Abraham Lincoln: Alternative History?

[bripat9643]

The framers of the Constitution were afraid of allowing the poor to vote. The poor in a majority would vote for their own best interests at the expense of the rich.
Yet in the South, the poor white southernor would fought for the wealthy fought for the South and for the wealthy upper class. Why? Perhaps it was because the poor white Southernor still had status, he was not on the bottom, and still had rank.
But today we have, poor Americans, the bottom of the economic heap voting for the best interests of the upper class. Why? If money, nor status, are the key for people to vote against their own economic self-interests, what is the key?r Were the framers wrong believing self-interest is why people vote? And what of upper-class individuals that vote against their own best interests. For example, when running for president, FDR was labeled as a traitor to his own wealthy class.
I wonder how much money has been poured into this quest to find why people vote as they do?

You're mistaken in believing that the agenda of the Democrat Party benefits the poor. It really only benefits union members and government employees.

 

[bripat9643]

Warms my heart that somebody has actually read the First Inaugural Address.

So...Lincoln threatening the South with war, which he did in his first inaugural if they refused to pay taxes to the Federal government, is okay with you.

The South committed Acts of War and opened fire before Lincoln ever stepped foot in office.

Wrong. Lincoln committed the first act of war.

 

[bripat9643]

The "party" started long before Lincoln stepped into office. The South was determined to protect their beloved institution of owning humans and nothing was going to stop their protection of the right to own human beings and their plan to expand it.

End of story and you dork-headed neo-confederate revisionists wouldn't even be here today had Lincoln not fought to keep the Union together -- to make this Country the great one it is today.

Put that in your smoke and pipe it.

Irrelevant. The fact is that Lincoln instigated the war and took the first aggressive move.

 

[paperview]

The problem was after the war, we decided to let the South keep it's dignity, instead of treating it like a defeated nation that did something wrong.

There should have been massive war crimes trials for the Southern leaders and execution for treasons. Anyone who wore the Gray never should have been allowed the vote again.

No one would have been convicted of treason because secession doesn't fit the definition in the Constitution. That's a fact that Northern politicians simply didn't want to become obvious. Lincoln's invasion of the Southern states was illegal. Grant and Sherman should have been put on trial for war crimes.

Even your confederate brethren, from their special places in hell, can be heard in the ether saying


We lost. Get over it.

 

[paperview]

The "party" started long before Lincoln stepped into office. The South was determined to protect their beloved institution of owning humans and nothing was going to stop their protection of the right to own human beings and their plan to expand it.

End of story and you dork-headed neo-confederate revisionists wouldn't even be here today had Lincoln not fought to keep the Union together -- to make this Country the great one it is today.

Put that in your smoke and pipe it.

Irrelevant. The fact is that Lincoln instigated the war and took the first aggressive move.

The first shots were fired before Lincoln ever stepped into office, numbnuts.

 

[bripat9643]

He clearly states no war UNLESS the seceding states fail to pay Uncle Sam.

That is not what it "clearly" means by any means.

Yes it is, numskull. Lincoln demanded that the Southern states collect the Morill tariff and then turn it over to the federal government.

 

[bripat9643]

That is not what it "clearly" means by any means.

Please explain what it means.

I don't teach for free, and I don't take on hopeless cases like you. Go ask someone who gives a shit about you to clear it up for you.

That's right, run away like a scared little puppy with its tail between its legs.

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln clearly said no such thing as "He clearly states no war UNLESS the seceding states fail to pay Uncle Sam." Lincoln said nothing about invasion, he said nothing about taxes.

He did say war could only come if the Southern states forced it on the national authority.

The Southern states did such, and they were executed for it.

The mistake was that the leading secessionists were not executed or imprisoned for life after the war.

Such a mistake will not happen again if traitors rise up against the government.

Wrong. Lincoln's words are clearly understood, by those who wish to understand.

If the South did not pay tribute to the Federal government, they would be destroyed. That is exactly what he meant. The Morrill Tariff was signed by Buchanan the day before Abe took office. The tariff imposed big hardships on the South, but certainly benefited Northern Republican interests...exactly what Lincoln wanted. The tariff was enacted with much of the southern state's reps and senators not present...and over their objections.

The seceding states offered to pay the federal government their portion of the national debt and for all federal facilities existing on their lands. Lincoln ignored the offer.

He then set up events at Ft Sumter. Then called up a huge army, a provocation for war, and invaded. He warred on fellow Americans, causing terrible death and destruction....and for this you admire him.

You have clearly crossed the line from creative historiography to totally delusional. Lots of luck in that.

Nope. He tells the exact truth about the war. He can't help it if you're a bamboozled moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. Lincoln's words are clearly understood, by those who wish to understand.

If the South did not pay tribute to the Federal government, they would be destroyed. That is exactly what he meant. The Morrill Tariff was signed by Buchanan the day before Abe took office. The tariff imposed big hardships on the South, but certainly benefited Northern Republican interests...exactly what Lincoln wanted. The tariff was enacted with much of the southern state's reps and senators not present...and over their objections.

The seceding states offered to pay the federal government their portion of the national debt and for all federal facilities existing on their lands. Lincoln ignored the offer.

He then set up events at Ft Sumter. Then called up a huge army, a provocation for war, and invaded. He warred on fellow Americans, causing terrible death and destruction....and for this you admire him.

You have clearly crossed the line from creative historiography to totally delusional. Lots of luck in that.

Wrong again...and your response is lacking.

Let us do a thought experiment.
Should a state or region of the USA secede from the union TODAY, would you be fine with the federal government attacking that state or region, killing thousands and destroying vast amounts of private private, to stop them from seceding?

The sad thing is that most of your critics would be fine with it. Many of them have made their lust for blood quite plane. They're a bunch of totalitarian assholes who think we're all property of the federal government.

 

[bripat9643]

You have clearly crossed the line from creative historiography to totally delusional. Lots of luck in that.

Wrong again...and your response is lacking.

Let us do a thought experiment.
Should a state or region of the USA secede from the union TODAY, would you be fine with the federal government attacking that state or region, killing thousands and destroying vast amounts of private private, to stop them from seceding?

Yup, I'd be totally good with that. Then I would take all the survivors from the losing side, have a sham trial for them that would make Joe Stalin blush, and hang them along the side of the road as a warning.

What we should have done to the Confederates after the Civil War, we'd have saved ourselves 100 years of unnecesarry greif.

Stalin, Hitler and Lincoln would be proud of you, Joe.

 

[bripat9643]

The British and French would have controlled the seas, recognized the South, and kept the South armed and fed.

There would have been two American nations.

Read Turtledove's what-if novels on that scenario.

Lincoln's strategy was to keep England out of the war and to do that he would issue the Emancipation Proclamation. But Lincoln reasoned that he could not issue the procalmation as a losing gesture, he needed a victory before issuance. The victory was Antietam, then came the issuance and England would not enter the war.

Initially Lincoln intended to issue the Proclamation immediately. It was Seward who made the argument for delay until after at least a draw on the battlefield. It's hard to find many examples where Lincoln changed his mind based on his Cabinet's arguments, and this is the biggest one.

Horseshit. This is pure fantasy.

 

[bripat9643]

The problem was after the war, we decided to let the South keep it's dignity, instead of treating it like a defeated nation that did something wrong.

There should have been massive war crimes trials for the Southern leaders and execution for treasons. Anyone who wore the Gray never should have been allowed the vote again.

No one would have been convicted of treason because secession doesn't fit the definition in the Constitution. That's a fact that Northern politicians simply didn't want to become obvious. Lincoln's invasion of the Southern states was illegal. Grant and Sherman should have been put on trial for war crimes.

Even your confederate brethren, from their special places in hell, can be heard in the ether saying


We lost. Get over it.

Can you hear me saying you're a moron?

 

[bripat9643]

The "party" started long before Lincoln stepped into office. The South was determined to protect their beloved institution of owning humans and nothing was going to stop their protection of the right to own human beings and their plan to expand it.

End of story and you dork-headed neo-confederate revisionists wouldn't even be here today had Lincoln not fought to keep the Union together -- to make this Country the great one it is today.

Put that in your smoke and pipe it.

Irrelevant. The fact is that Lincoln instigated the war and took the first aggressive move.

The first shots were fired before Lincoln ever stepped into office, numbnuts.

Fort Sumter wasn't until April 1861, moron.

 

[paperview]

No one would have been convicted of treason because secession doesn't fit the definition in the Constitution. That's a fact that Northern politicians simply didn't want to become obvious. Lincoln's invasion of the Southern states was illegal. Grant and Sherman should have been put on trial for war crimes.

Even your confederate brethren, from their special places in hell, can be heard in the ether saying


We lost. Get over it.

Can you hear me saying you're a moron?

Sure we can. In much the same way a snot-smeared puppet child who talks to crickets says it...

 

[paperview]

Irrelevant. The fact is that Lincoln instigated the war and took the first aggressive move.

The first shots were fired before Lincoln ever stepped into office, numbnuts.

Fort Sumter wasn't until April 1861, moron.

Ya see. This is where you show how little, how very little you actually know about the war.

I've posted this many times for slower sorts such as yourself.

I'll keep reposting as many times as it takes to get through.

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.

==============


Further, another Timeline for you, from the SC Convention forward:

December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
December 24, 1860: Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.
December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
January 3, 1861: Georgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 4, 1861: Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 5, 1861: Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 6, 1861: Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 7, 1861: Florida seizes Fort Marion. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.

Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.
January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.

Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.
January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.

Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital.
January 14, 1861: Louisiana seizes Fort Pike. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 19, 1861: Georgia secedes.
January 26, 1861: Louisiana secedes.
January 28, 1861: Tennessee Resolutions in favor of Crittenden Compromise offered in Congress.
February 1, 1861: Texas secedes.
February 8, 1861: Provisional Constitution of the Confederacy adopted in Montgomery, AL.

Arkansas seizes U.S. Arsenal at Little Rock.
February 12, 1861: Arkansas seizes U.S. ordnance stores at Napoleon.
February 18, 1861: Jefferson Davis inaugurated as President of the Confederacy.
March 4, 1861: Abraham Lincoln inaugurated as 16th President of the United States.
March 21, 1861: "Cornerstone speech" delivered by Alexander Stephens. (This is where the Confederate V President lays it out clearly: Slavery is the Cornerstone of the Confederacy.)

April 12, 1861: Fort Sumter fired upon by Confederates.
THE WAR OFFICIALLY BEGINS.

 

[Unkotare]

Even your confederate brethren, from their special places in hell, can be heard in the ether saying


We lost. Get over it.

Bingo.

 

[JoeB131]

The problem was after the war, we decided to let the South keep it's dignity, instead of treating it like a defeated nation that did something wrong.

There should have been massive war crimes trials for the Southern leaders and execution for treasons. Anyone who wore the Gray never should have been allowed the vote again.

No one would have been convicted of treason because secession doesn't fit the definition in the Constitution. That's a fact that Northern politicians simply didn't want to become obvious. Lincoln's invasion of the Southern states was illegal. Grant and Sherman should have been put on trial for war crimes.

You miss the point.

War Crime Trials are not because someone did something bad.

War Crime Trials are the winners punishing the losers. They are to let the losers know they are the winner's bitch.

The problem with the Civil War was that after we had defeated these utterly repulsive people, we didn't make them our bitches after the war. We should have hung Davis and Lee. We should have had a nuremburg like trial for them to utterly shame their memories.

It's what they did to the Nazis,and you only see the most disaffected freak wearing swastikas today.

 

[paperview]

As for the denial the South wasn't spoiling for a war, long, long before Lincoln -- I bring you this little tidbit:

During the presidential race of 1856, John C. Fremont was the Republican candidate. Slavery was a hot hot hot topic during this election and the South was bitterly opposed to him because of the party's anti-slavery views.

The leading Senator of Virginia, James Mason wrote to Jefferson Davis, who would later become the president of the Confederate States and was then the Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce:

I have a letter from [Virginia Governor Henry] WISE, of the 27th, full of spirit. He says the Governments of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Louisiana, have already agreed to rendezvous at Raleigh, and others will—this in your most private ear. He says, further, that he had officially requested you to exchange with Virginia, on fair terms of difference, percussion for flint muskets. I don't know the usage or power of the Department in such cases, but if it can be done, even by liberal construction, I hope you will accede. Virginia probably has more arms than the other Southern States, and would divide in case of need. In a letter yesterday to a Committee in South Carolina. I gave it as my judgment, in the event of FREMONT's election, the South should not pause, but proceed at once to "immediate, absolute, and eternal separation."
​

The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine - Google Books

There you have it. A leading Southern Senator directly requesting the Secretary of War to arm the southern states for war against the United States,

this was a full four years before any actual secession, based on what?
Yes, the possibility there might be a Republican president.

Because a Republican president threatened their plans to expand slavery.

Well, Fremont lost, (owing much to these Southern threats of war) -- but can anyone deny the saber rattling and drum beating that existed for years before Lincoln? How?

And here a letter from the governor of Virginia to the governors of Maryland and other States:

----> "Richmond, Va., Sept. 15th, 1856.
"Dear Sir: Events are approaching which address themselves to your responsibilities and to mine as chief Executives of slave-holding States. Contingencies may soon happen which would require preparation for the worst of evils to the people. Ought we not to admonish ourselves by joint counsel of the extraordinary duties which may devolve upon us from the dangers which so palpably threaten our common peace and safety? When, how, or to what extent may we act, separately or unitedly, to ward off dangers if we can, to meet them most effectually if we must?

The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine - Google Books

I think my work here is done.

 

[editec]

For those of us TRULY INTERESTED IN THE FACTS SURROUNDING this TARIFF (not tax, tariff)



The Morrill Tariff of 1861

 

[bripat9643]

For those of us TRULY INTERESTED IN THE FACTS SURROUNDING this TARIFF (not tax, tariff)



The Morrill Tariff of 1861

A tariff is a tax, moron.