Libby von H
Platinum Member
- Nov 10, 2023
- 2,828
- 1,372
- 893
- Thread starter
- #141
Well BIden killed an entire family by drones.Anastaplo criticized the use of drones against terror suspects. Truly fascinating guy.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well BIden killed an entire family by drones.Anastaplo criticized the use of drones against terror suspects. Truly fascinating guy.
Well BIden killed an entire family by drones.
Ten family members, including children, dead after US strike in Kabul
Well, I'm a big Lincoln fan, but we really cannot say that he "perfectly followed the Constitution." He unconstitutionally pro-rogued two Northern state legislatures after voters in those states elected anti-war majorities. He shut down dozens of Northern newspapers and jailed a number of newspaper editors on highly dubious grounds. He illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and then tried to have civilians put on trial by military courts, a move that the Supreme Court eventually slapped down in 1866 in Ex Parte Milligan.
I give Lincoln a pass for invading Virginia because the Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter made it impossible for him to do otherwise. Once Jefferson Davis committed the astonishing, idiotic blunder of having Fort Sumter bombarded, Lincoln had no viable, realistic choice but to resort to coercion, given the power of the Radical Republicans and the inflammation of Northern public opinion caused by the Confederate attack.
I agree with that, however many leaders in the South were equally radical and unwilling to compromise. Both sides seemed to think a war would be quickly concluded, with their side winning. This kind of deluded optimism for war has been repeated many times throughout history.LINCOLN’S DECISION: Despite desperate pleas by moderate Republicans (then clearly representing the party’s majority), president-elect Lincoln chose not to make any attempts at striking a deal that would avoid war. Publicly, he frustrated the efforts of those who were desperately trying to reach a peaceful compromise by refusing to speak out – maintaining a “paralyzed silence,” as the New York Herald complained. Privately, Lincoln sided solidly with those in the Radical Republican minority faction, telling them he would “hold firm” and refuse any agreement that included permitting slavery in any form in the territories. “Thus,” as Lincoln biographer Harold Holzer concluded, “compromise was doomed.”
Actually, Lincoln bent over backwards to appease the Confederacy before Ft SumpterThe truth of the matter is that Mr. Lincoln wanted war...he provoked the firing on Ft. Sumpter in order to have an excuse to invade the South.
![]()
Lincoln Chooses War, 1861
How America’s president led his country into the Civil War.www.historynet.com
Wrong.Actually, Lincoln bent over backwards to appease the Confederacy before Ft Sumpter
It was Southern Hotheads who forced the war
Bingo, you're too stupid to understand men like Lincoln or Grant or Lee.What happened to all these records you had? Now it's just your interpretation of Lincoln's words? And who gives a shit about that? I don't. I never argued Lincoln gave a shit about the slaves. The South sure did though and they were done trusting the North with what they thought was their God given right to human chattel. The left the Union over slavery and you can argue whatever the fuck you want about Lincolns motives for war but there would of been no war if the South hadn't left the Union to protect the institution of slavery.
Yankee tariffs on southern commodities. As in everything, dumbass.Because of secession. Now what was the reason for secession?
Nyukka you and a dictionary and thesaurus are far from friends.Because words only objectively mean what you say? Is that how you imagine definitions work?![]()
Southern states don't owe Northern states ary a fuckin' thing, and their goods should be sold at market prices, commie. To the highest bidder.Because of secession. Now what was the reason for secession?
Uhh..no.Even a 4th grader could explain it to you
It all came down to Slavery
You need to dump your Lost Cause Bullshit
People are Property? Dems thought do. That is why they stated the Civil War. All Dems are traitors.Let's consider one conspicuous example of Lincoln's respect for the Constitution:
The Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law..."
AND YET, President Lincoln purported to deprive the slave-owners of the Confederacy of their human chattel property by a simple Presidential declaration.
It was all bullshit, of course. It had to be done by a Constitutional Amendment, but Lincoln did attempt to take their property with no form of due process.
Yes slavery was a big part of the cause of the war, but it wasn’t the only cause. The South wanted it continued uncontrolled, which meant they wanted some western territories taken from Mexico to be slave states, so they could sell their excess slaves. They could see this wasn’t going to happen. They were radicals unwilling to compromise.Even a 4th grader could explain it to you
It all came down to Slavery
You need to dump your Lost Cause Bullshit
The war was far more costly than merely paying the few slave holders to free their slaves, as was done in many other western hemisphere nations. Had cooler heads prevailed, this terrible war could have been averted.
No other slave state had a war to free the slaves
The “higher plane” is that all roads to secession led to slavery.Uhh..no.
You need to get on a higher plane of thinking level..I think? Yeah, that.
Slavery in itself was merely an economic tool used to level the economic playing field of the southern states in their trade war with the South.The “higher plane” is that all roads to secession led to slavery.
Without slavery, there would have been no secession
The south didn’t “need” slaves to pick cotton. The cotton industry in the south went on without them and replaced them with sharecroppersSlavery in itself was merely an economic tool used to level the economic playing field of the southern states in their trade war with the South.
The Northern States had been receiving over 90% of the Federal Government subsidies and grants for infrastructure and industrial machinery. The South, if it had been given the same money, could have gotten tractors and processing equipment leaving the North a wasteland of desperate people.
The South resorted to more slavery due to the trade embargo with Europe enforced by the North.
The North was hardly more morally innocent than the South. The North used slave child labor of all races. These children were sent into machinery to fix feed jams and etc. Often they got maimed, poorly fed, and never educated in schools.
No one saved the children.
It wasn't until shortly before WW1 that school became compulsory and enforced....for a time until the depression.
It wasn't just cotton. It was corn, tobacco, spring wheat, sugar cane, lard, and basically all agricultural products.The south didn’t “need” slaves to pick cotton. The cotton industry in the south went on without them and replaced them with sharecroppers
There were no tractors in 1860. Cotton was picked by hand until the 1930s
Agree that the north was equally culpable for exploiting slave labor.
Compensating those Democrat slave owners would have been a far better choice, versus 850,000 dead Americans and half the nation destroyed and then, a century of terrible racism. Don’t you think?It was the election of Lincoln that sparked the secession. Hotheads spread misinformation that Lincoln was going to free your slaves, that slaves would run rampant chasing white women and “wouldn’t know their place”
Lincoln lacked the power or the inclination. He would have stopped expansion into the western territory.
Without secession, slavery would have been phased out within 20 years with owners receiving compensation.
Instead, slavery ended in four years and owners received no compensation.