Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[bripat9643]

Where do they say "In Slaves We Trust?"

Every time they passed the bills to buy food and wood

and other supplies

that would

month by month

grow more and more

worthless

until

it

was

nothing.

Like the dead, worthless Confederacy you so enshrine and support.

Is this supposed to prove something? Confederate bills were just like the federal reserve notes in your wallet: backed by nothing. They also become worth less and less with each passing day.

Towards the end of the War, US Greenbacks were worth $$ -- Confederate Currency? Ha! It cost on order of about 3,000.00 greybacks to buy a suit. If you could find one.

Too bad so much of the South's wealth was tied up in Slaves. Like nearly 3 billion dollars worth. In 1860 dollars.

As I've said before :

The South seceeded because it was where literally ALL their wealth was tied up, and was the literal lifeblood that ran the heart of the engine of the south. Blackhumanblood as property.

To give you some perspective, The collective wealth tied up in those slaves was over 3 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B. Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Then dollars. Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure, Think on that.
The South was not about to give that up.

It was. About. Slavery. Preserving, protecting & expanding. Human beings as property.

Millions of these people who were *bred* as animals are -- with values in the BILLIONS.

Yes, It was. About. Slavery. Preserving, protecting & expanding. Human beings as property.

And they are *still fighting the battle----to this day, it appears. Even though they lost the war.

Lincoln spent $5.2 billion on the war, so that was a great financial move, wasn't it?

TreasuryDirect KIDS - The History of U.S. Public Debt - The Civil War 1861-1865

In 1860, the year before the American Civil War started, the U.S. Government debt was $64.8 million. Once the war began, debt grew quickly. The financial cost of the war was significant, totaling an estimated $5.2 billion.​

On top of that, Lincoln slaughtered 850,000 Americans.

That was a brilliant financial move on Lincoln's part, wasn't it?

Killed 'em! With his bare hands!

Wicked pisser those mother humpers in the south started the war, eh?

One of my beloved quotes of Lincoln, when the South was harrumphing about how if they didn't get their way they would take their marbles and go home:

"You will not abide the election of a Republican president!

In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us!

That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!'"
[Cooper - Union Speech, 1860]

Prescient, he.

Lincoln either ordered their deaths or ordered them to their deaths. He's no more innocent than Adolph Hitler was innocent of murdering 6 million Jews.

 

[paperview]

This is a quote I just came across from one of our Founding Father's, from South Carolina -- from 1788 - as the ink was still fresh on our new Constitution...some might find it surprising.

"In that Declaration the several states are not even enumerated; but after reciting, in nervous language, and with convincing arguments, our right to independence, and the tyranny which compelled us to assert it, the declaration is made in the following words:

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES."

The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,-

-as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent.

Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
​

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, South Carolina

]18 Jan. 1788

The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 7, Document 19
Union Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina House of Representatives
The University of Chicago Press Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787.

Union Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina House of Representatives

 

[toxicmedia]

Nobody accuses the GOP of having a war on women

WAR On WOMEN By Republicans US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Worldwide War on Women US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republican abortion bill tone-deaf as usual. War on Women Pt. 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The pub s War On Women US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But but there s no war on women... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Those articles you posted are an example of what I'm talking about.

Just a bunch of Democratic party rhetoric

So answer my question, who are these leftists you are referring to who are not Democrats and don't think that

I'm talking about lefties in America, who are not Democratic Party officials, or pundits on TV

 

[paperview]

No one is endorsing slavery, dumbass.

The Confederacy did and those who defend the Confederacy are doing so whether they are honest enough to agree with it or not.The Confederacy stated emphatically that it was about the state right to own and trade slaves

Lincoln disagreed. End of story, moron.

Lincoln saved the Union.

the end for the real Confederacy

...as opposed to the stupidly pathetic revisionist Confederate tools online

Lincoln destroyed the Union. He converted a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects. He laid waste to one half the country and created the conditions for 100 years of racial hatred and economic retardation.

I've said before, I'll say it again....

He doesn't even get it.

He never will.

 

[-S-]

The Confederacy did and those who defend the Confederacy are doing so whether they are honest enough to agree with it or not.The Confederacy stated emphatically that it was about the state right to own and trade slaves

Lincoln disagreed. End of story, moron.

Lincoln saved the Union.

the end for the real Confederacy

...as opposed to the stupidly pathetic revisionist Confederate tools online

Lincoln destroyed the Union. He converted a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects. He laid waste to one half the country and created the conditions for 100 years of racial hatred and economic retardation.

I've said before, I'll say it again....

You'll have to explain the irony to me. What I said is the plain truth.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

 

[kaz]

Nobody accuses the GOP of having a war on women

WAR On WOMEN By Republicans US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Worldwide War on Women US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republican abortion bill tone-deaf as usual. War on Women Pt. 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The pub s War On Women US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But but there s no war on women... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Those articles you posted are an example of what I'm talking about.

Just a bunch of Democratic party rhetoric

So answer my question, who are these leftists you are referring to who are not Democrats and don't think that

I'm talking about lefties in America, who are not Democratic Party officials, or pundits on TV

You mean like the people who started those threads?

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln disagreed. End of story, moron.

Lincoln saved the Union.

the end for the real Confederacy

...as opposed to the stupidly pathetic revisionist Confederate tools online

Lincoln destroyed the Union. He converted a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects. He laid waste to one half the country and created the conditions for 100 years of racial hatred and economic retardation.

I've said before, I'll say it again....

You'll have to explain the irony to me. What I said is the plain truth.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

A "state" is nothing more than a collection of people. If the Confederate states weren't "free," than none of the states in the union were free. Northern states had slaves just like southern states. You're applying one standard to the Confederacy while letting Union states off the hook.

You're a hypocrite, in other words. The so-called "irony" only results from you belief that your double standard doesn't exist.

 

[bripat9643]

The Confederacy did and those who defend the Confederacy are doing so whether they are honest enough to agree with it or not.The Confederacy stated emphatically that it was about the state right to own and trade slaves

Lincoln disagreed. End of story, moron.

Lincoln saved the Union.

the end for the real Confederacy

...as opposed to the stupidly pathetic revisionist Confederate tools online

Lincoln destroyed the Union. He converted a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects. He laid waste to one half the country and created the conditions for 100 years of racial hatred and economic retardation.

I've said before, I'll say it again....

He doesn't even get it.

He never will.

I have a hard time getting into the mind of such scathing hypocrites as you and -S-.

 

[paperview]

Lincoln saved the Union.

the end for the real Confederacy

...as opposed to the stupidly pathetic revisionist Confederate tools online

Lincoln destroyed the Union. He converted a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects. He laid waste to one half the country and created the conditions for 100 years of racial hatred and economic retardation.

I've said before, I'll say it again....

You'll have to explain the irony to me. What I said is the plain truth.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

A "state" is nothing more than a collection of people. If the Confederate states weren't "free," than none of the states in the union were free. Northern states had slaves just like southern states. You're applying one standard to the Confederacy while letting Union states off the hook.

You're a hypocrite, in other words. The so-called "irony" only results from you belief that your double standard doesn't exist.

lol.

"Just like?"

How many Bri?

Don't make me get out the map

 

[paperview]

Aww.

Too late.

 

[-S-]

Lincoln disagreed. End of story, moron.

Lincoln saved the Union.

the end for the real Confederacy

...as opposed to the stupidly pathetic revisionist Confederate tools online

Lincoln destroyed the Union. He converted a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects. He laid waste to one half the country and created the conditions for 100 years of racial hatred and economic retardation.

I've said before, I'll say it again....

You'll have to explain the irony to me. What I said is the plain truth.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

Lincoln saved the Union.

the end for the real Confederacy

...as opposed to the stupidly pathetic revisionist Confederate tools online

Lincoln destroyed the Union. He converted a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects. He laid waste to one half the country and created the conditions for 100 years of racial hatred and economic retardation.

I've said before, I'll say it again....

You'll have to explain the irony to me. What I said is the plain truth.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

A "state" is nothing more than a collection of people. If the Confederate states weren't "free," than none of the states in the union were free. Northern states had slaves just like southern states. You're applying one standard to the Confederacy while letting Union states off the hook.

You're a hypocrite, in other words. The so-called "irony" only results from you belief that your double standard doesn't exist.

I've never said that the north didn't have slaves you can search through every post I've ever made here and you won't find me saying that.

The entire country was a slave country for years and years. It was wrong, and the entire country was at fault. But eventually some true Americans realized that the slaves were people, too, and should be protected by the Constitution.

I fault the south with not being intellectually quick enough to progress at the same rate as the rest of the country, to the detriment of the the people in their states.

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln saved the Union.

the end for the real Confederacy

...as opposed to the stupidly pathetic revisionist Confederate tools online

Lincoln destroyed the Union. He converted a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects. He laid waste to one half the country and created the conditions for 100 years of racial hatred and economic retardation.

I've said before, I'll say it again....

You'll have to explain the irony to me. What I said is the plain truth.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

Lincoln destroyed the Union. He converted a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects. He laid waste to one half the country and created the conditions for 100 years of racial hatred and economic retardation.

I've said before, I'll say it again....

You'll have to explain the irony to me. What I said is the plain truth.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

A "state" is nothing more than a collection of people. If the Confederate states weren't "free," than none of the states in the union were free. Northern states had slaves just like southern states. You're applying one standard to the Confederacy while letting Union states off the hook.

You're a hypocrite, in other words. The so-called "irony" only results from you belief that your double standard doesn't exist.

I've never said that the north didn't have slaves you can search through every post I've ever made here and you won't find me saying that.

The entire country was a slave country for years and years. It was wrong, and the entire country was at fault. But eventually some true Americans realized that the slaves were people, too, and should be protected by the Constitution.

I fault the south with not being intellectually quick enough to progress at the same rate as the rest of the country, to the detriment of the the people in their states.

So the entire country had slaves for years and years, including most of the Founding Fathers, but suddenly in 1860 Southerners are vermin who deserve death because they still own slaves?

I've never seen such rank hypocrisy in my life.

Any liberal Yankee carpetbagger who says Southerners deserved to be invaded and killed because they owned slaves is a scumbag, and that's exactly what you and your Komrades in this thread have been saying.

 

[paperview]

Newsflash Brian: People get killed when you start a war.

Dumbfuck rebels thought they could start one to keep and expand their precious slave trade.

Tough titties. They lost. You refighting it 150 years later isn't going to change one White Supremacist ass-loving thing about it.

 

[-S-]

Lincoln destroyed the Union. He converted a voluntary union of free states into an Empire of subjects. He laid waste to one half the country and created the conditions for 100 years of racial hatred and economic retardation.

I've said before, I'll say it again....

You'll have to explain the irony to me. What I said is the plain truth.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

I've said before, I'll say it again....

You'll have to explain the irony to me. What I said is the plain truth.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

A "state" is nothing more than a collection of people. If the Confederate states weren't "free," than none of the states in the union were free. Northern states had slaves just like southern states. You're applying one standard to the Confederacy while letting Union states off the hook.

You're a hypocrite, in other words. The so-called "irony" only results from you belief that your double standard doesn't exist.

I've never said that the north didn't have slaves you can search through every post I've ever made here and you won't find me saying that.

The entire country was a slave country for years and years. It was wrong, and the entire country was at fault. But eventually some true Americans realized that the slaves were people, too, and should be protected by the Constitution.

I fault the south with not being intellectually quick enough to progress at the same rate as the rest of the country, to the detriment of the the people in their states.

So the entire country had slaves for years and years, including most of the Founding Fathers, but suddenly in 1860 Southerners are vermin who deserve death because they still own slaves?

I've never seen such rank hypocrisy in my life.

I've never said southern slave owners deserved to die

you can search through every post I've ever made here and you won't find me saying that.

If a group of people unknowingly commit a wrong over and over, and then after a while they find out what they're doing is unlawful and should be stopped, wouldn't you have fault with the half of the people that were too stupid to stop?
That's hardly an analogy, because that's exactly what the situation was

This is so simple. Why don't you understand simple rational conversation?

 

[bripat9643]

Newsflash Brian: People get killed when you start a war.

Dumbfuck rebels thought they could start one to keep and expand their precious slave trade.

Tough titties. They lost. You refighting it 150 years later isn't going to change one White Supremacist ass-loving thing about it.

Lincoln started the war, asshole. Lincoln ordered Union troops to invade the south, kill their people, rape their women and burn their cities to the ground. Lincoln and his industrialist cronies are the ones who are responsible for all the deaths, and no one else.

 

[bripat9643]

I've said before, I'll say it again....

You'll have to explain the irony to me. What I said is the plain truth.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

You'll have to explain the irony to me. What I said is the plain truth.

Had a feeling it might go over your head.. The more educated will get it.

But so you can join in..
Your statement is ironic, because if the states were as free as you claim, and in fact didn't themselves hold an "Empire of subjects", there wouldn't have been a secession or a subsequent war


I find it funny you fight so passionately for the 'freedom' of the non-sentient entities that are the states themselves, but have no sense of guardianship for the actual people who resided in them.

You're a funny girl, Bri. Stupid, but funny.

A "state" is nothing more than a collection of people. If the Confederate states weren't "free," than none of the states in the union were free. Northern states had slaves just like southern states. You're applying one standard to the Confederacy while letting Union states off the hook.

You're a hypocrite, in other words. The so-called "irony" only results from you belief that your double standard doesn't exist.

I've never said that the north didn't have slaves you can search through every post I've ever made here and you won't find me saying that.

The entire country was a slave country for years and years. It was wrong, and the entire country was at fault. But eventually some true Americans realized that the slaves were people, too, and should be protected by the Constitution.

I fault the south with not being intellectually quick enough to progress at the same rate as the rest of the country, to the detriment of the the people in their states.

So the entire country had slaves for years and years, including most of the Founding Fathers, but suddenly in 1860 Southerners are vermin who deserve death because they still own slaves?

I've never seen such rank hypocrisy in my life.

I've never said southern slave owners deserved to die

you can search through every post I've ever made here and you won't find me saying that.

If a group of people unknowingly commit a wrong over and over, and then after a while they find out what they're doing is unlawful and should be stopped, wouldn't you have fault with the half of the people that were too stupid to stop?
That's hardly an analogy, because that's exactly what the situation was

This is so simple. Why don't you understand simple rational conversation?

Slavery was legal in the United States, and not everyone believed it was wrong, so your lament is a non sequitur. You can look back at it now and say it was stupid, but at the time it was a matter of opinion. So you justify the slaughter of 850,000 people in 1860 based on modern opinions about slavery.

That's hardly "rational."

 

[paperview]

Newsflash Brian: People get killed when you start a war.

Dumbfuck rebels thought they could start one to keep and expand their precious slave trade.

Tough titties. They lost. You refighting it 150 years later isn't going to change one White Supremacist ass-loving thing about it.

Lincoln started the war, asshole. Lincoln ordered Union troops to invade the south, kill their people, rape their women and burn their cities to the ground. Lincoln and his industrialist cronies are the ones who are responsible for all the deaths, and no one else.

I've told you a hundred times now, the South commenced hostilities before the Lincoln ever stepped into office. Fired on Union Ships, seized forts and arsenals and took over Federal building all over the South. Before Lincoln ever set foot in the White House.

 

[paperview]

Longtime readers of my posts are familiar with this rundown, so sorry to have to keep repeating it, but it seems to be necessary for the uneducated to repeat.

Brian know this, but he ignores it. I'll just keep carting it out.

A little Timeline, from the SC Convention forward:

December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
December 24, 1860: Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.
December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
January 3, 1861: Georgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 4, 1861: Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 5, 1861: Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 6, 1861: Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 7, 1861: Florida seizes Fort Marion. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.

Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR

THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.
January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.

Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.
January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.

Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital.
January 14, 1861: Louisiana seizes Fort Pike. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 19, 1861: Georgia secedes.
January 26, 1861: Louisiana secedes.
January 28, 1861: Tennessee Resolutions in favor of Crittenden Compromise offered in Congress.
February 1, 1861: Texas secedes.
February 8, 1861: Provisional Constitution of the Confederacy adopted in Montgomery, AL.

Arkansas seizes U.S. Arsenal at Little Rock.
February 12, 1861: Arkansas seizes U.S. ordnance stores at Napoleon.
February 18, 1861: Jefferson Davis inaugurated as President of the Confederacy.
March 4, 1861: Abraham Lincoln inaugurated as 16th President of the United States.
March 21, 1861: "Cornerstone speech" delivered by Alexander Stephens. (This is where the Confederate V President lays it out clearly: Slavery is the Cornerstone of the Confederacy.)

April 12, 1861: Fort Sumter fired upon by Confederates.
THE WAR OFFICIALLY BEGINS.

 

[paperview]

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.
THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

"WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.

On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ;

whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.

The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."


They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. An ACT OF WAR.

Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an act of war.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I've seen at least three conservatives on this site talk about how Lincoln and the Union were wrong, and that the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede the way they did, and were on the right side of history..

Is this a popular stance among conservatives of today? Are they really pro-Confederacy when they look back on the Civil War? Or are there just a couple crazies here and there?

(This thread may also help the 'Gay Marriage' thread from being further derailed with Civil War arguments. Figured it was worth a shot haha)

It depends on who you ask. Many conservative talk show hosts like Glenn Beck and Mark Levin still worship Lincoln and think he's the greatest president ever. He only killed 600,000 Americans and could have killed ten times as many because he was the "great emancipator". Neo-cons, like Leftists, worship power and love when the state crushes all opposition and protest.

Again slow kid the confederates started the war

Repeating an error doesn't turn it into truth.