Civil War Facts

[Unkotare]

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?

That didn’t happen.

 

[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. 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.

There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

That didn’t happen.

It sure as hell did.

 

[August West]

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?

Slaughtering innocent people in Vietnam and Iraq was immoral. You got one right skippy.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.

You fail History - AGAIN.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Slaughtering innocent people in Vietnam and Iraq was immoral. You got one right skippy.

I was just about to ask you nitwits if you thought slaughtering civilians in Vietnam was moral. How about Germany and Japan, for that matter. Was bombing Dresden moral? Fire bombing Tokyo?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.

You fail History - AGAIN.

No, you do.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.

Those in Ft Sumter beg to differ

Our flag was fired upon

 

[Unkotare]

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.

There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.

You fail History - AGAIN.

No, you do.

I’ve taught History for more than 20 years. How about you, big mouth?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.

Those in Ft Sumter beg to differ

Our flag was fired upon

Who cares what the trespassers in Ft Sumter have to say about it? Of course, you don't have a clue what they would say.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.

You fail History - AGAIN.

No, you do.

I’ve taught History for more than 20 years. How about you, big mouth?

You mean you have spewed propaganda for 20 years

 

[Unkotare]

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.

There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.

You fail History - AGAIN.

No, you do.

I’ve taught History for more than 20 years. How about you, big mouth?

You mean you have spewed propaganda for 20 years

No you ignorant dropout, that’s not what I mean.

 

[Picaro]

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.

Pure ignorance here. The South had already won all the SC battles over slavery, no reason to secede over that. Even all of the major newspapers of the day knew it was over tariffs, not slavery, and the Republicans ran on keeping black people in the south and not on freeing slaves.

 

[Picaro]

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?

Plus another 700,000 to a million of those 'slaves' they were allegedly 'freeing'.

 

[Syriusly]

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."​

Lincoln was not a 'white supremacist'- he was a racist. LIke virtually everyone in the Republican Party at the time. Along with virtually everyone in the Democratic Party.
Most abolitionists were racists too.

But Lincoln was most certainly an abolitionist- but a very pragmatic one. Which is of course why the Confederates rebelled against the United States when he was elected- over fear that he would enact abolitionist policies.

Lincoln declared his opposition to slavery, which he repeated in his route to presidency.[14] Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice,[15] he said the Kansas Act had a "declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world..

You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes."

Lincoln wrote that the 'only substantial difference' between North and South was that 'You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.'

 

[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.

Pure ignorance here. The South had already won all the SC battles over slavery, no reason to secede over that. Even all of the major newspapers of the day knew it was over tariffs, not slavery, and the Republicans ran on keeping black people in the south and not on freeing slaves.

Pure revisionist history here.

The Republicans ran on restricting the expansion of slavery.
Republican Party Platform of 1860 - Teaching American History

The seceding states were very clear that they were seceding to protect slavery rights- I know you have seen this before but always good to refute your revisionism
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union - Teaching American History
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

Do I need to post the other states with similar announcements as to the causes of secession?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

How moral was starting a civil war, resulting in the deaths of 850,000 innocent people, just to protect the right to own 3,000,000 slaves?

 

[bripat9643]

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."​

Lincoln was not a 'white supremacist'- he was a racist. LIke virtually everyone in the Republican Party at the time. Along with virtually everyone in the Democratic Party.
Most abolitionists were racists too.

But Lincoln was most certainly an abolitionist- but a very pragmatic one. Which is of course why the Confederates rebelled against the United States when he was elected- over fear that he would enact abolitionist policies.

Lincoln declared his opposition to slavery, which he repeated in his route to presidency.[14] Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice,[15] he said the Kansas Act had a "declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world..

You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes."

Lincoln wrote that the 'only substantial difference' between North and South was that 'You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.'

You can be opposed to slavery and still be a white supremacist. There's no doubt that Lincoln was the later:

“Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of them” (CW, Vol. II, p. 256).


“What I would most desire,” Abraham Lincoln also declared, “would be the separation of the white and black races” (CW, Vol. II, p. 521). And, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position” (CW, Vol. III, p. 16).

“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold [political] office, nor to intermarry with white people,”​

CW - Lincoln's collected work.

However, Lincoln made it plain time and time again that he was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery. He was even willing to enshrine it permanently into the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

How moral was starting a civil war, resulting in the deaths of 850,000 innocent people, just to protect the right to own 3,000,000 slaves?

Lincoln started the Civil War, moron.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.

That is what you slavery apologists keep saying.

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.