...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[editec]

The moment shots were fired upon Fort Sumter, those states which supporting the rebellion gave Lincoln tyrannic powers in every state that declared for succession.

The constitution, as you can plainly read for yourselves, gives the POTUS that right.

 

[Rogue 9]

you still lose because the states of the Slave Power acted in an immoral manner absolutely contrary to liberty in engaging in rebellion to protect slavery rather than to secure anyone's libert.

Ah, so you're joining in the whole 'they had slaves' argument. Again, it's good to know that we all belong to the King, seeing as the FF had their own slaves and they, too, fought largely for economic reasons.

That the Revolutionary generation held slaves was not the cause of the Revolution. Slavery was the entire cause of the Southern secession, by the admission, nay by the proud proclamation, of the secessionists themselves. That is the crucial distinction.

Sherman was a military commander behind enemy lines deep in enemy territory with the objective of neutralizing the enemy's capacity to make war. He did this admirably

Giving your men the okay to hang people on a whim is admirable? Clearly we admire very different traits in people. I winder what his thoughts were regarding Butler's Order 28- I find it hard he had any real objections.

No, because he didn't give his men the okay to hang people on a whim. I have already posted his field orders, and they don't say anything of the sort. You're lying, and it's out there for everyone to see.

Really? He took property from states loyal to the Union?

You can't have slaves when fighting a war then claim you fought the war to get rid of slavery.

Kindly point out where I said the Union fought a war to end slavery. The South fought one to protect slavery, which does not automatically mean the opposite of Union forces. Though I must point out that Lincoln ran for reelection on a platform advocating the Thirteenth Amendment and that emancipation was a Union war aim by 1863, a fact of which Lincoln warned the border states and offered compensated emancipation before they simply lost their slaves anyway, a warning they refused to heed.

And the member States in their own borders, save for the very few areas in which supremacy is given to the common government of the Union in accordance with the Constitution.

Under the absolute supremacy of the national government. I fail to see how the Supremacy Clause is difficult to read; "supreme law of the land" is rather unambiguous.

Both are unions. The EU is a confederation, like the U.N. The USA is a federation of sovereign States. If it were not, then the states could not call themselves such in their own Constitutions. It's all right there in ink. Face it: your little Statist pipedream of an empire where nobody is allowed to leave it totally at odds with all liberty-based ideologies and the Constitution of the Union as well as those of member States.

No. The disintegration of the Union in 1861 would have brought about the Balkanization of North America and the end of republican government in the world; it would have been taken as unmistakable evidence that a free people cannot govern themselves. In fact, the European elite, particularly Napoleon III, fervently hoped for Confederate success for just this reason; they knew a disunited states falling into squabbling, warring autocracies would both give them an example to point to for why they must stay in power, and would remove the United States as an obstacle to renewed American colonization. The failure of the Slave Power was and is the best hope for liberty in the history of the world.

Ah, so you agree that the Slave Power,

The colonies? The Union? The Railroads? The 7 loyalist slave States?

No, the Slave Power. It was the name of the political power of the slave states in the antebellum Union and the Confederacy; they used it for themselves. I suggest more thoroughly grounding yourself in the history of the period if you wish to continue debating this, lest you continue to make yourself look the fool.

Yes, the CSA warranted inhalation, as did the USA. Both nations permitted slavery and had slaves during the war. Neither nation allowed blacks, hispanics, women, or the poor equal standing and representation. Both were opposed to the principles that mark a just society. Both deserved destruction. Neither was in the right and until you mature enough to be able to see the world as it really is instead of your sad binary lens of reformist history and partisanship, there's no point wasting any further time with you.

"Inhalation?" What, are they asthmatic now? At any rate, the Union was not as pure as the driven snow, but it was a damned sight better than the rebel states, who refused to treat black Union soldiers as prisoners of war when captured, but rather placed them in bondage or shot them and their officers out of hand for the supposed crime of slave revolt. As for the loyalist slave states (of which there were four, not seven; I'm not sure where you got that), Lincoln did what was politically necessary to avoid driving them into the Confederacy. He moved against slavery as soon as it was politically feasible without blowing the entire war effort. To immediately declare abolition upon taking office would have been to lose the war and the nation with it.

 

[JBeukema]

That the Revolutionary generation held slaves was not the cause of the Revolution

revolutionary generation? This nation's never experienced a revolution.

Slavery was the entire cause of the Southern secession

Actually, it was the growth of federal power and the attempt by the north to wage economic warfare against the South

again, you can't have slaves ourselves and claim you fought a war to end slavery. The South left because they didn't want to be a part of the Union anymore. That's all there is to it.

Under the absolute supremacy of the national government.

The fed has no such absolute supremacy. They have supremacy in a few specific matters only. Read the Constitution.

The disintegration of the Union in 1861 would have brought about the Balkanization of North America and the end of republican government in the world

Really now? You're resorting to argument via counterfactual history? So now I can abridge anyone's right to self-determination so long as its for some mythical future greater good? You know who else said that? Pol Pot.

it was a damned sight better than the rebel states

Not really, with the Right to Rape and Sherman's okaying the hanging of anyone without cause. The Union can claim to moral highground. Both nations deserved to be destroyed.

there were four, not seven; I'm not sure where you got that

Five states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia,) and two territories (Arizona and New Mexico) permitted slavery at the time.

 

[paperview]

you still lose because the states of the Slave Power acted in an immoral manner absolutely contrary to liberty in engaging in rebellion to protect slavery rather than to secure anyone's libert.

Ah, so you're joining in the whole 'they had slaves' argument. Again, it's good to know that we all belong to the King, seeing as the FF had their own slaves and they, too, fought largely for economic reasons.

That the Revolutionary generation held slaves was not the cause of the Revolution. Slavery was the entire cause of the Southern secession, by the admission, nay by the proud proclamation, of the secessionists themselves. That is the crucial distinction.

No, because he didn't give his men the okay to hang people on a whim. I have already posted his field orders, and they don't say anything of the sort. You're lying, and it's out there for everyone to see.


Kindly point out where I said the Union fought a war to end slavery. The South fought one to protect slavery, which does not automatically mean the opposite of Union forces. Though I must point out that Lincoln ran for reelection on a platform advocating the Thirteenth Amendment and that emancipation was a Union war aim by 1863, a fact of which Lincoln warned the border states and offered compensated emancipation before they simply lost their slaves anyway, a warning they refused to heed.


Under the absolute supremacy of the national government. I fail to see how the Supremacy Clause is difficult to read; "supreme law of the land" is rather unambiguous.

No. The disintegration of the Union in 1861 would have brought about the Balkanization of North America and the end of republican government in the world; it would have been taken as unmistakable evidence that a free people cannot govern themselves. In fact, the European elite, particularly Napoleon III, fervently hoped for Confederate success for just this reason; they knew a disunited states falling into squabbling, warring autocracies would both give them an example to point to for why they must stay in power, and would remove the United States as an obstacle to renewed American colonization. The failure of the Slave Power was and is the best hope for liberty in the history of the world.

The colonies? The Union? The Railroads? The 7 loyalist slave States?

No, the Slave Power. It was the name of the political power of the slave states in the antebellum Union and the Confederacy; they used it for themselves. I suggest more thoroughly grounding yourself in the history of the period if you wish to continue debating this, lest you continue to make yourself look the fool.

Yes, the CSA warranted inhalation, as did the USA. Both nations permitted slavery and had slaves during the war. Neither nation allowed blacks, hispanics, women, or the poor equal standing and representation. Both were opposed to the principles that mark a just society. Both deserved destruction. Neither was in the right and until you mature enough to be able to see the world as it really is instead of your sad binary lens of reformist history and partisanship, there's no point wasting any further time with you.

"Inhalation?" What, are they asthmatic now? At any rate, the Union was not as pure as the driven snow, but it was a damned sight better than the rebel states, who refused to treat black Union soldiers as prisoners of war when captured, but rather placed them in bondage or shot them and their officers out of hand for the supposed crime of slave revolt. As for the loyalist slave states (of which there were four, not seven; I'm not sure where you got that), Lincoln did what was politically necessary to avoid driving them into the Confederacy. He moved against slavery as soon as it was politically feasible without blowing the entire war effort. To immediately declare abolition upon taking office would have been to lose the war and the nation with it.

 

[Rogue 9]

That the Revolutionary generation held slaves was not the cause of the Revolution

revolutionary generation? This nation's never experienced a revolution.

What? Now you're just talking nonsense. The United States has experienced multiple revolutions; hell, by the strict definition there's one every four or eight years. The fact that we have routine and nonviolent changes of government aside, there is no conceivable way you can disqualify the American Revolution as a revolution; it overthrew the existing governmental structure and replaced it with a totally new one. The Industrial Revolution is obvious, as is the resulting revolution in transportation bringing about fundamental changes of society revolving around specialization of production. The Civil War (and the election of 1860 for that matter) was itself revolutionary; it destroyed the entire antebellum social structure of the slave states, uprooted the plantation aristocracy, established federal supremacy once and for all in fact as well as law, released four million men, women, and children from bondage, and ended what had up until that point been near-total domination of the federal government by the South despite that section's far lesser proportion of the voting population. (It is eminently fair to say that this last was one of the fundamental causes of the war; faced with losing their ability to bully the free states using the bludgeon of federal power, the Slave Power embarked on a policy of rule or ruin, a fact pointed out by many at the time including some who ended up in high positions in the Confederate government.)

Slavery was the entire cause of the Southern secession

Actually, it was the growth of federal power and the attempt by the north to wage economic warfare against the South

again, you can't have slaves ourselves and claim you fought a war to end slavery. The South left because they didn't want to be a part of the Union anymore. That's all there is to it.

Growth of federal power? I defy you to point out exactly what growth of federal power happened that triggered the secessions, as opposed to ones that happened after as a direct result of the war. The biggest growth of federal power up until that point in American history was in fact the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, a measure implemented by the South for its own benefit.

I did not claim the Union fought a war to end slavery, because it didn't - not at first, at any rate - and I, apparently unlike you, do not make a habit of making false claims. The only thing the North did that could be construed as an attempt at economic warfare against the slave states was the widespread disobedience of the Fugitive Slave Act, which if you accept the right of property in slaves is an exceedingly credible argument, since slaves and the fields they tended under their overseers' lashes were the South's most valuable economic resource. Of course, you have to accept the right of property in slaves to make that argument; if you're seriously advancing it, that says some disturbing things about your character. The South attempted to leave the Union not because they just didn't feel like being in it anymore, but because they felt that slavery was threatened. I can readily prove this if you doubt me.

The fed has no such absolute supremacy. They have supremacy in a few specific matters only. Read the Constitution.

I have read it, several times. What part of this is hard to understand?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The states are absolutely unable to countermand federal law. Period. The end.

Really now? You're resorting to argument via counterfactual history? So now I can abridge anyone's right to self-determination so long as its for some mythical future greater good? You know who else said that? Pol Pot.

That's not what I said and you know it. I can cite numerous primary sources stating this; Napoleon III fervently hoped for and predicted this result for the express reason I named, and so did several members of the British nobility. Further, successful secession would cite the precedent of breaking up the government without any sort of due consideration any time a state doesn't get its way (the Continental Congress deliberated for fourteen months before deciding to declare independence from Britain, despite ongoing outrages and even armed conflict; South Carolina seceded from the Union before two months had passed from the election of 1860, before the Lincoln administration even took office, much less actually did anything), which absolutely would institute the Balkanization of North America.

it was a damned sight better than the rebel states

Not really, with the Right to Rape and Sherman's okaying the hanging of anyone without cause. The Union can claim to moral highground. Both nations deserved to be destroyed.

I told you in the post you were quoting and now I'm going to tell you again. I have posted General William Tecumseh Sherman's field orders for the Georgia campaign in this thread already. They do not authorize hanging people without cause, and they ABSOLUTELY do not give soldiers carte blanche to commit rape. You are blatantly lying and everyone can see it.

there were four, not seven; I'm not sure where you got that

Five states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia,) and two territories (Arizona and New Mexico) permitted slavery at the time.

West Virginia was organized as a free state. Arizona Territory was organized in 1863 under the Union Congress and did not have a slave code as a result; the organizational documents abolished slavery even though it never existed there in the first place. New Mexico had a slave code, but the census reported no actual slaves due to its unsuitability for the uses slaves were put to. In either case, Arizona and New Mexico weren't states. So your claim is still wrong in every particular.

 

[Father Time]

wow... you're really grasping for those straws...

This coming from someone who wants to nitpick the definitions of revolution and civil war.

 

[paperview]

What the fuck JBeukema??

\

 

[paperview]

There aren't many rules in this place, but I'm pretty sure placing XXX rated images in posts is one of them.

For gawds sake JBeukema - Delete that.

 

[editec]

JBeukema posits:

Actually, it was the growth of federal power and the attempt by the north to wage economic warfare against the South

again, you can't have slaves ourselves and claim you fought a war to end slavery. The South left because they didn't want to be a part of the Union anymore. That's all there is to it.

Mostly the above is revisionist nonsense.

1. The southern rebels started the war in defense of slavery.

Given how often the leaders of the CSA openly admitted this fact -- the hsitorical evidence is overhwhelming -- denying this fact is simply pointless.

Saying it ain't so is akin to claiming that the holocaust never happened.

2. The North never claimed it fighting to end slavery as you claim they did. The North very clearly stated they were fighting to preserve the union, and it had made no efforts, before the war, to end slavery in the South.

It fought to preserve the Union.

Again, the historical evidence for that is overwhelming.

Trying to rewrite the history is still another example of the BIG LIE that apologists for the Southern Rebellion keep trying to foist off on their fellow citizens.

If you teach your children these lies you do them an enormous injustice

Now Southern apolgists can make a convincing case that they had the right to succeed, and that is a debatable issue.

But pretending that the Southerm didn't start the war is nothing but a boldfaced lie

Pretending that the Southern states started the war over tariffs is also a lie, but this one is mostly a lie by misdirection

And pretending that the North was fighting the war to end slavery is also a lie by misdirection.

It's contemptable to lie and lie and lie when the evidence that refutes those lies is so overwhelming.

And if one is repeating these lies sincerely because one hasn't read enough history to know any better, that is even MORE contemptable in my opinion.

 

[Ravi]

From Wikipedia:

In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed. The Republican victory in that election resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861. Both the outgoing administration of President James Buchanan and Lincoln's incoming administration rejected the legality of secession, considering it rebellion.
Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a US military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln responded by calling for a volunteer army from each state, leading to declarations of secession by four more Southern slave states. Both sides raised armies as the Union assumed control of the border states early in the war and established a naval blockade. In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal,[1] and dissuaded the British from intervening.[2]

Fact: The South saw their way of life (profiting on the labor of slaves) going bye-bye.

Fact: The South lost.

Get over it.

 

[paperview]

JBeukema posits:

...

Just to let you know ed...Beuky has been banned.

 

[editec]

JBeukema posits:

...

Just to let you know ed...Beuky has been banned.

Not, I hope, for expressing his opinions. Not even, I hope, for his spewing what I think is nothing but historic revisionism, either.

However repulsive his opinions might be to me, we're all better off having a dialogue/debate about those opinions.

The path to truth is often found by heated intellectual debate.

Thanks to having to read the thoughts of others, others whose ideas I have found repugnant, I have often discovered flaws in my own arguments, and occassionally these annoying cranks have forced me to rethink my own opinions.

Honest intelluctualism requires freedom of speech.

Without it, we are lost, the American dream is over and we are on the path to tyranny of thought.

 

[paperview]

JBeukema posits:

...

Just to let you know ed...Beuky has been banned.

Not, I hope, for expressing his opinions. Not even, I hope, for his spewing what I think is nothing but historic revisionism, either.

However repulsive his opinions might be to me, we're all better off having a dialogue/debate about those opinions.

The path to truth is often found by heated intellectual debate.

Thanks to having to read the thoughts of others, others whose ideas I have found repugnant, I have often discovered flaws in my own arguments, and occassionally these annoying cranks have forced me to rethink my own opinions.

Honest intelluctualism requires freedom of speech.

Without it, we are lost, the American dream is over and we are on the path to tyranny of thought.

No, he was banned because at 4:00 this morning he decided to show a picture of his gross erect hairy penis.

It takes a lot to get banned here. That, I do believe, qualifies.

 

[HUGGY]

Just to let you know ed...Beuky has been banned.

Not, I hope, for expressing his opinions. Not even, I hope, for his spewing what I think is nothing but historic revisionism, either.

However repulsive his opinions might be to me, we're all better off having a dialogue/debate about those opinions.

The path to truth is often found by heated intellectual debate.

Thanks to having to read the thoughts of others, others whose ideas I have found repugnant, I have often discovered flaws in my own arguments, and occassionally these annoying cranks have forced me to rethink my own opinions.

Honest intelluctualism requires freedom of speech.

Without it, we are lost, the American dream is over and we are on the path to tyranny of thought.

No, he was banned because at 4:00 this morning he decided to show a picture of his gross erect hairy penis.

It takes a lot to get banned here. That, I do believe, qualifies.

JaBukeYoMama has a penis? No Way!!! Well now he has time to play with it!

I wonder why someone would post something like that. Is it a cry for help?

 

[Father Time]

The South attempted to leave the Union not because they just didn't feel like being in it anymore, but because they felt that slavery was threatened. I can readily prove this if you doubt me.

Could you do that, not that I don't believe you but there's a lot of people on these boards that would like to rewrite history.

 

[Ravi]

Just to let you know ed...Beuky has been banned.

Not, I hope, for expressing his opinions. Not even, I hope, for his spewing what I think is nothing but historic revisionism, either.

However repulsive his opinions might be to me, we're all better off having a dialogue/debate about those opinions.

The path to truth is often found by heated intellectual debate.

Thanks to having to read the thoughts of others, others whose ideas I have found repugnant, I have often discovered flaws in my own arguments, and occassionally these annoying cranks have forced me to rethink my own opinions.

Honest intelluctualism requires freedom of speech.

Without it, we are lost, the American dream is over and we are on the path to tyranny of thought.

No, he was banned because at 4:00 this morning he decided to show a picture of his gross erect hairy penis.

It takes a lot to get banned here. That, I do believe, qualifies.

That is beyond sad.

 

[paperview]

Not, I hope, for expressing his opinions. Not even, I hope, for his spewing what I think is nothing but historic revisionism, either.

However repulsive his opinions might be to me, we're all better off having a dialogue/debate about those opinions.

The path to truth is often found by heated intellectual debate.

Thanks to having to read the thoughts of others, others whose ideas I have found repugnant, I have often discovered flaws in my own arguments, and occassionally these annoying cranks have forced me to rethink my own opinions.

Honest intelluctualism requires freedom of speech.

Without it, we are lost, the American dream is over and we are on the path to tyranny of thought.

No, he was banned because at 4:00 this morning he decided to show a picture of his gross erect hairy penis.

It takes a lot to get banned here. That, I do believe, qualifies.

That is beyond sad.

It was gross.

It was shocking.

It was clearly a mentally disturbed man who posted that. <<<shudders>>>>

Au Revoir Bucky.

 

[Rogue 9]

The South attempted to leave the Union not because they just didn't feel like being in it anymore, but because they felt that slavery was threatened. I can readily prove this if you doubt me.

Could you do that, not that I don't believe you but there's a lot of people on these boards that would like to rewrite history.

Sure. Glad to. I have already posted an extensive essay I've written about the subject in another thread; the exact post may be found at this link. That should be sufficient evidence to go on; more can be dredged up (the section which produced the idea that slavery was a positive good and cotton was king was not exactly silent on the matter), but much more would simply belabor the point; the affirmed reasons given by four state secession conventions and the Vice President of the Confederate States is plenty of evidence.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.

Hitler was a megalomaniac who practiced ethnic genocide. Lincoln was attempting to honor the oath of President, as he understood the Constitution and the adjudication thereof. As far as I know, he was not a megalomaniac who practiced ethnic genocide.

I believe both men were wrong in what they did. However, to equate Lincoln to Hitler is absurd. You wrapped your argument in logical fallacy.

 

[Rogue 9]

Just to let you know ed...Beuky has been banned.

Not, I hope, for expressing his opinions. Not even, I hope, for his spewing what I think is nothing but historic revisionism, either.

However repulsive his opinions might be to me, we're all better off having a dialogue/debate about those opinions.

The path to truth is often found by heated intellectual debate.

Thanks to having to read the thoughts of others, others whose ideas I have found repugnant, I have often discovered flaws in my own arguments, and occassionally these annoying cranks have forced me to rethink my own opinions.

Honest intelluctualism requires freedom of speech.

Without it, we are lost, the American dream is over and we are on the path to tyranny of thought.

No, he was banned because at 4:00 this morning he decided to show a picture of his gross erect hairy penis.

It takes a lot to get banned here. That, I do believe, qualifies.

God, I'm glad I missed that. I presume it was in response to me; he didn't have anything else of substance to say, did he?