KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.

Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

But dying so soon after the war was won elevated Lincoln to a status completely out of proportion to his accomplishments.

Same thing occurred involving JFK.

Whose presidency, objectively, was a complete failure.

---

I respectfully disagree on both counts. Lincoln made some tough decisions and was hated by half the country. "

---

He violated the Constitution and suspended civil liberties to prevent the Southern States from being independent.

Got 600,000 Americans killed vs letting natural secession take place and let people form their own country.

He was basically King George but more hypocritical.

(King George of course did not exercise real political power in the British system)

---

What a ridiculous position any respected historian would laugh…

The South argued that they were lawfully justified in seceding through something called "compact theory," which purports that states exist in a state of treaty with the federal government, meaning they could simply withdraw from that treaty and be within their legal right to do so.

This was of course nonsense, as Lincoln and his cabinet rightly asserted, and drawing from not just the Constitution but nationally accepted interpretations like the Federalist Papers...

---

No respected historian huh?

"In truth, the wording of the Constitution gives neither the believers in the right of secession nor the advocates of a perpetual Union a case so decisive that all reasonable persons are bound to accept it."
-Prof Kenneth M. Stampp of UC Berkeley

Lincoln said they (the South) could not destroy the Union "except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."...the secessionists could argue with equal plausibility that Lincoln could not preserve the Union except by some action whose constitutionality would also be in doubt.
-Kenneth M Stampp , the imperiled union

"Before 1861, thoughtful people in all sections understood a perfect Union to be one to which the citizens of each state belong by their own consent, & they regarded a Union held together by military force as decidedly less than perfect."
-Prof Stampp (UC Berkeley)

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

---

When before the war began did the North propose a single law to free slaves?

How could the war have been one to "protect slavery" when the war was not being fought to free slaves?

"Slavery is a social relation, a domestic institution. Within the States it exists by the local law, and the Federal Government has no control over it there."
-Ed Bates (Lincoln's AG 3/17/1859)

In fact the North was offering to make slavery even more protected!

Lincoln himself did not oppose it the Corwin amendment becoming Constitutional law

[December 1860, President James Buchanan requested Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment" with regard to slavery. In the house, Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin was selected as the chairman of the committee; and in the senate, William H. Seward took the lead in sponsoring the amendment. In a meeting with Thurlow Weed, Seward's Republican ally in New York, Lincoln offered three compromise proposals, and Weed passed this information to Seward. Upon his return to the Senate, Seward introduced three resolutions to the Senate committee. One resolution-not included in Lincoln's proposals-offered that "no amendment shall be made to the Constitution, which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish, or interfere within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In other words, the amendment would forever guarantee the right of the Southern people to own slaves. With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office.]

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.

Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

---

There was never a significant slave revolt anywhere in the south during the centuries that slavery existed.

It was the white president Lincoln who set the slaves free.

And over 300,000 white Yankees died fighting for their freedom. Thousands more were wounded or died of disease.

Even before the war it was white abolitionists who established smuggling operations to help slaves leave the south to freedom in the North and Canada. It was white abolitionists who pressured politicians into making the end of slavery the overriding political issue of an entire generation.

It was white abolitionists who emigrated into Kansas for the sole purpose of making sure the state would be admitted to the Union as a free state . It was whites who followed John Brown to the gallows after their failed attack at Harper's Ferry.



You're welcome .



Now earn your own job promotions based on MERIT.

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

But dying so soon after the war was won elevated Lincoln to a status completely out of proportion to his accomplishments.

Same thing occurred involving JFK.

Whose presidency, objectively, was a complete failure.

---

I respectfully disagree on both counts. Lincoln made some tough decisions and was hated by half the country. "

---

He violated the Constitution and suspended civil liberties to prevent the Southern States from being independent.

Got 600,000 Americans killed vs letting natural secession take place and let people form their own country.

He was basically King George but more hypocritical.

(King George of course did not exercise real political power in the British system)

---

What a ridiculous position any respected historian would laugh…

The South argued that they were lawfully justified in seceding through something called "compact theory," which purports that states exist in a state of treaty with the federal government, meaning they could simply withdraw from that treaty and be within their legal right to do so.

This was of course nonsense, as Lincoln and his cabinet rightly asserted, and drawing from not just the Constitution but nationally accepted interpretations like the Federalist Papers...

---

No respected historian huh?

"In truth, the wording of the Constitution gives neither the believers in the right of secession nor the advocates of a perpetual Union a case so decisive that all reasonable persons are bound to accept it."
-Prof Kenneth M. Stampp of UC Berkeley

Lincoln said they (the South) could not destroy the Union "except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."...the secessionists could argue with equal plausibility that Lincoln could not preserve the Union except by some action whose constitutionality would also be in doubt.
-Kenneth M Stampp , the imperiled union

"Before 1861, thoughtful people in all sections understood a perfect Union to be one to which the citizens of each state belong by their own consent, & they regarded a Union held together by military force as decidedly less than perfect."
-Prof Stampp (UC Berkeley)

---

None of those quotes support your position. In fact, none of those quotes support any position, insofar as they are faffy middle ground plaudits representing nothing memorable or notable at all.

And anyway, Stampp was no constitutional historian and often use vagary and conjecture (as he's done in all three of those quotes) when veering from the lane he created with Peculiar Institution, his lone meaningful contribution to the popular discourse on the matter.

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

But dying so soon after the war was won elevated Lincoln to a status completely out of proportion to his accomplishments.

Same thing occurred involving JFK.

Whose presidency, objectively, was a complete failure.

---

I respectfully disagree on both counts. Lincoln made some tough decisions and was hated by half the country. "

---

He violated the Constitution and suspended civil liberties to prevent the Southern States from being independent.

Got 600,000 Americans killed vs letting natural secession take place and let people form their own country.

He was basically King George but more hypocritical.

(King George of course did not exercise real political power in the British system)

---

What a ridiculous position any respected historian would laugh…

The South argued that they were lawfully justified in seceding through something called "compact theory," which purports that states exist in a state of treaty with the federal government, meaning they could simply withdraw from that treaty and be within their legal right to do so.

This was of course nonsense, as Lincoln and his cabinet rightly asserted, and drawing from not just the Constitution but nationally accepted interpretations like the Federalist Papers...

---

No respected historian huh?

"In truth, the wording of the Constitution gives neither the believers in the right of secession nor the advocates of a perpetual Union a case so decisive that all reasonable persons are bound to accept it."
-Prof Kenneth M. Stampp of UC Berkeley

Lincoln said they (the South) could not destroy the Union "except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."...the secessionists could argue with equal plausibility that Lincoln could not preserve the Union except by some action whose constitutionality would also be in doubt.
-Kenneth M Stampp , the imperiled union

"Before 1861, thoughtful people in all sections understood a perfect Union to be one to which the citizens of each state belong by their own consent, & they regarded a Union held together by military force as decidedly less than perfect."
-Prof Stampp (UC Berkeley)

---

None of those quotes support your position. In fact, none of those quotes support any position...

---

What's my position?

You came on to this thread and put words in my mouth regarding Constitutional theories of government.

I don't think you have asked me my personal opinion

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.

Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

---

There was never a significant slave revolt anywhere in the south during the centuries that slavery existed.

It was the white president Lincoln who set the slaves free.

And over 300,000 white Yankees died fighting for their freedom. Thousands more were wounded or died of disease.

Even before the war it was white abolitionists who established smuggling operations to help slaves leave the south to freedom in the North and Canada. It was white abolitionists who pressured politicians into making the end of slavery the overriding political issue of an entire generation.

It was white abolitionists who emigrated into Kansas for the sole purpose of making sure the state would be admitted to the Union as a free state . It was whites who followed John Brown to the gallows after their failed attack at Harper's Ferry.



You're welcome .



Now earn your own job promotions based on MERIT.

---

The white northerners died because the white southerners attacked the north to keep people enslaved.

---

You still seem to think the North fought that war to free slaves.

Yet as the South voted to leave…the North was voting to sink the right to own slaves deeper into the Constitution.

[In his inaugural address, Lincoln noted Congressional approval of the Corwin amendment and stated that he "had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." This was not a departure from Lincoln's views on slavery at that time. Lincoln followed the Republican platform from the Chicago convention.]

[Even though sectional conflicts over slavery had been a major cause of the war, ending slavery was not a goal of the war.]


https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/emancipation-proclamation#:~:text=Initially%2C%20the%20Civil%20War%20between,a%20goal%20of%20the%20war.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.

Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

---

There was never a significant slave revolt anywhere in the south during the centuries that slavery existed.

It was the white president Lincoln who set the slaves free.

And over 300,000 white Yankees died fighting for their freedom. Thousands more were wounded or died of disease.

Even before the war it was white abolitionists who established smuggling operations to help slaves leave the south to freedom in the North and Canada. It was white abolitionists who pressured politicians into making the end of slavery the overriding political issue of an entire generation.

It was white abolitionists who emigrated into Kansas for the sole purpose of making sure the state would be admitted to the Union as a free state . It was whites who followed John Brown to the gallows after their failed attack at Harper's Ferry.



You're welcome .



Now earn your own job promotions based on MERIT.

---

The white northerners died because the white southerners attacked the north to keep people enslaved.

What you are right about is Lincoln fought to preserve the union abd free the enslaved.

What you fail to acknowledge is in other parts of the world where slavery existed, slavery ended without bloodshed.

In 1834, the UK passed the Slavery Abolition Act. Slavery ended. Period.

16 years later, we passed the fugitive slave act. It allowed the "states rights" states to enforce slavery in northern states based on the "sworn" testimony of another.

This is an example of how you know "states rights" arguments was just bull*****

I don't diminish what the northern states did to save our country. Big ups to them. But them dying to free the slaves is the story people like you tell to make yourself feel good.

They died because people like you refuse to acknowledge the humanity of people like me. And you are willing to let poor people's kids die to have your cake.

It was true then and it's true now.

---

The British Empire freed their slaves without firing a shot because they COMPENSATED the slave owners .

As a healthy field hand could be worth up to 1000 dollars .

In a time when a skilled white carpenter was lucky to earn 4 dollars a DAY.

Slaves were extremely valuable. And a disproportionate amount of southern capital was tied up in them .

Northern abolitionists would not even consider compensation and without it the southern economy would be destroyed.

As it was for almost a century after the Civil War.

BTW the majority of southern plantation owners did not want war with the north . Many had business connections in the North. Many sent their children to universities in the North .

These men had few illusions about Northern industrial superiority, population advantage, railroad development and naval might.

Even Jefferson Davis as a US senator begged that his state be allowed to go in peace . Because he had been the Secretary of War years earlier and he knew that without the intervention of France and England; the South faced long odds.

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.

Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

---

There was never a significant slave revolt anywhere in the south during the centuries that slavery existed.

It was the white president Lincoln who set the slaves free.

And over 300,000 white Yankees died fighting for their freedom. Thousands more were wounded or died of disease.

Even before the war it was white abolitionists who established smuggling operations to help slaves leave the south to freedom in the North and Canada. It was white abolitionists who pressured politicians into making the end of slavery the overriding political issue of an entire generation.

It was white abolitionists who emigrated into Kansas for the sole purpose of making sure the state would be admitted to the Union as a free state . It was whites who followed John Brown to the gallows after their failed attack at Harper's Ferry.



You're welcome .



Now earn your own job promotions based on MERIT.

---

The white northerners died because the white southerners attacked the north to keep people enslaved.

What you are right about is Lincoln fought to preserve the union abd free the enslaved.

What you fail to acknowledge is in other parts of the world where slavery existed, slavery ended without bloodshed.

In 1834, the UK passed the Slavery Abolition Act. Slavery ended. Period.

16 years later, we passed the fugitive slave act. It allowed the "states rights" states to enforce slavery in northern states based on the "sworn" testimony of another.

This is an example of how you know "states rights" arguments was just bull*****

I don't diminish what the northern states did to save our country. Big ups to them. But them dying to free the slaves is the story people like you tell to make yourself feel good.

They died because people like you refuse to acknowledge the humanity of people like me. And you are willing to let poor people's kids die to have your cake.

It was true then and it's true now.

---

The British Empire freed their slaves without firing a shot because they COMPENSATED the slave owners .

As a healthy field hand could be worth up to 1000 dollars .

In a time when a skilled white carpenter was lucky to earn 4 dollars a DAY.

Slaves were extremely valuable. And a disproportionate amount of southern capital was tied up in them .

Northern abolitionists would not even consider compensation and without it the southern economy would be destroyed.

---

Yep,

Brazil also compensated their slave owners and was also afraid of immediate emancipation destroying the economy

[The Gradual Abolition:
In 1871, the Brazilian Parliament passed the so-called "Free Womb Law," declaring that all children born to enslaved women would be free. However, children had to work for their parents' owners until they were adults in order to "compensate" the owners.]

[Most South American and Caribbean nations emancipated slavery through compensated schemes in the 1850s and 1860s, while Brazil passed a plan for gradual, compensated emancipation in 1871, and Cuba followed in 1880]

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.

Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

---

There was never a significant slave revolt anywhere in the south during the centuries that slavery existed.

It was the white president Lincoln who set the slaves free.

And over 300,000 white Yankees died fighting for their freedom. Thousands more were wounded or died of disease.

Even before the war it was white abolitionists who established smuggling operations to help slaves leave the south to freedom in the North and Canada. It was white abolitionists who pressured politicians into making the end of slavery the overriding political issue of an entire generation.

It was white abolitionists who emigrated into Kansas for the sole purpose of making sure the state would be admitted to the Union as a free state . It was whites who followed John Brown to the gallows after their failed attack at Harper's Ferry.



You're welcome .



Now earn your own job promotions based on MERIT.

---

The white northerners died because the white southerners attacked the north to keep people enslaved.

---

You still seem to think the North fought that war to free slaves.

Yet as the South voted to leave…the North was voting to sink the right to own slaves deeper into the Constitution.

[In his inaugural address, Lincoln noted Congressional approval of the Corwin amendment and stated that he "had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." This was not a departure from Lincoln's views on slavery at that time. Lincoln followed the Republican platform from the Chicago convention.]

[Even though sectional conflicts over slavery had been a major cause of the war, ending slavery was not a goal of the war.]


https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/emancipation-proclamation#:~:text=Initially%2C%20the%20Civil%20War%20between,a%20goal%20of%20the%20war.

---

No. The South fought the war to preserve slavery. The North fought the war to ok preserve the union.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.

Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

---

There was never a significant slave revolt anywhere in the south during the centuries that slavery existed.

It was the white president Lincoln who set the slaves free.

And over 300,000 white Yankees died fighting for their freedom. Thousands more were wounded or died of disease.

Even before the war it was white abolitionists who established smuggling operations to help slaves leave the south to freedom in the North and Canada. It was white abolitionists who pressured politicians into making the end of slavery the overriding political issue of an entire generation.

It was white abolitionists who emigrated into Kansas for the sole purpose of making sure the state would be admitted to the Union as a free state . It was whites who followed John Brown to the gallows after their failed attack at Harper's Ferry.



You're welcome .



Now earn your own job promotions based on MERIT.

---

The white northerners died because the white southerners attacked the north to keep people enslaved.

---

You still seem to think the North fought that war to free slaves.

Yet as the South voted to leave…the North was voting to sink the right to own slaves deeper into the Constitution.

[In his inaugural address, Lincoln noted Congressional approval of the Corwin amendment and stated that he "had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." This was not a departure from Lincoln's views on slavery at that time. Lincoln followed the Republican platform from the Chicago convention.]

[Even though sectional conflicts over slavery had been a major cause of the war, ending slavery was not a goal of the war.]


https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/emancipation-proclamation#:~:text=Initially%2C%20the%20Civil%20War%20between,a%20goal%20of%20the%20war.

---

No. The South fought the war to preserve slavery. The North fought the war to ok preserve the union.

---

.

I agree that the North was fighting to preserve the Union (and not to free slaves)

I am interested in why you think the South was fighting a war to preserve slavery when neither Lincoln nor the Republican Party in the North had called for an end to slavery.

In 1861 there had not been one law ever proposed in Congress to out law slavery.

I'm not even aware of one major Republican newspaper who has ever advocated such a thing

Depending on how you look at the numbers, somewhere between 1% of the US and 5% of confederate states population owned slaves

Unless you are Lindsey Graham advocating for a war in Ukraine or LGBTPQ2 activists trying to overthrow Christianity those are pretty small numbers to motivate a civil war.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.

Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

---

There was never a significant slave revolt anywhere in the south during the centuries that slavery existed.

It was the white president Lincoln who set the slaves free.

And over 300,000 white Yankees died fighting for their freedom. Thousands more were wounded or died of disease.

Even before the war it was white abolitionists who established smuggling operations to help slaves leave the south to freedom in the North and Canada. It was white abolitionists who pressured politicians into making the end of slavery the overriding political issue of an entire generation.

It was white abolitionists who emigrated into Kansas for the sole purpose of making sure the state would be admitted to the Union as a free state . It was whites who followed John Brown to the gallows after their failed attack at Harper's Ferry.



You're welcome .



Now earn your own job promotions based on MERIT.

---

The white northerners died because the white southerners attacked the north to keep people enslaved.

---

You still seem to think the North fought that war to free slaves.

Yet as the South voted to leave…the North was voting to sink the right to own slaves deeper into the Constitution.

[In his inaugural address, Lincoln noted Congressional approval of the Corwin amendment and stated that he "had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." This was not a departure from Lincoln's views on slavery at that time. Lincoln followed the Republican platform from the Chicago convention.]

[Even though sectional conflicts over slavery had been a major cause of the war, ending slavery was not a goal of the war.]


https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/emancipation-proclamation#:~:text=Initially%2C%20the%20Civil%20War%20between,a%20goal%20of%20the%20war.

---

No. The South fought the war to preserve slavery. The North fought the war to ok preserve the union.

---

Not according to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation after the Battle of Antietam. Where Union troops suffered over 18,000 casualties in only 72 hours .

Face it.

Without yankee blood . The blacks would not have been set free in 1865.

Whatever 'debt' owed to you has long bern paid .

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.

Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

---

There was never a significant slave revolt anywhere in the south during the centuries that slavery existed.

It was the white president Lincoln who set the slaves free.

And over 300,000 white Yankees died fighting for their freedom. Thousands more were wounded or died of disease.

Even before the war it was white abolitionists who established smuggling operations to help slaves leave the south to freedom in the North and Canada. It was white abolitionists who pressured politicians into making the end of slavery the overriding political issue of an entire generation.

It was white abolitionists who emigrated into Kansas for the sole purpose of making sure the state would be admitted to the Union as a free state . It was whites who followed John Brown to the gallows after their failed attack at Harper's Ferry.



You're welcome .



Now earn your own job promotions based on MERIT.

---

The white northerners died because the white southerners attacked the north to keep people enslaved.

---

You still seem to think the North fought that war to free slaves.

Yet as the South voted to leave…the North was voting to sink the right to own slaves deeper into the Constitution.

[In his inaugural address, Lincoln noted Congressional approval of the Corwin amendment and stated that he "had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." This was not a departure from Lincoln's views on slavery at that time. Lincoln followed the Republican platform from the Chicago convention.]

[Even though sectional conflicts over slavery had been a major cause of the war, ending slavery was not a goal of the war.]


https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/emancipation-proclamation#:~:text=Initially%2C%20the%20Civil%20War%20between,a%20goal%20of%20the%20war.

---

No. The South fought the war to preserve slavery. The North fought the war to ok preserve the union.

---

.

I agree that the North was fighting to preserve the Union (and not to free slaves)

I am interested in why you think the South was fighting a war to preserve slavery when neither Lincoln nor the Republican Party in the North had called for an end to slavery.

In 1861 there had not been one law ever proposed in Congress to out law slavery.

I'm not even aware of one major Republican newspaper who has ever advocated such a thing

---

Don't be obtuse. Slavery was the be all and end all of American politics in 1861. Just ask Alexander Stephens.

https://history.iowa.gov/history/education/educator-resources/primary-source-sets/civil-war/cornerstone-speech-alexander#:~:text=Stephens'%20speech%20declared%20that%20disagreements,%22immediate%20cause%22%20of%20secession.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.

Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

---

There was never a significant slave revolt anywhere in the south during the centuries that slavery existed.

It was the white president Lincoln who set the slaves free.

And over 300,000 white Yankees died fighting for their freedom. Thousands more were wounded or died of disease.

Even before the war it was white abolitionists who established smuggling operations to help slaves leave the south to freedom in the North and Canada. It was white abolitionists who pressured politicians into making the end of slavery the overriding political issue of an entire generation.

It was white abolitionists who emigrated into Kansas for the sole purpose of making sure the state would be admitted to the Union as a free state . It was whites who followed John Brown to the gallows after their failed attack at Harper's Ferry.



You're welcome .



Now earn your own job promotions based on MERIT.

---

The white northerners died because the white southerners attacked the north to keep people enslaved.

---

You still seem to think the North fought that war to free slaves.

Yet as the South voted to leave…the North was voting to sink the right to own slaves deeper into the Constitution.

[In his inaugural address, Lincoln noted Congressional approval of the Corwin amendment and stated that he "had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." This was not a departure from Lincoln's views on slavery at that time. Lincoln followed the Republican platform from the Chicago convention.]

[Even though sectional conflicts over slavery had been a major cause of the war, ending slavery was not a goal of the war.]


https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/emancipation-proclamation#:~:text=Initially%2C%20the%20Civil%20War%20between,a%20goal%20of%20the%20war.

---

No. The South fought the war to preserve slavery. The North fought the war to ok preserve the union.

---

.

I agree that the North was fighting to preserve the Union (and not to free slaves)

I am interested in why you think the South was fighting a war to preserve slavery when neither Lincoln nor the Republican Party in the North had called for an end to slavery.

In 1861 there had not been one law ever proposed in Congress to out law slavery.

I'm not even aware of one major Republican newspaper who has ever advocated such a thing

---

Don't be obtuse. Slavery was the be all and end all of American politics in 1861. Just ask Alexander Stephens.

https://history.iowa.gov/history/education/educator-resources/primary-source-sets/civil-war/cornerstone-speech-alexander#:~:text=Stephens'%20speech%20declared%20that%20disagreements,%22immediate%20cause%22%20of%20secession.

---

Stephens who just so happened to be a major ally and friend of Abraham Lincoln while they were both in the Congress

[Lincoln served one term in Congress, from 1847 to 1849, and it was there that Stephens and Lincoln became friends. They acquired a sincere, lifelong mutual respect for each other]

Certainly interesting that while prominent and respected Northern historians knew of Stephens speech for decades...but it did not take on such a fundamental importance in our discourse until later in the 20th century to more progressive historians.

A site item and throw away speech by Stephens one time before a small crowd is no constantly brought up...interesting to say the least

[Cornerstone Speech: "It gave to the abolitionists the argument which they needed to convert a Constitutional controversy into a crusade, & they eagerly seized upon it, interpreting the speech as though it had been an article in the Confederate Constitution... propaganda takes little account of facts save only those which it can use for its purposes, & thereafter, protest though Stephens & Davis did, the North laboured, & in the end successfully, to make of Stephens' remark a battle-cry for the South: slave-holding minority & non-slave-holding majority alike.

Yet it is clear from the documents of the period that at the very time when Stephens was speaking, Davis was seeking to centre the controversy upon what to him, as to Lincoln, was the dominant issue-State Sovereignty vs. National Sovereignty; and to keep the slavery issue where Lincoln's inaugural address had placed it, in the area of things accepted by both sides as lawful."] -Robert McLeroy, "Jefferson Davis: The unreal and the real"

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

But dying so soon after the war was won elevated Lincoln to a status completely out of proportion to his accomplishments.

Same thing occurred involving JFK.

Whose presidency, objectively, was a complete failure.

---

I respectfully disagree on both counts. Lincoln made some tough decisions and was hated by half the country. "

---

He violated the Constitution and suspended civil liberties to prevent the Southern States from being independent.

Got 600,000 Americans killed vs letting natural secession take place and let people form their own country.

He was basically King George but more hypocritical.

(King George of course did not exercise real political power in the British system)

---

What a ridiculous position any respected historian would laugh…

The South argued that they were lawfully justified in seceding through something called "compact theory," which purports that states exist in a state of treaty with the federal government, meaning they could simply withdraw from that treaty and be within their legal right to do so.

This was of course nonsense, as Lincoln and his cabinet rightly asserted, and drawing from not just the Constitution but nationally accepted interpretations like the Federalist Papers...

---

No respected historian huh?

"In truth, the wording of the Constitution gives neither the believers in the right of secession nor the advocates of a perpetual Union a case so decisive that all reasonable persons are bound to accept it."
-Prof Kenneth M. Stampp of UC Berkeley

Lincoln said they (the South) could not destroy the Union "except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."...the secessionists could argue with equal plausibility that Lincoln could not preserve the Union except by some action whose constitutionality would also be in doubt.
-Kenneth M Stampp , the imperiled union

"Before 1861, thoughtful people in all sections understood a perfect Union to be one to which the citizens of each state belong by their own consent, & they regarded a Union held together by military force as decidedly less than perfect."
-Prof Stampp (UC Berkeley)

---

None of those quotes support your position. In fact, none of those quotes support any position...

---

What's my position?

You came on to this thread and put words in my mouth regarding Constitutional theories of government.

I don't think you have asked me my personal opinion

---

Why would I ask when you already gave it?

"He violated the Constitution and suspended civil liberties to prevent the Southern States from being independent."

Violated is pretty cut and dry, no?

This is straight out of the Lost Cause playbook Confederates propagated after the war. That he somehow shredded the Constitution by waging war (against an aggressor) to preserve the Union.

It's just not true.

The unconstitutionality, based on the framing of the authors and their subsequent treatese, was with the Confederacy. The compact theory interpretation of the states' relationship with the federal government is not in canon. A state is not a sovereign and cannot make the decisions of a sovereign. If one claims to be, it is in breach of the constitution and must be brought into law.

Andrew Jackson, 1832:
"Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure"

James Madison, 1833:
"I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in 98-99 as countenancing the doctrine that a State may at will secede from its constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it"

Robert Lee, 1861:
"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled"

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

But dying so soon after the war was won elevated Lincoln to a status completely out of proportion to his accomplishments.

Same thing occurred involving JFK.

Whose presidency, objectively, was a complete failure.

---

I respectfully disagree on both counts. Lincoln made some tough decisions and was hated by half the country. "

---

He violated the Constitution and suspended civil liberties to prevent the Southern States from being independent.

Got 600,000 Americans killed vs letting natural secession take place and let people form their own country.

He was basically King George but more hypocritical.

(King George of course did not exercise real political power in the British system)

---

What a ridiculous position any respected historian would laugh…

The South argued that they were lawfully justified in seceding through something called "compact theory," which purports that states exist in a state of treaty with the federal government, meaning they could simply withdraw from that treaty and be within their legal right to do so.

This was of course nonsense, as Lincoln and his cabinet rightly asserted, and drawing from not just the Constitution but nationally accepted interpretations like the Federalist Papers...

---

No respected historian huh?

"In truth, the wording of the Constitution gives neither the believers in the right of secession nor the advocates of a perpetual Union a case so decisive that all reasonable persons are bound to accept it."
-Prof Kenneth M. Stampp of UC Berkeley

Lincoln said they (the South) could not destroy the Union "except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."...the secessionists could argue with equal plausibility that Lincoln could not preserve the Union except by some action whose constitutionality would also be in doubt.
-Kenneth M Stampp , the imperiled union

"Before 1861, thoughtful people in all sections understood a perfect Union to be one to which the citizens of each state belong by their own consent, & they regarded a Union held together by military force as decidedly less than perfect."
-Prof Stampp (UC Berkeley)

---

None of those quotes support your position. In fact, none of those quotes support any position...

---

What's my position?

You came on to this thread and put words in my mouth regarding Constitutional theories of government.

I don't think you have asked me my personal opinion

---

Why would I ask when you already gave it?

"He violated the Constitution and suspended civil liberties to prevent the Southern States from being independent."

Violated is pretty cut and dry, no?

This is straight out of the Lost Cause playbook Confederates propagated after the war. That he somehow shredded the Constitution by waging war (against an aggressor) to preserve the Union.

---

Where does the Constitution give the President authority to wage war on a State?

You can read the entire text below and find no such authorization.

And again we know that the Federal Government only possesses limited enumerated rights...ones granted to it by the States and the People.

https://www.heritage.org/constitution?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwkuqvBhAQEiwA65XxQLlCe9ZMFC1WDrHqyF4cfdUFBH-zKfBZRY4Ozs-H0RELcd8wvYDvxRoCMYwQAvD_BwE

[In the course of the Constitutional Convention's debates, James Madison also came to admit that "the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice, and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually." He conceded that the "use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." He acknowledged that expressly providing for military coercion against delinquent states should be avoided in the Constitution, since using force in a union of states might prove self-destructive.] American Journal of Legal History, Volume 56, Issue 3, September 2016, Pages 326358,

"The United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force... ~ Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Kentucky Resolutions, Article 1, October 1798

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

But dying so soon after the war was won elevated Lincoln to a status completely out of proportion to his accomplishments.

Same thing occurred involving JFK.

Whose presidency, objectively, was a complete failure.

---

I respectfully disagree on both counts. Lincoln made some tough decisions and was hated by half the country. "

---

He violated the Constitution and suspended civil liberties to prevent the Southern States from being independent.

Got 600,000 Americans killed vs letting natural secession take place and let people form their own country.

He was basically King George but more hypocritical.

(King George of course did not exercise real political power in the British system)

---

What a ridiculous position any respected historian would laugh…

The South argued that they were lawfully justified in seceding through something called "compact theory," which purports that states exist in a state of treaty with the federal government, meaning they could simply withdraw from that treaty and be within their legal right to do so.

This was of course nonsense, as Lincoln and his cabinet rightly asserted, and drawing from not just the Constitution but nationally accepted interpretations like the Federalist Papers...

---

No respected historian huh?

"In truth, the wording of the Constitution gives neither the believers in the right of secession nor the advocates of a perpetual Union a case so decisive that all reasonable persons are bound to accept it."
-Prof Kenneth M. Stampp of UC Berkeley

Lincoln said they (the South) could not destroy the Union "except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."...the secessionists could argue with equal plausibility that Lincoln could not preserve the Union except by some action whose constitutionality would also be in doubt.
-Kenneth M Stampp , the imperiled union

"Before 1861, thoughtful people in all sections understood a perfect Union to be one to which the citizens of each state belong by their own consent, & they regarded a Union held together by military force as decidedly less than perfect."
-Prof Stampp (UC Berkeley)

---

None of those quotes support your position. In fact, none of those quotes support any position...

---

What's my position?

You came on to this thread and put words in my mouth regarding Constitutional theories of government.

I don't think you have asked me my personal opinion

---

Why would I ask when you already gave it?

"He violated the Constitution and suspended civil liberties to prevent the Southern States from being independent."

Violated is pretty cut and dry, no?

This is straight out of the Lost Cause playbook Confederates propagated after the war. That he somehow shredded the Constitution by waging war (against an aggressor) to preserve the Union.

---

You can find plenty of quotes on the subject going both ways....because it was a completely open question in 1861 about if a State had a right to withdraw from the Union

"It is a common maxim of law, that every right has a means of enforcement; & every wrong a remedy. By this rule the right of secession is undoubted. The Constitution provides no means of coercing a state in the Union; nor any punishment for secession."-Kenosha Democrat 1/11/1861

Even a arch-Federalist like Hamilton did not believe military force was justified for such a thing

"To coerce a State [to remain in the Federal union] would be one of the maddest projects ever devised." -Alexander Hamilton

"the South's sons were among those that drafted the Constitution...Yet as the early of the country soon demonstrated, that Union was just a Union of States, and not a nation in any organic sense."-Prof. Carl Degler (Stanford Historian, Pulitzer Prize Winner)

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

But dying so soon after the war was won elevated Lincoln to a status completely out of proportion to his accomplishments.

Same thing occurred involving JFK.

Whose presidency, objectively, was a complete failure.

---

I respectfully disagree on both counts. Lincoln made some tough decisions and was hated by half the country. "

---

He violated the Constitution and suspended civil liberties to prevent the Southern States from being independent.

Got 600,000 Americans killed vs letting natural secession take place and let people form their own country.

He was basically King George but more hypocritical.

(King George of course did not exercise real political power in the British system)

---

What a ridiculous position any respected historian would laugh…

The South argued that they were lawfully justified in seceding through something called "compact theory," which purports that states exist in a state of treaty with the federal government, meaning they could simply withdraw from that treaty and be within their legal right to do so.

This was of course nonsense, as Lincoln and his cabinet rightly asserted, and drawing from not just the Constitution but nationally accepted interpretations like the Federalist Papers...

---

No respected historian huh?

"In truth, the wording of the Constitution gives neither the believers in the right of secession nor the advocates of a perpetual Union a case so decisive that all reasonable persons are bound to accept it."
-Prof Kenneth M. Stampp of UC Berkeley

Lincoln said they (the South) could not destroy the Union "except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."...the secessionists could argue with equal plausibility that Lincoln could not preserve the Union except by some action whose constitutionality would also be in doubt.
-Kenneth M Stampp , the imperiled union

"Before 1861, thoughtful people in all sections understood a perfect Union to be one to which the citizens of each state belong by their own consent, & they regarded a Union held together by military force as decidedly less than perfect."
-Prof Stampp (UC Berkeley)

---

None of those quotes support your position. In fact, none of those quotes support any position...

---

What's my position?

You came on to this thread and put words in my mouth regarding Constitutional theories of government.

I don't think you have asked me my personal opinion

---

Why would I ask when you already gave it?

"He violated the Constitution and suspended civil liberties to prevent the Southern States from being independent."

Violated is pretty cut and dry, no?

This is straight out of the Lost Cause playbook Confederates propagated after the war. That he somehow shredded the Constitution by waging war (against an aggressor) to preserve the Union.

---

"I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation."~ Abraham Lincoln April 4, 1864

"like Buchanan, Lincoln announced an intention to preserve the status quo till time should soothe excited passions, one feature of the former President's theory was conspicuously absent from the inaugural address: the "right to coerce a state" was not even alluded to." -Prof. William Dunning

I wonder how history would have read had the Confederacy simply blockaded Fort Sumter.

But these are all questions for the history books.

The reality is that we have a clear litmus test in society today...your stance on gay marriage and the LGBTPQ2+ movement. If you are a supporter, you are a barbarian pagan. If you oppose it, you are at least somewhat civilized, and perhaps a Christian.

Here are the numbers:

"Which polls do you trust most? Pick any that you like. The following 17 polls are run by different organizations, with different goals, by different people with different backgrounds. Yet they all agree on at least one thing: The overwhelming majority of people living in the United States are now in favor of same-sex "marriage". This is one conclusion that all these polls share in common:

• Gallup
• Pew Research Center
• Public Religion Research Institute
• American National Election Studies
• American Values Atlas
• Reuters
• CNN/ORC
• NBC News
• USA Today
• CBS News/YouGov
• Bloomberg National
• Washington Post/ABC News
• Wall Street Journal
• New York Times/Siena
• Quinnipiac University
• Grinnell College
• Selzer & Company

According to recent polling data, here are numbers reported for some of the most "conservative" states in America:

• Missouri - 63% support same-sex "marriage"
• Alabama - 53% support same-sex "marriage"
• Indiana - 67% support same-sex "marriage"
• Florida - 69% support same-sex "marriage"
• Kansas - 69% support same-sex "marriage"
• Texas - 62% support same-sex "marriage"
• Ohio - 70% support same-sex "marriage""

...and our federal republic was never meant to be a nation for pagan barbarians.

If George Washington had lost the American Revolution against the British he would have been remembered as a 'traitor' instead of a 'patriot'.

The Declaration of Independence would be considered an illegal document of treason .


Same goes for the act of secession.

If the South had won secession would be remembered as a legitimate right of the states .


Winners always write the vast majority of the history books.

Realitybites said:

---

I wonder how history would have read had the Confederacy simply blockaded Fort Sumter.

But these are all questions for the history books.

---

Lincoln and the North were determined to keep the South (for geo-strategic reasons and for tax revenue reasons) so it would NOT have made much difference.

If the South had not fired on Sumter it would have certainly undermined the whole "the South started the war" narrative.

But most people who think the North was justified in that war don't really care about Sumter (no one of course even died in the shelling of the Fort)

Had there never been a Ft. Sumter incident at all Lincoln still would have called up 75,000 volunteers to compel the Deep South States back into the Union.

The Upland South States would have then still seceded because of that call for soldiers and the war would have taken place.

And people today would still be defending Lincolns actions by saying that secession was unlawful (something that is debatable) and that he was justified in using force to bring them back into the Union.

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

But dying so soon after the war was won elevated Lincoln to a status completely out of proportion to his accomplishments.

Same thing occurred involving JFK.

Whose presidency, objectively, was a complete failure.

---

I respectfully disagree on both counts. Lincoln made some tough decisions and was hated by half the country. "

---

He violated the Constitution and suspended civil liberties to prevent the Southern States from being independent.

Got 600,000 Americans killed vs letting natural secession take place and let people form their own country.

He was basically King George but more hypocritical.

(King George of course did not exercise real political power in the British system)

---

What a ridiculous position any respected historian would laugh…

The South argued that they were lawfully justified in seceding through something called "compact theory," which purports that states exist in a state of treaty with the federal government, meaning they could simply withdraw from that treaty and be within their legal right to do so.

This was of course nonsense, as Lincoln and his cabinet rightly asserted, and drawing from not just the Constitution but nationally accepted interpretations like the Federalist Papers...

---

No respected historian huh?

"In truth, the wording of the Constitution gives neither the believers in the right of secession nor the advocates of a perpetual Union a case so decisive that all reasonable persons are bound to accept it."
-Prof Kenneth M. Stampp of UC Berkeley

Lincoln said they (the South) could not destroy the Union "except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."...the secessionists could argue with equal plausibility that Lincoln could not preserve the Union except by some action whose constitutionality would also be in doubt.
-Kenneth M Stampp , the imperiled union

"Before 1861, thoughtful people in all sections understood a perfect Union to be one to which the citizens of each state belong by their own consent, & they regarded a Union held together by military force as decidedly less than perfect."
-Prof Stampp (UC Berkeley)

---

None of those quotes support your position. In fact, none of those quotes support any position...

---

What's my position?

You came on to this thread and put words in my mouth regarding Constitutional theories of government.

I don't think you have asked me my personal opinion

---

Why would I ask when you already gave it?

"He violated the Constitution and suspended civil liberties to prevent the Southern States from being independent."

Violated is pretty cut and dry, no?

This is straight out of the Lost Cause playbook Confederates propagated after the war. That he somehow shredded the Constitution by waging war (against an aggressor) to preserve the Union.

It's just not true.

The unconstitutionality, based on the framing of the authors and their subsequent treatese, was with the Confederacy. The compact theory interpretation of the states' relationship with the federal government is not in canon. A state is not a sovereign and cannot make the decisions of a sovereign. If one claims to be, it is in breach of the constitution and must be brought into law.

---

[If secession had been expressly forbidden in the United States Constitution, no State would have signed it.
Prof J. P. Gordy admits this in "Political Parties in the United States" (1900). Within it, he says the states "unconsciously" joined a single "political whole."
Some of the States specifically reserved the right to withdraw from the "voluntary union" in their ratification documents.
New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia explicitly added resumption clauses to their ratification documents. They were accepted with those assurances, therefore, on the grounds of equality among the States, every State who ratified received the same assurance.
Interestingly Massachusetts was one of the leading States that pushed for expressed State sovereignty. New England States threatened secession several times prior to South Carolina.]


"Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that-in theory, at least, if not in practice-our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now"
-Lysander Spooner (MA Abolitionist)

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

But dying so soon after the war was won elevated Lincoln to a status completely out of proportion to his accomplishments.

Same thing occurred involving JFK.

Whose presidency, objectively, was a complete failure.

---

I respectfully disagree on both counts. Lincoln made some tough decisions and was hated by half the country. "

---

He violated the Constitution and suspended civil liberties to prevent the Southern States from being independent.

Got 600,000 Americans killed vs letting natural secession take place and let people form their own country.

He was basically King George but more hypocritical.

(King George of course did not exercise real political power in the British system)

---

What a ridiculous position any respected historian would laugh…

The South argued that they were lawfully justified in seceding through something called "compact theory," which purports that states exist in a state of treaty with the federal government, meaning they could simply withdraw from that treaty and be within their legal right to do so.

This was of course nonsense, as Lincoln and his cabinet rightly asserted, and drawing from not just the Constitution but nationally accepted interpretations like the Federalist Papers...

---

No respected historian huh?

"In truth, the wording of the Constitution gives neither the believers in the right of secession nor the advocates of a perpetual Union a case so decisive that all reasonable persons are bound to accept it."
-Prof Kenneth M. Stampp of UC Berkeley

Lincoln said they (the South) could not destroy the Union "except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."...the secessionists could argue with equal plausibility that Lincoln could not preserve the Union except by some action whose constitutionality would also be in doubt.
-Kenneth M Stampp , the imperiled union

"Before 1861, thoughtful people in all sections understood a perfect Union to be one to which the citizens of each state belong by their own consent, & they regarded a Union held together by military force as decidedly less than perfect."
-Prof Stampp (UC Berkeley)

---

None of those quotes support your position. In fact, none of those quotes support any position...

---

What's my position?

You came on to this thread and put words in my mouth regarding Constitutional theories of government.

I don't think you have asked me my personal opinion

---

Why would I ask when you already gave it?

"He violated the Constitution and suspended civil liberties to prevent the Southern States from being independent."

Violated is pretty cut and dry, no?

This is straight out of the Lost Cause playbook Confederates propagated after the war. That he somehow shredded the Constitution by waging war (against an aggressor) to preserve the Union.

It's just not true.

The unconstitutionality, based on the framing of the authors and their subsequent treatese, was with the Confederacy. The compact theory interpretation of the states' relationship with the federal government is not in canon. A state is not a sovereign and cannot make the decisions of a sovereign. If one claims to be, it is in breach of the constitution and must be brought into law.

---

[If secession had been expressly forbidden in the United States Constitution, no State would have signed it.
Prof J. P. Gordy admits this in "Political Parties in the United States" (1900). Within it, he says the states "unconsciously" joined a single "political whole."
Some of the States specifically reserved the right to withdraw from the "voluntary union" in their ratification documents.
New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia explicitly added resumption clauses to their ratification documents. They were accepted with those assurances, therefore, on the grounds of equality among the States, every State who ratified received the same assurance.
Interestingly Massachusetts was one of the leading States that pushed for expressed State sovereignty. New England States threatened secession several times prior to South Carolina.]


"Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that-in theory, at least, if not in practice-our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now"
-Lysander Spooner (MA Abolitionist)

---

All true.


But you are attempting to educate dummies who initiate threads about sex dolls and hookers .


It's a waste of time .

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I was raised rural Texan and grew quickly to understand why there is still a large percentage of those living below the Mason-Dixon who have very, very little respect for the North and their attitudes toward the South.

---

Man, you almost sound like you want some of them thar slave owner reparations!!!

---

The North made a lot of money off the slave trade....when are they going to pay reparations for that?


[The great flaw of American abolitionism as it evolved toward demands of immediate and uncompensated emancipation was the fantasy that, if achieved, the goal would have no significant adverse consequences. Yet, there would obviously be at least two. First, abrupt emancipation would bankrupt the slaveholders who were often ultimately in debt to Northern bankers. Second, it would throw millions of ex-slaves out of work suddenly requiring them to care for themselves in a broken economy caused by plantation bankruptcies. That was, in fact, almost precisely what happened after the Civil War. Emancipation impoverished the entire region, black and white. Such results make a mockery of the pious initiatives by antebellum abolitionists demanding abrupt and uncompensated emancipation.]
-Philip Leigh


[The slave trade in particular was dominated by the northern maritime industry. Rhode Island alone was responsible for half of all U.S. slave voyages. James DeWolf and his family may have been the biggest slave traders in U.S. history, but there were many others involved. For example, members of the Brown family of Providence, some of whom were prominent in the slave trade, gave substantial gifts to Rhode Island College, which was later renamed Brown University.

While local townspeople thought of the DeWolfs and other prominent families primarily as general merchants, distillers and traders who supported ship-building, warehousing, insurance and other trades and businesses, it was common knowledge that one source of this business was the cheap labor and huge profits reaped from trafficking in human beings.

The North also imported slaves, as well as transporting and selling them in the south and abroad. While the majority of enslaved Africans arrived in southern ports Charleston, South Carolina was the largest market for slave traders, including the DeWolfs most large colonial ports served as points of entry, and Africans were sold in northern ports including Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Newport, Rhode Island.
The southern coastal states...were therefore home to the vast majority of enslaved persons. But there were slaves in each of the thirteen original colonies, and slavery was legal in the North for over two hundred years. While the northern states gradually began abolishing slavery by law starting in the 1780s, many northern states did not act against slavery until well into the 19th century, and their laws generally provided only for gradual abolition, allowing slave owners to keep their existing slaves and often their children. As a result, New Jersey, for instance, still had thousands of persons legally enslaved in the 1830s, and did not finally abolish slavery by law until 1846. As late as the outbreak of the Civil War, in fact, there were northern slaves listed on the federal census.]
-Sources: "Africans in America Part Two: Revolution." WGBH Interactive. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2narr1.html; David Eltis, Stephen D. Behrendt, David Richardson, and Herbert S. Klein, eds.

---

Revisionist history

---

No, it's absolutely truthful history that the North made massive profits off the slave trade…and that they held slaves until it was no longer economically feasible

I'm sorry if you find these facts disturbing

---

Slavery was abolished and was evil. The rest of y9our argument although factual do not outweigh the fact the slaves were freed. You have not read one single black perspective on history.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.

Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

---

There was never a significant slave revolt anywhere in the south during the centuries that slavery existed.

It was the white president Lincoln who set the slaves free.

And over 300,000 white Yankees died fighting for their freedom. Thousands more were wounded or died of disease.

Even before the war it was white abolitionists who established smuggling operations to help slaves leave the south to freedom in the North and Canada. It was white abolitionists who pressured politicians into making the end of slavery the overriding political issue of an entire generation.

It was white abolitionists who emigrated into Kansas for the sole purpose of making sure the state would be admitted to the Union as a free state . It was whites who followed John Brown to the gallows after their failed attack at Harper's Ferry.



You're welcome .



Now earn your own job promotions based on MERIT.

---

The white northerners died because the white southerners attacked the north to keep people enslaved.

---

You still seem to think the North fought that war to free slaves.

Yet as the South voted to leave…the North was voting to sink the right to own slaves deeper into the Constitution.

[In his inaugural address, Lincoln noted Congressional approval of the Corwin amendment and stated that he "had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." This was not a departure from Lincoln's views on slavery at that time. Lincoln followed the Republican platform from the Chicago convention.]

[Even though sectional conflicts over slavery had been a major cause of the war, ending slavery was not a goal of the war.]


https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/emancipation-proclamation#:~:text=Initially%2C%20the%20Civil%20War%20between,a%20goal%20of%20the%20war.

---

No. The South fought the war to preserve slavery. The North fought the war to ok preserve the union.

---

.

I agree that the North was fighting to preserve the Union (and not to free slaves)

I am interested in why you think the South was fighting a war to preserve slavery when neither Lincoln nor the Republican Party in the North had called for an end to slavery.

In 1861 there had not been one law ever proposed in Congress to out law slavery.

I'm not even aware of one major Republican newspaper who has ever advocated such a thing

---

Because it's written in every southern state article of secession.

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.

Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

---

There was never a significant slave revolt anywhere in the south during the centuries that slavery existed.

It was the white president Lincoln who set the slaves free.

And over 300,000 white Yankees died fighting for their freedom. Thousands more were wounded or died of disease.

Even before the war it was white abolitionists who established smuggling operations to help slaves leave the south to freedom in the North and Canada. It was white abolitionists who pressured politicians into making the end of slavery the overriding political issue of an entire generation.

It was white abolitionists who emigrated into Kansas for the sole purpose of making sure the state would be admitted to the Union as a free state . It was whites who followed John Brown to the gallows after their failed attack at Harper's Ferry.



You're welcome .



Now earn your own job promotions based on MERIT.

---

The white northerners died because the white southerners attacked the north to keep people enslaved.

What you are right about is Lincoln fought to preserve the union abd free the enslaved.

What you fail to acknowledge is in other parts of the world where slavery existed, slavery ended without bloodshed.

In 1834, the UK passed the Slavery Abolition Act. Slavery ended. Period.

16 years later, we passed the fugitive slave act. It allowed the "states rights" states to enforce slavery in northern states based on the "sworn" testimony of another.

This is an example of how you know "states rights" arguments was just bull*****

I don't diminish what the northern states did to save our country. Big ups to them. But them dying to free the slaves is the story people like you tell to make yourself feel good.

They died because people like you refuse to acknowledge the humanity of people like me. And you are willing to let poor people's kids die to have your cake.

It was true then and it's true now.

---

The British Empire freed their slaves without firing a shot because they COMPENSATED the slave owners .

As a healthy field hand could be worth up to 1000 dollars .

In a time when a skilled white carpenter was lucky to earn 4 dollars a DAY.

Slaves were extremely valuable. And a disproportionate amount of southern capital was tied up in them .

Northern abolitionists would not even consider compensation and without it the southern economy would be destroyed.

As it was for almost a century after the Civil War.

BTW the majority of southern plantation owners did not want war with the north . Many had business connections in the North. Many sent their children to universities in the North .

These men had few illusions about Northern industrial superiority, population advantage, railroad development and naval might.

Even Jefferson Davis as a US senator begged that his state be allowed to go in peace . Because he had been the Secretary of War years earlier and he knew that without the intervention of France and England; the South faced long odds.

---

Now we're making progress. First, you acknowledge that freeing enslaved people didn't require war.

It appears you are also for reparations? Are you for it for the victims of slavery or just the beneficiaries?

What you're missing with slave owner compensation is that there was no movement for compensation UNTIL after the Emancipation Proclamation. In that moment the enslaver looked for compensation when it was becoming obvious he was gonna get nothing. (Too late).

Why? Because owning people represented status in the minds of Southerners.

Again, there is an appreciation for the fight of the northern soldier. But his death (and the southern soldier) was caused by the southern slaveholder.

Can I stop by your ranch and get my reparations and some malt liquor?

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.

Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

---

There was never a significant slave revolt anywhere in the south during the centuries that slavery existed.

It was the white president Lincoln who set the slaves free.

And over 300,000 white Yankees died fighting for their freedom. Thousands more were wounded or died of disease.

Even before the war it was white abolitionists who established smuggling operations to help slaves leave the south to freedom in the North and Canada. It was white abolitionists who pressured politicians into making the end of slavery the overriding political issue of an entire generation.

It was white abolitionists who emigrated into Kansas for the sole purpose of making sure the state would be admitted to the Union as a free state . It was whites who followed John Brown to the gallows after their failed attack at Harper's Ferry.



You're welcome .



Now earn your own job promotions based on MERIT.

---

The white northerners died because the white southerners attacked the north to keep people enslaved.

What you are right about is Lincoln fought to preserve the union abd free the enslaved.

What you fail to acknowledge is in other parts of the world where slavery existed, slavery ended without bloodshed.

In 1834, the UK passed the Slavery Abolition Act. Slavery ended. Period.

16 years later, we passed the fugitive slave act. It allowed the "states rights" states to enforce slavery in northern states based on the "sworn" testimony of another.

This is an example of how you know "states rights" arguments was just bull*****

I don't diminish what the northern states did to save our country. Big ups to them. But them dying to free the slaves is the story people like you tell to make yourself feel good.

They died because people like you refuse to acknowledge the humanity of people like me. And you are willing to let poor people's kids die to have your cake.

It was true then and it's true now.

---

The British Empire freed their slaves without firing a shot because they COMPENSATED the slave owners .

As a healthy field hand could be worth up to 1000 dollars .

In a time when a skilled white carpenter was lucky to earn 4 dollars a DAY.

Slaves were extremely valuable. And a disproportionate amount of southern capital was tied up in them .

Northern abolitionists would not even consider compensation and without it the southern economy would be destroyed.

As it was for almost a century after the Civil War.

BTW the majority of southern plantation owners did not want war with the north . Many had business connections in the North. Many sent their children to universities in the North .

These men had few illusions about Northern industrial superiority, population advantage, railroad development and naval might.

Even Jefferson Davis as a US senator begged that his state be allowed to go in peace . Because he had been the Secretary of War years earlier and he knew that without the intervention of France and England; the South faced long odds.

---

What you're missing with slave owner compensation is that there was no movement for compensation UNTIL after the Emancipation Proclamation. In that moment the enslaver looked for compensation when it was becoming obvious he was gonna get nothing. (Too late).

Why? Because owning people represented status in the minds of Southerners.

---

Would that not also have been the case in Brazil and Cuba and various other places in the Western Hemisphere?

Yet eventually Brazilian slave owners came to accept a gradual emancipation program and compensation

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.

Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

---

There was never a significant slave revolt anywhere in the south during the centuries that slavery existed.

It was the white president Lincoln who set the slaves free.

And over 300,000 white Yankees died fighting for their freedom. Thousands more were wounded or died of disease.

Even before the war it was white abolitionists who established smuggling operations to help slaves leave the south to freedom in the North and Canada. It was white abolitionists who pressured politicians into making the end of slavery the overriding political issue of an entire generation.

It was white abolitionists who emigrated into Kansas for the sole purpose of making sure the state would be admitted to the Union as a free state . It was whites who followed John Brown to the gallows after their failed attack at Harper's Ferry.



You're welcome .



Now earn your own job promotions based on MERIT.

---

The white northerners died because the white southerners attacked the north to keep people enslaved.

What you are right about is Lincoln fought to preserve the union abd free the enslaved.

What you fail to acknowledge is in other parts of the world where slavery existed, slavery ended without bloodshed.

In 1834, the UK passed the Slavery Abolition Act. Slavery ended. Period.

16 years later, we passed the fugitive slave act. It allowed the "states rights" states to enforce slavery in northern states based on the "sworn" testimony of another.

This is an example of how you know "states rights" arguments was just bull*****

I don't diminish what the northern states did to save our country. Big ups to them. But them dying to free the slaves is the story people like you tell to make yourself feel good.

They died because people like you refuse to acknowledge the humanity of people like me. And you are willing to let poor people's kids die to have your cake.

It was true then and it's true now.

---

The British Empire freed their slaves without firing a shot because they COMPENSATED the slave owners .

As a healthy field hand could be worth up to 1000 dollars .

In a time when a skilled white carpenter was lucky to earn 4 dollars a DAY.

Slaves were extremely valuable. And a disproportionate amount of southern capital was tied up in them .

Northern abolitionists would not even consider compensation and without it the southern economy would be destroyed.

As it was for almost a century after the Civil War.

BTW the majority of southern plantation owners did not want war with the north . Many had business connections in the North. Many sent their children to universities in the North .

These men had few illusions about Northern industrial superiority, population advantage, railroad development and naval might.

Even Jefferson Davis as a US senator begged that his state be allowed to go in peace . Because he had been the Secretary of War years earlier and he knew that without the intervention of France and England; the South faced long odds.

---

Now we're making progress. First, you acknowledge that freeing enslaved people didn't require war.

It appears you are also for reparations? Are you for it for the victims of slavery or just the beneficiaries?

What you're missing with slave owner compensation is that there was no movement for compensation UNTIL after the Emancipation Proclamation. In that moment the enslaver looked for compensation when it was becoming obvious he was gonna get nothing. (Too late).

Why? Because owning people represented status in the minds of Southerners.

Again, there is an appreciation for the fight of the northern soldier. But his death (and the southern soldier) was caused by the southern slaveholder.

Can I stop by your ranch and get my reparations and some malt liquor?

---

This is such a waste .

Last try.

Without compensation for slaves , war was inevitable as the south's economy would have been totally destroyed. A reality northern politicians were keenly aware of.

Without yankee blood….black slaves would have never been freed in 1865. Though they probably would have been freed by 1885 as slavery was becoming increasingly unprofitable.

And northerners had developed a far cheaper source of raw labor .

The Irish .


This whole premise of reparations is ludicrous because you can't have it both ways.

If the white man was responsible for slavery ; it was also the white man who set you free.

And the bill was paid in blood long ago.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.

Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

---

There was never a significant slave revolt anywhere in the south during the centuries that slavery existed.

It was the white president Lincoln who set the slaves free.

And over 300,000 white Yankees died fighting for their freedom. Thousands more were wounded or died of disease.

Even before the war it was white abolitionists who established smuggling operations to help slaves leave the south to freedom in the North and Canada. It was white abolitionists who pressured politicians into making the end of slavery the overriding political issue of an entire generation.

It was white abolitionists who emigrated into Kansas for the sole purpose of making sure the state would be admitted to the Union as a free state . It was whites who followed John Brown to the gallows after their failed attack at Harper's Ferry.



You're welcome .



Now earn your own job promotions based on MERIT.

---

The white northerners died because the white southerners attacked the north to keep people enslaved.

---

You still seem to think the North fought that war to free slaves.

Yet as the South voted to leave…the North was voting to sink the right to own slaves deeper into the Constitution.

[In his inaugural address, Lincoln noted Congressional approval of the Corwin amendment and stated that he "had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." This was not a departure from Lincoln's views on slavery at that time. Lincoln followed the Republican platform from the Chicago convention.]

[Even though sectional conflicts over slavery had been a major cause of the war, ending slavery was not a goal of the war.]


https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/emancipation-proclamation#:~:text=Initially%2C%20the%20Civil%20War%20between,a%20goal%20of%20the%20war.

---

No. The South fought the war to preserve slavery. The North fought the war to ok preserve the union.

---

.

I agree that the North was fighting to preserve the Union (and not to free slaves)

I am interested in why you think the South was fighting a war to preserve slavery when neither Lincoln nor the Republican Party in the North had called for an end to slavery.

In 1861 there had not been one law ever proposed in Congress to out law slavery.

I'm not even aware of one major Republican newspaper who has ever advocated such a thing

---

Because it's written in every southern state article of secession.

---

It written that they are fighting the North to keep slaves?

Or that they are simply stating that their society is a slave holding one and its a protected right...which was certainly true

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I was raised rural Texan and grew quickly to understand why there is still a large percentage of those living below the Mason-Dixon who have very, very little respect for the North and their attitudes toward the South.

---

Man, you almost sound like you want some of them thar slave owner reparations!!!

---

The North made a lot of money off the slave trade....when are they going to pay reparations for that?


[The great flaw of American abolitionism as it evolved toward demands of immediate and uncompensated emancipation was the fantasy that, if achieved, the goal would have no significant adverse consequences. Yet, there would obviously be at least two. First, abrupt emancipation would bankrupt the slaveholders who were often ultimately in debt to Northern bankers. Second, it would throw millions of ex-slaves out of work suddenly requiring them to care for themselves in a broken economy caused by plantation bankruptcies. That was, in fact, almost precisely what happened after the Civil War. Emancipation impoverished the entire region, black and white. Such results make a mockery of the pious initiatives by antebellum abolitionists demanding abrupt and uncompensated emancipation.]
-Philip Leigh


[The slave trade in particular was dominated by the northern maritime industry. Rhode Island alone was responsible for half of all U.S. slave voyages. James DeWolf and his family may have been the biggest slave traders in U.S. history, but there were many others involved. For example, members of the Brown family of Providence, some of whom were prominent in the slave trade, gave substantial gifts to Rhode Island College, which was later renamed Brown University.

While local townspeople thought of the DeWolfs and other prominent families primarily as general merchants, distillers and traders who supported ship-building, warehousing, insurance and other trades and businesses, it was common knowledge that one source of this business was the cheap labor and huge profits reaped from trafficking in human beings.

The North also imported slaves, as well as transporting and selling them in the south and abroad. While the majority of enslaved Africans arrived in southern ports Charleston, South Carolina was the largest market for slave traders, including the DeWolfs most large colonial ports served as points of entry, and Africans were sold in northern ports including Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Newport, Rhode Island.
The southern coastal states...were therefore home to the vast majority of enslaved persons. But there were slaves in each of the thirteen original colonies, and slavery was legal in the North for over two hundred years. While the northern states gradually began abolishing slavery by law starting in the 1780s, many northern states did not act against slavery until well into the 19th century, and their laws generally provided only for gradual abolition, allowing slave owners to keep their existing slaves and often their children. As a result, New Jersey, for instance, still had thousands of persons legally enslaved in the 1830s, and did not finally abolish slavery by law until 1846. As late as the outbreak of the Civil War, in fact, there were northern slaves listed on the federal census.]
-Sources: "Africans in America Part Two: Revolution." WGBH Interactive. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2narr1.html; David Eltis, Stephen D. Behrendt, David Richardson, and Herbert S. Klein, eds.

---

Revisionist history

---

No, it's absolutely truthful history that the North made massive profits off the slave trade…and that they held slaves until it was no longer economically feasible

I'm sorry if you find these facts disturbing

---

Slavery was abolished and was evil. The rest of y9our argument although factual do not outweigh the fact the slaves were freed. You have not read one single black perspective on history.

---

What is a "black perspective on history"?

In fact for that matter what is a "white perspective on history"?

You really think this phony ' minister ' has even the slightest clue ?

The dude is a semi functional illiterate.


At least Mitch ( or is it Tommie ) can spell .

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I wonder how history would have read had the Confederacy simply blockaded Fort Sumter.

But these are all questions for the history books.

---

Lincoln and the North were determined to keep the South (for geo-strategic reasons and for tax revenue reasons) so it would NOT have made much difference.

If the South had not fired on Sumter it would have certainly undermined the whole "the South started the war" narrative.

But most people who think the North was justified in that war don't really care about Sumter (no one of course even died in the shelling of the Fort)

Had there never been a Ft. Sumter incident at all Lincoln still would have called up 75,000 volunteers to compel the Deep South States back into the Union.

The Upland South States would have then still seceded because of that call for soldiers and the war would have taken place.

And people today would still be defending Lincolns actions by saying that secession was unlawful (something that is debatable) and that he was justified in using force to bring them back into the Union.

---

We had avoided the scenario you paint for 40 years but you are certain that Lincoln would have started a war because you just know. The whole thing about firing on federal troops is just an oncovneneint fact that changes nothing?

Wars start when people start firing. It is not that complicated. The South started the war. It did so because the Southern leadership was certain that Lincoln's election foretold a nation where they could no longer enslave other human beings. They were probably right about that,'

This effort to recast the dispute iin terms of southern victimhood is an abhorrent misrepresentation of history.

There is one essential truth: the South wanted to enslave people and was willing to fight for that right.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.

---

If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.

The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.

---

No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.

Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.

It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.

---

There was never a significant slave revolt anywhere in the south during the centuries that slavery existed.

It was the white president Lincoln who set the slaves free.

And over 300,000 white Yankees died fighting for their freedom. Thousands more were wounded or died of disease.

Even before the war it was white abolitionists who established smuggling operations to help slaves leave the south to freedom in the North and Canada. It was white abolitionists who pressured politicians into making the end of slavery the overriding political issue of an entire generation.

It was white abolitionists who emigrated into Kansas for the sole purpose of making sure the state would be admitted to the Union as a free state . It was whites who followed John Brown to the gallows after their failed attack at Harper's Ferry.



You're welcome .



Now earn your own job promotions based on MERIT.

---

The white northerners died because the white southerners attacked the north to keep people enslaved.

---

You still seem to think the North fought that war to free slaves.

Yet as the South voted to leave…the North was voting to sink the right to own slaves deeper into the Constitution.

[In his inaugural address, Lincoln noted Congressional approval of the Corwin amendment and stated that he "had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." This was not a departure from Lincoln's views on slavery at that time. Lincoln followed the Republican platform from the Chicago convention.]

[Even though sectional conflicts over slavery had been a major cause of the war, ending slavery was not a goal of the war.]


https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/emancipation-proclamation#:~:text=Initially%2C%20the%20Civil%20War%20between,a%20goal%20of%20the%20war.

---

No. The South fought the war to preserve slavery. The North fought the war to ok preserve the union.

---

.

I agree that the North was fighting to preserve the Union (and not to free slaves)

I am interested in why you think the South was fighting a war to preserve slavery when neither Lincoln nor the Republican Party in the North had called for an end to slavery.

In 1861 there had not been one law ever proposed in Congress to out law slavery.

I'm not even aware of one major Republican newspaper who has ever advocated such a thing

---

Because it's written in every southern state article of secession.

---

It written that they are fighting the North to keep slaves?

Or that they are simply stating that their society is a slave holding one and its a protected right...which was certainly true

---

No one has a right to enslave another. No one has ever had that right. To the extent we allowed the practice it was an abomination.

I base that on the idea that God or nature is the only grantor of rights; the job of government is to protect those rights.