The Gettysburg Address

[editec]

CIVIL WAR REVISIONISM..always a good time, eh?

What amazes me is how angry people some still get about the issue of the CSA.

And the same people who get so angry will -- to the man -- tell us that they think slavery is not okay.

It was however, they usually explain to us in one way or the other, a noble act for the CSA to defend the practice of slavery in 1860.

Interesting example of cognitive dissonance, no?

With many, and bripat9643 in particular, there is no risk of cognitive dissonance; his posts are, however, a discordant and meaningless mixture of 'sounds'.

There's no risk of dissonance because that would require holding beliefs that conflict with each other.

Good for you, Bri.

See, I'm not the one who believes Lincoln was fighting for the right of self determination when it's undeniable he was brutally imposing a regime on people who didn't want it.

I suspect if one wants the polar opposite of self determination, SLAVERY would be a pretty good fit, amigo

I'm not the one who claims Lincoln started the war to free the slaves when even Lincoln admits he didn't give a damn about the slaves.

Who made that claim, Bri?

Must be some strawman you've got a hard-on for.



We're all real impressed.


Meanwhile...

Bri, is SLAVERY an okay system to base an economy on?

Yes or no?

 

[Unkotare]

If you could travel back in time to 1875 or so, I think you'd be hard pressed to find actual veterans of the American Civil War, North or South, as fucking nutty and delusional about the conflict as this squirrely SOB.

 

[JakeStarkey]

To even imply that the traitors remotely thought that all men are created equal shows what abdouchebag Mencken is

It doesn't matter what they thought. The claim that Lincoln and the Northern states were fighting for the right of self-determination is obvious hooey. They were fighting to impose confiscatory tariffs on the Southern states, and nothing more.

Offer proof and I will counter with the Cornerstone Speech.

You cannot carry your affirmation.

Your running around in circles waving your little hands changes no one's opinion about Lincoln and the Civil War.

 

[paperview]

Heh. Phunny thread.

 

[bripat9643]

If you could travel back in time to 1875 or so, I think you'd be hard pressed to find actual veterans of the American Civil War, North or South, as fucking nutty and delusional about the conflict as this squirrely SOB.

You really are a stupid cock sucker.

I want to remind everyone what Unkotare means:

Unkotare

unkotare \ woon-ko-ta-re \ , noun;

Japanese. Roughly translated as dripping poop. This word is used to describe a pornographic genre commonly known as Scat.

"Hey Bro checkout this sweet unkotare video I found... it is super kawaii-desu"​

That describes you perfectly. It's curious that you're proud to use that nom de plume.

 

[bripat9643]

To even imply that the traitors remotely thought that all men are created equal shows what abdouchebag Mencken is

It doesn't matter what they thought. The claim that Lincoln and the Northern states were fighting for the right of self-determination is obvious hooey. They were fighting to impose confiscatory tariffs on the Southern states, and nothing more.

Offer proof and I will counter with the Cornerstone Speech.

You cannot carry your affirmation.

Your running around in circles waving your little hands changes no one's opinion about Lincoln and the Civil War.

The Cornerstone speech is irrelevant. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia because of the Cornerstone speech. He didn't invade to free the slaves. He didn't even invade because of Ft Sumter. He invaded because he wanted to Force Southern states to pay the Morrill tariff.

Everything else is irrelevant.

BTW, Fakey, did you check out that deal on adult diapers I sent you? How is the battle to control your bodily functions coming along? Are you still able to feed yourself?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

The fact remains that Lincoln did not invade Virginia to free the slaves. he said so himself many times. All you brain damaged Lincoln cult members can't seem to get it through your thick skulls that Lincoln is the one who invaded the South and started the war. The Confederacy didn't not send troops marching on Washington. They just wanted to be left alone.

Of course, you deliberately know this fact, but continue to harp on slavery. that's because you know your full of shit. Lincoln was a tyrant and a war criminal. You can't defend your bogus saint with the facts, so you repeat the slavery mantra over and over again. Not a single one of you even bothers to address the fact that Lincoln never proposed to abolish slavery prior to the war, or even during the war.

 

[bripat9643]

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

No, it didn't. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war. War began when Lincoln invaded Virginia.

You've been told that time and time and time again, yet you keep repeating this bullshit. That's the problem with Lincoln cult members: no matter how many times you shoot down their idiotic arguments, they keep on going back to them. it appears to be a form of brain damage. You keep repeating yourselves like some kind of Alzheimer's patient.

It's impossible to argue with people who are incapable of committing logic.

 

[bripat9643]

I suspect if one wants the polar opposite of self determination, SLAVERY would be a pretty good fit, amigo

I suspect you have brain damage because you can't get it through your skull that Lincoln did not invade Virginia to free the slaves.

I'm not the one who claims Lincoln started the war to free the slaves when even Lincoln admits he didn't give a damn about the slaves.

Who made that claim, Bri?

Must be some strawman you've got a hard-on for.

We're all real impressed.?

Virtually every one of your Komrades in the Lincoln cult made that claim over and over and over again right here in this thread.

How stupid are you? Have you actually read any of the posts in this thread? The more you and the rest of the Lincoln cult members post, the more convinced I am that you all suffer from brain damage. It appears there are entire posts that simply pass right through your head with a single word registering anywhere on your shriveled brains.

Meanwhile...

Bri, is SLAVERY an okay system to base an economy on?

Yes or no?

Only a jackass would even ask such a question.

 

[gipper]

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.

The fact remains that Lincoln did not invade Virginia to free the slaves. he said so himself many times. All you brain damaged Lincoln cult members can't seem to get it through your thick skulls that Lincoln is the one who invaded the South and started the war. The Confederacy didn't not send troops marching on Washington. They just wanted to be left alone.

Of course, you deliberately know this fact, but continue to harp on slavery. that's because you know your full of shit. Lincoln was a tyrant and a war criminal. You can't defend your bogus saint with the facts, so you repeat the slavery mantra over and over again. Not a single one of you even bothers to address the fact that Lincoln never proposed to abolish slavery prior to the war, or even during the war.

We all agree that slavery was wrong. It needed to be abolished. The problem those of us who believe in individual liberty and limited government have, is the way Lincoln abolished it. Though he never intended to end slavery, when he started the war.

He warred on fellow Americans to FORCE the southern states to stay in the Union and to impose federal government taxes on them, to the benefit of northern Republican interests. This is terribly wrong and shows a complete lack of leadership. How can any informed American think his actions appropriate?

The Lincoln cultists use the slavery issue to justify Lincoln's heinous and unconstitutional actions. There is no justification for 850,000 deaths and near total destruction of the southern states leading to decades of hate and racism.

There had to be a solution short of war. Lincoln never sought a solution other than war. A great leader does not plunge his nation into civil war...but an egotistical power hungry tyrant does.

 

[Unkotare]

If you could travel back in time to 1875 or so, I think you'd be hard pressed to find actual veterans of the American Civil War, North or South, as fucking nutty and delusional about the conflict as this squirrely SOB.

I want to remind everyone what Unkotare means:.

You mean you want to remind everyone that you couldn't find what it really means on your google search and you have no other recourse because you are an ignorant little freak. Are you wearing your confederate traitor costume to play dress-up, little freak?

 

[Unkotare]

He didn't even invade because of Ft Sumter. He invaded because he wanted to Force Southern states to pay the Morrill tariff.

Everything else is irrelevant.

Your little confederate undies are on too tight, reb. Check yourself in somewhere if you still have an ounce of rationality left.

 

[Rogue 9]

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

No, it didn't. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war. War began when Lincoln invaded Virginia.

It wasn't their territory; it was U.S. territory. Proof:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

So no, they were not booting off trespassers; they were attacking a legally garrisoned federal fort.

 

[Rotagilla]

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.

from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

He was a lying bastard, that lincoln.


"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Letter to Horace Greeley
August 22, 1862

"Negro equality! Fudge!! How long, in the government of a God great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knave to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?"
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Fragments: Notes for Speeches
Sept. 1859 (Vol. III)

"But what shall we do with the Negroes after they are free? I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves."
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Letter to General Benjamin F. Butler
March 1865 (Vol. VII)

"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, (applause from audience) 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. 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."
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, 4th Debate with Stephan A. Douglas in Illinois
Sept. 1858 (Vol. III)

"Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get an answer out of me to the question whether I am in favor of Negro citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. (applause from audience) He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of Negro citizenship. (renewed applause) If the state of Illinois has the power to grant Negroes citizenship, I shall be opposed to it. (cries of "here, here" and "good, good" from audience) That is all I have to say."
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Speech at Sringfield, Illinois
June 1857 (Vol. II)

"In the course of his reply, the Senator remarked that he had always considered this a government made for the white people and not for the Negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so, too."
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Speech at Peoria, Illinois
Oct. 1854 (Vol. II)

"I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason why we should at least be separated."
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Address on Colonization to a Deputation of
Africans in Washington D.C.
August 1862 (Vol. V)

 

[Rotagilla]

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

That's not what it says.

 

[Rotagilla]

War began when South Carolina invaded federal property at Ft Sumter

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

No, it didn't. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war. War began when Lincoln invaded Virginia.

It wasn't their territory; it was U.S. territory. Proof:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

So no, they were not booting off trespassers; they were attacking a legally garrisoned federal fort.

..and secession transferred ownership of the fort to the country whose territory it was in.
The south asked them to evacuate when they seceded and offered to pay the fed government for ALL property they seized....but no...

April 15 1861 Lincoln issued an order for 75,000 volunteers to subdue the south..after originally saying that he endorsed secession regarding texas seceding from mexico. and also on Jan 12 1848 in Congress he said .
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."



...but lincoln still needed a casus belli as an excuse to invade the south and wage war on his fellow americans.
Some in the north were not against the secession of the south.."Let our erring sisters depart in peace"

Fort sumter was where he provoked the attack that gave him the excuse he needed.
Fort sumter could not continue to exist in the harbor of Charleston..a foreign fort on southern soil. It had to be surrendered like the other federal forts on southern land or in southern waters.
In exchange the south offered to pay not ONLY for the properties, but also to pay the south's portion of the federal debt of the United States.(!)

Lincoln didn't want to hear any of that. He wanted a war.
He refused to meet with southern representatives sent to discuss the crisis despite the intervention of 2 associate justices of The Supreme Court on the south's behalf.

He decided he would not let the south secede..despite the wording of the Declaration of Independence which the u.s. used to secede from britain, (and which he naturally supported.)

So now fort sumter which was built to protect americans from foreign attack was now to be used AGAINST americans exercising their legal rights to be free from federal authority.

Fort Pickens in Pensacola and Fort sumter were the only 2 forts in the confederacy that hadn't peacefully surrendered to the CSA.

Had fort sumter surrendered the war probably would have been avoided but lincoln knew that a federal fort in charleston harbor, the seat of secession, would be an intolerable provocation, irritant and threat.

Lincoln had vowed to collect "duties and imposts" or tariffs in the south.

Tariffs amounted to 95% of the federal revenue and the Morrill Tariff signed in 1861 by Pres. Buchanan had MORE THAN DOUBLED TARIFF DUTIES on the south.

The south opposed the tariff..the north, naturally supported it and now that south carolina had left the union lincoln decided to ENFORCE the tariff..a further provocation.

Ratcheting up the tension, on april 6 1861 lincoln announced he was sending men and supplies to fort sumter..which by now wasn't part of the united states any more.

The south knew that if they wanted to take possession of the fort with no bloodshed, they couldn't wait until it was reinforced.
On 12 april 1861 Gen P.G.T. Beauregard opened gentlemanly negotiations with the fort commander, Maj. Robt. Anderson. When negotiations broke down Beauregard ordered his artillerymen to fire on the fort for effect. 2 days later we took the fort..NO ONE WAS KILLED

The south won the stand off against a foreign occupied fort in its territory but now lincoln had the excuse he needed..To "put down the rebel insurrection"..which HE HAD PROVOKED.

In his inaugural address lincoln had said;

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

but purposely seeking to wage war on his fellow americans isn't actually a reflection of "the better angels of our nature".

Lincoln thought the mexican-american war was wrong even though it gained the u.s. california, utah, nevada, arizona, parts of colorado wyoming and new mexico, but thought it was just fine to wage total war against his fellow americans who were exercising a legal right.

If the south seceded today, how many of you think it would be ok to send tanks across the potomac, blockade southern ports and carpet bomb american cities?
Killing civilians, destroying and burning their property, killing or stealing their livestock, wrecking their infrastructure and waging a war of scorched earth..against fellow americans?
I'm sure some of you keyboard jockeys and the more immature among you will claim it's just a fine idea...but seriously...What goes around most assuredly comes around..think of YOUR home and city destroyed, your possessions stolen and your friends and family dead...

Robert E. Lee, a great patriot and a West Point graduate was offered command of the Union Army and declined. A man who had honorably served the flag of the U.S. his entire adult life;

On April 20th, 1861 Lee wrote two very important letters.
One was addressed to the Secretary of War tendering his resignation from the United States Army; the other to his mentor, General Winfield Scott, explaining his decision.
Lee’s resignation had come after much deliberation.

Tensions between the north and south had been high for many months when in January, 1861 Lee wrote to his wife from Texas that “As far as I can judge from the papers we are between anarchy and Civil War. May God avert us from both.”

In a letter to his son Jan 23 1861 he wrote;

....I see that four states have declared themselves out of the Union; four more will apparently follow their example. Then, if the border states are brought into the gulf of revolution, one half of the country will be arrayed against the other. I must try and be patient and await the end, for I can do nothing to hasten or retard it.

The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression and am willing to take every proper step for redress . It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any state if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation.

. . . Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved, and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people; and, save in defense, will draw my sword on none.




The South seceded basically over Free Trade. The North couldn't compete with the cheaper and better European goods coming into Southern ports. So they imposed the Morrill tariffs in 1860. The poor Whites of the South couldn't afford Northern goods or to pay the tariffs, so they ignored them. The Federal government controlled by the North sent troops and tariff collectors to Southern ports. This was intolerable to the economic well being of the South, so they seceded from the Federal Union and ordered the evacuation of all Federal officers and troops from the Confederacy.
Lincoln ordered Fort Sumter not to comply and sent ships to resupply them. The South bombarded them into surrendering before supplies could arrive. No lives were lost.

The jewish bankers and manufacturers of the North went into a tizzy and ordered Lincoln to force the South back into the Union.
After 2 years of war, the South was winning, even though they were greatly outmanned.
Morale was low and desertions were high in the North. There were anti-draft riots. Nobody wanted to fight for the bankers.

That's when Lincoln changed his strategy and said the war was to free the poor oppressed slaves of the South and issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

European support for the South wavered after that because they were anti-slavery. The South suddenly became the bad guys. Lincoln used his new, high moral ground as an excuse to commit immoral atrocities against Southern cities and civilians.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're a moron.



Slavery existed in the North as well as the South. The Constitution of the United States required the federal government to enforce the institution of slavery. If the South wasn't looking for self-determination, then neither was the federal government. So, once again, the Gettysburg Address is a fraud.

Have you heard of free states? By the time Lincoln gave that speech northern states were mostly free states.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

By the time he gave the speech? That's a little late, don't you think? What about when the war started? You can hardly claim that the North was fighting to end slavery when quite a number of states in the union still practiced slavery.

I wonder if bripat has any idea who H.L. Mencken was or what he thought? Methinks he took a single quote in the belief others my find its use a sign that bripat isn't a fool. As usual he was/is wrong.

H. L. Mencken - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Picaro]

It doesn't matter what they thought. The claim that Lincoln and the Northern states were fighting for the right of self-determination is obvious hooey. They were fighting to impose confiscatory tariffs on the Southern states, and nothing more.

Well, also priorities like the Homestead Act, and the massive corporate welfare subsidies like the Pacific Railroad Act, and a couple of other faves. Whether or not slavery was good or bad, it was never a priority with Lincoln or most Republicans; we know this because we have a very clear record of what their priorities were by the first bills they passed, and ending slavery was obviously way down the list. Of course, pointing out the actual historical record is always supposed to be 'defending slavery' and 'the South' or something.

Lincoln was very much a dictator, and used Federal troops and loyal state militias at election polling places quite freely, and along with loyalty oaths and merely having these 'poll watchers' literally toss out would be voters who didn't vote Republican, managed to pack the Congress and Senate with enough Republicans who supported his war policies to conduct the war; without those tactics his war policies would have been voted down. The war wasn't popular, nor did the majority of the north support it, as most people accepted secession as a right since the signing of the Constitution; it wasn't 'treason' by the standards of the day.

Can anybody guess who said this in a speech not that long before the Civil War?

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right-- a right which we hope and believe will liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to case in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.


A couple of good books on the Civil War Era and American elections at the time and slightly previous years:

The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century-- Richard Franklin Bensel

Also by Bensel:

Yankee Levithian: The Origins of Central State Authority in America, 1859-1877

These two are good introductory backgrounders for how elections were held and how elections were held previously to and then radically changed by the elections of Lincoln and the Republicans.

The last chapter of the first book covers elections in the Civil War, and how they were very different from earlier elections, the use of Federal troops, 'loyalty oaths', and the like.

The American Civil War changed the way men voted. The most important change was the vast expansion of the role played by the federal government and its agents. ... In the north and in the border states, however, the Civil War imposed a new condition on voting: the legitimacy of an election now often depended on whether or not those loyal to the Union prevailed at the polls. ...In the border states and some northern states as well, Union troops and loyal state militia also appeared at the polls. Their appearance was ostensibly intended to maintain order and protect the polls from Confederate guerrillas. In practice, however, their influence was more commonly felt through their own informal tests of loyalty; those merely suspected of hostility to the Republican party were often physically ejected from the polling place, whether or not they were willing to swear the required loyalty oath.

pg. 217 of my copy of The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century

... and more. Without these Stalinist style tactics, the Republicans wouldn't have been able to get the Senate and Congressional votes they needed to pass such Acts as the Pacific Railroad Act and others. They also needed the slim contingent of remaining Whig abolitionists' votes, hence the much later sudden interest in 'the evils of slavery'.

Ironically, the New England Federalists in the years before the War of 1812 held a secessionist convention, over unhappiness with the dominance of the state of Virginia in the Federal government, for instance. There was no call to arms to put down that movement, nor did many claim they had no right to secede. The major consensus in the north was that secession wasn't 'treason'; that was a fabrication by Lincoln and his cronies. He immediately used Federal troops and the suspension of habeas corpus to force silence of critics. Even the Lincoln fans admit he was a dictator.

The majority of newspaper editorials of the time supported peaceful secession, or peaceful means to bring the seceding states back. There were other secessionist movements as well, New York City was one, and in states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey there was a movement to form a 'Central Confederacy', for instance.

Speeches by politicians don't really have any relevance to what they actually do; not then any more than they do now.

 

[gipper]

To even imply that the traitors remotely thought that all men are created equal shows what abdouchebag Mencken is

It doesn't matter what they thought. The claim that Lincoln and the Northern states were fighting for the right of self-determination is obvious hooey. They were fighting to impose confiscatory tariffs on the Southern states, and nothing more.

IMHO we need to expand on that a bit.

First, most Union soldiers were not knowingly fighting for imposition of tariffs. Lincoln and the R Party was. The Union soldier likely knew nothing of tariffs, which were purposely designed to harm the South's economy and enrich a few northern industrialists who just happened to richly fund the R party.

Much of the Union army were conscripted immigrants with few prospects. They did what they were told to make a buck. Some of course, thought they were patriotic and some where fighting to end slavery, by fighting Lincoln's War of Aggression.

In reality, the North was fighting to PREVENT self-determination of the southern states...completely at odds with Lincoln's dumb speech at Gettysburg. The southern soldier was the one fighting for self determination.

But what do I know....I am just a lover of slavery and a Neo-Confederate....

 

[Picaro]

Since pointing out the actual historical record is according to some being a 'southern apologist', does ignoring the historical record make one a 'northern apologist', and means you endorse the deliberate war on civilians conducted by Grant, and the notorious northern 'property camps' where 'freed' slaves were imprisoned and died by the thousands from disease and starvation, at least excepting those 'lucky' ones who weren't used as forced labor by Grant and other military commanders?

Or endorse the Black Codes in the north that came along well before Jim Crow laws in the south that made it impossible for 'free' blacks to make a legal living or even immigrate to many states, including Illinois, Lincoln's home state? Does it mean you also endorsed the looting by Union soldiers of black slaves' property in their 'war of liberation', and the beating and killings of those slaves who resisted the looting?

I'm guessing there is a hypocritical double standard that says 'no, it's different', somehow ... I wonder why so many black people stayed in the south after the war.