Civil War Facts

[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.

The US army was trespassing on their territory. They were legally entitled to attack them.

It doesn't matter what reason the Confederate states stated, there was no law saying they couldn't secede, and the bottom line is that Lincoln stated quite plainly that he didn't invade Virginia to end slavery. He didn't give a damn about slavery.

Your claim that South Carolina started the war is therefore absurd.

I have never apologized for slavery, so that means you're a sleazy lying douchebag.

 

[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.

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

Wrong, asshole. Your syllogism does not compute.

I know that's what you want people to believe because you know all your arguments are pure horseshit, but intelligent people aren't swallowing it. Only sleazy lying douchebags like you believe it.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There is justification for ending it, but slaughtering 850,000 people isn't a legitimate means of ending it.

 

[bripat9643]

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"?

The Articles of Confederation became null and void the minute the Constitution was adopted.

Why should anyone believe this one phrase is still in force when the rest of the document no longer is? Do you believe the citizens of the various states shouldn't have to pay taxes to the federal government? Do you believe the federal government shouldn't be able to raise an army?

Do you really think about the stupid shit you post?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Virginians considered themselves to be citizens of Virginia.

 

[Bezukhov]

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?

I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.

 

[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?

I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.

Morals change over time. Your opinions are irrelevant.

The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.

 

[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.

The US army was trespassing on their territory. They were legally entitled to attack them.

It doesn't matter what reason the Confederate states stated, there was no law saying they couldn't secede, and the bottom line is that Lincoln stated quite plainly that he didn't invade Virginia to end slavery. He didn't give a damn about slavery.

Your claim that South Carolina started the war is therefore absurd.

I have never apologized for slavery, so that means you're a sleazy lying douchebag.

On December 17, 1836, South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States.[7]- so no- the U.S. Army was not trespassing.
The rebel slave states fired on the troops of the U.S. Army- officially starting the war.
Of course to you slavery apologists it doesn't matter that the Confederate States rebelled to preserve their rights to own humans.

And of course Lincoln, after the troops of the United States were attacked, did not invade to free the slaves.
But it is a lie that Lincoln didn't care about slaves or slavery- Lincoln himself was a life long abolitionist- but he was a pragmatic abolitionist- he was willing to endure slavery in order to preserve the Union- unlike the Confederacy who tried to destroy the Union in order to preserve slavery.

The North didn't go to war to end slavery, but the South went to war to protect their slave rights.

You apologize for the Confederate slave states every time your defend the Confederate actions.

 

[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?

I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.

Morals change over time. Your opinions are irrelevant.

The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.

The bottom line is the war started when the Confederate Slave states fired on American troops.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

There is justification for ending it, but slaughtering 850,000 people isn't a legitimate means of ending it.

Unfortunately the Confederate Slave states didn't realize that their attack on Americans would cause the deaths of 850,000 people.

I wonder- exactly how many deaths are legitimate for ending the slavery of 3,953,762 Americans?

I am guessing for you it is zero. That if a single white person was going to be harmed by freeing 3,953,762 Americans from slavery that would be one too many.

 

[Bezukhov]

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?

I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.

Morals change over time. Your opinions are irrelevant.

The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.

Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?

 

[Unkotare]

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?

I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.

Morals change over time. ....

No, they don’t.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The US army was trespassing on their territory. They were legally entitled to attack them.

It doesn't matter what reason the Confederate states stated, there was no law saying they couldn't secede, and the bottom line is that Lincoln stated quite plainly that he didn't invade Virginia to end slavery. He didn't give a damn about slavery.

Your claim that South Carolina started the war is therefore absurd.

I have never apologized for slavery, so that means you're a sleazy lying douchebag.

On December 17, 1836, South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States.[7]- so no- the U.S. Army was not trespassing.
The rebel slave states fired on the troops of the U.S. Army- officially starting the war.
Of course to you slavery apologists it doesn't matter that the Confederate States rebelled to preserve their rights to own humans.

And of course Lincoln, after the troops of the United States were attacked, did not invade to free the slaves.
But it is a lie that Lincoln didn't care about slaves or slavery- Lincoln himself was a life long abolitionist- but he was a pragmatic abolitionist- he was willing to endure slavery in order to preserve the Union- unlike the Confederacy who tried to destroy the Union in order to preserve slavery.

The North didn't go to war to end slavery, but the South went to war to protect their slave rights.

You apologize for the Confederate slave states every time your defend the Confederate actions.

South Carolina ceded the property to the Federal government, but it legal jurisdiction over the property. Ft Sumter was still part of South Carolina, and federal troops were trespassing. They got what they deserved: eviction.

Lincoln was a white supremacist. He certainly was no abolitionist:

"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...."

"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."

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."​

 

[Unkotare]

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?

I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.

....

The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.

Wrong, wannabe. Your idiotic attempt at revision only makes you look more and more like the fool you are.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.

Morals change over time. ....

No, they don’t.

Only a moron would say something that stupid.

 

[Unkotare]

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?

I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.

Morals change over time. ....

No, they don’t.

Only a moron would say something that stupid.

Only someone who understands what “morality” is.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.

Morals change over time. Your opinions are irrelevant.

The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.

Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?

How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War? How "moral" is slaughtering 850,000 innocent men, women and children?

 

[bripat9643]

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

I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.

Morals change over time. ....

No, they don’t.

Only a moron would say something that stupid.

Only someone who understands what “morality” is.

How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.

Morals change over time. Your opinions are irrelevant.

The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.

The bottom line is the war started when the Confederate Slave states fired on American troops.

Wrong.

 

[Unkotare]

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?

I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.

Morals change over time. Your opinions are irrelevant.

The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.

Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?

How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War? ....?

There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.