Tomorrow feb 12 is birthday of our most famous white supremacist

[Syriusly]

Lincoln didn't save the Union. His ineptness caused a crisis that split the Union and killed most of the best and bravest of a generation. Any president in modern times would be impeached and imprisoned for sanctioning a drunk who said he would cause a crow to pack a lunch before flying over the Shenandoah Valley when he intended to make war on innocent farmers or a clinically insane general who thought he was "God's terrible swift sword" and burned a Southern city or a incompetent idiot like Beast Butler who was appointed as king of New Orleans and treated Southern women like whores.

Lincoln wasn't even sworn in yet when the south began seceding.

Tell that to your Liberal buddies that think Lincoln offered the South compensated emancipation....lol

Compensated Emancipation - Abraham Lincoln
[FONT='Times New Roman',Times,serif]Historian John Hope Franklin wrote of President Lincoln : "In the fall of 1861 he attempted an experiment with compensated emancipation in Delaware. He interested his friends there and urged them to propose it to the Delaware legislature. He went so far as to write a draft of the bill, which provided for gradual emancipation, and another which provided that the federal government would share the expenses of compensating masters for their slaves. Although these bills were much discussed, there was too much opposition to introduce them."2 With less than 2000 slaves in the whole state, Delaware seemed like an ideal laboratory for President Lincoln's idea, but Congressman George Fisher was unable to get state legislative approval for the idea.[/FONT]

 

[Syriusly]

Yes- you are right- there is 'enough time'- but I don't think that there is any need to prioritize rationalizing why slavery just wasn't that bad in the United States.

Just because you want to take the focus off of how bad slavery in the United States was.

'That bad' is a subjective squirrelly phrase meaning that it was as evil as you want it to be. More evil perhaps than Stalinism or communism or having your genitalia waxed.

It is morphable, ambiguous and meaningless.

No wonder you like it so much..

If we are trying to EDUCATE our children we should teach them FACTS, not your squirrelly ambiguous opinions of history.

The fact is that slavery as practiced in the United States was BAD- it was EVIL.

You want children to be taught a more ambiguous and squirrelly version of how some slavery it was not so bad, and not so evil- like those who want the history of Hitler to include all of the great things he did for Jews.....

 

[Syriusly]

Through Congress, sure. Not through the executive branch.

Soooo solly!

there are regulations promulgated by agencies. there are executive orders.

it's so sad that you never took basic civics.

Regulations, not laws. Only Congress can make laws.

right genius, but what is the actual difference between a reg and a "law". we are a common law country. our body of laws is made up of our constitution, the caselaw interpreting it, federal statutes, state statutes, state caselaw, federal caselaw, federal regulations and state and local regs.

an executive order is enforceable as law.

again, what is the specific difference? if you know.

Not necessarily. I'm obviously the only one that DOES know the difference.

If it's that simple, why did the constitution have to be amended? I'll tell you why, because THE PRESIDENT COULDNT OUTLAW SLAVERY VIA EXECUTIVE ORDER!

Damn, but you people make this difficult...lol

What is really funny is that he did it as a punitive war measure against the rebelled states only. The slave states like Misery that remained in the Union kept their slaves till around 1865.

Wow- the revisionist history is strong in this thread.

Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation because he decided it would help end the war- both by fending off the British and French who were considering supporting the rebel slave states- but were themselves opposed to slavery- and by denying the resources of slaves to Southern war efforts.

It was a very strategic move- which also incidentally freed most American slaves.

 

[Syriusly]

I am a conservative and I know that the Southern states seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated. What's your explanation for that? Does that burst your stupid bubble?

State Passed Referendum Vote
S. Carolina December 20, 1860[2]
Mississippi January 9, 1861[3]
Florida January 10, 1861[4]
Alabama January 11, 1861[5]
Georgia January 19, 1861[6]
Louisiana January 26, 1861[7]

Texas February 1, 1861[8] February 23 46,153-14,747

Virginia April 17, 1861[9] May 23 132,201-37,451
Arkansas May 6, 1861[10]
Tennessee May 6, 1861[11] June 8 104,471-47,183
N. Carolina May 20, 1861[12]


Missouri October 31, 1861[13]
Kentucky November 20, 1861[14]

Ordinance of Secession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They started after Lincolns election, except for South Carolina in basically four waves, in response to different actions by the federal government.


So it wasnt all for one single cause and it was not as simple as many try to make it appear to be.

Pretty much for one single cause- if you look at the published reasons for secession and THE only commonality is protecting the institution of slavery.

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

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

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

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

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

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "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."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

 

[Syriusly]

Lincoln didn't save the Union. His ineptness caused a crisis that split the Union and killed most of the best and bravest of a generation. Any president in modern times would be impeached and imprisoned for sanctioning a drunk who said he would cause a crow to pack a lunch before flying over the Shenandoah Valley when he intended to make war on innocent farmers or a clinically insane general who thought he was "God's terrible swift sword" and burned a Southern city or a incompetent idiot like Beast Butler who was appointed as king of New Orleans and treated Southern women like whores.

Lincoln wasn't even sworn in yet when the south began seceding.

Tell that to your Liberal buddies that think Lincoln offered the South compensated emancipation....lol

Most Liberals are smart enough to know the south began seceding before Lincoln was sworn in. The ones who need education are conservatives who don't know any better.

Um, no my friend. It's the Liberals in this thread who are terribly wrong about that period of history, as well as how our three branches of government works.

Meanwhile- the Emancipation Proclamation immediately freed thousands of slaves, and ultimately freed most of the slaves in the United States.

Despite the historical revisionism of the Conservatives in this thread.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Pretty much for one single cause- if you look at the published reasons for secession and THE only commonality is protecting the institution of slavery.

Economically and politically that was about the only commonality they had, but that does not prove it is the primary cause. If it was the primary cause then they all should have left in the same wave of secession.

 

[Syriusly]

Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri And Delaware all kept their slaves until December 1865.

Yup - those 4 UNION states had around 400,000 slaves throughout the civil war. How could the war have been about freeing the slaves when both sides practiced slavery?? Libs can't answer that.

That's right and the Federal government didn't do a damn thing to free them until after the war.

Correct Bill, the federal govt. didn`t free them until AFTER the war. When would the confederate govt. have freed them?

How could a Confederate government have freed slaves that were not part of the Confederacy?

Those 400,000 slaves, and a few more enclaves were freed by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution- the other 3,000,000 or so slaves having already been freed under the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

[rightwinger]

I am a conservative and I know that the Southern states seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated. What's your explanation for that? Does that burst your stupid bubble?

State Passed Referendum Vote
S. Carolina December 20, 1860[2]
Mississippi January 9, 1861[3]
Florida January 10, 1861[4]
Alabama January 11, 1861[5]
Georgia January 19, 1861[6]
Louisiana January 26, 1861[7]

Texas February 1, 1861[8] February 23 46,153-14,747

Virginia April 17, 1861[9] May 23 132,201-37,451
Arkansas May 6, 1861[10]
Tennessee May 6, 1861[11] June 8 104,471-47,183
N. Carolina May 20, 1861[12]


Missouri October 31, 1861[13]
Kentucky November 20, 1861[14]

Ordinance of Secession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They started after Lincolns election, except for South Carolina in basically four waves, in response to different actions by the federal government.


So it wasnt all for one single cause and it was not as simple as many try to make it appear to be.

Pretty much for one single cause- if you look at the published reasons for secession and THE only commonality is protecting the institution of slavery.

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

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

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

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

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

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "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."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

In both their declarations of secession and their Constitution, the Confederate States made it clear that the protection of the institution of slavery was their primary objective. Otherwise, their form of government closely mimicked our own

 

[Syriusly]

Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri And Delaware all kept their slaves until December 1865.

Yup - those 4 UNION states had around 400,000 slaves throughout the civil war. How could the war have been about freeing the slaves when both sides practiced slavery?? Libs can't answer that.

The rebel states attempted to secede to protect slavery.

The war was not about 'freeing the slaves" and no one but you keeps saying that.

The war was the result of the rebel states attempting to secede to protect their slaves.

 

[Syriusly]

Why was it important to save the union.? America was created when the 13 colonies seceded from england. Was that bad.? From 1950- 1990, much of africa seceded from the european companies that had controlled them for decades. Was that bad?

Why couldn't the south secede? What is wrong with an oppressed people wanting freedom and independence?

The Confederacy had a convention where they basically readopted the old Articles of Confederation type of government and they also voted to be a total free trade zone.

Meaning that this would require the North to build fortresses along the very extensive Confederacy-Union border and that would take years.

In the meantime, without protective tariffs, the norths manufacturing economy would have been crushed with smuggled British manufactures.

So in effect that adoption of a Free Trade zone was essentially an Act of War by the Confederacy and Lincoln abandoned any pretense at reconciliation with the South.

LOL- the revisionist history continues with this thread.

The Confederate Constitution- unlike the United States Constitution- protected slavery

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 made slaves a sancrosanct type of property within the Confederacy, with special protection under law. “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 guaranteed the right of slaveholders to freely transit and stay with their slaves unmolested within any state of the Confederacy. “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.”
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3 established that in any new territories gained by Confederacy, slaveholders would enjoy the same property rights to their slaves as in the existing states. “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

 

[Skylar]

Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri And Delaware all kept their slaves until December 1865.

Yup - those 4 UNION states had around 400,000 slaves throughout the civil war. How could the war have been about freeing the slaves when both sides practiced slavery?? Libs can't answer that.

The rebel states attempted to secede to protect slavery.

The war was not about 'freeing the slaves" and no one but you keeps saying that.

The war was the result of the rebel states attempting to secede to protect their slaves.

The war was about preserving the union from the perspective of the north. And preserving slavery from the perspective of the south.

 

[Syriusly]

You're actually dumb enough to believe because slavery wasn't a strong enough issue in the border states to compel them to secede, then the same must be true for the southern states -- even though the primary reason the southern states gave for seceding was slavery.

If the war was about freeing slaves, why did lincoln let the slave-owning border states stay in the union?. Why didn't he tell them "abolish slavery or go with the confederacy?" THINK

You are such an idiot.

You keep repeating "if the war was about freeing the slaves"- you are the only one making that claim.

The war was never about 'freeing the slaves'- the secession was all about protecting the institution of slavery.

 

[Syriusly]

Pretty much for one single cause- if you look at the published reasons for secession and THE only commonality is protecting the institution of slavery.

Economically and politically that was about the only commonality they had, but that does not prove it is the primary cause. If it was the primary cause then they all should have left in the same wave of secession.

It was the primary cause- and as your list pointed out- the majority did leave in the initial wave of secession- 7 of the 13 Confederate States seceded with 40 days of each other- for that era that was practically simultaniously.

State Passed Referendum Vote
S. Carolina December 20, 1860[2]
Mississippi January 9, 1861[3]
Florida January 10, 1861[4]
Alabama January 11, 1861[5]
Georgia January 19, 1861[6]
Louisiana January 26, 1861[7]

Texas February 1, 1861[8] February 23 46,153-14,747

Virginia April 17, 1861[9] May 23 132,201-37,451
Arkansas May 6, 1861[10]
Tennessee May 6, 1861[11] June 8 104,471-47,183
N. Carolina May 20, 1861[12]


Missouri October 31, 1861[13]
Kentucky November 20, 1861[14]

 

[Syriusly]

And Happy Birthday Abraham Lincoln!

Thank you for keeping the United States together- and thank you for the America that we have enjoyed for the last 150 years.

 

[rightwinger]

And Happy Birthday Abraham Lincoln!

Thank you for keeping the United States together- and thank you for the America that we have enjoyed for the last 150 years.

A great American

 

[jc456]

Not the Great Emancipator: 10 Racist Quotes Abraham Lincoln Said About Black People - Page 3 of 5 - Atlanta Black Star

Lincoln was, indeed, a white supremacist. In his 1858 debate with Sen. Steven Douglas, Lincoln maintained, “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.”

All real history books carry that quote but history TEXTBOOKS used in schools never do.

and yet we don't have a month to show him off in? Why not? Why is it that only a reward for the black men?

How many black men are imprinted upon our money? Plastered on a mountain side?

and?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If the war was about freeing slaves, why did lincoln let the slave-owning border states stay in the union?. Why didn't he tell them "abolish slavery or go with the confederacy?" THINK

Because Lincoln was trying to preserve the union

You're right. Lincoln didn't care a bit about freeing the slaves. He cared about keeping the south in the union so the north could collect tariff money from the south.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

And the Civil War could have been avoided by the Rebel states a) not rebelling and b) not firing on American troops.

And the revolutionary war could have been avoided if the the 13 colonies had not rebelled against england.

America was founded on secession, you idiot.

 

[Syriusly]

If the war was about freeing slaves, why did lincoln let the slave-owning border states stay in the union?. Why didn't he tell them "abolish slavery or go with the confederacy?" THINK

Because Lincoln was trying to preserve the union

You're right. Lincoln didn't care a bit about freeing the slaves. He cared about keeping the south in the union so the north could collect tariff money from the south.

Not exactly- Lincoln was consistently opposed to slavery- and considered the Emancipation Proclamation one of his greatest achievements.

There is no indication that he ever cared about 'tariff money from the south'.

Unlike yourself, Lincoln considered slavery to be an evil institution.

 

[Syriusly]

And the Civil War could have been avoided by the Rebel states a) not rebelling and b) not firing on American troops.

And the revolutionary war could have been avoided if the the 13 colonies had not rebelled against england.

America was founded on secession, you idiot.

You are still upset that Lincoln was responsible for ending slavery in the United States.
And the Civil War could have been avoided by the Rebel states a) not rebelling and b) not firing on American troops.