Civil War Facts

[Picaro]

If Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union, he wouldn't have copied Buchanan's actions re Sumter; he needed a propaganda gimmick and knew trying to extort tariffs from ships entering Charleston would provoke a war. Blockading harbors is a deliberate act of war, so the claim that the South started it is pure rubbish, and no, it was about robbing the South to pay for corporate welfare programs and protectionism for northern sweat shops, had nothing to do with slavery at all; that's just rubbish dumbasses and bigots try to peddle to cover up their own thuggery.

For those in the Peanut Gallery who want the real history, they can look up the results of Buchanan's attempt to supply Sumter; the result was 4 more states seceding. When Lincoln decided to do it as well, he got what he wanted, the rest of the southern states seceding. He rejected peace, he needed to rob the South by force, and he did.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Total bullshit. The Constitution doesn't make secession illegal. All claims that it does are pure Lincoln cult fantasy. All your claims about the Constitution are pure propaganda.

 

[Picaro]

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.
.

Complete rubbish. You obviously missed all those decades of New England states threatening to secede every time they didn't get their way, beginning with whining about the election of Thomas Jefferson. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, just such a proposal to allow the Federal to use force to against states to keep them in the Union was resoundingly rejected, thanks to Madison. There was no doubt at all it was to be voluntary.

 

[bripat9643]

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.
.

Complete rubbish. You obviously missed all those decades of New England states threatening to secede every time they didn't get their way, beginning with whining about the election of Thomas Jefferson. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, just such a proposal to allow the Federal to use force to against states to keep them in the Union was resoundingly rejected, thanks to Madison. There was no doubt at all it was to be voluntary.

The Lincoln cult can't win on the facts, so they just flat out lie and make things up.

 

[there4eyeM]

Perpetual Union.

 

[Syriusly]

If Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union, he wouldn't have copied Buchanan's actions re Sumter; he needed a propaganda gimmick and knew trying to extort tariffs from ships entering Charleston would provoke a war. Blockading harbors is a deliberate act of war, so the claim that the South started it is pure rubbish, and no, it was about robbing the South to pay for corporate welfare programs and protectionism for northern sweat shops, had nothing to do with slavery at all; that's just rubbish dumbasses and bigots try to peddle to cover up their own thuggery.

For those in the Peanut Gallery who want the real history, they can look up the results of Buchanan's attempt to supply Sumter; the result was 4 more states seceding. When Lincoln decided to do it as well, he got what he wanted, the rest of the southern states seceding. He rejected peace, he needed to rob the South by force, and he did.

If the Confederate Slave States didn't want war- they wouldn't have fired on the Army of the United States.

And I just really don't feel too bad about the Southern slave owners being 'robbed'.

 

[Syriusly]

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.
.

Complete rubbish. You obviously missed all those decades of New England states threatening to secede every time they didn't get their way, beginning with whining about the election of Thomas Jefferson. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, just such a proposal to allow the Federal to use force to against states to keep them in the Union was resoundingly rejected, thanks to Madison. There was no doubt at all it was to be voluntary.

The Lincoln cult can't win on the facts, so they just flat out lie and make things up.

And by the "Lincoln cult" you mean the vast majority of Americans who overwhelmingly consider Lincoln to be one of the best Presidents in American History- always putting him in the top 3.
And by "Lincoln cult" you mean virtually every African American.

Meanwhile you slavery apologists continue doing what you do- trying to justify the Confederate Slave states, and the formation of the Confederacy to perpetuate slavery forever.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

In this case the reason was to protect the rights of Confederate slave owners to own human property.

That is what you slavery apologists are defending.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.

And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'

 

[bripat9643]

Perpetual Union.

Fantasy

 

[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.

The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.

And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'

Lincoln made it clear that ending slavery was not the reason he was invading Virginia.

End of story.

The U.S. Army was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina.

 

[bripat9643]

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.
.

Complete rubbish. You obviously missed all those decades of New England states threatening to secede every time they didn't get their way, beginning with whining about the election of Thomas Jefferson. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, just such a proposal to allow the Federal to use force to against states to keep them in the Union was resoundingly rejected, thanks to Madison. There was no doubt at all it was to be voluntary.

The Lincoln cult can't win on the facts, so they just flat out lie and make things up.

And by the "Lincoln cult" you mean the vast majority of Americans who overwhelmingly consider Lincoln to be one of the best Presidents in American History- always putting him in the top 3.
And by "Lincoln cult" you mean virtually every African American.

Meanwhile you slavery apologists continue doing what you do- trying to justify the Confederate Slave states, and the formation of the Confederacy to perpetuate slavery forever.

That's what 150 years of brainwashing will do. I have never "apologized" for slavery, douchebag. Accusing your critics of supporting slavery is a classic tactic for those who defend the actions of the tyrant and mass murdering dictator, Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.

And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'

Lincoln made it clear that ending slavery was not the reason he was invading Virginia.

End of story.

The U.S. Army was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina.

The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.

And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'

Which of course you defend.

Which is what you slavery apologists do.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

In this case the reason was to protect the rights of Confederate slave owners to own human property.

That is what you slavery apologists are defending.

Even if that were true, it isn't a valid justification for the mass slaughter perpetrated by Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Syriusly]

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.
.

Complete rubbish. You obviously missed all those decades of New England states threatening to secede every time they didn't get their way, beginning with whining about the election of Thomas Jefferson. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, just such a proposal to allow the Federal to use force to against states to keep them in the Union was resoundingly rejected, thanks to Madison. There was no doubt at all it was to be voluntary.

The Lincoln cult can't win on the facts, so they just flat out lie and make things up.

And by the "Lincoln cult" you mean the vast majority of Americans who overwhelmingly consider Lincoln to be one of the best Presidents in American History- always putting him in the top 3.
And by "Lincoln cult" you mean virtually every African American.

Meanwhile you slavery apologists continue doing what you do- trying to justify the Confederate Slave states, and the formation of the Confederacy to perpetuate slavery forever.

That's what 150 years of brainwashing will do. I have never "apologized" for slavery, douchebag. Accusing your critics of supporting slavery is a classic tactic for those who defend the actions of the tyrant and mass murdering dictator, Abraham Lincoln.

Everytime you defend the Confederate States you are defending slavery.

So feel good that you are defending the slave holding, mass murdering tyrants of the Confederate States, a

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.

And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'

Lincoln made it clear that ending slavery was not the reason he was invading Virginia.

End of story.

The U.S. Army was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina.

The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.

And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'

Which of course you defend.

Which is what you slavery apologists do.

Please show me where I have defended "slaver rights." Criticizing Lincoln is not synonymous with defending slavery.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

In this case the reason was to protect the rights of Confederate slave owners to own human property.

That is what you slavery apologists are defending.

Even if that were true, it isn't a valid justification for the mass slaughter perpetrated by Abraham Lincoln.

Of course- in your mind there is no justification for ending slavery.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.

And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'

Lincoln made it clear that ending slavery was not the reason he was invading Virginia.

End of story.

The U.S. Army was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina.

The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.

And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'

Which of course you defend.

Which is what you slavery apologists do.

Please show me where I have defended "slaver rights." Criticizing Lincoln is not synonymous with defending slavery.

Everytime you defend the Confederate Slave States- you defend slaver rights.

 

[there4eyeM]

All the states signed on to Perpetual Union. That is absolute, incontrovertible fact. Why would they have done that? Did they not understand the word, the concept, the gravity? Were they too stupid?
Or, did someone "make it up"?

 

[August West]

All the states signed on to Perpetual Union. That is absolute, incontrovertible fact. Why would they have done that? Did they not understand the word, the concept, the gravity? Were they too stupid?
Or, did someone "make it up"?

How many southern cities didn`t have statues of Washington, Jefferson etc. ? They considered themselves to be citizens of the United States, not some make believe thing called a confederacy.