Steven Spielberg's movie about Lincoln is pure bullshit !!!!!!!

[Rogue 9]

This isn't news. Britain was a colonial power, and the United States kept it from continuing colonization of the western hemisphere.

Some liberal imperialists, like Mill, saw the Union as a partner in imperialism. Some liberals sided with the South.

Citation needed.

Lincoln and Mill were racists. Jefferson Davis, Robert Lee, and Alexander Stephens were slavers. There is a stark difference.

Lincoln prosecuted a war which killed 100's of 1000's. Mill served an empire which kept down Africans, Indians, etc. Not so stark.

The South instigated the war and was outrageously aggressive in internal politics for decades prior to it, which I have previously conclusively demonstrated.

Keep repeating this and it might become true.

It doesn't need to become true; it's been true for 152 years and counting. I refer you to my previous post.

Or prevent the US from over involvement in the affairs of other American nations. The British and the native people themselves fought against colonization by other European powers.

Given the 1864 takeover of Mexico by the Habsburgs with French and Belgian support, clearly not hard enough.

And any right to separate from a nation depends on the circumstances.

Do you think a sizable region has the right to separate from a larger political entity, yes or no? Please stop ducking the question.

It isn't a simple yes or no question. I'm not ducking it; I told you it's conditional. The Slave Power did not meet those conditions. They were not suffering under tyranny (though it's arguable the free states were, by means of the Fugitive Slave Act ramrodded by Southern-dominated majorities in Congress) and in fact had spent the previous eighty years in firm control of the federal government. To borrow from the Declaration of Independence, the government had not become destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and by its formulation until it does it is not the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

A single presidential election is in fact transient. The only long train of abuses and usurpations extant in 1860 was at the behest and for the benefit of the Slave Power.

and the fall of another would give those who espoused the doctrine that men must be governed by a strong autocracy and are unfit to choose their leaders proof that their ideas were right,

lol like Lincoln's autocracy?

You fail to see that Mill and Lincoln were racist, power-hungry, anti-democratic imperialists.

Keep saying that and it might become true. Everything Lincoln did that could be found objectionable (in fact everything he did, since the conflict was underway when he took office) falls under the war power of the government. Take away the war, and what do you have? Maybe legislation restricting the expansion of slavery into the territories and an otherwise unremarkable presidency (probably punctuated with demands from the Slave Power that the United States conquer Cuba in order to create a new slave state from it). And there was only war because the Slave Power, in its childish tantrum over the predictable result of not getting a Democratic president after it intentionally split the ticket, made it so.

 

[Thunderbird]

Given the 1864 takeover of Mexico by the Habsburgs with French and Belgian support, clearly not hard enough.

Don't underestimate Mexicans. Example: Battle of San Pedro

They were not suffering under tyranny

A single presidential election is in fact transient.

If the people of the South decided differently, who are you to disagree?

And there was only war because the Slave Power,

If Lincoln had not decided to invade the South at Bull Run would there have been a war?

 

[Rogue 9]

They were not suffering under tyranny

A single presidential election is in fact transient.

If the people of the South decided differently, who are you to disagree?

Someone with a clear grasp of the facts. By no realistic measure were the slaveholders and free whites of the South oppressed by the federal government. By every realistic measure they were oppressing their slaves, if not the free state populations via the Fugitive Slave Act. They were legally and morally in the wrong.

And there was only war because the Slave Power,

If Lincoln had not decided to invade the South at Bull Run would there have been a war?

There already was one before then. Firings on Fort Sumter, Fort Barrancas, the Star of the West, and many more outright acts of war besides took place well in advance of Bull Run (and you betray yourself by not calling it Manassas ).

 

[JakeStarkey]

The South unconstitutionally, unethically, and immorally decided that states' rights meant the right to own and sell human flesh.

I am glad Lincoln murdered states' rights and changed the course of America for the better.

 

[Thunderbird]

Someone with a clear grasp of the facts. By no realistic measure were the slaveholders

I understand that is your opinion. The majority of Southerners disagreed. They thought the North was robbing the South. The North was eager to impose high tariffs, like the Morrill Tariff.

Another Court Historian’s False Tariff History

Anyone who believes in democracy should let the South secede. Do you believe in democracy or not?

Firings on Fort Sumter, Fort Barrancas, the Star of the West,

How many casualties resulted from these trivial incidents? Please answer my question: If Lincoln had not decided to invade the South at Bull Run would there have been a war?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who believes in democracy should let the South secede. Do you believe in democracy or not?

An absolute non sequitur. Democracy decided that AL won and that the South should abide.

 

[hortysir]

The South unconstitutionally, unethically, and immorally decided that states' rights meant the right to own and sell human flesh.

I am glad Lincoln murdered states' rights and changed the course of America for the better.

wow

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wow is right.

The South refused to obey constitutional, electoral, democratic process, and rose up against the American people.

AL did right, and we all are blessed by it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The South unconstitutionally, unethically, and immorally decided that states' rights meant the right to own and sell human flesh.

I am glad Lincoln murdered states' rights and changed the course of America for the better.

wow

yes, best to murder states rights and place all power in a national government!! What on earth were our Founders thinking when they gave us freedom from national government long before Hitler, Stalin(who our liberals spied for) and Mao!

 

[Rogue 9]

Someone with a clear grasp of the facts. By no realistic measure were the slaveholders

I understand that is your opinion. The majority of Southerners disagreed. They thought the North was robbing the South. The North was eager to impose high tariffs, like the Morrill Tariff.

The tariff in 1860 was at historically low levels. Claiming it was a tariff issue is a joke.

Another Court Historian’s False Tariff History

Thomas DiLorenzo is an agenda-driven hack, and this article shows it as well as any other he's written. The 1828 tariff was not in place in 1860. It is irrelevant to 1860 except insofar as the incident demonstrates South Carolina's eagerness to threaten disunion as a tool of political blackmail. He is correct in that the end of the Nullification Crisis was the result of a compromise tariff passed alongside the Force Bill, but while other states joined South Carolina in objection to the tariff, no other state joined it in raising thousands of militiamen to fight over it, which is the point.

It is true that Lincoln would almost certainly have raised the tariff (to what levels absent the war it is impossible to know), but first it would at least be reasonable to see what would happen before starting a war over it, and second the Declarations of Causes that various seceding states issued to justify their secession in fact do not mention tariffs even once (so much for "every bit of this narrative is false"). They one and all focus primarily (and in most cases only) upon threats to slavery; Texas wanders from the subject only once and then only to complain about insufficient protection from Indian raids. You are free to confirm this for yourself if you wish; declarations were issued by Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and South Carolina, and further explanation was provided by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States. If they complained of tariffs so vehemently as a cause for secession, by all means find and quote it in the documents explaining the causes for the secession.

Anyone who believes in democracy should let the South secede. Do you believe in democracy or not?

The United States isn't a democracy; it's a republic. For a republic to function, elections must be sacrosanct, and the ability to freely secede in response to losing an election would rapidly balkanize any republic that tried to function in that manner. To borrow from Lincoln, it is necessary that "ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets." The South tried to appeal back to bullets when it did not win an election, something that absolutely cannot be tolerated if republican government is to endure.

Firings on Fort Sumter, Fort Barrancas, the Star of the West,

How many casualties resulted from these trivial incidents? Please answer my question: If Lincoln had not decided to invade the South at Bull Run would there have been a war?

There already was a war. Under no circumstances are firing on a nation's armed forces and flagged ships "trivial."

 

[Thunderbird]

The tariff in 1860 was at historically low levels.

Obviously Lincoln's election meant high tariffs, really economic warfare against the South.

Thomas DiLorenzo is an agenda-driven hack,

lol All you have is name-calling. Don't be so subservient to the academic establishment. African American scholars and libertarian scholars have demolished the Lincoln myth.

It is true that Lincoln would almost certainly have raised the tariff

Exactly.

Georgia,

Thanks for posting those links. They really help to prove my point!

Let's look at the declaration from Georgia: The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors.

by all means find and quote it in the documents explaining the causes for the secession.

Just look at the documents you linked to.

The United States isn't a democracy; it's a republic.

So you don't believe in democracy? Don't be shy, give us a yes or no answer.

For a republic to function, elections must be sacrosanct, and the ability to freely secede in response to losing an election would rapidly balkanize any republic that tried to function in that manner.

Ridiculous. Many states (Ireland, Slovakia, etc.) have established independence without rapid balkanization. Isn't local rule preferable - more responsive to the will of the people?

Under no circumstances are firing on a nation's armed forces and flagged ships "trivial."

These sort of provocations can be ignored by leaders who don't love war. For example, Cuban anti-aircraft gunners fired on U.S. planes in October 1962, but Kennedy didn't start a war. Too bad Kennedy wasn't always so wise.

You seem to think the pride of the central government is more important than all those lives.

Again you are unable to answer the question: If Lincoln had not decided to invade the South at Bull Run would there have been a war?

 

[Rogue 9]

The tariff in 1860 was at historically low levels.

Obviously Lincoln's election meant high tariffs, really economic warfare against the South.

Prove it. Oh wait, you can't. By the same argument, having no tariff or a token one amounted to economic warfare against the North, since it permitted European industry to outcompete it with already established manufacturing, but you didn't see the Upper Midwest seceding in the 1840s. Clearly, tariff policy wasn't enough to spur such an immediate and decisive reaction and we need another reason. Fortunately, the secessionists considerately provided it for us: The preservation of slavery.

Thomas DiLorenzo is an agenda-driven hack,

lol All you have is name-calling. Don't be so subservient to the academic establishment. African American scholars and libertarian scholars have demolished the Lincoln myth.

No, that's not all I have; you cut out the bit where I said why. You should stop cherrypicking; it's unbecoming.

Exactly.

And there are valid economic policy reasons for doing so. Further, impeding Southern agriculture could only be good, because Southern agriculture was what drove demand for slaves and thus underpinned slavery as a whole. What's your point?

Thanks for posting those links. They really help to prove my point!

You may want to read the rest before you say that, Skippy.

Let's look at the declaration from Georgia:

Yes, let's: "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. 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. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state."

It's what they went to first. In the document right up front they say that everything else is incidental.

How about the other ones you ignored?

Mississippi: "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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."

Just for fun, Mississippi continued: "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."

So much for the state rights fantasy; they weren't concerned with it in the least except as a tool to advance their own interests. When free states wished to impede the operation of federal law to hinder slavery, their own doctrine became inconvenient and was abandoned at first opportunity.

Texas: "Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States."

"Waaaaaah, they won't let us keep beating our slaves!"

Also note: The idea that they were going to let slavery die out on its own continues to be pure fantasy.

South Carolina: "In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. "

Their complaint is again focused around personal liberty laws in the free states which mandated jury trials for men accused of being escaped slaves before deportation - laws which were overridden by Congress in a roughshod manner in amendments to the Fugitive Slave Act, effectively allowing any slaveholder to come into a free state, point to a black man, say "he was my slave," and haul him south in chains with no legal recourse. This federal provision had not in fact been repealed, so I can only presume they refer to the fear that the Lincoln government would repeal it.

Stephens: "But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

You know, I think that stands for itself.

Just look at the documents you linked to.

I have.

So you don't believe in democracy? Don't be shy, give us a yes or no answer.

Yes, of course I believe in it. It clearly exists or has existed, but polling the whole citizenry on every issue is both wholly inefficient and, absent a constitution, is simply mob rule. Since the United States (thankfully) is a constitutional republic and has not and never has been a democracy, however, I fail to see the relevance of the question.

For a republic to function, elections must be sacrosanct, and the ability to freely secede in response to losing an election would rapidly balkanize any republic that tried to function in that manner.

Ridiculous. Many states (Ireland, Slovakia, etc.) have established independence without rapid balkanization. Isn't local rule preferable - more responsive to the will of the people?

That depends on circumstance. Clearly local Southern rule wasn't more responsive to the will of the people, since it kept four million of those people enslaved against their will. QED.

Under no circumstances are firing on a nation's armed forces and flagged ships "trivial."

These sort of provocations can be ignored by leaders who don't love war. For example, Cuban anti-aircraft gunners fired on U.S. planes in October 1962, but Kennedy didn't start a war. Too bad Kennedy wasn't always so wise.

You seem to think the pride of the central government is more important than all those lives.

Again you are unable to answer the question: If Lincoln had not decided to invade the South at Bull Run would there have been a war?

Yep. A good thing too, since the Slave Power was both evil and carving away a huge portion of U.S. territory. This isn't about the pride of the central government; it was about the survival of the nation. To be perfectly clear, we have established that the Confederate government was, in so many words, based upon the idea that the negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery is his natural and moral condition. It only existed to preserve and perpetuate that condition. Such a government deserves destruction no matter who is doing it. War is an ugly thing, but it isn't the ugliest of things.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rogue9 is slowly turning Thunderbird's arguments on the fiery spit of logic. Dinner will be served shortly.

 

[Thunderbird]

Prove it. Oh wait, you can't.

Ha ha You admitted earlier: "It is true that Lincoln would almost certainly have raised the tariff". Did you forget?

but you didn't see the Upper Midwest seceding in the 1840s. Clearly, tariff policy wasn't enough to spur such an immediate and decisive reaction and we need another reason.

Many in New England wanted separation back in the early 1800s because they thought the Federal government was not serving New England's economic interests.

The South regarded the economic warfare waged by the North as a casus belli. Alexander H. Stephens, from your own link, decried this kind of economic warfare: "The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality."

And Lincoln was every bit as racist as the Southerners.

Mr. Lincoln The Racist

Lincoln the Racist

See how your argument falls apart?

Also note: The idea that they were going to let slavery die out on its own continues to be pure fantasy.

Slavery was ended in many American nations without civil war.

Yes, of course I believe in it.

You believe in democracy. Thanks for conceding the debate. Since a majority of Southerners wanted separation you can only agree to allow it.

Here is the question you keep running from: If Lincoln had not decided to invade the South at Bull Run would there have been a war?

You certainly seem terrified of this question. lol

Lincoln's atrocities: The Lincoln War Crimes Trial: A History Lesson

it was about the survival of the nation.

Don't be a drama queen. The Union would have endured, though maybe it would have been a little more humble.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fact: the Tariff Theory as Lincoln's secret cause for the war is made with no evidence.

 

[Rogue 9]

Prove it. Oh wait, you can't.

Ha ha You admitted earlier: "It is true that Lincoln would almost certainly have raised the tariff". Did you forget?

No, I didn't forget. Raising the tariff /= economic warfare.

but you didn't see the Upper Midwest seceding in the 1840s. Clearly, tariff policy wasn't enough to spur such an immediate and decisive reaction and we need another reason.

Many in New England wanted separation back in the early 1800s because they thought the Federal government was not serving New England's economic interests.

The South regarded the economic warfare waged by the North as a casus belli. Alexander H. Stephens, from your own link, decried this kind of economic warfare: "The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality."

A laughable claim, since in the very same speech he stated that the negro is not equal to the white man, therefore all do not stand upon the principles of perfect equality in their system, by definition. Class interests were the entire basis; I quote John C. Calhoun:

There is no part of the world where agricultural, mechanical, and other descriptions of labor are more respected than in the South, with the exception of two descriptions of employment, that of menial and body servants. No Southern man—not the poorest or the lowest—will, under any circumstance, submit to perform either of them. He has too much pride for that, and I rejoice that he has. They are unsuited to the spirit of a freeman. But the man who would spurn them feels not the least degradation to work in the same field with his slave, or to be employed to work with them in the same field or in any mechanical operation; and, when so employed, they claim the right, and are admitted, in the country portion of the South, of sitting at the table of their employers. Can as much, on the score of equality, be said for the North? With us the two great divisions of society are not the rich and poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals, if honest and industrious, and hence have a position and pride of character of which neither poverty nor misfortune can deprive them.

And Lincoln was every bit as racist as the Southerners.

Mr. Lincoln The Racist

Lincoln the Racist

See how your argument falls apart?

No I don't. I have never disputed that Lincoln was a racist (though "every bit as racist as the Southerners" is just a stupid thing to say; he at least thought they were worth more than livestock). This isn't about Lincoln; this is about the indisputable fact that the Confederacy existed for the express and sole purpose of keeping millions of men and women in chattel bondage, that doing so is evil to the core, and that it was worth war to end it.

Slavery was ended in many American nations without civil war.

Yes, in nations not founded with the express purpose of its preservation, and sometimes not even then. It took violent revolution in Haiti (and the United States refused recognition of the Haitian government until 1862 because of threats from the Southern section in general and Calhoun in particular).

Yes, of course I believe in it.

You believe in democracy. Thanks for conceding the debate. Since a majority of Southerners wanted separation you can only agree to allow it.

Nope. I believe it exists; I don't believe it's a good idea. Republics are superior. Learn what the word means before you try to use it to entrap people who do.

Here is the question you keep running from: If Lincoln had not decided to invade the South at Bull Run would there have been a war?

You certainly seem terrified of this question. lol

I'm not terrified of it; it's a non-sequitur. Yes there would have been one; there was already one. It is good that there was one, because by it millions of people were freed from tyrannical bondage and the Slave Power was destroyed forever. In the situation of the United States in 1860-61, war was the superior choice, and by it was achieved superior results. It was terrible, but it was less terrible than continued bondage. The blame is entirely upon the Slave Power for making it a necessity.

Lincoln's atrocities: The Lincoln War Crimes Trial: A History Lesson

I'm well aware of Lincoln's behavior in office. It changes absolutely nothing.

it was about the survival of the nation.

Don't be a drama queen. The Union would have endured, though maybe it would have been a little more humble.

No, it by definition would not have, since it would have just been sundered.

Edit: You know what? You keep accusing me of being afraid of answering your questions and addressing your argument, but you cut out whole swathes of what I have to say and only address what you feel you can nitpick. Rather than bring all of it up again at once, answer me this: How is it that you say Southern local rule was more responsive to the will of the people when it kept four million of those people enslaved?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How is it that you say Southern local rule was more responsive to the will of the people when it kept four million of those people enslaved?

too stupid!! would you rather have Hitler Stalin or Mao take over a state in our country or the whole country!! Once all the power is in Washington the whole country is doomed. That is the message of our Founders which liberals lack the IQ to understand.

Yes dear once in while a national government is morally superior to local governments, but not in general. That is why our Founders feared central government above all else and gifted to us the Constitution!!



Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny-Jefferson

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thunderbird and EdwardB must come from the same strange stock.

The southern leadership wanted to keep slavery: that ends the argument right there.

No answer exists to justify slavery. End of discussion.

 

[Rogue 9]

How is it that you say Southern local rule was more responsive to the will of the people when it kept four million of those people enslaved?

too stupid!! would you rather have Hitler Stalin or Mao take over a state in our country or the whole country!! Once all the power is in Washington the whole country is doomed. That is the message of our Founders which liberals lack the IQ to understand.

I judge the government on its actions, not where it is located. In more than just this one case, the central government has been a greater force for liberty than local governments. The slave states refused to give up slavery on their own; abolition was accomplished through the federal constitution. The Jim Crow states refused to end legal, public segregation on their own; it was accomplished through federal enforcement. The effective end of the trans-Atlantic slave trade was accomplished by the British Empire, not (except in the case of the United States) through the actions of the various North and South American nations. Local rule frequently is better and more free, but it isn't always so, and it is foolish to reflexively assume that it is without critical examination of the facts.

Yes dear once in while a national government is morally superior to local governments, but not in general. That is why our Founders feared central government above all else and gifted to us the Constitution!!

I'm aware of the fact. I'm also aware of the fact that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, a much more decentralized form of government that was tried and found not to work. As far as the United States is concerned, the Constitution represented a concentration of power from what came before, not a diffusion of it.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny-Jefferson

So you have term limits on the executive.

 

[hortysir]

Thunderbird and EdwardB must come from the same strange stock.

The southern leadership wanted to keep slavery: that ends the argument right there.

No answer exists to justify slavery. End of discussion.

The "southern leadership" wanted slavery so badly that they declined an offer made to them, by Abe, that would have made slavery perfectly legal and a matter of the states.
Got it.

As disgusting as slavery is, you cannot apply 21st century morals to those of that era.
Slavery was a worldwide commonality.