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

[JBeukema]

Not having been there I have no idea what they thought about the possibility of war. I will point out that Virginia did not actually secede until war actually started, and did it more in protest of that action than out for any other reason. Maybe most people actually thought there was another way to solve the differences between the states, and war was more of a surprise than an inevitability.

Maybe. But I would imagine most states on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line knew a war was inevitable....we'll never know.

True. Read any papers of the day at the time. The secession bubble had been building for a years and years before. Hell, in 1850 SC threatened to seceded and in 1852, a convention was held and secession was laid out.

It was positively inevitable. Lincoln, of the new anti-slavery party being elected, was the final straw.

If the North gave a damned about the *******, why did the North not free their own slaves during the conflict?

 

[JBeukema]

lincoln never freed a single slave

He most certainly did. Some were free from the very first day of the EP.

The EP was not sent to he slave states in the North and Lincoln had no authority on the CSA. Lincoln took no actions to demand any slaves be freed n the Union. You want to give him undue credit for any good that may have been done by others. He made it clear that he never gave a damn about the slaves

 

[JBeukema]

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?

No, that is what history tells us. By depending on slavery, the south never developed a strong middle class. And slavery is second only to genocide in the pantheon of man's sins against man.

By failing to have a middle class, the south never developed either industry, nor schools that were for all citizens. Their society was one of the elite, the poor, and slaves. The elite were educated, if they desired to be so, the poor were semi-literate, at best, and the slaves were punished if caught trying to learn to read. That was the southern society at the time of the rebellion.

Had the South succeeded in balkenizing the North American continent, the nation that you enjoy would not exist today. The United States are just that, a war was fought and won to maintain this nation, and to make it a more just nation.

It always amazes me - the people who point to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to find justification for secession, are the same folks who discard the phrase "all men are created equal" and fought hard to uphold the right to legally hold human beings in bondage.

If the North had used arms to free slaves and fight for liberty, you might have some sort of point, But they didn't. There were still slave states in the Union and Lincoln made no effort to free all the slaves in the North. The North fought purely for the economic strength that come with the Southern territories.

There was a just war to be fought, but the Union never fought it.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Kevin, if for example, Kentucky decided it wanted to secede, could it just take over Fort Knox and take it as its own, simply because it resides in Kentucky?

Did we take Boston and all in it simply because it resided in Boston when we seceded and told the King to go **** himself?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, the confeds grabbed fed properties wherever they could before offering to pay for them. Your problem is that you believe that a state is equal to the national government. When a state ratified the Constitution or later joined the union, it gave up its own sovereignty and adopted the principles of federalism. No where in the Constitution is a state granted the right to secession whereas Section I 8: 16 clearly gives the national government precedence over the states. The tail cannot wag the dog.

So they gave up their own sovereignty for the principles of federalism? What is federalism but a system whereby the member states of a union retain their sovereignty?

 

[elvis]

What were the slaveowners doing to the blacks? Giving them a vote?

How ******* stupid are you anyway? I'm guessing you ate lead paint chips as a child.

Yup, he's the name nut claiming that Americans were terrorist during WWII. Another person that likes to make up their own history

Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.

you've called our veterans war criminals, which is just as bad, if not worse.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yup, he's the name nut claiming that Americans were terrorist during WWII. Another person that likes to make up their own history

Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.

you've called our veterans war criminals, which is just as bad, if not worse.

I called one person in particular, and one small group of veterans in general, war criminals. But that's because I don't believe Americans deserve special treatment when they do horrible things, and you know if the situation had been reversed we'd have no problem referring to the Japanese as war criminals.

 

[elvis]

Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.

you've called our veterans war criminals, which is just as bad, if not worse.

I called one person in particular, and one small group of veterans in general, war criminals. But that's because I don't believe Americans deserve special treatment when they do horrible things, and you know if the situation had been reversed we'd have no problem referring to the Japanese as war criminals.

First off, war crimes are committed by states, not individuals. bin laden, for example, is not a war criminal, but simply a criminal.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

you've called our veterans war criminals, which is just as bad, if not worse.

I called one person in particular, and one small group of veterans in general, war criminals. But that's because I don't believe Americans deserve special treatment when they do horrible things, and you know if the situation had been reversed we'd have no problem referring to the Japanese as war criminals.

First off, war crimes are committed by states, not individuals. bin laden, for example, is not a war criminal, but simply a criminal.

Oh I don't know, we certainly had no problem charging people with war crimes during and after WWII. War crimes are definitely committed by states and I would say that dropping the nuclear bomb was a war crime committed by the U.S. government under Truman's administration, but also by those soldiers who followed that order.

Now you might be right that war crimes can only be committed by states and by individuals acting on behalf of a state.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

No, that is what history tells us. By depending on slavery, the south never developed a strong middle class. And slavery is second only to genocide in the pantheon of man's sins against man.

By failing to have a middle class, the south never developed either industry, nor schools that were for all citizens. Their society was one of the elite, the poor, and slaves. The elite were educated, if they desired to be so, the poor were semi-literate, at best, and the slaves were punished if caught trying to learn to read. That was the southern society at the time of the rebellion.

Had the South succeeded in balkenizing the North American continent, the nation that you enjoy would not exist today. The United States are just that, a war was fought and won to maintain this nation, and to make it a more just nation.

It always amazes me - the people who point to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to find justification for secession, are the same folks who discard the phrase "all men are created equal" and fought hard to uphold the right to legally hold human beings in bondage.

Since I am one of the people who are saying that the secession of the south was constitutional I challenge you to show were i fought to enslave anyone. The Civil War was almost 100 years before I was born, I was not there.

If you want to claim the major issue was slavery, please explain to me why Northern states had slaves even after the war began. Why did the Emancipation proclamation only addrees the issue of slavery in the South, and promise that they could keep their slaves if they returned to the Union before 1 January 1863?

 

[Dr Gregg]

Yup, he's the name nut claiming that Americans were terrorist during WWII. Another person that likes to make up their own history

Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.

you've called our veterans war criminals, which is just as bad, if not worse.

Plus he called us during wwii "al quaeda".

He'll just deny it and act like we misinterpreted, like he said above in regards to the US being unjustified in being in WWII, and claiming they were the aggressors against Japan. Sounds like someone who just like to argue something, regardless of what bullshit he spews forth and how absurd that argument is. Must be a lawyer

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, that is what history tells us. By depending on slavery, the south never developed a strong middle class. And slavery is second only to genocide in the pantheon of man's sins against man.

By failing to have a middle class, the south never developed either industry, nor schools that were for all citizens. Their society was one of the elite, the poor, and slaves. The elite were educated, if they desired to be so, the poor were semi-literate, at best, and the slaves were punished if caught trying to learn to read. That was the southern society at the time of the rebellion.

Had the South succeeded in balkenizing the North American continent, the nation that you enjoy would not exist today. The United States are just that, a war was fought and won to maintain this nation, and to make it a more just nation.

It always amazes me - the people who point to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to find justification for secession, are the same folks who discard the phrase "all men are created equal" and fought hard to uphold the right to legally hold human beings in bondage.

If the North had used arms to free slaves and fight for liberty, you might have some sort of point, But they didn't. There were still slave states in the Union and Lincoln made no effort to free all the slaves in the North. The North fought purely for the economic strength that come with the Southern territories.

There was a just war to be fought, but the Union never fought it.

JB, on this you are incorrect. Lincoln certainly realized that slavery was the root cause of the war, from which all other causes were secondary and from which they budded.

Lincoln was anti-slavery not pro-abolition, until it became clear the slaves were being used by the South to impeded the North's effort to subdue it, and he moved over to ending slavery forever. Thus Lincoln emancipated the slaves in the region of insurrection, where he certainly had legal authority if not physical ability to enforce it. As the areas were captured, the slaves became automatically free. Lincoln supported the 13th Amendment that would end all slavery with its ratification in December 1865.

So, yes, verily yes, the United States fought the just war against the South.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Kevin, if for example, Kentucky decided it wanted to secede, could it just take over Fort Knox and take it as its own, simply because it resides in Kentucky?

Did we take Boston and all in it simply because it resided in Boston when we seceded and told the King to go **** himself?

Your analogy is based on the false premise that the colonies were seceding from the Empire. They were not, rather they were in outright revolution. What the colonists did was criminal in the eyes of the British legal system. The colonists got away with it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kevin, the confeds grabbed fed properties wherever they could before offering to pay for them. Your problem is that you believe that a state is equal to the national government. When a state ratified the Constitution or later joined the union, it gave up its own sovereignty and adopted the principles of federalism. No where in the Constitution is a state granted the right to secession whereas Section I 8: 16 clearly gives the national government precedence over the states. The tail cannot wag the dog.

So they gave up their own sovereignty for the principles of federalism? What is federalism but a system whereby the member states of a union retain their sovereignty?

A false definition of federalism. Go look it up. The member states did not retain their sovereignty any more than did the new states that came into the union. Since the Constitution did not grant that power to the states, then an amendment would have been needed to grant the states such power.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, that is what history tells us. By depending on slavery, the south never developed a strong middle class. And slavery is second only to genocide in the pantheon of man's sins against man.

By failing to have a middle class, the south never developed either industry, nor schools that were for all citizens. Their society was one of the elite, the poor, and slaves. The elite were educated, if they desired to be so, the poor were semi-literate, at best, and the slaves were punished if caught trying to learn to read. That was the southern society at the time of the rebellion.

Had the South succeeded in balkenizing the North American continent, the nation that you enjoy would not exist today. The United States are just that, a war was fought and won to maintain this nation, and to make it a more just nation.

It always amazes me - the people who point to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to find justification for secession, are the same folks who discard the phrase "all men are created equal" and fought hard to uphold the right to legally hold human beings in bondage.

Since I am one of the people who are saying that the secession of the south was constitutional I challenge you to show were i fought to enslave anyone. The Civil War was almost 100 years before I was born, I was not there.

If you want to claim the major issue was slavery, please explain to me why Northern states had slaves even after the war began. Why did the Emancipation proclamation only addrees the issue of slavery in the South, and promise that they could keep their slaves if they returned to the Union before 1 January 1863?

You are misdefining issues as causes; they are two different things. Preserving the Union was the immediate issue of the war. Slavery was the primary cause of the war.

Ask paper view for copies of all of the documentation she has posted here and in other threads why the southerners of the time believed slavery to be the primary cause of the war. Good reading!

 

[hortysir]

So many errors in your posts.

...

Lincoln fired the first shot.

No, he didn't. You may consider he agitated, but he did not fire the first shot.

He proposed an amendment that would have made slavery legal, and up to the states, and and worded in such a way as to make it permanent. His home state of Illinois was the first state to ratify it, but the war escalated before others could sign it.

He did not propose that amendment. He wasn't even president when it was proposed and Illinois was not the first state to ratify it. It wasn't even the second.



Huh? Importation of slaves was abolished in 1808. What was your point with this comment?

Etched in stone, at the Lincoln Memorial, is his own words that say that his primary goal was to restore the Union.

"If I could free all the slaves and preserve the Union I would do that. If I could free none of the slaves and preserve the Union I would do that. If I could free some slaves and leave others is place and save the Union, I would do that also."

That isn't etched in stone in the Lincoln Memorial.

His second inaugural address and the Gettysburg Address is.
Suggest you read what really is etched in stone there:
Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

"...Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"

If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time,

He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.

Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether'

With malice toward none; with charity for all..."
​

Apologies for the "first shot" comment.
Agitated it? Yes.

One month after Lincoln was elected (you're right he didn't propose it, Buchanon did) it was proposed to leave slavery to the states.
Prior to his inauguration wouldn't Lincoln, as a Congressman, been instrumental in ratifying this?

"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
In other words, President Buchanan had signed a resolve that would have forever permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights. Only one State, Illinois, Lincoln's home state, had ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861.

And I assure you that inside the museum area of the Lincoln Memorial is a wall that has the entire speech of the quote I cited.


Truth is:

Lincoln was a white supremacist that cared more about keeping THESE United States joined as one country than he did about slaves.

The north was just as culpable in the slave trade for importing and selling the slaves as the south was for buying and using them.

Slaves weren't cheap and the majority of southerners weren't rich, so you can't fault the entire southern half for slavery.
The majority of Confederate soldiers only saw it as the Union army invading their homes and towns.


While you're digging and researching, Liberty, check out the origins of our Pledge of Allegiance

 

[paperview]

Kevin, the confeds grabbed fed properties wherever they could before offering to pay for them. Your problem is that you believe that a state is equal to the national government. When a state ratified the Constitution or later joined the union, it gave up its own sovereignty and adopted the principles of federalism. No where in the Constitution is a state granted the right to secession whereas Section I 8: 16 clearly gives the national government precedence over the states. The tail cannot wag the dog.

I'm in and out here, so I can't stay and debate like I'd like to, duties outside abound, but quicjkly...

You seem to have answered well some of the rebuttals.

There really was no serious effort to negotiate pay for federal properties. There would have had to have been some sort of treaty drawn up as well to allow access to some of the ports, IF. If...

Confederates out and out stole, then held Federal properties hostage. The "pay" thing is a red herring. They were never serious about paying for it, and correctly, yes, Lincoln would not have been willing to negotiate either.
Federal property bought and paid for by the entire citizenry was not negotiable.

As a historical note, it should be mentioned, BEFORE FORT SUMTER
- The South DID Fire on a ship sent to supply Fort Sumter PRIOR to the first shot we are much more familiar with. The name of the ship was Star of the West.

Read all about it: JANUARY 19, 1861
- Before Lincoln was even sworn into office.

They also seized a steamship, and made it their own:
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/major-anderson-ft-sumter_Dir/star-of-the-west.htm

 

[paperview]

So many errors in your posts.

...

Lincoln fired the first shot.

No, he didn't. You may consider he agitated, but he did not fire the first shot.
He did not propose that amendment. He wasn't even president when it was proposed and Illinois was not the first state to ratify it. It wasn't even the second.



Huh? Importation of slaves was abolished in 1808. What was your point with this comment?

That isn't etched in stone in the Lincoln Memorial.

His second inaugural address and the Gettysburg Address is.
Suggest you read what really is etched in stone there:
Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

"...Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"

If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time,

He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.

Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether'

With malice toward none; with charity for all..."
​

Apologies for the "first shot" comment.
Agitated it? Yes.

One month after Lincoln was elected (you're right he didn't propose it, Buchanon did) it was proposed to leave slavery to the states.
Prior to his inauguration wouldn't Lincoln, as a Congressman, been instrumental in ratifying this?

"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
In other words, President Buchanan had signed a resolve that would have forever permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights. Only one State, Illinois, Lincoln's home state, had ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861.

And I assure you that inside the museum area of the Lincoln Memorial is a wall that has the entire speech of the quote I cited.


Truth is:

Lincoln was a white supremacist that cared more about keeping THESE United States joined as one country than he did about slaves.

The north was just as culpable in the slave trade for importing and selling the slaves as the south was for buying and using them.

Slaves weren't cheap and the majority of southerners weren't rich, so you can't fault the entire southern half for slavery.
The majority of Confederate soldiers only saw it as the Union army invading their homes and towns.


While you're digging and researching, Liberty, check out the origins of our Pledge of Allegiance

No, Buchanan didn't either. It was called the Corwin Amendment because...hey, I'll give you 3 guesses to figure out who proposed it. (hint: It's in the name of the Amendment.)

I'm not going to continue with your little escapade of inaccuracies, cause it appears you are all over the map. (WTF? Pledge of Allegiance? What the hell does a Socialist composed oath written in 1892 have to do with this discussion?)
Frankly, you don't seem to be worth my time.

I'll be nicer when you're smarter. ;0

 

[paperview]

Maybe. But I would imagine most states on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line knew a war was inevitable....we'll never know.

True. Read any papers of the day at the time. The secession bubble had been building for a years and years before. Hell, in 1850 SC threatened to seceded and in 1852, a convention was held and secession was laid out.

It was positively inevitable. Lincoln, of the new anti-slavery party being elected, was the final straw.

If the North gave a damned about the <RACIST SLUR DELETED BY PAPERVIEW>, why did the North not free their own slaves during the conflict?

The fact you use such a disgusting term to refer to black people tells me all I need to know about you.

Thanks for saving me some time.

 

[paperview]

One other word to leave you with from Lincoln, in his 1862 Annual Message to Congress::

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free
&#8211;honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best, hope of earth."