New Website on the American Civil War

[ding]

he openly supports having Blacks as slaves.

Apparently he's too much of a coward to admit it again.

 

[mikegriffith1]

he was trying to avoid a war,

You're avoiding the point. Obviously, you're going to continue to dance around facts that you just can't fit into your narrative.

The one and only meaningful difference between the Confederate constitution and the U.S. Constitution on slavery is that the latter did not use the word "slavery" or "slaves." Slavery was just as firmly protected by the U.S. Constitution as it was by the Confederate constitution. Under both constitutions, states could abolish slavery within their boundaries but the national government had no power to do so.

ding said:
It seems to me those "radical" republicans got the war they wanted but not the way they wanted it or when they wanted it.

Let me tell you a few facts about the Radical Republicans:

-- They had no regard for the Constitution.

-- They were lawless and dishonorable.

-- They hated Lincoln with a passion.

-- They sabotaged McClellan's peninsula campaign, which prolonged the war for at least one year and quite possibly two. They then talked Lincoln into relieving McClellan, even though McClellan had just won the crucial Battle of Antietam and had then forced Lee to split his army in Virginia and was on the verge of pouncing on Lee.

-- Most of them were bloodthirsty fanatics who hated the South and hated any Northerner who did not share their rabid hatred.

-- Many of them were racists themselves who wanted nothing to do with blacks.

-- Some of them tried to frame President Andrew Johnson for Lincoln's murder using bogus evidence.

-- They imprisoned and hung people on the basis of flimsy or phony evidence.

I discuss the Radical Republicans at much greater length in two articles:

Gideon Welles and the Radical Republicans

Northern Realities, Southern Secession, and Slavery

 

[Quantrill]

you openly support slavery what's to get?

The U.S. Constitution, openly supported slavery. What's to get? The Supreme Court openly supported slavery. What's to get?

You despise the Constitution. You despise America. You're the traitor...and your ilk.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Until you deny being a white supremacist, I don't have to prove it. You are one.

What a revelation. You can make a claim, an accusation, and you don't have to prove it. You just saying it is proof...to you. Yet I am supposed to provide proof, but dumbass in glasses just needs to say it. What a joke you are. You are an embarrassment to the forum.

What a perverted form of judicial reckoning.

You're supposed to be innocent till proven guilty. But not by dumbass in glasses. You're guilty because dumbass in glasses says so, and because you don't say you're not. Yet he can't provide proof that I am, other than he says so.

Apparently he's too much of a coward to admit it again.

Show me in our discussion where I have admitted it at all.

I have changed my position. You're not a 'dumbass in glasses'. You're a 'dumbmule in glasses'. You got no balls. You're the burdizzo with glasses.

So, burdizzo, when you grow a pair, prove your accusations.

Quantrill

 

[ding]

What a revelation. You can make a claim, an accusation, and you don't have to prove it. You just saying it is proof...to you. Yet I am supposed to provide proof, but dumbass in glasses just needs to say it. What a joke you are. You are an embarrassment to the forum.

What a perverted form of judicial reckoning.

You're supposed to be innocent till proven guilty. But not by dumbass in glasses. You're guilty because dumbass in glasses says so, and because you don't say you're not. Yet he can't provide proof that I am, other than he says so.



Show me in our discussion where I have admitted it at all.

I have changed my position. You're not a 'dumbass in glasses'. You're a 'dumbmule in glasses'. You got no balls. You're the burdizzo with glasses.

So, burdizzo, when you grow a pair, prove your accusations.

Quantrill

You are a coward.

 

[Quantrill]

John Brown paid the ultimate price for his unsuccessful raid of a U.S. armory. Seems to me that the South expected to seize such U.S. assets without reprisal.

Seems to me you ignore the whole history that went before Sumter. Typical Yankee bullshit. Seems to me you don't know shit about what you're talking about. I mean...seems to me.

Quantrill

 

[ding]

the South was doing nothing wrong in having slaves.

when you grow a pair, prove your accusations.

It's you who needs to grow a pair. Beliefs not worth stating are beliefs not worth having.

 

[Quantrill]

You are a coward.

You're the burdizzo with glasses. Clamp...clamp!

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

It's you who needs to grow a pair. Beliefs not worth stating are beliefs not worth having.

Prove your accusation of me burdizzo. You made it, back it up.

Quantrill

 

[ding]

You're the burdizzo with glasses. Clamp...clamp!

Quantrill

I'm not afraid of speaking my beliefs out loud. You are because you are a coward.

 

[ding]

Prove your accusation of me burdizzo. You made it, back it up.

Quantrill

You are a coward. That's good enough for me.

 

[ding]

Let me tell you a few facts about the Radical Republicans:

Radical Republicans were a principled, vocal faction of the Republican Party (c. 1854–1877) that championed the abolition of slavery, civil rights for African Americans, and harsh Reconstruction policies for the South. Led by Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, they pushed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments through Congress.
Key Aspects of the Radical Republicans:

• Aims: They sought immediate abolition, total equality for freedmen, and the dismantling of the Southern planter aristocracy.
• Leaders: Representative Thaddeus Stevens (PA) and Senator Charles Sumner (MA) were the primary leaders, advocating for a "radical" restructuring of Southern society.
• Conflict:
  They strongly opposed the lenient Reconstruction policies of Presidents Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, preferring to treat the South as "conquered provinces"
  .
• • Actions: They controlled Congress during early Reconstruction (1866–1872), passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and initiated the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.
  • End: Their influence declined as the nation grew weary of Reconstruction, leading to the Compromise of 1877 and the rise of white supremacy in the South.

While they failed to secure long-term land reform for freedmen, the Radical Republicans fundamentally redefined the U.S. Constitution to protect civil rights.

 

[Quantrill]

I'm not afraid of speaking my beliefs out loud. You are because you are a coward.

By all means prove your accusation of me. If you're not afraid...burdizzo.

You are a coward. That's good enough for me.

Oh, you say your not afraid, then you crawfish again. If you're not afraid, prove your accusations against me.

Those burdizzo's did their work on you didn't they.

Quantrill

 

[ding]

By all means prove your accusation of me. If you're not afraid...burdizzo.



Oh, you say your not afraid, then you crawfish again. If you're not afraid, prove your accusations against me.

Those burdizzo's did their work on you didn't they.

Quantrill

Everyone already knows you are a racist. You'll either admit it because you believe it is right, or you will run away from it like a coward because you know it's wrong. Either way, I win.

 

[ding]

You're avoiding the point. Obviously, you're going to continue to dance around facts that you just can't fit into your narrative.

The one and only meaningful difference between the Confederate constitution and the U.S. Constitution on slavery is that the latter did not use the word "slavery" or "slaves." Slavery was just as firmly protected by the U.S. Constitution as it was by the Confederate constitution. Under both constitutions, states could abolish slavery within their boundaries but the national government had no power to do so.



Let me tell you a few facts about the Radical Republicans:

-- They had no regard for the Constitution.

-- They were lawless and dishonorable.

-- They hated Lincoln with a passion.

-- They sabotaged McClellan's peninsula campaign, which prolonged the war for at least one year and quite possibly two. They then talked Lincoln into relieving McClellan, even though McClellan had just won the crucial Battle of Antietam and had then forced Lee to split his army in Virginia and was on the verge of pouncing on Lee.

-- Most of them were bloodthirsty fanatics who hated the South and hated any Northerner who did not share their rabid hatred.

-- Many of them were racists themselves who wanted nothing to do with blacks.

-- Some of them tried to frame President Andrew Johnson for Lincoln's murder using bogus evidence.

-- They imprisoned and hung people on the basis of flimsy or phony evidence.

I discuss the Radical Republicans at much greater length in two articles:

Gideon Welles and the Radical Republicans

Northern Realities, Southern Secession, and Slavery

Whether the Radical Republicans were "good" or "bad" is a matter of historical interpretation, as they held views and employed tactics that were highly controversial in the 19th century. They were a faction of the Republican Party committed to emancipation, equal rights for African Americans, and harsh punishment for the South after the Civil War.
Here is a breakdown of the arguments for their actions:
Arguments for the Radical Republicans being "Good" (Progressive/Just):

• Champions of Equality: Led by figures like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, they were visionary advocates for racial equality, pushing for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to guarantee rights to formerly enslaved people.
• Anti-Slavery Focus: They insisted that the abolition of slavery and the destruction of the Southern "plantocracy" should be the primary goal of the Civil War.
• Protecting Freedmen: They actively opposed the "Black Codes" and sought to protect the rights of freedmen in the South during Reconstruction.
• Visionary Governance: They fostered a strong, activist central government that aimed to reform the nation, including support for infrastructure, education, and financial stability.

Arguments for the Radical Republicans being "Bad" (Ruthless/Vindictive):

• Vindictive Tactics: Many Northern citizens and politicians believed the Radicals were too harsh on the South and driven by a desire for revenge, rather than reunification.
• Ruthless Political Methods: They were known to be ruthless in their political tactics, overriding President Andrew Johnson’s vetoes and forcing through their own version of Reconstruction.
• Overreach of Power: Their approach, which included attempting to impeach President Johnson, was seen by critics as an abuse of power and a violation of the balance between the executive and legislative branches.
• Failure of Long-Term Success: Their, often viewed as extreme, approach ultimately led to a backlash, which contributed to the collapse of Reconstruction in 1877 and the rise of Jim Crow laws.

In summary, they are often viewed as heroic champions of civil rights by some, and as vengeful, overreaching politicians by others.

 

[Quantrill]

Everyone already knows you are a racist. You'll either admit because you believe it is right, or you will run away from it like a coward because you know it's wrong. Either way, I win.

As with everything else you say, in your mind you win.

I've seen that dance before....when they get castrated. Hurt didn't it burdizzo with glasses.

Quantrill

 

[ding]

As with everything else you say, in your mind you win.

I've seen that dance before....when they get castrated. Hurt didn't it burdizzo with glasses.

Quantrill

Of course I win, you aren't defending white supremacy. I win. White supremacists are pussies.

 

[my2¢]

Seems to me you ignore the whole history that went before Sumter. Typical Yankee bullshit. Seems to me you don't know shit about what you're talking about. I mean...seems to me.

Quantrill

Those U.S. assets being taken by the Confederacy started months prior to Lincoln's inauguration. Fort Sumter itself was seized about 5-6 weeks after Lincoln became president.

If you'd like to bring up pre-Civil War history, what is your explanation for escaped slaves having to travel all the way to Canada to seek their freedom instead of just getting to anti-slave states north of the Mason-Dixon line? State rights certainly weren't on the South's priority list back then when things were going their way.

I'll gladly admit I don't know shit. Your post leads me to believe you're a connoisseur.

 

[Quantrill]

Those U.S. assets being taken by the Confederacy started months prior to Lincoln's inauguration. Fort Sumter itself was seized about 5-6 weeks after Lincoln became president.

If you'd like to bring up pre-Civil War history, what is your explanation for escaped slaves having to travel all the way to Canada to seek their freedom instead of just getting to anti-slave states north of the Mason-Dixon line? State rights certainly weren't on the South's priority list back then when things were going their way.

I'll gladly admit I don't know shit. Your post leads me to believe you're a connoisseur.

South Carolina seceded Dec. 20, 1860. Anderson seized Sumter Dec. 26, 1860 under the Buchannan administration. Negotiations took place first under the Buchannan administration and then under the Lincoln administration. First between South Carolina and the Federal govt. and then between the Confederacy and the Federal govt.

The Underground railroad went all the way to Canada because the Northern States were also under the Constitution. Plus many Northern states had black codes where blacks were not welcome.

'States rights' was certainly a factor contributing to the secession of the Southern States. But it was just one of many. The all-encompassing factor was slavery.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Of course I win, you aren't defending white supremacy. I win. White supremacists are pussies.

You make no sense.

Quantrill