Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

Well I certainly do not disagree with the morality of that statement.

But legally you are wrong...until the passage of the 13th amendment the U.S. Constitution recognized the right to own slaves.

"And so much of it [slavery] remains after the war is over, it will remain precisely in the same condition that it was before the war and must be let to the exclusive control of the States where it may exist." Letter from Lincoln to Senator Browning affirming that Congress possessed no power over slavery in the States, The Diary of Orville Browning (2 vols; Springfield: Illinois State Historical library)


"Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was not issued from a humane standpoint. Lincoln hoped it would incite the Negroes to rise against the women and children. His Emancipation Proclamation was intended only as a punishment for the seceding states. It was with no thought of... freeing the slaves of more than 300,000 slaveholders then in the Northern Army and included slaveholder Ulysses S. Grant and his wife." - Rhodes, "History of the United States," Vol. IV., page 344

"He [Lincoln] had no particular liking for the negro ; in fact, he would have been glad to deport every negro from the limits of the United States, if he could have done it."-Prof Channing (Pulitzer Prize Winning Harvard Historian from MA)

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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.

---

Well I certainly do not disagree with the morality of that statement.

But legally you are wrong...until the passage of the 13th amendment the U.S. Constitution recognized the right to own slaves.

"And so much of it [slavery] remains after the war is over, it will remain precisely in the same condition that it was before the war and must be let to the exclusive control of the States where it may exist." Letter from Lincoln to Senator Browning affirming that Congress possessed no power over slavery in the States, The Diary of Orville Browning (2 vols; Springfield: Illinois State Historical library)


"Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was not issued from a humane standpoint. Lincoln hoped it would incite the Negroes to rise against the women and children. His Emancipation Proclamation was intended only as a punishment for the seceding states. It was with no thought of... freeing the slaves of more than 300,000 slaveholders then in the Northern Army and included slaveholder Ulysses S. Grant and his wife." - Rhodes, "History of the United States," Vol. IV., page 344

"He [Lincoln] had no particular liking for the negro ; in fact, he would have been glad to deport every negro from the limits of the United States, if he could have done it."-Prof Channing (Pulitzer Prize Winning Harvard Historian from MA)

---

Do you believe the government or God grants rights? The fact that the Constitution recognized the right to enslave was a human failure rather than the creation of a right.

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Lincoln need the Southern tax revenue....so did the Northern political and economic elite.

The Union also felt they needed control of the Mississippi river and that New Orleans could NOT be allowed to be in the hands of a new foreign nation.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."
~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

[Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col. Baldwin (VA): Yes, Sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?] Abraham Lincoln , April 4th, 1861


"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these natives of the South and will convince them that, though to stand behind a big tree and shoot at a passing boat is good sport and safe, it may still reach and kill their friends and families hundreds of miles off. For every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman

[General Scott gave Lincoln the options he saw available to the new administration. He outlined four reasonable scenarios. His first was what Seward had envisioned since shortly after Lincoln's victory. The Republican Party could embrace the Crittenden Compromise or the Peace Convention proposals and become the great Union Party. This would halt the secession process and prompt return of some seceded states. If this option was rejected, Scott saw the remaining slave states making their way to the Confederacy, leaving Washington literally besieged. Second, the government could collect custom duties on the high seas, or by act of Congress close the ports in the seceded states and blockade them. Third, the United States could wage war against the seceded states, a conflict Scott said would last two to three years and require an army of three hundred thousand men. It would result in horrendous casualties and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Union could prevail, Scott believed, but in addition to the cost in blood and treasure, victory would leave an angry, devastated part of the country, which would necessitate an expensive occupying garrison for decades. Finally, tell the seceded states, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" In his letter, General Scott never made an explicit recommendation, but neither did he hide his opinion. The first option was clearly his choice, as it was surely Seward's. Just as Abraham Lincoln was confronting his own dilemma with Fort Sumter, the Confederate commissioners began arriving in Washington. Among his first acts as president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis had appointed a delegation to go to Washington "for establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States." (M & PC, 1:55-56; Cooper, We Have the War Upon Us, 220-221)]

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Lincoln need the Southern tax revenue....so did the Northern political and economic elite.

The Union also felt they needed control of the Mississippi river and that New Orleans could NOT be allowed to be in the hands of a new foreign nation.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."
~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

[Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col. Baldwin (VA): Yes, Sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?] Abraham Lincoln , April 4th, 1861


"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these natives of the South and will convince them that, though to stand behind a big tree and shoot at a passing boat is good sport and safe, it may still reach and kill their friends and families hundreds of miles off. For every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman

[General Scott gave Lincoln the options he saw available to the new administration. He outlined four reasonable scenarios. His first was what Seward had envisioned since shortly after Lincoln's victory. The Republican Party could embrace the Crittenden Compromise or the Peace Convention proposals and become the great Union Party. This would halt the secession process and prompt return of some seceded states. If this option was rejected, Scott saw the remaining slave states making their way to the Confederacy, leaving Washington literally besieged. Second, the government could collect custom duties on the high seas, or by act of Congress close the ports in the seceded states and blockade them. Third, the United States could wage war against the seceded states, a conflict Scott said would last two to three years and require an army of three hundred thousand men. It would result in horrendous casualties and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Union could prevail, Scott believed, but in addition to the cost in blood and treasure, victory would leave an angry, devastated part of the country, which would necessitate an expensive occupying garrison for decades. Finally, tell the seceded states, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" In his letter, General Scott never made an explicit recommendation, but neither did he hide his opinion. The first option was clearly his choice, as it was surely Seward's. Just as Abraham Lincoln was confronting his own dilemma with Fort Sumter, the Confederate commissioners began arriving in Washington. Among his first acts as president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis had appointed a delegation to go to Washington "for establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States." (M & PC, 1:55-56; Cooper, We Have the War Upon Us, 220-221)]

---

And southerners needed a system to profit from enslaved labor. Again, the South started the war because they knew their economic interests were threatened. As a bonus they did not want to confront their abject and indefensible cruelty.

Yes, both sides had economic interests at stake. But only one side sought to protect a system that was cruel and immoral. And no matter what you believe would have happened, the thing that did happen was the South fired first.

"foretold a nation where they could no longer enslave other human beings. They were probably right about that"

That ignores the virtual slavery imposed by our ever-growing government upon its citizens.

Endless property taxes mean you never truly own your land, you rent it from the government.

You can be fired, even arrested in some places, for opinions not sanctioned by the state.

Once again rewards and penalties from the government can be based on your sex or race.

And on and on.

I imagine our Founding Fathers would kick the ass of many of our modern 'leaders' for what they have done to their vision.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Lincoln need the Southern tax revenue....so did the Northern political and economic elite.

The Union also felt they needed control of the Mississippi river and that New Orleans could NOT be allowed to be in the hands of a new foreign nation.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."
~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

[Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col. Baldwin (VA): Yes, Sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?] Abraham Lincoln , April 4th, 1861


"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these natives of the South and will convince them that, though to stand behind a big tree and shoot at a passing boat is good sport and safe, it may still reach and kill their friends and families hundreds of miles off. For every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman

[General Scott gave Lincoln the options he saw available to the new administration. He outlined four reasonable scenarios. His first was what Seward had envisioned since shortly after Lincoln's victory. The Republican Party could embrace the Crittenden Compromise or the Peace Convention proposals and become the great Union Party. This would halt the secession process and prompt return of some seceded states. If this option was rejected, Scott saw the remaining slave states making their way to the Confederacy, leaving Washington literally besieged. Second, the government could collect custom duties on the high seas, or by act of Congress close the ports in the seceded states and blockade them. Third, the United States could wage war against the seceded states, a conflict Scott said would last two to three years and require an army of three hundred thousand men. It would result in horrendous casualties and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Union could prevail, Scott believed, but in addition to the cost in blood and treasure, victory would leave an angry, devastated part of the country, which would necessitate an expensive occupying garrison for decades. Finally, tell the seceded states, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" In his letter, General Scott never made an explicit recommendation, but neither did he hide his opinion. The first option was clearly his choice, as it was surely Seward's. Just as Abraham Lincoln was confronting his own dilemma with Fort Sumter, the Confederate commissioners began arriving in Washington. Among his first acts as president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis had appointed a delegation to go to Washington "for establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States." (M & PC, 1:55-56; Cooper, We Have the War Upon Us, 220-221)]

---

And southerners needed a system to profit from enslved labor. Again, the South started the war because they knew their econmic interests were threatened. As a bonus they did not want to confront their abject and indefensible cruelty.

Yes, both sides had economic interests at stake. But only one side sought to protect a system that was cruel and immoral. And no matter what you believe would have happened, the thing that did happen was the South fired first.

---

How was the southern economic system under threat when Lincoln and the Republicans were offering to make slavery even more protected in the Constitution?


But let's say the South did feel threaten….then why should they have not been allowed to withdraw from the Union?

Why is creating a new independent country something to kill men over?

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Lincoln need the Southern tax revenue....so did the Northern political and economic elite.

The Union also felt they needed control of the Mississippi river and that New Orleans could NOT be allowed to be in the hands of a new foreign nation.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."
~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

[Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col. Baldwin (VA): Yes, Sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?] Abraham Lincoln , April 4th, 1861


"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these natives of the South and will convince them that, though to stand behind a big tree and shoot at a passing boat is good sport and safe, it may still reach and kill their friends and families hundreds of miles off. For every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman

[General Scott gave Lincoln the options he saw available to the new administration. He outlined four reasonable scenarios. His first was what Seward had envisioned since shortly after Lincoln's victory. The Republican Party could embrace the Crittenden Compromise or the Peace Convention proposals and become the great Union Party. This would halt the secession process and prompt return of some seceded states. If this option was rejected, Scott saw the remaining slave states making their way to the Confederacy, leaving Washington literally besieged. Second, the government could collect custom duties on the high seas, or by act of Congress close the ports in the seceded states and blockade them. Third, the United States could wage war against the seceded states, a conflict Scott said would last two to three years and require an army of three hundred thousand men. It would result in horrendous casualties and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Union could prevail, Scott believed, but in addition to the cost in blood and treasure, victory would leave an angry, devastated part of the country, which would necessitate an expensive occupying garrison for decades. Finally, tell the seceded states, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" In his letter, General Scott never made an explicit recommendation, but neither did he hide his opinion. The first option was clearly his choice, as it was surely Seward's. Just as Abraham Lincoln was confronting his own dilemma with Fort Sumter, the Confederate commissioners began arriving in Washington. Among his first acts as president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis had appointed a delegation to go to Washington "for establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States." (M & PC, 1:55-56; Cooper, We Have the War Upon Us, 220-221)]

---

And southerners needed a system to profit from enslved labor. Again, the South started the war because they knew their econmic interests were threatened. As a bonus they did not want to confront their abject and indefensible cruelty.

Yes, both sides had economic interests at stake. But only one side sought to protect a system that was cruel and immoral. And no matter what you believe would have happened, the thing that did happen was the South fired first.

---

How was the southern economic system under threat when Lincoln and the Republicans were offering to make slavery even more protected in the Constitution?


But let's say the South did feel threaten….then why should they have not been allowed to withdraw from the Union?

Why is creating a new independent country something to kill men over?

---

Lincoln had made clear that although he viewed the white race as superior, he alsobelieved that the government should guarantee equal economic rights to all humans. Whatever promises he offered about slavery were evaluated in that context. So the answer to your first question likely is-they did not believe him. At best from the soutern perspective they saw his election as the beginning of the end; that they were on a road to life without slavery unless they left.

As to your second question everyone in this debate acknowledges Lincoln saw that perserving the Union was paramount. Why? Because Lincoln saw the Union as the best chance of humanity for progress. Turns out he was right. By preserving the Union he created the modern America that we celebrate and should be grateful to live in. As gruesome as the Civil War was, it was a sacrifice worth it.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Lincoln need the Southern tax revenue....so did the Northern political and economic elite.

The Union also felt they needed control of the Mississippi river and that New Orleans could NOT be allowed to be in the hands of a new foreign nation.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."
~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

[Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col. Baldwin (VA): Yes, Sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?] Abraham Lincoln , April 4th, 1861


"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these natives of the South and will convince them that, though to stand behind a big tree and shoot at a passing boat is good sport and safe, it may still reach and kill their friends and families hundreds of miles off. For every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman

[General Scott gave Lincoln the options he saw available to the new administration. He outlined four reasonable scenarios. His first was what Seward had envisioned since shortly after Lincoln's victory. The Republican Party could embrace the Crittenden Compromise or the Peace Convention proposals and become the great Union Party. This would halt the secession process and prompt return of some seceded states. If this option was rejected, Scott saw the remaining slave states making their way to the Confederacy, leaving Washington literally besieged. Second, the government could collect custom duties on the high seas, or by act of Congress close the ports in the seceded states and blockade them. Third, the United States could wage war against the seceded states, a conflict Scott said would last two to three years and require an army of three hundred thousand men. It would result in horrendous casualties and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Union could prevail, Scott believed, but in addition to the cost in blood and treasure, victory would leave an angry, devastated part of the country, which would necessitate an expensive occupying garrison for decades. Finally, tell the seceded states, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" In his letter, General Scott never made an explicit recommendation, but neither did he hide his opinion. The first option was clearly his choice, as it was surely Seward's. Just as Abraham Lincoln was confronting his own dilemma with Fort Sumter, the Confederate commissioners began arriving in Washington. Among his first acts as president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis had appointed a delegation to go to Washington "for establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States." (M & PC, 1:55-56; Cooper, We Have the War Upon Us, 220-221)]

---

And southerners needed a system to profit from enslved labor. Again, the South started the war because they knew their econmic interests were threatened. As a bonus they did not want to confront their abject and indefensible cruelty.

Yes, both sides had economic interests at stake. But only one side sought to protect a system that was cruel and immoral. And no matter what you believe would have happened, the thing that did happen was the South fired first.

---

How was the southern economic system under threat when Lincoln and the Republicans were offering to make slavery even more protected in the Constitution?


But let's say the South did feel threaten….then why should they have not been allowed to withdraw from the Union?

Why is creating a new independent country something to kill men over?

---

As to your second question everyone in this debate acknowledges Lincoln saw that perserving the Union was paramount. Why? Because Lincoln saw the Union as the best chance of humanity for progress.

---

So Lincoln was a progressive?


Interesting that you read back to him views he likely never held and certainly might not have shared at all in modern leftist progressive thought

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Lincoln need the Southern tax revenue....so did the Northern political and economic elite.

The Union also felt they needed control of the Mississippi river and that New Orleans could NOT be allowed to be in the hands of a new foreign nation.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."
~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

[Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col. Baldwin (VA): Yes, Sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?] Abraham Lincoln , April 4th, 1861


"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these natives of the South and will convince them that, though to stand behind a big tree and shoot at a passing boat is good sport and safe, it may still reach and kill their friends and families hundreds of miles off. For every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman

[General Scott gave Lincoln the options he saw available to the new administration. He outlined four reasonable scenarios. His first was what Seward had envisioned since shortly after Lincoln's victory. The Republican Party could embrace the Crittenden Compromise or the Peace Convention proposals and become the great Union Party. This would halt the secession process and prompt return of some seceded states. If this option was rejected, Scott saw the remaining slave states making their way to the Confederacy, leaving Washington literally besieged. Second, the government could collect custom duties on the high seas, or by act of Congress close the ports in the seceded states and blockade them. Third, the United States could wage war against the seceded states, a conflict Scott said would last two to three years and require an army of three hundred thousand men. It would result in horrendous casualties and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Union could prevail, Scott believed, but in addition to the cost in blood and treasure, victory would leave an angry, devastated part of the country, which would necessitate an expensive occupying garrison for decades. Finally, tell the seceded states, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" In his letter, General Scott never made an explicit recommendation, but neither did he hide his opinion. The first option was clearly his choice, as it was surely Seward's. Just as Abraham Lincoln was confronting his own dilemma with Fort Sumter, the Confederate commissioners began arriving in Washington. Among his first acts as president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis had appointed a delegation to go to Washington "for establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States." (M & PC, 1:55-56; Cooper, We Have the War Upon Us, 220-221)]

---

And southerners needed a system to profit from enslved labor. Again, the South started the war because they knew their econmic interests were threatened. As a bonus they did not want to confront their abject and indefensible cruelty.

Yes, both sides had economic interests at stake. But only one side sought to protect a system that was cruel and immoral. And no matter what you believe would have happened, the thing that did happen was the South fired first.

---

How was the southern economic system under threat when Lincoln and the Republicans were offering to make slavery even more protected in the Constitution?


But let's say the South did feel threaten….then why should they have not been allowed to withdraw from the Union?

Why is creating a new independent country something to kill men over?

---

As to your second question everyone in this debate acknowledges Lincoln saw that perserving the Union was paramount. Why? Because Lincoln saw the Union as the best chance of humanity for progress.

---

So Lincoln was a progressive?


Interesting that you read back to him views he likely never held and certainly might not have shared at all in modern leftist progressive thought

---

Lincoln believed that God called us to build a world where man could flourish according to his abilities. He hated the war but saw it as a necessary evil. I doubt that makes him a "progressive" in today's lexicon.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Lincoln need the Southern tax revenue....so did the Northern political and economic elite.

The Union also felt they needed control of the Mississippi river and that New Orleans could NOT be allowed to be in the hands of a new foreign nation.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."
~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

[Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col. Baldwin (VA): Yes, Sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?] Abraham Lincoln , April 4th, 1861


"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these natives of the South and will convince them that, though to stand behind a big tree and shoot at a passing boat is good sport and safe, it may still reach and kill their friends and families hundreds of miles off. For every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman

[General Scott gave Lincoln the options he saw available to the new administration. He outlined four reasonable scenarios. His first was what Seward had envisioned since shortly after Lincoln's victory. The Republican Party could embrace the Crittenden Compromise or the Peace Convention proposals and become the great Union Party. This would halt the secession process and prompt return of some seceded states. If this option was rejected, Scott saw the remaining slave states making their way to the Confederacy, leaving Washington literally besieged. Second, the government could collect custom duties on the high seas, or by act of Congress close the ports in the seceded states and blockade them. Third, the United States could wage war against the seceded states, a conflict Scott said would last two to three years and require an army of three hundred thousand men. It would result in horrendous casualties and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Union could prevail, Scott believed, but in addition to the cost in blood and treasure, victory would leave an angry, devastated part of the country, which would necessitate an expensive occupying garrison for decades. Finally, tell the seceded states, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" In his letter, General Scott never made an explicit recommendation, but neither did he hide his opinion. The first option was clearly his choice, as it was surely Seward's. Just as Abraham Lincoln was confronting his own dilemma with Fort Sumter, the Confederate commissioners began arriving in Washington. Among his first acts as president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis had appointed a delegation to go to Washington "for establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States." (M & PC, 1:55-56; Cooper, We Have the War Upon Us, 220-221)]

---

And southerners needed a system to profit from enslved labor. Again, the South started the war because they knew their econmic interests were threatened. As a bonus they did not want to confront their abject and indefensible cruelty.

Yes, both sides had economic interests at stake. But only one side sought to protect a system that was cruel and immoral. And no matter what you believe would have happened, the thing that did happen was the South fired first.

---

How was the southern economic system under threat when Lincoln and the Republicans were offering to make slavery even more protected in the Constitution?


But let's say the South did feel threaten….then why should they have not been allowed to withdraw from the Union?

Why is creating a new independent country something to kill men over?

---

As to your second question everyone in this debate acknowledges Lincoln saw that perserving the Union was paramount. Why? Because Lincoln saw the Union as the best chance of humanity for progress.

---

So Lincoln was a progressive?


Interesting that you read back to him views he likely never held and certainly might not have shared at all in modern leftist progressive thought

---

Lincoln believed that God called us to build a world where man could flourish according to his abilities. He hated the war but saw it as a necessary evil. I doubt that makes him a "progressive" in today's lexicon.

---

His war of "necessary evil" was fighting (and killing vast numbers of people) to keep them inside of a political union they did not wish to be a part of….

Where is the freedom in that?


[Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government]

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Lincoln need the Southern tax revenue....so did the Northern political and economic elite.

The Union also felt they needed control of the Mississippi river and that New Orleans could NOT be allowed to be in the hands of a new foreign nation.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."
~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

[Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col. Baldwin (VA): Yes, Sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?] Abraham Lincoln , April 4th, 1861


"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these natives of the South and will convince them that, though to stand behind a big tree and shoot at a passing boat is good sport and safe, it may still reach and kill their friends and families hundreds of miles off. For every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman

[General Scott gave Lincoln the options he saw available to the new administration. He outlined four reasonable scenarios. His first was what Seward had envisioned since shortly after Lincoln's victory. The Republican Party could embrace the Crittenden Compromise or the Peace Convention proposals and become the great Union Party. This would halt the secession process and prompt return of some seceded states. If this option was rejected, Scott saw the remaining slave states making their way to the Confederacy, leaving Washington literally besieged. Second, the government could collect custom duties on the high seas, or by act of Congress close the ports in the seceded states and blockade them. Third, the United States could wage war against the seceded states, a conflict Scott said would last two to three years and require an army of three hundred thousand men. It would result in horrendous casualties and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Union could prevail, Scott believed, but in addition to the cost in blood and treasure, victory would leave an angry, devastated part of the country, which would necessitate an expensive occupying garrison for decades. Finally, tell the seceded states, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" In his letter, General Scott never made an explicit recommendation, but neither did he hide his opinion. The first option was clearly his choice, as it was surely Seward's. Just as Abraham Lincoln was confronting his own dilemma with Fort Sumter, the Confederate commissioners began arriving in Washington. Among his first acts as president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis had appointed a delegation to go to Washington "for establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States." (M & PC, 1:55-56; Cooper, We Have the War Upon Us, 220-221)]

---

And southerners needed a system to profit from enslved labor. Again, the South started the war because they knew their econmic interests were threatened. As a bonus they did not want to confront their abject and indefensible cruelty.

Yes, both sides had economic interests at stake. But only one side sought to protect a system that was cruel and immoral. And no matter what you believe would have happened, the thing that did happen was the South fired first.

---

How was the southern economic system under threat when Lincoln and the Republicans were offering to make slavery even more protected in the Constitution?


But let's say the South did feel threaten….then why should they have not been allowed to withdraw from the Union?

Why is creating a new independent country something to kill men over?

---

As to your second question everyone in this debate acknowledges Lincoln saw that perserving the Union was paramount. Why? Because Lincoln saw the Union as the best chance of humanity for progress.

---

So Lincoln was a progressive?


Interesting that you read back to him views he likely never held and certainly might not have shared at all in modern leftist progressive thought

---

Lincoln believed that God called us to build a world where man could flourish according to his abilities. He hated the war but saw it as a necessary evil. I doubt that makes him a "progressive" in today's lexicon.

---

His war of "necessary evil" was fighting (and killing vast numbers of people) to keep them inside of a political union they did not wish to be a part of….

Where is the freedom in that?


[Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government]

---

It's pretty rich that someone defending the south is worried about "freedom."

But if you must-the freedom comes from a country powerful enough and good enough to protect it. For everyone.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Lincoln need the Southern tax revenue....so did the Northern political and economic elite.

The Union also felt they needed control of the Mississippi river and that New Orleans could NOT be allowed to be in the hands of a new foreign nation.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."
~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

[Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col. Baldwin (VA): Yes, Sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?] Abraham Lincoln , April 4th, 1861


"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these natives of the South and will convince them that, though to stand behind a big tree and shoot at a passing boat is good sport and safe, it may still reach and kill their friends and families hundreds of miles off. For every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman

[General Scott gave Lincoln the options he saw available to the new administration. He outlined four reasonable scenarios. His first was what Seward had envisioned since shortly after Lincoln's victory. The Republican Party could embrace the Crittenden Compromise or the Peace Convention proposals and become the great Union Party. This would halt the secession process and prompt return of some seceded states. If this option was rejected, Scott saw the remaining slave states making their way to the Confederacy, leaving Washington literally besieged. Second, the government could collect custom duties on the high seas, or by act of Congress close the ports in the seceded states and blockade them. Third, the United States could wage war against the seceded states, a conflict Scott said would last two to three years and require an army of three hundred thousand men. It would result in horrendous casualties and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Union could prevail, Scott believed, but in addition to the cost in blood and treasure, victory would leave an angry, devastated part of the country, which would necessitate an expensive occupying garrison for decades. Finally, tell the seceded states, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" In his letter, General Scott never made an explicit recommendation, but neither did he hide his opinion. The first option was clearly his choice, as it was surely Seward's. Just as Abraham Lincoln was confronting his own dilemma with Fort Sumter, the Confederate commissioners began arriving in Washington. Among his first acts as president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis had appointed a delegation to go to Washington "for establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States." (M & PC, 1:55-56; Cooper, We Have the War Upon Us, 220-221)]

---

And southerners needed a system to profit from enslved labor. Again, the South started the war because they knew their econmic interests were threatened. As a bonus they did not want to confront their abject and indefensible cruelty.

Yes, both sides had economic interests at stake. But only one side sought to protect a system that was cruel and immoral. And no matter what you believe would have happened, the thing that did happen was the South fired first.

---

How was the southern economic system under threat when Lincoln and the Republicans were offering to make slavery even more protected in the Constitution?


But let's say the South did feel threaten….then why should they have not been allowed to withdraw from the Union?

Why is creating a new independent country something to kill men over?

---

As to your second question everyone in this debate acknowledges Lincoln saw that perserving the Union was paramount. Why? Because Lincoln saw the Union as the best chance of humanity for progress.

---

So Lincoln was a progressive?


Interesting that you read back to him views he likely never held and certainly might not have shared at all in modern leftist progressive thought

---

Lincoln believed that God called us to build a world where man could flourish according to his abilities. He hated the war but saw it as a necessary evil. I doubt that makes him a "progressive" in today's lexicon.

---

His war of "necessary evil" was fighting (and killing vast numbers of people) to keep them inside of a political union they did not wish to be a part of….

Where is the freedom in that?


[Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government]

---

It's pretty rich that someone defending the south is worried about "freedom."

.

---

The USA colonies all had legal slavery when they declared their independence from Great Britain

Was that "pretty rich" for them to talk about political freedom? Of course not

Frank Galvin said:

---

And southerners needed a system to profit from enslaved labor. Again, the South started the war because they knew their economic interests were threatened. As a bonus they did not want to confront their abject and indefensible cruelty.

Yes, both sides had economic interests at stake. But only one side sought to protect a system that was cruel and immoral. And no matter what you believe would have happened, the thing that did happen was the South fired first.

---

Before Fort Sumter Lincoln refused to meet the Peace Commission, sent by Davis, because he clearly wanted War. He got more than he bargained for.

The South humiliated the Northern aggressors, killed more of Lincoln's sacrificial lambs and stands today a much better place to live with superior values, natural resources and superior PRIDE!!!

In an attempt to further antagonize and disrespect the South which bent the North over the proverbial log, Lincoln turned Sherman and Sheridan loose AFTER the war so they could exact some sort of "victory" on the South. Raping, burning & pillaging was the North's "victory". The North sure did defeat women, children and the elderly!

Frank Galvin said:

---

As to your second question everyone in this debate acknowledges Lincoln saw that perserving the Union was paramount. Why? Because Lincoln saw the Union as the best chance of humanity for progress. Turns out he was right. By preserving the Union he created the modern America that we celebrate and should be grateful to live in. As gruesome as the Civil War was, it was a sacrifice worth it.

---

How do you know the murderering Lincoln saw the Union as the best chance of humanity for progress?

Who's progress? What kind of progress?

Many folks still believe an independent South would have been far superior. I prefer to remain in the South forever. As hard as Lincoln and his henchmen tried to decimate the South, we overcame.

Thee University said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

As to your second question everyone in this debate acknowledges Lincoln saw that perserving the Union was paramount. Why? Because Lincoln saw the Union as the best chance of humanity for progress. Turns out he was right. By preserving the Union he created the modern America that we celebrate and should be grateful to live in. As gruesome as the Civil War was, it was a sacrifice worth it.

---

How do you know the murderering Lincoln saw the Union as the best chance of humanity for progress?

Who's progress? What kind of progress?

Many folks still believe an independent South would have been far superior. I prefer to remain in the South forever. As hard as Lincoln and his henchmen tried to decimate the South, we overcame.

---

Texas was kept in the agony of Reconstruction longer than any other state . As a result the planter class was practically tax out of existence and the common people were often very poor.

Malnutrition was widespread , hard currency in short supply , medical care almost nonexistent, and Comanche raids continued to murder hundreds of Texans throughout the northwest settlement line until the late 1870's.

The development of the cattle kingdom helped the economy of Texas but it was relatively short lived .

Only the discovery of oil early in the 20th century finally brought the state out of an depression brought on by the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Now Texas faces the biggest threat in its entire history. The invasion by literally millions of illegals. Anarchy is a real possibility.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Lincoln need the Southern tax revenue....so did the Northern political and economic elite.

The Union also felt they needed control of the Mississippi river and that New Orleans could NOT be allowed to be in the hands of a new foreign nation.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."
~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

[Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col. Baldwin (VA): Yes, Sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?] Abraham Lincoln , April 4th, 1861


"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these natives of the South and will convince them that, though to stand behind a big tree and shoot at a passing boat is good sport and safe, it may still reach and kill their friends and families hundreds of miles off. For every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman

[General Scott gave Lincoln the options he saw available to the new administration. He outlined four reasonable scenarios. His first was what Seward had envisioned since shortly after Lincoln's victory. The Republican Party could embrace the Crittenden Compromise or the Peace Convention proposals and become the great Union Party. This would halt the secession process and prompt return of some seceded states. If this option was rejected, Scott saw the remaining slave states making their way to the Confederacy, leaving Washington literally besieged. Second, the government could collect custom duties on the high seas, or by act of Congress close the ports in the seceded states and blockade them. Third, the United States could wage war against the seceded states, a conflict Scott said would last two to three years and require an army of three hundred thousand men. It would result in horrendous casualties and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Union could prevail, Scott believed, but in addition to the cost in blood and treasure, victory would leave an angry, devastated part of the country, which would necessitate an expensive occupying garrison for decades. Finally, tell the seceded states, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" In his letter, General Scott never made an explicit recommendation, but neither did he hide his opinion. The first option was clearly his choice, as it was surely Seward's. Just as Abraham Lincoln was confronting his own dilemma with Fort Sumter, the Confederate commissioners began arriving in Washington. Among his first acts as president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis had appointed a delegation to go to Washington "for establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States." (M & PC, 1:55-56; Cooper, We Have the War Upon Us, 220-221)]

---

And southerners needed a system to profit from enslved labor. Again, the South started the war because they knew their econmic interests were threatened. As a bonus they did not want to confront their abject and indefensible cruelty.

Yes, both sides had economic interests at stake. But only one side sought to protect a system that was cruel and immoral. And no matter what you believe would have happened, the thing that did happen was the South fired first.

---

How was the southern economic system under threat when Lincoln and the Republicans were offering to make slavery even more protected in the Constitution?


But let's say the South did feel threaten….then why should they have not been allowed to withdraw from the Union?

Why is creating a new independent country something to kill men over?

---

As to your second question everyone in this debate acknowledges Lincoln saw that perserving the Union was paramount. Why? Because Lincoln saw the Union as the best chance of humanity for progress.

---

So Lincoln was a progressive?


Interesting that you read back to him views he likely never held and certainly might not have shared at all in modern leftist progressive thought

---

Lincoln believed that God called us to build a world where man could flourish according to his abilities. He hated the war but saw it as a necessary evil. I doubt that makes him a "progressive" in today's lexicon.

---

His war of "necessary evil" was fighting (and killing vast numbers of people) to keep them inside of a political union they did not wish to be a part of….

Where is the freedom in that?


[Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government]

---

It's pretty rich that someone defending the south is worried about "freedom."

.

---

The USA colonies all had legal slavery when they declared their independence from Great Britain

Was that "pretty rich" for them to talk about political freedom? Of course not

---

They were not declaring freedom for the purpose of perpetuating slavery.

Redbrickbear said:

---

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"? Read any history of the civil war prior to the 1990s and it is white

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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"? Read any history of the civil war prior to the 1990s and it is white

---

---

Are there "alternative" facts about thr war that you only know if you're black? Are their alternative facts you only know if you're white?

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Lincoln need the Southern tax revenue....so did the Northern political and economic elite.

The Union also felt they needed control of the Mississippi river and that New Orleans could NOT be allowed to be in the hands of a new foreign nation.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."
~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

[Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col. Baldwin (VA): Yes, Sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?] Abraham Lincoln , April 4th, 1861


"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these natives of the South and will convince them that, though to stand behind a big tree and shoot at a passing boat is good sport and safe, it may still reach and kill their friends and families hundreds of miles off. For every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman

[General Scott gave Lincoln the options he saw available to the new administration. He outlined four reasonable scenarios. His first was what Seward had envisioned since shortly after Lincoln's victory. The Republican Party could embrace the Crittenden Compromise or the Peace Convention proposals and become the great Union Party. This would halt the secession process and prompt return of some seceded states. If this option was rejected, Scott saw the remaining slave states making their way to the Confederacy, leaving Washington literally besieged. Second, the government could collect custom duties on the high seas, or by act of Congress close the ports in the seceded states and blockade them. Third, the United States could wage war against the seceded states, a conflict Scott said would last two to three years and require an army of three hundred thousand men. It would result in horrendous casualties and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Union could prevail, Scott believed, but in addition to the cost in blood and treasure, victory would leave an angry, devastated part of the country, which would necessitate an expensive occupying garrison for decades. Finally, tell the seceded states, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" In his letter, General Scott never made an explicit recommendation, but neither did he hide his opinion. The first option was clearly his choice, as it was surely Seward's. Just as Abraham Lincoln was confronting his own dilemma with Fort Sumter, the Confederate commissioners began arriving in Washington. Among his first acts as president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis had appointed a delegation to go to Washington "for establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States." (M & PC, 1:55-56; Cooper, We Have the War Upon Us, 220-221)]

---

And southerners needed a system to profit from enslved labor. Again, the South started the war because they knew their econmic interests were threatened. As a bonus they did not want to confront their abject and indefensible cruelty.

Yes, both sides had economic interests at stake. But only one side sought to protect a system that was cruel and immoral. And no matter what you believe would have happened, the thing that did happen was the South fired first.

---

How was the southern economic system under threat when Lincoln and the Republicans were offering to make slavery even more protected in the Constitution?


But let's say the South did feel threaten….then why should they have not been allowed to withdraw from the Union?

Why is creating a new independent country something to kill men over?

---

As to your second question everyone in this debate acknowledges Lincoln saw that perserving the Union was paramount. Why? Because Lincoln saw the Union as the best chance of humanity for progress.

---

So Lincoln was a progressive?


Interesting that you read back to him views he likely never held and certainly might not have shared at all in modern leftist progressive thought

---

Lincoln believed that God called us to build a world where man could flourish according to his abilities. He hated the war but saw it as a necessary evil. I doubt that makes him a "progressive" in today's lexicon.

---

His war of "necessary evil" was fighting (and killing vast numbers of people) to keep them inside of a political union they did not wish to be a part of….

Where is the freedom in that?


[Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government]

---

It's pretty rich that someone defending the south is worried about "freedom."

.

---

The USA colonies all had legal slavery when they declared their independence from Great Britain

Was that "pretty rich" for them to talk about political freedom? Of course not

---

They were not declaring freedom for the purpose of perpetuating slavery.

---

Slavery was already protected in the Union and in no danger of being outlawed.

The USA and CSA both had the exact same relationship toward slavery….it was Constitutional and legal

"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)

"President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." Simon Cameron: Union SEC. OF WAR 1861-1862

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

the legality is immaterial. Morality trumps the legality of sla

Morality of slavery trumps new nationhood hence a civil war.

Waco1947 said:

---

Morality trumps the legality

---

Quite a statement

Then the law is meaningless and you can violate it at will if you find it to be "immoral"?

You would have made a good follower of old John Brown

"John Brown was not right; he was, on the contrary, altogether wrong, and rightly merited the fate given out to him."
-Charles Francis Adams, Jr. (President AHA, Union war Veteran)

"Old John Brown has just been executed for treason against a state. We cannot object, even though he agreed with us in thinking slavery was wrong. That cannot excuse violence, bloodshed, and treason."
--Abraham Lincoln, December 3, 1859 Speech at Leavenworth, Kansas

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Lincoln need the Southern tax revenue....so did the Northern political and economic elite.

The Union also felt they needed control of the Mississippi river and that New Orleans could NOT be allowed to be in the hands of a new foreign nation.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."
~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

[Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col. Baldwin (VA): Yes, Sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?] Abraham Lincoln , April 4th, 1861


"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these natives of the South and will convince them that, though to stand behind a big tree and shoot at a passing boat is good sport and safe, it may still reach and kill their friends and families hundreds of miles off. For every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman

[General Scott gave Lincoln the options he saw available to the new administration. He outlined four reasonable scenarios. His first was what Seward had envisioned since shortly after Lincoln's victory. The Republican Party could embrace the Crittenden Compromise or the Peace Convention proposals and become the great Union Party. This would halt the secession process and prompt return of some seceded states. If this option was rejected, Scott saw the remaining slave states making their way to the Confederacy, leaving Washington literally besieged. Second, the government could collect custom duties on the high seas, or by act of Congress close the ports in the seceded states and blockade them. Third, the United States could wage war against the seceded states, a conflict Scott said would last two to three years and require an army of three hundred thousand men. It would result in horrendous casualties and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Union could prevail, Scott believed, but in addition to the cost in blood and treasure, victory would leave an angry, devastated part of the country, which would necessitate an expensive occupying garrison for decades. Finally, tell the seceded states, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" In his letter, General Scott never made an explicit recommendation, but neither did he hide his opinion. The first option was clearly his choice, as it was surely Seward's. Just as Abraham Lincoln was confronting his own dilemma with Fort Sumter, the Confederate commissioners began arriving in Washington. Among his first acts as president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis had appointed a delegation to go to Washington "for establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States." (M & PC, 1:55-56; Cooper, We Have the War Upon Us, 220-221)]

---

And southerners needed a system to profit from enslved labor. Again, the South started the war because they knew their econmic interests were threatened. As a bonus they did not want to confront their abject and indefensible cruelty.

Yes, both sides had economic interests at stake. But only one side sought to protect a system that was cruel and immoral. And no matter what you believe would have happened, the thing that did happen was the South fired first.

---

How was the southern economic system under threat when Lincoln and the Republicans were offering to make slavery even more protected in the Constitution?


But let's say the South did feel threaten….then why should they have not been allowed to withdraw from the Union?

Why is creating a new independent country something to kill men over?

---

As to your second question everyone in this debate acknowledges Lincoln saw that perserving the Union was paramount. Why? Because Lincoln saw the Union as the best chance of humanity for progress.

---

So Lincoln was a progressive?


Interesting that you read back to him views he likely never held and certainly might not have shared at all in modern leftist progressive thought

---

Lincoln believed that God called us to build a world where man could flourish according to his abilities. He hated the war but saw it as a necessary evil. I doubt that makes him a "progressive" in today's lexicon.

---

His war of "necessary evil" was fighting (and killing vast numbers of people) to keep them inside of a political union they did not wish to be a part of….

Where is the freedom in that?


[Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government]

---

It's pretty rich that someone defending the south is worried about "freedom."

.

---

The USA colonies all had legal slavery when they declared their independence from Great Britain

Was that "pretty rich" for them to talk about political freedom? Of course not

---

They were not declaring freedom for the purpose of perpetuating slavery.

---

Slavery was already protected in the Union and in no danger of being outlawed.

The USA and CSA both had the exact same relationship toward slavery….it was Constitutional and legal

"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)

"President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." Simon Cameron: Union SEC. OF WAR 1861-1862

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

---

I am well aware of that.

My point was that it is less ironic to declare independence from England for purposes other than perpetuating slavery than for the south to declare independence from the Union for the purpose of perpetuating slavery.

This whole discussion is silly because it ignores the fundamental truth: the South wanted to continue to enslave people. Lincoln was a perceived threat threat to that desire so they seceded and fired the first shots to cement that secession.

Whatever Lincoln's personal feelings about African Americans were, whatever priority he put on the Union, whatever economic reasons existed to benefit the Union if there was no secession all pale in that context. Slavery was an unfathomable evil that the Civil War ended. The ends justified the means.

Defense of the South is defense of continuing slavery and therefore an untenable moral position.

Waco1947 said:

---

Morality of slavery trumps new nationhood hence a civil war.

---

It was not a Civil War.

Civil war is when two sides fight over the control of the government.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Lincoln need the Southern tax revenue....so did the Northern political and economic elite.

The Union also felt they needed control of the Mississippi river and that New Orleans could NOT be allowed to be in the hands of a new foreign nation.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."
~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

[Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col. Baldwin (VA): Yes, Sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?] Abraham Lincoln , April 4th, 1861


"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these natives of the South and will convince them that, though to stand behind a big tree and shoot at a passing boat is good sport and safe, it may still reach and kill their friends and families hundreds of miles off. For every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman

[General Scott gave Lincoln the options he saw available to the new administration. He outlined four reasonable scenarios. His first was what Seward had envisioned since shortly after Lincoln's victory. The Republican Party could embrace the Crittenden Compromise or the Peace Convention proposals and become the great Union Party. This would halt the secession process and prompt return of some seceded states. If this option was rejected, Scott saw the remaining slave states making their way to the Confederacy, leaving Washington literally besieged. Second, the government could collect custom duties on the high seas, or by act of Congress close the ports in the seceded states and blockade them. Third, the United States could wage war against the seceded states, a conflict Scott said would last two to three years and require an army of three hundred thousand men. It would result in horrendous casualties and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Union could prevail, Scott believed, but in addition to the cost in blood and treasure, victory would leave an angry, devastated part of the country, which would necessitate an expensive occupying garrison for decades. Finally, tell the seceded states, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" In his letter, General Scott never made an explicit recommendation, but neither did he hide his opinion. The first option was clearly his choice, as it was surely Seward's. Just as Abraham Lincoln was confronting his own dilemma with Fort Sumter, the Confederate commissioners began arriving in Washington. Among his first acts as president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis had appointed a delegation to go to Washington "for establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States." (M & PC, 1:55-56; Cooper, We Have the War Upon Us, 220-221)]

---

And southerners needed a system to profit from enslved labor. Again, the South started the war because they knew their econmic interests were threatened. As a bonus they did not want to confront their abject and indefensible cruelty.

Yes, both sides had economic interests at stake. But only one side sought to protect a system that was cruel and immoral. And no matter what you believe would have happened, the thing that did happen was the South fired first.

---

How was the southern economic system under threat when Lincoln and the Republicans were offering to make slavery even more protected in the Constitution?


But let's say the South did feel threaten….then why should they have not been allowed to withdraw from the Union?

Why is creating a new independent country something to kill men over?

---

As to your second question everyone in this debate acknowledges Lincoln saw that perserving the Union was paramount. Why? Because Lincoln saw the Union as the best chance of humanity for progress.

---

So Lincoln was a progressive?


Interesting that you read back to him views he likely never held and certainly might not have shared at all in modern leftist progressive thought

---

Lincoln believed that God called us to build a world where man could flourish according to his abilities. He hated the war but saw it as a necessary evil. I doubt that makes him a "progressive" in today's lexicon.

---

His war of "necessary evil" was fighting (and killing vast numbers of people) to keep them inside of a political union they did not wish to be a part of….

Where is the freedom in that?


[Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government]

---

It's pretty rich that someone defending the south is worried about "freedom."

.

---

The USA colonies all had legal slavery when they declared their independence from Great Britain

Was that "pretty rich" for them to talk about political freedom? Of course not

---

They were not declaring freedom for the purpose of perpetuating slavery.

---

Slavery was already protected in the Union and in no danger of being outlawed.

The USA and CSA both had the exact same relationship toward slavery….it was Constitutional and legal

"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)

"President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." Simon Cameron: Union SEC. OF WAR 1861-1862

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

---

I am well aware of that.

My point was that it is less ironic to declare independence from England for purposes other than perpetuating slavery than for the south to declare independence from the Union for the purpose of perpetuating slavery.

This whole disocussion is silly becuase it ignores the fundmamental truth: the South wanted to continue to enslave people.

---

1. It is the right of all people to change their form of government when it no longer suits them

"Whether the Southern people were justified in seceding has nothing to do with the fact or the right of secession. If a community is dissatisfied, from any cause or from none...they have the right-the inalienable right-to change them"-James Redpath (Abolitionist)

2. The South already had the right to hold slaves inside the USA has it existed...secession or no secession.

3. What evidence is there that the reasons Virginia, NC, Georgia, and South Carolina seceded in 1861 were fundamentally different than those in 1776 (taxation, sovereignty, the will of the people and legislature)

4. Surely you know that many modern progressive academic claim the Founders broke off from Britain over slavery...

Hannah-Jones' claims "one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

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?

---

Lincoln need the Southern tax revenue....so did the Northern political and economic elite.

The Union also felt they needed control of the Mississippi river and that New Orleans could NOT be allowed to be in the hands of a new foreign nation.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."
~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

[Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col. Baldwin (VA): Yes, Sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?] Abraham Lincoln , April 4th, 1861


"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these natives of the South and will convince them that, though to stand behind a big tree and shoot at a passing boat is good sport and safe, it may still reach and kill their friends and families hundreds of miles off. For every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman

[General Scott gave Lincoln the options he saw available to the new administration. He outlined four reasonable scenarios. His first was what Seward had envisioned since shortly after Lincoln's victory. The Republican Party could embrace the Crittenden Compromise or the Peace Convention proposals and become the great Union Party. This would halt the secession process and prompt return of some seceded states. If this option was rejected, Scott saw the remaining slave states making their way to the Confederacy, leaving Washington literally besieged. Second, the government could collect custom duties on the high seas, or by act of Congress close the ports in the seceded states and blockade them. Third, the United States could wage war against the seceded states, a conflict Scott said would last two to three years and require an army of three hundred thousand men. It would result in horrendous casualties and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Union could prevail, Scott believed, but in addition to the cost in blood and treasure, victory would leave an angry, devastated part of the country, which would necessitate an expensive occupying garrison for decades. Finally, tell the seceded states, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" In his letter, General Scott never made an explicit recommendation, but neither did he hide his opinion. The first option was clearly his choice, as it was surely Seward's. Just as Abraham Lincoln was confronting his own dilemma with Fort Sumter, the Confederate commissioners began arriving in Washington. Among his first acts as president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis had appointed a delegation to go to Washington "for establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States." (M & PC, 1:55-56; Cooper, We Have the War Upon Us, 220-221)]

---

And southerners needed a system to profit from enslved labor. Again, the South started the war because they knew their econmic interests were threatened. As a bonus they did not want to confront their abject and indefensible cruelty.

Yes, both sides had economic interests at stake. But only one side sought to protect a system that was cruel and immoral. And no matter what you believe would have happened, the thing that did happen was the South fired first.

---

How was the southern economic system under threat when Lincoln and the Republicans were offering to make slavery even more protected in the Constitution?


But let's say the South did feel threaten….then why should they have not been allowed to withdraw from the Union?

Why is creating a new independent country something to kill men over?

---

As to your second question everyone in this debate acknowledges Lincoln saw that perserving the Union was paramount. Why? Because Lincoln saw the Union as the best chance of humanity for progress.

---

So Lincoln was a progressive?


Interesting that you read back to him views he likely never held and certainly might not have shared at all in modern leftist progressive thought

---

Lincoln believed that God called us to build a world where man could flourish according to his abilities. He hated the war but saw it as a necessary evil. I doubt that makes him a "progressive" in today's lexicon.

---

His war of "necessary evil" was fighting (and killing vast numbers of people) to keep them inside of a political union they did not wish to be a part of….

Where is the freedom in that?


[Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government]

---

It's pretty rich that someone defending the south is worried about "freedom."

.

---

The USA colonies all had legal slavery when they declared their independence from Great Britain

Was that "pretty rich" for them to talk about political freedom? Of course not

---

They were not declaring freedom for the purpose of perpetuating slavery.

---

Slavery was already protected in the Union and in no danger of being outlawed.

The USA and CSA both had the exact same relationship toward slavery….it was Constitutional and legal

"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)

"President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." Simon Cameron: Union SEC. OF WAR 1861-1862

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

---

I am well aware of that.

My point was that it is less ironic to declare independence from England for purposes....

---

"With what pretense of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London)] 1861.


"[T]he contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of King George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Colonies. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation."
-London Times, November 7, 1861

"The struggle of today is on the one side for empire and on the other for independence." -Wigan Examiner (UK) May 1861

"The Northern onslaught upon the South while here in Europe using the issue of slavery to justify their war was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic and political control of these Southern states."-Charles Dickens, 1862

Straw man " so Lincoln was a progressive

Thee University said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Morality of slavery trumps new nationhood hence a civil war.

---

It was not a Civil War.

Civil war is when two sides fight over the control of the government.

---

your response is nothing, nothing to do with what I said about morality

A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state (or country). The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.

Waco1947 said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Morality of slavery trumps new nationhood hence a civil war.

---

It was not a Civil War.

Civil war is when two sides fight over the control of the government.

---

your response is nothing, nothing to do with what I said about morality

---

I can assure you that neither side in 1861 was concerned much with the morality is slavery itself

In fact the entire concept of abolitionism was weaker in the north than most realize.

"The Liberty party, Foner states, most drew in abolitionists from the other political groups. However, after the failure of Liberty party to gain widespread electoral support, most abolitionists moved on to the Republican party, attempting to bring their anti-slavery ideology with them"

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Morality of slavery trumps new nationhood hence a civil war.

---

It was not a Civil War.

Civil war is when two sides fight over the control of the government.

---

your response is nothing, nothing to do with what I said about morality

---

I can assure you that neither side in 1861 was concerned much with the morality is slavery itself

In fact the entire concept of abolitionism was weaker in the north than most realize.

"The Liberty party, Foner states, most drew in abolitionists from the other political groups. However, after the failure of Liberty party to gain widespread electoral support, most abolitionists moved on to the Republican party, attempting to bring their anti-slavery ideology with them"

---

So? Slavery was ended

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Morality of slavery trumps new nationhood hence a civil war.

---

It was not a Civil War.

Civil war is when two sides fight over the control of the government.

---

your response is nothing, nothing to do with what I said about morality

---

I can assure you that neither side in 1861 was concerned much with the morality is slavery itself

In fact the entire concept of abolitionism was weaker in the north than most realize.

"The Liberty party, Foner states, most drew in abolitionists from the other political groups. However, after the failure of Liberty party to gain widespread electoral support, most abolitionists moved on to the Republican party, attempting to bring their anti-slavery ideology with them"

---

So? Slavery was ended

---

True, as a consequence of a war.

Not as a major aim of Northern society or the Northern war effort.

The war was fought to keep the Southern States in the Union/deny them their political independence…not to free slaves

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Morality of slavery trumps new nationhood hence a civil war.

---

It was not a Civil War.

Civil war is when two sides fight over the control of the government.

---

your response is nothing, nothing to do with what I said about morality

---

I can assure you that neither side in 1861 was concerned much with the morality is slavery itself

In fact the entire concept of abolitionism was weaker in the north than most realize.

"The Liberty party, Foner states, most drew in abolitionists from the other political groups. However, after the failure of Liberty party to gain widespread electoral support, most abolitionists moved on to the Republican party, attempting to bring their anti-slavery ideology with them"

---

So? Slavery was ended

---

True, as a consequence of a war.

Not as a major aim of Northern society or the Northern war effort.

The war was fought to keep the Southern States in the Union/deny them their political independence…not to free slaves

---

History is complex and not simplistic as you state that somehow slveey was not a major aim. Abolitionist, and seeing what slavery was the original sin of United States

Lincoln was a flawed human being and should not be deified. But he was the greatest president this nation has ever had and number two is not even close. He was capable of growth, even as president. Where he was in 1861 regarding the issue of slavery is not where he was in early April 1865. He had a much deeper understanding of the evil of slavery and the necessity of abolishing it and for all.

This country is on a rapid and dangerous march towards authoritarianism and bad history, no matter how sincerely believed, is one of the components that's helping us get there.

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Morality of slavery trumps new nationhood hence a civil war.

---

It was not a Civil War.

Civil war is when two sides fight over the control of the government.

---

your response is nothing, nothing to do with what I said about morality

---

I can assure you that neither side in 1861 was concerned much with the morality is slavery itself

In fact the entire concept of abolitionism was weaker in the north than most realize.

"The Liberty party, Foner states, most drew in abolitionists from the other political groups. However, after the failure of Liberty party to gain widespread electoral support, most abolitionists moved on to the Republican party, attempting to bring their anti-slavery ideology with them"

---

So? Slavery was ended

---

True, as a consequence of a war.

Not as a major aim of Northern society or the Northern war effort.

The war was fought to keep the Southern States in the Union/deny them their political independence…not to free slaves

---

History is complex and not simplistic as you state that somehow slveey was not a major aim. Abolitionist, and seeing what slavery was the original sin of United States

---

You should follow that advise and stop trying to make history a simplistic morality tale

"North good" vs "South bad" is about as simplistic as it gets…