# Was the Civil War Worth 600,000 Dead Americans?



## Publius1787 (Aug 17, 2012)

*Was the Civil War Worth 600,000 Dead Americans Just to Preserve the Union?*


----------



## JWBooth (Aug 17, 2012)

No price is too high to pay when sweeping aside an outdated republic and instituting a centralised leviathan state.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 17, 2012)

JWBooth said:


> No price is too high to pay when sweeping aside an outdated republic and instituting a centralised leviathan state.



I think it can be well determined that the South was defending and the North was attacking. Therefore, the context of the question could be regarded as was Lincoln's goal of unity worth wasting 600,000 lives.


----------



## IGetItAlready (Aug 17, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > No price is too high to pay when sweeping aside an outdated republic and instituting a centralised leviathan state.
> ...



I don't know how your assessment can be classified as "well determined" when it was the Southern states who seceded over the election of Lincoln and their well founded fears he would attempt to outlaw slavery and it was the Confederates troops who fired on Ft Sumner in the first shots fired in the war.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

IGetItAlready said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > JWBooth said:
> ...



Who died as a result of Confederate bombardment at Fort Sumter? Who was captured/imprisoned? Besides, the shots at Fort Sumter were not the first shots of the war. Fort Sumter was just the event that Lincoln used to stoke nationalism, calls for war, and cover for raising an army without consent of congress and his suspension of habeas corpus. Lincoln refused to meet with the Southern Peace Commission before any shots were fired anyway. Lincoln wanted war. The South certainly did not. 

Now that I've established that no one died as a result of enemy fire on Fort Sumter, what was Fort Sumter's purpose? It&#8217;s purpose was to stop ships entering in to the Port of Charleston and enforce teriff law. Did you think that a recently seceded South Carolina was going to allow "foreign" taxation of their imports/goods? Can they enforce secession, a secession voted on by the people of South Carolina, if they are not soverign? Lincoln gave them no choice. He rejected their offer of peace, he rejected their peace commission, and he rejected their soverignty.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 18, 2012)

The United States will always be worth preserving.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> The United States will always be worth preserving.



Half the country votes to secede in peace and 600,000 deaths of her own citizens is justified in preserving it? Is that an emotional arguement or a logical one?


----------



## elvis (Aug 18, 2012)

Yes it was worth it.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

elvis said:


> Yes it was worth it.



I can always click on the poll if I want to see what people think. What I want to know is the reasoning behind their poll choice.


----------



## Sallow (Aug 18, 2012)

Absolutely.

Additionally..the North should have punished the South much worse then it did. Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee should have been publically disemboweled and their heads should have been put on pikes until they became desiccated fly blown husks. Then they should have been ground into powder and flushed into a sewer.


----------



## antagon (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > No price is too high to pay when sweeping aside an outdated republic and instituting a centralised leviathan state.
> ...



The south (the confederate gov't) was on the offense as they occupied all the seceded states... US territory.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> Additionally..the North should have punished the South much worse then it did. Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee should have been publically disemboweled and their heads should have been put on pikes until they became desiccated fly blown husks. Then they should have been ground into powder and flushed into a sewer.



One of our countries top universities. 








However, your argument on the merits is a value judgement, absent of logic.




.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

antagon said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > JWBooth said:
> ...



The states seceded via vote by democratically elected officials in their state. That&#8217;s the same way they entered in the union. That&#8217;s hardly the occupation you describe. Elected officials who execute the will of the people do not occupy. No new outside force entered to lay claim to the Southern States until northern invasion. The people who were in those states were the same people who have always been there. Occupation? If the American Revolution could be justified via the will of the people then why couldn&#8217;t secession be justified by the will of the people? Why was war necessary? For defense? To redress a grievance for a loss? Why?


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> Half the country votes to secede in peace and 600,000 deaths of her own citizens is justified in preserving it?



I assume by citing statistics on the number of deaths in asking if it was "worth it," you mean to phrase this question in moral terms (along every economic, political, historic, etc metric the answer to your question is obviously "yes," as evidenced by the United States emerging as the most powerful and prosperous force in the history of the world in the decades and century after the war).

If the moral weight of the war is your concern, then take solace in Lincoln's suggestion that the war--and its carnage--might well have been an unavoidable moral reckoning:



> One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
> 
> Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh."
> 
> If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."



Ending that scourge and re-dedicating the nation to human liberty and human dignity was worth it.


----------



## AmyNation (Aug 18, 2012)

Of course it was worth it. We would not be the super power we are today if we were 2 separate countries. Who knows where we would be, if we would have then had to turn and fight other countries who saw us as easy colonies to conquer.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Half the country votes to secede in peace and 600,000 deaths of her own citizens is justified in preserving it?
> ...



That was not Lincolns stated war ends (See below). And Lincoln was the one who refused to negotiate peace before war broke out. Unavoidable?

_"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."* If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them.* *My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.** If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. *What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."_

*&#8212; President Abraham Lincoln to Hon.Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862*

The failure of Radical Reconstruction proved that former slaves, or freedmen" got nothing out of the Civil War.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Of course it was worth it. We would not be the super power we are today if we were 2 separate countries. Who knows where we would be, if we would have then had to turn and fight other countries who saw us as easy colonies to conquer.



By that same reasoning slavery was woth it because it helped lead to the rise of America as an economic power. 
By that same reasoning, the trail of tears was worth it because the indians are making millions off of casino's. 
No, I don't think so. There are positive outcomes in every historical disaster. That doesn't make the disaster right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > The United States will always be worth preserving.
> ...



Its the Constitutional one. 

Texas v. White


----------



## AmyNation (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it was worth it. We would not be the super power we are today if we were 2 separate countries. Who knows where we would be, if we would have then had to turn and fight other countries who saw us as easy colonies to conquer.
> ...



Not allowing the county to be broken apart during such a crucial time in our history was the right choice, IMO. It has shaped us into who we are today.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> That was not Lincolns stated ends (See below).



I have no idea why you ended that quote immediately before Lincoln's concluding line in that letter: "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of _official_ duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."

There was obviously a heavy moral component to the war, as Lincoln the man obviously recognized. Indeed, in issuing the declaration explaining and justifying its decision to secede, South Carolina cited Lincoln's well-known personal views:



> A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.



The United States was worth preserving. And the scourge of slavery was worth eliminating.

The Civil War was more than worth it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2012)

The south's insistence in refusing their legal and moral duty to adhere to constitutional, electoral government occasioned the disaster, nothing else.





AmyNation said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...


----------



## Sallow (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely.
> ...



Benedict Arnold..who's crime wasn't even a fraction of the crimes of these men is viewed in much harder light then Lee and Davis. And the soft heroism attributed to these men has led to some really screwed movements in this country.

When the Turks were bent on conquering all of Europe they sent emissaries to a tiny country they thought they could intimidate into capitulation. The two Turks traveled on a road littered with the bodies of the impaled still on their poles. When the reached the leader of the country..he greeted them while eating bread and dipping that bread into human blood. He sent those emissaries back to where they came from with their Turbans nailed to their heads. Vlad "the impaler" is still considered a hero in Romania today..and still feared by most everyone else. He's called "Dracula".

This might help clarify things..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6tV1yfEPTk]Apocalypse Now: Horror Monologue By Marlon Brando - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## jillian (Aug 18, 2012)

JWBooth said:


> No price is too high to pay when sweeping aside an outdated republic and instituting a centralised leviathan state.



yokie dokie...


----------



## Sunni Man (Aug 18, 2012)

To our detriment, Lincoln's unconstitutional "War of Northern Agression" against the south was a success and saddled us with the bloated and repressive Federal government we enjoy today.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > That was not Lincolns stated ends (See below).
> ...



You cannot prove, nor is it true that the North invaded the South to free slaves. Nor can you say that Abraham Lincolns stated ends of the war was exclusively preserve the union and free the slaves. However, there is a good argument that the Emancipation Proclamation was written to incite a slave rebellion to attack the families of Confederate Soldiers. Which is partially why the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to boarder states. The emancipation was a war time act designed to hurt and punish the enemy, not to free anyone on the merits of freedom. The black vote was what the Republicans were after, which is the primary reason for expelling the Sounthern States from Congress, even after they voted to impliment the 13th Amendment. So that the Republicans could figure out a way to off set the fact that each slave no longer counts as 3/4ths of a person for the basis of representation in congress, effectivly giving Democrats more congressional seats than Republicans wanted. Thus, the Southern states were not allowed back in until after they ratified the 14th Amendment, which gave the U.S. government the authority to deny seats in Congress if they excluded blacks from voting. Note that they did not forbid the south to exclude blacks from voting. So son't tell me that the ends of the civil war, with respect to freedmen, were anything but political.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 18, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> The United States will always be worth preserving.



Can't say I agree with that.  I'm not optimistic about what tomorrow holds for the good ole U.S. of A.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> You cannot prove, nor is it true that the North invaded the South to free slaves.



I realize convincing Confederate apologists of the wrongs of the traitors with whom they sympathize is virtually impossible. I'm merely answering your question: "Was the Civil War Worth 600,000 Dead Americans Just to Preserve the Union?"

Along every dimension one can imagine--including the moral, economic, and political--it was. 

The end of slavery is just one of many reasons the war was more than worth it.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> *Was the Civil War Worth 600,000 Dead Americans Just to Preserve the Union?*



That is a question that cannot be answered as we don't know what would have happened had the southern states been allowed to secede without war and the Confederate States of America were a nation today.  What would have happened in WWII?  How would each American nation have developed differently over the past 150 years?  We can only speculate.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > You cannot prove, nor is it true that the North invaded the South to free slaves.
> ...



Value judgements and unsubstantiated claims do nothing to further your point. And the Civil War did not end slavery. Yet another, possibly more bloody war ended slavery.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 18, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> The end of slavery is just one of many reasons the war was more than worth it.



But you assume that slavery would not have eventually been snuffed out anyway in the Confederate nation down the road, had it been allowed to live and besides, even after the emancipation of blacks in this country by all intents and purposes they remained second class citizens who weren't treated much better than slaves for about another 100 years anyhow.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The south's insistence in refusing their legal and moral duty to adhere to constitutional, electoral government occasioned the disaster, nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would you describe Thomas Jefferson in those same terms?


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> Value judgements and unsubstantiated claims do nothing to further your point.



Value judgments aren't welcome in a thread predicated on asking if the Civil War was "worth it"?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2012)

Jefferson, when thwarted in his attack on the Federalist judiciary, accepted defeat and followed the process.  So, yes, TJ acted legally and morally, instead of threatening to break up the union.  He understood the union and the constitution were bigger than the sections.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



With 5 Supreme Court justices appointed by Lincoln and rubber stamped by a strictly Republican Congress, the opinion should not have come as a surprise. however, if it is true, and constitutionally speaking, the 14th Amendment was unconstitutionally ratified. The constitution says that every state in the union shall enjoy sufferage in the federal legislature. That was the case for the 13th Amendment, but not the 14th.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2012)

14th Amendment penalized states that did not guarantee suffrage (Section 2).


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Value judgements and unsubstantiated claims do nothing to further your point.
> ...



Defending your value judgements? Well throw logic and reason out the window then. Why debate anything at all? There is nothing wrong with coming up with a conclusion based on reason or a logical thought process. There is something wrong with unsubstantiated claims and value judgements.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> Defending your value judgements? Well throw logic and reason out the window then. Why debate anything at all?



Debate? I didn't realize there were even two sides in this thread.

Has someone put forth an affirmative thesis that the Civil War was _not_ worth it?


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> 14th Amendment penalized states that did not guarantee suffrage (Section 2).



That&#8217;s right. However, it did not forbid those states to take away voting rights to freedmen, nor did the 14th Amendment apply to women, though it was discussed. Why? Because after the 13th Amendment the 3/5ths clause was null and void. The Republicans did not want the Democrats in the South to benefit from the increase in representation in the House. Exclusion from Congress and the 14th Amendment was the remedy. If they didn&#8217;t allow freedmen to vote then the South would be denied the extra seats. If the South did allow the freedmen to vote, Republicans would have a shot in Southern municipalities, districts, and state legislatures. It had nothing to do with being the right thing to do. It had everything to do with Republican power in Congress, and among the states formerly in rebellion. You disagree with this?


----------



## antagon (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


No, buddy, if you want a new country you have to leave and find one, or steal the land from the original, bearing the consequences fully.

England was most justified going to war with a belligerent colony.  We are righteous chiefly because we won that conflict.  Same applies with the Civil War.  The land the belligerent south occupied, taxes from its produce and the allegiance of its residents belonged to the US, notwithstanding the opinion-making process which concluded otherwise.

Now, you've aimed to shelter your argument on aloofness, but vs England or vs the Union, the belligerents were not aloof.  They armed themselves to defend their land-grab.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Defending your value judgements? Well throw logic and reason out the window then. Why debate anything at all?
> ...



Playing stupid also gets you nowhere.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

antagon said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



The Unites States shall not deny any state a republican form of government. Was that not what was exercised? To deny secession would to deny democratic republicanism. Would it not? Was it not the way they entered? Was it not the way they made their exit? Was violence the remedy? For a country founded on self-evident truths, I find it hard to justify invading another for adhering to them. If the land already belongs to you then your not a rebellious occupyer. The federal government only had one 10 X 10 square mile piece of land at the time.


----------



## antagon (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


Nothing stops the US from declaring war on democratic countries.  Violence was the remedy hands down.  This was not the federal government, but the United States which kicked their asses.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> Playing stupid also gets you nowhere.



You've pushed back on various posts in this thread disputing points other have made, but I take it from this response you want to blaze ahead and show us the sunny side of the Confederates' treason.

I'm listening. Make your case.


----------



## antagon (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



Your arguments on this matter rise from playing stupid.  It is stupid to think that secession, no mater how democratic, will be left at a gentleman's disagreement.  That is plain dumb.  You don't seem stupid, so I'm presuming you are playing the role.


----------



## Politico (Aug 18, 2012)

The south shot first.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

antagon said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



I don't think that qualifies as a response to my previous post. I was making the legal/ideological argument. Your response does not satisfy the merits of the antithesis of that argument. Nevertheless, what did the United States lose? What were they defending? What wrong was committed that justified a war of such a scale? 
Is it not obvious that Lincoln himself threw the Constitution under the bus before the outbreak of war? Are we not a nation of laws? Does the law matter if the president refuses to adhere to it? Is there recourse for justice if those in opposition of the president are locked up to include judges and justices of the court? Does the country exist in law or in a person? Is the law grounded on democratic republican and federalist principles or is it the whims of any one man? If the south offered no injury, seceding via the democratic republican process guaranteed to every state in the U.S. Constitution, then what grievance did the North have, of which, were the first in United States history to threaten secession with President Jefferson asking only that they go in peace in his first inaugural address.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

antagon said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



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.

The best way to learn is to ask the question adverse to most and play devil&#8217;s advocate to the most extreme ability. I am yet to be satisfied with the responses here in my effort. Think of it as a lawyer defending the guilty. He must use his talents to his upmost ability to defend his client via honesty, reason, and logic else it would be legal malpractice. There is a lot of malpractice among the arguments here derived from laziness and Intellectual dishonesty. I don't fear being wrong. I enjoy it. It means that I've learned something. However, among the arguments here, I am learning nothing. That certainly takes the wind out of my sails.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

Politico said:


> The south shot first.



I have addressed this to some sorts in another post in this thread. below is the copy.



> Who died as a result of Confederate bombardment at Fort Sumter? Who was captured/imprisoned? Besides, the shots at Fort Sumter were not the first shots of the war. Fort Sumter was just the event that Lincoln used to stoke nationalism, calls for war, and cover for raising an army without consent of congress and his suspension of habeas corpus. Lincoln refused to meet with the Southern Peace Commission before any shots were fired anyway. Lincoln wanted war. The South certainly did not.
> 
> Now that I've established that no one died as a result of enemy fire on Fort Sumter, what was Fort Sumter's purpose? Its purpose was to stop ships entering in to the Port of Charleston and enforce teriff law. Did you think that a recently seceded South Carolina was going to allow "foreign" taxation of their imports/goods? Can they enforce secession, a secession voted on by the people of South Carolina, if they are not soverign? Lincoln gave them no choice. He rejected their offer of peace, he rejected their peace commission, and he rejected their soverignty.


----------



## antagon (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> The best way to learn is to ask the question adverse to most and play devils advocate to the most extream ability. I am yet to be satisfied with the responses here in my effort. Think of it as a lawyer defending the guilty. He must use his talents to his upmost ability to defend his client vial reason and logic else it would be legal malpractice. there is alot of malpractice among the arguements here derived from lazyness and Intellectual dishonesty.



I'm actually not inside your exercise, Pub, but feel that devils' advocate is defined by intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

antagon said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > The best way to learn is to ask the question adverse to most and play devils advocate to the most extream ability. I am yet to be satisfied with the responses here in my effort. Think of it as a lawyer defending the guilty. He must use his talents to his upmost ability to defend his client vial reason and logic else it would be legal malpractice. there is alot of malpractice among the arguements here derived from lazyness and Intellectual dishonesty.
> ...



Yeah, I updated my post to better explain it. And truth, honesty, logic, and reason have nothing to do with how you "feel." If your not here to learn among others, then your here due to some funky emotional/behaviorial complex. I don't think that statement falls in the realm of "false delimma."

The best way to learn is to ask the question adverse to most and play devil&#8217;s advocate to the most extreme ability. I am yet to be satisfied with the responses here in my effort. Think of it as a lawyer defending the guilty. He must use his talents to his upmost ability to defend his client via honesty, reason, and logic else it would be legal malpractice. There is a lot of malpractice among the arguments here derived from laziness and Intellectual dishonesty. I don't fear being wrong. I enjoy it. It means that I've learned something. However, among the arguments here, I am learning nothing. That certainly takes the wind out of my sails.


----------



## antagon (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


Who cares? I care.  I have used some colorful fonts to help you to glean some correlation.


> I was making the legal/ideological argument. Your response does not satisfy the merits of the antithesis of that argument.


If what you have put forward are arguments, pardon my observation that they are terse.  I replied commensurately.  I took the time to elaborate your gist, would you pay me the same credit?


> Nevertheless, what did the United States lose? What were they defending? What wrong was committed that justified a war of such a scale?


Power, opportunity, land, constituents, resources, relationships, defenses... What do you see as the value of the southeast, moreover the legacy of sovereignty and other accolades of getting publicly robbed?

Alas, who predicted this scale when the conflict started?


----------



## antagon (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


I use 'feel' here synonymously with 'I declare' or ' '.  Just a way of softening declarative statements.  The etymology on that probably harkens back to the period we're discussing, ironically.

The leap to semantics argumentative criticism and the lack of effort on your part to comprehend my perfectly good communication and reasoning reminds me of failing or insincere arguments I've heard before.  Can you tighten that up or bow the hell out?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2012)

That's a balanced assessment.  The GOP spent a decade trying to build the hope for a permanent majority based on white and black voters in the southern states.  In the end, the GOP failed, betrayed black civil rights in the south in return for the Hayes presidency, and concentrated on the western territories that were becoming states.



Publius1787 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > 14th Amendment penalized states that did not guarantee suffrage (Section 2).
> ...


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

antagon said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



I stand by my previous statements, grounded in Lockeian and Jeffersonian principle. You see, I'm not a conservative part of the time, but all of the time. I could take your argument about power, opportunity, land, constituents, resources, etc. and make the same liberal arguments that you reject so much. I could say that law and reason is not grounded in the individual, but the welfare of the collective, and you would reject that out right. I could say that an individual or a people who elects his/their representatives in a free election to exercise his/their will, doesn&#8217;t count if there is another person, in another state, in another election, who feels that his elected officials (who have done them no harm) doesn&#8217;t represent their interests, or their lust for power, which gives them the right to invade that state, and you would call me crazy! But in this case, self-evident truths don&#8217;t matter. In this case, the U.S. Constitution doesn&#8217;t matter. In this case, the principles grounded in the Declaration of Independence don&#8217;t matter. In this case, the unalienable right of self-government doesn&#8217;t matter. This case is all about other people&#8217;s goods that make up a federal privilege, and not of everyone&#8217;s rights. This case is all about top down federal strong arming of the states and the harm done to the federal government. You said so yourself. And your argument is no different than that of the liberals you argue against in this forum. Where the natural unalienable rights of the individual is NOT the object of which government was instituted to protect, and the general welfare of a nation can be described as not equal treatment under the law, equal allocation of federal protection, but redistributive in nature against everything James Madison argued in federalist no. 41. This is the argument you are making. Thomas Jefferson would not agree. Why? Because the right of secession is concurrent with the natural rights of man.  All the legal, philosophical, and moral arguments you've displayed are the bedrock of modern liberal thought. And, secession off the table, you would not practice the same standard in modern legal and philosophical times.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> That's a balanced assessment.  The GOP spent a decade trying to build the hope for a permanent majority based on white and black voters in the southern states.  In the end, the GOP failed, betrayed black civil rights in the south in return for the Hayes presidency, and concentrated on the western territories that were becoming states.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And I didn't even need to look up the Amendment to offer you a reply. The 14th Amendment is perhaps the most complicated and self-contradicting Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Where privileges and immunities cannot be denied and yet voting, for freedmen, can still be outlawed. Very contradicting indeed. What shall we conclude of the modern interperitation of the 14th Amendment in light of this legal phenomena?


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

antagon said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



Semantics? I take a man at his word. I only have the words you give me. I like to debate on the merits. The word "feel" is synonymous with value judgment  and is not an argumentative word. Just imagine if you were on trial accused of murder and your lawyer started off his concluding argument with I feel.


----------



## Sallow (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



Oh bullshit.

You guys are so ignorant of the Constitution it's not funny..

Once the south elected their own government and started coining their own money they were in open rebellion of the United States. Nothing in the Constitution allows for that. They may have had a case had they brought their case to the congress and passed legislation allowing for secession, which, by the way, would have been near impossible to do.

The south committed treason...and cost this country American lives and treasure. And they were let off far to easy for their treachery.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



Where in the Constitution does it deny secession?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2012)

The Constitution did not, SCOTUS later did, so the legality was tried by combat.

Guess who lost?


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Constitution did not, SCOTUS later did, so the legality was tried by combat.
> 
> Guess who lost?



5 or 6 of thoes Justices appointed by Lincoln and rubber stamped by a Congress without an opposing party. The funny thing is that if the states had never left the union, the 14th Amendment would have been unconstitutionally ratified. Using the same legal rationale they did.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2012)

The funny thing is that did not happen, the South got stupid, Lincoln became dictatorial and absolutely ruthless, and we have the country we have today, for better and worse.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 18, 2012)

wow, the dumb in this thread is long, wide and deep.

Only a great buffoon would consider that a split America would somehow be better.

And would have to completely ignore all the history that has occurred since.


----------



## antagon (Aug 18, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


I don't want to be mistaken for a 'conservative', even if I'd align with conservative opinions from time to time.  The same with 'liberal'.  I'd describe myself as my own brand of social capitalist, and politically, a centered pragmatist. 

This post does get to the bottom of your perspective, however.  The philosophical basis of our government does not change the fact that it is a nation.  All nations take up arms against armed rebels - enemies. They depossessed the US of half of our landmass and themselves of all those rights and principles promised to citizens of the US.  The US is the land of the free and home of the brave, not Mexico, the confederacy, the Cherokee or England, against whom the US fought territorial wars. It's the "if you ain't with us..." principle.

Isn't that just as noble and existential a concept as any?  The right to fight. 

They knew they had an asskicking coming.  They exercised their right to fight by seceding, and took up a vote for their own mandate on the matter.  I'm gathering that you believe the US should have been moved by the democratic nature of all that. Do you seriously maintain that nostalgia from our revolution would have afforded them a salute instead of a beatdown?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2012)

Lincoln carefully flamed and incited the northern and western democrat reactions to the firing on Fort Sumter, on Old Glory, and on the memory of the Father Patriots of the century before.  He never could have successfully waged war without the solid support of both camps against the South.

How could the Southern leaders thought for a second that the thought "well, the southerners are having their Jeffersonian moment, and let's wish the well and send them a good bye bouquet."


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 19, 2012)

Can't resist:
There is immense and sad irony that both the south and north fought for freedom, if we think of the personal motivation of the soldiers. 
The southern troops stayed in the field for years without many of the necessities most armies require. Most of those soldiers were not slave owners. Why would they fight and suffer for the rich? They wouldn't have. It was out of their concept of liberty vested in states' rights.
Northern soldiers had the ideal of liberating fellow human beings and preserving a grand nation for a grander cause.
The north's economic incentive was protectionism, the south's, free trade. These concepts were as much at loggerheads as the slavery issue.
Again ironically, slaves would soon be shown to be economically unsustainable in the light of technology that made labor redundant. Besides, as an economic system, slavery has many defects, not least of which is lack of internal markets (thus, free trade was essential in order to sell overseas everything produced).
The south knew that it would soon be outvoted in Congress and lose its unfair population advantage. Otherwise, just paying the 'owners' for the slaves and freeing them, as was done in some other societies, would have removed that problem.
Lincoln did not originate the idea that secession was unacceptable. Even Jackson, a southerner, declared the union had to be preserved. There was, however, no express prohibition of secession in the constitution.
The ascension of the strong central government had its strongest footings in this conflict, yet individual rights were enhanced and protected. 
So, was it worth it? No war is 'worth it'. That is not the question. War is organized insanity. Are you happier with what the US has become as a result or do you think things would be better if there were two nations in the same footprint on earth? That determines the worth.
It is subjective, like all ideas, words, concepts. Human.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 19, 2012)

"I don't want to be mistaken for a 'conservative', even if I'd align with conservative opinions from time to time. The same with 'liberal'. I'd describe myself as my own brand of social capitalist, and politically, a centered pragmatist."

A reasonable position.


----------



## gipper (Aug 20, 2012)

Two Thumbs said:


> wow, the dumb in this thread is long, wide and deep.
> 
> Only a great buffoon would consider that a split America would somehow be better.
> 
> And would have to completely ignore all the history that has occurred since.



So is it your opinion that Lincoln was correct in forcing a terrible war that killed and wounded  hundreds of thousands, completely destroyed the South, and resulted in terrible racism that persisted for decades?  Do you not think the war could have been avoided and the Union preserved?

The Constitution was silent on succession.  This was the only way the States would join the Union and ratify the Constitution.  This means any state had the right to leave the Union and this was well known up and until the War of Northern Aggression.  Lincoln changed all that by the force of arms...funny how tyrants regularly resort to violence to get their way.  

No president was more tyrannical than Lincoln.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 20, 2012)

Get your facts straight.

One, the casualties were more than 600000 dead and 1000000 wounded soldiers, more than 100000 dead civilians, a racism before and during and after the war. 

Two, blame the South.



gipper said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > wow, the dumb in this thread is long, wide and deep.
> ...


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 20, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> The United States will always be worth preserving.



I'm not so sure.  What is worth preserving about a state that strip searches children?  That forces a 4 year old to remove his leg braces so he can fly?  That arrests a soldier for what he posts on Facebook?  Why is the United States worth preserving?  What exactly do we have today that is worth preserving.  We sure as hell don't have the freedom for which our ancestors fought.  Few of us can even afford the "American Dream" today, so exactly why is America worth preserving?


----------



## antagon (Aug 20, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > The United States will always be worth preserving.
> ...


Take a hike.  Get on a plane and burn your passport after you land in whatever shithole you esteem over the US.

I love my country.  I love it even though some of us and some of our rules are stupid.  We always work them out in time.  For all ye of no faith in our nation all of a sudden:  just get lost.  We have plenty of immigrants coming here who are willing to stand up and defend this country.  Dead-weight like you can scram without us missing a step.

Have some honor and leave the country permanently.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 20, 2012)

antagon said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



Where am I suppose to go?  America is the only country in the world that takes in people to take away the jobs of their own citizens.


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 21, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> *Was the Civil War Worth 600,000 Dead Americans Just to Preserve the Union?*



Yes. It was worth it. It was also worth ridding the nation of the institution of slavery.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 21, 2012)

Hyperbole much?



Againsheila said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


----------



## antagon (Aug 21, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



That's part of our great history, too.  Just over 200 choices out there.  Be creative.  Show up in Mongolia or Greenland and claim refugee status.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 21, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > No price is too high to pay when sweeping aside an outdated republic and instituting a centralised leviathan state.
> ...



Get over it. The south started a war, and the north finished it. Your chosen side lost. Slavery is dead as is the Confederacy. The United States of America is where we live, if you do not like that, there is no law keeping you here.


----------



## Indofred (Aug 21, 2012)

I suppose you'd have to ask the freed slaves.
Is human freedom worth fighting for?
Can humans be owned as property?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 21, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



You lost. All of this was settled Appamatox. We are one nation, indivisable.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 21, 2012)

The Civil War certainly should have been worth it.  It was worth it for quite awhile.  Today, the benefits are debatable.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 21, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > *Was the Civil War Worth 600,000 Dead Americans Just to Preserve the Union?*
> ...



But the civil war didn't do that.  The slaves in the north were not freed until AFTER the civil war, they were exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation.  In fact, the EP didn't apply to any slaves the north actually had control over.  It exempted all slaves in northern states and in southern states already under the north's control.  I never understood why Lincoln got credit for freeing the slaves since he didn't free anyone he actually had control over.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 21, 2012)

Indofred said:


> I suppose you'd have to ask the freed slaves.
> Is human freedom worth fighting for?
> Can humans be owned as property?



Nice try, but 4 slave holding states remained with the north and those slaves were not freed until AFTER the civil war.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 21, 2012)

gipper said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > wow, the dumb in this thread is long, wide and deep.
> ...



Lincoln forced the war? It was clear to the south that secession would not be accepted. It was at least a shared responsibility. 
As was pointed out, Lincoln did not invent the inviolability of the Union. Jackson during his presidency once made a toast in the presence of Calhoun, saying, "The union; it must be preserved!"

If we accept it was a civil war, aggression is not the correct term. Any nation seeking to maintain its territorial integrity is justified to deploy troops where necessary. 

The measures Lincoln took are not to our liking today. However, it is admirable that a presidential election was held in the middle of the greatest strife the US ever suffered. That it was internal is the more surprising. What other country in history has done or would have dared do such a thing?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 21, 2012)

The south forced the war because the leaders would not accept that they lost in a contest that followed electoral, constitutional process, and they brought war to the states and territories as a result of their inability to act as true Americans.


----------



## gipper (Aug 21, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > JWBooth said:
> ...



Wrong.  The North started the war or more specifically Lincoln started the war.  He set up the events leading to the firing on Fort Sumter (funny how tyrannical politicians like involving us in war...see Wilson and FDR).  

The war could have easily been avoided had Lincoln backed off his tariff demands on Southern goods.  But, tyrants don't avoid war they want war.  Total war and total state go together very nicely.


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 21, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



But the end result was the same. In the end, all the slaves were freed, and the Union maintained. How Lincoln did it, only shows his masterful hand at the position he held.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 21, 2012)

Deflection.  Tariff had very little do with Lincoln or the war.  The south's fear of Lincoln's supposed abolition drove it to violate the Constitution, leap into tyranny and treason, and the execution of states' rights at the hand of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans.





gipper said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 21, 2012)

Well, you're all wrong and I, as usual, am totally correct!

OK, just joshin'.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 21, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Well, you're all wrong and I, as usual, am totally correct!
> 
> OK, just joshin'.



Hey, everyone is entitled to my opinion.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 21, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you're all wrong and I, as usual, am totally correct!
> ...



I'll keep that in mind (thus stating I have one!).


----------



## gipper (Aug 22, 2012)

Wrong.  Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery.  He had no intention of abolishing it.  In fact, at one time, he proposed deporting all blacks back to Africa.

The Constitution did not prevent ANY state from leaving the Union.  None of the States would have ratified the Constitution without the ability to secede.  The Constitution is silent on secession.  So, the South did not commit treason as you foolishly claim.  

In fact, most northern newspaper editors knew at the time that secession was legal and wanted to let the South secede rather than go to war. Lincoln chose war to impose his tyrannical aims.  Most disgusting.  The terrible suffering he caused must never be forgotten.  

The War of Northern Aggression was a terrible mistake prosecuted by a tyrant (Dishonest Abe).  It was entirely unnecessary. 



JakeStarkey said:


> Deflection.  Tariff had very little do with Lincoln or the war.  The south's fear of Lincoln's supposed abolition drove it to violate the Constitution, leap into tyranny and treason, and the execution of states' rights at the hand of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> *Was the Civil War Worth 600,000 Dead Americans Just to Preserve the Union?*



"Just" to preserve the Union?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2012)

gipper said:


> The War of Northern Aggression






You mean the American Civil War.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2012)

gipper said:


> The war could have easily been avoided .






Don't be ridiculous. The war was a very, very long time coming.


----------



## Sallow (Aug 22, 2012)

gipper said:


> Wrong. * Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery.  He had no intention of abolishing it.  In fact, at one time, he proposed deporting all blacks back to Africa.*
> The Constitution did not prevent ANY state from leaving the Union.  None of the States would have ratified the Constitution without the ability to secede.  The Constitution is silent on secession.  So, the South did not commit treason as you foolishly claim.
> 
> In fact, most northern newspaper editors knew at the time that secession was legal and wanted to let the South secede rather than go to war. Lincoln chose war to impose his tyrannical aims.  Most disgusting.  The terrible suffering he caused must never be forgotten.
> ...



This is half right..and only for a short while.

Lincoln always wanted to do away with slavery..and thought that blacks in this country could be relocated to Liberia.

But he changed his views.

And the Constitution prevents all states from leaving the Union.

Fucking read it every once in a while.


----------



## gipper (Aug 22, 2012)

Sallow said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. * Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery.  He had no intention of abolishing it.  In fact, at one time, he proposed deporting all blacks back to Africa.*
> ...



Too funny...yeah Lincoln cared so much about the Constitution that he ignored it entirely for his entire presidency.  Ever heard of habeas corpus?

If he cared about slavery, why would he free ONLY the slaves in the southern states (which had no effect) with his initial Emancipation Proclamation, which by the way, did NOT outlaw slavery and did NOT make the freed slaves citizens?  

The proclamation was made by executive order and as such, not approved by Congress...sort of similar to the tyrannical executive orders we see presidents doing today.

Can you please tell me where in the Constitution it prevents states from seceding?


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 22, 2012)

Sallow said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. * Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery.  He had no intention of abolishing it.  In fact, at one time, he proposed deporting all blacks back to Africa.*
> ...



I read it, but I must have misunderstood.  Please show me where it prevents states from leaving?


----------



## gipper (Aug 22, 2012)

[/QUOTE]I read it, but I must have misunderstood.  Please show me where it prevents states from leaving?[/QUOTE]

Yeah..really...please show us.

How about this from your beloved Lincoln...he REALLY changed his tune on slavery...yeah right!!!


> I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will 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.
> 
> ~ Abraham Lincoln, Debate with Stephen Douglas, Sept. 18, 1858, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), pp. 636-637.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2012)

gipper said:


> If he cared about slavery, why would he free ONLY the slaves in the southern states (which had no effect) with his initial Emancipation Proclamation, which by the way, did NOT outlaw slavery and did NOT make the freed slaves citizens?





Make up your mind, do you want the Constitution followed or not? He did not have the authority to either outlaw slavery outright or make freed slaves citizens.


----------



## gipper (Aug 22, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > If he cared about slavery, why would he free ONLY the slaves in the southern states (which had no effect) with his initial Emancipation Proclamation, which by the way, did NOT outlaw slavery and did NOT make the freed slaves citizens?
> ...



Your response is most disingenuous.

Lincoln failed to follow the Constitution in nearly everything he did.  Is issuing an executive order that has no effect, constitutional?  

This from the great Ph.D. Thomas DiLorenzo



> The Emancipation Proclamation was a propaganda strategy designed to deter England from supporting the Confederacy. It came as a complete surprise to most
> Northerners, who thought they were fighting and dying by the tens of thousands to preserve the union. As a result, there were draft riots in New York City; a desertion crisis was created in the U.S. army, with some 200,000 deserters, according to historian Gary Gallagher; and war bond sales plummeted. According to James McPherson, the "dean" of "Civil War" historians, Union soldiers "were willing to risk their lives for the Union, but not for black freedom . . . . They professed to feel betrayed."
> 
> Slavery was ended in 1866 with the Thirteenth Amendment, but at the cost of 620,000 lives; hundreds of thousands more that were crippled for life; and the near destruction of almost half the nations economy. By contrast, dozens of other countries (including Argentina, Colombia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish colonies, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela) ended slavery peacefully during the first 60 years of the nineteenth century. Why not the U.S.?
> ...


https://mises.org/daily/607/


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2012)

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...




My response was accurate. Your attitude is hypocritical.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2012)

gipper said:


> Is issuing an executive order that has no effect, constitutional?
> 
> ]






It was not without effect, of course.


----------



## gipper (Aug 22, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I think not. 

Because Lincoln did not free all the slaves and make them citizens, you claim he is following the constitution.  Okay...whatever.  Did he follow the constitution in everything he did?

Lincoln, like many presidents, never felt the Constitution constraint him in any way. If he had, he would have known that the Southern states had every right to secede.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2012)

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...




Not "okay...whatever." He did not have the authority to do so.


----------



## gipper (Aug 22, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



He didn't have the authority to do nearly everything he did...and you are bitching about this.  Too funny.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2012)

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...




You claim to be upset about that, but expected him to overstep his authority on this? You are the very definition of a hypocrite.


----------



## antagon (Aug 22, 2012)

Its plenty ignorant to conclude that the US stepped outside constitutional boundaries through prosecuting that ass-kickin down south.  The confederacy wasn't due any rights in the Constitution after they reported their mutiny from the Union and drafted up their own.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 22, 2012)

Re-guessing history is fun, but doesn't really get anywhere. If the south had not seceded in April, 1861, when would it have? I see no reason to believe it would not have. They were opposed to the economic system that was taking hold of the world and backed themselves into an inflexible corner. The imbalance of trade they ran on could not last.
It is surprising that some fail to recognize the complicity of the south in the war. They absolutely knew a declaration of secession meant fighting. They refused a democratic solution. That does not defend Lincoln, simply states facts.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 22, 2012)

The South Lost.  The Civil War is over and Slavery no longer exists on our soil.  Those who wish to fight another such war ought to first walk the field of battle at Gettysburg.  Then, go visit our National Cemeteries and read the names and ages of those who died in wars defending the union.


----------



## gipper (Aug 23, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



You continue to call me a hypocrite, which is not a debate tactic used by intelligent people.  

Lincoln seldom followed the Constitution.  He felt he could do whatever he wanted.  He was not constrained in any way, by the law.  So, why did he fail to free all the slaves and provide them citizenship?  You seem to think he couldn't, because the law prevented him...and yet, if you know history, you know Lincoln ignored the law.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 23, 2012)

gipper does not know how to set up an argument.

Lincoln finally moved against Southern slavery as a war measure with the emancipation proclamation.  He then had the radicals introduce the 13th amendment.

Lincoln moved consistently with purpose, and his goal was completed in December 1865 with the ratification of the 13th amendment.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 23, 2012)

gipper said:


> You continue to call me a hypocrite.





Because you continue to act like one.


----------



## Polk (Aug 28, 2012)

Get a time machine and go ask the slaveowners.


----------

