New Website on the American Civil War

I realize this is what you've read over and over in pro-Confederate sources, but it is simply false. Lincoln was trying to avoid using force because he didn't want a war, and the Radicals were increasingly voicing the suspicion, even on the Senate floor, that Lincoln was willing to let the Deep South leave in peace.

Lincoln showed no interest in sending a naval convoy to Sumter for any reason--until Davis idiotically forced his hand by cutting off the garrison's food supply. Once news of the cutoff reached the North, Northern pro-coercion newspapers erupted with screams about the "starving garrison." Even then, Lincoln strove to make the convoy as inoffensive and unprovocative as possible.

If Lincoln harbored any malice toward the South, he certainly didn't show it when he established merciful, modest Reconstruction terms for Louisiana in 1863, well before the war ended. Nor did he show any anti-Southern malice when the South surrendered. He told Grant to give lenient, generous surrender terms, which Grant did.

Lincoln's moderate and forgiving Reconstruction terms were trashed by the Radical Republicans after Lincoln died and after they gained control over Reconstruction.

The Deep South states blundered badly in refusing to honor the 1860 election results, which they were required to do by the Constitution. If they had waited and given Lincoln a chance to see how he would govern, and if Lincoln had proceeded to start persecuting the South, then the Southern states would have had valid reason to leave the Union. But they didn't even give Lincoln a chance.

What 'pro-Confederate sources' would that be?

You say things about Lincoln but don't provide anything but 'what you say'. What I have said, I have provided historical support.

In other words, your opinion is just as much bullshit as the dummygunny's .

Your 'middle of the road game' is shit.

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
Thank you. I had no idea until today how much you hate Democrats.
Nice diversion

But slavery was established in the South 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed
 
We have millions of posters who claim Abe was right. We have less than that who agree that the South was composed of states, not vassals of DC. So we must examine what states are.

States are stand-alone governments. To unite does not mean to be held in bondage. Abe was trying to hold the south in bondage and invaded VA as his first step to restoring bondage.

This joins two of your posts and my replies.

First, we must see the South factually as you seem inclined to do, and to form opinions based on facts.
My view is a bit different for the following reasons. The South believed in their own inalienable right as sovereign states to form a government they wanted to live under. I put less emphasis on the election than on their desire to follow a new path. Lincoln declared he would never fight to get rid of slavery. And he had not tried. So that reason can be brushed aside as he was not having problems once elected with slavery. We have his own statements as evidence. You and I have paralleled in various points, so my comments are only intended to pick on the minor differences.

While it is true that the South left, dealt with properly and patiently, slavery would have ended and indeed Abe proposed buying all of the slaves using government bonds and working with the South in that fashion. But he invaded VA.

True. And note all the one liner ignorant dumbasses that speak out their ass. They have nothing. But speaking out their ass means everything to Americans today. Go ahead and speak out your ass, just say what I want to hear.

Quantrill
 
Will you grace the forum with the law you cite? Show even now in the constitution the law prohibiting states from seceding?
The Constitution provides details on how states can join the union but NOTHING on withdrawing
 
True. And note all the one liner ignorant dumbasses that speak out their ass. They have nothing. But speaking out their ass means everything to Americans today. Go ahead and speak out your ass, just say what I want to hear.

Quantrill
Well said. One wonders where they learned history of the USA? What most of them mean in effect is that MN is totally wrong to challenge the US government right now.
MN is operating like it seceded.
 
Correct. That amendment means for certain states are the more powerful.

And it means the powers 'delegated' to the Federal govt. can be resumed. That is why they used the word 'delegated'.

When the Southern States resumed those powers delegated, they seceded from the Union.

Quantrill
 
Well said. One wonders where they learned history of the USA? What most of them mean in effect is that MN is totally wrong to challenge the US government right now.
MN is operating like it seceded.

They never learned history. They got their history from 'sesame street'.

If Minnesota wants to secede, it should secede.

Quantrill
 
15th post
It says powers flow to the US and powers not used stay with the state. Secession was a power states had all along.
Never did
Read the Supremacy Clause
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom