Happy Birthday, Jefferson Davis

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Or maybe we could look at what Lincoln actually said instead.

"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."

Lincoln only "freed" the slaves because he wanted to undermine the Confederacy. The border states weren't in the Confederacy, thus no reason to free their slaves.

I really don't understand this obsession southerners have with trying to claim there was some noble cause by the Civil War. Southerners were afraid Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress were going to end slavery, so they took up arms to protect their "right" to own other human beings like sacks of potatoes. Instead of acknowledging this fact, you try to claim Lincoln was secretly pro-slavery because he didn't say "Yeah, let's go ahead and let these rebels win by giving them a big chunk of additional territory".

Of course not! This has to be the result of the lack of American History taught in our public schools. When you get an education and can discuss the Civil War with some degree of knowledge come back. In the meantime, God Bless Jefferson Davis.

I met an honors student from a local high school equally as ignorant. She said the Hitler was a bad man who hated black people and that's why there was a WWII.

Same thing.

Polk is actually a valued poster on this board, and very well informed. Disagreements are no cause for rudeness.

 

[Katzndogz]

I really don't understand this obsession southerners have with trying to claim there was some noble cause by the Civil War. Southerners were afraid Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress were going to end slavery, so they took up arms to protect their "right" to own other human beings like sacks of potatoes. Instead of acknowledging this fact, you try to claim Lincoln was secretly pro-slavery because he didn't say "Yeah, let's go ahead and let these rebels win by giving them a big chunk of additional territory".

Of course not! This has to be the result of the lack of American History taught in our public schools. When you get an education and can discuss the Civil War with some degree of knowledge come back. In the meantime, God Bless Jefferson Davis.

I met an honors student from a local high school equally as ignorant. She said the Hitler was a bad man who hated black people and that's why there was a WWII.

Same thing.

I can discuss the conflict in great detail. The problem is that you and your fellow southern apologists don't want to look like racist kooks, so you come up with moronic arguments for why the war was secretly about something else.

The reasons for the Civil War was never a secret.

The top five very unsecret reasons for the civil war.

Top Five Causes of the Civil War

 

[Polk]

He argued against secession as a Senator from Mississippi, but believed that the right to secession was natural and constitutional so he went along with his state. As to being a traitor, well, I suppose he was a traitor in the same sense that Samuel Adams or Thomas Jefferson were traitors to King George. As to the war leading to 600,000+ deaths, I suppose you should look at who actually wanted the war. That would be Lincoln, not Davis. Davis wanted to secede peacefully, whereas Lincoln was intent on forcing them back into the Union.

The rebels started the conflict by their attack on Fort Sumter.

Which was provoked by Lincoln.

"Provoked" in the sense that I'd be "provoking" you if you broke in to my house and tried to steal my television.

 

[Polk]

I really don't understand this obsession southerners have with trying to claim there was some noble cause by the Civil War. Southerners were afraid Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress were going to end slavery, so they took up arms to protect their "right" to own other human beings like sacks of potatoes. Instead of acknowledging this fact, you try to claim Lincoln was secretly pro-slavery because he didn't say "Yeah, let's go ahead and let these rebels win by giving them a big chunk of additional territory".

Of course not! This has to be the result of the lack of American History taught in our public schools. When you get an education and can discuss the Civil War with some degree of knowledge come back. In the meantime, God Bless Jefferson Davis.

I met an honors student from a local high school equally as ignorant. She said the Hitler was a bad man who hated black people and that's why there was a WWII.

Same thing.

Polk is actually a valued poster on this board, and very well informed. Disagreements are no cause for rudeness.

Thank you, that's very nice of you to say. I don't agree with much you have to say, but I always enjoy our discussions.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The rebels started the conflict by their attack on Fort Sumter.

Which was provoked by Lincoln.

"Provoked" in the sense that I'd be "provoking" you if you broke in to my house and tried to steal my television.

No, as in provoked as if there were a dispute regarding a television and I simply took it and thumbed my nose at you.

 

[Polk]

Of course not! This has to be the result of the lack of American History taught in our public schools. When you get an education and can discuss the Civil War with some degree of knowledge come back. In the meantime, God Bless Jefferson Davis.

I met an honors student from a local high school equally as ignorant. She said the Hitler was a bad man who hated black people and that's why there was a WWII.

Same thing.

I can discuss the conflict in great detail. The problem is that you and your fellow southern apologists don't want to look like racist kooks, so you come up with moronic arguments for why the war was secretly about something else.

The reasons for the Civil War was never a secret.

The top five very unsecret reasons for the civil war.

Top Five Causes of the Civil War

Three of five (The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents, Growth of the Abolition Movement, The election of Abraham Lincoln) directly relate to slavery, while the other two are really elements of the first one (Economic and social differences between the North and the South), which really isn't even a social difference. You may want to believe that slavery was not the cause of the war, but that requires believing disagreements over tariff rates is enough to spark a war. I'm highly skeptical of that claim, and so were people at the time.

 

[Polk]

Which was provoked by Lincoln.

"Provoked" in the sense that I'd be "provoking" you if you broke in to my house and tried to steal my television.

No, as in provoked as if there were a dispute regarding a television and I simply took it and thumbed my nose at you.

It goes back to fundamentals of property law. Thieves can never give good title.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I can discuss the conflict in great detail. The problem is that you and your fellow southern apologists don't want to look like racist kooks, so you come up with moronic arguments for why the war was secretly about something else.

The reasons for the Civil War was never a secret.

The top five very unsecret reasons for the civil war.

Top Five Causes of the Civil War

Three of five (The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents, Growth of the Abolition Movement, The election of Abraham Lincoln) directly relate to slavery, while the other two are really elements of the first one (Economic and social differences between the North and the South), which really isn't even a social difference. You may want to believe that slavery was not the cause of the war, but that requires believing disagreements over tariff rates is enough to spark a war. I'm highly skeptical of that claim, and so were people at the time.

I don't know about that. Andrew Jackson was nearly ready to go to war with South Carolina over his tariff. Though I think when it comes to tariffs, it was more the south simply being tired of fighting the issue. Tariffs would rise, then they'd go down a little bit in a never ending cycle. They ultimately just decided they'd be better off without the north trying to drag them down with tariffs, especially since Lincoln had promised much higher tariffs during the campaign. Certainly not the only issue that led them to secede, but an important one nonetheless.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"Provoked" in the sense that I'd be "provoking" you if you broke in to my house and tried to steal my television.

No, as in provoked as if there were a dispute regarding a television and I simply took it and thumbed my nose at you.

It goes back to fundamentals of property law. Thieves can never give good title.

Let's put it this way, Lincoln knew what the consequences of attempting to resupply Fort Sumter would be as it had already been attempted, yet he still went ahead with it. Why? He clearly wasn't interested in avoiding war, whereas Davis sent a delegation to Washington to try to purchase all federal property that remained in the Confederacy. Why? Obviously he was interested in avoiding a war.

We obviously disagree about who was in the right, but can we at least agree that these events clearly show Davis trying to avoid a war, whereas Lincoln was, at the least, not interested in avoiding a war?

 

[Moonglow]

wasn't Jeff caught in womens clothes while trying to ecsape?

 

[Sallow]

Jefferson Davis was born June 3, 1808, and he was the first and only President of the Confederate States of America. He believed in peace, free trade, and the American idea of self-government.

"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis

Davis was engaged in treason and insurrection.

If he really wanted to be "left alone"..he should have left the borders of the United States..found some uninhabited place..and started a new country.

That's not what he did. And he was damned lucky not to be hung.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Jefferson Davis was born June 3, 1808, and he was the first and only President of the Confederate States of America. He believed in peace, free trade, and the American idea of self-government.

"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis

Davis was engaged in treason and insurrection.

If he really wanted to be "left alone"..he should have left the borders of the United States..found some uninhabited place..and started a new country.

That's not what he did. And he was damned lucky not to be hung.

The same could then be said of Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers. If they didn't want to be under the tyranny of King George they should have left the borders and formed their own country somewhere else.

 

[Polk]

The reasons for the Civil War was never a secret.

The top five very unsecret reasons for the civil war.

Top Five Causes of the Civil War

Three of five (The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents, Growth of the Abolition Movement, The election of Abraham Lincoln) directly relate to slavery, while the other two are really elements of the first one (Economic and social differences between the North and the South), which really isn't even a social difference. You may want to believe that slavery was not the cause of the war, but that requires believing disagreements over tariff rates is enough to spark a war. I'm highly skeptical of that claim, and so were people at the time.

I don't know about that. Andrew Jackson was nearly ready to go to war with South Carolina over his tariff. Though I think when it comes to tariffs, it was more the south simply being tired of fighting the issue. Tariffs would rise, then they'd go down a little bit in a never ending cycle. They ultimately just decided they'd be better off without the north trying to drag them down with tariffs, especially since Lincoln had promised much higher tariffs during the campaign. Certainly not the only issue that led them to secede, but an important one nonetheless.

Why is it that the southerners are never accountable for their own actions? Jackson wasn't "nearly ready to go to war". South Carolina threatened revolt if they didn't get there way.

 

[Polk]

No, as in provoked as if there were a dispute regarding a television and I simply took it and thumbed my nose at you.

It goes back to fundamentals of property law. Thieves can never give good title.

Let's put it this way, Lincoln knew what the consequences of attempting to resupply Fort Sumter would be as it had already been attempted, yet he still went ahead with it. Why? He clearly wasn't interested in avoiding war, whereas Davis sent a delegation to Washington to try to purchase all federal property that remained in the Confederacy. Why? Obviously he was interested in avoiding a war.

We obviously disagree about who was in the right, but can we at least agree that these events clearly show Davis trying to avoid a war, whereas Lincoln was, at the least, not interested in avoiding a war?

No, I won't agree to that. The rebels didn't have the right to steal property then trying to whitewash it by offering to pay for what they stole.

 

[Polk]

Jefferson Davis was born June 3, 1808, and he was the first and only President of the Confederate States of America. He believed in peace, free trade, and the American idea of self-government.

"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis

Davis was engaged in treason and insurrection.

If he really wanted to be "left alone"..he should have left the borders of the United States..found some uninhabited place..and started a new country.

That's not what he did. And he was damned lucky not to be hung.

Absolutely.

 

[Polk]

Jefferson Davis was born June 3, 1808, and he was the first and only President of the Confederate States of America. He believed in peace, free trade, and the American idea of self-government.

"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis

Davis was engaged in treason and insurrection.

If he really wanted to be "left alone"..he should have left the borders of the United States..found some uninhabited place..and started a new country.

That's not what he did. And he was damned lucky not to be hung.

The same could then be said of Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers. If they didn't want to be under the tyranny of King George they should have left the borders and formed their own country somewhere else.

Personally, I don't feel that argument does much. I think you're right, but I think does more to reflect negatively on the Founding Fathers than it does to boost the status of the rebels.

 

[Sunni Man]

Jefferson Davis was a true patriot who believed in the Constitution as it was written.

Sadly, the American dream as envisioned by the Founding Fathers was forever lost when the Confederates were defeated.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Three of five (The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents, Growth of the Abolition Movement, The election of Abraham Lincoln) directly relate to slavery, while the other two are really elements of the first one (Economic and social differences between the North and the South), which really isn't even a social difference. You may want to believe that slavery was not the cause of the war, but that requires believing disagreements over tariff rates is enough to spark a war. I'm highly skeptical of that claim, and so were people at the time.

I don't know about that. Andrew Jackson was nearly ready to go to war with South Carolina over his tariff. Though I think when it comes to tariffs, it was more the south simply being tired of fighting the issue. Tariffs would rise, then they'd go down a little bit in a never ending cycle. They ultimately just decided they'd be better off without the north trying to drag them down with tariffs, especially since Lincoln had promised much higher tariffs during the campaign. Certainly not the only issue that led them to secede, but an important one nonetheless.

Why is it that the southerners are never accountable for their own actions? Jackson wasn't "nearly ready to go to war". South Carolina threatened revolt if they didn't get there way.

No, they simply nullified the tariff, which meant they weren't going to pay it. They threatened to defend themselves after Jackson threatened to invade, however.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It goes back to fundamentals of property law. Thieves can never give good title.

Let's put it this way, Lincoln knew what the consequences of attempting to resupply Fort Sumter would be as it had already been attempted, yet he still went ahead with it. Why? He clearly wasn't interested in avoiding war, whereas Davis sent a delegation to Washington to try to purchase all federal property that remained in the Confederacy. Why? Obviously he was interested in avoiding a war.

We obviously disagree about who was in the right, but can we at least agree that these events clearly show Davis trying to avoid a war, whereas Lincoln was, at the least, not interested in avoiding a war?

No, I won't agree to that. The rebels didn't have the right to steal property then trying to whitewash it by offering to pay for what they stole.

They tried to pay before the incident at Fort Sumter.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Davis was engaged in treason and insurrection.

If he really wanted to be "left alone"..he should have left the borders of the United States..found some uninhabited place..and started a new country.

That's not what he did. And he was damned lucky not to be hung.

The same could then be said of Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers. If they didn't want to be under the tyranny of King George they should have left the borders and formed their own country somewhere else.

Personally, I don't feel that argument does much. I think you're right, but I think does more to reflect negatively on the Founding Fathers than it does to boost the status of the rebels.

That's fine. All I'm trying to point out is the inconsistency. Many people call the Confederates traitors, but then they'll go out and celebrate Independence Day on July 4th. If that's what you think, then you're at least being consistent.