...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[Kalam]

Kalam, the North was not "a moral and principled bastion," but it did fight against Southern aggression, rightfully so.

States withdrew from the Union peacefully and formed a new nation. US forces refused to vacate the territory of the Confederate States when asked to do so; this was a casus belli as far as the South was concerned.

 

[JBeukema]

Kalam, the North was not "a moral and principled bastion," but it did fight against Southern aggression, rightfully so.

States withdrew from the Union peacefully and formed a new nation. US forces refused to vacate the territory of the Confederate States when asked to do so; this was a casus belli as far as the South was concerned.

Like when the Redcoats wouldn't leave Boston?

 

[JWBooth]

Well, Kevin states that we owe nothing to those that fought in WW2, because it was an unjust war on our part. So take what he says concerning the Civil War in light of that.

Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.

My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Note on the Gettysburg Address[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]by H.L. Mencken[/FONT]​

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.[/FONT]​

 

[paperview]

"[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif] It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves."

Yes, and the self determination to own people.

Fully one-third of those southerners were disallowed by those same confederates to not only govern themselves, but own their own bodies.

Some noble-ass fight for self-determination, wasn't it?
[/FONT]

 

[paperview]

Not having been there I have no idea what they thought about the possibility of war. I will point out that Virginia did not actually secede until war actually started, and did it more in protest of that action than out for any other reason. Maybe most people actually thought there was another way to solve the differences between the states, and war was more of a surprise than an inevitability.

Maybe. But I would imagine most states on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line knew a war was inevitable....we'll never know.

True. Read any papers of the day at the time. The secession bubble had been building for a years and years before. Hell, in 1850 SC threatened to seceded and in 1852, a convention was held and secession was laid out.

It was positively inevitable. Lincoln, of the new anti-slavery party being elected, was the final straw.

 

[paperview]

So many errors in your posts.

...

Lincoln fired the first shot.

No, he didn't. You may consider he agitated, but he did not fire the first shot.

He proposed an amendment that would have made slavery legal, and up to the states, and and worded in such a way as to make it permanent. His home state of Illinois was the first state to ratify it, but the war escalated before others could sign it.

He did not propose that amendment. He wasn't even president when it was proposed and Illinois was not the first state to ratify it. It wasn't even the second.

Compare the number of slaves received in to northern ports to the number received in to southern ports.

Huh? Importation of slaves was abolished in 1808. What was your point with this comment?

Etched in stone, at the Lincoln Memorial, is his own words that say that his primary goal was to restore the Union.

"If I could free all the slaves and preserve the Union I would do that. If I could free none of the slaves and preserve the Union I would do that. If I could free some slaves and leave others is place and save the Union, I would do that also."

That isn't etched in stone in the Lincoln Memorial.

His second inaugural address and the Gettysburg Address is.
Suggest you read what really is etched in stone there:
Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

"...Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"

If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time,

He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.

Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether'

With malice toward none; with charity for all..."
​

 

[paperview]

lincoln never freed a single slave

He most certainly did. Some were free from the very first day of the EP.

Estimates of the number of slaves freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation are uncertain. But "a contemporary estimate put the 'contraband' population of Union-occupied North Carolina at 10,000, and the Sea Islands of South Carolina also had a substantial population. It seems likely therefore that at least 20,000 slaves were freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation."
[Keith Poulter, "Slaves Immediately Freed by the Emancipation Proclamation" North & South vol. 5 no. 1 (December 2001), p. 48]\


This Union-occupied zone where freedom began at once included "areas in eastern North Carolina, the Mississippi Valley . . . the Tennessee Valley of northern Alabama, the Shenandoah Valley, a large region of Arkansas, and the Sea Islands of Georgia and South Carolina"

Although some counties of Union-occupied Virginia were exempted from the Proclamation, "the lower Shenandoah Valley, and the area around Alexandria" were not.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation#cite_note-SIFBEP-1
Booker T. Washington, as a boy of 9 in Virginia, remembered the day in early 1865: [ Harris, "After the Emancipation Proclamation", p. 45]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation#cite_note-19

As the great day drew nearer, there was more singing in the slave quarters than usual. It was bolder, had more ring, and lasted later into the night. Most of the verses of the plantation songs had some reference to freedom.... Some man who seemed to be a stranger (a United States officer, I presume) made a little speech and then read a rather long paper—the Emancipation Proclamation, I think. After the reading we were told that we were all free, and could go when and where we pleased. My mother, who was standing by my side, leaned over and kissed her children, while tears of joy ran down her cheeks. She explained to us what it all meant, that this was the day for which she had been so long praying, but fearing that she would never live to see.
​

Also, Lincoln's signature rested not only on the Emancipation Proclamation, but on the 13th Amendment Resolution.
He was not even required to place his signature there, yet he did.

 

[paperview]

you do realize that free black men in the south were slave owners right

Very few. Most who did (and some were women) were mulatto.

Still, regardless, after Lincoln's Emancipation, ALL FREE BLACKS WERE DECLARED SLAVES BY JEFFERSON DAVIS.



In a broadside dated January 5, 1863, and published at Richmond ---> an image of that broadside: ---->http://international.loc.gov/rbc/rbpe/rbpe18/rbpe187/18702100/001dr.jpg

"An Address To the People of the Free States by the President of the Southern Confederacy..."

"...all free Negroes in the Southern Confederacy shall be placed on the slave status, and deemed to be chattels, they and their issue forever."

So EVEN THOSE FREE BLACKS "WHO WERE SLAVE OWNERS"
AFTER 1863 WERE NO LONGER FREE!

Even their children and children's children were bonded into slavery FOREVER!

 

[Old Rocks]

Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.

My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.

Is that what they tell you up there? That the north was a moral and principled bastion against Southern barbarity? That you were dragged into war by Southern aggression and a moral obligation to end slavery?

No, that is what history tells us. By depending on slavery, the south never developed a strong middle class. And slavery is second only to genocide in the pantheon of man's sins against man.

By failing to have a middle class, the south never developed either industry, nor schools that were for all citizens. Their society was one of the elite, the poor, and slaves. The elite were educated, if they desired to be so, the poor were semi-literate, at best, and the slaves were punished if caught trying to learn to read. That was the southern society at the time of the rebellion.

Had the South succeeded in balkenizing the North American continent, the nation that you enjoy would not exist today. The United States are just that, a war was fought and won to maintain this nation, and to make it a more just nation.

 

[editec]

They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.

And a mountain is just like a molehill because they're both made of dirt.

 

[paperview]

They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.

And a mountain is just like a molehill because they're both made of dirt.

Yep...and to rip a little off of ole Twain, they are about as similar as lightning and a lightening bug.

 

[paperview]

Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.

My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.

Is that what they tell you up there? That the north was a moral and principled bastion against Southern barbarity? That you were dragged into war by Southern aggression and a moral obligation to end slavery?

No, that is what history tells us. By depending on slavery, the south never developed a strong middle class. And slavery is second only to genocide in the pantheon of man's sins against man.

By failing to have a middle class, the south never developed either industry, nor schools that were for all citizens. Their society was one of the elite, the poor, and slaves. The elite were educated, if they desired to be so, the poor were semi-literate, at best, and the slaves were punished if caught trying to learn to read. That was the southern society at the time of the rebellion.

Had the South succeeded in balkenizing the North American continent, the nation that you enjoy would not exist today. The United States are just that, a war was fought and won to maintain this nation, and to make it a more just nation.

It always amazes me - the people who point to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to find justification for secession, are the same folks who discard the phrase "all men are created equal" and fought hard to uphold the right to legally hold human beings in bondage.

 

[paperview]

Who instigated that shot?

The South by demanding that the US Army surrender a US fort.

That would be incorrect. Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.

Kevin, if for example, Kentucky decided it wanted to secede, could it just take over Fort Knox and take it as its own, simply because it resides in Kentucky?

 

[paperview]

Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.

My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.

Is that what they tell you up there? That the north was a moral and principled bastion against Southern barbarity? That you were dragged into war by Southern aggression and a moral obligation to end slavery?

The North had its flaws as well, but most of the Northern states had long before abolished slavery, most northern states abolished it in the 18th Century.

"The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North..."

This was written January 1861. Do you know where it came from?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.

My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.

Is that what they tell you up there? That the north was a moral and principled bastion against Southern barbarity? That you were dragged into war by Southern aggression and a moral obligation to end slavery?

The North had its flaws as well, but most of the Northern states had long before abolished slavery, most northern states abolished it in the 18th Century.

"The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North..."

This was written January 1861. Do you know where it came from?

The tone and mood of the sentence, the dating of the sentence, and the context of this discussion ~ all lead me to think that it must be from one of the secession ordinances of one of the states.

 

[paperview]

Is that what they tell you up there? That the north was a moral and principled bastion against Southern barbarity? That you were dragged into war by Southern aggression and a moral obligation to end slavery?

The North had its flaws as well, but most of the Northern states had long before abolished slavery, most northern states abolished it in the 18th Century.

"The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North..."

This was written January 1861. Do you know where it came from?

The tone and mood of the sentence, the dating of the sentence, and the context of this discussion ~ all lead me to think that it must be from one of the secession ordinances of one of the states.

You are correct, Sir.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Georgia Secession

Georgia Secesh Document.

This is also in there this part: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."

Pretty much a fuck-you to those who say Lincoln didn't give a shit about slavery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The nay-sayers, very limited in their education on this topic, for starters, do not know the difference between "anti-slavery" and "abolition." I know they don't understand the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

We are all indebted to Paperview's skill in this area.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The South by demanding that the US Army surrender a US fort.

That would be incorrect. Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.

Kevin, if for example, Kentucky decided it wanted to secede, could it just take over Fort Knox and take it as its own, simply because it resides in Kentucky?

With the precedent of the Civil War guiding the federal government it'd be more likely that Kentucky would be invaded and placed under martial law. However, if the federal government were willing to acknowledge Kentucky's right to leave the Union a mutual agreement could be discussed regarding Fort Knox. Obviously the building itself would likely go to Kentucky, unless Kentucky chose to allow the Union to remain there for whatever reason. You forget that the Confederates tried to peacefully discuss paying their portion of the national debt and buying all federal property within their borders, but Lincoln refused to even meet with them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kevin, the confeds grabbed fed properties wherever they could before offering to pay for them. Your problem is that you believe that a state is equal to the national government. When a state ratified the Constitution or later joined the union, it gave up its own sovereignty and adopted the principles of federalism. No where in the Constitution is a state granted the right to secession whereas Section I 8: 16 clearly gives the national government precedence over the states. The tail cannot wag the dog.

 

[JBeukema]

"[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif] It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves."

Yes, and the self determination to own people.

Fully one-third of those southerners were disallowed by those same confederates to not only govern themselves, but own their own bodies.

Some noble-ass fight for self-determination, wasn't it?
[/FONT]

Yep. One hell of a fight against slavery, wasn't it?

Tell me what proclamation Lincoln gave to free the slaves in the Union.