The Civil War

[Unkotare]

Mexico is not part of the United States,

A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.

Bought and paid for.

Mmmmmmmmm... Mexico might disagree.

.......

They can disagree all they want, it doesn’t change the fact.

Well, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, ceded about half a million square miles of Mexican Territory to the US. The Gadsden Purchase, in 1853, only paid for 30,000 square miles. We got 460,000 square miles for free by force of arms.

I'm not saying we give it back, but ... legally speaking ... I think we have to cede the point that it wasn't bought and paid for.

"For free"? Mexico started the war, and signed the treaty that ended it.

How did Mexico start the war?

By killing American soldiers on American soil, you ignorant fool.

 

[kaz]

Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.

Name a specific other one please?

Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”

The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.

That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.

If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.

I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.

I understand that, but not everyone is attempting to revise history by acknowledging nuances. When someone states “The civil war was all about slavery”, that isn’t painting the entire picture. Not saying it’s incorrect, just not complete.

It's certainly not complete, there were both economic and political reasons for the South to secede. Prior to the ACW, the South controlled the Federal government and was an economic powerhouse that provided a very large percentage of US exports. That was rapidly changing due to immigration into the free states and the industrialization of the North. Power was shifting North and the leaders of the southern states wanted to stop it.

The souths economic power was rooted in slavery and the "export" you were talking about was cotton harvested by slaves. The interesting thing is that so many of those pushing the narrative of the civil war wasn't about slavery all just give euphemisms in an attempt I assume to not use the actual word slavery.

The North clearly wasn't fighting over slavery, there's no way you can make the argument that they were. They even said they weren't, they were fighting to "Save the Union" and Lincoln said he would do that regardless of ending slavery.

Yes, slavery was interlaced in the South, but again, they didn't want slavery for slavery's sake. They wanted it for economic sake. Slavery was a means to an end, it wasn't the objective. So to call it the reason the south went to war falls under scrutiny. They were fighting because of economics

As I said before in this OP. "It's about money is so generic it doesn't explain anything."Everybody dies when their brain stops functioning. It doesn't matter if the person dies of a heart attack or is beheaded. It does a bad job of explaining. So does the economic angle.

The South seceded because they felt Lincoln would take the slaves away. The South fired the shots that started the civil war. Without the issue of slavery, neither thing would have happened. The stated goal of the North at the time was irrelevant (although I could easily argue that slavery was the OVERRIDING social issue in both North and South well before actual hostilities)

It's kind of like saying that WW2 broke out because of Britain and France issuing an ultimatum to Germany over the invasion of Poland. It skips a few steps in the narrative to come to that conclusion don't you think.

Well, again. There is no possible way to argue the war was over slavery for the North except pure ignorance. They were over keeping the South in the Union. Hence their motto, "Save the Union."

And arguing it was over slavery for the South means slavery is an end, which it wasn't. Sure, slavery was tied into the war, but they were driven by economics. No one was saying I want to sit here and own slaves, owning slaves is my end goal.

You can try to spin all you want, but saying the war was "over slavery" doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. Particularly since it wasn't even related to the objective of one side, the North

 

[schmidlap]

Well we know Abe wanted to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. We also know he intended to war on the South if they refused to abide by federal laws, like the recently passed Morrill Tariff that was passed without any southern votes. He made all this perfectly clear in his first inaugural speech.

He then set up events at Ft Sumter to invade the South. So, what can we conclude from this? There wouldn’t have been a war had Abe not invaded to impose the tariff. So from the aggressor’s point of view, the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.

In fact, those who were hellbent upon perpetuating slavery and extending the odious practice to new territories refused to recognize the legitimately-elected President of all 33 United States, and also rejected the Constitution of the United States.

They bombarded the United States military at Fort Sumter because it was a symbol of the nation, not because such an act of aggression had any strategic value. They thus commenced their hostilities against the United States, and the President deployed the United States military on United States soil to fulfill his oath of office and preserve the union.

They specified "slavery" in their Declarations of Causes.

A few examples:

GEORGIA "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery..."​

​

MISSISSIPPI "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation..."​

​

SOUTH CAROLINA "... They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection... a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States."​

​

​

​

 

[kaz]

.....

So tell me, you actually believe that the funding fathers [sic] meant that others can consent on your behalf. ......

The "funding fathers," Professor? Did they manage a mutual fund?

Tell me Professor, did every individual in every state ratify the Constitution?

Do you even know what "EVERY state that allegedly joined the so-called confederacy had armed regiments within the states actively fighting against the treason of the rebel dogs" means?

Note you didn't answer the question. Maybe it's dawning on you how stupid your argument was that someone can consent to be governed for you.

Even a basic knowledge of consent of the government would tell you that your own consent is not binding. When you stop consenting, your consent it over.

This is just basic American history for someone who claims to do what you do for a living. Still, wow. You slept through the American History part?

 

[there4eyeM]

Individuals were and are free to leave the Perpetual Union. Member states were and are not.

 

[kaz]

....

Then you follow that up with they were evil and that justifies forcing them to stay in the United States, because they were evil. Your arguments get dumber and dumber

When those idiots occupied part of downtown Seattle this past summer, did you advocate for recognizing CHOP as an independent nation, shitforbrains?

CHOP = State. They are equivalent.

You seriously just made that argument.
......

I asked you a question. You ducked it.

You ignored my question if you really believe others can consent for you, the argument you made.

We are talking about the US Federal government. I'd just ask you what the "S" in "USA" stands for. If you grasped what we were discussing, you would get the answer of what a STATE has to do with the United STATES of America.

On "CHOP," which FYI isn't a State, they stole the land, it wasn't theirs. But let's ignore that too. Let's say it was. You didn't even make an argument or a point. Suppose CHOP can withdraw from Washington. What does that have to do with a State withdrawing from the United STATES? Present a full argument, all you made is a snotty comment.

Well, kaz, if Washington can withdraw from the United States, what about CHOP? What about it? What is your argument even?

 

[kaz]

......there's no way you can make the argument ......

That's a typical democrat approach to discussion. Hmmmmmmmm......

Typical Democrat is how you deleted all the context around what I said so I have no clue to what you are referring to

 

[kaz]

.....

Have you ever read a history book?

More than you have read any kind of book in your life.

And yet you don't know the basic principle of the American government, consent of the governed?

That's just hard to believe when you claim to be a history teacher. It's so basic to American history

 

[gipper]

Well we know Abe wanted to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. We also know he intended to war on the South if they refused to abide by federal laws, like the recently passed Morrill Tariff that was passed without any southern votes. He made all this perfectly clear in his first inaugural speech.

He then set up events at Ft Sumter to invade the South. So, what can we conclude from this? There wouldn’t have been a war had Abe not invaded to impose the tariff. So from the aggressor’s point of view, the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.

In fact, those who were hellbent upon perpetuating slavery and extending the odious practice to new territories refused to recognize the legitimately-elected President of all 33 United States, and also rejected the Constitution of the United States.

They bombarded the United States military at Fort Sumter because it was a symbol of the nation, not because such an act of aggression had any strategic value. They thus commenced their hostilities against the United States, and the President deployed the United States military on United States soil to fulfill his oath of office and preserve the union.

They specified "slavery" in their Declarations of Causes.

A few examples:

GEORGIA "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery..."​

​

MISSISSIPPI "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation..."​

​

SOUTH CAROLINA "... They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection... a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States."​

​

​

​

My previous post addressed Dishonest Abe’s intentions. I did not address the Confederacy’s intentions. I agree...the South wanted to continue slavery, as did Dishonest Abe.

Abe was the aggressor. If he doesn’t invade, there is no war.

Have you considered that war could have been easily avoided, had Abe not been such a tyrant? The entire western world eliminated slavery without bloodshed.

 

[kaz]

It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.

It wasn't a war between the states?

View attachment 462175
They've been lying to us in school all those years.

A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.

Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.

Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.

Prove it.

It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.

You haven't proved jack shit.

Study history, you brainless douche.

I have, especially the history of the Civil War.

Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.

Clearly I have.....

Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.

The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.

When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.

Did you read that part of history?

If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause will be let off the hook for far too easily.

Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?

Even if we did have "unanimous" consent, Unkotore's argument was dumber than that.

1) CHOP stole the land, it wasn't theirs

2) We are talking about STATES in the United STATES of America. He compared that to internal States, which is a different issue. Clearly the CSA had consent of the Southern States, not the USA since they were outmanned, outgunned and still fought a hell of a war

3) He clearly still doesn't even know what the founding fathers meant by consent of the governed. I was just referring to what the founding fathers meant, I wasn't even discussing what it should mean

 

[gipper]

.....

Have you ever read a history book?

More than you have read any kind of book in your life.

And yet you don't know the basic principle of the American government, consent of the governed?

That's just hard to believe when you claim to be a history teacher. It's so basic to American history

He’s an idiot. So there’s that.

 

[kaz]

It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.

It wasn't a war between the states?

View attachment 462175
They've been lying to us in school all those years.

A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.

Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.

Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.

Prove it.

It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.

You haven't proved jack shit.

Study history, you brainless douche.

I have, especially the history of the Civil War.

Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.

Clearly I have.....

Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.

The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.

When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.

Did you read that part of history?

If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause will be let off the hook for far too easily.

Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?

You, personally, can GTFO any time you want.

After you, shit for brains.

You are the one who hates America, you are the one who denounced his citizenship on this very site.

Unkotare: If you know what the founding fathers meant by consent of the governed, you "hate America."

You're one stupid ****

 

[gipper]

It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.

It wasn't a war between the states?

View attachment 462175
They've been lying to us in school all those years.

A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.

Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.

Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.

Prove it.

It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.

You haven't proved jack shit.

Study history, you brainless douche.

I have, especially the history of the Civil War.

Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.

Clearly I have.....

Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.

The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.

When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.

Did you read that part of history?

If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause will be let off the hook for far too easily.

Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?

You, personally, can GTFO any time you want.

After you, shit for brains.

You are the one who hates America, you are the one who denounced his citizenship on this very site.

Unkotare: If you know what the founding fathers meant by consent of the governed, you "hate America."

You're one stupid ****

Love it. Best post of the day.

The dipshit hates FDR for imprisoning Japanese Americans, but loves Dishonest Abe for mass murdering Americans. ******* HYPOCRITE.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. Itwasn't U.S. soil after the Confederate states seceded. It doesn't matter how many times you lie about it. That's just a fact.

You are clearly desperate, and have nothing to offer to support your pretense. The documented truth prevails.

Lincoln was legitimately elected President of the United States in 1860, of all 33 states.

He told the traitors who rejected the United States Constitution "You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect and defend it.”

No sovereignty on earth ever recognized a self-proclaimed entity fancying itself "The Confederate States of America."

You can rage against that reality, but cannot refute it.

No one said he wasn't legitmately electeed, however, he also had no authority to invade Virginia. In fact, doing so was an act of treason. It doesn't matter whether a foreign power recognized the Confederacy or not. What foreign power recognized the Soviet Union?

 

[bripat9643]

It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.

It wasn't a war between the states?

View attachment 462175
They've been lying to us in school all those years.

A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.

Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.

Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.

Prove it.

It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.

You haven't proved jack shit.

Study history, you brainless douche.

I have, especially the history of the Civil War.

Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.

Clearly I have.....

Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.

The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.

When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.

Did you read that part of history?

If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause will be let off the hook for far too easily.

Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?

You, personally, can GTFO any time you want.

After you, shit for brains.

You are the one who hates America, you are the one who denounced his citizenship on this very site.

Unkotare: If you know what the founding fathers meant by consent of the governed, you "hate America."

You're one stupid ****

Love it. Best post of the day.

The dipshit hates FDR for imprisoning Japanese Americans, but loves Dishonest Abe for mass murdering Americans. ******* HYPOCRITE.

All Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to Abe Lincoln and the Civil War.

 

[bripat9643]

...
Lincoln killed 850,000 people......

Idiotic, ignorant LIE.

Irrefutable fact.

Idiotic lie from a ******* loser playing the apologist to rebel dogs who were as anti-American as YOU are now, loser.

Yada, Yada, Yada.

 

[bripat9643]

.... Itwasn't U.S. soil after the Confederate states seceded. .....

WRONG. Any bunch of scumbag ******* criminals can claim whatever they want, but that does not change AMERICAN sovereignty.

Hence, the explanation for your posts.

 

[bripat9643]

"For free"? Mexico started the war, and signed the treaty that ended it.

How did Mexico start the war?

By killing American soldiers on American soil, you ignorant fool.

The USA started it by occupying Mexican territory, moron

 

[bripat9643]

Individuals were and are free to leave the Perpetual Union. Member states were and are not.

What document says that?

 

[schmidlap]

My previous post addressed Dishonest Abe’s intentions. I did not address the Confederacy’s intentions. I agree...the South wanted to continue slavery, as did Dishonest Abe.

Abe was the aggressor. If he doesn’t invade, there is no war.

Have you considered that war could have been easily avoided, had Abe not been such a tyrant? The entire western world eliminated slavery without bloodshed.

Lincoln was elected President of the United States, and he preserved, protected, and defended it.

Your pretense that he was the aggressor in attacking the nation over which he presided and your fantasizing about his intentions are noted.