Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
April 12, 1861....the bloodiest war in our history began.
1. 1861 Civil War begins as Confederates fire on Fort Sumter, Charleston, NC, capturing it on April 14. Lincoln calls for 75,000 volunteers on April 15. General P. G. T. Beauregard led the attack on Ft. Sumter. The fort’s commander was Major Robert Anderson, a former slave owner who stayed loyal to the USA. The fort fell in 34 hours.
2. The President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis served as a Democratic U.S. senator from Mississippi and as Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce before his election as the president of the secessionist Confederate States of America.
Although he was later indicted for treason, he was never tried.
3. As a Democrat, he represents the personification of the political views of his party up to and including today.
The Republican party was created to resist, and remove, the stain of slavery from America. While the Democrats have always supported and advanced slavery, segregation and second-class citizenship for black Americans, they have been able to convince the less astute of the very opposite.
a. The KKK was a Democrat subsidiary....FDR made a KKKer his first Supreme Court nominee
b. Bill Clinton enforced flying the Confederate Flag during his entire Arkansas governorship.....and even suggested that Barack Obama should be carrying his bags in 2008.
4. Now....how the Civil War began?
a. Major Robert Anderson and 85 men were stranded in Fort Sumter.
b. Surrounding him were hundreds of militiamen and coastal guns.
c. Lincoln refused to give the fort up, but the fort was running out of food: if he sent a supply convoy into Charleston Bay, he would be blamed for starting the war.....but how could he give in, and give up the fort?
d. William Seward tried to undermine Lincoln....telling Lincoln to give up the fort for 'goodwill.'
e. On April 5, Lincoln dispatched a fleet of supply ships with the proviso that was relayed to Jefferson Davis: the vessels would be unarmed, with the only cargo "food for hungry men."
f. Firing on the defenseless ships would have been an act of war by the Confederacy.
g. On Tuesday, April 9, Davis held a cabinet meeting, deciding on war. Three days later, and hours before the ships would arrive....the Southern forces attacked the fort.
"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"by Gavin Mortimer, p.70-71
The First Battle of Fort Sumter opened on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery fired on the Union garrisonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter
And in my opinion, it was an unjust and immoral war at the beginning. Lincoln engaged in war to preserve the Union. The South had made it clear they no longer wished to be subjects of the Union. Sovereign people should be allowed to select the government they want. Lincoln, being the brilliant man he was, made the war Just and moral with the emancipation proclamation. Then the war was more about freeing the enslaved, a very just cause.
"Sovereign people should be allowed to select the government they want."
Well, then....you're in favor of 'sanctuary cities.'
How about an 'Outlaw City' or a 'Kidnapper's City' or 'Man-Boy Love Association City'?
Down with those, too?
Please, surely you can see the difference between a state wanting to secede from the union and a sanctuary city within a state in the union. The sanctuary cities are breaking a law and haven't declared their desire to withdraw. Your analogy doesn't hold.
So you are opposed to states, cities, communities nullifying federal law, but not states?
"...the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional..."
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia
"Your analogy doesn't hold."
Why not?
Because sanctuary cities are breaking federal law, they are part of the Union and have not expressed a desire to withdrawal from the Union. The Southern states declared their desire to withdrawal from the Union. Why you think that is analogous to sanctuary cities or man/boy associations is unclear.
And in my opinion, it was an unjust and immoral war at the beginning. Lincoln engaged in war to preserve the Union. The South had made it clear they no longer wished to be subjects of the Union. Sovereign people should be allowed to select the government they want. Lincoln, being the brilliant man he was, made the war Just and moral with the emancipation proclamation. Then the war was more about freeing the enslaved, a very just cause.
"Sovereign people should be allowed to select the government they want."
Well, then....you're in favor of 'sanctuary cities.'
How about an 'Outlaw City' or a 'Kidnapper's City' or 'Man-Boy Love Association City'?
Down with those, too?
Please, surely you can see the difference between a state wanting to secede from the union and a sanctuary city within a state in the union. The sanctuary cities are breaking a law and haven't declared their desire to withdraw. Your analogy doesn't hold.
So you are opposed to states, cities, communities nullifying federal law, but not states?
"...the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional..."
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia
"Your analogy doesn't hold."
Why not?
Because sanctuary cities are breaking federal law, they are part of the Union and have not expressed a desire to withdrawal from the Union. The Southern states declared their desire to withdrawal from the Union. Why you think that is analogous to sanctuary cities or man/boy associations is unclear.
"Because sanctuary cities are breaking federal law..."
"...the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional..."
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia
You should just deny that being consistent is not important to you, and leave it at that.
"Sovereign people should be allowed to select the government they want."
Well, then....you're in favor of 'sanctuary cities.'
How about an 'Outlaw City' or a 'Kidnapper's City' or 'Man-Boy Love Association City'?
Down with those, too?
Please, surely you can see the difference between a state wanting to secede from the union and a sanctuary city within a state in the union. The sanctuary cities are breaking a law and haven't declared their desire to withdraw. Your analogy doesn't hold.
So you are opposed to states, cities, communities nullifying federal law, but not states?
"...the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional..."
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia
"Your analogy doesn't hold."
Why not?
Because sanctuary cities are breaking federal law, they are part of the Union and have not expressed a desire to withdrawal from the Union. The Southern states declared their desire to withdrawal from the Union. Why you think that is analogous to sanctuary cities or man/boy associations is unclear.
"Because sanctuary cities are breaking federal law..."
"...the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional..."
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia
You should just deny that being consistent is not important to you, and leave it at that.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I'm also confident you'd agree the Supreme Court is not infallible. You may also hold dear the words of the Declaration of Independence. I am consistent in believing that Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession.
Have you ever heard of Lysander Spooner? He wrote a very insightful essay which accurately pointed out the hypocrisy of the Civil War. It's not too long.
Lysander Spooner on Lincoln's War (1870)
Please, surely you can see the difference between a state wanting to secede from the union and a sanctuary city within a state in the union. The sanctuary cities are breaking a law and haven't declared their desire to withdraw. Your analogy doesn't hold.
So you are opposed to states, cities, communities nullifying federal law, but not states?
"...the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional..."
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia
"Your analogy doesn't hold."
Why not?
Because sanctuary cities are breaking federal law, they are part of the Union and have not expressed a desire to withdrawal from the Union. The Southern states declared their desire to withdrawal from the Union. Why you think that is analogous to sanctuary cities or man/boy associations is unclear.
"Because sanctuary cities are breaking federal law..."
"...the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional..."
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia
You should just deny that being consistent is not important to you, and leave it at that.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I'm also confident you'd agree the Supreme Court is not infallible. You may also hold dear the words of the Declaration of Independence. I am consistent in believing that Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession.
Have you ever heard of Lysander Spooner? He wrote a very insightful essay which accurately pointed out the hypocrisy of the Civil War. It's not too long.
Lysander Spooner on Lincoln's War (1870)
"... Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession."
Gonna bring up the Ukraine and Russia, too?
C'mon....be serious.
So you are opposed to states, cities, communities nullifying federal law, but not states?
"...the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional..."
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia
"Your analogy doesn't hold."
Why not?
Because sanctuary cities are breaking federal law, they are part of the Union and have not expressed a desire to withdrawal from the Union. The Southern states declared their desire to withdrawal from the Union. Why you think that is analogous to sanctuary cities or man/boy associations is unclear.
"Because sanctuary cities are breaking federal law..."
"...the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional..."
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia
You should just deny that being consistent is not important to you, and leave it at that.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I'm also confident you'd agree the Supreme Court is not infallible. You may also hold dear the words of the Declaration of Independence. I am consistent in believing that Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession.
Have you ever heard of Lysander Spooner? He wrote a very insightful essay which accurately pointed out the hypocrisy of the Civil War. It's not too long.
Lysander Spooner on Lincoln's War (1870)
"... Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession."
Gonna bring up the Ukraine and Russia, too?
C'mon....be serious.
That's it- you're going to bow out? Russian invaded Ukraine. How is that like the colonies Declaration of Independence or the Confedrate secession. I've read many of your post, and honestly thought you were brighter than this. Why was the war with Britain called a revolution and the war between the states called a civil war. It's all perspective my dear.
Every great revolution is a civil war,” as David Armitage has recently remarked. That insight could change the way we think about the American Revolution. Contemporaries understood it that way—or at least, they did at first. David Ramsay, the first patriot historian of the war, held that the Revolution was “originally a civil war in the estimation of both parties.” Mercy Otis Warren wrote that the fires of civil war were kindled as early as the Boston massacre. But in the narratives of these historians, the moment the United States declared independence was the moment the conflict stopped being a civil war. It was no longer being fought within a single imperial polity. Now it was a war between two nations.[1]
Because sanctuary cities are breaking federal law, they are part of the Union and have not expressed a desire to withdrawal from the Union. The Southern states declared their desire to withdrawal from the Union. Why you think that is analogous to sanctuary cities or man/boy associations is unclear.
"Because sanctuary cities are breaking federal law..."
"...the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional..."
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia
You should just deny that being consistent is not important to you, and leave it at that.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I'm also confident you'd agree the Supreme Court is not infallible. You may also hold dear the words of the Declaration of Independence. I am consistent in believing that Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession.
Have you ever heard of Lysander Spooner? He wrote a very insightful essay which accurately pointed out the hypocrisy of the Civil War. It's not too long.
Lysander Spooner on Lincoln's War (1870)
"... Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession."
Gonna bring up the Ukraine and Russia, too?
C'mon....be serious.
That's it- you're going to bow out? Russian invaded Ukraine. How is that like the colonies Declaration of Independence or the Confedrate secession. I've read many of your post, and honestly thought you were brighter than this. Why was the war with Britain called a revolution and the war between the states called a civil war. It's all perspective my dear.
Every great revolution is a civil war,” as David Armitage has recently remarked. That insight could change the way we think about the American Revolution. Contemporaries understood it that way—or at least, they did at first. David Ramsay, the first patriot historian of the war, held that the Revolution was “originally a civil war in the estimation of both parties.” Mercy Otis Warren wrote that the fires of civil war were kindled as early as the Boston massacre. But in the narratives of these historians, the moment the United States declared independence was the moment the conflict stopped being a civil war. It was no longer being fought within a single imperial polity. Now it was a war between two nations.[1]
What England did, what Russia did, what you had for breakfast.....none have any thing to do with this:
Secession has been found unconstitutional.
OK?
Because sanctuary cities are breaking federal law, they are part of the Union and have not expressed a desire to withdrawal from the Union. The Southern states declared their desire to withdrawal from the Union. Why you think that is analogous to sanctuary cities or man/boy associations is unclear.
"Because sanctuary cities are breaking federal law..."
"...the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional..."
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia
You should just deny that being consistent is not important to you, and leave it at that.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I'm also confident you'd agree the Supreme Court is not infallible. You may also hold dear the words of the Declaration of Independence. I am consistent in believing that Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession.
Have you ever heard of Lysander Spooner? He wrote a very insightful essay which accurately pointed out the hypocrisy of the Civil War. It's not too long.
Lysander Spooner on Lincoln's War (1870)
"... Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession."
Gonna bring up the Ukraine and Russia, too?
C'mon....be serious.
That's it- you're going to bow out? Russian invaded Ukraine. How is that like the colonies Declaration of Independence or the Confedrate secession. I've read many of your post, and honestly thought you were brighter than this. Why was the war with Britain called a revolution and the war between the states called a civil war. It's all perspective my dear.
Every great revolution is a civil war,” as David Armitage has recently remarked. That insight could change the way we think about the American Revolution. Contemporaries understood it that way—or at least, they did at first. David Ramsay, the first patriot historian of the war, held that the Revolution was “originally a civil war in the estimation of both parties.” Mercy Otis Warren wrote that the fires of civil war were kindled as early as the Boston massacre. But in the narratives of these historians, the moment the United States declared independence was the moment the conflict stopped being a civil war. It was no longer being fought within a single imperial polity. Now it was a war between two nations.[1]
What England did, what Russia did, what you had for breakfast.....none have any thing to do with this:
Secession has been found unconstitutional.
OK?
"Because sanctuary cities are breaking federal law..."
"...the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional..."
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia
You should just deny that being consistent is not important to you, and leave it at that.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I'm also confident you'd agree the Supreme Court is not infallible. You may also hold dear the words of the Declaration of Independence. I am consistent in believing that Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession.
Have you ever heard of Lysander Spooner? He wrote a very insightful essay which accurately pointed out the hypocrisy of the Civil War. It's not too long.
Lysander Spooner on Lincoln's War (1870)
"... Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession."
Gonna bring up the Ukraine and Russia, too?
C'mon....be serious.
That's it- you're going to bow out? Russian invaded Ukraine. How is that like the colonies Declaration of Independence or the Confedrate secession. I've read many of your post, and honestly thought you were brighter than this. Why was the war with Britain called a revolution and the war between the states called a civil war. It's all perspective my dear.
Every great revolution is a civil war,” as David Armitage has recently remarked. That insight could change the way we think about the American Revolution. Contemporaries understood it that way—or at least, they did at first. David Ramsay, the first patriot historian of the war, held that the Revolution was “originally a civil war in the estimation of both parties.” Mercy Otis Warren wrote that the fires of civil war were kindled as early as the Boston massacre. But in the narratives of these historians, the moment the United States declared independence was the moment the conflict stopped being a civil war. It was no longer being fought within a single imperial polity. Now it was a war between two nations.[1]
What England did, what Russia did, what you had for breakfast.....none have any thing to do with this:
Secession has been found unconstitutional.
OK?"Because sanctuary cities are breaking federal law..."
"...the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional..."
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia
You should just deny that being consistent is not important to you, and leave it at that.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I'm also confident you'd agree the Supreme Court is not infallible. You may also hold dear the words of the Declaration of Independence. I am consistent in believing that Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession.
Have you ever heard of Lysander Spooner? He wrote a very insightful essay which accurately pointed out the hypocrisy of the Civil War. It's not too long.
Lysander Spooner on Lincoln's War (1870)
"... Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession."
Gonna bring up the Ukraine and Russia, too?
C'mon....be serious.
That's it- you're going to bow out? Russian invaded Ukraine. How is that like the colonies Declaration of Independence or the Confedrate secession. I've read many of your post, and honestly thought you were brighter than this. Why was the war with Britain called a revolution and the war between the states called a civil war. It's all perspective my dear.
Every great revolution is a civil war,” as David Armitage has recently remarked. That insight could change the way we think about the American Revolution. Contemporaries understood it that way—or at least, they did at first. David Ramsay, the first patriot historian of the war, held that the Revolution was “originally a civil war in the estimation of both parties.” Mercy Otis Warren wrote that the fires of civil war were kindled as early as the Boston massacre. But in the narratives of these historians, the moment the United States declared independence was the moment the conflict stopped being a civil war. It was no longer being fought within a single imperial polity. Now it was a war between two nations.[1]
What England did, what Russia did, what you had for breakfast.....none have any thing to do with this:
Secession has been found unconstitutional.
OK?
And I have never taken the position that it was constitutional. I contend that the civil war was not morally just as a war to preserve the Union, and it didn't become morally just until the Emancipation Proclamation. You're the one who brought up Russian, which I will never know why. BTW - Secession wasn't declared illegal until after the war, so you can't really even argue that it was unconstitutional at the time.
Why don't you Tell me why the revolutionary war was just from the US perspective, but the civil war was unjust.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I'm also confident you'd agree the Supreme Court is not infallible. You may also hold dear the words of the Declaration of Independence. I am consistent in believing that Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession.
Have you ever heard of Lysander Spooner? He wrote a very insightful essay which accurately pointed out the hypocrisy of the Civil War. It's not too long.
Lysander Spooner on Lincoln's War (1870)
"... Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession."
Gonna bring up the Ukraine and Russia, too?
C'mon....be serious.
That's it- you're going to bow out? Russian invaded Ukraine. How is that like the colonies Declaration of Independence or the Confedrate secession. I've read many of your post, and honestly thought you were brighter than this. Why was the war with Britain called a revolution and the war between the states called a civil war. It's all perspective my dear.
Every great revolution is a civil war,” as David Armitage has recently remarked. That insight could change the way we think about the American Revolution. Contemporaries understood it that way—or at least, they did at first. David Ramsay, the first patriot historian of the war, held that the Revolution was “originally a civil war in the estimation of both parties.” Mercy Otis Warren wrote that the fires of civil war were kindled as early as the Boston massacre. But in the narratives of these historians, the moment the United States declared independence was the moment the conflict stopped being a civil war. It was no longer being fought within a single imperial polity. Now it was a war between two nations.[1]
What England did, what Russia did, what you had for breakfast.....none have any thing to do with this:
Secession has been found unconstitutional.
OK?Ah, I see what you're saying. I'm also confident you'd agree the Supreme Court is not infallible. You may also hold dear the words of the Declaration of Independence. I am consistent in believing that Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession.
Have you ever heard of Lysander Spooner? He wrote a very insightful essay which accurately pointed out the hypocrisy of the Civil War. It's not too long.
Lysander Spooner on Lincoln's War (1870)
"... Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession."
Gonna bring up the Ukraine and Russia, too?
C'mon....be serious.
That's it- you're going to bow out? Russian invaded Ukraine. How is that like the colonies Declaration of Independence or the Confedrate secession. I've read many of your post, and honestly thought you were brighter than this. Why was the war with Britain called a revolution and the war between the states called a civil war. It's all perspective my dear.
Every great revolution is a civil war,” as David Armitage has recently remarked. That insight could change the way we think about the American Revolution. Contemporaries understood it that way—or at least, they did at first. David Ramsay, the first patriot historian of the war, held that the Revolution was “originally a civil war in the estimation of both parties.” Mercy Otis Warren wrote that the fires of civil war were kindled as early as the Boston massacre. But in the narratives of these historians, the moment the United States declared independence was the moment the conflict stopped being a civil war. It was no longer being fought within a single imperial polity. Now it was a war between two nations.[1]
What England did, what Russia did, what you had for breakfast.....none have any thing to do with this:
Secession has been found unconstitutional.
OK?
And I have never taken the position that it was constitutional. I contend that the civil war was not morally just as a war to preserve the Union, and it didn't become morally just until the Emancipation Proclamation. You're the one who brought up Russian, which I will never know why. BTW - Secession wasn't declared illegal until after the war, so you can't really even argue that it was unconstitutional at the time.
Why don't you Tell me why the revolutionary war was just from the US perspective, but the civil war was unjust.
Let me rephrase the last question, it's poorly worded.
Tell me why the Declaration of Independence of the colonies was just, but the secession attempt by the confederate states was not.
"... Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession."
Gonna bring up the Ukraine and Russia, too?
C'mon....be serious.
That's it- you're going to bow out? Russian invaded Ukraine. How is that like the colonies Declaration of Independence or the Confedrate secession. I've read many of your post, and honestly thought you were brighter than this. Why was the war with Britain called a revolution and the war between the states called a civil war. It's all perspective my dear.
Every great revolution is a civil war,” as David Armitage has recently remarked. That insight could change the way we think about the American Revolution. Contemporaries understood it that way—or at least, they did at first. David Ramsay, the first patriot historian of the war, held that the Revolution was “originally a civil war in the estimation of both parties.” Mercy Otis Warren wrote that the fires of civil war were kindled as early as the Boston massacre. But in the narratives of these historians, the moment the United States declared independence was the moment the conflict stopped being a civil war. It was no longer being fought within a single imperial polity. Now it was a war between two nations.[1]
What England did, what Russia did, what you had for breakfast.....none have any thing to do with this:
Secession has been found unconstitutional.
OK?"... Great Britain had no more just cause in pursuing war to keep the Colonies under British law than the US had in pursuing war against southern states who wished to be free of US laws thru secession."
Gonna bring up the Ukraine and Russia, too?
C'mon....be serious.
That's it- you're going to bow out? Russian invaded Ukraine. How is that like the colonies Declaration of Independence or the Confedrate secession. I've read many of your post, and honestly thought you were brighter than this. Why was the war with Britain called a revolution and the war between the states called a civil war. It's all perspective my dear.
Every great revolution is a civil war,” as David Armitage has recently remarked. That insight could change the way we think about the American Revolution. Contemporaries understood it that way—or at least, they did at first. David Ramsay, the first patriot historian of the war, held that the Revolution was “originally a civil war in the estimation of both parties.” Mercy Otis Warren wrote that the fires of civil war were kindled as early as the Boston massacre. But in the narratives of these historians, the moment the United States declared independence was the moment the conflict stopped being a civil war. It was no longer being fought within a single imperial polity. Now it was a war between two nations.[1]
What England did, what Russia did, what you had for breakfast.....none have any thing to do with this:
Secession has been found unconstitutional.
OK?
And I have never taken the position that it was constitutional. I contend that the civil war was not morally just as a war to preserve the Union, and it didn't become morally just until the Emancipation Proclamation. You're the one who brought up Russian, which I will never know why. BTW - Secession wasn't declared illegal until after the war, so you can't really even argue that it was unconstitutional at the time.
Why don't you Tell me why the revolutionary war was just from the US perspective, but the civil war was unjust.
Let me rephrase the last question, it's poorly worded.
Tell me why the Declaration of Independence of the colonies was just, but the secession attempt by the confederate states was not.
Please be sure to get back to me as soon as the next state secedes.
That's it- you're going to bow out? Russian invaded Ukraine. How is that like the colonies Declaration of Independence or the Confedrate secession. I've read many of your post, and honestly thought you were brighter than this. Why was the war with Britain called a revolution and the war between the states called a civil war. It's all perspective my dear.
Every great revolution is a civil war,” as David Armitage has recently remarked. That insight could change the way we think about the American Revolution. Contemporaries understood it that way—or at least, they did at first. David Ramsay, the first patriot historian of the war, held that the Revolution was “originally a civil war in the estimation of both parties.” Mercy Otis Warren wrote that the fires of civil war were kindled as early as the Boston massacre. But in the narratives of these historians, the moment the United States declared independence was the moment the conflict stopped being a civil war. It was no longer being fought within a single imperial polity. Now it was a war between two nations.[1]
What England did, what Russia did, what you had for breakfast.....none have any thing to do with this:
Secession has been found unconstitutional.
OK?That's it- you're going to bow out? Russian invaded Ukraine. How is that like the colonies Declaration of Independence or the Confedrate secession. I've read many of your post, and honestly thought you were brighter than this. Why was the war with Britain called a revolution and the war between the states called a civil war. It's all perspective my dear.
Every great revolution is a civil war,” as David Armitage has recently remarked. That insight could change the way we think about the American Revolution. Contemporaries understood it that way—or at least, they did at first. David Ramsay, the first patriot historian of the war, held that the Revolution was “originally a civil war in the estimation of both parties.” Mercy Otis Warren wrote that the fires of civil war were kindled as early as the Boston massacre. But in the narratives of these historians, the moment the United States declared independence was the moment the conflict stopped being a civil war. It was no longer being fought within a single imperial polity. Now it was a war between two nations.[1]
What England did, what Russia did, what you had for breakfast.....none have any thing to do with this:
Secession has been found unconstitutional.
OK?
And I have never taken the position that it was constitutional. I contend that the civil war was not morally just as a war to preserve the Union, and it didn't become morally just until the Emancipation Proclamation. You're the one who brought up Russian, which I will never know why. BTW - Secession wasn't declared illegal until after the war, so you can't really even argue that it was unconstitutional at the time.
Why don't you Tell me why the revolutionary war was just from the US perspective, but the civil war was unjust.
Let me rephrase the last question, it's poorly worded.
Tell me why the Declaration of Independence of the colonies was just, but the secession attempt by the confederate states was not.
Please be sure to get back to me as soon as the next state secedes.
A comment from someone who picked a fight and can't remember why.
What England did, what Russia did, what you had for breakfast.....none have any thing to do with this:
Secession has been found unconstitutional.
OK?What England did, what Russia did, what you had for breakfast.....none have any thing to do with this:
Secession has been found unconstitutional.
OK?
And I have never taken the position that it was constitutional. I contend that the civil war was not morally just as a war to preserve the Union, and it didn't become morally just until the Emancipation Proclamation. You're the one who brought up Russian, which I will never know why. BTW - Secession wasn't declared illegal until after the war, so you can't really even argue that it was unconstitutional at the time.
Why don't you Tell me why the revolutionary war was just from the US perspective, but the civil war was unjust.
Let me rephrase the last question, it's poorly worded.
Tell me why the Declaration of Independence of the colonies was just, but the secession attempt by the confederate states was not.
Please be sure to get back to me as soon as the next state secedes.
A comment from someone who picked a fight and can't remember why.
I never 'picked a fight'....I simply explained the issue to you as an adult would...my mistake.....you'd rather continue with 'is not, issssss nootttttttt!!!!'
What else is there to say....you can now return to your Crayolas and blanket fort.
What England did, what Russia did, what you had for breakfast.....none have any thing to do with this:
Secession has been found unconstitutional.
OK?What England did, what Russia did, what you had for breakfast.....none have any thing to do with this:
Secession has been found unconstitutional.
OK?
And I have never taken the position that it was constitutional. I contend that the civil war was not morally just as a war to preserve the Union, and it didn't become morally just until the Emancipation Proclamation. You're the one who brought up Russian, which I will never know why. BTW - Secession wasn't declared illegal until after the war, so you can't really even argue that it was unconstitutional at the time.
Why don't you Tell me why the revolutionary war was just from the US perspective, but the civil war was unjust.
Let me rephrase the last question, it's poorly worded.
Tell me why the Declaration of Independence of the colonies was just, but the secession attempt by the confederate states was not.
Please be sure to get back to me as soon as the next state secedes.
A comment from someone who picked a fight and can't remember why.
I never 'picked a fight'....I simply explained the issue to you as an adult would...my mistake.....you'd rather continue with 'is not, issssss nootttttttt!!!!'
What else is there to say....you can now return to your Crayolas and blanket fort.
And I have never taken the position that it was constitutional. I contend that the civil war was not morally just as a war to preserve the Union, and it didn't become morally just until the Emancipation Proclamation. You're the one who brought up Russian, which I will never know why. BTW - Secession wasn't declared illegal until after the war, so you can't really even argue that it was unconstitutional at the time.
Why don't you Tell me why the revolutionary war was just from the US perspective, but the civil war was unjust.
Let me rephrase the last question, it's poorly worded.
Tell me why the Declaration of Independence of the colonies was just, but the secession attempt by the confederate states was not.
Please be sure to get back to me as soon as the next state secedes.
A comment from someone who picked a fight and can't remember why.
I never 'picked a fight'....I simply explained the issue to you as an adult would...my mistake.....you'd rather continue with 'is not, issssss nootttttttt!!!!'
What else is there to say....you can now return to your Crayolas and blanket fort.
What issue? You never addressed my comment that the civil war began as morally unjust.
And I have never taken the position that it was constitutional. I contend that the civil war was not morally just as a war to preserve the Union, and it didn't become morally just until the Emancipation Proclamation. You're the one who brought up Russian, which I will never know why. BTW - Secession wasn't declared illegal until after the war, so you can't really even argue that it was unconstitutional at the time.
Why don't you Tell me why the revolutionary war was just from the US perspective, but the civil war was unjust.
Let me rephrase the last question, it's poorly worded.
Tell me why the Declaration of Independence of the colonies was just, but the secession attempt by the confederate states was not.
Please be sure to get back to me as soon as the next state secedes.
A comment from someone who picked a fight and can't remember why.
I never 'picked a fight'....I simply explained the issue to you as an adult would...my mistake.....you'd rather continue with 'is not, issssss nootttttttt!!!!'
What else is there to say....you can now return to your Crayolas and blanket fort.
You explained nothing, nor did you ever address my original comment.
My original post-
And in my opinion, it was an unjust and immoral war at the beginning. Lincoln engaged in war to preserve the Union. The South had made it clear they no longer wished to be subjects of the Union. Sovereign people should be allowed to select the government they want. Lincoln, being the brilliant man he was, made the war Just and moral with the emancipation proclamation. Then the war was more about freeing the enslaved, a very just cause.
Your reply-
Well, then....you're in favor of 'sanctuary cities.'
How about an 'Outlaw City' or a 'Kidnapper's City' or 'Man-Boy Love Association City'?
Down with those, too?
How you got to sanctuary cities from the civil war is beyond me. As I stated earlier, I always knew you to be pretty rational, and we are certainly political allies, but you went fucking haywire on this one. Do you feel the civil war was fought on moral ground by the Union before the emancipation proclamation? Do feel the revolutionary war was fought on moral ground by the Brits? Do you see the point I'm making at all?
.April 12, 1861....the bloodiest war in our history began.
1. 1861 Civil War begins as Confederates fire on Fort Sumter, Charleston, NC, capturing it on April 14. Lincoln calls for 75,000 volunteers on April 15. General P. G. T. Beauregard led the attack on Ft. Sumter. The fort’s commander was Major Robert Anderson, a former slave owner who stayed loyal to the USA. The fort fell in 34 hours.
2. The President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis served as a Democratic U.S. senator from Mississippi and as Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce before his election as the president of the secessionist Confederate States of America.
Although he was later indicted for treason, he was never tried.
3. As a Democrat, he represents the personification of the political views of his party up to and including today.
The Republican party was created to resist, and remove, the stain of slavery from America. While the Democrats have always supported and advanced slavery, segregation and second-class citizenship for black Americans, they have been able to convince the less astute of the very opposite.
a. The KKK was a Democrat subsidiary....FDR made a KKKer his first Supreme Court nominee
b. Bill Clinton enforced flying the Confederate Flag during his entire Arkansas governorship.....and even suggested that Barack Obama should be carrying his bags in 2008.
4. Now....how the Civil War began?
a. Major Robert Anderson and 85 men were stranded in Fort Sumter.
b. Surrounding him were hundreds of militiamen and coastal guns.
c. Lincoln refused to give the fort up, but the fort was running out of food: if he sent a supply convoy into Charleston Bay, he would be blamed for starting the war.....but how could he give in, and give up the fort?
d. William Seward tried to undermine Lincoln....telling Lincoln to give up the fort for 'goodwill.'
e. On April 5, Lincoln dispatched a fleet of supply ships with the proviso that was relayed to Jefferson Davis: the vessels would be unarmed, with the only cargo "food for hungry men."
f. Firing on the defenseless ships would have been an act of war by the Confederacy.
g. On Tuesday, April 9, Davis held a cabinet meeting, deciding on war. Three days later, and hours before the ships would arrive....the Southern forces attacked the fort.
"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"by Gavin Mortimer, p.70-71
The First Battle of Fort Sumter opened on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery fired on the Union garrisonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter
And in my opinion, it was an unjust and immoral war at the beginning. Lincoln engaged in war to preserve the Union. The South had made it clear they no longer wished to be subjects of the Union. Sovereign people should be allowed to select the government they want. Lincoln, being the brilliant man he was, made the war Just and moral with the emancipation proclamation. Then the war was more about freeing the enslaved, a very just cause.
Actually the EP wasn't put forth until early 1863 by which time the War was going on two years old. And it wasn't so much about freeing the enslaved as about buttressing his manpower since it only applied to areas in the Confederacy that were under Union control.
But it's not an easy task to lay down a pretext for a war that's already been going on for 20 months. You really do that later, with history book spin.
I agree with you. Lincoln was a master politician, and the EP was intended to reinvigorate the war effort. He intended to make it a moral war rather than a political war.
You're saying two different things in two different sentences there. Pick one.
Sorry, where is the discrepancy? I stated the war began to preserve the Union, and shifts to the moral cause of freeing the slaves after the EP.
April 12, 1861....the bloodiest war in our history began.
1. 1861 Civil War begins as Confederates fire on Fort Sumter, Charleston, NC, capturing it on April 14. Lincoln calls for 75,000 volunteers on April 15. General P. G. T. Beauregard led the attack on Ft. Sumter. The fort’s commander was Major Robert Anderson, a former slave owner who stayed loyal to the USA. The fort fell in 34 hours.
2. The President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis served as a Democratic U.S. senator from Mississippi and as Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce before his election as the president of the secessionist Confederate States of America.
Although he was later indicted for treason, he was never tried.
3. As a Democrat, he represents the personification of the political views of his party up to and including today.
The Republican party was created to resist, and remove, the stain of slavery from America. While the Democrats have always supported and advanced slavery, segregation and second-class citizenship for black Americans, they have been able to convince the less astute of the very opposite.
a. The KKK was a Democrat subsidiary....FDR made a KKKer his first Supreme Court nominee
b. Bill Clinton enforced flying the Confederate Flag during his entire Arkansas governorship.....and even suggested that Barack Obama should be carrying his bags in 2008.
4. Now....how the Civil War began?
a. Major Robert Anderson and 85 men were stranded in Fort Sumter.
b. Surrounding him were hundreds of militiamen and coastal guns.
c. Lincoln refused to give the fort up, but the fort was running out of food: if he sent a supply convoy into Charleston Bay, he would be blamed for starting the war.....but how could he give in, and give up the fort?
d. William Seward tried to undermine Lincoln....telling Lincoln to give up the fort for 'goodwill.'
e. On April 5, Lincoln dispatched a fleet of supply ships with the proviso that was relayed to Jefferson Davis: the vessels would be unarmed, with the only cargo "food for hungry men."
f. Firing on the defenseless ships would have been an act of war by the Confederacy.
g. On Tuesday, April 9, Davis held a cabinet meeting, deciding on war. Three days later, and hours before the ships would arrive....the Southern forces attacked the fort.
"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"by Gavin Mortimer, p.70-71
The First Battle of Fort Sumter opened on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery fired on the Union garrisonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter
Let me rephrase the last question, it's poorly worded.
Tell me why the Declaration of Independence of the colonies was just, but the secession attempt by the confederate states was not.
Please be sure to get back to me as soon as the next state secedes.
A comment from someone who picked a fight and can't remember why.
I never 'picked a fight'....I simply explained the issue to you as an adult would...my mistake.....you'd rather continue with 'is not, issssss nootttttttt!!!!'
What else is there to say....you can now return to your Crayolas and blanket fort.
What issue? You never addressed my comment that the civil war began as morally unjust.
Let me rephrase the last question, it's poorly worded.
Tell me why the Declaration of Independence of the colonies was just, but the secession attempt by the confederate states was not.
Please be sure to get back to me as soon as the next state secedes.
A comment from someone who picked a fight and can't remember why.
I never 'picked a fight'....I simply explained the issue to you as an adult would...my mistake.....you'd rather continue with 'is not, issssss nootttttttt!!!!'
What else is there to say....you can now return to your Crayolas and blanket fort.
You explained nothing, nor did you ever address my original comment.
My original post-
And in my opinion, it was an unjust and immoral war at the beginning. Lincoln engaged in war to preserve the Union. The South had made it clear they no longer wished to be subjects of the Union. Sovereign people should be allowed to select the government they want. Lincoln, being the brilliant man he was, made the war Just and moral with the emancipation proclamation. Then the war was more about freeing the enslaved, a very just cause.
Your reply-
Well, then....you're in favor of 'sanctuary cities.'
How about an 'Outlaw City' or a 'Kidnapper's City' or 'Man-Boy Love Association City'?
Down with those, too?
How you got to sanctuary cities from the civil war is beyond me. As I stated earlier, I always knew you to be pretty rational, and we are certainly political allies, but you went fucking haywire on this one. Do you feel the civil war was fought on moral ground by the Union before the emancipation proclamation? Do feel the revolutionary war was fought on moral ground by the Brits? Do you see the point I'm making at all?
This is like beginning a game of paddy cake with a three year old.
I explained reality to you, you don't care to accept it.....OK.
It's enough.
Please be sure to get back to me as soon as the next state secedes.
A comment from someone who picked a fight and can't remember why.
I never 'picked a fight'....I simply explained the issue to you as an adult would...my mistake.....you'd rather continue with 'is not, issssss nootttttttt!!!!'
What else is there to say....you can now return to your Crayolas and blanket fort.
What issue? You never addressed my comment that the civil war began as morally unjust.
Please be sure to get back to me as soon as the next state secedes.
A comment from someone who picked a fight and can't remember why.
I never 'picked a fight'....I simply explained the issue to you as an adult would...my mistake.....you'd rather continue with 'is not, issssss nootttttttt!!!!'
What else is there to say....you can now return to your Crayolas and blanket fort.
You explained nothing, nor did you ever address my original comment.
My original post-
And in my opinion, it was an unjust and immoral war at the beginning. Lincoln engaged in war to preserve the Union. The South had made it clear they no longer wished to be subjects of the Union. Sovereign people should be allowed to select the government they want. Lincoln, being the brilliant man he was, made the war Just and moral with the emancipation proclamation. Then the war was more about freeing the enslaved, a very just cause.
Your reply-
Well, then....you're in favor of 'sanctuary cities.'
How about an 'Outlaw City' or a 'Kidnapper's City' or 'Man-Boy Love Association City'?
Down with those, too?
How you got to sanctuary cities from the civil war is beyond me. As I stated earlier, I always knew you to be pretty rational, and we are certainly political allies, but you went fucking haywire on this one. Do you feel the civil war was fought on moral ground by the Union before the emancipation proclamation? Do feel the revolutionary war was fought on moral ground by the Brits? Do you see the point I'm making at all?
This is like beginning a game of paddy cake with a three year old.
I explained reality to you, you don't care to accept it.....OK.
It's enough.
You're running away. He presented a valid comparison, and you can't deal with it.
.And in my opinion, it was an unjust and immoral war at the beginning. Lincoln engaged in war to preserve the Union. The South had made it clear they no longer wished to be subjects of the Union. Sovereign people should be allowed to select the government they want. Lincoln, being the brilliant man he was, made the war Just and moral with the emancipation proclamation. Then the war was more about freeing the enslaved, a very just cause.
Actually the EP wasn't put forth until early 1863 by which time the War was going on two years old. And it wasn't so much about freeing the enslaved as about buttressing his manpower since it only applied to areas in the Confederacy that were under Union control.
But it's not an easy task to lay down a pretext for a war that's already been going on for 20 months. You really do that later, with history book spin.
I agree with you. Lincoln was a master politician, and the EP was intended to reinvigorate the war effort. He intended to make it a moral war rather than a political war.
You're saying two different things in two different sentences there. Pick one.
Sorry, where is the discrepancy? I stated the war began to preserve the Union, and shifts to the moral cause of freeing the slaves after the EP.
That is the discrepancy --- you can't shift the cause of a war after it's underway. What does that make the previous part of the same war? A war can have only one starting point.
Please be sure to get back to me as soon as the next state secedes.
A comment from someone who picked a fight and can't remember why.
I never 'picked a fight'....I simply explained the issue to you as an adult would...my mistake.....you'd rather continue with 'is not, issssss nootttttttt!!!!'
What else is there to say....you can now return to your Crayolas and blanket fort.
What issue? You never addressed my comment that the civil war began as morally unjust.
Please be sure to get back to me as soon as the next state secedes.
A comment from someone who picked a fight and can't remember why.
I never 'picked a fight'....I simply explained the issue to you as an adult would...my mistake.....you'd rather continue with 'is not, issssss nootttttttt!!!!'
What else is there to say....you can now return to your Crayolas and blanket fort.
You explained nothing, nor did you ever address my original comment.
My original post-
And in my opinion, it was an unjust and immoral war at the beginning. Lincoln engaged in war to preserve the Union. The South had made it clear they no longer wished to be subjects of the Union. Sovereign people should be allowed to select the government they want. Lincoln, being the brilliant man he was, made the war Just and moral with the emancipation proclamation. Then the war was more about freeing the enslaved, a very just cause.
Your reply-
Well, then....you're in favor of 'sanctuary cities.'
How about an 'Outlaw City' or a 'Kidnapper's City' or 'Man-Boy Love Association City'?
Down with those, too?
How you got to sanctuary cities from the civil war is beyond me. As I stated earlier, I always knew you to be pretty rational, and we are certainly political allies, but you went fucking haywire on this one. Do you feel the civil war was fought on moral ground by the Union before the emancipation proclamation? Do feel the revolutionary war was fought on moral ground by the Brits? Do you see the point I'm making at all?
This is like beginning a game of paddy cake with a three year old.
I explained reality to you, you don't care to accept it.....OK.
It's enough.
You're running away. He presented a valid comparison, and you can't deal with it.
The South had nearly no weapons manufacturing at the beginning of the war
Soooo....why did they start a war with the North?
.
A comment from someone who picked a fight and can't remember why.
I never 'picked a fight'....I simply explained the issue to you as an adult would...my mistake.....you'd rather continue with 'is not, issssss nootttttttt!!!!'
What else is there to say....you can now return to your Crayolas and blanket fort.
What issue? You never addressed my comment that the civil war began as morally unjust.
A comment from someone who picked a fight and can't remember why.
I never 'picked a fight'....I simply explained the issue to you as an adult would...my mistake.....you'd rather continue with 'is not, issssss nootttttttt!!!!'
What else is there to say....you can now return to your Crayolas and blanket fort.
You explained nothing, nor did you ever address my original comment.
My original post-
And in my opinion, it was an unjust and immoral war at the beginning. Lincoln engaged in war to preserve the Union. The South had made it clear they no longer wished to be subjects of the Union. Sovereign people should be allowed to select the government they want. Lincoln, being the brilliant man he was, made the war Just and moral with the emancipation proclamation. Then the war was more about freeing the enslaved, a very just cause.
Your reply-
Well, then....you're in favor of 'sanctuary cities.'
How about an 'Outlaw City' or a 'Kidnapper's City' or 'Man-Boy Love Association City'?
Down with those, too?
How you got to sanctuary cities from the civil war is beyond me. As I stated earlier, I always knew you to be pretty rational, and we are certainly political allies, but you went fucking haywire on this one. Do you feel the civil war was fought on moral ground by the Union before the emancipation proclamation? Do feel the revolutionary war was fought on moral ground by the Brits? Do you see the point I'm making at all?
This is like beginning a game of paddy cake with a three year old.
I explained reality to you, you don't care to accept it.....OK.
It's enough.
You're running away. He presented a valid comparison, and you can't deal with it.
Pogo- she is purely a Fox News parrot. Try to engage her in a philosophical discussion and she melts down. I appreciate your thoughtful comments on the subject.
