Can we agree that the North started the war?

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

Listen, I know many like to troll in today's society/politics and completely demonize the south as nothing but a bunch of immoral slave holders while siding with a supposed moral and superior north.

Meanwhile, modern leftists often make this difference while asserting that the northerners like Lincoln, who owned slaves, are the epitome of evil in all of mankind... but, enough of discrediting moronic leftists (which isn't to be confused with a classic American liberal, who is viewed as extremely Conservative by today's standards)....

But, let's get to history...

A few things that are ignored or evaded by commonists who just except baseline, vague, textbook American history on the Civil war include...
1. Both northerners and southerners owned slaves at the time of the war, and most southerners didn't own slaves.
2. Both north and south prominent leaders questioned the morality of slavery
3. Slavery as far as the value of a human wasnt the central issue of the war, economics and federal vs. states rights was.
4. The North wanted to bully many non-slavery-related issues onto the south and created a northern/southern block politically
5. Lincoln owned slaves, acted against Congress criminally, and even attacked his own populace in Maryland.
6. Lincoln sent armed forces to stockade a Confederate (aka foreign) owned base.
7. It was not "illegal" to succeed from the union until states actually succeeded from the union, so those who succeeded broke no rules.

 

[JoeMoma]

History is written by the victors.

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

History is written by the victors.

and apparantly those who disagree with points only downvote posts and don't have the spine to address any points... aka progressive hunter

 

[progressive hunter]

and apparantly those who disagree with points only downvote posts and don't have the spine to address any points... aka progressive hunter

sorry I'm all full up on crazy,,

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

sorry I'm all full up on crazy,,

So no, you can't address even one point, you just are angry at people who say things you don't agree with.

Gosh, you seem like such a mature individual LOL

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

Muhammed what is so wrong with what I said?

 

[Muhammed]

Listen, I know many like to troll in today's society/politics and completely demonize the south as nothing but a bunch of immoral slave holders while siding with a supposed moral and superior north.

Meanwhile, modern leftists often make this difference while asserting that the northerners like Lincoln, who owned slaves, are the epitome of evil in all of mankind... but, enough of discrediting moronic leftists (which isn't to be confused with a classic American liberal, who is viewed as extremely Conservative by today's standards)....

But, let's get to history...

A few things that are ignored or evaded by commonists who just except baseline, vague, textbook American history on the Civil war include...
1. Both northerners and southerners owned slaves at the time of the war, and most southerners didn't own slaves.
2. Both north and south prominent leaders questioned the morality of slavery
3. Slavery as far as the value of a human wasnt the central issue of the war, economics and federal vs. states rights was.
4. The North wanted to bully many non-slavery-related issues onto the south and created a northern/southern block politically
5. Lincoln owned slaves, acted against Congress criminally, and even attacked his own populace in Maryland.
6. Lincoln sent armed forces to stockade a Confederate (aka foreign) owned base.
7. It was not "illegal" to succeed from the union until states actually succeeded from the union, so those who succeeded broke no rules.

Actually the war was started by the south when they attacked Fort Sumpter.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Isn't the North always the igniter of wars, civil unrest, and unconstitutional actions?

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

Actually the war was started by the south when they attacked Fort Sumpter.

I addressed that. You stated a bland, vague, talking point, but do you know anything about what actually happened?

South Carolina succeeded from what was then the US. They were foreign territory. Lincoln advanced his army to fortify a foreign territory with military arms at Fort Sumpter.

If your next door neighbor, who you disowned after a squabble, came onto your property and began rebuilding something on it, you'd respond. That's all that happened.

Lincoln and the North acted like snowflake victims and claimed they were just innocent passer-byers stockpiling a fort with munitions, rifles, etc.

Lincoln wanted the war, he provoked the war, and he committed an act of war, then blamed the south for retaliating.

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

PinktheFloyd88

Aw poor baby. You downvoted my post without justifying why. Are your feelings hurt?

What intellectual reason do you have to downvote my post?

 

[Sunsettommy]

I addressed that. You stated a bland, vague, talking point, but do you know anything about what actually happened?

South Carolina succeeded from what was then the US. They were foreign territory. Lincoln advanced his army to fortify a foreign territory with military arms at Fort Sumpter.

If your next door neighbor, who you disowned after a squabble, came onto your property and began rebuilding something on it, you'd respond. That's all that happened.

Lincoln and the North acted like snowflake victims and claimed they were just innocent passer-byers stockpiling a fort with munitions, rifles, etc.

Lincoln wanted the war, he provoked the war, and he committed an act of war, then blamed the south for retaliating.

The South succession was never legal and on worthless grounds meanwhile it was the South who fired for the SECOND time (They Fired the first time on the ship Star of the West two months earlier) that caused the Fort to surrender and YOU admit the North never reached the Forth thus your one possible argument was drowned by your own hand.

You write,

"Lincoln advanced his army to fortify a foreign territory with military arms at Fort Sumpter."

No he tried to supply the Fort with FOOD and supplies by Ships not by a land army you destroy your credibility right away with that false crap.

===

Mine Creek Battlefield

Lincoln attempts to send supplies​

Last Updated on Wed, 01 Dec 2021

Excerpt:

"Determined to avoid a bloody clash if possible, Lincoln notified South Carolina governor Francis Pickens (1805-1869) on April 8 of his plan to send ships carrying food and other supplies to Fort Sumter. Two days later, a small fleet of Union ships headed by Captain Gustavus Fox (1821-1883) set out for the fort from New York to deliver the provisions.

Upon learning of the Union plan to resupply Fort Sumter, Confederate president Jefferson Davis called his cabinet together to discuss their options. The letter that Pickens had received from Lincoln made it clear."

LINK

===

You have nothing left to offer but revisionist history or some would say LIES!

Pathetic

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

The South succession was never legal and on worthless grounds meanwhile it was the South who fired for the SECOND time (They Fired the first time on the ship Star of the West two months earlier) that caused the Fort to surrender and YOU admit the North never reached the Forth thus your one possible argument was drowned by your own hand.

You write,

"Lincoln advanced his army to fortify a foreign territory with military arms at Fort Sumpter."

No he tried to supply the Fort with FOOD and supplies by Ships not by a land army you destroy your credibility right away with that false crap.

===

Mine Creek Battlefield

Lincoln attempts to send supplies​

Last Updated on Wed, 01 Dec 2021

Excerpt:

"Determined to avoid a bloody clash if possible, Lincoln notified South Carolina governor Francis Pickens (1805-1869) on April 8 of his plan to send ships carrying food and other supplies to Fort Sumter. Two days later, a small fleet of Union ships headed by Captain Gustavus Fox (1821-1883) set out for the fort from New York to deliver the provisions.

Upon learning of the Union plan to resupply Fort Sumter, Confederate president Jefferson Davis called his cabinet together to discuss their options. The letter that Pickens had received from Lincoln made it clear."

LINK

===

You have nothing left to offer but revisionist history or some would say LIES!

Pathetic

HAHAHAHAHA

Yes, Lincoln loaded multiple ships into Fort Sumpter with.. food. And just food. LMAO.

I'm glad you're not in the intelligence field.

Since Fort Sumpter was on Carolina land, Lincoln was under obligation to abandon Sumpter. He didn't.

When Carolina succeeded, there was no law in the books that said they couldn't. The law was made AFTER they succeeded, thus, null and void to anyone who isn't relying on BS history.

Tell me, if you got busted by going 45 MPH on a street with a ticket, and you said "I saw a 45 mph sign 1 mile ago", but the cop said "sorry, the speed limit was changed to 35 mph just now, you're F'd"... is that fair?

Nope

 

[mamooth]

It wasn't just Ft. Sumter that the south attacked. The south initiated attacks on federal facilities all across the south.

That is, there's no question of who started the shooting war. Claiming it was the north is pathetic historical revisionism.

And then there's this list of slavery-defending crap ...

1. Both northerners and southerners owned slaves at the time of the war, and most southerners didn't own slaves.

The south had far, far more slaves, and those who didn't own slaves wanted to own slaves. The whole southern economy was slave-based. The common southern fighting man was fighting to preserve slavery.

2. Both north and south prominent leaders questioned the morality of slavery

Good god, no. Every southern state wrote into its secession documents that they were seceeding to preserve slavery. No prominent leader in the south opposed slavery, because you couldn't be a prominent leader in the south if you opposed slavery.

3. Slavery as far as the value of a human wasnt the central issue of the war, economics and federal vs. states rights was.

Flat out false. Again, every southern state flatly stated they were seceeding to preserve slavery.

4. The North wanted to bully many non-slavery-related issues onto the south and created a northern/southern block politically

Not relevent. Economic issues are not a cause for war.

5. Lincoln owned slaves, acted against Congress criminally, and even attacked his own populace in Maryland.

Weirdass kook propaganda. No, Lincoln did not own slaves. Telling such a stupid and blatant lie destroys your credibility, as it shows you're just a dishonest propagandist.

6. Lincoln sent armed forces to stockade a Confederate (aka foreign) owned base.
7. It was not "illegal" to succeed from the union until states actually succeeded from the union, so those who succeeded broke no rules.

So what internet lawyer told you that? Just asking, because I'd never heard that dumb propaganda before.

Anyways, we get it. You're angry about the no more slavery thing.

 

[Sunsettommy]

HAHAHAHAHA

Yes, Lincoln loaded multiple ships into Fort Sumpter with.. food. And just food. LMAO.

I'm glad you're not in the intelligence field.

Since Fort Sumpter was on Carolina land, Lincoln was under obligation to abandon Sumpter. He didn't.

When Carolina succeeded, there was no law in the books that said they couldn't. The law was made AFTER they succeeded, thus, null and void to anyone who isn't relying on BS history.

Tell me, if you got busted by going 45 MPH on a street with a ticket, and you said "I saw a 45 mph sign 1 mile ago", but the cop said "sorry, the speed limit was changed to 35 mph just now, you're F'd"... is that fair?

Nope

I notice you didn't counter anything I posted which included a link not only that it didn't occur to you that the South TWICE attacked Fort Sumpter (which the North never countered over it) which means they killed first over a tiny spit of land.

No they have no legal means to abandon the country over a slavery issue which should have been illegal all along.

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

You're adorable. Since folks like you sprint away when addressed with too much quesioning, I'll take one issue at a time so you can focus.

The south had far, far more slaves, and those who didn't own slaves wanted to own slaves. The whole southern economy was slave-based. The common southern fighting man was fighting to preserve slavery.

Prove it.

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

I notice you didn't counter anything I posted which included a link not only that it didn't occur to you that the South TWICE attacked Fort Sumpter (which the North never countered over it) which means they killed first over a tiny spit of land.

No they have no legal means to abandon the country over a slavery issue which should have been illegal all along.

How does one "attack" their own fort that they own, unless it was taken by foreign invaders... which they would have a right to attempt to expel?

 

[Sunsettommy]

You're adorable. Since folks like you sprint away when addressed with too much quesioning, I'll take one issue at a time so you can focus.


Prove it.

The very fact that you demand proof of something that is well known means you are a quack on history.

 

[Sunsettommy]

How does one "attack" their own fort that they own, unless it was taken by foreign invaders... which they would have a right to attempt to expel?

The Fort NEVER under Northen occupation attacked anyone it was the SOUTH who attacked it twice in two months times.

From the link you ignored:

"The Union had attempted to transport supplies and reinforcements to the fort two months earlier via a ship called the Star of the West, only to be turned away by a hail of artillery fire from South Carolina cannons."

That was the FIRST attack that was from the South.

Did you forget to pack your brain today?

 

[mamooth]

You're adorable. Since folks like you sprint away when addressed with too much quesioning, I'll take one issue at a time so you can focus.


Prove it.

I'm supposed to prove the south had far more slaves?

Fuck off, troll.

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

I'm supposed to prove the south had far more slaves?

Fuck off, troll.

You made a claim, back it up.

Or, are we allowed to say whatever we want without having to prove it.

I say you're a pedophile. Prove I'm wrong!