I didn't know this

[Marion Morrison]

There were no "Republicans" at that time, dumbarse.

What you had was either "Federalists", or "Whigs". And for decades they were the ones that wanted to leave the country.

God save us from the Revisionists that even 160 years later are trying to show they were right in the Civil War.

It's over, you lost, get over it already. Nobody but inbred white cracker morons gives a crap anymore. Other than the racists, but they count even less in my opinion.

of course it was economic. The great american tyrant lincoln basically said as much

That Lincoln sure was a tyrant. Only the most evil and despotic of tyrants would deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.

And imprison many American journalists. Seriously not upholding the 1st amendment.
Going against the Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution.

After Bull Run, Abraham Lincoln Fought a New Battle in the Civil War: Home-Front Journalism

His administration turned a blind eye to the First Amendment in the interest of national security.

www.historynet.com

Executive Order—Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

 

[Picaro]

Sorry, gonna call bullshit here.

You see, I have read the secession letters from each of those states, and not a single one mentioned any kind of blockade. I just read through 5 references, and none of them mention a blockade either. In fact, trying a search on Google with the words Buchanan and Blockade generally brought me back to a single event.

Call whatever you want, it doesn't mean anything, since you have nothing as usual. You apparently think holding Sumter had some other purpose, or you're just lying, is all. Fact: Buchanan attempted to strengthen Sumter in order to blockade Charleston and extort tariffs on southern shipping. Five more states joined South Carolina in secession as the result. Lincoln deliberately did the same thing, and the rest of the states seceded. And, we have Lincoln himself saying he was hoping his provocation would work; he needed it for propaganda purposes.

The rest of your post is just your usual dissembling as usual, just silly nonsense.

 

[Picaro]

of course it was economic. The great american tyrant lincoln basically said as much

That Lincoln sure was a tyrant. Only the most evil and despotic of tyrants would deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.

LOL the old lincoln cliche.
"You dont support lincoln shitting all over the bill of rights and abusing his power more than any other president in history so you must support slavery and be a white supremacist"
Which is funny in itself, because lincoln was a white supremacist who didnt give a damn about slaves.
And to top it all off, you call yourself an anarcho capitalist

Indeed. Note that none of these allegedly' Anti-slavery Heroes' 160+ years after the fact seem to be even slightly concerned about modern slavery, never hear a peep out of them about that, do we? It's all just modern Democratic Party propaganda bashing the South for voting Republican, is all, and these morons parrot it, lacking the brains to do anything else, like think for themselves.

 

[Picaro]

And, like in all the other 30 zillion threads, we're still waiting for all that evidence secession was even illegal in the first place. On the other hand, we have the Constitutional Convention specifically rejecting granting the Federal government the power to use force against a state, as the Union was to be voluntary.

 

[Mushroom]

Call whatever you want, it doesn't mean anything, since you have nothing as usual. You apparently think holding Sumter had some other purpose, or you're just lying, is all. Fact: Buchanan attempted to strengthen Sumter in order to blockade

Uh-huh. Not a verification from a historical reference that President Buchanan was trying a blockade. And I notice you ignore the ship was fired upon, even though you insist the Union started the war. And failure to in any way prove that is what caused the other states to join the Confederacy.

Why not just admit you are making this all up as you go along?

 

[Mushroom]

And, like in all the other 30 zillion threads, we're still waiting for all that evidence secession was even illegal in the first place.

Oh, that is an amazingly simple one.

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which South Carolina ratified on 5 February 1778,

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we, the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in the Words following, viz. “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

And over and over in this document, the phrase "perpetual" was used. And this document is still legally in place. It was replaced by the later Constitution, but it was never superseded. It was never repealed.

The "Perpetual Union" existed since 1778. If leaving it was an option, they would have put such into the document in the first place. But it was always intended to be "perpetual".

 

[Picaro]

Call whatever you want, it doesn't mean anything, since you have nothing as usual. You apparently think holding Sumter had some other purpose, or you're just lying, is all. Fact: Buchanan attempted to strengthen Sumter in order to blockade

Uh-huh. Not a verification from a historical reference that President Buchanan was trying a blockade. And I notice you ignore the ship was fired upon, even though you insist the Union started the war. And failure to in any way prove that is what caused the other states to join the Confederacy.

Why not just admit you are making this all up as you go along?

Yes, we've established you're dumb and can't spin well. I notice you think 'firing the first shot' means somethng, when the it is the first act of war that starts a war, like blockading a port. There was no other reason to supply Sumter, dumbass, so ofoc urse no need for anybody to run around writing down what was obvious to everybody at the time; believe it or not they didn't care if some clown came along a hundred years later and confused themselves.

Why not just admit you haven't done shit about slavery in your entire life, and give up trying to come back from dumbassery?

 

[Picaro]

And, like in all the other 30 zillion threads, we're still waiting for all that evidence secession was even illegal in the first place.

Oh, that is an amazingly simple one.

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which South Carolina ratified on 5 February 1778,

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we, the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in the Words following, viz. “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

And over and over in this document, the phrase "perpetual" was used. And this document is still legally in place. It was replaced by the later Constitution, but it was never superseded. It was never repealed.

The "Perpetual Union" existed since 1778. If leaving it was an option, they would have put such into the document in the first place. But it was always intended to be "perpetual".

lol what a load of nonsense. Too bad the Constitutional Convention of 1787 not only superseded that, it also specifically denied the Federal government the power to use force against the states. And, you can't change that by playing 'I Touched You Last!!!". Secession was never illegal, and all of those states threatened to secede at one time or another to boot, so obviously you're wrong.

 

[Mushroom]

Yes, we've established you're dumb and can't spin well. I notice you think 'firing the first shot' means somethng, when the it is the first act of war that starts a war, like blockading a port.

Uh-huh. They were going to "blockade a port".... with an unarmed sidewheeler coastal cargo ship.

Star of the West - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yea, that was going to blockade Charleston. An unarmed civilian ship.

You did notice I said SS, right? Not USS, nor USN or any other variant, right? In reality, it was not even SS< but that is the nomenclature assigned to a civilian non-combat ship, so I used it to make that obvious.

And yet, somehow this single unarmed civilian ship was going to blockade Charleston. A ship that turned around and ran as soon as it was fired upon.

You know, you are not even worth reading anymore. Ignore anything you do not like, insult anybody that does not believe you, unable to validate anything and wrong in almost everything you post.

Have a good day.

 

[Unkotare]

Call whatever you want, it doesn't mean anything, since you have nothing as usual. You apparently think holding Sumter had some other purpose, or you're just lying, is all. Fact: Buchanan attempted to strengthen Sumter in order to blockade

Uh-huh. Not a verification from a historical reference that President Buchanan was trying a blockade. And I notice you ignore the ship was fired upon, even though you insist the Union started the war. And failure to in any way prove that is what caused the other states to join the Confederacy.

Why not just admit you are making this all up as you go along?

Yes, we've established you're dumb and can't spin well. I notice you think 'firing the first shot' means somethng, when the it is the first act of war that starts a war, like blockading a port. There was no other reason to supply Sumter, dumbass, so ofoc urse no need for anybody to run around writing down what was obvious to everybody at the time; believe it or not they didn't care if some clown came along a hundred years later and confused themselves.

Why not just admit you haven't done shit about slavery in your entire life, and give up trying to come back from dumbassery?

What a vehement defense of being absolutely wrong.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I wish I could link this to the Constitution forum- it's an interesting bit of History that high lights the constitution.
It illustrates (without a lot of imagination) how the country has been divided from the get- go. The North vs the South.
This article lays out a precursor to the unCivil War- the constitution. Not the authors thought, but my own. It's not surprising but it is enlightening.


The Founding Fathers' Coup d'État

The revolution of 1776–1781 converted thirteen provinces, practically as they stood, into thirteen autonomous political units, completely independent, and they so continued until 1789, formally held together as a sort of league, by the Articles of Confederation. For our purposes, the point to be remarked about this eight-year period,


The northern war of aggression was economic- the South was more of an agricultural place and the "moneyed" in the North(east) couldn't compete simply due to terrain and climate- so, money did what it has always done- force its way into control. This article points out the troubles with the constitution being ratified and how it came about- moneyed vs farmers-

What’s ironic is how things have changed so drastically sense then.Now it’s the dems that are the money people trying to ruin America where the repubs now would be the farmers,some of them. Anyway,not the evil ones as bush and Romney,the elite like them.

 

[gipper]

Any source that refers to "The War of Northern Aggression" can be summarily dismissed as not anywhere near worth taking seriously.

And yet it was the War of Northern Aggression. Anyone who says it wasn’t, has self identified as a fool.

If Lincoln doesn’t invade, there is no war. So dummy, who was the aggressor? The north or the south?

Not a trick question, but it dupes dummies.

 

[TNHarley]

And, like in all the other 30 zillion threads, we're still waiting for all that evidence secession was even illegal in the first place. On the other hand, we have the Constitutional Convention specifically rejecting granting the Federal government the power to use force against a state, as the Union was to be voluntary.

Secession was perfectly legal

 

[Bezukhov]

Any source that refers to "The War of Northern Aggression" can be summarily dismissed as not anywhere near worth taking seriously.

And yet it was the War of Northern Aggression. Anyone who says it wasn’t, has self identified as a fool.

If Lincoln doesn’t invade, there is no war. So dummy, who was the aggressor? The north or the south?

Not a trick question, but it dupes dummies.

Right! When the Confederates shelled Ft Sumter the North was supposed to have said: "Thank you! Please shell us some more!!"

 

[gipper]

Any source that refers to "The War of Northern Aggression" can be summarily dismissed as not anywhere near worth taking seriously.

And yet it was the War of Northern Aggression. Anyone who says it wasn’t, has self identified as a fool.

If Lincoln doesn’t invade, there is no war. So dummy, who was the aggressor? The north or the south?

Not a trick question, but it dupes dummies.

Right! When the Confederates shelled Ft Sumter the North was supposed to have said: "Thank you! Please shell us some more!!"

Lol. The old Ft Sumter tired old bs.

The fort was in another country. They were told to leave, but Abe lied and set up events and he still duped you 159 years later.

Hey let’s start a war that murders 850,000 Americans because they shelled a fort in which no one was killed.

DAMN!


Can’t fix stupid.

 

[Bezukhov]

 

[whitehall]

States rights vs the power of the federal government. Lincoln could have and should have mediated the issue before it erupted into violence

You know, that's kinda hard since he was not even President yet when South Carolina seceded. In fact, by the time he took office on 4 March 1861, 6 states had seceded, and had not only declared themselves a new nation, they had elected their own President.

So yea, kinda hard for him to have even mediated anything if he was not even President yet. And barely a month after the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter.

History is an amazing thing if you actually know it. Knowing such things as the dates things happen is really fun for making others look foolish.

Lincoln was elected in November. What was he thinking about before South Carolina shelled Ft. Sumter in April, how to decorate the White House and deal with his wife's chronic depression? He handled the crisis poorly and his inaction and bad judgment cost the lives of 2% of the entire population.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Any source that refers to "The War of Northern Aggression" can be summarily dismissed as not anywhere near worth taking seriously.

And yet it was the War of Northern Aggression. Anyone who says it wasn’t, has self identified as a fool.

If Lincoln doesn’t invade, there is no war. So dummy, who was the aggressor? The north or the south?

Not a trick question, but it dupes dummies.

dont be surprised if he goes whining to the mods like a kid does with his mommy for you being mean to him,this troll whines to the mods days and night at all hours over the tinest little things in the world.

 

[Unkotare]

Any source that refers to "The War of Northern Aggression" can be summarily dismissed as not anywhere near worth taking seriously.

And yet it was the War of Northern Aggression. Anyone who says it wasn’t, has self identified as a fool.

If Lincoln doesn’t invade, there is no war. So dummy, who was the aggressor? The north or the south?

Not a trick question, but it dupes dummies.

The traitors of the so-called confederacy began the war and bear all responsibility for it.

 

[gipper]

Any source that refers to "The War of Northern Aggression" can be summarily dismissed as not anywhere near worth taking seriously.

And yet it was the War of Northern Aggression. Anyone who says it wasn’t, has self identified as a fool.

If Lincoln doesn’t invade, there is no war. So dummy, who was the aggressor? The north or the south?

Not a trick question, but it dupes dummies.

The traitors of the so-called confederacy began the war and bear all responsibility for it.

You are an amazing hypocrite. You think our government is wrong for using the a-bombs, but perfectly right to mass murder fellow Americans for wanting to peacefully secede.

You are terribly confused.