If only Abraham Lincoln had understood and obeyed the Constitution

[Sundance508]

The South would not compromise. They wanted slavery in the whole country or to leave the perpetual union.

They chose war.

Too bad the south couldn't handle state's rights. Namely, the rights of northern states to not return escaped slaves. That's one of the reasons the southern states stated as a reason for secession.

In contrast, the north was fine with the right of the southern states to hold slaves, while the south rejected state's rights. Slaver apologists like to pretend the opposite, but they're always revising history.

And if the south had separated, they'd still be holding slaves today. After all, the entire sick Confederate culture was slavery-based. And the conservatives would be fine with that.

On January 31, 1865, the United States Congress narrowly passed an amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery; that this was accomplished thanks to the American Civil War is undeniable. That destroying slavery became a primary goal of the Civil War, however, was not initially expected. Many northerners were extremely reluctant to abolish the institution. Could slavery have been abolished without the Civil War?

The abolishment of Slavery in the South could have been accomplished peacefully as it was in the rest of The Western World....it was already on its way out in the United States and, with time, would have died naturally due to the advancement of technology if nothing else...huge numbers of slaves would no longer have been required on the large plantations. How possible is that scenario, though?

Slavery was retreating across the nation, starting in the northeast and eventually the South. However, biology and geography explain this historical trend. Enslavement was never widespread in the North, not because northerners were more moral, but geography dictated that they did not need as many African workers. Malaria, which did not exist in the Americas before 1492, thrives where mosquitoes do--south of the Mason-Dixon line. Africans have a greater resistance to malaria and could survive the disease better than Europeans. That enslavement did not last in the North just means that black slaves were not ecologically necessary (and consequently, it was easier to jettison the practice when the revolutionary ideas of equality appeared in 1776).

Holding enslaved people was capitalistic and economical. An enslaved person was more than a worker, they were an investment. Many enslavers purchased slaves to grow their wealth, own collateral for borrowing, or profit from “breeding.” By the 1850s, Deep South slavers complained that Upper South states were becoming “breeder states,” where slave owners purchased female slaves to breed them and then sell the children. However repugnant, the practice was economical. Although the price of a slave by 1860 was around $800—which is $260,000 in 2011 dollars—this was still less than the cost of a paid worker. Remember, you only have to pay for a slave once. A wage earner is paid for every day he works. Slaves are cheaper than wage earners. Moreover, there was the tremendous (titanic is better) amount of money invested in enslaving humans. In 1860, the value of slaves was $2.5 billion, more than the value of all the land in the South.

Likewise today and for years---we have seen America rely on illegal mexican labor to do the work that Negroes would no longer do due to government welfare programs that sustained them...why work when the government will give you what you need to live?

The truth of the matter is that any advanced society must have a servant class.....are people working for minimum wage(and in the case of illegal mexicans...working for even less than that) really free? Much hyprocisy in America.

Meanwhilst we also buy cheap goods from China produced by slaves....where is the outrage. It is easy to beat up our Southern Culture of more than a couple of hundred years ago...but not to fret about going to Walmart to purchase the cheapest imports from China.

Would it not be better to establish a Legal Servant Class in America...pass laws to insure they be treated humanely and allow them to better themselves eventually and to gain citizenship once they have demonstrated they have the ability to support themselves and pay taxes?

Nonsense. The Turner thesis, modified or not, was exploded long ago.

Are you really that coinfused?

 

[DarkFury]

"There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868

I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation' as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.

Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.

Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'. Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'. Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs: he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.

Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
:

Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views

What If There Was No Civil War?

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." ... Faulkner.

so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?

Seems the RESIDENT fake lawyer does not recall the 1st letter of Confederacy done by the first continental Congress of the united States! The pre war government. Washington was elected by the second. Washington was actually elected as the 8th president of the united states NOT the first. You might want to read up on the articles of Confederacy of the FIRST Congress before you run your slut mouth!

And that mouth of yours is why you have no respect from your betters. Jillian has it right, and you still are two centuries behind.

My BETTERS? A fake lawyer and a fake conservative? Yeah, right faggot.

 

[Sundance508]

As I understand it, many people at that time sincerely felt that a state had a right to secede, for the Constitution is silent on this issue.

I personally feel that President Lincoln should have come to some compromise with the South in order to avoid what turned out to be four years of terrible suffering: many Northerners lost husbands and sons; many Southerners saw their cities destroyed.

I agree that many of our social problems today stem from the consequences of the Civil War.

Exactly............................Why Did Lincoln Invade the South? - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

 

[Sundance508]

"There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868

I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation' as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.

Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.

Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'. Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'. Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs: he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.

Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
:

Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views

What If There Was No Civil War?

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." ... Faulkner.

No United States as it's known now. No powerhouse of a country either..... Hitler might have won WW2, Germany might have won WW1 and the US might be speaking German.

The US had nothing to do with "winning"---sick fucking thought) WW2
They just tested a couple really cool bombs on the civilians of Hiro and Naga to prove they had a bigger dick. Russia took care of Hitler. FACT

Well, without the US the UK and USSR would have been struggling. Germany would have had more chance of grinding down the Russians, the Japanese would have been walking through the Far East..

If Lincoln had not initiated his illegal war against the South....and the South had managed to secede peacefully....the North and South would have eventually gotten back together .

A) And by 'initiating his 'illegal' war- you mean after the Confederacy attacked American Army troops in an American fort......
B) Why would the North and South have eventually gotten back together again? The Confederate States formed- as per their Consitution- to protect in perpetuity- their right to own slaves. That was the reason they seceded, it was the reason for their union- why would two nations that disagreed on the issue that caused the South to try to secede- join back together again?

Mr. Lincoln well knew if he attempted to re-supply a yankee fort in the South that would mean war...which is what he wanted and he is quoted to that effect.

Ron Paul Is Correct About 'Not So Honest' Abe Lincoln

 

[regent]

America's history would be far different today. States seceding, then joining other states then seceding again. And then the wars. the alliances the joining with other nations in the world and so on. What a mess we would be in today.

 

[Sundance508]

America's history would be far different today. States seceding, then joining other states then seceding again. And then the wars. the alliances the joining with other nations in the world and so on. What a mess we would be in today.

That would be 'one' way to look at it..but it would be the wrong way. Americans were too much alike and too close together and ultimately dependent on each other to have seperated for long. All the South wanted was to be treated fairly and for the constitution to be abided by....Mr. Lincoln had nefarious motives but he would have passed on and replaced by someone more rational and peace loving....if the costs ...tremendous costs in terms of lives, property and wealth had been avoided this nation would have progressed much more quickly than it did.

 

[Sundance508]

The South would not compromise. They wanted slavery in the whole country or to leave the perpetual union.

They chose war.

You are wrong and obviously know nothing of the Hampton Rds. Peace Conference.........Why Did Lincoln Invade the South? - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

 

[Sundance508]

The root problem was the refusal of certain individuals in certain states to abide by the documents that established a "Perpetual Union". The is no 'understanding' of the Constitution if the meaning of the words is ignored.

Why a war when virtually everyone was for peace? "Consensus historians" would have us believe that theirs is the only interpretation of history that we need to know. Their theory that slavery was the one and only "cause" of Lincoln's War is to be accepted blindly with no questions asked. They encourage us to join their idolatry of Lincoln for all the good he allegedly accomplished by having some two million Americans killed. But, there is far more to this story than they would ever wish us to know. Slavery had been an issue between and among the several states ever since the slave trade cranked up in New England in the 1600s. It was made legal and Party. Economics, commerce, taxes, power ... all became huge issues in the mid-1800s which gradually erupted into war in 1861. Were Major Anderson and his men truly starving? Had they been starving at Fort Moultrie? Did they receive supplies regularly at Fort Sumter? Why did a Union war fleet appear off the Charleston coast in April, 1861? Why a war fleet to deliver a "boatload of biscuit and pork?" Why a war instead of a national peace conference? constitutional by the Constitution itself when voted into existence by the State of New Hampshire. Five so-called "slave states" ratified the document, and eight so-called "free states" did the same. Eight free states! All thirteen, therefore, legalized slavery as well. Yet, when slavery was fully "passed on" to just the Southern states, the North became "fanatically abolitionist" and anti-South as noted by the extremist politics of the new RepublicanLearn many facts you were never taught in any history class. Learn who truly started this horrid war. Learn who wanted peace and who wanted power; what happened "at the North"; why the Border States did not secede.

"There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868

I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation' as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.

Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.

Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'. Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'. Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs: he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.

Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
:

Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views

What If There Was No Civil War?

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." ... Faulkner.

so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?

Chief Justice Roger Taney’s claim in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the Founders’ Constitution regarded blacks as “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”


Dred Scott decision

In 1857, the United States Supreme Court issues a decision in the Dred Scott case, affirming the right of slave owners to take their slaves into the Western territories.

At the heart of the case was the most important question of the 1850s: Should slavery be allowed in the West? As part of the Compromise of 1850, residents of newly created territories could decide the issue of slavery by vote, a process known as popular sovereignty. When popular sovereignty was applied in Kansas in 1854, however, violence erupted. Americans hoped that the Supreme Court could settle the issue that had eluded a congressional solution.

Dred Scott was a slave whose owner, an army doctor, had spent time in Illinois, a free state, and Wisconsin, a free territory at the time of Scott’s residence.

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote the majority decision, which was issued on March 6, 1857. The court held that Scott was not free based on his residence in either Illinois or Wisconsin because he was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution–in the opinion of the justices, black people were not considered citizens when the Constitution was drafted in 1787. According to Taney, Dred Scott was the property of his owner, and property could not be taken from a person without due process of law.

Slavery had been an issue between and among the several states ever since the slave trade cranked up in New England in the 1600s. It was made legal and constitutional by the Constitution itself when voted into existence by the State of New Hampshire. Five so-called "slave states" ratified the document, and eight so-called "free states" did the same. Eight free states! All thirteen, therefore, legalized slavery as well. Yet, when slavery was fully "passed on" to just the Southern states, the North became "fanatically abolitionist" and anti-South as noted by the extremist politics of the new Republican Party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The silliness of Sundance and dfvancleef is quite obvious.

You can yammer all you want, but the South chose war against the Perpetual Union and was slain for it.

DarkFury gets crazy when confronted by people who know better than him, who are classier than him, and who love America when he simply works for Russia's interest.

 

[Two Thumbs]

"There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868

I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation' as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.

Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.

Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'. Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'. Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs: he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.

Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
:

Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views

What If There Was No Civil War?

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." ... Faulkner.

WOW

I didn't get through all of that.

The absurdity of it was just to much for me.

The negro was created to be our slaves? What kind of mental dysfunction is needed to even consider that let alone put it down in writing?


God
Fucking
Damn

someone needs to reopen stormfront so these useless crackers can get into the echo chamber.

 

[jillian]

"There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868

I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation' as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.

Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.

Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'. Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'. Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs: he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.

Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
:

Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views

What If There Was No Civil War?

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." ... Faulkner.

so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?

Seems the RESIDENT fake lawyer does not recall the 1st letter of Confederacy done by the first continental Congress of the united States! The pre war government. Washington was elected by the second. Washington was actually elected as the 8th president of the united states NOT the first. You might want to read up on the articles of Confederacy of the FIRST Congress before you run your slut mouth!

And that mouth of yours is why you have no respect from your betters. Jillian has it right, and you still are two centuries behind.

My BETTERS? A fake lawyer and a fake conservative? Yeah, right faggot.

like the other trumptard loons, you wish, bubbalah.

send my love to Vlad,

you're so funny when you're hysterical and stamping your feet. go do a poop tweet like your orange Jesus.

 

[jillian]

The root problem was the refusal of certain individuals in certain states to abide by the documents that established a "Perpetual Union". The is no 'understanding' of the Constitution if the meaning of the words is ignored.

no. the problem was that southerners wanted to own people and northerners thought that was immoral.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only crazy people are suggesting that the black should be the slave of the white.

That was no acceptable reason for a civil war.

The US was the only nation in the Americas that required a war to end the sin and crime of slavery.

 

[there4eyeM]

There was no "Mr. Lincoln's War". Attempts at secession were against the founding documents of the nation. Thus, military acts to secede were outright treason. The fact that economics in the South necessitated the continuation of slavery gave the entire situation a socio-political twist that allows for convoluted argumentation. Nevertheless, it was the effort to renege on agreement to the "Perpetual Union" that led directly to war.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The South attacked Old Glory, the Constitution, and 71 years of perpetual union.

The leaders were most fortunate they were not executed.

 

[Sundance508]

The root problem was the refusal of certain individuals in certain states to abide by the documents that established a "Perpetual Union". The is no 'understanding' of the Constitution if the meaning of the words is ignored.

no. the problem was that southerners wanted to own people and northerners thought that was immoral.

My Dear I am sure you mean well and hopefully most will overlook your lack of historical knowledge and your desire to feel more moral than Southerners....just mere sectionalism on display...quite sad and of course just another reason this nation remains divided. Anyhow I will take a few moments to attempt to edumacate you.

Remember Yankee General U.S. Grant? At the beginning of the war, his wife owned slaves. At the end of the war, she still owned slaves.

Her slaves were freed only after the war by the Thirteenth Amendment, not by Lincoln’s utterly phony Emancipation Proclamation. Grant explained, “Good help is so hard to come by these days.” Of course Grant was a notorious drunk; maybe he was drunk when he said it. As President, he ran a crooked show. Maybe he was still drunk.

Did you know that about 6% – six per cent – 6% of Southern whites in 1860 owned slaves? Let’s see, would that not mean that 94% – ninety four per cent – 94% did not? Among the did notters was the immortal General Robert E. Lee. Other Southern leaders who did not own slaves were Generals Joseph Johnston, A.P. Hill, Fitzhugh Lee and J.E.B. Stuart.

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not, nor ever 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. . . . I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Who said that? Strom Thurmond? Adolf Hitler? No, the author of the statement was Abraham Lincoln, in an 1858 debate. Does that mean Lincoln was a Nazi skinhead? No, Lincoln was a Communist. Lincoln was our first Communist President.

Yankee Colonel John B. Turchin pillaged Athens, Alabama. In his presence or with his knowledge, his men “attempted an indecent outrage on a servant girl, destroyed a stock of fine Bibles, went to the plantation and quartered in the Negro huts for weeks, debauching the females, committed rape on the person of a colored girl.” They caused the miscarriage and death of a Mrs. Hollingsworth.

The truncated quotation above comes from the court-martial of Turchin, which also found that such outrages were perpetrated wherever Turchin went. Yes, this monster was even too foul for the Yankees. Notice that most of his victims in Athens were black. Indeed, Yankee soldiers ravished black women throughout the South. General Don Carlos Buell published the findings of the court-martial on August 6, 1862.

The matter went to Lincoln. What would you imagine that Communist monster did about this criminal who had been found guilty as charged? On August 5, 1862, after Turchin was convicted, the day before General Buell published the findings, Lincoln promoted Turchin to Brigadier General, in which capacity he served another two years.

The real reason for the war was not slavery but the tariff. Asked why the North did not just let the South go, Communist monster Lincoln exclaimed, “Let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues!” The New York Times ran many stories to the effect that Yankee commerce would be lost to New Orleans because of the low Southern tariff.

The New York Evening Post said this: “. . . Allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railways would be supplied from the southern ports.”

In other words, rather than compete, the Yankees elected to invade. As in an Al Jolson blackface routine, they belatedly chose slavery to becloud the utter criminality of their motives. To protect their profits they killed 600,000 men and innumerable civilians. They destroyed our federal system and gave all power to Washington, a danger the Founding Fathers feared most.

In 1807, New Jersey barred blacks from voting. In 1814, Connecticut did so. In 1822, Rhode Island did so. In 1838, Pennsylvania did so. In 1867, while Congress was forcing the South to accept unqualified suffrage, Ohio rejected a proposed law that would have allowed blacks there to vote. In New York City, Yankees kidnapped free blacks and sold them into slavery. There were 33 such cases in one year alone.

On April 2, 1862, Member of Congress John Sherman, brother of serial killer General W.T. Sherman, said this: “We do not like the negroes. We do not disguise our dislike. As my friend from Indiana said yesterday: ‘The whole people of the Northwestern States are opposed to having many negroes among them.’ . . .”

Slavery was a permanent institution among African blacks long before the first white man ever set foot on that continent. Long before the English (our permanent enemy) and the Yankees got into it, the Arabs created the international slave trade. According to the 1830 census, free blacks in this country owned more than 10,000 slaves.

In Sumter, South Carolina, in 1860, William Ellison, a free black, owned 70 slaves who worked his plantation. In St. Landry Parish, Louisiana, Auguste Donatto also owned 70 slaves. He needed that many to work his 500-acre plantation. Even in New York City, eight free blacks owned seventeen slaves in 1830.

Did you know that while the Yankees still owned and traded slaves, Virginia made it illegal to import them? The law was enacted on October 5, 1778, when Patrick Henry was governor. It stipulated that any slave brought into the state would be free. Even before that, the Virginia House of Burgesses had many times tried to stop the slave trade, but was overruled by the royal governor. Later, Yankee commercial interests participated in protecting the “infernal traffick.”

According to President John Adams, slavery in the North was abandoned only because white Yankee workers refused to compete with blacks. “. . . The common people would not suffer the labor, by which alone they could obtain a subsistence, to be done by blacks. If the gentlemen had been permitted by law to hold slaves, the common white people would have put the slaves to death, and their masters too perhaps.”

Did you know that thousands of blacks fought for the South in Confederate uniforms? Why have we never seen this in a movie? More than 3,000 black Confederates under the immortal Stonewall Jackson occupied Frederick, Maryland in 1862. According to Yankee Dr. Lewis Steiner, chief inspector of the U.S. Army Sanitary Commission, “Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. . . . and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army.”

Captain Arthur L. Fremantle was an English observer attached to Lee’s army. In 1863, in Gettysburg, he saw a black soldier in charge of white Yankee prisoners. Fremantle wrote this: “This little episode of a Southern slave leading a white Yankee soldier through a Northern village, alone and of his own accord, would not have been gratifying to an abolitionist. . . . Nor would the sympathizers both in England and in the North feel encouraged if they could hear the language of detestation and contempt with which the numerous Negroes with Southern armies speak of their liberators.”

Along these lines, what did Southern slaves say themselves? In the late 1930s, Washington sent WPA (Works Projects Administration) journalists to collect first-hand testimony from ex-slaves who were still alive. That testimony is maintained in the National Archives and is known as the “Narratives.”

No pretense is made here that all slaves felt as did the ones quoted below. Some may have strenuously disagreed. We also do not recommend that slavery be revived. (We are slaves of the federal government right now.) But the Kennedys report that “a vast majority (more than seventy percent) of ex-slaves had only good experiences to report about life as a slave and about the Old South.”

Simon Phillips, of Alabama, says this: “People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My Massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him. . . .Sometime we loaned the massa money when he was hard pushed.” (N.B. This is exactly the way the federal government recorded these statements – in dialect.)

Mary Rice, also of Alabama: “. . . Once when I was awful sick, Mistis Ma’y Jane had me brung in de Big House and put me in a room dat sot on de ‘other side of the kitchen so she could take kere of me herself…”

Elija Henry Hopkins, Little Rock: “I was fed just like I was one of the master’s children. They even done put me to bed with them. You see, this discrimination on color wasn’t as bad then as it is now. . . . In slavery times, a poor white man was worse off than a ******.”

Jane Georgiana, Alabama: “Ole Marster dead an’ gone an’ Ole Mistis too, but I ‘members ‘em jus’ lak dey was, when dey looked atter us whenst we belonged to ‘em or dey belong to us, I dunno which it was.”

Hannah Irwin, Alabama: “. . . An’ as for dey a-settin’ me free! Miss, us ******* on de Bennett place wuz free as soon as we wuz bawn. I always been free!”

At the very least, we have established that everything the Yankee monsters have told us is a lie. We need to know that, because only if we know the past can we influence the future. The Yankees understand that. Look at the enormous effort they have made to conceal it. Fellow Southerners, black and white! The “Lost Cause” of Southern liberty is not lost. The war goes on. As long as the principle of national independence survives, it lives!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sundance displays a most sophomoric grasp of the essentials of the Civil War and the history and culture leading up to the Southern revolt against human decency.

Be nice to him because he knows no better.

 

[Sundance508]

There was no "Mr. Lincoln's War". Attempts at secession were against the founding documents of the nation. Thus, military acts to secede were outright treason. The fact that economics in the South necessitated the continuation of slavery gave the entire situation a socio-political twist that allows for convoluted argumentation. Nevertheless, it was the effort to renege on agreement to the "Perpetual Union" that led directly to war.

A 'little knowledge' can be a dangerous thing as you aptly demonstrate and that was also a huge contributing factor in regards to how Northern Radicals influenced Mr. Lincoln's decision to invade the South and force them militarily to accept Yankee control.

Let me try to edumacate you or at least broaden your horizons.

The Civil War was largely fought over different interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. The right vs. the wrong interpetation aka The Truth of The Souths interpetation vs. The yankees fallacious interpetation.

The interpretative debate—and ultimately the war—turned on the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the meaning of a single word: sovereignty.

Southern leaders like John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis argued that the Constitution was essentially a contract between sovereign states—with the contracting parties retaining the inherent authority to withdraw from the agreement. Northern leaders like Abraham Lincoln insisted the Constitution was neither a contract nor an agreement between sovereign states. It was an agreement with the people, and once a state enters the Union, it cannot leave the Union.

It is a touchstone of American constitutional law that this is a nation based on federalism—the union of states, which retain all rights not expressly given to the federal government. After the Declaration of Independence, when most people still identified themselves not as Americans but as Virginians, New Yorkers or Rhode Islanders, this union of “Free and Independent States” was defined as a “confederation.” Some framers of the Constitution, like Maryland’s Luther Martin, argued the new states were “separate sovereignties.” Others, like Pennsylvania’s James Wilson, took the opposite view that the states “were independent, not Individually but Unitedly.”

Supporting the individual sovereignty claims is the fierce independence that was asserted by states under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which actually established the name “The United States of America.” The charter, however, was careful to maintain the inherent sovereignty of its composite state elements, mandating that “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.” It affirmed the sovereignty of the respective states by declaring, “The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence [sic].” There would seem little question that the states agreed to the Confederation on the express recognition of their sovereignty and relative independence. 


A convention was called in 1787 to amend the Articles of Confederation, but several delegates eventually concluded that a new political structure—a federation—was needed. As they debated what would become the Constitution, the status of the states was a primary concern. George Washington, who presided over the convention, noted, “It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all.” Of course, Washington was more concerned with a working federal government—and national army—than resolving the question of a state’s inherent right to withdraw from such a union. The new government forged in Philadelphia would have clear lines of authority for the federal system. The premise of the Constitution, however, was that states would still hold all rights not expressly given to the federal government.

Lincoln's views disregarded the Constitution but prevailed my military force.

On January 21, 1861, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi went to the well of the U.S. Senate one last time to announce that he had “satisfactory evidence that the State of Mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the United States.” Before resigning his Senate seat, Davis laid out the basis for Mississippi’s legal claim, coming down squarely on the fact that in the Declaration of Independence “the communities were declaring their independence”—not “the people.” He added, “I have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of state sovereignty, the right of a state to secede from the Union.”

Davis’ position reaffirmed that of John C. Calhoun, the powerful South Carolina senator who had long viewed the states as independent sovereign entities. In an 1833 speech upholding the right of his home state to nullify federal tariffs it believed were unfair, Calhoun insisted, “I go on the ground that [the] constitution was made by the States; that it is a federal union of the States, in which the several States still retain their sovereignty.” Calhoun allowed that a state could be barred from secession by a vote of two-thirds of the states under Article V, which lays out the procedure for amending the Constitution.

Lincoln’s inauguration on March 4, 1861, was one of the least auspicious beginnings for any president in history. His election was used as a rallying cry for secession, and he became the head of a country that was falling apart even as he raised his hand to take the oath of office. His first inaugural address left no doubt about his legal position: “No State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.”

While Lincoln expressly called for a peaceful resolution, this was the final straw for many in the South who saw the speech as a veiled threat...and their views regarding Lincoln proved correct.


Lincoln implicitly rejected the view of his predecessor, James Buchanan. Buchanan agreed that secession was not allowed under the Constitution, but he also believed the national government could not use force to keep a state in the Union

Lincoln's scruples did not stop him from clearly violating the Constitution when he suspended habeas corpus in 1861 and 1862. His argument also rejects the suggestion of people like Calhoun that, if states can change the Constitution under Article V by democratic vote, they can agree to a state leaving the Union. Lincoln’s view was absolutist in nature and treated secession as nothing more than rebellion. Ironically, as Lincoln himself acknowledged, that places the states in the same position as the Constitution’s framers (and presumably himself as King George).

The South did in fact secede because it was unwilling to accept decisions by a majority in Congress. Davis and Calhoun’s argument was compelling under the Articles of Confederation, where there was no express waiver of withdrawal. The reference to the “perpetuity” of the Union in the Articles and such documents as the Northwest Ordinance does not necessarily mean each state is bound in perpetuity, but that the nation itself is so created.

Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution says states can not secede. What was needed for the sake of clarity was a duly enacted amendment to the Constitution that would allow secession. In such a case, Lincoln would clearly have been warring against the democratic process he claimed to defend.

The controversy of State's rights was not settled by the Civil War. The Civil war merely deprived the South of its Constitutional Rights by military force....for the time being at least.

 

[there4eyeM]

Perpetual Union.

 

[Syriusly]

As I understand it, many people at that time sincerely felt that a state had a right to secede, for the Constitution is silent on this issue.

I personally feel that President Lincoln should have come to some compromise with the South in order to avoid what turned out to be four years of terrible suffering: many Northerners lost husbands and sons; many Southerners saw their cities destroyed.

I agree that many of our social problems today stem from the consequences of the Civil War.

Exactly how do you imagine Lincoln should have 'compromised' with the Confederate States who wanted to leave the United States to preserve slavery?

Remember- the Confederate states didn't even wait for Lincoln to be inaugerated to start trying to seceed.

And actually- Lincoln really did try to compromise with them- but it all was predicated on the states remaining in the Union- which they were determined not to do.