Civil War Facts

[Unkotare]

The reality of history is that Lincoln was a tyrant who threw innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtered 850,000 people.

What really made Lincoln a most ruthless and despotic tyrant wasn't those concentration camps. No, that evil Lincoln went out of his way to deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.

Jails and prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps.

Concentration camps, where Americans are imprisoned without the benefit of a trial, are concentrations camps.

.....

Prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps. Words have meanings. If you had a better command of the English language I wouldn't need to instruct you on this.

They wren't housing prisoners of war, dumbass. The inmates were civilians who lived in Union States.

Yes, words have meanings, and you mostly don't know what they are.

Prisoners in jail for violating the law are also not a concentration camp.

 

[bripat9643]

What really made Lincoln a most ruthless and despotic tyrant wasn't those concentration camps. No, that evil Lincoln went out of his way to deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.

Jails and prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps.

Concentration camps, where Americans are imprisoned without the benefit of a trial, are concentrations camps.

.....

Prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps. Words have meanings. If you had a better command of the English language I wouldn't need to instruct you on this.

They wren't housing prisoners of war, dumbass. The inmates were civilians who lived in Union States.

Yes, words have meanings, and you mostly don't know what they are.

Prisoners in jail for violating the law are also not a concentration camp.

The only thing they did is criticize Lincoln, shit for brains.

 

[gipper]

How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.

The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.

If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”

But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years

Jesus man. Get an education. That’s all wrong.

 

[gipper]

How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.

The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.

If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”

But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years

Jesus man. Get an education. That’s all wrong.

 

[gipper]

How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.

The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.

If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”

But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years

Jesus man. Get an education. That’s all wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.

Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.

Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss

We demanded 600,000 dead

No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead. You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost. The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.

Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery
Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free

 

[rightwinger]

How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.

The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.

If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”

But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years

Jesus man. Get an education. That’s all wrong.

Refute it

 

[gipper]

How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.

The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.

If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”

But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years

Jesus man. Get an education. That’s all wrong.

Refute it

I’ve done so many times before with you, but apparently you never learn. So, I give up.

 

[rightwinger]

How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.

The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.

If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”

But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years

Jesus man. Get an education. That’s all wrong.

Refute it

I’ve done so many times before with you, but apparently you never learn. So, I give up.

Refute what I said or STFU

 

[gipper]

The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.

Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.

Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss

We demanded 600,000 dead

No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead. You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost. The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.

Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery
Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free

Yet he chose war. He warred on fellow Americans. The exact definition of treason.

 

[gipper]

How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.

The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.

If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”

But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years

Jesus man. Get an education. That’s all wrong.

Refute it

I’ve done so many times before with you, but apparently you never learn. So, I give up.

Refute what I said or STFU

He was much worse than Benedict Arnold, who all Americans know was a traitor.

 

[rightwinger]

The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.

Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.

Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss

We demanded 600,000 dead

No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead. You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost. The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.

Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery
Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free

Yet he chose war. He warred on fellow Americans. The exact definition of treason.

Firing on US troops was treason

 

[rightwinger]

If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”

But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years

Jesus man. Get an education. That’s all wrong.

Refute it

I’ve done so many times before with you, but apparently you never learn. So, I give up.

Refute what I said or STFU

He was much worse than Benedict Arnold, who all Americans know was a traitor.

Refute what I said or STFU

Changing the subject does not help you

 

[there4eyeM]

Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.

Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss

We demanded 600,000 dead

No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead. You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost. The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.

Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery
Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free

Yet he chose war. He warred on fellow Americans. The exact definition of treason.

Firing on US troops was treason

A violent criminal may be stopped by police who use violence. That does not make the police criminal.
Insurrection invites attempts to repress it. If it isn't strong enough to win, that doesn't make those who repress it insurrectionists.

 

[bripat9643]

The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.

Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.

Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss

We demanded 600,000 dead

No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead. You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost. The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.

Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery
Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free

Lincoln is the one who invaded Virginia. That's all that matters.

 

[bripat9643]

Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.

Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss

We demanded 600,000 dead

No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead. You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost. The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.

Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery
Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free

Yet he chose war. He warred on fellow Americans. The exact definition of treason.

Firing on US troops was treason

Wrong. If they are trespassing on the sovereign territory of another country, then they deserve what they get.

 

[rightwinger]

Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss

We demanded 600,000 dead

No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead. You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost. The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.

Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery
Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free

Yet he chose war. He warred on fellow Americans. The exact definition of treason.

Firing on US troops was treason

Wrong. If they are trespassing on the sovereign territory of another country, then they deserve what they get.

Wasn’t their territory
It was a US Military installation

 

[bripat9643]

No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead. You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost. The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.

Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery
Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free

Yet he chose war. He warred on fellow Americans. The exact definition of treason.

Firing on US troops was treason

Wrong. If they are trespassing on the sovereign territory of another country, then they deserve what they get.

Wasn’t their territory
It was a US Military installation

It was their territory. It just wasn't their property. US doesn't have the right to occupy foreign territory, moron.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Firing on US troops was treason

Only if you reject one of the core principles of the American Revolution: the right of peaceful separation, and only if you ignore the fact that the founding fathers forbade the federal government from using force to maintain the Union. If the Republicans had recognized these two core American principles, they would have withdrawn the federal garrison from Fort Sumter and would have accepted the Confederacy's offer for peaceful relations, which offer included an offer to pay compensation for federal forts in the South, to pay the South's share of the national debt, and to establish most-favored-nation trading status.

Now, again, all that being said, Jefferson Davis wrecked the chance for eventual peaceful separation and de facto recognition, or for a voluntary reunion after tempers had cooled, by cutting off the garrison's food supply and then firing on the fort in response to Lincoln's notice that federal ships would be delivering food to the garrison. As eminent Lincoln scholar J. G. Randall noted, there is good evidence that Lincoln was willing to maintain the status quo on Fort Sumter, to avoid a showdown there, and to risk de facto acceptance of the Deep South's independence, but Davis ruined all that by forcing Lincoln's hand by cutting off the garrison's food supply.

 

[Unkotare]

Jails and prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps.

Concentration camps, where Americans are imprisoned without the benefit of a trial, are concentrations camps.

.....

Prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps. Words have meanings. If you had a better command of the English language I wouldn't need to instruct you on this.

They wren't housing prisoners of war, dumbass. The inmates were civilians who lived in Union States.

Yes, words have meanings, and you mostly don't know what they are.

Prisoners in jail for violating the law are also not a concentration camp.

The only thing they did is criticize Lincoln, shit for brains.

Now we're back to the legal interpretations of a brainless scumbag on the internet.