It escapes me. If you think he has a point, you debate him.Again, he has a point. Being dishonest isn't the way to go here.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It escapes me. If you think he has a point, you debate him.Again, he has a point. Being dishonest isn't the way to go here.
I share your fears. I'm afraid it's too far gone. And, I see Lincoln's administration as a pioneer of the system we have in place now. A huge centralized government is what he wanted and got. And, look at the lives it cost. The legacy and impact of hundreds of thousands dead in unprecedented fashion. The destruction of the South. That scale was inconceivable. It left such a deep wound. The poor whites of the South probably had no ill will toward blacks prior to the war. Then, after it, they became sworn enemies due to the loss of their entire world.I've always been of the opinion that had the South taken their cause of secession to the Supreme Court they would have won. But to secede, and then to fire on Ft. Sumter, played into Lincoln's Unionist hand.
You and I have similar views of our current government, but I don't know if we see the same causes. I'm terrified of the corporate influence in both major parties.
I'm in agreement with him. You're the one dodging... as usual.It escapes me. If you think he has a point, you debate him.
I thought I was in agreement with you that we should stop glorifying an inglorious past and move on in unity. I guess I fail to grasp either of your points, but that is mine.I'm in agreement with him. You're the one dodging... as usual.
You were championing Lincoln as being (or had been) on your team recently. He's not on my team.I thought I was in agreement with you that we should stop glorifying an inglorious past and move on in unity. I guess I fail to grasp either of your points, but that is mine.
If you read history, you will realize that sectionalism and states rights had been a huge conflict for the 30-40 years leading up to the CW (Andrew Jackson vs. South Carolina. Slavery was less of a "state" issue that was often swept away by "national" compromises and bad judicial rulings. Nobody went to war for or against slavery, but in the end became a national cause for both sides.
And what does that have to do with anything I've said here or anything AT said? I don't think either of you are making a cogent point, just some lazy trolling.You were championing Lincoln as being (or had been) on your team recently. He's not on my team.
And what does that have to do with anything I've said here or anything AT said? I don't think either of you are making a cogent point, just some lazy trolling.
Not exactly mutually exclusive points since the South at that time viewed slavery as a states rights issue.You do realize that the major cause of the sectional strife and conflict was, ummmm......SLAVERY, right?
Only a sick man would think that was a troll. Does ACA cover Liberalism?As I said, your trolls have been better.
Still no discernible point.Only a sick man would think that was a troll. Does ACA cover Liberalism?
No point that you want made you mean.Still no discernible point.
The fact that black people resent white people and hold slavery accountable to present day white people is not a past problem.I thought I was in agreement with you that we should stop glorifying an inglorious past and move on in unity. I guess I fail to grasp either of your points, but that is mine.
Perhaps you thought you answered my question, but you did not. I asked if the South would still have seceded even if they did not fear that slavery was in imminent danger of being banned. You claimed they did, which is a fundamentally flawed answer because the South most certainly feared slavery was in imminent danger of being outlawed and so we have no way of knowing whether they would have seceded otherwise.Not only would they...they did. Are you familiar with the confiscatory tariffs the protectionist, industrial North placed on the agrarian and free-trade South? The Morrill tariffs?
You have a bizarre obsession with race. Ts and Ps.The fact that black people resent white people and hold slavery accountable to present day white people is not a past problem.
Your post seems fairly accurate about Lincoln early in the conflict. But, in fairness, read further about: how his compass changed, his relationship with Frederick Douglass, his reputation among African Americans(both free and enslaved). Then read transcripts of his famous speeches during the war, and see if what you said is still justified.This thread perfectly illustrates why the federal gov has no business being involved in education. Besides the obvious fact that they do not educate one child. If you can claw your way to the top of the mountain and control the behemoth monster in D.C., you can by edict decide what is approved thought for the masses. And who controls the fedgov, the 1%. Slavery did not become an issue in the War Against Southern Independence until 18 months after it started.
The opening statements of the First Inaugural, where Lincoln quoted himself as saying: “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.”
That’s what Lincoln said his invasion of the Southern states was not about. In an August 22, 1862, letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley he explained to the world what the war was about:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."
To think that Lincoln adored freedom is just fantasy. He suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, the only personal liberty law in the Constitution, and ordered the military to arrest tens of thousands of Northern citizens for merely voicing opposition to his administration. This number included hundreds of Northern newspaper editors and owners who criticized the Lincoln administration. None of these individuals was ever served a warrant and some spent four years in military prison without any due process. A member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandhigham of Ohio, was deported because of his outspoken opposition to the Lincoln administration. The truth was suppressed then as it is today. Good for Texas!
Fort Sumter is locate in the South. Consider yourself corrected.Your post seems fairly accurate about Lincoln early in the conflict. But, in fairness, read further about: how his compass changed, his relationship with Frederick Douglass, his reputation among African Americans(both free and enslaved). Then read transcripts of his famous speeches during the war, and see if what you said is still justified.
I'm talking about Lincoln, the man. I have, for a long time, felt that slavery was not the main issue for the North at the beginning of the war.
You, also, mention his(the Norths) invasion of the South, as if they initiated the actual fighting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was the other way around.
On federal landFort Sumter is locate in the South. Consider yourself corrected.
You're not religious.You have a bizarre obsession with race. Ts and Ps.
I think my favorite revisionist history claim by southerners is that secession wasn't about slavery and that it was mostly about states' rights and their aversion to a strong central government.
Because when South Carolina seceded and a bunch of other states followed suit, the very first thing they did was establish a central government with a constitution nearly identical to the United States, except that it guaranteed the right to own slaves in any existing or future state.
On federal land
Lincoln himself said it was more about secession than anything. He flat out said, that "If I could keep the union together, and not free a slave, I would."I think my favorite revisionist history claim by southerners is that secession wasn't about slavery and that it was mostly about states' rights and their aversion to a strong central government.
Because when South Carolina seceded and a bunch of other states followed suit, the very first thing they did was establish a central government with a constitution nearly identical to the United States, except that it guaranteed the right to own slaves in any existing or future state.
You're arguing an entirely different issue. I'm talking about the South's motivations for seceding. You're talking about Lincoln's motivations for going to war. Those are two different things.Lincoln himself said it was more about secession than anything. He flat out said, that "If I could keep the union together, and not free a slave, I would."
So suck it. It's the truth, and like most of histories truths, it is an ugly one. Hitler rose partly in due to American industry and European Banking, Pearl Harbor could have been averted, Vietnam was a waste, the WMD's were either not there at all, or GREATLY exaggerated by both sides, elections are rigged(see 2000), our government is inept(see ACA, 9-11, Federal Defecit), and you're owned by the Banks.
That's life buddy, that's America. Let Freedom ring....let me know when it starts.
That's not true. It is an often made claim, but the fact is that the Confederate constitution greatly restricts the power of the federal government in ways the U.S. Constitution did not (but should)I think my favorite revisionist history claim by southerners is that secession wasn't about slavery and that it was mostly about states' rights and their aversion to a strong central government.
Because when South Carolina seceded and a bunch of other states followed suit, the very first thing they did was establish a central government with a constitution nearly identical to the United States, except that it guaranteed the right to own slaves in any existing or future state.
The souths motivations for leaving the union, was due to the growing power of the Central government, and their disdain for that. Slavery played a role, we all know and get that, but the real motivation from the North to kill it's 'own people' was to keep the Union together.You're arguing an entirely different issue. I'm talking about the South's motivations for seceding. You're talking about Lincoln's motivations for going to war. Those are two different things.
Yes, Lincoln placed a higher priority on preserving the Union than he did abolishing slavery. I'm sure he would have been quite content to abolish slavery through the legislative process rather than going to war.
But the issue here is southerners revising the history of why they seceded in the first place. They desperately want to downplay the issue of slavery when in fact there is a mountain of evidence that it was by far the single biggest factor in secession.
The Atlantic slave trade had already been banned. Where were they going to import them from, anyway? They weren't exactly planning to grant citizenship and freedom to the future children of existing slaves, were they?Oh and no slaves can be imported, effectively ending the slave trade.
Use money to free slaves, don't kill the people you want to be in your union. Problem solved.The Atlantic slave trade had already been banned. Where were they going to import them from, anyway? They weren't exactly planning to grant citizenship and freedom to the future children of existing slaves, were they?
It was banned, but no constitutional amendment was in place to enforce that.The Atlantic slave trade had already been banned. Where were they going to import them from, anyway? They weren't exactly planning to grant citizenship and freedom to the future children of existing slaves, were they?
That might be a good point if the South hadn't set the world on fire by shooting at Federal troops. I'm sure if the South would have been more reasonable, more reasonable solutions could have been devised.Use money to free slaves, don't kill the people you want to be in your union. Problem solved.
That doesn't make his claim wrong. Technically having a constitutional amendment blocking the slave trade makes his claim more correct that the central government was strong in the confederacy. So does spelling out monetary and parliamentary procedure. It's all very top down, rigid thinking.It was banned, but no constitutional amendment was in place to enforce that.
Regardless, will you admit your claim was wrong? Address the other changes please.
Constitutional amendment? Hell, the British Royal Navy was deployed to enforce it. They had something like 50 ships patrolling the west coast of Africa to stop international slave traders. The CSA couldn't have imported new slaves even if they wanted to.It was banned, but no constitutional amendment was in place to enforce that.
There were some subtle differences, to be sure. The prohibition on using revenue collected in one state to fund improvements in another state smacked of resentment toward Northern tariffs, so I'll grant you that one. By and large, though, the constitution was very similar to the one they just left behind.Regardless, will you admit your claim was wrong? Address the other changes please.
The federal government did not hold near the power in 1860 as it does now.I think my favorite revisionist history claim by southerners is that secession wasn't about slavery and that it was mostly about states' rights and their aversion to a strong central government.
Because when South Carolina seceded and a bunch of other states followed suit, the very first thing they did was establish a central government with a constitution nearly identical to the United States, except that it guaranteed the right to own slaves in any existing or future state.
Well, the Federal troops had been asked/told/ordered/pleaded-with to leave 3 times. Instead of leaving peacefully, Lincoln sent provisions to reinforce them. Then he invaded the South properly in numerous places and proceeded to allow his armies to rape, plunder and destroy civilian property and persons. The two times the Confederacy went into the North, no such activity ever took place. Lincoln wanted war and got it. The South had no intention of invading the North or occupying it. It just wanted to be left alone.That might be a good point if the South hadn't set the world on fire by shooting at Federal troops. I'm sure if the South would have been more reasonable, more reasonable solutions could have been devised.
Subtle difference?There were some subtle differences, to be sure. The prohibition on using revenue collected in one state to fund improvements in another state smacked of resentment toward Northern tariffs, so I'll grant you that one. By and large, though, the constitution was very similar to the one they just left behind.
And you have to admit, it's quite ironic that after leaving the Union because they supposedly abhorred a strong central government, the first thing they did was install a central government.
Are you willing yet to admit the preservation of slavery was, by a very wide margin, the primary driving force behind secession?
So if a thief orders you to leave your home, you are obliged to do so? Odd reasoning. The South wanted war and they made sure they got it.Well, the Federal troops had been asked/told/ordered/pleaded-with to leave 3 times. Instead of leaving peacefully, Lincoln sent provisions to reinforce them. Then he invaded the South properly in numerous places and proceeded to allow his armies to rape, plunder and destroy civilian property and persons. The two times the Confederacy went into the North, no such activity ever took place. Lincoln wanted war and got it. The South had no intention of invading the North or occupying it. It just wanted to be left alone.
you are just being ridiculous.So if a thief orders you to leave your home, you are obliged to do so? Odd reasoning. The South wanted war and they made sure they got it.