Trump’s Civil War Comments Show ‘Lack’ Of Understanding History

[gtopa1]

During the war, Lincoln by himself illegally made West Virginia a new state. And they could keep slavery.
Just one of many examples of Lincoln trashing the US Constitution that he swore to uphold.

Alternative history. States seceded illegally. Lincoln preserved the union. He is one of our best presidents. Sorry but the confederacy was rightfully stomped to abolish their slavery.

Wrong. There was nothing in the Constitution that prevented secession. As a matter of fact the USA was born of secession from England.

And when the Civil War was over, some Union States still had slavery.

The supreme court disagrees, there is no legal basis for a state to secede. The articles of confederation explicitly state the Union is perpetual. The traitor/slaver states lost their illegal war for slavery.

The Supreme Court only ruled against secession after the war was over.

There wasn't a ruling before the war. If there was the result would have been the same. Secession was illegal. You, like the south, lose bud.

And you know that how? And why didn't it go to the USSC before the war as a matter of urgency? Just ONE avenue that couldda been?

Greg

 

[WheelieAddict]

So the Union invaded the South to free the slaves there, but they still had their own slaves.

Define hypocrisy...

Grasping at straws now.
Fact:
The supreme court disagrees, there is no legal basis for a state to secede. The articles of confederation explicitly state the Union is perpetual. The traitor/slaver states lost their illegal war for slavery.

 

[Scamp]

During the war, Lincoln by himself illegally made West Virginia a new state. And they could keep slavery.
Just one of many examples of Lincoln trashing the US Constitution that he swore to uphold.

Alternative history. States seceded illegally. Lincoln preserved the union. He is one of our best presidents. Sorry but the confederacy was rightfully stomped to abolish their slavery.

Wrong. There was nothing in the Constitution that prevented secession. As a matter of fact the USA was born of secession from England.

And when the Civil War was over, some Union States still had slavery.

The supreme court disagrees, there is no legal basis for a state to secede. The articles of confederation explicitly state the Union is perpetual. The traitor/slaver states lost their illegal war for slavery.

The Supreme Court only ruled against secession after the war was over.

There wasn't a ruling before the war. If there was the result would have been the same. Secession was illegal. You, like the south, lose bud.

We all lost when Imperial Subjugation (the Union cause) won the war against States Rights (the Confederate cause).

 

[gtopa1]

I do get your point but it was about $ first and foremost. (imo of course). The slavery thing came later.(And I am very glad it did).

Greg

In what way? How was it about dollars. Jews (as per usual) were funding both sides. So if that's what you mean, then your claim has merit.

I keep reading about "unfair tariffs" on the South wrt the North. Now I don't hold that the South was right to secede etc etc, but they did view the various impositions on their mostly rural industries as unfair. This is an extraxt that is along the lines of my own thinking on the matter.

The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.

Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.

The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.

The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.

In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.

The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.

The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.

Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.

Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War

Now granted it is not something I consider conclusive proof; the authors obviously have their own agenda. But I do see it as on the "right" track, or at least one that is more real than "Let's free the Slaves" and kill a million Americans to do it. To me at least it was a total clusterf***.

But it did, in the end, keep the Union together and abolished Slavery. That result at least I find very good indeed. But the war itself? I just don't think it was necessary.

BTW: The Jews funding both sides? It was the lendees who put the money to whatever use they so desired. From what I can gather the Banks just did what banks do; lend money. I see no merit in bringing the Jews into it at all.

Greg

^Blames the Jews. The republican alt-right is all over this forum folks.

And this is a perfect example of lefties trying to lump Anti-semites with Republicans and normal conservatives/libertarians.

You should be shunning alt-right aholes just like antifa should be shunned by dems.

I don't know much about the alt-right. I suppose there are some assholes in every movement...no pun intended.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Alternative history. States seceded illegally. Lincoln preserved the union. He is one of our best presidents. Sorry but the confederacy was rightfully stomped to abolish their slavery.

Wrong. There was nothing in the Constitution that prevented secession. As a matter of fact the USA was born of secession from England.

And when the Civil War was over, some Union States still had slavery.

The supreme court disagrees, there is no legal basis for a state to secede. The articles of confederation explicitly state the Union is perpetual. The traitor/slaver states lost their illegal war for slavery.

The Supreme Court only ruled against secession after the war was over.

There wasn't a ruling before the war. If there was the result would have been the same. Secession was illegal. You, like the south, lose bud.

We all lost when Imperial Subjugation (the Union cause) won the war against States Rights (the Confederate cause).

It may have been a loss, but do you think that a United States is better than a divided states? I know that there are deep scars; deeper than most realise, but the US is a Wonderful Nation. I would hate to see it divided...though maybe California could be ceded to Mexico...any loss there?

Greg

 

[Scamp]

Since secession was not prohibited by the Constitution, it is up to the States or the people. Look up the 10th Amendment.

 

[gtopa1]

Slavery was $. it was the driving force of their agrarian economy. They had also spend 3/4 of a century having an advantage over the North that they kept well past the point of population divergence.

I do get your point but it was about $ first and foremost. (imo of course). The slavery thing came later.(And I am very glad it did).

Greg

In what way? How was it about dollars. Jews (as per usual) were funding both sides. So if that's what you mean, then your claim has merit.

I keep reading about "unfair tariffs" on the South wrt the North. Now I don't hold that the South was right to secede etc etc, but they did view the various impositions on their mostly rural industries as unfair. This is an extraxt that is along the lines of my own thinking on the matter.

The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.

Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.

The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.

The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.

In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.

The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.

The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.

Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.

Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War

Now granted it is not something I consider conclusive proof; the authors obviously have their own agenda. But I do see it as on the "right" track, or at least one that is more real than "Let's free the Slaves" and kill a million Americans to do it. To me at least it was a total clusterf***.

But it did, in the end, keep the Union together and abolished Slavery. That result at least I find very good indeed. But the war itself? I just don't think it was necessary.

BTW: The Jews funding both sides? It was the lendees who put the money to whatever use they so desired. From what I can gather the Banks just did what banks do; lend money. I see no merit in bringing the Jews into it at all.

Greg

^Blames the Jews. The republican alt-right is all over this forum folks.

And this is a perfect example of lefties trying to lump Anti-semites with Republicans and normal conservatives/libertarians.

And yet the left sides with Hamas. Odd that...not!! Birds of a feather!!

Greg

 

[WheelieAddict]

Alternative history. States seceded illegally. Lincoln preserved the union. He is one of our best presidents. Sorry but the confederacy was rightfully stomped to abolish their slavery.

Wrong. There was nothing in the Constitution that prevented secession. As a matter of fact the USA was born of secession from England.

And when the Civil War was over, some Union States still had slavery.

The supreme court disagrees, there is no legal basis for a state to secede. The articles of confederation explicitly state the Union is perpetual. The traitor/slaver states lost their illegal war for slavery.

The Supreme Court only ruled against secession after the war was over.

There wasn't a ruling before the war. If there was the result would have been the same. Secession was illegal. You, like the south, lose bud.

We all lost when Imperial Subjugation (the Union cause) won the war against States Rights (the Confederate cause).

Nope. The union is strong despite history revisionist traitors that wish this country was torn apart like yourself.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Since secession was not prohibited by the Constitution, it is up to the States or the people. Look up the 10th Amendment.

The supreme court disagrees, there is no legal basis for a state to secede. The articles of confederation explicitly state the Union is perpetual. The traitor/slaver states lost their illegal war for slavery.

 

[WheelieAddict]

In what way? How was it about dollars. Jews (as per usual) were funding both sides. So if that's what you mean, then your claim has merit.

I keep reading about "unfair tariffs" on the South wrt the North. Now I don't hold that the South was right to secede etc etc, but they did view the various impositions on their mostly rural industries as unfair. This is an extraxt that is along the lines of my own thinking on the matter.

The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.

Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.

The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.

The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.

In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.

The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.

The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.

Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.

Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War

Now granted it is not something I consider conclusive proof; the authors obviously have their own agenda. But I do see it as on the "right" track, or at least one that is more real than "Let's free the Slaves" and kill a million Americans to do it. To me at least it was a total clusterf***.

But it did, in the end, keep the Union together and abolished Slavery. That result at least I find very good indeed. But the war itself? I just don't think it was necessary.

BTW: The Jews funding both sides? It was the lendees who put the money to whatever use they so desired. From what I can gather the Banks just did what banks do; lend money. I see no merit in bringing the Jews into it at all.

Greg

^Blames the Jews. The republican alt-right is all over this forum folks.

And this is a perfect example of lefties trying to lump Anti-semites with Republicans and normal conservatives/libertarians.

You should be shunning alt-right aholes just like antifa should be shunned by dems.

I don't know much about the alt-right. I suppose there are some assholes in every movement...no pun intended.

Greg

Sure, sure!

 

[gtopa1]

Wrong. There was nothing in the Constitution that prevented secession. As a matter of fact the USA was born of secession from England.

And when the Civil War was over, some Union States still had slavery.

The supreme court disagrees, there is no legal basis for a state to secede. The articles of confederation explicitly state the Union is perpetual. The traitor/slaver states lost their illegal war for slavery.

The Supreme Court only ruled against secession after the war was over.

There wasn't a ruling before the war. If there was the result would have been the same. Secession was illegal. You, like the south, lose bud.

We all lost when Imperial Subjugation (the Union cause) won the war against States Rights (the Confederate cause).

Nope. The union is strong despite history revisionist traitors that wish this country was torn apart like yourself.

Where on earth has anyone HERE said that? That is just nonsense.

Greg

 

[Scamp]

The Union left 360,000 soldiers laying dead in Southern dust. What exactly did they win?

 

[WheelieAddict]

The supreme court disagrees, there is no legal basis for a state to secede. The articles of confederation explicitly state the Union is perpetual. The traitor/slaver states lost their illegal war for slavery.

The Supreme Court only ruled against secession after the war was over.

There wasn't a ruling before the war. If there was the result would have been the same. Secession was illegal. You, like the south, lose bud.

We all lost when Imperial Subjugation (the Union cause) won the war against States Rights (the Confederate cause).

Nope. The union is strong despite history revisionist traitors that wish this country was torn apart like yourself.

Where on earth has anyone HERE said that? That is just nonsense.

Greg

You blind? The quote just before yours from Scamp, that you tagged informative.
"We all lost when Imperial Subjugation (the Union cause) won the war against States Rights (the Confederate cause)."
BS

 

[WheelieAddict]

The Union left 360,000 soldiers laying dead in Southern dust. What exactly did they win?

More grasping at straws. They won freedom for slaves, and preserved the union. That is a HUGE win bud.

 

[Scamp]

And the Union still had slavery after the war was over and their Tyrant leader was dead.

 

[martybegan]

I do get your point but it was about $ first and foremost. (imo of course). The slavery thing came later.(And I am very glad it did).

Greg

In what way? How was it about dollars. Jews (as per usual) were funding both sides. So if that's what you mean, then your claim has merit.

I keep reading about "unfair tariffs" on the South wrt the North. Now I don't hold that the South was right to secede etc etc, but they did view the various impositions on their mostly rural industries as unfair. This is an extraxt that is along the lines of my own thinking on the matter.

The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.

Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.

The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.

The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.

In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.

The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.

The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.

Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.

Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War

Now granted it is not something I consider conclusive proof; the authors obviously have their own agenda. But I do see it as on the "right" track, or at least one that is more real than "Let's free the Slaves" and kill a million Americans to do it. To me at least it was a total clusterf***.

But it did, in the end, keep the Union together and abolished Slavery. That result at least I find very good indeed. But the war itself? I just don't think it was necessary.

BTW: The Jews funding both sides? It was the lendees who put the money to whatever use they so desired. From what I can gather the Banks just did what banks do; lend money. I see no merit in bringing the Jews into it at all.

Greg

^Blames the Jews. The republican alt-right is all over this forum folks.

And this is a perfect example of lefties trying to lump Anti-semites with Republicans and normal conservatives/libertarians.

You should be shunning alt-right aholes just like antifa should be shunned by dems.

I usually don't deal with them, I just don't care if they post their blather on sites like this. better for them to be in the open then slinking in the shadows.

 

[martybegan]

Since secession was not prohibited by the Constitution, it is up to the States or the people. Look up the 10th Amendment.

But like any contract one side cannot unilaterally pull out of it if the other side objects.

 

[gtopa1]

pro-slavery intellectual

Oxymoron of the day?

Not at all. His assumptions are crap of course but he is logical. Just as the Marxist assumptions are crap but there are many so called "Marxist intellectuals". All an intellectual does is build on a set of assumptions. It is up to those examining those assumptions to tear down the arguments. Easy to do with both pro-slavers and marxists.

Greg

Pretty funny considering the "fascist intellectual" bullshit peddled on this forum.

Well you should be attacking the ASSUMPTIONS of the arguments being made. Or don't you understand them? Don't be intellectually lazy.

Greg

The arguments being made are alt-right/fascist apologist bullshit propaganda.

The supreme court disagrees, there is no legal basis for a state to secede. The articles of confederation explicitly state the Union is perpetual. The traitor/slaver states lost their illegal war for slavery.

Which arguments? You one of those "Russians in my smart-microwave" anxiety peddlers are you? I have seen two arguments; Slavery was THE main cause of the Civil war and Slavery was an issue but not the main one at the start of the war. Both have said that the end of slavery was a good thing. What's this alt-right nonsense? You're not just an ignorant squeaker, are you?

Greg

 

[Scamp]

It took the 13th Amendment to force the final Union states to finally give up slavery. And get this...New Jersey first voted NO to ratify the Amendment. They only had a handful of slaves, but they did not want them freed.

 

[WheelieAddict]

In what way? How was it about dollars. Jews (as per usual) were funding both sides. So if that's what you mean, then your claim has merit.

I keep reading about "unfair tariffs" on the South wrt the North. Now I don't hold that the South was right to secede etc etc, but they did view the various impositions on their mostly rural industries as unfair. This is an extraxt that is along the lines of my own thinking on the matter.

The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.

Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.

The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.

The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.

In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.

The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.

The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.

Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.

Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War

Now granted it is not something I consider conclusive proof; the authors obviously have their own agenda. But I do see it as on the "right" track, or at least one that is more real than "Let's free the Slaves" and kill a million Americans to do it. To me at least it was a total clusterf***.

But it did, in the end, keep the Union together and abolished Slavery. That result at least I find very good indeed. But the war itself? I just don't think it was necessary.

BTW: The Jews funding both sides? It was the lendees who put the money to whatever use they so desired. From what I can gather the Banks just did what banks do; lend money. I see no merit in bringing the Jews into it at all.

Greg

^Blames the Jews. The republican alt-right is all over this forum folks.

And this is a perfect example of lefties trying to lump Anti-semites with Republicans and normal conservatives/libertarians.

You should be shunning alt-right aholes just like antifa should be shunned by dems.

I usually don't deal with them, I just don't care if they post their blather on sites like this. better for them to be in the open then slinking in the shadows.

It is what it is. I don't think all republicans are like this or southerners. I'm just pointing out those that are.