April 9, 1865 Lee Surrenders to Grant

[occupied]

Apparently you don’t Abe offered to ensconce slavery into the Constitution in his first inaugural. He also said if you refuse to pay the tariff we will invade and murder you, which he did.

The war was never about slavery for Abe. It was about money and control.

Ever heard of the Kansas/Missouri border war? That's where the civil war actually started. The South was not satisfied with keeping slavery where it already existed. They wanted to expand the franchise but were prevented from doing so. Had the confederacy been satisfied with the status quo there would have never been a civil war. They had dreams of an empire to rival the United States. They had to be slapped back to reality.

 

[Thunderbird]

Lincoln had nothing to do with it

The South overreacted to Lincoln’s election and seceded.
Lincoln was not going to end slavery. He couldn’t if he wanted to. The best Lincoln could have done was stop the expansion into new states

Slavery would have ended on its own over the next 20-30 years and we would have ended up with a version of second class citizenship status for blacks with no vote and limits to where they could live

Slave owners would have been compensated for their lost “property” and the south would have evolved.

Instead, slavery ended in four years and slave owners got nothing

Lincoln invaded the South not visa versa. No one died at Fort Sumter. The war could have been avoided even in 1861.

Crittenden Compromise

With the threat of Civil War looming on the horizon, Senator John J. Crittenden introduced legislation that would reinstate the Missouri Compromise line, forbid...

www.battlefields.org

Causes of the “Civil War” – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

 

[occupied]

Lincoln invaded the South not visa versa. No one died at Fort Sumter. The war could have been avoided.

Crittenden Compromise

With the threat of Civil War looming on the horizon, Senator John J. Crittenden introduced legislation that would reinstate the Missouri Compromise line, forbid...

www.battlefields.org

The South had already made it clear that they intended to be the dominant power on this continent. The actions of the Missouri border ruffians and the rhetoric of Southern leaders had made it clear that the confederacy was more than willing to wipe out anyone who stood in the way of their grand plans. The lost cause, war of Northern aggression bullshit ignores what was common knowledge at the time. The South wanted an empire.

 

[Thunderbird]

The South had already made it clear that they intended to be the dominant power on this continent. The actions of the Missouri border ruffians and the rhetoric of Southern leaders had made it clear that the confederacy was more than willing to wipe out anyone who stood in the way of their grand plans. The lost cause, war of Northern aggression bullshit ignores what was common knowledge at the time. The South wanted an empire.

When did a Southern leader state their intention to invade and conquer the North?

Lincoln invaded Virginia with an intent to conquer. His armies and blockade killed 100s of 1000s of men, women, and children.

 

[rightwinger]

Lincoln invaded the South not visa versa. No one died at Fort Sumter. The war could have been avoided even in 1861.

Crittenden Compromise

With the threat of Civil War looming on the horizon, Senator John J. Crittenden introduced legislation that would reinstate the Missouri Compromise line, forbid...

www.battlefields.org

Causes of the “Civil War” – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

Stupid of the South to attack the Fort
Almost as stupid as seceding in the first place

qqq

 

[rightwinger]

The South wanted an empire.

The South wanted an empire built on slavery and perpetuating the institution forever. 40 percent of the population was in bondage.

One of the most despicable nations in the history of mankind

 

[occupied]

When did a Southern leader state their intention to invade and conquer the North?

The war began when Lincoln invaded Virginia.

The war really started when they tried to make Kansas a slave state by force. After that no one in the south could claim they had peaceful intentions, they didn't even try. They counted on the European powers to back them up in their naked aggression. Lucky for everyone they decided to stay out of it.

 

[rightwinger]

Ever heard of the Kansas/Missouri border war? That's where the civil war actually started. The South was not satisfied with keeping slavery where it already existed. They wanted to expand the franchise but were prevented from doing so. Had the confederacy been satisfied with the status quo there would have never been a civil war. They had dreams of an empire to rival the United States. They had to be slapped back to reality.

The South did not want a nation where there were more anti-slave states than slave states

That way, they would be outvoted in Congress and anti-slavery laws could be passed

 

[Polishprince]

The South wanted an empire built on slavery and perpetuating the institution forever. 40 percent of the population was in bondage.

One of the most despicable nations in the history of mankind

It was a liberal nation for sure.

In the current era, Obamacare has been compared to a modern slavery.

Remember that the basis of slavery is telling other people what to do. Is there really anything substantially different from telling someone to "Buy that insurance when you like it or not" and telling them to "pick that cotton".

Two different tasks to be sure, but if you don't want to do it, why should you?

 

[rightwinger]

It was a liberal nation for sure.

In the current era, Obamacare has been compared to a modern slavery.

Remember that the basis of slavery is telling other people what to do. Is there really anything substantially different from telling someone to "Buy that insurance when you like it or not" and telling them to "pick that cotton".

Two different tasks to be sure, but if you don't want to do it, why should you?

Yes because having health insurance is the equivalent of slavery

 

[occupied]

The South did not want a nation where there were more anti-slave states than slave states

That way, they would be outvoted in Congress and anti-slavery laws could be passed

The south wanted new territory to dump their excess slaves. It seems they were worried about becoming outnumbered. This fear has continued to drive conservative politics to this very day.

 

[Polishprince]

Yes because having health insurance is the equivalent of slavery

I'm not talking about "having" health insurance, but being forced to buy it even if you don't want to.

 

[Polishprince]

The south wanted new territory to dump their excess slaves. It seems they were worried about becoming outnumbered. This fear has continued to drive conservative politics to this very day.

Slavery is a Liberal institution, and always has been.

 

[there4eyeM]

The "North" did not "invade" the "South". American troops maneuvered on American territory in order to secure the nation from enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

[rightwinger]

Slavery is a Liberal institution, and always has been.

You need to Google the term “liberal”

 

[Chillicothe]

"Great God! I thought to myself, how my heart swells out to such magnanimous touch of humanity."

The above quote (offered by the OP) is from Lee's 'Old Warhorse'....his right-hand man....James Longstreet. But it was such acceptance of the humanity of the Union that got Longstreet sideways with the 'Lost Cause' historians who diminished his role and belittled his accomplishments. Thus there is but a handful...maybe now just one.....statue to the Old War Horse in the former confederated states.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's debatable if it would been stable but If the Confederacy was allowed to exist they would have invaded Mexico and southward in fairly short order.

I think that is traction-full observation. The slave interest had had a trial-run of that very thing in their appropriation of the Mexican province that is now America's Texas. The expansion of slavery into a Mexican province that had made it illegal created a powder-keg of emotions between the Mexican government and the Americans they had graciously permitted to farm there. Mexico's earnest and legitimate desire to maintain its national sovereignty and legal borders led to a clash and the Alamo and San Jacinto. Slave interests got away with it in the Texas lands. That may have emboldened them 14years later to take their intransigent position against Lincoln and the Union.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The war was never about slavery for Abe. It was about money and control.

I demur.
It is true that Lincoln strove to avoid slavery being a cause of the war (read his 1st Inaugural), but, as the war progressed it became unavoidable that slavery was the ground upon which both parties attempted to stand...and fight and die over.

In Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural masterpiece he articulated and clarified what the nation already knew, and upon which so many had given their last full measure of devotion.

From the 2nd Inaugural:
"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

 

[gipper]

Lincoln had nothing to do with it

The South overreacted to Lincoln’s election and seceded.
Lincoln was not going to end slavery. He couldn’t if he wanted to. The best Lincoln could have done was stop the expansion into new states

Slavery would have ended on its own over the next 20-30 years and we would have ended up with a version of second class citizenship status for blacks with no vote and limits to where they could live

Slave owners would have been compensated for their lost “property” and the south would have evolved.

Instead, slavery ended in four years and slave owners got nothing

Lincoln started the war because he wanted money for the federal government. The south refused to pay the Morrill tariff that clearly was designed to harm it’s agricultural economy. It was passed by Northern politicians just days before dishonest Abe’s inauguration, for the benefit of northern industries.

Lincoln was a tyrant who destroyed the Founder’s vision of limited government. He committed treason for warring on Americans, for which he should have been hung in 1861. Thus avoiding a war that killed 850,000 Americans, destroyed half the nation, and lead to a century of injustice toward blacks.

But you know all this, since I’ve told you it over and over again.

 

[bodecea]

Yet another war that could have easily been avoided.

Yep...if only SC hadn't started it by firing on a federal installation that was doing nothing to them.

 

[gipper]

Yep...if only SC hadn't started it by firing on a federal installation that was doing nothing to them.

Yep it is right and just to start a murderous war because the enemy fired on a fort in their territory that caused the death and injury of EXACTLY no one.

LMFAO.

 

[Flash]

The Confederacy was the last great hope for Liberty in the world.