The Gettysburg Address

[bripat9643]

The Gettysburg address was complete and utter bullshit...like most speeches statist politicians spout.

The real truth....

Today’s essay by Kirkpatrick Sale brilliantly illustrates the “entirely fraudulent” nature of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The “nation” was not founded in 1776, as Lincoln weirdly asserted, but years later when the Constitution was ratified; it was not founded on the principle of egalitarianism (“all men are created equal”) either; the founders did not revere democracy (“government of the people, by the people, for the people”) but feared it; and the War to Prevent Southern Independence was not fought over any of these things, as Lincoln falsely claimed in what has to be the Biggest Political Lie in American history.

The great H.L. Mencken recognized this decades ago. The late Joe Sobran also demolished this lie while pointing out that the entire purpose of the existence of such neocon propaganda mills as Harry Jaffa’s Claremont Institute is to perpetuate this Big Lie since it is the “rhetoric of continuing revolution” (a.k.a., the rhetoric of perpetual war for perpetual peace). Most of the rest of Lincoln’s rhetoric about the American founding, about which Sobran thought he knew next to nothing, is properly characterized as a “spectacular absurdity” by Donald Livingston.

A New Birth of Tyranny: Lincoln?s ?Entirely Fraudulent? Gettysburg Address ? LewRockwell.com

Now you've done it. A hail of abuse is about to descend on you.

 

[bripat9643]

People don't want to be associated with horrific crimes or events. They want to believe they are fundamentally good. So they create narratives and myths to whitewash the sins of the past. It's a basic human trait. This is what is happening with those who say the Confederacy didn't leave because of slavery.

No one says that, numskull.

Another thing people do when they want to ignore horrific crimes and events is makeup bogus history. They want to believe they are fundamentally good. Hence, the reason Lincoln has been made into a virtual deity when in reality he is one of the greatest tyrants of history.

You're a perfect example of what I'm talking about, statist.

I'm not the one making up bogus history. The worshippers of the Lincoln cult are the ones doing that. Virtually everything commonly believed about Lincoln is a big fat lie. the Lincoln worshippers are the ones who whitewash the sin of their sainted hero. Lincoln murdered over 800,000 people. There is simply no disputing that. There is also no disputing all his offenses against the Constitution. The evidence has been posted ad nauseum in this forum.

Furthermore, I'm an anarchist, not a statist.

 

[bripat9643]

I realize upsetting your comfortable version of history is causing you severe distress.

You're not upsetting anything and you're not changing anything. You are just running around in circles waving your arms around and screaming like a maniac. The sooner you let this weird obsession go the better off you'll be.

Yeah, right. That's why you follow me all around the forum and spew your hysterical ad hominems: because you don't give a hoot!

 

[bripat9643]

Then why did the South unilaterally in their declarations of secession identify maintaining slavery as a primary reason?

It doesn't matter what they put in their declarations of secession. The bottom line is that Lincoln didn't invade the Confederacy to end slavery. He didn't give a damn about the slaves. He was a white supremacist. He invaded the Confederacy to impose the Morill tariff on the South. He said so himself.

Quotes from Abe Lincoln..

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.

"What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle - the sheet anchor of American republicanism." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 266.

"We think slavery a great moral wrong, and while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists, we wish to treat it as a wrong in the territories, where our votes will reach it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Speech at New Haven, Connecticut" (March 6, 1860), p. 16.

"In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855), p. 320.

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Letter to Albert G. Hodges" (April 4, 1864), p. 281.

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

- Speech Lincoln delivered in 1858 in Charleston, IL -​

"America was made for the White people and not for the Negroes"

- Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Lerone Bennett -​

"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races,"

- Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln -​

As a member of the Illinois legislature Lincoln urged the legislature:

"to appropriate money for colonization in order to remove Negroes from the state and prevent miscegenation"

- Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln -​

In the book Colonization after Emancipation by Phillip Magness of American University and Sebastian Page of Oxford University that, using records from the American and British national archives, proves that until his dying day Lincoln was negotiating with Great Britain and other foreign governments to deport all of the soon-to-be-freed slaves out of the U.S.

In Illinois, the state constitution was amended in 1848 to prohibit free black people from residing in the state. Lincoln supported it. He also supported the Illinois Black Codes, under which "Illinois Blacks had no legal rights. White people were bound to respect." "None of this disturbed Lincoln," writes Lerone Bennett.

 

[Unkotare]

I realize upsetting your comfortable version of history is causing you severe distress.

You're not upsetting anything and you're not changing anything. You are just running around in circles waving your arms around and screaming like a maniac. The sooner you let this weird obsession go the better off you'll be.

Yeah, right. That's why you follow me all around the forum and spew your hysterical ad hominems [sic]: because you don't give a hoot!

You can't let it go. This makes you very easy to control for entertainment purposes.

 

[Mojo2]

I'm just going to quote H. L. Mencken because he said it better than I ever could.

The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost child-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to one graceful and irresistible gesture. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege.

- H.L. Mencken -​

Well said

The only problem with Mencken is that the Constitution of that government seeking self determination specifically prohibits any laws that impede the institution of slavery. The Confederacy was not looking for self determination, but the right to determine that others were subhuman and deserve to be property

Lincoln 1
Mencken 0

Just as the Founding Fathers were well aware of their own hypocrisy as slave owners when they wrote that ALL men were born with certain inalienable rights, so did Lincoln seek to honor the spirit of self determination despite the Union government's attempts to defeat the rebel's attempt at it.

I have never seen you appear so immature as when i read this concluding sentence:

The Confederacy was not looking for self determination, but the right to determine that others were subhuman and deserve to be property

No, that is NOT what the evidence shows was their reason to take up arms against the Union.

Yours is a silly, immature argument.

 

[gipper]

The Gettysburg address was complete and utter bullshit...like most speeches statist politicians spout.

The real truth....

Today’s essay by Kirkpatrick Sale brilliantly illustrates the “entirely fraudulent” nature of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The “nation” was not founded in 1776, as Lincoln weirdly asserted, but years later when the Constitution was ratified; it was not founded on the principle of egalitarianism (“all men are created equal&#8221 either; the founders did not revere democracy (“government of the people, by the people, for the people&#8221 but feared it; and the War to Prevent Southern Independence was not fought over any of these things, as Lincoln falsely claimed in what has to be the Biggest Political Lie in American history.

The great H.L. Mencken recognized this decades ago. The late Joe Sobran also demolished this lie while pointing out that the entire purpose of the existence of such neocon propaganda mills as Harry Jaffa’s Claremont Institute is to perpetuate this Big Lie since it is the “rhetoric of continuing revolution” (a.k.a., the rhetoric of perpetual war for perpetual peace). Most of the rest of Lincoln’s rhetoric about the American founding, about which Sobran thought he knew next to nothing, is properly characterized as a “spectacular absurdity” by Donald Livingston.

A New Birth of Tyranny: Lincoln?s ?Entirely Fraudulent? Gettysburg Address ? LewRockwell.com

Now you've done it. A hail of abuse is about to descend on you.

Yes...it has happened many times before on this forum.

Not to worry. The Lincoln cultists are wrong and we can only try to dissuade them of their wrongheadedness.

To lionize a man who purposely and determinedly warred on fellow Americans for nefarious reasons, is not a position of intelligence or one any freedom loving individual can rightly hold.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm just going to quote H. L. Mencken because he said it better than I ever could.

The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost child-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to one graceful and irresistible gesture. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege.

- H.L. Mencken -​

Well said

The only problem with Mencken is that the Constitution of that government seeking self determination specifically prohibits any laws that impede the institution of slavery. The Confederacy was not looking for self determination, but the right to determine that others were subhuman and deserve to be property

Lincoln 1
Mencken 0

Just as the Founding Fathers were well aware of their own hypocrisy as slave owners when they wrote that ALL men were born with certain inalienable rights, so did Lincoln seek to honor the spirit of self determination despite the Union government's attempts to defeat the rebel's attempt at it.

I have never seen you appear so immature as when i read this concluding sentence:

The Confederacy was not looking for self determination, but the right to determine that others were subhuman and deserve to be property

No, that is NOT what the evidence shows was their reason to take up arms against the Union.

Yours is a silly, immature argument.

Actually, it was the reason

Read their Articles of Secession. It is quite clear

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

 

[Mojo2]

Well said

The only problem with Mencken is that the Constitution of that government seeking self determination specifically prohibits any laws that impede the institution of slavery. The Confederacy was not looking for self determination, but the right to determine that others were subhuman and deserve to be property

Lincoln 1
Mencken 0

Just as the Founding Fathers were well aware of their own hypocrisy as slave owners when they wrote that ALL men were born with certain inalienable rights, so did Lincoln seek to honor the spirit of self determination despite the Union government's attempts to defeat the rebel's attempt at it.

I have never seen you appear so immature as when i read this concluding sentence:

The Confederacy was not looking for self determination, but the right to determine that others were subhuman and deserve to be property

No, that is NOT what the evidence shows was their reason to take up arms against the Union.

Yours is a silly, immature argument.

Actually, it was the reason

Read their Articles of Secession. It is quite clear

South Carolina Declaration of Secession

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Yeah, that's what you meant when you said this.

The Confederacy was not looking for self determination, but the right to determine that others were subhuman and deserve to be property

 

[rightwinger]

Just as the Founding Fathers were well aware of their own hypocrisy as slave owners when they wrote that ALL men were born with certain inalienable rights, so did Lincoln seek to honor the spirit of self determination despite the Union government's attempts to defeat the rebel's attempt at it.

I have never seen you appear so immature as when i read this concluding sentence:



No, that is NOT what the evidence shows was their reason to take up arms against the Union.

Yours is a silly, immature argument.

Actually, it was the reason

Read their Articles of Secession. It is quite clear

South Carolina Declaration of Secession

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Yeah, that's what you meant when you said this.

The Confederacy was not looking for self determination, but the right to determine that others were subhuman and deserve to be property

That is what I said, isn't it

 

[Mojo2]

Actually, it was the reason

Read their Articles of Secession. It is quite clear

South Carolina Declaration of Secession

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Yeah, that's what you meant when you said this.

The Confederacy was not looking for self determination, but the right to determine that others were subhuman and deserve to be property

That is what I said, isn't it

You belong underground alright.

 

[bripat9643]

Well said

The only problem with Mencken is that the Constitution of that government seeking self determination specifically prohibits any laws that impede the institution of slavery. The Confederacy was not looking for self determination, but the right to determine that others were subhuman and deserve to be property

Lincoln 1
Mencken 0

Just as the Founding Fathers were well aware of their own hypocrisy as slave owners when they wrote that ALL men were born with certain inalienable rights, so did Lincoln seek to honor the spirit of self determination despite the Union government's attempts to defeat the rebel's attempt at it.

I have never seen you appear so immature as when i read this concluding sentence:

The Confederacy was not looking for self determination, but the right to determine that others were subhuman and deserve to be property

No, that is NOT what the evidence shows was their reason to take up arms against the Union.

Yours is a silly, immature argument.

Actually, it was the reason

Read their Articles of Secession. It is quite clear

South Carolina Declaration of Secession

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Actually, it wasn't the reason. Secession is one thing. Lincoln's invasion of the Confederacy is another. Lincoln invaded the South so I could collect tariffs. He even said so. He didn't give a damn about the slaves.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, that's what you meant when you said this.

That is what I said, isn't it

You belong underground alright.

He needs a good reeducation camp. After we impose the dictatorship, we'll have to setup a series of them in North Dakota. We'll make all the libs work in the oil fields so they learn what kind of hard work it takes to support all the welfare leaches.

 

[bripat9643]

The Gettysburg address was complete and utter bullshit...like most speeches statist politicians spout.

The real truth....


A New Birth of Tyranny: Lincoln?s ?Entirely Fraudulent? Gettysburg Address ? LewRockwell.com

Now you've done it. A hail of abuse is about to descend on you.

Yes...it has happened many times before on this forum.

Not to worry. The Lincoln cultists are wrong and we can only try to dissuade them of their wrongheadedness.

To lionize a man who purposely and determinedly warred on fellow Americans for nefarious reasons, is not a position of intelligence or one any freedom loving individual can rightly hold.

That knowledge doesn't phase the worshippers of the Lincoln cult.

 

[rightwinger]

Just as the Founding Fathers were well aware of their own hypocrisy as slave owners when they wrote that ALL men were born with certain inalienable rights, so did Lincoln seek to honor the spirit of self determination despite the Union government's attempts to defeat the rebel's attempt at it.

I have never seen you appear so immature as when i read this concluding sentence:



No, that is NOT what the evidence shows was their reason to take up arms against the Union.

Yours is a silly, immature argument.

Actually, it was the reason

Read their Articles of Secession. It is quite clear

South Carolina Declaration of Secession

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Actually, it wasn't the reason. Secession is one thing. Lincoln's invasion of the Confederacy is another. Lincoln invaded the South so I could collect tariffs. He even said so. He didn't give a damn about the slaves.

Read what South Carolina said........That WAS their reason
Other states were "picking" on them because of slavery

 

[Unkotare]

That is what I said, isn't it

You belong underground alright.

He needs a good reeducation camp. After we impose the dictatorship, we'll have to setup a series of them in North Dakota. We'll make all the libs work in the oil fields so they learn what kind of hard work it takes to support all the welfare leaches.

It's official; you've gone so far off the deep end with your absurd revisionist obsession that you have met up with JoeB in Looney-Land. You two should be very happy together there.

 

[oldfart]

Just as the Founding Fathers were well aware of their own hypocrisy as slave owners when they wrote that ALL men were born with certain inalienable rights, so did Lincoln seek to honor the spirit of self determination despite the Union government's attempts to defeat the rebel's attempt at it.

I have never seen you appear so immature as when i read this concluding sentence:

The Confederacy was not looking for self determination, but the right to determine that others were subhuman and deserve to be property

No, that is NOT what the evidence shows was their reason to take up arms against the Union.

Yours is a silly, immature argument.

Actually, it was the reason

Read their Articles of Secession. It is quite clear

South Carolina Declaration of Secession

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Let me add that the post to which you so ably replied contained a fundamental historical error. Founders such as Jefferson and Madison who owned slaves, generally believed that slavery was wrong. They just didn't see a way to abolish it in the near future. The declaration of Independence lists the introduction of African slavery as one of the "crimes" of Britain that justified independence.

This view changed. As slavery expanded after 1808 and importation of slaves was illegal, the older slave states (especially South Carolina and to an extent tidewater Virginia) became more dependent economically on selling slaves to the west, especially Mississippi and Alabama. This internal slave trade coarsened the slave system and prompted Southerners to begin to defend it more on grounds that it was right, not just economically necessary or expedient.

With the invention of the cotton gin, cotton became sufficiently profitable that its demise was no longer in sight as it had seemed in 1790. Fear of slave insurrections fueled the paranoia and fear. In the crescendo leading up to the Civil War, the South became more insistent that the North not only abide by provisions such as respecting slavery where it existed and enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law, they became apoplectic about Northern claims that slavery was fundamentally wrong.

Debates about Lincoln today usually fail because they miss this point. When you read the Coopers Union Speech, Lincoln spends most of his time on this point, that the South will not be satisfied until the North agrees that slavery is "right". This is why he saw the situation as unstable, that the Union must become "all one or all the other". Lincoln was not an abolitionist in 1860. But he realized that the North could not accept the South's terms and that the South would not accept anything less than slavery everywhere. He hoped, but did not expect, that a compromise on the issue of slavery (no expansion into the territories, enforcement of the fugitive slave laws, further assurances to the South of non-interference) could do more than buy a little time, and it failed even at that.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, it was the reason

Read their Articles of Secession. It is quite clear

South Carolina Declaration of Secession

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Actually, it wasn't the reason. Secession is one thing. Lincoln's invasion of the Confederacy is another. Lincoln invaded the South so I could collect tariffs. He even said so. He didn't give a damn about the slaves.

Read what South Carolina said........That WAS their reason
Other states were "picking" on them because of slavery

You mistake is thinking that secession automatically means war. That's the essential horseshit. War didn't come until Lincoln invaded. Lincoln started the war, not secession. Get that through your thick skull.

 

[bripat9643]

You belong underground alright.

He needs a good reeducation camp. After we impose the dictatorship, we'll have to setup a series of them in North Dakota. We'll make all the libs work in the oil fields so they learn what kind of hard work it takes to support all the welfare leaches.

It's official; you've gone so far off the deep end with your absurd revisionist obsession that you have met up with JoeB in Looney-Land. You two should be very happy together there.

You obviously don't know sarcasm when you see it.

Try getting a sense of humor.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, it wasn't the reason. Secession is one thing. Lincoln's invasion of the Confederacy is another. Lincoln invaded the South so I could collect tariffs. He even said so. He didn't give a damn about the slaves.

Read what South Carolina said........That WAS their reason
Other states were "picking" on them because of slavery

You mistake is thinking that secession automatically means war. That's the essential horseshit. War didn't come until Lincoln invaded. Lincoln started the war, not secession. Get that through your thick skull.

War began when South Carolina invaded federal property at Ft Sumter

The traitors from the south took up arms against their own country