A traitorous scumbag died 142 years ago today

[jtpr312]

Therefore Lincoln illegally invaded the Soveriegn state of Va duruing the Battle of 1st Manasas which started the War of Northern Agression that killed hundreds of thousands of Patriotic American citizens who wanted nothing more than to live as free men out from under the control of an oppressive federal govt.

I've never understood this line of reasoning.

I say this without a trace of malice at all and completely out of intellectual debate. How can you rationalize fighting to "live as free men" when they were enslaving others?

Africans were not consdiered to be fully developed humans. Even Lincoln himself thought this way and very, very, very few whites from either side thought of them as Americans deserving the same rights as the men that founded and built this nation. From what we see of the african community today, they may have been right in many of the things they thought back then as the negro has proven to be, with some exceptions of course, unable to peacefully in a free society alongside whites.

 

[whitehall]

Times were different in the early and mid 1800's. Slavery was still legal in New Jersey until around 1845. The left is capable of such seething hatred that they must spend a lot of time spitting on graves.

 

[Toro]

Therefore Lincoln illegally invaded the Soveriegn state of Va duruing the Battle of 1st Manasas which started the War of Northern Agression that killed hundreds of thousands of Patriotic American citizens who wanted nothing more than to live as free men out from under the control of an oppressive federal govt.

I've never understood this line of reasoning.

I say this without a trace of malice at all and completely out of intellectual debate. How can you rationalize fighting to "live as free men" when they were enslaving others?

Africans were not consdiered to be fully developed humans. Even Lincoln himself thought this way and very, very, very few whites from either side thought of them as Americans deserving the same rights as the men that founded and built this nation. From what we see of the african community today, they may have been right in many of the things they thought back then as the negro has proven to be, with some exceptions of course, unable to peacefully in a free society alongside whites.

You're a racist then?

Nonetheless, history seems to say that they weren't fighting for men to be free. Whether or not blacks were seen as full citizens, that is very different from a system which viewed them as property. Slavery was abolished in the British Empire 30 years earlier, and abolition was a growing intellectual movement around the world. Rather, it appears that they were fighting to perpetuate a system. They may have been correct about their right to secede, I don't know, but the Civil War certainly does not seem to be about freedom. That seems to be mythology. This appears to have been reinforced by the Southern states which perpetuated an oppressive system for a full century later that denied rights to a large proportion of the population.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Therefore Lincoln illegally invaded the Soveriegn state of Va duruing the Battle of 1st Manasas which started the War of Northern Agression that killed hundreds of thousands of Patriotic American citizens who wanted nothing more than to live as free men out from under the control of an oppressive federal govt.

I've never understood this line of reasoning.

I say this without a trace of malice at all and completely out of intellectual debate. How can you rationalize fighting to "live as free men" when they were enslaving others?

What makes you think everyone in the Confederacy was a slave owner? Does the fact that there were slave owners fighting on the side of the North and abolitionists that supported the South tell you that the issues might be a little more complicated than slavery?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Therefore Lincoln illegally invaded the Soveriegn state of Va duruing the Battle of 1st Manasas which started the War of Northern Agression that killed hundreds of thousands of Patriotic American citizens who wanted nothing more than to live as free men out from under the control of an oppressive federal govt.

I've never understood this line of reasoning.

I say this without a trace of malice at all and completely out of intellectual debate. How can you rationalize fighting to "live as free men" when they were enslaving others?

The same way we glorify the founders for the exact same thing. They were fighting to live as free men, generically speaking, but what they were not doing was fighting so that all men could live free.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

He was a traitor to the United States Of America.

One could argue the same about you.

 

[jtpr312]

I've never understood this line of reasoning.

I say this without a trace of malice at all and completely out of intellectual debate. How can you rationalize fighting to "live as free men" when they were enslaving others?

Africans were not consdiered to be fully developed humans. Even Lincoln himself thought this way and very, very, very few whites from either side thought of them as Americans deserving the same rights as the men that founded and built this nation. From what we see of the african community today, they may have been right in many of the things they thought back then as the negro has proven to be, with some exceptions of course, unable to peacefully in a free society alongside whites.

You're a racist then?

Nonetheless, history seems to say that they weren't fighting for men to be free. Whether or not blacks were seen as full citizens, that is very different from a system which viewed them as property. Slavery was abolished in the British Empire 30 years earlier, and abolition was a growing intellectual movement around the world. Rather, it appears that they were fighting to perpetuate a system. They may have been correct about their right to secede, I don't know, but the Civil War certainly does not seem to be about freedom. That seems to be mythology. This appears to have been reinforced by the Southern states which perpetuated an oppressive system for a full century later that denied rights to a large proportion of the population.

No, I'm not a racist per se, I'm a realist. and the reality is that the negro culture is not equal to the white/european culture, or the Asian culture for that matter. No not all men are created equal and no, not all racesd have evolved equally. As for the War of Northern Aggression, it was all about a State's right to govern itself according to the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution that denied many powers to the Federal govt, that the federal govt tried to impose on the individual states, slavery being just one of these rights. The Southerners had no choice but remove federal troops from Confederate property in Charleston Harbor after they legally seceded from the union, they volutarily joined and then to repel Lincoln's invading armies at the battle of 1st Manasas. The North where ALWAYS the aggressor, and their reasoning was due to the fact that they wished to impose federal will on a free people. Furthermore, NY, VA and RI refused to ratify the Constitution unless they be allowed to secede from said Union at their discretion, and a right granted one state is AUTOMATICALLY granted ALL states, giving every state that seceded the legal and moral justification to do so. Abraham Lincoln illegally, immorally and with the ideals of a facist dictator invaded states that were legally and morally in the right.

American History
Top Five Causes of the Civil War
Leading up to Secession and the Civil War

The Civil War lasted from 1861 to 1865 and led to over 618,000 casualties. Its causes can be traced back to tensions that formed early in the nation's history. Following are the top five causes that led to the "War Between the States."

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.

2. States versus federal rights.

Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weakness of this form of government caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.

3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.

As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act that was discussed in number one above. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where proslavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called "Border Ruffians." Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called "Bleeding Kansas." The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when antislavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks.

4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.

Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown's Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.

5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I would spit on his grave.


On This Day: October 12 - NYTimes.com

And if I saw you spitting on his grave your next meal would be your own teeth. The man was a true American Patriot who believed in the Constitution, which by the way gave his state of Virgnia the right to secede from the United States, and the rule of law. You aren't worthy to clean the horseshit off of this man's boots you little pissant. His grave is pretty close to where I live, so any time you feel like spitting on his grave let me know ok, I'll meet ya there?

No where in the constitution is secession guaranteed.

True, in fact it’s un-Constitutional.

 

[jtpr312]

And if I saw you spitting on his grave your next meal would be your own teeth. The man was a true American Patriot who believed in the Constitution, which by the way gave his state of Virgnia the right to secede from the United States, and the rule of law. You aren't worthy to clean the horseshit off of this man's boots you little pissant. His grave is pretty close to where I live, so any time you feel like spitting on his grave let me know ok, I'll meet ya there?

No where in the constitution is secession guaranteed.

True, in fact it’s un-Constitutional.

Wrong.

 

[jillian]

I would spit on his grave.


On This Day: October 12 - NYTimes.com

If you understood American history and how this country was created and understood the united states was not the United States of America, but a group of states with their own sovereignty,
You would not be such a horses ass.
Lee did not betray his country he defended it.

if you understood american history, YOU would understand that he was treasonous. i'd refer you back to the fact that treason is the only crime defined in the constitution.

 

[jtpr312]

I would spit on his grave.


On This Day: October 12 - NYTimes.com

If you understood American history and how this country was created and understood the united states was not the United States of America, but a group of states with their own sovereignty,
You would not be such a horses ass.
Lee did not betray his country he defended it.

if you understood american history, YOU would understand that he was treasonous. i'd refer you back to the fact that treason is the only crime defined in the constitution.

I'd refer you back to the fact that VA, NY and RI refused to ratify the Constitution unless they be allowed to secede at their discretion and this right was granted them so they would ratify said Constitution because without NY and VA's ratifaction there would never have been any Union. The Constitution also states a right granted one state is enjoyed by all states, therefore the states that seceded had all the legal, not to mention moral, authority to do so. Lincoln being the facist scumbag he was, illegally and immorally invaded the Sovereign State of Virginia and is responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of freedom loving, law abiding, American citizens all done to impose total and oppressive federal control over the lives of free men. We are paying today for the Patriot's loss in 1865.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No where in the constitution is secession guaranteed.

True, in fact it’s un-Constitutional.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court in 1869 held that states may not ‘secede’ from the Union:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final.

Texas v. White

 

[there4eyeM]

Economics was as much in play as anything else in the secession war. Emotional issues may have motivated people to certain actions, but the background was two nations with opposing trade positions. The southern economy was predicated on unlimited exports, while the north required internal markets. Protectionism and industrial development were at loggerheads with free trade and agricultural priorities.
It is true that the hundreds of thousands of Confederate troops were largely non-slave-owners. States' rights was their issue. To the North, the sanctity of the nation, which had become an article of faith declared even by profoundly southern personalities (see Andrew Jackson for example), was uppermost. The slavery question troubled many, also. It is interesting that even from the start of the nation it was obvious to many intelligent people that all men are necessarily equal before the law and that there is no question of excluding sub-Saharan Africans. The fact that women were also excluded from full citizenship should tell us something of the epoch.
The war was the result of incomprehension, ego and ambition. It was unnecessary and tragic in every sense, especially as it did not adequately resolve the problems.

 

[Toro]

Therefore Lincoln illegally invaded the Soveriegn state of Va duruing the Battle of 1st Manasas which started the War of Northern Agression that killed hundreds of thousands of Patriotic American citizens who wanted nothing more than to live as free men out from under the control of an oppressive federal govt.

I've never understood this line of reasoning.

I say this without a trace of malice at all and completely out of intellectual debate. How can you rationalize fighting to "live as free men" when they were enslaving others?

The same way we glorify the founders for the exact same thing. They were fighting to live as free men, generically speaking, but what they were not doing was fighting so that all men could live free.

Fair enough, but one big difference as it appears to me is that the Founders were writing an aspirational and timeless document whereas the secessionists where fighting to preserve a way of life which relied upon slave labor. I get that the Civil War wasn't only about slavery, but slavery was a huge part of the war, given that the primary difference between the North and the South was that the Southern economy and thus wealth and civil life relied upon slave labor. I also understand that you cannot judge past societies based on today's morals, but you can judge past societies based on the morals of their time. And slavery was a system that was slowly being disbanded in the Western Imperial world as being immoral. Thus, it becomes harder to defend the Confederacy from a moral standpoint as the argument about wanting to live as free men implies, even if they had a legal argument that they were within their rights to leave their union. This is reinforced by the continued policies of segregation that lasted for another 100 years thereafter.

Also I would suggest there is a lot of mythologizing going on. Mythology is important. All nations have their myths. Myths create narratives on the moral goodness of the nation because people need to believe that they are good and righteous. So, for example, Japanese school kids were taught at least up until the 1980s that they were not to blame for WWII, that the Chinese and the Americans were the aggressors and they attacked for defensive reasons. In the Balkans war of the 1990s, Serbs rationalized the genocide of Croats and Muslims on a long line of history, from the genocide of Serbs under Nazi Croats in WWII all the way back to wars in the 1200s. It appears that the same thing is going on in the South, with supporters trying to whitewash and downplay the evils of slavery and segregation and emphasizing the fight for freedom, which rings powerfully in American culture.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've never understood this line of reasoning.

I say this without a trace of malice at all and completely out of intellectual debate. How can you rationalize fighting to "live as free men" when they were enslaving others?

The same way we glorify the founders for the exact same thing. They were fighting to live as free men, generically speaking, but what they were not doing was fighting so that all men could live free.

Fair enough, but one big difference as it appears to me is that the Founders were writing an aspirational and timeless document whereas the secessionists where fighting to preserve a way of life which relied upon slave labor. I get that the Civil War wasn't only about slavery, but slavery was a huge part of the war, given that the primary difference between the North and the South was that the Southern economy and thus wealth and civil life relied upon slave labor. I also understand that you cannot judge past societies based on today's morals, but you can judge past societies based on the morals of their time. And slavery was a system that was slowly being disbanded in the Western Imperial world as being immoral. Thus, it becomes harder to defend the Confederacy from a moral standpoint as the argument about wanting to live as free men implies, even if they had a legal argument that they were within their rights to leave their union. This is reinforced by the continued policies of segregation that lasted for another 100 years thereafter.

Also I would suggest there is a lot of mythologizing going on. Mythology is important. All nations have their myths. Myths create narratives on the moral goodness of the nation because people need to believe that they are good and righteous. So, for example, Japanese school kids were taught at least up until the 1980s that they were not to blame for WWII, that the Chinese and the Americans were the aggressors and they attacked for defensive reasons. In the Balkans war of the 1990s, Serbs rationalized the genocide of Croats and Muslims on a long line of history, from the genocide of Serbs under Nazi Croats in WWII all the way back to wars in the 1200s. It appears that the same thing is going on in the South, with supporters trying to whitewash and downplay the evils of slavery and segregation and emphasizing the fight for freedom, which rings powerfully in American culture.

But that's just my opinion.

I'd say that the Founders are only perceived to have written an aspirational and timeless document because they won. Had they lost it would merely be dismissed as secessionist tripe written and supported by a small minority only interested in furthering their own agendas.

Though I would argue that slavery wasn't a part of the Civil War until 1863 when Lincoln made it a part of the war, aside from an indirect linkage. The war was over secession, and while it's true that slavery was one of the reasons that many of the states seceded, Lincoln's purpose in waging the war was to force the states back into the Union. Even when he brought slavery into it with the Emancipation Proclamation it was only in an attempt to scare the Confederates into rejoining the Union.

So, while the causes of secession were not necessarily the same, the fact is that both the Revolutionary and Civil War were fought over the issue of secession. King George didn't think the colonies had the right to secede from the Empire, and Lincoln didn't think the states had the right to secede from the Union. The only real difference is that in one war the secessionists won, and in the other they lost.

Also, one last point, it's true that slavery was becoming rarer and rarer in the western world, and that's why a war to end slavery in the south would have been unnecessary. What most people ignore about the south at this time is that it was industrializing, and slavery would have ultimately ended peacefully just as it did in the northern states and everywhere else in the western world. People like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee knew this.

 

[koshergrl]

The ignorance on parade in this thread is mind numbing.

And while I don't expect all people to know everything, it would be nice if they would stop blabbing about things they so obviously know nothing about, as if they are voicing learned opinions.

 

[Amelia]

True, in fact it’s un-Constitutional.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court in 1869 held that states may not ‘secede’ from the Union:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final.

Texas v. White

1869. After a war was fought and the victor was the government which was against secession. No surprise.

Now go back to 1860. Is jtpr312 correct that when Virginia joined the Union they did so on condition that they retained the right to withdraw?

 

[elvis]

He didn't want to fight against Virginia.

 

[Dot Com]

He didn't want to fight against Virginia.

yes. that was the only allegiance he knew for his entire life so its understandable.

That being said, I'm glad the Union forces crushed the rebellion/gave them no quarter.

 

[The Infidel]

I would spit on his grave.


On This Day: October 12 - NYTimes.com

You really should brush up on your American history my friend.