# Abraham Lincoln:  Alternative History?



## jwoodie (Mar 1, 2014)

We all know that Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860 with less than 40% of the popular vote.  What is less well known is that two Democrats and a Whig candidate split the rest of the vote, with only Lincoln's name appearing on all States' ballots.  By modern standards, the election results would never have been accepted.

By the time of Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, 1861, South Carolina and six other States had seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America.  Interestingly, neither Virginia nor three other States had yet seceded.  It was not until after President Lincoln's call for 75,000 soldiers to invade the seceding States that Virginia, the most populous and industrial southern State, joined the Confederacy and pulled in the rest of those States with her.

What if Lincoln had adopted a less aggressive posture towards these States?  What if he had merely demanded the return of Federal property and compensation for any damage, rather than calling for an invasion?  This would have been entirely justified by any standard as well as compliant with international law.  Virginia was essential to the viability of the Confederacy.  Would it have joined in the absence of Lincoln's attack on State Sovereignty?

Within 20 years of the end of the Civil War, slavery had been abolished in the Western Hemisphere and most of the rest of the world.  Could not an accommodation with Virginia have been reached?  The importation of slaves was already prohibited.  For example, might not there have been an agreement that, henceforth, the children born to slaves would be free?  Without Virginia, the Confederacy would have collapsed under its own weight.

Was "Preservation of the Union" worth 620,000 lives, more than all of our other wars combined?  Might this armageddon have been avoided with a little less concern about Presidential prestige and legacy?


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 1, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> Was "Preservation of the Union" worth 620,000 lives, more than all of our other wars combined?





Yes.


----------



## jwoodie (Mar 2, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Was "Preservation of the Union" worth 620,000 lives, more than all of our other wars combined?
> ...



Deep thinker, eh?


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 2, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...




Question - Answer

Not that complicated


And it does not make one a "deep thinker" to play make-pretend.


----------



## HenryBHough (Mar 2, 2014)

Lincoln staved off Global Warming by probably ten years (if you believe in that religion) by getting all those people killed.  After all, humans are the scourge of the Earth - the sole cause of the looming heat wave that's going to dry up all the water, kill all the crops, roast all the livestock and probably make strong women weep.

See, Lincoln was a great savior to the Algore crowd as well as to the former slaves!

Get with the program, folks!!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 2, 2014)

_What if he had merely demanded the return of Federal property and compensation for any damage, rather than calling for an invasion?_

Lincoln called for no invasion.  He only required that slavery remain in the Old South, the return of federal properties, and the acceptance of constitutional and electoral process.


----------



## regent (Mar 2, 2014)

The South was probably bent on leaving and just as one third of the colonists were intent on leaving Britain. As for slavery being the issue, check out the Ghost Amendment to the Constitution that Lincoln said he would accept.


----------



## oldfart (Mar 2, 2014)

Where do you get this drivel?  



jwoodie said:


> We all know that Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860 with less than 40% of the popular vote.  What is less well known is that two Democrats and a Whig candidate split the rest of the vote, *with only Lincoln's name appearing on all States' ballots. *



Lincoln was not on the ballot in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.  South Carolina did not have direct election of presidential electors; the state legislature chose them.  By contrast Douglas was on every ballot except New York and New Jersey, where a unified anti-Lincoln slate was run.  The Southern candidates, Breckinridge and Bell were on every ballot except SC, NY, & NJ as noted, and Rhode Island, with Bell but not Breckinridge on the Pennsylvania ballot.  

So Lincoln was on the ballot in slave states that remained in the Union and Virginia.  In the North, either an anti-Lincoln coalition or at least two other candidates were on the ballot everywhere except Rhode Island.  The states that Lincoln carried, a majority of the electoral vote, he carried by majorities, not just pluralities.  

Now the only real question is whether you have the integrity to admit you have no idea of what you are talking about or if you try to weasel again.  But we already know that answer.


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 2, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> We all know that Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860 with less than 40% of the popular vote.  What is less well known is that two Democrats and a Whig candidate split the rest of the vote, with only Lincoln's name appearing on all States' ballots.  By modern standards, the election results would never have been accepted.
> 
> By the time of Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, 1861, South Carolina and six other States had seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America.  Interestingly, neither Virginia nor three other States had yet seceded.  It was not until after President Lincoln's call for 75,000 soldiers to invade the seceding States that Virginia, the most populous and industrial southern State, joined the Confederacy and pulled in the rest of those States with her.
> 
> ...



Get your facts right! There were four candidates. It wasn't like now-a-days where all the 3rd party truly is only a spoiler. In 1860, Lincoln even at 40% was more  than 1 million over the Southern Democratic opponent (18% - Breckinirdige). More than 500K over the Democrat (29%) and more than 1 mil over constitutional candidate (12%).

United States presidential election, 1860 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lincoln's election was legit.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 2, 2014)

jwoodie has an axe to grind on this issue.

_Lincoln alluded to the Corwin amendment in his First Inaugural Address (paragraph 29). Although he stopped short of endorsing it, he said, "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Those were clearly not the words of a wild-eyed abolitionist (as Lincoln's detractors portrayed him), but of a practical politician trying to manage an unprecedented crisis. Ironically, it fell to Lincoln to notify the states that the Corwin amendment was open for ratification.
Read more at Ghost Amendment: The Thirteenth Amendment That Never Was_

Lincoln still would  not have permitted slavery in the territories or the free states.


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 2, 2014)

What if the Trent Affair (US boarding a British Warship) let to the British and French intervening on the South's side. The Confederates were lobbying the British hard for them to intervene. They promised them the moon and the stars once they won. The French wanted to intervene to protect their trade, but were too weak to do it without the British. If the British and French landed troops in the States, the Confederates surely would have won the war.

What would America have looked like if that happened? When would slavery have ended? 

My guess is slavery would have continued for 20-30 more years and would have been squashed out near the turn of the century!


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 3, 2014)

The thing is, a few rich people got a lot of dumb poor white people to fight so they'd have a right to keep raping their slaves.  

The profound stupidity of it all is mind-boggling. 

At least the Germans have the good sense to be ashamed of what the Nazis did.


----------



## JWBooth (Mar 3, 2014)

Alternative history is what has been successfully taught in our schools since 1866. General Pike was right.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 3, 2014)

The problem was after the war, we decided to let the South keep it's dignity, instead of treating it like a defeated nation that did something wrong.  

There should have been massive war crimes trials for the Southern leaders and execution for treasons.  Anyone who wore the Gray never should have been allowed the vote again.


----------



## editec (Mar 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> The problem was after the war, we decided to let the South keep it's dignity, instead of treating it like a defeated nation that did something wrong.
> 
> There should have been massive war crimes trials for the Southern leaders and execution for treasons.  Anyone who wore the Gray never should have been allowed the vote again.




I often feel this way, myself. 


_ At least the CSA TOP brass and TOP military ought to have been hanged!_ I complain


But putting myself in the position of the POTUS at that time, realizing what the result would have been ( a protracted war of  terrorism in the South) I suspect I'd have tried to bind the wounds of the nation by not doing the above, too.


----------



## regent (Mar 3, 2014)

The framers of the Constitution were afraid of allowing the poor to vote. The poor in a majority would vote for their own best interests at the expense of the rich. 
Yet in the South, the poor white southernor would fought for the wealthy fought for the South and for the wealthy  upper class. Why? Perhaps it was because the poor white Southernor still had status, he was not on the bottom, and still had rank. 
But today we have, poor Americans, the bottom of the economic heap voting for the best interests of the upper class. Why? If money, nor status, are the key for people to vote against their own economic self-interests, what is the key?r Were the framers wrong believing self-interest is why people vote? And what of upper-class individuals that vote against their own best interests. For example, when running for president, FDR was labeled as a traitor to his own wealthy class. 
I wonder how much money has been poured into this quest to find why people vote as they do?


----------



## Darkwind (Mar 3, 2014)

I hear he slayed a mean vampyre too!


----------



## paperview (Mar 3, 2014)

"...with only Lincoln's name appearing on all States' ballots."

Very first paragraph in the OP - and he gets it wildly wrong.

Why even bother with the rest?


----------



## oldfart (Mar 3, 2014)

oldfart said:


> Where do you get this drivel?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And a follow-up:

In the votes that really counted, a full third of the CSA forces were engaged in attempting to put down Unionist insurrections and trying to hold the South.  Every state in the South except for South Carolina supplied white regiments to the Union armies.  In fact, black and white, about as many slave state soldiers fought for the Union as for the Confederacy.


----------



## SayMyName (Mar 3, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> We all know that Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860 with less than 40% of the popular vote.  What is less well known is that two Democrats and a Whig candidate split the rest of the vote, with only Lincoln's name appearing on all States' ballots.  By modern standards, the election results would never have been accepted.
> 
> By the time of Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, 1861, South Carolina and six other States had seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America.  Interestingly, neither Virginia nor three other States had yet seceded.  It was not until after President Lincoln's call for 75,000 soldiers to invade the seceding States that Virginia, the most populous and industrial southern State, joined the Confederacy and pulled in the rest of those States with her.
> 
> ...



Worth lives? When going into war, you take calculated risks not knowing what the result will actually be. In this case it was over keeping the Union together. Before the war was over, it became also about slavery. I am glad that the war helped defeat the side that supported slavery. It is a scar upon our nation up to this present day. It is inconceivable that such a vile practice was ever allowed to exist in the United States.


----------



## oldfart (Mar 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> _What if he had merely demanded the return of Federal property and compensation for any damage, rather than calling for an invasion?_
> 
> Lincoln called for no invasion.  He only required that slavery remain in the Old South, the return of federal properties, and the acceptance of constitutional and electoral process.



Warms my heart that somebody has actually read the First Inaugural Address.


----------



## gipper (Mar 3, 2014)

oldfart said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > _What if he had merely demanded the return of Federal property and compensation for any damage, rather than calling for an invasion?_
> ...



So...Lincoln threatening the South with war, which he did in his first inaugural if they refused to pay taxes to the Federal government, is okay with you.


----------



## paperview (Mar 3, 2014)

gipper said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


The South committed Acts of War and opened fire before Lincoln ever stepped foot in office.


----------



## regent (Mar 3, 2014)

Lincoln was a threat to the South's way of life and if assination didn't work then war might. I still cannot really understand why all those poor southernors would give their life to maintain that way of life that, to me, was only great for the wealthy. Are people just that easily led?


----------



## gipper (Mar 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



Lincoln fought an aggressive war against fellow Americans because they refused to submit to his will.  It has been well documented that he set up events at Ft Sumter to get the party started.  He then invaded the South causing the deaths of 850,000 Americans and near complete destruction of the southern states.  For these heinous and unconstitutional acts he is revered...when he should be condemned.  

What Lincoln did was treason and he should have been impeached.  

Sadly since Lincoln broke the mold, we have had to endure many tyrannical presidents including the one in the WH now.

A big centralized unlimited government was never the intention of our Founders, but that is exactly what we have and it all started with Dishonest Abe.


----------



## paperview (Mar 3, 2014)

The "party" started long before Lincoln stepped into office.  The South was determined to protect their beloved institution of owning humans and nothing was going to stop their protection of the right to own human beings and their plan to expand it.

End of story and you dork-headed neo-confederate revisionists wouldn't even be here today had Lincoln not fought to keep the Union together -- to make this Country the great one it is today.

Put that in your smoke and pipe it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 3, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> What if the Trent Affair (US boarding a British Warship) let to the British and French intervening on the South's side. The Confederates were lobbying the British hard for them to intervene. They promised them the moon and the stars once they won. The French wanted to intervene to protect their trade, but were too weak to do it without the British. If the British and French landed troops in the States, the Confederates surely would have won the war.
> 
> What would America have looked like if that happened? When would slavery have ended?
> 
> My guess is slavery would have continued for 20-30 more years and would have been squashed out near the turn of the century!



The British and French would have controlled the seas, recognized the South, and kept the South armed and fed.

There would have been two American nations.

Read Turtledove's what-if novels on that scenario.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 3, 2014)

gipper said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



He said war would come if the South insisted on it.

The Old South states did and were executed for it.


----------



## regent (Mar 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > What if the Trent Affair (US boarding a British Warship) let to the British and French intervening on the South's side. The Confederates were lobbying the British hard for them to intervene. They promised them the moon and the stars once they won. The French wanted to intervene to protect their trade, but were too weak to do it without the British. If the British and French landed troops in the States, the Confederates surely would have won the war.
> ...



Lincoln's strategy was to keep England out of the war and to do that he would issue the Emancipation Proclamation. But Lincoln reasoned that he could not issue the procalmation as a losing gesture, he needed a victory before issuance. The victory was Antietam, then came the issuance and England would not enter the war.


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> The thing is, a few rich people got a lot of dumb poor white people to fight so they'd have a right to keep raping their slaves.
> 
> The profound stupidity of it all is mind-boggling.
> 
> At least the Germans have the good sense to be ashamed of what the Nazis did.



Do you really think white Americans aren't ashamed of slavery?


----------



## Steven_R (Mar 3, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> What if the Trent Affair (US boarding a British Warship) let to the British and French intervening on the South's side. The Confederates were lobbying the British hard for them to intervene. They promised them the moon and the stars once they won. The French wanted to intervene to protect their trade, but were too weak to do it without the British. If the British and French landed troops in the States, the Confederates surely would have won the war.
> 
> What would America have looked like if that happened? When would slavery have ended?
> 
> My guess is slavery would have continued for 20-30 more years and would have been squashed out near the turn of the century!



British involvement was never going to happen. Nevermind that the US was England's biggest trading partner before the war, the British had just spent 30 years trying to eradicate slavery. Short of issuing emancipation and then declaring independence, there was no way the South was every going to get formal recognition much less overt assistance from England. The Trent Affair mucked up issues between the US and UK a bit, but not enough to get Whitehall to do anything like kick Washington to the curb in favor of Richmond.


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > What if the Trent Affair (US boarding a British Warship) let to the British and French intervening on the South's side. The Confederates were lobbying the British hard for them to intervene. They promised them the moon and the stars once they won. The French wanted to intervene to protect their trade, but were too weak to do it without the British. If the British and French landed troops in the States, the Confederates surely would have won the war.
> ...



Not so sure about that. The South was doing alright up until Gettysburg. If the South would have won at Gettysburg and then the British and French entered the war on the South's side, the North would have fallen.

These are what if scenarios and thank god the North won and the British and French stayed out of our civil war. Maybe the US should take note next time we decide to enter another countries civil war.


----------



## Steven_R (Mar 3, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Hardly. The Eastern front may have the headlines, but the war was being won in the west, just like Winfield Scott said it would. Remember, the day after Gettysburg, Vicksburg fell to Grant and the South was physically cut in half.

The Anaconda Plan was working in 1863 and both the British and French generals knew it. The only hope the South had at that point was to drag the war out for another year and a half and hope the American voters at the 1864 elections were stupid enough to think the war couldn't be won.


----------



## paperview (Mar 3, 2014)

The South never stood a chance.  They were outmanned, outgunned, out-infrastructured, out-everythinged....out of all possibility of winning.

It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 3, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is, a few rich people got a lot of dumb poor white people to fight so they'd have a right to keep raping their slaves.
> ...



I think a lot of them aren't, or have been disassociative.  

"I never owned a slave, so why should I feel guilty about that?" 

Can't tell you how many times I've heard white folks say that.


----------



## Steven_R (Mar 3, 2014)

I'm not sure it's dissociative so much as it is so far removed that it is a historical curiosity. I feel bad slavery ever existed, but it was over a century before I was born. I didn't do it, so why should I feel responsible? If I'm responsible for the crimes of people long dead, am I also not equally deserving of thanks for stopping slavery? I might not have carried a rifle and wore a blue uniform, but my ancestors did, so where is the gratitude to go alone with the guilt?

And that's before we even get into Spike Lees and Oprahs of the world who keep picking at that scab and calling me a racist.


----------



## oldfart (Mar 3, 2014)

gipper said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I see no evidence you have read the First Inaugural.  In 1860 federal revenue came from land sales of Western land and the tariff.  The federal government levied no tax upon the states.  

And Lincoln did not threaten war.  He explicitly stated that the federal government would not disturb any citizen in their homes or farms; that any violence must be first initiated by the South itself.


----------



## gipper (Mar 4, 2014)

oldfart said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



It is apparent you did not read or comprehend Lincoln's first inaugural.  He said this...



> In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none _unless_ it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.



I have pointed this out to you in other threads...which apparently you failed to comprehend or refused to accept the truth.  

He clearly states no war *UNLESS* the seceding states fail to pay Uncle Sam.   

The South clearly understood his meaning.  He meant to kill them and destroy their property if they refused to pay him what he demanded.  This is exactly what he did and for this, he committed treason and should have been impeached.  

See the Morrill Tariff should you wish to inform yourself on this issue.  

War is nearly ALWAYS:
1. A failure of leadership and;
2. Is promoted and executed by the power elite for nefarious reasons that usually include enriching the State and themselves.

The War of Northern Aggression (more aptly named The War of Lincoln's Aggression) was no exception.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 4, 2014)

Boy, Wingnuts seem to have an awful lot of sympathy for Slave Rapist. 

Oh, someone took away their right to rape their slaves!  Bad old Lincoln!


----------



## editec (Mar 4, 2014)

gipper said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



This is what is meant by BIG FAT LIAR.

Either this nitwit doesn't know his nation's historuy (likely) or he's just going to post whatever drivel he can make up to prove his point (also likely)

Either way he does not know shit about this history.

LAD lincoln was not in office when the fray started.

READ A FUCKING BOOK, lad!


----------



## paperview (Mar 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Boy, Wingnuts seem to have an awful lot of sympathy for Slave Rapist.
> 
> Oh, someone took away their right to rape their slaves!  Bad old Lincoln!


and the resulting legacy of their children and children's children...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcCm_ySBslk]Strange Fruit - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2014)

gipper said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Lincoln clearly said no such thing as "He clearly states no war UNLESS the seceding states fail to pay Uncle Sam."  Lincoln said nothing about invasion, he said nothing about taxes.

He did say war could only come if the Southern states forced it on the national authority.

The Southern states did such, and they were executed for it.

The mistake was that the leading secessionists were not executed or imprisoned for life after the war.

Such a mistake will not happen again if traitors rise up against the government.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 4, 2014)

gipper said:


> He clearly states no war *UNLESS* the seceding states fail to pay Uncle Sam.




That is not what it "clearly" means by any means.


----------



## gipper (Mar 4, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > He clearly states no war *UNLESS* the seceding states fail to pay Uncle Sam.
> ...



Please explain what it means.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 4, 2014)

gipper said:


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




I don't teach for free, and I don't take on hopeless cases like you. Go ask someone who gives a shit about you to clear it up for you.


----------



## gipper (Mar 4, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



Wrong.  Lincoln's words are clearly understood, by those who wish to understand.

If the South did not pay tribute to the Federal government, they would be destroyed.  That is exactly what he meant.  The Morrill Tariff was signed by Buchanan the day before Abe took office.  The tariff imposed big hardships on the South, but certainly benefited Northern Republican interests...exactly what Lincoln wanted. The tariff was enacted with much of the southern state's reps and senators not present...and over their objections.

The seceding states offered to pay the federal government their portion of the national debt and for all federal facilities existing on their lands.  Lincoln ignored the offer.

He then set up events at Ft Sumter.  Then called up a huge army, a provocation for war, and invaded.  He warred on fellow Americans, causing terrible death and destruction....and for this you admire him.


----------



## paperview (Mar 4, 2014)

gipper said:


> ...
> 
> If the South did not pay tribute to the Federal government, they would be destroyed.  That is exactly what he meant.  The Morrill Tariff was signed by Buchanan the day before Abe took office.  The tariff imposed big hardships on the South, but certainly benefited Northern Republican interests...exactly what Lincoln wanted. The tariff was enacted with much of the southern state's reps and senators not present...and over their objections.



By the time the Morrill Tarriff was passed, the majority of the rebel  states had taken their ball and decided to start a war long before that.

THAT'S why they weren't present.




> The seceding states offered to pay the federal government their portion of the national debt and for all federal facilities existing on their lands.  Lincoln ignored the offer.


Lincoln wasn't even in office then. 

*AFTER* the CSA attacked and seized  forts and ships they couldn't own and attempted to pay for it is meaningless.   

The south was itching to secede and nothing was going to stop them.  Nothing unless the Union guaranteed them Slavery could remain and expand  to all those future territories / states. The rebels weren't dumb in  this respect: knew how to read a map.

And count.



> He then set up events at Ft Sumter.  Then called up a huge army, a provocation for war, and invaded.  He warred on fellow Americans, causing terrible death and destruction....and for this you admire him.


To repeat *again*:  The first shots were fired before Lincoln even stepped into the office.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 4, 2014)

gipper said:


> Lincoln's words are clearly understood, by those who wish to understand..





They are clearly misinterpreted by the ignorant and/or those with an agenda.


----------



## oldfart (Mar 4, 2014)

gipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



You have clearly crossed the line from creative historiography to totally delusional.  Lots of luck in that.


----------



## gipper (Mar 5, 2014)

oldfart said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Wrong again...and your response is lacking.  

*Let us do a thought experiment. * 
Should a state or region of the USA secede from the union TODAY, would you be fine with the federal government attacking that state or region, killing thousands and destroying vast amounts of private private, to stop them from seceding?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 5, 2014)

gipper said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Yup, I'd be totally good with that.  Then I would take all the survivors from the losing side, have a sham trial for them that would make Joe Stalin blush, and hang them along the side of the road as a warning. 

What we should have done to the Confederates after the Civil War, we'd have saved ourselves 100 years of unnecesarry greif.


----------



## oldfart (Mar 5, 2014)

regent said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Initially Lincoln intended to issue the Proclamation immediately.  It was Seward who made the argument for delay until after at least a draw on the battlefield.  It's hard to find many examples where Lincoln changed his mind based on his Cabinet's arguments, and this is the biggest one.


----------



## oldfart (Mar 5, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is, a few rich people got a lot of dumb poor white people to fight so they'd have a right to keep raping their slaves.
> ...



You obviously have never lived in Mississippi.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 5, 2014)

Just so.


----------



## oldfart (Mar 5, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



At the moment Pickett was organizing his attack, Pemberton was sending his request to Grant for terms.  The war was decided militarily at that point and no rational foreign government could miss that the South was not going to win.  Vicksburg, not Gettysburg, was the key.


----------



## oldfart (Mar 5, 2014)

paperview said:


> The South never stood a chance.  They were outmanned, outgunned, out-infrastructured, out-everythinged....out of all possibility of winning.
> 
> It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when.



The only way the North would have lost the Civil War would have been through a failure of political leadership and public opinion.  Lincoln recognized that from the start.  From Ft Sumter to the campaigns of late 1964, this formed his every decision.  The pivot from compensated emancipation in the border states  to the emancipation proclamation in the space of four months in 1862 sealed the result and created the situation you correctly identify as virtually inevitable.  [And I shudder to use that word, but this case is one of the rare ones where it is justified]


----------



## Penrod (Mar 8, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> We all know that Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860 with less than 40% of the popular vote.  What is less well known is that two Democrats and a Whig candidate split the rest of the vote, with only Lincoln's name appearing on all States' ballots.  By modern standards, the election results would never have been accepted.
> 
> By the time of Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, 1861, South Carolina and six other States had seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America.  Interestingly, neither Virginia nor three other States had yet seceded.  It was not until after President Lincoln's call for 75,000 soldiers to invade the seceding States that Virginia, the most populous and industrial southern State, joined the Confederacy and pulled in the rest of those States with her.
> 
> ...





He could have bought their freedom for far less. He was a Tyrant.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Was "Preservation of the Union" worth 620,000 lives, more than all of our other wars combined?
> ...



No.  It wasn't worth one person's life.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> _What if he had merely demanded the return of Federal property and compensation for any damage, rather than calling for an invasion?_
> 
> Lincoln called for no invasion.  He only required that slavery remain in the Old South, the return of federal properties, and the acceptance of constitutional and electoral process.



Wrong, as usual.

You only proved that you're a senile moron, Fakey.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> The problem was after the war, we decided to let the South keep it's dignity, instead of treating it like a defeated nation that did something wrong.
> 
> There should have been massive war crimes trials for the Southern leaders and execution for treasons.  Anyone who wore the Gray never should have been allowed the vote again.



No one would have been convicted of treason because secession doesn't fit the definition in the Constitution.  That's a fact that Northern politicians simply didn't want to become obvious.  Lincoln's invasion of the Southern states was illegal.  Grant and Sherman should have been put on trial for war crimes.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

regent said:


> The framers of the Constitution were afraid of allowing the poor to vote. The poor in a majority would vote for their own best interests at the expense of the rich.
> Yet in the South, the poor white southernor would fought for the wealthy fought for the South and for the wealthy  upper class. Why? Perhaps it was because the poor white Southernor still had status, he was not on the bottom, and still had rank.
> But today we have, poor Americans, the bottom of the economic heap voting for the best interests of the upper class. Why? If money, nor status, are the key for people to vote against their own economic self-interests, what is the key?r Were the framers wrong believing self-interest is why people vote? And what of upper-class individuals that vote against their own best interests. For example, when running for president, FDR was labeled as a traitor to his own wealthy class.
> I wonder how much money has been poured into this quest to find why people vote as they do?



You're mistaken in believing that the agenda of the Democrat Party benefits the poor.  It really only benefits union members and government employees.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

paperview said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



Wrong.  Lincoln committed the first act of war.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

paperview said:


> The "party" started long before Lincoln stepped into office.  The South was determined to protect their beloved institution of owning humans and nothing was going to stop their protection of the right to own human beings and their plan to expand it.
> 
> End of story and you dork-headed neo-confederate revisionists wouldn't even be here today had Lincoln not fought to keep the Union together -- to make this Country the great one it is today.
> 
> Put that in your smoke and pipe it.



Irrelevant. The fact is that Lincoln instigated the war and took the first aggressive move.


----------



## paperview (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem was after the war, we decided to let the South keep it's dignity, instead of treating it like a defeated nation that did something wrong.
> ...


Even your confederate brethren, from their special places in hell, can be heard in the ether saying


We lost. Get over it.


----------



## paperview (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > The "party" started long before Lincoln stepped into office.  The South was determined to protect their beloved institution of owning humans and nothing was going to stop their protection of the right to own human beings and their plan to expand it.
> ...


The first shots were fired before Lincoln ever stepped into office, numbnuts.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > He clearly states no war *UNLESS* the seceding states fail to pay Uncle Sam.
> ...



Yes it is, numskull.  Lincoln demanded that the Southern states collect the Morill tariff and then turn it over to the federal government.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

Unkotare said:


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



That's right, run away like a scared little puppy with its tail between its legs.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

oldfart said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Nope.   He tells the exact truth about the war.  He can't help it if you're a bamboozled moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

gipper said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



The sad thing is that most of your critics would be fine with it.  Many of them have made their lust for blood quite plane.  They're a bunch of totalitarian assholes who think we're all property of the federal government.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



Stalin, Hitler and Lincoln would be proud of you, Joe.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

oldfart said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Horseshit.  This is pure fantasy.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

paperview said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Can you hear me saying you're a moron?


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

paperview said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Fort Sumter wasn't until April 1861, moron.


----------



## paperview (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Sure we can. In much the same way a snot-smeared puppet child who talks to crickets says it...


----------



## paperview (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Ya see.  This is where you show how little, how very little you actually know about the war.

I've posted this many times for slower sorts such as yourself.

I'll keep reposting as many times as it takes to get through.

*The first shots were fired in January of 1861.  
*
 Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter. 




Click to enlarge 

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

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




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

Star of the West

 Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*,  linked above.

==============


Further, another Timeline for you, from the SC Convention forward:

December 20, 1860:      South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
December 24, 1860:     *Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces       a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a      national  institution.*
December 26, 1860:     Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
January 3, 1861:     G*eorgia seizes Fort Pulaski.  <---NOTE: THEY  SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 4, 1861:     *Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. ** <---NOTE: THEY  SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 5, 1861:     *Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines*. * <---NOTE: THEY  SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 6, 1861:     *Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. ** <---NOTE: THEY  SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 7, 1861:     *Florida seizes Fort Marion*.  * <---NOTE: THEY  SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 8, 1861:     Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
January 9, 1861:     Mississippi secedes.

*Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.*
January 10, 1861:     Florida secedes.

*Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.*
January 11, 1861:     Alabama secedes.
*
Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital.*
January 14, 1861:     *Louisiana seizes Fort Pike. * * <---NOTE: THEY  SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 19, 1861:     Georgia secedes.
January 26, 1861:     Louisiana secedes.
January 28, 1861:     Tennessee Resolutions in favor of Crittenden Compromise offered in Congress.
February 1, 1861:     Texas secedes.
February 8, 1861:     Provisional Constitution of the Confederacy adopted in Montgomery, AL.

*Arkansas seizes U.S. Arsenal at Little Rock.*
February 12, 1861:     *Arkansas seizes U.S. ordnance stores at Napoleon.*
February 18, 1861:     Jefferson Davis inaugurated as President of the Confederacy.
March 4, 1861:     Abraham Lincoln inaugurated as 16th President of the United States.*
March 21, 1861:     "Cornerstone speech" delivered by Alexander       Stephens. (This is where the Confederate V President lays it out       clearly: Slavery is the Cornerstone of the Confederacy.)*

April 12, 1861: *    Fort Sumter fired upon by Confederates. 
THE WAR OFFICIALLY BEGINS.*


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 10, 2014)

paperview said:


> Even your confederate brethren, from their special places in hell, can be heard in the ether saying
> 
> 
> We lost. Get over it.





Bingo.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem was after the war, we decided to let the South keep it's dignity, instead of treating it like a defeated nation that did something wrong.
> ...



You miss the point. 

War Crime Trials are not because someone did something bad.  

War Crime Trials are the winners punishing the losers.  They are to let the losers know they are the winner's bitch.  

The problem with the Civil War was that after we had defeated these utterly repulsive people, we didn't make them our bitches after the war.  We should have hung Davis and Lee.  We should have had a nuremburg like trial for them to utterly shame their memories.  

It's what they did to the Nazis,and you only see the most disaffected freak wearing swastikas today.


----------



## paperview (Mar 10, 2014)

As for the denial the South wasn't spoiling for a war, long, long before Lincoln -- I bring you this     little tidbit:

     During the presidential race of 1856, John C. Fremont was the      Republican candidate. Slavery was a hot hot hot topic during this      election and the South was bitterly opposed to him because of the      party's anti-slavery views.

     The leading Senator of Virginia, James Mason wrote to Jefferson      Davis, who would later become the president of the Confederate      States and was then the Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce:I have a letter from [Virginia Governor Henry] WISE, of       the 27th,  full of spirit. He says the Governments of North       Carolina, South  Carolina, and Louisiana, have already agreed to       rendezvous at  Raleigh, and others willâthis in your most private       ear. He says,  further, that he had officially requested you to       exchange with  Virginia, on fair terms of difference, percussion       for flint  muskets. I don't know the usage or power of the       Department in such  cases, but if it can be done, even by liberal       construction, I  hope you will accede. *Virginia probably has         more arms than  the other Southern States, and would divide in         case of need. In a  letter yesterday to a Committee in South         Carolina. I gave it as  my judgment, in the event of FREMONT's         election,  the South should not pause, but proceed at once to         "immediate,  absolute, and eternal separation."*​The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine - Google Books

     There you have it. A leading Southern Senator *directly       requesting the Secretary of War to arm the southern states for war       against the United States, *

*this was a full **four years** before any       actual secession, *based on what?
     Yes, the possibility there might be a Republican president. 

Because  a Republican president threatened their plans to expand slavery.

     Well, Fremont lost, (owing much to these Southern threats of war)  --     but can anyone deny the saber rattling and drum beating that  existed     for _years_ before Lincoln? How?

     And here a letter from the governor of Virginia to the governors of     Maryland and other States:

*----> "Richmond, Va., Sept. 15th, 1856*.
     "Dear Sir: Events are approaching which address themselves to your     responsibilities and to mine *as chief Executives of       slave-holding States*. *Contingencies may soon happen which       would require preparation for the worst of evils to the people.        Ought we not to admonish ourselves by joint counsel of the        extraordinary duties which may devolve upon us from the dangers        which so palpably threaten our common peace and safety? When, how,        or to what extent may we act, separately or unitedly, to ward off        dangers if we can, to meet them most effectually if we must?
*
The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine - Google Books

I think my work here is done.


----------



## editec (Mar 10, 2014)

For those of us TRULY INTERESTED IN THE FACTS SURROUNDING this TARIFF (not tax, tariff)



The Morrill Tariff of 1861


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

editec said:


> For those of us TRULY INTERESTED IN THE FACTS SURROUNDING this TARIFF (not tax, tariff)
> 
> 
> 
> The Morrill Tariff of 1861



A tariff is a tax, moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

paperview said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Firing on the Star of the West was not an act of war, just as firing on Ft Sumter was not an act of war.  Precisely the opposite is the case.  The Star of the West intruded into the territorial waters of SC and the garrison at Ft Sumter was occupying territory within SC.  The federal government committed the act of war, not SC.  The main difference here is that Buchannon was still president in the case of the first incident and he wasn't a warmongering asshole like Lincoln.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 10, 2014)

This revisionist wierdo has a serious mental problem when it comes to the traitorous Confederacy and their evil acts of treason.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> This revisionist wierdo has a serious mental problem when it comes to the traitorous Confederacy and their evil acts of treason.



Trying to paint their critics as having mental problems is a typical Stalinist and liberal tactic.  You appear to be a libturd.  Notice that you're on the same side as paperview.

Stuff like the above is why I have a problem with a lot of so-called "conservatives."  They claim to believe in freedom, but a lot of what they post indicates they believe in big government and compulsion.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You're forgetting something important:  the people you want to put on trial were American citizens.  That means any trial has to comport with the American Constitution, which defines treason thus:

_"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."_​
Secession doesn't fit the definition.  However, Lincoln launching a military assault on the Southern states does fit the definition.  Note the definition refers to the United States in the plural sense.  Waging war against them (plural) is treason.  In other words waging war against any state of the union is treason, which is precisely what Lincoln did.

If the federal government had trials for treason after the Civil War, then the entire Lincoln administration and the military would be in the docket, not the Confederates.

The reason no such trials occurred is the fact that all Union warmongering scumbags well understood the legal predicament they were in.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Notice that you're on the same side as paperview.





I notice that every time the traitorous, futile, evil Confederacy is brought up you lose your shit over a war that ended a long time ago and was never _yours_ anyway. I notice you respond like some Pavlovian dog of historical revisionist insanity.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Notice that you're on the same side as paperview.
> ...



The Confederacy wasn't traitorous, as I just proved.  It was no more evil than the union where slavery was still in force then the Civil War started.

As usual, what you posted is horse manure.  That's because you're a dumbass.

I'm not "losing my shit" over anything.  I'm simply trying to correct the record.  You are the one who seems to be losing your shit.  You can't discuss the matter without threatening your critics with imprisonment and death or accusing them of having mental problems.  That's the sure sign of a fascist.


----------



## paperview (Mar 10, 2014)

I'm so glad he's one of yours, connies.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



when a self-proclaimed 'seceded' governmental entity fires on national troops, yup, it's an act of war.

The Union was corrected in 'executing' SC and forcing it to "resurrect" through reconstruction.

Anyone who defends SC's military action is a warmongering asshole.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > This revisionist wierdo has a serious mental problem when it comes to the traitorous Confederacy and their evil acts of treason.
> ...



Your opinion here, as an anarchist and as yourself based on your posting, puts you out in weirdo land.

Yes, you have lost your shit, bripat, there is no record to correct, and you can now goose step off.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


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



Have you noticed any problems with your muscle control?  That's another symptom of dementia.  Towards the final stages you'll find you aren't able even to walk.  You'll also crap all over yourself because you lose control of your bowels.  I truly sympathize with what you're going through, Fakey.   My wife works with the elderly, and she tells me stories about people with dementia that make me cringe.

God have mercy on your soul.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

paperview said:


> I'm so glad he's one of yours, connies.



No you aren't.  You're just a big pussy who doesn't want to take a beating.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Ask your wife about self projection, son.  How sad for you that you are entering dementia early in your life, but, realizing what you post, there is no surprise.

Sad for you.  Is that why you are not allowed to fly helicopters anymore?


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


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





Constant repetition of the revisionist nonsense you _want_ to believe isn't "proof" of anything other than that you seem to think that by such repetition alone you can alter reality itself. That is a sign of insanity.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> I'm not "losing my shit" over anything. .





Oh no, of course not. Everyone can see that.........


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 10, 2014)

paperview said:


> I'm so glad he's one of yours, connies.




Don't blame conservatism for his unbalanced state. Hysterical, impotent, revisionist fury isn't a political position.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

jakestarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > jakestarkey said:
> ...



*weak!*


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> [
> 
> You're forgetting something important:  the people you want to put on trial were American citizens.  That means any trial has to comport with the American Constitution, which defines treason thus:
> 
> _"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."_​



No, guy, I didn't FORGET.  I just don't fucking care.  After we've hung the bitches, they can complain to history.  These were scumwads who betrayed their country to support a human rights violation.   We should make their graves into public commodes. 







> If the federal government had trials for treason after the Civil War, then the entire Lincoln administration and the military would be in the docket, not the Confederates.
> 
> The reason no such trials occurred is the fact that all Union warmongering scumbags well understood the legal predicament they were in.



No, the reason they did was because a weasel turncoat replaced the Sainted Lincoln.  

These Confederate shitstains should have been tried for treason.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > You're forgetting something important:  the people you want to put on trial were American citizens.  That means any trial has to comport with the American Constitution, which defines treason thus:
> ...





JoeB131 said:


> No, guy, I didn't FORGET.  I just don't fucking care.  After we've hung the bitches, they can complain to history.  These were scumwads who betrayed their country to support a human rights violation.   We should make their graves into public commodes.



Thanks for admitting that, Joe.  Thanks for admitting that you don't give a rat's ass about the Constitution, justice or any principle of a decent civilization.  You're just a brutal thug out for revenge against people who didn't do a thing to you.

You admitted you're a piece of shit.  You saved us all the trouble of debating the issue any further.





> If the federal government had trials for treason after the Civil War, then the entire Lincoln administration and the military would be in the docket, not the Confederates.
> 
> The reason no such trials occurred is the fact that all Union warmongering scumbags well understood the legal predicament they were in.



No, the reason they did was because a weasel turncoat replaced the Sainted Lincoln.  

These Confederate shitstains should have been tried for treason.[/QUOTE]

Nope.  They knew they couldn't make the charges stick.  That's because no one in the Confederacy committed treason according to the definition in the Constitution.  Obviously, even you know that.  Otherwise you wouldn't have admitted that you don't care what the Constitution says.  

Lincoln and his generals, on the other hand, committed offense too numerous to list here.  They should have been tried for war crimes.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  Try to make-up your own insults, Fakey.  It's pathetic when you parrot mine.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 11, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> [
> 
> Thanks for admitting that, Joe.  Thanks for admitting that you don't give a rat's ass about the Constitution, justice or any principle of a decent civilization.  You're just a brutal thug out for revenge against people who didn't do a thing to you.
> 
> You admitted you're a piece of shit.  You saved us all the trouble of debating the issue any further.



Guy, Lee and Davis and every other Traitor fought a war that killed 600,000, so a few rich white people could keep owning slaves.  Justice would have been doing to them what they did to the Nazis at Nuremburg.  INcidently, I think the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials were kangeroo courts as well.   I just can't work up sympathy for the scumwads who ended up on the ends of ropes there. 

A decent civilization never would have had slavery from the get go. 




bripat9643 said:


> [
> 
> Nope.  They knew they couldn't make the charges stick.  That's because no one in the Confederacy committed treason according to the definition in the Constitution.  Obviously, even you know that.  Otherwise you wouldn't have admitted that you don't care what the Constitution says.
> 
> Lincoln and his generals, on the other hand, committed offense too numerous to list here.  They should have been tried for war crimes.



Actually, they'd have had no problem making the charges stick.  

The juries would be made up entirely of Union Soldiers who got limbs sawn off during the war.  

The real problem was that a lot of people after the war just wanted to put the whole thing behind them without any real reckoning for those who started it.   That is always a mistake.  You ALWAYS try the losers after a war.  You ALWAYS let their people know they did bad.


----------



## editec (Mar 11, 2014)

It IS okay to have different OPINIONS about the CSA.

What is NOT okay is that some of us apparently have different FACTS.

Like for example, changing the the DATE that Ft sumter was attacked.

Now the ONLY people who ever gets these FACTS wrong are CSA apologists.

Weird, eh?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 11, 2014)

editec said:


> It IS okay to have different OPINIONS about the CSA.
> 
> What is NOT okay is that some of us apparently have different FACTS.
> 
> ...



They really need to believe that Great Grandpa Beauregard was fighting for a noble cause.  

denialism is all they have. 

Deny that the war was about slavery when it really was. 

Deny that the war was a stupid idea because there was no scenario where the South could have won. (They lacked the industry and infrastructure and navy to do it.)


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2014)

editec said:


> It IS okay to have different OPINIONS about the CSA.
> 
> What is NOT okay is that some of us apparently have different FACTS.
> 
> ...



Who changed the date when Ft Sumter was attacked?  For the record, the people in this debate who have consistently had their facts wrong are the Lincoln cult members.


----------



## paperview (Mar 18, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > It IS okay to have different OPINIONS about the CSA.
> ...


I think it was you not knowing when the first shots were fired.

You were wrong, and it was proven.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 18, 2014)

paperview said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



I haven't posted a thing that indicates I didn't know when the date was.  That's purely a delusion on your part.


----------



## paperview (Mar 18, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Ahem:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/342963-abraham-lincoln-alternative-history-4.html#post8749107


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jan 21, 2022)

jwoodie said:


> We all know that Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860 with less than 40% of the popular vote.  What is less well known is that two Democrats and a Whig candidate split the rest of the vote, with only Lincoln's name appearing on all States' ballots.  By modern standards, the election results would never have been accepted.
> 
> By the time of Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, 1861, South Carolina and six other States had seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America.  Interestingly, neither Virginia nor three other States had yet seceded.  It was not until after President Lincoln's call for 75,000 soldiers to invade the seceding States that Virginia, the most populous and industrial southern State, joined the Confederacy and pulled in the rest of those States with her.
> 
> ...


*Race Treason Has Been Caused by Upper Class Fear and Hatred of Those Born White Working Class*

If secession had been allowed (as it has been today in Canada, the UK, and the former Czechoslovakia) another Civil War over control of the West would have taken place.  The solution had been proposed almost four decades earlier by President Monroe:  annex the Caribbean islands, starting with Cuba (which he had actually ordered Jackson to do after easily taking Florida).  That would have been an alternative outlet for the slave states' expansion to ensure electoral parity with the sweatshop states.

The actual and authorized fake history is the way the Monroe Doctrine is being presented.  It was really forced on Monroe by the anti-South and anti-expansionist Northeast Deep State.  

Second authorized lie was that slaves counting as 3/5 towards the electoral vote was an insult to Blacks.  The Northeast South-haters didn't want Blacks to count at all.  So another solution preventing the near-suicidal Civil War was to count the slaves 100% to give the South the same electoral-college power that the North had.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jan 21, 2022)

SayMyName said:


> Worth lives? When going into war, you take calculated risks not knowing what the result will actually be. In this case it was over keeping the Union together. Before the war was over, it became also about slavery. I am glad that the war helped defeat the side that supported slavery. It is a scar upon our nation up to this present day. It is inconceivable that such a vile practice was ever allowed to exist in the United States.


*Whites Who Are Born Rich Deplore and Fear All Other White People*

Slavery was punishment.  A race that acts like wild jungle animals needs to be tamed.  Race treason has snob value but no moral value.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 21, 2022)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *Race Treason ......*



And what does that mean? What are you afraid of now?


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 21, 2022)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *Whites Who Are Born Rich Deplore and Fear All Other White People*
> 
> Slavery was punishment.  A race that acts like wild jungle animals needs to be tamed.  Race treason has snob value but no moral value.


You are a worthless idiot.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 22, 2022)

Lincoln had personal problems and he might not have been on top of national issues when he was elected but he should have been aware of the volatile issues in the government. He was apparently sympathetic to rounding up all the slaves and transporting them back to Africa but other than that he seems to have been oblivious to the coming conflagration. Lincoln should have spent his first couple of months trying to make peace with southern democrats and dealing with pending issues in free states but it seems that he did nothing to prevent civil war, apparently believing advisers and  fools that a civil war would be over in a month. Lincoln was an orator and an empty suit but he had biographers and the media at the time who were determined to remake his legacy after he was tragically assassinated. Fawning biographers give Lincoln credit for "preserving the Union" but the Union fell apart under his watch.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 23, 2022)

whitehall said:


> Lincoln had personal problems and he might not have been on top of national issues when he was elected but he should have been aware of the volatile issues in the government. He was apparently sympathetic to rounding up all the slaves and transporting them back to Africa but other than that he seems to have been oblivious to the coming conflagration. Lincoln should have spent his first couple of months trying to make peace with southern democrats and dealing with pending issues in free states but it seems that he did nothing to prevent civil war, apparently believing advisers and fools that a civil war would be over in a month. Lincoln was an orator and an empty suit but he had biographers and the media at the time who were determined to remake his legacy after he was tragically assassinated. Fawning biographers give Lincoln credit for "preserving the Union" but the Union fell apart under his watch.



Actually, the Union was falling apart under Buchanan's watch... the only guy who keeps Trump from being the worst President in our history.


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 23, 2022)

HenryBHough said:


> Lincoln staved off Global Warming by probably ten years (if you believe in that religion) by getting all those people killed.  After all, humans are the scourge of the Earth - the sole cause of the looming heat wave that's going to dry up all the water, kill all the crops, roast all the livestock and probably make strong women weep.
> 
> See, Lincoln was a great savior to the Algore crowd as well as to the former slaves!
> 
> Get with the program, folks!!!!


 Throw in the million or so blacks Lincoln killed in his 'Contraband Camps' and add another 10 years to that delay.


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, the Union was falling apart under Buchanan's watch... the only guy who keeps Trump from being the worst President in our history.



Lincoln was a railroad lawyer and weasel who deliberately started an illegal war so big corporations could get massive government welfare programs for themselves, which is why Democrats really love him today. Anybody who doubts this merely needs to look at the record and timelines of the legislation passed the first 4 years of the war to see what their real priorities were and why they needed to get rid of the South's votes in Congress and the Senate. Lincoln was all for secession and so were northern financial and manufacturing interests.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 23, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> incoln was a railroad lawyer and weasel who deliberately started an illegal war so big corporations could get massive government welfare programs for themselves, which is why Democrats really love him today. Anybody who doubts this merely needs to look at the record and timelines of the legislation passed the first 4 years of the war to see what their real priorities were and why they needed to get rid of the South's votes in Congress and the Senate. Lincoln was all for secession and so were northern financial and manufacturing interests.



What retard home school did you learn history in? 

Lincoln is loved today because he ended slavery and preserved the union.


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> What retard home school did you learn history in?
> 
> Lincoln is loved today because he ended slavery and preserved the union.



Obviously a much better school than the one you spent your time taking naps in. He didn't free anybody, and in fact kept them from wandering around 'free', dumbass. The last thing he wanted to do was let them flee north; he wanted them picking cotton same as always. Again people merely have to look at his actual policies as opposed to his rhetoric .


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 23, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Obviously a much better school than the one you spent your time taking naps in. He didn't free anybody, and in fact kept them from wandering around 'free', dumbass. The last thing he wanted to do was let them flee north; he wanted them picking cotton same as always. Again people merely have to look at his actual policies as opposed to his rhetoric .



Uh, yeah, I've got a degree in history, thanks for asking.  

Lincoln's policies were great, which is why we live in the united states and not one of the successor states after the union completely collapsed.


----------



## Flash (Jan 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The problem was after the war, we decided to let the South keep it's dignity, instead of treating it like a defeated nation that did something wrong.
> 
> There should have been massive war crimes trials for the Southern leaders and execution for treasons.  Anyone who wore the Gray never should have been allowed the vote again.



You are confused moon Bat.

You stupid uneducated Moon Bats are as ignorant of History as you are of Economics, Climate Science, Biology, Ethics and The Constitution.

I have an assignment for you Moon Bat.

My Great, Great, Great Grandfather was a Confederate soldier.  He fought at Olustee and Cold Harbor.  Both those battles were to stop an invasion of Yankee shit.

He was a non slave owning Libertarian doing farming and ranching  He wrote almost 200 letters while serving in the 9th Florida Regiment.  

In those letters he wrote about the reasons he joined the Army and fought for Florida and the Confederacy.

My assignment to you is go read his letters.  They are in the library at the University of Florida.  That way you can understand the reasons why he joined the Army and fought.  That way you won't be so ignorant of real History.  It will help you pull your Libtard head out of your Moon Bat ass  and you won't sound like a hateful ignorant uneducated Libtard asshole.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> What retard home school did you learn history in?
> 
> Lincoln is loved today because he ended slavery and preserved the union.


He's loved because of 150 years of relentless pro Lincoln propaganda.  No one who loves Lincoln knows the truth of what he actually did.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, yeah, I've got a degree in history, thanks for asking.
> 
> Lincoln's policies were great, which is why we live in the united states and not one of the successor states after the union completely collapsed.


You have a degree in propaganda.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 23, 2022)

Flash said:


> My Great, Great, Great Grandfather was a Confederate soldier. He fought at Olustee and Cold Harbor. Both those battles were to stop an invasion of Yankee shit.
> 
> He was a non slave owning Libertarian doing farming and ranching He wrote almost 200 letters while serving in the 9th Florida Regiment.
> 
> ...



So they guy who constantly gets on here and screams about "Filthy negroes" is arguing his ancestors weren't racist when they tried to destroy the union?  Really!  

The problem here is that the non-slave owners still fought because they could not stand the thought of blacks being equals.  

Understandable, they were convinced that when freed, the black would retaliate for decades of oppression and torture.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 23, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> He's loved because of 150 years of relentless pro Lincoln propaganda. No one who loves Lincoln knows the truth of what he actually did.



He saved the union and ended slavery...  these are good things.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> So they guy who constantly gets on here and screams about "Filthy negroes" is arguing his ancestors weren't racist when they tried to destroy the union?  Really!
> 
> The problem here is that the non-slave owners still fought because they could not stand the thought of blacks being equals.
> 
> Understandable, they were convinced that when freed, the black would retaliate for decades of oppression and torture.


Here's a clue for you, moron:  No one in the Union thought blacks were equals.They had laws to keep blacks out of their states, and that discriminated in blacks in other ways.  Many of the union states had slavery.

You're such a dumb fuck.


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, yeah, I've got a degree in history, thanks for asking.
> 
> Lincoln's policies were great, which is why we live in the united states and not one of the successor states after the union completely collapsed.


 You don't have shit. lol you're dumber than your fellow fag Unkotare.


----------



## Flash (Jan 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> So they guy who constantly gets on here and screams about "Filthy negroes" is arguing his ancestors weren't racist when they tried to destroy the union?  Really!
> 
> The problem here is that the non-slave owners still fought because they could not stand the thought of blacks being equals.
> 
> Understandable, they were convinced that when freed, the black would retaliate for decades of oppression and torture.




Did you do what I assigned you to do?  

If not shut the fuck up you ignorant Moon Bat asshole.  You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 23, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Yes.


Definitely not.  It wasn't worth one life.  There was nothing sacred about the union.  In fact, it stood against every principle it was established on.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 23, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Definitely not.  It wasn't worth one life.  There was nothing sacred about the union.  In fact, it stood against every principle it was established on.


Are you still living in a country you hate, wannabe?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 23, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Are you still living in a country you hate, wannabe?


I hate all government, moron, including ours.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 23, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> I hate all government, moron, including ours.


Then buy a raft and get the fuck out, wannabe.


----------



## Flash (Jan 23, 2022)

One of the things that is always left out of Jr High School text books written by the winners.

President Buchanan had understood that the issue of US facilities in the seceding states could be a tripping point for hostilities.

He established a truce with states like South Carolina.

The truce was that the the US Federal facilities were not to be used for military operations against the seceding states.  In return the states would not attack the facilities.  The facilities were allowed to get non military supplies like food and medical locally.

The truce held until that asshole Lincoln was inaugurated.  Within a couple of days the shithead sent a contracted military supply shpt to Ft Sumter in the hopes of igniting  hostiles.  He did it without consulting his cabinet or Congress.  He started the goddamn war.  He used that an excuse to start the war.

However, Ft Sumter was always a red herring.  Nobody was killed by hostile action and the fort really belonged to the people of Charleston.  Hardly a reason to start a war that resulted in a million deaths and the economic destruction of a third of the country.

The real war started when that shithead Lincoln sent an army across the Potomac River to kill Americans and to take their arms away from them.

Lincoln raised his regiments to invade and kill Americans.  Davis raised his regiments to defend against the murderous invasion.

Funny how we never got the truth in the Jr High School History books, written by the winners, isn't it?

Funny how these uneducated stupid hate filled Moon Bats don't know any more about History than they know about Economics, Biology, Climate Science,  Ethics or the Constitution, isn't it?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 23, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Then buy a raft and get the fuck out, wannabe.


Make me, asshole.


----------



## Flash (Jan 23, 2022)

Secession was never an act of war.

The act of war was that shithead Lincoln undoing the truce that had been established and of course sending that army of filthjy Union thugs into Virginia to kill Americans.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 23, 2022)

Flash said:


> Secession was never an act of war.
> 
> The act of war was that shithead Lincoln undoing the truce that had been established and of course sending that army of filthjy Union thugs into Virginia to kill Americans.


Lincoln invaded Virginia.  That was an act of war - also treason.


----------



## Flash (Jan 23, 2022)

Shitheads like Lincoln thought that joining a friggin Union was a suicide pact that could never be undone.   Even for signatory states to the Declaration Independence.

His lack of the ability to deal with the economic issues that caused the secession was a major lack of leadership and resulted in a major war but yet stupid confused people in this country erected a memorial to the asshole.  How fucking stupid was that?

Lincoln was the villain in the war.


----------



## Bezukhov (Jan 23, 2022)

regent said:


> Lincoln was a threat to the South's way of life and if assination didn't work then war might. I still cannot really understand why all those poor southernors would give their life to maintain that way of life that, to me, was only great for the wealthy. Are people just that easily led?



"That way of life" wasn't just an economic system or a social construct. No, it was a Religious Sacrament. God's Ordained Plan for the African Race. To fight in the defense of slavery was to do The Lord's Work.



JakeStarkey said:


> The British and French would have controlled the seas, recognized the South, and kept the South armed and fed.
> 
> There would have been two American nations.
> 
> Read Turtledove's what-if novels on that scenario.



No, the European powers did stay out of the war. Support for the Confederacy may have existed amongst some of the British aristocracy and the upper classes in France, the Confederacy had zero support among the working classes, you know, the ones who would have filled the rank and file of whatever force sent in support of the Confederacy.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 23, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Make me, asshole.


The last time idiots like you tried to pretend they had any balls your ilk got put down like the dogs you are. Try it again, weakling


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 23, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> The last time idiots like you tried to pretend they had any balls your ilk got put down like the dogs you are. Try it again, weakling


In other words, you're afraid to do a thing. 

Why a spineless turd.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 23, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> In other words, you're afraid to do a thing.
> 
> Why a spineless turd.


Do you honestly think anyone anywhere is afraid of YOU, pathetic, anti-American wannabe anarchist? You're a joke, and if you had even a shred of the courage of your convictions you would have gotten the fuck out of my country long ago.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 23, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Do you honestly think anyone anywhere is afraid of YOU, pathetic, anti-American wannabe anarchist? You're a joke, and if you had even a shred of the courage of your convictions you would have gotten the fuck out of my country long ago.


Sorry, turd, but that doesn't take any courage.  Why would I leave the country because you tell me too?


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 23, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> ..... Why would I leave the country because you tell me too?


You would leave a country you hate if you had any balls whatsoever. You don't. You're just another empty mouth on the internet. You're nothing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 23, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Here's a clue for you, moron: No one in the Union thought blacks were equals.They had laws to keep blacks out of their states, and that discriminated in blacks in other ways. Many of the union states had slavery.



None of which had anything to do with my point that most dumb white people who fought for the Confederacy lived in terror that black people, once free would have sex with their sisters... (and probably satisfy them better than they could, the inbred fucks!) 



Flash said:


> Did you do what I assigned you to do?
> 
> If not shut the fuck up you ignorant Moon Bat asshole. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.



When someone who screams bout "FILTHY NEGROES" tells me his ancestor was totally not racist when he fought to defend slavery, I don't need to read his barely literate letters to take that one with a grain of salt.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> None of which had anything to do with my point that most dumb white people who fought for the Confederacy lived in terror that black people, once free would have sex with their sisters... (and probably satisfy them better than they could, the inbred fucks!)


What a racist piece of shit.  You have no idea why anyone fought for the confederacy.  You're a brainwashed moron.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 24, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> What a racist piece of shit. You have no idea why anyone fought for the confederacy. You're a brainwashed moron.



Actually, we know exactly why they did.  For the slave owners, it was to keep their slaves. 
For the non-slave owners, it was about not having to treat the black man as an equal. 

Now, AFTER the war, you saw the Lost Cause myth and how it was about "States Rights", but it was about slavery. 

This speech by Alexander Stephens, the only vice-president of the Confederacy. 





__





						Alexander Stephens on Slavery and the Confederate Constitution, 1861 | The American Yawp Reader
					





					www.americanyawp.com
				




_*The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. 
*_
*Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day.*


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, we know exactly why they did.  For the slave owners, it was to keep their slaves.
> For the non-slave owners, it was about not having to treat the black man as an equal.
> 
> Now, AFTER the war, you saw the Lost Cause myth and how it was about "States Rights", but it was about slavery.
> ...


Rubbish. This is just rhetoric from a political speech, and made *after* secession, not before, and and had zero to do with with cascade of secessions deliberately provoked by Lincoln. The truth, from Lincoln himself, as well as others:


*"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.


*"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.

Most everybody knew the game being played by Lincoln and his financial cronies.


*"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 ****ens 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


The South had already won all the Supreme Court battles over slavery, and Taney was still Chief Justice, no threats there, It was purely 'business', like the Corleone family would say.


----------



## JohnDB (Jan 24, 2022)

jwoodie said:


> Within 20 years of the end of the Civil War, slavery had been abolished in the Western Hemisphere and most of the rest of the world


This is untrue.  
South America had a robust slave trade until post WWI.  That was when it finally tapered off.  

Not that I'm such a fan of Abraham Lincoln.  Sure he is famous for ending slavery in America...but he abused the very Constitution he claimed to support and violated state's rights to do so.  

He didn't do anything to undo the reasons why the South turned to using slave labor to begin with...(Northern Economic abuse of Southern goods) 
Instead he simply removed the  economic equalizer that slave labor provided...and did it at gunpoint when the South decided that they had enough of being part of the Northern States and their abuses.  
The South realized that their agricultural crops got much much better reception in Europe and prices than the North's goods manufactured from Southern products.  
(Raw cotton vx cotton cloth) 
And if the South had better and busier ports for trading with Europe...the North would have starved economically.  Which was what was beginning to happen when the North Attacked the "Rebels".


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 24, 2022)

President Jefferson owned over 2,000 slaves. His plantation was a town. It had black potters, black blacksmiths, black butchers, black tailors, and so on.

If you're a poor white, how do you compete with that? You don't. You can't compete with free.

So, there were the rich slavers in the South and the poor whites who were underemployed and uneducated.

How did the rich Southern slavers convince the poor whites to die by the tens of thousands to protect slavery? Slavery that turned poor whites into paupers.

That is a great mystery.


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 24, 2022)

regent said:


> As for slavery being the issue, check out the Ghost Amendment to the Constitution that Lincoln said he would accept.


Nobody ever wants to talk about that


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 24, 2022)

This is the Great American Patriot that took out the worst tyrant in American history.


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> None of which had anything to do with my point that most dumb white people who fought for the Confederacy lived in terror that black people, once free would have sex with their sisters... (and probably satisfy them better than they could, the inbred fucks!)
> 
> 
> 
> When someone who screams bout "FILTHY NEGROES" tells me his ancestor was totally not racist when he fought to defend slavery, I don't need to read his barely literate letters to take that one with a grain of salt.


Hey dumbfuck, Lincoln supported making slavery legal FOREVER. The South knew that and still seceded.
Too bad you are too stupid to realize that single fact destroys your entire narrative.


----------



## jwoodie (Jan 24, 2022)

JohnDB said:


> This is untrue.
> South America had a robust slave trade until post WWI.


Brazil was the last country in South American to abolish slavery (1888).  Look it up.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jan 24, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> President Jefferson owned over 2,000 slaves. His plantation was a town. It had black potters, black blacksmiths, black butchers, black tailors, and so on.
> 
> If you're a poor white, how do you compete with that? You don't. You can't compete with free.
> 
> ...


All that inbreeding makes people stupid.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, we know exactly why they did.  For the slave owners, it was to keep their slaves.
> For the non-slave owners, it was about not having to treat the black man as an equal.
> 
> Now, AFTER the war, you saw the Lost Cause myth and how it was about "States Rights", but it was about slavery.
> ...


You're an imbecile.  Your posts are so stupid they aren't worth reading, so I didn't.


----------



## JohnDB (Jan 24, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> Hey dumbfuck, Lincoln supported making slavery legal FOREVER. The South knew that and still seceded.
> Too bad you are too stupid to realize that single fact destroys your entire narrative.


Did you even bother to read what I wrote?  

Take clue and act like a normal person for a change.  
The situation was complex and then it got stupid and petty while playing with people's lives.


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 24, 2022)

JohnDB said:


> Did you even bother to read what I wrote?
> 
> Take clue and act like a normal person for a change.
> The situation was complex and then it got stupid and petty while playing with people's lives.


I didnt respond to you. I responded to JoeB131


----------



## JohnDB (Jan 24, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> I didnt respond to you. I responded to JoeB131


My bad...
I certainly do apologize for the way I responded.  
(I know, I'm not exactly doing political arguing correctly but I'm not exactly big on politics anyway)


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 24, 2022)

JohnDB said:


> My bad...
> I certainly do apologize for the way I responded.
> (I know, I'm not exactly doing political arguing correctly but I'm not exactly big on politics anyway)


All good man. We have all done it


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 24, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> Hey dumbfuck, Lincoln supported making slavery legal FOREVER. The South knew that and still seceded.
> Too bad you are too stupid to realize that single fact destroys your entire narrative.



But but Lincoln's own words don't matter. It's all about bashing southerners. Never mind all those slave states in the Union.


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 24, 2022)

Mr Clean said:


> All that inbreeding makes people stupid.



The historical record shows that the New England states were and still are the most inbred. You are apparently from Maine, right?


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 24, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> How did the rich Southern slavers convince the poor whites to die by the tens of thousands to protect slavery?



Since it wasn't about slavery, they didn't need to, that's why. And, for that matter, many southern states had white populations that formed military units that went North to fight for the Union; even some of Alabama's citizens sent a cavalry regiment. Pennsylvania and New Jersey had a secessionist movement, and New York City came within a hair's breadth of seceding and declaring itself a 'free city'.

Also, Lincoln's faction in Congress and the Senate barely squeaked by in the next mid-terms due to voters getting suspicious that he was turning the war into a war over slavery. The Republicans and northern war Democrats ran on a platform of keeping blacks out of the new territories and northern states, i.e. a white nationalist platform. And, Lincoln and his successors did exactly that, preventing 'free' blacks from going north during and after the war; hundreds of thousands, maybe over a million, died in 'contraband camps', while others were shipped to cotton plantations under new owners to work just like they did before, and weren't allowed to leave without written permission from their new Yankee owners. Lincoln's fig leaf was to order that they be paid $3 a month, since they were ' free n stuff'. 

They had slavery up North, to especially in Illinois, lomg before the Civil War and well into the 20th Century; it was hidden under state laws that allowed sheriffs and police chiefs to rent out prisoners to private industry. Many thousands perished in mines and other dangerous jobs.


----------



## JohnDB (Jan 24, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Since it wasn't about slavery, they didn't need to, that's why. And, for that matter, many southern states had white populations that formed military units that went North to fight for the Union; even some of Alabama's citizens sent a cavalry regiment. Pennsylvania and New Jersey had a secessionist movement, and New York City came within a hair's breadth of seceding and declaring itself a 'free city'.
> 
> Also, Lincoln's faction in Congress and the Senate barely squeaked by in the next mid-terms due to voters getting suspicious that he was turning the war into a war over slavery. The Republicans and northern war Democrats ran on a platform of keeping blacks out of the new territories and northern states, i.e. a white nationalist platform. And, Lincoln and his successors did exactly that, preventing 'free' blacks from going north during and after the war; hundreds of thousands, maybe over a million, died in 'contraband camps', while others were shipped to cotton plantations under new owners to work just like they did before, and weren't allowed to leave without written permission from their new Yankee owners. Lincoln's fig leaf was to order that they be paid $3 a month, since they were ' free n stuff'.
> 
> They had slavery up North, to especially in Illinois, lomg before the Civil War and well into the 20th Century; it was hidden under state laws that allowed sheriffs and police chiefs to rent out prisoners to private industry. Many thousands perished in mines and other dangerous jobs.


Doesn't even begin to touch the child labor the Northern States were infamous for....they would clean out orphanages to climb in the machinery and get horribly maimed in the process.


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 24, 2022)

JohnDB said:


> Doesn't even begin to touch the child labor the Northern States were infamous for....they would clean out orphanages to climb in the machinery and get horribly maimed in the process.



Yes. I'm still searching for all that 'white privilege' we're alleged to have had. So far all I've found is many many thousands of dead German and Irish laborers just left where they dropped and covered over in building river levees, draining swamps, building railroads, freezing and starving to death in winters up north with no money for shelter or coal, dropping dead in epidemics, etc., etc. Meanwhile slaves could grow their own food year round on their own plots, got clothed, medical care, and year round shelter.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 24, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Yes. I'm still searching for all that 'white privilege' we're alleged to have had. So far all I've found is many many thousands of dead German and Irish laborers just left where they dropped and covered over in building river levees, draining swamps, building railroads, freezing and starving to death in winters up north with no money for shelter or coal, dropping dead in epidemics, etc., etc. Meanwhile slaves could grow their own food year round on their own plots, got clothed, medical care, and year round shelter.





On Prager U, too.


The Civil War wasn't about slavery?

Every legit historian is saying it was.


----------



## Zincwarrior (Jan 24, 2022)

A quick reminder, the reason most Southerners fought was because they were drafted.









						Confederate Conscription Acts 1862–1864 - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jan 24, 2022)

Bezukhov said:


> "That way of life" wasn't just an economic system or a social construct. No, it was a Religious Sacrament. God's Ordained Plan for the African Race. To fight in the defense of slavery was to do The Lord's Work.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the European powers did stay out of the war. Support for the Confederacy may have existed amongst some of the British aristocracy and the upper classes in France, the Confederacy had zero support among the working classes, you know, the ones who would have filled the rank and file of whatever force sent in support of the Confederacy.


*The Great Emancipator Sent Americans Off to Kill Their Fellow Americans on Behalf of Africans*

You must think that the European plebeians had any power to resist becoming cannon fodder.  But this was true about the North's working-class soldiers also. The American hereditary ruling class, Northeast internationalist faction, had been terrified of the nearly successful European 1848 revolutions.  So they concocted a scheme to kill off or take the fight out of their own sweatshop slaves, who were starting to unionize.  Also, they felt they could replace their Whites with grateful freed-slave scabs.  Another benefit was that their sons could buy their way out of having to fight in the Civil War.

A typical Abolitionist leader, Henry Ward Beecher (whose sister wrote _Uncle Tom's Cabin) _said this about the threat from a defiant White working class:  "Anyone who can't live on bread and water doesn't deserve to live."  

This scheme, including the Chickenhawk element, was repeated a hundred years later in the Vietnam War.  Its purpose was to kill off or take the fight out of the bravest sons of the White working class.  Mission Accomplished.


----------



## Zincwarrior (Jan 24, 2022)

Zincwarrior said:


> A quick reminder, the reason most Southerners fought was because they were drafted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jan 24, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> They had slavery up North, to especially in Illinois, long before the Civil War and well into the 20th Century; it was hidden under state laws that allowed sheriffs and police chiefs to rent out prisoners to private industry. Many thousands perished in mines and other dangerous jobs.


*People Who Act Like Wild Jungle Animals Need to Be Tamed*

Law enforcement's chain gangs were punishment, not slavery.  But slavery of African savages was also punishment.  

College is work without pay.  Tuition is bribery to buy a job.  That's worse than any slavery, because it is imposed on what would be our most valuable talent, not on criminals and the Ding Dongs of the Bell Curve.  

Punishing the Highest IQs demoralizes them from studying.  The rest of the graduates had no more right to be in college than they had to be on the college football team, which is based on talent, not on buying a spot on the team and living in enforced student poverty like a young-adult slacker who's afraid to grow up.,


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 24, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Rubbish. This is just rhetoric from a political speech, and made *after* secession, not before, and and had zero to do with with cascade of secessions deliberately provoked by Lincoln. The truth, from Lincoln himself, as well as others:



Hey, slick, let's look at what they said in those declarations of secession at the state level. 





__





						Confederates Speak: Yes, We Fought the Civil War Over Slavery
					






					www.jacksonfreepress.com
				




Mississippi's Declaration of Secession: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

From Texas' Declaration: "In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

Sorry, man, the Civil War was about slavery.  




DudleySmith said:


> The South had already won all the Supreme Court battles over slavery, and Taney was still Chief Justice, no threats there, It was purely 'business', like the Corleone family would say.



Actually, there were a lot of threats to slavery, mostly in the form of all that new territory in the west entering the Union as Free states and voting to change the constitution to end it.  No slave states had been admitted to the union since 1845, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act pretty much meant all the new states would be free states.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 24, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> On Prager U, too.
> 
> 
> The Civil War wasn't about slavery?
> ...


Abraham Lincoln said it wasn't.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Hey, slick, let's look at what they said in those declarations of secession at the state level.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_https://colors-newyork.com/what-did-lincoln-say-was-the-primary-objective-of-the-war/_​
_What did Lincoln say was the primary objective of the war?_​_Aug. 22, 1862: President Lincoln told a New York newspaper that preserving the Union was his main goal of the Civil War — not abolishing slavery. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it,” Lincoln said._​​_What was Lincoln’s war aim from 1861 to 1862?_​_In this open letter to Horace Greeley, President Lincoln maintained that the central cause of the Civil War was to keep the country united and not to free the slaves._​​_What were the main points of Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural address in 1861?_​​_In his inaugural address, Lincoln promised not to interfere with the institution of slavery where it existed, and pledged to suspend the activities of the federal government temporarily in areas of hostility. However, he also took a firm stance against secession and the seizure of federal property._​


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 24, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> On Prager U, too.
> 
> 
> The Civil War wasn't about slavery?
> ...



So you found a site run by people at your education level. Congratulations. Sucks for you frauds there are still historians around who state what Lincoln himself said, ruining your whole cult bullshit. It's not like you frauds would have done anything about it back then; you aren't even doing anything about it now, so what do you frauds think you're proving by constantly lying about the facts?


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Hey, slick, let's look at what they said in those declarations of secession at the state level.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nothing you post refutes anything I've said, troll commie. You're a joke poster, just here for the comedy content. Come back when you can read a book and actually find out something.


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 24, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham Lincoln said it wasn't.



Many times. Even Seward. the only member of Lincoln's cabinet who was an abolitionist advised not going to war; the only member of his cabinet who wanted war was his postmaster general, a corrupt moron who played both Parties for his own personal gain. Even Winfield Scott opposed war.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 25, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Nothing you post refutes anything I've said, troll commie. You're a joke poster, just here for the comedy content. Come back when you can read a book and actually find out something.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 25, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> _https://colors-newyork.com/what-did-lincoln-say-was-the-primary-objective-of-the-war/_​
> _What did Lincoln say was the primary objective of the war?_​_Aug. 22, 1862: President Lincoln told a New York newspaper that preserving the Union was his main goal of the Civil War — not abolishing slavery. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it,” Lincoln said._​​_What was Lincoln’s war aim from 1861 to 1862?_​_In this open letter to Horace Greeley, President Lincoln maintained that the central cause of the Civil War was to keep the country united and not to free the slaves._​​_What were the main points of Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural address in 1861?_​​_In his inaugural address, Lincoln promised not to interfere with the institution of slavery where it existed, and pledged to suspend the activities of the federal government temporarily in areas of hostility. However, he also took a firm stance against secession and the seizure of federal property._​



Wow. Yes, Lincoln's first priority was to preserve the union.  

But the only reason why the Union was in danger was because the South wanted to secede to keep slavery.   They weren't even willing to work through the issue. Slavery was just that important to their culture.


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow. Yes, Lincoln's first priority was to preserve the union.
> 
> But the only reason why the Union was in danger was because the South wanted to secede to keep slavery.   They weren't even willing to work through the issue. Slavery was just that important to their culture.



Another stupid troll post. you're just not smart enough to win these games you play, Red Joe. Stick to  your dream of being a Commissar and running death camps.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 25, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Another stupid troll post. you're just not smart enough to win these games you play, Red Joe. Stick to your dream of being a Commissar and running death camps.



Wow, buddy, you claimed it wasn't about slavery.... I cited historical records of Southern Leaders proclaiming it was about slavery AT THE TIME.  

You lose, buddy.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, buddy, you claimed it wasn't about slavery.... I cited historical records of Southern Leaders proclaiming it was about slavery AT THE TIME.
> 
> You lose, buddy.


I cited Abraham Lincoln who said it wasn't about slavery.

You lose, buddy.


----------



## Zincwarrior (Jan 25, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> I cited Abraham Lincoln who said it wasn't about slavery.
> 
> You lose, buddy.


Then he freed the slaves.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 25, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> I cited Abraham Lincoln who said it wasn't about slavery.
> 
> You lose, buddy.



Lincoln didn't start the war, the South did.   So regardless of what his desires were about how to handle slavery, that decision was taken out of his hands by the guys who DID secede over slavery.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 25, 2022)

Zincwarrior said:


> Then he freed the slaves.


No, he actually didn't.  The emancipation proclamation didn't free a single slave.  Furthermore, it was unconstitutional.


----------



## Bezukhov (Jan 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, buddy, you claimed it wasn't about slavery.... I cited historical records of Southern Leaders proclaiming it was about slavery AT THE TIME.
> 
> You lose, buddy.


The latest "Lost Cause" myth is that those secession documents were changed. The originals said they were seceding so they could free their slaves, allow them run for public office and let them marry their sons and daughters. But those evil Yankees wouldn't let them. Later Doc Brown and Marty went back in time with their Delorean  and switched the originals with ones we have now, just to make the South look bad.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 25, 2022)

Bezukhov said:


> The latest "Lost Cause" myth is that those secession documents were changed. The originals said they were seceding so they could free their slaves, allow them run for public office and let them marry their sons and daughters. But those evil Yankees wouldn't let them. Later Doc Brown and Marty went back in time with their Delorean  and switched the originals with ones we have now, just to make the South look bad.


That sounds like something you just made up.  Of course, everything you post sounds like you just made it up.


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, buddy, you claimed it wasn't about slavery.... I cited historical records of Southern Leaders proclaiming it was about slavery AT THE TIME.
> 
> You lose, buddy.


And I cited Lincoln himself, as did others here, dumbass, and you're just too dishonest to admit you got your ass handed to you yet again. That's because you have nothing but lies to parrot in all your posts, like all the other Democrats. Lincoln freed as many slaves as you have: zero.


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 25, 2022)

Bezukhov said:


> The latest "Lost Cause" myth is that those secession documents were changed. The originals said they were seceding so they could free their slaves, allow them run for public office and let them marry their sons and daughters. But those evil Yankees wouldn't let them. Later Doc Brown and Marty went back in time with their Delorean  and switched the originals with ones we have now, just to make the South look bad.



Ah, having nothing at all, it's time to trot out the strawmen. Typical pattern.


----------



## Bezukhov (Jan 25, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> And I cited Lincoln himself, as did others here, dumbass, and you're just too dishonest to admit you got your ass handed to you yet again. That's because you have nothing but lies to parrot in all your posts, like all the other Democrats. Lincoln freed as many slaves as you have: zero.


So these are all lies? Why would they lie about the reasons they wanted to secede? Who were they trying to bullshit?








						The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
					

The Declaration of Causes made by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.




					www.battlefields.org


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 26, 2022)

Bezukhov said:


> So these are all lies? Why would they lie about the reasons they wanted to secede? Who were they trying to bullshit?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol you're just being stupid. Nobody here is 'defending slavery n stuff', moron.


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 26, 2022)

Zincwarrior said:


> Then he freed the slaves.



lol he didn't even free the slaves in northern slave states. He certainly didn't free any slaves in the southern states he 'liberated', he forced them back onto plantations and into 'contraband camps', where probably a million or so died from starvation and disease.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 26, 2022)

Bezukhov said:


> The latest "Lost Cause" myth is that those secession documents were changed. The originals said they were seceding so they could free their slaves, allow them run for public office and let them marry their sons and daughters. But those evil Yankees wouldn't let them. Later Doc Brown and Marty went back in time with their Delorean and switched the originals with ones we have now, just to make the South look bad.



I thought it was Doctor Who and her magic phone booth!


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 26, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> And I cited Lincoln himself, as did others here, dumbass, and you're just too dishonest to admit you got your ass handed to you yet again. That's because you have nothing but lies to parrot in all your posts, like all the other Democrats. Lincoln freed as many slaves as you have: zero.



It doesn't matter what Lincoln said or didn't say... he wasn't the one who seceded.  The south did secede, and they stated straight up in their declarations of secession that they were doing so because they wanted to preserve slavery and keep the negro in his place. 



DudleySmith said:


> ol he didn't even free the slaves in northern slave states. He certainly didn't free any slaves in the southern states he 'liberated', he forced them back onto plantations and into 'contraband camps', where probably a million or so died from starvation and disease.


Now you are just making shit up....  





__





						Contraband (American Civil War) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






DudleySmith said:


> Joe has, he's a regular, which is why he thinks everybody else has been there.



Nope, never have been.  But man, sometimes USMB feels like Stormfront Lite.


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 26, 2022)

Zincwarrior said:


> Then he freed the slaves.


no he didnt


----------



## Zincwarrior (Jan 26, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> no he didnt


Now you're just being ignorant.
1. Emancipation Proclamation
2. Lincoln pushed for and then approved joint resolution sending 13th Amendment to the states, which was ratified post death.


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 26, 2022)

Zincwarrior said:


> Now you're just being ignorant.
> 1. Emancipation Proclamation
> 2. Lincoln pushed for and then approved joint resolution sending 13th Amendment to the states, which was ratified post death.


The EP was just political theater for England.
Presidents have nothing to do with passing constitutional amendments.
Try reading a book.


----------



## whoisit (Jan 26, 2022)

Since 99% of Americans don't know their history ,these subjects are just talking points on what they are told.


----------



## basquebromance (Feb 12, 2022)

Jefferson “is one of my favorite presidents,” AOC said. But Lincoln is my “all-time bae, for sure.”


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 14, 2022)

jwoodie said:


> Within 20 years of the end of the Civil War, slavery had been abolished in the Western Hemisphere and most of the rest of the world. Could not an accommodation with Virginia have been reached?



Tell that to Virginia.  

The simple fact is, the South wanted the war.  7 of the states seceded even before Lincoln was President.  And the new Confederate President called up 100,000 soldiers to fight for the south, and lay siege to Fort Sumter.  In response to that President Lincoln also made a call for volunteers.  By that time Virginia had voted against secession.

However, then the infamous second vote of April 1861 happened, where the decision to pass it to the people to decide was made.  And in what is often considered one of the most corrupt elections in history the vote passed and Virginia left.  And the vote was so contested that much of the northern part of the state themselves seceded and became West Virginia.

But Virginia asked for no accommodation, the warhawks wanted a war and they got their war.  And remember, that they followed 7 states that did not even wait for Lincoln to be sworn in before pulling out.


----------



## Jets (Feb 14, 2022)

Fascinating tidbit about President Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.

It did not free all the slaves….


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 14, 2022)

Jets said:


> Fascinating tidbit about President Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.
> 
> It did not free all the slaves….



That should be obvious to any that actually know history.

That was a war act, that was only against the states in rebellion.  It did not affect states that were not in rebellion (Delaware, Missouri Kentucky, Maryland), nor the states that were already occupied like New Orleans, and half of Louisiana and Tennessee.

Most people have a really bad idea of what the war really was.


----------



## Jets (Feb 14, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> That should be obvious to any that actually know history.
> 
> That was a war act, that was only against the states in rebellion.  It did not affect states that were not in rebellion (Delaware, Missouri Kentucky, Maryland), nor the states that were already occupied like New Orleans, and half of Louisiana and Tennessee.
> 
> Most people have a really bad idea of what the war really was.



No argument from me.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 14, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> Tell that to Virginia.
> 
> The simple fact is, the South wanted the war.  7 of the states seceded even before Lincoln was President.  And the new Confederate President called up 100,000 soldiers to fight for the south, and lay siege to Fort Sumter.  In response to that President Lincoln also made a call for volunteers.  By that time Virginia had voted against secession.
> 
> ...


Lincoln was the warhawk.  He's the one who ordered federal troops to invade Virginia.  He started the war.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 14, 2022)

Jets said:


> Fascinating tidbit about President Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.
> 
> It did not free all the slaves….


It didn't free any slaves.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 14, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Lincoln was the warhawk. He's the one who ordered federal troops to invade Virginia



In July, as two Confederate columns of over 30,000 men were encamping just 25 miles south of Washington in preparation of attacking the city.

Or what, are we supposed to believe that Generals Beauregard, Jackson, and Johnston were just out there picking flowers and communing with nature?

It is not an "invasion" when just south of the Capitol they meet that large of a combined force.  In case you were not aware, the Union had already riddled the Confederates with spies, and they knew that the column was marching on DC.  Battling an invasion army is not itself an "invasion".

And let me guess, the Confederates were also just picking flowers when they marched into Pennsylvania in 1863.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 14, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> It didn't free any slaves.



Wrong.  It freed tens of thousands immediately.  An estimated 20,000 which were already being held by Union soldiers, as "confiscated property".  Liberated from Confederate states and held by Union forces, they were called "Contraband", and were still considered property.  The act freed all of them immediately, and continued like that for the rest of the war.

The total number is unknown, but most place it at well over 100,000 before the Southern states finally threw in the towel.  Anywhere the Union Army went, all slaves were immediately freed.

Try learning some actual history, this looks very silly you know when you make such easily disproven statements.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 14, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> In July, as two Confederate columns of over 30,000 men were encamping just 25 miles south of Washington in preparation of attacking the city.
> 
> Or what, are we supposed to believe that Generals Beauregard, Jackson, and Johnston were just out there picking flowers and communing with nature?
> 
> ...


Having troops encamped on your own territory is not an act of war, doofus. "In preparation of attacking the city" is pure babble.  

An invasion is when your troops enter the territory of another nation without their permission.  That's exactly what the Union did, moron.  The column was marching in the federal troops that were in invading Virginia. 

I marvel how you convert clear acts of war into some kind of defensive action.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 14, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> Wrong.  It freed tens of thousands immediately.  An estimated 20,000 which were already being held by Union soldiers, as "confiscated property".  Liberated from Confederate states and held by Union forces, they were called "Contraband", and were still considered property.  The act freed all of them immediately, and continued like that for the rest of the war.
> 
> The total number is unknown, but most place it at well over 100,000 before the Southern states finally threw in the towel.  Anywhere the Union Army went, all slaves were immediately freed.
> 
> Try learning some actual history, this looks very silly you know when you make such easily disproven statements.


If they were still property, they weren't freed.  You are a fucking moron.

Try learning what words mean.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 14, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Having troops encamped on your own territory is not an act of war, doofus.



Having moved there in the week prior, just 25 miles from Washington.

As I said, what were they going there for, to pick the flowers?


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 14, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Having troops encamped on your own territory is not an act of war, doofus. "In preparation of attacking the city" is pure babble.
> 
> An invasion is when your troops enter the territory of another nation without their permission.  That's exactly what the Union did, moron.  The column was marching in the federal troops that were in invading Virginia.
> 
> I marvel how you convert clear acts of war into some kind of defensive action.


This ^^^ traitorous idiot keeps beating this stupid, ignorant drum because he hates The United States of America. If the fucking coward had any shred of the courage of his convictions, he would have dragged his useless ass out of my great nation long since. The epitome of a dumbass scumbag.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 14, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> If they were still property, they weren't freed. You are a fucking moron.



They were not property after the declaration.  

Come now, it clearly stats so right in the opening paragraph.



> That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.



Which included all of the "Contraband" that was largely confined to camps near the Union Army until that time.

History, try reading it instead of trying to pass off insults to those that know it better than you do.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 14, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> Having moved there in the week prior, just 25 miles from Washington.
> 
> As I said, what were they going there for, to pick the flowers?


An act of war would be crossing the border into Maryland, you fucking moron.  They can march wherever they want in the state Virginia.

How much of a fucking moron are you?  Do you imaging Russia has a right to invade Ukraine because the later stations troops on their border?

You are so brainwashed it's difficult to comprehend.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 14, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> They were not property after the declaration.
> 
> Come now, it clearly stats so right in the opening paragraph.
> 
> ...


You're quibbling about trivia.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 14, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> This ^^^ traitorous idiot keeps beating this stupid, ignorant drum because he hates The United States of America. If the fucking coward had any shred of the courage of his convictions, he would have dragged his useless ass out of my great nation long since. The epitome of a dumbass scumbag.


I hate all government, so where would I go, dumbass?


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 14, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> An act of war would be crossing the border into Maryland, you fucking moron. They can march wherever they want in the state Virginia.
> 
> How much of a fucking moron are you? Do you imaging Russia has a right to invade Ukraine because the later stations troops on their border?



And to throw it right back at you, obviously the Russian troops have absolutely no intention of doing anything to Ukraine.  They are just massing at the border to pick flowers I guess.

Absolutely no threat at all, and they should just be ignored.  Just as the Confederate troops were just hanging out and not a threat at all.

Of course, the Confederates had also already attacked the garrison at Fort Sumter.  But this is obviously completely different.

Wow, you really are deep into the "Lost Cause" I can see.  Do you still weep at night because you can't have slaves?


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 14, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> I hate all government, so where would I go, dumbass?


Go fuck yourself, I don't care. Just get your America-hating ass out of my country, you fucking loser.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 14, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Go fuck yourself, I don't care. Just get your America-hating ass out of my country, you fucking loser.


Get your servile ass out of the country.  It's sad that you think it's admirable to be a boot licker.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 15, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Get your servile ass out of the country.  It's sad that you think it's admirable to be a boot licker.


Hypocrite coward.


----------



## basquebromance (Feb 15, 2022)




----------



## elektra (Feb 15, 2022)

What if aliens came down and said there will be slavery.

Seems silly to imagine what could of happened when the only thing that did happen is what we have as history.


----------



## basquebromance (Feb 17, 2022)

statue of a young shirtless Abe Lincoln. i wonder if this is an accurate depiction?


----------



## rupol2000 (Feb 17, 2022)

*I think that the history of the formation of the United States is connected with Austria-Hungary. There is a huge number of coincidences, in heraldry, culture, traditions, political system, there can not even be a doubt that the United States is connected with the Danube. The American flag practically reproduces the Hungarian heraldry. The United States of Austria is the European copy of the USA.*


----------



## rupol2000 (Feb 17, 2022)

United States of Greater Austria - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## rupol2000 (Feb 17, 2022)




----------



## rupol2000 (Feb 17, 2022)




----------



## rupol2000 (Feb 17, 2022)




----------



## rupol2000 (Feb 17, 2022)

Vests, hats, wide trousers - these are Hungarian cowboys


----------



## rupol2000 (Feb 17, 2022)

The political system of Austria-Hungary is a free republic. There is no such system anywhere in the world. It was only in Austria-Hungary and the USA.


----------



## rupol2000 (Feb 17, 2022)

I think that the Great Plains were inhabited by Austro-Hungarians. Later, perhaps under Roosevelt, they invented the tale that it was French Louisiana, supposedly "bought" by the British colonists from France.

These stories are not credible. For example, it is believed that Alaska was bought from Russia in the 18th century, but there is no reliable evidence that Russia controlled anything other than the Moscow region at that time. Even Ukraine was not included there then.
There is not even any information about the conquest of the Don valley!


They say that 2 Moscow hawkers hired a small group of Cossacks at the beginning of Yermak, and allegedly this handful conquered all of Asia, and then these hawkers "sold" Asia to Moscow. This is idiotic ridiculous nonsense, but this is the official version.


----------



## rupol2000 (Feb 17, 2022)

And in general, the very idea of "purchasing" such huge tracts of land together with people sounds like a crazy delirium.


----------



## gipper (Feb 17, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> And in general, the very idea of "purchasing" such huge tracts of land together with people sounds like a crazy delirium.


Stop posting. You’ve ruined the thread.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 17, 2022)

gipper said:


> Stop posting. You’ve ruined the thread.


He's going to start talking about the Illuminati and Lizard People any minute now.


----------



## rupol2000 (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> He's going to start talking about the Illuminati and Lizard People any minute now.


No moron, I'm already done


----------



## rupol2000 (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 
And by the way, if you were not so illiterate, you would understand that your redneck stamps about lizards did not appear out of nowhere. Google about the word "chthonism", just don't flip through tabloids for housewives.


----------



## rupol2000 (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 
The left easily manipulates you precisely because you are stupid, and firmly believe in the federal version of history, instead of researching something on your own.


----------



## gipper (Feb 17, 2022)

STOP!!!


----------



## rupol2000 (Feb 17, 2022)

gipper You are hung with right-wing slogans and at the same time you are afraid of revising the history imposed by the feds? Either put on your pants or take off the cross.


----------



## gipper (Feb 17, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> gipper You are hung with right-wing slogans and at the same time you are afraid of revising the history imposed by the feds? Either put on your pants or take off the cross.


Start your own thread. Your comments are off topic for this thread.


----------



## rupol2000 (Feb 17, 2022)

gipper said:


> Start your own thread. Your comments are off topic for this thread.


This is not offtopic, because I do not think that the founders of America, the anti-federalists, were sycophants of the British imperialists. There is clearly an Austro-Hungarian trace here.
I repeat: *the American system has only one analogue in the world: the United States of Austria

*


----------



## gipper (Feb 17, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> This is not offtopic, because I do not think that the founders of America, the anti-federalists, were sycophants of the British imperialists. There is clearly an Austro-Hungarian trace here.
> I repeat: *the American system has only one analogue in the world: the United States of Austria*


Off topic.  Put up a thread on this topic.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 17, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> And by the way, if you were not so illiterate, you would understand that your redneck stamps about lizards did not appear out of nowhere. Google about the word "chthonism", just don't flip through tabloids for housewives.



Wow... well, besides the fact I have degrees in history and political science, that you throw a few words around and make crazy conspiracy theories out of them would be funny if it weren't so sad.  



rupol2000 said:


> The left easily manipulates you precisely because you are stupid, and firmly believe in the federal version of history, instead of researching something on your own.


Does your doctor know you are off your medications... 




*It was the Hapsburgs, I tell you, the Hapsburgs!!!!! *


----------



## rupol2000 (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow... well, besides the fact I have degrees in history and political science, that you throw a few words around and make crazy conspiracy theories out of them would be funny if it weren't so sad.


it turns out you're not a fool, but just a servant of the feds


----------



## jwoodie (Feb 17, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> Tell that to Virginia.
> 
> The simple fact is, the South wanted the war.


The "simple" facts are that Virginia had voted to stay IN the Union until Lincoln issued his call for 75,000 troops to invade the seceding states.  Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861.  Virginia did not secede until April 17, 1861.  

To say that the seceding states wanted the war is preposterous.  By what asinine logic would they want to be invaded by federal troops?


----------



## gipper (Feb 17, 2022)

jwoodie said:


> The "simple" facts are that Virginia had voted to stay IN the Union until Lincoln issued his call for 75,000 troops to invade the seceding states.  Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861.  Virginia did not secede until April 17, 1861.
> 
> To say that the seceding states wanted the war is preposterous.  By what asinine logic would they want to be invaded by federal troops?


Many if not a majority of Americans think the South started the war. Proof government propaganda works on many.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 17, 2022)

jwoodie said:


> The "simple" facts are that Virginia had voted to stay IN the Union until Lincoln issued his call for 75,000 troops to invade the seceding states. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. Virginia did not secede until April 17, 1861.





gipper said:


> Many if not a majority of Americans think the South started the war. Proof government propaganda works on many.



And when and where did the war actually start?

When Confederate forces attacked Fort Sumter.  In the early morning of 12 April.

So kindly explain how the Union started the war, if the Confederates fired the first shots.  And by then over half of the South had already voted to secede, even before the President was inaugurated.

I also discussed the corrupt vote of the people of Virginia.  A vote that was so corrupt that a large chunk of the state itself chose to secede because they were against the war and wanted no part of the Confederacy.

SO many keep trying to make that claim, meanwhile completely ignoring the actual timeline.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 17, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Get your servile ass out of the country. It's sad that you think it's admirable to be a boot licker.



You know, I am still waiting on your reply about how a massive concentration of Confederate forces just south of Washington DC was absolutely no threat at all, yet you seem to think a massive concentration of Russian forces just east of Ukraine are.

You see, this is a huge difference.  And you are the one that brought that up in the first place, not me.  So tell me, how was the tens of thousands of Confederates 25 miles away in Manassas of absolutely no threat at all, yet the buildup of Russians is such a huge deal.

At least I am consistent, and do not look at things through political and biased glasses.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 17, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> it turns out you're not a fool, but just a servant of the feds



Sorry, man, I am still laughing at you thinking America is a Hapsburg Conspiracy...


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Sorry, man, I am still laughing at you thinking America is a Hapsburg Conspiracy...



I will admit, RuPaul is a riot to read, but I blocked her long ago because of blatant rascism.  And nice to see that they have not changed.

Like claiming the "political system of Austria-Hungary is a free republic."

Uh, there is no more Austria-Hungary, there has not been for over a century now.  Officially known as the "Austro-Hungarian *Empire*", it was an Empire based upon a dual monarchy with the combined crowns of Ciseleithania (Austria) and the Hungarian Kingdom.  It ceased to exist after the First World War, when the country was broken up into several different nations, including Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia.

It was never a republic, it was a "Constitutional Monarchy", where almost all power resided in Hungary.


----------



## gipper (Feb 17, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> And when and where did the war actually start?
> 
> When Confederate forces attacked Fort Sumter.  In the early morning of 12 April.
> 
> ...


I know I’m wasting my time with you, but oh well.

SC told the federals to evacuate the fort. They indicated they would, as they had done in all the other federal facilities in the South. The federals changed their minds, and failed to evacuate. SC continued for several days waiting for them to exit. Then news reached them that Dishonest Abe was sending a ship to resupply the garrison. Abe made sure his troops didn’t leave, so as to set up events for SC to attack. 

You must know that US Presidents have used such tactics multiple times to make it appear the enemy started the war. Probably not. 

SC starting bombing THEIR fort to get the enemy to leave THEIR fort. The North surrendered, bombing stopped, and they withdrew peacefully. No one was killed or injured in the bombing.

You bring a dumb dick conclude from this WE MUST HAVE WAR AND KILL 850,000 Americans and destroy half the nation, because SC attacked THEIR fort.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 17, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> I will admit, RuPaul is a riot to read, but I blocked her long ago because of blatant rascism. And nice to see that they have not changed.
> 
> Like claiming the "political system of Austria-Hungary is a free republic."
> 
> ...



Oh, so this weird Austria Hungary thing isn't new? Because it was weird, even by USMB standards


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 17, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> You know, I am still waiting on your reply about how a massive concentration of Confederate forces just south of Washington DC was absolutely no threat at all, yet you seem to think a massive concentration of Russian forces just east of Ukraine are.
> 
> You see, this is a huge difference.  And you are the one that brought that up in the first place, not me.  So tell me, how was the tens of thousands of Confederates 25 miles away in Manassas of absolutely no threat at all, yet the buildup of Russians is such a huge deal.
> 
> At least I am consistent, and do not look at things through political and biased glasses.


I'm still waiting on your reply on how being a threat gives a foreign power the right to invade you.  According to that theory, the USSR had the right to launch a full preemptive nuclear strike.

You are one of them dumber forum members who has tried to justify Lincoln's invasion of Virginia.

BTW, turd, you haven't seen anyone on this board claim that Ukraine has the right to invade Russia.  In fact, you appear to be trying to justify Russia invading Ukraine.

You really are a loathsome creature.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 17, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> And when and where did the war actually start?
> 
> When Confederate forces attacked Fort Sumter.  In the early morning of 12 April.
> 
> ...


Nope.    Ft Sumter was not an act of war.  You don't start a war by attacking your own territory.

The war started when Lincoln invaded Virginia.  Lincoln fired the first shots.

How was the secession vote "corrupt?"


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 17, 2022)

gipper said:


> SC told the federals to evacuate the fort.



And by what right does a state order the Federal Government to evacuate its own property?

By this reasoning, even the Castro Regime in Cuba is more rational and peaceful than the Confederates are.

So once again, what does that have to do with who started the war?

And yes, it is pointless because I actually know history, which you do not.  You are simply another Lost Cause believer, that is trying to do everything they can to justify the actions of Aristocratic slave owners.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, so this weird Austria Hungary thing isn't new? Because it was weird, even by USMB standards



RuPaul is always going off on strange tangents that only make sense to herself.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 17, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> I'm still waiting on your reply on how being a threat gives a foreign power the right to invade you. According to that theory, the USSR had the right to launch a full preemptive nuclear strike.
> 
> You are one of them dumber forum members who has tried to justify Lincoln's invasion of Virginia.
> 
> ...



No, what I am doing actually is using your own argument against you.

I have said nothing about what Russia can or can not do, it is actually not applicable here.  You are the one that is trying to compare the current situation with the Confederate buildups, and the funny thing is that you are apparently condemning what Russia is doing, yet applauding when the Confederates did the exact same thing and implying it was no threat at all.  That is a huge flaw in logic, and an inconsistency that I to be honest find absolutely hilarious.

Because to you, the only thing that matters is what you believe about a certain thing, no matter if they conflict with each other or not.

Now if you want to know about my thoughts on the current situation, feel free to look in the Military section where I have discussed it.  But this is the History section, and the discussion is the Civil War.  Do please try to stay on track.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 17, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Nope. Ft Sumter was not an act of war. You don't start a war by attacking your own territory.



Actually, a military installation is not "State Territory".  It is Federal Territory, and not actually part of the state that it is in.

So once again, logic and fact fail.


----------



## gipper (Feb 17, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> And by what right does a state order the Federal Government to evacuate its own property?
> 
> By this reasoning, even the Castro Regime in Cuba is more rational and peaceful than the Confederates are.
> 
> ...


SECESSION!  Learn it. Statists can’t wrap their brain around it. Lincoln said the union is perpetual. You believe that shit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 18, 2022)

That's totally wrong.  All the people working there pay state taxes to the state where it's located.  They are all subject to the laws of that state, like their divorce laws, their tax laws. etc..


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 18, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> And by what right does a state order the Federal Government to evacuate its own property?
> 
> By this reasoning, even the Castro Regime in Cuba is more rational and peaceful than the Confederates are.
> 
> ...


You need to learn what secession means, man.
_trying to do everything they can to justify the actions of Aristocratic slave owners._
wayyyyyyyyyyycist!


----------



## AMart (Feb 18, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Yes.


Easy for you to say. You were not drafted against your will. The wealthy were allowed to buy out of the draft, and Lincoln used that money to fund the war.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 18, 2022)

AMart said:


> Easy for you to say. You were not drafted against your will.


Nor did I attempt to destroy the United States of America.


----------



## AMart (Feb 18, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Nor did I attempt to destroy the United States of America.


Well is seems the states were not united duh.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 18, 2022)

AMart said:


> Well is seems the states were not united duh.


On April 9th, 1865 it was still the UNITED States of America.


----------



## gipper (Feb 18, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Nor did I attempt to destroy the United States of America.


Lincoln did that with his aggressive war against fellow Americans, but you’re too dumb to accept the truth.

YOU:
Oh that nasty MFer FDR!  He threw Japanese Americans into concentration camps. He’s a tyrant, but Lincoln is a hero.

You are terribly confused.


----------



## gipper (Feb 18, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> On April 9th, 1865 it was still the UNITED States of America.


So proud of mass murdering Americans, but…but…but that damn tyrant FDR!!!


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 18, 2022)

gipper said:


> SECESSION! Learn it. Statists can’t wrap their brain around it. Lincoln said the union is perpetual. You believe that shit.



Look into the original document that bound the states together.  The name is right there in it.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> All the people working there pay state taxes to the state where it's located.



*laughs*

Not the military.  Military members do not pay state taxes for the state they are in.  Did you not know that?  They also are not supposed to vote in the state they are in.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 18, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> You need to learn what secession means, man.



*looks at the location I have listed for myself and laughs out loud*


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 18, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> *looks at the location I have listed for myself and laughs out loud*


Lolz 
If you know nothing, say nothing


----------



## gipper (Feb 18, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> Look into the original document that bound the states together.  The name is right there in it.


You think mass murdering Americans who want to secede, is right and just. You think the Union is perpetual because of a piece of paper. 

Wrong on both counts.  Dumb too.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 18, 2022)

gipper said:


> You think mass murdering Americans who want to secede, is right and just. You think the Union is perpetual because of a piece of paper.
> 
> Wrong on both counts. Dumb too.



Of course, you are an Anarchist that more than likely believes that no rules apply.

Although I guess that includes "might makes right", as well as keeping people in bondage as well.

You see, I really could not care less what you and the brain dead "Lost Cause" types think.  I simply love watching you all squirm in circles, choking on your own arguments, and making fools of yourselves.  You all throw out a claim, then get all butt-hurt when I turn it right against you and you all spin off in a completely different direction.

But you are so self-absorbed, you do not even get that I am really not debating for you, you all are lost causes, like the Confederacy you all love so much.  I am actually talking for those that might somehow fall for your line of bullshit, to encourage them to look at things logically and to actually do some research.  You all are absolutely beyond hope, so it really is worthless to try to actually talk to you.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 18, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> Lolz
> If you know nothing, say nothing



I see it went right over your head also.

In other words, you are lost and have no idea what to say, so you laugh and toss a random insult.

Why am I not surprised?


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 18, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> I see it went right over your head also.
> 
> In other words, you are lost and have no idea what to say, so you laugh and toss a random insult.
> 
> Why am I not surprised?


It didnt go over my head. It was a pathetic cop out from discussing what i said.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 18, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> Of course, you are an Anarchist that more than likely believes that no rules apply.
> 
> Although I guess that includes "might makes right", as well as keeping people in bondage as well.
> 
> ...


If you were half as smart as you paraded around here, you might be dangerous.
All you do is repeat cliches. None of you federal supremacists think. Just regurgitate. 
You dont have to support slavery, or love the confederacy, to be against tyranny.
Now go hump papa gubmints leg, bootlicker.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 18, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> It didnt go over my head. It was a pathetic cop out from discussing what i said.



You made an accusation, I refuted it by pointing out that I make no attempt to hide that I am part of a secessionist movement myself.

Then you laugh, whine, and scream "cop out".

Once again, typical.  Don't like that if you had even looked before you made the claim I did not know what it was, you would have seen one I actively support.

Don't blame me if you made yourself look stupid, that is your own damned fault.  And just attacking over and over again only makes you look childish and petty.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 18, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> You made an accusation, I refuted it by pointing out that I make no attempt to hide that I am part of a secessionist movement myself.
> 
> Then you laugh, whine, and scream "cop out".
> 
> ...


IDC what you are apart of. You havent grasped what the word means. 
I cant make out the rest of your malarkey.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 18, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> None of you federal supremacists think.



And you scream I "repeat clichés"?

You do not have a fucking clue what I think.  Like so many in here, you all are taking it so incredibly personal that I am simply busting false beliefs as to the start of the war, and making attacks, accusing me and others of having select beliefs, and anything you can think of in order to make yourselves feel better.  You actually do not know my beliefs, I have actually not even said what they are at all.

That is known as "projecting".  Taking an adversarial position, then projecting onto them anything you think your "enemy" believes in, therefore you can pat yourself on the ass and say you are putting down the enemy.  Which as always I find childish and pointless.  I doubt any of you could actually point out any of my actual beliefs, you are just vomiting up accusations.

That is why you and others are failing in here.  You all are really trying to debate form a position of your own personal beliefs, and myself and Unk are debating from facts.  And here is the interesting thing, he and I have gone at it many times in the past.  However, even when we do not agree it is almost always civil and polite without the hysterical screaming of the peanut gallery in here.

But there is one thing I have seen quite often over the decades.  That those that scream most commonly in support of the "Lost Cause" side of this issue are almost always fucking Klukkers that would happily run around in white hoods and burning crosses if they were not allowed to have their "Darkies" back in the slave pens again.  It really is almost universal, that one follows the other.

But it is obvious in the extreme that none of you understands a single thing about me, you all are just throwing out random lines as if it actually means something.  And I take most of you about as seriously as I do the brain-dead ones down in the Conspiracy Theory section.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 18, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> IDC what you are apart of.



Oh, that is obvious.  You care about nothing, if they are not fawningly agreeing with you.  That is blindingly obvious.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 18, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> And you scream I "repeat clichés"?
> 
> You do not have a fucking clue what I think.  Like so many in here, you all are taking it so incredibly personal that I am simply busting false beliefs as to the start of the war, and making attacks, accusing me and others of having select beliefs, and anything you can think of in order to make yourselves feel better.  You actually do not know my beliefs, I have actually not even said what they are at all.
> 
> ...


Jesus 
You are accusing people of loving the confederacy and slavery, like a goddamn parrot.. and you post that rant? 
You need some self awareness bro. And critical thinking skills.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 18, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> Oh, that is obvious.  You care about nothing, if they are not fawningly agreeing with you.  That is blindingly obvious.


And STILL ignore it 
You are a waste lol
Good day!


----------



## gipper (Feb 18, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> Of course, you are an Anarchist that more than likely believes that no rules apply.
> 
> Although I guess that includes "might makes right", as well as keeping people in bondage as well.
> 
> ...


This isn’t about me. It’s about you and your authoritarian statist ignorance.

Can you explain why you think the US government is perpetual?  What empire or government has lasted forever?  

Is the Roman Empire still existing in your mind?

If a state or states were to secede today, would you approve of mass murdering them?


----------



## gipper (Feb 18, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> Jesus
> You are accusing people of loving the confederacy and slavery, like a goddamn parrot.. and you post that rant?
> You need some self awareness bro. And critical thinking skills.


He has no legitimate argument.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 18, 2022)

gipper said:


> He has no legitimate argument.


Just the same old ignorance and statism as everyone else.


----------



## gipper (Feb 18, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> Just the same old ignorance and statism as everyone else.


The Lincoln Cult lives on forever.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 18, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> *laughs*
> 
> Not the military.  Military members do not pay state taxes for the state they are in.  Did you not know that?  They also are not supposed to vote in the state they are in.


Says who?


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 19, 2022)

AMart said:


> Easy for you to say. You were not drafted against your will. The wealthy were allowed to buy out of the draft, and Lincoln used that money to fund the war.



The Confederacy also instituted a draft, and the wealthy were able to get out of it by either paying a bribe, getting some other poor fool to serve in his place, or making the excuse that if they had more than 20 slaves, someone had to keep an eye on them!


----------



## basquebromance (Feb 27, 2022)

RIP Abraham Lincoln lookalike Australian politician Moss Cass


----------

