150 Years Ago today at the McLean family farm in Appomattox

[pinqy]

150 years ago, April 9, 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant and General Robert E. Lee met at the McLean family farm house in Appomattox, Virginia. .

No they didn't. They met in the village of Appomattox Courthouse, VA, which is 3 miles east of Appomatax. Two different towns.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think that a rational, sane person could justify the evils of slavery, although at the time of the civil war, many tried. To look upon another human being as property to me is one of the most unforgivable sins imaginable. Course, most of those fighting for the south were not slave owners, but the poor, uneducated who only knew that someone from Washington DC should not have the ability to tell them what to do. We are still fighting that war of ideas today and in that realm, I would agree with the confederacy. Mandates from Washington, except for the most basic of fundamental rights, is an assault on freedom. It should be the states that has the primary jurisdiction, EXCEPT for those specified in the constitution.

The claim that the South was only interested in protecting their investment and property is part of our revisionist history downplaying the racism of the Confederacy

The fact that the South clung to the idea that blacks were second class citizens for 100 years after the 13th Amendment shows they were more thanconcerned about "lost property"

Even the lowliest soldier in the Confederacy who could have never owned a slave still had the satisfaction that there were people he was superior to

 

[Anathema]

Lincoln proposed no such thing when he was elected. The sole platform of the Republicans was preventing spread of Slavery into the territories. There was no official push for uncompensated emancipation before the South rebelled.

He definitely did so AFTER the Southern States asserted their Rights.

 

[martybegan]

Lincoln proposed no such thing when he was elected. The sole platform of the Republicans was preventing spread of Slavery into the territories. There was no official push for uncompensated emancipation before the South rebelled.

He definitely did so AFTER the Southern States asserted their Rights.

During a rebellion and as a war measure only for slaves owned by people in rebellion. The overall removal of slavery took legislative action via the amendment process, and I'm sorry if I don't feel bad for people who lost their property AFTER creating the situation that led to the Civil War.

The South threw a temper tantrum over the CHANCE of Slavery being impacted, and they rightly paid for it.

 

[Roadrunner]

The original union was formed as being perpetual, therefore of course no provision existed for leaving. There was no question of it.

As for slavery being ended, the exact way it was done may be debatable, but it was certainly unconstitutional. That is was immoral and reprehensible was obvious to all enlightened people.

It is a profound tragedy that the war was fought and that the common soldier on both sides fought for 'freedom'.

Where does it say it was "perpetual" in either the Declaration or the Constitution.

 

[Anathema]

During a rebellion and as a war measure only for slaves owned by people in rebellion. The overall removal of slavery took legislative action via the amendment process, and I'm sorry if I don't feel bad for people who lost their property AFTER creating the situation that led to the Civil War.

The South threw a temper tantrum over the CHANCE of Slavery being impacted, and they rightly paid for it.

The South rightfully asserted their Right of (dis-)association. They politely asked Federal troops to leave Southern property. Federal troops declined and we're fired upon. Lincoln then forced his Generals to attempt an invasion of Virginia. They failed miserably.

 

[Roadrunner]

Abraham Lincoln was and is one of the greatest Presidents in the history of the United States. Personally, I have never read anything more enlightened, humble, logical and insightful than when I have read his writings. I believe that the United States was absolutely ROBBED of someone who could have healed this nation. When I have walked into the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, I feel that I am in the presence of one of the greatest men in history. To revel in his demise is simply ridiculous and reminds me of the student who creates a disturbance in class so he can be the center of attention.

The worst thing that could have happened to the south was to have Lincoln killed

"have Lincoln killed"

I don't think "the South" "had" Lincoln killed.

I don't think any of the conspirators ever served the South.

Do you know something we don't know?

JWB was a sociopathic maniac, not an agent of "the South".

He was born and lived in Maryland and was a blatant southern sympathizer as were many in Maryland. He killed Lincoln (and attacked the others) in an attempt to disrupt the United States Government. There is no evidence the Confederacy was involved in the conspiracy, but it was done on their behalf

The Confederacy no longer existed, nothing could be done on its behalf.

It was over.

 

[martybegan]

During a rebellion and as a war measure only for slaves owned by people in rebellion. The overall removal of slavery took legislative action via the amendment process, and I'm sorry if I don't feel bad for people who lost their property AFTER creating the situation that led to the Civil War.

The South threw a temper tantrum over the CHANCE of Slavery being impacted, and they rightly paid for it.

The South rightfully asserted their Right of (dis-)association. They politely asked Federal troops to leave Southern property. Federal troops declined and we're fired upon. Lincoln then forced his Generals to attempt an invasion of Virginia. They failed miserably.

Again, the Constitution had no provision for unilateral withdrawal. Which means withdrawal has to be mutually agreed upon by the remaining and leaving parties, or you get a fight.

In fact one could make a case that an amendment is required to remove a State from the union, setting the bar far higher.

 

[Roadrunner]

Lincoln proposed no such thing when he was elected. The sole platform of the Republicans was preventing spread of Slavery into the territories. There was no official push for uncompensated emancipation before the South rebelled.

He definitely did so AFTER the Southern States asserted their Rights.

During a rebellion and as a war measure only for slaves owned by people in rebellion. The overall removal of slavery took legislative action via the amendment process, and I'm sorry if I don't feel bad for people who lost their property AFTER creating the situation that led to the Civil War.

The South threw a temper tantrum over the CHANCE of Slavery being impacted, and they rightly paid for it.

Slavery had been "impacted" since the Constitution was written.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. shows it was Constitutional, and it remains so until the 13th Amendment.

And yes it was wrong, and immoral.

 

[paperview]

The original union was formed as being perpetual, therefore of course no provision existed for leaving. There was no question of it.

As for slavery being ended, the exact way it was done may be debatable, but it was certainly unconstitutional. That is was immoral and reprehensible was obvious to all enlightened people.

It is a profound tragedy that the war was fought and that the common soldier on both sides fought for 'freedom'.

Where does it say it was "perpetual" in either the Declaration or the Constitution.

There4 said our original Union.

Our first Constitution referred to Perpetual Union.

Then we formed "a more perfect Union...."

 

[Roadrunner]

During a rebellion and as a war measure only for slaves owned by people in rebellion. The overall removal of slavery took legislative action via the amendment process, and I'm sorry if I don't feel bad for people who lost their property AFTER creating the situation that led to the Civil War.

The South threw a temper tantrum over the CHANCE of Slavery being impacted, and they rightly paid for it.

The South rightfully asserted their Right of (dis-)association. They politely asked Federal troops to leave Southern property. Federal troops declined and we're fired upon. Lincoln then forced his Generals to attempt an invasion of Virginia. They failed miserably.

Again, the Constitution had no provision for unilateral withdrawal. Which means withdrawal has to be mutually agreed upon by the remaining and leaving parties, or you get a fight.

In fact one could make a case that an amendment is required to remove a State from the union, setting the bar far higher.

An amendment could legally dissolve the Union, if it passed.

That is what should have happened.

That is what should happen now.

We do not need to be a world superpower, and at least three countries should be formed, in my opinion.

It happened in the USSR, and, it was a good thing for the whole world.

 

[paperview]

"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will.

It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

 

[martybegan]

Lincoln proposed no such thing when he was elected. The sole platform of the Republicans was preventing spread of Slavery into the territories. There was no official push for uncompensated emancipation before the South rebelled.

He definitely did so AFTER the Southern States asserted their Rights.

During a rebellion and as a war measure only for slaves owned by people in rebellion. The overall removal of slavery took legislative action via the amendment process, and I'm sorry if I don't feel bad for people who lost their property AFTER creating the situation that led to the Civil War.

The South threw a temper tantrum over the CHANCE of Slavery being impacted, and they rightly paid for it.

Slavery had been "impacted" since the Constitution was written.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. shows it was Constitutional, and it remains so until the 13th Amendment.

And yes it was wrong, and immoral.

Slavery was allowed by the Constitution, in no place in the document was it mandated, or was slave owning seen as a "right".

The emancipation Proclamation wasn't an attack on slavery itself, but on the owning of slaves by people in States in rebellion. Ironically it was based on the concept of slaves as property, and the government seizing the property of people in rebellion and doing what it wants with said property?

 

[martybegan]

During a rebellion and as a war measure only for slaves owned by people in rebellion. The overall removal of slavery took legislative action via the amendment process, and I'm sorry if I don't feel bad for people who lost their property AFTER creating the situation that led to the Civil War.

The South threw a temper tantrum over the CHANCE of Slavery being impacted, and they rightly paid for it.

The South rightfully asserted their Right of (dis-)association. They politely asked Federal troops to leave Southern property. Federal troops declined and we're fired upon. Lincoln then forced his Generals to attempt an invasion of Virginia. They failed miserably.

Again, the Constitution had no provision for unilateral withdrawal. Which means withdrawal has to be mutually agreed upon by the remaining and leaving parties, or you get a fight.

In fact one could make a case that an amendment is required to remove a State from the union, setting the bar far higher.

An amendment could legally dissolve the Union, if it passed.

That is what should have happened.

That is what should happen now.

We do not need to be a world superpower, and at least three countries should be formed, in my opinion.

It happened in the USSR, and, it was a good thing for the whole world.

Agreed, that is probably the only way it would work, but I disagree on the need for it now.

 

[Roadrunner]

"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will.

It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

Note that the people, through the states, reserve the right to call such a convention, should enough states desire.

 

[Roadrunner]

During a rebellion and as a war measure only for slaves owned by people in rebellion. The overall removal of slavery took legislative action via the amendment process, and I'm sorry if I don't feel bad for people who lost their property AFTER creating the situation that led to the Civil War.

The South threw a temper tantrum over the CHANCE of Slavery being impacted, and they rightly paid for it.

The South rightfully asserted their Right of (dis-)association. They politely asked Federal troops to leave Southern property. Federal troops declined and we're fired upon. Lincoln then forced his Generals to attempt an invasion of Virginia. They failed miserably.

Again, the Constitution had no provision for unilateral withdrawal. Which means withdrawal has to be mutually agreed upon by the remaining and leaving parties, or you get a fight.

In fact one could make a case that an amendment is required to remove a State from the union, setting the bar far higher.

An amendment could legally dissolve the Union, if it passed.

That is what should have happened.

That is what should happen now.

We do not need to be a world superpower, and at least three countries should be formed, in my opinion.

It happened in the USSR, and, it was a good thing for the whole world.

Agreed, that is probably the only way it would work, but I disagree on the need for it now.

I don't.

That is why we post on a opinion forum.

 

[martybegan]

During a rebellion and as a war measure only for slaves owned by people in rebellion. The overall removal of slavery took legislative action via the amendment process, and I'm sorry if I don't feel bad for people who lost their property AFTER creating the situation that led to the Civil War.

The South threw a temper tantrum over the CHANCE of Slavery being impacted, and they rightly paid for it.

The South rightfully asserted their Right of (dis-)association. They politely asked Federal troops to leave Southern property. Federal troops declined and we're fired upon. Lincoln then forced his Generals to attempt an invasion of Virginia. They failed miserably.

Again, the Constitution had no provision for unilateral withdrawal. Which means withdrawal has to be mutually agreed upon by the remaining and leaving parties, or you get a fight.

In fact one could make a case that an amendment is required to remove a State from the union, setting the bar far higher.

An amendment could legally dissolve the Union, if it passed.

That is what should have happened.

That is what should happen now.

We do not need to be a world superpower, and at least three countries should be formed, in my opinion.

It happened in the USSR, and, it was a good thing for the whole world.

Agreed, that is probably the only way it would work, but I disagree on the need for it now.

I don't.

That is why we post on a opinion forum.

I think we need an "agree to disagree" button.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah- why am I not surprised that you applaud murder.

If someone were to steal my property, livelihood and lifestyle without cause or legitimate legal power to do so I think I'd kill them too.

Like I said- why am I not surprised that you applaud murder.

The scum who murdered him had no property stolen from him, did not have his livelihoood taken from him(he was an actor), and was living a actor's lifestyle. Unless you mean by 'lifestyle' the potential to legally own another human being.....

Yeah- I can see how you are Booth are peas in a pod.

 

[Roadrunner]

The South rightfully asserted their Right of (dis-)association. They politely asked Federal troops to leave Southern property. Federal troops declined and we're fired upon. Lincoln then forced his Generals to attempt an invasion of Virginia. They failed miserably.

Again, the Constitution had no provision for unilateral withdrawal. Which means withdrawal has to be mutually agreed upon by the remaining and leaving parties, or you get a fight.

In fact one could make a case that an amendment is required to remove a State from the union, setting the bar far higher.

An amendment could legally dissolve the Union, if it passed.

That is what should have happened.

That is what should happen now.

We do not need to be a world superpower, and at least three countries should be formed, in my opinion.

It happened in the USSR, and, it was a good thing for the whole world.

Agreed, that is probably the only way it would work, but I disagree on the need for it now.

I don't.

That is why we post on a opinion forum.

I think we need an "agree to disagree" button.

The funny button is the only one we NEED.

Without it, the place sucks.

I'd rather see the union peacefully dissolved than shattered by race or class warfare, or, incinerated in battle of superpowers.

 

[paperview]

"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will.

It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

Note that the people, through the states, reserve the right to call such a convention, should enough states desire.

I have always said the states are free to secede.

They just have to do it the way they came in - with the consent of Congress, and the other states.

You know who I am quoting in the "Perpetual Union" statement?