Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.It was always unconstitutional.
Post the article and section/paragraph, then.
Your opinion doesn't matter here.
America lost what? The "right" to enslave black people?
america lost when the government decided to invade, murder/rape/rob civilians (fellow americans, mind you), steal their property, burn their homes and businesses and wreck their infrastructure because they want to legally and peacefully withdraw from the union.
Why exactly is it so important to you that people trying to exercise their legal rights to withdraw and form their own government should be violently subdued and brought under domination?
Was king george correct to invade the colonies and murder civilians because the colonists wanted to withdraw from england?
Apparently, using your logic, if your wife asks for a divorce, you believe it's ok to beat her for it.
We send troops around the world to help other nations form their own democratic governments...but you think it's ok to murder fellow citizens who wanted the same things...Hypocrisy much?
Regardless..this country is finished anyway...and the next time a group of states decide to withdraw (and it's coming...probably in the west. Most Southern states would likely join them, too)....there's nothing your gvmt will be able to do about it...so laugh it up, sweetie...
Where did this RAVI idiot come from? So you believe that the Northern people are capable of moving forward from Slavery, yet the Southern People would never move beyond? THANK YOU SIR!!! This is the type of bigotry that I always enjoy presenting to our people, so that they may see how the Yankee feels about them. It always helps to further our restoration cause. You Yankees are such moral minded people that you moved beyond your rape murder and extermination of the Native American indian by the time your work there was done, around, lets see what year was that???? Perhaps 1910 or so? Then we have your Yankee government finally moving beyond its CDC Tuskegee syphilis experiments on our Black Brothers in Alabama in 1972, and in 1992 Your President Clinton admitted it was a racist experiment and made apologies for it, We're Still waiting for the apology on the U.S. Governments master Race program called Eugenics. There were no Jim Crow laws in the Northern States???? No Sundown towns???? But thats OK, we are an evil people and you Yankees have NO BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS. We would surely be keeping the Black Man enslaved simply for sport, right???? What a bigoted lil fool you are, but again thanks, I will be using you as an example to help our people see that we are NOT compatible. And talk about a long train of abuses.....I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.Farm animals, how charming.Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.
Let me try to understand;
Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?
What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
Take your time.
No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.
Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play
Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.
ravi is just another hyperpartisan, anti southern agitator with bumper sticker slogans and shallow thought processes.
Not worth seriously engaging..you'll just waste your time.she'll try to run you in circles... she isn't here for mature discussion.
Don't allow the fools to continue dragging you down the slavery road, they hold no moral superiority, in fact, just the opposite, keep dragging them back to the legality of secession, there they always lose, and it is the only real and current issue. They claim to be a "Nation of laws" yet they are the violators thereof. You are doing a good work here Sir.Where did this RAVI idiot come from? So you believe that the Northern people are capable of moving forward from Slavery, yet the Southern People would never move beyond? THANK YOU SIR!!! This is the type of bigotry that I always enjoy presenting to our people, so that they may see how the Yankee feels about them. It always helps to further our restoration cause. You Yankees are such moral minded people that you moved beyond your rape murder and extermination of the Native American indian by the time your work there was done, around, lets see what year was that???? Perhaps 1910 or so? Then we have your Yankee government finally moving beyond its CDC Tuskegee syphilis experiments on our Black Brothers in Alabama in 1972, and in 1992 Your President Clinton admitted it was a racist experiment and made apologies for it, We're Still waiting for the apology on the U.S. Governments master Race program called Eugenics. There were no Jim Crow laws in the Northern States???? No Sundown towns???? But thats OK, we are an evil people and you Yankees have NO BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS. We would surely be keeping the Black Man enslaved simply for sport, right???? What a bigoted lil fool you are, but again thanks, I will be using you as an example to help our people see that we are NOT compatible. And talk about a long train of abuses.....I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.Farm animals, how charming.Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning and machines are more efficient and require less maintenance than farm animals.
Let me try to understand;
Your position is that if the south had not been invaded and beaten into submission by the federal government we'd (southerners) all be sitting on our verandas drinking mint juleps while the darkies plowed the fields and picked the cotton?
What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
Take your time.
No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.
Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play
Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.
ravi is just another hyperpartisan, anti southern agitator with bumper sticker slogans and shallow thought processes.
Not worth seriously engaging..you'll just waste your time.she'll try to run you in circles... she isn't here for mature discussion.
Don't allow the fools to continue dragging you down the slavery road, they hold no moral superiority, in fact, just the opposite, keep dragging them back to the legality of secession, there they always lose, and it is the only real and current issue. They claim to be a "Nation of laws" yet they are the violators thereof. You are doing a good work here Sir.Where did this RAVI idiot come from? So you believe that the Northern people are capable of moving forward from Slavery, yet the Southern People would never move beyond? THANK YOU SIR!!! This is the type of bigotry that I always enjoy presenting to our people, so that they may see how the Yankee feels about them. It always helps to further our restoration cause. You Yankees are such moral minded people that you moved beyond your rape murder and extermination of the Native American indian by the time your work there was done, around, lets see what year was that???? Perhaps 1910 or so? Then we have your Yankee government finally moving beyond its CDC Tuskegee syphilis experiments on our Black Brothers in Alabama in 1972, and in 1992 Your President Clinton admitted it was a racist experiment and made apologies for it, We're Still waiting for the apology on the U.S. Governments master Race program called Eugenics. There were no Jim Crow laws in the Northern States???? No Sundown towns???? But thats OK, we are an evil people and you Yankees have NO BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS. We would surely be keeping the Black Man enslaved simply for sport, right???? What a bigoted lil fool you are, but again thanks, I will be using you as an example to help our people see that we are NOT compatible. And talk about a long train of abuses.....I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.Farm animals, how charming.
What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
Take your time.
No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.
Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play
Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.
ravi is just another hyperpartisan, anti southern agitator with bumper sticker slogans and shallow thought processes.
Not worth seriously engaging..you'll just waste your time.she'll try to run you in circles... she isn't here for mature discussion.
....
Slavery was a dying practice. The industrial revolution was beginning....
To all you Yankee's Your deadline is 9pm tonight. You are running out of time!
WE STILL AWAIT YOUR POSTING OF THE LAW, Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or Amendment thereof that states that secession is unlawful or illegal.
Discombobulated,I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view. Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.
Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). Publishers Weekly: This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.
Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.
Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.
New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
In other words: The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
or illegal..it isn't mentioned in the constitution, is it?
The states formed the government, not the other way around.
..and when citizens decide to withdraw from this government again the supreme court won't have jurisdiction or power.
The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.
Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.
Why is it such a detestable idea to you that people should be free to democratically withdraw and form their own government that suits them better?
Why are you against democracy and respecting the choice of the people even if you disagree with them?
You're obviously not a southerner, so what's it to you? We're all backward, inbred rednecks anyway, right?
If you can't get all parties concerned to agree to a formalized legal process then you have exactly nothing.
Are you saying that the U.S. is NOT a nation of laws? That the U.S. would never agree to follow the law, that there are different laws for black and white, rich and poor, government and citizen? OH SURELY ONE COULD NEVER STATE SUCH!!! Of course you know I am being sarcastic. Sir, you know nothing of the process we have established to restore our CSA government, to return to the wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation and to end the occupation. Take our case before YOUR SCOTUS? Take our case before the World Court? I think not!!!! To do such would establish that either have jurisdiction, yet neither does. We have our path established, and we will see it through. CSAgov.org
Discombobulated,Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south
Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). Publishers Weekly: This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.
Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.
Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.
New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.
In other words: The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
or illegal..it isn't mentioned in the constitution, is it?
The states formed the government, not the other way around.
..and when citizens decide to withdraw from this government again the supreme court won't have jurisdiction or power.
The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.
Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.
Why is it such a detestable idea to you that people should be free to democratically withdraw and form their own government that suits them better?
Why are you against democracy and respecting the choice of the people even if you disagree with them?
You're obviously not a southerner, so what's it to you? We're all backward, inbred rednecks anyway, right?
If you can't get all parties concerned to agree to a formalized legal process then you have exactly nothing.
Are you saying that the U.S. is NOT a nation of laws? That the U.S. would never agree to follow the law, that there are different laws for black and white, rich and poor, government and citizen? OH SURELY ONE COULD NEVER STATE SUCH!!! Of course you know I am being sarcastic. Sir, you know nothing of the process we have established to restore our CSA government, to return to the wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation and to end the occupation. Take our case before YOUR SCOTUS? Take our case before the World Court? I think not!!!! To do such would establish that either have jurisdiction, yet neither does. We have our path established, and we will see it through. CSAgov.org
I know far more about the history of the Confederacy than you and all your dimwitted friends put together.
whitehall snow, you know nothing.
Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.
All the South had to do was
(1) Keep slavery in the old South
(2) Respect federal property
(3) Follow constitutional, electoral process
Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.
The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.
Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.
That was Lincoln's freaking only mission. He failed to encourage a bi-partisan compromise in the border states. Surely Lincoln understood that a year or two or three or ten with political maneuvering and maybe concessions would avoid a freaking bloody Civil War. You have to understand that Civil War was in a scale of one to ten about number fifteen in the logical political options available to the president. Lincoln failed to keep the Union together.
Discombobulated,In other words: The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.
or illegal..it isn't mentioned in the constitution, is it?
The states formed the government, not the other way around.
..and when citizens decide to withdraw from this government again the supreme court won't have jurisdiction or power.
The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.
Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.
Why is it such a detestable idea to you that people should be free to democratically withdraw and form their own government that suits them better?
Why are you against democracy and respecting the choice of the people even if you disagree with them?
You're obviously not a southerner, so what's it to you? We're all backward, inbred rednecks anyway, right?
If you can't get all parties concerned to agree to a formalized legal process then you have exactly nothing.
Are you saying that the U.S. is NOT a nation of laws? That the U.S. would never agree to follow the law, that there are different laws for black and white, rich and poor, government and citizen? OH SURELY ONE COULD NEVER STATE SUCH!!! Of course you know I am being sarcastic. Sir, you know nothing of the process we have established to restore our CSA government, to return to the wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation and to end the occupation. Take our case before YOUR SCOTUS? Take our case before the World Court? I think not!!!! To do such would establish that either have jurisdiction, yet neither does. We have our path established, and we will see it through. CSAgov.org
I know far more about the history of the Confederacy than you and all your dimwitted friends put together.
And yet, you have failed to prove it.
Don't allow the fools to continue dragging you down the slavery road, they hold no moral superiority, in fact, just the opposite, keep dragging them back to the legality of secession, there they always lose, and it is the only real and current issue. They claim to be a "Nation of laws" yet they are the violators thereof. You are doing a good work here Sir.Where did this RAVI idiot come from? So you believe that the Northern people are capable of moving forward from Slavery, yet the Southern People would never move beyond? THANK YOU SIR!!! This is the type of bigotry that I always enjoy presenting to our people, so that they may see how the Yankee feels about them. It always helps to further our restoration cause. You Yankees are such moral minded people that you moved beyond your rape murder and extermination of the Native American indian by the time your work there was done, around, lets see what year was that???? Perhaps 1910 or so? Then we have your Yankee government finally moving beyond its CDC Tuskegee syphilis experiments on our Black Brothers in Alabama in 1972, and in 1992 Your President Clinton admitted it was a racist experiment and made apologies for it, We're Still waiting for the apology on the U.S. Governments master Race program called Eugenics. There were no Jim Crow laws in the Northern States???? No Sundown towns???? But thats OK, we are an evil people and you Yankees have NO BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS. We would surely be keeping the Black Man enslaved simply for sport, right???? What a bigoted lil fool you are, but again thanks, I will be using you as an example to help our people see that we are NOT compatible. And talk about a long train of abuses.....I don't need to. You need to prove your retarded assertion that machines would have spelled the end of slavery.Farm animals, how charming.
What? Are machines more efficient than animals or not?
Take your time.
No, you'd be sitting on your veranda while your slaves were cleaning your toilets and any thing else you wanted them to do.
Oh..word games..Ok..I'll play
Prove it. Prove what you just claimed.
ravi is just another hyperpartisan, anti southern agitator with bumper sticker slogans and shallow thought processes.
Not worth seriously engaging..you'll just waste your time.she'll try to run you in circles... she isn't here for mature discussion.
I know huh?whitehall snow, you know nothing.
Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.
All the South had to do was
(1) Keep slavery in the old South
(2) Respect federal property
(3) Follow constitutional, electoral process
Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.
The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.
Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.
That was Lincoln's freaking only mission. He failed to encourage a bi-partisan compromise in the border states. Surely Lincoln understood that a year or two or three or ten with political maneuvering and maybe concessions would avoid a freaking bloody Civil War. You have to understand that Civil War was in a scale of one to ten about number fifteen in the logical political options available to the president. Lincoln failed to keep the Union together.
Absolute and total horse shit. Not much of a historian.......are you. Perhaps you can describe exactly what actions Lincoln took that prompted secession. Oh wait, that's right, he didn't do or say anything that had anything to do with secession. Lincoln was elected and then secession started before he took office.....based on nothing but the contrived perception of what he might do.
I know huh?whitehall snow, you know nothing.
Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.
All the South had to do was
(1) Keep slavery in the old South
(2) Respect federal property
(3) Follow constitutional, electoral process
Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.
The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.
Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.
That was Lincoln's freaking only mission. He failed to encourage a bi-partisan compromise in the border states. Surely Lincoln understood that a year or two or three or ten with political maneuvering and maybe concessions would avoid a freaking bloody Civil War. You have to understand that Civil War was in a scale of one to ten about number fifteen in the logical political options available to the president. Lincoln failed to keep the Union together.
Absolute and total horse shit. Not much of a historian.......are you. Perhaps you can describe exactly what actions Lincoln took that prompted secession. Oh wait, that's right, he didn't do or say anything that had anything to do with secession. Lincoln was elected and then secession started before he took office.....based on nothing but the contrived perception of what he might do.
These people don't even know the slightest bit of history of the run up to the war it seems or the basics of the timeline.
The idiot Rogatini thinks the Industrial Revolution was just beginning in the 1860's../
Sheesh.
It just makes you shake your head at the poverty of knowledge parading as educated here.
And the Stormfront refugee also keeps repeating how "Slavery was a dying practice."I know huh?whitehall snow, you know nothing.
Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.
All the South had to do was
(1) Keep slavery in the old South
(2) Respect federal property
(3) Follow constitutional, electoral process
Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.
The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.
Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.
That was Lincoln's freaking only mission. He failed to encourage a bi-partisan compromise in the border states. Surely Lincoln understood that a year or two or three or ten with political maneuvering and maybe concessions would avoid a freaking bloody Civil War. You have to understand that Civil War was in a scale of one to ten about number fifteen in the logical political options available to the president. Lincoln failed to keep the Union together.
Absolute and total horse shit. Not much of a historian.......are you. Perhaps you can describe exactly what actions Lincoln took that prompted secession. Oh wait, that's right, he didn't do or say anything that had anything to do with secession. Lincoln was elected and then secession started before he took office.....based on nothing but the contrived perception of what he might do.
These people don't even know the slightest bit of history of the run up to the war it seems or the basics of the timeline.
The idiot Rogatini thinks the Industrial Revolution was just beginning in the 1860's../
Sheesh.
It just makes you shake your head at the poverty of knowledge parading as educated here.
Holy shit! Hard to imagine anyone being that ignorant.
And the Stormfront refugee also keeps repeating how "Slavery was a dying practice."I know huh?whitehall snow, you know nothing.
Lincoln was trying to keep the Union together.
All the South had to do was
(1) Keep slavery in the old South
(2) Respect federal property
(3) Follow constitutional, electoral process
Instead, the South fired on Old Glory and pissed on the patriots’ graves.
The northern democrats, who had been demanding compromise until the firing on Ft. Sumter, joined the GOP and joined in murdering the Old south.
Only the confederates are guilty of the carnage; it came because of their unweaning pride.
That was Lincoln's freaking only mission. He failed to encourage a bi-partisan compromise in the border states. Surely Lincoln understood that a year or two or three or ten with political maneuvering and maybe concessions would avoid a freaking bloody Civil War. You have to understand that Civil War was in a scale of one to ten about number fifteen in the logical political options available to the president. Lincoln failed to keep the Union together.
Absolute and total horse shit. Not much of a historian.......are you. Perhaps you can describe exactly what actions Lincoln took that prompted secession. Oh wait, that's right, he didn't do or say anything that had anything to do with secession. Lincoln was elected and then secession started before he took office.....based on nothing but the contrived perception of what he might do.
These people don't even know the slightest bit of history of the run up to the war it seems or the basics of the timeline.
The idiot Rogatini thinks the Industrial Revolution was just beginning in the 1860's../
Sheesh.
It just makes you shake your head at the poverty of knowledge parading as educated here.
Holy shit! Hard to imagine anyone being that ignorant.
It is astounding Lost Causers (and those ignorant of the numbers) could even begin to say things like that.
I mean, let's posit this for a minute...were the slaveholders just giving up their slaves? No. Were slave auctions being held all over the south and slave prices holding steady and strong? Yes. Were they still breeding slaves, literally practicing eugenics by forced sex coupling with the biggest and sturdiest and also separating families to get their longest dollar for the "farm tools?" Yes.
Let's look at the combined value of all the slaves for those slaveowners: over 3 billion dollars.
Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.
If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.
----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure.
Nearly 4 million slaves out of a total population of nine million in the South.
More than one in four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states). Slavery touched the lives of nearly all Southerns. It was literally the human lifeblood of their economy and they were willing to kill and die to the death to defend, protect and preserve it. And did.
And there are still some who will say, after all this...."it was dying out" -- expecting people to take them seriously.
And the Stormfront refugee also keeps repeating how "Slavery was a dying practice."I know huh?That was Lincoln's freaking only mission. He failed to encourage a bi-partisan compromise in the border states. Surely Lincoln understood that a year or two or three or ten with political maneuvering and maybe concessions would avoid a freaking bloody Civil War. You have to understand that Civil War was in a scale of one to ten about number fifteen in the logical political options available to the president. Lincoln failed to keep the Union together.
Absolute and total horse shit. Not much of a historian.......are you. Perhaps you can describe exactly what actions Lincoln took that prompted secession. Oh wait, that's right, he didn't do or say anything that had anything to do with secession. Lincoln was elected and then secession started before he took office.....based on nothing but the contrived perception of what he might do.
These people don't even know the slightest bit of history of the run up to the war it seems or the basics of the timeline.
The idiot Rogatini thinks the Industrial Revolution was just beginning in the 1860's../
Sheesh.
It just makes you shake your head at the poverty of knowledge parading as educated here.
Holy shit! Hard to imagine anyone being that ignorant.
It is astounding Lost Causers (and those ignorant of the numbers) could even begin to say things like that.
I mean, let's posit this for a minute...were the slaveholders just giving up their slaves? No. Were slave auctions being held all over the south and slave prices holding steady and strong? Yes. Were they still breeding slaves, literally practicing eugenics by forced sex coupling with the biggest and sturdiest and also separating families to get their longest dollar for the "farm tools?" Yes.
Let's look at the combined value of all the slaves for those slaveowners: over 3 billion dollars.
Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.
If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.
----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure.
Nearly 4 million slaves out of a total population of nine million in the South.
More than one in four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states). Slavery touched the lives of nearly all Southerns. It was literally the human lifeblood of their economy and they were willing to kill and die to the death to defend, protect and preserve it. And did.
And there are still some who will say, after all this...."it was dying out" -- expecting people to take them seriously.
Amazing how Lincoln cultists go on and on about slavery. Ignoring the fact that their beloved Dishonest Abe had no intention of freeing the slaves. His dishonest Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves ONLY in the Confederacy, in which he had no authority...keeping slavery legal in border states.
To his dying day, he wished to deport all blacks.
He was known to be an fervent racist, even for his time.
How does the cultist reconcile these facts?
The country literally fell apart under Lincoln's watch. He should have lied, made promises, offered compromises he knew he couldn't keep and even offered to kiss the ass of every southern governor if it would have kept the Union together for another month or year or two until people cooled down.. He failed to do so and compounded it by appointing a recovering alcoholic general to make war on American citizens raiding farms, burning barns and killing livestock and sometimes hanging citizens. Another general who may have been certifiably insane and thought he was "God's terrible swift sword" took it upon himself to punish Americans by setting fire to a city.
And the Stormfront refugee also keeps repeating how "Slavery was a dying practice."I know huh?Absolute and total horse shit. Not much of a historian.......are you. Perhaps you can describe exactly what actions Lincoln took that prompted secession. Oh wait, that's right, he didn't do or say anything that had anything to do with secession. Lincoln was elected and then secession started before he took office.....based on nothing but the contrived perception of what he might do.
These people don't even know the slightest bit of history of the run up to the war it seems or the basics of the timeline.
The idiot Rogatini thinks the Industrial Revolution was just beginning in the 1860's../
Sheesh.
It just makes you shake your head at the poverty of knowledge parading as educated here.
Holy shit! Hard to imagine anyone being that ignorant.
It is astounding Lost Causers (and those ignorant of the numbers) could even begin to say things like that.
I mean, let's posit this for a minute...were the slaveholders just giving up their slaves? No. Were slave auctions being held all over the south and slave prices holding steady and strong? Yes. Were they still breeding slaves, literally practicing eugenics by forced sex coupling with the biggest and sturdiest and also separating families to get their longest dollar for the "farm tools?" Yes.
Let's look at the combined value of all the slaves for those slaveowners: over 3 billion dollars.
Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.
If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.
----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure.
Nearly 4 million slaves out of a total population of nine million in the South.
More than one in four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states). Slavery touched the lives of nearly all Southerns. It was literally the human lifeblood of their economy and they were willing to kill and die to the death to defend, protect and preserve it. And did.
And there are still some who will say, after all this...."it was dying out" -- expecting people to take them seriously.
Amazing how Lincoln cultists go on and on about slavery. Ignoring the fact that their beloved Dishonest Abe had no intention of freeing the slaves. His dishonest Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves ONLY in the Confederacy, in which he had no authority...keeping slavery legal in border states.
To his dying day, he wished to deport all blacks.
He was known to be an fervent racist, even for his time.
How does the cultist reconcile these facts?
Sounds like the Confederacy really had no reason at all to secede then.....did they. If Lincoln had no intention of freeing slaves then the Confederates were just plain stupid.....weren't they.
And the Stormfront refugee also keeps repeating how "Slavery was a dying practice."I know huh?
These people don't even know the slightest bit of history of the run up to the war it seems or the basics of the timeline.
The idiot Rogatini thinks the Industrial Revolution was just beginning in the 1860's../
Sheesh.
It just makes you shake your head at the poverty of knowledge parading as educated here.
Holy shit! Hard to imagine anyone being that ignorant.
It is astounding Lost Causers (and those ignorant of the numbers) could even begin to say things like that.
I mean, let's posit this for a minute...were the slaveholders just giving up their slaves? No. Were slave auctions being held all over the south and slave prices holding steady and strong? Yes. Were they still breeding slaves, literally practicing eugenics by forced sex coupling with the biggest and sturdiest and also separating families to get their longest dollar for the "farm tools?" Yes.
Let's look at the combined value of all the slaves for those slaveowners: over 3 billion dollars.
Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.
If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.
----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure.
Nearly 4 million slaves out of a total population of nine million in the South.
More than one in four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states). Slavery touched the lives of nearly all Southerns. It was literally the human lifeblood of their economy and they were willing to kill and die to the death to defend, protect and preserve it. And did.
And there are still some who will say, after all this...."it was dying out" -- expecting people to take them seriously.
Amazing how Lincoln cultists go on and on about slavery. Ignoring the fact that their beloved Dishonest Abe had no intention of freeing the slaves. His dishonest Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves ONLY in the Confederacy, in which he had no authority...keeping slavery legal in border states.
To his dying day, he wished to deport all blacks.
He was known to be an fervent racist, even for his time.
How does the cultist reconcile these facts?
Sounds like the Confederacy really had no reason at all to secede then.....did they. If Lincoln had no intention of freeing slaves then the Confederates were just plain stupid.....weren't they.
That post clearly reflects your lack of knowledge of the Civil War and yet you claim to know it all.
You can't fix stupid!
