# The Gettysburg Address



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

I'm just going to quote H. L. Mencken because he said it better than I ever could.

_
The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost child-like perfectionthe highest emotion reduced to one graceful and irresistible gesture. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination  that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the countryand for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege.

- H.L. Mencken -​_


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> I'm just going to quote H. L. Mencken because he said it better than I ever could.
> 
> _
> The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost child-like perfection&#8212;the highest emotion reduced to one graceful and irresistible gesture. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.
> ...



Well said

The only problem with Mencken is that the Constitution of that government seeking self determination specifically prohibits any laws that impede the institution of slavery. The Confederacy was not looking for self determination, but the right to determine that others were subhuman and deserve to be property

Lincoln  1
Mencken  0


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just going to quote H. L. Mencken because he said it better than I ever could.
> ...



You're a moron.  

Slavery existed in the North as well as the South.  The Constitution of the United States required the federal government to enforce the institution of slavery.  If the South wasn't looking for self-determination, then neither was the federal government.  So, once again, the Gettysburg Address is a fraud.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



"Conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal....."

Southern traitors need not apply


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The federal government enforced slavery, you fucking moron.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 10, 2014)

"The federal government enforced slavery, you fucking moron."

Until the federal government executed it.

Fucking moron?  My, my.  Grow up, tubby.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> "The federal government enforced slavery, you fucking moron."
> 
> Until the federal government executed it.
> 
> Fucking moron?  My, my.  Grow up, tubby.



The federal government didn't abolish it until 1865 when it passed the 13th Amendment, numskull.  Even then, that Amendment wasn't legitimate since Southern states had to approve it as a condition of being readmitted to the Union.

By the way, you can find good deals on adult diapers here:

Adult Diapers and Incontinence Supplies | NorthShore Care Supply

*NorthShore Care Supply*
The Incontinence Supply Experts

_Discreet Delivery of Adult Diapers, Youth Diapers & Incontinence Supplies_​
Just trying to help you in your evening of life.


----------



## Luissa (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




Have you heard of free states? By the time Lincoln gave that speech northern states were mostly free states.  


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

Luissa said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



By the time he gave the speech?  That's a little late, don't you think?  What about when the war started?  You can hardly claim that the North was fighting to end slavery when quite a number of states in the union still practiced slavery.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 10, 2014)

To even imply that the traitors remotely thought that all men are created equal shows what abdouchebag Mencken is


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



We can debate till the end of time that the north fought to end slavery.......but there is no doubt the south fought to preserve it


----------



## Luissa (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




Of course they weren't fighting to free slaves. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 10, 2014)

Slavery apologists like Bri are boring. You see them everywhere, defending their beloved slaver heroes.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 10, 2014)

Luissa said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



The Union Army sure freed a lot of them


----------



## Luissa (Mar 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




That they did. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## Luissa (Mar 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Slavery apologists like Bri are boring. You see them everywhere, defending their beloved slaver heroes.




My ancestors owned slaves, and I won't try to change the facts to make that seem alright. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## Toro (Mar 10, 2014)

The Confederacy was statist.

It blows my mind that conservatives who claim to be for individual rights defend it so vehemently today.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 10, 2014)

We can see *bripat's dementia *causing him to write "The federal government didn't abolish it until 1865 when it passed the 13th Amendment, numskull. Even then, that Amendment wasn't legitimate since Southern states had to approve it as a condition of being readmitted to the Union."

(1) The government did abolish it.

(2) The amendment was legitimate because the reconstructed states approved it as a requirement for readmission into the Union.


----------



## whitehall (Mar 10, 2014)

According to legend Lincoln wrote the speech while on the train to Gettysburg. Today the politicians can't give a speech without a small army of speech writers, psychologists and political analysts. How many memorable speeches were ever given during the 20th century?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The North was fighting to preserve The Union, as was Lincoln.  The North and Lincoln knew that the civilized world no longer embraced slavery and the South was the last stand for this inhuman and disgusting abuse of humanity; sadly, dirt bags like bripat9643 still do.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> To even imply that the traitors remotely thought that all men are created equal shows what abdouchebag Mencken is



It doesn't matter what they thought.  The claim that Lincoln and the Northern states were fighting for the right of self-determination is obvious hooey.  They were fighting to impose confiscatory tariffs on the Southern states, and nothing more.


----------



## regent (Mar 10, 2014)

The legend is wrong of course. 
Today a politician better have writers or help in writing a speech, one little flaw and bingo. Think of Obama or Bush misreading or mispronouncing a word from the teleprompter and it gives posters glee for some years as they keep repeating the flaw, to prove stupidity or a flaw of facts. 
The best Gettysburg Address parody was perhaps by Mad Magazine. They presented the Address as corrected by an English teacher.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Slavery apologists like Bri are boring. You see them everywhere, defending their beloved slaver heroes.



Assholes like you are boring.  Pointing out the crimes of the Lincoln administration doesn't make you a slavery apologist.  however weasels like you will always try to make these discussions about supporting slavery or opposing it when that isn't the issue.

You're a sleazy hosebag, and nothing more.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Irrelevant.  It doesn't change the fact that Lincoln is a liar.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> So, once again, the Gettysburg Address is a fraud.





Boy, you seriously need some help.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > So, once again, the Gettysburg Address is a fraud.
> ...



Why, because I'm not a brainwashed dolt like you?


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 11, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...





Because you're an obsessed freak show.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 11, 2014)

whitehall said:


> According to legend Lincoln wrote the speech while on the train to Gettysburg. Today the politicians can't give a speech without a small army of speech writers, psychologists and political analysts. How many memorable speeches were ever given during the 20th century?



Churchills iron Curtain speech
FDRs the only thing you have to fear is fear itself
JFKs ask not what your country can do for you
MLKs I have a dream
Reagans tear down this wall


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 11, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > To even imply that the traitors remotely thought that all men are created equal shows what abdouchebag Mencken is
> ...



Then why did the South unilaterally in their declarations of secession identify maintaining slavery as a primary reason?


----------



## Toro (Mar 11, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



People don't want to be associated with horrific crimes or events. They want to believe they are fundamentally good. So they create narratives and myths to whitewash the sins of the past. It's a basic human trait. This is what is happening with those who say the Confederacy didn't leave because of slavery.


----------



## editec (Mar 11, 2014)

CIVIL WAR REVISIONISM..always a good time, eh?

What amazes me is how angry people some still get about the issue of the CSA.

And the same people who get so angry will -- to the man -- tell us that they think slavery is not okay.

_It was however_, they usually explain to us in one way or the other, _ a noble act for the CSA to defend the practice of slavery in 1860._

Interesting example of  cognitive dissonance, no?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 11, 2014)

editec said:


> CIVIL WAR REVISIONISM..always a good time, eh?
> 
> What amazes me is how angry people some still get about the issue of the CSA.
> 
> ...



With many, and bripat9643 in particular, there is no risk of *cognitive* dissonance; his posts are, however, a discordant and meaningless mixture of 'sounds'.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



You're the one who follows me all over the forum.  That seems pretty freaky to me.

I realize upsetting your comfortable version of history is causing you severe distress.  It always does when people discover a big chunk of what they believe turns out to be a lie.  However, some of us are more concerned about what is true than what makes us feel good about ourselves.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > CIVIL WAR REVISIONISM..always a good time, eh?
> ...



There's no risk of dissonance because that would require holding beliefs that conflict with each other.  See, I'm not the one who believes Lincoln was fighting for the right of self determination when it's undeniable he was brutally imposing a regime on people who didn't want it.  I'm not the one who claims Lincoln started the war to free the slaves when even Lincoln admits he didn't give a damn about the slaves.


----------



## gipper (Mar 11, 2014)

The Gettysburg address was complete and utter bullshit...like most speeches statist politicians spout.

The real truth....


> Today&#8217;s essay by Kirkpatrick Sale brilliantly illustrates the &#8220;entirely fraudulent&#8221; nature of Lincoln&#8217;s Gettysburg Address.  The &#8220;nation&#8221; was not founded in 1776, as Lincoln weirdly asserted, but years later when the Constitution was ratified; it was not founded on the principle of egalitarianism (&#8220;all men are created equal&#8221 either; the founders did not revere democracy (&#8220;government of the people, by the people, for the people&#8221 but feared it; and the War to Prevent Southern Independence was not fought over any of these things, as Lincoln falsely claimed in what has to be the Biggest Political Lie in American history.
> 
> The great H.L. Mencken recognized this decades ago.  The late Joe Sobran also demolished this lie while pointing out that the entire purpose of the existence of such neocon propaganda mills as Harry Jaffa&#8217;s Claremont Institute is to perpetuate this Big Lie since it is the &#8220;rhetoric of continuing revolution&#8221; (a.k.a., the rhetoric of perpetual war for perpetual peace).  Most of the rest of Lincoln&#8217;s rhetoric about the American founding, about which Sobran thought he knew next to nothing, is properly characterized as a &#8220;spectacular absurdity&#8221; by Donald Livingston.



A New Birth of Tyranny: Lincoln?s ?Entirely Fraudulent? Gettysburg Address ? LewRockwell.com


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2014)

Toro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



No one says that, numskull.

Another thing people do when they want to ignore horrific crimes and events is makeup bogus history.  They want to believe they are fundamentally good.  Hence, the reason Lincoln has been made into a virtual deity when in reality he is one of the greatest tyrants of history.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It doesn't matter what they put in their declarations of secession.  The bottom line is that Lincoln didn't invade the Confederacy to end slavery.  He didn't give a damn about the slaves.  He was a white supremacist.  He invaded the Confederacy to impose the Morill tariff on the South.  He said so himself.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 11, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Quotes from Abe Lincoln..

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361. 

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

"We think slavery a great moral wrong, and while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists, we wish to treat it as a wrong in the territories, where our votes will reach it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Speech at New Haven, Connecticut" (March 6, 1860), p. 16. 

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

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


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 11, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> I realize upsetting your comfortable version of history is causing you severe distress.





You're not upsetting anything and you're not changing anything. You are just running around in circles waving your arms around and screaming like a maniac. The sooner you let this weird obsession go the better off you'll be.


----------



## Toro (Mar 11, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You're a perfect example of what I'm talking about, statist.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2014)

gipper said:


> The Gettysburg address was complete and utter bullshit...like most speeches statist politicians spout.
> 
> The real truth....
> 
> ...



Now you've done it.  A hail of abuse is about to descend on you.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2014)

Toro said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



I'm not the one making up bogus history.  The worshippers of the Lincoln cult are the ones doing that.  Virtually everything commonly believed about Lincoln is a big fat lie.  the Lincoln worshippers are the ones who whitewash the sin of their sainted hero.  Lincoln murdered over 800,000 people.  There is simply no disputing that.  There is also no disputing all his offenses against the Constitution.  The evidence has been posted _ad nauseum _in this forum.

Furthermore, I'm an anarchist, not a statist.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > I realize upsetting your comfortable version of history is causing you severe distress.
> ...



Yeah, right.  That's why you follow me all around the forum and spew your hysterical ad hominems:  because you don't give a hoot!


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



&#8220;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&#8212;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.&#8221;

- Speech Lincoln delivered in 1858 in Charleston, IL -​
"America was made for the White people and not for the Negroes" 

- Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Lerone Bennett -​
"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races,"

- Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln -​
As a member of the Illinois legislature Lincoln urged the legislature:

 "to appropriate money for colonization in order to remove Negroes from the state and prevent miscegenation"

- Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln -​
In the book _Colonization after Emancipation _by Phillip Magness of American University and Sebastian Page of Oxford University that, using records from the American and British national archives, proves that until his dying day Lincoln was negotiating with Great Britain and other foreign governments to deport all of the soon-to-be-freed slaves out of the U.S. 

In Illinois, the state constitution was amended in 1848 to prohibit free black people from residing in the state. Lincoln supported it. He also supported the Illinois Black Codes, under which "Illinois Blacks had no legal rights. White people were bound to respect." "None of this disturbed Lincoln," writes Lerone Bennett.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 11, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...





You can't let it go. This makes you very easy to control for entertainment purposes.


----------



## Mojo2 (Mar 11, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just going to quote H. L. Mencken because he said it better than I ever could.
> ...



Just as the Founding Fathers were well aware of their own hypocrisy as slave owners when they wrote that ALL men were born with certain inalienable rights, so did Lincoln seek to honor the spirit of self determination despite the Union government's attempts to defeat the rebel's attempt at it.

I have never seen you appear so immature as when i read this concluding sentence:



> The Confederacy was not looking for self determination, but the right to determine that others were subhuman and deserve to be property



No, that is NOT what the evidence shows was their reason to take up arms against the Union.

Yours is a silly, immature argument.


----------



## gipper (Mar 12, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > The Gettysburg address was complete and utter bullshit...like most speeches statist politicians spout.
> ...



Yes...it has happened many times before on this forum.

Not to worry.  The Lincoln cultists are wrong and we can only try to dissuade them of their wrongheadedness. 

To lionize a man who purposely and determinedly warred on fellow Americans for nefarious reasons, is not a position of intelligence or one any freedom loving individual can rightly hold.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 12, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Actually, it was the reason

Read their Articles of Secession. It is quite clear

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp

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


----------



## Mojo2 (Mar 12, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yeah, that's what you meant when you said this.



> The Confederacy was not looking for self determination, but the right to determine that others were subhuman and deserve to be property


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 12, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



That is what I said, isn't it


----------



## Mojo2 (Mar 12, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You belong underground alright.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 12, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Actually, it wasn't the reason.  Secession is one thing.  Lincoln's invasion of the Confederacy is another.  Lincoln invaded the South so I could collect tariffs.  He even said so.  He didn't give a damn about the slaves.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 12, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



He needs a good reeducation camp.  After we impose the dictatorship, we'll have to setup a series of them in North Dakota.  We'll make all the libs work in the oil fields so they learn what kind of hard work it takes to support all the welfare leaches.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 12, 2014)

gipper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



That knowledge doesn't phase the worshippers of the Lincoln cult.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 13, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



Read what South Carolina said........That WAS their reason
Other states were "picking" on them because of slavery


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 13, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




It's official; you've gone so far off the deep end with your absurd revisionist obsession that you have met up with JoeB in Looney-Land. You two should be very happy together there.


----------



## oldfart (Mar 13, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Just as the Founding Fathers were well aware of their own hypocrisy as slave owners when they wrote that ALL men were born with certain inalienable rights, so did Lincoln seek to honor the spirit of self determination despite the Union government's attempts to defeat the rebel's attempt at it.
> ...



Let me add that the post to which you so ably replied contained a fundamental historical error.  Founders such as Jefferson and Madison who owned slaves, generally believed that slavery was wrong.  They just didn't see a way to abolish it in the near future.  The declaration of Independence lists the introduction of African slavery as one of the "crimes" of Britain that justified independence.  

This view changed.  As slavery expanded after 1808 and importation of slaves was illegal, the older slave states (especially South Carolina and to an extent tidewater Virginia) became more dependent economically on selling slaves to the west, especially Mississippi and Alabama.  This internal slave trade coarsened the slave system and prompted Southerners to begin to defend it more on grounds that it was right, not just economically necessary or expedient.  

With the invention of the cotton gin, cotton became sufficiently profitable that its demise was no longer in sight as it had seemed in 1790.  Fear of slave insurrections fueled the paranoia and fear.  In the crescendo leading up to the Civil War, the South became more insistent that the North not only abide by provisions such as respecting slavery where it existed and enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law, they became apoplectic about Northern claims that slavery was fundamentally wrong.  

Debates about Lincoln today usually fail because they miss this point.  When you read the Coopers Union Speech, Lincoln spends most of his time on this point, that the South will not be satisfied until the North agrees that slavery is "right".  This is why he saw the situation as unstable, that the Union must become "all one or all the other".  Lincoln was not an abolitionist in 1860.  But he realized that the North could not accept the South's terms and that the South would not accept anything less than slavery everywhere.  He hoped, but did not expect, that a compromise on the issue of slavery (no expansion into the territories, enforcement of the fugitive slave laws, further assurances to the South of non-interference) could do more than buy a little time, and it failed even at that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 14, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You mistake is thinking that secession automatically means war.  That's the essential horseshit.  War didn't come until Lincoln invaded.  Lincoln started the war, not secession.  Get that through your thick skull.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 14, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



You obviously don't know sarcasm when you see it.

Try getting a sense of humor.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 14, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



War began when South Carolina invaded federal property at Ft Sumter

The traitors from the south took up arms against their own country


----------



## editec (Mar 14, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 14, 2014)

If you could travel back in time to 1875 or so, I think you'd be hard pressed to find actual veterans of the American Civil War, North or South, as fucking nutty and delusional about the conflict as this squirrely SOB.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 14, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > To even imply that the traitors remotely thought that all men are created equal shows what abdouchebag Mencken is
> ...



Offer proof and I will counter with the Cornerstone Speech.

You cannot carry your affirmation.

Your running around in circles waving your little hands changes no one's opinion about Lincoln and the Civil War.


----------



## paperview (Mar 14, 2014)

Heh.  Phunny thread.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 14, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> If you could travel back in time to 1875 or so, I think you'd be hard pressed to find actual veterans of the American Civil War, North or South, as fucking nutty and delusional about the conflict as this squirrely SOB.



You really are a stupid cock sucker.  

I want to remind everyone what Unkotare means:

*
Unkotare *

unkotare \ woon-ko-ta-re \ , noun;

Japanese. Roughly translated as dripping poop. This word is used to describe a pornographic genre commonly known as Scat. 

"Hey Bro checkout this sweet unkotare video I found... it is super kawaii-desu"​

That describes you perfectly.  It's curious that you're proud to use that nom de plume.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The Cornerstone speech is irrelevant.  Lincoln didn't invade Virginia because of the Cornerstone speech.  He didn't invade to free the slaves.  He didn't even invade because of Ft Sumter.  He invaded because he wanted to Force Southern states to pay the Morrill tariff.  

Everything else is irrelevant.  

BTW, Fakey, did you check out that deal on adult diapers I sent you?  How is the battle to control your bodily functions coming along?  Are you still able to feed yourself?


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 14, 2014)

oldfart said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



The fact remains that Lincoln did not invade Virginia to free the slaves.  he said so himself many times.  All you brain damaged Lincoln cult members can't seem to get it through your thick skulls that Lincoln is the one who invaded the South and started the war.  The Confederacy didn't not send troops marching on Washington.  They just wanted to be left alone.  

Of course, you deliberately know this fact, but continue to harp on slavery.  that's because you know your full of shit.  Lincoln was a tyrant and a war criminal.  You can't defend your bogus saint with the facts, so you repeat the slavery mantra over and over again.  Not a single one of you even bothers to address the fact that Lincoln never proposed to abolish slavery prior to the war, or even during the war.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 14, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No, it didn't.  Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war.  War began when Lincoln invaded Virginia. 

You've been told that time and time and time again, yet you keep repeating this bullshit.  That's the problem with Lincoln cult members:  no matter how many times you shoot down their idiotic arguments, they keep on going back to them.    it appears to be a form of brain damage.  You keep repeating yourselves like some kind of Alzheimer's patient.

It's impossible to argue with people who are incapable of committing logic.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 14, 2014)

editec said:


> I suspect if one wants the polar opposite of self determination, SLAVERY would be a pretty good fit, amigo



I suspect you have brain damage because you can't get it through your skull that Lincoln did not invade Virginia to free the slaves.




editec said:


> > I'm not the one who claims Lincoln started the war to free the slaves when even Lincoln admits he didn't give a damn about the slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Virtually every one of your Komrades in the Lincoln cult made that claim over and over and over again right here in this thread.

How stupid are you?  Have you actually read any of the posts in this thread?  The more you and the rest of the Lincoln cult members post, the more convinced I am that you all suffer from brain damage.  It appears there are entire posts that simply pass right through your head with a single word registering anywhere on your shriveled brains.



editec said:


> _Meanwhile..._
> 
> *Bri, is SLAVERY an okay system to base an economy on?*
> 
> Yes or no?



Only a jackass would even ask such a question.


----------



## gipper (Mar 14, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



We all agree that slavery was wrong.  It needed to be abolished.  The problem those of us who believe in individual liberty and limited government have, is the way Lincoln abolished it.  Though he never intended to end slavery, when he started the war.  

He warred on fellow Americans to FORCE the southern states to stay in the Union and to impose federal government taxes on them, to the benefit of northern Republican interests.  This is terribly wrong and shows a complete lack of leadership.  How can any informed American think his actions appropriate?

The Lincoln cultists use the slavery issue to justify Lincoln's heinous and unconstitutional actions.  There is no justification for 850,000 deaths and near total destruction of the southern states leading to decades of hate and racism.  

There had to be a solution short of war.  Lincoln never sought a solution other than war.  A great leader does not plunge his nation into civil war...but an egotistical power hungry tyrant does.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 14, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > If you could travel back in time to 1875 or so, I think you'd be hard pressed to find actual veterans of the American Civil War, North or South, as fucking nutty and delusional about the conflict as this squirrely SOB.
> ...





You mean you want to remind everyone that you couldn't find what it really means on your google search and you have no other recourse because you are an ignorant little freak. Are you wearing your confederate traitor costume to play dress-up, little freak?


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 14, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> He didn't even invade because of Ft Sumter.  He invaded because he wanted to Force Southern states to pay the Morrill tariff.
> 
> Everything else is irrelevant.





Your little confederate undies are on too tight, reb. Check yourself in somewhere if you still have an ounce of rationality left.


----------



## Rogue 9 (Apr 18, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


It wasn't their territory; it was U.S. territory.  Proof:  





			
				South Carolinian law said:
			
		

> Committee on Federal Relations
> In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
> 
> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> ...


So no, they were not booting off trespassers; they were attacking a legally garrisoned federal fort.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 5, 2014)

rightwinger said:
			
		

> Quotes from Abe Lincoln..
> 
> "Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.
> 
> ...



from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that

_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."*_

He was a lying bastard, that lincoln.


_"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."_
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Letter to Horace Greeley
August 22, 1862

_"Negro equality! Fudge!! How long, in the government of a God great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knave to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?"_
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Fragments: Notes for Speeches
Sept. 1859 (Vol. III)

_"But what shall we do with the Negroes after they are free? I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves."_
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Letter to General Benjamin F. Butler
March 1865 (Vol. VII)

_"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, (applause from audience) 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. 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
-From, 4th Debate with Stephan A. Douglas in Illinois
Sept. 1858 (Vol. III)

_"Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get an answer out of me to the question whether I am in favor of Negro citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. (applause from audience) He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of Negro citizenship. (renewed applause) If the state of Illinois has the power to grant Negroes citizenship, I shall be opposed to it. (cries of "here, here" and "good, good" from audience) That is all I have to say."_
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Speech at Sringfield, Illinois
June 1857 (Vol. II)

_"In the course of his reply, the Senator remarked that he had always considered this a government made for the white people and not for the Negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so, too."_
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Speech at Peoria, Illinois
Oct. 1854 (Vol. II)

_"I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason why we should at least be separated."_
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Address on Colonization to a Deputation of
Africans in Washington D.C.
August 1862 (Vol. V)


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 5, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Read what South Carolina said........That WAS their reason
> Other states were "picking" on them because of slavery




That's not what it says.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 5, 2014)

Rogue 9 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



..and secession transferred ownership of the fort to the country whose territory it was in.
The south asked them to evacuate when they seceded and offered to pay the fed government for ALL property they seized....but no...

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 also on Jan 12 1848 in Congress he 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.

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

Had fort sumter surrendered the war probably would have been avoided but lincoln knew that a federal fort in charleston harbor, the seat of secession, would be an intolerable provocation, irritant and threat.

Lincoln had vowed to collect "duties and imposts" or tariffs in the south.

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.

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.

In his 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&#8217;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 &#8220;As far as I can judge from the papers we are between anarchy and Civil War. May God avert us from both.&#8221;

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._




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.
Lincoln ordered Fort Sumter not to comply and sent ships to resupply them. The South bombarded them into surrendering before supplies could arrive. No lives were lost.

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 civilians. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?"* ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"_.... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

_"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South...."_. ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

_"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"_..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

_"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."_ ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

_"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." _.... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

_"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." _..... NY Times 22 March 1861

_"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."_ .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "*

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

_"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished."_ ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

_"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."_ ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 5, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I wonder if bripat has any idea who H.L. Mencken was or what he thought?  Methinks he took a single quote in the belief others my find its use a sign that bripat isn't a fool.  As usual he was/is wrong.

H. L. Mencken - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Picaro (Jun 6, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> It doesn't matter what they thought.  The claim that Lincoln and the Northern states were fighting for the right of self-determination is obvious hooey.  They were fighting to impose confiscatory tariffs on the Southern states, and nothing more.



Well, also priorities like the Homestead Act, and the massive corporate welfare subsidies like the Pacific Railroad Act, and a couple of other faves. Whether or  not slavery was good or bad, it was never a priority with Lincoln or most Republicans; we know this because we have a very clear record of what their priorities were by the first bills they passed, and ending slavery was obviously way down the list. Of course, pointing out the actual historical record  is always supposed to be 'defending slavery' and 'the South' or something.

Lincoln was very much a dictator, and used Federal troops and loyal state militias at election polling places quite freely, and along with loyalty oaths and merely having these 'poll watchers' literally toss out would be voters who didn't vote Republican, managed to pack the Congress and Senate with enough Republicans who supported his war policies to conduct the war; without those tactics his war policies would have been voted down. The war wasn't popular, nor did the majority of the north support it, as most people accepted secession  as a right since the signing of the Constitution; it wasn't 'treason' by the standards of the day.

Can anybody guess who said this in a speech not that long before the Civil War?

*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 will liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to case in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.*


A couple of  good books on the Civil War Era and American elections at the time and slightly previous years:

*The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century*-- Richard Franklin Bensel

Also by Bensel:

*Yankee Levithian: The Origins of Central State Authority in America, 1859-1877*

These two are good introductory backgrounders for how elections were held and how elections were  held previously to and then radically changed by the elections of Lincoln and the Republicans.

The last chapter of the first book covers elections in the Civil War, and how they were very different from earlier elections, the use of Federal troops, 'loyalty oaths', and the like.



> The American Civil War changed the way men voted. The most important change was the vast expansion of the role played by the federal government and its agents. ... In the north and in the border states, however, the Civil War imposed a new condition on voting: the legitimacy of an election now often depended on whether or not those loyal to the Union prevailed at the polls. ...In the border states and some northern states as well, Union troops and loyal state militia also appeared at the polls. Their appearance was ostensibly intended  to maintain order and protect the polls from Confederate guerrillas. In practice, however, their influence was more commonly felt through their own informal tests of loyalty; those merely suspected of hostility to the Republican party were often physically ejected from the polling place, whether or not they were willing to swear the required loyalty oath.


pg. 217 of my copy of  *The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century*

... and more. Without these Stalinist style tactics, the Republicans wouldn't have been able to get the Senate and Congressional votes they needed to pass such Acts as the Pacific Railroad Act and others. They also needed the slim contingent of remaining Whig abolitionists' votes, hence the much later sudden interest in 'the evils of slavery'.

Ironically, the New England Federalists in the years before the War of 1812 held a secessionist convention, over unhappiness with the dominance of the state of Virginia in the Federal government, for instance. There was no call to arms to put down that movement, nor did many claim they had no right to secede. The major consensus in the north was that secession wasn't 'treason'; that was a fabrication by Lincoln and his cronies. He immediately used Federal troops and the suspension of habeas corpus to force silence of critics. Even the Lincoln fans admit he was a dictator.

The majority of newspaper editorials of the time supported peaceful secession, or peaceful means to bring the seceding states back. There were other secessionist movements as well, New York City was one, and in states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey there was a movement to form a 'Central Confederacy', for instance.

Speeches by politicians don't really have any relevance to what they actually do; not then any more than they do now.


----------



## gipper (Jun 6, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > To even imply that the traitors remotely thought that all men are created equal shows what abdouchebag Mencken is
> ...



IMHO we need to expand on that a bit.

First, most Union soldiers were not knowingly fighting for imposition of tariffs.  Lincoln and the R Party was.  The Union soldier likely knew nothing of tariffs, which were purposely designed to harm the South's economy and enrich a few northern industrialists who just happened to richly fund the R party.

Much of the Union army were conscripted immigrants with few prospects.  They did what they were told to make a buck.  Some of course, thought they were patriotic and some where fighting to end slavery, by fighting Lincoln's War of Aggression.

In reality, the North was fighting to PREVENT self-determination of the southern states...completely at odds with Lincoln's dumb speech at Gettysburg.  The southern soldier was the one fighting for self determination.

But what do I know....I am just a lover of slavery and a Neo-Confederate....


----------



## Picaro (Jun 6, 2014)

Since pointing out the actual historical record is according to some being a 'southern apologist', does ignoring the historical record make one a 'northern apologist', and means you endorse the deliberate war on civilians conducted by Grant, and the notorious northern 'property camps' where 'freed' slaves were imprisoned and died by the thousands from disease and starvation, at least excepting those 'lucky' ones who weren't used as forced labor by Grant and other military commanders? 

Or endorse the Black Codes in the north that came along well before Jim Crow laws in the south that made it impossible for 'free' blacks to make a legal living or even immigrate to many states, including Illinois, Lincoln's home state? Does it mean you also endorsed the looting by Union soldiers of black slaves' property in their 'war of liberation', and the beating and killings of those slaves who resisted the looting?

I'm guessing there is a hypocritical double standard that says 'no, it's different', somehow ... I wonder why so many black people stayed in the south after the war.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 6, 2014)

gipper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


----------



## gipper (Jun 6, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > He didn't even invade because of Ft Sumter.  He invaded because he wanted to Force Southern states to pay the Morrill tariff.
> ...



I find it most inconsistent that you clearly comprehend FDR's tyranny, but fail to see Lincoln's. 

It would seem you believe Lincoln's terrible war of aggression against fellow Americans, resulting in 850k deaths and destruction of half the nation, is not nearly as tyrannical as  interning Japanese Americans during WWII.  Is this not contradictory?


----------



## Picaro (Jun 6, 2014)

'unkotare' is just a mentally ill troll. Ignore him/her/it/mutant.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 6, 2014)

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...





The American Civil War was not a war of aggression by the North, but a response to an act of war by traitors in the South. The deaths of so many brave Americans - North and South - are on the ledgers of some few arrogant, selfish fools in the South. President Lincoln took some extra-Constitutional liberties for sure, but he did so to keep our Union in tact and (as became clear during the war if not entirely before) to settle an untenable contradiction in our Republic and the principles upon which it stands. That fucking scumbag FDR cannot claim anything even remotely the same.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 6, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > I realize upsetting your comfortable version of history is causing you severe distress.
> ...



Don't expect any change in him.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


>



They were in all-black units, commanded by white unit commanders, and they did indeed fight well, given the chance, but it doesn't say much re Republicans or Lincoln's motivations. Here are some photos along similar lines:






















These are from axishistory.com's thread on blacks in the Wehrmacht, at least most of them are, I think.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=12739

None of these would change the history of Hitler's Germany.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 6, 2014)

Unkotare said:


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





The south tried to peacefully secede. The south offered to pay for all federal facilities on their soil.
lincoln invaded the south to reinforce a fort that no longer belonged to his country, knowing (and hoping) it would be a provocation.

General Beauregard held negotiations with the commanding officer, Major Anderson, in the fort and offered them passage if they evacuated.
Anderson purposely delayed hoping reinforcements would arrive.

When the reinforcements arrived in the harbor (an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation) the south was forced to prevent the resupply and fired on the fort for several hours..until they finally surrendered. 
No one was killed. 
It was more for effect than a serious attempt to destroy the troops....but lincoln now had his excuse to wage total, scorched earth war on fellow americans who wanted to peacefully withdraw from the union and be left alone.


EDIT;
Major Anderson and the garrison were safely evacuated and immediately returned to the north.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 6, 2014)

You apologists for Confederate traitors with blood on their hands will never change history no matter how hard you try. 

If you are still unhappy with our Union today - leave. Try to leave with any part of our country and you will be destroyed as surely as those brave men who foolishly followed the lead of arrogant, traitorous fools so long ago. 

The traitors in the south were filthy curs justly brought to heel. They are, of course, the forebears of today's democrat party. They led good men to their deaths in the name of evil. In due course, they were  put down. That is fact and it will not change no matter how anyone tries to revise history.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 6, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


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



The United States was under no obligation to cede territory to traitors

Traitors who eventually fired upon their own flag


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I'll repeat it again: the south offered to pay for all federal installations on their territory. They didn't expect the north to "cede" them. That's a red herring.


Secession wasn't/isn't illegal or traitorous. 

It was un-constitutional for Lincoln to interfere with the Southern states leaving the Union, to suspend the rule of law, and to attack unarmed civilians. 
EDIT; see the 10th amendment.


This country was born through secession, you may recall...and the reasons were valid...remember?

Tell me what's wrong with this, if you can?

_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&#8217;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.

..... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, &#8212; 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. &#8212; _

Reasonable, right?..the british didn't think so...They called these people "traitors" and hung as many as they could..we call them "Patriots". 

Here's what the lying bastard lincoln said in congress;

_"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."_


What's the problem?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 6, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...



They had no rights to ANY territory, whether they paid or not. It was United States territory
There are no provisions in the Constitution that they signed to leave the United States

The traitors fired on their own flag so that they could maintain the right to own another human being


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



They had rights to the territory that was encompassed within their state boundaries...and they attempted to PAY for the fort ANYWAY...but the lying bastard lincoln just HAD to have his war...

secession wasn't illegal. the 10th amendment proves that.  The legislatures of the various confederate states voted and the proposition was approved honestly and legally.

The north had no legal right to invade sovereign territory no matter what the pretext..as lincoln said himself in his address to congress...which I will post AGAIN for you...

*"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."*

The people of the south took the lying bastard at his word and followed the rules and tried to peacefully secede...lincoln sicced the war criminal sherman (and others) on them.

Where do you get the idea that the north "owned" the south or could "forbid" them from exercising their rights as free citizens to withdraw from the union?

Let me ask you again; Were the colonists in 1776 patriots or traitors?  



rightwinger said:


> The traitors fired on their own flag so that they could maintain the right to own another human being



No. They had their own national flag at this time. 

They fired on the flag of the invaders of their homeland....and we already know the war wasn't fought to keep (or free) the slaves...


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 6, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...



Secession was not legal. If it was, our Constitution would include provisions for both joining and leaving the union. As written, it only provides how a state joins the union

Only traitors take up arms against their country


----------



## gipper (Jun 6, 2014)

Unkotare said:


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



You believe the federal government has the right to wage war against fellow citizens who no longer wish to be subjects of the government.  To keep the Union intact, the government can murder any citizen who refuses to abide by it's laws and takes up arms to protect themselves from the government's military.

Lets say the Japanese Americans during WWII refused internment and peacefully sought to create their own nation within the USA, would the federal government have the right to murder them all, if they resisted?


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That's (very) faulty logic.
Since it isn't expressly forbidden, it is legal. See the 10th amendment.

Again. Why would you be against people exercising their right to legally vote to peacefully withdraw? What do you imagine gives the federal government the right to forbid people from using the democratic process to vote on withdrawing? Are you against freedom and democracy? 



rightwinger said:


> Only traitors take up arms against their country



The south didn't take up arms against their own country. They had withdrawn, formed their own country and were repelling illegal invaders.

Were the colonists in 1776 patriots or traitors?


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 6, 2014)

gipper said:


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



All due respect, but the confederate states and their legislatures and citizens have more standing than isolated groups within a state claiming sovereignty like in your example with the japanese. 

THAT would DEFINITELY be illegal.

but I've wandered off topic.


----------



## bendog (Jun 6, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...



Madison, Hamilton, John Jay and others believed that with the adoption of the constitution there was no longer any right of secession.  In fact, they successfully opposed an effort to include such a right in the constitution.  Further, I disagree with your logic.  The intent of the framers was to create a union.  If there was an implicit right to "uncomplete it," there was no union.  They built a national govt on purpose.

As to rebellion, I think they realized that was the ultimate response to tyranny.  But, through the constitution, they believed the govt COULD NOT BE TYRANNICAL unless the govt itself denied protected rights secured by the BOR.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 6, 2014)

There were no laws or statutes that prohibited secession, until a Supreme Court ruling in 1869, after the war. There were just opinions, which aren't laws.

law - Was the secession of the Confederate states illegal? - History Stack Exchange

Just because I don't like your haircut doesn't mean I get to shoot you.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 6, 2014)

bendog said:


> Madison, Hamilton, John Jay and others believed that with the adoption of the constitution there was no longer any right of secession.  In fact, they successfully opposed an effort to include such a right in the constitution.



Link?



bendog said:


> Further, I disagree with your logic.  The intent of the framers was to create a union.  If there was an implicit right to "uncomplete it," there was no union.  They built a national govt on purpose.



Yes, of course there was no "plan" to dismantle it....that doesn't diminish the fact that secession was proposed and approved in those various states legally.
The 10th amendment covers that. The states retained any rights not expressly forbidden. Secession was not expressly forbidden.

What is it with you people being so set against people choosing the form of government they like and pursuing it? 


Any "union" that requires war to force people to remain in it at gun point isn't "free", "democratic" or a "union". Why are you against freedom and democracy? 


What do these words mean?

_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&#8217;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, &#8212; *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. *Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. *But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. *_&#8212; 




bendog said:


> As to rebellion, I think they realized that was the ultimate response to tyranny.  But, through the constitution, they believed the govt COULD NOT BE TYRANNICAL unless the govt itself denied protected rights secured by the BOR.



The 10th amendment protects the rights of states and citizens of those states to secede. The fed govt started a war to enforce its' unconstitutional actions.


What do you think lincoln meant here?

*"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."* 

Very straightforward and unambiguous, wouldn't you say? No hidden meaning..nothing complicated...unfortunately, he was a lying bastard.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 6, 2014)

bendog said:


> Madison, Hamilton, John Jay and others believed that with the adoption of the constitution there was no longer any right of secession.



Well, others obviously felt otherwise, like John Quincy Adams and the New England Federalists. Without a specific prohibition, there is no legal basis for launching a war over the issue. Lincoln had other means, like going to the Supreme Court, and a convention of the states to hear out the issues and vote on whether or not it was allowed. Lincoln suspended the law and acted as a dictator. There was no law allowing that, either, so by your reasoning Lincoln was acting illegally as well.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 6, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> > What do you think lincoln meant here?
> >
> > *"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."*
> >
> ...


----------



## bendog (Jun 6, 2014)

I'd agree there was no clear cut answer.  But your contention that the tenth clearly and unbiguously supports your position is just not true.  First, whatever the tenth was intedended to do is only a limit on federal power.  The fed govt may not exert unenumerated powers.  Secession is not a federal action, but rather a state action.

Madison's view was once in, no way out without the federal govt.  

What Madison Thought of Secession. - NYTimes.com

And that makes logical sense.  The articles of confederation proved too weak to form a govt.  So, they wanted a more powerful federal govt. but with limits.  But, still, I don't think it's all that clear.  Hamilton, the federalist, opined that for the federal govt to use force against a state would essentially make a mockery of the fed govt, but no state would intentionally place itself in a position where "coercion" would take place. 

Legality of Secession

But that's exactly what SC did under Jackson and the South did in 1861.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 6, 2014)

gipper said:


> You believe the federal government has the right to wage war against fellow citizens who no longer wish to be subjects of the government.




Anyone who wants to leave the US is free to do so. They are not free to seize US territory or wage war against the US as the Confederate traitors did.


----------



## gipper (Jun 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The Constitution does not forbid secession, which means secession is legal.  The Constitution grants rights to the government.  Rights not explicated granted, are not legal.  

It is that simple....DUMMY!  

You continue to spout this BS, that states have no right to secede.  It is an F**KING LIE!  Stop LYING LIB!!!

Read this from the Great Walter Williams (your leaders refer to him as an Uncle Tom)
Learn something for ONCE!!!  



> For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission or simply parting company? In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.
> 
> Since Barack Obama's re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitions for secession have reached the White House. *Some people (INCLUDING FOOLS LIKE YOU!) have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. Let's look at the secession issue.*
> 
> ...


----------



## gipper (Jun 6, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


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



Agreed.


----------



## gipper (Jun 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The only traitor to America are dumb asses like you.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 7, 2014)

> *Here's my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to  offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?*
> On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession  as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any  attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by  force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."



Lincoln promptly suspended habeas corpus and had the Maryland legislature arrested after they voted on a resolution that supported peaceful secession.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 7, 2014)

In todays united big pharma states of america "the south will rise again" sounds like a viagra commercial


----------



## TheIceMan (Jun 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just going to quote H. L. Mencken because he said it better than I ever could.
> ...



Incorrect.  The Confederacy was obviously looking for the right to self-determination.  The Union was looking to subjugate others to its will.  

Lincoln's war was unconstitutional.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 8, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > You believe the federal government has the right to wage war against fellow citizens who no longer wish to be subjects of the government.
> ...



No one seized any federal territory.
They reclaimed land and property that was in their own state...which they had democratically voted on and determined was not part of the federal union...along with 10 other states.... 1/3 of the country at the time. 

Why are you against a people exercising their right to vote on the proposition, then peacefully secede and form their own government?

What did lincoln mean when he said this in Congress?


*"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."*

Were the colonists in 1776 "traitors"..or patriots?
Interesting that there were 13 colonies and 13 states that seceded...(11 originally)

_The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

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. *Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. *But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-*_


Is the declaration of independence and the revolutionary war the work of "traitors" or.... patriots?


----------



## midcan5 (Jun 8, 2014)

The South will never rise again so long as they fight a battle they lost and should have lost, all men are created equal.....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ered-to-be-constitutional-19.html#post7490292


OMG, more apologies for slavery. Having just returned from a trip south I wonder sometimes. Remove slavery and there is no war, that has to be clear to everyone including revisionist apologists but is it? Some time ago I had a discussion on this with a nephew who was in a college in the South and I was surprised anyone who has read the literature would think this was about anything else. The best apology anyone can reasonably make is the 'Walmart Rational' - raising prices would ruin us - or freeing our slaves will ruin us. That's tongue in cheek but let me see what I can find in my DBs - links below:

"I can testify about the South under oath. I was born and raised there, and 12 men in my family fought for the Confederacy; two of them were killed. And since I was a boy, the answer I&#8217;ve heard to this question, from Virginia to Louisiana (from whites, never from blacks), is this: &#8220;The War Between the States was about states&#8217; rights. It was not about slavery.&#8221;

I&#8217;ve heard it from women and from men, from sober people and from people liquored up on anti-Washington talk. The North wouldn&#8217;t let us govern ourselves, they say, and Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled. Secession and the Civil War, in other words, were about small government, limited federal powers and states&#8217; rights.

*But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union &#8212; which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy &#8212; reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery."* http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19Ball.html

Links from above piece:
http://www.teachingushistory.org/lessons/Ordinance.htm
http://www.teachingushistory.org/pdfs/Transcription_002.pdf


*'What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War'*

"Chandra Manning uses letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers to take the reader inside the minds of Civil War soldiers-black and white, Northern and Southern-as they fought and marched across a divided country. With stunning poise and narrative verve, Manning explores how the Union and Confederate soldiers came to identify slavery as the central issue of the war and what that meant for a tumultuous nation."

"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it." [ame]http://www.amazon.com/What-This-Cruel-War-Over/dp/0307277321[/ame]

"An Analysis Of President Lincoln's Legal Arguments Against Secession" http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html

SCOTUS on secession: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700

Admission of a State to the Union: http://constitution.findlaw.com/article4/annotation16.html#2

"A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede. Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act "entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution&#8221; (Cook 114). Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support "this Constitution,&#8221; which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from above url)



.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 8, 2014)

midcan5 said:


> The South will never rise again so long as they fight a battle they lost and should have lost, all men are created equal.....
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ered-to-be-constitutional-19.html#post7490292
> 
> .



The south fought for independence from an oppressive fed govt. 
Just like the patriots fought for independence from the oppressive king of england.

A noble and honorable attempt.

The south may not "rise" as an entity, but this country is going to collapse and new boundaries will be drawn and loyalties challenged.  

Think of the _"Balkans"_ ......except with even *more* violence.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 8, 2014)

midcan5 said:


> The South will never rise again so long as they fight a battle they lost and should have lost, all men are created equal.....
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ered-to-be-constitutional-19.html#post7490292
> 
> ...


Revisionist claptrap...The New York Times?..LMAO..Chandra Manning?


Of course slavery was mentioned...it was an issue the north wanted to keep hammering, so the south responded.
 The north want/wanted to change the subject and frame the situation to make themselves look noble and "moral". 

If the damned war was to "free the slaves", why did lincoln wait 3 years after the war started? Why didn't he "free" them on the first day? 

Everyone knew that slavery was dying and would eventually fade away. 

The industrial revolution had begun and if a farmer could have a machine that did the work of 20 farm animals in half the time and didn't need to be housed or fed...who would even WANT slaves? 


Here are quotes from the time by people who were actually involved...not some revisionist liberal "professor" from Georgetown trying to sell her books.



*"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" *~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"*.... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

*"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".* ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

*"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"*..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

*"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." *..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

*"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." *.... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

*"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States."* ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

*"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." *.... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "*
Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

*"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished."* ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

*"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." *~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861. 



Chandra Manning?..LMAO..Seriously?


----------



## G.T. (Jun 8, 2014)

Nobody is skurred of your phony violent fantasies


----------



## TheIceMan (Jun 8, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Nobody is skurred of your phony violent fantasies



He's almost correct.   Before Texas v White in 1868, nothing legally precluded secession.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Nobody is skurred of your phony violent fantasies



Right...Try to deflect and distract. 

Don't address the topic. 

ANYTHING but that....


----------



## G.T. (Jun 9, 2014)

"Think of the balkans, except with even MORE violence"

You said it. Its a fanatical fantasy.


----------



## JWBooth (Jun 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just going to quote H. L. Mencken because he said it better than I ever could.
> ...


Yet Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation specifically exempted those areas under Federal control from freeing the first slave.

Only points scored are for rhetoric.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

G.T. said:


> "Think of the balkans, except with even MORE violence"
> 
> You said it. Its a fanatical fantasy.



Civil war/revolution is always ugly..That's no "fantasy", that's real.

What's your point, anyway?


----------



## G.T. (Jun 9, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > "Think of the balkans, except with even MORE violence"
> ...



That there's no civil war coming. Pack up your balls and go home.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

JWBooth said:


> Yet Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation specifically exempted those areas under Federal control from freeing the first slave.
> 
> Only points scored are for rhetoric.



...and a president isn't allowed to subvert/evade congress by unilateral "proclamation".


Plus, lincoln's "proclamation" had no legal weight in the south as it was a sovereign nation in its' own right. 

lincoln could have just as well "proclaimed" that the moon was made of cheese...meaningless.

what it DID do,, however, was inflame negroes in the south to resist and act as guerrilla fighters to undermine the south....and it served to isolate the south from france and england by painting a false picture that the south was fighting "for" slavery. 


With all the men away fighting and no one to protect the property and women, the slaves, with no skills, no jobs and no place to go (the north DAMNED sure didn't want them there) went feral.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

G.T. said:


> That there's no civil war coming. Pack up your balls and go home.



That's what the romans said...that's what the french said in 1789....that's what the russians said in 1917, that's what the british said in 1776..etc...etc..etc..throughout history.

"Oh, it'll never happen here" they all said......LMAO...
All governments are born in revolution and bloodshed and they all die in revolution and bloodshed. 
Read some history, mate.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 9, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > That there's no civil war coming. Pack up your balls and go home.
> ...



did they all say that?

good for them.


----------



## paperview (Jun 9, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > Yet Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation specifically exempted those areas under Federal control from freeing the first slave.
> ...


Er...







=

United States Colored Troops - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

paperview said:


> Er...




"Er", what?


----------



## gipper (Jun 9, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Er...
> ...



The Lincoln Cultist is incapable of seeing the truth...all they see is ending slavery.  They see that as a worthy goal, which no one would dispute (though they regularly make straw-man arguments about those who criticize Dishonest Abe for his many tyrannical actions, and call us lovers of slavery).

The problem is Lincoln's war of aggression resulted in 850k deaths, destruction of half the nation, and acceleration of centralized power to DC.  Of course, the cultist does not concern themselves with these terrible consequences.  The fact that Lincoln ignored the Constitution, committed treason by warring on fellow Americans, and prosecuted a war merely for the benefit of Republican northern interests, is also of no concern to them.

With these kooky Lincoln cultists, the consequences be damned....ending slavery at all costs is all that mattered.  Most of the western world ended slavery without violence.  Many northern states terminated slavery without violence...these facts mean little to the cultist.

If Lincoln had the a-bomb and used on the South, the cultist would say good job Abe!!!


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



By abandoning your position and changing the subject, I presume you agree with my examples of how oppressive governments historically end.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 9, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...



Abandoning what position?

Do you often talk to yourself?


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I'm typing. You're replying.
Anything you care to say about the topic or have you abandoned it completely now?


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

gipper said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



This is the one they always choke on.

LMAO




			
				Abraham Lincoln 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."


----------



## G.T. (Jun 9, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...



Now I've abandoned the "topic," not my "position?"

Tell me, are you on crack?>


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 9, 2014)

gipper said:


> The problem is Lincoln's war of aggression ...





There was no such war. It was the American Civil War, and no amount of doublespeak will change the fact that traitorous southern rebels are responsible for every death that occurred. Ignorance and insistence do not have the power to alter reality.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 9, 2014)

Picaro is guilty of false equivalency with the photos suggesting the Union's black units were like the SS adjunct units.

It's not true, it's deliberately a lie, and it reveals a real hatred of people of color.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 9, 2014)

> The south tried to peacefully secede. The south offered to pay for all federal facilities on their soil.



One, the South had no constitutional right to secede.

Two, Lincoln made it quite clear that the South could keep slavery as long as it recognized that it could not go into the territories and that federal property would be preserved and the results of electoral, constitutional process followed.

The South went to war, and Lincoln executed the South.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is Lincoln's war of aggression ...
> ...




lincoln said in Congress;

"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."

The south tried to peacefully and legally secede.



The north invaded hoping to provoke shooting. lincoln himself said so.


The war of northern aggression was not fought to end or preserve slavery. lincoln himself said so.


These points have been demonstrated to you time and again and you continue to refuse to address any of them. If you did not understand them, go back and re-read them. 

If you cannot keep pace with the debate, perhaps you should excuse yourself from it?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 9, 2014)

> "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.



You don't do context well, do you?  The criminal regime rose up and not having the power was executed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 9, 2014)

"Plus, lincoln's "proclamation" had no legal weight in the south as it was a sovereign nation in its' own right."

False premise: the South was not a sovereign nation.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> One, the South had no constitutional right to secede.



Incorrect. The 10th amendment supports it.

lincoln himself even 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."*





JakeStarkey said:


> Two, Lincoln made it quite clear that the South could keep slavery as long as it recognized that it could not go into the territories and that federal property would be preserved and the results of electoral, constitutional process followed.



The south wasn't fighting to preserve slavery. The north wasn't fighting to end it.
Everyone knew slavery was a dying practice because of the dawning of the industrial revolution. MAchines work better and are cheaper to maintain than farm animals. Everyone knows that.



JakeStarkey said:


> The South went war, and Lincoln executed the South.



The southern states voted legally within their legislatures to peacefully secede and then attempted to do so.

lincoln illegally sent troops to reinforce a fort that was no longer federal property, (an invasion) knowing/hoping to provoke shooting so he could have his war.


The southern patriots defended their homeland.


----------



## peach174 (Jun 9, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




No it didn't. They had outlawed slavery in 8 of the 13 colonies.
They passed the Northwest ordinance that outlawed slavery.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 9, 2014)

gipper said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Lincoln offered to buy the slaves from the southern people, drew up the legislation, had sold bonds for the purchase, but the south rejected the offer...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 9, 2014)

"The southern states voted legally within their legislatures to peacefully secede and then attempted to do so."

Criminals cannot tell government what they are going to do and not expect LEO to stop them.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Address the topic if you can?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 9, 2014)

peach174 said:


> No it didn't. They had outlawed slavery in 8 of the 13 colonies.  They passed the Northwest ordinance that outlawed slavery.



The USA government by constitutional procedure protected slavery.

Fact.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 9, 2014)

Rotagill is wrong on every point and has been shown to be so.

Because of that poster's ignorance, I suggest he read and tell us what the 9th paragraph of the The Cornerstone Speech says about slavery as the cause of the war.

?Corner Stone? Speech | Teaching American History


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey 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.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't do context well, do you?  The criminal regime rose up and not having the power was executed.



semantic distortion.
word games.





JakeStarkey said:


> Criminals cannot tell government what they are going to do and not expect LEO to stop them.




Were the colonists in 1776 patriots or "criminals"?



JakeStarkey said:


> False premise: the South was not a sovereign nation.



Were the colonies a sovereign nation after the declaration of independence?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 9, 2014)

*semantic distortion.  word games.* Yes, that is what you are doing.

*Were the colonies a sovereign nation after the declaration of independence?* False equivalency.  The South was an integral part of an indivisible union.

*Were the colonists in 1776 patriots or "criminals"?* They were criminals by British law.

If our far right mutant militant armed groups raise up, they will be treated as enemy combatants and if taken with arms in hands, will be summarily executed.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Rotagill is wrong on every point and has been shown to be so.



Incorrect. I posted verified quotes from the people involved at the time, including lincoln.

You posted nothing ....except "nuh uh".




JakeStarkey said:


> Because of that poster's ignorance, I suggest he read and tell us what the 9th paragraph of the The Cornerstone Speech says about slavery as the cause of the war.
> 
> ?Corner Stone? Speech | Teaching American History




yeah?..So?
No one is disputing that slavery was wrong.
What's your point in this diversion?

I'll see your stephens speech and raise you lincolns OWN WORDS ON SLAVERY AND THE WAR.

"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."*
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Letter to Horace Greeley
August 22, 1862


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 9, 2014)

Lincoln's speech to Greely is about the Union and preserving it.

Stephens' speech is why the CSA was set on dissolving the Union.

Lincoln was right, Stephens wrong, and history bears it out.


----------



## peach174 (Jun 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > No it didn't. They had outlawed slavery in 8 of the 13 colonies. They passed the Northwest ordinance that outlawed slavery.
> ...



Wrong
States that outlawed slavery.
Vermont - 1777 
Pennsylvania - 1780 - Pennsylvania's law passed in 1780 was for the "gradual abolishment of slavery" to take place over a period of 20 years. 
Massachusetts - 1780 
New Hampshire - 1783 

Connecticut - 1784 
Rhode Island - 1784 
New York - 1799 
New Jersey - 1804 


Northwest Ordinance

Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 9, 2014)

Lincoln's speech to Greely is about the Union and preserving it.

Stephens' speech is why the CSA was set on dissolving the Union.

Lincoln was right, Stephens wrong, and history bears it out.  The south had no constitutional right to leave the Union.

It tried, drew arms against lawful and constituted authority, and was shot down like a rabid dog.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The South was an integral part of an indivisible union.



What legal authority do you use to reach that conclusion? Link?




JakeStarkey said:


> They were criminals by British law.


So everyone who was  killed by the british deserved it because "british law" said they were criminals?  Circular logic.

..or was their cause just?



JakeStarkey said:


> If our far right mutant militant armed groups raise up, they will be treated as enemy combatants and if taken with arms in hands, will be summarily executed.



I'm sure all the "far right mutant militants armed groups" will be. 

The patriots, however, won't be as easy.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lincoln's speech to Greely is about the Union and preserving it.
> 
> Stephens' speech is why the CSA was set on dissolving the Union.
> 
> ...



lincoln was wrong.
stephens was wrong.
the south tried to legally and peacefully secede.
the north invaded.
the south defended their homeland.

history bears it out.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 9, 2014)

Yet slavery was wrong also...


----------



## paperview (Jun 9, 2014)

peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


Those are states.

Starkey is right.

The US government & US Constitution protected slavery.

The 1858 US Supreme Court Dred Scott decision ensconced it further and even proclaimed free blacks non-citizens even in free states.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> Yet slavery was wrong also...



Yes. 

It was the worst mistake this nation ever made. America would have been much better then and much better now if they'd just picked their own cotton.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

paperview said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



there were slaves in the colonies under the british flag for a hundred years...

there were slaves in america under the american flag for 85 years or so.

there were slaves under the confederate flag for *4 years*...but everyone hates the south for its' "legacy of slavery"....LMAO....carry on.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 9, 2014)

paperview is here.

Roty is in for some scrooling as his hero says.


----------



## peach174 (Jun 9, 2014)

paperview said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...





After the Civil War was the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That made the Blacks citizens.

President Buchanan had a hand in that decision over Dred Scott. It was very politically motivated and was very controversial.

Buchanan successfully pressured Associate Justice Robert Cooper Grier, a Northerner, to join the Southern majority in the Dred Scott decision to prevent the appearance that the decision was made along sectional lines. By present-day standards, such correspondence would be considered improper ex parte contact with a court.

So the decision was never about the Constitution in The 1858 US Supreme Court Dred Scott decision.

We had dirty politics way back then too.

Something that might have happened in this day and age, when Justice Roberts changed the Affordable Health Care Act to a tax and not a mandate.
Perhaps history will tell us again in the future that Obama had a hand in this decision, just like Buchanan had done.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> paperview is here.
> 
> Roty is in for some scrooling as his hero says.



No comments relevant to the topic?

I wonder why?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 9, 2014)

Oh, the topic has been discussed, Roty, and you lost.

Paperview will take her time, show you the documents and analysis, and you will be publicly thanking her for educating you.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, the topic has been discussed, Roty, and you lost.
> 
> Paperview will take her time, show you the documents and analysis, and you will be publicly thanking her for educating you.



You've proven nothing to anyone.You haven't even introduced a relevant fact to this discussion. Distract and derail seems to be your debate tactic.
regardless, at this point it's clear that you have no clue what you're talking about and you're in way over your head...

and..LMFAO....whoever paperview is, it's highly amusing that you're calling for help. 

Very revealing, ace.


----------



## paperview (Jun 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, the topic has been discussed, Roty, and you lost.
> 
> Paperview will take her time, show you the documents and analysis, and you will be publicly thanking her for educating you.


Don't oversell me for time I don't have.

He's a neo-confed who isn't worth the time, even if I had it right now, which I don't.

But I thank you.

If "roty" cares to learn a bit, he can do a word search with my name - and he can start with "1836" -- that would be the year South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter. 

He can go more global and type in "timeline" or  "Star of the West" -- that would be when hostilities really started, in January of 1861 - months before Lincoln even stepped into office.

Here, I'll even get him started:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/8749107-post75.html

Off to mow the back 40 for now.  cya's ;/


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 9, 2014)

"Roty" is already weaving and backing up.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

paperview said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, the topic has been discussed, Roty, and you lost.
> ...



No..I'm an old "confed". You people and your labels... 






paperview said:


> If "roty" cares to learn a bit, he can do a word search with my name - and he can start with "1836" -- that would be the year South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter.



Legal secession supersedes that but the south still offered to pay for the installation.



paperview said:


> He can go more global and type in "timeline" or  "Star of the West" -- that would be when hostilities really started, in January of 1861 - months before Lincoln even stepped into office.
> Here, I'll even get him started:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/8749107-post75.html



Fascinating...but irrelevant to the point. 
Interesting that the north continuously and purposely provoked and agitated, hoping for conflict.

Maybe you could explain lincolns meaning here, then? The language is straightforward and unambiguous. 


*"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."*


The south tried to peacefully, legally secede from a government that had become overly oppressive.  

an oppressive govt can only force people to do things at gunpoint for a certain period of time before they eventually revolt.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> "Roty" is already weaving and backing up.



That's nice.

Do you have anything relevant to the discussion to add or is this, in fact, your best effort?


----------



## Picaro (Jun 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Picaro is guilty of false equivalency with the photos suggesting the Union's black units were like the SS adjunct units.



I suggested no such thing; somebody posted a pic of black Union soldiers as if that showed the Union was 'mutli-racial', I provided an excellent example of why that doesn't say much about northern realities and racism in the north, any more than posting pics of blacks in Hitler's armies shows that Nazis were not racist.

New York blacks formed two or three regiments of volunteers in 1861; they were denied the approval to serve in the Union army until later in the war, when the north was too desperate for manpower to fill its lines that they finally allowed blacks to serve as soldiers.



> It's not true, it's deliberately a lie, and it reveals a real hatred of people of color.


You're lying here, of course. You just deliberately distort things you don't personally like, like most northern apologists hate anything that tarnishes their self-serving fantasies re the Civil War. Like the historical fact that they were as corrupt and amoral as everybody else on the planet, and nothing noble or 'special'. We have their conduct and actions after the war as yet more shining examples of their pocket stuffing self-interests, the Grant administration and 'Reconstruction', along with a clear record of Republican priorities when they occupied Congress with no opposition and were free to pass all their pet bills. We know for an absolute fact slavery wasn't anywhere near the top of their list. Cherry picking this or that anecdote and all the 'research' digging up confirmation biases and the like can't really erase what they actually did. Hardly anybody is attempting to white wash the South's motivations and atrocities, they're well documented; it's only the northern hypocrites who get all indignant and begin posturing in these threads when their sacred cows are gored; then comes the insults and name calling and lying.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 9, 2014)

Picaro said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro is guilty of false equivalency with the photos suggesting the Union's black units were like the SS adjunct units.
> ...




be careful! or he'll call someone for help...LMAO...


----------



## Picaro (Jun 9, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



the only thing that would help their revisionist narratives will be burning the records of Congressional votes and the Constitution, where no one seems able to find where Lincoln had the unilateral power to launch a war on anybody; they chose not to challenge the secession in the legislature and then the Supreme Court, and Lincoln had determined on war no matter what the alternatives, and for the obvious reasons: greed, cronyism, and power. All the rest is just trivia and spin.

you get the same sort of Butt-Hurtedness and diaper wetting when going over Thomas Jefferson's less than stellar life, or when the JFK Camelot Myth is examined with anything less than worshipful adulation and simpering.


----------



## Bush92 (Jun 9, 2014)

Menken is correct. Lincoln had dictatorial powers and suspended writs habeas corpus. He declared martial law in Maryland. If he had not been assassinated the Radical Republicans (liberals of their day) would have impeached him and his place in history would have been very different. The men who died at Gettysburg died to preserve the union of states dominated by federal authority. Not for the government of the people. Before Civil War we were THESE United States of America. After the war we were THE United States of America.


----------



## gipper (Jun 9, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


 
Many Americans have been brainwashed to believe our presidents were great and honest men....sadly, nearly all of them were terribly flawed, as we all are, and many were outright liars, cheats, and murderous fools.  Lincoln has to be at the top of the list...due to his actions causing so much death and destruction.  

The brainwashing is difficult to overcome.  The truth does not change these people.  That is concerning.  When the truth is refused and condemned, you know we as a nation, are in trouble.


----------



## gipper (Jun 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> > The south tried to peacefully secede. The south offered to pay for all federal facilities on their soil.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In your simple mind, you think the South went to war to continue slavery...and you still cling to the lie that secession was illegal.  These LIES have has been debunked over and over, yet you continue to believe.  Why?  

You, who hate today's Rs, love histories most corrupt and traitorous R.  Strange.

The southern man, of whom few owned slaves, fought for self determination and to protect his homeland from the invading Union armies.  Much like the Americans who fought the Limeys in the Revolution, the southern man fought for independence against a tyrannical government.  

You commend Americans who fought the Brits, but condemn the Confederates.  This clearly proves you and your kind are fools and hypocrites.


----------

