The Origins and Causes of the U.S. Civil War

[James Everett]

Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.

The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.

I wonder how slavery could have ended peacefully? War was inevitable because the slave holders would never have compromised, they held political and economic power. If it were up to Confederates slavery never would have ended, they'd still be claiming the right to fight for their freedom to preserve slavery.

Disbo,
That is a gratuitous asertion backed by nothing more than your attempt to gain a moral superior position, which looking back on what the U.S. government did in its extermination of the Native American Indian, You cannot possibly hold that position.

I have absolutely no idea what Indians have to do with slavery and secession.

I have no idea what slavery has to do with the legality of secession either, yet you keep throwing it in the conversation, I can only assume you are attempting to divert from the legal issue, (which is the only relevant issue concerning secession), by introducing slavery in a feeble attempt at gaining the distorted view that Northerners hold some sort of moral superiority, therefore your governments extermination practices against the Native American Indian becomes relevant in the moral discussion that YOU introduced. Stick to the only relevant issue of the legality of secession, and you will not be required to defend your government concerning the Native American Indian. The author of the article which spawned this thread complained that his article was not about the legality of secession, however he introduced it when he falsely charged the Southerners of "insurrection". In doing so he entered the legal question concerning insurrection to which I posted the definition thereof, and gave proof that there was NO insurrection from the Southerners, yet clearly there was an insurrection by Lincoln and the Northerners, as they were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions' tenth amendment.

Again, you have failed completely to substantiate your premise. There exist no constitutionally legal basis for secession. End of story.

Diccombobulated....
I also apologize to you if in fact I have been posting examples of fact that are above your intellect.
The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional bases is in the Tenth Amendment thereof, which states.....
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The simple fact that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution enumerates nothing on the subject of secessio, means that it is a POWER reserved to each individual State, again...........
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Thanks for your post, and I hope this is not beyond your intellect as I have posted it this time around.
James Everett...
You may also find more fact and truth at..... CSAgov.org

 

[Discombobulated]

I wonder how slavery could have ended peacefully? War was inevitable because the slave holders would never have compromised, they held political and economic power. If it were up to Confederates slavery never would have ended, they'd still be claiming the right to fight for their freedom to preserve slavery.

Disbo,
That is a gratuitous asertion backed by nothing more than your attempt to gain a moral superior position, which looking back on what the U.S. government did in its extermination of the Native American Indian, You cannot possibly hold that position.

I have absolutely no idea what Indians have to do with slavery and secession.

I have no idea what slavery has to do with the legality of secession either, yet you keep throwing it in the conversation, I can only assume you are attempting to divert from the legal issue, (which is the only relevant issue concerning secession), by introducing slavery in a feeble attempt at gaining the distorted view that Northerners hold some sort of moral superiority, therefore your governments extermination practices against the Native American Indian becomes relevant in the moral discussion that YOU introduced. Stick to the only relevant issue of the legality of secession, and you will not be required to defend your government concerning the Native American Indian. The author of the article which spawned this thread complained that his article was not about the legality of secession, however he introduced it when he falsely charged the Southerners of "insurrection". In doing so he entered the legal question concerning insurrection to which I posted the definition thereof, and gave proof that there was NO insurrection from the Southerners, yet clearly there was an insurrection by Lincoln and the Northerners, as they were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions' tenth amendment.

Again, you have failed completely to substantiate your premise. There exist no constitutionally legal basis for secession. End of story.

Diccombobulated....
I also apologize to you if in fact I have been posting examples of fact that are above your intellect.
The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional bases is in the Tenth Amendment thereof, which states.....
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The simple fact that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution enumerates nothing on the subject of secessio, means that it is a POWER reserved to each individual State, again...........
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Thanks for your post, and I hope this is not beyond your intellect as I have posted it this time around.
James Everett...
You may also find more fact and truth at..... CSAgov.org

I am indeed privileged and honored to be educated by a constitutional scholar of your standing.

 

[James Everett]

James is simply loony; his material is not new or relevant; but he is fun to watch on his hamster wheel, spinning and spinning and spinning.

JakeStatrkey,
Thanks for your post, yet once again, you offer nothing but a child like intellect in your insults, and have yet to provide and facts wherein evidence is cited to support your claims.
Thank you for your posts.
Sincerely, James Everett.....
You may find actual truth backed by facts at CSAgov.org

 

[James Everett]

Disbo,
That is a gratuitous asertion backed by nothing more than your attempt to gain a moral superior position, which looking back on what the U.S. government did in its extermination of the Native American Indian, You cannot possibly hold that position.

I have absolutely no idea what Indians have to do with slavery and secession.

I have no idea what slavery has to do with the legality of secession either, yet you keep throwing it in the conversation, I can only assume you are attempting to divert from the legal issue, (which is the only relevant issue concerning secession), by introducing slavery in a feeble attempt at gaining the distorted view that Northerners hold some sort of moral superiority, therefore your governments extermination practices against the Native American Indian becomes relevant in the moral discussion that YOU introduced. Stick to the only relevant issue of the legality of secession, and you will not be required to defend your government concerning the Native American Indian. The author of the article which spawned this thread complained that his article was not about the legality of secession, however he introduced it when he falsely charged the Southerners of "insurrection". In doing so he entered the legal question concerning insurrection to which I posted the definition thereof, and gave proof that there was NO insurrection from the Southerners, yet clearly there was an insurrection by Lincoln and the Northerners, as they were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions' tenth amendment.

Again, you have failed completely to substantiate your premise. There exist no constitutionally legal basis for secession. End of story.

Diccombobulated....
I also apologize to you if in fact I have been posting examples of fact that are above your intellect.
The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional bases is in the Tenth Amendment thereof, which states.....
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The simple fact that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution enumerates nothing on the subject of secessio, means that it is a POWER reserved to each individual State, again...........
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Thanks for your post, and I hope this is not beyond your intellect as I have posted it this time around.
James Everett...
You may also find more fact and truth at..... CSAgov.org

I am indeed privileged and honored to be educated by a constitutional scholar of your standing.

You are welcome!

 

[SmedlyButler]

The Civil War was far more than a slavery issue...........The deep divisions had been going on many issues way before it went to blows................Mostly on the South not having a voice..............The North had the large population and were Industrial, while the South relied on farming..........aka cotton..........with a much smaller population.............the South basically had no chance whatsoever in the House of Representatives...........

Yes, and that larger population was responsible for Lincoln's election as an entirely regional candidate in a three way race. Lincoln, Seward and Fremont were representing big northern businesses and lobbying for huge Federal subsidies for railroads and protectionist tariffs for the financial interests the Republican Party was formed to represent, and of course wanted to pass the costs burdens off mostly on the Southern states, for 'national improvements' they wouldn't benefit from at all economically.

Please. In 1860 the South accounted for 75% of U.S. exports, all the slaves in the South were more monetarily valuable than all the railroads and Northern industry combined, and the tariff was at its lowest level since 1816. The Slave Power had enormous economic power, since free labor tends to produce gigantic profits. Of course, then you have other problems.

.and the North imposed laws that pissed off the South. Secession was talked about in 1820..............

Yes, in 1828, over the same reasons, higher taxes and tariffs that would fall very unequally on southerners. Before that secession was often a cry; the New England states threatened to secede several times before, and during, the War of 1812 for the same reasons; they felt they were carrying more than their share of the Federal tax burdens at the time, too. They were sniveling at the time that the Federal spending benefitted Virginia and the mid-Atlantic states instead of their own states.

We already know abolitionists didn't make up a majority of the Republican Party, and we already know the North had slave states, and we already know what the Republican Congresses and Senators wanted by what bills they concentrated on first, and none of them were about ' ending slavery n stuff'. Cherry pick cites from grandiose, pompous, and self-serving political speeches all you want, they mean little or nothing about the true motivations of those making the laws, any more than they mean anything today; it was about money and getting rid of political obstacles to loot the Federal Treasury and carry pork back home, and get bribes from big business.

Need more evidence of Republican motivations? See the blatant corruption of the Reconstruction farce, the Black Codes in the North that prevented blacks from migrating to northern states, including Lincoln's own Illinois, after the war, along with the corruption and cronyism during the war itself in supplying the Federal armies, in the Johnson and Grant adminstrations. Also see Lincoln going against his own Cabinet in deliberately provoking the war over Fort Sumter, with only his Postmaster General appointee supporting that illegal action, the rest being opposed, including General Winfield Scott and Seward himself being opposed to that. Lincoln was going to go to war, no matter what; it was the only way to remove southern political opposition to the railroad bills, massive tariff increases, and 'Homestead Act' scams to support the railroads subsidies.

The war was over two divergent sets of wealthy financial interests and the political power exerted by those interests, and nothing more.

The Reconstruction farce was overseen by Andrew Johnson, a Democrat. You know, since Lincoln was shot and all. Which was really too bad for the South; Lincoln openly favored a conciliatory policy and had the influence with Congress to get one; Johnson didn't and got run over by Congress.

"Provoking the war over Fort Sumter," is a laugh riot; there was already a war at that point. That's kind of what it is when you bombard forts into submission.

Yeah, like I'm about to waste my time arguing with a full blown kookanoodle.

From your website:

'"The government for the Confederate States of America never surrendered to the United States of America and still exist in a state of forced exile. The C.S.A and its Citizens are currently under active occupation by a United States imposed national government system."

Of course you will not discuss the legal issue with me, Paperview, you know you would lose. This will be a great disappointment to your cheerleader Mr. STARKEY, all his hopes were tied up in you. Now YOUR U.S. Is suppose to be a nation of laws, yet we find your brothers unable to cite the law I have requested, as for you, you will need to do the same, and while you are at it please produce the documents wherein our CSA government was surrendered to YOUR U.S. Or a peace treaty signed between YOUR USA and OUR CSA. Without such documents your case is lost, now who really is the Kook here? A Nation of laws? Cite those laws, produce those documents, I am busy this week, therefore I give you until Friday 9 pm to produce your evidence of fact.

That's cute. What makes you think you're in any position to make demands? Regardless, one doesn't make treaties with defeated rebels. The Confederate States is a fictional entity, recognized by no country in the world nor by most of its own population - after all, I seriously doubt the slaves were in favor, to say nothing of the large Unionist pockets in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama.

The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union.
The south offered to pay for all federal installations on our property and to pay our share of the national debt at the time.

Peacefully and legally my ass. Tell Captain McGowan of the Star of the West or Major Anderson commanding Fort Sumter how peaceful that cannon fire was.

The lying POS lincoln wanted war, though.
The declaration of independence...which lincoln supported...says;

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Declaration of Independence
1776

And it also says - directly after where you stopped quoting, interestingly enough; I'm sure that was coincidental -

Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

A single Presidential election is quite transient, it's hard to argue Lincoln subjected the Slave Power to a "long train" of anything before he'd even been inaugurated, and the Slave Power certainly exhibited nothing resembling patient sufferance. You will find no refuge for your cause in the Declaration.

The lying POS lincoln also said;
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


Abraham Lincoln
Jan 12, 1848

Yeah. But the Slave Power clearly didn't have the power. QED.

In his first inaugural address he also said;

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that --

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.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.


So the southerners who wanted to peacefully withdraw are called "traitors"....but that's just what the british called the colonists who wanted to peacefully separate from england...

Laugh...call names...make fun...mock...whatever you need to make yourself feel better...but southerners aren't over being invaded and having her citizens murdered, property burned, stolen or destroyed, infrastructure ruined any more than negroes are "over" slavery.

yet the north gloats and cheers the war criminal sherman and his "march to the sea"...it's ok...these things will all be corrected in time. This country won't last..and just like other nations that collapse in violence, old grudges will be resolved.

Make your threats, they mean nothing to me. Slavery was in no danger of being abolished in 1860 - the Slave Power brought that upon itself when it plunged the country into war when it was not allowed to dictate slavery upon territories that did not want it. Fanaticism for slavery expansion elected Lincoln - he would not have succeeded if the Deep South hadn't walked out of the Democratic National Convention because it refused to adopt a platform plank guaranteeing slavery in the territories and nominated Breckinridge to undermine Stephen Douglas. Really that was insane of them; Douglas was a true believer in Manifest Destiny ideology, and would gladly have conquered and made slave states of Cuba and as many Central American countries as he could lay the Army on. The South chose rebellion and war; had they abided by the electoral process as they were Constitutionally obliged to do, slavery would have persevered for decades. It was the war, a war fought by the Slave Power to expand slavery, that turned public sentiment in favor of abolition.

Some things are worth war; that was one of them. In short:

The south tried to peacefully withdraw and go about our business...The lying POS lincoln wanted his war and sent troops to invade. Patriots always try to repel invaders.Take 1776 for instance...your double standard and anti south bias is glaringly obvious.
You try to parse words and make up our own reality...I've posted the actual words of people involved at the time..not some message board propaganda...

lincoln then allowed his generals to wage war on civilians..murder, destruction of their property, businesses and infrastructure....and you guys are so proud of your murderous heritage and tell lies about and mock southerners.
It's like if your wife asks for a divorce you think it would be ok to beat her up.

Hell, I suppose you're also ok with the u.s. nuking civilians..... twice..... in WWII. "murica..fuck yeah!"

Save all you excuse making and parsing of words. lincoln said what he said...the declaration of independence says what it says...type a wall of text and equivocations...try to re interpret history so it makes you feel better....you can't erase what was said.

Here let me refresh your memory with some real history...not your filtered, revisionist re interpretations;


When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


Even lincoln thought the declaration of independence was a good idea...until he decided later to invade the south for exercising their legal rights to withdraw from the union.
Situational ethics.


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.

A. Lincoln
in Congress 1848


Here's what the lying POS said in his first inaugural address



Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "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." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

Now..if you want to continue the discussion based on what was actually said, proceed..if you just want a soapbox to chirp your anti southern anti democratic position from, just say so...don't try to corrupt history..People can read these words..you aren't fooling any of them.
Funny...only northerners think the war of northern aggression was right and proper...

It's ok, though..past wrongs will be corrected.
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction are the next 2 phases this nation will go through....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"

You can't get any plainer language than that to defend the Federal Government's right to suppress the rebellion initiated by the South to insure the survival and expansion of the institution of slavery, an institution that denied these enumerated rights to a large segment of the population. It was not the Federal Government that was destructive of the ends outlined in the declaration, it was the Southern Slave Powers. As I said the language is plain, it takes no extraordinary powers of interpretation to read just one more founding document's denial of legitimacy for the South's actions.

 

[James Everett]

The Civil War was far more than a slavery issue...........The deep divisions had been going on many issues way before it went to blows................Mostly on the South not having a voice..............The North had the large population and were Industrial, while the South relied on farming..........aka cotton..........with a much smaller population.............the South basically had no chance whatsoever in the House of Representatives...........

Yes, and that larger population was responsible for Lincoln's election as an entirely regional candidate in a three way race. Lincoln, Seward and Fremont were representing big northern businesses and lobbying for huge Federal subsidies for railroads and protectionist tariffs for the financial interests the Republican Party was formed to represent, and of course wanted to pass the costs burdens off mostly on the Southern states, for 'national improvements' they wouldn't benefit from at all economically.

Please. In 1860 the South accounted for 75% of U.S. exports, all the slaves in the South were more monetarily valuable than all the railroads and Northern industry combined, and the tariff was at its lowest level since 1816. The Slave Power had enormous economic power, since free labor tends to produce gigantic profits. Of course, then you have other problems.

.and the North imposed laws that pissed off the South. Secession was talked about in 1820..............

Yes, in 1828, over the same reasons, higher taxes and tariffs that would fall very unequally on southerners. Before that secession was often a cry; the New England states threatened to secede several times before, and during, the War of 1812 for the same reasons; they felt they were carrying more than their share of the Federal tax burdens at the time, too. They were sniveling at the time that the Federal spending benefitted Virginia and the mid-Atlantic states instead of their own states.

We already know abolitionists didn't make up a majority of the Republican Party, and we already know the North had slave states, and we already know what the Republican Congresses and Senators wanted by what bills they concentrated on first, and none of them were about ' ending slavery n stuff'. Cherry pick cites from grandiose, pompous, and self-serving political speeches all you want, they mean little or nothing about the true motivations of those making the laws, any more than they mean anything today; it was about money and getting rid of political obstacles to loot the Federal Treasury and carry pork back home, and get bribes from big business.

Need more evidence of Republican motivations? See the blatant corruption of the Reconstruction farce, the Black Codes in the North that prevented blacks from migrating to northern states, including Lincoln's own Illinois, after the war, along with the corruption and cronyism during the war itself in supplying the Federal armies, in the Johnson and Grant adminstrations. Also see Lincoln going against his own Cabinet in deliberately provoking the war over Fort Sumter, with only his Postmaster General appointee supporting that illegal action, the rest being opposed, including General Winfield Scott and Seward himself being opposed to that. Lincoln was going to go to war, no matter what; it was the only way to remove southern political opposition to the railroad bills, massive tariff increases, and 'Homestead Act' scams to support the railroads subsidies.

The war was over two divergent sets of wealthy financial interests and the political power exerted by those interests, and nothing more.

The Reconstruction farce was overseen by Andrew Johnson, a Democrat. You know, since Lincoln was shot and all. Which was really too bad for the South; Lincoln openly favored a conciliatory policy and had the influence with Congress to get one; Johnson didn't and got run over by Congress.

"Provoking the war over Fort Sumter," is a laugh riot; there was already a war at that point. That's kind of what it is when you bombard forts into submission.

Yeah, like I'm about to waste my time arguing with a full blown kookanoodle.

From your website:

'"The government for the Confederate States of America never surrendered to the United States of America and still exist in a state of forced exile. The C.S.A and its Citizens are currently under active occupation by a United States imposed national government system."

Of course you will not discuss the legal issue with me, Paperview, you know you would lose. This will be a great disappointment to your cheerleader Mr. STARKEY, all his hopes were tied up in you. Now YOUR U.S. Is suppose to be a nation of laws, yet we find your brothers unable to cite the law I have requested, as for you, you will need to do the same, and while you are at it please produce the documents wherein our CSA government was surrendered to YOUR U.S. Or a peace treaty signed between YOUR USA and OUR CSA. Without such documents your case is lost, now who really is the Kook here? A Nation of laws? Cite those laws, produce those documents, I am busy this week, therefore I give you until Friday 9 pm to produce your evidence of fact.

That's cute. What makes you think you're in any position to make demands? Regardless, one doesn't make treaties with defeated rebels. The Confederate States is a fictional entity, recognized by no country in the world nor by most of its own population - after all, I seriously doubt the slaves were in favor, to say nothing of the large Unionist pockets in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama.

The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union.
The south offered to pay for all federal installations on our property and to pay our share of the national debt at the time.

Peacefully and legally my ass. Tell Captain McGowan of the Star of the West or Major Anderson commanding Fort Sumter how peaceful that cannon fire was.

The lying POS lincoln wanted war, though.
The declaration of independence...which lincoln supported...says;

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Declaration of Independence
1776

And it also says - directly after where you stopped quoting, interestingly enough; I'm sure that was coincidental -

Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

A single Presidential election is quite transient, it's hard to argue Lincoln subjected the Slave Power to a "long train" of anything before he'd even been inaugurated, and the Slave Power certainly exhibited nothing resembling patient sufferance. You will find no refuge for your cause in the Declaration.

The lying POS lincoln also said;
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


Abraham Lincoln
Jan 12, 1848

Yeah. But the Slave Power clearly didn't have the power. QED.

In his first inaugural address he also said;

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that --

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.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.


So the southerners who wanted to peacefully withdraw are called "traitors"....but that's just what the british called the colonists who wanted to peacefully separate from england...

Laugh...call names...make fun...mock...whatever you need to make yourself feel better...but southerners aren't over being invaded and having her citizens murdered, property burned, stolen or destroyed, infrastructure ruined any more than negroes are "over" slavery.

yet the north gloats and cheers the war criminal sherman and his "march to the sea"...it's ok...these things will all be corrected in time. This country won't last..and just like other nations that collapse in violence, old grudges will be resolved.

Make your threats, they mean nothing to me. Slavery was in no danger of being abolished in 1860 - the Slave Power brought that upon itself when it plunged the country into war when it was not allowed to dictate slavery upon territories that did not want it. Fanaticism for slavery expansion elected Lincoln - he would not have succeeded if the Deep South hadn't walked out of the Democratic National Convention because it refused to adopt a platform plank guaranteeing slavery in the territories and nominated Breckinridge to undermine Stephen Douglas. Really that was insane of them; Douglas was a true believer in Manifest Destiny ideology, and would gladly have conquered and made slave states of Cuba and as many Central American countries as he could lay the Army on. The South chose rebellion and war; had they abided by the electoral process as they were Constitutionally obliged to do, slavery would have persevered for decades. It was the war, a war fought by the Slave Power to expand slavery, that turned public sentiment in favor of abolition.

Some things are worth war; that was one of them. In short:

The south tried to peacefully withdraw and go about our business...The lying POS lincoln wanted his war and sent troops to invade. Patriots always try to repel invaders.Take 1776 for instance...your double standard and anti south bias is glaringly obvious.
You try to parse words and make up our own reality...I've posted the actual words of people involved at the time..not some message board propaganda...

lincoln then allowed his generals to wage war on civilians..murder, destruction of their property, businesses and infrastructure....and you guys are so proud of your murderous heritage and tell lies about and mock southerners.
It's like if your wife asks for a divorce you think it would be ok to beat her up.

Hell, I suppose you're also ok with the u.s. nuking civilians..... twice..... in WWII. "murica..fuck yeah!"

Save all you excuse making and parsing of words. lincoln said what he said...the declaration of independence says what it says...type a wall of text and equivocations...try to re interpret history so it makes you feel better....you can't erase what was said.

Here let me refresh your memory with some real history...not your filtered, revisionist re interpretations;


When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


Even lincoln thought the declaration of independence was a good idea...until he decided later to invade the south for exercising their legal rights to withdraw from the union.
Situational ethics.


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.

A. Lincoln
in Congress 1848


Here's what the lying POS said in his first inaugural address



Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "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." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

Now..if you want to continue the discussion based on what was actually said, proceed..if you just want a soapbox to chirp your anti southern anti democratic position from, just say so...don't try to corrupt history..People can read these words..you aren't fooling any of them.
Funny...only northerners think the war of northern aggression was right and proper...

It's ok, though..past wrongs will be corrected.
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction are the next 2 phases this nation will go through....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"

You can't get any plainer language than that to defend the Federal Government's right to suppress the rebellion initiated by the South to insure the survival and expansion of the institution of slavery, an institution that denied these enumerated rights to a large segment of the population. It was not the Federal Government that was destructive of the ends outlined in the declaration, it was the Southern Slave Powers. As I said the language is plain, it takes no extraordinary powers of interpretation to read just one more founding document's denial of legitimacy for the South's actions.

SmedlyButler,
You are quoting the Declaration of Independence, NOT the 1787/1789 U.S.CONstitution or law.
Again, as is always the case, the Yankee avoids the only relevant issue, that being the law, and tries to gain the moral high ground, which is not possible.
North, nor South was without blemish, Did women have the right of suffrage in 1860 in the North?
Was the Native American Indian not only denied these rights, but exterminated by your U.S. Government?
Need I list the Jim Crow laws in the Northern States again which denied these rights for nearly a hundred years after the occupation of our Southern Confederate States began?
Need I post the definition of "Rebellion" Every in post for the indoctrinated to see?
From Johnson's Dictionary of the English language 1755 edition......
ReBc'llion. n, f. [rtbellion, French;

rcbellio, Latin ; from rebel j

Insurrection Against lawful authority.
Now PLEASE cite the Law, Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an unlawful or illegal act.
If the U.S. was fighting to give equal rights...."Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" then why did they deny these same rights to the Native American Indian, the Women , and the Black man in the Northern States?
If indeed it was a crusade to end slavery in the U.S., then why was the North, the U.S. not pleased that with the secession of the Southern States slavery was ended in the U.S.?

 

[Unkotare]

The wannabe rebel apologist is spinning himself into knots. Too funny.

 

[Ravi]

I wish he'd just start up another civil war but all he appears able to do is whine.

 

[James Everett]

The wannabe rebel apologist is spinning himself into knots. Too funny.

Unkotare,
You Yankee Pseudo intellectuals are so inept that it makes my job too easy.....
You state that....
"The wannabe rebel apologist is spinning himself into knots. Too funny"
First, I apologize for nothing,
Second, TRUTH presented with irrefutable proof is in no way "spinning".
You, as the rest of your lel Yankee group, present nothing but childish rebuttal that mean nothing, such as you have just posted. I just sit and smile as you all continue your lil pathetic posts in response....

 

[James Everett]

I wish he'd just start up another civil war but all he appears able to do is whine.

Ravi,
"If wishes were horses".
The Southern Confederate States, Me, nor the South need rise again, ALL WE NEED DO IS STAND AND WATCH YOUR U.S. FALL INTO ECONOMIC COLLAPSE JUST AS DID THE FAMOUS SOVIET UNION...( "EVIL EMPIRE").
NO NEED FOR WAR, AS PERPETUAL WARMONGERING IS YOUR GOVERNMENTS GAME.......

 

[James Everett]

The wannabe rebel apologist is spinning himself into knots. Too funny.

Unkotare
Whats with the doo and the eye patch???

 

[Discombobulated]

The Civil War was far more than a slavery issue...........The deep divisions had been going on many issues way before it went to blows................Mostly on the South not having a voice..............The North had the large population and were Industrial, while the South relied on farming..........aka cotton..........with a much smaller population.............the South basically had no chance whatsoever in the House of Representatives...........

Yes, and that larger population was responsible for Lincoln's election as an entirely regional candidate in a three way race. Lincoln, Seward and Fremont were representing big northern businesses and lobbying for huge Federal subsidies for railroads and protectionist tariffs for the financial interests the Republican Party was formed to represent, and of course wanted to pass the costs burdens off mostly on the Southern states, for 'national improvements' they wouldn't benefit from at all economically.

Please. In 1860 the South accounted for 75% of U.S. exports, all the slaves in the South were more monetarily valuable than all the railroads and Northern industry combined, and the tariff was at its lowest level since 1816. The Slave Power had enormous economic power, since free labor tends to produce gigantic profits. Of course, then you have other problems.

.and the North imposed laws that pissed off the South. Secession was talked about in 1820..............

Yes, in 1828, over the same reasons, higher taxes and tariffs that would fall very unequally on southerners. Before that secession was often a cry; the New England states threatened to secede several times before, and during, the War of 1812 for the same reasons; they felt they were carrying more than their share of the Federal tax burdens at the time, too. They were sniveling at the time that the Federal spending benefitted Virginia and the mid-Atlantic states instead of their own states.

We already know abolitionists didn't make up a majority of the Republican Party, and we already know the North had slave states, and we already know what the Republican Congresses and Senators wanted by what bills they concentrated on first, and none of them were about ' ending slavery n stuff'. Cherry pick cites from grandiose, pompous, and self-serving political speeches all you want, they mean little or nothing about the true motivations of those making the laws, any more than they mean anything today; it was about money and getting rid of political obstacles to loot the Federal Treasury and carry pork back home, and get bribes from big business.

Need more evidence of Republican motivations? See the blatant corruption of the Reconstruction farce, the Black Codes in the North that prevented blacks from migrating to northern states, including Lincoln's own Illinois, after the war, along with the corruption and cronyism during the war itself in supplying the Federal armies, in the Johnson and Grant adminstrations. Also see Lincoln going against his own Cabinet in deliberately provoking the war over Fort Sumter, with only his Postmaster General appointee supporting that illegal action, the rest being opposed, including General Winfield Scott and Seward himself being opposed to that. Lincoln was going to go to war, no matter what; it was the only way to remove southern political opposition to the railroad bills, massive tariff increases, and 'Homestead Act' scams to support the railroads subsidies.

The war was over two divergent sets of wealthy financial interests and the political power exerted by those interests, and nothing more.

The Reconstruction farce was overseen by Andrew Johnson, a Democrat. You know, since Lincoln was shot and all. Which was really too bad for the South; Lincoln openly favored a conciliatory policy and had the influence with Congress to get one; Johnson didn't and got run over by Congress.

"Provoking the war over Fort Sumter," is a laugh riot; there was already a war at that point. That's kind of what it is when you bombard forts into submission.

Yeah, like I'm about to waste my time arguing with a full blown kookanoodle.

From your website:

'"The government for the Confederate States of America never surrendered to the United States of America and still exist in a state of forced exile. The C.S.A and its Citizens are currently under active occupation by a United States imposed national government system."

Of course you will not discuss the legal issue with me, Paperview, you know you would lose. This will be a great disappointment to your cheerleader Mr. STARKEY, all his hopes were tied up in you. Now YOUR U.S. Is suppose to be a nation of laws, yet we find your brothers unable to cite the law I have requested, as for you, you will need to do the same, and while you are at it please produce the documents wherein our CSA government was surrendered to YOUR U.S. Or a peace treaty signed between YOUR USA and OUR CSA. Without such documents your case is lost, now who really is the Kook here? A Nation of laws? Cite those laws, produce those documents, I am busy this week, therefore I give you until Friday 9 pm to produce your evidence of fact.

That's cute. What makes you think you're in any position to make demands? Regardless, one doesn't make treaties with defeated rebels. The Confederate States is a fictional entity, recognized by no country in the world nor by most of its own population - after all, I seriously doubt the slaves were in favor, to say nothing of the large Unionist pockets in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama.

The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union.
The south offered to pay for all federal installations on our property and to pay our share of the national debt at the time.

Peacefully and legally my ass. Tell Captain McGowan of the Star of the West or Major Anderson commanding Fort Sumter how peaceful that cannon fire was.

The lying POS lincoln wanted war, though.
The declaration of independence...which lincoln supported...says;

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Declaration of Independence
1776

And it also says - directly after where you stopped quoting, interestingly enough; I'm sure that was coincidental -

Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

A single Presidential election is quite transient, it's hard to argue Lincoln subjected the Slave Power to a "long train" of anything before he'd even been inaugurated, and the Slave Power certainly exhibited nothing resembling patient sufferance. You will find no refuge for your cause in the Declaration.

The lying POS lincoln also said;
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


Abraham Lincoln
Jan 12, 1848

Yeah. But the Slave Power clearly didn't have the power. QED.

In his first inaugural address he also said;

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that --

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.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.


So the southerners who wanted to peacefully withdraw are called "traitors"....but that's just what the british called the colonists who wanted to peacefully separate from england...

Laugh...call names...make fun...mock...whatever you need to make yourself feel better...but southerners aren't over being invaded and having her citizens murdered, property burned, stolen or destroyed, infrastructure ruined any more than negroes are "over" slavery.

yet the north gloats and cheers the war criminal sherman and his "march to the sea"...it's ok...these things will all be corrected in time. This country won't last..and just like other nations that collapse in violence, old grudges will be resolved.

Make your threats, they mean nothing to me. Slavery was in no danger of being abolished in 1860 - the Slave Power brought that upon itself when it plunged the country into war when it was not allowed to dictate slavery upon territories that did not want it. Fanaticism for slavery expansion elected Lincoln - he would not have succeeded if the Deep South hadn't walked out of the Democratic National Convention because it refused to adopt a platform plank guaranteeing slavery in the territories and nominated Breckinridge to undermine Stephen Douglas. Really that was insane of them; Douglas was a true believer in Manifest Destiny ideology, and would gladly have conquered and made slave states of Cuba and as many Central American countries as he could lay the Army on. The South chose rebellion and war; had they abided by the electoral process as they were Constitutionally obliged to do, slavery would have persevered for decades. It was the war, a war fought by the Slave Power to expand slavery, that turned public sentiment in favor of abolition.

Some things are worth war; that was one of them. In short:

The south tried to peacefully withdraw and go about our business...The lying POS lincoln wanted his war and sent troops to invade. Patriots always try to repel invaders.Take 1776 for instance...your double standard and anti south bias is glaringly obvious.
You try to parse words and make up our own reality...I've posted the actual words of people involved at the time..not some message board propaganda...

lincoln then allowed his generals to wage war on civilians..murder, destruction of their property, businesses and infrastructure....and you guys are so proud of your murderous heritage and tell lies about and mock southerners.
It's like if your wife asks for a divorce you think it would be ok to beat her up.

Hell, I suppose you're also ok with the u.s. nuking civilians..... twice..... in WWII. "murica..fuck yeah!"

Save all you excuse making and parsing of words. lincoln said what he said...the declaration of independence says what it says...type a wall of text and equivocations...try to re interpret history so it makes you feel better....you can't erase what was said.

Here let me refresh your memory with some real history...not your filtered, revisionist re interpretations;


When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


Even lincoln thought the declaration of independence was a good idea...until he decided later to invade the south for exercising their legal rights to withdraw from the union.
Situational ethics.


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.

A. Lincoln
in Congress 1848


Here's what the lying POS said in his first inaugural address



Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "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." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

Now..if you want to continue the discussion based on what was actually said, proceed..if you just want a soapbox to chirp your anti southern anti democratic position from, just say so...don't try to corrupt history..People can read these words..you aren't fooling any of them.
Funny...only northerners think the war of northern aggression was right and proper...

It's ok, though..past wrongs will be corrected.
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction are the next 2 phases this nation will go through....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"

You can't get any plainer language than that to defend the Federal Government's right to suppress the rebellion initiated by the South to insure the survival and expansion of the institution of slavery, an institution that denied these enumerated rights to a large segment of the population. It was not the Federal Government that was destructive of the ends outlined in the declaration, it was the Southern Slave Powers. As I said the language is plain, it takes no extraordinary powers of interpretation to read just one more founding document's denial of legitimacy for the South's actions.

SmedlyButler,
You are quoting the Declaration of Independence, NOT the 1787/1789 U.S.CONstitution or law.
Again, as is always the case, the Yankee avoids the only relevant issue, that being the law, and tries to gain the moral high ground, which is not possible.
North, nor South was without blemish, Did women have the right of suffrage in 1860 in the North?
Was the Native American Indian not only denied these rights, but exterminated by your U.S. Government?
Need I list the Jim Crow laws in the Northern States again which denied these rights for nearly a hundred years after the occupation of our Southern Confederate States began?
Need I post the definition of "Rebellion" Every in post for the indoctrinated to see?
From Johnson's Dictionary of the English language 1755 edition......
ReBc'llion. n, f. [rtbellion, French;

rcbellio, Latin ; from rebel j

Insurrection Against lawful authority.
Now PLEASE cite the Law, Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an unlawful or illegal act.
If the U.S. was fighting to give equal rights...."Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" then why did they deny these same rights to the Native American Indian, the Women , and the Black man in the Northern States?
If indeed it was a crusade to end slavery in the U.S., then why was the North, the U.S. not pleased that with the secession of the Southern States slavery was ended in the U.S.?

Let's pursue your reasoning a little further and find out more about this principle of secession. Following your logic it should perfectly legal for counties to secede from states. Would it be OK with you if some counties in Texas voted to secede and rejoin Mexico?

 

[rdean]

Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.

 

[James Everett]

Yes, and that larger population was responsible for Lincoln's election as an entirely regional candidate in a three way race. Lincoln, Seward and Fremont were representing big northern businesses and lobbying for huge Federal subsidies for railroads and protectionist tariffs for the financial interests the Republican Party was formed to represent, and of course wanted to pass the costs burdens off mostly on the Southern states, for 'national improvements' they wouldn't benefit from at all economically.

Please. In 1860 the South accounted for 75% of U.S. exports, all the slaves in the South were more monetarily valuable than all the railroads and Northern industry combined, and the tariff was at its lowest level since 1816. The Slave Power had enormous economic power, since free labor tends to produce gigantic profits. Of course, then you have other problems.

Yes, in 1828, over the same reasons, higher taxes and tariffs that would fall very unequally on southerners. Before that secession was often a cry; the New England states threatened to secede several times before, and during, the War of 1812 for the same reasons; they felt they were carrying more than their share of the Federal tax burdens at the time, too. They were sniveling at the time that the Federal spending benefitted Virginia and the mid-Atlantic states instead of their own states.

We already know abolitionists didn't make up a majority of the Republican Party, and we already know the North had slave states, and we already know what the Republican Congresses and Senators wanted by what bills they concentrated on first, and none of them were about ' ending slavery n stuff'. Cherry pick cites from grandiose, pompous, and self-serving political speeches all you want, they mean little or nothing about the true motivations of those making the laws, any more than they mean anything today; it was about money and getting rid of political obstacles to loot the Federal Treasury and carry pork back home, and get bribes from big business.

Need more evidence of Republican motivations? See the blatant corruption of the Reconstruction farce, the Black Codes in the North that prevented blacks from migrating to northern states, including Lincoln's own Illinois, after the war, along with the corruption and cronyism during the war itself in supplying the Federal armies, in the Johnson and Grant adminstrations. Also see Lincoln going against his own Cabinet in deliberately provoking the war over Fort Sumter, with only his Postmaster General appointee supporting that illegal action, the rest being opposed, including General Winfield Scott and Seward himself being opposed to that. Lincoln was going to go to war, no matter what; it was the only way to remove southern political opposition to the railroad bills, massive tariff increases, and 'Homestead Act' scams to support the railroads subsidies.

The war was over two divergent sets of wealthy financial interests and the political power exerted by those interests, and nothing more.

The Reconstruction farce was overseen by Andrew Johnson, a Democrat. You know, since Lincoln was shot and all. Which was really too bad for the South; Lincoln openly favored a conciliatory policy and had the influence with Congress to get one; Johnson didn't and got run over by Congress.

"Provoking the war over Fort Sumter," is a laugh riot; there was already a war at that point. That's kind of what it is when you bombard forts into submission.

Of course you will not discuss the legal issue with me, Paperview, you know you would lose. This will be a great disappointment to your cheerleader Mr. STARKEY, all his hopes were tied up in you. Now YOUR U.S. Is suppose to be a nation of laws, yet we find your brothers unable to cite the law I have requested, as for you, you will need to do the same, and while you are at it please produce the documents wherein our CSA government was surrendered to YOUR U.S. Or a peace treaty signed between YOUR USA and OUR CSA. Without such documents your case is lost, now who really is the Kook here? A Nation of laws? Cite those laws, produce those documents, I am busy this week, therefore I give you until Friday 9 pm to produce your evidence of fact.

That's cute. What makes you think you're in any position to make demands? Regardless, one doesn't make treaties with defeated rebels. The Confederate States is a fictional entity, recognized by no country in the world nor by most of its own population - after all, I seriously doubt the slaves were in favor, to say nothing of the large Unionist pockets in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama.

The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union.
The south offered to pay for all federal installations on our property and to pay our share of the national debt at the time.

Peacefully and legally my ass. Tell Captain McGowan of the Star of the West or Major Anderson commanding Fort Sumter how peaceful that cannon fire was.

The lying POS lincoln wanted war, though.
The declaration of independence...which lincoln supported...says;

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Declaration of Independence
1776

And it also says - directly after where you stopped quoting, interestingly enough; I'm sure that was coincidental -

Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

A single Presidential election is quite transient, it's hard to argue Lincoln subjected the Slave Power to a "long train" of anything before he'd even been inaugurated, and the Slave Power certainly exhibited nothing resembling patient sufferance. You will find no refuge for your cause in the Declaration.

The lying POS lincoln also said;
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


Abraham Lincoln
Jan 12, 1848

Yeah. But the Slave Power clearly didn't have the power. QED.

In his first inaugural address he also said;

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that --

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.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.


So the southerners who wanted to peacefully withdraw are called "traitors"....but that's just what the british called the colonists who wanted to peacefully separate from england...

Laugh...call names...make fun...mock...whatever you need to make yourself feel better...but southerners aren't over being invaded and having her citizens murdered, property burned, stolen or destroyed, infrastructure ruined any more than negroes are "over" slavery.

yet the north gloats and cheers the war criminal sherman and his "march to the sea"...it's ok...these things will all be corrected in time. This country won't last..and just like other nations that collapse in violence, old grudges will be resolved.

Make your threats, they mean nothing to me. Slavery was in no danger of being abolished in 1860 - the Slave Power brought that upon itself when it plunged the country into war when it was not allowed to dictate slavery upon territories that did not want it. Fanaticism for slavery expansion elected Lincoln - he would not have succeeded if the Deep South hadn't walked out of the Democratic National Convention because it refused to adopt a platform plank guaranteeing slavery in the territories and nominated Breckinridge to undermine Stephen Douglas. Really that was insane of them; Douglas was a true believer in Manifest Destiny ideology, and would gladly have conquered and made slave states of Cuba and as many Central American countries as he could lay the Army on. The South chose rebellion and war; had they abided by the electoral process as they were Constitutionally obliged to do, slavery would have persevered for decades. It was the war, a war fought by the Slave Power to expand slavery, that turned public sentiment in favor of abolition.

Some things are worth war; that was one of them. In short:

The south tried to peacefully withdraw and go about our business...The lying POS lincoln wanted his war and sent troops to invade. Patriots always try to repel invaders.Take 1776 for instance...your double standard and anti south bias is glaringly obvious.
You try to parse words and make up our own reality...I've posted the actual words of people involved at the time..not some message board propaganda...

lincoln then allowed his generals to wage war on civilians..murder, destruction of their property, businesses and infrastructure....and you guys are so proud of your murderous heritage and tell lies about and mock southerners.
It's like if your wife asks for a divorce you think it would be ok to beat her up.

Hell, I suppose you're also ok with the u.s. nuking civilians..... twice..... in WWII. "murica..fuck yeah!"

Save all you excuse making and parsing of words. lincoln said what he said...the declaration of independence says what it says...type a wall of text and equivocations...try to re interpret history so it makes you feel better....you can't erase what was said.

Here let me refresh your memory with some real history...not your filtered, revisionist re interpretations;


When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


Even lincoln thought the declaration of independence was a good idea...until he decided later to invade the south for exercising their legal rights to withdraw from the union.
Situational ethics.


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.

A. Lincoln
in Congress 1848


Here's what the lying POS said in his first inaugural address



Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "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." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

Now..if you want to continue the discussion based on what was actually said, proceed..if you just want a soapbox to chirp your anti southern anti democratic position from, just say so...don't try to corrupt history..People can read these words..you aren't fooling any of them.
Funny...only northerners think the war of northern aggression was right and proper...

It's ok, though..past wrongs will be corrected.
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction are the next 2 phases this nation will go through....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"

You can't get any plainer language than that to defend the Federal Government's right to suppress the rebellion initiated by the South to insure the survival and expansion of the institution of slavery, an institution that denied these enumerated rights to a large segment of the population. It was not the Federal Government that was destructive of the ends outlined in the declaration, it was the Southern Slave Powers. As I said the language is plain, it takes no extraordinary powers of interpretation to read just one more founding document's denial of legitimacy for the South's actions.

SmedlyButler,
You are quoting the Declaration of Independence, NOT the 1787/1789 U.S.CONstitution or law.
Again, as is always the case, the Yankee avoids the only relevant issue, that being the law, and tries to gain the moral high ground, which is not possible.
North, nor South was without blemish, Did women have the right of suffrage in 1860 in the North?
Was the Native American Indian not only denied these rights, but exterminated by your U.S. Government?
Need I list the Jim Crow laws in the Northern States again which denied these rights for nearly a hundred years after the occupation of our Southern Confederate States began?
Need I post the definition of "Rebellion" Every in post for the indoctrinated to see?
From Johnson's Dictionary of the English language 1755 edition......
ReBc'llion. n, f. [rtbellion, French;

rcbellio, Latin ; from rebel j

Insurrection Against lawful authority.
Now PLEASE cite the Law, Article within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an unlawful or illegal act.
If the U.S. was fighting to give equal rights...."Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" then why did they deny these same rights to the Native American Indian, the Women , and the Black man in the Northern States?
If indeed it was a crusade to end slavery in the U.S., then why was the North, the U.S. not pleased that with the secession of the Southern States slavery was ended in the U.S.?

Let's pursue your reasoning a little further and find out more about this principle of secession. Following your logic it should perfectly legal for counties to secede from states. Would it be OK with you if some counties in Texas voted to secede and rejoin Mexico?

Discombobulated,
A County within a State is NOT a sovereign, nor is there a treaty between the county and State. You are thinking, yet reaching, that is far and above your other posts which tells me that you are beginning to open your mind and possibly learn.

 

[James Everett]

Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.

Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.

rddean,
I am NOT a Conservative, I am a Southern Confederate, I despise the Conservatives in your political venue as much and possibly more that I despise the so called Liberal. You cannot argue from within YOUR political realm when debating with me.

 

[Discombobulated]

Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.

Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.

rddean,
I am NOT a Conservative, I am a Southern Confederate, I despise the Conservatives in your political venue as much and possibly more that I despise the so called Liberal. You cannot argue from within YOUR political realm when debating with me.

Texas is not a sovereign state. Where's their navy? Who's their ambassador to China?

 

[James Everett]

Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.

Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.

rddean,
I am NOT a Conservative, I am a Southern Confederate, I despise the Conservatives in your political venue as much and possibly more that I despise the so called Liberal. You cannot argue from within YOUR political realm when debating with me.

Texas is not a sovereign state. Where's their navy? Who's their ambassador to China?

Discombobulated,
Texas in under current occupation by the U.S. National government, an has been since 1865. FYI, I am NOT a Texan.
When the occupation has ended, then Texas resumes its place as a member State within the Confederate States of America, its ambassador would be the CSA ambassador unless Texas were to decide to secede from the CSA. However, the ultimate goal is simply to use the restored CSA Confederacy as a means for our Southern Confederate States to return to a wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation.
Thanks again for your post, I hope I have helped you gain knowledge.
James Everett....
CSAgov.org

 

[JakeStarkey]

James keeps babbling.

His understanding of the narrative is wrong.

He can never offer convincing proof of secession being a sovereign right of a state.

 

[Discombobulated]

Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.

Today's Republicans believe that Lincoln must have been a confederate somehow and white conservatives fought to free the slaves.
Course, their beliefs on science and education also leave a lot to be desired.

rddean,
I am NOT a Conservative, I am a Southern Confederate, I despise the Conservatives in your political venue as much and possibly more that I despise the so called Liberal. You cannot argue from within YOUR political realm when debating with me.

Texas is not a sovereign state. Where's their navy? Who's their ambassador to China?

Discombobulated,
Texas in under current occupation by the U.S. National government, an has been since 1865. FYI, I am NOT a Texan.
When the occupation has ended, then Texas resumes its place as a member State within the Confederate States of America, its ambassador would be the CSA ambassador unless Texas were to decide to secede from the CSA. However, the ultimate goal is simply to use the restored CSA Confederacy as a means for our Southern Confederate States to return to a wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation.
Thanks again for your post, I hope I have helped you gain knowledge.
James Everett....
CSAgov.org

I see. So in the final analysis you don't really believe in the principle of self determination. Your only interest is some fantasy about reconstituting the Confederacy.

 

[James Everett]

James keeps babbling.

His understanding of the narrative is wrong.

He can never offer convincing proof of secession being a sovereign right of a state.

JakeStarkey.
You keep posting the same assertion over and again, yet cannot refute the truth that I have posted, and you have yet to cite any proof for your assertions. I continue to