Lincoln was a great leader exclusive of the war, darn him

[Contumacious]

Take your history revision and shove it. The question of the legality of secession was settled the minute the confederacy opened up on Fort Sumter. Such a hostile expansionist nation could not be allowed to share the same continent with the United States. If they had been interested in peaceful co-existence and sticking to their borders maybe things would have ended up different but the South had dreams of conquest West and further South that could not be allowed to go forward. Bleeding Kansas was still a fresh example of how far the slavers were willing to go to expand their way of life.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


Explain away.


.

 

[occupied]

Take your history revision and shove it. The question of the legality of secession was settled the minute the confederacy opened up on Fort Sumter. Such a hostile expansionist nation could not be allowed to share the same continent with the United States. If they had been interested in peaceful co-existence and sticking to their borders maybe things would have ended up different but the South had dreams of conquest West and further South that could not be allowed to go forward. Bleeding Kansas was still a fresh example of how far the slavers were willing to go to expand their way of life.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


Explain away.


.

I was responding to the overly long post by gipper on the last page where the poor little south was just minding it's own business when the the North decided to beat them up for no good reason. For some reason his post would not quote right so I edited it out.

 

[gipper]

Take your history revision and shove it. The question of the legality of secession was settled the minute the confederacy opened up on Fort Sumter. Such a hostile expansionist nation could not be allowed to share the same continent with the United States. If they had been interested in peaceful co-existence and sticking to their borders maybe things would have ended up different but the South had dreams of conquest West and further South that could not be allowed to go forward. Bleeding Kansas was still a fresh example of how far the slavers were willing to go to expand their way of life.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


Explain away.


.

I was responding to the overly long post by gipper on the last page where the poor little south was just minding it's own business when the the North decided to beat them up for no good reason. For some reason his post would not quote right so I edited it out.

Too bad you did not read my post.

It clearly informs the reader that secession was always an option available to the States. It also informs that the South tried to peacefully secede, but Lincoln more or less told them to fuck themselves.

An Jake claiming since the Constitution does not provide for secession, means secession is unlawful, is proof he does not understand the Constitution. Does it not?

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln could have quarantined the seceding States without calling for an invasion. In that event Virginia would never have joined the Confederacy, which would have ultimately collapsed. In the mean time Congress would have been able to restrict the expansion of slavery, which would have died out within 20 years.

Was it worth 600,000 lives to move up this time line?

The time line was not an issue at all.

The problem, like Emily and others on the far right today, was the unwillingness to submit to constitutional, electoral process.

What "constitutional, electoral process?" Nobody can point to a document that lays out this "process."

 

[occupied]

Take your history revision and shove it. The question of the legality of secession was settled the minute the confederacy opened up on Fort Sumter. Such a hostile expansionist nation could not be allowed to share the same continent with the United States. If they had been interested in peaceful co-existence and sticking to their borders maybe things would have ended up different but the South had dreams of conquest West and further South that could not be allowed to go forward. Bleeding Kansas was still a fresh example of how far the slavers were willing to go to expand their way of life.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


Explain away.


.

I was responding to the overly long post by gipper on the last page where the poor little south was just minding it's own business when the the North decided to beat them up for no good reason. For some reason his post would not quote right so I edited it out.

Too bad you did not read my post.

It clearly informs the reader that secession was always an option available to the States. It also informs that the South tried to peacefully secede, but Lincoln more or less told them to fuck themselves.

An Jake claiming since the Constitution does not provide for secession, means secession is unlawful, is proof he does not understand the Constitution. Does it not?

I didn't read it because I have heard it all before. Secession might have been allowed had the South not acted so hostile and provocative. From Nov. 1860 up to Ft Sumter in April 1861 the South went on a rampage of seizing federal property and private property belonging to Northerners. They seized forts and imprisoned union troops as well as engaging in a campaign of espionage against the north. They made it clear from day one that they intended to be expansionist and had no interest in being good neighbors. They wanted the West and they ultimately wanted South America as possessions and a place to sell excess slaves and were willing to fight the North to have their way. No union troops were called up until after the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the federal government pretty much did nothing until then.

The South could have possibly kept their independence but they had to be boastful, violent hillbillies bent on taking what they coveted by force. In short, they became a rogue state and therefore could not be allowed to exist.

 

[bripat9643]

I can't imagine a more powerful state than one that sanctions people to be bought and sold like hogs or cattle.

How about one that orders 850 K people to their deaths, and they're all citizens of that state?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gipper and Conty have had their faces and arguments rubbed in the mud, so it has been a good 24 hours.

No where in law did it state the states had any right to secede, and when it was tried by force of arms, they were executed and then resurrected.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I can't imagine a more powerful state than one that sanctions people to be bought and sold like hogs or cattle.

How about one that orders 850 K people to their deaths, and they're all citizens of that state?

Yes, the CSA was awful, was it not, for bringing that about.

 

[bripat9643]

I can't imagine a more powerful state than one that sanctions people to be bought and sold like hogs or cattle.

How about one that orders 850 K people to their deaths, and they're all citizens of that state?

Yes, the CSA was awful, was it not, for bringing that about.

Lincoln brought it about. He ordered 75,000 troops to invade Virginia. The South didn't invade Maryland, dumbshit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I can't imagine a more powerful state than one that sanctions people to be bought and sold like hogs or cattle.

How about one that orders 850 K people to their deaths, and they're all citizens of that state?

Yes, the CSA was awful, was it not, for bringing that about.

Lincoln brought it about. He ordered 75,000 troops to invade Virginia. The South didn't invade Maryland, dumbshit.

No, AL ordered the mobilization of 75,000 troops then VA seceded.

 

[bripat9643]

I can't imagine a more powerful state than one that sanctions people to be bought and sold like hogs or cattle.

How about one that orders 850 K people to their deaths, and they're all citizens of that state?

Yes, the CSA was awful, was it not, for bringing that about.

Lincoln brought it about. He ordered 75,000 troops to invade Virginia. The South didn't invade Maryland, dumbshit.

No, AL ordered the mobilization of 75,000 troops then VA seceded.

Yep. In other words he had no justification. He didn't even have the authority under the Constitution. Secession is not a justification for waging war on a state.

 

[bripat9643]

And no, Lincoln didn't propose the Corwin Amendment. For chrissakes, your facts are so fucked up, gimpy.

ROFL! Yeah, he kept his finger prints off of it, but it was his idea.

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln could have quarantined the seceding States without calling for an invasion. In that event Virginia would never have joined the Confederacy, which would have ultimately collapsed. In the mean time Congress would have been able to restrict the expansion of slavery, which would have died out within 20 years.

Was it worth 600,000 lives to move up this time line?

The time line was not an issue at all.

The problem, like Emily and others on the far right today, was the unwillingness to submit to constitutional, electoral process.

Explain?

The South lost the election of 1860 and refused to submit to constitutional, electoral process.

And they chose to secede, which was their right.

Correct. However, they had no right to fire upon or seize federal property. Instead of invading the South, Lincoln could have demanded reparations and used a naval blockade to enforce it.

They had every right to fire on it. The Fort was within the boundaries of South Carolina. That's all the justification required.

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln could have quarantined the seceding States without calling for an invasion. In that event Virginia would never have joined the Confederacy, which would have ultimately collapsed. In the mean time Congress would have been able to restrict the expansion of slavery, which would have died out within 20 years.

Was it worth 600,000 lives to move up this time line?

The time line was not an issue at all.

The problem, like Emily and others on the far right today, was the unwillingness to submit to constitutional, electoral process.

Explain?

The South lost the election of 1860 and refused to submit to constitutional, electoral process.

And they chose to secede, which was their right.

No, it was not, anymore than a portion of the population today can 'secede'.

That's only because Lincoln made it clear the federal government will slaughter you if you try.

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln could have quarantined the seceding States without calling for an invasion. In that event Virginia would never have joined the Confederacy, which would have ultimately collapsed. In the mean time Congress would have been able to restrict the expansion of slavery, which would have died out within 20 years.

Was it worth 600,000 lives to move up this time line?

The time line was not an issue at all.

The problem, like Emily and others on the far right today, was the unwillingness to submit to constitutional, electoral process.

Explain?

The South lost the election of 1860 and refused to submit to constitutional, electoral process.

And they chose to secede, which was their right.

Correct. However, they had no right to fire upon or seize federal property. Instead of invading the South, Lincoln could have demanded reparations and used a naval blockade to enforce it.

Reparations for what? The Confederate states offered to pay for the federal property within their boundaries and they offered to accept their share of the federal debt.

 

[bripat9643]

Recommended reading for the neoconfederates (ha! Like they would ever...) ...for those who are following and want to learn more about Lincoln.

His Cooper Union speech was especially good.

The Lincoln Douglas debates also really give a great insight into how his mind worked. Stop reading out-of-context snippets - read the whole thing. The man could speak!

a snippet, of the Copper Union Speech:

"But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism?

Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new.

True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty"; but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live."

Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations."

==============

One more snip:

"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events."

Cooper Union speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

February 1860. More than a year before the south would fire the first shots of the war.

All that shows is that Lincoln opposed extending slavery to new states. He calls them "territory," but once they are admitted as states, they are no longer territory. Of course, Lincoln doesn't say a thing about abolishing slavery in states where it already exists.

 

[bripat9643]

But let's hear from him:

"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."


Oh wait a minute! That's not Lincoln







That's Robert E. Lee!

Yeah, so what? Who made Robert E. Lee the final authority on that issue?

. . . and if the Cotton States shall become satisfied that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless; and we do not see how one party can have a right to do what another party has a right to prevent. We must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union and nullify or defy the laws thereof: to withdraw from the Union is quite another matter. And whenever a considerable section of our Union shall deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures designed to keep it in. We hope never to live in a republic, whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets.

- Horace Greely -​

 

[gipper]

Take your history revision and shove it. The question of the legality of secession was settled the minute the confederacy opened up on Fort Sumter. Such a hostile expansionist nation could not be allowed to share the same continent with the United States. If they had been interested in peaceful co-existence and sticking to their borders maybe things would have ended up different but the South had dreams of conquest West and further South that could not be allowed to go forward. Bleeding Kansas was still a fresh example of how far the slavers were willing to go to expand their way of life.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


Explain away.


.

I was responding to the overly long post by gipper on the last page where the poor little south was just minding it's own business when the the North decided to beat them up for no good reason. For some reason his post would not quote right so I edited it out.

Too bad you did not read my post.

It clearly informs the reader that secession was always an option available to the States. It also informs that the South tried to peacefully secede, but Lincoln more or less told them to fuck themselves.

An Jake claiming since the Constitution does not provide for secession, means secession is unlawful, is proof he does not understand the Constitution. Does it not?

I didn't read it because I have heard it all before. Secession might have been allowed had the South not acted so hostile and provocative. From Nov. 1860 up to Ft Sumter in April 1861 the South went on a rampage of seizing federal property and private property belonging to Northerners. They seized forts and imprisoned union troops as well as engaging in a campaign of espionage against the north. They made it clear from day one that they intended to be expansionist and had no interest in being good neighbors. They wanted the West and they ultimately wanted South America as possessions and a place to sell excess slaves and were willing to fight the North to have their way. No union troops were called up until after the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the federal government pretty much did nothing until then.

The South could have possibly kept their independence but they had to be boastful, violent hillbillies bent on taking what they coveted by force. In short, they became a rogue state and therefore could not be allowed to exist.

The one who was violent and bent on using force was your beloved god like figure, Dishonest Abe...a confirmed white supremest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The time line was not an issue at all.

The problem, like Emily and others on the far right today, was the unwillingness to submit to constitutional, electoral process.

Explain?

The South lost the election of 1860 and refused to submit to constitutional, electoral process.

And they chose to secede, which was their right.

Correct. However, they had no right to fire upon or seize federal property. Instead of invading the South, Lincoln could have demanded reparations and used a naval blockade to enforce it.

They had every right to fire on it. The Fort was within the boundaries of South Carolina. That's all the justification required.

Only in your diseased mind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The time line was not an issue at all.

The problem, like Emily and others on the far right today, was the unwillingness to submit to constitutional, electoral process.

Explain?

The South lost the election of 1860 and refused to submit to constitutional, electoral process.

And they chose to secede, which was their right.

No, it was not, anymore than a portion of the population today can 'secede'.

That's only because Lincoln made it clear the federal government will slaughter you if you try.

That is the law and the law is backed by the force of government.