Civil War Facts

[gipper]

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.

Evidently, it is not

Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government

Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.

No, actually, under the original intent of the Constitution, when those states revoked their ratification, which they had a constitutional right to do, they reverted to the status of independent and sovereign nation states. Before all 13 states ratified the federal constitution, those states that had not yet ratified the constitution were treated as separate nations by the states that had joined the federal union.

You see, the problem is that you guys are adopting the same attitude toward peaceful separation that the British adopted when the colonies tried to peacefully separate from England. The Patriots (i.e., the colonists who wanted to separate) bitterly condemned England's attempt to force the colonies to remain under British control. The British replied that they were merely putting down a rebellion.

That's why the framers were so emphatic that their union would not be maintained by force. That's why they did not specify that ratification was irrevocable. That's why they decidedly rejected the idea that the federal government would be able to use force against disobedient states. That's why they even specified that the federal government could not even send troops into a state without the state government's permission.

I've documented all of these facts in the following two articles:

Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation

That Horrible War Must Be Blamed on Our Sacred-Cow Constitution



Also helpful, because everyone is too conformist to shallow historians to think beyond the propaganda, is the fact that Congress didn't seat any Senators or Representatives from the South during the war. That meant the Confederacy was recognized de jure as a separate country.

Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!

At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.

So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?

If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED

Here is another great book on the War of Northern Aggression. If only the Lincoln Cultist had the capacity to understand truth. Order your copy today, as I did.

The truth...can you accept it?

It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War
As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced. Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups. But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1]

Mitcham concludes his book by firmly pointing out that any open-minded reader should understand “that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery.” Mitcham explains that it was control of a powerful centralized and unquestionable supreme Federal government that was the primary reason for the conquest of the South. The War provided a victory of Hamiltonian big government over Jeffersonian small (local) government. “The Hamiltonian system called for principal loyalty to a strong, dominant federal government. The Jeffersonian ideal that the principal loyalty was to the state and to the idea that ‘that governs best which governs least.’ The issue is now settled. Hamiltonianism eventually (and naturally) evolved into the present Nanny State…. Since 1865, the only restraint to the federal government has been the federal government—an oxymoron that works for very few Americans today.”[8]

In his concluding remarks Mitcham has hit upon an issue even more important than simply slavery or secession. This issue is also one that most patriotic Americans are fearful to examine. After the conquest of the South, General Lee warned that with the concentration (consolidation) of all power into the hands of an all-powerful federal government, America would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”[9]

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wasnt-slavery.jpg

 

[Picaro]

Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!

At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.

The South Had Slavery; the North Had Sweatshops. The North Had No Moral Superiority.


.

The Republicans ran on keeping all black people out of the North and out of the new territories, period. They nearly lost everything in the 1862 mid-terms when many voters thought the GOP was making emancipation an issue instead. the only reason they held on to a thin margin of Congress was because of Lincoln's private armies controlling the ballot boxes in the border states and much of Pennsylvania.

 

[Picaro]

Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!

At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.

The South Had Slavery; the North Had Sweatshops. The North Had No Moral Superiority.


What Preppy Progressive snobs want is the subjugation of all other White people, using Black thugs as their enforcers.

What was the punishment dished out to a worker for leaving his job at a sweat shop? What was the punishment dished out to a slave for leaving his job at a plantation? There's our Moral Superiority. Which situation would you rather be in?

In Illinois trying to leave a sweatshop landed you in debtor's prison, which in turn meant you could be rented out by the sheriffs to private employers as a 'contract worker'. Google up 'company stores'. You still had slaves all over the North, they just used a different method, is all. It was nearly impossible for any black person to make a legal living in Illinois, Indiana, and other states, thanks to the Black Codes legislation there, several of which passed much stronger ones after the SC rulings in favor of slave owners in the early 1850's, including Lincoln's home state.Also see several studies of Americans from 1820 on; the average white American laborer lost several inches in height and had much shorter lifespans and high infant mortality rates under industrialization than before, and this trend continued right up the end of the 19th century.

You familiar with Lincoln's plans for southern 'free' blacks? He didn't really 'free' them, as we know from his martial law regs for the southern states the North conquered. He made it illegal fro many to leave the govt. run plantations without written permission from the owners. Those who weren't needed were forced into 'Property Camps', where they were left to die of starvation and disease, some 700,000 or so.

 

[August West]

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.

Evidently, it is not

Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government

Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.

No, actually, under the original intent of the Constitution, when those states revoked their ratification, which they had a constitutional right to do, they reverted to the status of independent and sovereign nation states. Before all 13 states ratified the federal constitution, those states that had not yet ratified the constitution were treated as separate nations by the states that had joined the federal union.

You see, the problem is that you guys are adopting the same attitude toward peaceful separation that the British adopted when the colonies tried to peacefully separate from England. The Patriots (i.e., the colonists who wanted to separate) bitterly condemned England's attempt to force the colonies to remain under British control. The British replied that they were merely putting down a rebellion.

That's why the framers were so emphatic that their union would not be maintained by force. That's why they did not specify that ratification was irrevocable. That's why they decidedly rejected the idea that the federal government would be able to use force against disobedient states. That's why they even specified that the federal government could not even send troops into a state without the state government's permission.

I've documented all of these facts in the following two articles:

Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation

That Horrible War Must Be Blamed on Our Sacred-Cow Constitution



Also helpful, because everyone is too conformist to shallow historians to think beyond the propaganda, is the fact that Congress didn't seat any Senators or Representatives from the South during the war. That meant the Confederacy was recognized de jure as a separate country.

Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!

At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.

So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?

If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED

Here is another great book on the War of Northern Aggression. If only the Lincoln Cultist had the capacity to understand truth. Order your copy today, as I did.

The truth...can you accept it?

It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War
As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced. Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups. But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1]

Mitcham concludes his book by firmly pointing out that any open-minded reader should understand “that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery.” Mitcham explains that it was control of a powerful centralized and unquestionable supreme Federal government that was the primary reason for the conquest of the South. The War provided a victory of Hamiltonian big government over Jeffersonian small (local) government. “The Hamiltonian system called for principal loyalty to a strong, dominant federal government. The Jeffersonian ideal that the principal loyalty was to the state and to the idea that ‘that governs best which governs least.’ The issue is now settled. Hamiltonianism eventually (and naturally) evolved into the present Nanny State…. Since 1865, the only restraint to the federal government has been the federal government—an oxymoron that works for very few Americans today.”[8]

In his concluding remarks Mitcham has hit upon an issue even more important than simply slavery or secession. This issue is also one that most patriotic Americans are fearful to examine. After the conquest of the South, General Lee warned that with the concentration (consolidation) of all power into the hands of an all-powerful federal government, America would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”[9]

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wasnt-slavery.jpg

The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Evidently, it is not

Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government

Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.

No, actually, under the original intent of the Constitution, when those states revoked their ratification, which they had a constitutional right to do, they reverted to the status of independent and sovereign nation states. Before all 13 states ratified the federal constitution, those states that had not yet ratified the constitution were treated as separate nations by the states that had joined the federal union.

You see, the problem is that you guys are adopting the same attitude toward peaceful separation that the British adopted when the colonies tried to peacefully separate from England. The Patriots (i.e., the colonists who wanted to separate) bitterly condemned England's attempt to force the colonies to remain under British control. The British replied that they were merely putting down a rebellion.

That's why the framers were so emphatic that their union would not be maintained by force. That's why they did not specify that ratification was irrevocable. That's why they decidedly rejected the idea that the federal government would be able to use force against disobedient states. That's why they even specified that the federal government could not even send troops into a state without the state government's permission.

I've documented all of these facts in the following two articles:

Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation

That Horrible War Must Be Blamed on Our Sacred-Cow Constitution



Also helpful, because everyone is too conformist to shallow historians to think beyond the propaganda, is the fact that Congress didn't seat any Senators or Representatives from the South during the war. That meant the Confederacy was recognized de jure as a separate country.

Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!

At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.

So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?

If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED

Here is another great book on the War of Northern Aggression. If only the Lincoln Cultist had the capacity to understand truth. Order your copy today, as I did.

The truth...can you accept it?

It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War
As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced. Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups. But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1]

Mitcham concludes his book by firmly pointing out that any open-minded reader should understand “that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery.” Mitcham explains that it was control of a powerful centralized and unquestionable supreme Federal government that was the primary reason for the conquest of the South. The War provided a victory of Hamiltonian big government over Jeffersonian small (local) government. “The Hamiltonian system called for principal loyalty to a strong, dominant federal government. The Jeffersonian ideal that the principal loyalty was to the state and to the idea that ‘that governs best which governs least.’ The issue is now settled. Hamiltonianism eventually (and naturally) evolved into the present Nanny State…. Since 1865, the only restraint to the federal government has been the federal government—an oxymoron that works for very few Americans today.”[8]

In his concluding remarks Mitcham has hit upon an issue even more important than simply slavery or secession. This issue is also one that most patriotic Americans are fearful to examine. After the conquest of the South, General Lee warned that with the concentration (consolidation) of all power into the hands of an all-powerful federal government, America would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”[9]

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wasnt-slavery.jpg

The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf

It wasn't about slavery:

Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute

Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery

How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org

https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/

 

[Unkotare]

Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^

 

[bripat9643]

Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^

Who's denying that slavery existed? Which "idiot" are you referring to?

 

[Unkotare]

Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^

Who's denying that slavery existed? Which "idiot" are you referring to?

You, idiot.

 

[Syriusly]

Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^

It really isn't.

The facts are that Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves.
But the Confederate States left the Union to protect their slave property rights.

Yep- the denialists about the Confederacy's commitment to slavery really are no different from the Holocaust deniers.

 

[Syriusly]

Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^

Who's denying that slavery existed? Which "idiot" are you referring to?

You- and your fellow pro-slavery statists.

 

[Bezukhov]

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.

Evidently, it is not

Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government

Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.

No, actually, under the original intent of the Constitution, when those states revoked their ratification, which they had a constitutional right to do, they reverted to the status of independent and sovereign nation states. Before all 13 states ratified the federal constitution, those states that had not yet ratified the constitution were treated as separate nations by the states that had joined the federal union.

You see, the problem is that you guys are adopting the same attitude toward peaceful separation that the British adopted when the colonies tried to peacefully separate from England. The Patriots (i.e., the colonists who wanted to separate) bitterly condemned England's attempt to force the colonies to remain under British control. The British replied that they were merely putting down a rebellion.

That's why the framers were so emphatic that their union would not be maintained by force. That's why they did not specify that ratification was irrevocable. That's why they decidedly rejected the idea that the federal government would be able to use force against disobedient states. That's why they even specified that the federal government could not even send troops into a state without the state government's permission.

I've documented all of these facts in the following two articles:

Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation

That Horrible War Must Be Blamed on Our Sacred-Cow Constitution



Also helpful, because everyone is too conformist to shallow historians to think beyond the propaganda, is the fact that Congress didn't seat any Senators or Representatives from the South during the war. That meant the Confederacy was recognized de jure as a separate country.

At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.

So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?

If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED

Here is another great book on the War of Northern Aggression. If only the Lincoln Cultist had the capacity to understand truth. Order your copy today, as I did.

The truth...can you accept it?

It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War
As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced. Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups. But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1]

Mitcham concludes his book by firmly pointing out that any open-minded reader should understand “that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery.” Mitcham explains that it was control of a powerful centralized and unquestionable supreme Federal government that was the primary reason for the conquest of the South. The War provided a victory of Hamiltonian big government over Jeffersonian small (local) government. “The Hamiltonian system called for principal loyalty to a strong, dominant federal government. The Jeffersonian ideal that the principal loyalty was to the state and to the idea that ‘that governs best which governs least.’ The issue is now settled. Hamiltonianism eventually (and naturally) evolved into the present Nanny State…. Since 1865, the only restraint to the federal government has been the federal government—an oxymoron that works for very few Americans today.”[8]

In his concluding remarks Mitcham has hit upon an issue even more important than simply slavery or secession. This issue is also one that most patriotic Americans are fearful to examine. After the conquest of the South, General Lee warned that with the concentration (consolidation) of all power into the hands of an all-powerful federal government, America would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”[9]

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wasnt-slavery.jpg

The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf

It wasn't about slavery:

Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute

Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery

How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org

https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/

Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?

 

[bripat9643]

Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^

Who's denying that slavery existed? Which "idiot" are you referring to?

You, idiot.

When did I deny that slavery existed? Please quote me saying that.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Evidently, it is not

Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government

No, actually, under the original intent of the Constitution, when those states revoked their ratification, which they had a constitutional right to do, they reverted to the status of independent and sovereign nation states. Before all 13 states ratified the federal constitution, those states that had not yet ratified the constitution were treated as separate nations by the states that had joined the federal union.

You see, the problem is that you guys are adopting the same attitude toward peaceful separation that the British adopted when the colonies tried to peacefully separate from England. The Patriots (i.e., the colonists who wanted to separate) bitterly condemned England's attempt to force the colonies to remain under British control. The British replied that they were merely putting down a rebellion.

That's why the framers were so emphatic that their union would not be maintained by force. That's why they did not specify that ratification was irrevocable. That's why they decidedly rejected the idea that the federal government would be able to use force against disobedient states. That's why they even specified that the federal government could not even send troops into a state without the state government's permission.

I've documented all of these facts in the following two articles:

Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation

That Horrible War Must Be Blamed on Our Sacred-Cow Constitution



Also helpful, because everyone is too conformist to shallow historians to think beyond the propaganda, is the fact that Congress didn't seat any Senators or Representatives from the South during the war. That meant the Confederacy was recognized de jure as a separate country.

So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?

If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED

Here is another great book on the War of Northern Aggression. If only the Lincoln Cultist had the capacity to understand truth. Order your copy today, as I did.

The truth...can you accept it?

It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War
As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced. Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups. But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1]

Mitcham concludes his book by firmly pointing out that any open-minded reader should understand “that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery.” Mitcham explains that it was control of a powerful centralized and unquestionable supreme Federal government that was the primary reason for the conquest of the South. The War provided a victory of Hamiltonian big government over Jeffersonian small (local) government. “The Hamiltonian system called for principal loyalty to a strong, dominant federal government. The Jeffersonian ideal that the principal loyalty was to the state and to the idea that ‘that governs best which governs least.’ The issue is now settled. Hamiltonianism eventually (and naturally) evolved into the present Nanny State…. Since 1865, the only restraint to the federal government has been the federal government—an oxymoron that works for very few Americans today.”[8]

In his concluding remarks Mitcham has hit upon an issue even more important than simply slavery or secession. This issue is also one that most patriotic Americans are fearful to examine. After the conquest of the South, General Lee warned that with the concentration (consolidation) of all power into the hands of an all-powerful federal government, America would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”[9]

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wasnt-slavery.jpg

The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf

It wasn't about slavery:

Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute

Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery

How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org

https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/

Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?

Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.

 

[Bezukhov]

Evidently, it is not

Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government

That Horrible War Must Be Blamed on Our Sacred-Cow Constitution



Also helpful, because everyone is too conformist to shallow historians to think beyond the propaganda, is the fact that Congress didn't seat any Senators or Representatives from the South during the war. That meant the Confederacy was recognized de jure as a separate country.

If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED

Here is another great book on the War of Northern Aggression. If only the Lincoln Cultist had the capacity to understand truth. Order your copy today, as I did.

The truth...can you accept it?

It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War
As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced. Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups. But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1]

Mitcham concludes his book by firmly pointing out that any open-minded reader should understand “that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery.” Mitcham explains that it was control of a powerful centralized and unquestionable supreme Federal government that was the primary reason for the conquest of the South. The War provided a victory of Hamiltonian big government over Jeffersonian small (local) government. “The Hamiltonian system called for principal loyalty to a strong, dominant federal government. The Jeffersonian ideal that the principal loyalty was to the state and to the idea that ‘that governs best which governs least.’ The issue is now settled. Hamiltonianism eventually (and naturally) evolved into the present Nanny State…. Since 1865, the only restraint to the federal government has been the federal government—an oxymoron that works for very few Americans today.”[8]

In his concluding remarks Mitcham has hit upon an issue even more important than simply slavery or secession. This issue is also one that most patriotic Americans are fearful to examine. After the conquest of the South, General Lee warned that with the concentration (consolidation) of all power into the hands of an all-powerful federal government, America would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”[9]

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wasnt-slavery.jpg

The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf

It wasn't about slavery:

Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute

Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery

How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org

https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/

Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?

Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.

Was slavery a valid reason for secession?

 

[bripat9643]

Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^

Who's denying that slavery existed? Which "idiot" are you referring to?

You- and your fellow pro-slavery statists.

I have never denied that slavery existed, and a statist is one who believes the states should be compelled by invasion to remain in the Union.

 

[Unkotare]

Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^

Who's denying that slavery existed? Which "idiot" are you referring to?

You, idiot.

When did I deny that slavery existed? Please quote me saying that.

Put away your straw man, scumbag.

 

[bripat9643]

Here is another great book on the War of Northern Aggression. If only the Lincoln Cultist had the capacity to understand truth. Order your copy today, as I did.

The truth...can you accept it?

It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War
As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced. Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups. But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1]

Mitcham concludes his book by firmly pointing out that any open-minded reader should understand “that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery.” Mitcham explains that it was control of a powerful centralized and unquestionable supreme Federal government that was the primary reason for the conquest of the South. The War provided a victory of Hamiltonian big government over Jeffersonian small (local) government. “The Hamiltonian system called for principal loyalty to a strong, dominant federal government. The Jeffersonian ideal that the principal loyalty was to the state and to the idea that ‘that governs best which governs least.’ The issue is now settled. Hamiltonianism eventually (and naturally) evolved into the present Nanny State…. Since 1865, the only restraint to the federal government has been the federal government—an oxymoron that works for very few Americans today.”[8]

In his concluding remarks Mitcham has hit upon an issue even more important than simply slavery or secession. This issue is also one that most patriotic Americans are fearful to examine. After the conquest of the South, General Lee warned that with the concentration (consolidation) of all power into the hands of an all-powerful federal government, America would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”[9]

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wasnt-slavery.jpg

The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf

It wasn't about slavery:

Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute

Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery

How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org

https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/

Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?

Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.

Was slavery a valid reason for secession?

Any reason is valid for secession. When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?

 

[August West]

Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^

It really isn't.

The facts are that Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves.
But the Confederate States left the Union to protect their slave property rights.

Yep- the denialists about the Confederacy's commitment to slavery really are no different from the Holocaust deniers.

Lincoln went to war because South Carolinians attacked the United States in Charleston`s (that`s a U.S. city) harbor. I had no idea that so many people had skipped 6th grade.

 

[there4eyeM]

The 'South' went to war instead of pursuing legal methods of maintaining its slave based economy.
The United States was not formed to be a debating society where members could come and go as through a revolving door. No one at its formation thought the country could be broken up at the whim of political dissension. There was no doubt that original intent was a permanent union.
Joining this Perpetual Union was voluntary (with no similarity to the condition as colonies of the British Empire!). To break this sworn allegiance would require the agreement of the rest of the country. That would have been legal, at least. Attacking the foundations of the nation was intolerable sedition and treason.
To those whom this is not clear, we can only say that history settled the matter. Squawk if it amuses you, but you are alone and absurd.

 

[bripat9643]

Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^

It really isn't.

The facts are that Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves.
But the Confederate States left the Union to protect their slave property rights.

Yep- the denialists about the Confederacy's commitment to slavery really are no different from the Holocaust deniers.

Lincoln went to war because South Carolinians attacked the United States in Charleston`s (that`s a U.S. city) harbor. I had no idea that so many people had skipped 6th grade.

You mean they kicked out criminals trespassing on their territory. Lincoln went to war for the same reason that a abusive husband beats his wife.