...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[Dr Gregg]

The South by demanding that the US Army surrender a US fort.

That would be incorrect. Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.

Then the intelligent thing for the South at that point would have been to walk off the field. If you know that the other side needs a reason to fight, don't give it to them.

I've seen a lot of arguments about the responsibility for the Civil War, who fired first, etc, but everything I've ever studied on the issue shows that if the South wanted to, they could have won independence without a shot fired. Emancipate the slaves and you pick up European backing immediately. Make a decision to let the North fire first and you get public opinion on your side and undercut the support for the war right away.

For the South, a conventional war with the North was unwinnable. The absolute only shot the South had was to demoralize the North quickly or bring the Europeans in immediately. In spite of that, the South seemed to make bad decision after bad decision.

and I still want these people bitching about the civil war to tell me what would of happened if the south did secede? Why do they hate the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED the key word

 

[Dr Gregg]

That would be incorrect. Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.

Doesn't change the fact that the South fired the first shot.

So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?

Yes, to keep the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA united

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Right, deny it, like I'm going to go through tons of threads. YOu most certainly did

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...an-who-armed-atomic-bomb-dropped-on-japs.html

I believe that's the thread you're referencing, so now that I've done most of your work for you perhaps you can find the post where I called Americans terrorists?

Take your pic of your made up history and making shit up about the past, brings up your track record of making up your own history.

And the bolded part, its essentially calling them terrorists. Spin it and deny it all you want, comparing US in WWII to al qaeda is not calling them terrorists


Along with the rest of your revisionist history tripe

After what we did should we still be allowed to have a military? Yes, well I'm sure glad the U.S. government bombed Japan so they could then steal from the American taxpayer to rebuild Japan. Excellent.

So it's better for us to radiate the citizens of Japan rather than have Japan "terrorize" people in the Pacific? I'm not so sure, but I don't personally make much distinction between two different forms of evil.

Well the first quote is the only relevant quote to your claim. Of course you took out the post I was responding to.

That would be incorrect. The Japanese did not give the order to drop the nukes on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

so you think 9/11 was caused by the US government's foreign policy (blowback), but you don't think the Japanese government brought Hiroshima on itself?

I don't think the Japanese civilians brought Hiroshima on themselves. The government's policies certainly created the environment for Hiroshima. But I personally wish our government didn't choose to play the role of al-Qaeda in this analogy.

Clearly Elvis initiated the comparison, whereas I followed it to its logical conclusion.

 

[JBeukema]

Doesn't change the fact that the South fired the first shot.

So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?

Yes, to keep the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA united

What about keeping th British Empire united?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Doesn't change the fact that the South fired the first shot.

So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?

Yes, to keep the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA united

So you think forcing people to live under a government against their will, murdering innocent civilians (both free and slave alike), and destroying their cities kept us "united?"

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?

Yes, to keep the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA united

So you think forcing people to live under a government against their will, murdering innocent civilians (both free and slave alike), and destroying their cities kept us "united?"

Yeah, son, we are united. Whether you like or not is not important. What is remains that you accept history for it is. You lost. Get over it. A libertarian model of governance as you desire will never happen here. Get over it.

 

[hortysir]

and I still want these people bitching about the civil war to tell me what would of happened if the south did secede? Why do they hate the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED the key word

Actually the key word is "THE".
As opposed to "THESE" united states

 

[Toro]

Is this a joke thread?

 

[hortysir]

“I will say then that I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races – that I am not nor have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Lincoln-Douglas Debate - Sept. 18, 1858

 

[JakeStarkey]

“I will say then that I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races – that I am not nor have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Lincoln-Douglas Debate - Sept. 18, 1858

You are a history thug. One, Lincoln is not an original white supremacist. Two, the South refused to accept constitutional and electoral process. Three, the South fired on Old Glory. Four, hortysir is as silly as those who defended the South in 1832, 1850, 1860-1861, and those who do today: simply looniness.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is this a joke thread?

David Duke's four followers are posting here, obviously, and the extreme libertarians adopt the CW as a cause. What the forget is that when they interferred with JCD's administration, he would have put then against a wall.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Kevin states that we owe nothing to those that fought in WW2, because it was an unjust war on our part. So take what he says concerning the Civil War in light of that.

Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.

My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, Kevin states that we owe nothing to those that fought in WW2, because it was an unjust war on our part. So take what he says concerning the Civil War in light of that.

Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.

My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.

Another distortion of what I said.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I don't think they were right. They kept slaves as well.

The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.

Try again.

The north kept slaves as well.

Here you go 'tard..........

Slavery in the United States
Main article: Slavery in the United States

Although the trans-Atlantic slave trade ended shortly after the American Revolution, slavery remained a central economic institution in the Southern states. All the Northern states passed emancipation acts between 1780 and 1804; most of these arranged for gradual emancipation.[108] In the South, however, slavery expanded with the westward movement of population. Historian Peter Kolchin wrote, "By breaking up existing families and forcing slaves to relocate far from everyone and everything they knew" this migration "replicated (if on a reduced level) many of [the] horrors" of the Atlantic slave trade.[109] Historian Ira Berlin called this forced migration the Second Middle Passage. Characterizing it as the "central event” in the life of a slave between the American Revolution and the Civil War, Berlin wrote that whether they were uprooted themselves or simply lived in fear that they or their families would be involuntarily moved, "the massive deportation traumatized black people, both slave and free."[110] By 1860, 500,000 slaves had grown to 4 million. As long as slavery expanded, it remained profitable and powerful and was unlikely to disappear. Antislavery forces, however, proposed to put it on the path to extinction by stopping further expansion. If it became unprofitable, few people would spend the large sums of cash needed to buy and keep slaves, and the system would fade away quietly as it had in most countries in world history.

The plantation system, based on tobacco growing in Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky, and rice in South Carolina, expanded into lush new cotton lands in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi—and needed more slaves. But slave importation became illegal in 1808. Although complete statistics are lacking, it is estimated that 1,000,000 slaves moved west from the Old South between 1790 and 1860. Most of the slaves were moved from Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas. Michael Tadman, in a 1989 book Speculators and Slaves: Masters, Traders, and Slaves in the Old South, indicates that 60–70% of interregional migrations were the result of the sale of slaves. In 1820 a child in the Upper South had a 30% chance to be sold south by 1860.[111]

Political division over slavery was temporarily resolved by the Compromise of 1850 which sought to divide new territories between slave and free states. However, the status of Kansas was left unresolved, producing bloody clashes between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers.[112] In 1860, the election of Abraham Lincoln as President on a program of limiting slavery led to the secession of Southern States and the outbreak of the US Civil War. Although Lincoln initially disclaimed any intention to interfere with slavery, the progress of the war produced the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves in Southern states still in revolt, and ultimately the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in December 1865, which ended legalized slavery in the United States.

You know.........computers can be used for a great deal more than displays of stupidity as you are doing right now.

They can also be used to look up things to discover facts.

Might wanna try wikipedia sometime.

If you insist on using Wikipedia, try this page.

Slave and free states - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Speaking of the Gettysburg Address, let's analyze it shall we?

that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Now, obviously, Lincoln was referring to the United States here, but this makes no sense. For starters, the United States was not under threat. The Confederacy wanted only independence, not to take over the United States. Secondly, it was Lincoln fighting against "government of the people." The people of the southern states did not want to be governed by Lincoln or the northern states any longer, so they decided to create a government of, by, and for their people.

 

[HUGGY]

They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.

...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.


Sometimes it is better not to share every halfwit idea that pops in your head.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Speaking of the Gettysburg Address, let's analyze it shall we?

that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Now, obviously, Lincoln was referring to the United States here, but this makes no sense. For starters, the United States was not under threat. The Confederacy wanted only independence, not to take over the United States. Secondly, it was Lincoln fighting against "government of the people." The people of the southern states did not want to be governed by Lincoln or the northern states any longer, so they decided to create a government of, by, and for their people.

The governments of the southern states warred against the nation, the government of which was the Congress of the United States. Thus the South warred against "the people".

 

[JakeStarkey]

They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.

...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.


Sometimes it is better not to share every halfwit idea that pops in your head.

There is no logical set of comparisons to validate the OP. Fail.

 

[Kalam]

Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.

My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.

Is that what they tell you up there? That the north was a moral and principled bastion against Southern barbarity? That you were dragged into war by Southern aggression and a moral obligation to end slavery?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.

My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.

Is that what they tell you up there? That the north was a moral and principled bastion against Southern barbarity? That you were dragged into war by Southern aggression and a moral obligation to end slavery?

Kalam, the North was not "a moral and principled bastion," but it did fight against Southern aggression, rightfully so.