The most evil pres in US history was LBJ

[rightwinger]

In other words, you approve of the illegal slaughter of 650,000 American citizens.

I think that attitude defines a true fascist scumbag.

Southern traitors had no right to secede.

Sure they did. Where does the Constitution say otherwise?

They took up arms against their own country because they wanted to engage in human rights atrocities

Wrong again. Lincoln invaded the Confederacy. After a state secedes, the USA is no longer its country. If anyone engaged in human rights atrocities, it was Lincoln.

The blame rests totally with the traitorous south

Always has......always will

The Constitution defines treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.​

Note that it says it consists of levying war against THEM [plural]. Treason is not defined as levying war against the federal government. Lincoln levied war against the states, not the confederacy. Lincoln is the traitor. He should have been tried for war crimes.

Doesn't get more treasonous than that. Not only did they levy war against this great nation, they levied war against an entire race of Americans

We were too soft on the traitors and slave holders in the South. They should have been forced to repay all the families of the north and all the slaves in the south for their dastardly ways

Slave holders should have been forced to give up their lands and slave holding families should have been made indentured servants to freed slaves until their debt was repaid. The former slaves should have decided when they were paid in full

 

[bripat9643]

Doesn't get more treasonous than that. Not only did they levy war against this great nation, they levied war against an entire race of Americans

We were too soft on the traitors and slave holders in the South. They should have been forced to repay all the families of the north and all the slaves in the south for their dastardly ways

Slave holders should have been forced to give up their lands and slave holding families should have been made indentured servants to freed slaves until their debt was repaid. The former slaves should have decided when they were paid in full

Yeah, that would have been constitutional!

There's simply no point in debating a Nazi A-hole who ignores everything he's told.

You should be fed into a meat grinder feet first.

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn't get more treasonous than that. Not only did they levy war against this great nation, they levied war against an entire race of Americans

We were too soft on the traitors and slave holders in the South. They should have been forced to repay all the families of the north and all the slaves in the south for their dastardly ways

Slave holders should have been forced to give up their lands and slave holding families should have been made indentured servants to freed slaves until their debt was repaid. The former slaves should have decided when they were paid in full

Yeah, that would have been constitutional!

There's simply no point in debating a Nazi A-hole who ignores everything he's told.

You should be fed into a meat grinder feet first.

Can you imagine a society that would actually wage war against their own country just so that they could maintain the right to own, rape, beat and sell other human beings?

Can you imagine what an asshole you would have to be to defend that society?

 

[Charles_Main]

He was a dick.

I never liked him but did like some of the things that got done under him.

Bush was the worst hands down

Bush was an Idiot, But he was a likable Idiot. I would not call him Evil. In Fact I think he is a very nice, and down to Earth guy. Just not a very good President.

 

[bripat9643]

Can you imagine a society that would actually wage war against their own country just so that they could maintain the right to own, rape, beat and sell other human beings?

Can you imagine what an asshole you would have to be to defend that society?

Northern States had slaves too, asshole, and Lincoln did not invade the South to end slavery.

We've already established the fact that you're an A-hole who spouts lies and ignores everything he's told.

Can you image actually responding to what someone says?

 

[rightwinger]

Can you imagine a society that would actually wage war against their own country just so that they could maintain the right to own, rape, beat and sell other human beings?

Can you imagine what an asshole you would have to be to defend that society?

Northern States had slaves too, asshole, and Lincoln did not invade the South to end slavery.

We've already established the fact that you're an A-hole who spouts lies and ignores everything he's told.

Can you image actually responding to what someone says?

Total revisionist bullshit

The south seceded for the sole reason that they wanted to maintain the right to own other people, rape children and sell off families

The American South and their racist, inhuman ways was a stain on the image of this great nation. Thankfully, we had a great president like Lincoln to teach them the ills of their evil ways

 

[Charles_Main]

Northern States had slaves too, asshole, and Lincoln did not invade the South to end slavery.

WTF are you talking about? Which Northern states? At the Time of the Civil War and for some time before it. Slavery was Banned in the Northern States.

 

[tinydancer]

Southern traitors had no right to secede.

Sure they did. Where does the Constitution say otherwise?



Wrong again. Lincoln invaded the Confederacy. After a state secedes, the USA is no longer its country. If anyone engaged in human rights atrocities, it was Lincoln.

The blame rests totally with the traitorous south

Always has......always will

The Constitution defines treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.​

Note that it says it consists of levying war against THEM [plural]. Treason is not defined as levying war against the federal government. Lincoln levied war against the states, not the confederacy. Lincoln is the traitor. He should have been tried for war crimes.

Doesn't get more treasonous than that. Not only did they levy war against this great nation, they levied war against an entire race of Americans

We were too soft on the traitors and slave holders in the South. They should have been forced to repay all the families of the north and all the slaves in the south for their dastardly ways

Slave holders should have been forced to give up their lands and slave holding families should have been made indentured servants to freed slaves until their debt was repaid. The former slaves should have decided when they were paid in full

How do you feel about stripping every northern slave holder let alone the great slave trading families of the north of their fortunes?

Amazing slave trading families in the north. Great business for northern ports let alone the shipping companies.

 

[tinydancer]

Northern States had slaves too, asshole, and Lincoln did not invade the South to end slavery.

WTF are you talking about? Which Northern states? At the Time of the Civil War and for some time before it. Slavery was Banned in the Northern States.

And?

Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South.

Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806.

The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping.

And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.

Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War.

The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South.

But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.

Northern Profits from Slavery

This is well documented. The North cannot under any circumstances pretend to be without sin in the trafficking of humans.

 

[rightwinger]

Sure they did. Where does the Constitution say otherwise?



Wrong again. Lincoln invaded the Confederacy. After a state secedes, the USA is no longer its country. If anyone engaged in human rights atrocities, it was Lincoln.



The Constitution defines treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.​

Note that it says it consists of levying war against THEM [plural]. Treason is not defined as levying war against the federal government. Lincoln levied war against the states, not the confederacy. Lincoln is the traitor. He should have been tried for war crimes.

Doesn't get more treasonous than that. Not only did they levy war against this great nation, they levied war against an entire race of Americans

We were too soft on the traitors and slave holders in the South. They should have been forced to repay all the families of the north and all the slaves in the south for their dastardly ways

Slave holders should have been forced to give up their lands and slave holding families should have been made indentured servants to freed slaves until their debt was repaid. The former slaves should have decided when they were paid in full

How do you feel about stripping every northern slave holder let alone the great slave trading families of the north of their fortunes?

Amazing slave trading families in the north. Great business for northern ports let alone the shipping companies.

Works for me. Those involved in trading and owning slaves are scum.

As are those who fought against their own country to maintain the right to continue this despicable practice

 

[Charles_Main]

Northern States had slaves too, asshole, and Lincoln did not invade the South to end slavery.

WTF are you talking about? Which Northern states? At the Time of the Civil War and for some time before it. Slavery was Banned in the Northern States.

And?

Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South.

Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806.

The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping.

And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.

Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War.

The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South.

But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.

Northern Profits from Slavery

This is well documented. The North cannot under any circumstances pretend to be without sin in the trafficking of humans.

Ships out of New England. Does not mean there were slaves in New England dude. However you are right that People in the North Were Involved and Profited from the Slave Trade. It is also true that Despite being against Slavery, Most people in the North were still very Racist and opposed to equality among the Races.

 

[bripat9643]

Northern States had slaves too, asshole, and Lincoln did not invade the South to end slavery.

WTF are you talking about? Which Northern states? At the Time of the Civil War and for some time before it. Slavery was Banned in the Northern States.

That's another widely believed Myth. for one thing, Maryland, Kentucky were both slave states. for another, although many states claimed to abolished slaver, census figures show that many of them had slaves right up to the Civil War.

 

[Charles_Main]

Doesn't get more treasonous than that. Not only did they levy war against this great nation, they levied war against an entire race of Americans

We were too soft on the traitors and slave holders in the South. They should have been forced to repay all the families of the north and all the slaves in the south for their dastardly ways

Slave holders should have been forced to give up their lands and slave holding families should have been made indentured servants to freed slaves until their debt was repaid. The former slaves should have decided when they were paid in full

How do you feel about stripping every northern slave holder let alone the great slave trading families of the north of their fortunes?

Amazing slave trading families in the north. Great business for northern ports let alone the shipping companies.

Works for me. Those involved in trading and owning slaves are scum.

As are those who fought against their own country to maintain the right to continue this despicable practice

That is very Simplistic. You can read the Diaries of many a southern Soldier. Most of them were not there to fight for Slavery. They were there in their minds, to defense their states. In fact roughly 80% of the People in the South, Never owned slaves.

As with most wars, often the men in the Trenches fighting it, are there for very different Reasons than those of the Nations doing the fighting.

Most Northern Soldiers were not fighting to end Slavery, they could care less, they were there to preserve the Union.

Most Southern Soldiers were not there to Defend Slavery, they were there to Defense their States against what they saw as just another Over Bearing Government in need of being thrown off.

 

[Charles_Main]

Northern States had slaves too, asshole, and Lincoln did not invade the South to end slavery.

WTF are you talking about? Which Northern states? At the Time of the Civil War and for some time before it. Slavery was Banned in the Northern States.

That's another widely believed Myth. for one thing, Maryland, Kentucky were both slave states. for another, although many states claimed to abolished slaver, census figures show that many of them had slaves right up to the Civil War.

Maryland and Kentucky are not what I would Call Northern States. Yes they were on the side of the North (in the Case of Maryland Lincoln had to have their legislator Arrested to keep them in the Unions) But those 2 states did not make up the North. My Own State Michigan proudly Says, that Slavery was never legal in this state. It was the Same in Most Northern States. Kentucky and Maryland not withstanding.

 

[rightwinger]

How do you feel about stripping every northern slave holder let alone the great slave trading families of the north of their fortunes?

Amazing slave trading families in the north. Great business for northern ports let alone the shipping companies.

Works for me. Those involved in trading and owning slaves are scum.

As are those who fought against their own country to maintain the right to continue this despicable practice

That is very Simplistic. You can read the Diaries of many a southern Soldier. Most of them were not there to fight for Slavery. They were there in their minds, to defense their states. In fact roughly 80% of the People in the South, Never owned slaves.

As with most wars, often the men in the Trenches fighting it, are there for very different Reasons than those of the Nations doing the fighting.

Most Northern Soldiers were not fighting to end Slavery, they could care less, they were there to preserve the Union.

Most Southern Soldiers were not there to Defend Slavery, they were there to Defense their States against what they saw as just another Over Bearing Government in need of being thrown off.

Doesn't matter. They were stupid dupes for giving up their lives to defend the rights of slaveholders They were used and had their love of their states used against them

 

[JWBooth]

If not, there is only a hair separating him from #1

 

[bripat9643]

WTF are you talking about? Which Northern states? At the Time of the Civil War and for some time before it. Slavery was Banned in the Northern States.

That's another widely believed Myth. for one thing, Maryland, Kentucky were both slave states. for another, although many states claimed to abolished slaver, census figures show that many of them had slaves right up to the Civil War.

Maryland and Kentucky are not what I would Call Northern States. Yes they were on the side of the North (in the Case of Maryland Lincoln had to have their legislator Arrested to keep them in the Unions) But those 2 states did not make up the North. My Own State Michigan proudly Says, that Slavery was never legal in this state. It was the Same in Most Northern States. Kentucky and Maryland not withstanding.

You ignored the part where I said, census figures showed that many other Northern states had slaves right up to the Civil War.

 

[Charles_Main]

Lincoln did not invade the South to end slavery.

Of Course not. He Invaded the south to Preserve the Very Existence of a Democracy like ours. I am some what of a Lincoln Buff. At the time of the start of the war, he was very Clear that he did not think the FED had the constitutional Power to answer the Question of Slavery.

In his words we went to war to Prove that in a Democracy the Minority can not simply decide to leave the Union when they don't get their way. Had they been allowed to, the US would have slowly splintered in to many small Nations, as unhappy Minorities kept Splitting from smaller and Smaller Countries to form their own.

Basically he was saying in a democracy such as ours, you have to be willing to except the good with the Bad, You can not simply call it quits when your side is not getting what they want.

I for one am glad he did it.

He wrote in a letter to his Wife, that he never intended the war to be about Slavery, but that it had become clear that Freeing the slaves was necessary to justify the Horror the way had brought on us all. He felt it needed a High Moral Out Come, or it would have just been slaughter for Nothing.

He saw the Emancipation Proclamation as a tool of War. That is why he actually gave slave states in the South a chance to come back into the Fold peacefully, See his Proclamation only freed Slaves in States still in rebellion after a certain time. So the Idea was, Just come back into the Fold, and you wont be subject to this. Now of course it did not work, because everyone knew once he made that Proclamation, Slavery was dead in the US, and coming back into the Union would not protect it in their states.

 

[Charles_Main]

That's another widely believed Myth. for one thing, Maryland, Kentucky were both slave states. for another, although many states claimed to abolished slaver, census figures show that many of them had slaves right up to the Civil War.

Maryland and Kentucky are not what I would Call Northern States. Yes they were on the side of the North (in the Case of Maryland Lincoln had to have their legislator Arrested to keep them in the Unions) But those 2 states did not make up the North. My Own State Michigan proudly Says, that Slavery was never legal in this state. It was the Same in Most Northern States. Kentucky and Maryland not withstanding.

You ignored the part where I said, census figures showed that many other Northern states had slaves right up to the Civil War.

I find that odd, because those people all would have been in Violation of their states laws. Perhaps they owned slaves in Border states, Perhaps had 2 Homes? Don't know, but your Info is the first I have ever seen that suggests Northern States had slaves.

 

[tinydancer]

WTF are you talking about? Which Northern states? At the Time of the Civil War and for some time before it. Slavery was Banned in the Northern States.

And?

Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South.

Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806.

The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping.

And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.

Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War.

The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South.

But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.

Northern Profits from Slavery

This is well documented. The North cannot under any circumstances pretend to be without sin in the trafficking of humans.

Ships out of New England. Does not mean there were slaves in New England dude. However you are right that People in the North Were Involved and Profited from the Slave Trade. It is also true that Despite being against Slavery, Most people in the North were still very Racist and opposed to equality among the Races.

I'm not trying to absolve the south. By no means. Nor the North. But it would be nice to be able to discuss slavery in a true historical context.

People flip when I bring up how NA Indians captured and traded slaves.

It's just a fact. I don't think anyone needs to get emotional about it, but whoa geeze I've seen people just lose it. It's history. Not pretty but it's our history.Thank heaven's we are far more enlightened these days and we don't believe it is either our right or priveledge sp? to own another human being.

Human trafficking still continues sadly in some areas on this planet.

But that's for another thread.