The most evil pres in US history was LBJ

[tinydancer]

Maryland and Kentucky are not what I would Call Northern States. Yes they were on the side of the North (in the Case of Maryland Lincoln had to have their legislator Arrested to keep them in the Unions) But those 2 states did not make up the North. My Own State Michigan proudly Says, that Slavery was never legal in this state. It was the Same in Most Northern States. Kentucky and Maryland not withstanding.

You ignored the part where I said, census figures showed that many other Northern states had slaves right up to the Civil War.

I find that odd, because those people all would have been in Violation of their states laws. Perhaps they owned slaves in Border states, Perhaps had 2 Homes? Don't know, but your Info is the first I have ever seen that suggests Northern States had slaves.

Here's a link to wiki. The Northern States had slaves for true.

This is an interesting chart because it shows when slavery was abolished, BUT then shows when slavery actually ended in the state.

You had slaves in Vermont, Pennsylvania, Mass, NH, CT Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey.


Slave and free states - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rightwinger]

You ignored the part where I said, census figures showed that many other Northern states had slaves right up to the Civil War.

I find that odd, because those people all would have been in Violation of their states laws. Perhaps they owned slaves in Border states, Perhaps had 2 Homes? Don't know, but your Info is the first I have ever seen that suggests Northern States had slaves.

Here's a link to wiki. The Northern States had slaves for true.

This is an interesting chart because it shows when slavery was abolished, BUT then shows when slavery actually ended in the state.

You had slaves in Vermont, Pennsylvania, Mass, NH, CT Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey.


Slave and free states - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmmmmm......I didn't notice citizens in those states committing treason and taking up arms against their country because they might lose the right to own those slaves

 

[tinydancer]

Slavery was the issue that states' rights was all about. Another canard.

But Nixon was the evillest lol...

Nah. I lived those days. LBJ was evil thru and thru. Think about all the radical groups that sprung up in the '60's.

They weren't pissed off at Republicans when they formed. Think Days of Rage. Think Abbie and Jerry. Think the Panthers.

Then look up the dates they were formed. We hated LBJ. Oh, and I was a major lib then and what kids consider history today I lived it.

I still think LBJ had something to do with Kennedy's assassination and considering Jackie did too, I'm in good company.

He also presided over a time period where two of my other heroes got offed on his watch. MLK and Bobby.

Then there was old Lyndon making a fortune off the war. The man was a slug. I hope he rots in hell.

And it still pisses me off that he used to pick up his dogs by their ears.

 

[tinydancer]

I find that odd, because those people all would have been in Violation of their states laws. Perhaps they owned slaves in Border states, Perhaps had 2 Homes? Don't know, but your Info is the first I have ever seen that suggests Northern States had slaves.

Here's a link to wiki. The Northern States had slaves for true.

This is an interesting chart because it shows when slavery was abolished, BUT then shows when slavery actually ended in the state.

You had slaves in Vermont, Pennsylvania, Mass, NH, CT Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey.


Slave and free states - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmmmmm......I didn't notice citizens in those states committing treason and taking up arms against their country because they might lose the right to own those slaves

Basically Northern major slave holders had made their fortunes before emancipation. So they didn't have a problem with emancipation. They were already rich off the trafficking of slaves.

There are so many notable northern slave owners and slave traders it's amazing.

You have John Hancock and Ben Franklin for example who bought and sold slaves. Lincoln's family had owned slaves.

Quite stunning to think that the tariff placed on slave trading in Rhode Island for instance was used for infrastructure.

 

[bripat9643]

In order to "rebel" you have to attack your own government. After it seceded, the federal government was not the government of South Carolina. Federal Troops were trespassing on the Sovereign territory of South Carolina. Carolina had ever right to evict them.

Wrong, the Forts were the Property legally, of the US government. The South had not right to take them by force. Period.

They may have been U.S. Property, but they weren't US territory. Do you suppose The Philippines doesn't have the right to kick the US Navy out of Subic Bay if it chooses? If they United States refused to leave when asked, that would be an act of war.

South Carolina offered to compensate the federal government for the property, but Lincoln refused because he wanted war.

U do understand that if Leaving the Union when you don't get your way was allowed to stand.That there would not be an America today right.

That's true. The America we know wouldn't exist. We would probably have a much better America. A much freer and much less imperialist America. We would never have entered WW I, and there WW II would probably never have occured.

Every time a Minority Political Group did not get their way, they would simply Succeed from the Union. Eventually we would have ended up as 50 nations, or even more if Parts of states were allowed to leave their states and become states of their own. lol

I doubt that would happen. The more likely scenario is that the federal government would simply cave whenever it was trying to impose some fascist legislation on the member states.

Succession simply can not be allowed, or you might as well dissolve the Union right now. We are always going disagree, If you allow the Minority to pack it in and leave when ever they are not happy, You wont have a country for very long.

You won't have an empire such was we have. You'll have a confederation of states. The federal government would restrict itself to its original purpose: national defense and preventing trade barriers between the states.

 

[bripat9643]

Hmmmmm......I didn't notice citizens in those states committing treason and taking up arms against their country because they might lose the right to own those slaves

Secession isn't treason, dipshit.

 

[francoHFW]

The slaves in NJ must have been 90 years old or something- grandfathered in...
I was around for LBJ. The Anti War movement really got going after LBJ. Kent State etc. Those radicals screwed up the Dems and helped the Pubs in '68. But I didn't get to collrge until '69. Same with pot. It went general population I mean to say...

 

[francoHFW]

I think the point of the Civil War was that secession IS treason. Where do you get Britpak, Johnny Reb? LOL

 

[9thIDdoc]

I find that odd, because those people all would have been in Violation of their states laws. Perhaps they owned slaves in Border states, Perhaps had 2 Homes? Don't know, but your Info is the first I have ever seen that suggests Northern States had slaves.

Here's a link to wiki. The Northern States had slaves for true.

This is an interesting chart because it shows when slavery was abolished, BUT then shows when slavery actually ended in the state.

You had slaves in Vermont, Pennsylvania, Mass, NH, CT Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey.


Slave and free states - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmmmmm......I didn't notice citizens in those states committing treason and taking up arms against their country because they might lose the right to own those slaves

Nope; and that's not what happened in the South either. There is nothing "treasonous" about trying to defend home and family from foreign troops bent on murder, rape, and plunder. The Confederacy was in fact an established foreign Nation. As such they were eqallly "treasonous" to Spain and the UK.

Slavery was legal under the Constitution. The legal way to change that would have been by Constitutional amendment; not by shooting at folks who don't agree with you.

Those who would like to claim slavery was the only, or even the most important, issue of the time are simply willfully ignorant of actual history.

 

[bripat9643]

I think the point of the Civil War was that secession IS treason. Where do you get Britpak, Johnny Reb? LOL

That's what Lincoln claimed. To bad for the Lincoln cultists that there is nothing in the Constitution or any legal precedent that backs him up.

The Constitution defines treason as "making war against THEM [the states]." It does not mention secession.

 

[bripat9643]

Hmmmmm......I didn't notice citizens in those states committing treason and taking up arms against their country because they might lose the right to own those slaves

Northerners didn't give a hoot about slavery and secession is not treason.

Furthermore, Lincoln was a white supremacist.

Speech of Hon. Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln, Abraham. 1897. Political Debates Between Lincoln and Douglas

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, or intermarry with the white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. ​

The claim that the Civil War was fought to end slavery is obvious hooey

 

[bripat9643]

South Carolina had no rights to secede or seize federal territory. .

It appears that even Abraham Lincoln disagreed with your claims about secession:

American Stalin | Abraham Lincoln

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement." -- Abraham Lincoln on the floor of Congress, January 12, 1848, Congressional Globe, Appendix 1st Session 30th Congress, page 94 ​

 

[rightwinger]

South Carolina had no rights to secede or seize federal territory. .

It appears that even Abraham Lincoln disagreed with your claims about secession:

American Stalin | Abraham Lincoln

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement." -- Abraham Lincoln on the floor of Congress, January 12, 1848, Congressional Globe, Appendix 1st Session 30th Congress, page 94 ​

Abe Lincoln does not get to decide Constitutional law and neither do you. He can speak of a moral right but not a Constitutional right. The south never had a right under our constitution. If the founding fathers intended joining the United States to be like joining a club, they would have included provisions for withdrawing and how property should be divided.

Joining the US is a one way deal. Once you join, you are part of the country. If you take up arms against your country.....you are a traitor

 

[rightwinger]

Hmmmmm......I didn't notice citizens in those states committing treason and taking up arms against their country because they might lose the right to own those slaves

Northerners didn't give a hoot about slavery and secession is not treason.

Furthermore, Lincoln was a white supremacist.

Speech of Hon. Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln, Abraham. 1897. Political Debates Between Lincoln and Douglas

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, or intermarry with the white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. ​

The claim that the Civil War was fought to end slavery is obvious hooey

You are applying 21st century values to 19th century America. Lincoln could not have advocated full citizenship for blacks any more than he could have advocated allowing blacks and whites to marry. For significant social change, you have to take things one step at a time......the first step was to eliminate the evil of slavery
Politically, it was hard enough to end the institution of slavery. Trying to end slavery and give political and social equality at the same time was not possible in1848

 

[Xchel]

there were a couple of presidents that should be on the list of worst presidents...among those are Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon. What redeems LBJ was the signing of the Civil Rights Act. Herbert Hoover should also be on the list,

 

[bripat9643]

Abe Lincoln does not get to decide Constitutional law and neither do you. He can speak of a moral right but not a Constitutional right. The south never had a right under our constitution.

Really? Can you point out the portion of the document that says so?

If the founding fathers intended joining the United States to be like joining a club, they would have included provisions for withdrawing and how property should be divided.

I doubt any rational person agrees with that claim. It's utterly non-falsifiable.

Joining the US is a one way deal. Once you join, you are part of the country.

Only according to you. There are numerous quotes by the Founding Fathers that state the exact opposite. Jefferson, for example, made numerous statements in defense of the defining principal of the American Revolution: the right of secession. In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly he wrote:

Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation [i.e., secession] at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.​

If you take up arms against your country.....you are a traitor

Secession does not constitute "taking up arms against your country."

 

[Xchel]

Secession does not constitute "taking up arms against your country."

yes, it does...and leaving the US because you are throwing a temper tantrum over not getting to have slaves not only is immoral but is clear treason.

 

[bripat9643]

You are applying 21st century values to 19th century America.

Isn't that what leftwing turds like you do all the time? Aren't leftwingers always calling the Founding Fathers racists and bigots? Aren't they always claiming America was not a free country because it didn't measure up to current notions of justice?

It's true Lincoln was not alone in his sentiments, but so what? He was still a racist white supremacist. He didn't give a hoot about slavery, except to keep it out of the North and the new territories because he didn't want white meant to have to compete with slave labor. Lincoln said so himself numerous times. The idea that the North fought the war to end slavery doesn't pass the laugh test.

Lincoln could not have advocated full citizenship for blacks any more than he could have advocated allowing blacks and whites to marry. For significant social change, you have to take things one step at a time......the first step was to eliminate the evil of slavery
Politically, it was hard enough to end the institution of slavery. Trying to end slavery and give political and social equality at the same time was not possible in1848

Lincoln wouldn't say that because he was a white supremacist. The claim that it was just a political maneuver is too absurd for words.

Here are some choice Lincoln comments on the subject of the negro. After reading these, anyone claiming Lincoln was not a racist needs to be checked into a home for the mentally retarded:

"Negro equality? Fudge!" -- Abraham Lincoln, Fragments: Notes for Speeches, Sept. 1859 (Vol. III)

"If I could save The Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it" -- Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Horace Greeley

"I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District [of Columbia]." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1862

"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these [new] territories. We want them for the homes of free white people." -- Abraham Lincoln, October 16, 1854

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in the favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary." -- Abraham Lincoln, "Lincoln's Reply to Douglas, Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858," in "Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings, ed. Roy P. Basler (New York: Da Capo Press, 1990), p. 445

"I will say, then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race." -- Abraham Lincoln, "Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate, September 18, 1858, Charleston, Illinois," in "Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings" (New York: Library of America, 1989), p. 636, and in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 5, page 371

"Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this.... We cannot, then, make them equals." -- Abraham Lincoln, "Lincoln's Reply to Douglas," p. 444

"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." -- Abraham Lincoln, Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858; from Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, 1894, Volume 1, page 273

"We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North and become tip-top abolitionists, while some Northern Men go South and become most cruel masters. When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter." -- Abraham Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois

"I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States, not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves." -- Abraham Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois

"The point the Republican party wanted to stress was to oppose making slave States out of the newly acquired territory, not abolishing slavery as it then existed. " -- Abraham Lincoln in a speech at Peoria, Illinois

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Abraham Lincoln's Inaugural Address on the Capitol steps, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with their slaves, or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington." -- Letter from Abraham Lincoln to A.H. Stephens, Public and Private Letters of Alexander Stephens, p. 150

"My paramount object, is to save the Union, and not either destroy or save slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could save the Union by freeing some and leaving others in slavery, I would do it. If I could save it by freeing all, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the Union." -- Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greeley

"Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get an answer out of me to the question whether I am in favor of Negro citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. (applause from audience) He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of Negro citizenship. (renewed applause) If the state of Illinois has the power to grant Negroes citizenship, I shall be opposed to it. (cries of "here, here" and "good, good" from audience) That is all I have to say." -- Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Springfield, Illinois, June 1857

Mr. Wendell Phillips said that Lincoln was badgered into issuing the emancipation proclamation, and that after it was issued, Lincoln said it was the greatest folly of his life. President Lincoln in his Emancipation Proclamation evidently had in mind to colonize or segregate the slaves if freed:

"It is my purpose to colonize persons of African descent, with their consent, upon this continent or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the government existing there."

Abraham Lincoln later said, in discussing the options of colonizing them with segregated areas of Texas, Mississippi and South Carolina:

"If we turn 200,000 armed Negroes in the South, among their former owners, from whom we have taken their arms, it will inevitably lead to a race war. It cannot be done. The Negroes must be gotten rid of."

Ben Butler responded to this by saying: "Why not send them to Panama to dig the canal?" Lincoln was delighted with this suggestion, and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later, John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln and one of his conspirators wounded Seward.

Actually, Honest Abe brought up the slavery issue to gain sympathy only after he was losing the war. It worked, and the tide turned. However his true character is revealed in his words.

 

[rightwinger]

You are applying 21st century values to 19th century America.

Isn't that what leftwing turds like you do all the time? Aren't leftwingers always calling the Founding Fathers racists and bigots? Aren't they always claiming America was not a free country because it didn't measure up to current notions of justice?

It's true Lincoln was not alone in his sentiments, but so what? He was still a racist white supremacist. He didn't give a hoot about slavery, except to keep it out of the North and the new territories because he didn't want white meant to have to compete with slave labor. Lincoln said so himself numerous times. The idea that the North fought the war to end slavery doesn't pass the laugh test.

Lincoln could not have advocated full citizenship for blacks any more than he could have advocated allowing blacks and whites to marry. For significant social change, you have to take things one step at a time......the first step was to eliminate the evil of slavery
Politically, it was hard enough to end the institution of slavery. Trying to end slavery and give political and social equality at the same time was not possible in1848

Lincoln wouldn't say that because he was a white supremacist. The claim that it was just a political maneuver is to absurd for words.

The treasonous South took up arms against their own country because they wanted to ensure that they could maintain the practice of enslaving their fellow man, raping children and torturing those they consider inferior

The North initially fought to put down the slavery induced rebellion and then upped the ante to end slavery totally

 

[bripat9643]

Secession does not constitute "taking up arms against your country."

Wrong. Secession requires nothing more than a statement to that effect. No arms are required.

yes, it does...and leaving the US because you are throwing a temper tantrum over not getting to have slaves not only is immoral but is clear treason.

However, you can't provide a shred of evidence to support your claim. It's nothing more then infantile taunting.