That the Revolutionary generation held slaves was not the cause of the Revolution. Slavery was the entire cause of the Southern secession, by the admission, nay by the proud proclamation, of the secessionists themselves. That is the crucial distinction.
No, because he didn't give his men the okay to hang people on a whim. I have already posted his field orders, and they don't say anything of the sort. You're lying, and it's out there for everyone to see.
Kindly point out where I said the Union fought a war to end slavery. The South fought one to protect slavery, which does not automatically mean the opposite of Union forces. Though I must point out that Lincoln ran for reelection on a platform advocating the Thirteenth Amendment and that emancipation was a Union war aim by 1863, a fact of which Lincoln warned the border states and offered compensated emancipation before they simply lost their slaves anyway, a warning they refused to heed.
Under the absolute supremacy of the national government. I fail to see how the Supremacy Clause is difficult to read; "supreme law of the land" is rather unambiguous.
No. The disintegration of the Union in 1861 would have brought about the Balkanization of North America and the end of republican government in the world; it would have been taken as unmistakable evidence that a free people cannot govern themselves. In fact, the European elite, particularly Napoleon III, fervently hoped for Confederate success for just this reason; they knew a disunited states falling into squabbling, warring autocracies would both give them an example to point to for why they must stay in power, and would remove the United States as an obstacle to renewed American colonization. The failure of the Slave Power was and is the best hope for liberty in the history of the world.
No, the Slave Power. It was the name of the political power of the slave states in the antebellum Union and the Confederacy; they used it for themselves. I suggest more thoroughly grounding yourself in the history of the period if you wish to continue debating this, lest you continue to make yourself look the fool.
"Inhalation?"
What, are they asthmatic now? At any rate, the Union was not as pure as the driven snow, but it was a damned sight better than the rebel states, who refused to treat black Union soldiers as prisoners of war when captured, but rather placed them in bondage or shot them and their officers out of hand for the supposed crime of slave revolt. As for the loyalist slave states (of which there were four, not seven; I'm not sure where you got that), Lincoln did what was politically necessary to avoid driving them into the Confederacy. He moved against slavery as soon as it was politically feasible without blowing the entire war effort. To immediately declare abolition upon taking office would have been to lose the war and the nation with it.
That the Revolutionary generation held slaves was not the cause of the Revolution. Slavery was the entire cause of the Southern secession, by the admission, nay by the proud proclamation, of the secessionists themselves. That is the crucial distinction.
No, because he didn't give his men the okay to hang people on a whim. I have already posted his field orders, and they don't say anything of the sort. You're lying, and it's out there for everyone to see.
Kindly point out where I said the Union fought a war to end slavery. The South fought one to protect slavery, which does not automatically mean the opposite of Union forces. Though I must point out that Lincoln ran for reelection on a platform advocating the Thirteenth Amendment and that emancipation was a Union war aim by 1863, a fact of which Lincoln warned the border states and offered compensated emancipation before they simply lost their slaves anyway, a warning they refused to heed.
Under the absolute supremacy of the national government. I fail to see how the Supremacy Clause is difficult to read; "supreme law of the land" is rather unambiguous.
No. The disintegration of the Union in 1861 would have brought about the Balkanization of North America and the end of republican government in the world; it would have been taken as unmistakable evidence that a free people cannot govern themselves. In fact, the European elite, particularly Napoleon III, fervently hoped for Confederate success for just this reason; they knew a disunited states falling into squabbling, warring autocracies would both give them an example to point to for why they must stay in power, and would remove the United States as an obstacle to renewed American colonization. The failure of the Slave Power was and is the best hope for liberty in the history of the world.
No, the Slave Power. It was the name of the political power of the slave states in the antebellum Union and the Confederacy; they used it for themselves. I suggest more thoroughly grounding yourself in the history of the period if you wish to continue debating this, lest you continue to make yourself look the fool.
"Inhalation?"
What? Now you're just talking nonsense. The United States has experienced multiple revolutions; hell, by the strict definition there's one every four or eight years.
The fact that we have routine and nonviolent changes of government aside, there is no conceivable way you can disqualify the American Revolution as a revolution; it overthrew the existing governmental structure and replaced it with a totally new one. The Industrial Revolution is obvious, as is the resulting revolution in transportation bringing about fundamental changes of society revolving around specialization of production. The Civil War (and the election of 1860 for that matter) was itself revolutionary; it destroyed the entire antebellum social structure of the slave states, uprooted the plantation aristocracy, established federal supremacy once and for all in fact as well as law, released four million men, women, and children from bondage, and ended what had up until that point been near-total domination of the federal government by the South despite that section's far lesser proportion of the voting population. (It is eminently fair to say that this last was one of the fundamental causes of the war; faced with losing their ability to bully the free states using the bludgeon of federal power, the Slave Power embarked on a policy of rule or ruin, a fact pointed out by many at the time including some who ended up in high positions in the Confederate government.) Growth of federal power? I defy you to point out exactly what growth of federal power happened that triggered the secessions, as opposed to ones that happened after as a direct result of the war. The biggest growth of federal power up until that point in American history was in fact the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, a measure implemented by the South for its own benefit.
I have read it, several times. What part of this is hard to understand?
The states are absolutely unable to countermand federal law. Period. The end.
That's not what I said and you know it. I can cite numerous primary sources stating this; Napoleon III fervently hoped for and predicted this result for the express reason I named, and so did several members of the British nobility. Further, successful secession would cite the precedent of breaking up the government without any sort of due consideration any time a state doesn't get its way (the Continental Congress deliberated for fourteen months before deciding to declare independence from Britain, despite ongoing outrages and even armed conflict; South Carolina seceded from the Union before two months had passed from the election of 1860, before the Lincoln administration even took office, much less actually did anything), which absolutely would institute the Balkanization of North America.
I told you in the post you were quoting and now I'm going to tell you again. I have posted General William Tecumseh Sherman's field orders for the Georgia campaign in this thread already. They do not authorize hanging people without cause, and they ABSOLUTELY do not give soldiers carte blanche to commit rape. You are blatantly lying and everyone can see it.
West Virginia was organized as a free state. Arizona Territory was organized in 1863 under the Union Congress and did not have a slave code as a result; the organizational documents abolished slavery even though it never existed there in the first place. New Mexico had a slave code, but the census reported no actual slaves due to its unsuitability for the uses slaves were put to. In either case, Arizona and New Mexico weren't states. So your claim is still wrong in every particular.
No, he was banned because at 4:00 this morning he decided to show a picture of his gross erect hairy penis.
That is beyond sad.
It was gross.
Sure. Glad to. I have already posted an extensive essay I've written about the subject in another thread; the exact post may be found at this link. That should be sufficient evidence to go on; more can be dredged up (the section which produced the idea that slavery was a positive good and cotton was king was not exactly silent on the matter), but much more would simply belabor the point; the affirmed reasons given by four state secession conventions and the Vice President of the Confederate States is plenty of evidence.
God, I'm glad I missed that. I presume it was in response to me; he didn't have anything else of substance to say, did he?
