Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The was a rebellion in the United States. The United States put down the rebellion.

No there wasn't. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles invaded sovereign nations that had seceded.

If your children ran away from home, do you think that gives you the right to kill them?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The was a rebellion in the United States. The United States put down the rebellion.

No there wasn't. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles invaded sovereign nations that had seceded.

If your children ran away from home, do you think that gives you the right to kill them?

They were not a sovereign nation. Lincoln took action on American soil.

 

[Syriusly]

The was a rebellion in the United States. The United States put down the rebellion.

No there wasn't. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles invaded sovereign nations that had seceded.

If your children ran away from home, do you think that gives you the right to kill them?

So you consider the Confederate States children?

Part of the United States illegally attempted to secede in order to protect the institution of slavery- which is commonly called a rebellion. In the process they fired on Americans troops.

The United States, after being attacked by the rebels, put down the rebellion.

And incidentally freed the slaves of the rebellious states, and ultimately lead to the freedom of all slaves.

We do know that the Civil War resulted in the end of legal slavery in the United States.
If there was no Civil War, then there could very well still be the Confederation of Slave Owning States in the South to this day.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Says who? So your theory is that everything not expressly permitted is prohibited?

You realize that your theory is an idiocy of fascism, don't you?

There was no legally established way to leave the union. It wasn't that it wasn't possible, it was simply not possible without consideration of the union and their legal rights.

For example a state couldn't unilaterally decide to leave then open fire on a fort. That would be an open act of rebellion by force as opposed to an appeal to the legality of their act of secession.

I will say this again in the hope it will sink in. The South didn't take the legal route. They chose force and they lost. If they chose to subject themselves to the law then your argument would have been settled by the law. That never happened because the decisions made by the South, not the north.

The invasion was an act of the North. There was no war before that.

The use of force to settle the dispute was started by the South by the attack on Ft Sumpter. There were attempts at negotiating peace by the north but the south wouldn't have it. The north went to reclaim their territory that was taken by force and the South fought to maintain that land with force.

The most obvious parallel is not a legal secession but a Declaration of Independence that was not subject to the written law but natural laws as the American Revolution was. It was a war that was started based on the South's belief that they were morally right in defending their property rights with force just like how the Founding Fathers were morally right in defending their property rights with force.

The major problem was that the South wasn't morally right and when it came to a test of force versus force they lost. To try and re-write history so that they were not morally wrong and not the ones to start the conflict is intellectually dishonest to the point of absurdity. You can lie to yourself all you want but the history is very clear.

How was the South not morally right and the British colonies were? Expound.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Says who? So your theory is that everything not expressly permitted is prohibited?

You realize that your theory is an idiocy of fascism, don't you?

The reason that 'secession' need not be word for word prohibited in the Constitution is because secession involves a multitude of other actions that violate Federal law.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The was a rebellion in the United States. The United States put down the rebellion.

No there wasn't. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles invaded sovereign nations that had seceded.

If your children ran away from home, do you think that gives you the right to kill them?

So you consider the Confederate States children?

Part of the United States illegally attempted to secede in order to protect the institution of slavery- which is commonly called a rebellion. In the process they fired on Americans troops.

The United States, after being attacked by the rebels, put down the rebellion.

And incidentally freed the slaves of the rebellious states, and ultimately lead to the freedom of all slaves.

We do know that the Civil War resulted in the end of legal slavery in the United States.
If there was no Civil War, then there could very well still be the Confederation of Slave Owning States in the South to this day.

The North wanted to preserve slavery too. It was the most lucrative industry they had. If you can't understand that simple fact, there's nothing to discuss.

 

[Syriusly]

And? None of that is a response to my post.

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

How does an act that was entirely legal justify an invasion and killing 830,000 people?

Because secession wasn't legal, and because American troops had been attacked by rebel forces, resulting in a war were both sides ended up killing 830,000 people.

If the Confederate states had not seceded to protect their human property and then attacked American troops- there would have been no war.

 

[Faun]

It wasn't another nation. You are making up facts again. It was a rebellion. The rebels attacked the Union first. They started acting before Lincoln was even sworn in. They openly gave cause for their rebellion and didn't leave it up to the rule of law. They modeled their reasons off of the DOI, except they were defending their violation of the rights of people as opposed to protecting them.

Small but important difference.

I can sum up your post in two words: Nuh uhn!

All you do is repeat the same horseshit over and over and over like a mantra. If that's what it take to salve your guilty conscience.

I'll list my pat responses to your bullshit talking points.

#1. Secession wasn't a rebellion.
#2. It doesn't matter why they seceded. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves.
#3. Ending slavery wasn't sufficient cause for invading a state of the union. It was legal.
#4. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war.

In the future just refer to one of these whenever you indulge the compulsion to regurgitate your list of talking points.

Secession was a rebellion as established by them attacking the Union, not attempting to establish their secession legally but through force, and their own words when they seceded which leave no room for doubt that their leaving was going to be done with or without the laws say because they didn't need the rule of law just like the founding fathers didn't.

Yes it matters why the South left. It was their actions more than anyone one else's that lead to war. Their secession, their military action, their claims on the property of the Union, their raising of arms to resist the law, their fears of abolitionism, their desire to maintain slavery, their disregard for the lives of Union soldiers, their disregard for the bonds they created.

I am glad you finally recognize that one cannot invade itself. Lincoln was President of the Union and can't invade a state of the union. He can move troops within the union to put down a rebellion though.

Claiming territory with military force has started plenty of wars. Making a DOI like document can start wars.

Thank you for organizing your delusions so well. It is clear they all stem from the fact that you just ignore reality when it doesn't suit you and then use poor logic to come to silly conclusions.

Here is some reading for you straight from your heroes.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

I refer you to responses #1, #2, #3 and #4.

You just keep repeating the same shit over and over again.

Here's one more.

#5. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war.

Oh, and here's another.

#6. The OP contains the evidence that unilateral secession was perfectly legal. No one in this thread has posted a shred of evidence to the contrary.

The federal government wasn't trespassing. They were on federal territory in a federal fort.

The U.S. Constitution:

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power ......

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;​

South Carolina Committee on Federal Relations:

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded​

We've already been over this 1000 times. South Carolina gave the property rights to Ft Sumter to the federal government. It maintained their legal control over the area. The document you quoted even says so.

What part of

Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; ​

don't you understand?

One civil process they retained is the right to kick out Yankee trespassers.

They did not. Folks on their own property are not trespassers and you can't kick out folks who are on their own property. All South Carolina maintained was the ability to process serve all people on that property who violated South Carolina law. This was to prevent fugitives of the law from seeking asylum in the fort.

What part of ...

this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim..."​

... don't you understand?

 

[Bombur]

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Says who? So your theory is that everything not expressly permitted is prohibited?

You realize that your theory is an idiocy of fascism, don't you?

There was no legally established way to leave the union. It wasn't that it wasn't possible, it was simply not possible without consideration of the union and their legal rights.

For example a state couldn't unilaterally decide to leave then open fire on a fort. That would be an open act of rebellion by force as opposed to an appeal to the legality of their act of secession.

I will say this again in the hope it will sink in. The South didn't take the legal route. They chose force and they lost. If they chose to subject themselves to the law then your argument would have been settled by the law. That never happened because the decisions made by the South, not the north.

The invasion was an act of the North. There was no war before that.

The use of force to settle the dispute was started by the South by the attack on Ft Sumpter. There were attempts at negotiating peace by the north but the south wouldn't have it. The north went to reclaim their territory that was taken by force and the South fought to maintain that land with force.

The most obvious parallel is not a legal secession but a Declaration of Independence that was not subject to the written law but natural laws as the American Revolution was. It was a war that was started based on the South's belief that they were morally right in defending their property rights with force just like how the Founding Fathers were morally right in defending their property rights with force.

The major problem was that the South wasn't morally right and when it came to a test of force versus force they lost. To try and re-write history so that they were not morally wrong and not the ones to start the conflict is intellectually dishonest to the point of absurdity. You can lie to yourself all you want but the history is very clear.

How was the South not morally right and the British colonies were? Expound.

The moral foundation of the DOI and war was one of natural rights and the government's failure to secure those rights. That a government that failed to secure those rights can be destroyed through force. In the world view of the South they were morally right because they equated people to property. From a moral standpoint based on the inherent rights of people it is very difficult to complain about the government not respecting your "right" to enslave another person.

Slavery was always in conflict with the moral foundation of the DOI. This is what Lincoln ran on and what gained him support in the north and enemies in the south. These arguments are well laid out in the causes given by the Southern states for their rebellion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Many of the states that seceded immediately seized Federal property, including military installations and armaments.

Those actions in and of themselves were acts justifying a Federal response.

 

[Syriusly]

The was a rebellion in the United States. The United States put down the rebellion.

No there wasn't. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles invaded sovereign nations that had seceded.

If your children ran away from home, do you think that gives you the right to kill them?

So you consider the Confederate States children?

Part of the United States illegally attempted to secede in order to protect the institution of slavery- which is commonly called a rebellion. In the process they fired on Americans troops.

The United States, after being attacked by the rebels, put down the rebellion.

And incidentally freed the slaves of the rebellious states, and ultimately lead to the freedom of all slaves.

We do know that the Civil War resulted in the end of legal slavery in the United States.
If there was no Civil War, then there could very well still be the Confederation of Slave Owning States in the South to this day.

The North wanted to preserve slavery too. It was the most lucrative industry they had. If you can't understand that simple fact, there's nothing to discuss.

Sigh. Slavery was the most lucrative industry the South had- i.e. the production of new slaves was the primary basis of wealth in most of the slave owning states (not all- some like Delaware had very few slaves).

The 'North' elected the new anti-slavery Republican Party because most of the voters in the North were opposed to the institution of slavery, even if they were not actually abolitionists.

Lincoln was a moderate within the Republican Party- his goals were to prevent expansion of slavery into the Western States- and to preserve the Union. If the slave owning states of the Confederacy had not attempted to leave to protect their human property, Lincoln would have done nothing more than what he did with Maryland- which was propose compensated and gradual emancipation.

But the Confederate slave owning States gambled wrong- and that cost them lots of lives- and all of their slaves.

 

[Syriusly]

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Says who? So your theory is that everything not expressly permitted is prohibited?

You realize that your theory is an idiocy of fascism, don't you?

There was no legally established way to leave the union. It wasn't that it wasn't possible, it was simply not possible without consideration of the union and their legal rights.

For example a state couldn't unilaterally decide to leave then open fire on a fort. That would be an open act of rebellion by force as opposed to an appeal to the legality of their act of secession.

I will say this again in the hope it will sink in. The South didn't take the legal route. They chose force and they lost. If they chose to subject themselves to the law then your argument would have been settled by the law. That never happened because the decisions made by the South, not the north.

The invasion was an act of the North. There was no war before that.

The use of force to settle the dispute was started by the South by the attack on Ft Sumpter. There were attempts at negotiating peace by the north but the south wouldn't have it. The north went to reclaim their territory that was taken by force and the South fought to maintain that land with force.

The most obvious parallel is not a legal secession but a Declaration of Independence that was not subject to the written law but natural laws as the American Revolution was. It was a war that was started based on the South's belief that they were morally right in defending their property rights with force just like how the Founding Fathers were morally right in defending their property rights with force.

The major problem was that the South wasn't morally right and when it came to a test of force versus force they lost. To try and re-write history so that they were not morally wrong and not the ones to start the conflict is intellectually dishonest to the point of absurdity. You can lie to yourself all you want but the history is very clear.

How was the South not morally right and the British colonies were? Expound.

The colonies were not signatories to the Constitution, as were the rebel slave owning states.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Apply the OP logic elsewhere in that era and you would come to the conclusion that John Brown was unjustly hanged.

 

[Unkotare]

Is the idiot OP still going on about this?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The was a rebellion in the United States. The United States put down the rebellion.

No there wasn't. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles invaded sovereign nations that had seceded.

If your children ran away from home, do you think that gives you the right to kill them?

So you consider the Confederate States children?

Part of the United States illegally attempted to secede in order to protect the institution of slavery- which is commonly called a rebellion. In the process they fired on Americans troops.

The United States, after being attacked by the rebels, put down the rebellion.

And incidentally freed the slaves of the rebellious states, and ultimately lead to the freedom of all slaves.

We do know that the Civil War resulted in the end of legal slavery in the United States.
If there was no Civil War, then there could very well still be the Confederation of Slave Owning States in the South to this day.

The North wanted to preserve slavery too. It was the most lucrative industry they had. If you can't understand that simple fact, there's nothing to discuss.

Sigh. Slavery was the most lucrative industry the South had- i.e. the production of new slaves was the primary basis of wealth in most of the slave owning states (not all- some like Delaware had very few slaves).

The 'North' elected the new anti-slavery Republican Party because most of the voters in the North were opposed to the institution of slavery, even if they were not actually abolitionists.

Lincoln was a moderate within the Republican Party- his goals were to prevent expansion of slavery into the Western States- and to preserve the Union. If the slave owning states of the Confederacy had not attempted to leave to protect their human property, Lincoln would have done nothing more than what he did with Maryland- which was propose compensated and gradual emancipation.

But the Confederate slave owning States gambled wrong- and that cost them lots of lives- and all of their slaves.

They elected him because they were opposed to the SPREAD of slavery and because he promised repeatedly not to abolish it. And every slave ship was manufactured in the North and Boston and New York thrived off of the perpetuation of slavery. You got your head so far up your ass you actually think the North were the good guys in all this. Such astounding ignorance makes an intelligent discussion on this topic impossible.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Is the idiot OP still going on about this?

Looks like the ankle biter is back.

 

[Faun]

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Says who? So your theory is that everything not expressly permitted is prohibited?

You realize that your theory is an idiocy of fascism, don't you?

There was no legally established way to leave the union. It wasn't that it wasn't possible, it was simply not possible without consideration of the union and their legal rights.

For example a state couldn't unilaterally decide to leave then open fire on a fort. That would be an open act of rebellion by force as opposed to an appeal to the legality of their act of secession.

I will say this again in the hope it will sink in. The South didn't take the legal route. They chose force and they lost. If they chose to subject themselves to the law then your argument would have been settled by the law. That never happened because the decisions made by the South, not the north.

The invasion was an act of the North. There was no war before that.

Bullshit. The war started when the confederacy attacked a federal fort.

 

[Bombur]

The was a rebellion in the United States. The United States put down the rebellion.

No there wasn't. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles invaded sovereign nations that had seceded.

If your children ran away from home, do you think that gives you the right to kill them?

So you consider the Confederate States children?

Part of the United States illegally attempted to secede in order to protect the institution of slavery- which is commonly called a rebellion. In the process they fired on Americans troops.

The United States, after being attacked by the rebels, put down the rebellion.

And incidentally freed the slaves of the rebellious states, and ultimately lead to the freedom of all slaves.

We do know that the Civil War resulted in the end of legal slavery in the United States.
If there was no Civil War, then there could very well still be the Confederation of Slave Owning States in the South to this day.

The North wanted to preserve slavery too. It was the most lucrative industry they had. If you can't understand that simple fact, there's nothing to discuss.

Sigh. Slavery was the most lucrative industry the South had- i.e. the production of new slaves was the primary basis of wealth in most of the slave owning states (not all- some like Delaware had very few slaves).

The 'North' elected the new anti-slavery Republican Party because most of the voters in the North were opposed to the institution of slavery, even if they were not actually abolitionists.

Lincoln was a moderate within the Republican Party- his goals were to prevent expansion of slavery into the Western States- and to preserve the Union. If the slave owning states of the Confederacy had not attempted to leave to protect their human property, Lincoln would have done nothing more than what he did with Maryland- which was propose compensated and gradual emancipation.

But the Confederate slave owning States gambled wrong- and that cost them lots of lives- and all of their slaves.

They elected him because they were opposed to the SPREAD of slavery and because he promised repeatedly not to abolish it. And every slave ship was manufactured in the North and Boston and New York thrived off of the perpetuation of slavery. You got your head so far up your ass you actually think the North were the good guys in all this. Such astounding ignorance makes an intelligent discussion on this topic impossible.

Lincoln repeatedly argued against slavery period. It is important to draw a distinction between what Lincoln would have wanted in his ideal world and what he fought for politically. He was very willing to compromise his beliefs on slavery to prevent war. You are referencing his compromise.

The south was mad at the north for not returning slaves back to the south. They saw the entire Republican party as an enemy to their "property" rights. Once again read up on their reasons for the rebellion. It is their perspective that is what really matters since it was their decisions that drove us toward war.

You accuse others of ignorance but everything you said demonstrates an incomplete and slanted view of reality. Just because ships were built in the north that doesn't mean there wasn't wide spread support for ending the institution of slavery. Your logic is just bad.

 

[Faun]

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Wrong! Get it through your thick deer skull. The states created the Constitution and the states can change it or even dissolve it with or without permission from the federal government. The original power is with the states. You Libtards seem to think the federal government sprang forth from nothing and created the states. Read a history book.

States can change it through the amendment process not war.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Hooked On Phonics didn't work for you. Learn to spell, dumbass.

Are you baked? He didn't misspell any words in that post.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No there wasn't. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles invaded sovereign nations that had seceded.

If your children ran away from home, do you think that gives you the right to kill them?

So you consider the Confederate States children?

Part of the United States illegally attempted to secede in order to protect the institution of slavery- which is commonly called a rebellion. In the process they fired on Americans troops.

The United States, after being attacked by the rebels, put down the rebellion.

And incidentally freed the slaves of the rebellious states, and ultimately lead to the freedom of all slaves.

We do know that the Civil War resulted in the end of legal slavery in the United States.
If there was no Civil War, then there could very well still be the Confederation of Slave Owning States in the South to this day.

The North wanted to preserve slavery too. It was the most lucrative industry they had. If you can't understand that simple fact, there's nothing to discuss.

Sigh. Slavery was the most lucrative industry the South had- i.e. the production of new slaves was the primary basis of wealth in most of the slave owning states (not all- some like Delaware had very few slaves).

The 'North' elected the new anti-slavery Republican Party because most of the voters in the North were opposed to the institution of slavery, even if they were not actually abolitionists.

Lincoln was a moderate within the Republican Party- his goals were to prevent expansion of slavery into the Western States- and to preserve the Union. If the slave owning states of the Confederacy had not attempted to leave to protect their human property, Lincoln would have done nothing more than what he did with Maryland- which was propose compensated and gradual emancipation.

But the Confederate slave owning States gambled wrong- and that cost them lots of lives- and all of their slaves.

They elected him because they were opposed to the SPREAD of slavery and because he promised repeatedly not to abolish it. And every slave ship was manufactured in the North and Boston and New York thrived off of the perpetuation of slavery. You got your head so far up your ass you actually think the North were the good guys in all this. Such astounding ignorance makes an intelligent discussion on this topic impossible.

Lincoln repeatedly argued against slavery period. It is important to draw a distinction between what Lincoln would have wanted in his ideal world and what he fought for politically. He was very willing to compromise his beliefs on slavery to prevent war. You are referencing his compromise.

The south was mad at the north for not returning slaves back to the south. They saw the entire Republican party as an enemy to their "property" rights. Once again read up on their reasons for the rebellion. It is their perspective that is what really matters since it was their decisions that drove us toward war.

You accuse others of ignorance but everything you said demonstrates an incomplete and slanted view of reality. Just because ships were built in the north that doesn't mean there wasn't wide spread support for ending the institution of slavery. Your logic is just bad.

More ignorance. He didn't try all that hard to stop a bloody war. He was a sick man, drunk on power, using the Alien and Sedition Act to prosecute political opponents, ordering the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested and taking the first chance he got to plunge the continent into a state of war. The fact that you Leftwats think he was a good guy proves Bripat right. You really are Lincoln cultists.