Sean Hannity Is Abandoning Bush

[Gunny]

don't really know why I would be killing you with facts of the Civil War...other than your laughing makes kathy feel better..I am not arguing anything...im just stating facts as they are related to the "Civil War" if this offends you or kathy...well I am so sorry...I did not write nor participate in the "Civil War"...however I am a history buff and have read alot about the War as I have on other Wars...I will not nor do I have the time or energy to find the links you and kathy want....if ya want to disprove me...go for it and I will then give links in support of my opinions! Until then....laugh away! :2guns:

Dude, I don't need you to provide me any links to anything relating to the Civil War. I have quite a personal collection of books pertaining to the subject, as well as checking out the web.

I do not try an disprove people's opinions on the Civil War, nor the reasons for it. Northerners and Southerners have widely varying viewpoints on the Civil War, as do the PC/apologist crowd, and of course African Americans believe it was held just for them.

My amusement comes at the expense of your attempting to concentrate and isolate the "reason" to "taxation." If you are the buff you claim to be, then you KNOW that is an oversimplification beyond compare.

 

[archangel]

Abbey Normal, you bolded this portion of my text and then insulted me. But this is true isn't it? Unless I missed some obscure Constitutional amendment that gives justices the power to amend the constitution when considering foreign laws, there's nothing wrong with this sentence. You just don't like me because I make you see your own ideology for what it really is and it makes you feel bad about yourself.

Abbey just called ya on your own hypocrisy...the Supreme Court has in the last ten years made a joke out of the legislative system...Gay marriage,abortion et al ring a bell?..Then again ya are just living in a fantasy world! See the recent veto by 'Governator' Arnold of California.....he yeilded to the voters of California on Gay marriage legislation!

 

[Gunny]

Abbey Normal, you bolded this portion of my text and then insulted me. But this is true isn't it? Unless I missed some obscure Constitutional amendment that gives justices the power to amend the constitution when considering foreign laws, there's nothing wrong with this sentence. You just don't like me because I make you see your own ideology for what it really is and it makes you feel bad about yourself.

Insulting self-important wannabe intellectuals is fun. :whip3:

 

[Annie]

Dude, I don't need you to provide me any links to anything relating to the Civil War. I have quite a personal collection of books pertaining to the subject, as well as checking out the web.

I do not try an disprove people's opinions on the Civil War, nor the reasons for it. Northerners and Southerners have widely varying viewpoints on the Civil War, as do the PC/apologist crowd, and of course African Americans believe it was held just for them.

My amusement comes at the expense of your attempting to concentrate and isolate the "reason" to "taxation." If you are the buff you claim to be, then you KNOW that is an oversimplification beyond compare.

Right Gunny. I posted this:

...The South was concerned about taxation, Arch is right on that. However there largest concern was their 'way of life' and ability to be controlled by a government they disagreed with-secession was the answer. Lincoln was elected without a single Southern state giving him electoral vote. They knew their influence was nil-part was the problem with slavery and the 3/5ths codicil....

hoping to get some discussion.

 

[archangel]

Dude, I don't need you to provide me any links to anything relating to the Civil War. I have quite a personal collection of books pertaining to the subject, as well as checking out the web.

I do not try an disprove people's opinions on the Civil War, nor the reasons for it. Northerners and Southerners have widely varying viewpoints on the Civil War, as do the PC/apologist crowd, and of course African Americans believe it was held just for them.

My amusement comes at the expense of your attempting to concentrate and isolate the "reason" to "taxation." If you are the buff you claim to be, then you KNOW that is an oversimplification beyond compare.

you answered my opinion for me with your previous diatribe...why do you continue with this back-peddeling? I gave the facts...you agreed...now you are trying to escape the obvious! :happy2:

 

[Gunny]

you answered my opinion for me with your previous diatribe...why do you continue with this back-peddeling? I gave the facts...you agreed...now you are trying to escape the obvious! :happy2:

What backpeddaling would that be? I don't agree with your oversimplification of an event that had many symptoms.

 

[Mr. P]

You simply can't be serious. I wish I could take this post back to law school and show it around. It might give everyone a good hearty laugh and break up the all-day studying. You know nothing- and I mean nothing- about citing case law, or judicial opinions. There are quite a few laymen on here who do, and you could learn form them if your arrogance didn't prevent you.

I had a good laugh outta that one too Abbey.

 

[Gunny]

Right Gunny. I posted this:

hoping to get some discussion.

And I agree with what you posted. Losing the 50-50 balance of power in the government was an important reason for secession. The actual catalyst was the election of Lincoln. That was the last straw.

I don't disagree with Archangel that tariff laws were a reason. I disagree that they were the or main reason.

 

[Annie]

And I agree with what you posted. Losing the 50-50 balance of power in the government was an important reason for secession. The actual catalyst was the election of Lincoln. That was the last straw.

I don't disagree with Archangel that tariff laws were a reason. I disagree that they were the or main reason.

Ditto.

 

[archangel]

What backpeddaling would that be? I don't agree with your oversimplification of an event that had many symptoms.

Lincoln supported higher tariffs on 'Cotton Exports' thus the South was angry..
however it still boils down to taxes on the export front...no matter who was elected President...Slavery was a minor point and issue as both sides supported slavery at the time.....geez!

 

[Mr. P]

I love civil war history, so much of it is misunderstood.
There is a fantastic documentary by Ken Burns covering the entire period, if you never saw it, be sure you do.

 

[archangel]

I love civil war history, so much of it is misunderstood.
There is a fantastic documentary by Ken Burns covering the entire period, if you never saw it, be sure you do.

I saw this documentary too very good indeed!

 

[Gunny]

Lincoln supported higher tariffs on 'Cotton Exports' thus the South was angry..
however it still boils down to taxes on the export front...no matter who was elected President...Slavery was a minor point and issue as both sides supported slavery at the time.....geez!

The North did not support slavery. Slavery was not conducive to the region, nor the Northern economy. Only border states still maintained slavery. For the most part, it was extinct in the Northeast and Midwest.

Most Northerners were ambivalent to the issue. But Lincoln WAS an abolitionist, and he received the abolitionist vote. That he would have allowed slavery to remain existent where it was meant nothing to a bunch of firebreathing politicians. The regional split had been brewing for decades -- as early as the 1820s -- and Lincoln's election was seen as the last straw by the Southerners in power.

Lincoln's support or lack thereof of high tariffs was never an issue. His being an abolitionist WAS.

 

[archangel]

The North did not support slavery. Slavery was not conducive to the region, nor the Northern economy. Only border states still maintained slavery. For the most part, it was extinct in the Northeast and Midwest.

Most Northerners were ambivalent to the issue. But Lincoln WAS an abolitionist, and he received the abolitionist vote. That he would have allowed slavery to remain existent where it was meant nothing to a bunch of firebreathing politicians. The regional split had been brewing for decades -- as early as the 1820s -- and Lincoln's election was seen as the last straw by the Southerners in power.

Lincoln's support or lack thereof of high tariffs was never an issue. His being an abolitionist WAS.

Lincoln was a abolitionist...and also was for higher tariffs on exports..this was a death blow to the south...and as for the North was not into slavery at the time....ho-ho-ho Merry Christmas to one and all..alot of slaves stayed with their masters of the North and even joined the military to defend their right to fight for the North as indebted slaves...you are not making sense on this one!

 

[Gunny]

Lincoln was a abolitionist...and also was for higher tariffs on exports..this was a death blow to the south...and as for the North was not into slavery at the time....ho-ho-ho Merry Christmas to one and all..alot of slaves stayed with their masters of the North and even joined the military to defend their right to fight for the North as indebted slaves...you are not making sense on this one!

I'm making perfectly good sense. You're trying to speak in absolutes; which, did not exist. Some Northerners owned slaves -- where it was still legal. If any of those slaves fought for the North, they were few and far between. The overwhelming majority of blacks who fought for the North were freemen/escaped slaves from the South.

I can't even fathom where you come by that misinformation.

 

[archangel]

I'm making perfectly good sense. You're trying to speak in absolutes; which, did not exist. Some Northerners owned slaves -- where it was still legal. If any of those slaves fought for the North, they were few and far between. The overwhelming majority of blacks who fought for the North were freemen/escaped slaves from the South.

I can't even fathom where you come by that misinformation.

"where it was still legal" in the North...and only "free slaves fought the North/ South"
this may play well on MSN..but it is not a fact...Both free and indebted fought for both sides...may not be pleasant to swallow...but it is a fact! :coffee3:

 

[Mr. P]

I'm making perfectly good sense. You're trying to speak in absolutes; which, did not exist. Some Northerners owned slaves -- where it was still legal. If any of those slaves fought for the North, they were few and far between. The overwhelming majority of blacks who fought for the North were freemen/escaped slaves from the South.

I can't even fathom where you come by that misinformation.

Yep...

By the end of the war more than 186,000 black soldiers had joined the Union army; 93,000 from the Confederate states, 40,000 from the border slave states, and 53,000 from the free states.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html

 

[Annie]

Yep...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html

Good find, it also explains to some degree why Lincoln wasn't an abolishionist, though he thought slavery was wrong. He wasn't an extremist, was willing to let it die on its own accord, but the election as I believe Gunny said, was just the last straw.

I think if the Union had won right up front, the most that Lincoln would have done is put a date forward where slavery would have been ended, but my guess would have been well beyone 1865.

 

[Mr. P]

Good find, it also explains to some degree why Lincoln wasn't an abolishionist, though he thought slavery was wrong. He wasn't an extremist, was willing to let it die on its own accord, but the election as I believe Gunny said, was just the last straw.

I think if the Union had won right up front, the most that Lincoln would have done is put a date forward where slavery would have been ended, but my guess would have been well beyone 1865.

You may be right..There is a part on that first page that mentions slavery becoming an issue for Lincoln, but it was after the war had started.

 

[Annie]

You may be right..There is a part on that first page that mentions slavery becoming an issue for Lincoln, but it was after the war had started.

That was what I was trying to get at earlier. Lincoln was a politician, a damned fine one. The Union was losing battle after battle. When they came close to winning something, the generals wouldn't follow up. The Copperheads were getting more and more belligerent about the war, after all, they couldn't afford to buy their way out of the draft, but they knew they would be competing as immigrants, with the blacks if they were freed. It wasn't that they were FOR slavery, just didn't think it was worth dying for and then paying for again in the job market.

Now the abolitionists, they sure did think it was worth lots of folks dying for. They were extreme, moreso than any other group. They were also as a whole, more educated and wealthier than average and they truly believed they knew what was best for everyone. They also held sway in the press. (Remind you of any group today?) Well Lincoln needed some good press, in a big way. So he followed up a victory, with the Emancipation Proclamation. Now I think it's a good thing, but it was very calculated at the time.