what the war was about.....since fighting FOR slavery was not really a pleasant thing to be remembered for.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bodecea said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a running tally of PolitialChic's insanity is in order.
> 
> Yesterday, or whenever, it was Roosevelt prolonged WWII by 2 years.  Today it's Slavery had nothing to do with the secession of the Confederate states.
> 
> Stay tuned for even more delightful dementia...
> 
> 
> 
> It's part and parcel of "The Lost Cause".  After the war was over, the South had to come up with a new theme as to what the war was about.....since fighting FOR slavery was not really a pleasant thing to be remembered for.
Click to expand...


The weird thing about this lunacy of PC is that her premise isn't even an argument against slavery as the cause of the war,

and she doesn't even realize it.  Her cockeyed argument is that the South felt confident that they could secede, and thus preserve the institution of slavery,

because they expected help from Great Britain.


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you can't even discuss history without infusing your contempt for the current president, which is most disingenuous to your premise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...you can't even discuss history without....blah blah blah..."
> 
> What an excellent time for a teachable moment.
> 
> As you Liberals are limited in education, you may not know of the American philosopher George Santayana, who wrote (in _The Life of Reason_, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
> 
> 
> So we have you, and (most merciful) Barack Obama who failed to understand the provenance of the Civil War.....and cause woe as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To put it another way....*.why do you suppose those of us with an education study the past at all?*??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well obviously to lie about the past, since your "education" is obviously very limited.
> 
> Another quote from Santayana that the better educated are aware of:
> "History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there."
> 
> And *a better quote from the author you love most to lie about.*
> 
> If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.
> George Bernard Shaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know what I love about the dunces who are so infuriated about my incontestable OPs.....
> 
> ....they pour out all sorts of vituperation about me....
> 
> ....not realizing that I am my favorite subject!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey...still sporting a quote from the socialist who supported genocide*....great!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I have your lies down pat before you even spew them?
> Why yes, yes I do.
> 
> As you well know, the SHAVIAN eugenics you call genocide, an honest person calls women choosing who they mate with. But that is just your lack of education showing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same lie you always post with the same lying YouTube video where he satirizes eugenicists and the dishonest liars who made the video ignore the satire.
> Can't you come up with any new lies????
Click to expand...

Again, only the grossly uneducated fall for the lie in your video. The educated know that Shaw is satirizing eugenicists, and this has been pointed out to you every time you posted the same lie, proving that you are too stupid to learn.

Shaw supported SHAVIAN eugenics in which women create the "Superman" by who they choose to mate with. In your edited video Shaw is mocking all NON-SHAVIAN eugenics, which is the edited part all premeditated liars use, exposing their ignorance and lack of higher education having never read Shaw's play "Man And Superman." Only those ignorant of what is in that play are stupid enough to be deceived by your dishonestly edited video.

Here is a taste of your own medicine:

*"America sucks" - Rush Limbaugh
*
"We are racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes. We discriminate against people who worship differently than we do, have skin color different from ours, and we have not always behaved properly in the world.  And we torture.*" - Rush Limbaugh*


----------



## rdean

*Why Did The South Secede?*

Because they were as delusional as right wingernuts are today.


----------



## edthecynic

Hell even MessiahRushie says Pompous Cheek is full of shit!

October 12, 2009
RUSH:   So to set the record... No, not to set it straight. To confirm the record, I don't know how many times on this program I have gotten into arguments over the last 21 years with people when *I have asserted that the Civil War primarily was about slavery.*  People have called me, *"No, it wasn't! It was about states' rights. It was about this," and I said, "Don't be silly.*  Abraham Lincoln knew what the union could not survive if one man was allowed to own another.


----------



## longly

JakeStarkey said:


> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.


 

Fortunately ISIS does not know our history or they could use it against us. We are far from a united country; you guys are a good example of that. If they worked at it they could divide us even more, but they would have to place operators over here  in order to do it.


One of the biggest causes of the civil war was the Kansas Missouri border war. For almost ten years Southerners either read or heard about the murders of Southerners in Missouri. By the time the war started, most Southerners rich and poor felt they had no other choice than fight; an idea that most wealthy slave owner were not eager discourage.


----------



## Statistikhengst

NYcarbineer said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a running tally of PolitialChic's insanity is in order.
> 
> Yesterday, or whenever, it was Roosevelt prolonged WWII by 2 years.  Today it's Slavery had nothing to do with the secession of the Confederate states.
> 
> Stay tuned for even more delightful dementia...
> 
> 
> 
> It's part and parcel of "The Lost Cause".  After the war was over, the South had to come up with a new theme as to what the war was about.....since fighting FOR slavery was not really a pleasant thing to be remembered for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The weird thing about this lunacy of PC is that her premise isn't even an argument against slavery as the cause of the war,
> 
> and she doesn't even realize it.  Her cockeyed argument is that the South felt confident that they could secede, and thus preserve the institution of slavery,
> 
> because they expected help from Great Britain.
Click to expand...



Well, when people jump off their meds, this kind of stuff happens. Poor PoliticalSchtick.

Not to mention the *huge* missing link in her OP, namely that the cotton industry in the South was doomed to fail were the slaves to be freed, BECAUSE the White plantation owners would then have to pay workers to do work that the slaves were doing for free, of course, because they were being held against their will. And since cotton picking required oodles of workers, with paid-workers, it was just not doable with the technology of that day. This is also the reason why vast swaths of the South remained dirt poor for generations after the end of our Civil War.

So, sure, it was a financial issue, but the lynchpin to all of this was indeed slavery.

Were this not the case, then there would have been no need for the Missouri Compromise of 1980, one of the more important moments in our history, because it slowed the onset of the war and also vastly delayed the admission of new years quite severely.  It was a "balance of power" act that at the end, caused each side of the Mason-Dixon line to be even more bitter.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toro said:


> The slavery apologists are statists in drag, or ignorant, one of the two.  Their pathological hatred of the Federal government leads them to embrace the ideology that is as anathema to individual liberty as communism.  They revise history, or take it out of context, to suit their narrative.
> 
> "States rights" is "state," the power of the collective to crush individual liberty.  That's the essence of the Confederacy, and their modern-day apologists.
> 
> Thank God the Confederates were crushed in the Civil War.  Had they succeeded, they would have become a pariah state, a North American South Africa, only more backwards.  Shut out of the global economy, they would have clung to an agrarian economy, and would never have industrialized, until - like South Africa - they would have eventually been shamed into abandoning their anachronistic, statist, anti-libertarian ideology.  Poor, and backwards, Southerners would be like poor Mexicans today, illegally entering the United States for a better life.






The thread showed that the mistaken belief that they could force Britain to support them due to cotton was the factor that drove secession.

Not a fear of slavery being outlawed.

I asked you if you had the name of anyone who was about to outlaw slavery.

You don't.

Your post is simply obfuscation.


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you can't even discuss history without infusing your contempt for the current president, which is most disingenuous to your premise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...you can't even discuss history without....blah blah blah..."
> 
> What an excellent time for a teachable moment.
> 
> As you Liberals are limited in education, you may not know of the American philosopher George Santayana, who wrote (in _The Life of Reason_, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
> 
> 
> So we have you, and (most merciful) Barack Obama who failed to understand the provenance of the Civil War.....and cause woe as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To put it another way....*.why do you suppose those of us with an education study the past at all?*??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well obviously to lie about the past, since your "education" is obviously very limited.
> 
> Another quote from Santayana that the better educated are aware of:
> "History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there."
> 
> And *a better quote from the author you love most to lie about.*
> 
> If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.
> George Bernard Shaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know what I love about the dunces who are so infuriated about my incontestable OPs.....
> 
> ....they pour out all sorts of vituperation about me....
> 
> ....not realizing that I am my favorite subject!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey...still sporting a quote from the socialist who supported genocide*....great!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I have your lies down pat before you even spew them?
> Why yes, yes I do.
> 
> As you well know, the SHAVIAN eugenics you call genocide, an honest person calls women choosing who they mate with. But that is just your lack of education showing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same lie you always post with the same lying YouTube video where he satirizes eugenicists and the dishonest liars who made the video ignore the satire.
> Can't you come up with any new lies????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, only the grossly uneducated fall for the lie in your video. The educated know that Shaw is satirizing eugenicists, and this has been pointed out to you every time you posted the same lie, proving that you are too stupid to learn.
> 
> Shaw supported SHAVIAN eugenics in which women create the "Superman" by who they choose to mate with. In your edited video Shaw is mocking all NON-SHAVIAN eugenics, which is the edited part all premeditated liars use, exposing their ignorance and lack of higher education having never read Shaw's play "Man And Superman." Only those ignorant of what is in that play are stupid enough to be deceived by your dishonestly edited video.
> 
> Here is a taste of your own medicine:
> 
> *"America sucks" - Rush Limbaugh
> *
> "We are racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes. We discriminate against people who worship differently than we do, have skin color different from ours, and we have not always behaved properly in the world.  And we torture.*" - Rush Limbaugh*
Click to expand...




You imbecile....he spoke without  a teleprompters.


----------



## Moonglow

Maybe someone lip-synced with him...


----------



## G.T.

No one needs a name of anyone who was *about* to outlaw slavery, they just need the secessionists' own words of their motives - like Carb posted and you ignored (cough) because it destroys your retarded premise in the South's *own words*.

But you're probably right, they didn't understand their own motivation as well as YOU DO.


----------



## Rotagilla

NYcarbineer said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a running tally of PolitialChic's insanity is in order.
> 
> Yesterday, or whenever, it was Roosevelt prolonged WWII by 2 years.  Today it's Slavery had nothing to do with the secession of the Confederate states.
> 
> Stay tuned for even more delightful dementia...
> 
> 
> 
> It's part and parcel of "The Lost Cause".  After the war was over, the South had to come up with a new theme as to what the war was about.....since fighting FOR slavery was not really a pleasant thing to be remembered for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The weird thing about this lunacy of PC is that her premise isn't even an argument against slavery as the cause of the war,
> 
> and she doesn't even realize it.  Her cockeyed argument is that the South felt confident that they could secede, and thus preserve the institution of slavery,
> 
> because they expected help from Great Britain.
Click to expand...


The the war of northern aggression wasn't fought to preserve... nor abolish ....slavery.

Lincoln couldn't have cared less about the negroes either way.  He said so himself.


----------



## G.T.

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....be fair!
> 
> It's my job to make you look like a fool......stop doing my job!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the opening line of the Mississippi secession declaration:
> 
> 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."
> 
> ...and to the specifics:
> 
> "That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the **Constitution**, and was manifested in the well-known **Ordinance of 1787**, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> 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.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
> 
> It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
> 
> It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
> 
> It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
> 
> It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
> 
> It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
> 
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it."*
> 
> Now go ahead and make your argument that secession was not about the fear of the abolishment of the institution of slavery.
> 
> link Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
Click to expand...




This is where the thread ended.


----------



## Rotagilla

_When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_

Declaration of Independence
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. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.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 many of the territory as they inhabit." 


Abraham Lincoln 
Jan 12, 1848*_


----------



## PoliticalChic

G.T. said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....be fair!
> 
> It's my job to make you look like a fool......stop doing my job!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the opening line of the Mississippi secession declaration:
> 
> 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."
> 
> ...and to the specifics:
> 
> "That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the **Constitution**, and was manifested in the well-known **Ordinance of 1787**, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> 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.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
> 
> It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
> 
> It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
> 
> It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
> 
> It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
> 
> It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
> 
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it."*
> 
> Now go ahead and make your argument that secession was not about the fear of the abolishment of the institution of slavery.
> 
> link Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where the thread ended.
Click to expand...






Any argument to which you agree must be a loser.

I documented the South claiming that the entire world would knuckle under to the power of "King Cotton."

I provide the speech by the Senator from South Carolina.

I gave Abraham Lincoln's own words, post #62, stating that slavery was safe in those states that wanted it.

I have proven that is was Southern misjudgment about their own importance that caused secession, not fears of slavery being outlawed.


So....neither facts nor logic support your position.




*But here is what does*: your irritation over how frequently I eat your lunch in these disagreements.
And the reason for that is that my posts are based on something you and the other mental midgets cannot understand: knowledge.

*scientia sit potentia*


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Abraham Lincoln and I have shown, the proximate* reason for secession was not slavery.*
> Seems to have silenced the peanut gallery.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Well, if the issue wasn't about slavery, *what was it about???*
> 
> This, from the Op-
> " You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,*they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them."*
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some *facts that you make it clear:*
> 
> 
> a. 75% of the world's cotton, and up to 84% of Britain's, came from the South's cotton fields. The Cotton Economy in the South FREE The Cotton Economy in the South information Encyclopedia.com Find The Cotton Economy in the South research
> 
> b. In Britain's industrial heartland, where all but 500 of the country's 2,650 cotton factories, employing 440 000 people, were located, and almost all of the cotton came from the Southern United States.  A history of the Lancashire cotton mills
> 
> *c. "In 1861 the London Times estimated that one fifth of the British population was dependent, directly or indirectly, on the success of the cotton districts." "Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.72*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *6. "*The _Trent _Affairwas an international diplomatic incident that occurred during the American Civil War. On November 8, 1861, the USS _San Jacinto_, commanded by Union Captain Charles Wilkes, intercepted the British mail packet RMS_Trent_ and removed, as contraband of war, two Confederate diplomats, James Mason and John Slidell. *The envoys were bound for Great Britain and France to press the Confederacy's case for diplomatic recognition and financial support for the Confederacy in the name of **King Cotton**." *
> *Trent Affair - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What and where is your conclusion?
> 
> Are you saying that the Union went to war with the Confederacy because the Union was afraid of the success of the South's cotton exports?
> 
> I think the most significant reason the US Civil War occurred was slavery, most people think its slavery, and most experts do as well because that is the cause the evidence most strongly supports.
> 
> But neo-Confederates, conservative revisionists, and those willing to make fools of themselves just to make a name for themselves can try to spin the causes of the Civil War into something anti-progressive.  We'll all enjoy the gymnastics required for the attempt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It never ceases to amaze, how few posters can read.
> 
> The title to which you were ostensibly addressing your post was
> *"Why Did The South Secede?"*
Click to expand...


Is your point that there was only ONE reason?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rotagilla said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a running tally of PolitialChic's insanity is in order.
> 
> Yesterday, or whenever, it was Roosevelt prolonged WWII by 2 years.  Today it's Slavery had nothing to do with the secession of the Confederate states.
> 
> Stay tuned for even more delightful dementia...
> 
> 
> 
> It's part and parcel of "The Lost Cause".  After the war was over, the South had to come up with a new theme as to what the war was about.....since fighting FOR slavery was not really a pleasant thing to be remembered for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The weird thing about this lunacy of PC is that her premise isn't even an argument against slavery as the cause of the war,
> 
> and she doesn't even realize it.  Her cockeyed argument is that the South felt confident that they could secede, and thus preserve the institution of slavery,
> 
> because they expected help from Great Britain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The the war of northern aggression wasn't fought to preserve... nor abolish ....slavery.
> 
> Lincoln couldn't have cared less about the negroes either way.  He said so himself.
Click to expand...





Disagree.

Lincoln hated slavery. 

But he felt that maintaining the Union was, at that moment, the most important thing he could do.

You can see that in the Emancipation Proclamation, where he threatened to free slaves in the states that seceded.


 Lincoln's Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:

"*I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so,* and I have no inclination to do so. 
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that* I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them;* and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

'Resolved', That the maintenance *inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions *according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. I now reiterate these sentiments,..." 
Abraham Lincoln Inaugural Address


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Abraham Lincoln and I have shown, the proximate* reason for secession was not slavery.*
> Seems to have silenced the peanut gallery.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Well, if the issue wasn't about slavery, *what was it about???*
> 
> This, from the Op-
> " You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,*they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them."*
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some *facts that you make it clear:*
> 
> 
> a. 75% of the world's cotton, and up to 84% of Britain's, came from the South's cotton fields. The Cotton Economy in the South FREE The Cotton Economy in the South information Encyclopedia.com Find The Cotton Economy in the South research
> 
> b. In Britain's industrial heartland, where all but 500 of the country's 2,650 cotton factories, employing 440 000 people, were located, and almost all of the cotton came from the Southern United States.  A history of the Lancashire cotton mills
> 
> *c. "In 1861 the London Times estimated that one fifth of the British population was dependent, directly or indirectly, on the success of the cotton districts." "Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.72*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *6. "*The _Trent _Affairwas an international diplomatic incident that occurred during the American Civil War. On November 8, 1861, the USS _San Jacinto_, commanded by Union Captain Charles Wilkes, intercepted the British mail packet RMS_Trent_ and removed, as contraband of war, two Confederate diplomats, James Mason and John Slidell. *The envoys were bound for Great Britain and France to press the Confederacy's case for diplomatic recognition and financial support for the Confederacy in the name of **King Cotton**." *
> *Trent Affair - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What and where is your conclusion?
> 
> Are you saying that the Union went to war with the Confederacy because the Union was afraid of the success of the South's cotton exports?
> 
> I think the most significant reason the US Civil War occurred was slavery, most people think its slavery, and most experts do as well because that is the cause the evidence most strongly supports.
> 
> But neo-Confederates, conservative revisionists, and those willing to make fools of themselves just to make a name for themselves can try to spin the causes of the Civil War into something anti-progressive.  We'll all enjoy the gymnastics required for the attempt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It never ceases to amaze, how few posters can read.
> 
> The title to which you were ostensibly addressing your post was
> *"Why Did The South Secede?"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your point that there was only ONE reason?
Click to expand...




My point, as always, is to reveal truth that government schools fail to.

Surprising that you haven't recognized that.


----------



## Rotagilla

PoliticalChic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....be fair!
> 
> It's my job to make you look like a fool......stop doing my job!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the opening line of the Mississippi secession declaration:
> 
> 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."
> 
> ...and to the specifics:
> 
> "That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the **Constitution**, and was manifested in the well-known **Ordinance of 1787**, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> 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.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
> 
> It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
> 
> It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
> 
> It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
> 
> It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
> 
> It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
> 
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it."*
> 
> Now go ahead and make your argument that secession was not about the fear of the abolishment of the institution of slavery.
> 
> link Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where the thread ended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any argument to which you agree must be a loser.
> 
> I documented the South claiming that the entire world would knuckle under to the power of "King Cotton."
> 
> I provide the speech by the Senator from South Carolina.
> 
> I gave Abraham Lincoln's own words, post #62, stating that slavery was safe in those states that wanted it.
> 
> I have proven that is was Southern misjudgment about their own importance that caused secession, not fears of slavery being outlawed.
> 
> 
> So....neither facts nor logic support your position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But here is what does*: your irritation over how frequently I eat your lunch in these disagreements.
> And the reason for that is that my posts are based on something you and the other mental midgets cannot understand: knowledge.
> 
> *scientia sit potentia*
Click to expand...



The south attempted to peacefully withdraw from the union.... like the Patriots attempted in 1776 and for the same reasons.
The north invaded what the people who lived there determined was a new, sovereign nation.....like the British did in 1776. 

The north decided it was better to crush freedom by force than to allow people the right of self determination.


----------



## Rotagilla

PoliticalChic said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a running tally of PolitialChic's insanity is in order.
> 
> Yesterday, or whenever, it was Roosevelt prolonged WWII by 2 years.  Today it's Slavery had nothing to do with the secession of the Confederate states.
> 
> Stay tuned for even more delightful dementia...
> 
> 
> 
> It's part and parcel of "The Lost Cause".  After the war was over, the South had to come up with a new theme as to what the war was about.....since fighting FOR slavery was not really a pleasant thing to be remembered for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The weird thing about this lunacy of PC is that her premise isn't even an argument against slavery as the cause of the war,
> 
> and she doesn't even realize it.  Her cockeyed argument is that the South felt confident that they could secede, and thus preserve the institution of slavery,
> 
> because they expected help from Great Britain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The the war of northern aggression wasn't fought to preserve... nor abolish ....slavery.
> 
> Lincoln couldn't have cared less about the negroes either way.  He said so himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree.
> 
> Lincoln hated slavery.
> 
> But he felt that maintaining the Union was, at that moment, the most important thing he could do.
> 
> You can see that in the Emancipation Proclamation, where he threatened to free slaves in the states that seceded.
> 
> 
> Lincoln's Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:
> 
> "*I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so,* and I have no inclination to do so.
> Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that* I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them;* and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
> 
> 'Resolved', That the maintenance *inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions *according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. I now reiterate these sentiments,..."
> Abraham Lincoln Inaugural Address
Click to expand...



If the war was about abolishing slavery, why did he wait so long to "emancipate" them?...and why only in "certain" areas?
He did it to purposely destabilize the south because he knew there would be roving bands of criminal negroes wreaking havoc in the south since many of the white men were off elsewhere fighting.

He could make all the "proclamations" he wanted but slavery wasn't illegal and he can't pick and choose which laws he would support .

Lincoln also believed in the declaration of independence where it says;
_
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_

Declaration of Independence
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. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.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 many of the territory as they inhabit." 


Abraham Lincoln 
Jan 12, 1848*_


----------



## rightwinger

rdean said:


> *Why Did The South Secede?*
> 
> Because they were as delusional as right wingernuts are today.


 
Thats about it

They had the same hatred of anyone who was not white, male and Christian


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rotagilla said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....be fair!
> 
> It's my job to make you look like a fool......stop doing my job!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the opening line of the Mississippi secession declaration:
> 
> 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."
> 
> ...and to the specifics:
> 
> "That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the **Constitution**, and was manifested in the well-known **Ordinance of 1787**, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> 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.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
> 
> It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
> 
> It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
> 
> It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
> 
> It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
> 
> It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
> 
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it."*
> 
> Now go ahead and make your argument that secession was not about the fear of the abolishment of the institution of slavery.
> 
> link Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where the thread ended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any argument to which you agree must be a loser.
> 
> I documented the South claiming that the entire world would knuckle under to the power of "King Cotton."
> 
> I provide the speech by the Senator from South Carolina.
> 
> I gave Abraham Lincoln's own words, post #62, stating that slavery was safe in those states that wanted it.
> 
> I have proven that is was Southern misjudgment about their own importance that caused secession, not fears of slavery being outlawed.
> 
> 
> So....neither facts nor logic support your position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But here is what does*: your irritation over how frequently I eat your lunch in these disagreements.
> And the reason for that is that my posts are based on something you and the other mental midgets cannot understand: knowledge.
> 
> *scientia sit potentia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The south attempted to peacefully withdraw from the union.... like the Patriots attempted in 1776 and for the same reasons.
> The north invaded what the people who lived there determined was a new, sovereign nation.....like the British did in 1776.
> 
> The north decided it was better to crush freedom by force than to allow people the right of self determination.
Click to expand...



You may see it that way....there is an argument to be made there.
But it wasn't a "peaceful withdrawl"....it was born of an act of war.

1. Major Robert Anderson and 85 men were stranded in Fort Sumter.

2. Surrounding him were hundreds of militiamen and coastal guns.

3. Lincoln refused to give the fort up, but the fort was running out of food: if he sent a supply convoy into Charleston Bay, he would be blamed for starting the war.....but how could he give in, and give up the fort?

4. William Seward tried to undermine Lincoln....telling Lincoln to give up the fort for 'goodwill.'

5. On April 5, Lincoln dispatched a fleet of supply ships with the proviso that was relayed to Jefferson Davis: the vessels would be unarmed, with the only cargo "food for hungry men."

6. Firing on the defenseless ships would have been an act of war by the Confederacy.

7. On Tuesday, April 9, Davis held a cabinet meeting, deciding on war. Three days later, and hours before the ships would arrive....the Southern forces attacked the fort.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rotagilla said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a running tally of PolitialChic's insanity is in order.
> 
> Yesterday, or whenever, it was Roosevelt prolonged WWII by 2 years.  Today it's Slavery had nothing to do with the secession of the Confederate states.
> 
> Stay tuned for even more delightful dementia...
> 
> 
> 
> It's part and parcel of "The Lost Cause".  After the war was over, the South had to come up with a new theme as to what the war was about.....since fighting FOR slavery was not really a pleasant thing to be remembered for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The weird thing about this lunacy of PC is that her premise isn't even an argument against slavery as the cause of the war,
> 
> and she doesn't even realize it.  Her cockeyed argument is that the South felt confident that they could secede, and thus preserve the institution of slavery,
> 
> because they expected help from Great Britain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The the war of northern aggression wasn't fought to preserve... nor abolish ....slavery.
> 
> Lincoln couldn't have cared less about the negroes either way.  He said so himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree.
> 
> Lincoln hated slavery.
> 
> But he felt that maintaining the Union was, at that moment, the most important thing he could do.
> 
> You can see that in the Emancipation Proclamation, where he threatened to free slaves in the states that seceded.
> 
> 
> Lincoln's Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:
> 
> "*I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so,* and I have no inclination to do so.
> Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that* I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them;* and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
> 
> 'Resolved', That the maintenance *inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions *according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. I now reiterate these sentiments,..."
> Abraham Lincoln Inaugural Address
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the war was about abolishing slavery, why did he wait so long to "emancipate" them?...and why only in "certain" areas?
> He did it to purposely destabilize the south because he knew there would be roving bands of criminal negroes wreaking havoc in the south since many of the white men were off elsewhere fighting.
> 
> He could make all the "proclamations" he wanted but slavery wasn't illegal and he can't pick and choose which laws he would support .
> 
> Lincoln also believed in the declaration of independence where it says;
> _
> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_
> 
> Declaration of Independence
> 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. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.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 many of the territory as they inhabit."
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Jan 12, 1848*_
Click to expand...




"If the war was about abolishing slavery, why did he wait so long to "emancipate" them?...and why only in "certain" areas?"

I said no such thing.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Did The South Secede?*
> 
> Because they were as delusional as right wingernuts are today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats about it
> 
> They had the same hatred of anyone who was not white, male and Christian
Click to expand...




Slanderous lies.

To be expected from Leftists/


----------



## NoNukes

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> So...*resolved: slavery was not the precipitation for secession.*
> *......*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's been proven false.  Your point, such as it was, about Great Britain may or may not have merit, but it is totally unconnected to the REASON for secession.
Click to expand...


She is assuming that there was only ONE reasons for secession. Slavery was actually be encompassed in her reason.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> So...*resolved: slavery was not the precipitation for secession.*
> *......*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's been proven false.  Your point, such as it was, about Great Britain may or may not have merit, but it is totally unconnected to the REASON for secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is assuming that there was only ONE reasons for secession. Slavery was actually be encompassed in her reason.
Click to expand...




Interesting how you choose to tell what I believe.
You're not smart enough to do that.


----------



## rightwinger

Rotagilla said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....be fair!
> 
> It's my job to make you look like a fool......stop doing my job!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the opening line of the Mississippi secession declaration:
> 
> 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."
> 
> ...and to the specifics:
> 
> "That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the **Constitution**, and was manifested in the well-known **Ordinance of 1787**, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> 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.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
> 
> It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
> 
> It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
> 
> It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
> 
> It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
> 
> It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
> 
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it."*
> 
> Now go ahead and make your argument that secession was not about the fear of the abolishment of the institution of slavery.
> 
> link Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where the thread ended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any argument to which you agree must be a loser.
> 
> I documented the South claiming that the entire world would knuckle under to the power of "King Cotton."
> 
> I provide the speech by the Senator from South Carolina.
> 
> I gave Abraham Lincoln's own words, post #62, stating that slavery was safe in those states that wanted it.
> 
> I have proven that is was Southern misjudgment about their own importance that caused secession, not fears of slavery being outlawed.
> 
> 
> So....neither facts nor logic support your position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But here is what does*: your irritation over how frequently I eat your lunch in these disagreements.
> And the reason for that is that my posts are based on something you and the other mental midgets cannot understand: knowledge.
> 
> *scientia sit potentia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The south attempted to peacefully withdraw from the union.... like the Patriots attempted in 1776 and for the same reasons.
> The north invaded what the people who lived there determined was a new, sovereign nation.....like the British did in 1776.
> 
> The north decided it was better to crush freedom by force than to allow people the right of self determination.
Click to expand...

 
The south formed a nation of traitors dedicated to the proposition that owning other human beings was an essential right


----------



## bodecea

PoliticalChic said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a running tally of PolitialChic's insanity is in order.
> 
> Yesterday, or whenever, it was Roosevelt prolonged WWII by 2 years.  Today it's Slavery had nothing to do with the secession of the Confederate states.
> 
> Stay tuned for even more delightful dementia...
> 
> 
> 
> It's part and parcel of "The Lost Cause".  After the war was over, the South had to come up with a new theme as to what the war was about.....since fighting FOR slavery was not really a pleasant thing to be remembered for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The weird thing about this lunacy of PC is that her premise isn't even an argument against slavery as the cause of the war,
> 
> and she doesn't even realize it.  Her cockeyed argument is that the South felt confident that they could secede, and thus preserve the institution of slavery,
> 
> because they expected help from Great Britain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The the war of northern aggression wasn't fought to preserve... nor abolish ....slavery.
> 
> Lincoln couldn't have cared less about the negroes either way.  He said so himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree.
> 
> Lincoln hated slavery.
> 
> But he felt that maintaining the Union was, at that moment, the most important thing he could do.
> 
> You can see that in the Emancipation Proclamation, where he threatened to free slaves in the states that seceded.
> 
> 
> Lincoln's Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:
> 
> "*I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so,* and I have no inclination to do so.
> Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that* I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them;* and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
> 
> 'Resolved', That the maintenance *inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions *according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. I now reiterate these sentiments,..."
> Abraham Lincoln Inaugural Address
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the war was about abolishing slavery, why did he wait so long to "emancipate" them?...and why only in "certain" areas?
> He did it to purposely destabilize the south because he knew there would be roving bands of criminal negroes wreaking havoc in the south since many of the white men were off elsewhere fighting.
> 
> He could make all the "proclamations" he wanted but slavery wasn't illegal and he can't pick and choose which laws he would support .
> 
> Lincoln also believed in the declaration of independence where it says;
> _
> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_
> 
> Declaration of Independence
> 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. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.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 many of the territory as they inhabit."
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Jan 12, 1848*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If the war was about abolishing slavery, why did he wait so long to "emancipate" them?...and why only in "certain" areas?"
> 
> I said no such thing.
Click to expand...

Because it was political.  Lincoln was ORIGINALLY only for stopping the expansion of slavery to new states....Remember that the Republican party was made up mostly of "Free Soilers".  Lincoln may not have had the intent to free slaves, but you would never have convinced the Southern states of that.  They saw the demographic writing on the wall...somewhat like the GOP base sees the writing on the wall today.  And they got just as frantic about it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

bodecea said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a running tally of PolitialChic's insanity is in order.
> 
> Yesterday, or whenever, it was Roosevelt prolonged WWII by 2 years.  Today it's Slavery had nothing to do with the secession of the Confederate states.
> 
> Stay tuned for even more delightful dementia...
> 
> 
> 
> It's part and parcel of "The Lost Cause".  After the war was over, the South had to come up with a new theme as to what the war was about.....since fighting FOR slavery was not really a pleasant thing to be remembered for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The weird thing about this lunacy of PC is that her premise isn't even an argument against slavery as the cause of the war,
> 
> and she doesn't even realize it.  Her cockeyed argument is that the South felt confident that they could secede, and thus preserve the institution of slavery,
> 
> because they expected help from Great Britain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The the war of northern aggression wasn't fought to preserve... nor abolish ....slavery.
> 
> Lincoln couldn't have cared less about the negroes either way.  He said so himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree.
> 
> Lincoln hated slavery.
> 
> But he felt that maintaining the Union was, at that moment, the most important thing he could do.
> 
> You can see that in the Emancipation Proclamation, where he threatened to free slaves in the states that seceded.
> 
> 
> Lincoln's Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:
> 
> "*I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so,* and I have no inclination to do so.
> Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that* I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them;* and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
> 
> 'Resolved', That the maintenance *inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions *according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. I now reiterate these sentiments,..."
> Abraham Lincoln Inaugural Address
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the war was about abolishing slavery, why did he wait so long to "emancipate" them?...and why only in "certain" areas?
> He did it to purposely destabilize the south because he knew there would be roving bands of criminal negroes wreaking havoc in the south since many of the white men were off elsewhere fighting.
> 
> He could make all the "proclamations" he wanted but slavery wasn't illegal and he can't pick and choose which laws he would support .
> 
> Lincoln also believed in the declaration of independence where it says;
> _
> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*_
> 
> Declaration of Independence
> 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. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.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 many of the territory as they inhabit."
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Jan 12, 1848*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If the war was about abolishing slavery, why did he wait so long to "emancipate" them?...and why only in "certain" areas?"
> 
> I said no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it was political.  Lincoln was ORIGINALLY only for stopping the expansion of slavery to new states....Remember that the Republican party was made up mostly of "Free Soilers".  Lincoln may not have had the intent to free slaves, but you would never have convinced the Southern states of that.  They saw the demographic writing on the wall...somewhat like the GOP base sees the writing on the wall today.  And they got just as frantic about it.
Click to expand...



Essentially correct, but let me remind you, first the thread to which you have subscribed shows that, had it not been for mistaken beliefs about their importance in the world, the Southern elite probably would not have got to war against the North: they believed that the English fleet would make up for their lack of a navy.

Second, the basis of the Rightwing differences are principled: we believe in American sovereignty, and that people should be treated as individuals, not groups.


The subtext of the thread is that Obama is the South redux: "...mistaken beliefs ..."


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> So...*resolved: slavery was not the precipitation for secession.*
> *......*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's been proven false.  Your point, such as it was, about Great Britain may or may not have merit, but it is totally unconnected to the REASON for secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is assuming that there was only ONE reasons for secession. Slavery was actually be encompassed in her reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how you choose to tell what I believe.
> You're not smart enough to do that.
Click to expand...


Telling what you believe is not a sign of intelligence. I agree with that.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you can't even discuss history without infusing your contempt for the current president, which is most disingenuous to your premise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...you can't even discuss history without....blah blah blah..."
> 
> What an excellent time for a teachable moment.
> 
> As you Liberals are limited in education, you may not know of the American philosopher George Santayana, who wrote (in _The Life of Reason_, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
> 
> 
> So we have you, and (most merciful) Barack Obama who failed to understand the provenance of the Civil War.....and cause woe as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To put it another way....*.why do you suppose those of us with an education study the past at all?*??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well obviously to lie about the past, since your "education" is obviously very limited.
> 
> Another quote from Santayana that the better educated are aware of:
> "History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there."
> 
> And *a better quote from the author you love most to lie about.*
> 
> If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.
> George Bernard Shaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know what I love about the dunces who are so infuriated about my incontestable OPs.....
> 
> ....they pour out all sorts of vituperation about me....
> 
> ....not realizing that I am my favorite subject!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey...still sporting a quote from the socialist who supported genocide*....great!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I have your lies down pat before you even spew them?
> Why yes, yes I do.
> 
> As you well know, the SHAVIAN eugenics you call genocide, an honest person calls women choosing who they mate with. But that is just your lack of education showing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same lie you always post with the same lying YouTube video where he satirizes eugenicists and the dishonest liars who made the video ignore the satire.
> Can't you come up with any new lies????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, only the grossly uneducated fall for the lie in your video. The educated know that Shaw is satirizing eugenicists, and this has been pointed out to you every time you posted the same lie, proving that you are too stupid to learn.
> 
> Shaw supported SHAVIAN eugenics in which women create the "Superman" by who they choose to mate with. In your edited video Shaw is mocking all NON-SHAVIAN eugenics, which is the edited part all premeditated liars use, exposing their ignorance and lack of higher education having never read Shaw's play "Man And Superman." Only those ignorant of what is in that play are stupid enough to be deceived by your dishonestly edited video.
> 
> Here is a taste of your own medicine:
> 
> *"America sucks" - Rush Limbaugh
> *
> "We are racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes. We discriminate against people who worship differently than we do, have skin color different from ours, and we have not always behaved properly in the world.  And we torture.*" - Rush Limbaugh*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You imbecile....he spoke without  *a* teleprompter*s*.
Click to expand...

Talk about an uneducated imbecile, "a" is singular and "teleprompters" is plural.


----------



## NYcarbineer

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> So...*resolved: slavery was not the precipitation for secession.*
> *......*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's been proven false.  Your point, such as it was, about Great Britain may or may not have merit, but it is totally unconnected to the REASON for secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is assuming that there was only ONE reasons for secession. Slavery was actually be encompassed in her reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how you choose to tell what I believe.
> You're not smart enough to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling what you believe is not a sign of intelligence. I agree with that.
Click to expand...


She's just wrong.  It isn't any more complicated than that.  She's connected two irrelevant points to form an erroneous conclusion.


----------



## rightwinger

The South Seceded so they could create a conservative utopia

A society run by white males that enforces a pool of free labor. A society that doesn't recognize human rights. A society built to ensure the dominance of the white race


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> says PC the fool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you even have to imitate my posts????
> 
> So....you have no shame; goes with no brains.
Click to expand...


Rather than defend the premise (notice, I did not say her premise) PC once again and always defaults to attacking others. It is an example, once again, of someone seeking attention by trolling - even negative attention is gleeful to someone starved for it.


----------



## NoNukes

rightwinger said:


> The South Seceded so they could create a conservative utopia
> 
> A society run by white males that enforces a pool of free labor. A society that doesn't recognize human rights. A society built to ensure the dominance of the white race



The correct answer might be that they seceded as a matter of economics. Thinking that the British would step in to help them implies that they thought the BRITISH still ruled the world.


----------



## Coloradomtnman

Rotagilla said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....be fair!
> 
> It's my job to make you look like a fool......stop doing my job!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the opening line of the Mississippi secession declaration:
> 
> 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."
> 
> ...and to the specifics:
> 
> "That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the **Constitution**, and was manifested in the well-known **Ordinance of 1787**, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> 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.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
> 
> It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
> 
> It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
> 
> It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
> 
> It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
> 
> It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
> 
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it."*
> 
> Now go ahead and make your argument that secession was not about the fear of the abolishment of the institution of slavery.
> 
> link Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where the thread ended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any argument to which you agree must be a loser.
> 
> I documented the South claiming that the entire world would knuckle under to the power of "King Cotton."
> 
> I provide the speech by the Senator from South Carolina.
> 
> I gave Abraham Lincoln's own words, post #62, stating that slavery was safe in those states that wanted it.
> 
> I have proven that is was Southern misjudgment about their own importance that caused secession, not fears of slavery being outlawed.
> 
> 
> So....neither facts nor logic support your position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But here is what does*: your irritation over how frequently I eat your lunch in these disagreements.
> And the reason for that is that my posts are based on something you and the other mental midgets cannot understand: knowledge.
> 
> *scientia sit potentia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The south attempted to peacefully withdraw from the union.... like the Patriots attempted in 1776 and for the same reasons.
> The north invaded what the people who lived there determined was a new, sovereign nation.....like the British did in 1776.
> 
> The north decided it was better to crush freedom by force than to allow people the right of self determination.
Click to expand...



The irony of your post is excruciating.

Let me ask you this: whose right to self-determination was the North not allowing?  Slave owners, right?  Not allowing slave owners to own human beings.  What else did they stop slave owners from doing?  Hm, can't think of anything else right now.  I guess it's just that ONE thing.

Now, whose right to self-determination was the South not allowing?  Oh, yeah!  The slaves themselves!  And what were the slaves not allowed to do?  Nothing other than be slaves!  Just that ONE thing, right?

The world will be a much better place when you and your racist ilk finally go extinct.


----------



## paperview

The South seceded because they had been itchin to...

The fires were burning many, many years before 1861, This is fact.

The slavery issue was a major one in the preceding presidential election. (not to mention the high intensity of the full 1850's decade...)

The South was itching for a fight, and they intended to take it home over that issue.

Let's go back, 4 years earlier, to just before the November, 1856 election.
Here is an article from ----> *OCT 1856*, from the New York Times, quoting a Richmond *editorial*, entitled: *LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE*

*...where future secessionists threaten war and the evil of what they term "Black Republicanism" (their term for the Republicans who favored emancipation ) is castigated, and where they predict, nay - taunt, the coming bloodbath.*

I present a picture of the actual paper below...read it:

Here is the top line: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




It begins:

*"The Southern political Press has never been more open and frank in its avowal of political purposes and plans, than it is during the present canvass. 

The triumphs of Slavery during the past four years,--the successful repeal of the Missouri Compromise, a measure for which oven Mr. CALHOUN never dared to hope,--and the ready, eager promptitude with which the Democratic party at Cincinnati yielded to the exactions of the Slaveholding power, seemed to have inspired the political leaders of the South with the belief, that time has come when they can safely and even with advantage to themselves, make open proclamation of the projects they have in store for the future.

....We invite attention to the following lead editorial from Richmond (*the NY Times here quotes from the Southern paper*) where Southerners state: "'Tis treason to cry "Peace!" "peace!" when there is no peace. There is, there can be, no peace, no lasting union between the south and Black Republicanism."

And they go on:
Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back

 ....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within, *
* will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people."*
*..





",...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."
*
Those were the Southern sentiments  well before the Confederates started seizing forts and arsenals and firing on Unions ships  in January of 1861. They continue:
*
"The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...*

*





See the full newspaper article here: (!) Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com

1856. Itchin' itchin itchin.*


----------



## Rotagilla

rightwinger said:


> The south formed a nation of traitors dedicated to the proposition that owning other human beings was an essential right



The war of northern aggression wasn't fought to preserve or abolish slavery.

Everyone knew that slavery was a dying practice...especially the leaders of the southern cause. 
The industrial revolution was beginning and everyone saw that it was too impractical to house, feed and clothe farm animals when machines that could do twice the work at 1/3 (or less) of the overhead..

You need to believe (and promote the idea) that, had the south been allowed to peacefully secede, we'd all be sitting on our porches drinking mint juleps while the darkies ploughed the fields...

The southerners were trying to peacefully exercise their right to withdraw from the union due to government oppression and unfair taxes and tariffs...the same reasons the colonists did in 1776. They were called "traitors", too...but to us they're known as "Patriots".
Lincoln was a lying, opportunistic politician who purposely turned war criminals Phillip Sheridan and William T. Sherman loose in the south to murder civilians, destroy their property, homes, infrastructure and businesses.
Waging war by purposely targeting civilians is cowardly and...typical...


----------



## paperview

Electing Buchanan calmed these crazy ass Southerners down a bit, and he was every bit the suckass they wanted him to be.

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


----------



## Rotagilla

Coloradomtnman said:


> The irony of your post is excruciating.
> 
> Let me ask you this: whose right to self-determination was the North not allowing?  Slave owners, right?  Not allowing slave owners to own human beings.  What else did they stop slave owners from doing?  Hm, can't think of anything else right now.  I guess it's just that ONE thing.
> 
> Now, whose right to self-determination was the South not allowing?  Oh, yeah!  The slaves themselves!  And what were the slaves not allowed to do?  Nothing other than be slaves!  Just that ONE thing, right?
> 
> The world will be a much better place when you and your racist ilk finally go extinct.



Slavery was a dying practice and the southern leaders and most of the citizens knew it.

The north needed an issue to pretend to sieze the moral "high ground"..."emancipating" some  (not all) of the slaves made lincoln look good...and further destabilized the south.
If lincoln wanted to "free the slaves" he could have done it the day he took office...instead he waited until late in the war to do it in order to exploit it and use it as leverage...

The north was losing on the battlefields...there were draft riots in the north..People didn't want to send their kids to fight to keep the south in the union. "Let our erring brothers go in peace" was a popular sentiment...The war effort was losing support and lincoln needed SOMETHING to "justify" the earlier illegal invasion of Charleston...


----------



## Rotagilla

paperview said:


> Electing Buchanan calmed these crazy ass Southerners down a bit, and he was every bit the suckass they wanted him to be.
> 
> Lincoln getting elected was what it took. They never even waited for him to take office to officially secede and commence hostilities.



The south didn't start the war.
Lincoln (illegally) sent troops and ships to invade Charleston (fort sumter) after the south had seceded...invading a foreign nation is an act of war. Any nation would be right to defend themselves from invaders.


----------



## Coloradomtnman

Rotagilla said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south formed a nation of traitors dedicated to the proposition that owning other human beings was an essential right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war of northern aggression wasn't fought to preserve or abolish slavery.
> 
> Everyone knew that slavery was a dying practice...especially the leaders of the southern cause.
> The industrial revolution was beginning and everyone saw that it was too impractical to house, feed and clothe farm animals when machines that could do twice the work at 1/3 (or less) of the overhead..
> 
> You need to believe (and promote the idea) that, had the south been allowed to peacefully secede, we'd all be sitting on our porches drinking mint juleps while the darkies ploughed the fields...
> 
> The southerners were trying to peacefully exercise their right to withdraw from the union due to government oppression and unfair taxes and tariffs...the same reasons the colonists did in 1776. They were called "traitors", too...but to us they're known as "Patriots".
> Lincoln was a lying, opportunistic politician who purposely turned war criminals Phillip Sheridan and William T. Sherman loose in the south to murder civilians, destroy their property, homes, infrastructure and businesses.
> Waging war by purposely targeting civilians is cowardly and...typical...
Click to expand...


Nope:

"*A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
*
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.*

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

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.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it."


----------



## Coloradomtnman

Rotagilla said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of your post is excruciating.
> 
> Let me ask you this: whose right to self-determination was the North not allowing?  Slave owners, right?  Not allowing slave owners to own human beings.  What else did they stop slave owners from doing?  Hm, can't think of anything else right now.  I guess it's just that ONE thing.
> 
> Now, whose right to self-determination was the South not allowing?  Oh, yeah!  The slaves themselves!  And what were the slaves not allowed to do?  Nothing other than be slaves!  Just that ONE thing, right?
> 
> The world will be a much better place when you and your racist ilk finally go extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice and the southern leaders and most of the citizens knew it.
> 
> The north needed an issue to pretend to sieze the moral "high ground"..."emancipating" some  (not all) of the slaves made lincoln look good...and further destabilized the south.
> If lincoln wanted to "free the slaves" he could have done it the day he took office...instead he waited until late in the war to do it in order to exploit it and use it as leverage...
> 
> The north was losing on the battlefields...there were draft riots in the north..People didn't want to send their kids to fight to keep the south in the union. "Let our erring brothers go in peace" was a popular sentiment...The war effort was losing support and lincoln needed SOMETHING to "justify" the earlier illegal invasion of Charleston...
Click to expand...


Wrong:

"*A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.*
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.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

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.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it."


----------



## rightwinger

Rotagilla said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south formed a nation of traitors dedicated to the proposition that owning other human beings was an essential right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war of northern aggression wasn't fought to preserve or abolish slavery.
> 
> *Everyone knew that slavery was a dying practice...especially the leaders of the southern cause.*
> The industrial revolution was beginning and everyone saw that it was too impractical to house, feed and clothe farm animals when machines that could do twice the work at 1/3 (or less) of the overhead..
> 
> You need to believe (and promote the idea) that, had the south been allowed to peacefully secede, we'd all be sitting on our porches drinking mint juleps while the darkies ploughed the fields...
> 
> The southerners were trying to peacefully exercise their right to withdraw from the union due to government oppression and unfair taxes and tariffs...the same reasons the colonists did in 1776. They were called "traitors", too...but to us they're known as "Patriots".
> Lincoln was a lying, opportunistic politician who purposely turned war criminals Phillip Sheridan and William T. Sherman loose in the south to murder civilians, destroy their property, homes, infrastructure and businesses.
> Waging war by purposely targeting civilians is cowardly and...typical...
Click to expand...

 
Evidently the Southern Traitors did not realize that slavery was a "dying practice" as they institutionalized it in their Constitution to ensure that it would flourish


----------



## Rotagilla

paperview said:


> The South seceded because they had been itchin to...
> 
> The fires were burning many, many years before 1861, This is fact.
> 
> The slavery issue was a major one in the preceding presidential election. (not to mention the high intensity of the full 1850's decade...)
> 
> The South was itching for a fight, and they intended to take it home over that issue.
> 
> Let's go back, 4 years earlier, to just before the November, 1856 election.
> Here is an article from ----> *OCT 1856*, from the New York Times, quoting a Richmond *editorial*, entitled: *LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE*
> 
> *...where future secessionists threaten war and the evil of what they term "Black Republicanism" (their term for the Republicans who favored emancipation ) is castigated, and where they predict, nay - taunt, the coming bloodbath.*
> 
> I present a picture of the actual paper below...read it:
> 
> Here is the top line:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It begins:
> 
> *"The Southern political Press has never been more open and frank in its avowal of political purposes and plans, than it is during the present canvass.
> 
> The triumphs of Slavery during the past four years,--the successful repeal of the Missouri Compromise, a measure for which oven Mr. CALHOUN never dared to hope,--and the ready, eager promptitude with which the Democratic party at Cincinnati yielded to the exactions of the Slaveholding power, seemed to have inspired the political leaders of the South with the belief, that time has come when they can safely and even with advantage to themselves, make open proclamation of the projects they have in store for the future.
> 
> ....We invite attention to the following lead editorial from Richmond (*the NY Times here quotes from the Southern paper*) where Southerners state: "'Tis treason to cry "Peace!" "peace!" when there is no peace. There is, there can be, no peace, no lasting union between the south and Black Republicanism."
> 
> And they go on:
> Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back
> 
> ....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within, *
> * will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people."*
> *..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ",...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."
> *
> Those were the Southern sentiments  well before the Confederates started seizing forts and arsenals and firing on Unions ships  in January of 1861. They continue:
> *
> "The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the full newspaper article here: (!) Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com
> 
> 1856. Itchin' itchin itchin.*



So?
I can find an "editorial" opinion  from a contemporary newspaper that gives different causes.

Here's what a famous "leader" said about "secession";


_*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. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.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 many of the territory as they inhabit." 


Abraham Lincoln 
Jan 12, 1848
*_


Lincoln was (probably) also in favor of the american revolution "secession" from england, one would have to assume...otherwise he wouldn't be "president".


----------



## paperview

paperview said:


> Electing Buchanan calmed these crazy ass Southerners down a bit, and he was every bit the suckass they wanted him to be.
> 
> Lincoln getting elected was what it took. They never even waited for him to take office to officially secede and commence hostilities.





rightwinger said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south formed a nation of traitors dedicated to the proposition that owning other human beings was an essential right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war of northern aggression wasn't fought to preserve or abolish slavery.
> 
> *Everyone knew that slavery was a dying practice...especially the leaders of the southern cause.*
> The industrial revolution was beginning and everyone saw that it was too impractical to house, feed and clothe farm animals when machines that could do twice the work at 1/3 (or less) of the overhead..
> 
> You need to believe (and promote the idea) that, had the south been allowed to peacefully secede, we'd all be sitting on our porches drinking mint juleps while the darkies ploughed the fields...
> 
> The southerners were trying to peacefully exercise their right to withdraw from the union due to government oppression and unfair taxes and tariffs...the same reasons the colonists did in 1776. They were called "traitors", too...but to us they're known as "Patriots".
> Lincoln was a lying, opportunistic politician who purposely turned war criminals Phillip Sheridan and William T. Sherman loose in the south to murder civilians, destroy their property, homes, infrastructure and businesses.
> Waging war by purposely targeting civilians is cowardly and...typical...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently the Southern Traitors did not realize that slavery was a "dying practice" as they institutionalized it in their Constitution to ensure that it would flourish
Click to expand...

This Rogatini fella  is a piece of work.  Trolling to recruit White Supremacists is the best I can figure with his astoundingly off-base revisionist history.


----------



## Wry Catcher

"One of the most momentous debates in Senate history began over a plan to curtail western land sales. Senators from western states viewed this proposal by a Connecticut senator as a cynical scheme to preserve for northeastern manufacturing interests a cheap labor supply that might otherwise be lured away by the beckoning opportunities of plentiful western lands. Senator Robert Hayne of South Carolina saw in this developing Northeast-West dispute an opportunity to build a political alliance between the South and the West. Hayne shared the view of southern planters that an agricultural system built on slavery could only survive with an unlimited supply of cheap western lands."

Untitled 
*Webster-Hayne Debate, 1830*

And, an opinion:

Highway to Hell The Great National Highway Debate of 1830 and Congress as Constitutional Interpreter by Charles J. Reid SSRN
*Abstract: *
This Article focuses on the role of the Constitution in the 1830 Congressional debate over the Buffalo to Washington to New Orleans National Road. It takes as its inspiration David Currie's monumental study of the ante-bellum Congress as constitutional interpreter. It moves beyond Currie, however, in the intensity of its focus on a single congressional debate.

The debate over the National Road was largely a proxy for the larger struggles over slavery and sectionalism.


----------



## paperview

...and Rogatini also doesn't understand the difference between secession and revolution.


----------



## Rotagilla

Coloradomtnman said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of your post is excruciating.
> 
> Let me ask you this: whose right to self-determination was the North not allowing?  Slave owners, right?  Not allowing slave owners to own human beings.  What else did they stop slave owners from doing?  Hm, can't think of anything else right now.  I guess it's just that ONE thing.
> 
> Now, whose right to self-determination was the South not allowing?  Oh, yeah!  The slaves themselves!  And what were the slaves not allowed to do?  Nothing other than be slaves!  Just that ONE thing, right?
> 
> The world will be a much better place when you and your racist ilk finally go extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice and the southern leaders and most of the citizens knew it.
> 
> The north needed an issue to pretend to sieze the moral "high ground"..."emancipating" some  (not all) of the slaves made lincoln look good...and further destabilized the south.
> If lincoln wanted to "free the slaves" he could have done it the day he took office...instead he waited until late in the war to do it in order to exploit it and use it as leverage...
> 
> The north was losing on the battlefields...there were draft riots in the north..People didn't want to send their kids to fight to keep the south in the union. "Let our erring brothers go in peace" was a popular sentiment...The war effort was losing support and lincoln needed SOMETHING to "justify" the earlier illegal invasion of Charleston...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong:
> 
> "*A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.*
> 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.
> 
> That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> 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.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
> 
> It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
> 
> It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
> 
> It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
> 
> It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
> 
> It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
> 
> Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it."
Click to expand...



Of course "slavery" is mentioned. The north used it as a weapon to inflame people. The south would naturally reply.
Slavery was a legal, but fading practice and everyone knew it.... but an intrusive federal government used it as an excuse to selectively violate its' own laws to achieve political gain...(like siccing the IRS on political enemies).... 

If the war was fought to "free the slaves" as you have been indoctrinated to believe, why didn't lincoln do it on the first day of his presidency?...why wait until the north was losing to do it? Why didn't he emancipate all slaves everywhere simultaneously?...why did he make exceptions?


----------



## rightwinger

NoNukes said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South Seceded so they could create a conservative utopia
> 
> A society run by white males that enforces a pool of free labor. A society that doesn't recognize human rights. A society built to ensure the dominance of the white race
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The correct answer might be that they seceded as a matter of economics. Thinking that the British would step in to help them implies that they thought the BRITISH still ruled the world.
Click to expand...

 
The traitorous south built a society on the economics of Free Labor


----------



## Rotagilla

rightwinger said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south formed a nation of traitors dedicated to the proposition that owning other human beings was an essential right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war of northern aggression wasn't fought to preserve or abolish slavery.
> 
> *Everyone knew that slavery was a dying practice...especially the leaders of the southern cause.*
> The industrial revolution was beginning and everyone saw that it was too impractical to house, feed and clothe farm animals when machines that could do twice the work at 1/3 (or less) of the overhead..
> 
> You need to believe (and promote the idea) that, had the south been allowed to peacefully secede, we'd all be sitting on our porches drinking mint juleps while the darkies ploughed the fields...
> 
> The southerners were trying to peacefully exercise their right to withdraw from the union due to government oppression and unfair taxes and tariffs...the same reasons the colonists did in 1776. They were called "traitors", too...but to us they're known as "Patriots".
> Lincoln was a lying, opportunistic politician who purposely turned war criminals Phillip Sheridan and William T. Sherman loose in the south to murder civilians, destroy their property, homes, infrastructure and businesses.
> Waging war by purposely targeting civilians is cowardly and...typical...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently the Southern Traitors did not realize that slavery was a "dying practice" as they institutionalized it in their Constitution to ensure that it would flourish
Click to expand...

The north made it an issue..the south responded directly. Constitutions can be amended when a law becomes obsolete....but that doesn't work with your narrative....

Do you seriously believe that as the dawn of the industrial revolution occurred before their very eyes, anyone really wanted to keep slaves rather than use modern, efficient, low cost machines? 

Do you seriously believe that had the south been allowed to peacefully withdraw there would still be negroes out in the fields today chopping cotton?


----------



## Rotagilla

rightwinger said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South Seceded so they could create a conservative utopia
> 
> A society run by white males that enforces a pool of free labor. A society that doesn't recognize human rights. A society built to ensure the dominance of the white race
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The correct answer might be that they seceded as a matter of economics. Thinking that the British would step in to help them implies that they thought the BRITISH still ruled the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The traitorous south built a society on the economics of Free Labor
Click to expand...

The southerners were peaceful patriots who wanted to be left alone, but were forced to fight when their homeland was invaded.


----------



## rightwinger

Rotagilla said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south formed a nation of traitors dedicated to the proposition that owning other human beings was an essential right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war of northern aggression wasn't fought to preserve or abolish slavery.
> 
> *Everyone knew that slavery was a dying practice...especially the leaders of the southern cause.*
> The industrial revolution was beginning and everyone saw that it was too impractical to house, feed and clothe farm animals when machines that could do twice the work at 1/3 (or less) of the overhead..
> 
> You need to believe (and promote the idea) that, had the south been allowed to peacefully secede, we'd all be sitting on our porches drinking mint juleps while the darkies ploughed the fields...
> 
> The southerners were trying to peacefully exercise their right to withdraw from the union due to government oppression and unfair taxes and tariffs...the same reasons the colonists did in 1776. They were called "traitors", too...but to us they're known as "Patriots".
> Lincoln was a lying, opportunistic politician who purposely turned war criminals Phillip Sheridan and William T. Sherman loose in the south to murder civilians, destroy their property, homes, infrastructure and businesses.
> Waging war by purposely targeting civilians is cowardly and...typical...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently the Southern Traitors did not realize that slavery was a "dying practice" as they institutionalized it in their Constitution to ensure that it would flourish
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The north made it an issue..the south responded directly. Constitutions can be amended when a law becomes obsolete....but that doesn't work with your narrative....
> 
> Do you seriously believe that as the dawn of the industrial revolution occurred before their very eyes, anyone really wanted to keep slaves rather than use modern, efficient, low cost machines?
> 
> Do you seriously believe that had the south been allowed to peacefully withdraw there would still be negroes out in the fields today chopping cotton?
Click to expand...

 
The traitorous south was on the outside looking in at the dawn of the industrial revolution. Their economy was built around king cotton and there was no automated picking tool on the horizon
The traitorous south went into a panic that with Lincoln as President, they would lose their supply of Free Labor. So rather than concede the inevitable end of slavery, they created their own nation built upon the backs of slave labor


----------



## Rotagilla

paperview said:


> ...and Rogatini also doesn't understand the difference between secession and revolution.



"rogatini"..How mature!


.word games? You don't want to address the issues but want to play word games now...LMAO.

*rev·o·lu·tion*
_noun_ \ˌre-və-ˈlü-shən\
: the usually violent attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and start a new one

*se·ces·sion*
_noun_ \si-ˈse-shən\
: the act of separating from a nation or state and becoming independent
*1:*  withdrawal into privacy or solitude *:* retirement

*2:*  formal withdrawal from an organization


The south tried to peacefully secede. They were forced to defend themselves when their homeland was invaded by northern troops attempting to reinforce ft sumter. Which no longer belonged to the union but was purposely used as a casus belli so lincoln could have his war.


----------



## rightwinger

Rotagilla said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South Seceded so they could create a conservative utopia
> 
> A society run by white males that enforces a pool of free labor. A society that doesn't recognize human rights. A society built to ensure the dominance of the white race
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The correct answer might be that they seceded as a matter of economics. Thinking that the British would step in to help them implies that they thought the BRITISH still ruled the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The traitorous south built a society on the economics of Free Labor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The southerners were peaceful patriots who wanted to be left alone, but were forced to fight when their homeland was invaded.
Click to expand...

 
The slaves wanted to be left alone also....how did that work out?


----------



## paperview

Rotagilla said:


> The north made it an issue..the south responded directly. Constitutions can be amended when a law becomes obsolete....but that doesn't work with your narrative....
> 
> *Do you seriously believe that as the dawn of the industrial revolution occurred before their very eyes, anyone really wanted to keep slaves rather than use modern, efficient, low cost machines?*
> 
> Do you seriously believe that had the south been allowed to peacefully withdraw there would still be negroes out in the fields today chopping cotton?



The dawn?? 

Hey fucknutz, the Industrial Revolution had been in full swing for many decades by the time of the Civil War, and it was the Cotton Gin, (a part of that Revolution) that was responsible for enslaving  more than anything else, and even further established and embedded slavery in the culture of the south.


----------



## Mr Natural

Rotagilla said:


> The southerners were peaceful patriots who wanted to be left alone, but were forced to fight when their homeland was invaded.




"Peaceful Patriots" who opened fire on a US Government installation.


----------



## Coloradomtnman

Rotagilla said:


> Of course "slavery" is mentioned. The north used it as a weapon to inflame people. The south would naturally reply.
> Slavery was a legal, but fading practice and everyone knew it.... but an intrusive federal government used it as an excuse to selectively violate its' own laws to achieve political gain...(like siccing the IRS on political enemies)....
> 
> If the war was fought to "free the slaves" as you have been indoctrinated to believe, why didn't lincoln do it on the first day of his presidency?...why wait until the north was losing to do it? Why didn't he emancipate all slaves everywhere simultaneously?...why did he make exceptions?



Wrong.

From Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the Confederate States:

"Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(SNIP)

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy."


----------



## Rotagilla

rightwinger said:


> The traitorous south was on the outside looking in at the dawn of the industrial revolution. Their economy was built around king cotton and there was no automated picking tool on the horizon
> The traitorous south went into a panic that with Lincoln as President, they would lose their supply of Free Labor. So rather than concede the inevitable end of slavery, they created their own nation built upon the backs of slave labor



 You ignored everything I said and all the points I raised and returned to your "traitorous south" chant.

 It's resolved, my points stand as valid.... your "opinion" of what the "traitorous south" was doing and their motives is irrelevant. Stick to facts.

The industrial revolution was occurring and slaves were impractical and more trouble than they were worth. That's a fact.

The war of northern aggression was not about freeing or retaining slaves.


----------



## Rotagilla

Coloradomtnman said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course "slavery" is mentioned. The north used it as a weapon to inflame people. The south would naturally reply.
> Slavery was a legal, but fading practice and everyone knew it.... but an intrusive federal government used it as an excuse to selectively violate its' own laws to achieve political gain...(like siccing the IRS on political enemies)....
> 
> If the war was fought to "free the slaves" as you have been indoctrinated to believe, why didn't lincoln do it on the first day of his presidency?...why wait until the north was losing to do it? Why didn't he emancipate all slaves everywhere simultaneously?...why did he make exceptions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> From Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the Confederate States:
> 
> "Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
> 
> (SNIP)
> 
> (2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy."
Click to expand...


Yes..the south knew slavery was fading and didn't want to import any more...The north wanted to inflame and use the issue to gain support.

Why did lincoln wait until late in the war to "emancipate" the slaves? Why didn't he do it on the first day he took office as president? Why did he only do it in certain parts of the country and not others?


----------



## paperview

Mr Clean said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The southerners were peaceful patriots who wanted to be left alone, but were forced to fight when their homeland was invaded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Peaceful Patriots" who opened fire on a US Government installation.
Click to expand...

Opened fire on Union ships three months earlier, and seized arsenals and forts all over the South starting in January of 1861. 

Hostilities were well underway by the time Lincoln put his hand on the bible to take the Oath in March of 1861.


----------



## Coloradomtnman

Rotagilla said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course "slavery" is mentioned. The north used it as a weapon to inflame people. The south would naturally reply.
> Slavery was a legal, but fading practice and everyone knew it.... but an intrusive federal government used it as an excuse to selectively violate its' own laws to achieve political gain...(like siccing the IRS on political enemies)....
> 
> If the war was fought to "free the slaves" as you have been indoctrinated to believe, why didn't lincoln do it on the first day of his presidency?...why wait until the north was losing to do it? Why didn't he emancipate all slaves everywhere simultaneously?...why did he make exceptions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> From Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the Confederate States:
> 
> "Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
> 
> (SNIP)
> 
> (2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes..the south knew slavery was fading and didn't want to import any more...The north wanted to inflame and use the issue to gain support.
> 
> Why did lincoln wait until late in the war to "emancipate" the slaves? Why didn't he do it on the first day he took office as president? Why did he only do it in certain parts of the country and not others?
Click to expand...


Just admit it: you wish black people were still slaves.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Rotagilla said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of your post is excruciating.
> 
> Let me ask you this: whose right to self-determination was the North not allowing?  Slave owners, right?  Not allowing slave owners to own human beings.  What else did they stop slave owners from doing?  Hm, can't think of anything else right now.  I guess it's just that ONE thing.
> 
> Now, whose right to self-determination was the South not allowing?  Oh, yeah!  The slaves themselves!  And what were the slaves not allowed to do?  Nothing other than be slaves!  Just that ONE thing, right?
> 
> The world will be a much better place when you and your racist ilk finally go extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice and the southern leaders and most of the citizens knew it.
> 
> The north needed an issue to pretend to sieze the moral "high ground"..."emancipating" some  (not all) of the slaves made lincoln look good...and further destabilized the south.
> If lincoln wanted to "free the slaves" he could have done it the day he took office...instead he waited until late in the war to do it in order to exploit it and use it as leverage...
> 
> The north was losing on the battlefields...there were draft riots in the north..People didn't want to send their kids to fight to keep the south in the union. "Let our erring brothers go in peace" was a popular sentiment...The war effort was losing support and lincoln needed SOMETHING to "justify" the earlier illegal invasion of Charleston...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong:
> 
> "*A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.*
> 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.
> 
> That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
> 
> The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> 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.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
> 
> It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
> 
> It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
> 
> It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
> 
> It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
> 
> It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
> 
> It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
> 
> It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
> 
> It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
> 
> Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
> 
> Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course "slavery" is mentioned. The north used it as a weapon to inflame people. The south would naturally reply.
> Slavery was a legal, but fading practice and everyone knew it.... but an intrusive federal government used it as an excuse to selectively violate its' own laws to achieve political gain...(like siccing the IRS on political enemies)....
> 
> If the war was fought to "free the slaves" as you have been indoctrinated to believe, why didn't lincoln do it on the first day of his presidency?...why wait until the north was losing to do it? Why didn't he emancipate all slaves everywhere simultaneously?...why did he make exceptions?
Click to expand...


Lincoln stated goal was to preserve The Union.  Lincoln did free the slaves (Emancipation Proclamation), see:

Featured Document The Emancipation Proclamation

Which makes the statement by Rotagilla a half-truth and thus dishonest by omission.


----------



## paperview

Rotagilla said:


> Yes..the south knew slavery was fading and didn't want to import any more...The north wanted to inflame and use the issue to gain support.
> ...


Man, with every post, you show how truly poverty-ridden of history you are.

Import??  Importation had been banned since 1808 for chrissakes.

They were breeding them.  There were actually breeding farms in the south and they were making a shit ton of money breeding them like cattle for the strongest and most enduring, and putting them up on the auction block.

It wasn't dying.  It was booming. And the amount of money in concentrated wealth in those slaves made those southerners fucking richer per capita than the northerns....they were soaking in it.

It was literally the blood that fed their economy - and they were bound and determined to keep it chugging.


----------



## paperview

Rotagilla said:


> ...
> 
> Why did lincoln wait until late in the war to "emancipate" the slaves? Why didn't he do it on the first day he took office as president? Why did he only do it in certain parts of the country and not others?



Idiot.

Stupid.

Fucking.

Idiot.


----------



## rightwinger

Rotagilla said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The traitorous south was on the outside looking in at the dawn of the industrial revolution. Their economy was built around king cotton and there was no automated picking tool on the horizon
> The traitorous south went into a panic that with Lincoln as President, they would lose their supply of Free Labor. So rather than concede the inevitable end of slavery, they created their own nation built upon the backs of slave labor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ignored everything I said and all the points I raised and returned to your "traitorous south" chant.
> 
> It's resolved, my points stand as valid.... your "opinion" of what the "traitorous south" was doing and their motives is irrelevant. Stick to facts.
> 
> The industrial revolution was occurring and slaves were impractical and more trouble than they were worth. That's a fact.
> 
> The war of northern aggression was not about freeing or retaining slaves.
Click to expand...

 
Quite to the contrary

The industrial revolution was occuring and those automated looms needed an ever increasing supply of cotton. The only way to pick cotton was by hand. The traitorous south was making millions off the cotton trade.....should they share it with those actually doing the work?

We know the answer to that one


----------



## Rotagilla

Mr Clean said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The southerners were peaceful patriots who wanted to be left alone, but were forced to fight when their homeland was invaded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Peaceful Patriots" who opened fire on a US Government installation.
Click to expand...


They offered to let the troops in the fort peacefully evacuate...like the many other federal institutions had done that were in southern territory.

Lincoln refused to allow that because he knew that a federal fort in charleston harbor would never be tolerated.
Might as well have a russian fort in new york on the hudson river..Not going to happen.


April 15 1861 Lincoln issued an order for 75,000 volunteers to subdue the south..after originally saying that he endorsed secession regarding texas seceding from mexico. and in 1845 he also said. *

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. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.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 many of the territory as they inhabit." *

but lincoln still needed a casus belli as an excuse to invade the south and wage war on his fellow americans.
Some in the north were not against the secession of the south.."Let our erring sisters depart in peace"
Fort sumter was where he provoked the attack that gave him the excuse he needed.
Fort sumter could not continue to exist in the harbor of Charleston..a foreign fort on southern soil. It had to be surrendered like the other federal forts on southern land or in southern waters. 
In exchange the south offered to pay not ONLY for the properties, but also to pay the south's portion of the federal debt of the United States.(!)

Lincoln didn't want to hear any of that. He wanted a war.
He refused to meet with southern representatives sent to discuss the crisis despite the intervention of 2 associate justices of The Supreme Court on the south's behalf.

He decided he would not let the south secede..despite the wording of the Declaration of Independence which the u.s. used to secede from britain, and which he naturally supported.

So now fort sumter which was built to protect americans from foreign attack was now to be used AGAINST americans exercising their legal rights to be free from federal authority and to form their own nation.

Fort Pickens in Pensacola and Fort sumter were the only 2 major forts in the confederacy that hadn't peacefully surrendered to the CSA and been evacuated.

Lincoln ordered Fort Sumter not to comply.

Ratcheting up the tension, on april 6 1861 lincoln announced he was sending men and supplies to fort sumter..which by now wasn't part of the united states any more.

The south knew that if they wanted to take possession of the fort with no bloodshed, they couldn't wait until it was reinforced.
On 12 april 1861 Gen P.G.T. Beauregard opened gentlemanly negotiations with the fort commander, Maj. Robt. Anderson. When negotiations broke down Beauregard ordered his artillerymen to fire on the fort for effect. 2 days later we took the fort..NO ONE WAS KILLED

The south won the stand off against a foreign occupied fort in its territory but now lincoln had the excuse he needed..To "put down the rebel insurrection"..which HE HAD PROVOKED.


The jewish bankers and manufacturers of the North went into a tizzy and ordered Lincoln to force the South back into the Union. 
After 2 years of war, the South was winning, even though they were greatly outmanned. 
Morale was low and desertions were high in the North. There were anti-draft riots.* Nobody wanted to fight for the bankers.* 

*That's when Lincoln changed his strategy and said the war was to free the poor oppressed slaves of the South and issued the Emancipation Proclamation. European support for the South wavered after that because they were anti-slavery. The South suddenly became the bad guys. Lincoln used his new, high moral ground as an excuse to commit immoral atrocities against Southern cities and citizens. *
Lincoln had vowed to collect "duties and imposts" or tariffs in the south. 
The South seceded basically over Free Trade. The North couldn't compete with the cheaper and better European goods coming into Southern ports, so they imposed the Morrill tariffs in 1860. 

The poor Whites of the South couldn't afford Northern goods or to pay the tariffs, so they ignored them. 
The Federal government controlled by the North sent troops and tariff collectors to Southern ports. 
This was intolerable to the economic well being of the South, so they seceded from the Federal Union and ordered the evacuation of all Federal officers and troops from the Confederacy.


Tariffs amounted to 95% of the federal revenue and the Morrill Tariff signed in 1861 by Pres. Buchanan had MORE THAN DOUBLED TARIFF DUTIES on the south.
The south opposed the tariff..the north, naturally supported it and now that south carolina had left the union lincoln decided to ENFORCE the tariff..a further provocation.


In is inaugural address lincoln had said;

*"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."*

but purposely seeking to wage war on his fellow americans isn't actually a reflection of "the better angels of our nature".

Lincoln thought the mexican-american war was wrong even though it gained the u.s. california, utah, nevada, arizona, parts of colorado wyoming and new mexico, but thought it was just fine to wage total war against his fellow americans who were exercising a legal right.

If the south seceded today, how many of you think it would be ok to send tanks across the potomac, blockade southern ports and carpet bomb american cities?
Killing civilians, destroying and burning their property, killing or stealing their livestock, wrecking their infrastructure and waging a war of scorched earth..against fellow americans? 
I'm sure some of you keyboard jockeys and the more immature among you will claim it's just a fine idea...but seriously...What goes around most assuredly comes around..think of YOUR home and city destroyed, your possessions stolen and your friends and family dead... 

Robert E. Lee, a great patriot and a West Point graduate was offered command of the Union Army and declined. A man who had honorably served the flag of the U.S. his entire adult life;

On April 20th, 1861 Lee wrote two very important letters. 
One was addressed to the Secretary of War tendering his resignation from the United States Army; the other to his mentor, General Winfield Scott, explaining his decision. 
Lee’s resignation had come after much deliberation. 
Tensions between the north and south had been high for many months when in January, 1861 Lee wrote to his wife from Texas that *“As far as I can judge from the papers we are between anarchy and Civil War. May God avert us from both.”*

In a letter to his son Jan 23 1861 he wrote;

*....I see that four states have declared themselves out of the Union; four more will apparently follow their example. Then, if the border states are brought into the gulf of revolution, one half of the country will be arrayed against the other. I must try and be patient and await the end, for I can do nothing to hasten or retard it.

The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression and am willing to take every proper step for redress . It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any state if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. 

. . . Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved, and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people; and, save in defense, will draw my sword on none.*


----------



## Rotagilla

paperview said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Why did lincoln wait until late in the war to "emancipate" the slaves? Why didn't he do it on the first day he took office as president? Why did he only do it in certain parts of the country and not others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Stupid.
> 
> Fucking.
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


Great rebuttal..You dodged everything and called me names. Your debate tactics are impeccable..LMFAO...


----------



## paperview

rightwinger said:


> The slaves wanted to be left alone also....how did that work out?


;/ Not too well.  Why do these White Supremacists never consider the other parts of the Southern population (stupid question, I know...)

South:  1860.  ---> Apprx 9 million people.

Slightly less than 4 million of these were slaves. No vote. No citizenship status. No representation. We can be pretty certain these people wanted to be left alone.

But to continue...

Balance: 5 million.

Approx half women, children. No vote. No representation.

2.5 million :: Balance. Many of which were not accorded true representation in votes for secession.
....
Hey, forget about them...just leave us alone.

******.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> says PC the fool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you even have to imitate my posts????
> 
> So....you have no shame; goes with no brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rather than defend the premise (notice, I did not say her premise) PC once again and always defaults to attacking others. It is an example, once again, of someone seeking attention by trolling - even negative attention is gleeful to someone starved for it.
Click to expand...




What????

I never attack others, you dirt-eating, insignificant,wart-faced baboon!!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rotagilla said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Electing Buchanan calmed these crazy ass Southerners down a bit, and he was every bit the suckass they wanted him to be.
> 
> Lincoln getting elected was what it took. They never even waited for him to take office to officially secede and commence hostilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The south didn't start the war.
> Lincoln (illegally) sent troops and ships to invade Charleston (fort sumter) after the south had seceded...invading a foreign nation is an act of war. Any nation would be right to defend themselves from invaders.
Click to expand...




Not so.

I showed in post #208 that that Jefferson Davis began the war.


----------



## JakeStarkey




----------



## paperview

Rotagilla said:


> ...



I see you've been spamming that same post all over the web by a half dozen names that have banned you -- I'm guessing the white Supremacism started eeking over too much, but that's just a guess.

Either that or you're lifting it from another idiot.   

  No matter, you've shown you're a troll with a poor grasp of history -- at least some of your Lost Cause revisionist comrades have a better grasp of the basics, like when the Industrial Revolution started, that the Importation of slaves was halted in 1808, and who the fuck fired the first shots.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Coloradomtnman said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course "slavery" is mentioned. The north used it as a weapon to inflame people. The south would naturally reply.
> Slavery was a legal, but fading practice and everyone knew it.... but an intrusive federal government used it as an excuse to selectively violate its' own laws to achieve political gain...(like siccing the IRS on political enemies)....
> 
> If the war was fought to "free the slaves" as you have been indoctrinated to believe, why didn't lincoln do it on the first day of his presidency?...why wait until the north was losing to do it? Why didn't he emancipate all slaves everywhere simultaneously?...why did he make exceptions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> From Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the Confederate States:
> 
> "Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
> 
> (SNIP)
> 
> (2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy."
Click to expand...


I doubt these sections of the COTCS were anything but self serving.  First, the COTUS imposed a $10 fee for all "such persons" imported (but not migrating); and, by prohibiting the migration of free black men into the South they protected themselves from spys and the 'Trojan Horse', i.e., free black men organizing revolt and sedition against the white slave owning class.


----------



## Rotagilla

rightwinger said:


> The industrial revolution was occuring and those automated looms needed an ever increasing supply of cotton. The only way to pick cotton was by hand. The traitorous south was making millions off the cotton trade.....should they share it with those actually doing the work?
> 
> We know the answer to that one


The first cotton harvester was patented in 1850..strippers and harvesters were used prior to then also.
The cotton gin was invented in 1794.

By 1861 slavery was a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time.

Read something besides wikipedia..you'll learn a lot more.


----------



## Rotagilla

paperview said:


> at least some of your Lost Cause revisionist comrades have a better grasp of the basics, like when the Industrial Revolution started, that the Importation of slaves was halted in 1808, and who the fuck fired the first shots.



You _know_ so much..yet you never specifically address anything or refute it or debunk it..you just say "nuh uh" and toss in the usual ad homs...
Not very effective, but it must make you feel superior..LMAO..whatever it takes to keep you happy..


----------



## rightwinger

Rotagilla said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The industrial revolution was occuring and those automated looms needed an ever increasing supply of cotton. The only way to pick cotton was by hand. The traitorous south was making millions off the cotton trade.....should they share it with those actually doing the work?
> 
> We know the answer to that one
> 
> 
> 
> The first cotton harvester was patented in 1850..strippers and harvesters were used prior to then also.
> The cotton gin was invented in 1794.
> 
> By 1861 slavery was a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time.
> 
> Read something besides wikipedia..you'll learn a lot more.
Click to expand...

 
Cotton was picked by hand up till the 1930s

So are you claiming the Traitorous South would have had slaves up till the 1930s?


----------



## Rotagilla

PoliticalChic said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Electing Buchanan calmed these crazy ass Southerners down a bit, and he was every bit the suckass they wanted him to be.
> 
> Lincoln getting elected was what it took. They never even waited for him to take office to officially secede and commence hostilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The south didn't start the war.
> Lincoln (illegally) sent troops and ships to invade Charleston (fort sumter) after the south had seceded...invading a foreign nation is an act of war. Any nation would be right to defend themselves from invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so.
> 
> I showed in post #208 that that Jefferson Davis began the war.
Click to expand...


 lincoln sent troops and ships to "reinforce" a fort that was no longer on federal property. That is an invasion. The south fired in defense of their homeland from insurgents.


----------



## Rotagilla

rightwinger said:


> Cotton was picked by hand up till the 1930s
> 
> So are you claiming the Traitorous South would have had slaves up till the 1930s?



Ok..we're done...ridiculous semantic distortions and word games are for kids...I'm out...


----------



## rightwinger

Rotagilla said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cotton was picked by hand up till the 1930s
> 
> So are you claiming the Traitorous South would have had slaves up till the 1930s?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok..we're done...ridiculous semantic distortions and word games are for kids...I'm out...
Click to expand...

 
It is your ridiculous assertion that slavery was on its way out due to mechanized cotton picking

Looks like you got handed your ass doesn't it?


----------



## paperview

Rotagilla said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The industrial revolution was occuring and those automated looms needed an ever increasing supply of cotton. The only way to pick cotton was by hand. The traitorous south was making millions off the cotton trade.....should they share it with those actually doing the work?
> 
> We know the answer to that one
> 
> 
> 
> The first cotton harvester was patented in 1850..strippers and harvesters were used prior to then also.
> The cotton gin was invented in 1794.
> 
> By 1861 slavery was a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time.
> 
> Read something besides wikipedia..you'll learn a lot more.
Click to expand...


(looks up to the rafters and says...Why I bother, gawd only knows...)

Tell us about this "first cotton harvester was patented in 1850" -- the one you just read about in wikipedia.
G'head, tell us about it, Rogatini.  How successful was it?

When was the first commercial first cotton harvester actually put to use? Tell us about the robust success of these cotton havesters in the middle to late 1800's/

Yuron: ____________________


----------



## paperview

rightwinger said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cotton was picked by hand up till the 1930s
> 
> So are you claiming the Traitorous South would have had slaves up till the 1930s?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok..we're done...ridiculous semantic distortions and word games are for kids...I'm out...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is your ridiculous assertion that slavery was on its way out due to mechanized cotton picking
> 
> Looks like you got handed your ass doesn't it?
Click to expand...

We cross posted...but the effect was the same...looks like we found the hookworm revisionist pasta boy flies on: semantics.

Like the kar-azy "semantic" difference between secession and revolution.  When called on it, he seems to think they are the same, and the difference is just _semantics_.

Mantics, baby!


----------



## Impenitent

Rotagilla said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a running tally of PolitialChic's insanity is in order.
> 
> Yesterday, or whenever, it was Roosevelt prolonged WWII by 2 years.  Today it's Slavery had nothing to do with the secession of the Confederate states.
> 
> Stay tuned for even more delightful dementia...
> 
> 
> 
> It's part and parcel of "The Lost Cause".  After the war was over, the South had to come up with a new theme as to what the war was about.....since fighting FOR slavery was not really a pleasant thing to be remembered for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The weird thing about this lunacy of PC is that her premise isn't even an argument against slavery as the cause of the war,
> 
> and she doesn't even realize it.  Her cockeyed argument is that the South felt confident that they could secede, and thus preserve the institution of slavery,
> 
> because they expected help from Great Britain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The the war of northern aggression wasn't fought to preserve... nor abolish ....slavery.
> 
> Lincoln couldn't have cared less about the negroes either way.  He said so himself.
Click to expand...

Just like you think Obama is going to take away your guns.

It's not what you, PC, or the South knows - it's what you think you know.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rotagilla said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The industrial revolution was occuring and those automated looms needed an ever increasing supply of cotton. The only way to pick cotton was by hand. The traitorous south was making millions off the cotton trade.....should they share it with those actually doing the work?
> 
> We know the answer to that one
> 
> 
> 
> The first cotton harvester was patented in 1850..strippers and harvesters were used prior to then also.
> The cotton gin was invented in 1794.
> 
> *By 1861 slavery was a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time.*
> 
> Read something besides wikipedia..you'll learn a lot more.
Click to expand...


Common knowledge is enough on this subject to tell you that you are wrong, troll.


----------



## haissem123

PoliticalChic said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> everybody wants to rule over the other guys? so what? the might of the north made them right as always in history. the south wanted to keep blacks doing their work and getting rich off of other peoples work. they called them slave owners now they call them stock holders, partners, investors etc... they won cause lincoln fought so his fellow men up north didn't have to slave like ******* in the fields for nothing but scrap pork. now we are all ******* in the true sense of the word. stupid ignorant servants doing jigs and yessirin our massers. I for one want to fight the south again. you ignant ******* don't noes no bettar or our too cowardly to admit you've been had bad. good luck keeping your ******* in line. they got some tough skin on there backs bye now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go home! The earth is full!
Click to expand...

intelligent answer. chic.lol she calls herself chic. that's so cool


----------



## Toro

Statistikhengst said:


> Well, when people jump off their meds, this kind of stuff happens. Poor PoliticalSchtick.
> 
> Not to mention the *huge* missing link in her OP, namely that the cotton industry in the South was doomed to fail were the slaves to be freed, BECAUSE the White plantation owners would then have to pay workers to do work that the slaves were doing for free, of course, because they were being held against their will. And since cotton picking required oodles of workers, with paid-workers, it was just not doable with the technology of that day. This is also the reason why vast swaths of the South remained dirt poor for generations after the end of our Civil War.
> 
> So, sure, it was a financial issue, but the lynchpin to all of this was indeed slavery.
> 
> Were this not the case, then there would have been no need for the Missouri Compromise of 1980, one of the more important moments in our history, because it slowed the onset of the war and also vastly delayed the admission of new years quite severely.  It was a "balance of power" act that at the end, caused each side of the Mason-Dixon line to be even more bitter.



It wasn't an issue about wages. It was an issue about capital. Many of the slaves stayed on the plantation and were paid wages after the Civil War. However, a third of all the South's capital was tied up in slaves. And since most of the slaves were owned by the wealthy, upwards of half or more of their wealth was tied up in owning human beings. Many of these families borrowed to buy the slaves, and many went bankrupt after the war. So for the Southern plantation class, they had a tremendous amount to lose, with half or more of their wealth disappearing, and some being wiped out. 

That's another reason why this "the Civil War was not about slavery" is so ludicrous. For the wealthy, they were literally fighting for everything they had.


----------



## paperview

Toro said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when people jump off their meds, this kind of stuff happens. Poor PoliticalSchtick.
> 
> Not to mention the *huge* missing link in her OP, namely that the cotton industry in the South was doomed to fail were the slaves to be freed, BECAUSE the White plantation owners would then have to pay workers to do work that the slaves were doing for free, of course, because they were being held against their will. And since cotton picking required oodles of workers, with paid-workers, it was just not doable with the technology of that day. This is also the reason why vast swaths of the South remained dirt poor for generations after the end of our Civil War.
> 
> So, sure, it was a financial issue, but the lynchpin to all of this was indeed slavery.
> 
> Were this not the case, then there would have been no need for the Missouri Compromise of 1980, one of the more important moments in our history, because it slowed the onset of the war and also vastly delayed the admission of new years quite severely.  It was a "balance of power" act that at the end, caused each side of the Mason-Dixon line to be even more bitter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't an issue about wages. It was an issue about capital. Many of the slaves stayed on the plantation and were paid wages after the Civil War. However, a third of all the South's capital was tied up in slaves. And since most of the slaves were owned by the wealthy, upwards of half or more of their wealth was tied up in owning human beings. Many of these families borrowed to buy the slaves, and many went bankrupt after the war. So for the Southern plantation class, they had a tremendous amount to lose, with half or more of their wealth disappearing, and some being wiped out.
> 
> That's another reason why this "the Civil War was not about slavery" is so ludicrous. For the wealthy, they were literally fighting for everything they had.
Click to expand...

Yep.

The collective wealth tied up in slaves was over 3 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B.  Three BILLION.  Not on _today _dollars, adjusted for inflation --   _Then_ dollars.  *Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.*

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

---->  _slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country_.    A stunning figure, when you think about it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rotagilla said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South seceded because they had been itchin to...
> 
> The fires were burning many, many years before 1861, This is fact.
> 
> The slavery issue was a major one in the preceding presidential election. (not to mention the high intensity of the full 1850's decade...)
> 
> The South was itching for a fight, and they intended to take it home over that issue.
> 
> Let's go back, 4 years earlier, to just before the November, 1856 election.
> Here is an article from ----> *OCT 1856*, from the New York Times, quoting a Richmond *editorial*, entitled: *LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE*
> 
> *...where future secessionists threaten war and the evil of what they term "Black Republicanism" (their term for the Republicans who favored emancipation ) is castigated, and where they predict, nay - taunt, the coming bloodbath.*
> 
> I present a picture of the actual paper below...read it:
> 
> Here is the top line:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It begins:
> 
> *"The Southern political Press has never been more open and frank in its avowal of political purposes and plans, than it is during the present canvass.
> 
> The triumphs of Slavery during the past four years,--the successful repeal of the Missouri Compromise, a measure for which oven Mr. CALHOUN never dared to hope,--and the ready, eager promptitude with which the Democratic party at Cincinnati yielded to the exactions of the Slaveholding power, seemed to have inspired the political leaders of the South with the belief, that time has come when they can safely and even with advantage to themselves, make open proclamation of the projects they have in store for the future.
> 
> ....We invite attention to the following lead editorial from Richmond (*the NY Times here quotes from the Southern paper*) where Southerners state: "'Tis treason to cry "Peace!" "peace!" when there is no peace. There is, there can be, no peace, no lasting union between the south and Black Republicanism."
> 
> And they go on:
> Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back
> 
> ....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within, *
> * will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people."*
> *..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ",...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."
> *
> Those were the Southern sentiments  well before the Confederates started seizing forts and arsenals and firing on Unions ships  in January of 1861. They continue:
> *
> "The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the full newspaper article here: (!) Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com
> 
> 1856. Itchin' itchin itchin.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> I can find an "editorial" opinion  from a contemporary newspaper that gives different causes.
> 
> Here's what a famous "leader" said about "secession";
> 
> 
> _*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. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.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 many of the territory as they inhabit."
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Jan 12, 1848
> *_
> 
> 
> Lincoln was (probably) also in favor of the american revolution "secession" from england, one would have to assume...otherwise he wouldn't be "president".
Click to expand...




Comparing it to the American Revolution, it would be tough to argue "no taxation without re


Toro said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when people jump off their meds, this kind of stuff happens. Poor PoliticalSchtick.
> 
> Not to mention the *huge* missing link in her OP, namely that the cotton industry in the South was doomed to fail were the slaves to be freed, BECAUSE the White plantation owners would then have to pay workers to do work that the slaves were doing for free, of course, because they were being held against their will. And since cotton picking required oodles of workers, with paid-workers, it was just not doable with the technology of that day. This is also the reason why vast swaths of the South remained dirt poor for generations after the end of our Civil War.
> 
> So, sure, it was a financial issue, but the lynchpin to all of this was indeed slavery.
> 
> Were this not the case, then there would have been no need for the Missouri Compromise of 1980, one of the more important moments in our history, because it slowed the onset of the war and also vastly delayed the admission of new years quite severely.  It was a "balance of power" act that at the end, caused each side of the Mason-Dixon line to be even more bitter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't an issue about wages. It was an issue about capital. Many of the slaves stayed on the plantation and were paid wages after the Civil War. However, a third of all the South's capital was tied up in slaves. And since most of the slaves were owned by the wealthy, upwards of half or more of their wealth was tied up in owning human beings. Many of these families borrowed to buy the slaves, and many went bankrupt after the war. So for the Southern plantation class, they had a tremendous amount to lose, with half or more of their wealth disappearing, and some being wiped out.
> 
> That's another reason why this "the Civil War was not about slavery" is so ludicrous. For the wealthy, they were literally fighting for everything they had.
Click to expand...




It seems that you "accidentally" misquote the premise.

It wasn't "the Civil War was not about slavery" ....

...it was "why did the South secede."


Reminder: honesty is the best policy.....other wise you look ....ludicrous.


----------



## rightwinger

The Traitorous South had a choice....

Do you work within the existing framework of our Constitution or do you secede to maintain the institution of human bondage?

They chose the latter


----------



## shart_attack

JakeStarkey said:


> PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.





			
				moonglow said:
			
		

> If I wrote thesis papers like that when I was in college I would have not been on the Deans List..





			
				politicalchic said:
			
		

> Forgive me if I find your suggestion hard to believe....
> 
> *One of us has both Dean's List and Valedictorian on their resume, and the other is you.*



Kim Kardashian wrote a book.

Does that mean she's a good writer?


----------



## guno

rightwinger said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The industrial revolution was occuring and those automated looms needed an ever increasing supply of cotton. The only way to pick cotton was by hand. The traitorous south was making millions off the cotton trade.....should they share it with those actually doing the work?
> 
> We know the answer to that one
> 
> 
> 
> The first cotton harvester was patented in 1850..strippers and harvesters were used prior to then also.
> The cotton gin was invented in 1794.
> 
> By 1861 slavery was a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time.
> 
> Read something besides wikipedia..you'll learn a lot more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cotton was picked by hand up till the 1930s
> 
> So are you claiming the Traitorous South would have had slaves up till the 1930s?
Click to expand...


Isn't it strange that the souf' after they lost , put in Jim crow laws ? So much for their lies it wasn't about slavery and hatred of Blacks


----------



## JakeStarkey

Of course it was control and hatred of a despised minority on whose labor the whites profited.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South seceded because they had been itchin to...
> 
> The fires were burning many, many years before 1861, This is fact.
> 
> The slavery issue was a major one in the preceding presidential election. (not to mention the high intensity of the full 1850's decade...)
> 
> The South was itching for a fight, and they intended to take it home over that issue.
> 
> Let's go back, 4 years earlier, to just before the November, 1856 election.
> Here is an article from ----> *OCT 1856*, from the New York Times, quoting a Richmond *editorial*, entitled: *LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE*
> 
> *...where future secessionists threaten war and the evil of what they term "Black Republicanism" (their term for the Republicans who favored emancipation ) is castigated, and where they predict, nay - taunt, the coming bloodbath.*
> 
> I present a picture of the actual paper below...read it:
> 
> Here is the top line:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It begins:
> 
> *"The Southern political Press has never been more open and frank in its avowal of political purposes and plans, than it is during the present canvass.
> 
> The triumphs of Slavery during the past four years,--the successful repeal of the Missouri Compromise, a measure for which oven Mr. CALHOUN never dared to hope,--and the ready, eager promptitude with which the Democratic party at Cincinnati yielded to the exactions of the Slaveholding power, seemed to have inspired the political leaders of the South with the belief, that time has come when they can safely and even with advantage to themselves, make open proclamation of the projects they have in store for the future.
> 
> ....We invite attention to the following lead editorial from Richmond (*the NY Times here quotes from the Southern paper*) where Southerners state: "'Tis treason to cry "Peace!" "peace!" when there is no peace. There is, there can be, no peace, no lasting union between the south and Black Republicanism."
> 
> And they go on:
> Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back
> 
> ....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within, *
> * will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people."*
> *..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ",...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."
> *
> Those were the Southern sentiments  well before the Confederates started seizing forts and arsenals and firing on Unions ships  in January of 1861. They continue:
> *
> "The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the full newspaper article here: (!) Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com
> 
> 1856. Itchin' itchin itchin.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> I can find an "editorial" opinion  from a contemporary newspaper that gives different causes.
> 
> Here's what a famous "leader" said about "secession";
> 
> 
> _*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. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.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 many of the territory as they inhabit."
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Jan 12, 1848
> *_
> 
> 
> Lincoln was (probably) also in favor of the american revolution "secession" from england, one would have to assume...otherwise he wouldn't be "president".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing it to the American Revolution, it would be tough to argue "no taxation without re
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when people jump off their meds, this kind of stuff happens. Poor PoliticalSchtick.
> 
> Not to mention the *huge* missing link in her OP, namely that the cotton industry in the South was doomed to fail were the slaves to be freed, BECAUSE the White plantation owners would then have to pay workers to do work that the slaves were doing for free, of course, because they were being held against their will. And since cotton picking required oodles of workers, with paid-workers, it was just not doable with the technology of that day. This is also the reason why vast swaths of the South remained dirt poor for generations after the end of our Civil War.
> 
> So, sure, it was a financial issue, but the lynchpin to all of this was indeed slavery.
> 
> Were this not the case, then there would have been no need for the Missouri Compromise of 1980, one of the more important moments in our history, because it slowed the onset of the war and also vastly delayed the admission of new years quite severely.  It was a "balance of power" act that at the end, caused each side of the Mason-Dixon line to be even more bitter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't an issue about wages. It was an issue about capital. Many of the slaves stayed on the plantation and were paid wages after the Civil War. However, a third of all the South's capital was tied up in slaves. And since most of the slaves were owned by the wealthy, upwards of half or more of their wealth was tied up in owning human beings. Many of these families borrowed to buy the slaves, and many went bankrupt after the war. So for the Southern plantation class, they had a tremendous amount to lose, with half or more of their wealth disappearing, and some being wiped out.
> 
> That's another reason why this "the Civil War was not about slavery" is so ludicrous. For the wealthy, they were literally fighting for everything they had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that you "accidentally" misquote the premise.
> 
> It wasn't "the Civil War was not about slavery" ....
> 
> ...it was "why did the South secede."
> 
> 
> Reminder: honesty is the best policy.....other wise you look ....ludicrous.
Click to expand...


The states seceded individually, with no assurance that their cotton markets could be protected.

But it's refreshing to see you trying to song and dance your way backwards across the dance floor, Michael.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that you "accidentally" misquote the premise.
> 
> It wasn't "the Civil War was not about slavery" ....
> 
> ...it was "why did the South secede."
> 
> 
> Reminder: honesty is the best policy.....other wise you look ....ludicrous.



Except that you said this earlier in the thread:

"Secession....wasn't about slavery."

Slavery is why the South seceded.  Every state that seceded made that clear.


----------



## rightwinger

guno said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The industrial revolution was occuring and those automated looms needed an ever increasing supply of cotton. The only way to pick cotton was by hand. The traitorous south was making millions off the cotton trade.....should they share it with those actually doing the work?
> 
> We know the answer to that one
> 
> 
> 
> The first cotton harvester was patented in 1850..strippers and harvesters were used prior to then also.
> The cotton gin was invented in 1794.
> 
> By 1861 slavery was a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time.
> 
> Read something besides wikipedia..you'll learn a lot more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cotton was picked by hand up till the 1930s
> 
> So are you claiming the Traitorous South would have had slaves up till the 1930s?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it strange that the souf' after they lost , put in Jim crow laws ? So much for their lies it wasn't about slavery and hatred of Blacks
Click to expand...

 
Their worst fear was that blacks would think of themselves as their equal

Know your place boy


----------



## JakeStarkey

paperview is the expert on this, and PC is not even on campus much less in the room.


----------



## rightwinger

The South seceded so they could keep blacks in chains

Sad, but true


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South seceded because they had been itchin to...
> 
> The fires were burning many, many years before 1861, This is fact.
> 
> The slavery issue was a major one in the preceding presidential election. (not to mention the high intensity of the full 1850's decade...)
> 
> The South was itching for a fight, and they intended to take it home over that issue.
> 
> Let's go back, 4 years earlier, to just before the November, 1856 election.
> Here is an article from ----> *OCT 1856*, from the New York Times, quoting a Richmond *editorial*, entitled: *LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE*
> 
> *...where future secessionists threaten war and the evil of what they term "Black Republicanism" (their term for the Republicans who favored emancipation ) is castigated, and where they predict, nay - taunt, the coming bloodbath.*
> 
> I present a picture of the actual paper below...read it:
> 
> Here is the top line:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It begins:
> 
> *"The Southern political Press has never been more open and frank in its avowal of political purposes and plans, than it is during the present canvass.
> 
> The triumphs of Slavery during the past four years,--the successful repeal of the Missouri Compromise, a measure for which oven Mr. CALHOUN never dared to hope,--and the ready, eager promptitude with which the Democratic party at Cincinnati yielded to the exactions of the Slaveholding power, seemed to have inspired the political leaders of the South with the belief, that time has come when they can safely and even with advantage to themselves, make open proclamation of the projects they have in store for the future.
> 
> ....We invite attention to the following lead editorial from Richmond (*the NY Times here quotes from the Southern paper*) where Southerners state: "'Tis treason to cry "Peace!" "peace!" when there is no peace. There is, there can be, no peace, no lasting union between the south and Black Republicanism."
> 
> And they go on:
> Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back
> 
> ....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within, *
> * will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people."*
> *..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ",...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."
> *
> Those were the Southern sentiments  well before the Confederates started seizing forts and arsenals and firing on Unions ships  in January of 1861. They continue:
> *
> "The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the full newspaper article here: (!) Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com
> 
> 1856. Itchin' itchin itchin.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> I can find an "editorial" opinion  from a contemporary newspaper that gives different causes.
> 
> Here's what a famous "leader" said about "secession";
> 
> 
> _*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. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.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 many of the territory as they inhabit."
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Jan 12, 1848
> *_
> 
> 
> Lincoln was (probably) also in favor of the american revolution "secession" from england, one would have to assume...otherwise he wouldn't be "president".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing it to the American Revolution, it would be tough to argue "no taxation without re
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when people jump off their meds, this kind of stuff happens. Poor PoliticalSchtick.
> 
> Not to mention the *huge* missing link in her OP, namely that the cotton industry in the South was doomed to fail were the slaves to be freed, BECAUSE the White plantation owners would then have to pay workers to do work that the slaves were doing for free, of course, because they were being held against their will. And since cotton picking required oodles of workers, with paid-workers, it was just not doable with the technology of that day. This is also the reason why vast swaths of the South remained dirt poor for generations after the end of our Civil War.
> 
> So, sure, it was a financial issue, but the lynchpin to all of this was indeed slavery.
> 
> Were this not the case, then there would have been no need for the Missouri Compromise of 1980, one of the more important moments in our history, because it slowed the onset of the war and also vastly delayed the admission of new years quite severely.  It was a "balance of power" act that at the end, caused each side of the Mason-Dixon line to be even more bitter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't an issue about wages. It was an issue about capital. Many of the slaves stayed on the plantation and were paid wages after the Civil War. However, a third of all the South's capital was tied up in slaves. And since most of the slaves were owned by the wealthy, upwards of half or more of their wealth was tied up in owning human beings. Many of these families borrowed to buy the slaves, and many went bankrupt after the war. So for the Southern plantation class, they had a tremendous amount to lose, with half or more of their wealth disappearing, and some being wiped out.
> 
> That's another reason why this "the Civil War was not about slavery" is so ludicrous. For the wealthy, they were literally fighting for everything they had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that you "accidentally" misquote the premise.
> 
> It wasn't "the Civil War was not about slavery" ....
> 
> ...it was "why did the South secede."
> 
> 
> Reminder: honesty is the best policy.....other wise you look ....ludicrous.
Click to expand...

A distinction without a difference!   Didn't they teach logical fallacies to freshman at the Columbia Continuation School you attended?


----------



## guno

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South seceded because they had been itchin to...
> 
> The fires were burning many, many years before 1861, This is fact.
> 
> The slavery issue was a major one in the preceding presidential election. (not to mention the high intensity of the full 1850's decade...)
> 
> The South was itching for a fight, and they intended to take it home over that issue.
> 
> Let's go back, 4 years earlier, to just before the November, 1856 election.
> Here is an article from ----> *OCT 1856*, from the New York Times, quoting a Richmond *editorial*, entitled: *LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE*
> 
> *...where future secessionists threaten war and the evil of what they term "Black Republicanism" (their term for the Republicans who favored emancipation ) is castigated, and where they predict, nay - taunt, the coming bloodbath.*
> 
> I present a picture of the actual paper below...read it:
> 
> Here is the top line:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It begins:
> 
> *"The Southern political Press has never been more open and frank in its avowal of political purposes and plans, than it is during the present canvass.
> 
> The triumphs of Slavery during the past four years,--the successful repeal of the Missouri Compromise, a measure for which oven Mr. CALHOUN never dared to hope,--and the ready, eager promptitude with which the Democratic party at Cincinnati yielded to the exactions of the Slaveholding power, seemed to have inspired the political leaders of the South with the belief, that time has come when they can safely and even with advantage to themselves, make open proclamation of the projects they have in store for the future.
> 
> ....We invite attention to the following lead editorial from Richmond (*the NY Times here quotes from the Southern paper*) where Southerners state: "'Tis treason to cry "Peace!" "peace!" when there is no peace. There is, there can be, no peace, no lasting union between the south and Black Republicanism."
> 
> And they go on:
> Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back
> 
> ....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within, *
> * will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people."*
> *..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ",...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."
> *
> Those were the Southern sentiments  well before the Confederates started seizing forts and arsenals and firing on Unions ships  in January of 1861. They continue:
> *
> "The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the full newspaper article here: (!) Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com
> 
> 1856. Itchin' itchin itchin.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> I can find an "editorial" opinion  from a contemporary newspaper that gives different causes.
> 
> Here's what a famous "leader" said about "secession";
> 
> 
> _*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. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.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 many of the territory as they inhabit."
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Jan 12, 1848
> *_
> 
> 
> Lincoln was (probably) also in favor of the american revolution "secession" from england, one would have to assume...otherwise he wouldn't be "president".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing it to the American Revolution, it would be tough to argue "no taxation without re
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when people jump off their meds, this kind of stuff happens. Poor PoliticalSchtick.
> 
> Not to mention the *huge* missing link in her OP, namely that the cotton industry in the South was doomed to fail were the slaves to be freed, BECAUSE the White plantation owners would then have to pay workers to do work that the slaves were doing for free, of course, because they were being held against their will. And since cotton picking required oodles of workers, with paid-workers, it was just not doable with the technology of that day. This is also the reason why vast swaths of the South remained dirt poor for generations after the end of our Civil War.
> 
> So, sure, it was a financial issue, but the lynchpin to all of this was indeed slavery.
> 
> Were this not the case, then there would have been no need for the Missouri Compromise of 1980, one of the more important moments in our history, because it slowed the onset of the war and also vastly delayed the admission of new years quite severely.  It was a "balance of power" act that at the end, caused each side of the Mason-Dixon line to be even more bitter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't an issue about wages. It was an issue about capital. Many of the slaves stayed on the plantation and were paid wages after the Civil War. However, a third of all the South's capital was tied up in slaves. And since most of the slaves were owned by the wealthy, upwards of half or more of their wealth was tied up in owning human beings. Many of these families borrowed to buy the slaves, and many went bankrupt after the war. So for the Southern plantation class, they had a tremendous amount to lose, with half or more of their wealth disappearing, and some being wiped out.
> 
> That's another reason why this "the Civil War was not about slavery" is so ludicrous. For the wealthy, they were literally fighting for everything they had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that you "accidentally" misquote the premise.
> 
> It wasn't "the Civil War was not about slavery" ....
> 
> ...it was "why did the South secede."
> 
> 
> Reminder: honesty is the best policy.....other wise you look ....ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A distinction without a difference!   Didn't they teach logical fallacies to freshman at the Columbia Continuation School you attended?
Click to expand...



Thus is her Columbia she attends on the internet

Columbia International University


----------



## paperview

guno said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South seceded because they had been itchin to...
> 
> The fires were burning many, many years before 1861, This is fact.
> 
> The slavery issue was a major one in the preceding presidential election. (not to mention the high intensity of the full 1850's decade...)
> 
> The South was itching for a fight, and they intended to take it home over that issue.
> 
> Let's go back, 4 years earlier, to just before the November, 1856 election.
> Here is an article from ----> *OCT 1856*, from the New York Times, quoting a Richmond *editorial*, entitled: *LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE*
> 
> *...where future secessionists threaten war and the evil of what they term "Black Republicanism" (their term for the Republicans who favored emancipation ) is castigated, and where they predict, nay - taunt, the coming bloodbath.*
> 
> I present a picture of the actual paper below...read it:
> 
> Here is the top line:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It begins:
> 
> *"The Southern political Press has never been more open and frank in its avowal of political purposes and plans, than it is during the present canvass.
> 
> The triumphs of Slavery during the past four years,--the successful repeal of the Missouri Compromise, a measure for which oven Mr. CALHOUN never dared to hope,--and the ready, eager promptitude with which the Democratic party at Cincinnati yielded to the exactions of the Slaveholding power, seemed to have inspired the political leaders of the South with the belief, that time has come when they can safely and even with advantage to themselves, make open proclamation of the projects they have in store for the future.
> 
> ....We invite attention to the following lead editorial from Richmond (*the NY Times here quotes from the Southern paper*) where Southerners state: "'Tis treason to cry "Peace!" "peace!" when there is no peace. There is, there can be, no peace, no lasting union between the south and Black Republicanism."
> 
> And they go on:
> Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back
> 
> ....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within, *
> * will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people."*
> *..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ",...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."
> *
> Those were the Southern sentiments  well before the Confederates started seizing forts and arsenals and firing on Unions ships  in January of 1861. They continue:
> *
> "The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the full newspaper article here: (!) Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com
> 
> 1856. Itchin' itchin itchin.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> I can find an "editorial" opinion  from a contemporary newspaper that gives different causes.
> 
> Here's what a famous "leader" said about "secession";
> 
> 
> _*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. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.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 many of the territory as they inhabit."
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln
> Jan 12, 1848
> *_
> 
> 
> Lincoln was (probably) also in favor of the american revolution "secession" from england, one would have to assume...otherwise he wouldn't be "president".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing it to the American Revolution, it would be tough to argue "no taxation without re
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when people jump off their meds, this kind of stuff happens. Poor PoliticalSchtick.
> 
> Not to mention the *huge* missing link in her OP, namely that the cotton industry in the South was doomed to fail were the slaves to be freed, BECAUSE the White plantation owners would then have to pay workers to do work that the slaves were doing for free, of course, because they were being held against their will. And since cotton picking required oodles of workers, with paid-workers, it was just not doable with the technology of that day. This is also the reason why vast swaths of the South remained dirt poor for generations after the end of our Civil War.
> 
> So, sure, it was a financial issue, but the lynchpin to all of this was indeed slavery.
> 
> Were this not the case, then there would have been no need for the Missouri Compromise of 1980, one of the more important moments in our history, because it slowed the onset of the war and also vastly delayed the admission of new years quite severely.  It was a "balance of power" act that at the end, caused each side of the Mason-Dixon line to be even more bitter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't an issue about wages. It was an issue about capital. Many of the slaves stayed on the plantation and were paid wages after the Civil War. However, a third of all the South's capital was tied up in slaves. And since most of the slaves were owned by the wealthy, upwards of half or more of their wealth was tied up in owning human beings. Many of these families borrowed to buy the slaves, and many went bankrupt after the war. So for the Southern plantation class, they had a tremendous amount to lose, with half or more of their wealth disappearing, and some being wiped out.
> 
> That's another reason why this "the Civil War was not about slavery" is so ludicrous. For the wealthy, they were literally fighting for everything they had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that you "accidentally" misquote the premise.
> 
> It wasn't "the Civil War was not about slavery" ....
> 
> ...it was "why did the South secede."
> 
> 
> Reminder: honesty is the best policy.....other wise you look ....ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A distinction without a difference!   Didn't they teach logical fallacies to freshman at the Columbia Continuation School you attended?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thus is her Columbia she attends on the internet
> 
> Columbia International University
Click to expand...



Wow.  LOL.  I honestly thought that was a spoof sight or Onion-type satire page.

That's real. LOLOLOL.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Yes it is real. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## paperview

The funny part of that 1856 Southern editorial (which was the predominant mood of the day then) I posted -

is that a good part of it, save the Slavery portion, could be recycled at some of them Southern Tea party rally afiggitin' types today

-- same keywords 150 years later:

"..*.the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity, licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."*

For those that care to read that 1856 article in full (hey, maybe one person might) , it's here: Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - View Article - NYTimes.com


----------



## Wry Catcher

paperview said:


> The funny part of that 1856 Southern editorial (which was the predominant mood of the day then) I posted -
> 
> is that a good part of it, save the Slavery portion, could be recycled at some of them Southern Tea party rally afiggitin' types today
> 
> -- same keywords 150 years later:
> 
> "..*.the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity, licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."*
> 
> For those that care to read that 1856 article in full (hey, maybe one person might) , it's here: Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - View Article - NYTimes.com



Wow, no wonder the RWers have kept away, to read the editorial form the Richmond Enquirer in your link sure puts their argument in perspective - a perspective framed in absurdity and deceit.


----------



## NYcarbineer

I'm thinking that PC's next thread will be the charge that U.S. Grant prolonged the Civil War for 2 years by demanding unconditional surrender and somehow that eventually helped the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.


----------



## Thobbs

I believe that the south receeded for multiple reasons really. The threat to their economy (the attempt to abolish slavery). this led the southeners to think the north would soon attempt to violate their "rights", taking away their ability to decide whether they could had slavery.

But thats just what I think


----------



## Statistikhengst

Thobbs said:


> I believe that the south* receeded* for multiple reasons really. The threat to their economy (the attempt to abolish slavery). this led the southeners to think the north would soon attempt to violate their "rights", taking away their ability to decide whether they could had slavery.
> 
> But thats just what I think



"receeded"?

???


----------



## Statistikhengst

NYcarbineer said:


> I'm thinking that PC's next thread will be the charge that U.S. Grant prolonged the Civil War for 2 years by demanding unconditional surrender and somehow that eventually helped the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.




No. She will claim that according to the butterfly effect, had Ulysses S. Grant drunk slightly less alcohol, this would have led the murder of Lenin in 1907 and therefore the USSR would never have risen. Which means there would have been no WWII and therefore, a glorious Republican would have been president from 1932-1944, because, well, BENGHAZI.


----------



## paperview

Statistikhengst said:


> Thobbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the south* receeded* for multiple reasons really. The threat to their economy (the attempt to abolish slavery). this led the southeners to think the north would soon attempt to violate their "rights", taking away their ability to decide whether they could had slavery.
> 
> But thats just what I think
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "receeded"?
> 
> ???
Click to expand...

  That too.


----------



## Friends

PoliticalChic said:


> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?


 
Yes. That is just what I believe.

------------

*“Corner Stone” Speech*
Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
Savannah, Georgia
March 21, 1861

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. 
 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History


----------



## gipper

Friends said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
Click to expand...


Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?
Click to expand...

 
The topic of the thread is "Why did the South secede"

Seems like Stephens is telling you why


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "Why did the South secede"
> 
> Seems like Stephens is telling you why
Click to expand...


As usual, you fail to comprehend.

The question to the poster was:
So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?

Do I need to spell it out for you?


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "Why did the South secede"
> 
> Seems like Stephens is telling you why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you fail to comprehend.
> 
> The question to the poster was:
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> Do I need to spell it out for you?
Click to expand...

 
The answer is obviously YES

The traitorous south was making a fortune in dominating the worldwide cotton trade. They were in danger of losing their free labor if Lincoln became President

Forming a new country which ensured the bondage of other human beings to protect their income source was their solution


----------



## PoliticalChic

Friends said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
Click to expand...




In that case, you're wrong.

Not a new condition for you.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "Why did the South secede"
> 
> Seems like Stephens is telling you why
Click to expand...




Actually, I told you the real reason.

You should learn to accept every word I post as golden.


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "Why did the South secede"
> 
> Seems like Stephens is telling you why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you fail to comprehend.
> 
> The question to the poster was:
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> Do I need to spell it out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is obviously YES
> 
> The traitorous south was making a fortune in dominating the worldwide cotton trade. They were in danger of losing their free labor if Lincoln became President
> 
> Forming a new country which ensured the bondage of other human beings to protect their income source was their solution
Click to expand...


It is clear you do not know what you are posting.

Lincoln made it clear on numerous occasions, that the South could keep slavery as long as they stayed in the Union and abided by Union laws.

So tell me again how was it that the North was about to outlaw slavery, when Lincoln clearly had no intention to do so?


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "Why did the South secede"
> 
> Seems like Stephens is telling you why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I told you the real reason.
> 
> You should learn to accept every word I post as golden.
Click to expand...

 
I know you did

They seceeded to prevent Obama from ever becoming President

Good theory


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "Why did the South secede"
> 
> Seems like Stephens is telling you why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you fail to comprehend.
> 
> The question to the poster was:
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> Do I need to spell it out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is obviously YES
> 
> The traitorous south was making a fortune in dominating the worldwide cotton trade. They were in danger of losing their free labor if Lincoln became President
> 
> Forming a new country which ensured the bondage of other human beings to protect their income source was their solution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is clear you do not know what you are posting.
> 
> Lincoln made it clear on numerous occasions, that the South could keep slavery as long as they stayed in the Union and abided by Union laws.
> 
> So tell me again how was it that the North was about to outlaw slavery, when Lincoln clearly had no intention to do so?
Click to expand...

 
Tell you?

Tell the South who seceded before Lincoln even took office


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "Why did the South secede"
> 
> Seems like Stephens is telling you why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you fail to comprehend.
> 
> The question to the poster was:
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> Do I need to spell it out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is obviously YES
> 
> The traitorous south was making a fortune in dominating the worldwide cotton trade. They were in danger of losing their free labor if Lincoln became President
> 
> Forming a new country which ensured the bondage of other human beings to protect their income source was their solution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is clear you do not know what you are posting.
> 
> Lincoln made it clear on numerous occasions, that the South could keep slavery as long as they stayed in the Union and abided by Union laws.
> 
> So tell me again how was it that the North was about to outlaw slavery, when Lincoln clearly had no intention to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you?
> 
> Tell the South who seceded before Lincoln even took office
Click to expand...


I know you are not too bright, so I will try to keep it simple.

You think the South went to war because the North was about to outlaw slavery.  Now this view contradicts the words of Lincoln, who stated many times that the fed gov could NOT outlaw slavery.  So again...what makes you think the fed gov planned to outlaw slavery?


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "Why did the South secede"
> 
> Seems like Stephens is telling you why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you fail to comprehend.
> 
> The question to the poster was:
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> Do I need to spell it out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is obviously YES
> 
> The traitorous south was making a fortune in dominating the worldwide cotton trade. They were in danger of losing their free labor if Lincoln became President
> 
> Forming a new country which ensured the bondage of other human beings to protect their income source was their solution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is clear you do not know what you are posting.
> 
> Lincoln made it clear on numerous occasions, that the South could keep slavery as long as they stayed in the Union and abided by Union laws.
> 
> So tell me again how was it that the North was about to outlaw slavery, when Lincoln clearly had no intention to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you?
> 
> Tell the South who seceded before Lincoln even took office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are not too bright, so I will try to keep it simple.
> 
> You think the South went to war because the North was about to outlaw slavery.  Now this view contradicts the words of Lincoln, who stated many times that the fed gov could NOT outlaw slavery.  So again...what makes you think the fed gov planned to outlaw slavery?
Click to expand...

 
For some odd reason....the South did not trust what Lincoln was saying


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "Why did the South secede"
> 
> Seems like Stephens is telling you why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you fail to comprehend.
> 
> The question to the poster was:
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> Do I need to spell it out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is obviously YES
> 
> The traitorous south was making a fortune in dominating the worldwide cotton trade. They were in danger of losing their free labor if Lincoln became President
> 
> Forming a new country which ensured the bondage of other human beings to protect their income source was their solution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is clear you do not know what you are posting.
> 
> Lincoln made it clear on numerous occasions, that the South could keep slavery as long as they stayed in the Union and abided by Union laws.
> 
> So tell me again how was it that the North was about to outlaw slavery, when Lincoln clearly had no intention to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you?
> 
> Tell the South who seceded before Lincoln even took office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are not too bright, so I will try to keep it simple.
> 
> You think the South went to war because the North was about to outlaw slavery.  Now this view contradicts the words of Lincoln, who stated many times that the fed gov could NOT outlaw slavery.  So again...what makes you think the fed gov planned to outlaw slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some odd reason....the South did not trust what Lincoln was saying
Click to expand...


Okay...after all those posts we finally get to an answer.  

Do you have any legitimate historical proof to back your belief that the South went to war because they believed Lincoln intended to outlaw slavery?


----------



## rightwinger

Why South Carolina seceded

South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession Teaching American History

In summary.....Slavery


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case, you're wrong.
> 
> Not a new condition for you.
Click to expand...


PC can't simply disagree, she must always add the personal attack - I guess it makes her feel superior, and that suggests on some level she knows how prosaic she is, and appears to most of us.


----------



## Wry Catcher

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "Why did the South secede"
> 
> Seems like Stephens is telling you why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you fail to comprehend.
> 
> The question to the poster was:
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> Do I need to spell it out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is obviously YES
> 
> The traitorous south was making a fortune in dominating the worldwide cotton trade. They were in danger of losing their free labor if Lincoln became President
> 
> Forming a new country which ensured the bondage of other human beings to protect their income source was their solution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is clear you do not know what you are posting.
> 
> Lincoln made it clear on numerous occasions, that the South could keep slavery as long as they stayed in the Union and abided by Union laws.
> 
> So tell me again how was it that the North was about to outlaw slavery, when Lincoln clearly had no intention to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you?
> 
> Tell the South who seceded before Lincoln even took office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are not too bright, so I will try to keep it simple.
> 
> You think the South went to war because the North was about to outlaw slavery.  Now this view contradicts the words of Lincoln, who stated many times that the fed gov could NOT outlaw slavery.  So again...what makes you think the fed gov planned to outlaw slavery?
Click to expand...


Maybe those in the south were not too bright and a bit paranoid?  Given the posts by our neighbors to the south, such a theory seems highly likely.


----------



## rightwinger

Wry Catcher said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "Why did the South secede"
> 
> Seems like Stephens is telling you why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you fail to comprehend.
> 
> The question to the poster was:
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> Do I need to spell it out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is obviously YES
> 
> The traitorous south was making a fortune in dominating the worldwide cotton trade. They were in danger of losing their free labor if Lincoln became President
> 
> Forming a new country which ensured the bondage of other human beings to protect their income source was their solution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is clear you do not know what you are posting.
> 
> Lincoln made it clear on numerous occasions, that the South could keep slavery as long as they stayed in the Union and abided by Union laws.
> 
> So tell me again how was it that the North was about to outlaw slavery, when Lincoln clearly had no intention to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you?
> 
> Tell the South who seceded before Lincoln even took office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are not too bright, so I will try to keep it simple.
> 
> You think the South went to war because the North was about to outlaw slavery.  Now this view contradicts the words of Lincoln, who stated many times that the fed gov could NOT outlaw slavery.  So again...what makes you think the fed gov planned to outlaw slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe those in the south were not too bright and a bit paranoid?  Given the posts by our neighbors to the south, such a theory seems highly likely.
Click to expand...

 
If the south was anything like today, you can see why they seceded

Just like they threatened during the Civil Rights era and when we elected a "negro" President

Pull out those states rights!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case, you're wrong.
> 
> Not a new condition for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PC can't simply disagree, she must always add the personal attack - I guess it makes her feel superior, and that suggests on some level she knows how prosaic she is, and appears to most of us.
Click to expand...



Wadda ya' mean FEEL superior??????


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case, you're wrong.
> 
> Not a new condition for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PC can't simply disagree, she must always add the personal attack - I guess it makes her feel superior, and that suggests on some level she knows how prosaic she is, and appears to most of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wadda ya' mean FEEL superior??????
Click to expand...


I guessed it made you feel superior, I'm *sure* others believe, as do I, that prosaic fits you like a second skin.


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> Why South Carolina seceded
> 
> South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession Teaching American History
> 
> In summary.....Slavery



One state mentioning Lincoln's hostility to slavery does not indicate South Carolina's desire to go to war to keep slavery.  It also does not prove that the entire Confederacy went to war to keep slavery.  Yes SC used Lincoln's hostility toward slavery as one reason for seceding, but the bigger reason was the subversion of the Constitution by the fed gov.  

The Confederacy went to war because Lincoln invaded.  Had Lincoln not invaded, the Civil War would never have occurred.  So logically, the war was started and prosecuted by Lincoln and not the seceding states.


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why South Carolina seceded
> 
> South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession Teaching American History
> 
> In summary.....Slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One state mentioning Lincoln's hostility to slavery does not indicate South Carolina's desire to go to war to keep slavery.  It also does not prove that the entire Confederacy went to war to keep slavery.  Yes SC used Lincoln's hostility toward slavery as one reason for seceding, but the bigger reason was the subversion of the Constitution by the fed gov.
> 
> The Confederacy went to war because Lincoln invaded.  Had Lincoln not invaded, the Civil War would never have occurred.  So logically, the war was started and prosecuted by Lincoln and not the seceding states.
Click to expand...

 
Lincoln invaded Ft Sumter?


----------



## Wry Catcher

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why South Carolina seceded
> 
> South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession Teaching American History
> 
> In summary.....Slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One state mentioning Lincoln's hostility to slavery does not indicate South Carolina's desire to go to war to keep slavery.  It also does not prove that the entire Confederacy went to war to keep slavery.  Yes SC used Lincoln's hostility toward slavery as one reason for seceding, but the bigger reason was the subversion of the Constitution by the fed gov.
> 
> The Confederacy went to war because Lincoln invaded.  Had Lincoln not invaded, the Civil War would never have occurred.  So logically, the war was started and prosecuted by Lincoln and not the seceding states.
Click to expand...


LOL, how might Lincoln have invaded property already owned by the Federal Government?

See:  The First Shot of the Civil War 1861


----------



## Wry Catcher

Gee, it appears the Ministry of Truth has once more been put to shame.


----------



## Darkwind

PoliticalChic said:


> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> No, *the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.*
> 
> 
> 1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
> Really. Ruled!
> 
> Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,* they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "The*Union blockade*in theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
> Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> a. "In January, 1861, _De Bow’s Review_contained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of *blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets *of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
> Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?
> 
> So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?
> 
> a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that *Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States.* In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was *the issue of the African slave trade.* He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."
> 
> Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord *Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. *Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
> *"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?*
> *The answer is in the section above.*


These are actually symptoms of a long standing struggle by the South to retain a balance of power in the Congress, specifically in the Senate.

As the country expanded westward, it was becoming apparent that the North was bent on gaining control of the Senate by promoting the inclusion of states that were anti-slavery over of the inclusion of new states that were pro-slavery.  This is indicative of the skirmishes that happened at the time between what would become the States of Kansas and Missouri.  John Brown first came to notoriety as the abolitionist who was involved in the incident usually referred to as "Bleeding Kansas".  He was also involved in the Harper Ferry Armory raid just prior to the onset of the Civil War.

However, the biggest driving factor for the Civil War was the Souths Fear of losing the balance of power in the Congress.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Gip, all the evidence indicates the major reason was that the South was afraid it could not practice states' rights in continuing to enslave humans.

Conversation paperview who can give you a thorough seminar on the issue, because you seem to be working from confirmation bias unfounded on the evidence as a whole.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case, you're wrong.
> 
> Not a new condition for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PC can't simply disagree, she must always add the personal attack - I guess it makes her feel superior, and that suggests on some level she knows how prosaic she is, and appears to most of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wadda ya' mean FEEL superior??????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guessed it made you feel superior, I'm *sure* others believe, as do I, that prosaic fits you like a second skin.
Click to expand...



Midgets like you attempt to contend.....how could I not feel superior??

I mean, really.


----------



## gipper

Wry Catcher said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why South Carolina seceded
> 
> South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession Teaching American History
> 
> In summary.....Slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One state mentioning Lincoln's hostility to slavery does not indicate South Carolina's desire to go to war to keep slavery.  It also does not prove that the entire Confederacy went to war to keep slavery.  Yes SC used Lincoln's hostility toward slavery as one reason for seceding, but the bigger reason was the subversion of the Constitution by the fed gov.
> 
> The Confederacy went to war because Lincoln invaded.  Had Lincoln not invaded, the Civil War would never have occurred.  So logically, the war was started and prosecuted by Lincoln and not the seceding states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, how might Lincoln have invaded property already owned by the Federal Government?
> 
> See:  The First Shot of the Civil War 1861
Click to expand...


So...you and RW think since the South fired on Ft Sumter, in which no one was killed or injured and Lincoln purposely set up the event to occur, means Lincoln was justified in waging total war against the South.

Warmongering fools..

800k Americans died and half the nation was destroyed...all because the South fired a few shots on Ft Sumter. 

CRAZY!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC, you are here for our amusement.

Carry on.


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> Gip, all the evidence indicates the major reason was that the South was afraid it could not practice states' rights in continuing to enslave humans.
> 
> Conversation paperview who can give you a thorough seminar on the issue, because you seem to be working from confirmation bias unfounded on the evidence as a whole.



Bull shit.  

Many leaders in the South knew slavery could not continue and its days were numbered.  It matters not....since slavery was not the reason Lincoln prosecuted total war on the South.  I hope you know that.  If not, we can't go any further.  Again...had Lincoln not invaded, there would be no Civil War.  So logically....now....Lincoln was the aggressor.  Get it?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Gip, traitors fired on Old Glory flying above Ft Sumter.  People died because they would not surrender.

Everybody on the scene said it was slavery.

Your opinion means absolutely nothing other than a look into your strange mind.


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> Gip, traitors fired on Old Glory flying above Ft Sumter.



Traitors....that is foolish.  

So now Lincoln was justified in murdering thousands of southerns, because they were traitors.  If that be the case, every state in all of history has the right to kill anyone who opposes it....

Are you a totalitarian or just ignorant?


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is just what I believe.
> 
> ------------
> 
> *“Corner Stone” Speech*
> Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
> Savannah, Georgia
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 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.
> 8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case, you're wrong.
> 
> Not a new condition for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PC can't simply disagree, she must always add the personal attack - I guess it makes her feel superior, and that suggests on some level she knows how prosaic she is, and appears to most of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wadda ya' mean FEEL superior??????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guessed it made you feel superior, I'm *sure* others believe, as do I, that prosaic fits you like a second skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Midgets like you attempt to contend.....how could I not feel superior??
> 
> I mean, really.
Click to expand...


LOL, I'll put my CAL degree up against your Jr. College Degree, as well as my MMPI vis a vis your most recent 5150 evaluation.


----------



## Wry Catcher

gipper said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why South Carolina seceded
> 
> South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession Teaching American History
> 
> In summary.....Slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One state mentioning Lincoln's hostility to slavery does not indicate South Carolina's desire to go to war to keep slavery.  It also does not prove that the entire Confederacy went to war to keep slavery.  Yes SC used Lincoln's hostility toward slavery as one reason for seceding, but the bigger reason was the subversion of the Constitution by the fed gov.
> 
> The Confederacy went to war because Lincoln invaded.  Had Lincoln not invaded, the Civil War would never have occurred.  So logically, the war was started and prosecuted by Lincoln and not the seceding states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, how might Lincoln have invaded property already owned by the Federal Government?
> 
> See:  The First Shot of the Civil War 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...you and RW think since the South fired on Ft Sumter, in which no one was killed or injured and Lincoln purposely set up the event to occur, means Lincoln was justified in waging total war against the South.
> 
> Warmongering fools..
> 
> 800k Americans died and half the nation was destroyed...all because the South fired a few shots on Ft Sumter.
> 
> CRAZY!!!
Click to expand...


I like your signature, it demonstrates some introspection, Though, I'm not sure you're really crazy, but sensible you are not.


----------



## Samson

This thread was interesting 500 threads ago.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Samson said:


> This thread was interesting 500 threads ago.



How's your math?  Your post is #328.  500 - 328 =  ???


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why South Carolina seceded
> 
> South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession Teaching American History
> 
> In summary.....Slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One state mentioning Lincoln's hostility to slavery does not indicate South Carolina's desire to go to war to keep slavery.  It also does not prove that the entire Confederacy went to war to keep slavery.  Yes SC used Lincoln's hostility toward slavery as one reason for seceding, but the bigger reason was the subversion of the Constitution by the fed gov.
> 
> The Confederacy went to war because Lincoln invaded.  Had Lincoln not invaded, the Civil War would never have occurred.  So logically, the war was started and prosecuted by Lincoln and not the seceding states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, how might Lincoln have invaded property already owned by the Federal Government?
> 
> See:  The First Shot of the Civil War 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...you and RW think since the South fired on Ft Sumter, in which no one was killed or injured and Lincoln purposely set up the event to occur, means Lincoln was justified in waging total war against the South.
> 
> Warmongering fools..
> 
> 800k Americans died and half the nation was destroyed...all because the South fired a few shots on Ft Sumter.
> 
> CRAZY!!!
Click to expand...

The US flag was flying over Ft Sumter

The traitorous south fired upon it


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gip, traitors fired on Old Glory flying above Ft Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traitors....that is foolish.
> 
> So now Lincoln was justified in murdering thousands of southerns, because they were traitors.  If that be the case, every state in all of history has the right to kill anyone who opposes it....
> 
> Are you a totalitarian or just ignorant?
Click to expand...


Call it want you want

Traitors, slavers, tyrants


----------



## JakeStarkey

someone, ask gip if you can help him with basic terms and definitions.

He is entitled to his own opinions but not his own facts.


----------



## Samson

Wry Catcher said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> This *thread* was interesting 500 threads ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's your math?  Your post is #328.  500 - 328 =  ???
Click to expand...



I said _THREADS_, moron.



As usual, making you look like an idiot is just too easy.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Samson said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> This *thread* was interesting 500 threads ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's your math?  Your post is #328.  500 - 328 =  ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said _THREADS_, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, making you look like an idiot is just too easy.
Click to expand...


Mea culpa, I'm not perfect, but only an asshole calls someone a moron for a simple mistake.  Don't you agree, asshole?


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why South Carolina seceded
> 
> South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession Teaching American History
> 
> In summary.....Slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One state mentioning Lincoln's hostility to slavery does not indicate South Carolina's desire to go to war to keep slavery.  It also does not prove that the entire Confederacy went to war to keep slavery.  Yes SC used Lincoln's hostility toward slavery as one reason for seceding, but the bigger reason was the subversion of the Constitution by the fed gov.
> 
> The Confederacy went to war because Lincoln invaded.  Had Lincoln not invaded, the Civil War would never have occurred.  So logically, the war was started and prosecuted by Lincoln and not the seceding states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, how might Lincoln have invaded property already owned by the Federal Government?
> 
> See:  The First Shot of the Civil War 1861
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...you and RW think since the South fired on Ft Sumter, in which no one was killed or injured and Lincoln purposely set up the event to occur, means Lincoln was justified in waging total war against the South.
> 
> Warmongering fools..
> 
> 800k Americans died and half the nation was destroyed...all because the South fired a few shots on Ft Sumter.
> 
> CRAZY!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US flag was flying over Ft Sumter
> 
> The traitorous south fired upon it
Click to expand...


Yep...so let's kill them damn Southerns and destroy their property.

Seems justified to those brainwashed by the State.


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gip, traitors fired on Old Glory flying above Ft Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traitors....that is foolish.
> 
> So now Lincoln was justified in murdering thousands of southerns, because they were traitors.  If that be the case, every state in all of history has the right to kill anyone who opposes it....
> 
> Are you a totalitarian or just ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it want you want
> 
> Traitors, slavers, tyrants
Click to expand...


And they are all worthy of DEATH by the State...because a few of them fired a few cannonballs on a state owned fort...in which no one died or was injured.

Seems like a most tyrannical intolerant statist opinion to me...but the Lincoln Cult has turned many Americans into mindless statist drones.


----------



## JWBooth

US forts across the south had lowered their flags and removed their commands, giving them over to state troops, peacefully. Lincoln needed a pretext for a war that the northern population was disinclined to fight. Resupplying Sumter with troops and munitions violated prior agreements against doing so. A fully armed Sumter would effectively close Charleston Harbor. Beauregard failed to see the bigger picture, that the nascent country was ill prepared to fight its larger neighbor and instructed his batteries to fire.


----------



## gipper

JWBooth said:


> US forts across the south had lowered their flags and removed their commands, giving them over to state troops, peacefully. Lincoln needed a pretext for a war that the northern population was disinclined to fight. Resupplying Sumpter with troops and munitions violated prior agreements against doing so. A fully armed Sumpter would effectively close Charleston Harbor. Beauregard failed to see the bigger picture, that the naescent country was ill prepared to fight its larger neighbor and instructed his batteries to fire.



Agreed.  Lincoln set up events at the fort in the hopes the South fired on it.  They did and for this, they are ALL deserving of death and destruction by the State.  

Lincoln fooled many in the North with his tyrannical actions....amazingly he continues to fool Americans today.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lincoln enforced the law, and the traitors, similar to jihadists, broke the law.


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> Lincoln enforced the law, and the traitors, similar to jihadists, broke the law.



Well you guys sure want to justify Lincoln's murderous actions...it is getting tougher for you.

So if one breaks the law, total war, death and destruction are justifiable actions to be taken by the state

Is it any wonder America is in so much trouble, when so many American's are brainwashed by the state?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Justify Lincoln's appropriate response to preserve constitutional, electoral process, which the traitors were bent on destroying?  Why, yes, sensible and responsible and moral Americans support what he did.  Of course they do


----------



## Samson

Wry Catcher said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> This *thread* was interesting 500 threads ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's your math?  Your post is #328.  500 - 328 =  ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said _THREADS_, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, making you look like an idiot is just too easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mea culpa, I'm not perfect, but only an asshole calls someone a moron for a simple mistake.  Don't you agree, asshole?
Click to expand...


Tissue?






I hope you like "Hello Kitty."

It seemed to be the best choice for one with your delicate sensibilities.

Hope you recover,
Samson


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gip, traitors fired on Old Glory flying above Ft Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traitors....that is foolish.
> 
> So now Lincoln was justified in murdering thousands of southerns, because they were traitors.  If that be the case, every state in all of history has the right to kill anyone who opposes it....
> 
> Are you a totalitarian or just ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it want you want
> 
> Traitors, slavers, tyrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they are all worthy of DEATH by the State...because a few of them fired a few cannonballs on a state owned fort...in which no one died or was injured.
> 
> Seems like a most tyrannical intolerant statist opinion to me...but the Lincoln Cult has turned many Americans into mindless statist drones.
Click to expand...

I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gip, traitors fired on Old Glory flying above Ft Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traitors....that is foolish.
> 
> So now Lincoln was justified in murdering thousands of southerns, because they were traitors.  If that be the case, every state in all of history has the right to kill anyone who opposes it....
> 
> Are you a totalitarian or just ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it want you want
> 
> Traitors, slavers, tyrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they are all worthy of DEATH by the State...because a few of them fired a few cannonballs on a state owned fort...in which no one died or was injured.
> 
> Seems like a most tyrannical intolerant statist opinion to me...but the Lincoln Cult has turned many Americans into mindless statist drones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
Click to expand...


You forgot to complete your sentence.  Let me do it for you.

"I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor 
worthy of death, suffering, and complete destruction."

You are so kind.


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gip, traitors fired on Old Glory flying above Ft Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traitors....that is foolish.
> 
> So now Lincoln was justified in murdering thousands of southerns, because they were traitors.  If that be the case, every state in all of history has the right to kill anyone who opposes it....
> 
> Are you a totalitarian or just ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it want you want
> 
> Traitors, slavers, tyrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they are all worthy of DEATH by the State...because a few of them fired a few cannonballs on a state owned fort...in which no one died or was injured.
> 
> Seems like a most tyrannical intolerant statist opinion to me...but the Lincoln Cult has turned many Americans into mindless statist drones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to complete your sentence.  Let me do it for you.
> 
> "I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> worthy of death, suffering, and complete destruction."
> 
> You are so kind.
Click to expand...

Yea.....that is about right

Any person who fights to the death for the right to enslave other humans deserves no consideration


----------



## JakeStarkey

Anybody in revolt against We the People with arms in hands need no summary tribunal, simply put against the wall and dispatched.


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Traitors....that is foolish.
> 
> So now Lincoln was justified in murdering thousands of southerns, because they were traitors.  If that be the case, every state in all of history has the right to kill anyone who opposes it....
> 
> Are you a totalitarian or just ignorant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call it want you want
> 
> Traitors, slavers, tyrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they are all worthy of DEATH by the State...because a few of them fired a few cannonballs on a state owned fort...in which no one died or was injured.
> 
> Seems like a most tyrannical intolerant statist opinion to me...but the Lincoln Cult has turned many Americans into mindless statist drones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to complete your sentence.  Let me do it for you.
> 
> "I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> worthy of death, suffering, and complete destruction."
> 
> You are so kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea.....that is about right
> 
> Any person who fights to the death for the right to enslave other humans deserves no consideration
Click to expand...



Yepp.

In the 21st century, I find it hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would want to try to relitigate the "why's" of the Civil War, and make no doubt about it, the secession of the South is what sparked that war.

It's just plain old stupid to try to find more reasons other than the 45 ton elephant sitting in the room.

Gawd.


----------



## longly

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gip, traitors fired on Old Glory flying above Ft Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traitors....that is foolish.
> 
> So now Lincoln was justified in murdering thousands of southerns, because they were traitors.  If that be the case, every state in all of history has the right to kill anyone who opposes it....
> 
> Are you a totalitarian or just ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it want you want
> 
> Traitors, slavers, tyrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they are all worthy of DEATH by the State...because a few of them fired a few cannonballs on a state owned fort...in which no one died or was injured.
> 
> Seems like a most tyrannical intolerant statist opinion to me...but the Lincoln Cult has turned many Americans into mindless statist drones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
Click to expand...


What about Jane Fonda?


----------



## longly

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gip, traitors fired on Old Glory flying above Ft Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traitors....that is foolish.
> 
> So now Lincoln was justified in murdering thousands of southerns, because they were traitors.  If that be the case, every state in all of history has the right to kill anyone who opposes it....
> 
> Are you a totalitarian or just ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it want you want
> 
> Traitors, slavers, tyrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they are all worthy of DEATH by the State...because a few of them fired a few cannonballs on a state owned fort...in which no one died or was injured.
> 
> Seems like a most tyrannical intolerant statist opinion to me...but the Lincoln Cult has turned many Americans into mindless statist drones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to complete your sentence.  Let me do it for you.
> 
> "I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> worthy of death, suffering, and complete destruction."
> 
> You are so kind.
Click to expand...




gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gip, traitors fired on Old Glory flying above Ft Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traitors....that is foolish.
> 
> So now Lincoln was justified in murdering thousands of southerns, because they were traitors.  If that be the case, every state in all of history has the right to kill anyone who opposes it....
> 
> Are you a totalitarian or just ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it want you want
> 
> Traitors, slavers, tyrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they are all worthy of DEATH by the State...because a few of them fired a few cannonballs on a state owned fort...in which no one died or was injured.
> 
> Seems like a most tyrannical intolerant statist opinion to me...but the Lincoln Cult has turned many Americans into mindless statist drones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to complete your sentence.  Let me do it for you.
> 
> "I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> worthy of death, suffering, and complete destruction."
> 
> You are so kind.
Click to expand...


What about Jane Fonda?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

_Why Did The South Secede? _

It didn't:


“The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.”


Texas v. White The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law


----------



## JakeStarkey

States had no right to secede, so they didn't regardless of what they said.


----------



## rightwinger

longly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Traitors....that is foolish.
> 
> So now Lincoln was justified in murdering thousands of southerns, because they were traitors.  If that be the case, every state in all of history has the right to kill anyone who opposes it....
> 
> Are you a totalitarian or just ignorant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call it want you want
> 
> Traitors, slavers, tyrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they are all worthy of DEATH by the State...because a few of them fired a few cannonballs on a state owned fort...in which no one died or was injured.
> 
> Seems like a most tyrannical intolerant statist opinion to me...but the Lincoln Cult has turned many Americans into mindless statist drones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to complete your sentence.  Let me do it for you.
> 
> "I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> worthy of death, suffering, and complete destruction."
> 
> You are so kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Traitors....that is foolish.
> 
> So now Lincoln was justified in murdering thousands of southerns, because they were traitors.  If that be the case, every state in all of history has the right to kill anyone who opposes it....
> 
> Are you a totalitarian or just ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it want you want
> 
> Traitors, slavers, tyrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they are all worthy of DEATH by the State...because a few of them fired a few cannonballs on a state owned fort...in which no one died or was injured.
> 
> Seems like a most tyrannical intolerant statist opinion to me...but the Lincoln Cult has turned many Americans into mindless statist drones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to complete your sentence.  Let me do it for you.
> 
> "I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> worthy of death, suffering, and complete destruction."
> 
> You are so kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about Jane Fonda?
Click to expand...


She never took up arms against our country. She tried to stop a senseless war


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> States had no right to secede, so they didn't regardless of what they said.



Yes...the State MUST live for perpetuity...so thinks the statists.

Good thing Scotland did not secede.  Cause if the Brits believe as you guys do, the Scots would be murdered and the property destroyed.  You guys would nuke the Scots...right?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Derivative analogies fall apart quickly, and yours did not even get off the ground.

The South simply had to keep slavery within the South (and if slavery was disappearing, why notkeept it there), obey constitutional and electoral process, and respect federal property.


----------



## longly

rightwinger said:


> longly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call it want you want
> 
> Traitors, slavers, tyrants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they are all worthy of DEATH by the State...because a few of them fired a few cannonballs on a state owned fort...in which no one died or was injured.
> 
> Seems like a most tyrannical intolerant statist opinion to me...but the Lincoln Cult has turned many Americans into mindless statist drones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to complete your sentence.  Let me do it for you.
> 
> "I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> worthy of death, suffering, and complete destruction."
> 
> You are so kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call it want you want
> 
> Traitors, slavers, tyrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they are all worthy of DEATH by the State...because a few of them fired a few cannonballs on a state owned fort...in which no one died or was injured.
> 
> Seems like a most tyrannical intolerant statist opinion to me...but the Lincoln Cult has turned many Americans into mindless statist drones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to complete your sentence.  Let me do it for you.
> 
> "I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> worthy of death, suffering, and complete destruction."
> 
> You are so kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about Jane Fonda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She never took up arms against our country. She tried to stop a senseless war
Click to expand...

 


rightwinger said:


> longly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call it want you want
> 
> Traitors, slavers, tyrants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they are all worthy of DEATH by the State...because a few of them fired a few cannonballs on a state owned fort...in which no one died or was injured.
> 
> Seems like a most tyrannical intolerant statist opinion to me...but the Lincoln Cult has turned many Americans into mindless statist drones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to complete your sentence.  Let me do it for you.
> 
> "I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> worthy of death, suffering, and complete destruction."
> 
> You are so kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call it want you want
> 
> Traitors, slavers, tyrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they are all worthy of DEATH by the State...because a few of them fired a few cannonballs on a state owned fort...in which no one died or was injured.
> 
> Seems like a most tyrannical intolerant statist opinion to me...but the Lincoln Cult has turned many Americans into mindless statist drones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to complete your sentence.  Let me do it for you.
> 
> "I consider any American who takes up arms against my country and fires upon my flag to be a traitor
> worthy of death, suffering, and complete destruction."
> 
> You are so kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about Jane Fonda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She never took up arms against our country. She tried to stop a senseless war
Click to expand...

 
She provided aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.  In war propaganda can be as deadly as bullets. You seem to want to have it both ways; by the Constitution, it is Congress that decides what is and what is not a senseless war.


----------



## JakeStarkey

longly, if we declared war, then perhaps you would have a legal case.

We did not, and you do not.


----------



## longly

JakeStarkey said:


> longly, if we declared war, then perhaps you would have a legal case.
> 
> We did not, and you do not.



I have no interest in the legal aspects what interest me are the historical facts. The facts are US soldiers were fighting and dying in Vietnam in a struggle with an evil ideology. And Jane Fonda supported the enemy. That is treason.


----------



## mikegriffith1

One question that rarely gets asked, much less answered, is, Why did Northern leaders refuse to allow the South to leave in peace?  Clearly, their refusal to accept the Confederate peace offer had nothing to do with slavery, since secession settled the thorny issue of slavery in the territories in the North's favor, since the North would no longer have to worry about enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law, and since, as even John Nicolay noted, separation would have the effect of moving the Canadian border to the South's northern border.  So if slavery was the real issue, Northern leaders should have been thrilled with secession.

If we read Northern newspapers from the time South Carolina seceded until the announcement of the low Confederate tariff, we see a number of editorials in favor of allowing the South to leave in peace.  But many newspapers changed their tune very quickly after the Confederacy announced its low tariff.  In a matter of days, some Northern newspapers began to warn of dire consequences for Northern businesses if Northern ports had to compete with Southern ports.

We see another clear hint in Lincoln's first inaugural address.  He mentioned two reasons that he would invade: to enforce federal authority in the seceded states and to collect the tariff (to collect "duties and imposts").  Interesting.  Not one word about invading to free any slaves.  In fact, in that same speech, Lincoln mentioned his support for the Corwin Amendment, which would have forever prohibited the federal government from abolishing slavery.

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the South did in fact secede only to protect slavery, that still leaves us with the fact that the North's refusal to allow the South to leave in peace had nothing to do with any concerns about slavery.

However, the record is clear that the South did not secede merely to protect slavery.  Not only did four of the seven Deep South states mention economic complaints, especially the tariff, in their secession documents and/or addresses and speeches, but the four Upper South states initially _voted against _secession when slavery and the tariff were the main issues, and they only changed their minds later, after the fall of Fort Sumter, when it became obvious that Lincoln was going to launch an invasion.

For more information about the tariff as a major factor in sectional strife and secession, see 
The Tariff and Secession.


----------



## rightwinger

longly said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> longly, if we declared war, then perhaps you would have a legal case.
> 
> We did not, and you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest in the legal aspects what interest me are the historical facts. The facts are US soldiers were fighting and dying in Vietnam in a struggle with an evil ideology. And Jane Fonda supported the enemy. That is treason.
Click to expand...

Jane Fonda fought against an unjust and unnecessary war

The real treason was those lying to send more boys to their death


----------



## JakeStarkey

longly said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> longly, if we declared war, then perhaps you would have a legal case.
> 
> We did not, and you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest in the legal aspects what interest me are the historical facts. The facts are US soldiers were fighting and dying in Vietnam in a struggle with an evil ideology. And Jane Fonda supported the enemy. That is treason.
Click to expand...


You are entitlted to your opinion but not your own definitions.  It was not treason.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mifkegriffith1, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.  The South left because it had lost confidence that the North would let them keep slavery and that the North would no longer respect states' rights.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JakeStarkey said:


> Mifkegriffith1, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.  The South left because it had lost confidence that the North would let them keep slavery and that the North would no longer respect states' rights.



This is PC fiction.  You didn't address a single point in my reply, and it's apparent that you didn't bother to read the article on "The Tariff and Secession."

Again, the four Upper South states initially _rejected_ secession when the issues were only slavery and economic complaints.  Why?  Because they did not feel that the Deep South's complaints about slavery and economic issues justified secession.  They only seceded later, after Fort Sumter fell, because they believed it was unconstitutional and wrong to use force to compel a state to return to the Union.

In fact, those four states initially rejected secession by hefty margins and were leaning toward staying in the Union, until Lincoln made it clear that he was going to launch an invasion.  Then and only then did those four states change their minds and join the Confederacy.

Finally, FYI, the Confederate constitution allowed for the admission of _free_ states to the Confederacy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The  fiction is your far right reactionary revisionism.  Read VP  Stephens'  8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History cornerstone speech of March 21, 1861 and you will find the truth.

Any further information or guidance on the subject can be provided by paperview in a conversation request.  She is recognized by those of us who understand this subject as the outstanding expert on the matter.


----------



## regent

For all that is written about a people having the right to create a new government, we forget the hard facts in that they often have to fight a winning war, to achieve that new government. As some have the right to create a new government other people have the right to refuse that new government.


----------



## JakeStarkey

longly said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> longly, if we declared war, then perhaps you would have a legal case.
> 
> We did not, and you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest in the legal aspects what interest me are the historical facts. The facts are US soldiers were fighting and dying in Vietnam in a struggle with an evil ideology. And Jane Fonda supported the enemy. That is treason.
Click to expand...


You are entitled to your opinion is all.


----------



## longly

JakeStarkey said:


> longly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> longly, if we declared war, then perhaps you would have a legal case.
> 
> We did not, and you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest in the legal aspects what interest me are the historical facts. The facts are US soldiers were fighting and dying in Vietnam in a struggle with an evil ideology. And Jane Fonda supported the enemy. That is treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion is all.
Click to expand...


The southern states that seceded did not commit treason and this is  the reason: Our laws are based on English law and from the very beginning treason has been an action against the sovereign. Sovereignty is the right to rule others. A sovereign is one who  has no peers and there is no power above the sovereign but God. During the Revolutionary War we rejected  kings, but sovereignty did not disappear the power the king once held reverted to the people in our country.

The United States is a federation; don’t confuse it with a confederation which we also tried at one time. Under a federation the people who hold ultimate sovereignty and  delegate some of their power to at least two governments neither of which is superior to the other both are subjects of the people. The states are our basic sovereign unit of government; If the people of a state, the sovereign, vote to secede that is not treason. The sovereign can not commit treason.

If you will remember the no one was convicted of treason after the Civil War. Also I don’t mean to give impression that any group of individuals can be sovereign but only the collective.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JakeStarkey said:


> The  fiction is your far right reactionary revisionism.  Read VP  Stephens'  8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History cornerstone speech of March 21, 1861 and you will find the truth.



So one speech by a guy who was given the meaningless job of vice present and who just weeks earlier was arguing vehemently against secession--this one speech is supposed to somehow prove that secession was all about slavery, when in fact he never even mentioned secession?

You still have no addressed the point that the Republicans' reasons for opposing peaceful separation clearly had nothing to do with any concerns about slavery.

And if Stephens' speech is supposed to taken as representative of how all Southern citizens felt, shall we argue that all Northern citizens agreed with the sentiments expressed in the following statements by Northern leaders, starting with Abraham Lincoln?  Let's read:

Abraham Lincoln, just two years before he was elected president:

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 forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. ... I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. . . .

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. (Fourth debate between Lincoln and Douglas, September 18, 1858)​
Lincoln again, and this time we see him regarding the idea of "negro equality" as fudge and demagoguery:

“Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a god, great enough to make and maintain this universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogue-ism as this?” (Abraham Lincoln in notes for speeches in September of 1859)​
Lincoln, yet again:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. (Third debate with Douglas, August 21, 1858)​
Senator Stephen Douglas from Illinois, whom Lincoln warmly embraced as an ally after Fort Sumter fell:

I say to you in all frankness, gentlemen, that in my opinion a negro is not a citizen, cannot be, and ought not to be, under the constitution of the United States. . . . I say that this government was established on the white basis. It was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and never should be administered by any except white men. (Fourth debate with Stephen Douglas, September 18, 1858)​
It should be noted that Douglas finished second in the popular vote in the 1860 presidential election, receiving over 1.3 million votes, the vast majority of which came from states that remained in the Union during the war.  He got 31% of the vote in California, 47% of the vote in Illinois, 42% of the vote in Indiana, 43% of the vote in Iowa, 29% of the vote in Maine, 42% of the vote in Michigan, 39% of the vote in New Hampshire, 42% of the vote in Ohio, and 46% of the vote in New York.

Congressman Samuel Cox, who was raised in the North, said the following in the House of Representatives on June 2, 1862:

I have been taught in the history of this country that these Commonwealths and this Union were made for white men; that this Government is a Government of white men; that the men who made it never intended, by any thing they did, to place the black race on an equality with the white. (Samuel Cox, _Eight Years in Congress_, D. Appleton & Co., 1865, Kessenger Publishing, 2005, reprint of 1865 edition, p. 156)​Joshua Giddings, a leading abolitionist Republican, declared,

We do not say the black man is, or shall be, the equal of the white man, or that he shall vote or hold office. (Foner, _Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men_, p. 291)​
Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, an early opponent of slavery and an ardent foe of the extension of slavery into the territories, assured a Republican rally in Chicago that the Republican Party was “the white man’s party” and that he wanted nothing to do with blacks—in fact, he wanted blacks to leave the country:

I, for one, am very much disposed to favor the colonization of such free negroes as are willing to Central America. I want to have nothing to do with the free negro or the slave negro. We, the Republican Party, are the white man's party. [Great applause.]  We are for free white men, and for making white labor respectable and honorable, which it never can be when negro slave labor is brought into competition with it. [Great applause.] We wish to settle the territories with free white men, and we are willing that this negro race should go anywhere that it can to better its condition, wishing them God speed, wherever they go. We believe it is better for us that they should not be among us. I believe it will be better for them to go elsewhere. (_The Campaign in Illinois_, Chicago, 1858, pp. 8-9)​
Shall I continue?  I could.

So, again, you need to come to grips with the fact that the Republicans' refusal to allow the South to leave in peace had nothing to do with any concerns about slavery.  Indeed, we now know that behind the scenes Lincoln--as president--was pushing for the Corwin Amendment, which would have forever prevented the federal government from abolishing slavery--he even mentioned his support for the amendment in his first inaugural address.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That the South did not secede legally is based on American constitutional and case law, which is the only law that counts.

Stephens outweights any and all nonsense you bring to the board, friend.  He believed it, the president of the US believed it, and all alive then believed it.  What you believe matters not.

Slavery was the cause of the war.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JakeStarkey said:


> That the South did not secede legally is based on American constitutional and case law, which is the only law that counts.



Thomas Jefferson defended the right of secession.  So did James Madison.  So did John Quincy Adams.  So did Timothy Pickering.  There is not one word in the Constitution that says ratification was irrevocable or even that the Union was supposed to be permanent.  Half the states would not have ratified the Constitution if they had been told that they could never revoke their ratification. 

Furthermore, the evidence is clear that the Union was never intended to be held together by force.  The founding fathers screamed against the British for using force to try to keep the colonies from leaving--they weren't about to give to the federal government the very power that they had denounced and had fought a war to overthrow.

Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary



> Stephens outweights any and all nonsense you bring to the board, friend.  He believed it, the president of the US believed it, and all alive then believed it.  What you believe matters not.



That's your answer to the statements by Lincoln, Trumbull, Douglas, Cox, etc.?  That's it?  That all those statements are just "nonsense"?  In other words, you don't want to deal with the fact that most Northern citizens held racial views that were very similar to those that Stephens expressed.

And how do you explain the fact that Southerners began debating emancipation in 1863 and that the Confederate government began moving toward emancipation in late 1864?



> Slavery was the cause of the war.



How could slavery have been the cause of the war when Lincoln himself was prepared to permanently protect slavery from federal abolition, when four of the eleven Confederate states rejected secession when it was based on slavery concerns and economic complaints, and when the Confederate constitution allowed for the admission of _free states_ to the Confederacy?

The South's desire for independence and the Republicans' refusal to allow the South to leave in peace were the cause of the war.

If the South had announced in 1863 that it was instituting a program of gradual emancipation that would follow the pattern of Northern emancipation, i.e., emancipation over a 20-year period, would Lincoln have halted the federal invasion and agreed to peaceful coexistence?  No, because the war was not being fought over slavery.  It was being fought over Southern independence.


----------



## emilynghiem

JakeStarkey said:


> That the South did not secede legally is based on American constitutional and case law, which is the only law that counts.
> 
> Stephens outweights any and all nonsense you bring to the board, friend.  He believed it, the president of the US believed it, and all alive then believed it.  What you believe matters not.
> 
> Slavery was the cause of the war.



Yes and no, it goes in circles if you see how interconnected it is.
the Southern economy depended on slavery.
to fight for control, abolishing slavery becomes the focus strategy.

so which came first, fighting over slavery which became a control issue.
or fighting over control, where slavery was the key to breaking the South.

I would say it is intertwined.

people are still fighting for control today, with or without slavery.
states rights vs. federal centralized govt
same battle different battlefield, with different issues from
health care to immigration to legalization.

it is a mix of the issues inherent with slavery itself
and the context of fighting between state and national sovereignty


----------



## JakeStarkey

One, what the Founders may have thought about secession does not matter.

There are no circles about slavery as the cause of the war.

 It is not "well, I am coming at it differently," but you in fact are wrong.


----------



## emilynghiem

JakeStarkey said:


> One, what the Founders may have thought about secession does not matter.
> 
> There are no circles about slavery as the cause of the war.
> 
> It is not "well, I am coming at it differently," but you in fact are wrong.



I think both views are right, and nobody has to be wrong.

If a couple gets divorced because of money problems and because
they were fighting over that, it is both the money problems and the fighting
for control over or how to solve the money problems that caused the divorce.

[SIGH JakeStarkey
you remind me of how I had to explain to my Republican prolife friend
that the prochoice fight is not about abortion per se but about
govt mandates and bans that would affect women more than men.
same with how people rejecting the mandates on health care
are not about opposing health care per se but the flawed legislation.]


----------



## JakeStarkey

Derivative analogies fall apart.

But I recognize that you always strive for calm and peace, and that is a good thing!


----------



## emilynghiem

JakeStarkey said:


> Derivative analogies fall apart.
> 
> But I recognize that you always strive for clam and peace, and that is a good thing!



Well if you and Mike can come up with a better analogy,
maybe you can be more helpful and effective in that area
and help a lot more people to understand how to avoid similar
fighting even where we continue to disagree. We can all be right without making others wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

However, there is right and wrong, and Mike is having difficulty accepting that slavery and race are the twin crosses we carry in the USA.

Slavery was the root cause for every symptom of the Civil War.


----------



## Discombobulated

Moonglow said:


> I see you can't even discuss history without infusing your contempt for the current president, which is most disingenuous to your premise...



Some people find superficial historic comparisons to be compelling.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JakeStarkey said:


> One, what the Founders may have thought about secession does not matter.



So your position is that secession was unconstitutional but it doesn't matter that the founding fathers, the guys who wrote the Constitution, did not say secession was unconstitutional.  



> There are no circles about slavery as the cause of the war.



Well, you know, you can repeat this myth a thousand times and it will still be a myth, and a silly one at that, no matter how widely believed it might be in some circles.

You have not answered a single point of fact that I have presented.  Instead, you just keep repeating yourself and insisting that you're right.

I ask you again,

How could slavery have caused the war when Lincoln, the guy who launched the federal invasion, was pushing for a constitutional amendment that would have forever protected slavery from federal abolition?  How?  

How could slavery have caused the war when four of the eleven Confederate states did not even secede over slavery, nor over the tariff, but in fact rejected secession when it was based on those complaints?

If slavery was the cause of the war, why didn't Lincoln and the Republicans ever offer to allow the South to leave in peace if it would just abolish slavery, especially when they found out in 1862 that Confederate diplomats in England were saying the CSA would abolish slavery if England would recognize the Confedercy?

By the way, when Lincoln sent the armed federal naval convoy to provoke an attack on Fort Sumter (he later admitted this was his plan and boasted it had "worked"), there were more slave states in the Union than there were in the Confederacy.  In fact, when Lincoln issued his illegal call-up for 75,000 troops on his own presumed authority, there were still more slave states in the Union than there were in the Confederacy.  It was only after it became clear that Lincoln was going to invade that the four Upper South states changed their minds about secession and joined the CSA.


----------



## JakeStarkey

What the Founders thought does not matter in terms of law.

Don’t mistake freeing the slaves as the root cause of the war.  Lincoln wanted to confine slavery to the Old South.  The Southern states did not think that slavery should be restrained at all by the federal government.

They were mistaken, much as the TPM is today, that they thought they had the right and the numbers and the might to prevail.


----------



## bendog

Well, I'm not so quick to think Madison was all in favor of secession. 

Right of Revolution James Madison to Daniel Webster

Nor Adams.  But that's really a digression from the OP.

I liked the post on the "upper southern states" not being all for secession ... at least at first.  But trying to argue the War of Northern Aggression was about anything but slavery seems a fool's errand.  The whites feared the slaves having power.  Whether you owned one or not wasn't the question.  Monroe pondered the question of what to do with them all. 

Tariffs, trade .... all aspects to the central question of the largest piece of capital by far was the value of the slaves in the deep south, and the value they could produce.


----------



## bendog

JakeStarkey said:


> Mifkegriffith1, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.  The South left because it had lost confidence that the North would let them keep slavery and that the North would no longer respect states' rights.


What would you say were states' rights that were distinct from slavery?  I find the economic justifications were tied to their agrarian economy, and that was tied in turn to literally all the Southern capital being the slaves held by the Southern "1%"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Which then reduces the argument to slavery as the root cause for all symptoms for secession.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JakeStarkey said:


> Which then reduces the argument to slavery as the root cause for all symptoms for secession.


And the resulting Civil War. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## bendog

Yes.  And that isn't to say all the southerners wanted to keep Blacks enslaved.  Rather, I suspect the majority were apathetic as to the institution of slavery, but they didn't "cotton to" competing with then economically, and they sure didn't want something like 7 million of them armed and on the loose. 

And I'm quite sure the majority of northern immigrants who served had no interest in emancipation either.

An irony, imo.


----------



## longly

If the people are sovereign how can they be traitor against themselves. Are you going to say that a state is not sovereign unit of government. Benjamin Franklin once said that a man can only be traitor to his own country. Once the states seceded they are no longer American citizens. I believe that power, that is sovereignty, come from the People; a stateist believes political comes from the barrel of a gun.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

longly said:


> If the people are sovereign how can they be traitor against themselves. Are you going to say that a state is not sovereign unit of government. Benjamin Franklin once said that a man can only be traitor to his own country.* Once the states seceded they are no longer American citizens.* I believe that power, that is sovereignty, come from the People; a stateist believes political comes from the barrel of a gun.


This post makes no sense, particularly the bolded.


One may not have his American citizenship taken from him against his will solely as a consequence of his state of residence wishing to 'secede.'


We are first and foremost citizens of the United States, where the states are subordinate to that; the states have no authority to take from an American citizen his citizenship, just as the states may not violate a citizen's civil liberties.


The American people created one Nation, where they are subject to one National government, as the states are permanently and inexorability part of one Union:


“A distinctive character of the National Government, the mark of its legitimacy, is that it owes its existence to the act of the whole people who created it. It must be remembered that the National Government too is republican in essence and in theory. John Jay insisted on this point early in The Federalist Papers, in his comments on the government that preceded the one formed by the Constitution.

_To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people; each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. . . . _

[...]

In one sense it is true that "the people of each State retained their separate political identities," _post_, at 5, for the Constitution takes care both to preserve the States and to make use of their identities and structures at various points in organizing the federal union. It does not at all follow from this that the sole political identity of an American is with the State of his or her residence. It denies the dual character of the Federal Government which is its very foundation to assert that the people of the United States do not have a political identity as well, one independent of, though consistent with, their identity as citizens of the State of their residence.”


U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton 514 U.S. 779 1995 .


----------



## Statistikhengst

Again, the very fact that some people are trying to relitigate all of this is just plain old sad.


----------



## longly

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> longly said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the people are sovereign how can they be traitor against themselves. Are you going to say that a state is not sovereign unit of government. Benjamin Franklin once said that a man can only be traitor to his own country.* Once the states seceded they are no longer American citizens.* I believe that power, that is sovereignty, come from the People; a stateist believes political comes from the barrel of a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> This post makes no sense, particularly the bolded.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 
I might be giving the wrong impression; I am not in favor of the idea secession. I agree with Robert E Lee. He said something to the effect of, If you win you lose by becoming a weaker country than the one you once had. If in the future a Hispanic southwest decides to secede and join Mexico, we must do whatever it takes to stop it, even if it is worse than Sherman. 
The point I was making is that the People of a state ( the state) is sovereign( the king). The king can not commit treason.


----------



## bendog

Ah, but if secession were not a constitutional remedy, the state has no power as sovereign because the state ceded sovereignty when it ratified the constitution.

I have no interest in relitigating the cause of the lost cause (-:  An ironic term if there ever was one.  LOL

I posted to Jake, basically to say I agree if he was saying the differences boiled down to slaves.  Perhaps even in 1780, the culture of agriculture labor done by slaves on a large scale was effectively uncompromisingly dissimilar to the Yankee colonists. 

Imo, discussing the rational, and legal basis, for believing secession is a remedy, or nullification a remedy, is useful.  Logically, I don't think one can make a case for either.


----------



## Bush92

The South seceded because they had every right to do so.


----------



## mikegriffith1

bendog said:


> Well, I'm not so quick to think Madison was all in favor of secession.
> 
> Right of Revolution James Madison to Daniel Webster
> 
> Nor Adams.  But that's really a digression from the OP.
> 
> I liked the post on the "upper southern states" not being all for secession ... at least at first.  But trying to argue the War of Northern Aggression was about anything but slavery seems a fool's errand.  The whites feared the slaves having power.  Whether you owned one or not wasn't the question.  Monroe pondered the question of what to do with them all.
> 
> Tariffs, trade .... all aspects to the central question of the largest piece of capital by far was the value of the slaves in the deep south, and the value they could produce.



Madison said different things at different times about the right of secession and nullification, but there were times when he spoke in favor of both.

Jefferson was clear on his support for the right of secession.  So were Timothy Pickering and John Quincy Adams.  One fact is clear beyond dispute: The records of the constitutional convention and the various state ratification conventions make it clear that the Union was not supposed to be maintained by force.

Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary

As for the war being "all about slavery," I just don't see that, especially given the Confederate debate on emancipation, which began in 1863 and which ended with the Confederacy moving toward gradual emancipation. 

The Confederate emancipation debate revealed a wide gulf between average Southerners and plantation slaveholders.  When emancipation was put to a vote in Confederate army units, including Lee's army, it won handily.  Southern newspaper editors reported that their mail was running strongly in favor of emancipating slaves in exchange for military service.  Most Southerners, including Jefferson Davis, viewed independence as the main goal of the war, not the preservation of slavery.  When push came to shove, they were entirely willing to end slavery to keep the South independent.

What I find especially revealing are Southern private letters, which were not intended to be read by others, in which Southerners expressed outrage at the charge that the South was fighting merely to preserve slavery.  For example, when Joseph Davis wrote to his brother, Jefferson Davis, he voiced his disgust and dismay that Union soldiers in his area were claiming that the South was only fighting to protect slavery.  He regarded that charge as scurrilous and absurd.


----------



## bendog

mikegriffith1 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not so quick to think Madison was all in favor of secession.
> 
> Right of Revolution James Madison to Daniel Webster
> 
> Nor Adams.  But that's really a digression from the OP.
> 
> I liked the post on the "upper southern states" not being all for secession ... at least at first.  But trying to argue the War of Northern Aggression was about anything but slavery seems a fool's errand.  The whites feared the slaves having power.  Whether you owned one or not wasn't the question.  Monroe pondered the question of what to do with them all.
> 
> Tariffs, trade .... all aspects to the central question of the largest piece of capital by far was the value of the slaves in the deep south, and the value they could produce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madison said different things at different times about the right of secession and nullification, but there were times when he spoke in favor of both.
> 
> Jefferson was clear on his support for the right of secession.  So were Timothy Pickering and John Quincy Adams.  One fact is clear beyond dispute: The records of the constitutional convention and the various state ratification conventions make it clear that the Union was not supposed to be maintained by force.
> 
> Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary
> 
> As for the war being "all about slavery," I just don't see that, especially given the Confederate debate on emancipation, which began in 1863 and which ended with the Confederacy moving toward gradual emancipation.
> 
> The Confederate emancipation debate revealed a wide gulf between average Southerners and plantation slaveholders.  When emancipation was put to a vote in Confederate army units, including Lee's army, it won handily.  Southern newspaper editors reported that their mail was running strongly in favor of emancipating slaves in exchange for military service.  Most Southerners, including Jefferson Davis, viewed independence as the main goal of the war, not the preservation of slavery.  When push came to shove, they were entirely willing to end slavery to keep the South independent.
> 
> What I find especially revealing are Southern private letters, which were not intended to be read by others, in which Southerners expressed outrage at the charge that the South was fighting merely to preserve slavery.  For example, when Joseph Davis wrote to his brother, Jefferson Davis, he voiced his disgust and dismay that Union soldiers in his area were claiming that the South was only fighting to protect slavery.  He regarded that charge as scurrilous and absurd.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I know JQ Adams was for it, but he was not a founder.  After reading the fairly recent biography on John Adams, who was really the father of the US and Mass Const, I think he was against it.  But, I haven't looked at the book in a two years or so, so I can't be more specific. 

As for slavery, I'll assume it's true that southerners could support ending slavery as personal ownership, but there was never support for blacks having the same econ and civil rights.
Jefferson Davis s white supremacist and pro-slavery views in his memoirs published in 1881


----------



## mikegriffith1

Let's put it this way: If you reject the right of secession, then you're rejecting the Declaration of Independence (DOI) and are taking the British view of the natural right of a group of colonies/states to be separate from the national government.

The DOI is a purely secessionist document.  Its purpose was to announce that the colonies were separating from England and were assuming their place among the nations as an independent nation.  The DOI says that when the governed no longer consent to being governed, the governed have a right to alter or abolish their form of government and to form one of their own--and the key point here is that the Patriots wanted England to let the colonies leave in peace. 

The Patriots did not want war.  They only fought because England would not recognize the colonies' "natural right" (as the Patriots put it) to be independent, and they deeply resented being forced to fight for something that they believed the British should grant them as a matter of right and principle.  In fact, the DOI called the colonies "states" and said they were "of right" free and independent:

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.​


----------



## longly

bendog said:


> Ah, but if secession were not a constitutional remedy, the state has no power as sovereign because the state ceded sovereignty when it ratified the constitution.
> 
> .


 
I am sorry but you are wrong, see the tenth amendment.
I have a couple of questions for you if you will.
1. What do you think the state is?
2. Is the United States a federation?


----------



## OODA_Loop

longly said:


> I am sorry but you are wrong, see the tenth amendment.
> I have a couple of questions for you if you will.
> 1. What do you think the state is?
> 2. Is the United States a federation?



Are the United States a federation ?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Amazing that yahoos on an internet board are still trying to litigate how the South was somehow wronged in the 1800s.

Just amazing.

Righties: grow up and grow some.


----------



## bendog

mikegriffith1 said:


> Let's put it this way: If you reject the right of secession, then you're rejecting the Declaration of Independence (DOI) and are taking the British view of the natural right of a group of colonies/states to be separate from the national government.
> 
> The DOI is a purely secessionist document.  Its purpose was to announce that the colonies were separating from England and were assuming their place among the nations as an independent nation.  The DOI says that when the governed no longer consent to being governed, the governed have a right to alter or abolish their form of government and to form one of their own--and the key point here is that the Patriots wanted England to let the colonies leave in peace.
> 
> The Patriots did not want war.  They only fought because England would not recognize the colonies' "natural right" (as the Patriots put it) to be independent, and they deeply resented being forced to fight for something that they believed the British should grant them as a matter of right and principle.  In fact, the DOI called the colonies "states" and said they were "of right" free and independent:
> 
> That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.​


That's just an historically warped analogy.  I'm sorry, but there's no nicer way of saying that.  Most fundamentally, the colonies had no political representation in parliament.  The confederate states always had representation.  The argument was that non-slave holding states would have more senators as the nation expanded, so the South's views would not be adequately represented.  We've already discussed if a compromise was possible, and my view was that by the election of 1860, there was no compromise possible. 

The Founders view was that if England denied them representation, England had no justification for governing them.  Also, it seems historically warped to argue the Declaration has some meaning as to the Constitution.  If the Constitution was somehow contrary to the ideals expressed in the Declaration, the very people who drew the Declaration would not have ratified the BOR and Constitution.

Basically, there are two views.  Did, or did not, the states reserve a right to secede when they ratified the const and BOR?  I think they did not, most basically because of art 1 sec 10

*Section 10*
1: 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.
2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
3: 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.

That seems pretty clear to me.  And historically what occurred when the States ratified was they were giving up some sovereignty in exchange for a union.  It was clear to the founders that the individual states would not be strong enough to keep Europeans from carving out sections of what the founders wanted as an "American" country.  A state couldn't accomplish that goal, if it reserved sovereignty to destroy what it had consented to.  The BOR evolved to address concerns of what personal protections were being given up.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Moonglow said:


> The South felt it was threatened by it's way of life..And rejected the proposal by Lincoln to buy the slaves and set them free..



Oh really, tell me more of this proposal, with some supporting documentation...



> The war over slavery was a festering boil that was decades in the making.It just didn't occur with one president, it was an issue over states rights and the balance of power by the pro and anti crowd in federal legislation...
> Oblama has not a damn thing to do with the reasons for the Civil war...The Bible does since it advocated slavery and how to treat them as slaves. So if God said it was ok, why not do it?



Lincoln leveraged the issue, pushing for war. Earlier compromises had avoided war, but Lincoln actively sought an armed conflict. Adding to what PC posted, arrogance on both sides led to tragic results, The North believed they would defeat the South in weeks. The South knew they had all the strategists and likewise expected an easy victory. Had Stonewall Jackson not been killed (by his own men, BTW) there is every reason to believe the South would have prevailed.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Statistikhengst said:


> Amazing that yahoos on an internet board are still trying to litigate how the South was somehow wronged in the 1800s.
> 
> Just amazing.
> 
> Righties: grow up and grow some.



And where do you see anyone saying the South was wronged, Statist?


----------



## bendog

Uncensored2008 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that yahoos on an internet board are still trying to litigate how the South was somehow wronged in the 1800s.
> 
> Just amazing.
> 
> Righties: grow up and grow some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where do you see anyone saying the South was wronged, Statist?
Click to expand...


At the risk of sounding BillClintonesque, "define wronged."?

In 1860 owning a slave was perfectly legal in the South, and the Fifth Amendment prohibits taking private property w/o compensation.  In 1860, slaves represented 1/2 of total private property in the South, and about 1/5 overall in the nation.  Something in excess of 10 TRILLION dollars in 2011 dollars.

Measuring Worth - Measuring the Value of a Slave

One can argue slavery was immoral, and it was, but morality does not make law.  What Lincoln did with the Emancipation Proclamation was declaring total war on any state that remained in secession.  Slaves in non-seceding states remained private property.  Those in seceding states were taken from their owners without compensation despite the fact that if the state was STILL in the union, the federal govt lacked the power to do so, and the North's justification for invading the South was the state lacked the constitutional power to secede, so secession had never been legally effective.  If anyone can think of a more outrageous reach of federal power than taking something like a 1/5 of total private property without compensation, let me know.


----------



## bendog

Uncensored2008 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South felt it was threatened by it's way of life..And rejected the proposal by Lincoln to buy the slaves and set them free..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really, tell me more of this proposal, with some supporting documentation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war over slavery was a festering boil that was decades in the making.It just didn't occur with one president, it was an issue over states rights and the balance of power by the pro and anti crowd in federal legislation...
> Oblama has not a damn thing to do with the reasons for the Civil war...The Bible does since it advocated slavery and how to treat them as slaves. So if God said it was ok, why not do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln leveraged the issue, pushing for war. Earlier compromises had avoided war, but Lincoln actively sought an armed conflict. Adding to what PC posted, arrogance on both sides led to tragic results, The North believed they would defeat the South in weeks. The South knew they had all the strategists and likewise expected an easy victory. Had Stonewall Jackson not been killed (by his own men, BTW) there is every reason to believe the South would have prevailed.
Click to expand...


I don't know of any historical support for Lincoln seeking war.  I'm sure he thought it probably inevitable, though.  The only way the South won, i.e. stayed in secession was if the Union stopped fighting.  Because Linconln's reelection in 1864 was largely due to the troops choosing to finish the thing, rather than to take a copperhead peace with McClellan, I don't see that as possible.  Further, even if one thinks that had Jackson survived Chancellorsville, Gettysburg would have turned out differently, the South never won a truly decisive battle over the Army of the Potomac that kept it from licking its wounds to fight another day.  And Grant came East in 1864, and ground down the Army of Northern Virginia with the Wilderness, Spotslvania and Grant's greatest debacle at Cold Harbor.  And still the northern soldiers voted to keep fighting.


----------



## bendog

ps, I forgot to link the letter from 1860 in the NYT of the declining value of slaves.

Fall in the Price of Slaves. - NYTimes.com
In it a republican denies all responsibility for the decline in slave value (a sudden depreciation for which the capital of no country in the world has ever, perhaps, furnished a precedent).  It's almost gleeful.  LOL


----------

