If the Confederacy was all about states rights..

Yes, you find being proven an idiot disturbing. Real facts have to be avoided and the fantasy narrative adhered to. Like I said, pretending to be 'anti-slavery' is just a modern thing carried out for personal aggrandizement. You've never in your life lifted a finger to free anybody, and you wouldn't have back then, either; you're just another fraud trying to bullshit us.

I like the way you follow your own ideas. Like US slave labour being paid as a general thing.


Employ Picaro, people. He will work for shoes.
 
Lincoln is one of those American icons that are above criticism. After he was assassinated the novelists of the time immediately went to work polishing Lincoln's legacy in book after book. We learned that he preserved the Union but the truth is that the Union fell apart under his watch and he sacrificed a generation of men to put it back together.
 
Lincoln is one of those American icons that are above criticism. After he was assassinated the novelists of the time immediately went to work polishing Lincoln's legacy in book after book. We learned that he preserved the Union but the truth is that the Union fell apart under his watch and he sacrificed a generation of men to put it back together.
It was Buchanan and Pierce who gave Lincoln such a poor hand to play.

Yet he did very, very well.
 
It was Buchanan and Pierce who gave Lincoln such a poor hand to play.

Yet he did very, very well.
Was he in a coma before the election? Lincoln should have made deals and promises and kissed ass or done whatever he could to keep from civil war. Who the hell was he listening to?
 
Not you, whitehall, thank heavens. He had intransigent southerners to face who had been emboldened by the failure of Pierce and Buchanen.
 
Not you, whitehall, thank heavens. He had intransigent southerners to face who had been emboldened by the failure of Pierce and Buchanen.
OK, Pierce and Buchanan were criminally negligent and Lincoln was so ignorant that he thought a war against his own fellow Americans would only last a couple of months.
 
OK, Pierce and Buchanan were criminally negligent and Lincoln was so ignorant that he thought a war against his own fellow Americans would only last a couple of months.
Was he any different than any other warmongering southerner or northerner?

What is your point here: that unexpected events happen? Ask Bush and Rumsfeld if that is true.
 
OK, Pierce and Buchanan were criminally negligent and Lincoln was so ignorant that he thought a war against his own fellow Americans would only last a couple of months.
The Confederates thought the same thing, as did both sides in WWI and WWII. Everyone goes to war expecting a quick, cheap victory.
 
Then where in the constitution does it talk about collecting money?
Article 1 Sec. 2

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Article 1 Sec. 8

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

Article 1 Sec. 9

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
 
But the Union wasn't supposedly all about States having all the power.
I find it interesting that now that the Republicans have gained control of the federal government blue states are talking more support for states' rights. California is considering how they can provide state resistance to federal priorities; Those that once opposed resistance and insurgency now seem to be supporting resistance and insurgencies. It seems that liberals only believe in federalism when it serves their ends otherwise, they want an all-powerful central government. Is that not hypocrisy?
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting that now that the Republicans have gained control of the federal government blue states are talking more support for states' rights. California is considering how they can provide state resistance to federal priorities; Those that once opposed resistance and insurgency now seem to be supporting resistance and insurgencies. It seems that liberals only believe in federalism when it serves their ends otherwise, they want an all-powerful central government. Is that not hypocrisy?

Maybe, but hypocrisy is everywhere. People will use whatever they can to get power. Happens to the Republicans as often as it happens to the Democrats.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom