Civil War Facts

[racewright]

1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.

2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.

3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.

4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.

5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.

6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate, they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.

7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.

Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.

Thank you.

While much of what you posted is true, you ignore the large population of semi-literate irish immigrants that had flooded the Northeast and were used as cannon fodder.

Also, to claim the south would win today is to assume that the war would be fought today. There is no slavery and no single issue to push for a seccession.

As a lifelong southerner, let me say I am proud to be an American and will do whatever it takes to remain one.

Long live America! Not the US, though. Long live the FISA!

Hey you know what FUCK YOU

 

[gipper]

I like how people try to make it sound like Lincoln acted unilaterally in going to war. Lest we forget, the Northern states pushed for the war, their members of Congress funded the war, implemented the draft, passed taxes to pay for it, and punished the southern states during Reconstruction. For all the talk about states having the right to secede, a whole bunch of individual states disagreed with that notion and demanded Lincoln bring the southern states back into the fold.

I suspect that had Lincoln refused, he would have been removed from office and replaced with someone who would have had no compunctions about using force to return the secessionist state.

There is nothing in the historical record that backs your conclusion. Many state governments and northern newspapers believed the southern states had the right to secede and thought it best to let them go, rather than go to war to stop them.

To think the war was inevitable and the correct thing for Lincoln to do, is terribly anti-American. The states were sovereign. They had every right to secede just as they had done from Great Britain.

Slavery was a terrible thing, but to destroy the South, causing mass death, razing vast amounts of private property, leading to decades of horrific repression against blacks; proves war was the worst option.

President Buchanan thought he could do nothing to stop the South from seceding. The tyrant Lincoln believed otherwise and his premise had nothing to do with slavery. He merely wanted the Southern states to pay duties to the Federal government or they must die.

 

[rightwinger]

I like how people try to make it sound like Lincoln acted unilaterally in going to war. Lest we forget, the Northern states pushed for the war, their members of Congress funded the war, implemented the draft, passed taxes to pay for it, and punished the southern states during Reconstruction. For all the talk about states having the right to secede, a whole bunch of individual states disagreed with that notion and demanded Lincoln bring the southern states back into the fold.

I suspect that had Lincoln refused, he would have been removed from office and replaced with someone who would have had no compunctions about using force to return the secessionist state.

There is nothing in the historical record that backs your conclusion. Many state governments and northern newspapers believed the southern states had the right to secede and thought it best to let them go, rather than go to war to stop them.

To think the war was inevitable and the correct thing for Lincoln to do, is terribly anti-American. The states were sovereign. They had every right to secede just as they had done from Great Britain.

Slavery was a terrible thing, but to destroy the South, causing mass death, razing vast amounts of private property, leading to decades of horrific repression against blacks; proves war was the worst option.

President Buchanan thought he could do nothing to stop the South from seceding. The tyrant Lincoln believed otherwise and his premise had nothing to do with slavery. He merely wanted the Southern states to pay duties to the Federal government or they must die.

Where in the Constitution did it give the states a right to seceded? Where does it provide a mechanism to do so?
The Constitution provides a mechanism to join the union but never envisioned a dissolution of that union

 

[Steven_R]

I like how people try to make it sound like Lincoln acted unilaterally in going to war. Lest we forget, the Northern states pushed for the war, their members of Congress funded the war, implemented the draft, passed taxes to pay for it, and punished the southern states during Reconstruction. For all the talk about states having the right to secede, a whole bunch of individual states disagreed with that notion and demanded Lincoln bring the southern states back into the fold.

I suspect that had Lincoln refused, he would have been removed from office and replaced with someone who would have had no compunctions about using force to return the secessionist state.

There is nothing in the historical record that backs your conclusion. Many state governments and northern newspapers believed the southern states had the right to secede and thought it best to let them go, rather than go to war to stop them.

To think the war was inevitable and the correct thing for Lincoln to do, is terribly anti-American. The states were sovereign. They had every right to secede just as they had done from Great Britain.

Slavery was a terrible thing, but to destroy the South, causing mass death, razing vast amounts of private property, leading to decades of horrific repression against blacks; proves war was the worst option.

President Buchanan thought he could do nothing to stop the South from seceding. The tyrant Lincoln believed otherwise and his premise had nothing to do with slavery. He merely wanted the Southern states to pay duties to the Federal government or they must die.

You really need to look at the Congressional Record and look at the speeches made in both the House and Senate. Then look at the number of leading politicians writing in newspapers to gain support for going to war. Then look at the 1862 midterm platforms of people elected. Whether or not there was some legal justification for secession isn't the point. The point is a whole bunch of state and national politicians in northern states outright demanded that the south be forcibly returned to the Union.

Don't take my word for, go look it up.

 

[gipper]

I like how people try to make it sound like Lincoln acted unilaterally in going to war. Lest we forget, the Northern states pushed for the war, their members of Congress funded the war, implemented the draft, passed taxes to pay for it, and punished the southern states during Reconstruction. For all the talk about states having the right to secede, a whole bunch of individual states disagreed with that notion and demanded Lincoln bring the southern states back into the fold.

I suspect that had Lincoln refused, he would have been removed from office and replaced with someone who would have had no compunctions about using force to return the secessionist state.

There is nothing in the historical record that backs your conclusion. Many state governments and northern newspapers believed the southern states had the right to secede and thought it best to let them go, rather than go to war to stop them.

To think the war was inevitable and the correct thing for Lincoln to do, is terribly anti-American. The states were sovereign. They had every right to secede just as they had done from Great Britain.

Slavery was a terrible thing, but to destroy the South, causing mass death, razing vast amounts of private property, leading to decades of horrific repression against blacks; proves war was the worst option.

President Buchanan thought he could do nothing to stop the South from seceding. The tyrant Lincoln believed otherwise and his premise had nothing to do with slavery. He merely wanted the Southern states to pay duties to the Federal government or they must die.

You really need to look at the Congressional Record and look at the speeches made in both the House and Senate. Then look at the number of leading politicians writing in newspapers to gain support for going to war. Then look at the 1862 midterm platforms of people elected. Whether or not there was some legal justification for secession isn't the point. The point is a whole bunch of state and national politicians in northern states outright demanded that the south be forcibly returned to the Union.

Don't take my word for, go look it up.

I never mentioned Congress in my posts and it is meaningless. They are politicians and of course they are for the State first and foremost. Just as they are today.

Plus you fail to recognize the tyrannical actions Lincoln was taking against anyone who opposed him. He used government force to close numerous northern newspapers, arrested numerous citizens who used their first amendment right to oppose the war, he even deported a congressman from Ohio. Do you not think these actions coercive and likely to influence many to support the war?

Many in the North, particularly in New England, were crazed abolitionists who demanded war to end slavery. They was unbelievable and unwarranted hatred for the Southern Man. They had become inflamed by propaganda such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and other BS. Lincoln used them for his nefarious purposes. He never intended to end slavery...he told the South they could keep slavery FOREVER in his first inaugural, but he also said if they do not pay the Federal government what it is owed, they must die.

 

[Steven_R]

I'm not ignoring Lincoln. I'm simply saying Lincoln didn't go to war on his own accord. Go back and look at the primary documents and you will see many Northern politicians at every level, from members of Congress, to state governors and legislatures, to local politicians all saying the South had no authority to leave the Union and demanding war to drag Southern states back to Union if it came to it.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is nothing in the historical record that backs your conclusion. Many state governments and northern newspapers believed the southern states had the right to secede and thought it best to let them go, rather than go to war to stop them.

To think the war was inevitable and the correct thing for Lincoln to do, is terribly anti-American. The states were sovereign. They had every right to secede just as they had done from Great Britain.

Slavery was a terrible thing, but to destroy the South, causing mass death, razing vast amounts of private property, leading to decades of horrific repression against blacks; proves war was the worst option.

President Buchanan thought he could do nothing to stop the South from seceding. The tyrant Lincoln believed otherwise and his premise had nothing to do with slavery. He merely wanted the Southern states to pay duties to the Federal government or they must die.

You really need to look at the Congressional Record and look at the speeches made in both the House and Senate. Then look at the number of leading politicians writing in newspapers to gain support for going to war. Then look at the 1862 midterm platforms of people elected. Whether or not there was some legal justification for secession isn't the point. The point is a whole bunch of state and national politicians in northern states outright demanded that the south be forcibly returned to the Union.

Don't take my word for, go look it up.

I never mentioned Congress in my posts and it is meaningless. They are politicians and of course they are for the State first and foremost. Just as they are today.

Plus you fail to recognize the tyrannical actions Lincoln was taking against anyone who opposed him. He used government force to close numerous northern newspapers, arrested numerous citizens who used their first amendment right to oppose the war, he even deported a congressman from Ohio. Do you not think these actions coercive and likely to influence many to support the war?

Many in the North, particularly in New England, were crazed abolitionists who demanded war to end slavery. They was unbelievable and unwarranted hatred for the Southern Man. They had become inflamed by propaganda such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and other BS. Lincoln used them for his nefarious purposes. He never intended to end slavery...he told the South they could keep slavery FOREVER in his first inaugural, but he also said if they do not pay the Federal government what it is owed, they must die.

There was crazy on both sides of the issue. When a senator from Maine talked about making any new states admitted to the Union non-slave states, the senator from South Carolina got up, walked down to the floor, and beat him with a walking stick so badly the senator from Maine was hospitalized.

 

[gipper]

You really need to look at the Congressional Record and look at the speeches made in both the House and Senate. Then look at the number of leading politicians writing in newspapers to gain support for going to war. Then look at the 1862 midterm platforms of people elected. Whether or not there was some legal justification for secession isn't the point. The point is a whole bunch of state and national politicians in northern states outright demanded that the south be forcibly returned to the Union.

Don't take my word for, go look it up.

I never mentioned Congress in my posts and it is meaningless. They are politicians and of course they are for the State first and foremost. Just as they are today.

Plus you fail to recognize the tyrannical actions Lincoln was taking against anyone who opposed him. He used government force to close numerous northern newspapers, arrested numerous citizens who used their first amendment right to oppose the war, he even deported a congressman from Ohio. Do you not think these actions coercive and likely to influence many to support the war?

Many in the North, particularly in New England, were crazed abolitionists who demanded war to end slavery. They was unbelievable and unwarranted hatred for the Southern Man. They had become inflamed by propaganda such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and other BS. Lincoln used them for his nefarious purposes. He never intended to end slavery...he told the South they could keep slavery FOREVER in his first inaugural, but he also said if they do not pay the Federal government what it is owed, they must die.

There was crazy on both sides of the issue. When a senator from Maine talked about making any new states admitted to the Union non-slave states, the senator from South Carolina got up, walked down to the floor, and beat him with a walking stick so badly the senator from Maine was hospitalized.

Yes...there were crazy fools on both sides wanting blood. But only Lincoln invaded and is solely responsible for the war.

The leaders of the South tried repeatedly to work with Lincoln. Only to be told to fuck off. The South, before the war but after secession, offered to pay their share of the federal budget deficit. They also offered to pay for all Federal installations on Southern lands. Lincoln ignored all their efforts to avoid war.

 

[Theowl32]

The liberals and their constant rewriting of history is such a joke. One, the North did not want a war to "free the slaves." It was sold in the beginning to the people in the North that it was to preserve the union. Lets us not forget that the North greatly benefited from the free labor in the south. Love how liberals would even attempt to deny that.

Right when Lincoln was elected the entire south KNEW it was over. His whole campaign was about stopping the EXPANSION OF SLAVERY into the west. Unlike other presidents (wink wink) he meant what he said in regards what he was going to do. Only a few months into his presidency, the south attacked Fort Sumter.

Once it started, Lincoln still insisted that the war was not about emancipation but about preserving the Union. This, was to placate the North citizens. AND the North Generals. Once Lincoln fought tooth and nail for the emancipation of the slave, many in the North despised Lincoln.

Lincoln was often called a war monger. Sound familiar? General Mclellan ran against Lincoln in 1864 based on the fact that he believed Lincoln lied. He ran based on the this notion of the Emancipation is something the North did not want.


The Election of 1864 [ushistory.org]

Meanwhile the DEMOCRATIC PARTY SPLIT, with major opposition from Peace Democrats, who wanted a negotiated peace at any cost. They chose as their nominee George B. McClellan, Lincoln's former commander of the Army of the Potomac. Even Lincoln expected that McClellan would win.

The South was well aware of Union discontent. Many felt that if the Southern armies could hold out until the election, negotiations for Northern recognition of Confederate independence might begin.

Everything changed on September 6, 1864, when General Sherman seized Atlanta. The war effort had turned decidedly in the North's favor and even McClellan now sought military victory.


The simple fact is Lincoln was very unpopular with many citizens in this country. It is reflective in the fact that John Wilkes Booth really thought he was going to be received as a hero when he assassinated him. He truly believed he was a going to be a hero, and this is obviously based on the rhetoric that must have been prevalent, which is why he believed what he believed.

It is amazing how ignorant liberals are, and what stupid shit is being taught by our pathetic commie teachers.


**Side note****

Ever notice how we no longer celebrate specific presidents anymore? We use to honor Lincolns birthday and Washington's birthday. They are no longer really mentioned like that. It is all under "presidents day." Almost as though there is a systematic attempt to reduce specific heroes our American dream.

Of course, we would never shuffle Martin Luther King day into something like...."civil rights day."

Many of you will not get it, but it is what it is.

 

[rightwinger]

The war wasn't about slavery. It was about a states rights to allow slavery

 

[Theowl32]

The war wasn't about slavery. It was about a states rights to allow slavery

Slavery expansion and emancipation of the slaves in the southern states are two different things.

Your simple mind cannot conceive of the distinction between the two, cause you are a simpleton. A lieberal. Do not think I misspelled that word either.


The war was sold in the north that it was about preserving the union. Lincoln campaigned on not allowing slave states to expand into the west.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a very radical step, even for that time. Many in the North did not want that. Mainly due to the economic ramifications for the merchants in the North (constituents) that greatly benefited from the free labor.

 

[rightwinger]

The war wasn't about slavery. It was about a states rights to allow slavery

Slavery expansion and emancipation of the slaves in the southern states are two different things.

Your simple mind cannot conceive of the distinction between the two, cause you are a simpleton. A lieberal. Do not think I misspelled that word either.


The war was sold in the north that it was about preserving the union. Lincoln campaigned on not allowing slave states to expand into the west.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a very radical step, even for that time. Many in the North did not want that. Mainly due to the economic ramifications for the merchants in the North (constituents) that greatly benefited from the free labor.

Why did all the southern states articles of secession all mention slavery?
Why was their Constitution identicle to ours except that it guarantees slavery?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Neo-Nazi revisionist crap: "The holocaust never happened."
Neo-Confederate revisionist crap: "The Civil War was not fought over slavery."

 

[nodoginnafight]

hey owl,
Maybe you should tell Alexander Stephens (the vice president of the confederacy) what the civil war was really about - because he seems to have it all wrong:

Internet History Sourcebooks

 

[Theowl32]

Who said the war was not about slavery?

Lincoln sold the war to the north that it was about preserving the union. The south wanted to EXPAND slavery.

When Lincoln fought for the emancipation of ALL slavery, he took a real risk.

If he had campaigned on emancipating all slavery, he would have lost his first ection...probably.

Now, who is saying the war was not about slavery?

 

[WinterBorn]

Who said the war was not about slavery?

Lincoln sold the war to the north that it was about preserving the union. The south wanted to EXPAND slavery.

When Lincoln fought for the emancipation of ALL slavery, he took a real risk.

If he had campaigned on emancipating all slavery, he would have lost his first ection...probably.

Now, who is saying the war was not about slavery?

There have been numerous posters who insist the war was about State's rights, tariffs ect ect.

 

[Theowl32]

Who said the war was not about slavery?

Lincoln sold the war to the north that it was about preserving the union. The south wanted to EXPAND slavery.

When Lincoln fought for the emancipation of ALL slavery, he took a real risk.

If he had campaigned on emancipating all slavery, he would have lost his first ection...probably.

Now, who is saying the war was not about slavery?

There have been numerous posters who insist the war was about State's rights, tariffs ect ect.

Nodoginthefight was referring to me and what I was saying. The war initially started over slavery and remained that way.

However, people make the mistake in thinking the North opposed slavery in the south. Many did, but most were not in favor of the concept of an emancipation of the slaves in the south. Just from an economic stand point etc. Most in the north viewed the negro as lesser humans than europeans. People thinking that this racist perception was seprated by the mason dixon line are very simplistic in their thinking. In other words, the typical know it all lieberal.

 

[bripat9643]

Who said the war was not about slavery?

Lincoln sold the war to the north that it was about preserving the union. The south wanted to EXPAND slavery.

When Lincoln fought for the emancipation of ALL slavery, he took a real risk.

If he had campaigned on emancipating all slavery, he would have lost his first ection...probably.

Now, who is saying the war was not about slavery?

There have been numerous posters who insist the war was about State's rights, tariffs ect ect.

Nodoginthefight was referring to me and what I was saying. The war initially started over slavery and remained that way.

Dead wrong. The Southern States may have seceded because of slavery, but Lincoln invaded purely because he wanted to enforce high tariffs on the Southern states. That's the main reason people in the Northern states supported the invasion. Their blood began to boil when they realized that the South was going to be a free trade zone and would no longer be forced to purchases overpriced products from Northern manufacturers,

Lincoln and the population of Northern states didn't give a damn about the slaves. They opposed slavery purely because they didn't want Northern labor to have to compete with slave labor. It had nothing to do with any concern about slaves.

[However, people make the mistake in thinking the North opposed slavery in the south. Many did, but most were not in favor of the concept of an emancipation of the slaves in the south. Just from an economic stand point etc. Most in the north viewed the negro as lesser humans than europeans. People thinking that this racist perception was seprated by the mason dixon line are very simplistic in their thinking. In other words, the typical know it all lieberal.

Only libturds make that mistake.

 

[Mr. H.]

Frank Underwood's great-great-grandpappy died at Bull Run.

I done seed it on House of Cards.

 

[Steven_R]

As explained by a professor I once had...

High School Student: The Civil War was about slavery.
Undergraduate: The Civil War was mostly about tariffs and trade than any thing else.
Grad student: The Civil War was about a great many issues.
Professor: The Civil War was about slavery.