# Prager University says that _____ was the cause of the Civil War



## JakeStarkey (May 28, 2017)

Yes, it was.  Take less than five minutes to listen and watch the vid.


----------



## candycorn (May 28, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, it was.  Take less than five minutes to listen and watch the vid.



Shocked someone like Prager would have something like that around him.


----------



## DarkFury (May 28, 2017)

*And Democrats like Jake are still mad they lost their negro's.*


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 28, 2017)

I am not a democrat, and you voted for Trump, did you not?

I voted for the conservative, and you did not.


----------



## Picaro (May 28, 2017)

Don't have an account at Facebook, nor do I do stupid videos, so this must be Jake being illiterate again and afraid to say some word or other.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (May 29, 2017)

Economics.


----------



## gipper (May 29, 2017)

And yet Lincoln offered the south slavery forever, as long as they stayed in the union.  If it was all about slavery, why did the south refuse his offer and chose to fight?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2017)

gipper said:


> And yet Lincoln offered the south slavery forever, as long as they stayed in the union.  If it was all about slavery, why did the south refuse his offer and chose to fight?


Listen to it again.  He answered your question, imo.  The leaders of the South certainly, according to the Professor, thought it was about slavery.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Don't have an account at Facebook, nor do I do stupid videos, so this must be Jake being illiterate again and afraid to say some word or other.


----------



## Picaro (May 29, 2017)

gipper said:


> And yet Lincoln offered the south slavery forever, as long as they stayed in the union.  If it was all about slavery, why did the south refuse his offer and chose to fight?



Because it wasn't about slavery, it was about the protectionist tariffs, the Homestead Acts, and the railroad subsidies, along with all the other Federal projects that would benefit the Midwest and other northern states to the exclusion of the southern states. Jake knows that, he's just a big crybaby and likes to think he had something to do with it all if he babbles about 'slavery n stuff' a hundred and fifty years later or something. He has no real acheivements in life so he needs to make up some.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2017)

Picaro said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > And yet Lincoln offered the south slavery forever, as long as they stayed in the union.  If it was all about slavery, why did the south refuse his offer and chose to fight?
> ...


Picaro can yell all he wants, but the US West Point military history professor has answered all of his complaints before Picaro makes them.  Picare simply does not know CW history.


----------



## gipper (May 29, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > And yet Lincoln offered the south slavery forever, as long as they stayed in the union.  If it was all about slavery, why did the south refuse his offer and chose to fight?
> ...


I think the dude has it backwards.  It was all about slavery to many wealthy connected leaders in the North, who wanted war to end slavery and impose their tariff to enrich themselves.  The abolitionist movement became radicalized and wanted blood.  Lincoln made is perfectly clear why he invaded the South.  It was preserving the Union.  Lincoln Cultists make me sick.

Jake...glad you are back, but you learned nothing while you were gone.  I want you to study and memorize the following famous quotes TODAY.

_War is ALWAYS the health of the State.

The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments.

War is both the product of an earlier corruption, and a producer of new corruptions.

The essence of so-called war prosperity; it enriches some by what it takes from others. It is not rising wealth but a shifting of wealth and income.

War...is harmful, not only to the conquered but to the conqueror._


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2017)

gipper said:


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


I see that you are deflecting very poorly from the OP.


----------



## gipper (May 29, 2017)

Jake...Lincoln (the murderous lying fool) made is perfectly clear multiple times why he invaded the South.  To preserve the Union.  He even offered to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South would stay.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2017)

gipper said:


> Jake...Lincoln (the murderous lying fool) made is perfectly clear multiple times why he invaded the South.  To preserve the Union.  He even offered to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South would stay.


That's Lincoln.  The professor clearly explained on the vid for Prager U why the South left the Union.  Did you have a link for the "ensconce" comment?  Please give it, if so.


----------



## gipper (May 29, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Jake...Lincoln (the murderous lying fool) made is perfectly clear multiple times why he invaded the South.  To preserve the Union.  He even offered to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South would stay.
> ...



The only thing that matters are the actions taken by Lincoln.  He chose war.  He made it perfectly clear why he chose war.  
*
Asking for a link only proves how uninformed you are.  If you don't know this, what do you know?*

On March 2, 1861, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (which passed the House of Representatives on February 28) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery in the Southern states. The proposed amendment read as follows:

_No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State._

*Two days later, in his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln promised to support the amendment even though he believed that the Constitution already prohibited the federal government from interfering with Southern slavery. As he stated:*

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution has 
passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government 
shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, 
including that of persons held to service.  Holding such a 
provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no 
objection to its being made express and irrevocable."  
See Lincoln Inaugural Speech

Abe the slaver...adored by dupes.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2017)

gipper talking about being informed. 

The proposed Amendment shows clearly all of the problems were about slavery.


----------



## gipper (May 29, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Jake...Lincoln (the murderous lying fool) made is perfectly clear multiple times why he invaded the South.  To preserve the Union.  He even offered to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South would stay.
> ...


Jake read Dishonest Abe's first inaugural speech...it is all right there in front of your long pointy nose.

He said this>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
_*“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”*_

He said this July 22, 1861....
_*Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.*_ 

He wrote to his butt buddy Horace Greeley the following in August 1862....
_*My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.*_
*
Jake...I want a thank you for educating you today.  Normally I don't have any patience for ignorance.*


----------



## gipper (May 29, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> gipper talking about being informed.
> 
> The proposed Amendment shows clearly all of the problems were about slavery.


 
I see you are not getting it Jake.  Sorry it is so difficult for you.

Lincoln INVADED the South.  Lincoln started the WAR.  He was the aggressor.  He did so NOT to end slavery.

Does that help?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2017)

The South left the Union to keep slavery, as the OP so clearly points out.

Lincoln said "no" then murdered the South when it resisted.

Yes, the cause of the war was slavery.  If it was not, then the South had no reason to leave.


----------



## GHook93 (May 29, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am not a democrat, and you voted for Trump, did you not?
> 
> I voted for the conservative, and you did not.



Voting for Obama twice and Clinton once is not conservative. You are about as conservative as Bernie Sanders.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## gipper (May 29, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> The South left the Union to keep slavery, as the OP so clearly points out.
> 
> Lincoln said "no" then murdered the South when it resisted.
> 
> Yes, the cause of the war was slavery.  If it was not, then the South had no reason to leave.


Jake you are true Lincoln cultist.

As such, facts matter not to you.  Just believe.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2017)

GHook93 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a democrat, and you voted for Trump, did you not?
> ...


I voted McMullin and you voted for the demo lite lib Trump.  Your lying is terrible.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2017)

gipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The South left the Union to keep slavery, as the OP so clearly points out.
> ...


The OP is about the cause of the Civil War, not slavery.  Focus, please.


----------



## gipper (May 29, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


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


Yes and who caused the war?


----------



## paperview (May 29, 2017)

Everything for the south revolved around the protection, perpetuation and expansion of slavery.

Everything. 

The old tired chestnut of the Corwin Amendment doesn't go very far.

It was a last ditch effort, which most all knew stood no chance of survival.

Lincoln had nothing to do with its passage. By the time he addressed it, most states had already seceded. It was a futility, and most all saw it as such.

At that point too - the south had already commenced hostilities. They were bound and determined to go to war and nothing was going to stop them.

The Southrons made it clear in their many declarations of independence and in a boatload of other statements, actions, laws and their own written constitution, the protection of Slavery was at the base of all.

It was the lifeblood (literally) of their economy, and they knew it.


----------



## paperview (May 29, 2017)

Fun little sidebar tidbit on that Corwin Amendment: In 1*9*63 more than a century later - A  Texas GOP representative, Henry Stollenwerck,  introduced a resolution to ratify the Amendment.

LOL


----------



## gipper (May 29, 2017)

paperview said:


> Everything for the south revolved around the protection, perpetuation and expansion of slavery.
> 
> Everything.
> 
> ...


Wrong on all counts.

The South tried desperately to reach a compromise with Dishonest Abe.  Jeff Davis repeatedly asked that the South be allowed to separate without bloodshed.  The South agreed to pay their share of the national debt and pay for all federal installations, but Abe told them to fuck off and refused to even meet with them when they came to Washington.

The abolitionist movement had become radicalized and infiltrated by powerful wealthy northern industrialists, who got Dishonest Abe elected.  In part, thanks to that stupid book Uncle Tom's Cabin.  They were pushing for war so they would not only benefit nicely from war production, but also the imposition of the tariff after the South was defeated.


----------



## paperview (May 29, 2017)

gipper said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Everything for the south revolved around the protection, perpetuation and expansion of slavery.
> ...


Piles ^ of your typical Lost Cause revisionist bullshit.

Have a crappy day, neo-confederate.  Not in the mood to entertain your White Supremacy defenses. 

Ta.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2017)

gipper said:


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


The question is not 'who' buy 'what'.  Seven of the states, though, had seceded before Lincoln took office.  His duty, as he saw it, was to preserve the Union.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2017)

Yelling about AL does not remove the fact that was caused by slavery.


----------



## gipper (May 29, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


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


Yeah....kill 'em to keep 'em.  Makes sense to dumb asses.


----------



## danielpalos (May 29, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > And yet Lincoln offered the south slavery forever, as long as they stayed in the union.  If it was all about slavery, why did the south refuse his offer and chose to fight?
> ...


Slavery was an element, not the Cause.


----------



## gipper (May 29, 2017)

paperview said:


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


BS.  Typical dumb response from a dumb ass.

I never lived in the South nor support it's historical racism or slavery.  Most of my ancestors fought for the North and I know of at least one who died outside Atlanta, fighting for that murderous thug Sherman.  However being extremely intelligent and well educated, I know Dishonest Abe is responsible for the war.  A war that caused 850k deaths, destruction of half the nation, and terrible suffering for decades after it's conclusion.  Only fools like you would think it justified.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2017)

danielpalos said:


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


Daniel, watch the vid, then think.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2017)

gipper said:


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


paperview owns your arguments and your attituded when it comes to the CW.

No one asked who your ancestors fought for.

Slavery is the cause of the War, pure and simple, and the OP vid proves it.

That you don't like it, gipper, and that posters have no trouble overturning your comments is not their issue.

If you want to argue the justification of the war, start a new thread.


----------



## danielpalos (May 29, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I did.  Slavery was an element, not the root Cause under our or Any form of Capitalism.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


The military professor clearly shows why your argument is wrong.  But that's OK; each to his own.


----------



## danielpalos (May 29, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


care to cite the actual concept?  or, should i believe You are in it for the "gospel Truth"?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You clearly don't understand the actual OP.  Go back, listen to the Vid and the military history professor, and come back and tell us where he is wrong.  This will be fun.


----------



## danielpalos (May 29, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Yes; the Civil War was about capital under our form of capitalism; slavery was incidental.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Slavery capitalized every dollar in the South either directly or indirectly, so, yes, Slavery was the cause.


----------



## danielpalos (May 29, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


It was about Capital; slavery was incidental.  We would not have had a Civil War, if it was "just about" slavery.


----------



## mgh80 (May 29, 2017)

The war wasn't fought over slavery (initially), however Lincoln did change the narrative into slavery during the war to get more people to rally behind the Union, since many Northerners were of the mindset of "if they want to leave-let them".


----------



## gipper (May 29, 2017)

mgh80 said:


> The war wasn't fought over slavery (initially), however Lincoln did change the narrative into slavery during the war to get more people to rally behind the Union, since many Northerners were of the mindset of "if they want to leave-let them".


Yes and Dishonest Abe imprisoned many without charges and illegally shut down numerious newspapers who believed as the Founders did, that the union was voluntary and secession legal.  Lincoln was a dumb fuck tyrant not unlike many presidents who succeeded him.


----------



## whitehall (May 29, 2017)

Surprise, surprise lefties, Prager U. isn't really a university. It's an opinionated generally right wing blog. Does it really matter what second string radio talk show host Prager thinks about the cause of the Civil War? Why not focus on what Obama's pastor thought of the United States?


----------



## Scamp (May 30, 2017)

The USA had slavery for 89 years.
The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

gipper said:


> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> > The war wasn't fought over slavery (initially), however Lincoln did change the narrative into slavery during the war to get more people to rally behind the Union, since many Northerners were of the mindset of "if they want to leave-let them".
> ...


We had an Actual Civil War, not a "fake Civil War", like the right wing likes to soothsay and hearsay.


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

Scamp said:


> The USA had slavery for 89 years.
> The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.


so what?  the US had a Constitutional plan to end slavery.


----------



## bodecea (May 30, 2017)

DarkFury said:


> *And Democrats like Jake are still mad they lost their negro's.*


"lost their negro's" what, Mr IQ of 214?


----------



## Scamp (May 30, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > The USA had slavery for 89 years.
> ...



And when the Civil War was over the Union still had slavery.


----------



## gipper (May 30, 2017)

Scamp said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Scamp said:
> ...


Yeah...it is missed on many that Dishonest Abe's Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states he had no authority over.


----------



## mgh80 (May 30, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > The USA had slavery for 89 years.
> ...




Virginia ratified the 13th amendment on Feb. 9 1965. The following states ratified the amendment on a later date: Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada. Delaware actually rejected it, and it wasn't ratified until the 1900's. The above are all facts.

I'm not naive enough to say that slavery had no part in the war (it did), but I'm also not ignorant to say that it was the sole reason, or even the main reason (at the start of the war).


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2017)

mgh80 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Scamp said:
> ...



The actual facts:

The 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery, was proposed on January 31, 1865.

*#* *State* *Date* ***
1 Illinois Feb 1, 1865 
2 Rhode Island Feb 2, 1865 
3 Michigan Feb 3, 1865 
4 Maryland Feb 3, 1865 
5 New York Feb 3, 1865 
6 Pennsylvania Feb 3, 1865 
7 West Virginia Feb 3, 1865 
8 Missouri Feb 6, 1865 
9 Maine Feb 7, 1865 
10 Kansas Feb 7, 1865 
11 Massachusetts Feb 7, 1865 
12 Virginia Feb 9, 1865 
13 Ohio Feb 10, 1865 
14 Indiana Feb 13, 1865 
15 Nevada Feb 16, 1865 
16 Louisiana Feb 17, 1865 
17 Minnesota Feb 23, 1865 
18 Wisconsin Feb 24, 1865 
19 Vermont Mar 8, 1865 
20 Tennessee Apr 7, 1865 
21 Arkansas Apr 14, 1865 
22 Connecticut May 4, 1865 
23 New Hampshire Jul 1, 1865 
24 South Carolina Nov 13, 1865 
25 Alabama Dec 2, 1865 
26 North Carolina Dec 4, 1865 
27 Georgia Dec 6, 1865 *
28 Oregon Dec 8, 1865 
29 California Dec 19, 1865 
30 Florida Dec 28, 1865 
31 Iowa Jan 15, 1866 
32 New Jersey Jan 23, 1866 
33 Texas Feb 18, 1870 
34 Delaware Feb 12, 1901 
35 Kentucky Mar 18, 1976 
36 Mississippi Mar 16, 1995 * 
Ratified in 309 days
* Mississippi ratified the amendment in 1995, but the state didn't officially notify the US Archivist until 2012, when the ratification finally became official.


----------



## Scamp (May 30, 2017)

But Lincoln freed the slaves, Right?


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

Scamp said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Scamp said:
> ...


The North was for a more Perfect Union.


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

mgh80 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Scamp said:
> ...


just right wing special pleading?  read the rest, of the thread.


----------



## mgh80 (May 30, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I posted facts, if you have a problem with them-I can't help you.


----------



## mgh80 (May 30, 2017)

paperview said:


> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I bolded all of the states that I mentioned in the post you quoted. As you can see every single one of them ratified the 13th amendment after Virginia (as I stated)...and it's YOUR list. I also mentioned that Delaware didn't ratify the amendment until the 1900's (which your list agrees with)...so what portion of my post wasn't factual?


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

mgh80 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > mgh80 said:
> ...


read a few pages back.


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

So what.  Article 4, Section 2 is part of our supreme law of the land.


----------



## Scamp (May 30, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> So what.  Article 4, Section 2 is part of our supreme law of the land.



That says protect from invasion.  Not invade.


----------



## mgh80 (May 30, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



The (northern) US did not have a Constitutional plan that abolish slavery before the war started.


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

Scamp said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > So what.  Article 4, Section 2 is part of our supreme law of the land.
> ...


are you on the right wing?


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

mgh80 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > mgh80 said:
> ...


It was written in to our federal Constitution.  Slavery was supposed to end automatically after 1808.


----------



## mgh80 (May 30, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Citation?


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

mgh80 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > mgh80 said:
> ...


it is in Article 1, Section 9; States ceded their formerly sovereign right over immigration into a State, in favor of that federal Obligation, by the Union after 1808.


----------



## mgh80 (May 30, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



How is that a plan to abolish slavery? This states that the federal government can't abolish slaves until the year 1808 (and even then the Union didn't do so for another ~50 years.


----------



## danielpalos (May 31, 2017)

mgh80 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > mgh80 said:
> ...


States ceded their formerly sovereign right over immigration into a State, in favor of that federal Obligation, by the Union after 1808.  After that date, States have no Cause to Care about immigration from out of State or from out of state; the right wing, is just being, clueless, like is their wont and habit.


----------



## anotherlife (May 31, 2017)

Prager university?  Is that something in Prague, Czech Republic?  Then you are fooled again.  Remember when they fooled you into believing that there is such a thing as a Czechoslovakian nation?   Hehehe.   Fools.


----------



## mgh80 (May 31, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, it was.  Take less than five minutes to listen and watch the vid.



Prager is NOT an accredited university...just saying.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 31, 2017)

mgh80 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it was.  Take less than five minutes to listen and watch the vid.
> ...


The colonel and military professor is tenured at an accredited uni, the USMA . . . just saying


----------



## mgh80 (May 31, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Is he the author or narrator? Big difference.

Also, Prager is a "univeristy" that's biased and there's a reason why they're not accredited. As an educator, it's embarrassing that people take information they post seriously.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 31, 2017)

mgh80 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > mgh80 said:
> ...


The lecturer is a Ph.d. in History.  I suspect you are not.  He is been at West Point for thirty years.  Where have you been?

You can argue all you want, but you have a losing hand.  End game, mgh80.


----------



## mgh80 (May 31, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I have a master's degree in US history and am certified to teach social studies it in my state (I actually teach English though)...*what are YOUR qualifications?
*
If you want to use an ethos based argument, you better come to the table prepared. Once again, no slavery wasn't the only issue the war was fought over (it certainly was a major one)...BUT it wasn't what started the war. Lincoln turned the narrative into slavery in order to garner more support from civilians in the North-as many of them didn't care about the outcome of the war. This is why the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY freed the slaves in the South. While Lincoln himself was absolutely anti-slavery from day one, that doesn't mean that the North as a whole was.

There's a reason why the underground railroad ended in Canada, which brings me to two vital questions I'm curious whether you could answer without deflecting:

If the war was fought mainly over slavery,...

1) Why did the Underground Railroad end in Canada?

2) Why did the slaves have to travel in secrecy in the North?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 31, 2017)

The professor answered any and every question you can have.

My graduate degrees are as good as yours, yes.  You have no idea.

*No one said slavery was the only issue*.  It was the major issue, from which all other causes and symptoms flowed.

You can reject that, but your arguments won't stand in the face of the overwhelming problems of race and slavery.  Not one.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 31, 2017)

1) Why did the Underground Railroad end in Canada?  Fugitive Slave Act, bringing us back to slavery.

2) Why did the slaves have to travel in secrecy in the North?  Fugitive Slave Act, bringing us back to slavery.


----------



## danielpalos (May 31, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Would the South have won any substantial political victory, if they had succeeded in driving the Union from Gettysburg; and, could it have been accomplished.


----------



## danielpalos (May 31, 2017)

mgh80 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > mgh80 said:
> ...


Lousy management; federalism accounts for States sovereign rights.  Federal fugitive slave laws should have been found, unconstitutional.


----------



## danielpalos (May 31, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> The professor answered any and every question you can have.
> 
> My graduate degrees are as good as yours, yes.  You have no idea.
> 
> ...


Secession was the Constitutional reason.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 31, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The professor answered any and every question you can have.
> ...


“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History

9th paragraph of the speech by the CSA VP A. Stephens:  The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the *proper status of the negro in our form of civilization*. *This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution*. 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.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


The South had already, "lost its clue and its Cause"; they bore witness to our Declaration of Independence. 

The South was upset about that form of "asset forfeiture" without compensation.

_Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States._


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 1, 2017)

Yup, the South was terrified of a free society, rightfully so.

Lincoln's demands were simple: no slavery in the territories, return the seized federal property in the South, and act like grownups.


----------



## Faun (Jun 1, 2017)

Picaro said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > And yet Lincoln offered the south slavery forever, as long as they stayed in the union.  If it was all about slavery, why did the south refuse his offer and chose to fight?
> ...


South Carolina said it was about slavery...

_On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, *and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. . . .*

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved...._

Declaration of Causes of Secession​

In fact, the word, slave, appears in their declaration of secession 20 times. "Tariff?" Zero.

So why on Earth should anyone b'lieve an Internet goofball like you, who's trying to rewrite history, over them?


----------



## Faun (Jun 1, 2017)

gipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > gipper talking about being informed.
> ...


The war started when the south opened fire on a U.S. installation.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Faun said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


The North believed the South had no Cause to secede; and insisted on recourse to our Second Amendment, to execute the laws of the Union.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Faun said:


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


Yes, the beginning of the War of Southern aggression, against our more perfect Union.


----------



## Faun (Jun 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


To the victors go the spoils. In this case, the spoils meant keeping the nation whole.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 1, 2017)

The north and west resorted to 2d Amendment rights to keep the Union whole.


----------



## gipper (Jun 1, 2017)

Faun said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





JakeStarkey said:


> The north and west resorted to 2d Amendment rights to keep the Union whole.



We Kill you to keep you.  

Statists are a murderous bunch.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 1, 2017)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


No more than libertarians.  The first of the Bundy Ranch bunch was sentenced to eight years for his part in the stand off down at Bundyville.  Such is the fate of all traitors.


----------



## gipper (Jun 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You clearly have no understanding of libertarianism, but then I already knew that.  However, you do get credit for admitting you agree with a murderous ideology.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 1, 2017)

gipper said:


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


You can't hide the murderous nature of libertarianism, can you?  It is the flip side to communism on the philosophy coin of control by cadre or elite.


----------



## gipper (Jun 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


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


Okay.  Give me an example.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 1, 2017)

gipper said:


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


You said I had no understanding of it, so you give an example.  Whenever I look there are 24 to 29 'true' philosophies of libertarians.  That proves none of you knows what it is.


----------



## gipper (Jun 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


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


Oh Jake.  You are the one who claimed libertarians are just as violent as you murderous government loving statists. Now prove it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 1, 2017)

gipper said:


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


Oh, gipper, so you can't back your point.  Are you saying libertarians are violent when they take control of a community?  San Francisco, gold mining camps, frontier villages, Somalia?  You telling porkies again?


----------



## Picaro (Jun 28, 2017)

Faun said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Why does a goofball like you think they know anything? They seceded over the introduction of the Morill Tariff Act being introduced to Congress, and saw it was going to pass. They also knew the Homestead Act and the Railroad Acts were going to pass; no reason to stay. Whether some modern era snowflakes like that or not is just too bad. In the 1862 elections Lincoln's faction only held on by the barest of margins, due entirely to his military control of the ballot boxes in the border states; his faction lost votes all over the Midwest and Atlantic states because many voters thought he was going to free the slaves and allow them to immigrate north and they would have to compete with cheap black labor. The South had already won all the Supreme Court battles over slavery, so it's just stupid to claim NC seceded over slavery; until Buchanan attempted to enforce his blockade at Sumter no other states seceded, after Sumter more states seceded, and after Lincoln deliberately copied Buchanan the rest seceded, which is exactly what he hoped would happen.

And again no one can claim secession was illegal, and can't show otherwise. Lincoln deliberately started a war, with an act of war.

If anyone needs to know what Lincoln's plans were for all those 'freed slaves' they like to think he fought a war over, all they need to do is look at how he handled their 'liberation' in the river states; he said they were, like 'free n stuff', but they had to remain on their plantations and work, for $2 a month, and they couldn't leave without written permission from the plantation owners, by then the owners being of course Republican supporters of Lincoln. See also the several hundred thousands of 'freed slaves' who died in 'property camps', herded there to prevent them from fleeing north and annoying all those alleged 'abolitionists' northern fictional histories have invented for themselves.


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


LOLOL

I quoted South Carolina stating slavery was their big issue. Argue with them.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 28, 2017)




----------



## Picaro (Jun 28, 2017)

Faun said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Don't need to; too much evidence to the contrary, and there is nothing you can do to change that, except suffer and try to pretend you had anything to do with freeing anybody. They were forming their own Constitution and making slavery part of their new nation; you probably aren't educated enough to see the difference between seceding to avoid being looted by northern manufacturers and bankers and moving on to make their own government platforms afterwards.

In fact it was only after news got back to New York that some of the new states were in Great Britain negotiating to ship their products directly from the South to Europe, therefore the northern cities facing losing their monopoly on shipping and finance and facing competition from much lower tariffs on foreign imports via the South that we see a sudden huge upsurge in support for Lincoln's illegal war.

Who were people in the expanding West and along the east Mississippi river networks going to buy their goods from, northern states with 200% tariiffs, or imports via New Orleans with 10%-20% tariffs?


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


LOLOL

Idiot says we should ignore South Carolina citing slavery as their primary reason for seceding and listen to him instead.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 28, 2017)

Faun said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



lol some ignorant Snowflake doesn't like facts interfering with his historical fantasies, like most ideologues who insist on lying to schoolchildren in order to further modern ideologies. The cognitive dissonance involved make for truly hilarious absurdities. Most of the so-called 'abolitionists' in the North were in fact hardcore white nationalists, not 'freedom loving anti-racists n stuff', they wanted *zero* blacks in the northern states and settling in the new territories, period, including good ole Abe, and they also wanted to ship all of them back to Africa as well, but of course they can't pat themselves on the back for that so they need fake histories to go along with their fake news campaigns in the present.

They also can't admit that Lincoln and the Republican Party favored huge Federal subsidies for big business, the whole point of the massive protectionist tariffs, the railroad subsidies and its related 'Homestead Act', and the latter of course requiring a new source for funding the previous two corporate welfare programs, but never mind that stuff, they need to pretend they're 'liberators' and 'Social Justice Warriors', and they need a lot of fake history to feed schoolkids about Lincoln to do some of that. This is why ideologues right or left wing create these fake histories, after all, so they can lie about their modern fake news and motivations. They think repeating stupid lies over and over will make them 'special', but as we've seen that game has died a welcome death in the current environment.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jun 28, 2017)

DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861 A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union. | TSLAC

*DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861
A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.*

"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. *She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.* Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States."


Not only do they state slavery is the main purpose, they admit they see slavery as continuing forever. See similar declarations by other Confederate states.


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


LOLOL

I posted the best fact there is -- South Carolina themselves explaining why they were seceding...

*Slavery*

It matters not that idiots like you want to ignore the reason South Carolina gave and replace it with your own made up excuse which they themselves didn't use.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 28, 2017)

Re Lincoln's ridiculous claim he was 'only trying to preserve the Union' lie, if that were true he wouldn't have immediately repeated what Buchanan did at Sumter that provoked 4 or five more states to secede, resulting in the rest seceding, for one, and for two, he could have moderated or opposed the tariffs, railroad subsidies, and the Homestead Act or moderated them to acceptable levels if he were being honest, but we all know he was a lying and deliberately provoked the war; plundering the South via invasion was probably just as lucrative a way to cash in and quicker than a slower strangulation by tariff and high interest loans anyway in his and his backers' minds. Following the money is blatantly easy re Lincoln and his supporters then.

As repeatedly pointed out, but always ignored, is Lincoln himself saying he didn't care about slavery, but we're supposed to pretend he didn't say that when it interferes with some other fake history story being peddled. lol


----------



## Picaro (Jun 28, 2017)

Faun said:


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



Some idiot posting one little line that had no bearing on the secession isn't impressive; it just highlights how ignorant you are of all the issues and hoping to make yourself look like some 'progressive' or something, and failing like all the other 'progressives' posting fake histories and fake news.


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


You're a revisionist nut. 

It's not just "one little line." It's South Carolina's entire declaration of secession. I merely quoted their summary, but as pointed out, in the entirety of their document, they mention slaves or slavery 20 times. They never mentioned tariffs even once.

So who knows better why they seceded? South Carolina? Or you?


----------



## Picaro (Jun 28, 2017)

Faun said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yes, I already knew you can't find a thing to back up the claim they seceded merely over slavery; I merely posed the questions to demonstrate that obvious fact to those in the Peanut Gallery who genuinely didn't know all the facts, mainly because they were lied to in school by hacks with political agendas like yourself. Lincoln stated the war, not North Carolina or any other southern state, and that is just too obvious to deny, and why fake history is necessary for some modern agendas.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 28, 2017)

Faun said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nothing to 'revise' on my end, it's all in the books and sources; you're hoping nobody notices your revisionist idiocy can't be backed up, but we already know that.


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


Now you're flat out lying. A clear indication you've surrendered your argument. Despite yout lie that I "can't find a thing to back up the claim they seceded merely over slavery," ... I in fact, cited their own declaration of secession, the single most authoritative document on the planet outlining their reasons for seceding. You don't get to dismiss it simply because it reveals you to be the ignorant schmuck you are.

You also lied when you falsely claimed I said "they seceded merely over slavery." I in fact, said that was their main reason. I never said it was their only reason. I also pointed out how they mentioned 20 times; which was 20 times more than the number of times they mentioned tariffs.

You lie -- you lose.

Ciao.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 28, 2017)

Now that it's obvious the fake history peddlers can't produce a shred of evidence for any Big Giant Anti-Slavery Movement that provoked any secessions, they're playing 'I Touched You Last!!!' and posting gibberish hoping nobody notices they don't know squat, the thread was over for them before they even posted all. They don't even know what 'revisionism is, just repeating something they read somewhere and thought it sounded good or something, oblivious to the fact they're peddling revisionist nonsense themselves, another hilarious example of their cognitive dissonance, along with their defense of Lincoln's and most abolitionists of that era's' rabid white nationalism, especially among the recent immigrant waves they relied on for votes, and of course their support for massive corporate welfare programs, completely at odds with their modern claims of being 'all progressive n stuff', like true imbeciles with no clue.


----------



## gipper (Jun 28, 2017)

The history is clear, but many can't comprehend it or are duped by the Lincoln cultists.

The War of Northern Aggression was about MONEY.  Lincoln didn't give shit about blacks or slavery.  He was an ardent racist even for his time.  Lincoln went to war to enrich powerful interests in the North.  Yet he is idolized.  How f**ked up is that?


----------



## Picaro (Jun 28, 2017)

gipper said:


> The history is clear, but many can't comprehend it or are duped by the Lincoln cultists.
> 
> The War of Northern Aggression was about MONEY.  Lincoln didn't give shit about blacks or slavery.  He was an ardent racist even for his time.  Lincoln went to war to enrich powerful interests in the North.  Yet he is idolized.  How f**ked up is that?



It's even more hilariously ridiculous how the left wingers and 'anti-racists' insist on hero-worshipping the guy. Truly retarded and idiotic. Even most black historians aren't that stupid.


----------



## Camp (Jun 28, 2017)

Prager University in not even a real Univesity, not an accredited one. It is a fake university like the trump university. A high school degree is more credible that....well....whatever they give you from Prager.


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Now that it's obvious the fake history peddlers can't produce a shred of evidence for any Big Giant Anti-Slavery Movement that provoked any secessions, they're playing 'I Touched You Last!!!' and posting gibberish hoping nobody notices they don't know squat, the thread was over for them before they even posted all. They don't even know what 'revisionism is, just repeating something they read somewhere and thought it sounded good or something, oblivious to the fact they're peddling revisionist nonsense themselves, another hilarious example of their cognitive dissonance, along with their defense of Lincoln's and most abolitionists of that era's' rabid white nationalism, especially among the recent immigrant waves they relied on for votes, and of course their support for massive corporate welfare programs, completely at odds with their modern claims of being 'all progressive n stuff', like true imbeciles with no clue.


LOLOL

You're completely deranged. 

Not only did we produce evidence, we produced the ultimate evidence -- South Carolina explaining exactly why they were seceding. On the flip side, they didn't even mention the reason you're making up now in your failed attempt to rewrite history.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 28, 2017)

*Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.*

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

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

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

*I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.*

*Yours,
A. Lincoln.*


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 28, 2017)

Obviously Jake knows nothing about the role of the Jesuits, the Secret Treaty Of Verona and how it led to the Monroe Doctrine or how one of the plotters for Lincoln's assassination was found working for the Pope and why all diplomatic ties to the head of the Catholic church were severed until 1984. Jake doesn't know near as much as he would have you believe he does. States that agreed to not join the confederacy were allowed to keep their slaves.....funny, that.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jun 28, 2017)

TyroneSlothrop said:


>



/---- the flag in your meme is the confederate battle flag. I've attached the flag of the confederacy. 




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jun 28, 2017)

DarkFury said:


> *And Democrats like Jake are still mad they lost their negro's.*


They gained them back, the majority of them anyway. Hopefully the Black Community will come to the senses and come back to the Republican party were they belong.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jun 28, 2017)

My Great, Great Grandfather fought for the South and didn't own any slaves.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 28, 2017)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> My Great, Great Grandfather fought for the South and didn't own any slaves.


Well that settles it.

LOL


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 28, 2017)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> > *And Democrats like Jake are still mad they lost their negro's.*
> ...



Always amazed at people like yourself who accuse modern Democrats of being slave holders- and at the same time- tell African Americans that they are just too stupid to  know that they should be Republicans. 

As a Democrat- I assume that African Americans, Asian Americans, Jewish Americans, Latino-Americans are just as smart as European Americans- as smart as you- and as smart as me. And that like you and me- they are smart enough to decide which party currently best represents their interests.

That Republicans like yourself believe that they are all just too stupid to know they should be voting Republican frankly explains why they don't vote Republican.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 28, 2017)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> My Great, Great Grandfather fought for the South and didn't own any slaves.


So your GG Grandfather was a Democrat.  

And when you wave the Confederate flag to honor your  GG Grandfather- does that represent modern Democrats- like it once represented Democrats?


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 28, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> Obviously Jake knows nothing about the role of the Jesuits, the Secret Treaty Of Verona and how it led to the Monroe Doctrine or how one of the plotters for Lincoln's assassination was found working for the Pope and why all diplomatic ties to the head of the Catholic church were severed until 1984. Jake doesn't know near as much as he would have you believe he does. States that agreed to not join the confederacy were allowed to keep their slaves.....funny, that.



Is there any Konspiracy theory that Dale doesn't subscribe to?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 28, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously Jake knows nothing about the role of the Jesuits, the Secret Treaty Of Verona and how it led to the Monroe Doctrine or how one of the plotters for Lincoln's assassination was found working for the Pope and why all diplomatic ties to the head of the Catholic church were severed until 1984. Jake doesn't know near as much as he would have you believe he does. States that agreed to not join the confederacy were allowed to keep their slaves.....funny, that.
> ...


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jun 28, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > My Great, Great Grandfather fought for the South and didn't own any slaves.
> ...


I don't wave a Confederate Flag my ancestor didn't own slaves so he did not fight for slavery and Democrats are the same as they have always been they just use more subtle ways of owning people.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jun 28, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > DarkFury said:
> ...


Did not call anyone stupid those are your words and the Democratic Party only serves its own interest.


----------



## Yarddog (Jun 28, 2017)

An interesting note .

_Why They Fought_
Men on both sides were inspired to fight by patriotism, state pride, the chance for adventure, steady pay. Union soldiers fought to preserve the Union; the common Confederate fought to defend his home. Later in the war, increasing numbers of Federal soldiers fought to abolish slavery, if for no other reason than to end the war quickly. Confederate soldiers sometimes fought because they feared Union victory would result in a society where black people were placed on an even footing with whites.

_Army Melting Pots_
The large majority of Civil War soldiers were native born. Nonetheless, large numbers of stout-hearted newcomers to the country also volunteered to fight–especially in the North. Nearly one quarter of the Union’s soldiers were immigrants, including 200,000 Germans; 150,000 Irish; 45,000 English; 15,000 Canadians, and lesser numbers of French, Norwegians, Italians, Mexicans, and Poles. Exact figures for the South are sketchy, but tens of thousands of Irish, Germans, British, French, Canadians, Dutch, and Austrians entered Confederate ranks.

_Black Troops_
By war’s end, African-American soldiers made up roughly 10 percent of the Union army. Approximately 179,000 black soldiers wore the blue; 37,000 lost their lives. In March 1865, the Confederate congress authorized the army to recruit 300,000 black troops. Some units were raised, but it was too late for them to make a difference.

Civil War Soldiers | HistoryNet


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 28, 2017)

Yarddog said:


> An interesting note .
> 
> _Why They Fought_
> Men on both sides were inspired to fight by patriotism, state pride, the chance for adventure, steady pay. Union soldiers fought to preserve the Union; the common Confederate fought to defend his home. Later in the war, increasing numbers of Federal soldiers fought to abolish slavery, if for no other reason than to end the war quickly. Confederate soldiers sometimes fought because they feared Union victory would result in a society where black people were placed on an even footing with whites.
> ...




Black troops in the Union army were paid half the wages of white Union soldiers as well.....


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2017)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


Well that's utter bullshit. You weren't alive so you don't know what his reasons were for fighting. And slavery was an economic benefit to the south whether some individuals owned slaves or not. Most Americans don't own any oil wells but the country still benefits from others who do. If some foreign nation attacked us for our oil, you can be sure many would fight to defend America, even if they didn't own oil.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 29, 2017)

The South "called the North" on our more perfect Union, and goaded the North into testing our Second Amendment. It is now historlcal and legal Fact by Precedent, that Only _well regulated militias of the United States_ may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 29, 2017)

Faun said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Oh STFU, little fawn...states that didn't join the confederacy got to keep using slaves until the Emancipation Proclamation and blacks that served in the Union army got half of the wages as the white soldiers. You don't know diddly squat and you prove it daily, little fella......


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


LOLOL

Poor, delusional, dale.

The primary reason the south seceded was over slavery.

How do we know this?

They fucking said so.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 29, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting note .
> ...



And? I don't think that anyone will argue that the United States was generally racist in the era.

None of that changes the fact that the stated reason why Southern states seceded was to preserve 'the peculiar institution' of slavery. 

The United States didn't fight to free the slaves- but the South attempted to secede in order to preserve slavery.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 29, 2017)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



LOL- the Republican Party and the Democratic Party each serves to promote its own interest.

Here is what you said:
_Hopefully the Black Community will come to the senses a_

Did you mean:
a) That the Black Community is stupid (and by extension that they are more stupid than you) or
b) That the Black Community is insane (and by extension that they are more insane than you)

I - and the Democratic Party- think that the 'Black Community' is as sane and as smart- and as rational- as everyone else.

You clearly do not.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 29, 2017)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



You do realize that the Confederate States- and the Confederate Army- that your GG Grandfather fought for- were Democrats right? And that your GG Grandfather was almost certainly a Democrat. 

Some 90% of African Americans are Democrats- tell us about how subtle they are in owning people.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jun 29, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Its not called slavery anymore.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 29, 2017)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...



What is it called?

Some 90% of African Americans are Democrats- tell us about how subtle they are in owning people


----------



## Picaro (Jun 29, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


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



And of course we know he was lying; his only goal was to implement the 'American system' the Whigs wanted as a national policy, and he needed to tax one region to raise the money for  to benefit his own region. As pointed out already, if he were really concerned with 'preserving the Union', he wouldn't have repeated Buchanan's blockade at Sumter that generated more states to secede; he knew his act of war would provoke the rest to secede.

And of course the usual trolls can't produce any of these Big Giant Anti-Slavery Bills that were supposed to have provoked NC to secede, we only have the tariff and Homestead bills to point to, and Lincoln's deliberate illegal war.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 29, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> ...



Ah you mean Lincoln's deliberate illegal war- where he forced South Carolina to attack the United States Army?

The North didn't go to war to free the slaves- but the Confederates attempted to secede to preserve that peculiar institution.

Or do you think South Carolina was lying?

South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession | Teaching American History

_The People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions *and wishes of the other slaveholding States*, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.....

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

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

For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the general government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.....Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation
*
geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united i*n the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery*. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the Common Government,* because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,”* and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.*

*

_


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 29, 2017)

*Georgia*


The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. ....

.....The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

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


*Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union;* put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 29, 2017)

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

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 29, 2017)

*Virginia*
THE SECESSION ORDINANCE.
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND TO RESUME ALL THE RIGHTS AND POWERS GRANTED UNDER SAID CONSTITUTION.

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, *not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.*


----------



## Picaro (Jun 30, 2017)

Spam. None of those posts have a thing to with provoking the wave of secessions. Again, find any bills that had a thing to do with slavery that provoked the secessions. you can't, because it was the tariff and Homestead bills that caused the secessions.


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Spam. None of those posts have a thing to with provoking the wave of secessions. Again, find any bills that had a thing to do with slavery that provoked the secessions. you can't, because it was the tariff and Homestead bills that caused the secessions.


LOLOL

^^^ idiot ^^^ says we should ignore what the states actually said; and instead, take his revisionist word.


----------



## Scamp (Jun 30, 2017)

It was the laws of the USA that made slavery legal for 89 years. Just before the war slavery had been backed by Congress and the Supreme Court. By 1860 the South had made slavery into a 2 Billion dollar per year business, mostly from the crops of cotton and tobacco.

Has anyone in history ever just given up on a billion dollar enterprise, that was legal, just because of moral or ethic concerns?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 30, 2017)

Scamp said:


> It was the laws of the USA that made slavery legal for 89 years. Just before the war slavery had been backed by Congress and the Supreme Court. By 1860 the South had made slavery into a 2 Billion dollar per year business, mostly from the crops of cotton and tobacco.
> 
> Has anyone in history ever just given up on a billion dollar enterprise, that was legal, just because of moral or ethic concerns?




Hell, we are all bonded and indentured debt slaves and don't even know it. How much of what we take home in federal reserve notes is taken from us with so many taxes? We have never been paid in REAL money, something with an intrinsic value...we have been paid in scrip. Most people have no clue as to how paper currency came to be and what it once represented and was suppose to represent. The 14th amendment didn't free the slaves insomuch as it made all of us "slaves" and property of the federal "gubermint".


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 10, 2017)

gipper said:


> And yet Lincoln offered the south slavery forever, as long as they stayed in the union.  If it was all about slavery, why did the south refuse his offer and chose to fight?



Because the most zealous of the secessionists didn't believe him, and they carried the day.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 10, 2017)

If you are in denial over the Southern secession being about slavery,

I suggest you start by reading the C.S.A. Constitution.


----------



## gipper (Jul 10, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > And yet Lincoln offered the south slavery forever, as long as they stayed in the union.  If it was all about slavery, why did the south refuse his offer and chose to fight?
> ...


Some truth to that.

However it was the abolitionist zealots in the North, that wanted slavery eliminated and pushed for war.


----------



## gipper (Jul 10, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> If you are in denial over the Southern secession being about slavery,
> 
> I suggest you start by reading the C.S.A. Constitution.


And...if you are in doubt that Lincoln was an ardent racist even for his time, you are in denial.  

He was also an ardent big government statist (no doubt you like that), fully prepared to murder 850k Americans and destroy half the nation for his absurd statist view of the Constitution.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 10, 2017)

gipper said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > If you are in denial over the Southern secession being about slavery,
> ...



Lincoln carried out his oath of office.  The war was precipitated by the seceding states seizing federal property they had no right to.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 10, 2017)

gipper said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > If you are in denial over the Southern secession being about slavery,
> ...



Lincoln was an ardent unionist, and as such represented the ultimate threat to the secessionist interests in the South,
who equated unionism with abolition.


----------



## gipper (Jul 10, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


and an ardent racist. 

He offered to the South slavery ensconced in the Constitution...so it could exist FOREVER!

Lincoln was a tyrant who believed kill them and destroy their property, to keep them in the Union.  He was a traitor.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 10, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Yarddog said:
> ...


The South, "reneged" on our Declaration of Independence.  Just a bunch of renegades.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 10, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> If you are in denial over the Southern secession being about slavery,
> 
> I suggest you start by reading the C.S.A. Constitution.


It should have been about, eminent domain.  The South, simply, "dropped the ball".


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 10, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > If you are in denial over the Southern secession being about slavery,
> ...



The South was much less uniformly in favor of secession than I think many believe.  The pro-union pro-secession split was largely along socio-economic lines,

the wealthier, slave-owning, so-called Southern aristocracy supporting secession, the lower classes tending to favor staying in the union.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 10, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Eminent domain is a right established in our federal Constitution. There would have been no civil war.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 10, 2017)

The *Cornerstone Speech*, also known as the *Cornerstone Address*, was an oration delivered by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861.
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2017)

gipper said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



'abolitionist zealots'- interesting term for people who wanted to end slavery. 

Lincoln was not among them- yet the South feared he was- and moved to secede- and started the war.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2017)

gipper said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > If you are in denial over the Southern secession being about slavery,
> ...



Actually Lincoln was a racist pretty much like everyone was in his time. 

But his 'racism' had nothing to do with his desire to keep the Union together in the face of the Slave states trying to leave the Union to protect their 'right' to own human beings.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2017)

gipper said:


> [
> Lincoln was a tyrant who believed kill them and destroy their property, to keep them in the Union.  He was a traitor.



And by 'traitor'- you mean the man who preserved the Union- and by his actions caused the end of slavery in the United States.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 10, 2017)

Instead of settling the question legally, under the More Perfect Union and its processes, a special interest group sought to separate from a solemn pledge illegally. This uprising against the common interest was justly dealt with and put down.


----------



## gipper (Jul 10, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


By the man who ignored the Constitution and shit on the Founders...then murdered 850,000 Americans and destroyed half the nation....leading to decades of racism.  Good job...but only in the minds of the small minded STATIST!!!

He was a ardent racist even for his time.  Just prior to his death, he was hoping to deport all blacks.  Statists still love him unconditionally...because they are CRAZY!!!!


----------



## gipper (Jul 10, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Preserve the Union by killing it.  Makes sense to the senseless.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2017)

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



The Union still stands- despite the best efforts of the traitors based out of Richmond.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2017)

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Lincoln no more 'murdered' Americans than FDR 'murdered' Germans. The Southern rebels fired on American troops- starting a war. A lesser President could have chosen to ignore the attack on the U.S. Army- and let the Union fall apart- but Lincoln fought to preserve the Constitution- and shit on the rebels in the South.

And 'leading to decades of racism'? Really? So if the South had seceded there would not have been 'decades' of racism- just decades of slavery of African Americans.

Why exactly are you so pissed off that the victory by the United States over its Southern rebels resulted in the end of slavery? The institutionalized racism that followed was horrible- but that followed a hundred years of institutionalized racism and slavery.

The Union didn't go to war to end slavery- but the South went to war to protect the right to own human beings- and they lost that war- and their human property


----------



## gipper (Jul 10, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Dumb.


----------



## gipper (Jul 10, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Lincoln is just about solely responsible for the 850k deaths and destruction of half the nation.  He could have allowed the South to secede, as nearly all newspapers and many politicians believed should have happened.  

Lincoln was scum...but statists love the murdering fool.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2017)

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



You are still pissed off that the United States consists of 50 states. 

And no slave states.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2017)

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



The Southern leaders who fought to preserve the institution of slavery were scum. They fired on the U.S. Army, violated the Constitution, and their actions were solely responsible for the deaths in the South and the destruction thereof.

They fought to preserve their right to own human property- and lost. 

You mourn their loss.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 10, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



If you study the secessionist sentiment of the times you will find that it is stunningly similar to the philosophy of the modern American conservative.

1.  they feared 'democracy'.

2.  they were states rights extremists

3.  they feared that the abolition of slavery, coupled with black citizenship and suffrage, could destroy white supremacy in the South.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 10, 2017)

Southern secessionists had an interesting derogatory term for the abolitionists...

"Black Republicans"

» The 1860 Campaign and the “Black Republican President” THE SHELF


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 10, 2017)

gipper said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > If you are in denial over the Southern secession being about slavery,
> ...



The Crittenden compromise, a huge concession to the South, was offered in late 1860 as an attempt to avoid war.

Lincoln opposed it.


----------

